There seems to be a natural bias towards 40K on Dakka and other forums.

I have Fantasy bits and pieces, mostly Empire and Vampires, but I'm concentrating on 40K at the moment, probably due to the release of 5th Edition this year. I was also disapointed with the Fantasy Releases this year (namely Daemons/Warriors of Chaos).

I'm curious as to why other people favour 40K (or indeed Fantasy).

Another reason for me is the dispersed formations in 40K. Regiments in Fantasy are a pain in the backside to put together. I could not get my halberdiers to rank up so I abandoned them in the end. In 40K, you don't have to worry about whether models can stand next to each other or not, because they don't and therefore you're free to pose them how you like. It may seem minor, but it means a lot less time on modelling (arguably the most boring aspect of the hobby) and more time for painting and gaming.

My main problem with Fantasy is that the whole "regiment" format just seems like blocks of weaponry that get increasingly weaker and weaker as the game goes on, instead of actual troops of soldiers. I guess you don't have the same attatchment to your units that you get in 40k.

Also, this can make charges seem a lot less balanced at times (having the very corner of a weak regiment get caught on the edge of a much stronger unit comes to mind, as a single stronger unit can end up wiping an entire regiment of smaller units). Especially with the advent of 5th Edition 40k.

40K is a much cheaper and simpler game to get into.

40k wins!!!

Flashman wrote:There seems to be a natural bias towards 40K on Dakka and other forums.

I'm curious as to why other people favour 40K (or indeed Fantasy).

Overall, there are more 40k players than Fantasy players because Space Marines (alone) outsell the entire Fantasy line combined... So add in non-Space Marines to 40k, and you will have 40k much larger than Fantasy.

People like 40k because it has cool-looking Space Marines, which they then buy by the shovelful. Thus, there are lots of 40k players. And 40k plays reasonably well at small scales.

Fantasy needs more models and is much more fiddly, rules-wise. It just isn't as friendly of a game to start into.
____

@Techboss: B4SP and A0BR are the same cost.

I started with Dwarves, but became dismayed at how long it would take to field a fully painted army. So I went with Chaos Marines...and now I field my 25% painted CSM army. However, the Dwarves are next. Those models are too cool to deny.

I played Fantasy early on when it was rubbish, and gave up. If I want to play a game of formation based combat with ancient weapons, I play real Ancients like DBA or Field of Glory. If I want to play with magic, I play HoTT.

I play 40K because it is the most widely played SF game and I enjoy the modelling aspect.

I started 40k after a GW staff member showed it to me at a mall, with a little game of Battle for Macrage. I then started...... 5 years latter and 50 miles away

40k is cheaper, has more room for customivation, and has better models. It is easyer to model somthing on a large round base then a small square.

I got talked into playing fantasy and now I'm getting my first army(woc) for Hanukkah.

i played a game of it using half of a friends army against the other half (Bretonian knights vs. peasants) and one using both of them, go peasant revolt.

I really enjoy it as its much more tactful then 40K, and I'm the 2nd best chess player at my school, right behind the kid who scored 2nd in the junior nationals so I think I'm pretty good at tactics

I want to play a sci-fi game with plenty of guns, tanks, and things that go boom. So I go with 40k.

I like both really but I do play more 40k. I like 40k more just because i like the setting and the models a lot more. But, I think Fantasy is little more fun to play.

fantasy is a better game. it has a better rule set, requires more actual thought into what you are doing and costs a lot less to build a GT standard size army than 40K does.

but as a rule, si-fi does better than fantasy, and GW games are no different.

people like simple rules sets, guns tanks, and aliens

thats why 40K does better than fanstasy

40k is also talked about a lot more on forums.

Partly due to its worse rule set and balance issues leading to more talk of army lists and composition.

Partly due to a more diverse background that inspires and allows greater room for conversion of models and home brew rules etc.

This leads to it having a larger community foot print.

I don't believe Fantasy costs more than 40k either. 40k has cost me a lot of money just to get a competitive army, Fantasy seems roughly the same, if not a little cheaper. Especially now most regiment units are plastic. But 40k is going the same way with more plastic units so it's quite balanced I think.

I became frustrated with Fantasy when I realised the level of powercreep going on in the new edition. Up until then I had nearly given up on 40K. Now I spend most of my painting time on Hordes, 40K and LOTR. Most of my gaming is Hordes, but I have to say the metal models are a pain in the backside.
I like Fantasy but I really don't like how it doesn't reward background based forces in the same way 40K does for the armies I play. My common orc and goblin horde or my ambush based Beastmen are just inneffective when put against some of the incredibly gamey and broken tournament builds out there, whereas my plague marines lead by nurgle daemon prince and orks can hold their own against all comers. Also, being a dwarf player who hates the anvil and tech stuff blows.

Sounds like your comparison rests on the fact that Plague Marines are awesome in the new codex. And Orks came out pretty strong too.
Though you're right about the power creep in Fantasy.
I just don't hear less complaints about it in 40k.

I think 40k is more appealing to the younger audience that is often the age that gamers start at. It's background is deeper and more interesting which holds the older crowd too.

It also seems to take the generic fantasy races and put them in a more engaging setting (space and guns).
Not many science fiction games/films/anything take something that would be generic in one medium (fantasy) and put it in a setting that allows it to seem fresh but familiar and compelling.

Oh I know I lucked out with my army selection, believe me. But it just makes the game more fun for me right now. Maybe when the beasts of chaos get redone I'll be interested in playing fantasy.
So my reason for not playing is pretty much all my own choice, not much to do with the game system. It just happens that of the fantasy armies I have, 2 are underpowered and 1 is boring to play at the moment. I got tired of fighting uphill with the third edition ork codex.I like to be able to field something fluffy, that looks good, and plays good. Since Fantasy doesn't provide that for me at the moment I've moved to other games.

Does no one else get frustrated when fighting Undead, Daemons and MSU elf armies? They drive me up the wall, I never have fun games against these guys. And I've played the Brettonian "CHAAAAAAAARRRRGHE!" army so many times I could do it in my sleep. Fantasy has too many completely ganky builds, somewhat like 40K 4th edition.

For me 5th ed. killed my enjoyment of 40k due to the lack of realism. Yeah, I know that we have aliens, space elves and all sorts of unrealistic craziness, but that's part of the background of the game. What irks me is the fact that an infantry model with fleet can possibly move 18" in one turn. Meanwhile a skimmer, which compares loosely to a gunship in modern terms may only move 18". I don't care how light on your feet you are, there is no way in hell you should be able to keep up with a gunship flying full tilt while you're on foot, period, then end.. Also, a lot of the random movement values in 40k annoy me because I like to have things more dependable in my movement phase. Yeah, I get pursuit distances being random, that's believable. But when an Eldar Guardian attempts to run and gets 1" and an Ork Warboss runs 6", you need a little more backing that up than "I guess the Guardian tripped.." or "Looks like my Warboss remembered his Nikes". There are other reasons why when 5th ed. came out that I all but put up my Orks and Space Marines, but if I continue I'll start sounding more whiny than I already am.

[Edit]: Da Boss: your signature looks familiar? What is that you're Fraternity's Litanies of Beer?

It's from the Webcomic Goats, and is a Dune reference.

I don't like the relative slowness of vehicles either, but they are at least more survivable.

Yeah I was pleased with the Ork re-do since I've always been a fan ok kit bashing and the whole feel of the army is great.

I got tired of playing the game to win and loosing to luck or just my skill not being as good.

With Orks it feels like watching your own vehicles get blown up or your SAG get sucked into the warp adds to your enjoyment rather than it feeling like a loss. It brings out the better reason for gaming for me which is fun fair game, but only a well balanced rule set can create this. 40k still has its moments of "Oh FFS!"

Well, around here mostly, the 40k players are a bunch of whiney bullies. Always more concerned about what the other person has in thier armies, and not wanting to play by the rules, and call you names if you don't play the way they think the game is supposed to be played.

The Fantasy players are more mature and fun to play with.

Combine that with the lousy rules in 5th edition, and I've switched to Fantasy...

Apone wrote:Sounds like your comparison rests on the fact that Plague Marines are awesome in the new codex. And Orks came out pretty strong too.
Though you're right about the power creep in Fantasy.
I just don't hear less complaints about it in 40k.

I think 40k is more appealing to the younger audience that is often the age that gamers start at. It's background is deeper and more interesting which holds the older crowd too.

It also seems to take the generic fantasy races and put them in a more engaging setting (space and guns).
Not many science fiction games/films/anything take something that would be generic in one medium (fantasy) and put it in a setting that allows it to seem fresh but familiar and compelling.

40K's background would be deep if the company maintained a solid foundation on developing story elements over the "how to sell things" elements.

Take for example "close combat." 40K close combat, known prejoratively as the "swirling melee", is really a record of WHFB-hand-to-hand being spun backwards. "!1 tinu egrahc" Someone decided that 2e's system was "too hard", replaced it with WHFB's, took out that pesky "casualties reduce counter-attacks" with "Casualties? No one is safe! One day you won't even have to be in the unit to be wounded by a close combat! That's right! We want to make sure little Billy gets ALL the attacks he feverantly counted up not once, but five times by any means necessary EVEN if that includes FUBARING the game!".

Who came up with that near-infrared of an idea? "Swirling melee"? This isn't a toilet or a glass of wine, no swirling occurs save for the potential from the splattering patterns of blood.

WHFB 4e, WH40K 2e, epic.

The problem with WFB is that it isn't a very flowing
game rules wise.It seems to be over complicated to the
point of boredom.Believe me I'm due to be playing in
my club's tournament and I've tried to read the rules
but keep getting bored and do something else.To my
mind if you can't grasp a set of rules after a read through
are they worth it? 40k always fires my imagination whereas
WFB leaves me cold.

Slipstream: 40k rules fire your imagination? Really? I can see how the Codex
rules do that, but the rulebook?

I love fantasy much more than 40k. I play both, but as time goes on, 40k is geared more and more towards 10 years olds. (Mommy I want those neato models! They are just like in halo!) To play fantasy, you have to be more on the ball. Fantasy is unforgiving. Small erros are harder to recover from. 40K does not suffer from this. Re-deployment is a snap for every army. Fantasy for the Real MEN!!!! (And the real dorfs, and elves, and orcs, and so on...)

themandudeperson wrote:What irks me is the fact that an infantry model with fleet can possibly move 18" in one turn. Meanwhile a skimmer, which compares loosely to a gunship in modern terms may only move 18".

Actually, if you check the BBB, Fast Skimmers still move 24", but other Fast vehicles only move 18".

Regwon wrote:fantasy is a better game.

it has a better rule set, requires more actual thought into what you are doing and

costs a lot less to build a GT standard size army than 40K does.

