PDA

View Full Version : Why 40k?



Dark_Mage99
19-08-2013, 17:50
Just a quick question: What makes you play 40k over the Fantasy equivalent?

Ironbone
19-08-2013, 17:57
Guns :) :evilgrin: . And overall system fast paste, lower model count, and easier rules.

Scammel
19-08-2013, 18:02
I play both, but prefer Fantasy for greater balance, more tactical depth and more intuitive rules. All in my opinion, of course.

buddy_revell
19-08-2013, 18:02
freedom of movement. dont need insanely large collection of models just to stand a chance of winning in a combat. terrain actually means something and has a functional role that isnt horrendously convoluted. science fiction is preferable, to me.


having said that, there are many things that fantasy brings to the table that i prefer, like modified dice rolls.

The Marshel
19-08-2013, 18:03
more dynamic movement (fantasy's blocky unit movement is just a bit restrictive), more interactive scenery, armies tend to be more varied in play style from what I've seen , greater ballance between CC and shooting (i know, shooting is way powerful right now, but my point is more that you can effectively use CC in 40k, where as a lot of general shooting is much harder to use in wfb)

That's just a few off the top of my head. More specific points that pushed me away from WFB, but not necessarily towards 40k are things like finding the fantasy universe and a bit too comical (its less so these days though) and my dislike of magic systems that have such poorly defined boundaries, where the wizard says magical words and stuff happens without decent explanation for how it all works.

Scammel
19-08-2013, 18:05
dont need insanely large collection of models just to stand a chance of winning in a combat.

This is something that often crops up in Fantasy threads, because it's not necessarily true by a long shot. It's actually quite damaging to the game when this gets stated as fact.

buddy_revell
19-08-2013, 18:06
This is something that often crops up in Fantasy threads, because it's not necessarily true by a long shot. It's actually quite damaging to the game when this gets stated as fact.
yeah fair enough. ive obviously never had this be an issue then, in the hundreds of games of fantasy ive had. :/

Bubble Ghost
19-08-2013, 18:10
Because I feel that 40K is a setting which copes with the Michael Bay-ish mindless excess of GW's modern approach better than WFB does.

Having started out as a 40K player in 2nd edition, then moved to Warhammer, by the time the late 90s/early 2000s came around, I'd quit 40K completely and moved over WFB exclusively. And I stand by my reasons for doing that at the time. But these days, with the level of fantasy getting higher and higher and higher with every new monster kit, the comically large units having endless sumo matches until someone runs out of dice, the homogenised miniature ranges ("congrats on the new army book, here's your standard issue giant centrepiece and your standard issue monstrous cavalry"), and models being raked off the table by the dozen every time a wizard blinks, Warhammer has turned into a parody of itself. It might as well be World of Warcraft or any other pyrotechnic video game setting. There's no longer anything unique about it - it has become what I once loved it for being the antidote to. Hence, I no longer love it.

40K, at the same time, has done the opposite and actually grown up a little. 6th edition is much closer to being a proper wargame than any other edition so far; you don't have stupid uber-sized units; and all the large kits don't represent super-rare things that skew the tone of the whole setting with their mere presence. The tone is exactly the same as is in Warhammer, but the nature of the setting and the lack of movement trays (and therefore no giganto-chunderunits of four thousand goblins) have shielded it, so far, from the final throes of becoming a caricature of itself.

gwarsh41
19-08-2013, 18:46
I like Scifi more than fantasy. Regiments don't appeal to me. I tried it and did not like it. (Had a dwarf army) Just about everything that Fantasy has that appeals to me, 40k can substitute and make it in space.

Dwarves -> Space Wolves
Tomb Kings - > Necrons
Chaos daemons -> Chaos daemons

Lastly, no Tyranids in Fantasy. I am a closet tyranid fanboy.

Ironbone
19-08-2013, 18:51
Dwarves -> Space Wolves

Only if you mean large amount of potencial candidates to AA clubs :). Dwarves are more into stacic gunline, SW are up close and personal with chainsword.

Scribe of Khorne
19-08-2013, 19:05
The setting is infinitely larger, the scope, and variation is just light years (hah!) a head of anything a single planet (Fantasy) can handle.

Bubble Ghost
19-08-2013, 19:32
The setting is infinitely larger, the scope, and variation is just light years (hah!) a head of anything a single planet (Fantasy) can handle.

Being confined to a single planet doesn't seem to stop war movies set on Earth from being interesting.

Scammel
19-08-2013, 19:34
I must admit I find it odd that people don't think massed hordes of troops don't fit into a wargame focussed on massed medieval-period combat. :confused:

Fizzy
19-08-2013, 19:37
Sci fi
Horus Heresy
Guns
Power armour
Story/Background

Lord Damocles
19-08-2013, 19:42
I much prefer 40K's background to that of Fantasy.
Even with GW moving in an increasingly 40K-esque grimdark direction with Fantasy background and style, it's still fairly standard fantasy.
The scale of 40K's background also allows for a greater scope of background.

I also prefer 40K's greater manoeuvrability, whereas Fantasy battles tend to involve marching forwards and mulching into the enemy somewhere near the middle of the board.

And I prefer 40K not giving fixed mechanical bonuses for performing actions such as flanking - the benefit you get in 40K is more situation-specific rather than a set bonus.

Plus I'm not a fan of Fantasy's combat resolution.


Also: Lazors! Pew! Pew!

Bubble Ghost
19-08-2013, 19:43
I must admit I find it odd that people don't think massed hordes of troops don't fit into a wargame focussed on massed medieval-period combat. :confused:

It's not a question of "massed hordes of troops" not fitting, it's that they're too big for the mechanics and for the table. The visual is horrible, with everything so large and congested that the battlefield is made to look small - I don't find that Warhammer battles actually look like battles at all any more, let alone "epic" ones, because there doesn't seem to be any space to constitute a battlefield. The games just look like a riot at a Tolkien convention.

C4PTUR3
19-08-2013, 19:57
I must admit I find it odd that people don't think massed hordes of troops don't fit into a wargame focussed on massed medieval-period combat. :confused:

I my have missed the point, but I don't think WFB is supposed to be representative of the medieval period, it is fantasy. However I think the main point in regard to your post is this; it isn't that the giant units don't 'fit in', it is more that they are boring. In terms of buying, building, painting and playing.

On a personal note, I have played both games extensively (and have read a lot of BL books from both settings) since getting involved with GW and whilst I do enjoy fantasy I always seem to return to 40k, something about it seems more exciting. I think the more dynamic movement and the increased interaction with terrain makes the game more fluid, fast-paced, unpredictable and entertaining.

Scribe of Khorne
19-08-2013, 19:58
Being confined to a single planet doesn't seem to stop war movies set on Earth from being interesting.

