PDA

View Full Version : Is WFB inferior to 40k?



Festering Chantor
09-04-2005, 22:25
No, of course it's not, but there seems to be people out there who thinks so. Warhammer gets overrun by its younger brother... Take the GW UK site for example, the link to 40k is first followed by the link to WFB. This is of course a minor detail, but think about it this way: It's logical that 'Warhammer' should be first since the name is shorter than 'Warhammer 40.000' (the issue of chronology) and it is the oldest game. The same goes for Portent (I'm just making a point, please have patience), is there a specific reason why '40k' is listed first on the forum, or is it just a coincidence? There also seems to be much more activity on the 40k forum. Is 40k more important than WFB? Is 40k more popular? I'm just asking questions, I don't want to make people angry...

Black Ambience
09-04-2005, 22:44
My take is that 40k is just "easier" on people (until you get unto the fluff, that is the only place I feel 40k out-does Fantasy).

The rules are simpler, the game plays more simply, the armies are (on the surface) easier to get into.

And it is easy to sell well-armoured supermen to 14 year olds. (sorry, had to get some cynicism in there).

Archaon
09-04-2005, 23:14
The thing with 40K is that it has a "cooler" Image..genetically enhanced Superwarriors in Hightech Armour, Tanks, Laserguns, Aliens and so on.

The rulessystem is also a good deal easier to learn and implement, it has no "detailed" rules (i.e. no armor save modifiers, you get no bonus for complex maneuvering and flank/rear charges etc) that weigh the game down.
It is a fast, action oriented game intended for a young audience.

In my area Fantasy is played mostly by older gamers..18+ whereas 40K has players as young as 13 or 14 and only a handful of players older as mid 20s.

40K seems to be selling better (i assume since i don't know the numbers) but calling it superior or inferior in game terms to WHFB is a bit unfair. Each game places the emphasis on another theme and it seems that the players of the respective systems enjoy it (with the usual bitching and moaning about powergaming, unbalanced lists and cheating players).

Drabant
09-04-2005, 23:50
Yes, 40k is more popular, which is the reason why it's listed first, tough I personally think the WHFB game system is superior to 40k.

So why is 40k more popular? If you look at the games briefly, without knowing much about them, fantasy is well... fantasy. Orcs, elves and so on. We have seen it before, in roleplaying games etc. But if you look at 40k it's pretty much unique. There's not much else it can compare to really. Sure, there are other sci-fi games, but they aren't as common as the fantasy ones, nor are their worlds similar.

Stouty
10-04-2005, 00:20
And it is easy to sell well-armoured supermen to 14 year olds. (sorry, had to get some cynicism in there).

I got into this accursed thing when I was 5. 5!!!! And no i don't think super-men are more popular with people of my age; out of the friends of my age only 2 collect any sort of marine (ok so do I but...).
Marines are just eaisest to sell to anyone because theyt've got the most basic idea behind them.
I looked at the game and thought; "Howling banshees are puuuurrdy!" :rolleyes:

So yeah you do have a point, dumb-asses love their marines :o

taer
10-04-2005, 02:00
Of course it's the better game! In every f@&^*#^ respect! Only idiots play fantasy.

Now excuse me while I finish my beastmen to go fight against necrachs...

User Name
10-04-2005, 02:38
I too fell victim to the space mariens. Needless to say it was a 500 dollar investmint I wish I spent on another fantasy army.

Fantasy is tactically and intillectually superior. But 40K is more popular

BullBuchanan
10-04-2005, 03:03
you can't doubt the fact though that space marines are damn cool, and I dont even play 40k

Doomhawk
10-04-2005, 05:33
40k is definitely not "better" than WHFB. It's a different game, to be sure: Fantasy is without a doubt more tactical and more complicated; 40k tends to be played in something of a "seat-of-your-pants" style (not that that's bad; it's immensely fun if you're in the right mood). All in all, Fantasy is a more 'satisfying' game I suppose, but it's also a lot harder to get into.
Although IMO, 40k far outstrips Fantasy in the fluff department.

taer
10-04-2005, 05:35
Yeah, fantasy fluff sucks in comparison to 40k....well, except when you actually do compare it to 40k and find all sorts of wonderful little gems. I'll let you think on that one for a bit.

