This has been bugging me for a while now... I notice it alot in the Dakka Poles...


THESE ARE NOT THREAD QUESTIONS... JUST EXAMPLES FROM THE DAKKA POLES AS REFERENCE FOR THE ABOVE STATEMENT!
How long does a typical ame of 40k usually last for you?
Whats your favorite edition of Warhammer 40k?
Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?
Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?
What 40k races do you buy or collect?
etc

For some reason I never see a WHFB equivilant to those threads. All those questions could easily be applied to WHFB as well and they never are.

Ive seen a few threads about why 40k is more popular than fantasy but I dont want to know why its more popular in general... I want to know why YOU prefer it over WHFB... and so Im not being hippocritcal (is that even a word?) of myself... If its the other way around, then why do you prefer WHFB over 40k? Could be models, lore, game play, anything... just what draws you into WHFB/40k more than the other?

I don't like the ranked units of WHFB. I also don't like the focus on lords/heroes in that game. Finally, I like 40k's models and fluff a lot better than Fantasy's.

I'll take Door #2 (WHFB > WH40K)

I played 40k first, but several times it was mentioned to me that comparing 40k to fantasy is like comparing checkers to chess... and since I love chess, I made the switch

Now, fantasy has been frustrating to get into, learning different rules and game mechanics... but I'm still very satisfied that I did, since the game seems a bit more intricate on the whole.

I've also heard that sales are about similar between the two systems... but I don't know if that's true or not.

I prefer sci-fi to fantasy in general, so that's why. I don't really have anything against the gameplay, I just find elves and dwarves and dragons and such uninteresting.

That's what's weird- I always prefer sci-fi. Books, movies, etc... you name it, I take sci-fi over fantasy any day.

With two notable exceptions:
LOTR > most other books
WHFB > WH40K

Doesn't make sense... but it's true...

RiTides wrote:I've also heard that sales are about similar between the two systems... but I don't know if that's true or not.

Not in the least. IIRC, Space Marines alone are accounting for about 46% of GW's sales volume.

I like 40K more because I just do. Ask me why I like pizza more than hamburgers and I'm not really going to be able to give you an empirical answer. Set the two of them in front of me and I'll pick the one of them because for whatever sum total of reasons, my brain clearly ranks it higher.

Bookwrack wrote:Ask me why I like pizza more than hamburgers...

Okay, why?

Perhaps where I "heard" the line about sales being equal was a GW rep when I was originally considering fantasy... hmmmmm.... I wonder if there's a connection

Actually, what you say is just how I feel, too- it doesn't make any sense why I like the one over the other, it just turned out that way. If anything, the opposite would make more sense.

I love the system that WHFB have over 40K. Don't get me wrong I like both gaming styles, but always found fantasy to be more challenging to the mind because of the way the units are placed, that characters have a role that affects the whole army and most of all MAGIC and of course the list goes on and on.

To me 40K doesn't have all these things...I see it as who has the most firepower in one turn (yes I know power/termi armour is great and all, but when you have to make 12 armour saves from rapid fire...those one's (termi's case), two's and three's are gonna pop up like there's no tomorrow)

In addition (not sure if I only share this opinion) in a game of fantasy, you can turn around the game to your favor later in the turns, but in 40K---once its starts going down hill......it really goes down hill quickly giving you no chance in turning the tide of battle to your favor.

The funny thing is I hear that exact same thing said about Fantasy.

Fantasy army as a whole looks very good when displayed.

But i find 40k units more individualized which is a plus.
Also seems easier to convert.

Bookwrack wrote

The funny thing is I hear that exact same thing said about Fantasy.

True I have heard the same also.

It just comes down to taste I guess, as others have mentioned its really hard to explain why one will go for one rather than the other.

LunaHound wrote

Fantasy army as a whole looks very good when displayed.
But i find 40k units more individualized which is a plus.
Also seems easier to convert.

Agree all the way

Bookwrack wrote:The funny thing is I hear that exact same thing said about Fantasy.

It's interesting that people can say the same things about both systems, right This has come up twice now.

I think in fantasy, you can gain a tactical victory (like overwhelming a flank) that's impossible for your opponent to come back from, or even have it be that way from the very beginning based on a poor/excellent setup. However, to me, at least I can feel like I could have masterminded my way to a victory had I done better... I didn't always feel this way in 40k.

I'm sure the feeling of "defeat before placing models" takes place in fantasy, too, but with all of the tactics involved I feel like I could win if I'm tricky enough...

Guns, tanks, spaceships and bigger explosions.

That's why I prefer any SF game over fantasy.

I've never liked fantasy - but I was reading Snorri Sturlisson's eddas in early high school (English translations) so after that, even the 'epic' LOTR paled in comparison.

In my area, all the powergamers play WHFB, so 40k is much more fun to play.

I'm play both equally (although concentrating on Fantasy at the moment) as there are plenty of armies in both systems that appeal to me.

In my experience of these threads (40k v Fant), the reason usually comes down to love of tanks and guns.

40k also provides swords so you miss out on nothing.

Why I don't play Fantasy:

1) Steam Tank
2) Wood Elves
3) New Skaven
4) The Local Fantasy Players

Why I don't play 40K much:

1) Primary Color Marines of the month.
2) The CSM Codex
3) Monolith
4) The Local 40K Players

Easy answers:

Why fantasy over 40k? Because fantasy weeds out the 14 year olds.

Far fewer "children" play fantasy, and for good reason. It's far more tactically involved, and it is not so simple as point and shoot.

40k more or less comes down to 2 things: my gun is bigger, and I happened to roll better than you this time.

Yes I'm aware that there is a little more to it, but that is the jist of it. If you shoot at the right thing and roll well, you win.

In fantasy combat is often the last thing to truly decide a match. Movement is by far the most important phase of the game followed closely by picking and choosing combats and being able to predict outcomes and plan ahead to adjust for when things go wrong.

When people ask about fantasy, I tell them it is like chess, only with 100 pawns and a 300 page rule book. It's complex, and takes alot of time to really get a feel for how to play it.

40k is just put models down and roll dice. Don't get me wrong, 40k has it's place, and I built an entire SM force just because I liked the models.

Also, I find that since fantasy is a more involved game, the players tend to actually spend more than 5 minutes on appearance. I've played perhaps 1 or 2 games against an army that wasn't at least entirely primed and in several stages of being painted.

Care to know how many grey and silver 40k bouts I've seen? More than not.