No, a story can be interesting confined to a single house, but that doesnt change the point. In 40K my characters can be star reaving nightmares, leaving a trail of decimated planets in their wake. The battle of the moment can be for the stakes of an entire planet, and it can be justified in 40K for exact reasons you mentioned yourself.

In Fantasy it doesnt quite carry the same weight, with me.

IcedCrow
19-08-2013, 20:01
You do not need massive numbers of models in fantasy compared to 40k. That is a slanderous mistruth. I play both games.

I play chaos space marines (thousand sons, fallen, death guard), necrons, imperial guard, and eldar in 40k. In fantasy i play chaos warriors, high elves, tomb kings, and daemons. I play 2000 pts 40k, and 2500 points fantasy. All of my armies barring IG (which have over 100 - 150 models) sit in the 60-80 model count region. I can build a 15 model count chaos warrior army for fantasy. Ogre Kingdoms average about 30 models. My chaos dwarf build is sitting at 45 models.

Scammel
19-08-2013, 20:04
It's not a question of "massed hordes of troops" not fitting, it's that they're too big for the mechanics and for the table. The visual is horrible, with everything so large and congested that the battlefield is made to look small - I don't find that Warhammer battles actually look like battles at all any more, let alone "epic" ones, because there doesn't seem to be any space to constitute a battlefield. The games just look like a riot at a Tolkien convention.

I think it's just a case of taste. I think big units (and the fact that weak troops can very effective when arranged as such) are awesome. I love me a regiment of 40 Spearmen, much moreso than 10 Marines.


In Fantasy it doesnt quite carry the same weight, with me.

Again, taste and all that but 40k's sheer scale means that slaughtering 10 worlds is inconsequential, to me. In Fantasy, wiping out a single city carries much more weight than burning a dozen measly planets.

Scribe of Khorne
19-08-2013, 20:07
IcedCrow - But is it competitive to do a lower count in Fantasy? I dont play it, but I watch it when I am at tournaments, and its all about big blocks sitting and grinding, insanely boring to see...

Scammel
19-08-2013, 20:09
But is it competitive to do a lower count in Fantasy?

Yes. Very. Warriors are currently rocking the tables, as are Ogres. But O&G have been doing very well in certain tournaments too. Check out Lord Inquisitor's latest tourney reports for a good example of a top MMU army. The variety of successful armies outclasses 40k by several degrees in my view, it really does.

Hrw-Amen
19-08-2013, 20:13
I started collecting fantasy figures way before either WFB or W40K came along, figures from the old Fiend Factory etc. Then I progressed to WFB for a while but in the end it just did not cut it with the epic nature of W40K universe. Basically in WFB you are sort of limited to the armies listed in the books as existing on the WFB planet, using tech at the level they have with the odd bit of stuff showing up from time to time from the Old Ones. In W40K the universe, (Well Galaxy at least.) is open for interpretation. You can have club wielding barbarians or supper high tech warriors fighting each other and each having a chance of winning.

IcedCrow
19-08-2013, 20:17
IcedCrow - But is it competitive to do a lower count in Fantasy? I dont play it, but I watch it when I am at tournaments, and its all about big blocks sitting and grinding, insanely boring to see...

Yes you can still be powergamey with a low model count. The big blocks sitting and grinding (or as I call it, death stars rushing to meet in the middle to slap bellies together for a few rounds) is something people do but it is not a required thing to do and once you learn the game there are ways to have low model count armies beat those through redirection. I am in agreement that the deathstars sitting there grinding into each other sucks and is boring.

Much like 40k has "I WIN" and easy model builds, the giant death stars are fantasy's "I WIN" and easy model builds. I like both games and both games also have issues, but model count is not one of the issues that should be used because its not true, though like urban legend is passed along as the truth.

Bubble Ghost
19-08-2013, 20:30
No, a story can be interesting confined to a single house, but that doesnt change the point. In 40K my characters can be star reaving nightmares, leaving a trail of decimated planets in their wake. The battle of the moment can be for the stakes of an entire planet, and it can be justified in 40K for exact reasons you mentioned yourself.

My point was a "star reaving nightmare" isn't an innately more "weighty" subject for a story than someone doing the same through cities - it's a question of perspective.



I think it's just a case of taste.

That's what this whole thread is about, right?

Scammel
19-08-2013, 20:39
Of course. I'm just making sure not to give the impression that I'm trying to bludgeon my perspective into your skull like an Irongut to a Snotling.

Yeah, you're a Snotling.

buddy_revell
19-08-2013, 20:43
Yes you can still be powergamey with a low model count.

Much like 40k has "I WIN" and easy model builds, the giant death stars are fantasy's "I WIN" and easy model builds. I like both games and both games also have issues, but model count is not one of the issues that should be used because its not true, though like urban legend is passed along as the truth.


my main point earlier in the thread is that the huge unit builds are very common. which they are.

Scribe of Khorne
19-08-2013, 20:47
Of course. I'm just making sure not to give the impression that I'm trying to bludgeon my perspective into your skull like an Irongut to a Snotling.

Yeah, you're a Snotling.

:D

And yeah, I get you guys. No worries.

I would like to see these micro model count Chaos Warrior builds, as long as they dont use those horrible forsaken...

Scammel
19-08-2013, 20:50
Oh no. They use Daemon Princes, Chimerae, Disc-mounted characters, hounds and chariots primarily, to my knowledge. But basic Warriors are also very potent (and you'll end up wishing CSM were their sci-fi equivalents!).

IcedCrow
19-08-2013, 20:55
my main point earlier in the thread is that the huge unit builds are very common. which they are.

There's a huge difference between "in fantasy huge unit builds are common" and "in fantasy, you are required to have huge unit builds to be competitive so play 40k instead because you only need a fraction of the models" or "40k requires less models". That is what I am addressing.

I'm not disputing any point that says huge unit builds are common, uncommon, rare, or otherwise because that will depend on your area. In my neck of the woods, fantasy huge units are rare and that's a city with five strong game stores and a very competitive circuit.

buddy_revell
19-08-2013, 21:00
There's a huge difference between "in fantasy huge unit builds are common" and "in fantasy, you are required to have huge unit builds to be competitive so play 40k instead because you only need a fraction of the models" or "40k requires less models". That is what I am addressing.

I'm not disputing any point that says huge unit builds are common, uncommon, rare, or otherwise because that will depend on your area. In my neck of the woods, fantasy huge units are rare and that's a city with five strong game stores and a very competitive circuit.

yeah, sorry. i dont usually post with the idea that my comments are going to get taken apart with a fine tooth comb.

IN MY AREA THE MOST COMMONLY USED ARMIES IN WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLE CONSIST OF A FEW REALLY REALLY BIG UNITS THAT JUST SIT THERE AND GRIND OUT FOR THE GAME WHICH IS REALLY BORING


I RARELY IF EVER SEE PEOPLE USE UNITS SMALLER THAN AT LEAST 30 MODELS, EXCEPT FOR DEDICATED "SPEEDBUMP" UNITS


I AM NOT SURE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES ARE SO BEAR IN MIND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION


that better?

