With Fantasy having an arguably more in-depth and intricate rule system, I wonder why 40K is so much more popular. Is it the fluff? The miniatures? Do most people think a future setting is cooler than a fantasy setting? What's yall's opinions on the matter?

IMHO, it's the fluff and background. Seems people are more predisposed to enjoy sci-fi than fantasy.

I think people get less exposure to 40k style sci-fi than they do warhammer style fantasy. 40k is really an amalgamation of most popular space based sci-fi books and movies but does not lean too heavily on any one source (starship troopers perhaps having the largest share of the background), whereas warhammer is very similar to much more common and popular fantasy backgrounds such as Tolkien, Warcraft (yes, ironic!), and general medieval history and stories.

So in a nutshell, I think it is because 40k feels more original due to it being less likely that people are familiar with all the original inspirations for the background.

I think the West coast is more sci fi orientated and the east coast more fantasy. Europe seems to be bigger on the fantasy aspect also imo.

40K has all the best sci-fi archetypes rolled into one. You can play your Aliens(TM), Near Future Glorious Human Race(TM), Starship Troopers(TM), Terminators(TM), and Mad Max boyz(TM).

Of course, Fantasy is the same but when people think of Fantasy they think of D&D and that's just what those nerds play they don't play the cool game with aliens and robot soldiers with explosions like you do.

Oh, and guns.

stonefox wrote:Oh, and guns.

he he... bows and arrows or gauss rifle which flays the armour and flesh down to nothing... hmmm

I think its that 40k is so much quicler than fantasy, and fantasy needs more tactics.

I think it's because in general, preadolescent boys are more interested in robots and spaceships than elves and dragons.

No, it's because gamers are lazy. It is easier to get a gamer to build and paint 30-50 models for 40k than 80-120 models for WFB.

this is also why 8-model Nidzilla and 30-model Empire Panzers are popular

I don't like the block movement.

I think it has to do with the fiction.

40K started taking itself seriously and developed an in depth unique setting. It's Sci Fi, but it sure in Hell isn't a Star Trek or Star Wars knock off.

Fantasy suffers from sharing too much ground with LOTR and D&D and it took longer to take it self seriuosly, if in fact it does at all.

A half naked drawf with blue tattoos and a bright red mohawk is alot harder for most people to swallow than a powered armored marine, or a geigeresque Tryranid.

40K just always seems grity and dark and cool, while fantasy is across the board depending on what your playing.

Remember a few years back in the Citadel Journal #36 when Wayne Oldfied came up with The Hungry Hoarde The all halfing army with halfing calvary riding on sheep, and poultry swarms ?

For me it's the rules

I have the pleasure of knowing people who like 40k and people who like fantisy and even thought i prefer the fantisy era and models and stuff ( love the samurais, love archer i just some how feal involved when fighting with bows and swords and not guns, they some how make me feal detached from the game - i like getting really into something!)

And my anwser here is 40k via comparsion is "streamlined" *cough* where as the fantisy rules have so many complex rules in it it take a while to become acoutemed to, however i belive it makes it a bit more realistic!

just my 2c

I think it's (mostly) false.

I read long ago that in UK and continental Europe, WHFB is more popular than 40K, by the same extent 40K is more popular than WHFB in the US.

I can't explain why people in different countries are more inclined to choose one system over the other, however.

Because you can get away with spraying your army one color much more easily in 40k than Fantasy.

For me, it's primarily the rich back history and mythos of 40k (i.e. the "fluff")...

Plus I've always preferred science fiction to fantasy for the most part...

AMP187 wrote:With Fantasy having an arguably more in-depth and intricate rule system, I wonder why 40K is so much more popular. Is it the fluff? The miniatures? Do most people think a future setting is cooler than a fantasy setting? What's yall's opinions on the matter?

I have noticed most of the 13 year olds gravitate towards 40K while fantasy players tend to be older and married. I can not think of the last time I saw a fantasy player under 20. For me crappy rules plus middle and high school kids playing 40K are a huge turn off.

I have noticed most of the 13 year olds gravitate towards 40K while fantasy players tend to be older and married. I can not think of the last time I saw a fantasy player under 20. For me crappy rules plus middle and high school kids playing 40K are a huge turn off.

For the most part, I agree with you, actually. Most Fantasy players do seem to be a bit older. Of course, I'm the exception, only 18 here.

Tanks are cool.

Giant hovering pyramids that unleash hellish green death while disgorging phalanxes of silent undying metal abominations are even cooler.

I could go on.

Guys in pumpkin pants with blunderbusses can't compete.

The more I play Fantasy, the less I want to play 40k.

I got a whole ton of Boyz to assemble and paint for 40k, to make the army of doom, but I can't be bothered to put it together much less paint it since I'm too busy learning fantasy and getting an army done in time for a tournament in April.

I'm probably looking to sell some of my 40k stuff (at least one army, minimum) to get another WHFB one.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The more I play Fantasy, the less I want to play 40k.

I got a whole ton of Boyz to assemble and paint for 40k, to make the army of doom, but I can't be bothered to put it together much less paint it since I'm too busy learning fantasy and getting an army done in time for a tournament in April.

I'm probably looking to sell some of my 40k stuff (at least one army, minimum) to get another WHFB one.

Ditto here.

I'm THIS close to selling off my 40K stuff and sticking with WFB...

Time, and 5th edition, will tell...

Yeah, I find the strategic depth found in WFB to be a bit more fulfilling than 40K's brand of strategy.

I'm gonna' get around to selling my Eldar army one of these days. I couldn't bring myself to sell my Chaos Space Marines, they were my first army.

Space Marines.

Lumpin Crook's Fighting Cocks.

Long Drong Slayers.

That's all I'm sayin'

malfred wrote:Space Marines.

You forgot the "Hurr"

Dice Monkey wrote:I have noticed most of the 13 year olds gravitate towards 40K while fantasy players tend to be older and married. I can not think of the last time I saw a fantasy player under 20. For me crappy rules plus middle and high school kids playing 40K are a huge turn off.

A lot of this is because Fantasy was released well before 40k, along with Fantasy drawing from Historicals via Ancients.

Nerf_IG wrote:Because you can get away with spraying your army one color much more easily in 40k than Fantasy.

Yeah, there's no way you could get away with that in Fantasy.

*cough* Tomb Kings *cough*

Voodoo Boyz wrote:The more I play Fantasy, the less I want to play 40k.

For me, the more I play Fantasy, the less I want to play AT ALL.

Last year was supposed to be a Fantasy year, and I was so de-motivated, I hardly did anything. I just can't enjoy Fantasy like 40k. It seems to be fiddly and intricate for the sake of being complicated. And the armies just seem to encourage brokenness. And now I see GW driving the first nail into the coffin for my Dogs of War, which sad, because I really like the models.

This year is going to be a 40k year, and it's been really motivating for me. I've already built / scratch-built more than a half-dozen tanks for my Guard. I can definitely see myself finally finishing my Guard & Sisters this year. Plus, I've even started buying a little, after swearing off purchasing for years, so I'll be building my CSM, then maybe even redoing my Marines.

I quit Warhammer Fantasy Battle half-way through college, after I started a Dark Eldar army for 40k (3rd edition, as I played some Rogue Trader and avoided 2nd edition like the plague in favour of Warhammer Fantasy Battle (4th-6th editions) and Epic. Played a couple of Canadian Grand Tournaments, the last one during the very last of the 5th edition. A year or so into 6th edition I stopped wasting my time. I stopped playing 40k in the 3rd edition, but got back in during the 4th with the 3rd edition Ork codex. Never tempted to play Fantasy again though. Maybe Warmaster, where there's actual armies, but Warhammer Fantasy Battle is everything I hate about GW games and then some - slow, clunky, over-complicated, takes forever, works poorly with terrain (especially with the blocks of troops), and full of miniatures that never get used except to make blocks of troops even clunkier to play with. I've bought Warhammer Fantasy models since then, but they're based on round bases and used for other games, particularly Lord of the Rings. You'd have to pay me at least 40/hr to play Warhammer Fantasy Battle again, and that's the rate I got paid as a TA because marking undergraduate work destroys one's faith in humanity.

Kotrin wrote:I think it's (mostly) false.

I read long ago that in UK and continental Europe, WHFB is more popular than 40K, by the same extent 40K is more popular than WHFB in the US.

I can't explain why people in different countries are more inclined to choose one system over the other, however.

Yeah without sales figues can we make that assumption?

I always heard that worldwide fantasy outsells 40k.

You mean it outsells the legions of hurr spase marienz?

Lumpin Crook's Fighting Cocks.

Long Drong Slayers.