Actually, if you consider that we're talking about games, and define "better" as "more fun", then 40k wins hands down. At least, if you were to look at numbers of active players, money spent, and so forth. But just saying "Oh, Fantasy is better" without properly defining "better" in an agreed-upon way, is pretty empty. It smacks of mindless Fantasy elitism.

Fantasy has a fiddlier and more contorted ruleset, but that isn't necessarily better. For the most part, Fantasy is a determined by deployment, rather than tactical results on the board. It is "swingier", because very few dice are rolled in any given encounter, so there are more chances for dumb luck to occur.

Cost-wise, I think, this depends a lot on which army you choose, and how you choose to build it. 40k Space Marines can be built very inexpensively, which is part of the appeal. Fantasy-wise, if you focus on AoBR models, can probably have very similar cost structure savings.

Apone wrote:40k is also talked about a lot more on forums.

Partly due to its worse rule set and balance issues leading to more talk of army lists and composition.

As above, define "worse".

As I noted earlier, 40k is talked about more because it sells more. More players = more talk. The idea that Fantasy doesn't have rules or balance issues is merely symptomatic of the smaller active player base. Fewer players = fewer viewpoints = fewer arguments.

personally i prefer 40k because it has more room for fluff. i mean which gives you more variety? one planet or an entire universe?

nailed it Corpses.

HI all.
To be fair I think both backgrounds are equaly engageing.
And it realy is just down to personal preference if you like 'old world grimdark' ,TM or 'grimdark amounst the stars' TM.

Both games use a rule set developed from a Napoleonic rule set.(RP worked at WRG before writing WH )
A rule set developed for large formations of troops armed with close combat weapons , with restricted manouvering supported by ranged attacks.
Where the game is about out manouvering to get favourable close combat match ups.

WH rules work realy well for the WH game.

The mutated WH rules are just inane choice for 40k IMO.
Mangling game play to make taking a knife to a gunfight the prefered option , is just so wrong!

TTFN
lanrak.

corpsesarefun wrote:personally i prefer 40k because it has more room for fluff. i mean which gives you more variety? one planet or an entire universe?

Depends on what you want.

In terms of a generic universe of everybody killing everyone, sure 40k has plenty of space.

In terms of evolving characterization that doesn't rely on retcons, there are games like
Legend of the Five Rings.

There's big, and then there's interesting.

From a marketing standpoint, 40k and Fantasy have the same scope/problem with their
background. It doesn't change, and anything that changes in the present changes
everything in the past. The scope allows a lot of entry, and admittedly it allows them
to wipe out mistakes or bad ideas, however, it doesn't necessarily make it better.

I don't think 40k has more room than Fantasy. It has the same room as Fantasy, ie, it's
the size of both genre's plots. Their histories are even about the same length given that
there's really not much to know. Big conflict at location x means that paint scheme y
exists.

40k is represented here because, surprise, Dakka is a 40k forum and 40k sells more in
the United States. It's also, ostensibly, a science-fiction ruleset. People like science-fiction.
I don't know why it attracts more wargamers. Maybe the Fantasy market gets sucked up
into World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons?

Fantasy is the better game. 40kv5 just turned me off from the game.

Of course, WHFB has gone down the same bad path 40kv4 did, with a few lists rising to the top that are ridiculous and are beatable by taking other power lists, it's annoying as hell to face.

In the end, it's good enough to get me to play the game...in order to hang out with my friends who play GW games.

Otherwise, I play PP stuff because it's just better IMO.

Speaking of planets vs universes (really just one galaxy, but that's a quibble), the real history of this planet manages to outweigh that of all the fiction ever published about the entire galaxy of 40k.

I'm jus' pointin' that out.

I prefer 40k for primarily fluff (love the fluff/background) and of course my beloved Imperial Guard.

I don't mind the fact that melee is extremely brutal in 40k (read: so all 3 of my squads just got swept?), but only wish close range shooting was a bit more powerful.

Don't like the fact that my rifles sometimes can only fire twice (or even once) at an enemy before they close to melee. Only thing that irks me.

The thing about 40K is that GW want melee to be an important part of the game. So the rules favour melee over shooting.

Miniature wargames are games which simulate military conflict.

I think the main difference is that 40k trends more towards 'game', with chance and probability being the deciding factors (note this is not to say there is no skill involved, most top players have a very good understanding of the effectiveness of units and 'play the odds' in the game) while fantasy trends more towards 'simulation' with its emphasis on manoeuvre and morale.

@John. What I meant by "worse game" is that I feel there is less in the players control during the game that affects the outcome. 40k depends mostly on good list construction and good luck with the dice.
Fantasy seems to be based more on good maneuvering and tactical match up. So it's about how you as the player set up and move your army.

Just my opinion, but when most of a game comes down to blind luck it isn't as fun to play for me. And that makes it not as good as a comparatively more skill based game.

The reason I prefer 40k to Fantasy is that 40k is a better miniatures game. By which I mean every model has an effect in 40k, each model fights. In fantasy the back ranks of units exist only to be removed as casulties or increase the chance of enemy models running away.

40k not only has a more obvious and wider scope for conversion but it also has a greater effect on the game. Actually, thinking about it this is probably less true than it used to be.

Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

George Spiggott wrote:

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

The reverse could be said for 40k.

George Spiggott wrote:I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were too many Space Marines in it.

What!?! Over half of the codices are non Spase Mareens already, you ask too much!

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing the lottery or the lottery?

Fixed it for ya.

George Spiggott wrote:

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles. Here's an example...

Battle of Balaklava Oct 25th 1854

The Thin Red Line - A single regiment of 200 (the 93rd Highlanders) against 1000+ Russian Cavalry. Result? After firing two volleys, the 93rd Highlanders manage to turn back the Russian Cavalry. This was followed by;

The Charge of the Heavy Brigade - A section of the fleeing Russian Cavalry draws up in front of the Heavy Brigade on an elevated position. Despite being outnumbered 2:1, the commander of the Heavy Brigade, General Scarlet orders a charge (uphill) against the Russians who close in around them. Result? The Russians withdraw after being slapped about the face with British sabres. This was followed by;

The Charge of the Light Brigade - 673 British Cavalry charge down the now infamous Valley of Death into the mouth of a Russian Artillery battery because the officers in charge couldn't work out what their orders meant. Result - The Light Brigade capture the artillery battery and cause all kinds of merry havoc behind it, but are eventually forced to withdraw when they realise nobody bothered to support what seemed like a suicidal attack.

Not very plesant for those involved, but certainly not dull either

P.S. Apologies to any Russian posters for my slightly jingoistic account of this battle.

Fantasy all the way with me. Why?

No matter how battered and beaten my regiments are from the game, every single one can still deliver a game winning charge. I just need to think smart and exploit flanks and rears (ooer!)

In Fantasy, there is a definite breaking point around the 4th turn, when things start going in one players direction. I love this aspect, mainly because no matter how well you have played to that point, your opponent still has a chance to break your line just as you thought you had him.

Psychology as well! There is nothing as pleasing as sending an enemy packing just by being big and scary! Terror ftw! and yet, having said that, it's extremely rare that a Terror causing fiend can deliver you the game on it's own. Every single charge you commit to has some element of risk where the consequences of cocking it up are nasty.

The manouveres can take a while for new players to get used to, sure, but again thats all part of the appeal. He might think his super unit of Chaos Chosen all tooled up are invincible. Then he learns the threat of the combined flank and front charge, and loses his main combat block.

Though I do often worry about the competency of some players on the web, especially when they claim Zombies are useless, even in the flank, as they will apparently always give away more combat res than they bring, which is patently nonsense. If I've engaged you with a unit in the front, and bring Zombies on your flank....I get +1 for Flanking you, deny your up to +3 by stripping out your ranks from the equation, bring me redundant ranks most of the time, AND give me +1 for guaranteeing you're outnumbered. So, they bring +5's worth of Combat Resolution overall. Thats me starting the combat in an almost insurmountable advantage. Even if you are 5 deep, you have to hit and kill with every single attack. Statiscally highly unlikely!

flashman you forget the most important one,
the battle of thermopylae: where 300 spartans fought against... oh you know the story

Thinking about it a little more....

There also feels like a greater variety of troops at my disposal, and definite stages to the battle.

For example, Fast Cavalry. These are odd units. Lightly armoured, generally lightly armed, yet can be a total nightmare for your opponent if he has nothing to counter them with. Generally, only one player will have his still standing after the first couple of turns. Too good at Flank Charges to just ignore!

Skirmishers. Odd little units. Excellent at taking out Fast Cavalry, manouverable enough to really exploit terrain, and a general nuisance to your opponent. Rarely if ever game winning outside of Wood Elves (grumble) but too useful to just discard out of hand (I never bother with Shades...though I think I will try a unit!)

Heavy Infantry. Heavier armour, higher stats...they need the right opponent. Get them stuck into enemy light infantry and watch the limbs fly!

Heavy Cavalry...not as nasty as many make out (at least, not in my experience, point for point) but horrific if you didn't anticipate their presence.

Ranged weapons...unless a gunline (BORING!) an oddity. Very rarely wipe out units with pure firepower, but incredibly useful for swining the inevitable combats your way, by picking off ranks and thus ranks bonus from your opponents best units, and giving you a better crack at having the outnumber bonus.

Artillery...varies wildly in it's applications. Bolt Throwers are good, Repeaters are even better. Cannons, Stone Throwers etc all hit like a tonne of bricks, but getting that hit requires as much luck as it does skill, lest the shot fall short of veer wildly off course.

Overall, I feel Fantasy is just much more satisfying a distraction than 40k. Each have their strengths, but I like those Fantasy offers a lot more! Plus, it scales pretty well the bigger you go!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Fantasy is the better game...

I hear this a lot from primary WHFB players. Really?

I agree there is a lot to like in WHFB. But the argument that supports this view that WHFB is abetter game is usually some variant of: 'better because it is a game of maneuver and that is superior to a firepower game'.

40K and WHFB share so many qualities that I can't help but think of them as nearly the same game these days anyway, with a major difference:

You can "hide" things in WHFB. Things like, oh, assasins, characters and magic items, especially banners. While I see some validity to a game of maneuver being a good game and possibly better than a game which essentially boils down to "line up and shoot", in actual practice, what wins WHFB is all the nasty tricks, as the mission there is always the same: set up 12 inches in and kill the other side. So all the key engagements are never really decided by maneuver but instead by army choice and set up when the nasty "hidden" tricks are revealed.