Scribe of Khorne
19-08-2013, 21:05
Welcome buddy, to the 40K forums, where your smallest point will be dissected, and you WILL be judged, and found wanting. :D

Enjoy your stay.

Scammel
19-08-2013, 21:11
In all seriousness, what Scribe said is true. People will disagree with you and will pick apart the exact letter of your wording. It really does pay to make sure you say what you mean and leave yourself a get-out clause - 'generally', 'in my experience', 'personally' etc. are all great words/phrases.

Don't mean to patronise. :)

Ironbone
19-08-2013, 21:13
Welcome buddy, to the 40K forums, where your smallest point will be dissected, and you WILL be judged, and found wanting. :D

Enjoy your stay.
We will hang you later :D. Cheers.

Voss
19-08-2013, 21:20
Just a quick question: What makes you play 40k over the Fantasy equivalent?

Background, mostly. Though a lot of it came out of various bits of sci-fi (Dune, Judge Dredd, various others), over the years GW turned 40k into its own thing. Fantasy is still a overly generic, and even though the authors who inspired some of the roots have moved on (or died), every element is still traceable right back to those roots, in some cases barely altered. And a lot is still generic fantasy schlock.

That, and a lot of fantasy armies feel very much the same, or have broken into unnecessarily small pieces. I'd be more impressed if they did some major work and put more variety (back) into some armies by putting them together. Have one undead, one human, one elf, and one chaos army, among other changes. Leave room for some truly interesting stuff, rather than the 'real elf army', and the 'castrated elf army with trees on'.

That said I play both, but it is easier to get excited about 40k.

SeBM
19-08-2013, 21:29
I prefer Fantasy but I really like both.

The fluff is really good in both settings, but I like Fantasy better, I've always been a big fantasy nerd. I also like Sci-Fi, but the fact that 50% of the armies in 40K wear power armour is a bit disappointing to me. I like to see a greater variety of models.

I also feel like WHFB 8th edition has achieved much better balance then 40K 6th, but I have played much more WHFB then 40K.

Finally about the price of armies, I'd say it ends up about the same in most cases baring some exceptions. As for the part about Hordes vs Hordes fighting, it really depends on the meta. To be honest, the best players tend to shy away because they are easily redirected or held up by small units. Sure, against a dummy, hordes will do great, but they are far from IWIN buttons when you face a decent players. In 40K, you do get some IWIN netlists that will make some match ups unplayable because of rules design though.

IcedCrow
19-08-2013, 21:40
Because it is a common mistruth that to play fantasy you need exponentially more models (more money) which costs the fantasy community new players regularly and is not true.

So on that yeah ill nitpick you.

As to the other comments about how fantasy is all the same i have only one answer: space marines.

I am also a 40k fan.

SeBM
19-08-2013, 22:32
Because it is a common mistruth that to play fantasy you need exponentially more models (more money) which costs the fantasy community new players regularly and is not true.

So on that yeah ill nitpick you.

As to the other comments about how fantasy is all the same i have only one answer: space marines.

I am also a 40k fan.

Agreed about Space Marines.

Also, about the money part, a lot of people imagine that big horde armies are where it's at, but when you look at tournament winning armies, it isn't the case. So you can play a low model count army both for fun or for competition.

Ssilmath
19-08-2013, 22:53
For me, it's a couple things. First, I love the setting of 40k. Fantasy has a decent setting, but I never really got into it. I was introduced to 40k by the first Dawn of War and the Horus Heresy series when I was bored in Kuwait, and the larger than life heroics and awesome villains sucked me right in. I love how over the top it is without feeling forced or cheesy.

Second, I hate the mechanics of Fantasy. I played a fair few games with Beastmen, but disliked the movement system that basically constrained my troops to just pushing forward from where they were deployed. I wasn't a big fan of the armor save modifiers, or the fact that the supposed hardcore Bestigors fell over if anybody looked at them. But ultimately, it was three instances of gameplay that tuned me out for good. First one, a squad of 6 Nurgle Marked Minotaurs (Last book, not current) charging a squad of Empire spearmen. I don't remember how they did it, but I caused 5 casualties and took none in return, then lost the combat by three, fled and got run down. Second was watching my entire army (Current book) get annihilated by a single squad of Elven Greatswordsmen who would blender through a unit and I wouldn't get a swing off. And the straw that broke the camels back was playing against Orcs and Goblins and having less than half the attack dice that my opponent had in dispel dice, despite having a Level 4 and a Level 2 Wizard. Sold my army, done, bye.

Menthak
19-08-2013, 23:09
Aesthetics, infinite setting, characters, the history, sci-fi over fantasy (a change from my usual tastes), Tau, tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Space Marines (of all flavours), preference of gaming system (More flexibility, especially in movement).

Lots of things, but another thing, which isn't a major reason, but is a bonus: I can win games of 40k. I can't get to grips with fantasy in the same way I can with 40k.

Lots of little reasons, I don't dislike the fantasy setting, at all, in fact I really like fantasy, but I'm not a fan of the system compared to 40k, so 40k it is.

CrownAxe
20-08-2013, 00:34
I play both, but prefer 40k for greater balance, more tactical depth and more intuitive rules. All in my opinion, of course.

buddy_revell
20-08-2013, 01:30
In all seriousness, what Scribe said is true. People will disagree with you and will pick apart the exact letter of your wording. It really does pay to make sure you say what you mean and leave yourself a get-out clause - 'generally', 'in my experience', 'personally' etc. are all great words/phrases.

Don't mean to patronise. :)

nah, i think people just need to take their fedoras off and perhaps read between lines once in a while.

Retrospectus
20-08-2013, 01:32
Chainswords and space Orks :)

Voss
20-08-2013, 02:59
Because it is a common mistruth that to play fantasy you need exponentially more models (more money) which costs the fantasy community new players regularly and is not true.
One thing I find baffling is fantasy players often push the point size of games higher (while complaining about the costs). 40k often gets played at 1500s or 1750 or 1850, but I've met a lot of fantasy players who insist on a 2k minimum, with some pushing for 2500 or even 3000 (and I don't think the game is even functional at that stage). Now granted, some lord choices aren't usable at lower point costs, but in a lot of cases, it is purely voluntary and a bit baffling.


As to the other comments about how fantasy is all the same i have only one answer: space marines.

I just treat them as one army. That they get more frequent updates is annoying, but until GW starts doing more armies (particularly more alien armies) it doesn't really make much difference. I'd rather be on a longer update cycle than a shorter one anyway.

IcedCrow
20-08-2013, 03:06
nah, i think people just need to take their fedoras off and perhaps read between lines once in a while.

