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.

frgsinwntr wrote:Dice Monkey, please explain each of those points... I kind of disagree with them all as stated.

1) I like the rule

2) I like the players I meet

3) I am 26. Most people I know who play are older

Etc

1. I assume you either never played before 3rd edition and don't play alternatives.

2. The majority of 40K players are nice, there are also a higher level of tools (of all ages). I have yet to meet TFG at any fantasy tournment I have been to or ran. I am guaranteed to get at least one and sometimes 2 TFG's at 40K events.

3. You are the exception, go to a fantasy vs a 40k tournement and count the number of kids.

I don't believe a hobby where you have to paint and assemble things actually attracts that many 'kids'.

The reason I started playing and do play it over fantasy are my friends. They all play 40k so I play 40k. They got me into it. Now I love it. I love the models they look a lot better, in my opinion, than fantasy models. And overall if I was going to play something fantasy, I'd just paint a single Fantasy model as a DnD character. DnD is the main reason I don't play fantasy. DnD is a better fantasy rules set. And I get to be my own dude in DnD.

Typeline wrote:I don't believe a hobby where you have to paint and assemble things actually attracts that many 'kids'.

The reason I started playing and do play it over fantasy are my friends. They all play 40k so I play 40k. They got me into it. Now I love it. I love the models they look a lot better, in my opinion, than fantasy models. And overall if I was going to play something fantasy, I'd just paint a single Fantasy model as a DnD character. DnD is the main reason I don't play fantasy. DnD is a better fantasy rules set. And I get to be my own dude in DnD.

Come by the GW shop nearby after school. The kids love it!

I'm insanely jealous as an adult. I mean, my friends played sports.

What's with that?

Tetchy wrote:Guns vs pointy sticks. Simple as.

Although, according to a recent poll, LotR beats them both: http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90516

Scary, but not surprising, given that GW refuses to abandon LotR, but instead continues to expand the LotR line.

What I can't figure out is where these LotR players are.

It's like the typical LotR player refuses to have anything to do with 40k or WFB players...

Cross-compatibility of fiction & omnipresence

Omnipresence:
   I can move just about move anywhere in the states and find 40k opponents, easily

Cross-compatibility:
   you can pack just about anything you want and have it mostly work into the grab-bag of 40k 'universe' (with some rules writing) and have it work
   you could drop warmachine, void, vor ancient greeks, medieval knights tweak it a bit to fit it and BOOM new army
   but then again I tend to have a bit of a Rogue Trader mindset

plus the soul crushing hopelessness makes me feel all warm and fuzzy... (it's like an entire universe of New Jersey)

anyway, both rule-sets are lacking. Warmaster & Epic do a much better job at representing actual battles....

Dice Monkey wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Dice Monkey, please explain each of those points... I kind of disagree with them all as stated.

1) I like the rule

2) I like the players I meet

3) I am 26. Most people I know who play are older

Etc

1. I assume you either never played before 3rd edition and don't play alternatives.

2. The majority of 40K players are nice, there are also a higher level of tools (of all ages). I have yet to meet TFG at any fantasy tournment I have been to or ran. I am guaranteed to get at least one and sometimes 2 TFG's at 40K events.

3. You are the exception, go to a fantasy vs a 40k tournement and count the number of kids.

I too find your points perplexing. For me the rules in 40k are superior. I love the aspect that I can do what I want when I want.

As for the players, I dropped fantasy because of all the tools. Fantasy players, in my experiance(this may have just been regional) are those guys that have never kissed a girl and are devoid of amy social skills

As for the proportion of kids at tourneys, hell I was the youngest guy at the last 40k RTT at 24, and the fantasy one boasted a 13 year old. While that example may seem an oddity, how many kids were at Adepticon?

mercutio531 wrote:Okay, bashing aside, Id like to hear why people play 40k and not Fantasy. What is your take and reason?