The effective things I have seen in WHFB aren't combinations of clever maneuver but are nasty surprise tricks that actually reverse the effects of clever maneuver:

Characters and Heros
Goblin Fanatics
Magic Items
The Banner of Ignore Rank Bonus
Flying Units
Terror
Running skirmish bait lines of Light Cav/Dogs
Massed artillery

It leaves the game feeling gimicky and false:

WHFB is a game of maneuver and secretive tricks, 40K is a game of missions and shooting, tastes will of course vary, but playing for a variety of missions is actually a better game.

Fantasy is my preference due to the age factor and wanting a laid back playing enviroment. The fact that there are more well organized fantasy tournements across the country does not hurt either.

@Augustus, fantasy has better players in it than 40K does. You can rant all you want to about uber killy lords, magic or whatever else you were whining about does not stop the better players from winning with all goblin, or ogre kingdom and other nerfed list. Name me the last time you saw Kroot Mercenaries or any of the other 2nd tier 40K armies rise to the top over uber killy builds.

What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Generally in my experience the above is very much true.

I don't really play 40k at the moment (though second wave Orks are changing that!) but I am a Fantasy Junky. The majority of Fantasy players in my area all early 20' and up.

I think it's mainly because Fantasy suits well to a relaxed play style. I'm happy for my opponent to take his time during his manouvers, because sometimes it's tricky to known what you want to do. 40k however, has a faster pace to it which I feel rubs off on the players. Not a bad thing per se, it's just I prefer to make an evening of a game (though I got the Realm of Battle Board today, and I fancy seeing if I can chin my Flatmates Vampire Counts in the first turn!).

And the things you listed above are not cheap tricks. I *know* Fanatics are likely to pile out of Night Gobbos, which is why I trigger them with something fairly cheap as early as possible. If I get it right, they do a heap more damage to him than they do me.

Terror....as I said above, the tactical application of a Terror test or two can be game changing, but it is far too unreliable to ever be considered game winning. Fear, or more appropriately, outnumber with Fear is nasty, but Terror is a one shot thing. Once they pass, thats it, they aren't scared anymore, and passing happens far more often than not.

Magic Items...they are there to bolster my plan. Every Fantasy army will have a core strategy at it's inception. My Savage Orcs for example are about disruption. Hence Lord, on Wyvern, Screamin' Sword, Collar of Zorga, and Iron Gnasha's. Sod all armour, but designed entirely to head for the great concetration of enemy characters on the first turn, and break as many heads as he possibly can. This is stage one. Should it be successful (about 50/50 thus far!) then the ladz have a much easier time of it, as I have thrown my opponents line into disarray, usually having killed his General and seen off whichever unit he was in.

Fantasy is a game of subtlety, where the outcome is rarely assured. I get you prefer 40k, but don't go criticising things you don't appear to fully get.

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Every fantasy tournment the youngest players there are 18 and usually bought by their fathers who also play. I have had to play against 13 year olds in a GW run 40k Grand Tournament 3 times (twice in one tournament no less). This even extends to local stores, gaming clubs and RTT's. So yes 40K attacts the kiddies far more than fantasy ever has or ever will, at least in anty gaming group I have been in for the last 15 years.

Also, in Fantasy the terrain does more than just make you harder to kill. Highest up the hill has an advantage in combat. They can also see more, but be seen by more.

Hiding in woods is all fine and well, until you realise you again need to be seen in order to see (generally speaking).

Rivers are a nightmare without a bridge, walls are the bane of Cavalry (no Lance S increase, and I may well be striking before you. Get that up you!) and so on.

Fantasy doesn't work well for mission, that much is true, so if you like mission parameters beyond 'kick his head in' then 40k is probably more your thing. But Fantasy, because of how it works, does mid table brawls beautifully.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, in Fantasy the terrain does more than just make you harder to kill

What terrain? Everytime I see a fantasy board it is a featureless plain, with perhpas a single building in the middle, or a pair of hills.

In that case, there is a flaw in the players, NOT the game.

Just bought me the Realm of Battle today, and to go with the current scenery I have already (2 Chapels, 1 Watchtower, Fortified Manor, loads of walls and a Wood) I procured a wood, and over the coming months, I will be expanding my scenery collection drastically.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Fantasy is a game of subtlety,...

Tricks, subtlelty...

Mincing words

Dice Monkey wrote:

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Every fantasy tournment the youngest players there are 18 and usually bought by their fathers who also play. I have had to play against 13 year olds in a GW run 40k Grand Tournament 3 times (twice in one tournament no less). This even extends to local stores, gaming clubs and RTT's. So yes 40K attacts the kiddies far more than fantasy ever has or ever will, at least in anty gaming group I have been in for the last 15 years.

I see, in my local store the demographic seems to be about the same.

Seems a like a good reason to play WHFB.

Again, you are missing the point in order to prove yourself correct.

In Fantasy, spells and magic items are kept secret until used. Indeed, there are specific items concerned with the forced revelation of such things on targetted characters.

All of these things still cannot win you the game outright on their own. Sure, I might well have the Banner of the Lady, which IIRC, is 125 points to ignore enemy Rank Bonus, PLUS the BSB to carry it, knocking up around the 200 points. He wants to do that? Fine by me! I always go for the flanks with Brets anyways. Standard goes in the middle, I'm not touching it, I win the combat by loads, I bag 200 VPs for his Banner and the Units alone, THEN the VPs for character and banner cost. Lovely!

You also raised issue with flying units...that'd be the same flying units which, generally, are utterly incapable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag, and once you get your paws on them get beaten senseless? Only exception here are Peagsus Knights, but even then they are of limited uses once the Artillery has snuffed it.....

Good work on the terrain, I bet your boards are more interesting!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You also raised issue with flying units...that'd be the same flying units which, generally, are utterly incapable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag, and once you get your paws on them get beaten senseless? Only exception here are Peagsus Knights, but even then they are of limited uses once the Artillery has snuffed it.....

Flying units like, Dragons, Greater Demons? These units simply move up a flank and then destroy everthing in their path. They essentiaslly circumvent all the normal rank movement and charging rules because they can see over everything man sized and charge wherever they want because they fly.

Yes and no.

I have a great deal of experience with these bad boys, as my Dark Elf list which I've been using for yonks contains a Black Dragon and a Manticore. These things HAVE to get your flank. They have to. If the engage in the rear, they need 6 wounds to win, which is a tall order even for them when you hit on 3+. Hatred now helps somewhat, but I will avoid risking it still.

Also, consider the points of a Dragon with rider, and Bloodthirsters. In a 2,000 point game, those models are eating up around 25% of the points allowance. Thats one big target usually worth and extra 100VPs (being the general). You bet your arse they had better hit like a tonne of bricks! Yet even so, they are surprisingly easily overcome if you put your mind to it. Dragons tend to have a massive liability in the character astride it. Softer target than the mount means easier CR from it.

Bloodthirsters need the full 100pts being spent on them, taking them up to 550 if memory serves....

They can't charge where they want though...sure, they can see over enemy units and charge over them, but if there's not enough room to land, they are stuffed. They can also be easily baited, as a failed charge from a flier is still the full 20" inches. Used cunningly, you can get them in a position for a multiple charge they'll be lucky to survive. Then there are cannons and great weapons and nasty spells to consider as well.

Flashman wrote:Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles...

WOOOOOOOOSH!!!

As punishment for your blatant lack of humour I am confiscating your Flashman books. You can have them back when I've finished reading them.

I am kinda surprised there haven't been a lot of folks saying, "Why not BOTH?"

I like both systems, really. There's a ton of similarities between them, just as there are some differences between them, as well.

Personally, in my opinion, WHFB has a more solid set of rules. They aren't perfect by any means, but to this wargamer, overall, they just make more 'sense' and feel more fluid. I don't know how to better explain it.

That being said - I am still enjoying 40k 5th. It's already provided tons of fun for me and my companions, and it's been out what, 6 months?

So instead of saying "40K vs Fantasy", I prefer "40K AND Fantasy", myself.

Just my 2 coppers, tho.

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Yes. I'd say the average 40k player to falls in the 15-33 range while the average Fantasy player falls in the 25-infinity range.

two_heads_talking wrote:

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Yes. I'd say the average 40k player to falls in the 15-33 range while the average Fantasy player falls in the 25-infinity range.

Fantasy players are really larval grognards.

I prefer the tactical aspect of fantasy over 40k. In fantasy it's how well you can set stuff up, in 40k it's how many 4+ dice you can roll and what net trick you're exploiting.

George Spiggott wrote:

Flashman wrote:Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles...

WOOOOOOOOSH!!!

As punishment for your blatant lack of humour I am confiscating your Flashman books. You can have them back when I've finished reading them.

Yes, apologies for my ramblings. I'm probably a bigger geek with Flashman era history than I am with Warhammer. Enjoy reading them anyway, may I recommend skipping Royal Flash and most of Flashman and the Tiger (the middle story is hilarious though).

Ahem, getting back to topic...

Apone wrote:@John. What I meant by "worse game" is that I feel there is less in the players control during the game that affects the outcome. 40k depends mostly on good list construction and good luck with the dice.
Fantasy seems to be based more on good maneuvering and tactical match up. So it's about how you as the player set up and move your army.

Just my opinion, but when most of a game comes down to blind luck it isn't as fun to play for me. And that makes it not as good as a comparatively more skill based game.

Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think 40k has more control, but it's different. With 40k, you roll a *lot* more dice, so the luck has much greater chance to even out. I can predict 40k results much more easily.

I agree Fantasy spends a lot of time on maneuvering, which stems from deployment / set up, as I noted. But dice-wise, there's much less being thrown. Two bricks of 60+ models in combat might only roll fewer than a dozen Attacks total to decide the outcome. That's a lot of room for something to skew the results. Also, as noted, there are more "surprises" that take away from pure tactical play. OTOH, if you were talking about Low Powered Fantasy, or Ancients, then I'd agree with you much more.

They're different games, but to say that Fantasy is "better" is odd, given that 40k outsells Fantasy by a large margin.

...I think GW has been kinder to 40K this year than Fantasy. After a pretty amazing start with Vampires, the army books for Daemons, Dark Elves and Chaos Warriors were a bit of let down for me (sold the first two, didn't even buy the 2nd).

There didn't seem to be much invention in any of them. Whereas Vampires introduced Varghulfs, Blood Knights and Corpse Carts (supported by new excellent models), there was a decided lack of new stuff for the rest.

Daemons got Heralds and Special Character Greater Daemons (but no models for them).

Dark Elves got er... nothing, lets move on.

Warriors of Chaos shifted some units around, nicked some stuff from Beasts of Chaos and added big stone statues. Oooh dynamic.

Although I wasn't really intending to collect these armies, I think fresh input keeps the game and background moving. If you do own the army, a new book should reinvigorate your interest whilst other players tinker with their armies to meet new challenges.

To the other extreme, 40K seems to reinvent itself with every new Codex. Not sure this is an entirely good thing, but it does hold my interest more...