People don't read between the lines. When you tell them 40k requires a lot less models, there isn't anything to read in the lines there. You are stating as a player that has experience that the fact is that 40k requires less models. A person with no experience is going to take you for face value, snarkiness and sarcasm and whatever aside. They are going to believe you that 40k requires less models and thus less money.

I think that there are times when reading between the lines is understood (ie... that unit sucks in the context of a tournament gamer is in the context of tournaments... he doesn't need to preface with "IMO" though yes people will nitpick that... ) and there are times when reading between the lines is misleading (ie... a new player with no clue asking you an experienced player what the downside of fantasy is, and you telling them that it requires a ton more models and money to make a legit army when its not true. There is no "IMO" or "I'm not sure" in there... you are stating as empirical fact that this is the case) I know this because on a monthly basis I have this talk with one or two new guys at the store who say "but so and so told me I needed like 300 models in fantasy to play a competitive army" and you want to face palm so and so for saying that because barring super horde armies, that's really not true.


One thing I find baffling is fantasy players often push the point size of games higher (while complaining about the costs). 40k often gets played at 1500s or 1750 or 1850, but I've met a lot of fantasy players who insist on a 2k minimum, with some pushing for 2500 or even 3000 (and I don't think the game is even functional at that stage). Now granted, some lord choices aren't usable at lower point costs, but in a lot of cases, it is purely voluntary and a bit baffling.

All depends on your meta. Our 40k group plays 2000 points and loves it. Our fantasy group plays 2500 points and loves it. We cap campaigns at 3000. Another 40k group in town plays 1000-1500 points and loves it. Its all up to your players on what is normal. "fantasy players" in general is trying to speak for the entire fantasy fan base... which we cannot do. I personally have not played a game of 40k less than 1850 points since 2001 or so.


I just treat them as one army. That they get more frequent updates is annoying, but until GW starts doing more armies (particularly more alien armies) it doesn't really make much difference. I'd rather be on a longer update cycle than a shorter one anyway.

I meant this in the case where someone mentioned fantasy armies all look the same. 7 out of 10 40k players play a version of space marines. In fantasy there are about 11 different armies and there isn't really a space marine army out there.

Now in the realm of tournaments, things start to look the same. No argument. But that's true in 40k as well.

lordreaven448
20-08-2013, 03:06
Simple, I can't make it into the nigth Fantasy is played at my LGS. I can for FoW and I am slowly remembering why I switched to FoW in the first place after a few years and many disputes with the local 40k group (it only takes a few people to ruin it for everyone)

EDIT: If I could make it in to Fantasy, I would Drop 40k in a heart beat. Though I would keep my Daemons and work a bit more on my 'nids and occasionally play, I would play Fantasy over 40k if both options came up.

insectum7
20-08-2013, 03:24
There's no power armor in fantasy. . .

The background too.

Eldar models look amazing.

lordreaven448
20-08-2013, 03:32
There's no power armor in fantasy. . .

The background too.

Eldar models look amazing.
Chaos Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors would like a word :D

Losing Command
20-08-2013, 06:29
Actually only because Wh40k is played the most over here. I had (and still have, my 40k collection including a battle company and 1st company pales in comparisation) a huge Lotr collection, but never found anybody to play against, so just bought the starterset of the game you saw the most after a year or so. Gotta say it went a little bit out of hand considering ...

insectum7
20-08-2013, 06:30
Chaos Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors would like a word :D

They have auto senses and can they survive in a vacuum? No? THEN GET OUT!! :)

Scammel
20-08-2013, 08:36
They have auto senses and can they survive in a vacuum? No? THEN GET OUT!! :)

I lifted this from the equivalent Fantasy thread. ;)


There is no such thing as "MEQ" in WHFB, and that says a lot. When you're playing a tournament, you're not tailoring your army against say, dwarves, because you already know more than two third of your opponents will play blue dwarves, red blood-dwarves, blue super-bearded dwarves, green emo dwarves, grey Mary-Sue dwarves or spiked punk dwarves.

The Marshel
20-08-2013, 09:57
grey Mary-Sue dwarves
Poor grey knights, this is what Mat ward has done to you!

I think there are actually some positives to be drawn from the over centralisation of the Imperium for 40k. The setting functions well with the status quo created by the dominance of imperial factions. It really helps focus the setting and does as much good in bringing the various armies together in realistic scenarios (the scale of the setting, the factitious nature of the imperial forces and the sense of us vs them in reguards to imperial, chaos and xenos forces makes it very easily to create a pleasing background to your game) as it does harm in creating a large population of imperial players.

I won't pretend that the specific overcrowded-ness of MEQ isn't a problem but we're seeing GW take positive steps to improve the situation. Both Tau and Eldar received solid releases recently, and the introduction of supplements has seen the factions of other races fleshed out more ingame, with great potential for even further development down the line (just think of orks for example, supplements could do a lot there). Given the rumours for the new marine codex, its hard to imaging many supplements will be released for them with the rules for chapter tactics already making many of the individual chapters much more characterful within the single marine codex. Similarly it's difficult to come up with decent ideas for DA, BA, GK and SW. CSM are the only MEQs I think will see heavy use of the supplement system, but this is imo more likely to created more varied forces then just "more MEQ" given the nature of the chaos warbands. If the supplement processes really gains momentum it could really do wonders to reduce the over dominance of MEQ in 40k.

And finally, BT are being rolled back into the main marine codex. I think this says a lot about how GW is looking to develop 40k in the future

TehJDot
20-08-2013, 10:11
For me, the 40k universe is just much more rich and it allows for you to build a narrative for your characters that can be realistically, a lot more meaningful as it is on a galactic scale. The 40k universe is also just fraught with tragedy. The Blood Angels, the Imperiums true heroes. Men who truly believe that they can make a difference, and yet they are cursed with a craving for blood. The Orks, the green blight of the galaxy. A race that is genetically engineered to thrive on war. A race that actually lives a life that they enjoy. Conrad Curze, plagued with nightmare visions of the future. He inadvertently causes his visions to come true through his indecision.

Sci-Fi has always interested me far more than any fantasy universe with few exceptions.

Edit: I actually was really interested in 7th edition fantasy, but I joined at the tail end of it. I did not like the change in focus to hordes, the reduction in magical items for all of the items among some other things I can't remember at the moment.

Hendarion
20-08-2013, 10:13
I always hated the way WHFB deploys and places units - in large blocks. I hate that, really. I love the freedom 40k gives to formations and the 2"-distance-thing. Also, WHFB units have so many models inside, I would die.

(plus I don't like most WHFB miniatures in style - plus historical weapons are boring)

nosebiter
20-08-2013, 10:18
Well the current focus on mega blocks of infantry is what is keeping me away from fantasy, tone that back abit again and i would love to play it.

40k has a horrible ruleset at present IMHO, clunky and stupid in so many areas. And that is keeping me out of 40k for the most part.

