I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish


Now
Why is it that the sci fi variant is played by so many more people (and is omnipresent in so much media) compared to the fantasy variant?

Let me know your thoughts
thanks
Austin

Why is Coca Cola Classic so much more popular than Sprite?

The setting, simple as that. It is Warhammer Fantasy + Sci Fi, dialed up to 11.

Fantasy involves having to shove big blocks of infantry across barren tables filled with one or two rocks. The tactics are interesting but its not as exciting as 40k. In 40k you get to move smaller blobs of infantry, tanks, planes and huge walkers in a much more populated board.

I think another factor is that many people are overexposed to fantasy settings while whatever 40k is is something newish. Besides, who would want a block of state troops when you could have a Baneblade?

Part of it is that 40K is a much more distinctive setting.

But it's also got Space Marines. Fantasy doesn't have anything that so perfectly plays to the strengths of GW's type of miniature wargaming.

Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

For me the reason was 2nd Edition 40K was retailed at £40 where as the fantasy boxed set at the time (bretonnia & lizard men) was sold at £50.

I went with my parents to my local hobby store and told them I didn't mind which one they bought me for christmas. Guess they went for the cheaper one.

I grew up with 40k and Necromunda as a result, but I devoured every fantasy article in White Dwarf all the same. I bought Fantasy minatures along the way, but never had anything close to a force until I bought Battle For Skull Pass years later (at university). Still, I tried playing a few games with my brother using the set and it didn't seem as fun.

The minatures are great, but fighting in fields holds no fun for me.

I love playing Warhammer Quest on my iPad. I really hope they give it a rerelease like they did with Space Hulk. I would 100% but that, and it would give me a chance to blow the dust of all my warhammer minis.

I just started playing WFB. Its a super cool game but no where near as dynamic as 40K. Movement is really static and kind of boring. To me that's what I dislike the most about WFB. Also terrain is sparse because of how movement works. That's is a downside to me.
From the 40k guys I know about a third of them like WFB more. Its just harder to get a game for them.

 changerofways wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

40k didn't define star wars in any way, shape, or form. Unless George Lucas could see the future.

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

I don't mean to start an argument, but let's have an argument!

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish

Before you answer, set aside your sweeping generalisations!

Here are my sweeping generalisations. They are the only sweeping generalisations that are allowed.

3 reasons that Fantasy wasn't picked up in our area:

1.) Cost of playing - Initial buy in is high, even moreso than 40k
2.) Block movement is VERY uninspiring to most
3.) The idea that whole blocks of infantry are basically wound markers for the 1-2 people that matter in a squad (also partially a problem in 40k, but not as grand of an issue).

The reason for 40k's relative popularity is the result of purposeful policies by GW.

40k, as mentioned, is usually cheaper to start. 40k has had a few great video games made from it, including the long-running DoW 1 series, while WHFB has had just a couple of stinkers over the years. 40k has gotten most of the newer, better models, while WHFB is stuck with older plastics and more finecasts of old, worse models. 40k has a lot more literature of the black library devoted to it - just the Horus Heresy series probably has more books in it than all of the stuff they wrote for WHFB. WHFB has had, what, two army books come out in the past few months, while 40k has been going absolutely gangbusters with new codices, new rules expansions, and supplements galore.

GW has just been paying a lot more attention to 40k these last 10 years or so, and it shows. Especially to people just starting out.

Pfffttt another one of these.......

Who really knows why it is more or less popular? Fantasy is equally as popular as 40k in my area but in some places 40K is more popular and in others Fantasy is. I play both and both are equally as fun but I kind of like Fantasy better.

If you live in an area that 40k is the most popular it is because people like the sci-fi genre better and the models and the ruleset better. That isn't to say that it is any better or worse than Fantasy though, some people just prefer that over the other.

It's the setting, mainly.

I like the idea of the WH Fantasy world, and I often incorporate elements of it into other D&D-like games, but the setting of 40K really stands out on its own, which is ironic, considering that its a pastiche of a thousand other sources.

