PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer vs 40k



DeathMetal4tw
21-12-2010, 02:13
To someone with no real 40k or fantasy experience, what would you suggest as a first game? Do you guys have a preference? Also, what are some cool fantasy armies?

Getifa Ubazza
21-12-2010, 02:25
I mostly played 40k, until it got all about transports. I am a fluff player and 40k fluff always appealed most, however in 40k games you will mostly be playing against Space Marines, which can get rather boring after a while. Games I have played of Fantasy were much more fun than any 40k game I have played. The armies all have something that makes them appeal and you are very likely to face a lot of differant armies across the table. The armies that appeal to me personally in Fantasy are Orcs and Goblins and Ogre Kingdoms. They are fun armies with backgrounds that really appeals to the kid in me, while the game itself appeals to the adult.

tezdal
21-12-2010, 02:30
Well personally I find Fantasy far more fun, and lots more "strategery", 40k always seemed to me more about the armylist then how you actually play. To me all Fantasy armies are pretty darn cool, so just go with what you think looks best, and would be fun to slap some paint on.

Razaan
21-12-2010, 04:10
I'm a huge fan of the Ultramarines... from way back when the Crimson Fists were the poster boys for GW. I love the fluff and I love my Ultramarine army. But I truly believe the Fantasy game is better done. Both settings lend themselves to very enjoyable games, but Fantasy just feels better.

And I play Skaven... best army in the game.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
21-12-2010, 06:31
both settings are great. But the prevalence of special characters means GW gets all the fun and glory. This ruined 40k and is a trend that is ruining fantasy. Luckily most fantasy players dislike SCs still :)

Jonny100
21-12-2010, 07:00
I'll have to say fantasy for me as well, games are a lot more fun than 40k IMO. After a while 40k can just be massive facepalm and as said above usually it boils down to who can build the nastiest list rather than tactics.

As for fantasy armies I play lizardmen, love the models, how they play and the fluff really appeals to me! I'm also looking into starting wood elves, empire or ogres!

Seville
21-12-2010, 07:10
I started with 40k and never imagined I would play Fantasy. I have three large painted 40k armies. Then I feel in love with the new Warriors of Chaos models and army book, and started Fantasy.

I am now primarily Fantasy. I don't mean to whine or complain, but I don't like the direction GW has taken 40k in at all. You now need about 500 models to play a 2000 point game, and it seems like the newest army book is invariably the most broken. Don't get me wrong, Fantasy has its problems - but on the whole feels a bit more balanced and just more "fun" than 40k as a game now. Somehow 40k has lost its luster for me.

Fantasy is a blast! Give it a go.

Ed the Dead
21-12-2010, 07:15
40k is a simpler game compared to fantasy. As a starter, 40k is better and cheaper. In the end though fantasy seems to be the more fun of the two for me. I enjoy it because its more random. Fate messes with things and it isn't as static as 40k. I play vampire counts and necrons, so most fantasy armies have am equivalent in 40k. Both are fun, but its personal preference on which is enjoyed more.

tr1pod
21-12-2010, 07:16
I started off with 40k, it's easier to play and I loved it and never thought I would enjoy fantasy as much. However then I started playing fantasy and straight away I could see the leap in difference, when it came to strategy.

For me it's a much, much better game. With 40k you kind of know where the game is going after the first turn, with fantasy it goes back and forth. One minute you look like you've won this easily, then next turn you're on the ropes because of a good magic phase, shooting phase etc.

I prefer the regimented style too, with movement trays it's quick and easy. Playing against Orks in 40k is painful. Moving 60 million models individually (slight exageration for effect) is a pain.

superczhunk
21-12-2010, 07:27
I like both but put an extremely heavy weight on the Fantasy side. 40k has a larger player base (which tends to be younger players) is skirmish based and puts emphasis on shooting. Fantasy has more mature players, is regiment based and puts emphasis on combat. With the new edition of Fantasy, I'd say both play fairly quickly and are relatively easy to learn (40k used to have the edge).

