PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy better than 40K?



Lord Malorne
21-01-2010, 22:18
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?

Try to keep it civil and intelligent.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2010, 22:35
For models: about the same, there are models I like and dislike in both systems

For rules/gameplay: I'm gonna say I prefer fantasy, but thats probably more down to the fact that my two 40K armies (Crons and WH) are two of the "ugly duckling" armies that are struggling along with a crippled codex. I look forward to really getting into 40K when I have competitive book to work with.

For player: is this a trick question? Most of my friends play both, and you can get equally amicable or obnoxious players in both camps.

Meta-game: Both games have their problems here, Fantasy probably has the better balanced meta-game, with a couple of obvious exceptions, Daemons and Vampires being drastically over-powered compared to everything else. Other than those two (and Dark Elves supposedly having a slight edge) they've done a good job of balancing the 7th Edition books well.

40K's meta-game is all out of whack, mainly due to the space marine obsession, which has left a few armies cripplingly out of date, and largely ignored (I'm thinking Dark Eldar, Necrons and Witch/Daemon hunters).

What really has me into fantasy over 40K at the moment is the basic equality between fantasy armies, which is something 40k players (well the ones who don't play marines at least) can only dream of.

GW has an obsession with some 40K armies (specifically Space marines, and to a lesser degree Orks and Guard) which means they get all the shiny new stuff and it just leaves some of the other armies out in the cold. I guess thats fine if you like the "big three", but I'm so utterly hacked off with every other codex release being ANOTHER marine chapter while my 8 yr old crons are crying out for some attention.

Now, before I get inundated with responses, I know why, SM are the 40K cash cow, and because they need to make as much profit as possible, they keep beating the cow. But the game has suffered massively because of this OTT profiteering. The meta-game moves at the same speed it has always done and all the non-marine armies are getting released at half the rate they otherwise would have been, hence you end up with armies like Dark Eldar or Necrons that are 8-10 years behind the curve.

Can anyone remember a time when GW actually cared about maintaining the hobby rather than just turning a quick buck? I mean, its like they don't pretend any more.

That just doesn't happen in fantasy, they cycle through the armies in a rough order (it changes a little from edition to edition, but no army really gets so left behind unless its officially dropped like Chaos Dwarfs or Dogs of War), so without many exceptions you know your army book will be round again in about 4-5 years tops.

Corpse
21-01-2010, 22:36
Math mind versus the strategy mind, and its blended in both sides.

1: Only people who know both games to a reasonable extent can participate in this topic.
2: You've already worded your bias in your post. "Which is better, fantasy or 40k?" instead of saying "Is fantasy better....?".
3: Asking to keep it intelligent is a local way of words, where in other countries and people learning english as a second language could be seen as a taunt.

Just notes for you if you want to edit your post. I will not be participating in the main topic.

Noserenda
21-01-2010, 22:38
Blurg, been playing Fantasy on and off for a loong while, but 40k has always kept me more consistently amused overall, as to your points...

For models: 40k. Without Ranking up you can do a lot more with your troops, which means armies are usually prettier than Warhammers often drab masses.

For Rules: They both have their advantages, personally I think 40k has a bit of an edge though, as there are less little niggly rules I find.

For players: Much of a muchness, 40k has more idiots, Warhammer has more Anal Retentive fun murders :angel:

For Metagame: 40ks is pretty balanced overall, Warhammers seems to be a mess...

For painting: Much as for Models, 40k

For Gaming Age: Ah, the great myth of Warhammer being for older gamers. One of the best players Ive ever faced was someone I taught to play on Sundays at GW (And yeah, its humiliating being beaten by a 14 year old, at least until he tables everyone else :D ).

So yeah, overall I tend to lean in the Direction of 40k :evilgrin: Besides, our last Warhammer campaign fell apart after my Chaos Knights brutalised everyone, but we still play 40k every week!

vladsimpaler
21-01-2010, 22:51
Fantasy is superior to 40k in every way except for the army books. Too much power creep in WFB.

Daemons, 'nuff said.

Chiron
21-01-2010, 22:56
One point left out is background stories, both fluff and the ability to create your own. 40k is definitely the winner here due to its sheer size and insanity along with its concept - humanity advances 40'000 years and guess what, its even more messed up

Overall though I'm a fantasy player through and through, 40k's been struggling for my attention of late but its not gripped me since 2nd edition.

The only way fantasy could get better for me is if it followed the lines of some of the older WFRP stuff instead of going the way of 40k and being all about the characters/big things with everyone else providing a distraction at best

d6juggernaut
21-01-2010, 23:06
The only way fantasy could get better for me is if it followed the lines of some of the older WFRP stuff instead of going the way of 40k and being all about the characters/big things with everyone else providing a distraction at best

A C'tan, the most expensive and powerful single model in regular 40K games, can easily be overwhelmed by a horde of hormaguants with toxin sac

Chiron
21-01-2010, 23:10
A C'tan, the most expensive and powerful single model in regular 40K games, can easily be overwhelmed by a horde of hormaguants with toxin sac

Wow... amazing

druchii
22-01-2010, 00:06
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?

Try to keep it civil and intelligent.

For models: I think the games are about a wash on the model level, but the UNIT level, I think 40k easily wins out. With most fantasy units you see the front rank, that's about it. Unfortunately this leads to a bit less variation within a unit (do up the front 5 models real nice...). Sure you can add some large 40mm or 50mm bases to the middle of the unit with a little diorama going on, but even then it just serves to break up the monotony of 5 dudes. Another 5 dudes. Another 5 dudes...

For rules? 40k All the way. I'm sick and tired of having to hunt around the entire BRB for a rule that should be included in the declaring charges section. And really? You're going to treat a corpse cart, a screaming bell and a plague furnace as a RIDDEN MONSTER? WTH?

For players: 40k all the way. Our 40k group TRIPPLES the turnout for our fantasy group. Most of our fantasy players are those sorts who are much more into rules squabbles, whining, and bickering. We have two local forums, one for the fantasy players, and one for the 40k. The fantasy forum is filled with rules quibbles and debates, with the majority of players wanting a "RAW, always. No matter what" approach, while the 40k guys actually have painting logs, terrain logs, battle reports...painted armies...Atleast here in Ohio, fantasy attracts that sort of gamer...You know, the guy who has poor social graces and needs to define his beneficial existence through a wargame?

Metagame? In fantasy: Bring demons, pendant-hydra-dragon DE, or Vampire Counts or go home. Sure Lizardmen, Skaven, warriors, etc. are decently balanced, but really? I can cast the same spell, 14 times, and raise like 50 skeletons in one turn? 40k has it's issues with "metagame" (gosh I hate that word) but I've never laid an army on a 40k board and though "man I'm boned..).

Painting? I think that's a wash..

For gaming age? Fantasy caters to older gamers. 40k to younger. Now I think it's actually a NEGATIVE that fantasy attracts an older crowd. There's something abysmal about a 45 year old man whining about a game of plastic/metal men. Seriously dudes, I know your wives dislike you and your kids make fun of you, but arguing about a wargame will NOT make you cool. With 40k, atleast when people complain act like kids, you EXPECT them to, because, they're, well, kids.

d

Parad0x
22-01-2010, 00:57
Wow... amazing

Yeah.. and I thought I won the Most posts made while intoxicated award.:D

Corax
22-01-2010, 01:10
I'm probably not the best person to answer this one, since I don't play Fantasy, have never played Fantasy, and don't foresee myself playing Fantasy in the future. Its not that I have anything against Fantasy per se, indeed I mostly hear good things about it; its just never engaged my interest the way 40k has. I'm mostly a story/fluff/background 40k player who loves the setting first (and the game itself a distant second), and the Fantasy setting (and the armies in particular) have never really grabbed me enough to bother (although Ogre Kingdoms came close - if they weren't so pants I might have given them a try).

Anyway, for me its 40k (replete with its many flaws) all the way.

squeekenator
22-01-2010, 01:11
For Models: Before I would have said 40K, but the new Fantasy stuff looks really good, so I'd call this even, although Grey Knights are still the bestest GW models ever.

For Rules: Tricky one. 40K is easier to learn, but that doesn't really affect me. On one hand, Fantasy has the flank/rear charge bonuses and doesn't have as many unnecessary dice rolls as 40K (roll for difficult terrain, roll for run, etc.). On the other hand, the magic system, while great fun, is a mess that forces all-or-nothing armies and ranked infantry are so pathetically immobile that any attempt to actually use the flanking rules is a recipe for disaster. On the whole, Fantasy has better concepts but terrible execution, whereas 40K has more rules that are just plain silly. Another even one.

For Players: Most Warhammer players I know play both, so it's difficult to compare them.

For Metagame: 40K, hands down. In Fantasy, you have 15 armies, 3 of which are so blatantly overpowered that the other 12 can't even hope to compete against them. Even when both or neither players use the big 3, the ranked infantry the whole system is built around are useless point sinks, and the instead the winner is the person whose knights, wizards and monsters rolled better. 40K has some outdated armies, but of them only Daemonhunters and Necrons are at a significant disadvantage. Tau are underpowered but can still win, and Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters can still kick the asses of the newer codexes.

For Painting: Easily 40K. Fantasy armies have a lot more models to paint, and they're all pretty much identical, so painting them gets very boring very fast. And after all the effort you put into painting them, they just get hidden behind the first 5 models in the unit and never do anything other than give a point of combat resolution.

For Gaming Age: This should really be included in Players. Again, most people I know play both.


Wow... amazing

Ummm... What are you trying to say here? You boldly declared that 40K is all about big monsters and characters and he told you that, actually, big monsters and characters are not the main element of an army, and that regular Troops can easily bring them down. Of the most competitive 40K lists around right now, only one of them uses monstrous creatures, and that's only for the Lash of Submission they have. Lash, by the way, is an entirely supportive power, and its only role is to make your regular troops better. As far as characters go, Eldrad is considered one of the best in the game, and he can easily go an entire game without killing a single model - all he does is enhance your troops. That super-overpowered Vulkan guy? Support character who enhances the rest of your army. Either you haven't played since 2nd edition or you're just incredibly biased, because 40K is all about your troops.

IcedAnimals
22-01-2010, 02:18
I despise probably something like 80% of the warhammer fantasy models. When I was really young I didn't care so much because the modeling and painting aspect of the game did not matter to me.

I play my Dark Elves in fantasy because they are one of 2 armies that I actually enjoy most the models for (and I HATE warrior models)

Also there are far more people playing 40k than fantasy. If you look at sales, Marines alone outsell fantasy.

Rules wise I love 5th edition 40k. I do enjoy the Army Book support that fantasy seems to get. Though fantasy seems to have major power imbalances compared to 40k.

Fluff wise 40k all the way. Player wise Fantasy takes the cake. You find far less annoying players in fantasy (at least in my area. But there are far less fantasy players so shrug)

Painting I once again much prefer 40k. Once you paint a model in 40k even if it is a basic space marine that model gets his chance to stand out. With fantasy everything is just a block.

Absolutionis
22-01-2010, 02:27
Models - 40k. I would have said both, because every new set that GW produces ends up being more amazing than the previous. I used to think the Skaven Plague Bell and Doomwheel were the most amazing models GW ever produced until the Tyranid Trygon came out. Regardless, 40k has the support of Forge World and their range seems to be more up-to-date recently.

Rules - Both. It depends on what you like. Fantasy cares about facing and bonuses for many things whereas such things don't exist in 40k. Nevertheless, Fantasy is quite the venture of Herohammer. A standard human-sized hero in Fantasy can take on dozens of grunts and come out victorious. There is even a whole Magic phase dedicated to heroes and hero-equivalents (Casket, etc). 40k tends to relegate the heroes to benefiting your entire army in some way (Vulkan, Eldrad, etc) with rare super-heroes (Abaddon, Calgar, etc). 40k does have its super-units, but those are generally believable in the form of giant monsters or enormous battle tanks.

Players - Both. 40k attracts younger people and Fantasy older. Your call on this. You could make an argument that younger crowds are more immature, but I have seen immature old people and mature younger people. 40k does have overall more people, though.

Metagame - 40k. Fantasy seems to be heavily biased towards the "big three" armies, and even new codecies cannot compete with them. 40k has no "codex creep" considering all 5th edition armies are more or less about the same power level. Orks and especially Imperial Guard may be somewhat on a 'stronger' level, but they hold nowhere near the overpoweredness of Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, and Daemons.

Painting - Fantasy. This ties in with models, but Fantasy tends to skew towards a more 'organic' painting style with exposed body parts and human/rat/lizard/etc skin actually showing. Plus, organic materials such as wood and cloth are more prevalent. 40k tends to focus more on inorganic materials such as carapace armor, power armor, metal, and tanks. Many armies such as Space Marines, Eldar, Tau, Imperial Guard (not Catachans), Daemonhunters, and Necrons have pretty much their entire range of models with no skin showing aside from exposed heads.

Xyrex
22-01-2010, 03:08
Models: 40k hands down, I mean purple lizards... REALLY?

big squig
22-01-2010, 03:19
Fantasy's rules are way to messy, ranked minis have less conversion opportunities, and fantasy's fiction is pretty dull in comparison. So 40k for me

Johnnyfrej
22-01-2010, 03:20
Many people play 40k over fantasy, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is 40k better than fantasy?

Fixed your title for you, and the answer is yes.

What's even better is the Fantasy general's version of this copycat thread is 40k is in the lead there to :D

primarch16
22-01-2010, 03:29
I prefer 40k.