All this being said, I rarely get the chance to play much as I live about an hour away from my lgs and don't often have the time to drive out there for the day. In the end I like the fantasy models far more than 40k on the whole.

I prefer 40k over WHFB because its more tactical.

You actually need tactics in it to win. Things like focus fire, movement, target priority are all important.

WHFB has some of these things but because movement is so much more static, you lose a lot of it.

Having less complex, more streamline rules does not make the system easier. Also, I enjoy tabling all the WHFB players while they complain about how less tactical this game is.

WHFB you just put down models, move straight forward and then roll dice against whatever you hit. Its basically checkers. My unit jumps your unit, your unit jumps my unit ect ect.

Also comp is ridiculously prevalent in WHFB, if you don't want to play the way the TO or gaming group wants you to play, then you get labeled as a jerk. Where as in 40k, comp has pretty much been phased out. As people have realized its dumb to tell people how to play and that list building is part of the game.

^I too have been to Yes the Truth Hurts.

I like 40k better than fantasy simply because in 40k, everyone moves, everyone shoots, everyone fights.

In fantasy you have 5 guys that fight, and 15 bullet catchers in a unit generally. I cant stand that.

I dont mind either really , I started of in fantasy because thats what I was into as a child warriors and magic rather than guns.
For the first 3 years I didnt touch 40k , but then i thought what the hey and found it to be pretty good. i know what you mean though when I go down to my local work shop on a Saturday the kids are usually playing 40k , I dont think I have seen them play fantasy once. ( Okay shops not been open long since August)


With me though I was really interested in the back ground and this idea of an emperor and a vast endless universe riddled with war .Does fantasy gives us this depth or is it there just not as much on offer or advertised.? Is the the fantasy universe not as diverse and big or are we too lazy to create our own idea of it , with our own armies rather than oo look " ultramarines" how very original.

My ancient warfare urges are satisfied by playing historical ancients.

40K offers modelling and conversion opportunities which appeal strongly.

For the record, just because someones a kid doesn't make them less smart or tactical than you.

I have watched 12 year olds that can easily outplay seasoned veterans at these games. Age definitely helps in the maturity and skills of the game but its not the defining standard.

Also, a lot of kids are a bit more humble and they usually take victories and defeats better than a lot of the more seasoned veterans who (some of) act like they always deserve to win.

Just saying don't rip on the kids for their age unless you want me to rip on all the old gamers for being set in their ways because their old.

CptZach wrote:For the record, just because someones a kid doesn't make them less smart or tactical than you.

I have watched 12 year olds that can easily outplay seasoned veterans at these games. Age definitely helps in the maturity and skills of the game but its not the defining standard.

Also, a lot of kids are a bit more humble and they usually take victories and defeats better than a lot of the more seasoned veterans who (some of) act like they always deserve to win.

Just saying don't rip on the kids for their age unless you want me to rip on all the old gamers for being set in their ways because their old.

I am not having a go at the kids , I was just making an observation. Maybe its because one has started with 40k so their friends want to have 40k so they can play together I dont know . When I used to go to another store before this one opened there was a variety of gamers and games played by all types. Theres only one staff in this shop so far , I guess when it gets more staff and people there wil l be a more varied approach .

CptZach wrote:WHFB you just put down models, move straight forward and then roll dice against whatever you hit. Its basically checkers. My unit jumps your unit, your unit jumps my unit ect ect.

This.
...and

I had 3 fantasy armies at one point, Lizardmen, Ogres and Vampires. The thing that I disliked most about the game is the fact that you can have an entire game of moving your regiments around the board and not engage the enemy. Most of the games were games of keep away or just charge forward.

Anyway 40K is much more tactically satifying to me.

GG

How long does a typical ame of 40k usually last for you?
2-5 hours depending on size and the amount of bsing

Whats your favorite edition of Warhammer 40k?
I like 5th the best. I have played all the editions from late RT until now

Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?
no I play at the store or at events. I might buy a bit for a display board but that is it.

Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?
not "pre-Painted" but I could easy send an army off to a pro painter to get it done. for $500, I can start playing in a few weeks.

What 40k races do you buy or collect?
curently csm's and demons. used to have marines and squats and eldar and orks but they all were sold off at somepoint.

I used to play fantasy in 4th and a bit of 5th and even own a 6th ed rule book. I just don't have enough time to paint and play to systems. The lack of balance in WFB currently does sound fun either. I used to play chaos warriors, undead and goblins.

Just this,

WHFB was more popular within my area, Then it shifted to 40k and hasn't budged since. had to go with the flow to get a game or two.

Now I have moved and there is still a 40K bias.

I like WHFB but at the moment cannot spend great sums of time, money and effort in getting an army together and finding games.

How long does a typical ame of 40k usually last for you?
I don't play that often so when i do, we generally make an evening of it, (4-8 hours)

What’s your favourite edition of Warhammer 40k?
I like 5th , though I only converted from fantasy at the later end of the 4th

Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?
No, I make my own

Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?
Not a chance, modelling and painting the main reason I do this

What 40k races do you buy or collect?
See signature below, currently working on Imperial Guard

I prefer Fantasy, for most of the reason "aerethan" gave, but the recent figures that have been brought out by GW have turned me right off the game, so much so that I don't think I played a single game with the latest rule, and now they’re changing them again!!!!!!

40k Missions
Tanks
Guns

Shorter game time, ease of conversions. You can write your own fluff easily.

I get my fantasy kicks through D&D.

This whole thread`s actually been a whole nice discussion, no sarcasme (don`t get me wrong, that`s what happened last time).Im impressed
But enough gossip, i have my opinion to state: Some weeks ago, I played my wood elves against lizards, rolled complete all the game, but managed to squeeze out a tie. I got 3 Tree Singings each turn, blocked his entire right flank, march blocked with my eagle and harassed with my riders (before they died). I rolled 5 1`s twice, lost my riders to blowpipes, but managed to tie. So tactical and so much fun. That alone got me back to warhammer fantasy. So i think while 40k is cooler, more "gangfight" and freekin sci-fi(!), while WHFB is like chess, tactics and movement being the most important. And i love chess

40k = More relatable. I find much more stuff fits with 40k in my head.

Tanks, Snipers, Mechs, Heavy Bolters, Valkyries, APCs, and sqauds of mobile and versatile infantry.

