View Full Version : Would I like warhammer 40k?

12-08-2007, 10:41
A friend of mine got me into war hammer fantasy and even though I havn't played a game I can tell I won't like it. The main reasons I don't like it is that i thought warhammer would be about killing and tactics would be about things like terrain usage, unit selection, how you choose to attack the enemy instead of things like panic and fears tests, combat resolutions, rank bonuses, etc.

How much of my army should I except to run away in 40k, is it more simple but also less stradigic. Is an armie's strenth and weakness just a complicated rock paper scisccors or is something only a weakness if I use it wrong tactically?

12-08-2007, 10:50
IMO, 40K is a simpler game compared to WFB. There seem to be fewer tactics involved than WFB.

If you like the idea of guns and marines and stuff, but want a tactically more involving game, have a look at Epic Armageddon... You can download the rules for free off the Specialist Games site here (http://www.specialist-games.com/)

12-08-2007, 10:54
40k armies rarely run away if ever. This is because, the primary army of most people, space marines, has ATSKNF , which makes them, in a sense, immune to morale problems, because of this, no one ever bothers about morale modifiers, if ever.

Is more simple, but not less strategic. Pretty weird tricks out there. You can't just charge everything up and hack them(not most of the time)

Sometimes, its rock paper scissors, especially for eldar, but that's only a single tactic, there's the tyranid swarm and kill, godzilla, the space marine counter-assault forces, etc.

12-08-2007, 11:09
I must say 40k is simpler IF there isn't enough terrain on the board.
Terrain really is the big difference between the two games, Fantasy your supposed to have 6 or so pieces of terrain, in 40k you need HEAPS, 25% of the board minimum.

Playing on a properly set up 40k board makes it just as tactical as Fantasy really. Armies in 40k have strengths and weakness' just like in Fantasy. It could just be personal bias but as long as you don't go for Marines you get just as much out of 40k as Fantasy, I going a few Fantasy armies and I play Imperial Guard. :D

To be honest I'd say your best plan would be to borrow an army you like the look of from someone or play with proxies and play a few games better to make your own opinion than listen to us. :p :)

12-08-2007, 12:45
40k is a much simpler game system than WHFB imo. Not that its a bad thing i play both. I agree with neXus, get hold of an army book you like the look of and play a few mock up games to see how it works buddy.

12-08-2007, 16:09
If you're in a major centre, you may have a local GW store. You could go try both games. Be warned though, they'll try very, very hard to sell you the rules and an entire army, paints and all sorts of stuff if you let them.

WFB does have some resolution mechanics that makes playing those mechancis more important than playing the game. You'll find that a bit in 40k as well-- but not quite as much.

12-08-2007, 16:28
Short run?
$0k is fun, see it as a shoot-em-up: it's fast, furious and gives you a nice time, but of coruse, very dependant on the people you play with.
It definately plays a lot faster than fantasy.

Long run?
Fantasy, the current ruleset is just better than the 40k ruleset.
The amount of fun you get from WHF is, however, moreso than 40k, VERY dependant on your army choice, don't just look to how the army looks, but also how it plays. I recently started Mortal Tzeentch and well, it's been very fun so far (don't buy any of this "chaos is easy" ********, if you want an easy army, take high elves or empire)

12-08-2007, 16:45
One of the guys at my gaming group is always whining about how it turns into a boring firing-fest where the stronger, better-ranged weapons always win. 40K is greatly improved with lots of terrain.

I repeat, lots of terrain makes the experience of 40K much more enjoyable and more tactical.

12-08-2007, 17:03
IMO 40k is a simpler, faster paced, smoother game.

I say smoother based on the fact that things get resolved faster eg: After a combat in fantasy you have to count up kills, ranks, standerds etc to work out who won.

In 40k he who kills inflicts the msot wounds wins.

Needless to say after all the fightings been done, in 40k it's a LOT faster finding out who has won the combat.

In 40k running away is less common for 2 reasons:

1. You have to take less tests to see if you run away (in fantasy there's some big things that make you take a test just for being near it and stuff like that, in 40k there's nothing even similiar to that)
2. In 40k if a unit runs away, that's the end of it. They can rally later on normally and no one els runs. In fantasy if a unit sees someone else run away, they have to take a test to see if thety run as well.

As a general rule of thumb, units tend to rally/have upgrades that amke them more likely to rally once they run and it's rare enough that they run in the first place.

Armies have strengths and weaknesses jsut like any other game. Some are difficult to get around (Eg Tau are a shooting army with only 1 melee unit so they're weak in melee) but most armies have elements of everything in their army and have plenty of options.

40k is however still very strategic. You could have the best army in your group and if you don't use it properly you'll get beaten by every person every game most likely.

12-08-2007, 17:15
Well if you like Star Wars, Starship troopers and other sci-fi battles then the simple answer would be no!

If you prefer He-man and the Masters of the Universe style battles then the answer will be yes!

Warhammer, with its morale issues etc, is a far more tactical and logical/realistic in how troops and combat work.

Warhammer 40K has primarily become a game aimed at teenagers playing in GW shops and those who like to simply charge straight forward and get into melee... :evilgrin: Okay somewhat of a rash generalization, there are still some of us (both old and young) who fight more tactical games and some of the races are more shooty and sci-fi (Tau), however the overall trend has been towards the generalization - inspite of a variaty of changes, the latest 'Apocolypse' may also be an attempt to change the trend but time will tell (if our wallets can continue to sustain it...).

12-08-2007, 19:03
If you like fruity elves with jetbikes be eldar.
Or if u like velociraptorish core units be tyranids.
advice for tyranids
AFAIK dont pronounce trya as in tyra banks more like tier

12-08-2007, 22:41
Everyone loves the Terminator.
Everyone loves mad max.
Everyone loves the idea of armageddon.

Hence everyone loves 40k!

40k relies less on the morale factor (fear test? lol wut) and more on the death factor.

Fantasy is mostly balanced around getting close and stabbing your foe while 40k puts more focus on just killing anything that you can get in range of and/or get close to.

tl;dr in 40k both armies die horribly, in FB some of them runaway.

Meat Shield
13-08-2007, 01:57
If you like fruity elves with jetbikes be eldar.

Who r u callin ''fruity"

they use to rule the whole fu*** Galaxy.
We'll see who ur callin fruity after you get blasted to smitherines by a godd eldar player. Plus we have harlequins lol.

13-08-2007, 02:51
rotflol no offense to eldar they gonna be my alt i love saying im a bike rinding pansy

13-08-2007, 03:17
They are two different games. Different styles of play, different reasons for playing.

If I want to spend 3 hours thinking lots and enjoying a complex game, I'll play with my Tomb Kings.

If I want to kill loads of enemies and have a party-game, I'll play 40K Orks.

You can't compare them - they are different games.

13-08-2007, 04:10
Imperial guard. If you like the idea of a desperate last charge by misfits, play the Ig, and i think that 40k is much more begginner friendly than fantasy.