Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Necros said it very well Felix. The biggest learning curve is psychology and combat resolution which is a very small part of 40K but front and center in fantasy.

Just a different perspective on game differences.

DIfferences between 40k and WHFB?

(Old-timer voice) Back when I started there wasn't much of any difference between 2nd Ed. 40k and 5th Ed. WHFB. To hit Modifiers, real psychology rules, declaring charges at start of turn, and model facing to determine firing arcs were still in 40k.

My biggest adjustment was going from card driven magic/psychic systems to dice driven ones. Also going from all wargear/magic items being on individual cards.

The differences that haven't changed at all are the rank and file vs. squad coherency rules which take a little adjustment.

The hardest thing to wrap your head around is that leadership is the most important stat. That and things like rank bonus, standars, and the like are more important than actually killing the enemy. Kind of counter intutive to 40k players.

Just a different perspective on game differences.

DIfferences between 40k and WHFB?

(Old-timer voice) Back when I started there wasn't much of any difference between 2nd Ed. 40k and 5th Ed. WHFB. To hit Modifiers, real psychology rules, declaring charges at start of turn, and model facing to determine firing arcs were still in 40k.

My biggest adjustment was going from card driven magic/psychic systems to dice driven ones. Also going from all wargear/magic items being on individual cards.

The differences that haven't changed at all are the rank and file vs. squad coherency rules which take a little adjustment.

Watcher wrote:
I felt i needed to defend the fact that its really really good big monsters and super lords dont rule fantasy. It also sounds like 40k players find it hard to get used to the idea that you cant usually win your points back with one massive point sink unit or character.

What about the idea of point sinks in 40k? do they exisit? Nearly unkillable units which tie up a winning ammount of VP so the oponent simply cnt get to them?

Well, in 40k, there are answers to all forms of uber-characters. The most common is simply a powerfist in a squad, which will get to beat on whatever big nasty is attacking that unit for a few turns.

I think there's a difference, however, in having a rule that makes a dragon not-a-dragon. I mean, really. It's a game with dragons in it, and they cannot even face a bunch of toothpick wielding night goblins without having to make a test and potentially run away. How dragonlike is that? Dragons should be able to kill as many models that aren't equipped to fight dragons as they want, they shouldn't "lose combat". They certainly shouldn't have to take Ld tests at -4 (or more) simply because they rolled 1's and 2's on their to-hit rolls, when fighting a target that cannot hurt them.

While having all-powerful units isn't desirable, there is something to be said for a general who can recognize a mis-match and exploit it. In 40k, this can be someone taking a big tank against someone who doesn't have guns strong enough to hurt the big tank. This isn't something wrong with the game design, it anything, it's a problem in that one player decided that he didn't need to worry about tanks...

yea, but then dragons would run around and kill everything they ran into most of the time. it makes them not broken. if they ignored things that couldn't hurt them then they would have to be upped in pts a lot plus have some drawbacks, like frenzy and such, making them then worthless

Bastirous666 wrote:yea, but then dragons would run around and kill everything they ran into most of the time. it makes them not broken. if they ignored things that couldn't hurt them then they would have to be upped in pts a lot plus have some drawbacks, like frenzy and such, making them then worthless

That's BS. What about all this talk of strategy and tactics from the Fantasy camp. Just because your 25 goblins aren't going to make the dragon run away doesn't mean they can't tarpit him all game. I didn't suggest that CR be ignored completely if you couldn't be hurt, just, you that you shouldn't "lose" combat unless you take some damage. It doesn't turn them into braindead units, but you don't have this insanely stupid risk of having a dragon running away from, and being cut down by a unit of pixies armed with toothpicks.

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread. That's my biggest gripe about fantasy as a 40k player.

It's not stupid. It's absolutely necessary to allow dragons to be balanced within a game against armies that aren't using dragons. 5th edition (and earlier) had dragons with stats that allowed them to annihilate ranked blocks from the front, and the game was lame. In 6th they reduced the stats of all the heroes and big monsters, and introduced the Outnumbering CR bonus to give block units a 5th built-in point of CR, and it was a big part of what made WH my favorite game, pulling ahead of 40k.