I'd say pick the one that draws you in the most. 40k has about 10 different armies (very few of the marine chapters are unique) and Fantasy has 15 armies (17 if you count Chaos Dwarfs and Dogs of War).

Ratbeast
21-12-2010, 09:26
I like both but put an extremely heavy weight on the Fantasy side. 40k has a larger player base (which tends to be younger players) is skirmish based and puts emphasis on shooting. Fantasy has more mature players, is regiment based and puts emphasis on combat. With the new edition of Fantasy, I'd say both play fairly quickly and are relatively easy to learn (40k used to have the edge).

I'd say pick the one that draws you in the most. 40k has about 10 different armies (very few of the marine chapters are unique) and Fantasy has 15 armies (17 if you count Chaos Dwarfs and Dogs of War).

Yeah younger players is what puts me off 40k, cant stand the annoying little kids talking rubbish about which space marine has the bigger gun!!!

Warhammer is much more fun and requires more thinking to play :p

Wade Wilson
21-12-2010, 10:40
I play both and love 'em equaly. Fantasy has definetly got alot more of a strategy element to it but 40k is a bit simpler and fast paced.
You will find yourself collecting a much larger army (and therefore painting and assembling alot more models) in Fantasy then in 40k (unless you go for a 'hoard' army in 40k)

at the moment mech (mechanised armies) are king in 40k and you may find games come down to who has the most anti tank options, although this is not always the case.

In fantasy Daemons, Wariors of Chaos and High Elves are all quite forgiving armies (some might say slighly overpowered; but Skaven, Lizardmen and Dwarfs are probably the best overall). I restarted fantasy and chose daemons (primeraly coz they look badass and i love their models more than any others)becasue they have a standard armywide invulnrable save and are all immune to psychology. This meant i would always get a chance to save my troops no matter what hit them, be it a flight of arrows r a cannonball. Being immune to psychology means they will not run away or panic or suffer other moral effecting blunders.

For each game though pick an army that you like the look of the most (helps if their background appeals to you too). Remember it is YOUR army and you will be spending alot of time and money into creating it. Dont pick an army just because you think it will be easy to learn with, do it because you WANT to have an army of sadistic sado masocistic cloned evil Dark Eldar on jetbikes and space pirate ships, or you want to be the Aliens/Starship troopers inspired Xeno threat to the entire galaxy that is the Tyrannids or that having an army of ale drinking bearded stubborn lunatics with big axes and hamemrs like the Dwarfs is appealing to you. ;)

Fruhauf
21-12-2010, 11:04
Things to consider;
Your age
The age of those you want to play with
Your budget
Your play style
The simplicity of the models you wish to paint
The time you have available to paint

A younger player with a smaller budget and hence wishing to collect a smaller army should GENERALLY go for 40k if neither game majorly wins you over.

I personally started with Fantasy when I was 11 (with no previous 40k experience) and I've never looked back. I learned and played in 6th ed but lost touch a little with 7th ed (only really continuing with painting and modelling) now 8th is around and I've just started up Wood Elves again (after starting with Wood Elves in 6th, moving to High Elves and then ending with WoC after the 'new' models were released).

Fantasy has always been something that's appealed to me though in a sense that IMO LOTR > Star Wars, Legend of Zelda > Starfox and most importantly Fantasy > 40k.

I love the fluff behind my chosen armies (I think O&G, Dwarfs, Undead armies and the Empire are all a little 'standard' and hence a little boring) and that really inspires me when I'm painting, so make sure whichever army you do choose (be it 40k or Fantasy) that you can really get a feel for your army.