Faust
10-04-2005, 05:50
taer are you refering to the whole movement phase and the movement of models actually mattering, and the whole '40k is equal to Veteran Sergant w/ Powerfists rule the day theme.....' also the rear, flank charges, assault reactions......? Who knows its all opinion 40k is easier to learn, but Fantasy is a more rewarding game to me.
Faust

sulla
10-04-2005, 06:49
Sure, very rewarding Faust. But there are also plenty of stupid rules in fantasy. It is by no means a perfect systen and the rules could do with a lot of cleaning up.

Take my chosen army for example; Dark Elves... my harpies cannot use the general's leadership. They are basically camp-following scavengers. Yet, if even 5 were to lose a combat close to my glorious knights and warriors Or my general, they would have to take a panic test...My beastmasters can wear magic armour, yet they cannot use a magic shield since 'they cannot use the mundane version'. WTF?! How hard is it to use a shield? If they can master a lance while riding a giant flying sentient lion, surely fastening a shield onto one arm shouldn't be too difficult.

But aside from problems with the game mechanics, the background of 40K is a bit better, especially for players of human armies. The vast timeline, tracing millions of years gives a depth fantasy could never hope to reach.

Also, it has space marines, the perfect starter army. Excellent imagery, fast and easy to paint, cheap to collect and as difficult or easy to play as you want. There's no real beginner army in fantasy. It's really not that different learning the game with Dark Elves to learning the game with the Empire or Chaos. Each has flaws and strengths of it's own.
\
In summary, yeah, 40K is better. Not by very much, but it is better.

Frecus
10-04-2005, 09:35
In reply to the previous poster,

Not simply better, it's better 'for a starter crowd'. People who are just interested in playing a fighting game without getting square or damaged eyes are better off with 40K. 40K provides fighting, bloodshed, death, bullets flying all around! Fantasy provides roughly the same, but in a totally different way. In fantasy, the bloodshed is more controlled, and requires more thought.

That's why I wanna play 40K next to my fantasy armies; Brainless shooting/ bloodshed/shoot fireballs with one's hand (witchhunters psychic powers list = cwl SF magic!!!11 ;) ).

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Three Headed Monkey
10-04-2005, 09:36
Fantasy outstrips 40k in one area though, the fact that no one army in WFB is as popular as space marines. I know that kinda sounds silly and it means that fantasy probably sells less (at least to those new to GW), but the number of space marine armies out there can get some 40k players down.

It is more likely that fantasy gaming groups will have a more diverse selection of armies being collected by thier members. Im sure not all of them do, but its fair to say that it is true for the majority. Fantasy tournaments wont have one third of their participating players using the same powered armoured army.

The two most popular armies in 40k are SM and CSM. This leads to lots of power armour. Im not saying its wrong to collect one of these two armies, obviously they are popluar for a reason, and I collect CSM myself, im just saying, the armies you are likely to face off against in WFB are more diverse, keeping things much more interesting.

Also, within the armies themselves, fantansy has many more unit types, and types that effect more than just how the units move.

All is all, im not going to say that WFB is better, but it prefer it to 40k. Not just for the reasons I stated above, but everything else has pretty much been covered.

Wez
10-04-2005, 09:58
This is of course a minor detail, but think about it this way: It's logical that 'Warhammer' should be first since the name is shorter than 'Warhammer 40.000' (the issue of chronology) and it is the oldest game.
EDIT (deleted idiocy, got mixed up) No-one's going to arrange things by length of the word on a site the size of GW's: that's ridiculous.

Logic actually says: 40k is more popular than fantasy. As such, it goes first.

he same goes for Portent (I'm just making a point, please have patience), is there a specific reason why '40k' is listed first on the forum, or is it just a coincidence?[/quote
40k is more popular than fantasy, hence it goes first.

[quote]There also seems to be much more activity on the 40k forum. Is 40k more important than WFB?
To GW's profits? Yes. To me? No


Is 40k more popular?
Yes.

Is it some conspiracy by GW to screw fantasy players? No.

I'm just answering questions, I don't want to make people angry...

-Wez

Wez
10-04-2005, 10:10
I meant that 40.000 is more than 0.

It's not called Warhammer 0 though.

It's called Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

And even if it was called Warhammer 0, it would still be stupid to put it in front of 40k when you compare the sales figures of the two.

-Wez

Stouty
10-04-2005, 10:32
Don't worry but the boys got a point about chronological order, not that it matters particularly.
Of course GW favour 40k, its the game they draw people in on.
Example: How many people play fantasy but don't play 40k?
How many people play 40k but not fantasy?