Spacemen who hold throbbing weapons of power and sometimes wear dresses. (i.e. they need to be more obvious with the fantasy names to match the 40k version)

In the case of people I know around here, Warhammer Fantasy is pretty much looked at as a game decided by a superman on a dragon backed up by an army of troops that amount to not much more than cheerleaders.
True there are some gross things in 40k, like the Falcon tanks, etc. but at least there is a chance for the line grunt units to cripple or counter them somehow.

Just for clarification, the Fantasy aspect of Warhammer is NOT based off of Warcraft. Warcraft is based off of Warhammer. Back in the day Blizzard was supposed to make an RTS style game for GW, the deal fell through and Blizzard scrambled to put something together. Warhammer was being played long before Blizzard was even a twinkle in a Lost Vikings eye.

However, Fantasy is Fantasy. There's only so many times you can do Elves/Dwarves/Wizards and have it be something new. It's a great system and I really wish they would incorporate more of it into 40k. 40k is fairly original in it's ideas. Worshiping machines as if they had spirits to get them to work and all that. The looks of most of the armies are obviously copied, but the fluff is pretty solid.

I find it funny that most of the people attacking Fantasy are talking about how complicated the rules are. Take a look at the YMDC for 40K and Fantasy on any site. You do not get in 20 page flaming arguments about terminators not having terminator armor because the word the is not used. All you see is a question and an answer. That speaks loads for not only the rules and more importantly the ones playing Fantasy. It is why I gave up 40K, why I play games like Warmachine and AT-43 as a replacement for 40K but stick with Fantasy.

I don't see any attacks on Fantasy.

I do see people who don't like playing Fantasy compared to 40k, and not being afraid to say why they don't enjoy it as much.

Just because somebody doesn't like something, or doesn't agree, it's not an attack.

OT: It needs to be said that WHFB has several rules issues as well, altough the core mechanics are much more to my liking than in 40k. The sad thing is that most of these issues would be so easy to fix if only gw would issue a few faqs (unlike 40k which seems to need a new edition to fix things). But yeah, silly me, gw releasing faq's, lol and all that...

But why is 40k more popular? Well in the northern troll country where I live in, it isn't so I can't really comment on that.

There isn't a game in the world that doesn't have some rules issues. Even Chess has the problem with en passant.

Back on topic, what makes everyone think 40K is more popular than fantasy? Is there some real data such as numbers of entrants to GTs or are we just speculating?

Well in the US at least you see more tables at GT's allocated for 40k than WHFB.

At our Local shop 40k is the predominant game, but I can get WHFB games against people so it's not all bad.

My favorite Fantasy WTF? is the "Monster" definition - or lack thereof.

One would hope that WFB8 starts to keyword unit types and base sizes in the Army Books.

Maybe its the cynic in me, but there may be truth in the answer to the OP's question that the 10-14 year-olds who play 40k are less immune to GW's Bull-poo than the grizzled old grognards who play WFB?

Relapse wrote: In the case of people I know around here, Warhammer Fantasy is pretty much looked at as a game decided by a superman on a dragon backed up by an army of troops that amount to not much more than cheerleaders.
True there are some gross things in 40k, like the Falcon tanks, etc. but at least there is a chance for the line grunt units to cripple or counter them somehow.

Then they aren't doing it right.

I'm pretty much done with 40k. It's just....boring... compared to fantasy.

The biggest factor for me is the quality of players. The biggest reason I could be as successful as I was in 40k was because most people I'd run across were hobbyists and not players (even if they didn't think so). In this area any big fantasy tournament is going to be full of guys that can beat you. Back when I was 'into' 40k, I could literally count on one hand the number of guys from NJ or the surrounding states I would have worried about at all.

AMP187 wrote:With Fantasy having an arguably more in-depth and intricate rule system, I wonder why 40K is so much more popular. Is it the fluff? The miniatures? Do most people think a future setting is cooler than a fantasy setting? What's yall's opinions on the matter?

No doubt about it, it is because of Lumpin Crook's Fighting Cocks.

Seriously, its because of the rules. This game is the diametricly opposite to 40k. The rules are evaluted, actually given the time to play, and feedback is used to improve the game with better and better ones. Each rulebook doesn't change al that dsrasticly, and the improvements make sense.

I wasn't a big fan of what they did to the magic box set, but all in all, the fantasy box set is much better a value then the 40k one is, hands down. Magic phase is, ok, but it is a sure better game for it now then the half hour phase it turned into with all of the cards.

I feel that the new plastics, aside from being overpriced are by far the best valued minis out there quality wise. ( could have used them back in the day, but better late then never for some, i guess.)

I couldn't get over the block movement in fantasy. I bought Vampire Counts because I always loved zombie movies and made a hoard of zombies. I never lost but I never could make myself enjoy zombies marching in rank and file and having to be within 12" of the leader. It was just stupid.

Oh yeah, and the paper/rock/scissors aspect of the game is pretty lame as well. Too many armies have obvious advantages over another. If you play "X" just hope you don't get paired against "Y", but "Z" will be a piece of cake. I think this was mostly Gav's doing (see the other thread).

I sold the whole thing. I may retry it when the demon hordes book comes out just because I've already got all the models for 40k (although I'll have to change the bases).

Plus, sci-fi is just cooler than fantasy as a genre.

Mortal,

Just make movement trays that have circular holes for your 40k bases.

Actually, doesn't GF-9 already make those?

Yes, they do:

http://www.gf9.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=26&products_id=103

I agree that 40k is probably more dominant partly due to the easier rule set and less investment in time due to needing fewer models(depending on your army: Oger kingdoms).

SPASE MARIENZ HURR!

Ok, but no, really, it probably has a little to do with Space Marines. There's no one army that 50% of the player base for fantasy plays (at least not that I've ever seen). Makes for less popularity, but much more diversity.

It may also have to do with Fantasy minis. I've only fairly recently started playing Fantasy and, Emperor help me, I can't for the life of me stand anything that is older than about a year, maybe two. I've been wanting to play Vampires for almost a year now, but the models were just so gawd-awful I had to force myself to wait for the new release.

I also play Wood Elves and I find myself refusing to buy some of the best units in the army because they're just fugly and cartoony (looking at you, Treeman). They are just so cartoony, over the top, and plain butt-ugly. That being said, I think the newest stuff (I think I started noticing it with the new Orcs and Goblins) is tops. I've just about loved every plastic set they've released in the last two years, they are all awesome. Of course this may just be me, and is not an overall factor in the popularity of the game...

But for me, personally, I still like 40k more. I break it down like this:

Fantasy:
Better armies (diversity and coolness factor)
Better rules
Better strategy

40k:
Better minis
Better setting
FAR better background, history, and story.

When it comes to armies I find all the different fantasy armies to be cool, interesting, and fun. In 40k the variance between two, or even ten armies is often nothing more than who has fangs, who has robes, and who has tentacles. But even more often it's just "Your marinez are blue! Mine are aquamarine!".

But Fantasy's story is just.. guh. It's so generic and boring. I've litterally nodded off trying to read the Dwarf fluff. At least 40K gives you a fairly unique twist on their Sci-Fi universe. The dynamic of the Imperium, the Xenos threat, and the Ruinous Powers makes for interesting reading, one way or another. However, a dwarf is a dwarf. An elf is an elf. He may be high, wood, or dark, but the denominations are consistent and universal, from one world to another. And for the love of the God-Emperor! We don't effin' care how many mountains the Dwarves have lost, and how many people they hate! They are old and onnery, and apparently not as good defenders as everyone makes them out to be. They are going to lose mountains, they are going to hate people. Why the hell does anyone care?!

However, the diversity of the armies does go some way to help this. Lizardmen and Skaven are nice, at least mostly unique ideas. But even Chaos is less interesting in this world. Ok so they're just superhuman Daemon worshipers as opposed to legions of fallen brothers and traitors.

It also seems to limit how creative you can be. The Old World (and the New World I guess, for you Lizards) is only so big, and is very well defined already. The Imperium, however, is vast and undocumented, and excruciatingly vague, where people, civilzations, and even entire planets are constantly founded, destroyed, forgotten, and discovered.

I can make my Guardsmen anything I want them to be. Maybe they're axe wielding barbarians who ride horses (Stealin' some fantasy minis for that idea...), maybe they're super-high tech with improved, laser sighted (twin-linked...) lasguns, and what not. Maybe they're not even part of the Imperium! Just a local militia, or some upstart Lord-Governor who has decided to start his own empire. And I can come up with an entire rich history and background for, not just the regiment, but the entire planet and system they're from. Huge wars and battles of epic proportions, which, despite being monumental, are but small foot-notes in the history of the Imperium of Man. The fluff of 40k not only allows this, it supports and even encourages it.