Anyway, I feel like this is slowly becoming a story about my Fantasy experience so I'll wrap it up. Don't forget to consider your play style when choosing firstly which game; more predictable 40k or more random Fantasy (also remember it's mainly skirmish - 40k verses regimented troops and close combat - Fantasy) and then even more importantly for which army, and I'll stick to what I know here, Chaos Warriors and Vampire Counts have no (or very little) shooting whereas Wood Elves are shooting heavy so if you are unsure in that sense then maybe consider an army like the Empire which can excel in any play style should you wish.

Hope I helped and didn't ramble too much.


PS; with regards to 'cool' Fantasy armies it entirely depends on your view point and what you mean by cool. If you mean cool to paint then I'd suggest looking at something like Brettonia (if you like bright colours) but most armies can be cool to paint (I'd say perhaps avoid Tomb Kings here - simple skeletons become very boring to paint over and over). If you mean cool as in my one model can kill 10 of yours and still stand and laugh in your face then I'd go for Warriors of Chaos, playing Chaos generally means you will be outnumbered but your individual models have such ridiculously good armour saves (3+ for standard Warriors providing they have shields and a practical 2+ for Knights - actually 1+ but 1 is always a fail) and lots of strong attacks (2 attacks for an average Warrior, whereas I believe all other armies standard warrior can only hit 1). If you mean cool as in I'm bringing some wacky invention to the field which is going to blow up a lot of models, mine and yours, then I'd go Skaven - perhaps the most 'random' of Fantasy armies due to having some crazy artillery options to them but still so much fun to play with and against - just be prepared to paint lots and lots of rats. And finally if you mean cool as in best looking when an army is fully assembled and put together, then I would say High Elves (of course this is opinion) but the look of the bright colours in regimented form glittered with impressive bolt throwers, dragons and special units leads to a pretty kick ass looking army on the battlefield.

Odin
21-12-2010, 12:42
For me the 40K fluff is far more interesting than WHFB. But unfortunately that doesn't translate to the gaming table, where 40K is bland bland bland. WHFB is a far better game IMO. If you like the 40K world, get yourself a copy of the Necromunda rules, it's much better.

Odin
21-12-2010, 12:45
If you mean cool as in my one model can kill 10 of yours and still stand and laugh in your face then I'd go for Warriors of Chaos, playing Chaos generally means you will be outnumbered but your individual models have such ridiculously good armour saves (3+ for standard Warriors and 2+ for Knights)

Or possibly 4+ for standard warriors, 1+ for knights, if you've got the same armybook I've got.

RMacDeezy
21-12-2010, 12:53
if budget is an issue, you may want to stick to 40k, as the average 2000 pt fantasy army has more models than 2500 pts of imp guard these days.

Fruhauf
21-12-2010, 13:46
Or possibly 4+ for standard warriors, 1+ for knights, if you've got the same armybook I've got.

Since a 1+ is impossible to achieve, knights are 2+
and you are right with warriors but I am so used to playing them with shields I just auto-included that in and anyone who doesn't is really making a mistake IMO.

BigbyWolf
21-12-2010, 14:00
Since a 1+ is impossible to achieve, knights are 2+
and you are right with warriors but I am so used to playing them with shields I just auto-included that in and anyone who doesn't is really making a mistake IMO.

1+ is possible, it's just that a role of a "1" is always a fail. Having a better than 2+ save still fails the same way a 2+ does, it just benefits more against S4 or higher attacks.

Fruhauf
21-12-2010, 14:01
1+ is possible, it's just that a role of a "1" is always a fail. Having a better than 2+ save still fails the same way a 2+ does, it just benefits more against S4 or higher attacks.

That's what I meant, sorry I didn't articulate myself properly but thanks for making it clearer :)

I'm just so used to playing it as 2+.

Ville
21-12-2010, 14:54
I play both Fantasy and 40K and really can't, and won't, say which one is better. Suffice to say that they are just different. Well, some thoughts:

1. In 40K, the units are easier to move around, because they fight in a free loose formation. In Fantasy, terrain gets in the way all the time and it sometimes gives me major headaches.