Oh wait, that's Guard

Yeah but overall 40k>WHFB in my opinion.

sA

I prefer 40k because I don't like the Fantasy metagame. It focuses too much on magic, characters and deathstars. Some army books are, in my opinion, way too powerful (but that's a discussion for another time). Granted, there are definite power differences between codices in 40k, the disparity between IG and Necrons doesn't seem to approach the difference between Daemons and Ogres.

I like the kits for 40k better, as well. I really like conversion, but Fantasy definitely offers fewer interesting conversion opportunities than 40k does.

Mostly, though, I don't like how little freedom Fantasy offers in terms of what to collect. Armies tend to devolve into "buy 6 boxes of basic troops, as many heroes as possible, and then you're done." I know 40k armies can be the same way, but I guess conversion opportunities and differing wargear make things slightly better.*

*Full disclosure: I play Bretonnians, so take my complaints with a grain of salt.

Why?

- 40k doesn't require me to spend $2-5 per wound marker
- 40k gives more freedom to personalize armies
- 40k rules are cleaner and more sensible
- 40k missions are more than just killing stuff
- 40k armies are better-balanced
- my friends prefer to play 40k

*and*

- I have more fun playing 40k
____

LunaHound wrote:Fantasy army as a whole looks very good when displayed.

Yes, WFB armies are basically cockteases. Pretty to look at, but no play.
____

aerethan wrote:Why fantasy over 40k? Because fantasy weeds out the 14 year olds.

My playgroup has nobody under 25, and is held together by people in their 40s. Also, young teens are generally more a joy to play with and young adults are to play against.

Guns, bombs, s'plosions and sag.

aerethan wrote:
Far fewer "children" play fantasy, and for good reason. It's far more tactically involved, and it is not so simple as point and shoot.

40k more or less comes down to 2 things: my gun is bigger, and I happened to roll better than you this time.

Yes I'm aware that there is a little more to it, but that is the jist of it. If you shoot at the right thing and roll well, you win.

What a joke.

In 40k assault is actually the decisive way to win ground, and since there are actual objectives (which there never are in WHFB) it makes 40k the real tactical game.

40k is a better assault game than WHFB too, why?

Troops make a vital difference taking objectives in missions. In WHFB, Core choices are just obligatory and serve no in game purpose.

40k has dynamic missions, WHFB is always just a line up and charge game.

40k has disclosure, you know where you stand, and make decisions accordingly, WHFB success largely comes from taking and hiding the dirty secret rules until it's to late.

Augustus wrote:40k has disclosure, you know where you stand, and make decisions accordingly, WHFB success largely comes from taking and hiding the dirty secret rules until it's to late.

You had me until this part. I can't agree with this, as I have had some nasty surprises in 40K, just as in WFB.

GG

I started playing Fantasy but quickly found that far more people of my age play 40k. If it was a 50:50 split, I would definately play both. I don't think either are more fun to play, and both have cool models and fluff.

Two things I do prefer about 40k though
1. I find that you have more freedom with convertions and making up your own fluff.
2. IMO, GW gives 40k far more love than Fantasy. More marine armies come out every year than fanasy army books.

I prefer 40K because it's Space Fantasy background appeals to me more than WFB and it's even-more-obviously-Tolkien-derived background. That said, if I'm doing any painting/modeling in 2010, it'll probably be for a Tomb Kings army, simply because I paint to play and I love the Ushabti models enough that they may get me off my arse to fielding stuff again.

I do find the ranks and things in fantasy more restrictive than the 2" coherency plus deep strike pus reserves you can have in 40K

I play both, but I play alot more 40k because of time constraints

Hmmmm alot of well made points thus far, that for sure.
I never really put in my perspective however many if not all of my perspectives of why I like fantasy over 40k, has already been covered.

-I like the way a completed fantasy army looks over a completed 40k army.
-I feel like if I start off bad in 40k its extremely hard to pull out a win. Where as in Fantasy I have gone over half the game doing horrible, and can still pull out a tie or minor win.
-I feel fantasy is more tactical. This might also be because my 40k army is built to run forward and not much tactic wise.
-I generally like the fantasy fluff/lore better

I like the background and the models more than fantasy.

lord_blackfang wrote:In my area, all the powergamers play WHFB, so 40k is much more fun to play.

This.

I have a nice Lizardman army, but I have only used it twice. Since the people I would play against are just the most cheesy, beardy power gaming nerds I have met, they aren't even fully assembled.

The guys I play 40K with have no problem making a fun list instead of a hard one. Hell, one guy will play RAVENWING, so you know he isn't taking it seriously...

I love the background in 40k so much. 40k has so many story lines and I find myself more emotionaly invested in the story lines. Sword and board is not really appealing to me. I do prefer LoTR over WFB, because of the background.

As far as the game goes I feel that 40k is more fluid then WFB.

Cheers

I'm in this hobby mainly for the modelling and I feel WHFB limits me somewhat in that regard:
You'll have to pose your rank and file troops in such a way that they line up in one neat uniform block. (boooooring)
In 40k individual models can be more dramatically posed and get the attention they deserve. Plus 40k offers a wider variety in thematic flavours between armies.
Just look at the difference between Elves and Dark elves in WHFB compared to Eldar/Dark Eldar in 40k.

Playwise I don't really care for the sluggish pace of WHFB.
The nature of its close combat feels unnatural to me. seeing a large block of warriors slowly make it's way across the tabletop, crashing into an opposing block and then only rolling between six or eleven dice just feels like an anticlimax.
Close combat in 40k is as it should be: fast, furious, bloody and relentless (plus you get to roll bucketloads of dice).

I don't think WHFB is a bad game or less of a game than 40k, It's just not the game for me.
I'll play the occasional game of WHFB though, because only one other player in my local 25 man or so player group plays 40k.
Fantasy rules supreme at my FLG. (probably because of the large number of power players)

Yup, just my two cents

ATM I prefer fantasy to 40K, but I might switch back after seeing the Beastmen Army book for myself. (Or I might just buy some computer games.)

Reasons why:
No SPACE MARINES in fantasy. I used to play in a 40K league where the MEQ armies were so thick I had to practically beg to get to play against anything else. As one of the few non-MEQ players, it was treated as practically my duty to fight against the space marines by most of the other people in the club. So, so dull.

Real-world connection. Because the Warhammer fantasy world is inspired by real world history/mythology, players' creative energy has a direction. I find it much more rewarding playing against an actual Samurai army than I do playing against Tau with sashimono, just as I prefer actual nights in shining armour to Space Marines with Brettonian bits stuck on their helmets.