When I made my Brettonians I had to decide what duchy they fought for.

I mean yeah, I can come up with my own country (and I did), and my own history, and wars, and what not, but it dosen't feel right, doesn't feel valid. I put Brettonians on the field. They are from Brettonia. I have to explain to my opponents that they aren't french, dammit, and piss on the Fleur De Lys! And my vampires have NOTHING to do with Von Carstein! They don't even know what a "Sylvannia" is, and they don't friggin' care!

That's probably just my own personal pet peeve, I hate having my background defined for me. Also why I hate special characters. Ok so I got a little off-topic. I'm sticking with the theory that it's all about the Spase Marienz.

Kustomizing!!

40K just allows for more of it.

40k definitely has the better fluff for me. Fantasy just never really did it for me, probably because there is such a wealth of better stuff to pick from. That, and all the Hard Gay Dwarves really turn me off. I don't need fat, bearded men running around half naked with silly axes.
Also, the massively open ended nature of 40k is, as others have stated admirably, much more conducive to bizzare ideas.

Never thought that the Dwarfs could be imagined as gay, like, at all.

Other then that, the 40k Universe really has some more diverse fluff. Orks, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines, they are very different in their appearance and background. Not so much in the fantasy universe. Both games are worthwhile playing, though.

Greets
Schepp himself

adamsouza wrote:Kustomizing!!

40K just allows for more of it.

Adam makes a good point here. While it's not that you can't customize or convert Fantasy minis, without the hard edges you have throughout 40k, I think converting is more challenging for Fantasy, with greater use of GS for hair, fur, and feathers to cover seams.

Schepp himself: Anything masculine can be cast as 'gay', that's sort of the point. In the specific case of Dwarfs I'd say they're a bunch of bears, but since they're so short I'll just call them "teddy bears".

I started miniature gaming with wood elves and dwarves, but by the time I had my armies ready the local gaming community had shifted focus to 40K. I had difficulties finding a group or regular gaming day for fantasy, so I started an ork Speed Kult. I had no problem at all finding multiple players of 40K at the game stores. There was open play, leagues, painting contests and more for 40K.

If I'm going to invest time and money in a hobby I want to be able to play. Fantasy struggles in our area. It's tougher to motivate folks to build and paint two or three times the number of models, then find out they don't like the Empire or High Elves or whatever. Our area has higher turnover of painted 40K armies, they're easier to find on ebay, it's simpler and faster to build a 40K army.

The rules are more forgiving than fantasy so the less sophisticated players don't get crushed (as often) in 40K.

Vehicles, bikes, walkers and other war machines are a lot of fun to build and customize, and further reduce the number of infantry needed for your force.

There are a lot more tournaments for 40K in our tri state area than any other GW game.

I like both really. I have 4 fantasy armies, because I love how each one fills a different niche in terms of playstyle (I have my Lizardmen for expensive flexibility with monsters, my Orcs and Goblins for well rounded, cheap but unpredictable blocks with fun stuff, my Beastmen for total skirmish ambush hilarity and my Dwarves which unfortunately never get played because despite being firm favourites in fluff, I find the gunpowder silly, and sitting still shooting all day is boooorring.).
I have 2 40K armies, orks and plague marines. Luckily for me, both of these armies have been recently redone and are fun to play. There was a long time when my orks were just rubbish, and boring to play. So that's a problem with 40K: Not everything works.
It's background isn't really original, since it rips off everything from dune to rambo and back again, but it's executed in an entertaining pulp fashion.

Space Marines bug the crap out of me actually, and have made me want to drop 40K more than once. I could stand one, maybe two armies of genetic supermen. but when they start outnumbering all other forces, and all metagame starts gearing towards taking them down you can just keep it. Boring, boring, boring.

Id say its the fluff. but the whole movment of of units in blocks realy apeals to me, thats why my IG all have close order drill. but the rules for whfb just doesnt hold up against 40k

Lord Lankington wrote:

but the rules for whfb just doesnt hold up against 40k

How do you mean?

I hear rather different things, depending on the playgroup.

just the extra phase, turn arks, its more complicated than 40k,

Lord Lankington wrote:


just the extra phase, turn arks, its more complicated than 40k,

That's like saying "I bought the Kia instead of the Lexus because of that annoying Nav system and complicated heated seats."

I think it's because:-

1) the 40k game is simpler
2) you can deploy tanks (which aren't powered by steam !)


On the bright side - White Dwarf is almost all Fantasy Battle and LOTR this month (March-2008). I have posted a brief summary of all the good WHFB bits on my blogsite below:-

http://battlereporter.blogspot.com/2008/02/white-dwarf-march-2008-wd339-review.html
White Dwarf March 2008 (WD339) Review

I started playing 40K (IG and old Necrons) about ten years ago in my mid 20's because my friends played 40K. I read up on the huge backstory and fluff and it was awesome so it kept me interested.

Soon after they wanted to play Fantasy and I bought a small army from a buddy that had several. I read the rules and they seemed so much more difficult and restrained. Also the history wasn't as rich. I disagree with the "you can only do so much with fantasy" idea as I thought Lizardmen and Skaven were very original. And GW seems to have pigeonholed themselves into the typical idea of what an "Orc" is or "Elf" is.

That being said I think Fantasy gives itself to WAY better painting. Most 40K armies are these uniforms that are all for the most part, one color or maybe I should say only really need to be one color. A well painted 3000 point 40K army isn't inspiring as it is imposing. A 2000pt well painted Fantasy army, especially Brettonians is inspiring. And I enjoyed the Skrimish rules they came out for Fantasy. They were small games that seemed to be a lot more flexible and even allowed for more of a personal backstory for my own fluff. But no one wants to play just skirmish games unless they are part of a bigger game and fantasy doesn't interest me on a bigger scale.

But going back to the original topic. I once talked with a GW employee that said they could keep the GW stores open on just the Space Marine (human and chaos) stuff they sold. If you think about it. They are basicaly easy to paint (though chaos is a bit harder) and you can have full games with knowing a few basic rules. Yes 14 year olds would appreciate that more than older more experienced gamers. And every year there are more 14 year olds to try it and play. I guess that on top of giant heavily armored men with big freaking guns AND the ability to buy bigger freaking guns and more heavily armored men, would push 40K ahead a bit. At least in America.

I forgot that skirmish movement could be so easy...except
for that whole roll 2d6 for difficult terrain bit. Movement
trays do add a layer of complication and restraint, but
that sort of thing just fits fantasy game....

...said the hypocritical Wood Elf player

Keh.

I've played both fanatsy and 40k, but I've never been a power gamer, I've never really had an opinion about which edition is better or which codex is a better uncarnation than another. I've pretty much always viewed rules as rules and there are always ways to beat an oponent, no matter how cheesy their list is, you just have to be smart with what you have.

But.

Fantasy is a ton harder to play, its not streamlined, its more realistic, it takes alot more thinking and strategy in-game. The list building is important too, but to me but I think fantasy revolves more around manuevers and such, just like real ancient combat.

40k is streamlined, simplified, and quick game, not so much on table stategy but more army composition. I like modelling 40k more though, because guns and powered swords and such are awesome, along with the dark, gritty background. But I don't enjoy playing it nearly a much, because it comes down to being able to buy the neccascary models to win. I can't do that alot of the time because of a very limited budget.

So when it comes down to it, I like fantasy for the gameplay and 40k for models.

Keh. I'z done.

Aside from when I started with 40k, I've essentially played what my friends were playing. When I was in San Francisco, my friends played WHFB, so that's what I played. When I moved to Santa Barbara, there wasn't a Fantasy scene, but there was a big 40k scene, so I switched back to 40k. Here in Tucson, 40k's big, so that's where I'm at here.

But I agree with a lot of what's been said here already - frankly, I think 40k is better for the conversions and Fantasy is better for strategy and tactics.

The following is my opinion, didn't look like anyone had said it so I thought I'd throw this out there. I'm not going to defend it, if someone doesn't agree with me we'll just be 2 folks with different opinions.

Fantasy has a lot more luck in it. I think that's illegal to say or something, but the reason Mauleed could count on the back of one hand the number of folks who could beat him when he played 40k is that it's a more predictable game. You can usually call a 40k game after deployment, if not after you look at army lists. Fantasy, by contrast, is much more influenced by the dice (obviously they are both dice games, but fantasy is far more of one than 40k). A good 40k player is closer to a good chess player, while a good fantasy player is closer to a good gambler.

40kenthusiast wrote:The following is my opinion, didn't look like anyone had said it so I thought I'd throw this out there. I'm not going to defend it, if someone doesn't agree with me we'll just be 2 folks with different opinions.