I used to play Fantasy exclusively, back in 3rd edition. I started playing Necromunda, which garnerd me a small taste of the 40k universe. I really got into the 40k universe when Epic 40k came out. I loved that game so much! I still think it (Epic 40k) and Necromunda are the two best GW games ever.
When 3rd edition 40k come out and my buddy brought over an actual Space Marine, I thought, "What a cool-looking model! It's all chunky and stuff..."

Since I played High Elves in WHFB at the time (I played Chaos more, but I liked HE too), I decided to try out the Eldar while he did Marines. I actually proxied some High Elves for Eldar. haha.

Anyway, a little while later, the new edition of WHFB (5th, I think?) came out and they adopted the Mordheim style of Magic, using die rolls instead of the card system. I played three games under the new version and I have not played a game a Fantasy since. I LOATHED (and still do) the die system for casting and dispelling. In my opinion, the card system was far and away better. The second and final nail in the WHFB coffin, for me, was when they changed the Chaos Beastmen rules and points. The Gors went from 2 wounds to one wound and half the points. Plus, they made Ungors obsolete in that they formed mixed units of Gors/Ungors. I've never forgiven GW for that.

I think the 40k background is far more detailed and is a much richer story than Fantasy. Also, the fantasy genre is a bit played out.

The reality, though, is that I didn't leave Fantasy for 40k so much as I left Fantasy completely and then 40k filled the void.



Stupid, stupid, stupid die-roll magic phase.



Ghidorah

Darkness wrote:
I too find your points perplexing. For me the rules in 40k are superior. I love the aspect that I can do what I want when I want.

I guess there really are people who will talk about the understated genius of Uwe Boll compared to the stodgy idiocy of Hitchcock or the pretentiousness of Kurosawa.

Darkness wrote:As for the players, I dropped fantasy because of all the tools. Fantasy players, in my experiance(this may have just been regional) are those guys that have never kissed a girl and are devoid of amy social skills

I think you live in Bizzarro world at this point

Darkness wrote:As for the proportion of kids at tourneys, hell I was the youngest guy at the last 40k RTT at 24, and the fantasy one boasted a 13 year old. While that example may seem an oddity, how many kids were at Adepticon?

How many kids were at the 20 or so Fantasy GT not run by GW? I have never run into one. I know both GW 40K GT I attended had their share of kids I always got stuck with them in the 1rst round and he fantasy side had no kids. I also remember one kid at a RTT fantasy tournment drug there by his dad who played but usually 4 or 5 kids at any given RTT for 40K.

Its also funny to think that on average, large indy GTs, GTs, and Adepticon boast at least 3 times the amount of players for 40k over fantasy. So I guess a few kids would be included.

Fantasy is not a game of great tactical genius, and neither is 40k. Fantasy is a game of wits and tension whereas 40k is actually fun.

The only good thing about Fantasy is that is spawned Blood Bowl.

science fiction is always more popular than fantasy though isnt it? The buzz lightyear effect.

40k has everything that fantasy has, but with guns. You got orcs? We got orks with guns. And tanks. And giant robots. Plus, 40k has chainsaw swords. ing chainsaw swords!

I reckon it's the models. Everything in WHFB takes too long to paint and they look messy because they're all packed together in regiments.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's like the typical LotR player refuses to have anything to do with 40k or WFB players...

That's because, by and large, 40K and FB players heap scorn and abuse upon LotR players. I can't blame them for not wanting to hang around with us; we're holes.

I actually like both 40K and WHFB.

I like 40K because it's quite adaptable and players are mostly on equal level. I like WHFB because it is more challenging and like 40K mostly equal. I know under both systems there are different tiers where armies fall under.

WHFB players are friendlier and mostly more mature in my experience. Unfortunately most of them are also quite prejudiced towards 40K players and that's the part I do not like. I saw this years ago with historical gamers looking down their noses at GW gamers. Now the local historical scene is almost gone except for FOW.

Just my .02

Pariah Press wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's like the typical LotR player refuses to have anything to do with 40k or WFB players...

That's because, by and large, 40K and FB players heap scorn and abuse upon LotR players. I can't blame them for not wanting to hang around with us; we're holes.