But, really, Fantasy's world of "it's D&D, but dirty" just doesn't hold a candle to "it's GrimDark. Deal with it." of 40K.

I've been playing games in and out of game stores for nearly 20 years. I've seen game stores that sell Fantasy and 40k, along with Yugio, Hero Clix, Star Wars CCG, Magic the Gathering, and Pokemon.

In those nearly 20 years, I've seen all of the above played at least once or twice, often in big tournaments.

Never once have I seen 2 people play Warhammer Fantasy in a game store. Not a singe time.

I have no idea why. The models look cool, just like 40k IMHO. I'm not crazy about the setting (or learning another fething game), so I've never been tempted to pick it up. I just haven't met anyone that plays it (and admits to it). Weird anomaly, I guess.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Fantasy involves having to shove big blocks of infantry across barren tables filled with one or two rocks. The tactics are interesting but its not as exciting as 40k. In 40k you get to move smaller blobs of infantry, tanks, planes and huge walkers in a much more populated board.

I think another factor is that many people are overexposed to fantasy settings while whatever 40k is is something newish. Besides, who would want a block of state troops when you could have a Baneblade?

This +1

As an avid player of both games I can tell you that the initial cost of a WFB army is HUGE compared to a relatively small amount of marines.

The tactics are not quite as in depth as 40k and ,like it has been said before, there is not allot of variety.

Although the shinning jewel IMHO of WFB is working the magic phase. Games are won and lost very easily if you have a GREAT or horrible magic phase.

I would say its simply because WHFB has more competition than 40k.

KoW , AoA , are arguably better rule sets.
And lots of companies make fantasy minatures .

So those wanting fantasy battle games can get them without having to buy WHFB.(And so are not known to 40k players/GW .)

However, 40k is the only game of fantasy in space battle game with 28mm minatures.And most common fiction nowadays tends to be sci fi.

osirisx69 wrote:
[quote=TheCustomLime 585172 6639310 db8c639d8469883ae1ddc9b3164737bd.jpg

The tactics are not quite as in depth as 40k and ,like it has been said before, there is not allot of variety.

Although the shinning jewel IMHO of WFB is working the magic phase. Games are won and lost very easily if you have a GREAT or horrible magic phase.

Have you played 40k? Everyone can see 360degrees, there is no flank, or setting up a charge, or tactical moving... What tactics are you talking about?

Every game of 40k I have ever played (31 games in the last 3 years) this is what happens: move forward. Move forward. Shoot. Shoot. Charge. Somebody wins. Its usually the guy who brings the uber list.

Fantasy requires you to paint many more grunts to have a playable army than 40k does. It's also got a broader variety of viable army builds and it's a little more complicated to actually play.

 aapch45 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
[quote=TheCustomLime 585172 6639310 db8c639d8469883ae1ddc9b3164737bd.jpg

The tactics are not quite as in depth as 40k and ,like it has been said before, there is not allot of variety.

Although the shinning jewel IMHO of WFB is working the magic phase. Games are won and lost very easily if you have a GREAT or horrible magic phase.

Have you played 40k? Everyone can see 360degrees, there is no flank, or setting up a charge, or tactical moving... What tactics are you talking about?

Every game of 40k I have ever played (31 games in the last 3 years) this is what happens: move forward. Move forward. Shoot. Shoot. Charge. Somebody wins. Its usually the guy who brings the uber list.

Well since you feel the need to address me specifically (even though other people have said exactly what I said) I will answer your questions.

I have played 40k and fantasy since the 2nd 40k and 3rd edition fantasy. I understand you are so limited in YOUR meta games that all you do is move and shoot but in my games I use terrain movement and LOS to achieve better tactical advantage then my opponent. I make sure my weak models are protected by cover, I make sure my CC models get across the field, and I make sure my objective holding guys tank up.

In fantasy you have a lot less tactics to worry about. You need to make sure you are in LOS, you need to make sure you don't get flank charged or double charged. If you have bows you shoot them, heck even the terrain is simpler in fantasy woods mean next to nothing and there really is no cover to speak of.