Fantasy has a lot more luck in it. I think that's illegal to say or something, but the reason Mauleed could count on the back of one hand the number of folks who could beat him when he played 40k is that it's a more predictable game. You can usually call a 40k game after deployment, if not after you look at army lists. Fantasy, by contrast, is much more influenced by the dice (obviously they are both dice games, but fantasy is far more of one than 40k). A good 40k player is closer to a good chess player, while a good fantasy player is closer to a good gambler.

I just think this is hilarious, because the exact OPPOSITE of this is what many of my friends believe (and dislike fantasy specifically because of it!). They say "You can tell how a Fantasy game will go just by deployment. But 40k is all about how well you roll", and that's their arguement for why 40k is better.

Personally I totally disagree with both opinions, as I think luck is an equal (and equally huge) factor in both games, but I think its funny to see two perfetly contrary ideas on the subject.

I think fanatsy leans toward the dice, but the set-up can predict alot, especially in certain armies.

I still think that 40k is all ablout army lsit and set-up

Commissar wrote:That being said I think Fantasy gives itself to WAY better painting. Most 40K armies are these uniforms that are all for the most part, one color or maybe I should say only really need to be one color. A well painted 3000 point 40K army isn't inspiring as it is imposing. A 2000pt well painted Fantasy army, especially Brettonians is inspiring.

That is because you are an Ork player, which is more about wierd, random conversions than beautiful painting.

A well-painted Eldar or Slaaneshi army will be at least as inspiring as anything from the Fantasy side of the house.

AlexCage wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:Fantasy has a lot more luck in it.

I just think this is hilarious, because the exact OPPOSITE of this is what many of my friends believe (and dislike fantasy specifically because of it!). They say "You can tell how a Fantasy game will go just by deployment. But 40k is all about how well you roll", and that's their arguement for why 40k is better.

Personally I totally disagree with both opinions, as I think luck is an equal (and equally huge) factor in both games, but I think its funny to see two perfetly contrary ideas on the subject.

In my opinion, Fantasy has a considerably higher luck factor, because you tend to roll a lot fewer dice, so the vagaries of fate have less chance to even out. In 40k, you tend to roll dice by the handful, so things tend to even out. In Fantasy, you can have the entire game hinge upon how a single 2d6 Leadership test turns out. In 40k, this rarely happens. So I say that Fantasy is a lot "swingier", in that you can have bigger swings in the game, whereas in 40k, the game will tend to snowball for the winner.

Fantasy tends to come down to the wire because the armies don't consist of nerfed and non-nerfed list. The player skill in fantasy (as mauleed has said) is also much higher per-capita in fantasy. I could ignore my army and roll dice in 40K and win more thanhalf my games. If I don't pay attention in a fantasy game I will get trounced (though I normally do anyway)

I don't know about that. A heavy Magic TK or TDL list is going to run roughshod over an army with only light Magical defense. Similarly Brets are a problem.

And if you're so sure about Fantasy being "balanced" and armies not mattering, perhaps you might just play Dogs of War.

Tomb Kings is a 2nd tier army, they can win but you better damned well know what you are doing with them. Which is entirely the point, TK and OK are like Kroot Mercinaries or IG yet they can place well and in some cases win big tournments. You can't say the same for say a SOB, KM, IG, GK, or any non Space Mariiineeez Hurr! list.

TDL Turtle Dwarf List? The Daemonic Legion? Tortoise Digs Lesbians?

personally, I prefer 40k for the following reasons:

- I like Scince-fiction more than generic fantasy.
- I really like to convert things, even troop ifantry, but with those infatry blocks you have with fantasy it will be barely noticed. and even if you build them normaly, they're still a pain in the butt to get them in line.
- regiment movement may be historicaly accurate, but I find it boring and over complicated. besides, there are so many units in fantasy who just SHOULDN'T MOVE LIKE THAT:
Empire, of course, I'll buy that. Skelettons, yeah, there controlled by dark magic, okay. Dwarfs, Elves, even Chaos Knights, makes sense.
BUT: Marauders? Ghouls? Greenskins of any kind? I just don't believe that they would behave like that.
- I don't wanna paint 20 Orks, if you see only the front 5 all the time....that is why, my only Fantasy army are ogres
I think that's most of it.

TDL = Tzeentch Daemonic Legion

The issue with Magic is that Tiering oversimplifies things. Armies like TK and TDL are hugely dependant upon having more Power Dice than the opponent can deal with. TK / TDL don't squeak to minor victories as a Tier 2 army. If TK / TDL have more PD, great, they will win big. If the opponent has "enough" defense, those armies automatically lose. You can almost count PD and Bound Items vs DD and Scrolls to determine the winner before the first model hits the board. The idea of getting a nice "balance" of Magical attack and defense is really difficult.

When the Magic is way out of balance, it isn't fun because the game becomes non-interactive. "I nuke your guys with Magic" - "OK, I bend over and take it."

Oh yeah, why don't you want to play Dogs of War? Is it because they're a bottom-tier army? But if army doesn't matter, and it's pure skill, then how can Dogs of War be bottom-tier and Tomb Kings be second tier???

Anung Un Rama wrote:- I don't wanna paint 20 Orks, if you see only the front 5 all the time....that is why, my only Fantasy army are ogres

This can be used to your advantage - just paint the heads and shoulders of the rear ranks - the rest stops at basecoats.

yea, but I don't wanna do that. I only play with fully painted models. my decision, and I stand to it. If I don't get it painted, I won't field it, and that's why I'm annoyed if I paint stuff which won't be seen at all.

Rotate them around. Get them all seen at some point

edit: Or play Wood Elves.

FLUFF.

Warhammer 40,000 is, hands down, my favorite fandom to write in, ever.

A: It's so large that almost any plot scenario you can imagine that doesn't involve the truth of the emperor or blowing up half the galaxy can be written in without disrupting cannon.

B: There's a race for faction to suite almost anyone's taste. From the dark elder emo kids to the SST-ogling marines. : ]

C: Come on. Chain sword! Bolter!
How much SPLATtier can you get? ] :



Also, the background and origins of the different races leave a LOT of room for sociopolitical thought. I could easily and enjoyably reason for you just how the Imperium is the best course of action in the 40k universe, or what the individual chaos gods are representative of in reality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:TDL = Tzeentch Daemonic Legion

The issue with Magic is that Tiering oversimplifies things. Armies like TK and TDL are hugely dependant upon having more Power Dice than the opponent can deal with. TK / TDL don't squeak to minor victories as a Tier 2 army. If TK / TDL have more PD, great, they will win big. If the opponent has "enough" defense, those armies automatically lose. You can almost count PD and Bound Items vs DD and Scrolls to determine the winner before the first model hits the board. The idea of getting a nice "balance" of Magical attack and defense is really difficult.

When the Magic is way out of balance, it isn't fun because the game becomes non-interactive. "I nuke your guys with Magic" - "OK, I bend over and take it."

Oh yeah, why don't you want to play Dogs of War? Is it because they're a bottom-tier army? But if army doesn't matter, and it's pure skill, then how can Dogs of War be bottom-tier and Tomb Kings be second tier???

The Tzeentch Flying Circus is not based on magic it is based off of shooting and manuvering out of charge arcs and choosing when to charge your chariots and LOC. Magic is a bonus considering Tzeentch magic is not that great, Slaanesh spells are quite useful. I would love to play against a magic heavy non flying DL with lots of horror blocks. Tomb Kings don't generate power dice they basically do X spell at d6 or 2d6 power. None of there spells are very scary, 1 MM spell average power, 1 move spell, one add skeletons/heal wounds spell, 1 attack again spell IIRC. If you want big magic last edition stompy orks, free range slann with spotting skinks, uber magic high elves on dragons. None of these armies are unbeatable, I have beaten and tied with all of these listed in a tournment. My poor GK would get cut to ribbons my min maxed marines or the Drop Pod army of doom.

I have a DOW army, they just won't let me play it anymore

Fantasy has overpowered armies just like 40k, it's just not as bad.

And 40k is a game where you can say it "relies more on the dice" because so many armies are now being based around the idea that you just throw tons of dice at something and it will die.

Shooty Orks, Godzilla, IG Gunlines, etc.


The thing with Fantasy is that if you give a half wit a really, really good army, and another guy who's good at the game a middle of the road army, the guy who's a good general can still pull off the win, despite the disparity in army lists.

There are certainly terrible match-ups in the game, but in general I think it's much more "balanced" than 40k is.