For Models: I'm not one to argue, almost all of my 40k daemons use fantasy plastic kits :D but I think GW are in a phase of producing fantastic looking models for both systems.
For Rules: I think 40k has smoother rules that allow players more freedom for tactics, fantasy seems too much of line our units up and go in one direction.
For Players: 40k used to contain all the kids whereas fantasy had the more tactically minded gang. I think the balance has shifted now, as many of the tactical players have shifted to 40k with the induction of objectives and kill points.
For Metagame: 40k is currently really balanced I find (all the 5th codexes are pretty competetive) and even the earlier codexes can handle themselves (to a point) Fantasy seems a little unbalanced at the moment with Daemons and Vampire counts.
For Painting: I feel its a little more 40k freindly, with more options for center pieces and less models in units. With 40k you have the option of fielding less models, but fantasy seems to be made up of painting rank upon rank of the same troops.
For Gaming Age: I think 40k is a little more youth freindly. Fantasy seems more clinical, and more about flank charges and stuff. But basically I think it boils down to what you like. Guns, tanks and aliens or swords, horses and dragons?

Lord Inquisitor
22-01-2010, 03:30
For Models
40K and Fantasy enjoy the same quality of models by and large, 40K models tend to be slightly more complex and thus allow more customisation of plastic models, but Fantasy has some terrific models and kits. I think 40K wins out as I find there's more orginality in terms of background so this translates into more interesting models IMO.


For Rules
In general, yeah. This is the big pull for Fantasy, as it has a more tactical game. Not to say some of Fantasy's mechanics don't suck donkey balls, and it is really straining under the weight of its age and sheer complexity of rules. 40K conversely made a real effort to be "simple," and often got a lot of stick for it although I firmly believe it is a good thing in a wargame, but that seems to be entirely gone out the window with recent codecies. 40K has one major failing in my eyes with a lack of overwatch it can boil down to a game of dicehammer with deep strike and outflank etc making a mess of any kind of strategy.


For Players
I think so, and I've played in both the UK and America, and I find that - very generally - Fantasy players are more mature and simultanously more easygoing generally but also more competitive. I realise that sounds oxymoronic.


For Metagame
Until recently, I would have said Fantasy was more balanced here too, but sadly the situation is such that a growing number of major independent tournaments are imposing a handicap system because of the glaring imbalances in the system. That's really, really bad.


For Painting
Hmm. I would say that in general due to age and maturity, you tend to see better Fantasy armies, but I find that for any given person, they tend to spend more time and effort on 40K models - possibly because you simply need more Fantasy models per army, or because 40K encourages conversion and has a more inspiring background.


For Gaming Age
Fantasy definately has a higher average gamer age.

I feel that two questions lacking are:
For background
For fun of gameplay

40K's biggest pulls are a more interesting background and "funness" of gameplay - WFB is kind of generic Fantasy and I find little there to get me fired up more than, say, LOTR. 40k's Fantasy-in-Space is much more inspiring to me and despite many of the obviously ripped-off elements, I still find the universe much more immersive and original. As for "funness" 40K has speed of gameplay and a more objective-based gameplay rather than the same old pitched battle (don't get me wrong, I like pitched battle in Fantasy, objectives seem to get in the way there). I feel that objective play and a variety of setups keep the game fresher and more dynamic.

Occulto
22-01-2010, 03:44
Particularly for the expensive elite units, WHFB suffers too much from the "pay lots of dollars for not very much return" syndrome.

I buy five extra terminators, I get five models that fight individually. An extra heavy weapon, multiple extra attacks, more shooting... etc.

I buy five extra Phoenix Guard, I get +1 to my rank bonus.

Creeping Dementia
22-01-2010, 03:49
I this an experiment for a psych class? 'Find a topic sure to ignite argument and observe the results'


Anyway, I used to play Fantasy, but haven't touched in about 2 years.
Models are great in both systems.Tie

Rules, it depends on what you like, from my experience there was much more game time wasted arguing over rules in Fantasy, which bugged me. Tactics in Fantasy are much more strictly dictated though, so often a win would mean you were a better general (this was before the messed up codexes though). 40k has just a broader feel to it. Tie

Players, the only player I won't ever play again is a Fantasy player, but other than that 40k and Fantasy are about the same. Anything tipping the scale is more due to the rules than the actual player (LOS issues, turning movement alotment, angles of impact). Except Dwarf players, they should be flogged just for picking the most boring army to play against ever, but then there are always Necrons. Tie

Metagame, in 40k its skewed a bit in favor of Mechanized lists, but there really isn't anything resembling a dominating army. Fantasy is just messed up, we all know why. I observed a Fantasy RT a few days ago, almost got me wanting to play again untill I watched a few Daemon and VC games. 40k wins.

Painting, not even sure what this means really. I've found that 40k and Fantasy players dislike painting equally. Though, painting a squad in 40k is better than painting rank and file in Fantasy. Roughly a tie, slight edge to 40k.

Gaming age, well, growing up what did you like more? Star wars or Robin Hood, the answer will translate to what the younger players like. I personally started on Fantasy young, then moved to 40k later. Everyone sites a trend going the opposite direction, but thats not what I've experienced.

So really the only thing pushing 40k over Fantasy is the balance issues Fantasy has.

Codsticker
22-01-2010, 04:06
I this an experiment for a psych class? 'Find a topic sure to ignite argument and observe the results'.

My concern exactly....

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

witchking
22-01-2010, 04:50
I started collecting dark elves about 7 years ago 'i was 13 lol' and i recently started space wolves when they got a new book and p&M wise i don't think there is much of a difference you have metal,cloth,scales,skin,wood,magic for fantasy and power armor,pswords, fur and metal all about the same to me.

Players i have met ONE fantasy player real nice fellow older larger ard boys player though.
For 40k i have found a steady gaming group and were all so laid back it is funny, but we are older more mature players, well they are anyways lol.

Rules 40k is much much easier to learn but i think fantasy is more rewarding, but as the power creep was mentioned, but that is only a issue at tournaments.


On a side note my new love is hordes ahh sweet sweet legion of everblight.

d6juggernaut
22-01-2010, 04:55
I don't have a fantasy army, I've never played a fantasy game but I've played a demo game at my local store and saw a few games. So here's my humble take on this.

Model: Both systems have great big models that look great, a giant ogre is as awe-striking as a carnifex on the battle-field. For basic troops, Fantasy has square bases and are restricted to flanks and ranks, but this also mean that the units will look really nice when they're all painted in a uniformed fasion and lines up nicely, I would always prefer a group of heavy armored warrior perfectly lined up and marching foward than a band of Space Marines just... posing next to each other. But the up-side for 40K is obviously that they can be easily custimized and converted. Tie

Rules: Although I've yet to play Fantasy, from what I know from the rules, I kinda like it more than 40k. The game itself is much less forgiving, and moving ranks and positioning your troops is a huge factor in winning the game. Since there's tons of modifyers and bonuses for good selection of upgrades and charging, it means that the dice will affect the game outcome a bit less. I don't like the fact that whole ranks would just die because the 5 guys in the very front didn't do their job, but overall, most 40K games feel like skirmished, while in fantasy, we're fighting wars.

Players: One thing I find very interesting about fantasy is that, most people get A LOT more excited when they play fantasy, I hear people cheering and yelling almost everytime there's a fantasy game around. And another interesting thing I noticed is that Fantasy players know perfectly what they're doing, there's no confusing which phase comes next, there's no looking back into the codex for stats, it's like every player is a veteran or something.

Meta: Absolutely no clue, but the 2 people I know who play fantasy play Daemons and Vampire count...As for 40K, there's just a lot of space marine players here, like...a lot of them...

Paint: I started this hobby through LOTR game, so I've developed a joy painting rough leather and rusted shield...And...I've got nothing else... I've covered everything in the Model section.

Gaming age: Fantasy player are older, no argument there.

Xyrex
22-01-2010, 04:58
skirmished? Ive NEVER seen a fantasy game even NEAR apoc. size.

d6juggernaut
22-01-2010, 05:08
skirmished? Ive NEVER seen a fantasy game even NEAR apoc. size.
I'm not refering to the model counts, I'm just refering to the overall playing and movement style, maybe it's just my preference towards ancient Roman style phalanx, but I just moving fully assembled lines of troops and clash into the ranks of the opposition feels more engaging.

someone2040
22-01-2010, 05:45
skirmished? Ive NEVER seen a fantasy game even NEAR apoc. size.
There's one right on the GW blog here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=8000012a).

Apocalypse certainly makes it easier to run large scales games, by taking entire units off every few minutes. But Fantasy definately feels like it has larger scale battles.

Balragore
22-01-2010, 05:48
For Models: 40k

For Rules: 40k

For Players: Same

For Metagame: Region dependant

For Painting: Same

For Gaming Age: Same

TimLeeson
22-01-2010, 05:49
I think it's really all a matter of taste - and depends what exactly you want out of a tabletop board-game so I dont really think either is "better" in general, just what is "better" for the indivdual. So for me...

Model-wise, I find the kits are just better overall - easier to convert, more pieces and smaller count of miniatures needed. Also, you can use fantasy stuff with 40k too - skeletal guardsmen, Ghouls as Barghesi xenos ect.

For gameplay I prefer 40k, but I dont really play that often. EpicA beats them all down though.

Meta-game, well where Icome from - its necrons who reign supreme. I have no problem with this however!! :)

For players, well cant speak for this one really - I have a small gaming-group that is fantastic and none of us care for tournements or playing in shops ect. We avoid the "scene" aspect so I cant really be that objective.

Painting, 40k wins again. I find fantasy schemes tend to be more limited - and 40k has a wider range of colourschemes across its armies.

Backround, again 40k wins. Theres loads of races out there, something for everyone really. If you dont like any of the official factions theres probably some obscure faction in the fluff that IS appealing.

Laughingmonk
22-01-2010, 06:36
I play both systems.

Models: Really, most of this depends on what you like asthetically.

As far as execution goes though, fantasy models certainly have a lot more detail than most of the 40k range. Fantasy has such gems as cold one knights, the giant, steam tank, greatswords, skeletons, chaos knights, and the new minotaurs. Not to mention the entire wood elf range.

It also bears mentioning how many release slots are dedicated to various flavours of power armor.

Edged out to Fantasy due to personal bias.

Rules: Both are very fun to play. However, fantasy still has a movement characteristic and armor save modifiers, and weapons that cause variable wounds. Not to mention dice modifiers in general. The core rules are actually better than 40k's by far in my opinion.

The magic phase is flawed, yes, but it's not nearly as infuriating as kill points, defensive weapons, wargear having different stats in different books, no retreat, and instant death.

Players: Most veterans play both. Tie.

Meta: 40k wins this one out, for reasons already stated.

Painting: There are only so many ways to paint power armor. Fantasy has a far greater range of models to paint.

Thud
22-01-2010, 07:47
My concern exactly....

Oh, don't you play innocent! :p

And, as for "psych class," well, I guess you could call it that.

Stumpy
22-01-2010, 08:00
Models: Hard to say... (has a look at both ranges). Alright, probably 40k has better overall, however fantasy has greater range. Given that 3 ok models is not as good as 1 sweet model, I'll go with 40k.
Rules: Fantasy. I've played fantasy for 7 years and 40k for 4 and at no point have I thought 40k was better. Fantasy you can win a game where you're totally outclassed army-wise if you're a good general. There are also colossal amounts of options for how to deal with given situations rather than 'shoot it'.
Fantasy has arc of sight and sight-blocking, 40k has true line of sight (so everything can pretty much see everything).
Fantasy has negative to-hit modifiers and armour piercing modifiers. 40k has cover saves and AP, all or nothing and all too often unused due to 'my armour is better than cover' or 'thats AP4 and I have 3+ save.' Fantasy wins.
Fantasy has an entire phase for magic with its own rules, many spells with random allocation and wierd effects. 40k has psychic tests 'Ld test, it happens.' Fantasy wins.
Fantasy has different movement values and movement penalties for manouvering and so on. 40k you move 6". Fantasy wins.
Guess range weapons are actually 'guess range', numbers matter, movement is extremely unforgiving, psychology actually matters (though that's starting to disappear), there are declaring of charges, charge responses and failed charges having a massive impact on the game, victory points vs kill points, etc etc etc.
Note that I'm considered a very good general at both. 40k I play for fun but find the tactical options limiting and the rules system extremely simple and all-or-nothing.
Players: Fantasy has more bad eggs I think, though certainly not by much. 40k wins here.
Metagame: 40k all the way. Fantasy has a great set of core rules, with a bunch of internally and externally unbalanced army books. 40k has the same problem, but not nearly so badly.
Painting: Huh?

Lord Solar Plexus
22-01-2010, 08:15
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.

meatbyproducts
22-01-2010, 08:33
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?

Try to keep it civil and intelligent.


Humm sounds like someone likes WHFB better. I play both but just can not bring my self to break out my WHFB and play.

Models: this is a tough one as Characters in WHFB are nice like the Khorne Lord on the Juggernaught (Drool) but 40K has better troop and elite models I will give this a Tie as I use WHFB models for conversion work in 40k all the time.

Rules: People that love rules will side with WHFB. I hate to many rules and WHFB has a bunch of rules that are ill placed or poorly worded. 40k is a streamlined system and desigened for Gurella warfair.

Players: Sure kids play 40k but they play WHFB also and the rules monkies tend to play WHFB as it is open for them to be the fun killers that they are. 40k tends to be more laid back and open to have just a fun game.