IcedCrow
20-08-2013, 13:20
We have a fantasy campaign rolling with about 28 people involved. Barring the skaven players, we don't have mega hordes of infantry. In fact, our order players are starting to break out more cavalry based knight armies supported by machines.

The game is what you make of it. Going off of what the internet says it is is bad... which is why I wave the counter-flag so often. Its not to nitpick. Its to say that the internet's view of things is a very narrow viewpoint that misses a very large majority of what the game is but so many people take the internet's word for what something is and then go from there.

Here is a video report of one of our last campaign games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRSg2B-hppI

And post analysis of the game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGKmeP2IZnk

Death Korp
20-08-2013, 13:27
I like both games, however it's always ben 40k for me.

Why?

Space Marines. The Adeptus Astartes are the most awesome Science Fiction creation since ever in my opinion. From 30k to 40k, they've always been iconic in such a strange and great universe.

And Nids. :P

Karhedron
20-08-2013, 22:01
I have fluctuated between 40K and Fantasy but 40K is really my favourite. My interests change as new editions come out and my old-favourite armies get redone. I really enjoyed 8th ed Fantasy at first but then they ruined it with a truly terrible Orc and Goblin army book. I read the book once and put my army away in the loft in disgust.

The incident left such a bad taste in my mouth I didn't even bother picking up 6th ed 40K until they redid the Eldar codex. Fortunately I liked this much better than anything since 2nd Ed and I am now back in the game.

Scammel
20-08-2013, 22:31
I play both, but prefer 40k for greater balance, more tactical depth and more intuitive rules. All in my opinion, of course.

Have I managed to cause offence? :confused:

Shadeseraph
20-08-2013, 22:55
One thing I find baffling is fantasy players often push the point size of games higher (while complaining about the costs). 40k often gets played at 1500s or 1750 or 1850, but I've met a lot of fantasy players who insist on a 2k minimum, with some pushing for 2500 or even 3000 (and I don't think the game is even functional at that stage). Now granted, some lord choices aren't usable at lower point costs, but in a lot of cases, it is purely voluntary and a bit baffling.

To be fair, the rulebooks seem to support this approach: You use Grand Army rules from 3000 pts onwards on WHFB, while Double FOC happens on WH40K at 2000 pts. Of course, in the end which point level you play is your choice, but it is also true that 200-300 pts models are quite common in WHFB, while a Land Raider is considered a huge point sink. And let's not speak about those 500-600 pts lord choices.

This is, by the way, why WHFB isn't really higher count than 40K: While most basic models are costed similarly (most armies core is 5-11 pts per model), big toys are much more expensive, characters can amount to half your point allotment, and unit upgrades such as banners can cost as much as a troop unit in 40K. Comparatively, a main tank in 40K tends to be 130-170 pts, give or take.

Personally, I prefer Fantasy for the rules, as I find it more strategically engaging, and 40K for the looks. I like my High Elves quite a lot, but Tau and Nids are just too cool. Though, to be fair, I don't like the overly gothic-y look most armies *cough*speeshmereens*cough* have.

On the other side, WH40K has speeshmareens. Every day I kill a bunch of those is a happy day. Fantasy would be so much better with speeshmareens to kill...

Chem-Dog
20-08-2013, 23:45
I've always preferred Science Fiction over Fantasy.

First White Dwarf I ever got had stories about the Emeperor fighting Horus and an Inquisitor being stalked by a strange Xenos creature (cookies if anyone can tell me which edition). To be honest, from that point I was hooked to 40K's setting, Warhammer isn't anywhere near as grandiose despite it's best efforts.
Not to mention that with armies that have to sail from their homelands to get to a place they can fight whatever enemy you're facing this week and then spend however long marching to wherever it is they meet their enemy....it's a disconnect issue for immersion, 40k has it's moments but with the scale of the setting they are less common.

I have tried Warhammer several times in various incarnations and each time it just seems like it's more gamey.

Also, I'm not a fan of ranked up infantry, it doesn't look anything special to me.


I'm planning to give it another go with Vampire Counts soon though.

druchii
21-08-2013, 00:27
I play both, but prefer 40k for greater balance, more tactical depth and more intuitive rules. All in my opinion, of course.

Beat me to it.

Also lazers and angry, evil, space, undead robots.

d

Voss
21-08-2013, 01:54
I meant this in the case where someone mentioned fantasy armies all look the same. 7 out of 10 40k players play a version of space marines.
Tsk, tsk. Talking about '40k players' in general?
;)

IcedCrow
21-08-2013, 02:13
lol

every 40k event i've ever been to in my life for the past 15 years. I'm sure that missed a few 40k players along the way

lordreaven448
21-08-2013, 04:02
They have auto senses and can they survive in a vacuum? No? THEN GET OUT!! :)
You'll be surprised at what Dwarves and Chaos Dwarves are capable of.

insectum7
21-08-2013, 06:44
You'll be surprised at what Dwarves and Chaos Dwarves are capable of.

They gonna Drop Pod from a tall tree or something?

KR3LL
21-08-2013, 06:57
I play both.

But I mainly play 40k. Recently got into fantasy for something different.

40k seems like a more balanced game to me, but seems like it takes too long, there is a lot of random crap that adds no value to the game.

Fantasy, still suffers from the death star army general thing. All the big things generally suck as GW cannot seem to balance them so they do fall to stubbing their toe on a basic infantry unit. The magic phase is way crazy and way out of balance in my opinion. Nothing like knocking off you opponents unit simply because you got a good dice roll. That being said I still enjoy playing fantasy, and the games are much much faster.

Poseidal
21-08-2013, 08:00
In the advent of 8th WH and 6th 40k, 40k just became the more fun game to me.

I think things with the visual style work better too. Bubble Ghost basically says how I feel about things game wise.

While I always preferred the 40k aesthetic and (most) factions, I preferred Fantasy since 6th Fantasy / 3rd 40k.

A few years back WHF was my main game and I played 40k occasionally for a laugh, or to bring out my Eldar models.

Now the situation has reversed.

SeBM
21-08-2013, 14:34
The 40K being more balanced makes me chuckle every time... How do you rate balance? Most people use tournament results and those results would tend to point that 40K is anything but balanced. When was the last time a Dark Angels list won a tournament?

In WHFB, many armies have won different tournaments and 8th edition books have greatly narrowed the power level difference. Sure TK are a bit weaker and Chaos Warriors and Ogres look like the stronger books but High Elves have had a great book and many viable builds and Lizards seem to be in line with other WHFB books.

Do you guys feel like Codex: Tau isn't vastly superior to Codex: DA??? How about Eldars? There are 4 Codices out and there is already have BIG issues in power level. Units like the Helldrake, the new Wave Serpents or the strength of the Tau in the shooting phase (the most important phase of the game), hardly makes 40K more balanced.