I definitely disagree with the opinions stated that WFB is more about luck. In a game that's more about maneuvers and tactics, that's just impossible. In fact in my last game as Skaven I beat a powerful Chaos army through one simple maneuver - Him making the mistake of putting his Chosen Knights in position to be flank charged by a slave block, causing it to pursue sideways and then get overran by my infantry blocks, and opening up the rest of his formation to my guns and magic. That move was the single deciding of that game, and although it's true that I could have had a horrendous batch of luck with various attacks/etc., the same is the case for 40K.

That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

malfred wrote:That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

Lies! When did you win a battle?

Dice Monkey wrote:

malfred wrote:That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

Lies! When did you win a battle?

http://plasticlegions.blogspot.com/2008/01/battle-report-empire-vs-wood-elves-v.html

Schepp himself wrote:Never thought that the Dwarfs could be imagined as gay, like, at all.

Other then that, the 40k Universe really has some more diverse fluff. Orks, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines, they are very different in their appearance and background. Not so much in the fantasy universe. Both games are worthwhile playing, though.

Greets
Schepp himself

personally I prefer WFB as its the only game I regularly play. I still collect and build armies for 40k though, mainly inspired via background fluff.

the "gay" debate is strange one, I'm sure its all meant very tongue in cheek but for most gayness 40k has WFB beaten.

There was a gay poet who wrote a poem regarding his inner battle with his forbidden (gay) desires...

His name? Lionel Johnson

the poem? "The Dark Angel"

So now we know the 1st legions terrible secret

40k appeals to sci fi fans - when you start looking as star wars, star trek, etc, this is a much larger fanbase of die hard gamers.

40k is easier to paint. Painting a unit of marines is rewarding for players as they can be fielded in a unit of 6 or 10. Its a chore to paint the 30th slaven slave just to finish a unit, or Bretonnian knight #45.

40k has more dice. People like to throw dice. rolling 5 dice for the charging greatswords is not as appealing as rolling 60 for the charging nids.

The movement system isn't as appealing to new players, who sometimes get frustrated with not being able to charge a unit 1" away that is out of sight, or who wastes all the movement wheeling past obstacles while march blocked.

I think it is gennerally accepted that fantasy is for those who have mastered 40k and moved on, unless they really do prefer the sci-fi fluff.

Personally the 40k universe doesnt appeal to me, just two categorys; those who attack randomly (orks,tyranids,necrons) and those who complain about always being attacked (IG,SPACEMAREINZZ!,Eldar). Also the fluff throws the game out of scale talking about battles in standard form.

9999 x 10(to the power of) orks attacked the ten planets and had a big battle with lots of big guns.

legoburner wrote:

stonefox wrote:Oh, and guns.

he he... bows and arrows or gauss rifle which flays the armour and flesh down to nothing... hmmm

Ahh, but 40k will never see entire Regiments simply sat on by a Dragon!

Nice threadomancy!

IBFTL!

I didn't do the Threadomance.

I just added. Apologies to the Mods!

Aduro wrote:I don't like the block movement.

Since we are in the misdt of a threadnemancer, I will say that this sums up why I like 40K more.

I enjoy both games but for different reasons, but I enjoy the way that you can disperse your models over the field with 40K more.

Tactiacally, WHFB is far superior, so that game offers more in that regard.

With the change to 5th edition I find 40k far more fun to play than fantasy. Especially since the introduction of daemons and the newest vampire counts to fantasy. Those armies for me break the bank on fun in fantasy. The lizardmen are drawing me back but I still think i'm gonna be focused on 40k for the forseeable future.

40K is Dune+Dark ages Europe=Grimdark Win!!! The second best background is Warmachine, what with the mix of magic and guns and robot/golem things.

I just like the 40K fluff better than the WFB fluff (for nutters) and back in my college days, I knew more 40K players than fantasy players, so my fantasy armies gradually faded away...

I don't think will never understand what people find appealing about sci-fi.

But i do think the reason for its success is indeed stems from sci-fi, although the game is far stronger than say Lotr, i think its fair to say that fantasy is superior tactically.

But then again im very bias, as i hate sci-fi and love fantasy.

Says the guy with a Necron for an avatar?

Anyway, I know it's hard to believe but there are people out there who do think differently than you. Everyone has their own tastes and interests and I, personally, don't know why it bothers you so much.

Why do I like sci-fi more? Because fantasy has been literally done to death, and when you get down to it, GW's brand isn't any different from Tolkien or any other generic fantasy setting. 40k's background is heavily "influenced" by other sources as well, but there's still a lot of originality in it despite all that and indeed some ideas that I just haven't seen before. And like it's been said, it's a lot more open-ended than the fantasy setting.

I like Dark Elves though, but I honestly don't see myself finishing that army anytime this decade. I've got ten cold one knights and a sorceress, still unpainted or boxed up since release. The models are cool, that's why I got them, but they just aren't that interesting, I can't get motivated. I've read the background and it's all pretty "meh" to me, I'm more fascinated by the small amount of Tau fluff that exists than I am about Dark Elves. When I read the Dark Elves army book I feel like I'm reading a Tolkien novel again...been there, done that.

All that said, I don't have anything against fantasy or anyone who's interested in it. Like I said, everyone is different, everyone's interested in different things for different reasons and I'm not going to give anyone crap if they don't give me any. But I apparently don't get the same amount of respect being a 40k player, it's obvious in any "40k vs. Fantasy" thread the amount of elitism that exists among some WHF players. Like ol' Darth here who simply can't wrap his head around the fact that sci-fi has any kind of following at all, or all the other nonsense spouted off in similar threads about WHF players being smarter or more mature. "My game's better than your game!"

Well you know what? Historical gamers hate the both of us, and chess players think we're all slowed. Get over it.

ok, i see where you're coming from, lets just forgive and forget.

Warhammer is Warhammer, and even with our own predisposed opinion's, we are all bound by our enjoyment for Warhammer.

Or our undying hatred of Games Workshop.

I personally like to paint the fantasy range, but I wont play it personally until the game is balanced. Right now it is just grossly unbalanced.

Whereas in 40k every codex can come up with *at least* one Tourney level list.

When Demons can pretty much pick an assortment at random and beat 4-5 different books that made a list tooled to beat demons, something is wrong.

40K has the presence of subtle homoeroticism. Why do you think gamers play with other guys so much instead of with girls? They like to say "girls don't game" and "girls just like cutesy games like mario and the wii" but I know the real reason.

edit: and it's not crippling social anxiety and fear of the opposite sex. Those are just covers.

This is gina sound mean but I think its because people are like sheep,we tend to fold to what our friends/peers are doing.We see other peole playing whatever for "Y" reason and when we see that everyone else is doin it to we go along with it.Even GW has done this they are more into updating 40K and bringing out new models and such.So I think it is because more people play 40k and it gets more exposure and thats why I think it does better,but well wether you play 40K or WHFB you must admit large super-human men with large guns and tanks are just a bit more cool then a horde of haflings with bows.



EDIT-But havin said all that,is there any data saying that 40k is more popular than WHFB?

prolly because the kind of pepl who would be interested in either are arguably more interested in science fiction than fastasy.

The reason is that most new hobbyists have been exposed to a huge amount of sci-fi but not much high fantasy.

When I got into the hobby in the early 90's I had grown up on Star Wars and Star Trek. At the time my Favourite 'new' shows where the X-Files and Babylon 5. Tolkienesque high fantasy was just underrepresented in popular culture. Naturally when I first discovered the cool store selling games it was the huge armoured warriors and weird alien races that captured my adolescent imagination.

As I've grown older I developed an appreciation for Fantasy both as a gaming system and genre. But boys stick with what they know. These days I imagine many kids have grown up watching the newer Star Wars films and shows like Stargate and BSG. No surprise that outer space has the greater pull for the new hobbyist. I predict this will remain the case as long as Sci-Fi remains prevalent in popular culture.

The reason 40k is more popular is this:
Warhammer Fantasy is very very boring!
All the games I've watched and taken part in have never
been as free flowing as 40k.
Also some bizarre rules like only the front rank of
a unit of archers can fire..Really? What about
Agincourt? I don't recall only the first rank of archers
being allowed to fire there.Its things like this that just
don't make sense!Why build a unit of archers if you can
only use a small part of it?Complete bollocks!

i prefer 40k because (at least at a well stocked store) it looks more impressive at the table. while fantasy games tend to have more models and an equally impressive variety of models compared with 40k, the vast majority of fantasy games that i've seen have 2-4 little pieces of terrain and that's it. maybe a hill to put some artillery on and a small plot of woods or two in an out of the way spot. lots of players don't want to have to worry about the terrain blocking their already restricted tray movements and just skip it. the only board i saw that was choked full of terrain was a wood elf on wood elf game about 6 years ago. with 40k, most people put down full and/or ruined buildings, bunkers, hills, forests, etc. so the table looks impressive. half the enjoyment for me in playing minis games is the look of the battle (like a diorama). i'd probably be bored playing the BEST EVER minis rules (invented at some future point) if they required everyone to play with colored blocks for units and 2d cardstock for terrain.