I don't think I've ever *seen* a game of LotR played, and I've only seen it on the shelf (and only two or three boxes and maybe two blister sets) at one place.

Because Space Marines are HURRRRRRR.

'Nuff said.

And any game that lets you abbreviate

"Assault Cannon"

into

"Ass Cannon" has my vote.

I played 40k for a period of time, mainly because it was more popular. There is a ravenous crowd of Sci-fi fans, much more than fantasy it would seem, and it seemed like a good way to get in games. Eventually the game and my playstyles became stagnant, and when there was around 2/30 players I'd enjoy playing a game that met my standards of being challanging, fun, and painted at the same time, I had to drop out.

Fantasy is a better game. It suffers from problems with: price and painting of regiments, the feeling of hopelessness when a dragons on the flank, and a pretty overdone setting. I believe it does everything else better than 40k, even 'Fun-factor'

I don’t have any preference at all based on rules. Both systems are perfectly adequate for producing fun beer and pretzels games. Neither system achieves any great level of tactical sophistication, but nor is either system built entirely around chance. The balance is about right for a Sunday afternoon game with a mate.

I don’t have any preference based on setting. Both have fairly similar underlying themes, motifs and style. Stories in both setting have the same tendency to devolve into lists of awesome butchery performed by special characters. I have no real preference for sci-fi or fantasy.

I don’t really care if there are more kids in one game or the other, I play people I know and like to hang around and so tournament ratios couldn’t be less relevant.

My preference for 40K comes from the look of the game in play. 20 painted models in rank formation tend to blend into each other and look far less spectacular and 20 men in 40K’s loose unit formation. A full army looks a lot more spectacular as a result.

Also, WHFB seems to be built for a larger scale than the armies used in game. You have units of 20 men moving like they’re 100+ men. Seeing these blocks of 20 men set out just looks a little silly at the end of the day. When I played WHFB I always found that frustrating, and the explanation that individual troops represent 5 or 10 times their number didn’t help (the point of a visual game like a miniatures game is that it looks like the battle it represents).

akira5665 wrote:Because Space Marines are HURRRRRRR.

'Nuff said.

And any game that lets you abbreviate

"Assault Cannon"

into

"Ass Cannon" has my vote.

"Ass Can" is even better, because it represents twice as many buttocks.

Additionally to my earlier comments (to recap: it's all about the big guns, spaceships and explosions).

I have actually played quite a few other SF games over the years. Kryomek, Stargrunt, Void, Battletech, as well as Warzone. All had their good points and bad points.

40k is quite frankly, unashamedly a beer and pretzels game. The players in my club that I get along with are over 18s, and we all enjoy a beer or six during games.
I don't recommend 40k beer pong, though ...

(every time you take a wound, take a sip. Gets bad with non Meq armies ...)

Honestly? It's because it's the only widespread game that has a people who are committed to order and peace rather than the typical "faction out for itself" cliche. When I think about the 40k background, which isn't often cuz then I'll be reminded about how many skulls I get to look at, I think of this being the 40k future:



Kids reminiscing about those silly space legends about evil people who had nothing better to do than kill other, not-so-evil people. But I think I'm in the minority since most people would say 40k is about war. Whooo.

chromedog wrote:Additionally to my earlier comments (to recap: it's all about the big guns, spaceships and explosions).

I have actually played quite a few other SF games over the years. Kryomek, Stargrunt, Void, Battletech, as well as Warzone. All had their good points and bad points.

40k is quite frankly, unashamedly a beer and pretzels game. The players in my club that I get along with are over 18s, and we all enjoy a beer or six during games.
I don't recommend 40k beer pong, though ...

(every time you take a wound, take a sip. Gets bad with non Meq armies ...)

http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=261

Darkness wrote:

Dice Monkey wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Dice Monkey, please explain each of those points... I kind of disagree with them all as stated.

1) I like the rule

2) I like the players I meet

3) I am 26. Most people I know who play are older

Etc

1. I assume you either never played before 3rd edition and don't play alternatives.

2. The majority of 40K players are nice, there are also a higher level of tools (of all ages). I have yet to meet TFG at any fantasy tournment I have been to or ran. I am guaranteed to get at least one and sometimes 2 TFG's at 40K events.

