PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy players attitude to 40k players



Commissar Merces
22-06-2013, 20:17
I know I am going to regret this and this thread will probably be locked by the end of the day due to flaming, but I think this is a really interesting observation that I have had over the years.

I have been an avid 40k player for years and, while the game isn't perfect, I find it to be very enjoyable. I played fantasy for a little bit a few years ago but quit after being unable to find an opponent who didnt come off as a really socially challenged individual who didnt make me uncomfortable.

I am finally starting a fantasy army and have do far gone undefeated in my games and 3-0 in our new league. During this time I have met a lot of new players who have been giving me ribs like "I see you have decided to play a real men's game" or "40k players are all jerks*"

* use your imagination.

Now looking back over my years of playing 40k it seems like every fantasy player that I have met (who doesnt play 40k and even some that fo) have this same negative opinion of 40k players. Like wise, I have always been turned off by their condescending attitude toward 40k players.

Is this just an oddity or is this something that other people have experienced? Again this isn't a flaming attack against fantasy players and I don't want to start arguments I just want to know if other people have had the same experience. I have met a couple of nice fantasy players but most have been very anti social to 40k players.

Scammel
22-06-2013, 20:26
In my usual group it so happens that out of a roughly even divide of Fantasy and 40k players the ones more inclined to ******* behaviour fall on the 40k side but I'm really not sure the games themselves have any bearing on it. There's certainly no animosity between the groups because of the games, though some Fantasy players including me don't much like what's happened to 40k as of late.

infamousme
22-06-2013, 20:38
When I strictly played fantasy I kinda just looked down on the 40k models as I thought (and still kinda do) that the fantasy models were cooler, but I never looked down upon the players.

Darnok
22-06-2013, 20:38
I think this is an interesting topic, but like the OP I fear for the future of this thread. Everybody: please act like grown-ups, stay respectful, and keep it all civil and as friendly as possible. The Inquisition is watching...


Darnok [=I=]

IcedCrow
22-06-2013, 20:38
Of the people I know, most play both. I don't really know more than a couple of fantasy-only players, and they are usually older guys into historicals as well.

The 40k-only guys I know are usually also well mannered, but if there is going to be a "dick" that plays one or the other, it is universally the 40k player.

That's not because of 40k. I think that's largely because the fantasy-only players are older and the 40k-only players in my experience are a lot younger, and a lot more prone to that behavior than a 40 year old (though of course there always exceptions)

H3L!X
22-06-2013, 20:41
In my club they dont think like that! They often play 40k too!

Commissar Merces
22-06-2013, 21:14
Most players I know play 40k, some play both, but few play strictly fantasy. Again I am not ribbing on fantasy players, but in my experience the more socially awkward and just kind of odd ball people have been fantasy players while 40k players have been more normal... Or at least as normal as you can get playing with toy soldiers.

I agree though that I have met a few "jerks" in 40k. I think the competitive nature of 40k helps that along a little.

So I would say 40k players maybe more jerkish in general but fantasy players can be condescending and socially awkward generally. But I do find strictly fantasy players seem to look down on 40k as the simple mans game.

Anyways again trying to promote discussion rather than bashing.

Darnok
22-06-2013, 21:21
I think a lot of it has to do with the effort a WHF player has to invest before he has a playable force. You can play proper 40K games with less than 30 models - try that with WHF! If we assume equivalent efforts per model in both games, you have to have 100 or more models ready for even the smaller games in WHF. It is not that hard to imagine that some WHF players have the thought of "I have invested much more money and time into this, of course my game is the better on" somewhere in their mind.

A similar argument can be made for the rules side. WHF has more varied basic rules than 40K, and even more special rules. That does neither of them "better" than the other, but I guess you need longer to get around all the details of the WHF rules than with 40K. Again, some form of elitism is only too easy to come up.

IcedCrow
22-06-2013, 21:22
Well... I havent met many who played both that didnt think fantasy required a bit more thinking due to movement and how the two games deal with it.

I dont think thats condescending. Thats just mechanics. If someone takes offense at that, the issue lies with that person and why they are taking offense.

Commissar Merces
22-06-2013, 21:35
I think those are two very valid claims. That doesn't exactly make on better or worse though. I have actually had some players argue that 40k is better because the rules are more streamlined. I can't tell you how many fantasy games have unraveled into having to look up rules or people simply not knowing the rules, compared to 40k.

Shiodome
22-06-2013, 21:39
the fantasy players might have had a point in the previous edition, but it's now the more brain dead 'point and click' of the two games and any claim to it being the more difficult or tactical of the 2 games has gone out of the window. at least that's why the people i know that used to play WHFB swapped over to 40k (inc myself). beyond that it's just tribal "my thing is better than your thing" chest beating.

Darnok
22-06-2013, 21:44
The two games have very little in common, apart from being miniature wargames. Yes, they share the "Warhammer" title, and have common roots. But one is a game araound regimental warfare, the other is a (pretty blown up these days) skirmish game. Wether one or the other is "better" is in the end up to personal preferences. Preferring one over the other doesn't make one a better person.

Apart from that I think the "jerkiness" is equally distributed over WHF and 40K players. I guess for every WHF snob you will find a 40K idiot. The rest could just be a perception bias: 40K players remember the odd WHF folks more, and the other way around for WHF.

librerian_samae
22-06-2013, 21:45
People I play with universally play both systems, so I fortunately don't run into this problem. As a strange quirk how ever we play 40k more seriously (well not per say as it's still done for wind down fun) and have fantasy as a fun side game mostly.


I think a lot of it has to do with the effort a WHF player has to invest before he has a playable force. You can play proper 40K games with less than 30 models - try that with WHF! If we assume equivalent efforts per model in both games, you have to have 100 or more models ready for even the smaller games in WHF. It is not that hard to imagine that some WHF players have the thought of "I have invested much more money and time into this, of course my game is the better on" somewhere in their mind.

A similar argument can be made for the rules side. WHF has more varied basic rules than 40K, and even more special rules. That does neither of them "better" than the other, but I guess you need longer to get around all the details of the WHF rules than with 40K. Again, some form of elitism is only too easy to come up.

As to the model count argument, the two of of who play fantasy the most use bretonnians and ogres (me), and both are rather small armies (my ogres for instance have 60 models at 3,000pts and just over half those are in a single gnoblar unit! :P ) Off topic I know but fun to see how different peoples gaming experiences are.

Scammel
22-06-2013, 21:46
but it's now the more brain dead 'point and click' of the two games

In your opinion, perhaps. I'd argue it's much less so nowadays with the lack of 'Charge with heavy cav, run down, rinse, repeat'.

Commissar Merces
22-06-2013, 21:46
The two games have very little in common, apart from being miniature wargames. Yes, they share the "Warhammer" title, and have common roots. But one is a game araound regimental warfare, the other is a (pretty blown up these days) skirmish game. Wether one or the other is "better" is in the end up to personal preferences. Preferring one over the other doesn't make one a better person.

Apart from that I think the "jerkiness" is equally distributed over WHF and 40K players. I guess for every WHF snob you will find a 40K idiot. The rest could just be a perception bias: 40K players remember the odd WHF folks more, and the other way around for WHF.

This I think is the truth of the matter

Darnok
22-06-2013, 21:47
As to the model count argument, the two of of who play fantasy the most use bretonnians and ogres (me), and both are rather small armies (my ogres for instance have 60 models at 3,000pts and just over half those are in a single gnoblar unit! :P ) Off topic I know but fun to see how different peoples gaming experiences are.