Well, I enjoy 40k mostly due to fluff, as I haven't really started the tabletop game yet (but on my way).

I got my first real introduction to 40k through Dawn of War (yeah hit me...) I had heard about it before but never been really interesting (40k that is). After a time I got interested in the "fluff" and I was stuck.....

Got my first miniatures in Christmas (AoBR) and in a few weeks I'm going to town and buy some IG-troopers

Also I have to disagree with LuciusAR. As I'm the opposite....
I'm hooked on fantasy-books, and I've red ALOT. Sci-fi Have never appealed to me (Before 40k) not star wars, not any sci-fi books and absolutely not star trek. But I still like 40k much more than fantasy.... (Also I like tanks.)

Deff Dread red Edition wrote:This is gina sound mean but I think its because people are like sheep,we tend to fold to what our friends/peers are doing.

Well, think about it for a minute. If no one in your area plays WHF then are you really going to waste all that money on models you'll never get to use? If you're going to dump a few grand on worthless plastic figures then you might as well pick a system you're most likely to get a game in with.

Gotta agree that in Europe WHFB seems to be more popular. Howeverm, after I've seen some WHFB minis (some knights, ogres, dwarfs) I must agree that they can't compare to WH40K ones. Also all the fluff and atmosphere is much more inspiring and appealing to me. Nothing better than the Orbital Bombardment or some Drop Pod assault from above. Steam tanks are just silly, and don't get me started about dwarfs

Maybe because the whole block-movement thing actually happened in Europe, whereas, if you look at US military history, it pretty much begins with guerilla actions, and everything with any sort of real personal interest is based around the concept of squads, not blocks.

Fantasy has held little interest to me, for a few reasons.

First, while there are some guns, they're woefully underpowered. I understand that this is to make it a good game, but come on. The armoured charge was useless at Crecy, and again at Agincort. There is no way that a a few columns of cavalry should be able to beat an equal value in archers/musketeers. And yet, they do, repeatedly. That's annoying, but the game designers want the charge to be decisive, not the shooting, which is remarkably unlike the real world.

In 40k, while the same thing is true, at least it's easier to envision. I can accept that a few genestealers can avoid being shot up until they maul someone in combat because I saw that movie (aliens). I can accept that the eldar like to get in close with their power swords in spite of all the armoured guys with laser guns shooting at them, because I saw that movie too (star wars). But I cannot buy that a small number of knights can make a successful charge against a gunline, because that's just dumb. History tells me that gunlines trump knights (and infantry blocks too) but god forbid that happen on the tabletop.

Secondly, Fantasy has always seemed far more luck-based to me, than 40k. Maybe it's because I haven't played it enough to really understand the nuances by which the effects of luck are mitigated, however, far too many things hinge on single die rolls. My cannons blow themselves up one in every six shots they take. Wizards explode themselves, just about anything other than basic warriors engaged in block-to-block combat have these ridiculously high chances of killing themselves.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, combat resolution just doesn't make sense to me. If I have a significantly tough model (say, a dragon), and I attack a bunch of peasants with it, the dragon should eat the peasants. But, what seems to happen is that the dragon kills two peasants, while the peasants are completely unable to hurt the dragon, and yet the dragon freaks out because OMG, I only killed two peasants, and then it tries to run away, and the peasants kill it. WTF!? I simply cannot understand how a model that kills some of its opponents, while taking no damage in return, can lose combat. This single rule makes fantasy lose a lot of appeal for me.

In 40k, this doesn't happen. If I have a model that my opponent cannot hurt (say, a wraithlord attacking a bunch of peasants), it doesn't matter if it kills them slowly or quickly, it isn't going to lose this fight.

You might say this is necessary for some reason, but I don't buy it. You can easily tarpit something like this in 40k, which takes it out of the game, strategically speaking. And you could do that in fantasy too. But not losing your model because, while it didn't get hurt, it didn't kill enough of the enemy.

To me, these things are what lead me to play 40k instead of fantasy. I could care less about how many models I need to paint. I do care that the game simply doesn't flow intuitively. When 20 archers cannot drop 5 knights before they're impaled on their lances, I think not. When a dragon cannot slowly chew through 20 peasants without getting scared, I think not.

Fantasy has more in-game tactics then 40k, but has generaly fewer tactics elsewhere. In fantasy, anything can kill pretty much anything (just requires some insane luck), but a Lasgun Cannot pop a Land Raider. When actually playing, 40k is a meatgrinder, while fantasy requires skill. Few people have the Patience to learn the skill (The hard part of the game), and preffer the easier army building step to be where they pin their hopes. Simply put, many people would rather see a bunch of their enemies vanish in a shower of blood each round then to spend 3 rounds setting up a unit to blitz the enemy.

Oh, and on another note, Fantasy can (Litteraly) be won by one dice roll, purely because of the much larger psychology section.

I think its more of a regional preference of games. I have seen some places where the community is more fantasy than 40k and others are more 40k than fantasy. I could write a paper just on that alone.

Is it more popular.
Some of my friends always tell me how good Fantasy is in opposition to 40k.
But they are not good in 40k.

Fantasy is a bit boring if you ask me.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Fantasy has more in-game tactics then 40k, but has generaly fewer tactics elsewhere. In fantasy, anything can kill pretty much anything (just requires some insane luck), but a Lasgun Cannot pop a Land Raider. When actually playing, 40k is a meatgrinder, while fantasy requires skill. Few people have the Patience to learn the skill (The hard part of the game), and preffer the easier army building step to be where they pin their hopes. Simply put, many people would rather see a bunch of their enemies vanish in a shower of blood each round then to spend 3 rounds setting up a unit to blitz the enemy.

It's this post (the part about 40k being a meat grinder that allows little strategy) and many others like it that make me think that many of the people responding to this post are very bad at 40k. Because units can move in any direction, 40k actually requires more strategy because you have to think of all the possible outcomes and responses that your opponent is going to take to your action. This requires knowledge of movement rates and ranges, and at times (especially against skilled opponents) an almost chess-like sacrifice of units in order to accomplish your goal, be it preventing a powerful unit from claiming an objective for that last turn, or keeping a unit out of range of your really valuable units for a longer period of time. Granted there are some units (nob bikers and jetseer council spring to mind) that because of extreme durability and movement rates take limited strategy to use, if your opponent knows the tactics to stop them (and has the equipment available), he can actually minimize the effect of those units through playing the game well.

Sometimes I think that players become overwhelmed by the strategic complexity that 40k offers, and so think that the game is random or does not need strategy to win.

Oscarius wrote:

Also I have to disagree with LuciusAR. As I'm the opposite....
I'm hooked on fantasy-books, and I've red ALOT. Sci-fi Have never appealed to me (Before 40k) not star wars, not any sci-fi books and absolutely not star trek. But I still like 40k much more than fantasy.... (Also I like tanks.)

Of course there will always be exceptions to every rule. My point was that for most people Sci-Fi will have been a more prevalent influence. In any given year the number of Science Fiction films and TV shows will vastly outnumber their Fantasy equivalents. In fact, when was the last time there was a Medieval fantasy TV show? I honestly can think of only a handful in my lifetime and they were all generally pretty rubbish.

Redbeard: For me the combat resolution is supposed to represent that one of those peasants might get lucky and stab the dragon in the eye. I agree though that it's a bit too easy.


I think they should never have put guns into Warhammer Fantasy.

Redbeard wrote:First, while there are some guns, they're woefully underpowered. I understand that this is to make it a good game, but come on. The armoured charge was useless at Crecy, and again at Agincort. There is no way that a a few columns of cavalry should be able to beat an equal value in archers/musketeers. And yet, they do, repeatedly. That's annoying, but the game designers want the charge to be decisive, not the shooting, which is remarkably unlike the real world.

In 40k, while the same thing is true, at least it's easier to envision. I can accept that a few genestealers can avoid being shot up until they maul someone in combat because I saw that movie (aliens). I can accept that the eldar like to get in close with their power swords in spite of all the armoured guys with laser guns shooting at them, because I saw that movie too (star wars). But I cannot buy that a small number of knights can make a successful charge against a gunline, because that's just dumb. History tells me that gunlines trump knights (and infantry blocks too) but god forbid that happen on the tabletop.

