PDA

View Full Version : 40K better than Fantasy?



Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 00:11
Many people play 40K over Fantasy, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is 40k better than Fantasy?

For Models
For Rules
For Players
For Metagame
For Painting
For Gaming Age

What do you guys think?

EDIT: Oh and are Daemons better off in 40k as in more balanced?

TrojanWolf
21-01-2010, 00:15
but I have to ask, is 40k better than 40k?

Uh, you may want to edit that.

On topic: I would have to say that I enjoy Fantasy more, although each to their own.

For Models - the new Clanrats are favourites of mine, although they really do compete with the Nobz.
For Players - I've found my regular Fantasy opponents to be much more preferable to 40k ones.

As far as the others go, I don't really mind either.

graymer
21-01-2010, 00:17
I think both games are unique and fun to play.

I am of the opinion that Fantasy falls victim to less balance than 40k. Fantasy also seems to have a bit more rules attached to it.

In the end though, great games.

bigcheese76
21-01-2010, 00:24
Personally I prefer playing 40k but that is probably due to the fact that I have a slight tank obsession and 40k was the system which started me off in the hobby.
In terms of models I think there are some amazing models in both systems, but their seems to be a more frequent release of new, great looking plastics for 40k.
For the rules, I think the fantasy ones are much better and more balanced compared with 40k, a prime example of this being the two separate armour save systems and whether you get a save or not. I prefer the fantasy modifiers.
When it comes to painting I much prefer the fantasy models, as I recently discovered, I am pretty bad at painting metallic colours well and so I really like painting my Bretonnian heraldry.
Gaming Age? Well I think that 40k appeals to younger players better than fantasy and I can see this in the rules a bit, through the various editions of 40k they seem to have simplified the rules set so as to give younger players a better chance at learning and understanding them.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 00:29
I can't really speak for the rest as I didn't play 40k enough, and sold my tau army after a couple years of them gathering dust, but as I prefer fantasy to scifi, well, I prefer the fantasy models and the fluff, at least.
As for players, well, the only pick up games I've played (fantsay only) were all pretty bad, against kids whom I didn't enjoy playing at all, so I dunno about fantasy having more mature players than 40k.
And, for painting, it's painting plastic and metal minis, there's no difference for me.

I_ated_Warpstone
21-01-2010, 01:15
I personally still prefer Fantasy to 40k but I play both quite frequently. In answering your specific questions I pose:

For Models - Its a toss up. My absolutely favorite model right now though comes from Fantasy (Storm Vermin).

For Rules - 40k made a HUGE leap for me in 5th Edition. The system is really enjoyable now but I still love the complexities of fantasy's rule set. I like unit LoS, wheeling, determining charge ranges, shooting modifiers, and I really like magic.

For Players/Gaming Age - Fantasy wins this hand down. In my play area the Fantasy group ranges from 18 to probably 60 (never asked the older fellows) and they all have fantastic armies and know their rules and generally speaking are just a treat to play with. The 40k players however do ascribe to the "40kids" sterotype.

For Metagame - 40k wins this one. 40k, generally speaking, doesn't have quite the same level of bitching and moaning I see and hear around tournaments and on the interwebs. 40k players, on a meta scale, seem to be a little more accepting of the ebb and flow of the game.

For Painting - I hate painting.

Stronginthearm
21-01-2010, 01:21
FANTASY IS BETTER, ok now that I've got that off my stomach, fantasy doesnt have the space marines, the race everybody plays and has 15,000,000 variations that are called different armies but are actually the same thing,


ok now shout at me for hating of the smurfs

Shadowsinner
21-01-2010, 01:28
well 40k is MUCH cheaper to play.

I think fantasy has way more dynamic and spectacular models overall. (I'm tired of seeing space marines) but painting for 40k is much simpler.

As for the players I have found that fantasy players are more mature than 40k players

AlmightyNocturnus
21-01-2010, 01:43
I play in a relatively small gaming group and everyone plays both systems.

For Models - both are great...maybe it`s impossible to say which is better.

For Rules - I like both systems too. 5th Edition 40K is great. I wouldn`t change much with WFB either, despite the problems with power balance. Oh, I take that back; I hate cannons in WFB - they`re TOO accurate (more accurate than sniper rifles)...but basically I like both systems. I might give the edge to 40K because of no cannons and the rule set seems to be easier to teach to new players.

For Players - My gaming group has the same people playing both systems, so both are good.

For Metagame - 40K has the edge now obviously, but it`ll change and get better for WFB.

For Painting - I do not like to paint some of the WFB model details) like 2-3 leather pouches on every rank and file guy. But, overall I like painting both.

For Gaming Age - not applicable in our gaming group, everyone is comparable in age.

In conclusion, 40K may have a slight edge now...but these things are always changing. Just give it time and enjoy games in both systems when you have the chance.

Almighty Nocturnus

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 02:15
Fantasy because I like the genre, therefore I prefer fantasy models. Game wise, fantasy use to be better in 6th ed...sadly 7th ed had better core rules but lousier army balance in terms of army design.

40k as I observe is getting better but generally still more random than fantasy as in more dependant on dice rolls, which is why the game is more dynamic in the first place, situation changes drastically based on results of the dice every turn and your over all plans may have to keep changing according to changing circumstances, i know 40k players like that alot. Not saying that fantasy doesn't have this problem but it is relatively less drastic and overall plans are less likely to change.

Overall, the tactical elements of 40k to me seems more rock and scissors to me because you require to use the right tools to take down the right units, ie ap 3 weapons against amour 3, anti tank against vehicles or on huge volume of shots to force a bad roll for high armour saves units or hordey units. In fantasy, static res even in the most mismatched situation can save the situation in a tactical stand off.

TheAmazingAntman
21-01-2010, 02:30
Wow…everyone is being very mature in this thread. Well, I guess I’ll just keep my mouth shut then.

But seriously, I prefer fantasy. 40k is alright but I could never really get into it...even though I really like most of the fluff. Also I favor sci-fi as a genre…so I guess I’ve got my priorities messed up a bit.

Lars Porsenna
21-01-2010, 02:33
IMHO, 40K is better for a more evocative/epic background. Fantasy suffers because of it's generic-ness, whereas there's not a lot I can think of that combines the elements of 40K into its rich background (individual elements in 40K are hardly unique or original; but how it's combined makes it interesting). I also like the figures better, in general. That's not the say fantasy is bad (I like both), but if I had to pick a favorite, it would be 40K.

All the other stuff IMHO is irrelevant to me.

Damon.

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 02:37
Wow…everyone is being very mature in this thread. Well, I guess I’ll just keep my mouth shut then.

But seriously, I prefer fantasy. 40k is alright but I could never really get into it...even though I really like most of the fluff. Also I favor sci-fi as a genre…so I guess I’ve got my priorities messed up a bit.

Erh...I just invested 300 bucks on Tyranids so I have to tell myself its good a game every night before I go to bed...

bluemage
21-01-2010, 02:38
I prefer the 40k background and like scifi a bit more then fantasy. But I feel the fantasy rulebook has more depth when it comes to tactics. Each is a great game and to each his own though.

Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 02:40
I spend a lot on both systems and skip from one to the other every fe months to keep it fresh, just started painting some forest goblins, then in a few months will be doing 40k Chaos marines, I find playing both systems allows you a little break and still be able to wargame.

Though, do some people just prefer to play the one system?

TheAmazingAntman
21-01-2010, 02:42
Erh...I just invested 300 bucks on Tyranids so I have to tell myself its good a game every night before I go to bed...