Well, those two are some of the few extreme examples, and rather an exception to the rule in my opinion.

Hrw-Amen
22-06-2013, 21:49
I used to collect fantasy for ages before getting into W40K. I don't know why, but somehow once W40K 2nd edition came out I lost interest in it. Perhaps it was because I had a lot of fantasy figures that I had been collecting since a young child so felt I had invested more in it. I recall I had (And still have.) a huge Fantasy Orc and Empire army with loads of conversions. Then Dark Eldar were released and I switched to W40K and never looked back. I still like to read some of the fantasy stuff in WD and like to use some of the models as conversion ideas for W40K, but I cannot see myself returning to fantasy any time soon. I don't think I ever looked down on W40K though, I think I was just comfortable with Elves and Orc etc as they were what I had grown up with.

Evol Intent
22-06-2013, 21:54
I'm not sure why the angst between the two systems is really all that surprising, as you see the very same elitism between the factional player-bases of Warhammer 40K.

"Ooh, well if you're starting out you should probably play Marines, as my Eldar are only for the most experienced, and tactically gifted of individuals.. /monocle"

People are always looking to make themselves seem more impressive; typically at the expense of others.

BigbyWolf
22-06-2013, 22:01
Personally, I'm not a fan of 40K. Played it a bit many years ago (3rd edition? The one that came with a starter set with the clip together Goffs, Gretchin and Space Marines) and it never really grabbed me the same way fantasy did. At least, not in a game sense, personally I love the background and all that, just never got the feel for the game.

Despite that, I don't feel any ill-will towards 40K players. WFB is the only "wargaming" system that I play, but people around me play all sorts of systems...who am I to judge them? I play a game involving elves, giants, anthropomorphic lizards and wizards, so it's hard to look down on people who play with tanks and space ships.

I tend to judge players a individuals, not the game they play.

Darnok
22-06-2013, 22:04
People are always looking to make themselves seem more impressive; typically at the expense of others.

One of the sad truths of life. :(

Arguleon-veq
22-06-2013, 22:13
Ive played both games for over 15 years and played them both pretty solidly right the way through that time. Depending on how I like each edition for each game I may play one game more than the other for that edition, for example I played lots of fantasy in its last edition, little 40k for 4th ed and im playing a lot less fantasy this edition.

Through all of that time up untill the current editions of fantasy and 40k I fully believe fantasy was by far the more complex game that required a good player to do well and a lot of it was due to the fact you won games in the movement phase. Getting a charge off was huge, flanking was huge etc and nothing about it was random. You could easily take an army full of the worst possible units against an army full of the very best and table them for very little losses thanks to flanking, getting chages off and getting the odd kill so your hardly getting hit back etc.

With this edition they have brought in way too much randomness, a great unit is going to win against poor stuff even if its flanked etc. Its pretty much just powerful units fighting it out and whoever gets the better magic phases wins. You get things like vamp flying circus just dancing around and sreaming at things which is a lot like a 40k game but far easier for the vamps as the other army struggles to engage them.

Because of these changes I actually think with the current editions 40k is the more complex game and needs more thought/skill to do well although it is still next to impossile to beat a really good list with something terrible.

I think fantasy is far more 'realistic' now with big units grinding into each other untill one finally reaches a breaking point after a while of fighting but it makes for a worse game. I know a lot of it was to do with games development wanting people to 'get to roll lots of dice!' im not 3 years old, i dont find it fun just getting to roll more dice.

Sir Didymus
22-06-2013, 22:20
You can catch a lot of flak for no good reason, just think of Warmahorde players, or how an elf/dar player will have to learn to live with being 'gay' - because a race of physically, spiritually and intellectually superior beings is obviously 'gay' :)

Luckily, most of it is just friendly banter :)

Spiney Norman
22-06-2013, 22:21
Ok, I'm answering this as someone who got into the Gw hobby through the LotR game (a breed I generally observe to be universally ridiculed by both 40k and Fantasy gamers alike), I made the jump across to fantasy after a couple of years and eventually picked up 40k as well.

Most of the gamers I know well (being the members of our veterans club) are decent guys who play one or both WFB and 40k, but most of us have a broad respect for systems we don't play (extending outside GW circles to warlord games titles, and occasionally PP games too).

As someone who has played both games, for over a decade I suppose the attitude comes from the fact that most younger gamers take up 40k first, both because it is easier to pick up the rules for, and cheaper to get into because the minimum army size is smaller (you can play a decent sized game of 40k with 30 models, whereas you need that many for a single unit in WFB). I find that most gamers don't get into fantasy until they are older and have the stickability to master the more complex rule set and have the money available needed to buy the armies.

Then we come to the crunch, while I have met some less-than-pleasant older gamers (by older I mean late-teens plus) I do find that the in know-it-all/poor loser/ungracious winner attitudes are more often present in unseasoned, younger gamers, which I guess is to be expected, and these younger gamers, at least in my experience of running games for the juniors at our local Indy stockist, are more often 40k gamers than fantasy gamers.

There is certainly a degree of snobbery around some WFB circles that seems to revolve around the assumption that because wfb costs even more to get started on and has more complex rules to learn that makes you superior because you play it in the same way a chess grand master might look down on a child playing tiddlywinks, but such is the vanity of mankind...

I love playing both systems, Fantasy for the tactical depth to its gameplay and 40k for the breath-taking model range and virtually unlimited story-building opportunities, I would never cast aspersions on someone just because they play 40k only (I know a good number of top-notch veteran gamers who only play 40k).

Senbei
22-06-2013, 22:27
Through all of that time up untill the current editions of fantasy and 40k I fully believe fantasy was by far the more complex game that required a good player to do well and a lot of it was due to the fact you won games in the movement phase. Getting a charge off was huge, flanking was huge etc and nothing about it was random. You could easily take an army full of the worst possible units against an army full of the very best and table them for very little losses thanks to flanking, getting chages off and getting the odd kill so your hardly getting hit back etc.

I used to do really well with armies of weak troops, though troops like slayers or savage orcs could really make them struggle. Nowadays you just couldn't field that type of army. I used to win through flank charges and out-maneuvering. Now I'd probably roll a 1 to charge... or hit the unit then bounce off. As a result, I've gone back to playing 4th/5th.

Scammel
22-06-2013, 22:31
Getting a charge off was huge, flanking was huge etc

I don't see how this made it more tactical/strategic. Getting off a flank charge almost always saw you win the combat and send the enemy packing, end of - heck, getting a frontal charge usually saw the same results without the need for much skill besides from eyeballing distances. Now that combats are much less likely to end in a single turn there's a greater need for planning ahead and thinking how you're going to support certain units. Charges are still important as you get to dictate which units are engaging the enemy and when. Similarly, flank charges are still important as they can heavily tip an existing combat. In neither case are you going to secure an auto-win through sheer dint of the charge.

Scribe of Khorne
22-06-2013, 22:35
I dont know a ton of pure Fantasy players but it seems to be something like this.

40K types are more typically your FPS players, who are also more aligned with the social norms.
Fantasy types are more typically your MMO/RPG players, who are less aligned with social norms.

I dont judge either way, but the worst attitudes I have found have come from Fantasy players, perhaps as its an older system and so you run into older neckbeard types I dont know.