Darkson
10-04-2005, 10:34
Personally, I really dislike WFB - I've tried hard to get into it, but after 15-odd years, I've given it up as a bad lot. Personally, I'd rather play Bloodbowl, necromunda or Mordheim, but if I had to play one of the "big 2" it would be 40k every time.

I'm not sure why I dislike WFB so much. Sure, there are some rules in it I finnd daft, but then, there's probably just as many daft rules in 40k. it's weird, because when it comes to reading, Fantasy wins hands down over Sci-Fi on my bookshelves.

Also, at least around here, I disagree that it's the younger gamers into 40k while the older one play WFB. Of the core or our club (all in our 30's), [and I'm talking their fav game here) there's 1 WFB player, 2 40k'ers while the rest of them (4) like both. The youngest memeber (16) hates 40k and likes WFB. Go figure. ;)

(And yes, I collect SM's. Dabbling at trying to get a 'Nid force together, and a DE 40k in 40 mins force, but those damn guys at GW keep coming up with cool Marines!)

Bubble Ghost
10-04-2005, 10:52
I hate this notion that 40K "fluff" (DIE, KITTY! MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!) is innately better than Warhammer's. I find the opposite. 40K has a relentlessly bleak tone, to the point of being one-dimensional. I like bleak, but I also like chocolate ice cream and I couldn't live on that.

The 40K universe is fascinating from a philosophical point of view, but you just can't root for the Imperium like you can for the Empire. The Imperium is so uncaring and cynical that the forces of Chaos, ostensibly the legions of Hell itself, are come across as sort of perverse antiheroes. Which would be great, until you read the Chaos-centred material that tries to convince you they're nothing but treacherous, damned, creatures of nightmare.

With the scale of it, too, it feels like there's no consequence to anything you do in the game, which ruins the sense of involvement a bit for me. So I lost the campaign. So what? There's another squillion planets where that came from. To a certain extent you could say the same about a given village in Warhammer but in that you have some sense of global context, and you can empathise with the Empire's inhabitants and settlements in a way that's impossible with the dispassionate Imperium.

Chaos, the raison d'etre of Warhammer and supposedly 40K as well, suffers from the same thing. In Warhammer, anyone with the nous and a black enough heart can become a major Chaos threat; Chaos is successfully portrayed as the dark side of humanity, and there's a deep psychological connection to it. But in 40K, it's just guess who the Space Marines. The rules and the focus of the background material tell us that only Space Marines can rise to prominence in the armies of Chaos, immediately alienating its (mostly...) human readers.

From an artistic point of view this is pretty interesting, almost a War in Heaven-type atmosphere (especially the Horus Heresy) with the Space Marines as the mighty angels of opposing gods. But in a gaming sense, what you have is a scenario in which these super-humans you can't relate to slug it out for control of planets you don't care about.

Not that I deny anyone's right to prefer 40K, I just object to people stating that 40K's background is innately superior as though it's some sort of divinely dictated fact - since I happen to think Warhammer's background as better, it almost comes off as a personal insult.

Oh well, carry on.

[/rant]

Frecus
10-04-2005, 12:14
The immenseness is what I like in 40K. You can create your own piece of the galaxy, where every battle DOES matter. The problem: The rest doesn't care.

In fantasy, it's the game itself I like more. I'd rather not fight over a named place, as it would matter too much to established storylines. Though I love writing fluff for an army, as the planet is big enough for another army.
That's also a reason why I dislike LotR and special characters...

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Festus
10-04-2005, 12:52
LOL

No it's not. If something's in chronological order, then the newer it is, the further forward/ higher up on the list it is, so if you go by chronological order, 40k comes before fantasy.
It really is funny to see how computer literate and real-life illiterate the community becomes :)


Let's face it: The younger ones are lower in every list that is chronologically arranged or historically.

Notable exceptions are the computer protocolls, which add to the top of a list if a new thing happens.

All other lists usually add newer events to the bottom of a list, because one has to write from the top to the bottom in the westen culture.

not that it matters in any way, though...

Greetings
Festus

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
10-04-2005, 13:50
I HATE 40k with extreme predijuce. the rules are so simple i could teach my 6 yr old sister to play! the only thing better about 40k is its models. ALL the fluff is told from the imperial perspective."well the imperium has knows that their technology is better but we're in denial so its HERESY!!!!!!!!"

rant over.