2. Having said that, Fantasy might be easier for a newcomer because you can measure the distances all the time. On the other hand, you lose the suspense when you finally find out if the enemy within your reach, or will you be hit next turn instead.

3. Fantasy is, in my opinion, stronger fluffwise. The setting is smaller and easier to grasp than 40K:s "million worlds". 40K has Space Marines that sell like candy, they get most of the new releases which frustrates many people.

I can really recommend both games, to both veteran and newbie. Best way to decide between them is to judge the book by its cover, and simply start painting figures you like the best!

CrystalSphere
21-12-2010, 15:13
I am a fantasy player first and foremost, but i am recently starting to play 40k because i am disillusioned with 8th edition. I prefer the fantasy background, but i am now reading about 40k background and while i canīt stand many of it (namely anything with the word space marine in it) the rest is pretty good. 40k also seems to require less miniatures to start playing and have a great deal of options for customisation, which appeals to me.

Seville
21-12-2010, 20:53
if budget is an issue, you may want to stick to 40k, as the average 2000 pt fantasy army has more models than 2500 pts of imp guard these days.

Sorry to nitpick, but this isn't true at all.

A competitive 2500 point Imperial Guard army in today's environment will require about 15-20 or so vehicles at roughly $40 - $60 apiece. Add to that at least 100 or so guardsmen, and you're looking at a very, very expensive army. A 2500 point IG army will run you at least $1,000 these days. This is exactly why I quit 40k. I wasn't willing to spend hundreds of dollars to expand my IG army.

On the other hand, you can make a 2000 point WoC or Ogre Kingdoms army with very few models and quite reasonable expense. $200 - $250 or so and you're good to go.

Maybe you picked a bad example, but 2500 points of IG is case-in-point that 40k is actually requiring more models and more expense these days than Fantasy.

CarlostheCraven
21-12-2010, 21:20
Hi

Having worked in a game store over multiple tours of duty, my questions to you would revolve around:
1. To determine the system: What appeals to you more - magic, monsters, and knights OR Guns, tanks, and foul aliens? Go with the setting that appeals most to you at first glance. If neither pull you very strongly, then I would try and sway you with a quick overview of the fluff for both systems.
2. To determine the army within the system: There are two parameters here: what look/backstory of army catches your interest? If nothing leaps out at you, what style of play interests you - combined arms, ranged death specialist, or clobbering time combat?

Stuff that really isn't important:
The Cost. Getting involved with collecting an army is a hobby commitment. This should mean that you are using disposible income to make the purchases involved. Hobbies are expensive - accept it. A lower cost army (relatively speaking) like ogres isn't a good purchase if the look and playstyle of ogres doesn't appeal to you. You are far better served to spend the extra money to get an army that you actually enjoy assembling, painting, and playing.

My personal 2 cents:
Fantasy and 40K are both great games, the fluff is decent in both systems, though I find the 40K fluff more interesting than Fantasy, which I find very derivative. Perhaps this is because I am much more widely versed in the fantasy genre than sci-fi. My first army was Undead, and it took me less than 5 minutes to decide that they would be my first army. A year later I started playing 40K, going with Orks. Fast forward 12 years and I have 5 Fantasy armies ranging from 2000 points to 6000 points and 9 40K armies ranging from 1000 points to 6000 points. Quite simply, the depth of these games is incredible if you care to get into them.

Cheers,
Nate

AlphaLegionMarine
22-12-2010, 00:31
I agree with Carlos, though I am partial to Fantasy and have sold off all of my 40k stuff to commit more to fantasy, despite my username here on warseer.

If I could I would own 3k points of every army in Fantasy and fully commit to it. I am overly tired of the steampunk that has taken hold of the gaming community and appreciate the some what simpler technology that Warhammer Fantasy offers.

However people need to understand that this is a hobby and every hobby has it's costs. If you can stick to one army, this will be one of the cheaper hobbies out there.