Arguleon-veq
22-06-2013, 22:37
Exactly, thats my gripe with current fantasy.

In terms of players ive found about the same amount of good and bad players in both but have only really seen fantasy players look down on 40k and not the other way around.

In terms of age determining what people are like to play against I am finding more and more that the absoloute worst type of person to play are middle aged men in their late 30's/early 40's. The vast majority of games I have against people in this age bracket consist of them complaining and just being very very unpleasant. I cant actually remember a young player as in a kid, say pre 16 be bad to play against, they never seem to complain, they seem willing to listen and learn. Im between those two age brackets and in that middle bracket I find you get a bit of both types of players.

I think the last 4 times ive played older guys ive been very tempted to just pack up and give them the game because of their attitude despite winning the games. They just seem to moan and complain and question everything.

I find that kind of gamer is even worse when they are taking what they think is a competative but not too over the top and broken list and they are losing, then no matter what they are against they call it all kinds of beardy and broken [even if its more friendly than their own list!]. To be honest I find the people that complain about balance and beardy lists to be the absoloute worst when it comes to losing, ive rarely seen a super competative tournament player act like an idiot because they are losing a game.

I do see more kids playing 40k, but in my experience, thats a good thing.

DoomVendor
22-06-2013, 22:46
I think it's a combination of things.
- 40k came after fantasy. Some fantasy players may look at 40k players as inexperienced players that hopped on GW's bandwagon of 40k players.
- 40k is more popular. The fantasy players you described clearly don't play 40k. They have most likely invested a lot of time into their fantasy armies and seeing 40k (where they cant use their army) rising above fantasy maybe makes them upset that their game is losing attention.
- Fantasy is older so the players are in turn older. They may look at 40k players as young and nooby.
-There's always conflict between 2 similar games. The same thing happens at my locals with MTG and Yugioh. The MTG players act like they are better than the yugioh players.

Just like the other have said i'm just saying my observations, not trying to call anyone or any game out. :)

Scammel
22-06-2013, 22:52
The MTG players act like they are better than the yugioh players.


That's because they are. :p

Just messing with you mate, from my experience they're actually veeery different games with different appeals.

DoomVendor
22-06-2013, 22:59
That's because they are. :p

Just messing with you mate, from my experience they're actually veeery different games with different appeals.
Yea i used to play both. :p But I had friends that played one or the other and some of them didn't think much the other game. lol

dooms33ker
23-06-2013, 00:21
I think fantasy is far more 'realistic' now with big units grinding into each other untill one finally reaches a breaking point after a while of fighting but it makes for a worse game. I know a lot of it was to do with games development wanting people to 'get to roll lots of dice!' im not 3 years old, i dont find it fun just getting to roll more dice.

Rolling more dice actually reduces the amount of randomness as the higher the random sample the closer your results will be to the average. Back in 7th edition, if you had 10 attacks that determined the outcome of the combat and if you just rolled really poorly, that's it, your whole unit of 25 rank and file soldiers could be gone. Now that same unit will get 15/20 attacks and your odds of doing extremely well or extremely poorly diminish. With that said, rolling more dice and having larger units does slow down the game a little bit, but overall the combat rules are improved, in my opinion.

Now the Magic phase is a totally different problem, as is the lack of unit size restrictions for certain units. The other problem in Fantasy I've noticed in 8th edition is how little terrain has to do with the outcome of the game. This is also becoming a problem with 40k because of several armies having rules which let them ignore terrain, cover, and line of sight.

IcedCrow
23-06-2013, 00:25
True line of sight as well as terrain not hampering movement are the biggest reasons for that.

MadHatter
23-06-2013, 07:57
i think you will find players of both system and a wide range of age levels being rude jerks. Its true that in the united states that 40k is the more popular game. But I honestly believe its the players themselves.

I personally got called a snob when i had a 40k party at my house and invited only the players in our community above the age of 18. the truth of the matter was nothing personal against the younger kids, I just dont like underage minors at my house. As for those who call other beardy and unbalanced then I suggest that you just not play with those players you dont enjoy playing with. I have several adult friends I cannot game with because they are sore losers and worse, sore winner. And i have some younger friends that are equally unpleasant to play with. So i do not play with them anymore. I like friendly games which are fun and makes for a pleasant time.

AmaroK
23-06-2013, 08:10
True line of sight as well as terrain not hampering movement are the biggest reasons for that.

Forests are not so good to fight in for ranked infantery, marshes, unpassable terrain... If you add magical terrain, the impact is greater, but it also slow down the game. Both 40k and WFB need more detailed rules about quantities/qualities of the terrain features, imo.

Now on topic, funny enough in my country the most popular system is WHF, so the "elitist" group is more in the 40k side. They are also more entitled for their factions (eldars this, dark angels that) and are usually older. The younger kids that are interested in sci-fi are getting into Infinity, I guess because of the cheaper investment and the manga aesthetics. So in the end I think those groupal attitudes have nothing to do with the game/system qualities but more about with how social relations and group interacting works for (wargaming) humans. :p

Shadowheart
23-06-2013, 08:16
i think you will find players of both system and a wide range of age levels being rude jerks.

Yeah. Especially when the Lord of the Rings game comes up.

Archaon
23-06-2013, 08:35
- Fantasy was always perceived as the more complex game, especially after the "dumbing down" of 40K that was 3rd edition (good move after the overall too complicated 2nd edition but they took it way too far). Fantasy units are restricted in their line of sight, their shooting arcs and their mobility which provideds the core complexity of the game.. a player who moves his units well and has a good feel for range and thinks 1-2 turns ahead will most likely be very hard to beat

40K is more like point and click.. everyone moves the same distance (if they're the same unit type) and everyone can shoot into any direction (with few exceptions) and tho Fantasy players this means you don't have to think as much as they do meaning less tactics and just brute force.

- 40K attracts vastly more younger gamers and so the maturity level is naturally lower giving the whole system a kind of kiddie image.. not really justified as i have met huge dicks in my Fantasy days and soem really cool kids/teenagers (still can't go out to have a beer with them but they were good kids)

These are the main reasons i have encountered in my 20+ years of GW gaming and i have to say that i was not always innocent when it comes to the first point, especially after i tried 3rd edition and gave up midway. However it seems that with 40K sixth edition there was some real tactical challenge back.. not in movement or shooting (it is still a skirmish type game) but in choosing equipment, unit synergy and target selection. Of course it has its own problems (every game has) but it's a far cry from 3rd edition where i left.

nosebiter
23-06-2013, 08:43
Hmmm, around here the most annoying players are 40k players. But i think that is just bad luck on my part. My usual gaming partner has grown into the worst winner ever, and is only really happy when he massacres me and can gloat about it.

And that is the main reason i have an intense dislike for the current 40k game.

The grouo that plays warmachine and hordes on the other hand are the nicest, most relaxed and casual gamers i have ever come across.

So i think it depends alot of how your local gaming audience is made up.

Oh and the notion that all rpgs are anti social nerds is just plain wrong.

Endobai
23-06-2013, 08:59
From my experience such claims of superiority are quite groundless.

in my environment 40k players tended to be older and usually coming from the fantasy gamers, just like me.
Fantasy might seem more complex, but only for new players and we collectively agree that 40k offers more for a veteran player.