Both games have issues, but I don't think either is more balanced... But to say WHFB isn't balanced is really a shame because 8th edition has done a really great job!

Cheeslord
21-08-2013, 14:44
I feel that the units are more varied in 40k. There are vehicles, guys with jet packs, battle suits, robot drones as well as the things common on both (fighty grunts, shooty grunts, big monstars, artillery and leaders). Wizards are less well developed in 40k but still exist for most armies. Even within the categories it feels like the 40k armies are more different, with troops ranging from gretchin to terminators.

Also fantasy feels like you spend a lot of time and money building a collection of highly detailed wound counters for your playing pieces (which are in general the Units), whereas in 40k it feels more like each little dude has a special significance (especially with current wound allocation. Not saying I like it due to a lot of other reasons but it does make it more model-based).

Mark.

Fizzy
21-08-2013, 14:46
The 40K being more balanced makes me chuckle every time... How do you rate balance? Most people use tournament results and those results would tend to point that 40K is anything but balanced. When was the last time a Dark Angels list won a tournament?

In WHFB, many armies have won different tournaments and 8th edition books have greatly narrowed the power level difference. Sure TK are a bit weaker and Chaos Warriors and Ogres look like the stronger books but High Elves have had a great book and many viable builds and Lizards seem to be in line with other WHFB books.

Do you guys feel like Codex: Tau isn't vastly superior to Codex: DA??? How about Eldars? There are 4 Codices out and there is already have BIG issues in power level. Units like the Helldrake, the new Wave Serpents or the strength of the Tau in the shooting phase (the most important phase of the game), hardly makes 40K more balanced.

Both games have issues, but I don't think either is more balanced... But to say WHFB isn't balanced is really a shame because 8th edition has done a really great job!

You have missed a lot then. I have seen Tyranids (One of the worst codexes right now) coming 2nd a few times. Only losing because lack of luck with the dices.

IcedCrow
21-08-2013, 14:48
They aren't really wound counters anymore and haven't been since 2010 (any more so than the normal guys were wound counters for the guy with the powerfist in your marine squad). That used to be very true up until 8th edition.

Now if you have say 30 guys in a unit, it is possible for all 30 guys to fight.

Poseidal
21-08-2013, 16:04
They aren't really wound counters anymore and haven't been since 2010 (any more so than the normal guys were wound counters for the guy with the powerfist in your marine squad). That used to be very true up until 8th edition.

Now if you have say 30 guys in a unit, it is possible for all 30 guys to fight.
I actually feel 'step up' makes this feel even more 'wound counter' like though. Before' when you kill a guy, he doesn't get to fight back; he feels real in that the model there actually took the blow or the individual survived and is now fighting. Now, it's just a count up to how many models are left in the unit, how many get to attack and then roll dice.

nosebiter
21-08-2013, 16:07
You have missed a lot then. I have seen Tyranids (One of the worst codexes right now) coming 2nd a few times. Only losing because lack of luck with the dices.

To be fair only 80% of the nid dex is horrible, the rest is OP. Worst internal ballance ever.

The Marshel
21-08-2013, 16:14
To be fair only 80% of the nid dex is horrible, the rest is OP. Worst internal ballance ever.

I'm struggling to think of any seriously op nid units right now.....

druchii
21-08-2013, 19:15
I'm struggling to think of any seriously op nid units right now.....

Tervigons who score, poop out other scoring units, t6, 6w, have virtually in-built FNP, buff said pooped units, and are terifying. Fully tooled up for about the cost of a land raider and infinitely harder to kill.

Although I don't consider anything in 40k OP, but they're easily one of the best troops around.


Also as to the internal balance of 40k vs. fantasy. Are we forgetting beastmen and wood elves? And don't Ogres, WoC and Lizardmen pretty much dominate the tournament circuit? This isn't to say that 40k is MORE balanced than fantasy, but to sit there and say that fantasy is remotely balanced is...a joke, right?

d

IcedCrow
21-08-2013, 19:35
Neither system is balanced. Each system has its books that are a bit stronger. I think the difference is that in 40k those differences are more pronounced with its top lists compared to its middle and bottom lists.

There's that and also no army that roughly 7 out of 10 players in fantasy play like there is in 40k (space marines).

Von Wibble
21-08-2013, 20:29
I like both.

Good things for fantasy

It doesn't have several army books that are basically the same army in a different colour scheme - at one point I'd have said Space Marines, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Necrons (functionally the same with 3+ save elite infantry), Sisters and Grey Knights - thankfully they made Necrons lose save to an extent.

Unbreakable units are actually quite rare and armies with leadership below 8 actually exist (Tyranids, guard and Orks don't count thanks to synapse, officers and mob size).

It doesn't have ugly ugly ugly tanks in it, and it doesn't have Heldrakes or Vendettas.

It does have magic and monsters.

Victory points beat kill points by a long long way.

Surrounding enemy units (other than vehicles) feels like it actually gives a tangible reward. Never understood why a unit being shot at from front and back doesn't have a morale penalty for example.


Good things for 40K

I prefer the missions by a lot for 40K to warhammer

Options for fortifications

Terrain feels much more meaningful (in warhammer for example woods should be impassible for heavy cavalry and severely slow down infantry).

In general you don't need to buy 2 boxes minimum to make a large enough unit to field.

No overpowered magic (at least not since Lash was toned down).

MSU is much more doable in general (though some warhammer armies are exception to this rule).

IcedCrow
21-08-2013, 20:31
I will note one thing I love about 40k: objectives in missions

SeBM
21-08-2013, 21:03
You have missed a lot then. I have seen Tyranids (One of the worst codexes right now) coming 2nd a few times. Only losing because lack of luck with the dices.

Wood Elves have won tournaments as well. All I'm saying is that 40k isn't more balanced than Fantasy. It's actually probably worst because of some horribly overpowered units that ruin the game.

BTJ
21-08-2013, 21:04
For me, I'd collected for a few years as a kid, and my stuff was pretty evenly balanced between the the games, but when I actually started playing, all that was ever played in my LGS was 40k, so that's what I play. I do want to get into fantasy again though, maybe with Beastmen, I love their infantry models.

SeBM
21-08-2013, 21:04
Neither system is balanced. Each system has its books that are a bit stronger. I think the difference is that in 40k those differences are more pronounced with its top lists compared to its middle and bottom lists.

There's that and also no army that roughly 7 out of 10 players in fantasy play like there is in 40k (space marines).


^^ Pretty much what I'm trying to say but it's much more elegant :D.

Rimmerman
21-08-2013, 21:51
The main reason that I prefer 40k is that it is set in space and feels a bit more unique with its background.

I have played 40k since the beginning of 3rd ed, and as a whole have enjoyed every game I have played. I tried to get into fantasy in 7th and was really put off, but gave it another go when 8th came out and initially loved it (I was playing mainly against a friend in exactly the same situation as me).