Hope this helps you!

Fantasy used to be more popular around my area, then 40k, now both are dying.

It's kind of hard to say why, because most reasons you make for 40k being more popular don't account for the fact Fantasy was once more popular (at least around these parts). I think a large part of it is just 40k being pushed more. Back when I started the Fantasy and 40k sections in the local GW were similar size, if not Fantasy being larger. Over the years, the Fantasy section shrunk.

I personally think Fantasy is a better game. 40k is more about list building, Fantasy is won or lost on the table more in the list building stage. That said, I really haven't played much 8th edition, the random movement and push toward larger units made me pretty much completely lose interest.

40k has a more unique setting, and Fantasy is much more expensive. That is why 40k is more popular, even though Fantasy is a better game.

 changerofways wrote:


this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

Considering huge amounts of the 40k lore was taken from other sources (lovecraft, heinlein, judge dredd, dune, Tolkien etc) I find it hard to accept the comment that it is incredibly unique. It's a fairly typical fantasy setting. If anything, 40k itself evolved out if warhammer fantasy, they just decided to redress it as the 'but in spaaace' version.

As to 'defining Star Wars', that is a joke, right? Even Starcraft is a stretch.

osirisx69 wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
[quote=TheCustomLime 585172 6639310 db8c639d8469883ae1ddc9b3164737bd.jpg

The tactics are not quite as in depth as 40k and ,like it has been said before, there is not allot of variety.

Although the shinning jewel IMHO of WFB is working the magic phase. Games are won and lost very easily if you have a GREAT or horrible magic phase.

Have you played 40k? Everyone can see 360degrees, there is no flank, or setting up a charge, or tactical moving... What tactics are you talking about?

Every game of 40k I have ever played (31 games in the last 3 years) this is what happens: move forward. Move forward. Shoot. Shoot. Charge. Somebody wins. Its usually the guy who brings the uber list.

Well since you feel the need to address me specifically (even though other people have said exactly what I said) I will answer your questions.

I have played 40k and fantasy since the 2nd 40k and 3rd edition fantasy. I understand you are so limited in YOUR meta games that all you do is move and shoot but in my games I use terrain movement and LOS to achieve better tactical advantage then my opponent. I make sure my weak models are protected by cover, I make sure my CC models get across the field, and I make sure my objective holding guys tank up.

In fantasy you have a lot less tactics to worry about. You need to make sure you are in LOS, you need to make sure you don't get flank charged or double charged. If you have bows you shoot them, heck even the terrain is simpler in fantasy woods mean next to nothing and there really is no cover to speak of.

Hope this helps you!

I wasn't trying to attack you in particular, just that line of thinking. Sorry if it came off as an attack.

I still don't see it. In my games (admittedly less than your experience) fantasy takes more planning ahead, and lining everything up.

For me, it was the horrible experience of block movement that made me switch from WFB to 40k.

I play both, but I only play Fantasy because I can use historical figures and it was dirt cheap to pick up. I like it, but I feel its incredibly similar to 40k. It was so easy to learn. But I prefer 40k simply because you dont have to base your army around heroes. I hate that in fantasy.

I prefer a game where the focus is on a bunch of ordinary men (or ordinary insert race here). Not some jacked up banner holding mega sword smashing ninja fighter that mysteriously routs and kills whole units of 20 men.

I also find a lot of the movement to be bland. I feel like my shooty units stay still and the rest either waits or aims at the enemy and moves forward. Despite how much better the game is with LoS blocking terrain (just like 40k) nobody wants terrain on there so its easier to move. Which I find a pain as terrain makes everything a bit better in that game.

I dont like how the battles are fought either. Shooting is so weak that it hardly damages the enemy most of the time. Cannon are better against single targets over large groups of enemies. Cavalry charge a wall of pikes no problem and well yea this bit is subjective I guess.