Add to that the fact that many of our 40k players were attracted to the game thanks to the rich background of the 40k universe which is quite unique and you have a bunch of guys who are older than avarage fantasy gamer, who recently are former LOTR players.

I still have my favourite Wood Elves and still expending the collection from time to time, but even if I really like the 8th edition 40k seems more attractive and offers more opportunities to play unpredictable, rewarding game with a nice set of tricks and tactical moves.
I yet have not meet a single fantasy player trying to 'teach' me how superior fantasy is.

Darnok
23-06-2013, 09:59
I want to point out that this discussion is not about wether WHF or 40K is the "better" game - I have made some points about that earlier - but about the attitude of people towards each other, and the experiences related to it. I'd hate this to become yet another WHF/40K "comparison" - we have had enough of those over the years. I'm well aware of the relation between both topics, but feel like this one has much more to it. We should not drown it in a futile repetition of an argument made before.

Maybe the OP could say how he feels about this.

Venkh
23-06-2013, 10:02
There was a definite perception that 7th ed fantasy was a more tactical game than 4th ed 40k I always had to think more in my fantasy games.

I'm not sure why this led some folks to feel superior. I tend to think that the arrogant types tend to forget that the challenge is defined by your opponent rather than the system you play.

MadHatter
23-06-2013, 10:33
Yeah. Especially when the Lord of the Rings game comes up.

sadly i have seen this as well. While i have a goblin army for LoTRs i still prefer to play 40K, I thought that the LoTRs system was good and ran smooth enough. But for me it was cutting into a world I did not wish to play in. I find it sad that there are people in our community that would belittle the others. Its not like we are not already having to deal with social stigma of the rest of the world.

TrangleC
23-06-2013, 10:51
Most 40k players I know chose that system because they don't like Tolkien style fantasy settings at all and wanted something Science Fiction oriented. I'm not such a purist but if I were to start a fantasy themed tabletop game, I'd rather play Warmachine/Hordes than WHFB.

fgsfds-
23-06-2013, 10:56
I think it's a combination of things.
- 40k came after fantasy. Some fantasy players may look at 40k players as inexperienced players that hopped on GW's bandwagon of 40k players.
- 40k is more popular. The fantasy players you described clearly don't play 40k. They have most likely invested a lot of time into their fantasy armies and seeing 40k (where they cant use their army) rising above fantasy maybe makes them upset that their game is losing attention.
- Fantasy is older so the players are in turn older. They may look at 40k players as young and nooby.
-There's always conflict between 2 similar games. The same thing happens at my locals with MTG and Yugioh. The MTG players act like they are better than the yugioh players
Some very sharp observations. I think it's exactly like this, if there really is the problem of WHFB players looking down on W40k players - I myself have never encountered attitudes like this. Most FB players I've met have been very well behaving and have only tried to get me interested in FB as well. If anyone has ever looked down on me it has been for reasons other than me playing 40k.

jackers
23-06-2013, 10:57
Around my area people do joke about the various systems and their popularity (or lack thereof), but I haven't yet heard anyone making genuinely derogatory comments about the people that play them.

Around here the fantasy player base diminished significantly after the release of 8th ed. and alot of the people that had been exclusively WHFB players tried out 40k, (this includes me). This means that there aren't that many people here that exclusively play one system anymore.

Commissar Merces
23-06-2013, 13:18
Darnok brings up a good point. I'll share my own thoughts. I have played both systems for many years, I have always enjoyed 40k more... Except during storm of chaos.

While I have seen plenty of 40k players just ignore fantasy players, I have found that at least in my experience (which is not the end all be all mind you) tha fantasy players look down on 40k players as completely WAAC, unintelligent in their gaming, and inferior compared to their own ilk. Conversely, 40k players (again in my experience) treat fantasy players like they live in their mom's basement still and haven't been in the real world since the year 2000. So I think there is a little bias that goes both ways, but I have never seen 40k players initiate the debate or act loftier based on their gaming preference. Truth be told, it is these attitudes that have kept me from playing fantasy for many years.

Now that I am, however, the fantasy players in my area (who also play 40k) say that 40k players are beardy and a bunch of pins etc. They also brag about the tactical superiority of WFB and how could they ever go back to the drivel of 40k. It just gets old and really makes me question getting involved in fantasy.

ihavetoomuchminis
23-06-2013, 13:25
Well...in my area it has been always the opposite. It's 40k players that look down on Fantasy players, because they consider 40k to be a more mature game.

I play both systems, and enjoy both the same.

frapermax
23-06-2013, 14:32
I've been a Fantasy player for more than a decade and was never attracted by 40k. Whenever I saw a 40k game, I couldn't see why it could be fun. It often was the same models (marines) in different colours against each other, all of them having the same "boxes" as tanks, limited movement and lots of shooting. To me, fantasy looked way better. When I saw some nicely painted ork armies, I got drawn in a bit to 40k. Only recently, I started reading some of the 40k novels, and now i'm hooked. I've started a couple of small 40k armies and am really looking forward to my first games. The people playing both systems look quite similar to me, so nothing to add on that front.

kane40k
24-06-2013, 14:54
This is quite a fascinating thread. It ties in with something I studied at Uni this year. . . Neo-Tribes. Basically it's all to do with a current tribal nature still in the undercurrents of our social structure and interactions, Identity and finding a place we belong.
I belong to both Neo-Tribes as I play both games, and so to stay on topic and answer your question, I do not have a different attitude to anyone who plays any game, but i have experienced people that do. . . But it seems that perhaps, amongst a minority of individuals (The die-hard competitive fans? unsure still of the Classification), That in our one already Niche tribe (TTG players) there are even smaller 'tribes' still. . . Now you got me wondering how much does the game become a part of identity? and how many sub-identities are there?

Is this because of there being a smaller local Meta-game that is more dominant than a global, or even the national Meta-game? Does that have an effect on it and the variation in attitude in local areas?

*Mind Blown*

IcedCrow
24-06-2013, 18:18
This tends to follow the same trends as politics and religion.

ColShaw
24-06-2013, 18:38
I started playing WFB, then spread into 40K only a few months later. I've collected in both systems and played for 15 years. I have noticed a tendency toward condescension on the part of WFB players toward 40K players, but it's far from ubiquitous.

Honestly, I feel that the current editions of both games have trended toward a similar level of difficulty/complexity, so I think most differences in player base are relics of prior editions.

I would also suggest, however, that WFB is more a game of unit maneuvering and placement, while 40K is more a game of firepower. I have an idea that firepower is more likely to appeal to a younger player, and maneuver to an older one; at least, that's the trend I've noticed in myself! :)

I mean no condescension at all in this. Nor do I mean to suggest that either one is better than the other. It's just my 2 cents.

Azulthar
24-06-2013, 18:51
Number two always mocks number one. Over here, the second-largest city of the country spends far more time mocking the largest city than vice versa.

The bigger group doesn't really care, it's not threatened. The smaller group seeks to justify itself.

Eppe
24-06-2013, 19:16
I started playing Fantasy and recently picked up 40K. I think because the large blocks and movement trays and how terrain restricts movement in Fantasy the rules are more strict and as such people tend to get upset more while playing it. They also tend to look down on 40K because since everything is skirmish everything moves easier. That being said I don't like some people at GWS stores or even other FLGS simply because they've been playing so long they sort of look down on beginners. I've only been playing for a few years and I'm only able to get a game or two in a month so I'm still fairly new imo. I have yet to play against anyone I didn't know prior to playing Warhammer because I simply don't want to be put in a situation where I don't have fun. I'd very much like to play pick up games at the local stores though.