JohnHwangDD wrote: They're different games, but to say that Fantasy is "better" is odd, given that 40k outsells Fantasy by a large margin.

More people went to see The Day the Earth Stood Still than Slumdog Millionaire thusly The Day the Earth Stood Still is a better film. McDonald's outsells In and Out Burger thus McDonalds has better food. Fantasy has better rules and attracts better gamers, 40K sells more and packs GW themed kiddie parties at GW stores. Which do I think is better? I have always been a quality over quantity kind of guy, plus screaming 10 year olds is not something I want to deal with on my weekends.

@Dice: I'm sorry, are you saying that the two movies / burger chains are anywhere near comparable in exposure, or are you making an apples to oranges comparison?

I wasn't even aware that Slumdog was a movie (is it?). In-n-Out is a regional chain, whereas McDonalds is global. They are not comparable.

40k and Fantasy are produced and marketed by the same company. They are comparable.

Epty Fantasy elitism = FAIL.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I wasn't even aware that Slumdog was a movie (is it?).

I do not find this surprising

JohnHwangDD wrote: In-n-Out is a regional chain, whereas McDonalds is global. They are not comparable.

No they both make hamburgers, one makes very good hamburgers one makes grease soaked hockey pucks they market as hamburgers.

JohnHwangDD wrote: 40k and Fantasy are produced and marketed by the same company. They are comparable.

I agree they are in terms of rules, play enviroment and players not "40K sells moar than fantasy in tha USA to 13 year olds so it RUUUUULEZZZ"

JohnHwangDD wrote: Epty Fantasy elitism = FAIL.

I am assuming you mean empty, that is your opinion. We all know how much that is worth.

@Dice: If you're going to compare things that are marketing driven, you need them to be comparable.

That means you compare a regional In-N-Out with another regional like Steak-N-Shake (FYI, SnS is clearly better, hands down).

Otherwise, you compare McDonalds with the burger you get at the Waldorf Astoria, because, hey, it's still just a burger.

Hey man, you started the "40k outsells Fantasy therefore 40k is better" nonsense. Which one is "better" is always going to be PURELY subjective. You say 40k is better, others think Fantasy is better, just not as appealing to the masses (which I happen to agree with).


FYI, you are both wrong. Blood Bowl is clearly the superior game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

All (or at least most of) the Specialist Games have better rules than either. The problem is none of them use the same models as regular WHFB or 40K, so it they tend to require a lot of conversions or finding out of production models to play. Plus, it's hard to find a game.

Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

I agree with Augustus. In my experience, games of Fantasy are won by:

Failed Terror tests
That super unit (Blood Knights with the ward save banner and the regen banner) or (Bloodthirster with *anything*)
A souped up character beating the snot out of a unit
A really nice shot with a cannon/stone thrower
Repeated casting of certain spells (warp lightning, conflagration of doom)

And that's usually it. Occasionally I see a nice flank charge that rolls up the army. Usually this is chaos knights. If it's anything like orcs or empire swordsmen I am utterly shocked.

I started out playing Fantasy, but I've little motivation to play it currently because the big armies at my store are HE, Vampires, and Demons. So I can face the ASF army where charging doesn't matter. Or the undead army where all my fear-causing stuff doesn't matter and their stuff comes back. Or the Demon army where I'm supposed to deal with a flying terror causer with 5 wounds and a 4+ ward save who likely has any number of powerful upgrades. There are orc players, but they never come in any more (because O&G handicaps itself with animosity). The Empire player switched to HE. The chaos mortals player switched to VC. He may actually play WoC, but I don't think he realizes how bad they are yet. Oh and there is a Bret player. It's sooo much fun to face an army where everything has a ward save and almost everything has a 2+ armor save.

Then again for 40k, at my store we have CSM, SM, Black Templars (soon to be SM), Demons (the "for fun" army), Orks, Orks, Necrons, Nids, and Nids. Occasionally we see IG and Sisters. Tau have stopped showing up since the edition change. Oh, and there is 2 Eldar. So I can take my marine army and fight a marine army, or an army designed to kill a marine army. Currently I'm working on a Demon army, but to be honest there isn't much motivation for me to build the models because I don't have that much fun playing the game.

So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

When my BFG fleet finally comes I will play the hell out of that. Until then I guess I will play around with the Battletech starter box. That's gotten big at my store all of a sudden.

Fantasy appeals to me more now, because of the more advanced ruleset and the fact that most 40K players are overenthusiastic 12-year-olds who get raging hardons for the Ultramarines.
Furthermore, Fantasy seems more realistic with the battle formations and whatnot. I like a sense of realism even in the most outrageously designed games. Video games should heed this too; it's something that the Call of Duty series and Counter-Strike do very well.

Orkeosaurus wrote:All (or at least most of) the Specialist Games have better rules than either. The problem is none of them use the same models as regular WHFB or 40K, so it they tend to require a lot of conversions or finding out of production models to play. Plus, it's hard to find a game.

Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

I've played BFG and blood bowl and both games had simple rules that kicked the crap out of Fantasy and 40k. I've not played Necromunda or Warmaster, though I've read the rules. Warmaster sounds like a much more strategy-oriented than either of the 2 main games. I like that your general is there to lead the army, not be the most bad ass character in it. And Necromunda just sounds cool.

I've heard nothing but glowing praise for Epic 40k (other than the models are tiny!). But I've not bothered to read the rules because I prefer a hardcopy, not a pdf. (Friend of mine gave me a warmaster rulebook because it was cool & cheap).

Oh, and I'd buy the bloodbowl set if it wasn't incredibly overpriced at $75 USD.

I prefer fantasy for the tactical battle, only problem there is trying to find a game. I also like 40k (prefer 5th from 4th) as i find it a more relaxing game to play as i don't have to remember as many rules. But by far i prefer necromunda, its probarly one of the best games imo that games workshop have made. Its too bad they don't put any effort into at all.

Yes, BFG is a great game!

But it's only a handful of models, and has nothing huge like a Baneblade or Titan.

Nothing wrong with that. I like the tiny models of Warmaster and Epic: they make forces look like an army and not just a bunch of guys.

Besides, big models kinda kill the whole point of miniature wargaming.

Nurglitch wrote:Nothing wrong with that. I like the tiny models of Warmaster and Epic: they make forces look like an army and not just a bunch of guys.

Yes, EPIC isn't it, with the scale being so small. Touche!

Noisy_Marine wrote:I agree with Augustus. In my experience, games of Fantasy are won by:

(Tricks)

Thanks, that was my experience as well. I know there are a lot of great fantasy players, and I have actually tried and enjoyed the Warhammer historical games, which are smashing (because there are no magic dragons/daemons flying etc.). I can certainly appreciate the game of maneuver, it is pretty cool, but in my experience it gets talked up a lot (in WHFB contexts) and what really happens are the tricks, some of which you described quite well, dominate the game.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Then again for 40k, at my store we have CSM, SM, Black Templars (soon to be SM), Demons (the "for fun" army), Orks, Orks, Necrons, Nids, and Nids. Occasionally we see IG and Sisters. Tau have stopped showing up since the edition change.

That's about my experience also, I sold all my Eldar and my IG haven't left the shelf since their 1st 3 strait losses in 5th. Yea, I could level my "tricks" argument against some of 40k too, especially the daemon codex which throws the mission structure I was claiming was better right out the window with their own unique rules... Its not the only game changing issue either, see also: book of saint lucious, stubborn armies, hive mind and Orks, which all generally break the game in some way...

Noisy_Marine wrote:So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

In a lot of ways they really are the same (assault) game, especially with the new 40K morale and CC rules. I think you may have it right.

I will always love the modeling and the themes!

I prefer fantasy, but then again, I'm not that into Sci-Fi to begin with. I like the neat, ordered looks of the blocks of fantasy models - they look great on a shelf, since I can't play WHFB on a regular basis.

I do bring some High-Tech to my High Elves though for the sake of being random. If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

Lord Bingo wrote:...necromunda, its probarly one of the best games imo that games workshop have made. It's too bad they don't put any effort into at all.

Indeed, I had years of fun with that. Huzah.

Arondight wrote:...run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

Oh my, that sounds...

Exquisite!

Ozymandias wrote:Hey man, you started the "40k outsells Fantasy therefore 40k is better" nonsense. Which one is "better" is always going to be PURELY subjective. You say 40k is better, others think Fantasy is better, just not as appealing to the masses (which I happen to agree with).


FYI, you are both wrong. Necromunda is clearly the superior game.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Fixed your Typo

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 14 year old boys playing fantasy.

Noisy_Marine wrote:So which is best, 40k or Fantasy? I say: neither. Both have bad rules sets and poor balance.

Both of them have problems, only one of them causes me to pay attention in order to win. I will give a clue, it does not have Space Marines in 999,999 colors.

Here's some 6mm scale troops.




These are Russian Napoleonic line infantry based on 60mm square brigade bases. I just put them in to show there are alternatives to 40K and WHFB that look nice in small scales.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Also I haven't noticed the "Everyone who plays Fantasy is a mature adult, everyone who plays 40K is a screaming 8 year old" trend that Dice Monkey is apparently resenting.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 14 year old boys playing fantasy.

Show me a Grand Tournament full of 200 year old tap-dancers playing Snakes and Ladders.



When did I say that Grand Tournaments were filled with 14 year old Fantasy players? :?

I barely see screaming children at all when I play 40k, and I've seen a couple in Fantasy too.

@Orkeo - the screaming children that I've seen playing GW games have all been at least 20 years old....

Arondight wrote:
If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

That army is made of pure win!

I have played 40k since it was called Rogue Trader, but after have played Star Grunts II I quickly came to realize what a poor sci-fi rules set it has become.

40k is at best a beer & pretzels game that should be played for fun and not a whole lot of thought. Ironically that is how the game got started in the first place.

I think for many players all they know is 40k or WFB. Most of them probable have never played anything else so they have no measuring stick as to how good or bad a rule set is.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Arondight wrote:
If you ever run into a girl with a High Elf force fielding Chainsaw Bolt Throwers, a Hello Lion Chariot and Jetpacked Swordmasters, that'll be me.

That army is made of pure win!

I have to agree I really want to see what a Hello Kitty Chariot looks like.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Failed Terror tests
That super unit (Blood Knights with the ward save banner and the regen banner) or (Bloodthirster with *anything*)
A souped up character beating the snot out of a unit
A really nice shot with a cannon/stone thrower
Repeated casting of certain spells (warp lightning, conflagration of doom)

Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....not going to happen without support. And I can always ensure said characters regiment meets one of my own with a character in it.

A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

Amen Mad Dok!

Super units are avoidable, and my dwarf cannons had the habit of overloading the powder (rolling a 10 for the distance fired) and hitting nothing at all.