Wez
10-04-2005, 13:53
the rules are so simple i could teach my 6 yr old sister to play! the only thing better about 40k is its models.

If you can teach it to your 6year old sisters, then it's easier to learn than fantasy (according to you), which is a good thing. Direct contradiction?:p

-Wez

Festering Chantor
10-04-2005, 14:03
Not challenging is what he means...

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
10-04-2005, 14:07
well, im all for simplicity, but some 40k rules are TOO simplistic(dont know hos to describe it), u either get your whole AS or none at all, no -s to hit, try to run ppl over and they just walk out of the way.

Edit:just saw yoyur post FC. yes not challenging.

Bruen
10-04-2005, 14:08
I hate to ruin some of these wild theories but its simply that alphabetically "Warhammer 40000" comes before "Warhammer Fantasy Battle".

Festering Chantor
10-04-2005, 14:10
Alphabetically 'Warhammer' comes before 'Warhammer 40.000'.

Bruen
10-04-2005, 14:17
It has only been called Warhammer for a few years, many sites like GW and Portent go back to the time it was called Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Just look at the Portent forum group list:
http://www.portent.net/forums/index.php?

Warhammer 40,000 Discussion
Warhammer Fantasy Discussion

You will notice that the new GW UK online store has:
http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk

Warhammer
Warhammer 40000

Its just alphabetical order.

Festering Chantor
10-04-2005, 14:55
May I point out that the main UK site is also new... but I get your point, it proves Portents innocens in the matter...

Faust
10-04-2005, 16:12
Dont, get me wrong I play 40k as well including Black Legion, Orks, Sisters of Battle and the fable Eldar. It's the preference of the rule system. The fact that 40k doesn's have all the modifiers is because it took a step away from 2 ed. It is placed in the 41st millenia and weapons have become demi gods in the shooting phase. It's just how the game mechanics work out. It's all dependant on how you like wage war? In neatly ranked up formation, with old school shooting, or with 7ft. tall super humans that fire rockets from their guns......40k is always fun, but then a break from it is good as well.
Faust

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
10-04-2005, 18:21
The fact that 40k doesn's have all the modifiers is because it took a step away from 2 ed. It is placed in the 41st millenia and weapons have become demi gods in the shooting phase. It's just how the game mechanics work out.
oh, so the "demi god weopons" cant either bounce off harmlessly or tear u in half?

Faust
10-04-2005, 18:29
oh, so the "demi god weopons" cant either bounce off harmlessly or tear u in half?

Umm I'm not really sure what point your trying to state here? Yes they can either bounce off harmlessly or they can indeed tear you in half. Tau Rail Cannon into a space marine commander will negate his armor save, and kill him outright, assuming that he has no other wargear. All I am stating is that in the realm of 40k there is no modifers due to the fact that it would be likened to Inqisitor for the matter of having rapid firing weapons, fully automatic weapons, along with barrage weapons. Its just a game. Yeah maybe 40k is too simplistic for you in your taste of rules, such as movement and shooting phases. Though the trick comes in the assult phase, to make sure the 'almighty' power fist Sergant gets in, or how you remove models to negate attacks coming from another direction. It's all in the eye of the beholder. That's all.
Faust

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
10-04-2005, 20:06
what i was trying to say was that i think that there should be armor save modifiers.

Faust
10-04-2005, 20:16
Sad, but true, this would make it a tad more interesting, but in a dumb down sense they do
ap- = strength 3 or less
6 = strength 4
5 = strength 5
4 = strength 6
3 = strength 7
2 = strength 8
1 = strength 9 or greater

Not as great as the modifiers in fantasy, but its the system which GW opted for
Faust

Sojourner
10-04-2005, 20:17
For close combat, possibly. For ranged weapons, no. If a projectile hits you, it's reliable enough that if it's supposed to penetrate your armour, it always will. If it isn't powerful enough it'll either hit a weak point or it'll bounce off, which is when you get your save.

But this is another discussion.

40k rules are rubbish, but I love the fluff. WFB fluff is extremely dull IMO - not much room at all for inventiveness.

EvC
10-04-2005, 22:00
At my gaming club I generally play the token game of Warhammer each week, but I don't mind really. WH 40,000 is just generally easier to get into, so more people do at the end of the day.

geto
10-04-2005, 22:09
I find that fantasy warhammer is alot more tactical on the table where as in 40K most of the strategy comes from your troop choices. Not to say that 40k is any less tactical its just easier to play oncde you get on the table.