Jack of Blades
22-12-2010, 00:47
Can't someone compare the gameplay of the systems in terms I know of, like computer game vs computer game?

ChrisIronBrow
22-12-2010, 05:53
Can't someone compare the gameplay of the systems in terms I know of, like computer game vs computer game?

I'm not aware of a good computer game analogy, but I have a boardgame one that I think fits.

Warhammer Fantasy is like RISK. Your dice decide if you win or lose, but you have to be daring enough to risk loss every turn of the game. If you play conservatively you will loose to the random good fortune of your opponents.

Warhammer 40k is like Monopoly. You win by playing it safe and conservative. You hide yourself to avoid getting smashed until the right moment and then you go "all in" and win or lose in a single turn. Knowing when this turn is will determine if you win or lose.

Boomstikk
22-12-2010, 06:03
I absolutely love both games. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to choose one over the other I'd still hesitate, though I would probably end up with Fantasy. I do play mostly 40K, but that's due to my gaming group having a 40K focus.

One area where I find there's more of an edge to one over the other is on fluff, I really do find the Fantasy fluff to be much stronger than the 40K one. Less inconsistencies, more "manageable" for a lack of a better word, and more of the love spread out. The Space Marine focus in 40K is really a bit of a downer and although Empire gets plenty of love in Fantasy, a lot of the books are not about the Fantasy ARMY of Empire, rather heroes and characters in that setting, something only the Inquisition books (Eisenhorn and Ravenor in particular) seem to do for 40K. I mean, armies are great and all, but after 50 books describing various engagements of the killing kind, books like Gotrek & Felix stick out.

Also, imo, Fantasy has more of the heroes. Yes, it can become hero-hammer if they don't handle it right, but I feel that the scale between the lowly Skaven and the mega-powerful special characters is better handled both in the fluff and in the rules compared to 40K (if Calgar ends up knocking out a C'tan, I wouldn't be all that surprised :) ).

However. Both game systems rock, I would say that there's already given good advice here on the armies themselves :)

freddieyu
22-12-2010, 06:59
I'll have to say fantasy for me as well, games are a lot more fun than 40k IMO. After a while 40k can just be massive facepalm and as said above usually it boils down to who can build the nastiest list rather than tactics.

As for fantasy armies I play lizardmen, love the models, how they play and the fluff really appeals to me! I'm also looking into starting wood elves, empire or ogres!

This is not true at all..the same can apply to WHFB as well...as a player of both systems for 12 years, both have their share of tactics, which are obviously different...

To the OP...it depends on what kind of game you prefer....

If you like tanks and armor and guns, go for 40k....it is also a more "loose" type of game which is more fluid than WHFB..

If you are more patient and prefer a "chess" type of game, then WHFB is more for you. However, WHFB is more of a "grind" type of game and you may frequently see units locked in combat for several turns before resolution....

Both games have their appeal...I personally started with WHFB then took up 40k. I would recommend this since I know some 40k players who could not adjust to the slower paced game of WHFB. In addition, painting in WHFB is more "forgiving" in the sense that the troops are usually regimented and ranked up together, thus the individual look is not as important, while in 40K since models are in skirmish formation poor painting is more easily evident.

freddieyu
22-12-2010, 07:07
I'm not aware of a good computer game analogy, but I have a boardgame one that I think fits.

Warhammer Fantasy is like RISK. Your dice decide if you win or lose, but you have to be daring enough to risk loss every turn of the game. If you play conservatively you will loose to the random good fortune of your opponents.

Warhammer 40k is like Monopoly. You win by playing it safe and conservative. You hide yourself to avoid getting smashed until the right moment and then you go "all in" and win or lose in a single turn. Knowing when this turn is will determine if you win or lose.

Depending on the army, aggressive play will also win it in 40k......

In 40K, a lot of action happens immediately due to the presence of a lot of long range guns...however, 40k has more deployment options where enemies can literally drop down/tunnel out/outflank on the board, so the presence of reserves plays an important part in the tactics of the game...