Ha, I have a 1,000 point eldar army that I bough back in 2002 that, to this date, I have never played. So I completely understand.

The SkaerKrow
21-01-2010, 02:50
I find 40K to be fantastically boring. It's also more close combat oriented than Warhammer Fantasy, which is downright infuriating. It would be nice if the game with guns still allowed you to rely on them without having to jump through hoops to make them anywhere near as effective as they should be.

kormas
21-01-2010, 02:53
well to be honest, i prefer fantasy simply because i find the rules system actualy makes me think, in 40K i just put my units ont he table and push them foward and just shoot the right targets ect..fantasy makes me think about how i move and where i move.

model wise, 40L has some stunning models, but the new skaven for me win hands down..LOVE them.

gaming wise i find that 40K suffers from immature little people, while there are plently of perfecatly mature people the kids really start to grate after a while (had one running round the other das saying how 'spiky' (an or warboss) was gonna kill everything, and when 'spiky' died he had a screaming tantrum...) i just find that there are more adults who play fantasy and they are generaly more fun to play.

and i love painting fantasy simply caus it has lots of variation :)

SirSnipes
21-01-2010, 02:59
i prefer 40k, i feel fantasy has a case of hero power, me has bigger lord and i hate how magic is so big in it. However its a great rule set, 40k is flawed alot but i live the moderls

DAMN MARINES, YOU DONT NEED 20 BOOKS

Darnok
21-01-2010, 03:07
Wow…everyone is being very mature in this thread.

And I would like it to stay so.

The topic at hand is extremely controversial. I want every user posting to stay as civil and mature as possible. [/modmode]

On the topic: I'm biased towards 40K. It is the game I "grew up" with in this hobby. But there are a few comments here and there:

For Models ... 40K for me, but not all the way. WHF has got awesome models, especially over the last few years, and some of my favourite GW models are from their fantasy line. But at the end I still prefer the 40K model line as a whole. 40K 1 : 0 WFB
For Rules ... Unsure. I almost only play 40K, and I like it as a "beer&pretzel" experience. WFB seems to be more coherent and... watertight. I'll give it a draw here. 40K 1,5 : 0,5 WFB
For Players ... I never found a difference. Both games attract more or less the same public. 40K 2 : 1 WFB
For Metagame ... From what I hear and read, WFB seems to be messed up in this area. 40K has quite a balanced metagame, whereas WFB has certain books that just can't compete. 40K 3 : 1 WFB
For Painting ... I hate painting regiments, that's for sure. But I must acknoledge that WFB is "better" on the visual level. I just love the look of a well painted army full of regiments, and dragons, and mighty heroes. 40K has the bigger guns, but WFB just looks better. 40K 3 : 2 WFB
For Gaming Age ... Same as the players. It doesn't matter what you prefer, you will get sucked in anyway. What your age is at that moment is of no importance. 40K 3,5 : 2,5 WFB

In my opinion there is no answer to the original question. Everybody has to decide what he or she likes most, wether it is 40K or WFB. And that decision is always only "true" for that one person. There is no universal truth.

Kloud13
21-01-2010, 03:09
IMHO, 40K is better for a more evocative/epic background. Fantasy suffers because of it's generic-ness, whereas there's not a lot I can think of that combines the elements of 40K into its rich background (individual elements in 40K are hardly unique or original; but how it's combined makes it interesting). I also like the figures better, in general. That's not the say fantasy is bad (I like both), but if I had to pick a favorite, it would be 40K.

All the other stuff IMHO is irrelevant to me.

Damon.

I am very confused. You say Fantasy suffers from "Generic-ness". I think 40K suffers alot more from "Generic-ness" or rather the "Sameness" or more commonly known as "MEQ". Probably 80% of the 40K armies on the table in the whole world are wearing power armour, and you say fantasy suffers from "Generic-ness".

I find Fantasy to be a much better game, but maybe that is just because each of my oponents has a different army.

LKHERO
21-01-2010, 03:11
For Models - Both have awesome models.
For Rules - Yes. Easier to understand, faster to play.
For Players - Yes, because of the previously mentioned.
For Metagame - Yes, because there's no Fantasy Daemons of Chaos. **** that book.
For Painting - Both have awesome painting opportunities.
For Gaming Age - No. Fantasy players are usually older guys. 40K attracts the younger ones.

Looks like 3-1 to 40K.. although I play both.

tezdal
21-01-2010, 03:20
For Models: Well for me I'd say in general Fantasy has better models but....Grey Knights and especially Grey Knight Terminator's are some of the best looking models I've ever seen

For Rules: Eh they both have their quirks, prefer WOTR to both
For Players: Here I think fantasy has 40k beat, most of the fantasy players I know are fairly mature, 40k on the other hand everyday there's another 12 year old with t3h space marineeesss
For Metagame equal id say
For Painting Well I prefer fantasy but both are equally fun to paint
For Gaming Age Fantasy wins here for me, although I dont mind younger player's it's hard to socialize with people who were born after I started wargaming

kaubin
21-01-2010, 03:54
I like both, although I don`t have a 40k army yet, I have read all the rules, and it makes me wish that fantasy had some vehicles that aren`t steeds sometimes. I`m a much bigger fan of fantasy models than science fiction models though, which is why i`m leaning towards daemons when I do get a 40k army out.

I don`t think you can compare the two. While having similarities they are both very unique. We have a bigger clique of local fantasy players here, but 40k tournaments draw a bigger crowd than fantasy tournaments. Overall, I think it comes down to themes for which is preferable to each. Tanks or Monsters? I preffer monsters :D

Bloodknight
21-01-2010, 06:21
I fully second Darnok's post. The two games aren't that far from each other, and, well, when I go to the store I see that both attract screaming kids as well as guys of my age and older.

The Red Scourge
21-01-2010, 06:29
Both have great fluff, models and wonky rules.

Fantasy is a bit more tactically demanding, while 40K has a better balance - demanding a lot more finesse from fantasy players with underdog armies :D

Fantasy has a lot more variety in its armies, while 40K consists mainly of colorcoded space boiz.

93% of players of both games are obnoxious geeks, whom I would never socialize with, let alone waste a couple of hours shuffling minis around with :p

Fantasy does have an older crowd - which sadly doesn't necessarily translate into maturity.

So there is basis for good fun in both games :)

Condottiere
21-01-2010, 07:56
No, they both have appealing aspects that are attractive on different levels.

Visually, I happen to like most of the 40K models, especially the vehicles, though the Fantasy ones allow for greater pageantry.

hobodog
21-01-2010, 08:07
For Models - 40k. the range of models i think is better, though the skeletons and new clanrats are my favorite models.
For Rules - 40k is far easier to learn- less rules, but that doesn't nesecarily mean its better, though i do find that 40k flows better as a game, fantasy is more stop-start
For Players - Fantasy players are better, 40k is full of sugared up littlies with blood red undercoated landraiders that get jealous and worked up as soon as they start to lose
For Metagame - 40k is far more balanced, i think its cause 40k doesnt have a magic phase. Magic is very hard to balance
For Painting - Both equal in painting opportunities- 40k has cool vehicles, fantasy has banners and contraptions. Though i find it is easier to create a unique, visual army in 40k
For Gaming Age - Fantasy has a better broader age group. 40k unfortuately tends to have alot of younger kids

Well thats my 2 cents worth- its all just my opinion though

Radium
21-01-2010, 08:11
For Models - 40k wins. 40k has Wraithlords.
For Rules - 40k wins, the game just plays a lot more relaxed, although the rules for fantasy are written a lot clearer.
For Players - In my area the fantasy players are a bunch of whining, old f*rts so I have to go with 40k...
For Metagame - No broken Daemons in 40k...
For Painting - Depends on the army really, but you don't have to go through rank upon rank of boring guys in 40k (unless you play Orks, IG or Nids).
For Gaming Age - Fantasy should be the better here. But again, in my area it makes little difference.