TLDR both genre's have rude people IMO.

Spider-pope
24-06-2013, 19:48
Like most snobbery, i've only ever really seen it online. You get condescending remarks fairly consistently online from Fantasy-only players but i've never once encountered it in person.

loveless
24-06-2013, 20:04
The only snobbery I encounter IRL is from historical gamers to fantasy/sci-fi gamers. Even then, I don't really think it's serious...though I still got turned down for my Flames of War game on a moonscape with Hitler-in-a-Space-Suit objective marker...

40K I tend to enjoy a bit more than Fantasy. None of the models are just wound counters, I have a far greater range of movement, and I can do a fair bit more with modeling and basing without having to worry about ranks. I don't mind Fantasy at all and often try to get an army built (but usually lose interest when I have to start building core outside of WoC :p), but I find I prefer to shoot guns and drive tanks than stab peons and herd monsters.

Lord Damocles
24-06-2013, 20:07
I've often encountered the argument that Fantasy is the 'better', 'more tactical', 'more skilful' (etc...) game when compared to 40K.

I've always assumed that this view rises from the fact that Fantasy gives you mechanical benefits for 'good tactics' - flanking etc., while in 40K the benefit gained from out-manoeuvring your opponent isn't a set negation of rank bonus*, but a more abstract denial of cover, easier charge, or so on.

In Fantasy everyone can see when one player out-manoeuvres another because they get the 'congratulations, you flanked them!' benefit - plus with nice neat square blocks of troops, it's obvious when one mulches into the side/rear of another.
In 40K, only the player who outmanoeuvres their opponent might see it.



*Or whatever it actually is - I only play Fantasy a little at the release of each edition, so my memory is usually hazy.

Laniston
24-06-2013, 20:23
I play both systems, have for years, and I enjoy both games. I play more fantasy because the group of friends I game with tend to be more interested in that system but I'd say I enjoy both the same.

I do admit that sometimes 40k bothers me. When I look over the codices on the shelf I have to see Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights books. I can't help but feel that 40k, and especially Space Marines, are like the spoiled child of the family and I am the forgotten middle child holding his non-marine codex wondering why the Marine kid gets all the love. Even when my beloved High Elves were getting a new army book the white dwarf preview for it had nothing about elves and much ado about Space Marines. It's not enough to make me care too much but that feeling is there. I think in some ways playing fantasy you get the impression that GW doesn't "love" you as much as they "love" 40k players. This may or may not be real but it's an impression I get sometimes and then I feel like I need to extol the virtues of fantasy. I need to "get attention" so to speak out of a fear of being ignored. Doesn't change the fact that both are great games and have great appeal to lots of people.

Lord Inquisitor
24-06-2013, 20:50
I dont know a ton of pure Fantasy players but it seems to be something like this.

40K types are more typically your FPS players, who are also more aligned with the social norms.
Fantasy types are more typically your MMO/RPG players, who are less aligned with social norms.

I dont judge either way, but the worst attitudes I have found have come from Fantasy players, perhaps as its an older system and so you run into older neckbeard types I dont know.
Hmm, curious ... and you aren't the only person to have said this.

I'd have said the opposite WFB players are often a lot less nerdy. For the most part I find that WFB players are an older demographic. Why this is could be down to a whole multitude of factors. But in general especially with the tournament crowd I find that WFB players are older, with families, play with likeminded players in their homes and less likely to hang out at game stores. Perhaps the proportion of socially awkward WFB players isn't so high but they hang out at game stores where you see them?

Perhaps I'm biased by my experiences, certainly the area I live in is a navy town with a lot of ex-military playing. Our gaming group includes former marines, special forces, MMA fighters and bodybuilders and I know that's certainly not typical (I'm one of the nerdy exceptions in our group!).

In any case, I think the older demographic has a lot to do with the perceived higher maturity level in WFB players. I personally used to play a lot of 40K, almost exclusively and I think WFB has always attracted a more laid-back sort of player especially at tournaments.







I've often encountered the argument that Fantasy is the 'better', 'more tactical', 'more skilful' (etc...) game when compared to 40K.

I've always assumed that this view rises from the fact that Fantasy gives you mechanical benefits for 'good tactics' - flanking etc., while in 40K the benefit gained from out-manoeuvring your opponent isn't a set negation of rank bonus*, but a more abstract denial of cover, easier charge, or so on.

In Fantasy everyone can see when one player out-manoeuvres another because they get the 'congratulations, you flanked them!' benefit - plus with nice neat square blocks of troops, it's obvious when one mulches into the side/rear of another.
In 40K, only the player who outmanoeuvres their opponent might see it.

Maneuver is certainly important in 40K but much less than in WFB. Few units can "deep strike" in WFB whereas in 40K tactics have to be so much more fluid to account for the sudden arrival of so many different units. And maneuver is just less important in 40K than it is to WFB.

In 40K the tactics are much more about fire lanes and target priority.

There's also a perception from the WFB guys that list design is more important in 40K than it is in WFB. I'm not sure whether this is actually true but it feels true to me. I would think that I can take a bad list in WFB and win with it but I'd have a much harder job taking a poor list in 40K and winning. But maybe that's just because I play a lot more WFB?

Layla
24-06-2013, 21:00
The games have different styles of play. Fantasy is based on Geometry while 40k is more based on tactics. It is a case of apples and oranges. The attitude is displayed by those wh cant really understand that they are comparing apples and oranges and are lumping both games into the same category. There is also the ever present attitude of I am the coolest so what I prefer MUST be the best.

Don Zeko
24-06-2013, 21:18
My impression is that there's far more variation within each system than there is between each system. Without naming names, I moved recently and have been playing with a different crowd of Fantasy players than I'm used to, and the difference in playstyle, maturity, and general pleasantness is dramatic (although there are several exceptions to this). Besides that, I'd just point out that the average fantasy player that I interact with is a well socialized grown-ass man, often with a wife, full-time job, or maybe kids. The neckbeard stereotype guys exist, but they're not a very big part of the player base that I normally encounter.

Losing Command
24-06-2013, 21:42
I've only seen individual jerks from both games (and very little of both) and not really an overall attitude towards the other group. There is a 40k player I heard about where the word 'WAAC' doesn't even begin to cover his behaviour, and apparently he looks down upon everybody who doesn't buy every latest internet-cheese list and goes beyond the limits to win at tournaments. Looking at history and how europeans looked down on everybody that wasn't as white as them, I guess you'll always find some people who look down on others to feel more superior themselves :(

Fear Ghoul
24-06-2013, 21:57
My impression has always been that Fantasy-exclusive players have a superiority complex towards 40k players, mostly because 40k is perceived as being a vastly dumbed down game with far more awkward mechanics and abstraction, a bias towards certain factions, and where the game is often won or lost in the army list phase. Can't say I blame them to be honest. I play both but I often have trouble trying to defend the merits of 40k beyond background, models, and cost.

Poseidal
24-06-2013, 22:25
I think because of the more fiddly movement and more 'structured' system it gave that impression, at least since 6th Fantasy. It can't really be claimed now, with 8th and I feel it [Fantasy] actually lost something in the transition, and I haven't enjoyed Fantasy as much as I did in 7th edition despite the imbalances that went on there.