Fewer Fluff-Nazis. Again, because of the real-world connection, being an "expert" in the Warhammer Fantasy world requires having some real-world historical knowledge. As opposed to 40K, where some guy who has read every bit of print GW has ever published can confidently declare that women can't be Space Marines and therefore your entire army is "incorrect".

Movement matters.

Having to paint lots of expensive wound counters. Some people think this is Fantasy's weak point, but I think it's actually fantasy's strongest point. There's a certain macho-insecurity complex in 40K, where for most armies even the basic RaF soldier is made out to be a one-man army that can take on anything. Maybe it's because most armies are MEQ, but there seems to be a strong aversion in 40K to having any figures who are just cannon fodder, and who look it. Personally, I like how in Fantasy a sizeable chunk of most armies are shlubs or thugs, not Greek Gods the size of 4 brick ****houses with shoulders the size of Delaware and hand-held rocket launchers.

Buttlerthepug wrote:How long does a typical ame of 40k usually last for you?

3-4 hours.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Whats your favorite edition of Warhammer 40k?

2nd - When tanks were tanks and Jervis was less bland.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?

Yes.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?

For tanks and whatnot, yeah, probably. As long as the quality of the model itself doesn't decrease.

Buttlerthepug wrote: What 40k races do you buy or collect?

Ultramarines
Black Templars
Deathwatch
Alpha Legion
Iron Warriors
World Eaters
Word Bearers
Death Guard
Lost & The Damned
Necrons
Tyranids
Imperial Guard
Inquisition

Buttlerthepug wrote:I want to know why YOU prefer it over WHFB

I like the vague open-ended back story of 40K, and I love tanks. Especially WWI tanks.

Buttlerthepug wrote:what draws you into [40k] more than the other?

Not a fan of fantasy battles, most of the races don't interest me, and I much prefer how open-ended 40K is for fluff reasons. You can write just about anything into 40k.

JOHIRA wrote:
No SPACE MARINES in fantasy.

I can sympathise with that. It's hard to keep your enthousiasm when you have to play the same type of army over and over again.

JOHIRA wrote:
Real-world connection. Because the Warhammer fantasy world is inspired by real world history/mythology, players' creative energy has a direction.

I disagree. The 40k fluff has plenty of allusions to real world history and mythology, not to mention biblical lore. With a whole heap of references to various Sci-fi and Fantasy sources thrown in the mix I feel my creative energy has plenty of directions to choose from.
Don't get me wrong though. WHFB fluff and imagery is WAY better than the contrived swords & sorcery stuff other fantasy games have.
I love the way the Empire imagery is based upon real life late medieval/early rennaisance military like Landsknechte, but that's the only army in WHFB I can think of with a consistent real life historical feel about it.

JOHIRA wrote:
Fewer Fluff-Nazis. Again, because of the real-world connection, being an "expert" in the Warhammer Fantasy world requires having some real-world historical knowledge. As opposed to 40K, where some guy who has read every bit of print GW has ever published can confidently declare that women can't be Space Marines and therefore your entire army is "incorrect".

That's probably because people with an interest in real world historical warfare usually are into historical wargaming I guess.
40k has a rich, detailed and unique background story. A lot of players get sucked into 40k because of it and really care about it. Personally I think it deserves more than being denoted as 'fluff' as it has really come onto it's own over the years. The story of the Emperor of Mankind alone is more akin to a mythical saga than some background filler for plastic space soldiers.

JOHIRA wrote:
Movement matters.

Sure, 'cause in 40k those objective markers come to you all by themselves.
WHFB takes the movement phase to a whole other level though, where players meticulously move big blocks of infantery by millimeters to carefully allign them for a charge. I've seen it many times and it makes my skin crawl everytime. I respect the strategic and tactical thinking that goes in it but it's just too fiddly and contrived for my taste.

JOHIRA wrote:
Having to paint lots of expensive wound counters. Some people think this is Fantasy's weak point, but I think it's actually fantasy's strongest point. There's a certain macho-insecurity complex in 40K, where for most armies even the basic RaF soldier is made out to be a one-man army that can take on anything. Maybe it's because most armies are MEQ, but there seems to be a strong aversion in 40K to having any figures who are just cannon fodder, and who look it. Personally, I like how in Fantasy a sizeable chunk of most armies are shlubs or thugs, not Greek Gods the size of 4 brick ****houses with shoulders the size of Delaware and hand-held rocket launchers.

Not every groundtroop in 40k is a 7 foot tall superhuman clad in powerarmour. Whenever I see a IG army I just want to point at the units in front and yell:"dead men walking!". I won't though 'cause I'm not a total dick. Well, maybe some lawnmoyer noises when facing an Ork horde. And have you ever looked at the utter clueless expression on a Tau face? You just want to cuddle the thing and tell it everything's going to be all right, but you damn well know it's not.
Could the lack of Psychology rules makes 40k troops look more tenacious than they really are?

aerethan wrote:Easy answers:

Why fantasy over 40k? Because fantasy weeds out the 14 year olds.

Far fewer "children" play fantasy, and for good reason. It's far more tactically involved, and it is not so simple as point and shoot.

40k more or less comes down to 2 things: my gun is bigger, and I happened to roll better than you this time.

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've seen far too many 1 tree 2 hill fatasy boards that the supposed adults have that just smash into each other, that any 10 year old can do.

And having seen the last couple fantasy books.....Fantasy has turned far more into my gun(or magic) is bigger than yours and I roll better.

Belathane wrote:I disagree. The 40k fluff has plenty of allusions to real world history and mythology, not to mention biblical lore.

Yeah, "allusions". Like how the black marines allude to the Teutonic Cross on their heraldry, or how the red marines allude to vampires. Or how the space elfs have craftworlds that almost allude to Celtic holidays.

I'm not saying that the 40K fluff is bad, mind. It's quite good in it's own way and I'm a fan. But a lot of its connection to real-world stuff is superficial. "We named the head guy for Chaos after a demon in Revelations! Aren't we edgy?" It just doesn't click the same way fantasy does for me. Now naturally anyone can play Fantasy Battles just as superficially, like how in previous editions the Lizardmen were just a bunch of puns. But if someone really wants to build in that historical connection, it's far more possible in Fantasy than 40K IMHO, because Fantasy actually takes place in an imaginary history.

40k has a rich, detailed and unique background story. A lot of players get sucked into 40k because of it and really care about it.

I've got no problem with people who care about the fluff. It's people who have decided they're experts in it and that everyone else has to model and paint to their interpretation of it that chafe me. And I've definitely seen that happen more for 40K fluff than Fantasy.