All in all I prefer 40k. But I like a game of fantasy to shove my dragon around.

MasterSparks
21-01-2010, 08:13
A game of Fantasy always leaves a better taste in my mouth compared to 40k. They're both fun and enjoyable games but I prefer the way Fantasy operates. :)

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 08:17
Atually in my country, you have to be working adults or a kid with rich parents to be able to play GW games. So my community plays both system though they mainly started off with fantasy which is still my first love, 90% of the gamers here are mature adults with a few exception...

Arjuna
21-01-2010, 08:40
Coke is better than Pepsi. End of thread!

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 08:44
Coke is better than Pepsi. End of thread!

What about my Orcs?!

tezdal
21-01-2010, 09:00
Coke is better than Pepsi. End of thread!

Dr Pepper is the daemon armybook of soft drinks, it's made of win

Baragash
21-01-2010, 09:11
I call most things equal, but for me 40k has the edge because:
-> WHF magic system scales badly
-> 40k makes much better use of the basic grunts (don't get me wrong, I love the heroic element of both systems, but there should still be a viable purpose to your average joe)
-> the books/codices "age" better in 40k for the most part

Personally I think LotR is the best constructed system of the 3 core games.

Tyranno1
21-01-2010, 09:27
I have only started playing 40K relativly recently, so dont have a huge amount of experiance in it. But I have been in the hobby for quite a while so have built up an opinion on it.

Models: Honestly I prefer fantasy for this, purely based on the fact I like its general appearance more. But sculpting wise, both are quite equal, even if 40K receives more attention.

Rules: I also prefer fantasy for this, as it feels more rigid, and has a regimental and organised feel. And is more detailed in certain areas.

Players: Havent noticed much of a difference really. Although the fantasy ones can be more serious.

Metagame: 40K wins this hands down. The army book creep of fantasy seperates alot of the armies far too much.

Painting: I cant paint open spaces too well (power armour) so I find fantasy easier to paint with its little details everywhere.

Gaming age: I am going to have to back up the sterotype here. The 40K players are usueally younger, but recently alot of them have started fantast armies so it evened out a bit recently.

I am going to add a little more here, but I prefer fantasy's background far more. It is very set in stone, with places and backgrounds that are written down. While with 40K there are so many planets, its a bit overwhelming.

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 09:36
Personally I think LotR is the best constructed system of the 3 core games.

Not so sure about that, haven't read the rules though I am tempted to start LOTR but I am already playing 3 games now... Historical, fantasy and 40K.

But what I heard about LOTR is that it turn system revolves around a dice roll, everytime a turn is over, you roll a dice to decide who will go first. Imagine I keep going first every game or in subsequent turn after I went last...thats does(edit) seems like too much of an advantage for a lucky bugger who keeps getting his turns at the right moments. Very dicy IMO.

Avian
21-01-2010, 09:44
I don't mind 40k as a game and there are one or two things it does better than FB, the reason I don't play it anymore is because I got fed up playing against little genetically enhanced supermen all the frickin' time! :p

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 09:50
smurfs can be damning...

Baragash
21-01-2010, 09:51
But what I heard about LOTR is that it turn system revolves around a dice roll, everytime a turn is over, you roll a dice to decide who will go first. Imagine I keep going first every game or in subsequent turn after I went last...thats doesn't seems like too much of an advantage for a lucky bugger who keeps getting his turns at the right moments. Very dicy IMO.

If the dice is tied then initiative automatically switches, so there's more than a 50% chance it'll swap. Also you can use Heroic Moves to try and move when you want. Going first isn't always to your advantage either.

ChaosVC
21-01-2010, 09:56
You may be right about getting the first turn, but getting a turn after you immediately finishes another may be a bit too much of an advantage. But I guess I will have to watch a game of LOTR before I can make a better judgement. Well good for you if you like it.

Baragash
21-01-2010, 10:02
Both players act in each phase (ie both move, then both shoot etc), so it's not like you get two turns in a row. Anyway, we digress ;)

Lothlanathorian
21-01-2010, 10:09
Most of the people I always played against didn't have Space Marines as they did not like them at all. This was back in high school, too. So yeah, around here, it wasn't a bunch of screaming Marine junkies. It was generally the older gamers who played Marines. And as far as maturity, around here, the 40K players tend to be the ones who are fun to play and act like adults, but all the WHB guys want to look down their noses at anyone who plays 40K and act like they are superior simply because we prefer a different game.

Originally, I actually got in on WHFB and was going to play Lizardmen (this was right before 40K 3rd Ed came out), but then the friend who got me into the game switched to 40K and so did I. When I got into high school (which was about a year later and the same year 3rd Ed came out, so 98/99 school year) all the friends I made played 40K and that kind of solidified it for me.

Both systems have amazing models and I prefer the 40K rules to Fantasy's. As far as Army Book/Codex Creep myths, I don't know enough about Fantasy to have an opinion, but, if it is anything like 40K, then it is a bunch of wind blowing about nothing much.

As far as gamer ages, I see all ages in 40K, including some dads and their kids, whereas Fantasy tends to be an older, somewhat less sociably able crowd.

squiggoth
21-01-2010, 10:28
But what I heard about LOTR is that it turn system revolves around a dice roll, everytime a turn is over, you roll a dice to decide who will go first. Imagine I keep going first every game or in subsequent turn after I went last...thats does(edit) seems like too much of an advantage for a lucky bugger who keeps getting his turns at the right moments. Very dicy IMO.


In 40K and WHFB you get the first turn for the entire game by simpling make one good dice roll before the game starts. How dicy is that? ;)
In LotR you always have to plan quite a bit ahead because you never know wether you go first or second in the following turn, which makes the overall game quite interesting and actually *less* dicy. I stopped playing the game because facing (and killing) Aragorn, Boromir, The Witch King of Angmar and Theoden in every forkin' little border skirmish is simply ridiculous .... I must have missed that chapter in The Silmarillion where Tolkien mentions the Legendary Hero Cloning Facility in Gondolin. :angel:

Anyway ...

For Models - 40K and WHFB are pretty much equal. 40K has an edge because individual models aren't bound by ranks and files and can thus be assembled in pretty dynamic poses, whilst WHFB has an edge because 90% of the models isn't a space marine covered in a various quantities of spikes, skulls and/or strips of toilet paper.
For Painting - 40K has the edge simply because the models that you paint actually have a tabletop presence and aren't just there for static combat resolution (which is the case with 4/5th of your WHFB models. However, a block of thirty Clanrats looks far more impressive than ten Space Marines could ever hope for, no matter what colour today's power armour is.
For Rules/Metagame - 40K is far more balanced overall and has a smooth set of rules that encourages various missions rather than just Pitched Battle, whilst current WHFB would have a much more tactical rules set if it didn't suffer so much from badly written and unclear rules, armies that are almost unplayably bad, and armies that pretty much play themselves. When both players actually try to play the same variant of Warhammer (either Rankhammer, Herohammer or Hydrahammer) WHFB can still be pretty interesting though.
For Players - we've got about 40 local gamers and most of them play both systems.
For Gaming Age - our youngest local players are about 14 or 15 and the oldest are about half a century old, with the majority being in their late twenties/early thirties.