Meta game: 40K has a better back ground and setting that alowes for anything to happen. I have gotten many players into the game via a book or a story and that jsut does not really happen with WHFB. so 40k through and through.

For Painting: I see better Armies in 40k but better single models in WHFB. so it is a draw.

Gameing Age: so...

for the game play bigger issue for most people than Gamer age or silly things like that. but Game play is totaly differnt in each system. WHFB is very riged and will draw a little more annul retentive players. Not always but they tend to gravitate the WHFB direction, of crouse you get guys like me that have over 300 Gobos and a 2250 Army of spider riders. 40K will attarce the guys that like the faster more fluid battles. I love the fluid game play of 40K and the want for giant grand scale APOC games ( I have over 40,000 points ina single army) I enjoy giant crazy games that are fun. WHFB tend to bog down when you get over 3,000 points and it is tireing.

genestealer_baldric
22-01-2010, 09:12
fantsay is all about who has the biggest magic in all the games ive played and it dictaes 99% of the battle where 40k is down to the troops to dictate the game.

Tymell
22-01-2010, 09:20
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?

Try to keep it civil and intelligent.

Models: I feel both have their good and bad models. Both have those that are in need of updating, and their classics. And both have some killer new ones, and some rubbishy new ones.

Rules: I'd say Fantasy wins out. There might be some issues, but for the most part I feel it's got much more of a tactical element than 40K.

Players: I'll lump this together with age. Fantasy has the slight edge, because 40K has slightly simpler rules and a setting that is perhaps slightly more appealing at first (marines, for example).

Metagame: Assuming this refers to overall balance, I think general consensus is that 40K has better balance between armies than Fantasy, but it lacks balance within the armies.

Painting: Never noticed any real difference, each has good and bad.

(and adding another of my own in) Background: 40K just does it a bit more for me. Fantasy is still good, but 40K is a little more uniquely Warhammer and interesting.

To put it in simplest terms: 40K for the setting, Fantasy for the game.

Lord Solar Plexus
22-01-2010, 09:21
Fantasy also has more manly codpieces and polearms, so it wins in that regard.

Stumpy
22-01-2010, 09:55
fantsay is all about who has the biggest magic in all the games ive played and it dictaes 99% of the battle where 40k is down to the troops to dictate the game.

Not really. I don't use magic in my fantasy armies and I win around 70-80% of my games. Magic is the realm of those who have strong spells, strong casters and who don't pay too many points for it. I see stabbing someone in the eye and just trying to stop 1 or 2 spells to be a better idea.

genestealer_baldric
22-01-2010, 10:05
Not really. I don't use magic in my fantasy armies and I win around 70-80% of my games. Magic is the realm of those who have strong spells, strong casters and who don't pay too many points for it. I see stabbing someone in the eye and just trying to stop 1 or 2 spells to be a better idea.

i wish it was like that round here i rarely see a game without a minimum of 6 lvs of magic

Stumpy
22-01-2010, 10:20
You have to screen well and know what you can absorb and what you can't, as well as jam loads of extra men in with the points. A lot of armies don't let you have magic defence without taking multiple casters, that's where it falls flat on its face. I use empire and lizardmen who can get a barely passable magic defence without sacrificing too much.

EmperorEternalXIX
22-01-2010, 10:23
For Models: 40k Wins, hands down. Not because of the aesthetics, but between the convertibility and character your models have they can really become endearing. At my gaming group, we all have models who have become odd little battlefield celebrities in their own rights. This is something you don't see with fantasy. In fantasy 9/10 of your models are just hit points for your unit. If I started a fantasy army I don't think I could imagine doing 30-50 of the same boring guys knowing that they will just be getting picked off the baseplate and put back in the case. While all the new kits of are high quality I again have to point to 40k's conversion potential. Sure, you can convert in both...but in 40k your model has character, your group remembers and fears/loathes/cheers him. In Fantasy, your enemy is more concerned with the stuff written under your guy's name in your army book than he ever is of your guy.

For Rules: 40k. Simple, immersive, fun, fast, relatively debate-free (especially compared to fantasy). 40k takes the design philosophy of taking what happens in a 41st millennium battlefield, and then making rules that simulate those occurrences. Fantasy does not have this at all; fantasy seems to be more a content between the two players themselves, and their armies are merely pieces to mark progress with. Some people might like this, but all of the world's best games of any kind have had immersion as part of their design scope. Fantasy seems...illogical, its rules are awkward and bloated. There are tons of diagrams on how to move your movement trays when in the 40k rulebook it has a more realistic and versatile system of movement. In fantasy, armies move like strange robots, and the characters are bizarrely powerful. Overall I feel a lot more like I'm involved in a desperate war when I play 40k; in Fantasy it just feels like two groups of models got together for a scrimmage war.

For Players: Generally, and I know this may seem rude, but every person I've met who exclusively was a fantasy fan has been a complete arrogant or obnoxious jerk. Big win for 40k here. Easier game = more people learning it = less pretentious people who know it better than everyone else.

For Metagame: Easily 40k for me on this topic. 40k's meta game shifts are logical to the fiction -- for example, the transports thing. It makes perfect sense for there to be a lot of vehicles in the 41st millennium, and yes they should be hard to kill. Fantasy seems like there IS no depth to its metagame; it is simply a matter of using a unit with incredible power or capabilities versus using a normal one, and doing that as much as you possibly can within a list. I have seen WAY too many fantasy games won by some massive supercharacter or caster, or by the other guy conceding due to impossibility of victory. Think of it like this...football would be pretty dull if every team had to use the same one play all the time, right? That's what fantasy is. In 40k you can win with offense, defense, strength of numbers or strength of individual models; you can get lucky or unlucky in a variety of characterful, fun, and entertaining ways; you can utilize terrain to manipulate your enemy's movement; you can use your deployment strategy to throw off his approach. I could go on and on. In fantasy you simply seem to win because you are using a more powerful unit here or there, and nothing more.

For Painting: 40k again. The wide variety of armies gives you such huge characterful conversion options, and your paint schemes can vary wildly too while still being/seeming canonical. That, and no one wants to paint 50 guys who are just hit points for your ranks, essentially.

For Gaming Age: I see younger kids in 40k, but they are all much nicer to be around than the fantasy guys I know. I even went so far as to BAN fantasy from being played under the moniker of my self-run gaming group.

Bookwrak
22-01-2010, 10:33
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

You're asking if hamburgers are better than pizza. While everyone is going to have an opinion on personal preference, you're not going to get a factual resoltuon on 'is X better than Y.'

Worsle
22-01-2010, 10:43
For Models: 40k over all but there are some very nice fantasy models too. Need to work out how I can use deathmaster snitch in a 40k army.

Rules: 40k by far, allows for a fast and flowing game compared to fantasy. Fantasy does seem to be moving in a better direction at the moment but it has a while to go. Lets see how 8th edition turns out but as it is not worth my time and to many armies can just not compete in whole sections of the game. Really how can you have a tatical game with sutch a wind up and go game where people can not even compete in large sections of the game because the picked the wrong army.

Players: They tend to be the same people not much of a difference here, though the fantasy only players atitude does tend to annoy me. Feel sorry for the wotr players whose game is basicly a better version of fantasy but tend to get looked down on by every one.

Metagame: 40k all the way. You take a fantasy army that can compete in every phase of the game and what happens? People with bitch and moan about cheesy armies, what happens in 40k? That is the norm, it speaks of a massive flaw in game system.

BigBossOgryn
22-01-2010, 10:47
[/B][QUOTE=Lord Malorne;4322321]Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

For models, pound for pound:

MC's Vs. Monsters: both ranges are impressive
40mm Base stuff Vs. Medium sized creatures: 40k wins here for me because stuff like the Trolls, Minos and Chaos Ogres are bum and they are far too slow to update them.
Character models: Both ranges are impressive.
Rank and file Vs. Grunts: 40k again for me. As much as 20-30 near identical figures to a unit is some peoples cup of tea, it's not mine.

I also see that GW are happy to allow gaps in ranges with WFB but rarely allow it with 40K, kind of makes it appear they consider 40K the more important of the two.

For rules: I really don't like WFB rules so I can't make an impartial argument. I agree with Occulto in that the addition of models to a unit contributes little to nothing in the grand scheme of the game which I think is **** considering they still get bought with the same money, painted and based like the rest of the army, only to provide a near redundant contribution.

I jokingly refer to WFB as Warhammer: Tetris because of it's seemingly less dynamic appearance and flow than 40K (blocks hitting blocks), but then the guy I rib over that calls 40K Warhammer: Junior :D

For Players: No difference reallly: a ****** is still ****** regardless if his figures are round or square based. I don't find one game breeds more than the others.

For Metagame: I think 40K's is quicker to change than WFB's but that's just an opinion.

For Painting: I think the freedom 40K grants you in terms of background and fluff allows for greater inspiration when painting. Plus the fact you have more modelling freedom with 40K wins it for me.

For Gaming Age: Not to sure in what context. If you mean age of players, personally I see more younger players in 40K than WFB, but then that's an accessibilty issue.

Bunnahabhain
22-01-2010, 11:08
They're diffrent, but roughly equal.

Fantasy has much better core rules, and they set the direction of the game much better. They cover what you want to do in a regimental combat game well. It however, as very bad army book balance. This is easy enough to fix through tweaking the books, or using reasonably matched pairs.

40k, on the other hand, has fairly poor rules that don't work awfully well for a platoon/company scale sci-fi skirmish game. It does however have much better balanced armies, with many of them having ingenious special rules to make them work within the limiting frame of the main rules, but that is just papering over the cracks really.
Fixing the problems properly here mean a ground up re-write.

If we could have the core rules strength of fantasy, with the army balance of 40k, then you would have a truly great game. I think it was called ...Epic?

Spiney Norman
22-01-2010, 11:14
skirmished? Ive NEVER seen a fantasy game even NEAR apoc. size.

Really, thats kind of a shame, a few months back I got together with a group of friends and we played a 10,000 pt game of fantasy, with two 5k armies on each side. I was pretty damn epic (and it took us all day).

Its funny, but one of the things that almost turned me off 40K was apoc. The throw-all-the-army-selection-rules-out-the-window-and-raise-the-points-value-to-make-you-all-spend-a-lot-more-money trick was about as subtle as using a plasma gun to clear a snow-covered drive way. Apoc was nothing more than a grotesque exercise in getting more money and playing a regular game of 40K with rules to balance army selection is much more fun than the chaotic idiocy of apoc.

Lord Damocles
22-01-2010, 11:19
Models: About the same in terms of quality, but having to rank up does tend to create units of clone troopers in Fantasy. The newer plastic kits have lessened this problem somewhat however.

Rules: For me, 40K wins hands down for two reasons: 1) Fantasy's lack of anything other than pitched battle - every battle just plays out the same. 2) mechanical bonuses for flank charges etc. seem to lead to games being more about maeuvering for combat resolution bonuses rather than for it's own sake.
Both seem to be about as full as holes as the other as far as quality is concerned.

Players: There are generally more 40K players (around here at least), but the 'quality' (for want of a better term) doesn't seem disproportionally different.

Metagame: Daemons of Chaos. Nuff said.

Painting: Like painting plate mail and shields? Fantasy. Like painting guns and tanks? 40K.

Gaming Age: Is that meant to be 'gamer age'? If so, there are more younger players of 40K around these parts, but since there are far more 40K players than Fantasy players, this is hardly surprising.


I'm off to read this thread over in Fantasy General (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240987). They're usually a no holds barred beatdown of 40K...

borithan
22-01-2010, 12:44
The thing that really stands out about 40k over fantasy is the background. The 40k background feels more different from anything else (yes, it rips off ideas from everywhere, but it still feels different), while fantasy is very generic... well, fantasy. The armies that appeal to me most are the Empire and the Skaven, who feel like the most unique armies. Ratmen don't seem too universal in fantasy universes (unlike elves and ork-a-likes), and the Empire are a less universal take on humans in a fantasy setting (Brettonians seem the more traditional types).

I think 40k has been helped by the fact that the game did not exist before the background. The 40k background has existed in some form since the game first became available, which meant while it was based on the fantasy rules it always had a universe in mind that it was meant to be creating. The Fantasy rules, as far as I am aware, were initially very generic, and provided no background. They were really just to allow people to use their fantasy rpg figures in large battles, so when a background was created it felt more tacked on.

I also just generally prefer sci-fi to fantasy, which probably biases me. And the fantasy background has really not grabbed me in general (aside from the Skaven and Empire). Its purely a game with a backgound, while 40k feels more like a background with a game.

Rosstifer
22-01-2010, 13:05
Well after the hundreth 11yr old with 90% of Aobr not even undercoated and the other 10% painted so horribly in blue its beyond description I pefer fantasy mainly for the players at my club. And Chaos Knights. Also everything is less GrimDarkGrimDarkGrimDark. That said I love my new Orks. A joy to paint and very efficiant at slaughtering said badly painted ultramarines.

Tymell
22-01-2010, 13:25
EmperorEternal: I feel you're being a little harsh on poor old Fantasy. This is coming from someone who plays 40K more often and has a bigger 40K collection.

On models, for example, 40K has some greater individuality, but that doesn't actually make the Fantasy model range as a whole worse, just a different focus. On painting, I think again it's just a difference of taste: if it were true that "no one wants to paint 50 guys to be hit points for your units", then how do you explain the thousands of players who do just that? ;) Some people just prefer the regimented look. Plus Fantasy actually has a slightly bigger range of armies available, and there's still a good bit of potential variety in paint schemes.