And the same goes for 40k. You can take your Lash Prince every game or your maxed out Lootas, won't mean you win all the time.

Well Mad, these cases seen to make sense, and at the risk of getting in the sandbox and sounding like a child, here I go...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

The last tournament I was in I got zero blocked by an Ork player for playing a black dragon, it made a flight move caused 6 terror checks, 4 of his units ran and the rest of the game was a single charge and bolt throwers cleaning out the rest. I don't think a terror causer is the ultimate weapon, or even unfair necesarily, but it absolutely shapes the game in some games, and it has nothing to do with maneuver or clever play at all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

Unless they fly, or have a banner that ignores rank, most of the effective big points units have a gimick. Even still, I admit your point is somewhat valid, things can be countered with good play, I always said the maneuver game is cool, but at least explain to me this, why is there NO DIFFERENCE between a Goblin unit of 25 and a unit of 50? They both have the same rank bonus right? They both have the same front line attack when charged, and they both fold up on the morale role after losing a few models... Once you have 4 ranks of 5 you don't need anymore models, and bigger units have no additional melee advantage, which is absurd for a rank game.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....

Sounds good on the surface, but this is really blatantly wrong, who charges a character into rank bonus 5? Every time I faced the bretonians the single surviving knight model goes for a warmachine crew, or an archer unit, or another single character, and when that kind of teeny unit breaks the giant blocks of +5 rank bonus next to it sometimes leave because of morale. Furthermore what happens when that character is a dragon or a greater demon, that has flown down the flank, ended up enfalade to your whole army and is negating your rank bonus of 5? Yea, all those block units are worthless then. Sounds good on paper and here in the forum, but character hammer works great in practice.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

I have to blast you on this one. Cannons, particularly great cannons can character snipe by aiming on the ground. They are absolutely devastating, they hit, bounce and they kill the general/wizard in a single shot right out of a unit? It's game winning. They come in 3s in some armies.... I have seen entires armies of VC go down this way in turn one... Not only that but they don't even have fire arcs, which is ridiculous for medieval artillery which have to be blocked in, they have a 360 fire arc? The volley gun can shoot 30 shots in a single missfire? That's more shots than an average bow unit for a whole game, even if rare, when it does happen it wrecks a game! A warp lightning cannon can shoot through a hill? An imperial Mortar uses the big blast circle from 40k? Even misses will kill entire units at a time? Skaven have flame throwers? In a Rank Game? You can't seriously expect to claim that artillery is not gimicky can you? Furthermore how does blocked medieval artillery shoot at high flying monsters? They elevate? A Great cannon isn't a medieval cannon, it plays more like an 88 flak in practice with elevation and a 360 fire arc and it is ridiculous.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

Agreed, for the gun powers, I'm not talking about shooting style magic, I'm talking about the kind of spells that wreck the maneuver game, and they are all over. Like free moves, like regenrating/summoning new undead units, I'm talking about bretonian magic that has no range or LOS restrictions, so it doesn't matter where your caster is, and spells that can make your mount carry your general off the table, or teleporting.

The block maneuver game is a good game, it's common to all sorts of wargames, like ACW, Napoleonics, medieval and ancient games of all sorts, it is where all the block maneuver tactics come from that fantasy has. But when the crazy fantasy elements are added it circumvents that too often. That's when WHFB becomes a questions of whose gimmick works better instead of who maneuvered the best...

Okay. Here we go again. Not trying to pick on you in particular, just trying to clear up what I consider to be misconceptions...

Terror. Causing 6 tests is something of excellent positioning on your part, and exceedingly poor consideration on your opponents behalf. Him failing 4 of them is extremely unlucky (Orcs have Ld7 basic, meaning they should pass over 50% of Terror tests). This is an extreme result and cannot be used to prove anything. The only time Terror won me a game outright was equally bizarre. Hydra lurking in the woods (old Dark Elf book mind!) Bretonnian Bus, containing General, BSB, Damsel and something mental like 12 other models, turns to face. Damsel uses Lore of Beasts (might have been the Lord version now I think about it, but regardless) and casts the movement spell. His unit is so long, that despite being near the middle of the table, the unit is a mere 8" from his edge. In order to make the charge, the Spell specifically states you follow all normal rules. He fails his Terror, and rolls 10" for his flee, taking the entire unit off the board. This isn't skill. This isn't a broken rule. This is sheer, unadulerated jamminess on my behalf!

Most of the effective big points do indeed have a 'gimmick' as you put it, which generally calls into play the BSB being in said unit (and there are far better places to stick him, I can tell you!). And again, I say for the points sunk into the unit, it had better kick seven shades of snot out of most enemies. After all, I sunk a quarter of my total available points, often more, into that unit.... How is this gimmicky? I've chosen to put all my eggs in one basket, gambling it's going to pay off. Because, if it doesn't, I am well and truly buggered. Big stuff can *always* be dealt with. Whether my opponent has brought something which can do so effectively is not a fault of the game!

If there is a single surviving Knight....well, he can take on the Artillery all he wants. Generally it's cheap enough to not really matter, and by the time I've chinned a Bret unit down to a single model, I'd expect the Artillery to have had it's innings! Character Hammer, unless including a Dragon or similar big gribbly, simply does not work in experience. I really don't mean to belittle you here matey, but trust me. I know what I'm on about, and by your own admission, you don't really play Fantasy all that often.

And then you go on to state Artillery has too good an effect. Fliers no longer fly high. They are described as swooping along the ground. Think the Fell Beasts in Return of The King attacking the Gondorian Knights. Fairly easy to hit with a Cannon. 360 line of sight...why not? It's pivoting, and an abstraction. If Artillery had restricted vision it would never be used. Plus, generally, Artillery has three turns, possibly four if your really lucky, in which it has it's say. The ones you listed really aren't as bad as you make out. The Skaven Warpfire Thrower, for example, gouts the flame a totally random distance, and has a short range (18" assuming you roll the 10!) and cannot move and fire, nor, IIRC, can it stand and fire. Thus, it's only going to get one or two cracks of the whip before it's knacked! Imperial Mortars. I also have an extensive Empire Army, and the Mortar really, REALLY needs the big template. It's pretty inaccurate, and low strength (S3,-1 to saves). I've had direct hits off it in the past (combination of skilled guessing and favourable lack of scatter) and never have I achieved more than taking out a complete rank. Now, the Hellstorm, if the bloody thing ever manages to hit the target can mess an enemy unit right up, but as I said, getting a palpable, solid hit is sheer luck. I mean, I make my guess, then the overshoot, THEN the Scatter. Artillery is very much not Gimmicky. For it's lack of reliability, it's expensive. Plus, it is often competing for Special and Rare slots, limiting access to tastier ranked up units which are more assured of making their presence felt. Again, if I have artillery, it's generally in an army where it really should be expected. If you have failed to take units suited to hunting down these small, vulnerable units, thats neither my fault or the design of the game!

Magic....well, Undead really need their Necromancy spells, and as I demonstrated last night just using 5 Dispel Dice, locking down his Magic Phase can be catastrophic. I don't know if you've noticed, but Skeletons, for what you get (a poor fighter, lightly armoured) are extremely expensive (9 points with Spears now I believe...Dark Elf Spears are cheaper and infinitely better!). Magic have no range or LoS. Oh well. I'm taking on Bretonnians, I expect it and anticpate it. Other than my Savage Orcs, I never leave home with less than two dispel Scrolls, and I personally don't believe in Lvl1 Scroll Caddies. Using these, and my dispel dice and/or Magic Resistance cannily, I can predict his Magic Phase and more or less decide in advance what I'll allow him to have.

Manouvers trump Gimmicks every single time in Fantasy. Yet every army has it's definite strength, and an exploitable weakness. It takes the player to exploit both of these, and mitigate them as well.

Though you do raise an interesting point about 25 Gobbos being arguably just as good as 50 Gobbos. You are kind of right there, barring your oversight of an enlarged Panic threshold! However, Gobbos as with most Infantry, have no cap on the number of units. Instead of a single block of 50, go for 2 of 25. Even without the second Command Group, your still much, much better off. However, in the Rules Discussion of Fantasy, I have brought this up today as a discussion topic, so feel free to join in!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Here we go again. ... 'gimmick' ... I say for the points sunk into the unit, it had better kick seven shades of snot out of most enemies. After all, I sunk a quarter of my total available points, often more, into that unit.... How is this gimmicky?

Indeed.

Perhaps I am playing the wrong game.

If julius Caesar were a warhammer character he would have 6 attacks at S6 with killing blow from the Gladius of Imeprial justice and...

I'm kidding here. I'm just trying to make the point that in other wargames Generals are great because of their command ability, but in warhammer they lead charges and fight, and that fantastic elelments are often very powerful. That's what I generally mean by gimmicky. I concede that others may see this as the element with the most appeal, and I am not saying that is wrong either. It's just a big reason why I don't like fantasy and the heart of all the points I made earlier.

I actually think the same thing, when a Daemon/Carnifex flips a tank over in WH40K.

(Also, imagine if you will, that occsionally, I try to play devil's advocate in the forums, in an inteligent manner, because I think the discussions are interesting.)

No, fair enough. Thankfully I thought to point out I wasn't having a go myself, so all is well.

Thing is, a General in Warhammer is a *Fantasy* hero. They are meant to lead by example with feats of derring do and the overcoming of horrendous odds etc. And their Ld Bonus can make a real difference, and is often the main reason I rarely bother with Spell Casting Lords. I'd rather have the extra fightiness and the Ld boost than some spells which may or may not make a difference.

And I really think thats the crux of the appeal to me. In 40k, for example, a Dreadnought can wade into infantry and be reliably immune to the return attacks. Pick the right squad, and you are laughing. But in Fantasy, it's rare you are genuinely in a lose lose situation in a combat!

I would just point out that a lot of the time (not all the time though) squad upgrades mean a normal squad kitted right can deal with mister Dreadnaught. Tau and Tyranids are the exceptions here. The other point is that with squads being so mobile in 40K, avoiding the Dread is a lot easier than avoiding a superunit in Fantasy.
I think fantasy is at it's core a fun game, what bugs me is that all of my armies have difficulty fielding what I see as fun, background focused lists against my opponents more ganky, abusive lists. I used to enjoy it before they started with the extreme builds, now it just frustrates me. The reason I like 40K more at the moment is that my lists can be background sensible, look good on the tabletop, and have a good chance against anything from Nidzilla to Khornate Daemons.
This may be my local play environment, and others may be more fun. But it does seem to me that fantasy strongly encourages ganky, frustrating, one dimensional builds to a greater degree than 40K at the moment, and there are serious power imbalances.
I was delighted when they reduced the range and effectiveness of terror, and I was very happy with the Orc book when it came out. Now I'm looking at the ganky lists my opponents are using with a fair amount of distaste and not playing.