Manchu wrote:I don't like the ranked units of WHFB. I also don't like the focus on lords/heroes in that game. Finally, I like 40k's models and fluff a lot better than Fantasy's.

This sums it up perfectly for me.

I play 40K because of the tanks. That is the only reason. Otherwise I'd be into Fantasy because the core rule set is just so much better. Army book vs army book is another story however.

Ive, done a thread on this a while back. Why not take a look:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/265114.page (failed link was edit)

I think its more popular because the machine guns and tanks appeal to people more, especially younger ones. If you look at a kid's games console games, the likelyhood is that they'll have more shoot 'em up games (4OK) than ones where you are armed with sword and shield and go kill people of whatever (WHFB).

I like the rules of WHFB better however, it just does it for me more than 40K. I like them the same, but 40K is obviously more popular. Look at my 2 threads: what would you change in your army's book? Ive done one for WHFB and one for 40K, ATM the 40K one has 125 answers, and the hot status, while the WHFB one has a measly 37. Proof.

I like that it's easier to make unique looking infantry and characters in 40k than in Fantasy. You can use Fantasy bits on your 40k figures but the reverse is rather difficult to pull off and still have it match the fantasy theme. I also dislike how needing to rank up my figures in Fantasy prevents a lot of interesting poses.

Wouldn't go so far as to say I like 1 system more than the other, they both offer a different gaming experience. The things I like about 40K over WFB:

-More free form: your units aren't stuck on rails so if you make a minor mistake in deployment or get baited by another unit it doesn't cost you the usefulness of the unit for most of the game

-Less random: 40K rolls larger dice pools for attacks/shots meaning averages usually bear out, but in Fantasy so few dice are generally rolled in combat that small anomalies can lose you the combat and often the game

-Ridiculous magic items: In games of 40K it's pretty rare to see an "I win the game" piece of gear being toted by a model, but in WFB it's pretty easy to stumble across a magic item that just wrecks your team with nothing to be done about it REF: Black Tongue in WoC vs. VC, RoH in DE vs. any magic heavy list.

-Games aren't generally won before the 1st turn: Lets face it, if two players have the same skill level, you can usually look at a WFB game and how the armies are deployed and see what's going to happen short of a dice rolling anomaly. This is the biggest negative point for me as in 40K even an overmatched army if well-played can eek out a draw or possibly a victory. Far too often in WFB it simply isn't happening.


I still wouldn't say I prefer 40K over fantasy, they both have their unique qualities they bring to the table. One feature I really enjoy about WFB over 40K is the handling of Magic V. Psychic powers. Even if you don't plan ahead for magic you get 2 dice for showing up so you can maybe block something. If you don't have/bring anti-psychic you just have to watch your opponent doing ridiculous crap all game.

Buttlerthepug wrote:This has been bugging me for a while now... I notice it alot in the Dakka Poles...

Polish people on Dakka bug you?

Why do I prefer 40K?

For a few reasons.

1.) 40K is FAR more balanced than Fantasy, you can pick up any army and have a reasonable chance of success against a like skilled opponent. In fantasy, the Armies are way out of balance, anyone who argues that point come bring your tier 3 list against my tier 1 list and let's see who winds 90% of the time. The simple fact that their is a tier system shows the lack of balance in the game.

2.) In my opinion, the background in 40K is SO much more engaging. Fantasy is just that, a very typical Fantasy setting. 40K, while borrowing heavily from a lot of sources, is in its entirety something unique and really very awesome. Look at the multitudes of fan sites about just the fluff for 40K, they vastly outnumber the same for Fantasy because their is so much more to it.

3.) 40K is, in most cases, less about uber characters and, super magic and deathstar units than Fantasy is. In competitive Fnatasy you need these over the top, super units or crushing magic, or, ironically enough, super shooty armies to win. 40K is more about using the units you have effectively, and troops are vastly more important in 40K.

4.) 40K has more variety of ways to play, from city fight, to apoc, to planetstrike to all kinds of different scenarios where Fantasy is ALWAYS line up, charge and fight.

5.) Fantasy is more a game of luck. Why? The all important leadership test (which some armies ignore!). 2D6 that can win or lose the game. I have outplayed people in Fantasy, then seen it all fall apart on the last turn because of one failed leadership test. That is silly, and far too random. That mechanic of the game needs changing, something more like Warhammer ancients would vastly improve Fantasy, IMO.

Now in regards to some of the ways people stereotype the two games:

1.)40K has more kids, or less mature players: I do see more young people playing 40K, but I see just as many adults playing it, if not more, than Fantasy. I have lived in quite a few cities with large gaming communities and the 40K scene has always been bigger, with more people to play and just as many nice people as douche bags as Fantasy did. Preferring Fantasy does not automatically make someone more mature, it is simply a preference.

2.) Fantasy requires more thought. bs. They are apples and oranges. There is a reason the best players consistently win in 40K and that is because they are smart and skilled. Fantasy is more a game of power units and strategy, you need to have a plan before the game starts and execute it. Once your army is set up, that is pretty much it, you can't make any drastic changes. 40K is a game of tactics and reacting to changing situations. 40K has more fluidity and therefore requires a different type of skill. The whole chess to checkers comparison is so stupid. Both games require a lot of skill to win at, they are just different skill sets.

I love both games, but for me, 40K is the better system.

Haha, the questions I had in the OP were examples of threads from the Dakka Poles.. so no need to answer them as a few of you have >.< Theres alot of good points in here and although I dont 100% agree with all of them, its just my opinion.

JOHIRA wrote:

Belathane wrote:I disagree. The 40k fluff has plenty of allusions to real world history and mythology, not to mention biblical lore.

Yeah, "allusions". Like how the black marines allude to the Teutonic Cross on their heraldry, or how the red marines allude to vampires. Or how the space elfs have craftworlds that almost allude to Celtic holidays.

I feel both Fantasy and 40k allude mostly to the same stuff, historical or otherwise. Space Wolves IMHO allude more to vikings than Dwarfs do.

I'm not saying that the 40K fluff is bad, mind. It's quite good in it's own way and I'm a fan. But a lot of its connection to real-world stuff is superficial. "We named the head guy for Chaos after a demon in Revelations! Aren't we edgy?" It just doesn't click the same way fantasy does for me. Now naturally anyone can play Fantasy Battles just as superficially, like how in previous editions the Lizardmen were just a bunch of puns. But if someone really wants to build in that historical connection, it's far more possible in Fantasy than 40K IMHO, because Fantasy actually takes place in an imaginary history.

