PDA

View Full Version : Fantasy or 40k? Which one do you think is more casual?



Frankie
06-03-2014, 15:01
I'm sorry if this doesnt belong here, but I couldnt find any other place to post this. But lately if been thinking that Warhammer 40k is much more serious and competetive then fantasy. I want a casual game to play with awesome fiction and so far Warhammer Fantasy has shown me exactly that.

I just feel that after many years of playing 40k the people that play are generally very up tight about both the games rules AND fiction, honestly I guess I could say i'm getting sick of it. The few games of Fantasy that I have played (wich I wont and lost brutally in) I had morefun then I ever did with 40k and saw myself drawn in to the pure fantasy realm of its backround (And thats coming from a guy who really likes scifi).

I just wanted to know YOUR thoughts.

underscore
06-03-2014, 15:17
Depends entirely on the local group, tbh. In my experience though: Fantasy has just coming out of a rather rough patch that jettisoned most of the 'serious' players. But, as I say, that's probably a local thing to me.

Navar
06-03-2014, 15:21
I would say 40k only because of the rule sets and the commitment to play the game tend to be less (in my experience) for 40k than for fantasy.

Around here (yes meta) it seems that players usually start with 40k and then if they get moro serious they pick up Fantasy and play both.

TheBearminator
06-03-2014, 15:32
It's been many years since I played fantasy, but my answer would be 40k. It's simplified in so many ways. You just measure and move everything. No penalties for turning around units or vehicles. No modifiers to save and to hit rolls and so on. The latter actually used to disturb me a bit. Hitting a running snotling, or a teleporting warp spider from two hundred meters is just as simple/difficult as hitting the side of an immobilized Baneblade from an arms length distance.

underscore
06-03-2014, 15:45
I actually found the 40k ruleset to be a bit more complex than Fantasy - movement is more straightforward, but keeping tabs on all the standardised unit types, vehicle rules and the huge amount of weapons and still breaks my head.

Fantasy suffers from the same kind of Special rule bloat, of course, the difference is with 40k that it's all front-loaded in the core rulebook rather than spread round the codexes. It doesn't help that all the special rules all rather nonsensical names ('Hammer of Wrath' compared to 'Impact Hits', for example).

Charistoph
06-03-2014, 16:02
I'm sorry if this doesnt belong here, but I couldnt find any other place to post this. But lately if been thinking that Warhammer 40k is much more serious and competetive then fantasy. I want a casual game to play with awesome fiction and so far Warhammer Fantasy has shown me exactly that.

I just feel that after many years of playing 40k the people that play are generally very up tight about both the games rules AND fiction, honestly I guess I could say i'm getting sick of it. The few games of Fantasy that I have played (wich I wont and lost brutally in) I had morefun then I ever did with 40k and saw myself drawn in to the pure fantasy realm of its backround (And thats coming from a guy who really likes scifi).

I just wanted to know YOUR thoughts.

Heh, an interesting perspective. I had to think on it a minute.

From a rules standpoint, 40K is more casual as a game. The game focuses more on squad versus squad combat more so than Fantasy's army versus army combat. Small game ruless like Kill Team and 40K in 40 Minutes are more common and easily available, whereas Fantasy is more sporadic.

From a players standpoint, I'd agree with Underscore. 8th Edition rubbed a lot of the WAACy carpentry players raw and locally, they dropped the game. I used to see casual Fantasy games all the time at my LGS, and all quite serious (well as serious as a bunch of men playing toy soldier will admit to getting). Lately, it's just been one guy doing Skaven BattleReports for YouTube and a "random" person that I've seen playing casual, for the most part, but I admit I don't get there as often as I'd like. 40K and WarmaHordes almost always have a game going, though.


I actually found the 40k ruleset to be a bit more complex than Fantasy - movement is more straightforward, but keeping tabs on all the standardised unit types, vehicle rules and the huge amount of weapons and still breaks my head..

Oddly enough, there are more unit types in Fantasy than there are in 40K. Though, that could be argued in different ways. Fantasy has Infantry, Beasts, Cavalry, Chariots, and Monsters. But each of those besides Monsters and Chariots have side-classes, too. Monstrous Infantry, Beasts, and Cavalry all exist alongside Flying which add another dimension. Add in sub-types like Fast Cavalry, all of which change the unit's capabilities and rules, and you're looking at something quite complex, especially when you factor things like Look Out Sir!.