Fantasy lost a lot of appeal for me when I started playing other people, and found that, in my local area at least, the fantasy players were more about winning than having a good time whereas the 40k players were more inclined to take joy in the game, whatever the result may be.

I will admit however, I am terrible at fantasy, and this may have clouded my judgement a little!

Rimmerman

Grocklock
21-08-2013, 22:18
I really do think we are comparing rock to classical music here. What I mean is that they serve different purposes.
Movement: fantasy wind here as here is verisbles from race to race. They don't all move at the same speed like in 40k. In my eyes an tyranid or eldar should be able to out run a guardsman.

Combat: Sometimes I want to play a game which big meaty blocks of troops smashing on the field of battle where positioning of your units has an effect on the fight. its one of the downfalls of 40k I can charge a unit head on or from 4 different angles it doesn't matter. In fantasy there is a big difference if you charge someone in the front or from 4 different angles. Also if I attack 10 guardsmen with 4 orks or 400 they have no buff or debuff to represent it.

Shooting: 40k does it better due to the volume but fantasy has he better mechanics. Being verisble numbers over fixed numbers.

in 40k In 40k leadership states don't mean a thing as most it's ld is either really high or they have a rule side stepping its effect.

Magic vs psychic: As Id is quite high psychic powers are pointless to roll for as they tend to always go off. It's just a case of weather or not you roll a double 1 or 6. Fantasy i have the chance to be more proactive in defending over 40k which is an 1 dice, 1 in 3 chance to prevent it.

Backgrounds: 40k is vast which is fun as it has massive space ships, tanks, guns which I love having grown up on flight of the navigator, Star Wars, terminator and starship troopers. But I also like history, romians, Egyptians, Greeks. Films such as dark crystal, and books such as lord of the rings. Fantasy has wizards, hulking beasts, mass blocks of troops fighting it out. Final Calvery charges.

The down side of alot of sci fi fiction is the vast bland ness. Fantasy being based on one planet means there is alot going on. So when adventures travel across a fantasy world they get a wealth of different climets terrain on one world.
Where as sci fi you usually get people traveling across the galaxy for the same effect. As there is a dessert planet, an ice planet. Planet of the carebear. While I understand that there ate planets out there covered in ice and earth is a rare occurrence. It just feels if you wanted to see anything different other then the same stuff in scifi you require a soace ship.

Going back to the op. 40k is rock fantasy is classical. Some times I like classical other times I like rock, the fact is they are both fun games and settings.

ewar
21-08-2013, 22:34
Let me just say that I play both systems, however Fantasy is to me far and away the better game. Playing with any of my different armies (Lizardmen, Tomb kings, Bretonnians etc) they all have a completely different play style, much more distinct than different forces in 40k which have all devolved now into different levels of shootiness. Essentially 40k has long range armies and short range armies.

I would genuinely like someone to explain to me where the tactical depth in 40k is? I see it mentioned a lot but I just don't get it. I think a fairly simple computer program could be written to win most 40k games which goes something like this:

- hide/protect scoring units until needed
- choose gun with big blast, shoot blob nearest objective
- choose gun with low AP, shoot tank
- have big blast with low AP, shoot terminators.

Just by doing that and rolling first turn you'll win a significant portion of your games. This has meant that my games group generally uses 40k as an excuse to get the cool models out (I love the look of the armies) and chuck some dice about. Whereas we play WFB competitively as it so much more engaging. Especially now the old 7th edition books have all been nerfed into the ground! Even the mega spells have much less impact now that all the uber mages have been taken out (daemons, teclis, slann etc).

I don't think the actual game of WFB has ever been better.

One of the things I find most frustrating in 40k is that EVERYTHING gets eliminated so quickly, nothing sticks around to fight after being shot (except monstrous creatures which are ludicrously better than any other class of big model). You will have the most elite unit in the universe drive up in their vehicle, jump out, kill something and then be wiped out in the following turn. With the amount of interceptor now there is a decent chance they'll be wiped out before they even get to do that - put a S9 AP2 blast over them and say goodbye. All the vehicle rules should be changed to just toughness and wounds to stop them being so horribly outclassed by MCs.

At least in my opinion.

KR3LL
22-08-2013, 04:59
The 40K being more balanced makes me chuckle every time... How do you rate balance? Most people use tournament results and those results would tend to point that 40K is anything but balanced. When was the last time a Dark Angels list won a tournament?

In WHFB, many armies have won different tournaments and 8th edition books have greatly narrowed the power level difference. Sure TK are a bit weaker and Chaos Warriors and Ogres look like the stronger books but High Elves have had a great book and many viable builds and Lizards seem to be in line with other WHFB books.

Do you guys feel like Codex: Tau isn't vastly superior to Codex: DA??? How about Eldars? There are 4 Codices out and there is already have BIG issues in power level. Units like the Helldrake, the new Wave Serpents or the strength of the Tau in the shooting phase (the most important phase of the game), hardly makes 40K more balanced.

Both games have issues, but I don't think either is more balanced... But to say WHFB isn't balanced is really a shame because 8th edition has done a really great job!

I am not saying 40k has balance between the codex books...cause its not there. I am saying its a more balanced game, as in more well rounded.

40K Seems much less chaotic then WHFB.
In 40k...it seems much more appropriate for the damage output to the damage done.
In fantasy...especially the magic phase you can easily wipe an entire unit off the board with a spell. Seems like the damage potential is crazy high for some of the spells. Don't forget about how sucky the big things are. Don't forget about the death star generals.

spaint2k
22-08-2013, 05:34
I liked fantasy back in the days of 3rd edition, when it felt like the battlefield actually was of sweeping scope, when manoeuvring and formations meant something, and when an entire army could consist of less than a hundred models. Today's fantasy appears to have 60-model units, a total lack of formations, and a board that's too clogged up with units to actually allow for manoeuvring.

I played a demo game of 8th edition a couple of years back that (to my mind) went horribly, horribly wrong, because it seemed like the game had been reduced to a slog to the middle and charge into a close combat of attrition where buckets of dice determined which enormously oversized unit of carefully-painted wound counters would be the winner. I just couldn't see the point. There was no sense of trying to outwit your opponent in a display of tactical genius; just charge and roll dice.

Not that 40K is much smarter.

Nightmare84
22-08-2013, 06:54
While I have had some bad match ups in 40k where i get tabled but its usually a whole army beats mine not a single wizard. I feel I dislike where fantasy is now with its super spells.
I dislike removing whole units cause you threw a spell at me. Which I can't stop cause generally you have gotten two or more 6s as its a 25+ to cast.
Magic is now controlling the game of fantasy to a horrible degree.
Then there is monsters... Fantasies trademark and they continuously bounce off blocks of infantry.
I don't want monsters to destroy infantry but a 250 pt beastie should not fall in one round to equal amount of infantry.
Making any strength attack be able to wound anything on a 6 was another bad move in my eyes. Toughness is somewhere I feel they could balance out monsters.
Not every lowly swordsman should be able to scratch a- sphinx, giant etc

ewar
22-08-2013, 08:09
People are saying that spells remove units, but which ones exactly?