Odin
21-01-2010, 10:53
For Models - Fantasy seems to me to have some superb models, but also some truly awful ones. 40K is generally a bit more consistent, but has fewer truly great miniatures.

For Rules - Fantasy is older than 40K, and I think that shows in the rules. 40K is starting to find it's feet a bit now, after the massive change in 3rd edition.

For Metagame - 40K has a major problem with this, as 90% of armies are Space Marines, so everyone designs armies to crack power armour, which makes balancing difficult. WHFB has a much more even spread of army types, which forces people to be a bit more balanced.

I would add one more criteria though - background. The WHFB background is ok, but it's really a fairly standard fantasy world with a reasonably unique spin. The 40K universe on the other hand, is far more rich and compelling. Yes, it's still mostly ideas nicked from somewhere else (Alien, Terminator, Star Wars...) but it steals from so many different sources it has become something fairly unique.

Poseidal
21-01-2010, 11:27
40k is what drew me to GW games initially, with interesting factions like the Eldar. One of my friends was into Fantasy then, but I was put off the game when we tried it, High Elves vs Undead. I was the High Elves, and the undead were a negative play experience.

Skip a few years later and 3rd edition 40k and 6th edition Fantasy was out. That edition of 40k almost destroyed everything I liked about the game. I tried out Fantasy with an Empire army from the starter box. This time, I enjoyed it a lot more.

Overall I would say I prefer Fantasy as a game. In backgroud I still prefer 40k as well as models EXCEPT Chaos, fantasy Chaos has a better aesthetic and fluff for the present.

We all know the balance issues in Fantasy, but generally the fun you get depends on the player you're against in my experience.

GuyLeCheval
21-01-2010, 13:46
I prefer Fantasy, I think.

For Models - Both games keep getting better and better models after every release.
For Painting - 40K for me as there are simple less models to paint so you can bring more detail in every of them.
For Rules/Metagame - Oh, nasty one. The rules coreset of Fantasy are MUCH better, but Fantasy also suffers greatly from balance issues. Very good internal balance, but worse outer balance...
For Players - I think more people play 40K. Less to paint, easier to play...
For Gaming Age - But also more very younng irritating people play 40K, I'm pretty young myself, but I consider myself much more adult in comparision with them...

Lars Porsenna
21-01-2010, 15:37
I am very confused. You say Fantasy suffers from "Generic-ness". I think 40K suffers alot more from "Generic-ness" or rather the "Sameness" or more commonly known as "MEQ". Probably 80% of the 40K armies on the table in the whole world are wearing power armour, and you say fantasy suffers from "Generic-ness".


In the same way that say 80% of fantasy armies are wearing plate armor? Again, I said it was the background that is better, not the armies or the rules.

But, since I like power armor as a Sci Fi trope (sort of like magic in a fantasy game), I have no problems with the prevalence of PA in 40K games.

Damon.

ashc
21-01-2010, 15:55
For Metagame - 40K has a major problem with this, as 90% of armies are Space Marines, so everyone designs armies to crack power armour, which makes balancing difficult. WHFB has a much more even spread of army types, which forces people to be a bit more balanced.

Before 5th edition I would have agreed, but more recently I think that its swayed from being about busting MEQ to being able to pop tanks, as mechanised lists are currently king in 40k. With the advent of highly effective Ork and Imperial Guard armies, marines have actually taken a bit of a pasting, which I suppose readdresses the balance somewhat.

'Army Top Trumps' is FAR more prevalent (and obvious) when looking at the Warhammer Fantasy army books.

Darkmaw
21-01-2010, 16:04
I think 40K and Fantasy appeals to different crowds due to their genre.

I like that 40K models have more pose/style and are really better for modellers/figure painters to show their work. Fantasy can be a pain for those who hate painting mass ranked models.

I love the Fantasy system, however I don't like the current trend of Skaven Doomwheel/HPA/PF/SB having 2 pages of rules and full of random tables. What bugs me is also all the FAQs...

Not to mention there is a lot of "reading" to do. Big Rule Book + Warhammer latest FAQ, Own army book + latest FAQ, Opponent's army book + latest FAQ. Having poor comprehension of the rules inevitably leads to poor showing on the tabletop.

This could be a factor in driving away the younger crowd as the Fantasy players in my area are generally the old crowd.

I also find Themed armies in 40K more fluffy as opposed to Fantasy themed armies.

N810
21-01-2010, 16:27
In the same way that say 80% of fantasy armies are wearing plate armor? Again, I said it was the background that is better, not the armies or the rules.

But, since I like power armor as a Sci Fi trope (sort of like magic in a fantasy game), I have no problems with the prevalence of PA in 40K games.

Damon.

Ok Brets and Chaos wariors and Dwarves wear heavy armor, some empire, dark elves, and high elves, some orcs, some skaven... but most of those are light armor...

Skaven, Lizardmen, Beastmen, Tombkings, Deamons, Orcs, and Ogrea
are basicly runing around naked ot with a little light armor.

Skyros
21-01-2010, 19:36
I prefer the greater complexity and tactical depth in Fantasy.

However, 40k has two points going for it

(a) sets up much much faster than fantasy
(b) seems to play faster than fantasy
(c) is better balanced than fantasy

Fantasy has huge swings between the army books, with demons and VC and DE basically running over everyone else, and some armies really having no counters to some units.

This is much less of an issue in 40k as generally every army has a counter to every possible unit.

I think 40k may be easier in terms of # of models you need to assemble and paint as well. A 'squad' in fantasy might be 30 ranked up infantry models whereas for the same points in 40k you get 10 guys.

Razakel
21-01-2010, 19:37
I think both games are good and its a matter of preference.

Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 19:39
Thats what I feel, as I play and enjoy both, for me though the reason I cannot pick one over the other is that I will like one more than the other from time to time.

Hicks
21-01-2010, 20:25
I started wargaming with Fantasy, it was around the time that the very 1st Vampire Counts book came out. I will always remember my first game, it was with a friend who was just starting out like me but with Brets and another friend who already played with Chaos Dwarfs. We had spent months reading our books and buying minis (GW stuff is crazy expensive for poor 13 year olds). I remember our discussions and all the bragging my friends were doing. Their units sounded insanely powerfull next to my skellies and zombies.

So the day of our first game came and I set up my force next to my Bretonnian ally. After 2 turns it was evident that my stuff was pretty pathetic next to theirs. We hadn't set up a turn limit and once most of my stuff had been decimated I decided to send my vampire on dragon to the front (I was deathly scared of losing my general, but my troops were pretty much all dead anyway).

That was the turning point. The CD guy almost shat his pants when I told him the stats of my lord.

From then on, Fantasy has always been a game of kill the vampire ASAP or die horribly for my opponents. It got boring fast.

Then we tried 40K and found it had great fluff and it actually looked more like a real skirmish. Also, at that time, HQs weren't nearly as powerfull and game winning as in Fantasy. Also, I found that using and interacting with terrain was great and didn't miss the big blocks of troops one bit.

Since then, I have always played 40K and even got back into Fantasy a couple times. I found out the game had become much better, but the lack of opponents killed it for me.

I would be tempted to start dwarfs, but I now hear that I would just get creamed by Daemons, VC and DE... armies that I see all the time when I go to the LGS.

Skyros
21-01-2010, 20:31
In the same way that say 80% of fantasy armies are wearing plate armor? Again, I said it was the background that is better, not the armies or the rules.

