PDA

View Full Version : How different is 40K from Warhammer Fantasy?



TwilightOdyssey
19-12-2006, 16:40
The last few times I've been in GW, the game in play has been Warhammer Fantasy. It looks a little strange to see all the minis so close together in those uber-tight ranks. Looking at it being played, it looked totally different from a 40K game. I've only ever played 40K.

So, my question is: How do the two systems differ?

Tastyfish
19-12-2006, 16:50
Ruleswise there are a fair few differences, but the games play very differently. WFB has far more emphasis on maneuver and a lot more on psychology and morale (you panic if units run through you, or if you are charged by something unsettling, or if something absolutely terrorifing lands near you), additionally there is less emphasis on the individual troops - the skill of the actual soldiers generally comes less into play compared to how they've engaged (i.e whether its a flank attack, or if an infantry block is fighting something else).

The lack of most units having 360 degree vision is also another small but very influential difference as its not uncommon for two units to be playing cat and mouse as the fast one attempts to outflank the slower unit and the other turns to face.

It probably takes a little longer to learn, but about the same time to learn how to play to well and a lot depends on the army you've picked. In short, its a totally different game that just shares a 'to hit' and 'to wound' table.

Frecus
19-12-2006, 17:54
(...) and a lot depends on the army you've picked.

In short, its a totally different game that just shares a 'to hit' and 'to wound' table.

I disagree here.

The first is only true for roughly half the armies out there. Yes, wood elves, chaos or dwarves are pretty one-sided in their tactics, but can still come up with many different lists which may, if played well, turn the entire army's style around (to name an example: wood elves with lots of eternal guard and treekin).
Most of the game is decided in turn 3-5. By then, both armies have then had the chance to redeploy, and set up for the final blow, while casualties are basically a readout of how well you're playing during that time (in turn one, two and six, most casualties merely show your luck, or lck of that).

Lastly, it shares a little more than just the 'to hit' and 'to wound' chart, but yeah, one can state that the two games have by now grown so much apart, that it is nigh-on impossible to mix the two.

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Slaaneshi Slave
19-12-2006, 18:04
Back during 2nd Ed they were very similar games. I play both games, and consider myself a pretty good 40k player (but doesn't everybody?), but I know I am not very good at WFB. It takes a completely different mindset. I still play as I would 40k, manouvoring to bring my big guns (well, swords in WFB) to bear. But this is not how WFB works. In 40k, on the charge with a melee unit you have 30+ dice being rolled at once, in WFB you have 10 - 15, with the combat being over after killing 5 or so of the enemy models.

In WFB morale is everything, which is why armies which ignore it (basically only Slaaneshi armies and Dwarves, and Lizardmen to a smaller extent) work so well.

The Magic Phase plays a huge roll (not as much as it used to though). There is nothing like making a unit of black orcs make a initiative test (roll under your initiative) on two or fall down a hole and die, or sending your enemies most expensive unit running across the board chasing after an illusion.

Rhamag
19-12-2006, 18:53
A few other things that come to mind...

There is no AP in WFB, armour saves are modified by strength.
There are To Hit modifiers for shooting (move & shoot -1, large target +1 etc.)
Models have a Movement value. Ogres move twice as fast as Dwarves!
You can take a Ward (=Invunerable) Save AND an Armour Save, but there are no Cover Saves.
Shooting is usually less important than close combat.

...etc.

inq.serge
19-12-2006, 19:07
And you have poison, it's lik rending, but without ignoring armour.

And no instant-death /there are killingblow however.

crossorion
19-12-2006, 19:41
Several major differences.

First. Formations and Ranks. This is the primary difference between the two games. Manuvering large blocks of troops is alot harder then ordering a squad to go where you want it to, as you have to consider alot more other then just where you want them to be.

Second. Assaults. Assaults are declared in the first turn, known as declaring charges. Once you have done that, charges are moved, failed, (you still move even if you have failed to declare a charge, and this can put you horribly out of position) etc, but you don't fight just yet. You do a round of shooty, magic, etc, then you go into the combat phase, where things are worked out ALOT more differently. Also, Charge Range isn't fixed to 6''

Third. You don't always go by iniative order. And even if your at the same iniative you don't always strike at the same time either. You also have a high chance of not getting any attacks back at all, and combat resolution is worked out significantly differently.

Fourth. 7th edition means your ICs can be taken out even if they aren't the closest unit.

Fifth. Line of Sight. Your own troops block line of sight, heck, your own models within the same unit block line of sight (Unless there's a specific rule on such)

Sixth. Psychology. No longer found in WH40K. Entire rows of your unit may simply stand and do nothing just because they are completely too terrified to.