The only two that can do this are purple sun (had almost zero effect on high initiative armies) and Dreaded 13th which can only remove a smallish unit and is also a 7th ed spell which will be nerfed hard when the skaven book gets updated.

The WFB people are describing here is not something I recognise. The Lizardmen army I played with lat weekend consisted of a unit of 20, a unit of 40, several units of skirmishers, infiltrators, 2 stegadons and a fight hero on a dinosaur, led by a kick ass mage. It's a blast to game with as it takes part in every phase of the game and though it's not a particularly hard list I'd be able to go toe to toe with any opponent and have a good game, there is no 'build' that would wipe me in the select army stage.

I definitely can't say that about my Marines or Eldar as if I choose a moderately fluffy list for either of them then there are several almost unwinnable match ups.

Lost Egg
22-08-2013, 09:03
I used to play both games years ago (2nd Ed 40k & ?ed Fantasy - around the same time) but lost interest with both the new editions; 3rd Ed 40k and the Fantasy edition with the lizardmen.

I've since returned to 40k and tried with Fantasy but just couldn't get in to it. For me, model count has been an issue with both games and while I have managed to find a happy level with 40k (1000pts works well though I prefer 500pts or even Kill Team [200pts]) I just couldn't with Fantasy; other players just aren't interested in smaller games. In the past what now fills a Battalion boxset would have been a complete army so I'm looking at 50 models or less not 100 or less. I think in Fantasy this is due to raising the points level of armies for most games while in 40k they reduced the points cost of everything so a 1000pt army now would have cost closer to 2000pts before. These changes are over the past 20-25 years.

As many posters have said its all a matter of taste, I prefer fewer minis so I can spend more time painting them. I'd love it if there was a Fantasy skirmish game with dispersed formations but that's unlikely to happen. I do intend on building up some backward-natives for my main 40k army which should be fun to play but thats a way off with my current list of projects and DIY.

Scammel
22-08-2013, 09:23
A comparison I always like to make between the systems is with charge mechanics:

- Fantasy player rolls his dice, comes up short, moves forwards a bit.
- Movement phase continues. A smart player might interposition some chaff between the two units to prevent a reprisal charge.
- Magic phase. A smart player might buff his unit to make a reprisal charge less appetising for his opponent, might move his or the enemy unit back or might zap the enemy unit to swing a potential combat in his favour.
- Shooting phase. A smart player might shoot up the unit about to charge to swing a potential combat in his favour or even inflict a panic test.

- 40k player rolls his dice, comes up short.
- Stands around getting shot next turn. Probably takes the unit off the table.

There's plenty of other similar elements that work much better in Fantasy, such as duplicate spells allowing the caster to pick, excess wounds caused in challenges contributing to combat res etc.

ewar
22-08-2013, 09:44
You also don't mention that the person being charged has 3 choices of response and that they would have had to plan ahead to receive the charge in their previous turn by selecting a wide formation for more attacks or narrow to get steadfast.

In my game last weekend I had a lone sink skirmisher add the rest of his unit had been killed and he basically won the game by interposing himself between a unit of white lions and the flank of my temple guard unit, meaning they couldn't charge me in the following turn. My opponent kicked himself for not killing that last little skink and that was the turning point in the game. In 40k that model would have had almost zero impact on a game unless it was camping at the back on an objective.

Poseidal
22-08-2013, 10:24
A comparison I always like to make between the systems is with charge mechanics:

- Fantasy player rolls his dice, comes up short, moves forwards a bit.
- Movement phase continues. A smart player might interposition some chaff between the two units to prevent a reprisal charge.
- Magic phase. A smart player might buff his unit to make a reprisal charge less appetising for his opponent, might move his or the enemy unit back or might zap the enemy unit to swing a potential combat in his favour.
- Shooting phase. A smart player might shoot up the unit about to charge to swing a potential combat in his favour or even inflict a panic test.

- 40k player rolls his dice, comes up short.
- Stands around getting shot next turn. Probably takes the unit off the table.

There's plenty of other similar elements that work much better in Fantasy, such as duplicate spells allowing the caster to pick, excess wounds caused in challenges contributing to combat res etc.

That's incorrect as the 40k unit has moved in his movement phase (and has moved further on average than the Fantasy unit). They also already had an opportunity to shoot if they had weapons (which is most units in the game) so the unit has actually done something - the focus of 40k is meant to be more in shooting than combat compared with Fantasy. It's actually the Fantasy unit that's left behind if it comes up short, as if you failed the charge you're unlikely to have rolled a 6 on either dice.

Scammel
22-08-2013, 10:37
That's incorrect as the 40k unit has moved in his movement phase (and has moved further on average than the Fantasy unit). They also already had an opportunity to shoot if they had weapons (which is most units in the game) so the unit has actually done something - the focus of 40k is meant to be more in shooting than combat compared with Fantasy.

All very true, but that's not quite the point I was trying to make. It's not about how much any given unit can do in any given turn or how far it moves, it's about what you can do to react to a mucked-up charge roll. Randomness is good for throwing curve-balls at players and forcing them to react as opposed to flat-out penalising you with very little you can do about it.

Lost Egg
22-08-2013, 10:54
Also, in 40k a smart player doesn't just think about the charge they want to make but chooses the appropriate time to attempt the charge minimising problems from failing the charge and so on.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that 40k is perfect but a direct situational comparison does not work. In the example that ewar gives it does seem odd that a single skink should hold the white lions up, surely in 'real-life' the little critter would have been smashed aside or crushed under-foot. I'm not knocking the cunning use of a lone survivor to help win a game but cinematically it feels like coming out on tops due to a technicality in the rules. There are plenty of those examples in 40k too though; a lascannon can blow up a Land Raider, if your very, very lucky but can't kill an Ork Warboss outright! Ahh for a return to 2nd Ed...sigh...

ewar
22-08-2013, 11:35
I agree cinematically it may look odd but I think at some point interesting game mechanics should take priority.

I try to see 40k as the cinematic, chuck dice about game but the rules make it quite hard at times. My new wraithknight is 100x tougher in game than my land raider, it just makes no sense to me. The same way my lovingly built and painted storm eagle - it can fly into the board and die from a single interceptor shot before it's done anything.

I don't want to come across as a 40k hater as it's a fun game and the armies can look lovely. I just wish there was a way to make WFB more popular as I think if people have it a chance with a proper demo game with balanced armies they'd see how much fun it is (at least I hope they would! I know fantasy isn't inherently as popular).