But, since I like power armor as a Sci Fi trope (sort of like magic in a fantasy game), I have no problems with the prevalence of PA in 40K games.

Damon.

There isn't really any comparison between plate armor in fantasy and power armor in 40k whatsoever.

In 40k, tons of armies have literally every single model wearing power armor. You face MEQ army after MEQ army.

The variety of armies is much greater in fantasy, and there's literally one army (empire) that could field an entire force of full plate armor wearing soldiers...and that would be a rather strange list of just knights and greatswords. Still, you could see it - the heavy cavalry grandmaster led knight force is at least one that halfway makes sense.

Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 20:32
Warriors of chaos.

Desert Rain
21-01-2010, 20:41
I enjoy fantasy more than 40k. The fantasy game is more complex (that's positive for me) and more varied. 40k suffers from the point-and-click syndrome, and that annoys me a bit every time I play.

Idle Scholar
21-01-2010, 21:47
Models: I'm a sci-fi fan so I much prefer 40k
Fluff: See above
Rules: I never recovered from the switch from 2nd to 3rd ed 40k and disliked how simplified it had become so switched to Fantasy in time for 6th ed.


I must have missed that chapter in The Silmarillion where Tolkien mentions the Legendary Hero Cloning Facility in Gondolin.

Awesome dude :cool:

larabic
21-01-2010, 23:00
I have always said that 40k is Checkers and Fantasy is Chess.

Models wise, i have to give the edge to 40K, they have come out with some pretty fantastic models.

Price wise, also 40k is the cheaper game for the most part but hey this is a hobby, it costs money....

Players, i find fantasy players to be a much classier / older group. I run into far less power gamers in fantasy.

Game wise def Fantasy, i played a 40k tourny a while back for the first time in years. Only 8 players, no real prizes but everyone there played hyper competitive armies. The rules were just counter intuitive to me, it seemed impossible to get my troops across the board in transports with out losing the transports, or having the squad get killed in the turn they can't do anything. Or getting hit by a lascannon shot through a dreadnoughts legs or through both sides of a stand of trees because of "true line or sight" fantasy just seems much more balanced. Any army can fight any army in fantasy pretty well, but a 40k army with out lascannons (or race equivalent) is hopeless against a land raider and such...

Just this gamers opinion though...

Darnok
21-01-2010, 23:20
Any army can fight any army in fantasy pretty well, but a 40k army with out lascannons (or race equivalent) is hopeless against a land raider and such...

Just nor true.

You can of course play Daemons in WFB against anything else, but it's no real competition. Competitive play in WFB is unbalanced towards certain armies.

Concerning that comment about lascannons and land raiders: not every army has the cannon, not every army has the raider. And there are other things that can reliably pop a LR...

In my humble opinion: if Fantasy is your Chess, it must be a special version where white knights are just better than the black ones without any reason. Just this players opinion though. ;)

blackjack
21-01-2010, 23:38
I prefer Fantasy as it simply is more tactically demanding.

40k has much better fluff.

Currently the 40k codexs balance against each other better than fantasy army books do.

However there is much less thinking required to play a game of 40k than a game of fantasy.

Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 23:48
That is surely just due to the movement resrictions you get in Fantasy, which is IMO the defining thing about WFB, the movement, armies that have loop-holes around it are not well liked.

Whereas 40K the movement is much more simple, but I really would not say it needs less thinking, I honestly have to think more in a 40k game than a fantasy one, as fantasy you kind of know your options and resrictions, with 40K the fact that you can go in any direction (in most cases with most units) gives its own dilema in a way.

Lars Porsenna
21-01-2010, 23:54
Ok Brets and Chaos wariors and Dwarves wear heavy armor, some empire, dark elves, and high elves, some orcs, some skaven... but most of those are light armor...

Skaven, Lizardmen, Beastmen, Tombkings, Deamons, Orcs, and Ogrea
are basicly runing around naked ot with a little light armor.

Point is, if you have a preconceived conclusion, you'll interpret the evidence to support that. Actual power armor 40K armies include SMs, CSMs, Daemonhunters and Witchhunters. All the other armies might have "power armor" but is less effective (Eldar in general, although its arguable that only Dark Reapers actually have real power armor) or don't have power armor as a "central" feature (Tau, Orks, Guard, Chaos Daemons, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tyrranids). Of those, only the Necrons are really "Marine Equivalent," though different figures within the list might have a similar armor save as a marine (IIRC Dark Reapers FREX).

Damon.

larabic
21-01-2010, 23:56
Just nor true.

You can of course play Daemons in WFB against anything else, but it's no real competition. Competitive play in WFB is unbalanced towards certain armies.



I have lost with my demons, i have beaten demons. Yes it can lend its self to being overpowered but when both armies make balanced list yes i believe any army can beat any opponent.

It's all dependent on who is playing. I just happen to think that a good army in fantasy can lose if you still don't have tactics and maneuvering... the wrong terrain on the board can undo the best army. 40k Tends to be less reliant on these things which makes it less complicated and straight forward, that is probably because 40k uses shooting more then the average fantasy game.

Stronginthearm
22-01-2010, 00:43
Sorry you're Aren't gonna make that stick, somebody is going to bring up OK and say that its litterally impossible to win, I actually agree, but you won't make it stick

grissom2006
22-01-2010, 00:50
I'd like to know why this required a post in 40K and WFB as well when it could easily of gone in GW other. Or is it fine now to go posting duplicate threads??? Fantasy is more tactical as better for that.

tezdal
22-01-2010, 00:57
In the same way that say 80% of fantasy armies are wearing plate armor? Again, I said it was the background that is better, not the armies or the rules.

But, since I like power armor as a Sci Fi trope (sort of like magic in a fantasy game), I have no problems with the prevalence of PA in 40K games.

Damon.


I totally agree with the plate armor statement, everybody wear's it, I really wished there were more chain and scale mail armoured guys out there, prolly why I play bret's...........at least we arn't all plate armoured.

Darnok
22-01-2010, 01:06
I have lost with my demons, i have beaten demons. Yes it can lend its self to being overpowered but when both armies make balanced list yes i believe any army can beat any opponent.

It's all dependent on who is playing. I just happen to think that a good army in fantasy can lose if you still don't have tactics and maneuvering... the wrong terrain on the board can undo the best army.

So it is the players, not the game. Fair call.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 03:05
[QUOTE=squiggoth;4320231]In 40K and WHFB you get the first turn for the entire game by simpling make one good dice roll before the game starts. How dicy is that? ;)
In LotR you always have to plan quite a bit ahead because you never know wether you go first or second in the following turn, which makes the overall game quite interesting and actually *less* dicy. I stopped playing the game because facing (and killing) Aragorn, Boromir, The Witch King of Angmar and Theoden in every forkin' little border skirmish is simply ridiculous .... I must have missed that chapter in The Silmarillion where Tolkien mentions the Legendary Hero Cloning Facility in Gondolin. :angel:
[QUOTE]

I think what i meant for "dicy" is that every time after a turn, player's have to roll to see who get the next turn first. This IMO is quite damning because it can potentially means you get a extra follow up action if you happen to be the person who just ended a turn and then get to go again having won the dice roll of the next immediate turn, which is a huge advantage in most tactical or strategical game because you get a super initative over the situation. For fantasy and 40k, both players actually take turns which makes it fair, having to roll who goes first for the entire game doesn't make it dicy but having to roll who get the next turn first after every turn does because there is a potential of getting double moves which can be damning.