6th 40k has really come alive to me though. It feels less of a 'chore' than 5th did, and in general seems a lot more considered (I think they may have learnt from some mistakes made in Fantasy's transition to 8th).

Anyway, now Fantasy can't really claim 'tactical superiority' since 8th (which has become way more random than 40k now, maybe because the top spells in 40k are like 'one of your units re-rolls its hit dice', while in Fantasy it's 'pick an enemy unit and take it off the table' as a start...) while if someone wanted a more 'tactical' game there are plenty more, and less fiddly and simpler.

Fear Ghoul
24-06-2013, 22:51
I think because of the more fiddly movement and more 'structured' system it gave that impression, at least since 6th Fantasy. It can't really be claimed now, with 8th and I feel it [Fantasy] actually lost something in the transition, and I haven't enjoyed Fantasy as much as I did in 7th edition despite the imbalances that went on there.

6th 40k has really come alive to me though. It feels less of a 'chore' than 5th did, and in general seems a lot more considered (I think they may have learnt from some mistakes made in Fantasy's transition to 8th).

Anyway, now Fantasy can't really claim 'tactical superiority' since 8th (which has become way more random than 40k now, maybe because the top spells in 40k are like 'one of your units re-rolls its hit dice', while in Fantasy it's 'pick an enemy unit and take it off the table' as a start...) while if someone wanted a more 'tactical' game there are plenty more, and less fiddly and simpler.

A lot of that is nonsense. Fantasy still places much more emphasis on correct deployment and movement than 40k. If a Tactical Squad gets flanked then nobody cares, because there is no combat penalty for flanking and no penalty for being shot in the flank. The Tactical Squad can simply turn round and shoot without penalty if needs be. The exact opposite is true in Fantasy, where being flanked can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Not all units are massive steadfast blocks, despite what many former 7th edition Fantasy players might like to claim, and none of the spells just delete entire units. In any case, wizards in Fantasy should have a greater impact on the game considering they cost a lot more, and have always done. This is not a brand new 8th edition idea. The charging system is more controllable in Fantasy because it is M+2D6, rather than a straight 2D6, and when you fail a charge you still move forward a little rather than sticking around twiddling your thumbs while the enemy pumps lead into you for another turn. The spell generation is less random in Fantasy because players have a far greater ability (and desire) to get more of the spells, and the casting system is potentially less random because it doesn't rely on always using 2D6 to cast (like a Ld test), but can instead use more dice leading to a less random result. In addition the enemy actually gets a say in what spells are cast leading to a more tactical game, unlike in 40k where psychic powers have no enemy input at all. Finally combats in Fantasy involve more models which also leads to a far less random result because more dice are being rolled. In short, you are wrong on just about every count. Yes 8th edition is more random in some respects than 7th was, but in most cases they were good changes rather than bad. Considering that many of the 8th edition Fantasy rules (premeasuring, random powers, random charges, mysterious terrain, more scenarios, it will not die/regeneration, impact hits/hammer of wrath, etc) were used as a basis for 6th edition 40k you can see which system the designers currently think has the better ideas.

AverageBoss
24-06-2013, 22:56
I played 40K exclusively from about the end of 2nd edition until the start of 5th edition. Around that time I switched over to Fantasy exclusively.

The reasons were many, but included me disliking 4th edition 40K immensely and 5th just rubbed salt in the wound. Plus our local 40K players seemed to grow more and more "hardcore". The environment just lost all its fun. Our Fantasy crowd on the other hand has some very diverse and interesting lists and many of the players put fluff ahead of anything else in army creation (or just trying new things). We only have 1 or 2 players who take the uber magic lores (shadow, life, death, and the like), the rest mainly go for the more odd stuff, we even have 3 to 4 players who run magic less (non dwarf) armies for one reason or another. Meanwhile it seems every 40K player in my area owns either Grey Knights (I actually gave away my 3,000 Daemonhunter army out of disgust when this book was released) or Necrons (although Tau and Eldar are very popular right now as well).

If it matters, I also play Malifaux. I dabble in Warmachine/Hordes (not really my cup of tea, but the players are nice and enjoyable) and Flames of War. And I play the Legend of the 5 Rings card game (non competitively).

Maybe I just got bored with 40K playing it for so long and needed to try other things? But every time I get ready to unbox one of my old armies, something stops me.

In short, I find that 40K itself has lost that magic I enjoyed years ago, and that my local 40K player base is way too competitive for my taste and treats the game way too seriously.

Poseidal
24-06-2013, 23:33
A lot of that is nonsense. Fantasy still places much more emphasis on correct deployment and movement than 40k. If a Tactical Squad gets flanked then nobody cares, because there is no combat penalty for flanking and no penalty for being shot in the flank. The Tactical Squad can simply turn round and shoot without penalty if needs be. The exact opposite is true in Fantasy, where being flanked can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Not all units are massive steadfast blocks, despite what many former 7th edition Fantasy players might like to claim, and none of the spells just delete entire units. In any case, wizards in Fantasy should have a greater impact on the game considering they cost a lot more, and have always done. This is not a brand new 8th edition idea. The charging system is more controllable in Fantasy because it is M+2D6, rather than a straight 2D6, and when you fail a charge you still move forward a little rather than sticking around twiddling your thumbs while the enemy pumps lead into you for another turn. The spell generation is less random in Fantasy because players have a far greater ability (and desire) to get more of the spells, and the casting system is potentially less random because it doesn't rely on always using 2D6 to cast (like a Ld test), but can instead use more dice leading to a less random result. In addition the enemy actually gets a say in what spells are cast leading to a more tactical game, unlike in 40k where psychic powers have no enemy input at all. Finally combats in Fantasy involve more models which also leads to a far less random result because more dice are being rolled. In short, you are wrong on just about every count. Yes 8th edition is more random in some respects than 7th was, but in most cases they were good changes rather than bad. Considering that many of the 8th edition Fantasy rules (premeasuring, random powers, random charges, mysterious terrain, more scenarios, it will not die/regeneration, impact hits/hammer of wrath, etc) were used as a basis for 6th edition 40k you can see which system the designers currently think has the better ideas.

But it somehow made Fantasy less fun and 40k more fun (for me anyway). I think there's something about the way the system worked which meant the similar things (superficially at least) don't translate to the same when the system transferred. (Also, Fantasy charging being M+2D6 is the same as 40k, because you charge in the movement phase and not in the combat phase you've already moved 'M' during the movement phase; it is not more controllable in that regard).

I was exaggerating slightly when I said things about spells deleting unit, but it's a combination of the spells crippling a unit (not actually deleting it), and 8th forcing units to be larger so you have fewer units in general and are pushing around larger blocks if you want them to compete.

The fact is also that Fantasy has basically died in my area when 40k has grown much larger and more dominant since 6th.

Actually, there are a load of things I prefer in Fantasy, in theory (Armour Save modifiers is a big one, but also shooting modifiers, a movement stat, flanking), but all in all they don't salvage the game for me. I've advocated most of those things for 40k in the past too.

My point is, the systems are similar enough and removed from hardcore 'tactical' games enough that neither can really point fingers and it really boils down to if the games are actually fun to play.

WHFB used to be my main game, but for various reasons it just isn't any more.

big squig
24-06-2013, 23:44
I've run into those kind of fantasy players before. They usually had some illusion of fantasy being tactically superior or something. Well, until 8th ed hit and all those kind of players quit. Fantasy is better than ever now!