In WHFB, in 8th ed the action tends to build up more slowly as the units maneuver into position, even though most units start the game already deployed, but once charges start and units get into combat, then the action hits like a chariot....

b4z
22-12-2010, 07:53
If (intelligent) people who play both are really really honest with themselves...

40K is fairly simple... it doesn't really require a great deal of thought.**

Fantasy is complex... and requires constant thought.

The number of thought cycles i go through in a game of Fantasy is tenfold that of a 40K game.

I have rarely experienced 'Brainache' from 40k, whereas in Fantasy its a regular occurance, from over-thinking every possible decision and its related outcome. The level of thinking/pre-planning/assessing/executing in Fantasy operates far deeper than in 40k. For mistakes in Fantasy cost you dearly.

And this comes from someone who played 40k solely, and never thought Fantasy looked any good, untill recently. One of my best gamer friends also agrees, having started around the same time as i.

**[And is therefore the perfect entry level game, especially picking Space Marines as your first army, which require even less thought, hence their overwhelming popularity with younger players and the tactically/intellectually inept]

tr1pod
22-12-2010, 08:57
I have to agree really. Whenever I play 40k I am never bothered about the outcome. It's almost like I play it as break from Fantasy.

When I play WHFB however, it's total concentration and I really want to do well. I spend ages on an army list, but my 40K list is more like "Yeah that'll do". That's another issue really, there is more options for fantasy and every item can make a real difference. I feel 40k is too generic.

Both are good though.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2010, 11:46
To someone with no real 40k or fantasy experience, what would you suggest as a first game? Do you guys have a preference? Also, what are some cool fantasy armies?

Personally, it depends on your budget and commitment to the hobby. If you are ready to launch straight in and spend a fortune then Fantasy is a great game, but I can't say I really enjoy small-scale games of fantasy. Anything below 2000pts isn't great as you just can't build competitive units or develop the strategy.

On the other hand 40K works beautifully at smaller levels, and has some really awesome model ranges.

I'd say I prefer fantasy for larger games and 40K for smaller ones, I'd also say that 40K was easier to learn as a game than fantasy. If you're just starting out and wanting to get your feet wet, 40K might be the better option.

But fundamentally I guess, it comes down to whether you prefer sci-fi or a traditional tolkienesque fantasy setting. You need to pick something that you will be happy spending months painting, otherwise you'll spend a pile of cash and lose interest pretty quickly.

Bloodknight
22-12-2010, 12:10
If (intelligent) people who play both are really really honest with themselves...

40K is fairly simple... it doesn't really require a great deal of thought.**

Fantasy is complex... and requires constant thought.

Both are simple, and WFB got even simpler than it was during the edition change (which is good. People may call it dumbing down, but as a 31 year old I am completely ok with that. It would **** me off if I were still 16 and had all the time in the world to learn 1500 pages of rules by heart - I mean, at that age I could quote from the Shadowrun and BattleTech rules without looking at the books- , but I don't have the time for this anymore. Meatspace life and all...;), games should be rather simple, but have complex gameplay. Neither 40K nor WFB are good at that, but they look pretty).

WFB doesn't require more tactics than 40K; if you want brainaches for cheap, play BattleTech.

For beginners both are equally good; I'd look for what has more players in your region. Financially it's not a big difference unless you play Ogres with their awesomely good value battalion box.

tr1pod
22-12-2010, 13:18
In some ways 40k is more complex though I think. If you give troops different weapons, it can be very confusing to a newcomer (I know this from experience) to grasp the different ranges, number of shots, the AP rating, armour saves etc.

Fantasy is actually a lot easier when it comes to attacking as everthing in a unit has the same weapon (more of less).

CarlostheCraven
22-12-2010, 14:48
Hi

I can't really agree with the assessment that Fantasy is more complex than 40K at the highest levels of play. That being said, the learning curve is vastly different.