Seventh. Characters. Not at all uncommon to spend 1/3 of your points on a powerful character, and not all too uncommon for them to make their points back.

Eight. Armor save modifiers. Anything over strength 4 will knock down your armor save a couple of points. Also, you can have a +1 or less armor save. 1 still always fails though.

There's alot more differences but those are the major ones within the core rules. It is a different game, requring a different mindset, and is generally favored to be a 'better game'... although to be honest, I get a headache after playing any WHFB battle.

Tastyfish
19-12-2006, 19:58
The 'a lot depends on the army you pick' was referring to how quick you learn to play and how soon you 'master' the rules.

I intentionally didn't give a list of the different rules, as the actual mechanics of the game are fairly similar - compared to someone who has never played anything like either of them you'll have quite a head start, being familiar with the concept of units and what the dice mean (its suprising the number of people who mistake extra dice granting more chancing at wounding rather than being seperate rolls to wound).

However because of a few differences like the movement rules of ranked units, the game plays extremely differently. Its very different from the way you set up firelanes and killing zones in 40K, I'm not saying one is more tactical or easier than the other (playing Tau and Dark Elves I'd certainly disagree) but it is a very different game.

Its certainly best to approach it like something you've never played before, the similarities between them might grant a false sense of security and cause you to gloss over certain sections, not to mention give you a very distorted view of how things work (generally, causing you to overlook the power of a ranked unit compared to an elite one)

Think I'd disagree on the character thing, I find that a lot of the 40K ones are able to have a much greater impact than a warhammer one. Unless you're looking at the extreme examples they are still going to struggle to beat the +5CR of an enemy unit, they are much more force multiplyers (with Ld) than concentrated killing machines

TwilightOdyssey
19-12-2006, 20:18
Lots of useful info here. Thanx!!

Rhamag
20-12-2006, 00:17
There are some similarities. The playing sequence in WFB is basically:

Player A: Move - Magic - Shoot - Combat
Player B: Move - Magic - Shoot - Combat
[Repeat...]

And that is not very different from 40K, is it?

Although I've been playing Fantasy off-and-on since 1989, I've only been playing 40K for 2 years. These days, I play a mix of both, as they compliment each other in many ways, and it helps prevent the gaming experience from going stale. I enjoy both equally, although I find the 40K background universe more interesting than Fantasy's Old World. But that's just me!

GodofWarTx
20-12-2006, 00:57
shooting and close combat are faaar less important than magic and combat resolution in WHFB.

Slaaneshi Slave
20-12-2006, 00:59
I enjoy both equally, although I find the 40K background universe more interesting than Fantasy's Old World. But that's just me!

I like to think of them as the same universe, as per the old fluff, it opens up all sorts of opertunities!

mistformsquirrel
20-12-2006, 01:13
I like to think of them as the same universe, as per the old fluff, it opens up all sorts of opertunities!

Has anyone else ever had the idea of doing something truely bizarre like say... an Empire army using Imperial Guardsmen from a crashed ship?

I think it'd be amusing anyways... >.> though people would probably look at you like you're on crack or something.

Slaaneshi Slave
20-12-2006, 01:15
Back in the old days you 40k and WFB were interchangable, you would quite often see Bretonian Knights charging down a unit of Imperial Guardsmen, and The Chaos Gods often gifted powerful weaponry (Bolt Guns, Lascannons, power fists etc) to their champions.

mistformsquirrel
20-12-2006, 02:44
Back in the old days you 40k and WFB were interchangable, you would quite often see Bretonian Knights charging down a unit of Imperial Guardsmen, and The Chaos Gods often gifted powerful weaponry (Bolt Guns, Lascannons, power fists etc) to their champions.

<o,@>;;

I think my brain has just exploded much like an ork's head on too much Waaagh!

GodofWarTx
20-12-2006, 21:26
as far up to the latest albion campaign did they have wargear items to fantasy armies suspiciously in line with space marine wargear, powerfists, auspex, power armor, etc.

Karhedron
20-12-2006, 21:36
As always with these things, the best way to get a real feel for the differences is to play a game or two. If you have a local GW, pop in there and ask to try out Battle for Skull pass (the current Fantasy starter set) against one of the staff. A quick game with goblins against Dwarves should give you a better feel for how the system handles.

Gen.Steiner
20-12-2006, 23:28
Has anyone else ever had the idea of doing something truely bizarre like say... an Empire army using Imperial Guardsmen from a crashed ship?

I did this back in 2nd Edition.

Guard and a Space Marine v Bretonnians.

The Space Marine was unkillable, the Guard outshot the Bretonnians, and the result was reminiscent of Agincourt. :p