3. You are the exception, go to a fantasy vs a 40k tournement and count the number of kids.

I too find your points perplexing.

He's trying to justify opinions with anecdote, not realizing that it doesn't work that way. Just because that's the way his local environment is, he's extrapolating it to cover the whole world.

Anyway, I play 40K because I like it more, and starting up fantasy would mean adding to my already ridiculous collection of unpainted miniatures.

That image is my new desktop. I love the chalked Ork.

Rbb wrote:Plus, 40k has chainsaw swords. ing chainsaw swords!

I've been saying this to all my friends for years! We are totally in agreement here!

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's like the typical LotR player refuses to have anything to do with 40k or WFB players...

That's because the typical LotR player only spends about 5 or so mins in the store when his mother leaves him there whilst she ducks into the drug-store on the way back to the car park.

BYE

I have played all Wargames under the sun and I still prefer 40k:

1. I actually like the way the rules play. There is no needless overcomplication to achieve results but it isn't too simplistic to become boring. There is also a since of dynamics to the way units opperate that only Warmachine is on par with.

2. You can't beat the background. Anything you can think of, any theme, can somehow be translated into the fluff. It has the biggest sandbox for creative people to work with.

3. I have always been a Sci-Fi fan more than anything. I like my Lazers.

I hear the complaints all the time about 40k. But mostly it is general sweeping generalizations that can also be made at the games the complainers are playing. There is a competitive level of 40k where two good players will face each other of the the game is literally nail biting. It isn't a perfect game, but I like it.

Dice Monkey wrote:

Darkness wrote:
I too find your points perplexing. For me the rules in 40k are superior. I love the aspect that I can do what I want when I want.

I guess there really are people who will talk about the understated genius of Uwe Boll compared to the stodgy idiocy of Hitchcock or the pretentiousness of Kurosawa.

Darkness wrote:As for the players, I dropped fantasy because of all the tools. Fantasy players, in my experiance(this may have just been regional) are those guys that have never kissed a girl and are devoid of amy social skills

I think you live in Bizzarro world at this point

Darkness wrote:As for the proportion of kids at tourneys, hell I was the youngest guy at the last 40k RTT at 24, and the fantasy one boasted a 13 year old. While that example may seem an oddity, how many kids were at Adepticon?

How many kids were at the 20 or so Fantasy GT not run by GW? I have never run into one. I know both GW 40K GT I attended had their share of kids I always got stuck with them in the 1rst round and he fantasy side had no kids. I also remember one kid at a RTT fantasy tournment drug there by his dad who played but usually 4 or 5 kids at any given RTT for 40K.

Your experience is not one that I have shared.

Most fantasy players I have run into are persnickety rules lawyers. They've either never heard the term "friendly game" or don't understand it.

Perhaps more children play 40k because it is fun, not the joy-sucking experience that fantasy always seems to be.

I did forget to mention that one of the things keeping me out of Fantasy more seriously really is the giant pile of models needed and the fact they have to be able to stand next to each other base to base.

I kind of want to do an Ork/goblin army, but I don't see myself buying and painting like 120 models. At least in 40k I could put them in trukks or something, and have wild poses that push the limits of balance on a 25mm base. I mean, I have a 1000 point fantasy army of Chaos Mortals based and primed, and it is 40 models strong. My extremely infantry troop heavy Sisters army at 1000 points is just over 30. I don't think I hit 40 models until 2000 or so.

All that is a little daunting, especially since the individual model doesn't stand out quite so much as mentioned previously.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tetchy wrote:Guns vs pointy sticks. Simple as.

Although, according to a recent poll, LotR beats them both: http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90516

Scary, but not surprising, given that GW refuses to abandon LotR, but instead continues to expand the LotR line.

What I can't figure out is where these LotR players are.

It's like the typical LotR player refuses to have anything to do with 40k or WFB players...

I suspect it is because LotR and the older