Augustus wrote:If julius Caesar were a warhammer character he would have 6 attacks at S6 with killing blow from the Gladius of Imeprial justice and...

Actually he is a character in WH40K, he is called Murderous Killgear, OOps, I mean Marneus Calgar.

I would like to say I like 40K because there is less of the gimmick type stuff, but with the evolution of 5th and rules exceptions for things like combat squads and sternguard and characters changing whole armies around like fleet for everyone, or mastercrafting everything. I don't know if I can really make that claim entirely justified.

Furthermore with the massive change to the WHFB style CC morale checks in 5th, where every dead model counts against you as a combat resolution modifier I really get the sense that they are a lot closer games now than they ever have been.

Gimmick arguments aside.

I still like the mechanism for the missions better in 40k though than I do in WHFB, where the mission and setup always seem to be the same, as in set up 12 in and then play a meeting engagement (last man standing VP type of fight). I like that in 40K missions are often times fights for objectives and there are more ways to set up than just in big lines, quarters, staying off board, outflank and deepstrike etc.

Da Boss wrote:...fantasy strongly encourages ganky, frustrating, one dimensional builds to a greater degree than 40K at the moment...I'm looking at the ganky lists my opponents are using with a fair amount of distaste and not playing.

That's to bad. I certainly agree, however, depending on who you ask, I think you might get that exact same issue from people who don't like 40k because of army builds...

I think if I played Imperial Gaurd or Necrons I'd be feeling sorta the same about 40K. It's not that these armies can't win, it's that they force you to play in a couple of very definite ways to win. I like armies that are flexible and have a lot of diversity. When Fantasy is played that way, it's really fun. But currently with my armies of choice (Common Orcs and Goblins, Ambush Beastmen) and my opponents armies (Daemons, Undead, All Cav Brettonians (which I can beat but am sick to death of playing against because every fight is the same) and MSU Elves) it's no fun for me. I understand that my arguments are very local and personal, and accept entirely that fantasy is not inherently worse than 40K, just explaining why I've stopped playing. It was my main game up until about 16 months ago, when the new books started infesting my play environment.

I think thats an important part of the appeal of any game, the style of it.

40k suits fast play, and certainly, since it was made largely objective dependant, it appeals a lot more to me. However, I still love Fantasty BECAUSE of the Battle Types. It works beautifully for pitched battles, and lends itself more to my style of campaigning (map based ala Mighty Empires), whereas 40k is much more of a Narrative thing, with the games not so much representing landgrabs and expansionism, as wresting control of critical locations to better control vast areas.

Still, each to their own, but I highly reccomend persevering with Fantasy!

Augustus wrote:The block maneuver game is a good game, it's common to all sorts of wargames, like ACW, Napoleonics, medieval and ancient games of all sorts, it is where all the block maneuver tactics come from that fantasy has. But when the crazy fantasy elements are added it circumvents that too often. That's when WHFB becomes a questions of whose gimmick works better instead of who maneuvered the best...

To be fair, that's why it's "Fantasy", not "Ancients"...

But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

JohnHwang: I think you've just summed up a lot of my problems in one go.
Though I still enjoy the fantasy aspects, I'd prefer it if the system didn't encourage you to mess with it to negate stuff and win.

Da Boss wrote:JohnHwang: I think you've just summed up a lot of my problems in one go.
Though I still enjoy the fantasy aspects, I'd prefer it if the system didn't encourage you to mess with it to negate stuff and win.

Blame it on the game developers and there terrible Army Books. They write the army books to sell models, period. They will break, bend or mutilate what ever rules they so choose in order to appeal to gamers. The "New Shiny" syndrome.

Augustus wrote:Maybe Im playing the wrong game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:To be fair, that's why it's "Fantasy", not "Ancients"...

Yes indeed. Touche.

I like 40k because It has gunz unlike da fantsy gunz

JohnHwangDD wrote: But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

So basically the game is terrible because you can't adapt to some of these simple problems that come up when playing. I guess you want 6 inch movment, 24 inch shooting, 3+ armor saves all around.

@Dice: And Monkey-Boy calls *me* a "troll"???

No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S
____

Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

komando wrote:I like 40k because It has gunz unlike da fantsy gunz

Fantasy does indeed have guns. And not just your poxy handguns either... Flame Cannons, Organ Guns, Hellcannons, Leadbelchers, Repeater Bolt Throwers, Ratling Guns, Warp Lightning Throwers

Try standing a Space Marine in front of that lot and see what happens.

Hmm... didn't I start this thread by being anti-fantasy? Focus Flashman, focus!

That SM should do just fine. He's basically the same as a Chaos Warrior on foot...

This also happens to be a 40k board....I think if you posted something like this on say, Ulthuan or Bugman's you may get different answers.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

So basically the game is terrible because you can't adapt to some of these simple problems that come up when playing. I guess you want 6 inch movment, 24 inch shooting, 3+ armor saves all around.

Wow. He actually played the "Use Tactics" card...

I agree with JohnHwangDD in this instance. In addition, the sheer amount of rules exceptions that are packed into a single army book boggles the mind. I play Brets (and I field lots of peasants, thank you very much), and I'm frequently SOL against Undead and other fear-causing creatures with my Ld8 (maybe a 9 on the biggest Lords, Ld7 on those units without Paladins). Fantasy is OK in a casual setting, but I also find the "fiddliness" with movement, angles, and other nonsuch to detract from the game - and I do know that's all part of the allure, for some.

That's why I prefer Ancients if I'm going to push blocks around, using the same warhammer basics, and it plays so much more interestingly to me without all the "fantasy" elements.

As a 40k player, it is more forgiving on set-up, plays a bit faster and looser, and most if not all of my games tend to be very close (whereas my WHFB battles tend to roll down hill really fast, or can be pretty much over if you've botched deployment in some way)

I have have to agree with you about games ending suddenly. Playing an army of orks with my dwarfs, after about two turns his entire army was in rout. All because of a few lucky shots from my war machines. But usaully for me i don't have enough time to finish a game, not vice versa.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Failed Terror Tests will not win you the game. They will make a significant impact, but only once have I had it genuinely win it for me, and my Dark Elf list has 4 Terror Causers in it.

I disagree with you Mad Doc. A terror causer has the ability to run a unit off the board without even fighting it. That's good by itself. But you can also stack the odds in your favor with certain armies (the Masque, Lore of Death, Doom Totem). Suddenly your armies good leadership isn't so great. And when I say win the game, I don't mean flat out end the game right there. But if you manage to eat your opponents largest/best unit because of a terror-charge ... then what is left? The rest is just mop up with all of your army vs. only part of his. That's game winning.

The Super Unit my opponent has sunk a mental amount of points into and usually contains an expensive character to boot? Damn straight they ought to do some damage. Shame I can still flank them and stomp them flat with static res....

Yes they should but certain units can become too powerful. The example I'm thinking of is graveguard with the regen banner. The whole unit gets regen *and* you can bring them back. Oh, and they get regen against crumbling. That's way too powerful.

A souped up character...taking on Regiments....maybe 2 Edition ago I'd give you that. As it stands now, my units have a basic Res of +5. The character needs to score +6 to beat me....not going to happen without support. And I can always ensure said characters regiment meets one of my own with a character in it.

I never said the character went in by himself. Of course he has a unit to support him, so his kills add to their static CR. :S

A really nice shot....nope. Cannon will kill 4 people at most in my regiments. Stone Thrower will do more. Neither is exactly accurate or reliable. They can have a shattering outcome, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

I'm talking about when the cannon kills a dragon or a super character. That's a 90 pt cannon vs. a much more expensive character.

Repeated Casting of certain spells. Well, thats a lot like winning a game of 40k by repeatedly firing your Devastators. Or Battlecannon. Or Bolters. I'd fully expect a spell I've cast a few times to have done some damage!

True. But it only takes one casting of Van Hels Danse Macabre to really mess up your opponents plans. Similar movement spells also apply here.

And now WoC can make a whole unit disappear with Infernal Gateway. The fact that that is even possible boggles my mind.

If someone does have a uber death character you just shoot it. I managed to kill a chaos lord on a dragon with only 20 handgunners and a great cannon. I'm quite suprised the cannon hit as it usually misfires or overshoots. After that was gone he didn't have much left. If you have those uber powerful characters you can't bulk out on troops, and troops win you the game, not characters. Characters are only there to give your units a little edge.

I don't know about that, some characters are much more valuable than troops because they either: confer a great special ability or they are very killy.

Besides, it is easy to stick that chaos lord in a unit of knights so that he gets a Look Out Sir! roll.

JohnHwangDD wrote: @Dice: And Monkey-Boy calls *me* a "troll"???

I would never do that. Trolls , good ones anyway, actually never appear to be trolling. You always seem to be flailing wildly running head first into tardsburg.

JohnHwangDD wrote: No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

So because you can only make a fist you are angry when other people make a sheet of paper to beat you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

I would start with a Hireling Wizard Lord, Arsarnil, a paymaster and the goblin hewer to start.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S

So you play 2nd edition?

JohnHwangDD wrote: Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

Like your wonderful, they don't sit still and let me beat them tantrums. How dare they use rules in their book, how dare they out general you and make your ego wang suffer shrinkage. It's ok it's not your fault, it is obviously the game is defective because you can't win.

Cruentus wrote:
Wow. He actually played the "Use Tactics" card...

No it's more like you are bitching that people do not sit and let him auto win, when it is obviously the fault of the evil game designers that those meanies who don't let him win. I am a bad person too instead of offering his ego a hand job I call him on his BS.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: No, the game is terrible because nobody actually plays by the rules that make it "better". As far as "simple problems go", the sheer degeneration of most competitive lists makes Rock-Scissors-Paper appear to be preferable.

So because you can only make a fist you are angry when other people make a sheet of paper to beat you.

No, I'm angry because so many Fantasy players such as yourself are giant flaming hypocrites for claiming that the game is "better", while doing everything possible to negate or avoid dealing with those factors which supposedly make it "better".

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've noted, I was an Dogs of War player. I actually have to deal with Psychology, Movement, and Rank. I don't have the luxury of high Ld or other Ld bonuses. I don't have the luxury of playing all-Heavy Cav with extra attacks like Brets. As Dogs of War, I don't even have wacky Magic to compensate, just the basic items from the BRB. So if it's so simple, you tell me how to make a competitive all-comers DoW list, assuming that DoW are even allowed to be played at GT / UK heat events.

I would start with a Hireling Wizard Lord, Arsarnil, a paymaster and the goblin hewer to start.