I prefer 40k, but enjoy them both. Both have flaws but I think fantasy is not all that many claim it to be. Juts a 40k with less armour and characters that are mega buff and you have to take them or lose not because the game is broken but because it is the game.

Really you need to wonder why?


Guns, BIG FREAKING GUNs, Tanks,BIG FREAKING TANKs nuff said.

Because Tolkein is tired and overplayed.

Tyranids, no tyranids in fantasy

(And I'm not saying that because they are my favorite army )

But on a more serious note, I think the fluff and army variety of 40K is more interesting.

In addition the more spread out units of 40K (whereas Fantasy is more large blocks of troops as units) seem more appealing to those looking to get into the hobby

Space Marines. 40K has a totally badass posterboy.

WHFB has nothing like it.

40k haz all da dakka in it!

For me its the tanks. I get to build and field large stompy robots, tanks, planes, etc.

Fantasy has some great looking monster creatures, but still nothing compared to any of the larger vehicle kits. You just cant go vroom vroom pew pew in fantasy and I do it all the time in 40K.

I really don't care about the setting, its all about the vehicles for me. As such I almost started an Empire army solely because of the steam tank when it was released. But then learned you only can field one and lost interest.

GW pushes 40k harder than fantasy, I imagine that is one reason. Another could be that fantasy is much more difficult to play than 40k is. Its like checkers vs chess in my mind. Honestly I don't prefer one game over the other, I think both games are excellent and that fantasy is rather underrated. But that's just my opinion

 Avinash_Tyagi wrote:


But on a more serious note, I think the fluff and army variety of 40K is more interesting.

Are you gaking me? There's no way that the armies in 40k are more varied than WHFB.

I've also found that the "grimdark" aspect to 40k can get to be really tiresome. WHFB is a nice break from that. And on top of that, it shows me how much more badass the Warriors of Chaos are than the Chaos Space Marines.

Price and pop-culture

Scifi is more popular then fantasy rite now in pop culture (Halo, Star Trek remakes, Super Hero movies, Titanfall, ect..)

Cost for sure as others have said.

But I find the fantasy minis take longer and are harder to paint. If you just need a tabletop ready army, spray some color base paint, hit a coupla spots with metallic paint, drybrush and viola. Your space marines are done. Hard corners, suits of armor and giant tanks are amenable to single color basecoats and some quick drybrushing.

Fantasy figs always seem a lot harder to get right. Not necessarily more detailed, but harder than a tank.

pancakeonions wrote:
Cost for sure as others have said.

But I find the fantasy minis take longer and are harder to paint. If you just need a tabletop ready army, spray some color base paint, hit a coupla spots with metallic paint, drybrush and viola. Your space marines are done. Hard corners, suits of armor and giant tanks are amenable to single color basecoats and some quick drybrushing.

Fantasy figs always seem a lot harder to get right. Not necessarily more detailed, but harder than a tank.

It all just depends on the army. Lizardmen are pretty quick to paint. Tomb Kings are probably the easiest army to paint, ever. There's a few armies that you can get away with coloured spray basecoat, pick out a few details and then a wash.

You are not going to get a perfect representation of gamers feelings here as you are asking this in a 40k forum... the opinions therefore maybe a bit skewed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saying that, one thing I would like to say is - try sticking together a regiment in WHFB and then try putting them base to base. Maybe its because I played chaos, but unless you thought ahead with EVERY model before glueing, they would not end up being able to be put base to base!

 DarkWind wrote:
Price and pop-culture

Scifi is more popular then fantasy rite now in pop culture (Halo, Star Trek remakes, Super Hero movies, Titanfall, ect..)

for me this is it. All discussion regarding which is more tactical or which has the most vibrant back story is opinion. In my opinion fantasy is much harder to master as its all about movement and magic, while40k is all about shooting and cover. I play orks and lizardmen, both unique, and both have great fluff, so i put them equal on that front. I believe people play 40k because its cheaper (less to paint) and scifi is popular at the moment. The fact that fantasy is a more complex game, and that while 40k has the imperium, fantasy has no race a player wants to relate too (would you prefere to be a spacemarine or a spearman) are also key factors for younger plyers.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Saying that, one thing I would like to say is - try sticking together a regiment in WHFB and then try putting them base to base. Maybe its because I played chaos, but unless you thought ahead with EVERY model before glueing, they would not end up being able to be put base to base!