But Baragash had already clarify this so I really don't think it was as bad as I had imagined because the turn system in LOTR seems alittle different.

Johnnyfrej
22-01-2010, 03:28
Many people play 40K over Fantasy, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is 40k better than Fantasy?
Yes

For Models No doubt
For Rules I will take easier to understand than needlessly complicated
For Players Players are who you choose and where you game at
For Metagame Mechanised has many benefits to footslogging > Magic/Elites/Heros wins the game for you
For Painting I don't understand, do you mean which potentially looks better? If so I would go with 40k as every model stands out but a fully painted block of 20+ in Fantasy is pretty cool
For Gaming Age See Players

EDIT: Oh and are Daemons better off in 40k as in more balanced? Oh, you have NO idea. Daemons are actually fun to play in 40k

Answered in the quote.

TheAmazingAntman
22-01-2010, 04:02
I'd also like to point out the 40kers start this thread in the fantasy forums like every two weeks...shooo, we don't come around your forum and stir things up.

Also, we have demons to complain about.

Dexter099
22-01-2010, 04:12
I am of the opinion that Fantasy falls victim to less balance than 40k.

Ah, yes. Three terrible codexes in 2008: Vampire Counts, Demons, and then Dark Elves.

But Fantasy is still a good game, as people ignore Demons as an army at all times and usually play a balanced VC list.

As for Dark Elves, there are too many of them to ignore, but sometimes they are slightly balanced.

Lord Dan
22-01-2010, 04:13
I have a sinking suspicion that if you opened two polls- one posted in the 40K section and one posted here- asking the same question mentioned in your original post you would come up with two very different results.

Odominus
22-01-2010, 05:26
I vote fantasy. Micro tactics and metagame. Both are superior.

Darnok
22-01-2010, 06:15
I vote fantasy. Micro tactics and metagame. Both are superior.

Care to elaborate? You state it as if it was fact, where I would rate both better in 40K. I'm interested in your reasons why you think the way you do.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 07:09
Care to elaborate? You state it as if it was fact, where I would rate both better in 40K. I'm interested in your reasons why you think the way you do.

I think it is his right to state his own opinnions, if you really not happy with it you can always state your opinnions and the reason why you think otherwise just like everybody else here. No one state "facts" here, only personal preference based on their own experience and there fore the opinions.

Razakel
22-01-2010, 07:15
The most probable reason from my experience at 40k/Fantasy is that people think the big blocks of troops take more skill to use and organise. I switched to Fantasy from 40k because I stopped enjoying the amount of shooting. Initially playing Orcs & Goblins, I soon swapped to Dwarfs and fell back into my old pattern. :D

Darkspear
22-01-2010, 07:28
My opinions

Miniatures - Fantasy (simply because of the fact that GW release more new fantasy minatures now...the latest 40k release, tyranids, is a bit slack in my opinion).

Rules - Fantasy, one thing i dislike about 40k is that there are many times, a crucial gaming winning move is at the mercy of a single random d6 (there are such cases in fantasy but a lot less). Examples include Vehicle damage charts (in the 40k universe i can fire a bazooka at a car and merely shake its crew while the same weapon will obliterate a tank), movement in difficult terrain, random game length
Metagame/imbalances – in 40k every army has some cheesy build, in fantasy the cheese is restrict to certain armies. I prefer the fantasy version as in my opinion it means that the problem is “controlled and limited to certain armies” but I understand many others prefer the situation in 40k
Cost: 40k is more expensive hands down.
Players: fantasy tend to have a more mature crowd while 40k have more kids.
Relaxation: i voted 40k. This is because the game is so gamely (due to the IMO strange and counter intuitive rules), that I can’t take the game as seriously as fantasy. This meant that when i attend a 40k event, it is purely for fun.

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 07:51
My opinions
This meant that when i attend a 40k event, it is purely for fun.

You mean you are very serious everytime I play fantasy with you?!:eek: ~scary...:skull:

Darkspear
22-01-2010, 08:33
You mean you are very serious everytime I play fantasy with you?!:eek: ~scary...:skull:

Of course I must be serious. I must train myself till I can beat you WITHOUT using Dark Elves. HAHAHAHAHHAHA

ChaosVC
22-01-2010, 08:37
Of course I must be serious. I must train myself till I can beat you WITHOUT using Dark Elves. HAHAHAHAHHAHA

Cheeaa~~~ Darkelves are small fry, I don't put them in my eyes. Want to fight my daemons! :evilgrin:

Lord Solar Plexus
22-01-2010, 12:35
Everyone's of course entitled to his or her opinion but in the end, I'm still right.

With that out of the way: :)

Models: Same excellent quality. Really, opening the Cadian command box and the Empire Pistolier box was equal great fun.

Rules: Both have some issues I would like to see addressed but both are perfectly playable. I don't favour one over the other.

Players: Are the same.

Metagame: 40k, simply for balance. I'm lucky to have none of the two (sic! I don't think DE are OP) supposedly game-breaking armies in my group, so locally it is actually quite a good experience. Still, others don't, so there.

Painting: Exactly the same. You can have gorgeous Bretonnian Knights or High Elves and you can have stunningly nice Marines or tanks.

Gaming Age: No idea.

Darnok
22-01-2010, 13:18
I think it is his right to state his own opinnions, if you really not happy with it you can always state your opinnions and the reason why you think otherwise just like everybody else here. No one state "facts" here, only personal preference based on their own experience and there fore the opinions.

"Both are superiour" reads like a statement of fact. I just want to hear the reasoning behind it. I'm fine with his/her opinion, even though I disagree. I'd just like to know why that opinion is the way it is.

Sons of Blight
22-01-2010, 14:54
I agree with bluemage -

Col. Frost
22-01-2010, 15:08
In my opinion, i prefer Fantasy, but only slightly over 40K.

For Models
Only one winner here, Fantasy (and im an ardent IG treadhead aswell ;) )

For Rules
Toughie, but it's always going to be a personnal choice depending on what someone wants to get from a game. 40k is a lot more simplistic, less about tactics and more about target priority in my view, so Fantasy it is again

For Players
I have only met on player who i wouldn't want to play against again, and that was during a 40k tournament. I'd call this a Draw

For Metagame
I get to play different armies virtually every week with Fantasy even with 'uber' broken armies out there, with 40K Marines dominate. Fantasy again, but only just.

For Painting
Draw again, I love my Brets, and i love my Baneblades.

For Gaming Age
As i have only ever had the opportunity to, and so have only ever played (barring one annoying tournament opponent) older players, this has to be classed as a Draw

Lord Khabal
22-01-2010, 15:20
Quite frankly, for me its fantasy all the way... I just prefer the fantasy setting to the futuristic one.

The SkaerKrow
22-01-2010, 15:35
I'll go ahead and break it down a bit more.

For Models: By and large, I prefer Fantasy archetypes to 40K's interpretation of Sci-Fi (I'm more a fan of Infinity's style, for that), so the edge goes to Fantasy.

For Rules: While the Warhammer Fantasy system has its blemishes, when I play WHFB I feel like I'm playing a game that recreates, with some authenticity, a classic battlefield experience. The Fantasy elements are handled fairly well and are usually evocative. When I play 40K, I don't feel as if I'm doing anything more than pushing figures across a table. Fantasy wins big, in this regard.

For Players: Most 40K players that I know are smug, and take themselves and their game too seriously. That exists in some local Fantasy players as well, but the Fantasy players seem to be friendlier on the whole. Again, a nod to Fantasy. That said, the 40K guys are usually more fun to hang out with away from the game.