The Fantasy world is not as a 'history', it's a theme. Sure you can bolt on some real life historical references to the theme, but essentialy they're just as superficial in an fantasy setting as a Sci-fi one. The overall theme is a mishmash of historical time periods, mythology and other cultural references blended into a pastiche. It's a history salad with mythology croutons so to speak.

But that's probably not what were alluding to in your comment so I'm getting off topic here.

There's something to be said for wanting to create a warhammer army with a authentic historical look and WHFB is probably the only fantasy setting where it would actually fit in with the overall theme. A samurai army would look right in it's place there.

40k has a rich, detailed and unique background story. A lot of players get sucked into 40k because of it and really care about it.

I've got no problem with people who care about the fluff. It's people who have decided they're experts in it and that everyone else has to model and paint to their interpretation of it that chafe me. And I've definitely seen that happen more for 40K fluff than Fantasy.

I never had the misfortune of dealing with people like that. I can't imagine any players around would put up with that kind of attitude.
Sorry to hear you have to endure that crap.

May your coming battles be victorious and your future free of fluff nazis!

I play 40K exclusivly because I don't know enough about Fantasy to form an intelligent comparison, and I started with 40K, so there I stay.

Also with my hoarding/collecting tendencies I simply cannot afford to play a second game system.

Fluff Nazis can be annoying, especially considering the fluff changes all the time. I think the reason you see more of that in 40K is because it covers such a broader scope than Fantasy. Fantasy has pretty set armies whereas 40K has a nearly infinite amount of variability. You can make your army really customized because the setting is so big it allows for nearly anything to be possible.

Basically my distaste for WHFB stems from the fact that once you've painted the front rank, painting the rest of the formation is just a wasted effort.

Also, we have lasers *pew pew*.

Painting WHFB units is literally the bane of my existence.

Until Warriors of Chaos came into my life.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Basically my distaste for WHFB stems from the fact that once you've painted the front rank, painting the rest of the formation is just a wasted effort.

Also, we have lasers *pew pew*.

Hmmmm, I dont necessarily agree with this...

1. The unit will just look bad... a front rank painted nicely followed by grey? No thanks
2. This could be said just as well for 40k? Why not paint a the upgrades and a few marines (or what ever army) and as they die you can take out the greys? I undestand this is not 100% correct with the rules but niether is your statement. What if my Chaos Champion dies? All of a sudden there is a grey in my front rank!

Thats just my opinion though, cause no unit is going to look better without paint or partially painted regardless of your game system.

Oh and we got tons of magic that makes up a large variety of "laser" type attacks... And our bolt throwers (Fantasy Laser?!?!?!) actually go through stuff :O Or at least thats how I look at it haha!

Basically, almost 3/4 of the unit is never going to be seen let alone used. They are just 'extra lives' for the front rank. (not rules accurate, but that's how it works)

In 40k, each and every unit is spread out. An individual. Or at least much more so than in a fantasy formation.

And of course, there is the fact that terrain and the tabletop play a far greater role in the gameplay and effects.

How long does a typical game of 40k usually last for you?
- 3-4 hours.

Whats your favorite edition of Warhammer 40k?\
- I've seen the tail end of 3rd, all of 4th and 5th so far. I give it to 5th.

Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?
-Probably not.

Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?
-No shot, and I barely paint.

What 40k races do you buy or collect?
- I own Dark Eldar, Space Wolves (13 Company), Chaos(Slaanesh/Undividied/Lost And The Damned).

I intend on playing all three, as I don't see myself starting a new race beyond them.

I've never played Fantasy, but I've seen enough games and read the rules to understand how it plays out. I choose 40k over WHFB because Skirmish combat appeals to me over Army battles. I think that's mainly it. Trying to represent hundreds of models on a little table has always felt silly to me, and even though I like fantasy strategy games - GWS has always had a sort of British Flavour to their take on Knights and Sorcery. Growing up with a more Japanese cultured background in fantasy, WHFB doesn't cut it.

I suspect (and have heard) that the older hero hammer editions would have sated my need for high fantasy.

But as for sci-fi, 40k pulls off their universe pretty well. The rules are getting better and the last 4 codex's have been very strongly balanced.

Conclusion : 40k Is on a smaller scale and they don't suffer from lack of "high fantasy".

Edit - One strike against 40k though, however is the point raised above. Fluff Nazi's are much, much worse than in WHFB.

@ Emperors Faithful: Imo, thats only partially correct... yes most of the models wont be seen fully however you will always see the models between grey and painted. Take a look at this unit... from the controlling players view you see the back... so infact from your opinion you should actually paint the back and front? Since you pull from the back you are constantly seeing the backs of more models and really all of them should be painted. But further more, your looking diagnally downwards from above. If you had the sight of the models on the table I would 100% agree with you, however you will most of the time be able to see more than the front rank.

Again, this is just my opinion so yeah. I respect yours all the same and hope you do too! You have some good points, 40k models definitely can have their entire detail seen but I dont believe that you should only paint the front rank because "thats all you ever see"



EDIT: Im going to just edit the OP so people dont keep answering the Dakka Poles questions since they were just examples lol >.<

Nobody wants to paly against my daemons in fantasy (Though i have yet to play a game with them), so i have to play them in 40k.

@Buttlerthepug: A fully painted anything definitely looks better than a mass of grey. However, I would still think that it 'shows' more on a 40k unit. That's just me though.

Another thing that's never made sense to me is how the people on the front rank (Champion/Musician/Banner Bearer) always survive when the rest of the unit is dying in droves. In 40k we have wound allocation so that there is at least a fair chance for the specialised guys to die as quickly as any other grunt.

enmitee wrote:Nobody wants to paly against my daemons in fantasy (Though i have yet to play a game with them), so i have to play them in 40k.