GW have gone absolutely stupid with this. Back when I first started, most models ranked up fine. These days, most models don't rank up without some coercion. And then even the ones that do rank up, when you play a game you won't be able to move them in to base to base contact with an enemy unit because even the ones that rank up overhang the bases and will hit the enemy models.

It's so amazingly stupid that they can't figure out in a system where models are ALWAYS in base contact with another model, maybe, just MAYBE, you shouldn't make models bigger than their bases.

More people play 40k, therefore more people want to play it. Self-perpetuating thing. Cost and "tactics" don't make a big difference either way, in my opinion.

In terms of individual narrative moments that capture the imagination, "sci-fi" ideas captivate people more readilly. Incorporating elements from action movies that people have grown up with also helps to trigger an emotional response.

On top of which, in 40k, its easier to have a cinemantic experience on a 1:1 level where you identify with an individual model. It's hard to identify with, or follow the action of, an individual WFB goblin in a unit of 60 of them. But when one of my unfortunate grots ends up being charged by a Howling Banshee Exarch, you bet I can identify with that moment.

It's because most war gamers start out when they are wee little kids.

When you are young, you are apparently attracted to large amounts of violence, walking mechs, tanks, genetically modified superhumans so on so forth.

WHFB does, in some ways, appeal to the slightly older person. Anyone with historical knowledge will happily tell you just how much of a slaughter some medieval battles could be, but it doesn't compare in scope to utterly destroying your foes with a sixty foot tall walking deathmobile.

 Wilytank wrote:
And on top of that, it shows me how much more badass the Warriors of Chaos are than the Chaos Space Marines.

you wot m8

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's because most war gamers start out when they are wee little kids.

When you are young, you are apparently attracted to large amounts of violence, walking mechs, tanks, genetically modified superhumans so on so forth.

WHFB does, in some ways, appeal to the slightly older person. Anyone with historical knowledge will happily tell you just how much of a slaughter some medieval battles could be, but it doesn't compare in scope to utterly destroying your foes with a sixty foot tall walking deathmobile.

I started when I was about 10 years old and started with WHFB, as did most of my mates who started back then.

I second the AllSeeingSkink, although I was slightly older. Teenage me was far more interested in Bretonnia than Chaos Space Marines.

It's actually science fantasy. Same genre as another hugely popular franchise, Star Wars.

MarsNZ wrote:
I second the AllSeeingSkink, although I was slightly older. Teenage me was far more interested in Bretonnia than Chaos Space Marines.

I was doing it as a sweeping generalisation. I was interested in WHFB too, but 40K was cheaper.

 welshhoppo wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I second the AllSeeingSkink, although I was slightly older. Teenage me was far more interested in Bretonnia than Chaos Space Marines.

I was doing it as a sweeping generalisation. I was interested in WHFB too, but 40K was cheaper.

I don't think it's really a useful sweeping generalisation when really there's plenty of kids interested in both.

I can get my fantasy fix in d&d, video games, movies (LotR etc) etc.
Sci-fi is more interesting to me, and in lower availability as far as games go, I'd be much happier with having some sci-fi tabletop action with cool units like space marines and tanks and spaceships, than having MORE fantasy

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
And on top of that, it shows me how much more badass the Warriors of Chaos are than the Chaos Space Marines.

you wot m8

Chaos Vikings >>>>> angsty boys with daddy issues.

 Wilytank wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
And on top of that, it shows me how much more badass the Warriors of Chaos are than the Chaos Space Marines.

you wot m8

Chaos Vikings >>>>> angsty boys with daddy issues.

Clearly then what we need is CHAOS SPACE WOLVES

I used to do WHFB but it died at my club so i got rid of it all and then it began to come back...