Truthfully, it's the warmachine players I get the most attitude from. It's as if that's the only playable game ever written in history the way they act.

Rogue
25-06-2013, 02:23
Until the past few years I was a pure fantasy player and really consumer for the most part since the mid 90's. I never really had a problem with 40k as a pure fantasy player, I was just not interested in the game for the longest time. I honestly have been turned off equally by both the game itself in the 8th as well as the models that I can't stand in fantasy. After playing a game or two quickly in the 5th, I started playing a bit. I now play specifically 40k for the most part.

From this perspective, I don't understand the mentality of the bad attitude towards 40k. I would just recommend avoiding those folks. I can see how some fantasy players would not be interested in playing however there are some barriers. It is another rule set to memorize,(although alleviated by a few of the same rules in both editions, i.e. close combat) more armies that we assume from experience is going to cost about the same as a fantasy army, many of those armies look the same (i.e. marine armies) and tack on some peer pressure for good measure you have some reluctance in veterans of fantasy to start a new genre.

KhornateLord
25-06-2013, 03:21
I'm (now) a pure 40k player.
When I played fantasy (not sure if it is) it was a lot more about manouvering and setting up an attack. The result was nearly always a break-through, running down the other unit, etc.
To me, fantasy plays a lot more like chess, which should both indicate what it's good at (forcing you to read play ahead of time, but the results of conflicts are often almost a certainty). That's an advantage.

If there's a skill you needed for fantasy, it was the ability to plot out events as they are going to happen, and judge distances.
40k throws that out the window.

If there's a game that 40k is closer to, it's probably something like a series of poker games. You know roughly how strong your hand is, but chance can and will at certain times upset the balance, and you'll lose a hand of poker you expected to win. You might lose an assault you thought you had in the bag. You might fail to wipe out a squad you needed to wipe out. Whether you win the game, is down to how you survive and overcome the challenges, and make use of the windfalls you are given. A good poker player might not win more rounds than the other players, but he loses smaller and wins bigger.

Now neither game is "better". I can't speak for fantasy, because I haven't played it for a few editions, but in 40K there are some balance issues. And the problem is that where balance issues exist, list selection takes over. Hopefully GW will address this in 6th, and fix up some of the codexes that have poor external balance. At the moment, there are definitely some "top tier" selections, that go well beyond a "paper scissors rock" trade-off. I don't know if people are still whining about the high elf army getting some cheap uber-banner, and whether that's a big deal, but it does seem like lists are probably more balanced in fantasy than they are in 40k. The other good thing about fantasy, is that there aren't endless rehashes of the same list, that 40k has in the form of the snowflake marines. And the unifying theme is a rule that negates morale, including fear. That said, at the moment I'm only playing 40k socially, so it's not a biggie for me. But they definitely need to fix the balance if they want competitive player to flourish.

Yaro
25-06-2013, 06:29
Ran into a guy I used to enjoy playing 40k with and asked him what he's been doing. He said he sold his 40k army and now has 3 fantasy armies, told me "40k is a game for my kids". Was not impressed, and I really don't agree. I play fantasy as well and I don't feel it to be any more intellectually challenging. If anything, the more random nature of the game makes you feel like you have less control.

AngryAngel
25-06-2013, 06:41
Honestly I've seen the look down from fantasy players to 40k ones. I don't understand, I've thought well of both systems since the beginning. They are different beasts in play and use. I now play both systems though I end up getting more games in with 40k then with fantasy. I do love my sci fi, and big guns and imperial guard, but my dwarfs have much honor, many grudges to settle and they will still shoot a lot, then smash heads with axe and hammer ( I love hammers as weapons btw ).

I think we should all get along. Though we will always hate people different then us. All we need as a people, is to find some actual aliens, then we'll mostly get along. As we will have some other species of people to hate.

Sir Didymus
25-06-2013, 07:02
Never noticed any schisms between the players of the various games.

I'd love to see both games as more tactical, more player dependant and less dice dependant, but I also remember earlier and clunkier editions. Currently the games just flow quite nicely :)

I'd love for fantasy to have more fluent skirmisher rules - movement in 7th, just were simpler, easier and more elegant.

I'd love for 40K to have actual range, a standard infantry rifle unable to shoot the width of a football field is just silly, and I'd love for cover saves to go in favor of modifiers like fantasy.

So I find Fantasy to be the superior game, as its rules does not conflict with the narrative.

Jind_Singh
25-06-2013, 07:47
I used to be a 40k poo-pooper - it was just wrong on soapy levels! Warhammer was BY the King of Nerds!

But the new edition of 49k has me playing 4 games of 40k for every Warhammer game!

I still cling to the forlorn hope that I still think of myself as a Warhammer player but its a losing fight!

Overall I could say that Warhammer players might be more nerdy - the cool kids seem to go for the space men, space guns, space rays, and space tanks - while the Warhammer is a bit more die hard - and more akin - in outsiders minds - to D & D!

The snobbish nature of Square based players also perhaps dates back to 7 th Ed where the game was just so darn technical! Just a single miscalculation of 1cm could lose you a game! Compared to the dicefest that was 40k of course we thought we were better gamers!

But I do hold out that Warhammer breeds better gamers as I know many a great 40k player turn to Warhammer and not do well, but good Warhammmer plays rock out 40k as well.

From Goblins in Warhammer to Vanilla Marines - I love the dicing!

Flipmode
25-06-2013, 08:02
I only play 40k these days, not much fantasy among the people I play with.

Not quite a statistically viable analysis, but I'm a complete jerk.

Serpent
25-06-2013, 14:38
I played both systems until a few years ago (well, fair few now that I think of it), when I sat down and looked over how many times I had played the two games the last two years. 40K was ahead by about 95%, and I enjoyed painting 40K a lot more. So I sold my Fantasy armies, and played 40K for the models, the opponents and the ability to blame the little plastic soldiers instead of myself whenever the tactics failed. :angel:

Whenever I see a well-painted Fantasy army I often like it a lot. Rank upon rank of well-painted elves or a horde of suitably nice Orcs are truly inspiring. The only downside I see is the abuse of "counts-as" and using huge scenery pieces as Unit Fillers. I've seen armies that are impressive, but completely impossible to decipher.

I've ranted a bit on the differences between Fantasy and 40K players, claiming that Fantasy players (in this country) wear tweed jackets and react only with a slight "Hmm..." when a small, throw-away unit actually accomplishes great deeds, while 40K players tend to be a bit more vocal and appreciative of such things. ;)

The last year, I've become more and more drawn into Dystopian Wars, and the new scale and the overall craziness are both very appealing. We'll see how it goes.

Horus38
26-06-2013, 14:16
I used to be a 40k poo-pooper - it was just wrong on soapy levels! Warhammer was BY the King of Nerds!

But the new edition of 49k has me playing 4 games of 40k for every Warhammer game!

^ I'm in the same boat. I've been playing both systems for a long time (11 years WHFB, 9 years 40k) and 40k is really tightening it's grip on me in the past 6 months.
To the OP's question I see all types in both systems, but as a extremely general rule of thumb the 40k players seem to lean more towards "broken/******* builds".