I think thats something people have to get used to and will only do so by playing daemons more often... my friend whom I play almost every week tended to stomp me every time with daemons and I used to hate it and get infurated and what not but overall Im glad. Every game had its twists, funny moments, and was over all fun. I also vary rarely get angry with stuff while playing (upset and let down sure... such as failing 3 terror tests in a row when trying to charge a blood thirster which costed me a game >.< ) and you get used to it over time and even learn certain ways to get around stuff and even draw! I can definitely understand where your comming from as there are alot of people that just wont play them which isnt fair to the daemon player imo... If it means anything, I would play you haha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Emperors Faithful: Yeah I used to wonder that too actually. Well firstly, you CAN kill the unit Champion so that settles that. But I agree the other two always confused me. I guess the way I see it is in 40k, all the specail weapon guys are trained to use special weapons and stuff... where as the musician and standard bearer, even if the original two people holding the horn/drums or banner die, the people behind them can pick it up. It doesnt require training to blow a horn, beat some drums, or carry a flag. It also says in the main rule book that the people whom and picked from the unit to for go such tasks and the strongest and toughest in the unit as to say they are more than willing to fight with their normal profile even while carrying the additional stuff (and they are better/able to stay alive long in the combat! At least thats another way to see it) But true enough, I used to wonder the same thing!

Well, it makes sense I guess.

Why?
My answer: Bolters, Redeemers, Space Wolves AAAAAND chainswords !

40k > Fantasy

I've collected armies and both and 40k just sits better with me because...
a) More people at my FLGS play 40k, giving me more opponents.
b) For a 40k army i generally have to buy less models, and spend less money.
c) I was going to play fantasy because of new skaven coming out soon(at the time), but the day i came into the store after a 3 year break i was told a 40k campaign was starting next week (go figure)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

enmitee wrote:Nobody wants to paly against my daemons in fantasy (Though i have yet to play a game with them), so i have to play them in 40k.

I hate people like that, there is this one guy at my FLGS...
"hey do you fancy a game?"
"yea sure, what are you using?"
"blah blah blah"
"oh actually look at the time... i don't think i can play a game afterall..."

i don't really enjoy the history based models of fantasy and have never tried it.

I do enjoy 40k though and the models are more for me.

@butler

Lol, yeah there are occasional good souls who'd play for the fun of it.

@dayve

I've never seen anyone use that excuse for real without joking about it.

daemon wrote:i don't really enjoy the history based models of fantasy and have never tried it.

Yeah, Empire models look so lame! I know some people dig it but, cod pieces, feathers, pantaloons and what not? Give me a break, that is so lame. I know that is just an opinion, but I can't stand that look. WoC on the other hand, now those guys look awesome.

If Imperial Guardsmen could have pantaloons, I would totally buy them.

enmitee wrote:Nobody wants to paly against my daemons in fantasy (Though i have yet to play a game with them), so i have to play them in 40k.

It always amazes me when people wont play against someone based on Army Comp. or choice... Even if they've got a reasonably balanced force it always smacks of power gaming to me... If people are so desperate to win at any cost that they'll not play against an army theirs isn't designed to beat then they're not really the kind of people I want to play against...

My local gaming group used to have that problem with second edition Space Wolves...

The only time I'll ever refuse a game is when confronted by an unpainted, undercoated army designed solely to trounce every opponent... If your going to have the most unbalanced lethal force you can muster from your army book the least you can do is put a tiny bit of effort in... That's not to bash on people who field unpainted models, I'm an incredibly slow painter and I know it takes time, you just get sick of seeing the same kids come in week after week with ever more powerful armies featuring grey plastic figures and enough blu-tack to sink a small space ship...

Anyway, on topic:

Reasons I prefer 40K over Fantasy Battle...

1: Pose - I'm a modeller/painter primarily and a gamer second... Block regiments just dont allow much in the way of dynamic posing... Well not if you want the thing to rank up anyway...

2: Rank & File - I'm a big fan of troop heavy armies - I'd rather have another 10 man squad than a single special character, all the fantasy battle armies I've ever played/painted have had huge (30 to 100+ depending on race) blocks of troops, on a big table this is fine, on a small table the foot print of my units tend to restrict my movement options - a 20 or 30 man sqad in 40K just doesn't have this problem - I can still field 100's of troopers and have them nicely positioned in amongst the terrain insteadof trying to find a large enough path through it...

3. Background - Post apocalyptic "dark" sci-fi has always appealed to me, long before I had even heard of GW of 40K my favourite movies were Blade Runner, The Aliens franchise and Mad Max 2... All of which fit really nicely into the 40K universe...

I collect both, I've played both and I really enjoy both games BUT in the end from a modellers point of view I prefer 40K... That being said I was reading a post on here a while back about ignoring bases and the need for removing models and just using wound counters thus negating the need to rank up square bases which has got me very enthused about a couple of Fantasy projects...

Models and fluffwise I prefer 40k, but i'd rather have a game of fantasy, I just find it more satisfying. However a large part of this is based on the fact that when i play fantasy i have a range of different races to play against wheras when i play 40k I am almost always playing against marines as player diversity is very low for 40k in my area(which gets really dull after a while)

I prefer 40k because it's better than Fantasy! NYAH!

All jokes aside, I think it's just because I've grown tired of the high fantasy setting in general. I still like it, but that's all I ever knew growing up. I've never branched off into sci-fi games or anything like that, so 40k was kind of new and exciting for me.

I really don't want to get into which one is written better...I find the 40k fluff more appealing, even though it's basically every single good sci-fi setting all rolled into one. Fantasy is kind of the same, generic Tolkien-esque high fantasy with a couple of new things mixed in, but since I'm so bored of fantasy in general it doesn't bother me as much with 40k. Ruleswise, both games have huge problems with them.

The only real reason I haven't gotten into Fantasy as well is because of money. I've already spent a lot on 40k, and I would like to get into Fantasy too, but armies are expensive, and it's hard to convince myself to spend that much on a new game when I could use all that cash to buy a second/third army for 40k and use it more.

Ppl can also relate to 40k easier than Fantasy which might explain why its preferred. A lot of the existing 40k technology are derived from modern equivalent of things that exists, and i think that helps perk player's interest.

I prefer the sci fi look, and fluff of 40k. I also like the skirmisher movment style of 40k to the rank up movents of WHFB.

40k better than WFB

I dislike movement trays and moving the blasted things.

I mean really, really, really dislike movement trays and moving the effing things.

The WFB movement phase is a giant pain in the tuckus.

The WFB magic phase isn't much better, in fact, it's worse.



take care

I think 40k is simple and faster, thats why I like it compared to Fantasy.

I prefer 40k over fantasy.I like the fluffs,the teams and game play more den fantasy.

Hi ButtlerthePug,

Here is why I think I like 40K better. Guns beat swords.

I love swashbuckling films, swords and sorcery, and such. But one of the ingenious things about 40K is that is was Fantasy in a Sci-Fi setting. At least, when it first came out. Squats, Slann, Ork, Eldar, and the Chaos! I was really into Chaos.