I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the rules between the two either (though I can see where you're coming from on them): 40K has plenty of rules (or lack of them) which don't make much sense, where Fantasy might have more "realistic" elements. For example, it's much more logical that the strength of a blow will lessen the value of armour, while 40K's current AP system doesn't reflect this.

Before anyone says it, I'm not saying EmperorEternal "isn't allowed to have an opinion" or any such, and ultimately that's all this thread asks for. I'm not saying he's "wrong" to prefer 40K, I'm just questioning some of the points that come across as a bit strong.

Poseidal
22-01-2010, 14:05
In the Fantasy thread, I did more of a history of my gaming so in this one I'll do a (more) concise look through the queries. Note in some cases I won't state which is better or worse.

For Models
40k I think can be more 'attention drawing'; also very iconic looks for most of the factions. Fantasy armies as a whole look great due to the regiments.

As far as quality and look, it depends on taste and individual scuplts and efforts. There are some pretty bad sculpts both games.

For Rules
Easily Fantasy. Because there's a Metagame section, the 'balance' issue isn't part of this. The 40k rules were made a joke in 3rd edition. 5th is a good 'patch up' of the game, but it would be a better game to try and take 2nd edition and modernise/streamline it for the larger battles than patches on patches that 40k has had.

40k will never be a better system until the following happens: AP system replaced; Movement stat reinstated (with the movement rules simplified back in)

For Players
Not sure, where I normally play the same players play both usually. The exceptions are some younger players who play only 40k and older(!) players playing only LoTR (when not playing historicals).

I usually play most with friends though outside of the usual club I play at. I can't really make a call here.

For Metagame
Daemons, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves.

For Painting
A mixture really, I think I don't like painting a bulk so much. I stalled on both my Tyranids and Empire armies, while my Space Marines, Wood Elves and Chaos Warriors I painted up much faster and had more motivation. (I have had Eldar a lot longer than any of these though, so only get the odd thing now for them).

For Gaming Age
See players.

WinglessVT2
22-01-2010, 14:26
40,000 is better than fantasy.
It's less open to abuse, there are no demons or vampire counts, and you don't feel like you're playing checkers.

mdauben
22-01-2010, 14:28
For Models - I'd have to say, overall, its a wash. Their are great looking models in both lines.

For Rules - I think I have to give the nod to Fantasy, here. To me the fantasy rules seem to provide more scope for tactics, as opposed to "best stats win" in 40K.

For Players - Another tie. I've encounted both great players and total jerks who play both games.

For Metagame - Everyone complains about the primacy of SM in 40K, but they don't come close to the dominance of Daemons and Vampire Counts in Fantasy. Those two armies totally break the metagame, IMO. Now, 40K has problems with woefully outdated codexes which hamper their respective armies, but that problem is nothing compared to the current imbalance in Fanstasy.

For Painting - I think that Fantasy might have a slight advantage here, but much of it comes down to personal preference.

For Gaming Age - In my experience, 40K players tend to be younger and Fantasy tend to be older, but I there are both age groups in both games.

Just my 2 cents. ;)

dariakus
22-01-2010, 14:56
As a long time player of both (Skaven and Empire in Fantasy, 40k you can see in my sig), I'm going to have to go with 40k here.

The movement phase of Warhammer Fantasy turns me off like nothing else. Measuring wheels, clipping, a single fence or forest basically tarpitting a unit for the entire game, and flying monsters that can land next to a unit and torch them without fear of retribution.

It's impossible to turn to face something on your flank *and* charge it, as you can only charge what you have LOS to. And most shooting weapons are move *or* shoot, so you can't even turn to face it and then shoot at it. It's beyond obnoxious.

If 8th edition has a revamp on the movement phase, it may coax me out of the 40k Rock I've been hiding under for the last year, but for now, FOR THE EMPEROR!

SPYDER68
22-01-2010, 14:59
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?

Try to keep it civil and intelligent.

Models - I enjoy the 40k models alot more, the new fantasy ones are getting better but its still eh on alot.

Rules - i despise the fantasy rules, they are just about terrible in my openion, you didnt take a scroll caddy ? sorry you lose.
There is no tactics in this game, i aim my unit.. i charge.. Wait i have a banner so im better at combat resolution.. dang we tie.. NO! you have a guy with a FLUTE! you win! i fall back and get instantly massacured.

Players ? There is hardly any fantasy around here

Painting - So far ive yet to see a fantasy model that i just want to paint just to paint.

Poseidal
22-01-2010, 15:04
Rules - i despise the fantasy rules, they are just about terrible in my openion, you didnt take a scroll caddy ? sorry you lose.
There is no tactics in this game, i aim my unit.. i charge.. Wait i have a banner so im better at combat resolution.. dang we tie.. NO! you have a guy with a FLUTE! you win! i fall back and get instantly massacured.


Works both ways. "Didn't take an anti-tank weapon? sorry you lose"

How is the tactics different from 40k, apart from the banner? you still charge with your unit, flail at them with an obscene amount of attacks and win/lose.

Actually, at least in Fantasy you get a bonus for flanking the enemy unit.

WinglessVT2
22-01-2010, 15:09
In fantasy, you field stupidly large units, yet you only get to hit with the models in the first row.

People who dislike fantasy say it's five attacks, six with a champion, that hit on 4's, wound on 4's or 5's, then get saved by 4's.
If you can beat 5 in combat resolution, you win. If not, you lose, and you're going to stay perfectly still, so people can't charge you.

Setesh
22-01-2010, 15:13
I dunno, I think WHFB sculpts are pretty lacklustre compared to most of the 40k stuff but of course thats just this gamers opinion :) Mainly they come accross as too 'cartoony'

As for rules I'm not sure as I havent played WHFB for years, only seen them.

WinglessVT2
22-01-2010, 15:14
The models are good in both systems, but they're naturally better in 40,000, because fantasy has this built-in need for ranking up, so you can't have as many bits poking in all directions.

Bunnahabhain
22-01-2010, 15:16
In fantasy, you field stupidly large units, yet you only get to hit with the models in the first row.

People who dislike fantasy say it's five attacks, six with a champion, that hit on 4's, wound on 4's or 5's, then get saved by 4's.
If you can beat 5 in combat resolution, you win. If not, you lose, and you're going to stay perfectly still, so people can't charge you.

Unless you have spears, or have troops with more than one attack, neither of which are uncommon.

Poseidal
22-01-2010, 15:27
Or you hit them in the side, negating their rank bonus.

I hear the '5 guys' thing might be changing for 8th edition though.

SPYDER68
22-01-2010, 15:27
Works both ways. "Didn't take an anti-tank weapon? sorry you lose"

How is the tactics different from 40k, apart from the banner? you still charge with your unit, flail at them with an obscene amount of attacks and win/lose.

Actually, at least in Fantasy you get a bonus for flanking the enemy unit.

Anti tank ? Its what you call a balanced list.. it may be the same for some in fantasy, but i just despise its so easy in that game to run the game in 1 phase with magic.

Yea you still charge, etc, but.. in fantasy.. the person that charges gets such a huge boost for charging.. 40k.. Whats your ini ? you charged me.. but i can still have higher ini to go first..

Flanking ? meh, thats all part of its horrid block movement system, if fantasy would ever move away from that, then i would probly play it.

WinglessVT2
22-01-2010, 15:35
Spears don't work if you get the charge, and people who use spears don't use them, anyway, because handweapon and shield is so much better.
They're a defensive weapon, and regular infantry is really bad on defense.

No, saurus are not 'regular infantry.'

I never get flank charges with my infantry, because it moves so slow, and people can simply wheel around to face me in their turn, anyway.
I'll give you this: I'm not good at the strategic thinking of fantasy, and much prefer the tactical game that is 40,000, but even I can see that line infantry is a waste of time, that movement in fantasy is really, really awkward, and that magic owns all.

mdauben
22-01-2010, 15:36
Flanking ? meh, thats all part of its horrid block movement system, if fantasy would ever move away from that, then i would probly play it.
Honestly, that's probably one of the more "realistic" mechanisims in either game. In ancient and medievel warfare (which WHFB is modeled on, at least to some extent), units tended to move in unwieldy blocks, which were hard to manuver and highly vulnerable to attacks in the flanks and rear, simply becuase it was so hard to re-orient the unit.

Conversly, unformed units (skirmishers in WHFB) could move, manuver and change orientation easily, but would shatter against the frontal attack of a ranked unit.


I never get flank charges with my infantry, because it moves so slow, and people can simply wheel around to face me in their turn, anyway.
Really, you have to be playing a pretty pathetic opponent if he regularly lets you flank with ranked units (unless you have something that can seriously tarpit him for several turns without either side breaking). Flanking is the primary role of flyers, fast cavalry and skirmishers, which is why you need them in most lists to support your blocks of core infantry.

This one of the reasons I think that Fantasy requires more tactics than 40K. Careful manuvering and coordination between units is much more important in Fantasy than 40K.

BigBossOgryn
22-01-2010, 15:37
I do think it's silly that numbers mean little WFB, that anything behind the front rank has no contribution beyond rank bonus and outnumber. It's a stagnant idea and one of the many reasons I moved away from WFB and onto WarMachine, Armies or Arcana and Arcane Legions (good Fanatsy based games)

WinglessVT2
22-01-2010, 15:39
Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.

It doesn't matter how realistic an unwiedly block is - it's still inferior.

In reality, those skirmishers developed into swiss greatswords, which tended to annihilate the pikeformations of the time.

itcamefromthedeep
22-01-2010, 15:44
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

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

What do you guys think?
I'm not sure why you're asking. I am sure that you've seen enough of both games to form your own opinion.

---

I like the look of ranked-up units, so I don't mind the modeling handicap associated with it. The quality of the models themselves and the painting opportunities associated with them are comparable. Your mileage may vary.

The rules aren't a selling point for either game. They don't stand up to the quality of other publishers or some of the specialist games range. Your mileage may vary.

The player base has a great deal of overlap, and is highly dependent on who is in your area. I think the average age of 40k players is lower. Your mileage may vary.

---

The big one: the metagame. The big selling point of Fantasy for me has historically been the relationship between static combat resolution and ways of breaking static combat resolution, which makes for a game that centers on maneuvering to hit the flanks of a unit or applying the pressure you need to break a unit.

The more recent army books have moved away from static combat resolution because these days, fleeing is for suckers. If units don't flee, then they don't care about static combat resolution (which destroys the value of light infantry). If units don't care about losing combat, then they don't need to flank anything to win (which hurts light shooting, because you don't need to strip ranks off of infantry to beat them). If they don't need to flank anything, then the value of out-maneuvering your opponent is vastly reduced (leave your light cavalry and bait units at home). The current Fantasy metagame has greatly diminished its value for me. That's why I don't bring out my five Fantasy armies these days.

When Daemons and Undead have a chance of being wiped out whenever they lose combat, and when stubborn is greatly reduced in its frequency or consistency, then I'll look at the game again.

Tymell
22-01-2010, 15:48
Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.

As a history graduate I would call this particular statement into question ;) To suggest that formation warfare simply died in the 13th Century is something of an exagerration.

Chiron
22-01-2010, 15:48
Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.

Erm... what? Blocks of troops lasted right past Waterloo and lingered on until WW1 in some cases

During the Mongol period and afterwards the increasing reliance on Gunpowder meant that blocks if anything got tightened up with units of mixed handgunners and Pikemen

mdauben
22-01-2010, 15:48
Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.

It doesn't matter how realistic an unwiedly block is - it's still inferior.

In reality, those skirmishers developed into swiss greatswords, which tended to annihilate the pikeformations of the time.
Its actually much more complex than that, and ranked units in combat did not really die out completly until the mid-1800's when the rapid improvement of firearms finally made them suicidal.

Tau-Lover
22-01-2010, 16:07
Models: 40k hands down, I mean purple lizards... REALLY?

What about blue Tau :D

I think that 40k and Fantasy has different players. I play both, but i like 40k the most because i LOVE technology. To me awsome weapons like plasma, las, ion and rail weapons are much cooler than a "magical" sword :chrome:

The rules: I think 40k don't has that many stupid rules as in fantasy (I mean can't people in formations not turn thier heads and look at that big scary dragon at thier flank??)

Models: Both has nice and ugly models

Spiney Norman
22-01-2010, 16:22
What about blue Tau :D

I think that 40k and Fantasy has different players. I play both, but i like 40k the most because i LOVE technology. To me awsome weapons like plasma, las, ion and rail weapons are much cooler than a "magical" sword :chrome:

The rules: I think 40k don't has that many stupid rules as in fantasy (I mean can't people in formations not turn thier heads and look at that big scary dragon at thier flank??)


Sure they can, as long as the rest of the tight formation they're in turns with them. When your only view of the battle-field is through a narrow slit in the front of your helmet and you are packed shoulder to shoulder with 30 or so other dudes with your pointy sticks all facing forwards turning isn't so easy, even assuming you heard whatever is was moving up your flank over the noise of battle (again hampered by the metal helmet covering your ears).

gorenut
22-01-2010, 17:28
For Models
-Toss up. I like things for both. Fantasy has some really cool centerpiece models and monsters while 40k has some neat tanks and vehicles. Admittedly 40k offers overall more modeling flexibility due to not being in formations.. but seriously, this is all preference and I can go on either side of the fence depending on my mood.