Lord Inquisitor
26-06-2013, 16:26
Funnily enough 40K lost it's appeal for me with the 5th ed codecies that moved away from "balance" and "gameplay" towards excessive and often stupid or pointless rules for units.

I really wanted 6th to reignite my love of 40K, but it failed. So much promise - fliers, overwatch, new wound allocation. Yet they screwed things up so badly in implementation. The game desperately needed a real overwatch, a proper response system, not a stunted stand and shoot reaction. It's hard to imagine how the flier rules could have been done worse.

Especially with allies it feels, certainly for competitive 40K, the ability to just take an army and do well without taking IG allies or a necron air force or something like that.

Conversely Fantasy moved far more towards balancing all the army books against each other with 8th edition.

Xeen
26-06-2013, 21:23
I have been playing 40k off and on for like 20 years now (12-32) and I played fantasy from about 14-27 but typically less than 40k. I realized I barely had time for one game, and picked 40k because I prefer the Sci-fi over the fantasy as a personal preference. I also have played heavily in two different areas. If you are going to make generalizations, for me it is that in both places I have played the Fantasy crowd seems to skew older, with most players in their 40s+ and fantasy seemed to have more WAAC type lists in friendly games, which is funny because I would play guys in 40k who would not use hard core power lists, but in fantasy they would. I have never had anyone look down on me for playing 40k over fantasy, however I will say I have hear several fantasy only players have a discussions with others about fantasy being more "tactical" then 40k (I am not saying it is or isn't, I haven't played fantasy in a long time so I don't know). That is my experience for what it is worth.

Knifeparty
26-06-2013, 21:34
I'm quite guilty of looking down on 40K players even though I play 40K myself.

I think that the main reason for the hate is that 40K draws a lot more "new" players than fantasy. So the fantasy players act all long beardy and snobbish the way you might see 12th graders hazing the new kids in high school.

Theres a lot of really good 40k and fantasy players, not just "noobs"

I'm a decent fantasy player and a terrible 40K player. I don't know why but I guess I just don't understand 40K tactics, love the models though.

One of the main reasons for my disappointment in 40K was 6th edition. Combat was the main reason I liked warhammer and thought that 40K was different from other futuristic settings, and I really like that visceral feel of it. But 6th edition nerfed combat into the ground so hard it makes me really dislike this edition's rules set. Combined with a terrible Chaos Codex I mainly just collect 40K now instead of play it.

shabbadoo
27-06-2013, 11:00
Those who are on the outskirts of a person's wargaming "civilization" are always the barbarians. It is just matter of perspective you see. :p

Fear Ghoul
27-06-2013, 11:57
(Also, Fantasy charging being M+2D6 is the same as 40k, because you charge in the movement phase and not in the combat phase you've already moved 'M' during the movement phase; it is not more controllable in that regard).

Yes but in 40k things get shot in between movement and assaulting resulting in less control over distance between your units and the enemies. Unless you just plan on not shooting them, which is unlikely.


I was exaggerating slightly when I said things about spells deleting unit, but it's a combination of the spells crippling a unit (not actually deleting it), and 8th forcing units to be larger so you have fewer units in general and are pushing around larger blocks if you want them to compete.

A few of the spells can cripple some units in the game IF they are successfully cast. By contrast I can't remember the last time someone successfully dispelled Jaws of the World Wolf.


The fact is also that Fantasy has basically died in my area when 40k has grown much larger and more dominant since 6th.

Which tells you nothing about which game is more tactical. Gin Rummy is more tactical than Texas Hold 'Em (which is entirely random), and yet the latter is far more popular than the former.


Actually, there are a load of things I prefer in Fantasy, in theory (Armour Save modifiers is a big one, but also shooting modifiers, a movement stat, flanking), but all in all they don't salvage the game for me. I've advocated most of those things for 40k in the past too.

So a large part of what makes Fantasy mechanically different from 40k is better but doesn't make Fantasy a better game? Colour me confused...


My point is, the systems are similar enough and removed from hardcore 'tactical' games enough that neither can really point fingers and it really boils down to if the games are actually fun to play.

Being removed from a hardcore tactical game really has no bearing on whether the two systems can be compared.


WHFB used to be my main game, but for various reasons it just isn't any more.

If you liked seeing lots of MSU and cavalry dominate, guessing ranges, and arguing charge distance down to the nearest micron, then you won't like 8th edition Fantasy.

Litcheur
28-06-2013, 02:35
From this perspective, I don't understand the mentality of the bad attitude towards 40k. I would just recommend avoiding those folks. I can see how some fantasy players would not be interested in playing however there are some barriers. It is another rule set to memorize,(although alleviated by a few of the same rules in both editions, i.e. close combat) more armies that we assume from experience is going to cost about the same as a fantasy army, many of those armies look the same (i.e. marine armies) and tack on some peer pressure for good measure you have some reluctance in veterans of fantasy to start a new genre.
Although I do not expect to fight Wood Elves or Beastmen anymore, I still play against various armies in Fantasy.

Half of the armies I encounter in 40k are either blue marines, unshaved or with an inverted toilet seat on their shoulders, or maybe bloody red marines, or zealot grey marines, or emo green marines, or the punk spiked-marines. Sometimes, sometimes... I do sometimes fight against some exotic variants, like the green marines with flamers or the white marines on bikes.

Weapons against T4/3+ anyone ? :p

The other thing that made 40k more and more childish were some incredibly stupid miniatures (especially the larger ones). Well, I guess the new high elves solved that problem by making the two systems more or less even... :o


I'd love for fantasy to have more fluent skirmisher rules - movement in 7th, just were simpler, easier and more elegant.

I'd love for 40K to have actual range, a standard infantry rifle unable to shoot the width of a football field is just silly, and I'd love for cover saves to go in favor of modifiers like fantasy.
Actually, that's more like a miniature problem, and more specifically a scale problem, than a rules problem.

TLOS put aside, you could even consider switching to 6mm miniatures on the same bases because - and I'll get a lot of flak for this - miniatures are just, well, pretty counters... Some systems even allow different scales to play against each other, because the position and size of bases are the only things that really counts.

And then your 40 goblins "horde" will have the same 40 bases, but with 9-10 goblins on each of these bases. More like a horde ! And instead of being charged by 12 bretonnian knights, your unit will be flanked by more than an hundred knights. Same thing with the scale, if the average soldier is 1.75m tall, instead of having a bolter that shoots 35m away (60cm=20x30mm), you'll get a more respectable range of 175m (60cm=100x6mm).

By the way, the smaller the miniature, the less expensive and easier to transport. Even painting is easier.
(think buying/transporting/painting 54mm mounted knights...)

JWhex
29-06-2013, 06:11
Having played 40k and fantasy for much longer than a decade, my experience is the opposite of the OP.

In my experience, 40k players seem to be much more obsessive about what happens in a game, especially at tournaments. Overall I would estimate both the age of 40k players to be younger and the maturity level to be lower than fantasy players. I would NOT say that generally 40k players are immature because of course many are great sports and fun to game against but the barrier to putting a 40k army together is lower than for fantasy and sci fi has a broader appeal than fantasy.

I have also found that 40k players are a lot "looser" with the rules than fantasy players and I think that is in part due to the nature of the rules, terrain, movement rules etc. I know from experience if I go to a local tournament for fantasy I will probably have some good games and a relaxed day. I also know that if I go to a 40K tournament I will probably have three games with good opponents and probably have to deal with one complete ********.