Now, the weapons, I can understand. Very few armies have unique non-magical weapons outside the standard rulebook in Fantasy, whereas, 40K has every army adding new weapon systems in the game. I think Space Marines get away with having the smallest group of weapons that aren't in the rulebook, with Imperial Guard the second. But even they seem like Skaven compared to a Fantasy Army Book.

underscore
06-03-2014, 16:33
Oddly enough, there are more unit types in Fantasy than there are in 40K. Though, that could be argued in different ways. Fantasy has Infantry, Beasts, Cavalry, Chariots, and Monsters. But each of those besides Monsters and Chariots have side-classes, too. Monstrous Infantry, Beasts, and Cavalry all exist alongside Flying which add another dimension. Add in sub-types like Fast Cavalry, all of which change the unit's capabilities and rules, and you're looking at something quite complex, especially when you factor things like Look Out Sir!.
...but then remember that, with vehicles, 40k almost doubles the amount of 'types' it has (along with more rules, wound counting etc), and they can be mixed and matched!

Partly it's just the way it's structured: I tend to learn as I play and 40k is harder to trace through all the special rules for it's non-standard units. Though mostly it's just probably me. :)

EvanM
06-03-2014, 16:38
Fantasy is better for fiction, the story is amazing and epic in every way. I would say that the actual gameplay is a LOT LESS FORGIVING (depending on your army choice). Everyone knows that some armies have major disadvantages, and others are easy to play and have powerful units, so bee prepared for that... this game is a lot less "balanced" competetively.

What I think you would enjoy is to find an army that tailors to your happy-go-lucky playstyle but doesnt suck, examples: Orcs and Goblins or skaven. Both have the capacity to win or, on a bad day, die horribly. But if you find enjoyment in the story of it all and want to win at least some of the time, this can be the game for you (depending on your army choice)

Timathius
06-03-2014, 17:24
Fantasy is better for fiction, the story is amazing and epic in every way. I would say that the actual gameplay is a LOT LESS FORGIVING (depending on your army choice). Everyone knows that some armies have major disadvantages, and others are easy to play and have powerful units, so bee prepared for that... this game is a lot less "balanced" competetively.

What I think you would enjoy is to find an army that tailors to your happy-go-lucky playstyle but doesnt suck, examples: Orcs and Goblins or skaven. Both have the capacity to win or, on a bad day, die horribly. But if you find enjoyment in the story of it all and want to win at least some of the time, this can be the game for you (depending on your army choice)

I have to completely disagree. Fantasy in my opinion has nothing on the 40k in terms of fluff depth.

As far as competitively balanced, 40k is extremely skewed right now in favor of certain builds. While the last fantasy tournament I played in had every army represented. Additionally the 2012 gt was won by tomb kings who are considered the "weakest" of the armies.

I played 40k for 10 years before starting fantasy. I can now count how many games I have played on one hand since sixth. I just think fantasy is a better competitive game than 40k.

The easiest way I would say to compare the two is 40k being a beer and pretzels game that people attempt to make into a tournament game while the opposite is true fantasy and, while a more competitive and balanced game, is usually played in a more relaxed environment.

Minty
06-03-2014, 17:29
this game is a lot less "balanced" competetively.


That's... Not even remotely true.

Fantasy's balance is leagues ahead of 40k.

Not perfect, but so, so much closer to being balanced.


As for the OP - I feel you might have had more fun with Fantasy because, well, Fantasy is a more fun game.

Sounds like a tautology, but hear me out.

40k is, strictly, a more casual game. It's a simpler, less engaging and less demanding game. Either game can be played as 'serrious business' but 40k is the more wishy-washy playing-with-my-brain-turned-off game.


Now, what you will often find is that 40k players are younger, more competative people.

Fantasy mostly attracts the more mature, level-headed people who are in it for the love of the game. The sort of people who don't base their self-worth on their win percent.

Obviously, it's not an absolute rule. You get young hotheads in fantasy and older, sane people playing 40k, but by and large thre is a real difference.

Athelassan
06-03-2014, 19:47
Back in the day, especially before third edition, 40K always appeared the less "serious" of the two, largely I think because of the generally lower model count and that each model was an individual so you could play on almost any surface. The system was also essentially a bloated skirmish one (Necromunda and Gorkamorka didn't have to modify the basic rules much) so small games were much more feasible than in fantasy. But neither system was as serious as it later became.

Nowadays, while I hardly come into contact with the gaming side of fantasy or 40K except on webforums (and even then I keep my distance) my impression is that there are people who take both games very seriously, but that the fantasy community has a more frivolous side to it. This might be because fantasy players are (speculation alert) older on average than 40K players and players who've been in the hobby for ages probably tend more towards the extremes of seriousness than newcomers do.

Archibald_TK
06-03-2014, 19:58
Fantasy mostly attracts the more mature, level-headed people who are in it for the love of the game. The sort of people who don't base their self-worth on their win percent.