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
11-04-2005, 00:42
@faust-not true, bolters have an AP5 yet are S4. the thing is so messed up, some weopons have a better chance of killing a vehicle than a termie!

Faust
11-04-2005, 01:47
@ Gyulkus Chaos Saurus

Alright I get the point, I guess you can't please some people. Yes I realize that the little chart doesn't fit all weapons perfectly, but then again not all chairs fit all people.
Faust

Bubble Ghost
11-04-2005, 10:57
WFB fluff is extremely dull IMO - not much room at all for inventiveness.


Of course Warhammer has room for inventiveness. Being inventive in a fantasy game doesn't just mean making up an unexplored section of the map or painting your Space Marines a different colour. With Warhammer, you make up events and plots rather than places, which I personally find more interesting. There are legions of long-time WFRP players who would find the idea of there not being much room for inventiveness in Warhammer slightly surprising.

Wez
11-04-2005, 20:54
@faust-not true, bolters have an AP5 yet are S4. the thing is so messed up, some weopons have a better chance of killing a vehicle than a termie!
This is a bad thing?

Douse a termie in a heavy flamer and you can't expect it to go down. Douse a raider with a heavy flamer and it'll go down more likely as it should.

-Wez

Bruen
11-04-2005, 21:00
Douse a raider with a heavy flamer and it'll go down more likely as it should.

I can vouch for that. Although I have never driven a burning Raider I did have my room mate set my hair on fire when I was driving back from the pub one night. I almost didn't hit the fence, I did hit my room mate.

DrCamf
11-04-2005, 21:08
From the former portent:

Originally posted by Staurikosaurus
*If you want something quick and easy go for 40K. Think of it as that drunk chick you've been grinding with at the bar. Yeah, you could take her home & it'd be fun. But you'll feel slightly uncomfortable trying to sneak out the window come the morning.

Fantasy is the girl that looks good sober."

BullBuchanan
11-04-2005, 22:01
From the former portent:

Originally posted by Staurikosaurus
*If you want something quick and easy go for 40K. Think of it as that drunk chick you've been grinding with at the bar. Yeah, you could take her home & it'd be fun. But you'll feel slightly uncomfortable trying to sneak out the window come the morning.

Fantasy is the girl that looks good sober."

Lmao, Amen!

Gop
11-04-2005, 23:07
The games are different enough to say - don't compare them. Try them and play them if you like them. I play both, prefer 40k but find fantasy a great diversion from the future.

Minister
11-04-2005, 23:50
My own view:

40K advantages: Better and more detailed fluff, don't have to rank up the models

WFB advantages: Nicer rules and better army books, Ogre Kingdoms.

Short and to the point. :D

Artemis_Quinn
12-04-2005, 01:26
In my opinion 40k is generally more popular because it's easier to start up an army (in general). It's still fun in smaller games and the scenarios are highly playable wheras in fantasy it is harder to find those fun in my opinion. Though, Fantasy is an overall more fulfilling game. People are turned away from fantasy usually because it's not as fun in smaller games and because that really cool lord you want to use isn't even playable till you have a fairly sizable force, while in 40K you can get that lord first thing and are even so much as required to. That's just what I think.

Grand Warlord
12-04-2005, 02:05
I prefer fantasy to 40k because well.. its the main game played in my area and I do think it requires a bit more tactical planning... granted i havent played much 40k (Besides DoW) in some time...

But neither is inferior to the other, just they are different depending on the aspect.

40k is much easier to learn (thats what i though anyway) so i can understand GW pushing it over fantasy... doesn't mean its inferior in anyway...

Jedi152
12-04-2005, 10:47
I've heard many arguments that the fluff in 40k is better. This couldn;t be more wrong in my eyes. The whole lasers, spaceships, aliens, yawn stuff just doesnlt appeal to me, where the gritty fantasy of WFB is just what i love.

Sojourner
12-04-2005, 11:37
With Warhammer, you make up events and plots rather than places, which I personally find more interesting.

Good point. The balance of power in 40k is so precarious that you can't go invading Necromunda or whatever, you have to invent a backwater for minor campaigns.

However, in WFB, the system is still a bit restrictive. There are a defined number of Elector Counts, Dwarf Holds and so on. There's less space for things to happen. However, you can fight battles in isolation without writing a non-canon war into the background, so I suppose that is a benefit.