For Rules
-Before, I would have easily said Fantasy. What drew me away from 40k was the oversimplifying of the rules. That was 3rd ed. Now it seems like 5th ed has rolled out a lot of the kinks and nowadays, I have a new-found appreciation of casual, more simple rules for pickup games. Only gripe I have about 40k right now really.. unnecessary dice rolling when it comes to movement. I think 40k's biggest mistake was getting rid of the movement stat. I know many may disagree.. but I just thought it was unnecessary and makes movement awkward, but thats just me. Again, rules in comparison, toss up for me, depending on the mood I'm in.

For Players
-Toss up.. overall the 40k players I've run into... a lot more seem laid back but there were also a lot more immature/annoying players (possibly due to age), while Fantasy I've met more snooty players. It doesn't matter too much to me because nowadays I just game with my friends.

For Metagame
-Same as have been said by many... the big 3 really screwed things up with Fantasy. Before I thought the balance, as a whole, was ok. I liked that all the armies got attention, unlike the Space Marine-centric 40k. Perhaps once all the books get released, things'll even out again for Fantasy.


For Painting
-Pretty much the same opinion I had about modeling.

For Gaming Age
-Same opinion as players

Skyros
22-01-2010, 18:53
Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.

It doesn't matter how realistic an unwiedly block is - it's still inferior.

Ha ha, what? Ranked infantry lasted up until the mid 19th century, and was only stamped out by the advent of the rifled musket. Which, guess what, also obsoleted cavalry.

Ranked infantry was superior to cavalry. You can count the numbers of times charging cavalry broke well formed squares in the Napoleonic Campaigns on the thumbs of your hands.

Skyros
22-01-2010, 18:57
One thing I find interesting is the difference in 40k and fantasy in how charging is handled.

In fantasy, charging units strike first, and only the first rank fights. If you charge and kill the 5 guys in the enemy front rank, the 30 guys behind him can't fight at all. They're apparently just window dressing.

In 40k, charging units get an extra attack, and everyone within 2" fights. It's much harder to prevent a unit you are attacking from getting return strikes.

The 40k system makes the I stat actually very important - it's almost useless in fantasy, as either chargers strike first, or you have a greatweapon and strike last, or you are up against some sort of silly ASF army.

One could argue that the fantasy system rewards tactical play better by allowing even lower I troops to beat up higher I troops if they get the charge. However I Feel the 40k system does have a lot to recommend it - right now in fantasy blocks of core infantry and heavily disadvantaged because they will always get charged and always get their front rank murdered and then they don't get any attacks back and are likely to break and run.

Poseidal
22-01-2010, 19:00
I think now everyone gets the old Counter Assault move, they could get rid of the 2" rule. This would probably make the game flow more easily, it was needed in 4th but it's largely superfluous now.

Fantasy combat resolution is quite different. It's usually unlikely that a unit will wipe out 5 in front, unless it's a really imbalanced fight (like Chaos Knights + Character charging Goblins)

N810
22-01-2010, 19:07
One thing I find interesting is the difference in 40k and fantasy in how charging is handled.

In fantasy, charging units strike first, and only the first rank fights. If you charge and kill the 5 guys in the enemy front rank, the 30 guys behind him can't fight at all. They're apparently just window dressing.

In 40k, charging units get an extra attack, and everyone within 2" fights. It's much harder to prevent a unit you are attacking from getting return strikes.

The 40k system makes the I stat actually very important - it's almost useless in fantasy, as either chargers strike first, or you have a greatweapon and strike last, or you are up against some sort of silly ASF army.

One could argue that the fantasy system rewards tactical play better by allowing even lower I troops to beat up higher I troops if they get the charge. However I Feel the 40k system does have a lot to recommend it - right now in fantasy blocks of core infantry and heavily disadvantaged because they will always get charged and always get their front rank murdered and then they don't get any attacks back and are likely to break and run.


I think a lot of the 40k comunity has a diferent idea of game time...
While you are moving one army at a time it is simulating everyone basicly
moving at once or in waves of attacks... Having the charging unit hit first
makes sense sense since they are runing at full speed tword the enemy lines,
(ok high elves are soo well trained that they allways hit first). Any way,
all rounds after the first are done on initive (except great weapons).
geting chrged doesn't nescarily mean you are going to loose, especialy
if you armed your troops with spears, as this lets the first and second rows attack.
this is especialy true with Lizardmen, if you killed the whole first rank
I would still hit back with at lease 10 attacks.

The time between geting charged and attacking back is suposed to be in seconds
of warhammer time as not the minutes you spend rolling dice. this is why killing
the first row prevent you from geting attacked back.

Skyros
22-01-2010, 19:19
I disagree. The 'top' armies all have killer units that are quite capable of butchering the entire rank of even very 'tough' core infantry such as the dwarves get. Demons, VC, DE can do this. As you mentioned, WoC Knights can do it as well, but WoC are not overall an overpowered army so that's not as big a deal.

When you start talking about WS 3 T3 Light armor humans or equivalents it just gets even uglier.

I think, right now, I enjoy 40k more.

Rules: I do think in places the 40k rules are too simplistic and that fantasy has better rules - particularly in the facing and movement aspects. Fantasy has a richer and more developed magic phase...yet paradoxically smaller investments in magic work better in 40k than in fantasy. In fantasy you have to go big or go home. A small investment isn't going to get you past the base magic defenses every army gets for free. In 40k, you can take a single psyker and get his powers off, as there is no base free magic defence. However, you can pretty much buy magic defense for everyone if you want too.

I think the current edition of 40k rules works pretty well. There's nothing that really stands out to me as glaringly bad for the game, except possibly the overemphasis on mech and how both footslogging and gunlines aren't very viable.

In fantasy, while the 7th edition has cleaned up some things, either the core rules or the army books have led to the basic ranked up infantry, the idea which the entire series is built around, to suck horribly. Elite killy infantry that you run in a thin wide formation does fine, but a block of 25-30 infantry basic infantry is pretty bad. Hugely immobile, stuck in place forever if it so much as touches difficult terrain, can't catch anything, can't really kill anything. Cavalry, skirmishers, flyers - these can all just run rings around you. The only thing blocks of infantry can kill are other blocks of infantry. But some armies don't need to take any blocks of infantry. And unlike 40k, fantasy is not objective based at all. And when there are objectives, any unit can claim them - not just the blocks of infantry. I think this is one area where 40k is in the lead.

And most of the models in that big block of infantry don't do anything. Every 5 guys provides+1 rank bonus (unless you've been flanked) and that's it. In 40k, every model can fight and every model can shoot. In fantasy, it's just the front rank (or 2nd rank if you've got spears). The basic troops feel more like window dressing.

The other big annoyance in fantasy are the fear and terror and autobreak rules. You can have some unlucky rolling for terror (which is casued by the enemy just moving near you) and your whole army flees off the field on turn 1. Fear means if you lose a combat by 1 and the enemy outnumbers you, you autobreak and get run down. The 'broken' armies are largely broken because they either are largely immune to fear and terror, or cause fear and terror (or both!) and thus get to ignore huge swathes of the rules everyone else must struggle under.

Models: the recent releases in both ranges are fantastic. Fantasy has cavalary and war machines, 40k has vehicles. I think 40k overall has 'cooler' poses and more customizable options because fantasy units have to all rank up.

Painting; I'd give the edge to fantasy here. Fantasy units with their banners arrayed across the field in a long battleline just look gorgeous. Paint schemes and methods for 40k are a little too similar. Everyone is wearing power armor and driving metal vehicles. In fantasy you have guys in fur, guys in bare skin, guys who are lizards, guys who wear leaves, guys who wear plate mail, guys who wear flowing robes with heraldry, etc etc. On the other hand, I feel like your painting job in 40k is more 'rewarding' in that you spend a lot of time painting up basic dudes in fantasy that never do anything and get hidden behind the first 5 guys in the rank.

Fluff and background: 40k seems more developed and possibly more original, but I really haven't looked into either all that much, and neither detracts from my playing experience. I don't think fantasy has a seminal event like the Horus Heresy for 40k.

Players: All the fantasy players I've met have been great. With maybe one or two exceptions, so have all the 40k players I've met. There do seem to be more younger kids playing 40k. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

Metagame: 40k. I think pretty much any army in 40k can handle any other army. Some have older codexes and some are just not so hot, but typically you can at least be competitive. In fantasy this is just not the case. There is a tier of 3 armies (VC, DE, and DoC) that are just in a league of their own and no one else can really touch them, barring massive differences in skill and luck.

I'm not advising turning both games into clones of each other with different models. I like the ranked up nature of fantasy, and I don't think the road to improving either games flaws is to necessarily make it 'more like the other'. In a few specific instances I think an innovation in one game would also help in the other, but in general, I'm in favor of keeping the two noticeably different so people can enjoy both, or just one, whatever takes their fancy. I enjoy both games and I think its important to realize they are trying to model two different situations entirely. Linear, formation centric medieval warfare vs combined arms vehicle and shooting heavy 'modern' warfare.

borithan
22-01-2010, 20:10
For example, it's much more logical that the strength of a blow will lessen the value of armour, while 40K's current AP system doesn't reflect this.Hmm... I am not keen on this idea. It makes more sense in fantasy than in 40k, where you are generally relying on pummeling through armour, but in a sci-fi setting it is totally feasible that a "stronger" shot does not necessarily mean it will be better at penetrating armour. Now, I think ASMs should be in there, but not directly tied to strength. And truthfully I think they should tone it down in fantasy (and then make some of the armour saves worse to compensate). Maybe make it -1 for every 2 points of strength over 3, or something like that.



Those 'realistic, unwieldy blocks' figuratively died as armies advanced, and they died literally when the mongols decided to take over the world.They existed in some form until the American Civil War. Before firearms were around you either needed a certain mass of unit to make an impact (a single night making a charge will kill a couple of guys, but then will quickly find himself overwhelmed by colleges... get an "unwieldy" mass of mounted knights and they could hope to shatter an opposing formation with shock and chaos of the impact), or for protective reasons (scattered guys on foot make for tempting targets on horse back. Put them in a cohesive block, preferably with pole arms, and the mass of men and pointy bits will make the cavalry's job that much harder). The push of pike was a major part of late medieval/early modern warfare. When firearms came along they simply didn't have the accuracy or rate of fire to make much of an impact except en-masse, and they needed the protection of the cohesive mass against cavalry. Unwieldy formations only disappeared with the advent of accurate, fairly rapid, firearms, ie the second half of the 19th century (there had been some hints of the way things were going since the late 18 century), as such weapons just made things like that plain suicide.

However, until then formations that would be described as "unwieldy blocks" and would be represented as such on a game like warhammer (vulnerable to flank attacks, find it difficult to alter formation quickly etc) were the norm of full scale battles.



In reality, those skirmishers developed into swiss greatswords, which tended to annihilate the pikeformations of the time.Not really. The kind of units they took part deserve being done as "unwieldy blocks" as much as any others. Remember, the particularly unwieldy nature of pikes is represented in other manners in Warhammer, so the basic block more represents the abilities of formations of spear or swordsmen.

Oh, looks like other people have dealt with that issue.


The rules: I think 40k don't has that many stupid rules as in fantasy (I mean can't people in formations not turn thier heads and look at that big scary dragon at thier flank??)The problem is not seeing the dragon, but being able to get your formation to face the right direction in time to do anything about it.

The chargers going first thing I think used to be done with chargers receiving a bonus to initiative instead. Certain weapons (spears and pikes being one example) also gave bonuses to initiative due to their extra reach.


I do think in places the 40k rules are too simplistic and that fantasy has better rules - particularly in the facing and movement aspects.The idea of facing doesn't make a great deal of sense in a game like 40k. Units basically act like skirmishers all the time. There is no need to re-arrange formations, so the facing limit would make little sense (if you are just one guy with a gun you can change direction fairly easily).

Master Of Disaster
22-01-2010, 20:32
For Models: I think that people are drawn to warhammer 40k more because of the futeristic look and the weapons (which i know most guys love)
For Rules: hmm...well i think 40k again, because i don't know if post people are immedietly drawn to fighting organized in ranks and files, like medevil fighting.
For Players: This varies store to store, our 40k and fantasy players are both pretty kind and helping to those new to the game. They also have a great sense of humor, making for fun games.
For Metagame: Fantasy wins there hands down
For Painting: I guess this varies from person to person, my preferance being 40k.
For Gaming Age: the ages vary a whole lot for 40k at my store with equal ammounts of pre-teens, teenagers, and adults who play. I don't go much in for fantasy, but i've seen mostly adults and kids new to the hobby.

Overall, i suppose most people say fantasy is better, but seriously its all a matter of opinion. I prefer 40k because i do better at it, and i enjoy painting the models more. Simple as that.

Worsle
22-01-2010, 21:04
I never get flank charges with my infantry, because it moves so slow, and people can simply wheel around to face me in their turn, anyway.
I'll give you this: I'm not good at the strategic thinking of fantasy, and much prefer the tactical game that is 40,000, but even I can see that line infantry is a waste of time, that movement in fantasy is really, really awkward, and that magic owns all.

Frankly this wind up and go approach fantasy has is what make people think it is better but in the end it is a lot worse. It is a horribly uneven playing field where not all armies even have tools to compete properly. If fantasy really is going to keep on like this every army needs to be able to fight in all phases even the movement phase. Dwarfs will need more fliers, skirmishers, fast cavalry and chariots to really compete... really they would need to become the chaos dwarves. As it is armies being unable to fight in all ways makes for a terrible game. Though if people make an army that can do it they get nothing but complaints (for reference see dark elves).