The game itself is good, arguably it is way more balanced than 40k seems at the moment (i'm not joking...).

However the setting seems to be left behind by the ever varied 40k one where pretty much anything goes (even if it does massacre the good old fluff!!!). The Horus Heresy is a prime example, that piece of background has been turned into its own game off the back of 40k. Now as far as i am aware no other game has done that.

Of course fantasy seems to have been done loads of times over the years and has gone stale. Game of Thrones however is a bright spark in that regard i've nearly read all the books and they've been fantastic.

40k has none of those problems all those big bugs, tanks, space marines, riptides etc are far more inspiring to many as they fire your imagination (who wouldn't want to be a riptide pilot ) Warhammer may have the army variety but they seem 'bland' when compared to the 40k offering. That is counting marines as one whole by the way, in saying that 40k has the imperium as the vehicle for the story. Whereas fantasy does not, and i think that is the major issue.

Just my humble opinion...

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Chaos Vikings >>>>> angsty boys with daddy issues.

Clearly then what we need is CHAOS SPACE WOLVES

Well, if that is what you want, just have your chaos marines paint “feth authority” and “Ⓐ” all over their armors and rhinos, and rename their bolters into wolf-fang-claws-wolf-bolters. You will basically get chaos space wolves in all but name.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Chaos Vikings >>>>> angsty boys with daddy issues.

Clearly then what we need is CHAOS SPACE WOLVES

Well, if that is what you want, just have your chaos marines paint “feth authority” and “Ⓐ” all over their armors and rhinos, and rename their bolters into wolf-fang-claws-wolf-bolters. You will basically get chaos space wolves in all but name.

In other words, what we clearly do NOT need is Chaos Space Wolves.

I'm finding it strange that some people are saying that 40k has been popular, so people are playing it, and that others are saying that the fantasy genre has been popular, and therefore it's stale, so nobody's playing it.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'm finding it strange that some people are saying that 40k has been popular, so people are playing it, and that others are saying that the fantasy genre has been popular, and therefore it's stale, so nobody's playing it.

I agree funny how people have varying opinions on how popularity effects things.
I geuss it all depends on the person, the local club etc.
I do get tired of 40K sometimes so I play my Fantasy army then I get tired of it so I switch back. I don't think I get tired of the genres in general though I always flip flop between the two (read a fantasy novel, read a sci-fi novel etc etc)

 Wilytank wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Chaos Vikings >>>>> angsty boys with daddy issues.

Clearly then what we need is CHAOS SPACE WOLVES

Well, if that is what you want, just have your chaos marines paint “feth authority” and “Ⓐ” all over their armors and rhinos, and rename their bolters into wolf-fang-claws-wolf-bolters. You will basically get chaos space wolves in all but name.

In other words, what we clearly do NOT need is Chaos Space Wolves.

Regular Space Wolves are already Chaos enough as it is...

 Ailaros wrote:
I'm finding it strange that some people are saying that 40k has been popular, so people are playing it, and that others are saying that the fantasy genre has been popular, and therefore it's stale, so nobody's playing it.

I'm sure it varies from location to location and I'm sure some opinions are wrong as well. From my experience, back when I started both 40k and Fantasy were very popular, so it didn't matter which one you played you could find an opponent. I had a couple of friends who collected 40k, a couple who collected fantasy and a few that collected both. Going to the local store pretty much any day of the week with either a 40k or a Fantasy army in your bag and you could find a game easily.

These days, not so much. It's hard to find a Fantasy game, and while it's not hard to find a 40k game, it's harder than it used to be. So these days, I think the popularity of 40k works in it's favour.

I honestly don't see how fantasy is more expensive....

20 zombies for 35 bucks? Hell yeah!

I personally don't like 40k all that much. I like the primarchs... that's about it.
I think the rest of the setting is utter gak. As for game mechanics, you cant bring fluffy lists that inspire the imagination as many have said, because BOLS said you cant. You have to build a certain way and break the codex to get a good game out of 40k. Otherwise your opponent blasts you into oblivion with ap1 and 2 weapons.