Secondly, Fantasy has always seemed far more luck-based to me, than 40k. Maybe it's because I haven't played it enough to really understand the nuances by which the effects of luck are mitigated, however, far too many things hinge on single die rolls. My cannons blow themselves up one in every six shots they take. Wizards explode themselves, just about anything other than basic warriors engaged in block-to-block combat have these ridiculously high chances of killing themselves.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, combat resolution just doesn't make sense to me. If I have a significantly tough model (say, a dragon), and I attack a bunch of peasants with it, the dragon should eat the peasants. But, what seems to happen is that the dragon kills two peasants, while the peasants are completely unable to hurt the dragon, and yet the dragon freaks out because OMG, I only killed two peasants, and then it tries to run away, and the peasants kill it. WTF!? I simply cannot understand how a model that kills some of its opponents, while taking no damage in return, can lose combat. This single rule makes fantasy lose a lot of appeal for me.

I agree with everything in Redbeard's post. I've played WHFB and 40k for over 10 years. To me, WHFB boils down to:
1) Deployment - screw it up, and the game is over
2) Fiddly movement - people counting every 1/8th inch of movement, carefully angling units for overruns, and other incredibly boring and tedious "tactics"
3) Static Combat Resolution - every unit of cheapos starts with +5 CR, meaning that any elite unit, or any unit, needs to do 5 casualties before it has a chance of winning the fight - whaaaat?
4) Luck - as has been mentioned, a lot fewer dice are rolled, so that spectacularly bad charge of knights (with like 5 attacks) that whiffs means you're done

The tactics and strategy for both games are way different, and when you throw in the strength of magic in fantasy for some armies, it skews even further.

Which is why for my 'fantasy' kick, I prefer Warhammer Ancients. While not strictly fantasy, it uses the same engine, the armies within the sourcebooks are well balanced, and the weapons, troops, and lack of monsters and magic make it a better game imho.

Oh, and I've read Fantasy novels since 7th grade (about 1981), and still do, but prefer sci-fi for my wargaming. There is nothing in GW's stable of fantasy armies that I find interesting fluff-wise other than Brets (don't like the way the army plays), and VC (overpowered army book).

LOTR is a better fantasy game I reckon, especially with the severe powercreep issues these days.
I'm very excited about War of the Ring. Could actually be an expansion that makes me collect elves, just so's I can have some of those Ents.

Damn redbeard beat me to it. I will reiterate his point anyways. I think 40k is more popular in america (canada and US) as it ties in more to our experience. We never had large medeival battles, never had them tough in our history clases ect, it just isint as in tune to the culture. In europe you cant get away from it, the place is seeped in history. Castles evrywhere ect. So I think europe may be more culturaly disposed towards fantasy.

I think fantasy's ruleset is more complex then 40k's. So if 40k is more popular that may be a reason for it. (note i didint say fantasy's rules are worse/better, just more complex)

I think the reason I like sci-fi fluff is that I can look at what our civilization is capable and theorize what would and wouldn't work and compare it to what GW's result was with 40k. Sure, there's things that stick in my gullet. Like why bolters are small missiles but they still have shell casings or that in that small of a caliber and the short ranges in which it's used (when compared to rocket propelled weapons) a rocket assisted round would be needlessly more expensive, potentially less accurate and would take up additional space. But because I can project how I think things will look in the future, it gives sci-fi realms an air of believability, even if it isn't believable outside of that context.
WFB's background just seems... made up. Period...

Now, as far as rule structure and game play goes I believe WFB wins hands down and that's mainly due to the movement phase being a total mess in 40k. In fantasy, yes a super powered lord choice on a dragon maybe able to gut most units, but you simply throw a trash unit in it's way, let it kill it, then counter charge it with. Or you can just shoot the hell out of it with anything strength 5 and up. Against a magic heavy army, if you have scouting elements or fliers or similar units you can easily attempt to pull off a wizard assassination or two and severely reduce your opponent's magic. Wizards are like artillery in WFB, capable of horrible destruction, but (typically) very vulnerable. A smart player can find a way around just about any WFB cheese. Now, the same cannot be said about Shrike+Assault Terminators+Land Raider lists, Nob Biker lists exploiting wound allocation or 4e's Tri-Falcon lists with the nigh indestructible transports delivering fire dragons who eat your tanks or harlequins who eat your troops.. That's not to say 40k has nothing but win buttons, but there are some lists out there for it that a seasoned player will struggle against even if his opponent is only on his 5th game..

Dice Monkey wrote:

AMP187 wrote:With Fantasy having an arguably more in-depth and intricate rule system, I wonder why 40K is so much more popular. Is it the fluff? The miniatures? Do most people think a future setting is cooler than a fantasy setting? What's yall's opinions on the matter?

I have noticed most of the 13 year olds gravitate towards 40K while fantasy players tend to be older and married. I can not think of the last time I saw a fantasy player under 20. For me crappy rules plus middle and high school kids playing 40K are a huge turn off.

i have three fantasy armies, 4th in the maing, and i'm 16.

themandudeperson wrote:A smart player can find a way around just about any WFB cheese. Now, the same cannot be said about Shrike+Assault Terminators+Land Raider lists, Nob Biker lists exploiting wound allocation or 4e's Tri-Falcon lists with the nigh indestructible transports delivering fire dragons who eat your tanks or harlequins who eat your troops.. That's not to say 40k has nothing but win buttons, but there are some lists out there for it that a seasoned player will struggle against even if his opponent is only on his 5th game..

Right, whereas, according to recent GT stats, Fantasy has Vampire Counts and Daemons as viable army choices. Seems to me that there are win buttons in both games, but 40k has at least 4, maybe 5 armies able to compete at the top levels, whereas Fantasy has two. In terms of balancing the armies, 40k is a lot better than fantasy.

I think a huge amount of it is just down to what cought your eye originally.

I mean a young boy in general is more likely to see awesome space men with giant guns and armor, and think its awesome, then to see some elves or medieval bowmen and want to get playing.

That kind of initial interest can really make a difference in what you are playing later down the line.

That and if all your friends play 40k, and you want to try fantasy, you could get turned off it by finding it more difficult to get a game set up.

If Lord of the Rings (the game) had been out when I was a kid I would have been all over it.

Da Boss wrote:If Lord of the Rings (the game) had been out when I was a kid I would have been all over it.

Not being a kid any more is no reason not to be all over it. It's a cracking game and, contrary to what many on the internet may say, it has allot to offer the veteran gamer.

When I was a young lad (around 13), I got into WHFB. I loved those High Elves However, lack of money and the introduction of M:TG got me out of it. Then ten years later, i discovered 40k, and fell in love with Cadia. Five years later, i am still going strong.

The reason why I got into 40k? Friends. I meet people who played so, I started playing.

Popularity, it builds off itself. The more people playing either game, will bring more in. Perhaps if my friends were into WHFB, I would be playing that now instead, who knows.

But I also love the fluff of 40k, the squad based combat, the shooting and the tanks.

LuciusAR wrote:

Da Boss wrote:If Lord of the Rings (the game) had been out when I was a kid I would have been all over it.

Not being a kid any more is no reason not to be all over it. It's a cracking game and, contrary to what many on the internet may say, it has allot to offer the veteran gamer.

I know, I am a big fan.

I didn't like Warhammer Fantasy as much when I was younger because of the sillier aspects, but LOTR would have been right up my alley.

Are VC and Daemons really that imposing?

My main reason for not liking fantasy is the magic phase. I find the whole concept of the scroll caddy to be extremely annoying. I also have seen way to many games won because of some really good rolls in the magic phase. Magic should be closer to Psyker powers in that they aren't game altering or need to be better balanced with combat. Fantasy also has some global rules, that when abused, make be want to through stuff more than most of the 40K cheese.

The primary reason, 40K requires less models and is less complicated, thus a lower entry level step. This means more people play, more people equates to more games.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Fantasy has more in-game tactics then 40k, but has generaly fewer tactics elsewhere. In fantasy, anything can kill pretty much anything (just requires some insane luck), but a Lasgun Cannot pop a Land Raider. When actually playing, 40k is a meatgrinder, while fantasy requires skill. Few people have the Patience to learn the skill (The hard part of the game), and preffer the easier army building step to be where they pin their hopes. Simply put, many people would rather see a bunch of their enemies vanish in a shower of blood each round then to spend 3 rounds setting up a unit to blitz the enemy.

I'm going to echo the prior sentiment that this perception of 40K is incredibly erroneous. It has a much more fluid movement system, more lethal ranged weaponry, and a greater presence of aforementioned ranged weaponry. 40K is perceived as a meat-grinder because most players think deployment is as crucial as it is in WHFB. Well it's not, and devoting 70-80% of your operational/tactical thought to deploying is going to get you slaughtered. When both players do this (what I've observed to be the most common occurrence in my 8 years of 40King) you get the all-too traditional slug-fest that relies on the amount of 's you roll. The game is capable of much more depth and (at least at our local club) that depth has become more and more apparent with Apocalypse. We run a 40K+ point game of Apoc here about once a month and it's resulted in a sort of strategic rivalry between the Imperium and the Chaos/Ork players.