For Metagame: Both have problems in this regard. The army books/codexes for both systems have poor internal balance. For WHFB, powerful or overly soft lists are glaringly evident, while in 40K such differences seem more subtle (but no more balanced). To be fair, I see a lot more variety in Warhammer Fantasy builds than I do 40K armies, so again, Fantasy wins.

For Painting: I prefer painting monsters to vehicles, so it's a victory for Fantasy.

For Gaming Age: The local Fantasy group is certainly older on average than the local 40K group, though there are older 40K players and younger Fantasy players present. Not scoring this one, as it doesn't really affect my opinion of either game one way or the other.

UberBeast
22-01-2010, 17:05
I got into 40k first back in 1994 and was playing the 2nd edition for several years when the 3rd edition came out. I started playing fantasy in its 5th edition just before the release of 40k 3rd edition.

I've been playing both games ever since. I have to say that I love both sets of fluff and I feel that all of the model ranges are comparable.

That being said GW has dumbed down both games in every subsequent edition; 40k more so than fantasy. To me there is really very little left to 40k other than listbuilding. Fantasy at least still has a lot of tactical movement which puts it ahead of 40k in my book.

I still love 40k fluff, but the game itself has become so rudementary that it's not terribly fun to play anymore.

Skyros
22-01-2010, 20:14
Warriors of chaos.

I've never seen a WOC list where everyone was in plate armor. I don't think it would be a very good list, whereas the all knight and greatsword empire list is at least theoretically somewhat viable.

Still, that's one, two armies that have the *possibility* of making all plate armies.

Meanwhile in 40k, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Black Templars, and Blood Angels, DaemonHunters, Witchunters, can (and often do) field entire armies where literally every model is in power armor. And those comprise a far higher proportion of 40k players than do the people who play empire and WoC in fantasy. And Necros aren't literally wearing power armor but have a power armor like save.

I'd say every single 2v2 game of 40k I've played has involved at *least* one all power army list. I have played exactly 0 games of fantasy where even one person brought an 'all plate army' list. The two just are nowhere near as common.

Lars Porsenna
22-01-2010, 23:01
Ultimately, the argument of Power Armor vs Plate armor is irrelevant, as that is a position I did not initially take, and it was a bit of poor cunning on my part to be sucked into the debate.

Whether or not half of the 40K armies are "power armor" equivalents or not is irrelevant to whether the background of fantasy is more generic than the background of 40K.

Damon.

Spiney Norman
23-01-2010, 03:48
Comparing the background of either system is a somewhat irrelevant question since its entirely down to personal preference. Personally I find large sections of the 40k background completely out of keeping with a futuristic sci-fi universe setting that wants to be taken in any way seriously (this primarily revolves around the existence of orks in 40k, I just can't shake the feeling they don't belong there), but a lot of the imperium fluff is also somewhat... well incoherent. The problem I suspect, is that my sci-fi background is very much rooted in Star Trek, which 40k ain't, in fact 40k is more fantasy fiction in space than anything to do with science.

On the other hand I love the fantasy setting and I'm much more willing to accept "wackiness" in a tolkienesque fantasy setting than in a futuristic sci-fi one, and since both games contain a fairly persistent wacky element, the Fantasy background wins out for me.

julian_gun@hotmail
25-01-2010, 09:48
that is an easy answer 40k kicks fantasy's ass back to china town.[the comments expressed by this indavidual were right at that point of time and will never change]
no but really fantasy is ok just i hate setting up and playing gets a bit boring

Penitent Engine
25-01-2010, 10:34
Models: Either. Chaos are in both! Although, 40K does have the Inquisition...

Rules: 40K is more cinematic, whereas Fantasy is more satisfying as a tactician. Also, armour save modifiers and magic are incredibly good!

Players: Either. There are ****** in both systems.

Metagame: Fantasy has a greater variety of forces, yet can be less balanced than 40K. I'd call this a draw.

Painting: Fantasy has more banners and flesh. .: it wins.

Gaming Age: Irrelevant. 40K does have more beginner players (not necessarily of a younger age), while Fantasy has a greater proportion of 'veterans'.

So, overall, Fantasy wins in my book :)

Condottiere
25-01-2010, 11:03
Edited.


Recalling the first moment that I did step into a GW affiliated store, I remember that the 40K battles seemed inherently more attractive than the Fantasy ones.

Bac5665
25-01-2010, 14:32
In my experience, there are two levels of tactics in Fantasy. There's that first level about what to shoot, should I charge or not, what units are good, etc. This level has a lot going on, at least for an "average" player. But then there's there level that the good players play at, involving setting up flank charges, tactical wheeling, tactical clipping, and other complex maneuvering. That is the real joy for me and most of the people I enjoy playing against.

40k doesn't have that second level. In these threads, I often read 40k players saying that their game has tactics and strategy too, and it does, but its confined by the first level. That level, while it can be intellectually interesting occasionally, most of these decisions are fairly automatic, and any good player would make the same decision.

Target priority in 40k and whether or not to charge in fantasy are classic examples of this level of tactics. With this kind of decision, there are right answers, and that makes them less interesting. The much maligned mathhammer really does work for these kinds of things, and beyond learning some statistics and knowing about your opponent's list, no skill is really involved at this level.

And 40k doesn't really have the next level of tactics. In fantasy, I can set up very complex movement of units whose positions are well defined by solid, connected bases. My units move how I tell them to (with few exceptions) and allow me to try to outmaneuver my opponent. This is much more complex tactically, IMO and involves much more complex planning over multiple turns, predicting the outcomes of combats, shooting and, the hardest, enemy movement. Its that requirement to plan and predict AND make complex and precise movements based on those predictions that make fantasy the better game for me.

Besides that, I do like the 40k models a ton, though few have the same wow effect that the best fantasy kits have.

The only generalization I'll make about the players themselves is that most 40k players make really annoying fantasy players. They focus only on that first level of tactics, which usually requires taking 'ard boyz style lists. Not all, but many of them, brag about how unbalanced their list is (I've even seen some complain about how broken their list is, as if there is some requirement to take a broken list...). What I really think it is is that in 40k, power gaming is the norm, and it interferes less with the balance of the game, since there is no higher level tactical level to play around with. But too many 40k players (in my personal experience) play fantasy like the powergaming is the point, ignoring that higher tactical level. These players lose, though not as often as I'd like, but that kind of attitude still makes for a very annoying game.

theunderking
25-01-2010, 18:27
And 40k doesn't really have the next level of tactics. In fantasy, I can set up very complex movement of units whose positions are well defined by solid, connected bases. My units move how I tell them to (with few exceptions) and allow me to try to outmaneuver my opponent. This is much more complex tactically, IMO and involves much more complex planning over multiple turns, predicting the outcomes of combats, shooting and, the hardest, enemy movement. Its that requirement to plan and predict AND make complex and precise movements based on those predictions that make fantasy the better game for me.

Perhaps I play 40k at a higher level than most, but with my armies (Eldar and Tau) this kind of precision movement and long term planning is essential to success. Although I admit, predicting the outcome of combats with my Tau is particularly easy.

Perhaps I also merely have the worst rolling in fantasy - but its not difficult to predict what will happen when my State Troops fight ANYTHING but goblins, zombies and Bretonnians peasants, regardless of my detachment usage and flanking Knights.

As to the OP

Models: Both have their ups and downs, generally the newer GW models are amazing. My state troopers do look like monkey-men though lol. TIE.