Ranting aside, I still don't see why 40k is so popular! The armies are not varied (pick your marine!) And every gun is a bolter. Some bolters rend, others are range 18... but they are still bolters. There is nothing inspiring about marines.

Now an empire regiment who is campaigning against a vile skaven army is inspiring. If any of them speak of the skaven, they take a permanent vacation from life. But if they don't fight the skaven, then their little Germanic style village will be burned to the ground, and all of the people of the empire would be in danger.

I think fantasy touched on more personal notes with 1 cooler characters and 2, the fact that only heroes are heroes. Not every single guy in a unit can carve out a name for himself.... no. Only those. Blessed (cursed?) Enough to take on vile daemons, cannabalistic beasts, and giant rats (in one sitting some times!) Have the honor of being a hero.

Plus you can tactically set up charges, and dish it out like an ancient battle, its a big grind fest where the better general usually wins. Bring your deathstar! (Looking at you WOC) I'll match it with raw skill.
In 40k I bring a LOC 3 DPs of tzeentch lvl3 (flickering fire) then minimum troops, then chariots. I win, unless I roll gakky, then my opponent wins. Much like rock paper scissors. As opposed to.....chess.

40K is more unique so it stands out from the competition more.
Also, it has more guns. Lots more guns.
And bigger guns.

There are a large number of reasons. Some are being fixed though.

1) Less distinctive setting. 40K has drifted a fair ways from its origins and now the factions are distinctive with their own flavors. Fantasy is still very generic fantasy though is slowly starting to move away.

2) 40K models have historically been much better looking. This is changing as all the new GW models are pretty good looking or at least well executed. The old fantasy ranges (2+ years old) are aweful looking and just poorly done sculpts.

3) The money to start is several times higher in fantasy that 40K and you need to assemble/paint several times the models. Conversions are much less possible and don't fit as well. Finally the rules have a steeper learning curve to get started.

4) Support; 40K has always had much better support from GW with more releases. This has not changed per se but the support level of fantasy is excellent now.

All of this adds up to a lower player base.

There is also a misconception about 40K vs fantasy. People say fantasy is a more tactical game...actually it is a more strategic game and 40K is actually the more tactics based game. That is actually the only place fantasy really outshines 40K in a definitive way. In fantasy you come up with a plan for the entire game and it will determine your victory or defeat whereas most 40K games only have tactics you are going to employ without an overall plan.

 DarkWind wrote:
Price and pop-culture

Scifi is more popular then fantasy rite now in pop culture (Halo, Star Trek remakes, Super Hero movies, Titanfall, ect..)

Sci-Fi might still be more popular, I dunno, but thanks to The Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft and Game of Thrones (and Harry Potter if you count that) Fantasy has reached a wider audience than ever before.

1) 40K has more unique setting.

2) You need more models for Fantasy, so it takes more time to paint them and costs more.

3) Ranking models is an utter pain.

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish


Now
Why is it that the sci fi variant is played by so many more people (and is omnipresent in so much media) compared to the fantasy variant?

Let me know your thoughts
thanks
Austin

Guns and tanks etc appeal more to kids than magic, which is when many start this sort of thing, and it kind of just grows from there, with 40k.
And the rule set is also simpler for 40k than fantasy

Just my thoughts

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish


Now
Why is it that the sci fi variant is played by so many more people (and is omnipresent in so much media) compared to the fantasy variant?

Let me know your thoughts
thanks
Austin

Steadfadt, Horde rule and spears. Banners on guys on big horsies. skirmishers. Thats about it, as far as I was concerned.

Net result: INCREDIBLY similar armies every time you play. 3 x 30 blocks, big dude on horse with banner. Spears any time you can get em.

Fantasy took its most important element, its most important distinction from 40K and even other games, and just ejected it. And that was a shame because the rulebook for Fantasy was put together SO DAMN WELL. Its a thing of beauty, what they were able to do with that 8th Edition book. Absolutely perfect in its presentation and so on.