So:
- a lot of Magic - which must be the General
- a Flying, Terror-causing Monster
- the mandatory sack
- a mean War Machine.

Now, let's go back to my initial complaint and see what happened:
Psychology? We just give up by taking a Ld8 Wizard Lord instead of a Ld9 General. Worse, we're still saddled with the Paymaster and his unique liabilities that can potentially case the entire army to break and run. Yay.

Movement? The Dragonlord pretty much ignores all of the Movement restrictions that Fantasy is known for. The Wizard and Paymaster are Characters who always Skirmish. The War Machine doesn't move, but when it does, it basically Skirmishes slowly. So much for wheeling and reforming and so forth...

Ranks? No comment on block infantry, aside from the given fact that a Flying Dragon is pretty good for stripping Rank bonuses on a Flank Charge. Notionally, the Wizard and Paymaster *could* join block infantry, but we never got past the Character selection phase.

So really, you're just re-proving the stereotypical point that competitive / good Fantasy armies focus on avoiding those rules which pretend to make for a better game, focusing on Characters for Herohammer-style play. Yay.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as what I want, I'll just point you at my sig. My largest armies, by far, aren't 6" move / R24" shoot / Sv3+.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way... :S

So you play 2nd edition?

I did. Nothing to recommend there.

But FWIW, my Eldar are Fleet, with short-ranged guns. Guard are Sv5+. And Marines are mostly Jump Infantry. Only my Sisters and CSM are close to being MEQ-like with 6" move, R24" guns and Sv3+ - and they're my smallest armies.

Dice Monkey wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: Oh, yeah, if you want to rebut, I'd like to see some actual content or rational thought tied to the points I raised, rather than making some lame attack-type response.

Like your wonderful, they don't sit still and let me beat them tantrums. How dare they use rules in their book, how dare they out general you and make your ego wang suffer shrinkage. It's ok it's not your fault, it is obviously the game is defective because you can't win.

Another lame, no-content attack-type response? Yeah, you're driving home how the Fantasy R better...

Yep, winning in both game systems is based on breaking rules. Funny how pretty much every sustained encounter of civilizations in world history was based on a similar model. If you want diversity of approach, you get rule breaking. Pretty simple really.

Also, just because it shocks me, I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with John (horror, of horrors!). Though that may simply be because Dicemonkey can't seem to enter an argument without referencing a phallus.

Fantasy, movement phase takes hours.

I've been beat and had fun, and I've been beat and been frustrated. A frustrating loss is where you lost because your concept, which is something that by the theme and background of the list should work, doesn't work because of the wierd assed crap that you end up facing. Recent 40K codices have done a much better job of making theme and power come together (Never thought I hear myself saying this after the dark days of 4th ed).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Augustus wrote:The block maneuver game is a good game, it's common to all sorts of wargames, like ACW, Napoleonics, medieval and ancient games of all sorts, it is where all the block maneuver tactics come from that fantasy has. But when the crazy fantasy elements are added it circumvents that too often. That's when WHFB becomes a questions of whose gimmick works better instead of who maneuvered the best...

To be fair, that's why it's "Fantasy", not "Ancients"...

But to me, it seems ironic that the most ardent defenders of WFB claim Psychology to be a key selling point, yet top armies largely ignore it as Undead / Cold-Blooded / Stubborn. Or they will claim Movement to be key, but use massed Skink Skirmishers or else Bret / Empire / HE Cavalry to basically avoid it. Or they will claim Rank to be important, but use Flying Monsters to negate Rank. What's most odd to me is how Fantasy seems to be all about ignoring as much as possible of the "excellent" basic ruleset as can be possible.

Very good point. It's why the both games can become boring and stale. Like everyone taking units with Fearless or Inv Saves in 40k when they can.
Anything that ignores the basic ruleset to make something hard to kill can detract massively from the game.

I don't think it's so much ignoring the basic rules as ignoring the differences between units that the basic rules handle.

I think 40k has been improving in that regard. Lots of special rules have their results depend on the abilities of units now, instead of being flat (the effect of Fearless on No Retreat, Hit and Run, Counter-Assault, Preferred Enemy), and other special rules like Fleet are finding their way into the main rules.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, if you consider that we're talking about games, and define "better" as "more fun", then 40k wins hands down.

You contradict yourself for stating your own opinion after slamming another opinion.

My opinion, Fantasy is a much better game rules wise, model wise (forgeworld being an exception), and enjoyment wise. The only thing that actually makes 40k appeal to me is the amazing background and wanting to represent that on the battlefield. I love my blocks of perfectly ranked infantry, my lines of shooting, my giant non-alien monsters, and the fact that if I'm shooting you and your really far away, I'm less likely to hit you. Or if my beefed out character smacks you in the face with his axe, your armour save goes down

Sure there's a power creep, but its only complained about by those who's army books haven't been updated yet, or Orcs and Empire or were updated just before it started. Sure there are tough builds, but they're not unbeatable, none of them are.

dogma wrote:
Though that may simply be because Dicemonkey can't seem to enter an argument without referencing a phallus.

Really? That should earn bonus points.

I like death, destruction, explosions, blowing up aliens with my legion of undying warriors that keep getting up,.........at least in the 4th edition, but the 40k is so much easier to relate to because it is in human nature to like to see explosions(and its much easier to imagine them against maybe a couple of dwarfs and skaven fighting with no big booms or the sound of a space marine blowing up and having the fine red mist spray every one within five feet of him) that is why 40 has more fans

Ok there seems a lot of argueement over this; so dunno if I'm going to add anything useful to this

I have played both 40k and Fantasy and there are some major points I want to bring up
40k Negitives
-The game has a very point and click feel to it. Thats not to say it does, but it can be easily argueed that "taking the right thing" means you have a lot more chance of winning without having to use it stratigicly.
-The game has a sense of unrealism; sure its sci-fi so its sposed to be like that, but generally in wargames you want some sense of it being somewhat realistic. 40k has excellent fluff but game wise that truely dosen't matter and combat is intirely unrealistic. Armor also seems far to powerful. There are other things that I'm not pointing out that lend to its sense of unrealism
-Powercreep; though seemly less then Fantasy there's a definiate feel of powercreep that is a lot more subtle and lends it self to a trying to maximazing builds.
-Neglect; this is the main reason I do not injoy 40k; it neglects armys it already has leaving them in the dust and instead focusing on base armys (Space Marines anyone?!) Not to mention the rumors of having Chaos Marines geting a couple new dexs.
This lends to a large bias feeling that utterly throw me from the 40k scene.

ok listed the Negitaves but it does have good postitives.
+Fluff; 40k has some of the most origional fluff I've seen around for sci-fi, sure it has fantasy elements but overal its a very well developed history. My own hate however is how they do not develop some of their fluff; obvious there there are Black Libary books and such for the character development; what I mean is that History wise it seems the universe seems to be relitive unchanged.
+Less "Fiddly" Now fiddly isn't a "bad thing" but its a higher learning curve and fantasy does have a higher learning curve that at first is hard to understand which I'm sure throws some players off. 40k is easier to learn and has tatical elements that are fun. (still I'd like to point out my negitave of point and click.)
There are more positives I'm sure but I'm pointing out the major ones that I origionally liked in 40k

On to fantasy
Negitaves; As said I love fantasy, never the less it does have some problems.
-Large Powercreep; The powercreep in fantasy in the last couple dexs has been pretty expenantial with Vampire Counts and Demons being the best armys in fantasy; however in the newst dex Mortals of Chaos you can tell they made an obvious attempt to cut down on the powercreep coming out with a dex that is decent but poor in comparison to the other new dexs. This does not fix the problem nor do I know what will but it is a pit fall of fantasy of late.
-Magic; this just me personally but magic can be a tad obtrusive and very chancy, some players may find magic fun I'm sure but I find magic to lend to a less tactical game.
-Lords; lords do seem a tad overpowered even for a fantasy game, I don't have a qualm against this as long as dex are balance; however as stated above that is a problem currently.

Positives
+Highly Tactical; the game more then 40k lends it self more to tactical advantage then having large "Big bad death star unit" Flanks negate powers and having a large tarpit unit can stop even the deadlest enemy. You can argue all you want that Leadership is to important but the fact is thats sposed to be more medieval battle-ish were moral was and is one of the most important factors. Also models that negate leadership often have their own pitfalls and such.
+Intresting Armys; the armys in fantasy you could arguee are unorigional however they are all well developed and no one army is focused on heavly which I love.
+Age group; now I'm not saying 40k has younger people as the people before did, but I am saying that 40k is more prone to arguements and fights leading to unfun games. Fantasy is a much more relaxed game were the rules are much better written and thus less agreements come up and even those that do seem a lot less heated the the debates I've had while playing 40k

Thats it sorry for the long post; hopefully I added something useful.

I want to use the LotR rule set so I can use a small amount of figures and have everyone one of them count like 40k. I bought another WAR starter box and I'm mounting them all on round bases. I'm gonna run to the GW store tomorrow and grab a LotR rulebook and see how easy it would be to adapt the rules to the stats of WAR figures.

It would be nice to play 250-500pt. games where every figure counted and contributed. A small skirmish game that can be played in under 2 hours.

Keeping the same movement and weapons skills from WAR and using the attack base from LotR......give me a few days and I'll post what I have. The dwarfs do look cool on round bases and ten of them around a leader and standard bearer look better with the 2" rule then grouped together in a regiment.

Victorraven wrote:Ok there seems a lot of argueement over this;

I have played both 40k and Fantasy

40k Negitives
-The game has a very point and click feel to it.

Thats not to say it does, but it can be easily argueed that "taking the right thing" means you have a lot more chance of winning without having to use it stratigicly.

Of course there is argument - this thread is basically - do you like vanilla or chocolate?

As have I and many of the others...

If, by "point and click", you mean a high degree and fineness of player control, I'd agree. That's a good thing, IMO, as it's what makes the game more engaging. What's a problem is when there is a significant imbalance in the control levels on both sides of the board. Compare with the bad old days of massed Bret cav dominating - that was a pure point-and-click army for WFB.

IMO, WFB is even more about taking the right thing than 40k.

lol tis fine if its an agreement sorta the point of the discussion; just didn't seem like there was much LOGICAL discussion.

as for vanilla or chocolate I was always more of a sherbet person.

I can see what you mean about Bret's but thats per say what I think your talking about which would be maximizing choice if I'm correct, they're army lends itself to a singular play still but most of the choices in the book are relatively good.
Of course there's always RAF, but thats rarely common any more and does as you said show true "Picking for maximization."

40k whole units will often never be used, sections disregarded simply because they are so much less viable then what else you can pick. You could argue the same for fantasy however its on a lot less grand scale because unlike 40k they don't focus on any one army and thus can update army's better.

take it as you will.