I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the rules between the two either (though I can see where you're coming from on them): 40K has plenty of rules (or lack of them) which don't make much sense, where Fantasy might have more "realistic" elements. For example, it's much more logical that the strength of a blow will lessen the value of armour, while 40K's current AP system doesn't reflect this.

Problem is the game will always been an abstraction no matter what. Strength not effecting aves was needed in 40k to make saves worth having, moment a modifer hit some units might as well not have had armour and other where paying for a save they never got to really use. It might not be logical but they whole system is illogical and S already get factored in when you are wounding, this gives strength a double bonus witch would have to be accounted for.

40k games also tend to have a lot more dice roles in them and this is a good thing. More dice roles make for a less random game and there is no way that is a bad thing.

evisor
22-01-2010, 22:06
Probably a mistake to post this in the 40k general forum. I knew the general consensus before I even read a post.

Fluff and models: 40k

Tactics and mechanics: Fantasy

Tymell
23-01-2010, 00:09
Probably a mistake to post this in the 40k general forum. I knew the general consensus before I even read a post.

Fluff and models: 40k

Tactics and mechanics: Fantasy

It's posted in both 40K and Fantasy general.

MrBenis
23-01-2010, 05:44
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?



For Models:

Depends on which army you're looking at. I've always admired the WHFB models due to rustic and esoteric composition. Ultimately it's all subjective. I think 40k looks 'cleaner' and more organic, which has it's uses but probably not fitting for a fantasy game.

For Rules

Every time I watch a WHFB I just cringe. Rules lawyering seems to be a big thing, but funnily no one has a book to check. I think they're just bluffing each other. Part of the appeal? Or just wounded ego's if you call them on their ********?

For Players

Egotistical mostly. They also seem very bored while playing. Probably due to playing the same opponents constantly.. I wonder why?

For Metagame

Via observation I'd say WHFB. Discounting the obvious flaws, overall it seems more solid than 40k. I'd rather risk facing 2 overpowered armies than gain nothing from stomping someone with a dilapidated codex and limited unit options.

For Painting

WHFB armies tend to be basecoated and that's it. Probably due to the issues above.

For Gaming Age

40k: 8-24 year olds with too much disposable income.
WHFB: 18-30's with too much spare time.

Which is better? I can't decide.

Johnnyfrej
23-01-2010, 16:37
I wonder when the OP going to grace us with his own beliefs?

Lord Malorne
23-01-2010, 17:05
I did in the first post :p.

EmperorEternalXIX
23-01-2010, 17:39
I'd like to respond to this post in reply to my reasoning, as I feel it will give a great opportunity to make my points more solid.

On models, for example, 40K has some greater individuality, but that doesn't actually make the Fantasy model range as a whole worse, just a different focus. On painting, I think again it's just a difference of taste: if it were true that "no one wants to paint 50 guys to be hit points for your units", then how do you explain the thousands of players who do just that? Some people just prefer the regimented look. Plus Fantasy actually has a slightly bigger range of armies available, and there's still a good bit of potential variety in paint schemes. I believe very strongly that the only reason people play Warhammer fantasy is because there is no well-built viable 40kified alternative. There is no other fantasy game of that scale, and if there is, it is generally the lesser when compared to the giant juggernaut that the Warhammer name has become over the years. 40k's streamlined gameplay is much more about simulating a war zone within it's fiction; fantasy doesn't seem that way at all, and it's rules are about number crunching and guesswork on the general's part. While that is not bad, I consider the goal of a war game to simulate fighting on a battlefield and fantasy appears to me to have none of the elements an actual warzone might contain.

Regarding the painting, honestly, when you are painting tons of models who look almost exactly the same and do almost nothing individually, it really hurts the overall attachment to the aforementioned model. This is a bonus, not an intended part of the game in 40k, but a nice bit of immersion that fantasy lacks.

I feel that, as a simulation game, fantasy fails at immersion. I don't know that anyone can reasonably argue that it feels like those models are fighting for their lives. In 40k you as the player represent the army overall's decision making, but you yourself are not really "on the table" so to speak; it is the models, battling each other, and everything they do feels like they are doing it. In fantasy it is much more you versus the other guy, and the models are simply counters. I hope one day to see a very streamlined, powerfully immersive fantasy game (hopefully from GW), but as of right now I don't think we have it.


I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the rules between the two either (though I can see where you're coming from on them): 40K has plenty of rules (or lack of them) which don't make much sense, where Fantasy might have more "realistic" elements. For example, it's much more logical that the strength of a blow will lessen the value of armour, while 40K's current AP system doesn't reflect this. I respectfully disagree. In the 40k world, it is the far future and many of the models are wearing armor that would be like a brick wall or worse; if a weapon is going to go through it, it must be an incredible weapon or the armor must be significantly poor. While I wouldn't mind some kind of slight +/-1 modifier for certain things, the AP system gets the job done. Modifiers make sense in the context of fantasy, because the degree of difference is less than 40k's differences between a lasgun and a plasma pistol.

There is nothing realistic about the way regiments work, just because the meta game of fantasy results in armies dancing around each other looking for the best charge angle a lot of the time. I believe that regimental combat could be executed much better, and also that it should not be so prominently featured in the game. If one is going to buy 50-70 models, they should do more than just act as hit points in the tray.


Before anyone says it, I'm not saying EmperorEternal "isn't allowed to have an opinion" or any such, and ultimately that's all this thread asks for. I'm not saying he's "wrong" to prefer 40K, I'm just questioning some of the points that come across as a bit strong. Coming across a bit strong is kind of my thing, hehe. No worries. I just generally feel that 40k is more immersive, and when you look at gaming history, ultimately, all the greatest games of all time have solid, deep immersion factors to them. This should be the goal of every game designer, and it just seems to me fantasy was made more with the idea of "making sure the math works out" then anything else.

Hero adamite
23-01-2010, 17:45
I myself prefer 40k a lot more, I like the 40k models a lot better then fantasy only a few armies stick out to me in fantasy.

Count de Monet
23-01-2010, 19:31
This again?

OK, I'll bite.


Over time I've been going through my armies and projects, and have been paring down my Fantasy plans pretty heavily while keeping most of the 40K ones. I sat down to think through why I lean so heavily towards 40K, and here's what I've come up with, in no particular order.


*Background. While some of the fantasy stuff is cool, the 40K universe seems a lot more alive to me, and things like the Horus Heresy, Dark Age of Technology etc. appeal to me more than things like the War of the Beard or such.

*Every model does something. It may not be much, but each individual figure can have a direct impact on the game, instead of just being one of the extra 15 guys giving you a rank bonus. The chance for heroic/cinematic actions by single, even non-character models is much greater in 40K.

*Ranking up units. While it makes sense in context, and while I don't always take full advantage of the freedom, I prefer the wider modelling freedom of individual models vs. components of a rank.

*Scale. I can see a 40K game as being a zoomed-in part of a larger battle, so having special/high ranking characters around in a company-level game seems fine to me. In contrast, Fantasy armies seem very small - a couple hundred people being involved in a combined arms open-field engagement seems pretty puny. I can accept "scaling things up" like in some historical games where each figure represents 10 men, etc. but that breaks down given how powerful the individual heroes and such are, which leads us to:

*Magic & supercombos, fantasy feels much more "herohammer" than 40K these days. While I like heroic/cinematic things, I don't want a game with 100 models on a side to be completely dominated by 1 or 2 figs. A lot of fantasy games can feel like a 40K game with superheavies involved - whoever doesn't have one or isn't prepared for a particular one is at a pretty heavy disadvantage. While I like magic, the ability of some armies to get a huge # of powerdice has gotten out of hand.

*Terrain. Easy enough to houserule, but annoying in its basic form. Unless you ignore terrain, may as well treat it as impassible for most normal games, as trying to get a unit through any kind of sizeable obstruction is insane. At least in 40K you can get through a terrain piece before the game ends barring really bad rolling, while in fantasy you know you're stuck at effectively 1/4 speed, moving 2" a turn with a unit 6" long through a 6" terrain piece...ugh.

*Overpowerful morale/psychology. While 40K's may seem a bit weak to some, in Fantasy it can be easily army-breaking. Chain Panic, Fear/Terror and autobreaking are IMO too powerful in their present form.

Now, there are some things I certainly like about WHFB. One, lots of great bits to steal! :lol: Armor save mods, ability to stack armor and ward saves (even though this adds to the herohammer issues) and some other bits are good, but on balance, make mine 40K!

Poseidal
23-01-2010, 20:39
I'd like to respond to this post in reply to my reasoning, as I feel it will give a great opportunity to make my points more solid.
I believe very strongly that the only reason people play Warhammer fantasy is because there is no well-built viable 40kified alternative. There is no other fantasy game of that scale, and if there is, it is generally the lesser when compared to the giant juggernaut that the Warhammer name has become over the years. 40k's streamlined gameplay is much more about simulating a war zone within it's fiction; fantasy doesn't seem that way at all, and it's rules are about number crunching and guesswork on the general's part. While that is not bad, I consider the goal of a war game to simulate fighting on a battlefield and fantasy appears to me to have none of the elements an actual warzone might contain. No way. The 40k system is NOT steamlined, it's incredibly bumpy. The fact that several different rules were added to patch up the removal of the movement stat speak loudly.


Regarding the painting, honestly, when you are painting tons of models who look almost exactly the same and do almost nothing individually, it really hurts the overall attachment to the aforementioned model. This is a bonus, not an intended part of the game in 40k, but a nice bit of immersion that fantasy lacks.
It depends on the army. Although some players can and some can't, there's a lot more in common with painting 80 Imperial Guardsmen and 80 Empire State Troops than painting 10 Chaos Space Marines or 12 Chaos Warriors.

In their respective armies, both do about as much as each other. I would expect Guants/Guardsmen/State Troops to fall easily. But at least the Empire State Troops added their bulk to the final outcome.

I think the 'painting guys that only 5 fight' is a fallacy; in the end, it's the same with 40k but Fantasy has armies where individuals do matter and 40k has ones where they literally are ablative wounds for a heavy weapon.


I feel that, as a simulation game, fantasy fails at immersion. I don't know that anyone can reasonably argue that it feels like those models are fighting for their lives. In 40k you as the player represent the army overall's decision making, but you yourself are not really "on the table" so to speak; it is the models, battling each other, and everything they do feels like they are doing it. In fantasy it is much more you versus the other guy, and the models are simply counters. I hope one day to see a very streamlined, powerfully immersive fantasy game (hopefully from GW), but as of right now I don't think we have it.
40k breaks immersion really easily, with it's nonsensical random movement rules (with a plethora of special rules for each different movement), the way shooting wounds are allocated (defender allocates) and oversimplified armour system.


I was brought to the game by 40k (in my 'golden age' years of 12-14 no less), and was put off Fantasy at the time.

But since 3rd edition, I've never been happy with the game and it has pushed me away despite it's excellent fluff and look due to them not reversing some of the sill decisions made there.

BigBossOgryn
23-01-2010, 20:44
I believe very strongly that the only reason people play Warhammer fantasy is because there is no well-built viable 40kified alternative. There is no other fantasy game of that scale, and if there is, it is generally the lesser when compared to the giant juggernaut that the Warhammer name has become over the years.

Holy ****, it's like you reached into my head and pulled out everything I felt about WFB for the last 3 years, in one paragraph!

There is a guy at my GC that swears blind WFB is better than 40K because it is more 'tactical' than Warhammer: Junior (as he lovingly refers to 40K) I argue back that there is nothing tactical about making a few hard hitting characters in units and marching into the identical enemy formations and allowing dice to decide. It's always the same thing: 2-3 blocks + characters in middle, skirmishers and cavalry on sides and guns at the back on a hill.

Where the hell is the flexibilty for missions is my biggest gripe. All I see people play is Pitched Battle and any attempt to play something else ends in a mess.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because the only two armies I ever liked (Ogres and Warriors of Chaos) are complete crap.

@Poseidal

Well, I never played 40K when there was a movement stat so I honestly can say that the current 'bumpy patch-up' plays just fine. Is this more because it's changed so drastically from what you started with that you feel this way?

Completely disagree with your opinion on numbers effecting the outcome of anything in both games. Those 80 Guardsmen have lasguns that they can potentially use to pour 160 shots into something or charge and hammer 160 attacks into something. Those 80 State Troops can't even begin to measure up to that. And seroiusly, 'ablative wounds'? What about units that have no heavy weapon? I can assure you there are quite a few that either don't have access to them or just don't use them. And can the same not be said for the Command Group in a Fantasy unit?

Yeah, the wound allocation is open to abuse, but then by so few units it is almost a non-issue. As for the armour system; that's down to personal preference. I can't say I have an issue with how WFB or 40K does it.

Stumpy
23-01-2010, 23:19
40k is more streamlined, for both better and worse.
Fantasy is more tactical. My most tactically straining game in 40k doesn't measure up to my breeziest game in fantasy. If you're watching it from the outside without an intimate knowledge of the rules and tactics you don't understand. There are people and occasionally armies that just trundle forward and bash brains, but then there are some 40k players who just roll dice and move stuff.

I'd like to see something other than pitched battle too, but it'd be a little complex to implement. Objectives don't work, as there are fast forces and slow ones. Killing characters and the like is just another VP bonus, you get that anyway. And obviously kill points is no. The only thing I can see working is random race-specific objectives for each player.

Layne in Spayne
23-01-2010, 23:40
I prefer Fantasy on a conceptual level, which is partly because I dislike the basic idea of 40k: another forty thousand years to think about it, still just a pack of brainless jerks.