Your ability to take down hard targets in 40K is often more about list building than tactics is all. That's why boyz mobs always have power claw nobs- otherwise they have no chance against walkers in close combat or highly armoured tanks.

Da Boss wrote:Your ability to take down hard targets in 40K is often more about list building than tactics is all. That's why boyz mobs always have power claw nobs- otherwise they have no chance against walkers in close combat or highly armoured tanks.

The best list in the world still needs someone relatively competent pulling the strings.

Yeah. I'm a crappy enough 40K player that I can lose with Bloodcrusher spam, nob bikers, anything

BrotherAtrox wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Your ability to take down hard targets in 40K is often more about list building than tactics is all. That's why boyz mobs always have power claw nobs- otherwise they have no chance against walkers in close combat or highly armoured tanks.

The best list in the world still needs someone relatively competent pulling the strings.

Well of course.

Redbeard wrote:If I have a significantly tough model (say, a dragon), and I attack a bunch of peasants with it, the dragon should eat the peasants. But, what seems to happen is that the dragon kills two peasants, while the peasants are completely unable to hurt the dragon, and yet the dragon freaks out because OMG, I only killed two peasants, and then it tries to run away, and the peasants kill it. WTF!?

Oh, that's just beautiful.

And so true.
____

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Oh, and on another note, Fantasy can (Litteraly) be won by one dice roll, purely because of the much larger psychology section.

Actually, it's because you generally roll very few dice to determine combat results, so each die roll matters a lot more. This causes a lot more "swinginess".

For example, in WFB it's not uncommon to have 20+ HtH models engage another 20+ HtH models. In 40k, you'd have 60 attack dice for the attacking force alone. In WFB, that collapses down to a dozen, maybe 20 attack dice. So there's less likelihood that the luck balances out by reverting toward the mean.

JohnhwangDD, engaging in a debate about which game enables players to adopt a superior level of tactics will not end well for you, or any others arguing for 40k.

I woudnt want to say that one game is "better" than another. I'm personally a fan of the lotr game, which comes under a bombardment of criticism and patronising comments.

But wfb requires so much more skill while ingame.

(Go go lord of the rings!)

I find 40K more fun at a competative level, but that could be because my 40K armies are Orks and Plague Marines, and my fantasy armies are Orcs and Beastmen.

I prefer Fantasy now, because it does have a more realistic ruleset and it simulates epic battles better.

@Darth: I didn't say that either game was "superior" in my post above.

40k is about arranging mass die rolls with the understanding that extreme results are relatively unlikely. Fantasy is about arranging events to deal with the extreme events that *will* come up.

40k and WFB have different ways of playing, and different "tactics", but one is not necessarily "superior", although the WFB players tend to project the most elitism when the various systems are discussed this way...

@JohnHwangDD

Throughout this whole thread you have said nothing other than critisized, or supported criticism of fantasy, along with strong support for 40k.

Please dont try and tell me you dont have strong aliegence to 40k, as you have made that crystal clear.

I personally play all the games, i just accept that fantasy is by far the tactically superior games', probbaly even followed in second place by lotr.

Although 40k is fun and has stunning models it is just a very simple system, certainly in terms of ingame tactics.

I think you're trying to justify the game you have injected so much money and time into, and that is admirable. But dont try and claim it is in anyway a harder or more expert game.

Go is an even simpler system, but you wouldn't dare accuse if of lacking in strategy or tactics.

Videogames industry research shows that fantasy is more popular with girls, and SF is more popular with boys. We all know that most players of GW games are boys. Perhaps they just prefer 40K because they are boys.

Boys like guns.

Because Warhammer Fantasy is another fantasy universe, it's been done many times before. 40k is a sci-fi setting but it's far more original than the average science-fiction universe, it's got gothic cathedrals on space ships, daemons, orks, magic and a whole bunch of other stuff.

That's my two cents.

Because even the kids who ride the short bus can play it.

You wouldn't think so given some of the threads that get started in You Make Da Call.

If you don't mind being kinda hazy with the rules it's a simpler game.
Simple does not equal tactically barren or anything though.
I used to be in the "fantasy is better mechanically" camp, but I think too many of the armies now break the core mechanics wide open, making it a game of extremes rather than the fairly solid core.

Darth wrote:@JohnHwangDD

Throughout this whole thread you have said nothing other than critisized, or supported criticism of fantasy, along with strong support for 40k.

Please dont try and tell me you dont have strong aliegence to 40k, as you have made that crystal clear.

I personally play all the games, i just accept that fantasy is by far the tactically superior games', probbaly even followed in second place by lotr.

Although 40k is fun and has stunning models it is just a very simple system, certainly in terms of ingame tactics.

Pot, meet kettle. You've done the same exact thing with regards to WHFB.

And I have to disagree about fantasy being "by far the tactically superior game". I've not noticed anything "tactically superior" about a game that relies so heavily on set-up, and then rewards "fiddly" movement to play the angles for things like overrun, +5 static CR, and lots of armies that overcome that 'huge psychology aspect', etc. And while I realize that that is how the game is played, it actually, for me, doesn't make for a "fun" game.

As others have mentioned, 40k and fantasy are apples and oranges. And ultimately, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For the record, I also do like LOTR as a ruleset, it has a whole different set of tactical considerations, but I think its waaay better as a scenario-driven game, and not at points-value pick up games.

Oh, and I do play all of the GW games, including all the Specialist games, so I don't have an inherest 'bias' one way or the other.

Darth wrote:@JohnHwangDD

Throughout this whole thread you have said nothing other than critisized, or supported criticism of fantasy, along with strong support for 40k.

Please dont try and tell me you dont have strong aliegence to 40k, as you have made that crystal clear.

I personally play all the games, i just accept that fantasy is by far the tactically superior games', probbaly even followed in second place by lotr.

Although 40k is fun and has stunning models it is just a very simple system, certainly in terms of ingame tactics.

Prove it. While 40k does have a simpler rules system, it is strategically more complex because of the freedom of movement and longer ranges that most 40k miniatures and weapons possess. In addition, as another poster said about fantasy, the fact that you actually need different units and weaponry in order to be able to deal with a larger variety of enemy threats (infantry, vehicles, bikes, monstrous creatures, etc) means that you have to use a wider variety of tactics in order to achieve your in-game goals as well.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Boys like guns.

That's it, the discussion is over, JohnHwangDD hit it on the head. I would put little bitty firecrackers in my guns and try to literally shoot the other guy's troops if I thought for a millisecond that it would actually work.

You've done the same exact thing with regards to WHFB.

Yeah, exactly, so where the hell do you get off jumping John's ass, Darth? Especially when you consider he actually didn't say either game was better than the other, that's all you. Youv'e been doing that this whole time in regards to Fantasy. Oh, but I forget, you've played every GW game so you're obviously unbiased, you're allowed to say WHF is better because it really is better, right?

Just stop, if you like Fantasy then play Fantasy, if you like 40k then fething play 40k. Enough with this LOLZ MY GAME IS BETTER bs, it makes us all look stupid.

Ever seen a 10,000pt+ game of WFB that won't break the rulebook?

Also, the black libary books for war 40K are bloody awesome

JohnHwangDD wrote:Go is an even simpler system, but you wouldn't dare accuse if of lacking in strategy or tactics.

No, you're right. I accuse them of failing to update their game with hobby supplies
and endless expansion books.

because power swords and shields are way cooler than normal ones

Well, if the rules system for Warhammer Fantasy is more complex and in-depth, then 40k is probably more accessible to a larger number of people.

Also, it has always appealed to me more because I prefer science fiction as a genre (though I love fantasy as well). Also, I like the aesthetics of the models more.

HI all.
I would say 40k is more popular because GW have concentrated on making everthing 40k look and sound as 'kewl' as possible.
If it causes a 13 year old to wet himself with exitement, its in.
Practicality and game play take a back seat.

Warhammer follows a more 'traditional' fantasy setting and a particular type of game play.
Untill recent 'core rule dodging army buffing' , WH was more straight forward sort of game.

I belive 40k to have more strategic bias , and WH has more of a tactical bias.(Mainly due to WH tighter movement rules.)

If the more dice you roll the more predicatble the result, then after a certain point doesnt dice rolling become a bit of a redundant exercise?
I know some people love rolling large amounts of dice at thier opponent ,but is this not just a time consuming exersise?

TTFN
Lanrak.