Having played both systems, this is what I think:

Fantasy has a much, much better ruleset. It kicks 40k's butt in this regard.

However, from what I've read and personally witnessed, the Army Books don't compliment the system well as there is a lot of power creep.

40k is a lot more simple. Its ruleset IMO sucks in almost every single way possible. Assaulting on rear armor? Running? 4+ cover saves abounding like guns in Sarah Palin's home? Ruins the game for me. (2 Demolisher shots having direct hits on a Terminator squad in cover produces only 2 kills?)

Its codices aren't nearly as bad though (with the exception of the Ork one) so that helps.

Fantasy wins for me because you can avoid the armies that are bad for the most part, but in 40k you can't really avoid the rules that are bad.

enmitee wrote:Fantasy, movement phase takes hours.

Orks, Infantry-heavy Imperial Guard, or Tyranids: Movement phase takes hours.

I'm a 40k player and a budding Fantasy player, and i have to say that if I had known about fantasy when I got into 40k all those years ago, I wouldn't have gotten into 40k.

Granted, I play Guard, so that may be a factor, but still, in my view, 40k is: generally pathetic in terms of balance, has a shoddy rules system, lacks tactics (as in, every game turns into a rugby scrum in the middle of the board, when both armies generally have guns), and basically does a far better job of capturing the "game" part of "wargame". Seriously, everything in 40k seems to be some sort of gamey gimmick.

Fantasy, though, has a far better balanced ruleset, actually has tactics, and, in my opinion, better overall.

Again, I am a rabid Guardsman, so I may be biased, but i'm doing my best to finish my Dwarf army, whereas my Catachans are remaining 2/3rds painted, and my Cadians are staying in their box.

Oh, and to those people who talk about Fantasy ignoring the rule set, I'd say 40k is far worse in that regard.

Movement phase takes hours in Fantasy? Since bloody when matey?

I use movement trays, and generally start assesing whats going where and why in my opponents turn. This means my movement phase is typically my shortest.

Longest phase for me is usually HTH, mainly because I get attacks by the bucket load, and need to carefully plan out which order to do the fighting in to gain maximum advantage. Good example was when I inadvertantly threw a game just the other day with a major cock up. Giant had charged the Skeletons (30 strong) in the front. General on Wyvern had engaged the Corpse Cart behind them on a favourable angle, and the Boarboyz had to charge the Spirit Host I had reduced to two wounds. Plan went fairly well, doing the General first who expectedly thumped the Corpse Cart, and followed up into the Rear of the Skellies. And then I got overexcited. Instead of doing the Boarboyz next, they could join the Giant in the front, I did the Giant. Killed 20 of the 30 Skellies between them, which wasn't enough. Both units pinned in place, and swiftly hacked down by my flatmates counter charges.

And this is what I genuinely love about Warhammer. Rarely is an army truly outclassed by the sheer presence of it's opponent, not as long as both players are of similar capability. Typically, you lose through mistakes you make, either massive cock ups like the one above (had the Boars hit, I am confident I'd have stomped the Skellies out of existence, allowing my unit to overrun their way out of retaliation distance!) or really stupid ones, like exposing your flank. As long as your opponent is clever enough to exploit it, you get yourself a fully deserved loss.

Luck comes into Fantasy a lot less, I find!

MDG: I'd have to disagree there- Low Ld armies are often really badly hit by the Fear causing armies out there- Daemons, Undead and Tomb kings.
This is what makes Daemons and Undead so good in tournaments, as well as the fact that causing fear makes you immune to fear.

Thankfully, low Ld armies tend to come enmasse, and a General of such an ill disciplined rabble should plan for such things. Granted, being immune to psychology really does help (mmmmm....Savage Orcs) but you tend to pay the points for that..

I mean, if I'm playing an army consisting mainly of Heavy Infantry, and I have the misfortune to fail 3 Fear tests in a single turn, then yes, I am totally stuffed most likely. But with Gobbos? Sod it, lots of other units can make it!

enmitee wrote:Fantasy, movement phase takes hours.

Build/Borrow/Buy some movement trays. Even horde armies don't take that long to move if you have some of these handy things available.

And honestly - FB doesn't have a monopoly on 'gimmicks'. I've sure seen my share of them in 40k, too, and as more codex books are updated for 5th, I think the number of 'gimmicks' will simply continue to grow. It's part of the reason most players will 'upgrade' to a new codex, especially in an edition where your previous codex is, for the most part, still perfectly viable.

Just my 2 coppers, tho.

I really don't like the term 'gimmick' as I don't think it's particularly appropriate, meaning as it does a sort of cheap stunt.

Fantasy instead, has a distinct variety to it. Some units excel in circumstances other units would struggle with. For example, lets look at the foot troops of the Undead. Skeletons, Zombies, Ghouls, even Grave Guard, are not the most competent of fighters. And, for their statlines, they are extremely expensive (yes, even weedy little Zombies). However, they do come with Fear, and of course, are Immune to Psychology and able to be ressurected with a little Magic. This is not a gimmick. This is the theme to the army as a whole. Unlike most races, they can rout enemy units with a combat win of the slimmest margin, due to outbreaking if outnumbered by a Fear causing enemy. This encourages the application, and subsequent maintenance, of large blocks. Now, be these at point of purchase, or the far riskier building with summoning is largely a moot point. The build of the force tends to dictate it's Magic Phase.

Same with Empire. One on one, they have some of the ostensibly weaker troops. BUT, they are extremely reasonably priced, and have the rather nifty attachment rules, which means that for 200 odd points (at least, thats what mine seem to come out as) and not a little forethought, they should win most combats before the dice are even rolled. Now, if this was a gimmick as some allege, like with the Undead and all other forces, absolutely no thought would have to be put into it.

But forthought and planning are all important in Warhammer. You need to constantly monitor the flow of the battle, and learn where and when your line is most likely to break on a turn by turn basis. Even the most sure thing of a multiple charge can be turned into a mass rout against you.

To me, 40k is more about knowing your own force, whereas Fantasy is the opposite. If I know the particulars of your armies capabilities, I'm well on my way to victory. Magic Items, Spells and other hidden nasties can buy you time, but ultimately if I can second guess your reactions, you are doomed. I honestly find there is an art in Fantasy that does not quite manifest in 40k.

Now, if you want an example of what I consider a Gimmick, let me address Warmachine. Now first of all, I have played this game and didn't particularly enjoy it. YMMV, and you have every right to disagree, but just remember this is simply my opinion. To me, Warmachine runs entirely on it's gimmick, namely the Feats each Warcaster can use once per game, the cunning application of which will pretty much secure victory. Nothing wrong with that really, I just don't like it. To my mind, it limits the potential of the game by being so dependant on them.

But in Fantasy, risks really can play dividends. Several dozen times I have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a single unpredictable action. For example, using the typically ranged only Pistoliers, with a Captain thrown in (he was there to make up points, but soon became a regular fixture) to deliver what proved to be a devastating rear charge against a unit of Dwarves, containing the BSB *and* General. I won the combat comfortably, and my opponent found the heart of his army torn out from a totally unexpected quarter. And yet an almost equal number of times, I have taken unnecessary risks which lead to my snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

And this is why to me, Fantasy is clearly the superior game. The true masters of the game are those who can consistently read the flow of battle and have a workable plan once combat is met. Sometimes, the game can slowdown to a crawl, especially in multiple unit combat (just the other day, I was fighting one involving Boarboyz, a Giant, my General on Wyvern, Cairn Wraiths with Banshee, Skeletons, 2 units of Ghouls and a Varghulf..that took some time to resolve!) but this really is the exception rather than the rule.

Overall, it is a genuinely social game. Perhaps it's the limitations on how a unit can move, or accepting that your opponent may take his time before deciding upon his plan of action, but I find it far more relaxed a game than 40k. To me, there is nothing more destressing than a leisurely game of Fantasy, with a good bottle of wine, some fine cheeses, and a few cigarettes!

MDG: I'm not entirely sure how my assault based BoC can compensate for Fear and Terror causing opponents. The basic beast herds are just massively unreliable, even when close to the general, as he has sucky leadership too.

OG have more ways around it but playing fluff based Common Orcs and Goblins it's pretty much impossible. I think this happens less often with builds in the newer 40K books- fluffy builds may not be the best, but they don't suck

Edit: I agree that fantasy is a great game to play in a relaxed xasual environment. Unfortunately my local group have gone sorta tournament minded, and while I think this produces a better game for 40K it really ruined Fantasy for me.

There are still ways and means.

Savage Orcs, for example are Frenzied. A unit of Big'uns might well be pricey, but when it comes to smashing up blocks of Undead, they are worth every point, even more so than Black Orcs.

Beasts of Chaos have the advantage of being able to surround the enemy, and having a 360 charge arc for the Herds.

Fear is not that big an issue. I have an Empire Army, and sure, it can be a pain (as it should be. Would be a pretty useless rule otherwise) so I simply ensure the multiple charges. As long as one hits home, I'm onto something.

Is a Beastlord Ld 8 or 9 these days? Been ages since I looked at my book. Even at Ld 8, you are passing the majority of tests, same with Ld7!

From memory it's Ld8.
My orcs use only basic orks and goblins. Sometimes I ally a bunch of nightgoblins because I have the minis from BFSP but my theme was for a normal orc and goblin army, which you read a lot about but rarely see on the field. It was fun, but since my group have changed not as much.

Well, that certainly sucks.

My group are into their Tournaments at the moment, but since they know I'm not that bothered by it, they ask if I fancy taking on a Tournament or Non-Tournament list.

Just ask your friends the same.

well, this forum was based on 40k, (wasn't it??)

but I think that 40k is much more streamlined, Fantasy has some elements (i.e. Block formations) that are sometimes a pain to deal with.

But I still play fantasy, and it definitely is more strategic. Unlike 40k, most units do not have 360 line of sight, so where you move counts.
There are also "general tactics" in fantasy, such as 'baiting' or 'charge redirecting' that add to the depth.

Personally, I think both are great. But 40k is just easier to play....

I play both, started with WHFB actually in the dark days of herohammer 5th (had lots of fun with actually).

I play 40K a lot more because of two reasons:

1) easier to find players
2) I can play 2-3 games on a gaming night whereas I can only get in 1 playing WHFB.

Me I am new but I picked 40k and the orks because they have a great story behind them I have read the ork codex page to page has any one else?

@baga: Nice post. Now keep posting like that, in real sentences, and we'll all get along just fine.

I get the Codecies and Army Books as they come out. Mainly for a bit of know your foe, but also because they make good reading whilst I am in the Porcelain Study straining my greens.

Of course, the downside to this is that I get random ideas for armies popping into my head, causing me to spend even moar monies.