Bubble Ghost
12-04-2005, 12:18
Good point. The balance of power in 40k is so precarious that you can't go invading Necromunda or whatever, you have to invent a backwater for minor campaigns.

However, in WFB, the system is still a bit restrictive. There are a defined number of Elector Counts, Dwarf Holds and so on. There's less space for things to happen. However, you can fight battles in isolation without writing a non-canon war into the background, so I suppose that is a benefit.

There are a couple of ways of looking at it. First, that not having the freedom to make up an enitre new country or race is an annoying restriction; and second, that the depth of information on the world gives your creations real context, and strengthens them.

It's a question of personal preference. I don't find Generic Spatially And Temporally Detached Planet With Unpronouncable Name #4,335,103 especially interesting because I like the stuff I make up to have some looming sense of consequence; while for others having a completely blank slate is what makes it interesting and challenging.

I think that even once you get past the tanks vs. wizards thing (I like tanks and wizards:cool:), 40K and Warhammer appeal to different sorts of people. 40K is great if you like playing god, Warhammer is better for immersing yourself in the world.

Lord Lucifer
12-04-2005, 13:54
That and the places defined in warhammer are by no means the full extent of what's there. There are many, many minor Dwarf Holds waiting for you to write about them, great dynasties of Imperial Noble Families just waiting to be invented
It's just a different scale to 40K is all.
Less grand, more intimate

If you dig far enough you find interesting background in both, the idea that one is better than the other is to a great extent just lazy observation (read the history of Nagash or the founding of Skavenblight and tell me warhammer background is lacklustre)

And when it comes to rip-offs, they both are
Warhammer rips off a source of Fantasy authors, 40K rips off christianity

Sir_Glonojad
12-04-2005, 18:19
I might add, that 40k rips off many science fiction and fantasy cliches, too, apart from the Dark Ages of Christianity. Just to mention Aliens, Star Trek (space Elves aka Vulcans) and even Star Wars (nay, Space Marines were in no way inspired by Stormtroopers, not a tiny bit of George L. in the idea... ;) ).

Still, the games are different and appeal to different people, both as far as background and actual rules are concerned.

Trunks
13-04-2005, 00:20
Space Marines weren't inspired by Storm Troopers at all.

It's that "little" "Bugs Versus Marines" movie you may have heard of that is the big inspiration for Space marines . . .

daryl_ks
13-04-2005, 04:24
Is this a silly argument?

I mean, if you have fun playing either then what's the point of being superior?

Cheers!

Daryl

Drabant
13-04-2005, 07:14
No! Everyone has to agree with my tastes!

Karhedron
14-04-2005, 11:47
I would say that Fantasy is probably a slightly better system in terms of rules. It is also far better in army support. As others have pointed out, there is no Fantasy equivelent of Space Marines getting half of all the development time.

However I play far more 40K than Fantasy. The one thing I do not like about Fantasy is the micromanaging of things like charge angles. Whilst the rules for flank charge and fire arcs work well, I find them extremely tedious to work with. The 360-degree movement and shooting of 40K means that you spend less time fiddling your units to get a maximum advantage.

Please don't take this to mean that I don't like a tactically challenging game. I like tactical play (I really enjor EA for example). It is just to me tactics do not equate to shifting a unit 2 degree to the left to gain some arbitary advantage. I fniod that is just tedious.

Sir_Glonojad
14-04-2005, 19:20
Trunks: I always thought it was the inpiration for the Imperial Guard ;).

Plus, Star Wars were release earlier, than Alien.

Stouty
14-04-2005, 19:25
It is just to me tactics do not equate to shifting a unit 2 degree to the left to gain some arbitary advantage. I find that is just tedious.

We have a rule to never be that picky about things, as long as roughly looks right everyone's happy.
It's not really a massive victory over your opponent if you win because he didn't spend hours too slice those extra 2 degrees in.
Remember 123 v 456 speeds things up to no end. :D

Darmort
14-04-2005, 19:26
Neither, I play both systems and have found both have flaws and have something good about them.


40K; Nice and deadly, compaired to Fantasy. Variety in terrain and planets.

Fantasy; Magic. Combat.

Lady Bastet
14-04-2005, 23:44
Fantasy always made the most sense to me

I prefered 2nd edition 40k to those that followed too