How would my foul sorceries do pitted against a squad of space marines? Could daemons prevail in the age of starships, bolters, and super-soldiers?

I've loved 40K ever since then, even though it's changed a lot towards more sci-fi than sci-fantasy. But many of the changes have been good. I've given up the pastels and pleasures of Slaanesh to seek the monastic life of the ecclesiarchy. What GW has done with the imagery and emotions that the middle ages church and crusades evoke is almost as astonishing as what they originally did with elves and squats.

One other thing, I think some people find the 'every model counts as a warrior' scale of 40K appealing. Especially in the west we are taught about our independance and the value of each human being. Fantasy abstracts that a little, you can empathize with a character but not a rank and file trooper, that get pulled off the back ranks like they don't even matter, ha ha

Well, that's why I like 40K better

--- Frankie

More local players. That's the only reason, I'm usually a fantasy guy fluff-wise.

Augustus wrote:40k Missions
Tanks
Guns

QFT

Also...Bigger Tanks and Guns...

I'm simply not interested in the fantasy fluff or models. Not saying that that might not change some day, but I'd be as likely to play LOtR as WFB. It's really not a question of rules or gameplay for me.

40k on the other hand really appeals to me in it's fluff, and in the models, especially IG.

nintendoeats wrote:

Augustus wrote:40k Missions
Tanks
Guns

QFT

Also...Bigger Tanks and Guns...

Indeed!

Where's the WHFB Apocalypse?

Right, no gots!

They have rules for WHFB Legendary battles. It was covered in multiple white dwarfs and they have the rules for it online

Right here, in fact.

Optional rules online don't count.

Answer me these WHFB:









With this?

Fail

STOMPA=AWESOME!!!

Indeed, when it comes to large kits Fantasy just can't compete.

I started in fantasy in 5th, and played it for many years, through 6th and into 7th. I love my Fantasy Armies, and I'm hoping that 8th will reinvigorate my enjoyment of the game. Right now I've stopped playing, because even when I'm winning, the game play is not much fun.

My ongoing frustrations with the game are these:

1. Movement Rules. (Especially charging)
- Fractions of an inch become way too important
-Everyone measures wheels differently (resulting in much different total moves)
-There is no way to send more troops in to back up troops from another unit in a fight, if all frontage is taken
-Also, troops can never engage a model out of their charge arc, even if it's a single guy, 1" away from a unit of 20 frenzied, blood-crazed warriors.
-The game also seems like a it's a game of tactical movement, but the movement rules are so rigid and the size of board so small for units on this scale, that effectively, there is not much possibility of redeploying or reacting to your opponent. You must plan and deploy correctly, or you're toast. I like a game that allows me to adapt to the situation as it unfolds.
(By contrast, in 40k, though I am at times frustrated with things like vehicle movement, the game is very fluid, though movement is still CRUCIAL thanks to the limited ranges of the most effective weapons and the importance of claiming objectives. Movement is just as important, but fiddling with blocks of guys and turn-arcs isn't.)

2. No Counter-charge option. This is probably the biggest dislike I have for the current game. Such a huge benefit is gained from charging, that I find the game often goes to the army that can wait the longest to pull off a charge, while the army that tries to get to grips risks over-extending itself. It seems to punish players who want to get in there and fight the battle. It also just rubs my "Suspension of disbeliefometer" the wrong way, as it doesn't make sense that unit of say, cav, would just stand there on their horses and get charged by the opposing cav....

3. The Only Mission in the Rulebook is Pitched Battle

4. The importance of characters and magic. I want these elements to support my army-scale game of fantasy battles, not dominate it. Unfortunately, I feel like the latest books are taking us right back to 5th ed "Herohammer".

5. The unrealistic effects of weapons - Greatswords were used to break the weapons of pikemen, not to hack through armor, chariots weren't used to crash into infantry formations, longbows were shot in great clouds of arrows, why can only one rank fire? By contrast, in 40k a weapon generally does what I feel it should - a missile launcher blows holes in tanks, a flame thrower crisps guys, and a machine gun shoots guys way across the table.

That's a whole wall of text, but I feel strongly about this is as I finished painting my Khorne army and got really excited to play my Lizardmen with the new book, only to just box both armies and put them back in the closet after playing several games (win and lose) with each.

By contrast, my friend and I are going to be starting up playing Warmaster, and I think this game is going to scratch my fantasy itch whilst avoiding the annoyances of WHFB. In fact, I was amazed when reading it, that WHFB has not adopted much of the game play, as it seems like a much more strategic game - with resource management in the form of orders, many more tactical movement options, more room to maneuver, the ability to back up units in combat by pouring more infantry in behind them, simultaneous combat, and lots more that has me thinking it will actually be fun to play, whereas fantasy feels like a chore.

Finally, from a modelling and painting standpoint, 40k is much more rewarding personally. Their is more individuality to the models, and there is more of a chance to appreciate them on the table top in a dispersed formation.

Finally, a game of 40k, with the rules for scoring, random game length, seize the initiative, reserves, etc., offers much more of a strategic game, with balancing risks, advantages, and probabilities, whereas Fantasy is so very static that a lot of times (barring freak dice rolls) game outcomes can be predicted from turn 1 based on the lists and deployment. 40k is much more dynamic, and involves making more decisions at each step of the game. Saying that it's all "rolling dice" disregards the strategy behind playing the odds. And fantasy is just as much of a crap shoot - no matter how well played the game is, a failed break test on a critical unit can practically end the game, whereas I very rarely have seen the demise of any 1 unit in 40k decide the game.

I'm not getting my hopes up for 8th, but if they can reboot Fantasy in a similar fashion to the reboot of 40k in 5th, I'll try it again.

Hmmm, I will agree Fantasy doesnt have all the huge models that 40k does, with the few exceptions of the FW stuff, so you got me there. I have long wanted a apacolypse style book for fantasy, hopefully this will change with the new stuff FW plans to be doing with fantasy!

Because it isn't about the player using the army correctly,its about the army and how bent it is

Farmer wrote:Because it isn't about the player using the army correctly,its about the army and how bent it is

QFT, though I am a big fan of Fantasy as well.

I prefer sci-fi to fantasy...thats it.

Big vechiles, big guns. Good lore that doesn't depend on just one hero saving the planet. and its not just 12 races its around 15134.

I like both game systems equaly and i play both of them, even thou there is the phalic increaser tanks in 40k (cough cough shadow sword)