In WH, even Dragons need to use maneuver to win. If they hit a ranked block from the flank or rear, they remove the rank bonus, and only need to kill 2 models ( with +1 themselves for Flanking) from the flank, or 1 model (1 kill +2 CR for Rear) to overcome the banner and outnumbering bonuses, and they win. The fact that dragons can see and charge OVER other units, and can fly and charge 20", means that they can pick their fights and win as long as they're played smart. Statting them up to win every time from the front would be shooting the game in the foot. That said, they beat almost any elite unit or non-ranked unit to tar, no matter whether they're attacking from the front or not. Which, in combination with the 20" fly/charge move, means they don't get beat very often by ranks unless the user just gets outplayed.

your forgetting the lord on top of the dragon.

ur average lord on dragon will do maby 3 wounds the dragon 2-3 so you are looking at 5-6 wounds from the dragon and character.

the goblin unit could be 30 models strong in ranks of 5 with full command so that = 5 static combat res (3 ranks, standard, outnumber) so it could go either way, if the dragons in the flank he probly will win.

However dragons arnt just close combat monsters, the provide a massive ammount of flexabilty.

Mount a lord with a good magic bow, you have a move 20'' missle unit with the panic causing dragons breath AND he causes terror and units have to take a fear test to charge him AND you will probily get to stand and shoot AND he can march block AND he can threatern flanks without ever having to charge.

I think is a difference between 40k and fantasy that a massily powerful unit like a dragon doesnt have to ever enter combat to be am awesome assest to an army.

But dragons are a crutch, dont learn fantasy with one becuase it will stun ur growth as a general.

tomguycot wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The biggest change for me was coming to grips with how Fantasy has so much more dependance on luck. In 40k, if you can get a small to moderate advantage, it's not hard to ride it to a victory. In Fantasy, so few dice are rolled, it's easy to have big swings in fortune stemming from just a few oddball dice.

The other thing with Fantasy is that things move very slowly. It's like 40k in slow motion.

I find this to be just the opposite. The decreased emphasis on dice rolls usually means that who ever is playing better will come out on top. For example, with fantasy's static combat resolution fights can often be decisively won with only one or two casualties being done so even if you fluff your attacks you can still win if you managed to do something such as rear charge your enemy.

No, Fantasy is just dependant upon die rolls as 40k, they just don't roll as many. For example, in 40k you might roll 30 attacks. In Fantasy, if you're rolling more than 10, that's a lot. With the greatly reduced dice counts, it's easier to get a "unusual" result in Fantasy, whereas, in 40k things tend to flatten out. You're correct that Fantasy, it may only need 1 kill to win a fight, but in Fantasy, if you're only rolling 5 attacks, it's very possible that you don't get it. Or if he only needs to make 3 saves, that he makes all 3. Same with Fantasy Ld tests. A bad Ld test or handful of die rolls at the wrong time, and things can swing in a big way.

It's not bad, per se, but it's very different.

To Dice Monkey:

Your first rambling sentence could use some puctuation, so forgive me if I misunderstood. I agree that "counts as" armies can be very pretty but also very confusing. I don't see how a Smurf Orc and Goblin army is somehow more acceptable (or easier to understand) than a Zoat Necron army. And certainly, that wasn't the original issue I was addressing, which you seem to have missed (again.)

I think it is harder to convert in WFB because models have to rank up. Generally speaking, you can't be as outlandish as you can be in 40k.

As for your WYSIWYG issue, I think both games are clear on their expectations but both allow for creativity to override. A Power Fist doesn't have to be a Power Fist. Ever see Dave Taylor's Geswick Guard? He had an officer with a cyber mastiff from Necromunda that counted as a Power Fist. I have a friend who is converting his Storm Claw Bike squad from Sammael - despite the fact that Storm Claws ride bikes and not Jetbikes (storm claws are from the pre-heresy era where Jetbikes were more prevalent.)

Again, I have no doubt that in your experience you many have seen more converted models in WFB than 40k, but I certainly don't think that's a universal truth or anything. Good gaming!

Zoned

JohnHwangDD wrote:

No, Fantasy is just dependant upon die rolls as 40k, they just don't roll as many. For example, in 40k you might roll 30 attacks. In Fantasy, if you're rolling more than 10, that's a lot. With the greatly reduced dice counts, it's easier to get a "unusual" result in Fantasy, whereas, in 40k things tend to flatten out. You're correct that Fantasy, it may only need 1 kill to win a fight, but in Fantasy, if you're only rolling 5 attacks, it's very possible that you don't get it. Or if he only needs to make 3 saves, that he makes all 3. Same with Fantasy Ld tests. A bad Ld test or handful of die rolls at the wrong time, and things can swing in a big way.

It's not bad, per se, but it's very different.