But basically what this argument seems to come down to is a simple choice :

Knife or Gun? and most people say, "Gun, please." Powergaming ******s. I love it when my Rough Riders slaughter a Terminator squad.

thekitemaster
24-01-2010, 00:24
I been wondering this for some time.

Ph4lanx
24-01-2010, 00:26
Personally I'm a little fed up of fantasy stuff. There's not enough sci-fi for me, whether it's table-top or RPG-wise (game or old-style). I just prefer the sci-fi feel.

Worsle
24-01-2010, 01:13
40k is more streamlined, for both better and worse.
Fantasy is more tactical. My most tactically straining game in 40k doesn't measure up to my breeziest game in fantasy. If you're watching it from the outside without an intimate knowledge of the rules and tactics you don't understand. There are people and occasionally armies that just trundle forward and bash brains, but then there are some 40k players who just roll dice and move stuff.

Yes there are fantasy players and 40k players who don't put in much thought but that is kind of irrelevant to the sate of either game. So I ask you one question is marching forward that tactically flexing?

I am only kidding a little there, after you have set up your models there is not that much you can do from turn to turn you are set in and so is the other player. In 40k any player can be moving any where and shooting in any direction, this is a lot more you have to keep track of and try to exploit compared to fantasies much more on rails approach. That and the fact so few armies in fantasy can compete in all phases of the game is an other thing that robs the game of though, what is that vampire or warriors of chaos player going to do? Oh he is coming at you, I am surprised.

I also don't get how you can have a game where the movement phase is meant to be so all important and you have a whole army that gets a massive kick in the teeth for it. Dwarfs, no cavalry (fast or heavy), no chariots, no skirmishers and to top it off no magic so much wrong with that picture it is not even funny.

Tymell
24-01-2010, 01:50
Problem is the game will always been an abstraction no matter what. Strength not effecting aves was needed in 40k to make saves worth having, moment a modifer hit some units might as well not have had armour and other where paying for a save they never got to really use. It might not be logical but they whole system is illogical and S already get factored in when you are wounding, this gives strength a double bonus witch would have to be accounted for.

In 40K I'd more suggest using the AP to affect saves directly rather than a simple "if it's this number they get no save, otherwise it's unnaffected" system, in the way that strength in Fantasy affects saves. The basic point is just that 40K rules aren't by any means massively more logical or realistic.


40k games also tend to have a lot more dice roles in them and this is a good thing. More dice roles make for a less random game and there is no way that is a bad thing.

Erm...what? Dice rolls = random chance. Therefore more dice rolls = more random. Again, this isn't to put down 40K, both games are very much dice-driven, but your logic seems very odd.


Yes there are fantasy players and 40k players who don't put in much thought but that is kind of irrelevant to the sate of either game. So I ask you one question is marching forward that tactically flexing?

I am only kidding a little there, after you have set up your models there is not that much you can do from turn to turn you are set in and so is the other player. In 40k any player can be moving any where and shooting in any direction, this is a lot more you have to keep track of and try to exploit compared to fantasies much more on rails approach. That and the fact so few armies in fantasy can compete in all phases of the game is an other thing that robs the game of though, what is that vampire or warriors of chaos player going to do? Oh he is coming at you, I am surprised.

I also don't get how you can have a game where the movement phase is meant to be so all important and you have a whole army that gets a massive kick in the teeth for it. Dwarfs, no cavalry (fast or heavy), no chariots, no skirmishers and to top it off no magic so much wrong with that picture it is not even funny.

I'm getting the impression you haven't played Fantasy much. There's a much greater depth of tactical thought within it. It's still a game driven by dice rolls, and this isn't to say it's inherently better, but movement for example: different armies have different movement values. Then there's marching, with all the rules connected to it, as well as flying creatures, charges (which do work differently), charge reactions, issues of facing and flanks.

If either game can be accused of "lacking thought", it's 40K, without doubt. This doesn't necessarily make 40K inferior, but you can't really sustain an argument that Fantasy is simpler.

Stumpy
24-01-2010, 01:51
Yeah, you clearly don't play fantasy if you think vampires or warriors come for you. Generally they don't. Seriously, build a powerful fantasy army (or what you think of one) that should dominate every phase and challenge a really good general with a bog-standard army. You will die because you won't understand movement. I can't explain how important your manouvering is to someone who doesn't play it.

Oh, yes your movement is easier, but don't think thats better. Checkers has easy, simple movement. Chess doesn't, its quite complex. Which is more tactical?

Worsle
24-01-2010, 02:06
Problem is it is not just the dwarves, most of the armies are not built to compete in most of the game. Movement, shooting and magic are all parts of the game and so many armies are either lacking or just out right ignoring these large sections of the game. This is very bad game design and makes for a bad game. If we don't have a range of armies that can compete in all phases of the game then the tatics are hamstrung badly.

Deploy a fantasy unit and the movement rules dictate what it can do a lot from then on, you can see where most stuff is going to go. In 40k a units movement is far less predicatble, look at a game of checkers and predict what is going to happen then look at a game of chess and do the same. Two can play at that game.

Lord Inquisitor
24-01-2010, 02:52
Erm...what? Dice rolls = random chance. Therefore more dice rolls = more random. Again, this isn't to put down 40K, both games are very much dice-driven, but your logic seems very odd.
I think what he means is that the more dice you roll, the higher the probability these dice rolls will be average and not extreme results. Each dice roll is random of course, but the more dice you roll, the closer you will get to an overall average e.g. 50% 4+ results. E.g. the probability of rolling a "12" on a D12 is much higher than on 2D6. It reduces the freak impact of wacky dice rolls.

That said, I will disagree with Worsle that I find the exact opposite. I find that there are disproportionately more important dice rolls in 40K than in Fantasy. Sure you may be rolling more attack dice, but those Reserve rolls or Outflank rolls or Deep Strike rolls can make or break a game, and there are few such terribly important dice rolls in Fantasy. Terror tests and Ld tests in general I suppose, but most armies have options to minimise these effects. Similarly, you may be rolling more dice in combat, but those power fist attacks are the most important.

Overall one think I really dislike about 40K recently is due to the lack of an overwatch mechanic, it is impossible or very hard to proactively defend against high-risk maneuvers like Deep Strike or Outflank and consequently it can feel like the dice are ruling the game.

Worsle
24-01-2010, 03:12
I think what he means is that the more dice you roll, the higher the probability these dice rolls will be average and not extreme results. Each dice roll is random of course, but the more dice you roll, the closer you will get to an overall average e.g. 50% 4+ results. E.g. the probability of rolling a "12" on a D12 is much higher than on 2D6. It reduces the freak impact of wacky dice rolls.

That is very much the point. If a game was decided on the flip of a coin say, single coin 50/50 chance that is a very random event. More dice roles we have the less likely something extreme is going to happen that upsets all the ballance. Might seem counter intuitive but it is how it works.

I disagree with the rest of your points, I mean just look at magic. It can be a game changing force in fantasy (or your twiddle your thumbs) but it is a very random one for most armies. While deployment rules like you mentioned can be random well made armies take abilities that minimise the randomness or use them sparingly.

Tymell is an unaffected system a bad system? The game is by its very nature an abstraction. Toughness and wounds? How do those really relate, they are not a product of armour so how do they really represent things? That and keeping armour binary (outside of cover) means you are dealing with known quantities. It prevents you getting problems of way going from no save to a 6+ save, only to find your investment does not stand up in a brisk wind.

squeekenator
24-01-2010, 03:37
I'd like to see something other than pitched battle too, but it'd be a little complex to implement. Objectives don't work, as there are fast forces and slow ones.

And how does that differ to 40K? There's plenty of racial diversity there, and yet objectives work brilliantly. It should be better for Fantasy, in fact, since very nearly every army is close combat-oriented, so there aren't any problems with shooty armies who have no way to seize objectives in the enemy deployment zone. Even Dwarves would be able to do that if they decided to use their Miners and Gyrocopters rather than just using the same old gunline every game.

borithan
24-01-2010, 03:41
I can accept "scaling things up" like in some historical games where each figure represents 10 men, etc. but that breaks down given how powerful the individual heroes and such areOne way to rationalise that is to say that a hero model actually represent the individual and a small retinue of their picked warriors, the best of the best.


Dice rolls = random chance. Therefore more dice rolls = more random.Hmm... not really. Compared to a single dice roll 50 dice rolls are more predictable. True, you can even more extreme results with more dice (you could roll all 6s on those 50 dice... but its very, very unlikely), but generally they will end up being less random overall.

Tymell
24-01-2010, 04:22
Tymell is an unaffected system a bad system? The game is by its very nature an abstraction. Toughness and wounds? How do those really relate, they are not a product of armour so how do they really represent things? That and keeping armour binary (outside of cover) means you are dealing with known quantities. It prevents you getting problems of way going from no save to a 6+ save, only to find your investment does not stand up in a brisk wind.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, about the brisk wind I mean. I'm just responding to someone (as I saw it) saying that 40K had more realistic rules by suggesting that it doesn't.


Hmm... not really. Compared to a single dice roll 50 dice rolls are more predictable. True, you can even more extreme results with more dice (you could roll all 6s on those 50 dice... but its very, very unlikely), but generally they will end up being less random overall.

But it's not more predictable, because every die has the same statistical probability of coming up 6, rolling more of them might increase your odds of getting a 6 in there somewhere, but it doesn't change the odds of each dice coming up a 6.

If you roll six dice, statistically one will be a 6. If you roll sixty, statistically it'll be ten 6s. Either way it's the same overall result. It ultimately doesn't make any difference so long as both sides in a game are subject to the same rules. The notion that 40K is more accurate because overall it involves more dice rolls doesn't stand up, that I can see.

Ianos
24-01-2010, 04:59
If you roll six dice, statistically one will be a 6. If you roll sixty, statistically it'll be ten 6s. Either way it's the same overall result. It ultimately doesn't make any difference so long as both sides in a game are subject to the same rules. The notion that 40K is more accurate because overall it involves more dice rolls doesn't stand up, that I can see.

I think you are not seeing this clearly and let me explain through a simplifyed accurate example.

If we were playing a game #1 involving chances and after all is said and done Player A wins Player B on a 4+, it would be much more likely in a say 20 game set or a 4 game tournament set to have severe statistical anomalies, like Player A winning 70% of the game than it would be in a set of 100,000 games.

If now tha game changed to game #2 and Player A had to roll 5100 4+ in 10,000 rolls to win, then not only in one game do we get a better set of chances, but in just 20 games the chances will have normalized practically as if playing game #1 200,000 times.

As to the point of 40k over fantasy, just add to the above that 40k not only depends on more dice rolls that eventually filter and normalize results to a good average, but it also involves a more controllable environment compared to the "consolidate 3d6, on sum 10 you can see/attack the next unit, while on sum 11 no siree!" gimmicky and random fantasy environment.

squeekenator
24-01-2010, 05:01
But it's not more predictable, because every die has the same statistical probability of coming up 6, rolling more of them might increase your odds of getting a 6 in there somewhere, but it doesn't change the odds of each dice coming up a 6.

If you roll six dice, statistically one will be a 6. If you roll sixty, statistically it'll be ten 6s. Either way it's the same overall result. It ultimately doesn't make any difference so long as both sides in a game are subject to the same rules. The notion that 40K is more accurate because overall it involves more dice rolls doesn't stand up, that I can see.

This is true. However, what's the chance of all 6 dice coming up as 6s? 1 in 7776. Now, what's the chance of all sixty dice being 6s? Assuming I didn't put too many x6s into my handy-dandy Windows Calculator, it's 1 in 1.3471354624412734344052326674276e+38. What the 'e' means I have no idea, but I can tell you straight away that that's a pretty damn huge number. Adding more dice doesn't change the average result, but it greatly reduces the chance of getting an extreme result. When I have to make that crucial Leadership test that decides a game, I've got a 1/12 chance of failing even with Ld10. If you rolled 4d6 and divided the result by 2 rather than rolling 2d6, that chance would be reduced to around 1 in 100, unless my quick calculations were off.

Lord Inquisitor
24-01-2010, 05:26
E on calculators denotes "10 to the power of". Yes, that's a stupidly big number.

The best way to say it is that the more dice rolls involved in settling probabalistic outcomes, the more even a distribution you can expect.

The thing to watch for, however, is that all dice rolls in a game are not equal. One failed Terror check, or a unit that resolutely refuses to pass its reserve roll can disproportionately affect the game.


I disagree with the rest of your points, I mean just look at magic. It can be a game changing force in fantasy (or your twiddle your thumbs) but it is a very random one for most armies. While deployment rules like you mentioned can be random well made armies take abilities that minimise the randomness or use them sparingly.
But Magic is - in general - fairly predictable and most spells require multiple dice. Barring the odd miscast or irrisitible, the more points you spend on magic offence/defence, the more you'll get out of it. And since most spells are on 2 or 3 D6, outlandish results aren't that common. Compare that with reserve, outflank or run rolls on just 1D6 and these have a less even distribution.

Vaktathi
24-01-2010, 05:35
Many people play Fantasy over 40K, both are great games and I enjoy both, but I have to ask, is Fantasy better than 40k ?

For Models Not a fan of most of the fantasy models personally, although quality wise they are about the same as the 40k stuff, if not better.



For Rules Neither really. Both are terrible messes.



For Players Eh, this varies hugely from location to location.



For Metagame 40k. There's nothing approaching the brokenness of Daemons and Vampires in 40k. SW's, Orks and IG can probably be lumped in with something like Dark Elves in terms of an advantage over other armies (i.e. being extremely cost efficient) but that's about it.