40K is easy to get started in and is easy to become competent in, but to be a truly great player takes a deep understanding of manoeuvre and position in a fluid game. There are way more units that are capable in more phases of the game, which vastly increases the options of the intelligent player.

Fantasy is harder to get started in (although 8th edition has gone a long way to reduce the disparity between the two games), but is relatively easy to master as the ranked formations with limited arcs in which they can charge, and limited options for effectiveness that most units have (X unit shoots well but cannot fight effectively, Y unit only does close combat, etc).

I guess my litmus test is that I would rather play fantasy drunk than 40K drunk if I am still looking to win.

Cheers,
Nate

ColShaw
22-12-2010, 16:28
40K is a more fluid game, more subject to rapid change. WFB is more predictable, which I would argue makes it more "masterable". That said, I don't think there's a significant difference in difficulty of learning, now that 8th Ed WFB simplified the movement rules.

I'd say, go with whatever you like the look of the models and setting better. After all, if you're going to spend a lot of hours in the company of little plastic men, it had better be little plastic men you LIKE. :)

freddieyu
22-12-2010, 16:46
Both are simple, and WFB got even simpler than it was during the edition change (which is good. People may call it dumbing down, but as a 31 year old I am completely ok with that. It would **** me off if I were still 16 and had all the time in the world to learn 1500 pages of rules by heart - I mean, at that age I could quote from the Shadowrun and BattleTech rules without looking at the books- , but I don't have the time for this anymore. Meatspace life and all...;), games should be rather simple, but have complex gameplay. Neither 40K nor WFB are good at that, but they look pretty).

WFB doesn't require more tactics than 40K; if you want brainaches for cheap, play BattleTech.

For beginners both are equally good; I'd look for what has more players in your region. Financially it's not a big difference unless you play Ogres with their awesomely good value battalion box.

This is absolutely true...I used to play squad leader, and that was already complex..imagine playing advanced squad leader!!!

Now those old school board games, man they can get VERY complicated...40K and WHFB are child's play in comparison....

Now, just because they are simpler doesn't make them less fun..on the contrary it's the opposite....again because these games were really intended to be "beer and pretzel" games....

Caitsidhe
22-12-2010, 17:41
I play both. I don't really find one game anymore tactical or demanding than the other. Warhammer Fantasy Battles requires more models, movement trays, and more measurement for wheels and such, but I don't really find this requirement equates to greater strategy or tactics. It is merely a learned skill for movement.

I had stopped playing WFB almost entirely in 7th Edition because magic had become so over the top and some codex were just so far beyond the rest that there didn't seem to be much point. :) 8th Edition has some issues but despite all the moaning and groaning about magic, I find it far more balanced than the broken lists we could make before. 40K never really got too crazy with the Psykers. Their powers can (and do) influence games but they do not dominate them. I'm pleased to find (outside of a few oddities) that 8th Edition WFB has reigned in magic from being the deciding factor.

unheilig
22-12-2010, 17:43
I used to say fantasy was a game of maneuver, while 40k was a game of target priority. Both compelling.

In 8th, fantasy seems more like a game of list building, which is NOT compelling, as list building can merely be copied, and make games feel less involved.

quantumcollider
22-12-2010, 18:36
I prefer the science-fiction setting of 40k, but as a system I prefer WFB.

I'm still quite new at both systems and I still need to learn and appreciate the subtleties, but there is one aspect of WFB that I am sorely missing in 40k

It is the ability to flank.

In modern warfare there is not much scarier than being involved in a firefight, and then suddenly being shot at from the flanks, getting caught in a crossfire. This makes maneuvering even for infantry very important. Yet this does not exist in 40k.

Coragus
22-12-2010, 19:49
Go to a few game nights at your LGS. See what is played the most then get into that game. Trust me, you don't want to be the proud owner of 4000 points of Dwarfs in a place that never heard of Fantasy.