Obviously, it's not an absolute rule. You get young hotheads in fantasy and older, sane people playing 40k, but by and large thre is a real difference.
It's a shame that kind of attitude gives WFB such a bad reputation. There is no major difference between 40K and WFB players, to the points that many play both systems. Both play with little plastic toys, there is no difference of maturity, level-headiness, self worth, love or anything else, no matter how much it hurts the ego of some people.

The only real difference is that a lot of people started gaming in the mid 90 with WFB when 40K was considerably less developed than it is today (old Dark Elf player here), leading to a lot of older WFB players nowadays giving an illusion of maturity.

The Decayed
06-03-2014, 20:57
Wherever I've seen Fantasy being played it always seemed less casual than 40K.

I think it's the movement rules that do this.
All the exact squares really seems to appeal to the 'Chess-movement' players.
I've seen people starting arguments over a distance of 2mm...
That's just sad.
In 40K I've never seen this happen. It's usually the case of 'ah what the %$#, lets just get them in and kill stuff' about charging.
Round bases in randomly placed 'formations' take these exact measurements out of the game I think. And therefore, the arguments that causes.

Gotta say though, the insane amount of special rules in 40K 6th now sometimes seem to horribly clash, and cause arguments that way...
They're probably even now. :D

stroller
06-03-2014, 21:28
Fantasy or 40k? Which one do you think is more casual?

It's not the game: it's the player.

biccat
07-03-2014, 20:26
It depends on the local players. I've seen competitive 40k and casual 40k. I've seen competitive Fantasy and casual Fantasy.

For me, since 5th edition, 40k, has gotten significantly worse. 6th edition 40k merely emphasized the power creep. So I no longer play 40k.

popisdead
07-03-2014, 23:43
40k. It has always been the easier of the two to play (360 degrees) and the Space Marine stat line.

Shiodome
08-03-2014, 00:53
no game is 'casual' when it costs as much as whfb. i did enjoy whfb but i cannot be arsed ever spending the amount of $'s required to get back into it these days.

lorelorn
08-03-2014, 03:32
Casual is an approach, not a game. Whether you take the simplest of games ultra-seriously or treat the deepest game as something to have with beer and pretzels is up to you.

As far as games go, in general the tighter and better written the ruleset, the more support the game provides for whatever approach you want to take as a player.

Spider-pope
08-03-2014, 15:01
Neither. Because "casual" is a term bandied about to provide others with a sense of superiority.

Athelassan
08-03-2014, 16:59
Neither. Because "casual" is a term bandied about to provide others with a sense of superiority.
Do you mean that people refer to their own play as casual to feel superior to competitive players, or vice versa, or both? And if both, I think it's less a case of the term being the problem and more just people being snobs about their own way of playing.

Spider-pope
10-03-2014, 21:01
Do you mean that people refer to their own play as casual to feel superior to competitive players, or vice versa, or both? And if both, I think it's less a case of the term being the problem and more just people being snobs about their own way of playing.

Both. And if the question had been 'Fantasy of 40k: Which one do you think is more hardcore?" i'd have made the same reply with one word changed.

Casual however does seem to be a more common derogatory term. Take five minutes to look at an MMO games forums and you'll see what i mean. Attaching labels to other players with different priorities is just a tiresome, inane way of boosting egos.
"Oh i'm better than him, he's just a casual player"

"Well at least i'm not some hardcore nerd like him"

Yawn.

dooms33ker
11-03-2014, 01:27
Neither. Because "casual" is a term bandied about to provide others with a sense of superiority.

I think you are making an ideological argument into a semantic one; choice of words aside, what we are trying to determine here is how much relative involvement in the gaming and hobby aspects is necessary to render for each game. In that sense, casual means having a less than serious relationship with a game, meaning not requiring as much practice and analysis, as well as the amount of hobby time necessary to participate on a similar level as others.

Fantasy requires more nuance and foresight when actually playing, I believe, but 40k, with its many possible allies combinations, various scenarios and win-lose conditions, and a rock-paper-scissors style of list building, requires more strategy outside of the tabletop. I'm of the opinion that on-the-fly decisions during a game are more difficult to compute than wading through a game's meta, so I think Fantasy is the more challenging game from a tactical perspective.

As to the hobby investment, both money and time-wise, well, it depends on the army. Space marines are the easiest models to assemble and paint, but not everyone plays space marines, just a high percentage of hobbyists. On the Fantasy side, one can build and paint a warriors of chaos army comprising of 20-30 models very quickly and efficiently, but as a whole, most fantasy armies require more models, which leads to more time and money investment.

With all said and done, Fantasy edges out 40k as the more difficult game to both play and collect, but this is not gospel, just a guideline, and your mileage will vary.