The one area of fantasy in which I will definitely agree with you about the dice having a negative impact is the magic phase. There are so many dice thrown around during the magic phase that sooner or later someone is going to have a disasterous miscast and personally I don't have a lot of fun when the game is decided by who has the most self inflicted magic casualties (which is why a lot of people stay away from magic and to a lesser extent artillery). 40k really doesn't have anything that is quite the equivalent of this. Sure there is the perils of the warp rule but assuming you're playing a toughness 4 army you're usually not going to have your psykers completely nuke themselves and even when they do they're not the same ammount of points investment as a 400 some odd point magic using lord in WHFB.

I think that this is more than made up for though by some of the areas in WHFB that do not require dice rolling where they do in 40k. The best examples that I can come up with off of the top of my head are difficult terrain and marching. In 40k your difficult terrain and "fleet" moves are completely random. You really don't know if your guys are going to go one inch, six inches, or somewhere in between. Whereas in WHFB you always know exactly how far your guys are going to move. If they're going through difficult terrain they are moving at half speed and if you march you're going double speed. It's always the same and you never get screwed by rolling a one for your difficult terrain on the charge when you only needed two inches.

malfred wrote:40k players, what were the hardest things to get used to in WHFB?

Good rules?

Depth?



BYE

I actually started with WHFB back in 5th edition. Started playing 40K with 3rd. Then around the time 6th WHFB came out I didn't play anything for a couple years. Then started playing 40K a lot but no WHFB because there were no players. So it's been about 7 years since I really played much WHFB. Been getting back into lately and here's my thoughts:

1) One of the biggest adjustments (and one of the reasons I don't play much) is that Fantasy takes longer - longer setup, longer move times (even with trays which are essential), longer break down.

2) Movement - probably the single biggest phase during the first 3 turns. Only slightly overshadows deployment. If you don't plan your moves out 3 turns in advance, you're probably screwed.

3) Deployment - with a few exceptions (flying brets being the one that sticks out), if you screw up your deployment, it's almost impossible to recover. If you have a slow army with a few weak fast units, and you find yourself in the wrong area of the battlefield, getting to where you need to be is damn difficult.

4) LOS with units for charging. As someone else mentioned, it's annoying as hell when you have a unit of troops that can't do anything about the pesky unit of skirmishers who are picking off guys in 1's and 2's and keeping you from getting to where you want to be.

5) Static combat resolution - actually this is something that wasn't hard for me to get used to with WHFB. It makes a lot of sense to me, but it's something that you have to be aware of when planing your army. While MSU has a place in WHFB (developed there in the first place?) unless used right, it can lead to a quick loss of units.

For a summary: one of the hardest things to learn about WHFB is that there is no room for mistake in deployment or the first couple turns of movement. There is no rapid redeployment of your army wholesale, once a slow moving large unit is heading somewhere it's hard to change them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

malfred wrote:40k players, what were the hardest things to get used to in WHFB?

Good rules?

Depth?



BYE

Now, now.

I actually find 40k to be much more enjoyable than WHFB, mostly because something that looks big and nasty actually is. The point about the dragon is a good one, the dragons should be able to eat things like no tommorow, but there should also be a balanceing, like bolt throwers or cannons cause extra wounds against dragons a small possibilty of instant kills.

see but then dragons would lose all effectiveness against armies with loads of bolt throwers and cannons, whereas armies like mine (lizardmen) would have some trouble with things like that.

WHFB is the best system for fantasy medieval style gaming out there, aside from warmaster. it has the most in depth rules to have large army scale games and the rules actually fit how historical research has shown that battles were fought in the old ages. big units would form in ranks and charge another enemy ranked unit, and then one of the two units would take a couple steps back and repeat the process. overall it's an amazing system which takes into account all the things that changed the tide of historical battles and armies which the books for WHFB have been based upon (british, french, aztecs/mayan, mongolians, etc.)

oh right forgot to say, yes the hardest thing to realize/get used to in fantasy is the movement and combat resolution. other than that it's pretty much like 40k without guns

Ratbarf wrote:I actually find 40k to be much more enjoyable than WHFB, mostly because something that looks big and nasty actually is. The point about the dragon is a good one, the dragons should be able to eat things like no tommorow, but there should also be a balanceing, like bolt throwers or cannons cause extra wounds against dragons a small possibilty of instant kills.

please please never write new fantasy rules for GW becuase you (not in a nasty way) have no idea how all the armies would cope with that, dragons are balanced in the game atm and provide pew pew killyness to the army as well as loads of support options.

I dont want ur dragon being able to munch my BoC army and my only counter to be warmachines >> yeah becuase BoC have sooooo many of them in their list >>

Not every army in fantasy has 'the anti tank weapon' 'the anti infantry weapon', so you cant make them nessisary counters.