For Painting Depends on the armies, 40k probably has a greater range of items to paint, but both have a good variety of stuff that can look amazing.



For Gaming Age Again, varies from location to location. Some places apparently have heavy early teen 40k players, others (really all of the places I've ever played at) typically are all roughly about the same and are usually college aged people and older.

tacoo
24-01-2010, 07:05
For Models
-slight edge 40k. both systems have there good points in the recent models, there bad points (TK skeltons, most of the Dark Eldar range) and there randomly epic non recent models (Grey knights, and the one hube tmb king things with the egyptian god heads) the edge goes to 40k just for the fact u see more of the models.

Rules
-rulebook Tie. 40k has less issues, but often i find my self bored by the streamlined rules, while fantasy just has to many rules that i find my self confused. Might not stay that way though since 8th ed fantasy will be coming out later
-Army books(codexs)-Clear 40k, fantasy just has that issue of hero hammer, which really ruines the whole epic feeling of huge armies crashing into each other, and then of course theres the big 3.

-players. in my area its a tie, most of the people that play fantasy play 40k, but dont know all of our fantasy group.

-Metagame-Clear 40k. there is really only 1 army in 40k that just cant compete at all in games, and thats crons. we still have old dexs that can compete competetively(DE), and minor codex creep .but, then u look at fantasy, and realise that in all of the tourneys the top 10 are Daemons, Counts, Dark Elves, and the occasonal other army at the bottom of the 10.

-painting slight edge 40k, lok at models

-gaming age, about even

as i said though, since 8th will be out later this year, fantasy might get better. But if it follow 40k, ten ur FaQ for it might be 10 pages big since the FaQs seem to be growing every dex/book

Lord Solar Plexus
24-01-2010, 09:09
You really do not need magic to win in WFB. I don't know where that notion comes from. Perhaps because a few (movement and raising) spells are very strong but I have been defeated by wizardless Lizards and have defeated spell-rich TK with different kinds of lists, scroll caddy, three wizards, something inbetween...

Pinocchio
24-01-2010, 10:34
40k lets you to have more cool stuff such a s deep strike, ourflank, tanksinvulnerable to small arms fire (take that steam tank) and the possibility than even a stupid IG veteran equipped with melta can take out a land raider or a character

+ there are no VP ! how cool is tha?you dont have to spend the last 10 minutes of a game calculating stuff

oh, and in 40k having troops makes sense;)

Vaktathi
24-01-2010, 10:36
+ there are no VP ! how cool is tha?you dont have to spend the last 10 minutes of a game calculating stuffI'd be ok with VP again if it meant we could get rid of KP's :p

Stumpy
24-01-2010, 10:40
It takes that long to calculate VPs? Err, no? You grab your calculator (or phone) and quickly add up whats dead, add bonuses and you should be done in under a minute.

Valek
24-01-2010, 10:45
For playing I prefer 40K as it is more tactical to me to play.

Fantasy, I love background, models, and tactics. But the movement phase is just arguing and rules laweyering. The who best bends wins. To much magic also.

Balance: both have their overpowered big three. But there is nothing to do about this, some will always be harder than the others, but I agree 40k needs some loving for the older codexes.

As for players; in our area we have quite some older players playing 40K and youngers more on fantasy. It goes well for both.

In fact I hope to play more fantasy again when the new edition comes, that is, if it is any good.

Valek

AFnord
24-01-2010, 10:53
For Models
About even, although I find the recent 40k models to be better than the recent fantasy models. Both ranges have some great models tough.
For Rules
Both systems have solid core rules that work very well for what they are supposed to be. Fantasy suffers from incredibly poor balance, and herohammer. Most 40k characters can be killed without much of a problem (and that is why they are so much cheaper than their fantasy counterparts, compared to the basic troops). If fantasy had less of a hero focus, and better balance, I would say that they would be about even, but as it stands, 40k is superior to fantasy.
For Players
About even
For Metagame
The poor army book balance really mess up fantasys meta game. 40k have some balance issues, but apart from necrons, all armies have a decent chance of winning. You might have a slight advantage when playing a certain army, but it's not very big.
For Painting
About even
For Gaming Age
About even
Fluff
The fluff in 40k is far more interesting. The fluff in fantasy feel rather standard, and it does not inspire me to actually do anything special, while I actually like the 40k fluff. I'm not too keen on the tyranid fluff (although I don't mind tyranids as an army, they are fun to face!), but apart from that I find it interesting enough.

Pinocchio
24-01-2010, 12:46
It takes that long to calculate VPs? Err, no? You grab your calculator (or phone) and quickly add up whats dead, add bonuses and you should be done in under a minute.

yes, espiecially if you forgot yor calculator or you dont have the strenght to calculate stuff at the last game of a tournament

Worsle
24-01-2010, 12:48
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, about the brisk wind I mean. I'm just responding to someone (as I saw it) saying that 40K had more realistic rules by suggesting that it doesn't.

No what I am saying is the whole game is an abstraction so realism will always be a silly thing to go for in your rules. Far better to have rules that work and provide meaning to things like 6+ saves than to have a more "realistic" system that does not.


But Magic is - in general - fairly predictable and most spells require multiple dice. Barring the odd miscast or irrisitible, the more points you spend on magic offence/defence, the more you'll get out of it. And since most spells are on 2 or 3 D6, outlandish results aren't that common. Compare that with reserve, outflank or run rolls on just 1D6 and these have a less even distribution.

How do you generate those spells again? You get random spells at the start of the battle from just a few dice, some can have game changing effects and some do not. If you build an army to rely heavily on magic you are building an army that relies heavily on chance, this is before you even add in the miscasts. Magic is a massively random force for a lot of armies, so do have the ability to limit that but not all and some armies are even banned from joining in.


You really do not need magic to win in WFB. I don't know where that notion comes from. Perhaps because a few (movement and raising) spells are very strong but I have been defeated by wizardless Lizards and have defeated spell-rich TK with different kinds of lists, scroll caddy, three wizards, something inbetween...

That is not what I said though I can only assume you are replying to me. What I was saying is magic is a major part of the game and can be a game changing one. You can have no have such an important phase and then kick one army out of it or have it relying so much on chance. Now the 8th edition might be set to change some of that and if so good but as it stands fantasy is crippling its own ability to be tactical. Oh I also would not count the vampire raising and movement phase a good magic phase, might be able to be affective but it is not a well made addition.

Bunnahabhain
24-01-2010, 13:06
yes, espiecially if you forgot yor calculator or you dont have the strenght to calculate stuff at the last game of a tournament

Then, you are, without aiming to be offensive, an idiot.

If people are incapable of adding up the points of a few units, and a few simple extras in under a minute, then they are unlikely to have the mental capacity to play the game.

Table quarters -200
Standard-100
and I killed (looks at Army list)
Lord on dragon 735
Level 2 wizard - 132
fast cav unit- 120
Fast cav unit- 120
Bolt thrower- 90

and....go.

Oguleth
24-01-2010, 13:25
For Models

No clear winner here for me. Both systems have their bad and good ones, really old ones in need of getting updates and so on.

For Rules

40k is way better in my opinion here. More interesting scenarios (ok, KP is worse than Pitched Battle), no horribly designed magic phase (5th ed magicphase was bad, but it was still better than the crap way they handle it now) that even takes up a phase every turn, more interesting variations (neither system makes more sense "realistically", but at least 40k has greater variations in weapons for different purposes, instead of hand weapon/shield, lance or greatweapon for normal guys, and whatever magic weapon that are cost efficient for heroes), and less unit types that are subpar (granted, some of the newer army books have sometimes made certain types of infantry better). FB used to have way better psych rules, but the amount of ItP, Unbreakable or other kinds of rules have pretty much negated this lately. Fantasy also seems to have more of a "rock-paper-scissors" formulae to each other, but that is even more taste oriented than the rest of my arguments.


For Players

About even. Over the course of several clubs and venues of playing, I can count the number of people combined that really made me fume on one hand; I can't really say I run into kids in any of the systems, but I don't often play where they would hang out I suppose.


For Metagame

40k. FB used to be a lot better here, but DoC and VC ruined all of it. 40k is in no way perfect, as GW really wants to push marines (and customers really want to marines, as well), but at least marines isn't horrible to play against, as long as some variation can be had. Some armies have an edge too, but by all means none so great as the two really bad in fantasy, perhaps as DE light.


For Painting

Eh, I slack as much in both systems? I am actually going to say fantasy here, because the mech thing in 40k, while interesting gameswise, gets boring fast to paint. When I am done with my marines, I think I will have nightmares about the rhino chassis for years to come..


For Gaming Age

As stated about the players, I find the age groups to be pretty much similiar, my impression is that the youngest tends to end up with LOTR anyway.


I used to love FB, but I switched over. If I ever play fantasy again, I suppose I need two armies, one to play against the big three and another to play against everything else. Perhaps this is what GW hopes everyone will do? :shifty:

borithan
24-01-2010, 14:59
But it's not more predictable, because every die has the same statistical probability of coming up 6,Every die has the same chance coming up 6, yes.



rolling more of them might increase your odds of getting a 6 in there somewhere, but it doesn't change the odds of each dice coming up a 6.No, but increasing your odds of getting 6's overall can be quite important, even if each individual die's chance does not change.



If you roll six dice, statistically one will be a 6.Well, according to probability you have a good chance of getting one being a 6. Rolling one die, however, means you have an equal chance of getting a 1, 2 or any other number on the dice.The random nature of that individual dice throw is all that determines the outcome of whatever you are doing. Increase the number of dice thrown and the chances are that the random results of the dice will even out over time.



Either way it's the same overall result. It ultimately doesn't make any difference so long as both sides in a game are subject to the same rules.Well, yes, but determining everything on a single dice roll is less predictable than doing it on many more. Each dice roll is no less random, but the overall result is more predictable. If something is more predictable you can factor it into your thinking to a greater degree. Now, you can still be let down, especially if the results of the dice rolls are well outside the norm, but it is less about luck. Luck is still important, just it is less important.



The notion that 40K is more accurate because overall it involves more dice rolls doesn't stand up, that I can see.Did anyone say it was more accurate? I think they said that more dice rolls actually tend to things being less determined by luck. Not the same thing. Something could be totally down to skill and thinking, and yet be totally inaccurate. Chess has no element of luck in it. Everything has strict rules for how they behave, and they can never change from that. However, I wouldn't call it an accurate portrayal of warfare (but then neither is 40k).


It takes that long to calculate VPs? Err, no? You grab your calculator (or phone) and quickly add up whats dead, add bonuses and you should be done in under a minute.Well, if you have brought a calculator (or phone... even then, phone calculators are not exactly quick to use... doing it on paper would often be quicker) with you. Not saying it is hard, just it will longer than just counting the number of dead units, regardless of how you do it.

Sir_Turalyon
25-01-2010, 14:47
Fantasy used to be better to 40k, especially in time when 40k was already in late 3rd / early 4th and fantasy still in 6th edition. At the moment, 40k is on top.



For Models

No clear winner here, both are past their prime anyway. Model quality is about the same (Surprise). But it's easier to do something original with 40k rank-and-file models - perhaps fact they don't need to rank gives them conversion flexibility, or the fact that your conversion won't disappear in middle of the large unit. It's been years since I painted a fantasy unit - doing 20 very similiar models is too boring.



For Rules

40k wins here. Even ignoring state of WFB new army books, the WFB movement mechanics eventually become tiresome. 40k relies more on positioning, WFB too much on exposing your flank or not. Plus, digging through 3-pages long armoury for mandatory magic items combo for all characters eighter becomes boring by itself, or forces you to use few tested builds (even more boring). 40k's streamlined armouries are funnier to work with.



For Players

Same people, if they still bother to play WFB.



For Metagame

See rules :).



For Painting

See models :).



For Gaming Age

See players :) .

Lord Solar Plexus
25-01-2010, 15:02
That is not what I said though I can only assume you are replying to me.


No, I was not. Someone else said that magic is all-important and I tend to disagree. A Great Cannon to the face has discouraged many a wizard from casting. Terminally. :)

It can of course change a game but so can a well executed flank charge.

SatireSphere
25-01-2010, 15:11
Veteran fantasy player and a relative noobie 40k player here.

Model wise, 40k has the better stuff hands down. Fantasy has some gems but a lot of it's stuff is just ass ugly, especially some of the newer empire range (my army of choice).

Rules: 40k lacks all of the tactical depth during a game that Warhammer Fantasy has. There is unit synergy in 40k, but this is little more than which unit is better at killing what, compared to fantasy where your entire army has to work together to protect their flanks and engage your opponent in unfavorable situations. The 40k codexes I've found are far more reasonable than some of their fantasy counterparts (I'm looking at you: Daemons, Vampires and Dark Elves). I'd give the edge to fantasy despite it's current flaws.

Players: Depends where you live and who you game with a lot more than the rule system.

Metagame: Is a lot less easy to detect in fantasy than in 40k. There are no weapons that become useless what faced against an inappropriate target (a flamer against a tank, for example).

Painting: Depends who you play against. I've seen armies of grey and golden daemon quality in both games.

Gaming age: 40k seems to attract more of the younger players, but it again depends where you live and who you game with.

samiens
25-01-2010, 18:32
40k in pretty much all categories- the simple defining reason is for me ultimately is that warhammer is a strategy game and 40k a tactical game and I prefer the latter.

At the end of the day its just down to preference though- tehy can both be great fun