Rules: Both have some issues I would like to see addressed but both are playable. Fantasy however feels a lot more like a chore than 40k. The rules are much murkier in fantasy too (eg: 8+ page 2part FAQ). 40k for sure.

Players: I'm reviewing the game not the players. TIE.

Metagame: 40k. I know mechanized is generally better than footslogging. However, Green Tide Orks mangle my mechanized tau at least as often as i put them down. My tau are considered middle of the pack and I can (and frequently do) take down the "power" armies (Nurgle CSM, Eldar, Orks, Space Wolves).

Fantasy, my "mid tier" Empire loses to VC every game if I don't snipe their general by turn 3. I once fought Nurgle daemons and managed to score one kill thanks to my speculum. Yes that's right, one model.


Painting: That's an individual thing. I have poor eyesight so I find 40k's generally larger models easier, but I do love my Pistoliers, Knights and Wizards on flying carpets! TIE.

Gaming Age: In my area both are centered around age 20-25.TIE.

Winner : 40k.

Malorian
25-01-2010, 18:39
For Models both have their good ones and bad ones but fantasy, in most cases, allows you to take more models.

For Rules it depends on what you are looking for but fantasy requires more tactical thought more often than in 40k.

For Players I think you cover it below with the age, but if you are meaning the type of player then I've found the complete range in both.

For Metagame 40k can easily be more paper rock scissors than fantasy, and in fantasy a well balanced force can deal with pretty much anything if used correctly.

For Painting you have great models to paint on in both ranges so it doesn't matter.

For Gaming Age fantasy definately brings out a more mature crowd.

y2jfreak
25-01-2010, 21:36
Having started with 40k, I much prefer it to Fantasy.

For Models:
Personally I think both systems have some great models, I rarely find myself tutting over a particular model. However I would say that 40k holds more interest over me purely because of the potential of kit-bashing is somewhat greater than Fantasy IMO.

For Rules:
While I love 5th Ed 40k I have to say there are elements from Fantasy that make more sense. Missing a land raider with a Missile Launcher at point blank range is a bit of sillyness, and the modifiers to Sv's are quite nice I think.

For Players:
Mostly I prefer 40k gamers, I find that in my local shop Fantasy players brag too much about a certain list or tactic, and during games Fantasy tends to leave me disheartened and snappy when people poke their noses in. 40k players in my area tend to be more cheerful and enjoy a good game rather than winning. And don't interfere.

For Metagame:
40k is fairly balanced IMO, usually one thing can be countered by another but won't always work, which makes for a fun game. Where as Fantasy I agree has some major gaps in terms of books. For example I play Tomb Kings mostly and get smashed by just about everything new. New Beastmen and mostly Skaven are some of the quickest losses I've ever had, ignoring that Tomb Kings requires certain skills to play...

For Painting:
I prefer both, actually.

For Gaming Age:
Not all players in 40k in my local area are kids. Admittedly there are the odd few who shouldn't be there but as a whole most are around 20-40yr olds. Fantasy in my LGW generally is the same as well.

Overall, give me Sci-fi and a bolter!

WinterWolf
26-01-2010, 02:24
I play both and have done for nearly 20 years now.

WFB and WH40K are two very differant games these days and to be fair BOTH are very good at what they attempt to do. Alot of what I see folks grumbling about have been in the games as far back as I recall playing the games and in both cases there is nothing unbeatable, there are no all powerful 'builds' and "codex creep" is merely a matter of adjustment.

In answer the the topic title. No 40K is not better than WFB nor vice versa. 40K was redesigned to be a differant game to WFB, not just WFB with guns and power armour (which is what it used to be). Both rulesets handle differant concepts reflecting this and neither is particularly complex in the slightest, not if you have the patience to simpley reference a rule you cannot recall clearly, or haven't used much.

I play Spacewolves in 40K
I play Skaven in WFB

I've played both of those armies for some time now. You know what, I have alot of fun with both. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

theunwantedbeing
26-01-2010, 08:12
Is 40k better than Fantasy?
No, it isnt.

Models Equal, both have some stunning models. Almost tempted to say I prefer 40k stuff as they have a lot more big monster type models available in game.

Rules Fantasy is fuzzier with its wording, but more interesting. Nothing that a bit of common sense doesnt solve easily, at least untill an FAQ is brought out that but thankfully that's a rare occasion.

Players It's very easy to spot a 40k player in fantasy, much less so the other way around. Plus 40k players are verymuch all about the winning, so much so that I have yet to play certain 40k players at fantasy simply as they dont think they stand a chance against me. They wouldn't be refusing a a game if I was the one playing 40k.

Metagame After much googling of the word, Fantasy. No list tooling helps hugely though. You can't really metagame if your just taking what you need to win each game. Plus the above comments about the players also fit this.

Painting Fantasy as its not largely populated by unpainted/unundercoated models.

Gaming Age Completly irrelevant.

The tournament list mentality that goes around is a pain though.
I hate playing vampire counts opponents as they all take the same min max nonsense.
Daemons are much the same, flamers are brilliant so they of course have 12 of them.
DE's well, I've faced twin hydra's and its realy not as bad as eveyrone makes out.

Thats the big downside to fantasy.
Most 40k players will of course always turn up with that sort of list, their 40k lists are similarly "optimised".

Fenrir
26-01-2010, 09:32
Players It's very easy to spot a 40k player in fantasy, much less so the other way around. Plus 40k players are verymuch all about the winning,

Now theres a laugh for the day. All of the real desperate winners I know are fantasy die hards.

Think about it, a lot of people have switched to 40K due to the state of fantasy, the ott competition going on in the game and the amount of powergaming happening. Including one who declined to go to the GT and didn't bother using the already bought ticket.

40k is in a much better state. Fantasy needs a serious redress to sort itself out.

EldarWonderland
26-01-2010, 09:39
I much prefer Fantasy to 40K.
Just so much more enjoyable and needs some thought rather than being able to roll dice.
I used to play Eldar but I haven't played any 40K for a year now.
Somehow I seem to have acquired 5 WFB armies though lol
1. TK (Always will be No 1)
2. DE
3. VC
4. HE
5. Brets

Dwalin
26-01-2010, 14:51
Though i enjoy both games fantasy tends to come out on top for me.
Probably has something to do with seeing way too many space marine VS space marine battles....

Bretonnian Lord
26-01-2010, 14:59
I played Fantasy for about one year before I started up a small 40k Eldar Force. The Eldar models are beautiful, but I only stuck with 40k for a couple months before I gave it up completely. It just doesn't have the same spark that Fantasy holds for me.

I enjoy the models, background, etc... of 40k, but on the whole I greatly prefer Fantasy, both for its game complexity and due to the fact that I like medieval-fantasy fighting rather than sci-fi shootouts.

Max_Killfactor
26-01-2010, 16:37
For Models: toss up

For Rules: I think 40k's fluid movement and objectives beat fantasy's 'tactical' movement

For Players: Fantasy

For Metagame: I think the overall army balance is much closer in 40k than fantasy, but I dislike all the marine armies

For Painting: I think it's easier to have a passable quality 40k army, but harder to have one that looks good. Large flat surfaces really show who is the pro painter and who is just a drybrusher.

For Gaming Age: Fantasy

I primarily play Fantasy, but I think 5th edition 40k has better rules and better army book balance than 7th edition fantasy. I still like fantasy more because I like to see infantry, there's more diversity in the armies (no space marines), and there's less people under 16 (no space marines)