RMacDeezy
23-12-2010, 00:14
Sorry to nitpick, but this isn't true at all.

A competitive 2500 point Imperial Guard army in today's environment will require about 15-20 or so vehicles at roughly $40 - $60 apiece. Add to that at least 100 or so guardsmen, and you're looking at a very, very expensive army. A 2500 point IG army will run you at least $1,000 these days. This is exactly why I quit 40k. I wasn't willing to spend hundreds of dollars to expand my IG army.

On the other hand, you can make a 2000 point WoC or Ogre Kingdoms army with very few models and quite reasonable expense. $200 - $250 or so and you're good to go.

Maybe you picked a bad example, but 2500 points of IG is case-in-point that 40k is actually requiring more models and more expense these days than Fantasy.

yeah it wasn't a good example but the numbers as you said, make my point. a 2500 pt imp guard army has 100-120 guardsmen + vehicles. all of the fantasy armies in my LGS of 2000-2500 pts dwarf this count. i was just using imp guard as a reference to the model count in fantasy armies these days, not saying they are cheap at all.

freddieyu
23-12-2010, 00:56
I prefer the science-fiction setting of 40k, but as a system I prefer WFB.

I'm still quite new at both systems and I still need to learn and appreciate the subtleties, but there is one aspect of WFB that I am sorely missing in 40k

It is the ability to flank.

In modern warfare there is not much scarier than being involved in a firefight, and then suddenly being shot at from the flanks, getting caught in a crossfire. This makes maneuvering even for infantry very important. Yet this does not exist in 40k.

Actually flanking the enemy in 40K is just as valuable, except it confers no in game bonus in terms of modifiers....outflanking units in 40K enable you to shoot/assault enemy units in possibly unprotected/screened positions, and can wreak havoc on an unguarded firebase. In my situation, outflanking enemy units which are going forward towards my firebase creates more focused fire on those units, thus neutralizing them. There is many a game where the appearance of Capt. Sidewinder's (My alrahem) platoon literally saves the day.....

My builds almost always contain some form of outflanking unit, as they are a great reactive force (especially with an astropath in the list)..

Winterfell
23-12-2010, 05:54
Fairly new to WFB but I'd say the most appealing thing is there is no clear cut army in dominance from everything I've read. Sure some are more popular than others but if you find people playing fantasy there is probably just as equal a chance to see any army on the field. I could be wrong but that seems very appealing to me so its not a marine vs marine war like it often is in 40k.

freddieyu
23-12-2010, 06:09
Fairly new to WFB but I'd say the most appealing thing is there is no clear cut army in dominance from everything I've read. Sure some are more popular than others but if you find people playing fantasy there is probably just as equal a chance to see any army on the field. I could be wrong but that seems very appealing to me so its not a marine vs marine war like it often is in 40k.

Indeed. Especially in 8th ed, as the new rules have breathed new life in several books (ie dwarfs)...

Dr.Chud
24-12-2010, 21:00
Going to echo a lot of the sentiments here: The 40k artwork, background flavor and all associated trappings are really impressive. You get a backdrop for the games that feels fresher and more uniquely textured than the quasi-generic (because just about everything feels derivative of LOTR) Fantasy theme of WFB.

That being said, I think Fantasy has been the better game for the last dozen years or so, 40k has felt stagnated to me since 3rd edition, while WFB has been improving steadily since 5th.

I havent played any games of 8th yet but I like the changes that make low quality infantry (goblins, zombies, skaven) actually capable of rolling some dice in combat, and the new charging rules mitigate the old "game-within-a-game" of two units inching towards eachother hoping the other player would be foolish enough to creep within charge range or declare a charge while 1.3mm short of reaching his target. Frankly if two units move towards eachother at full speed from the start of the game arent they both really charging? Was stupid to me that one unit would get this huge rules advantage and could often wipe out the other side without a single retalitory strike back.