But...Steadfast, hordes, spears. big dudes on banners. Every time. Boring.

40K is dynamic, theres stuff all over the board, theres a ton of interesting strategies, ENDLESS list variety and theres no "underlying combination" throughout 40K that all competitive armies have. 40K is more fun because more stuff happens and the blood angels and Imperial Guard or whatever aren't just carbon copies of each other using their respective codex's rules.

 aapch45 wrote:
I honestly don't see how fantasy is more expensive....

20 zombies for 35 bucks? Hell yeah!

I personally don't like 40k all that much. I like the primarchs... that's about it.
I think the rest of the setting is utter gak. As for game mechanics, you cant bring fluffy lists that inspire the imagination as many have said, because BOLS said you cant. You have to build a certain way and break the codex to get a good game out of 40k. Otherwise your opponent blasts you into oblivion with ap1 and 2 weapons.

Ranting aside, I still don't see why 40k is so popular! The armies are not varied (pick your marine!) And every gun is a bolter. Some bolters rend, others are range 18... but they are still bolters. There is nothing inspiring about marines.

Now an empire regiment who is campaigning against a vile skaven army is inspiring. If any of them speak of the skaven, they take a permanent vacation from life. But if they don't fight the skaven, then their little Germanic style village will be burned to the ground, and all of the people of the empire would be in danger.

I think fantasy touched on more personal notes with 1 cooler characters and 2, the fact that only heroes are heroes. Not every single guy in a unit can carve out a name for himself.... no. Only those. Blessed (cursed?) Enough to take on vile daemons, cannabalistic beasts, and giant rats (in one sitting some times!) Have the honor of being a hero.

Plus you can tactically set up charges, and dish it out like an ancient battle, its a big grind fest where the better general usually wins. Bring your deathstar! (Looking at you WOC) I'll match it with raw skill.
In 40k I bring a LOC 3 DPs of tzeentch lvl3 (flickering fire) then minimum troops, then chariots. I win, unless I roll gakky, then my opponent wins. Much like rock paper scissors. As opposed to.....chess.

Well, the problem is those 20 zombies won't give you a good unit. You will need at least 40 more of them to get a decent unit. Fantasy is more expensive because it involves a lot more models than 40k. The 'standard' point size of Fantasy also seems higher (in my area at least).
You can take fluffy lists as much you want in 40k, you just need to make sure your opponent does the same. That is not any different from Fantasy.
Fantasy has a really nice, inspiring setting, but its problem is that it is not unique. There are tons of settings and factions like those in Fantasy. 40k on the other hand is very different from all other sci-fi/sci-fantasy settings there are. The Space Marines and the Imperium are really unique factions. Whether you find them inspiring or not is your own opinion, but most people will disagree with it.
The main reasons for 40k's popularity are thus its unique, interesting setting and its comparetively lower cost. Another factor is that many people do not like the big, unpersonal blocks of Fantasy, whereas the squad based system of 40k allows for more individuality and customisation.
The only advantages Fantasy has over 40k are its better, more tactical gameplay and the fact that some people prefer sword and sorcery over artillery and tanks.
Personally, I am unable to choose between the one or the other. I love both settings to death. That is why I play both and end up lacking the money to complete my armies for either

I can agree with most of what you say, iron_captain.

I guess 40k just isn't my cup of tea any more (not since 6th ed came out) while it was still 5th, I liked it a lot better.

I love fantasy though... I can march to war with an army that is tier 3, and win. In 40k, taking a themed army is berg difficult.

I don't like many of the plastic kits for WFB. I want to paint some of the bigger monsters, but the rank and file is too off-putting (looking at you, Saurus Warriors, Ghouls, Halberdiers etc)

I can make tank-, laser- and machine gun sounds while playing! And now plane sounds too!!!

 Art_of_war wrote:
I used to do WHFB but it died at my club so i got rid of it all and then it began to come back...

The game itself is good, arguably it is way more balanced than 40k seems at the moment (i'm not joking...).

However the setting seems to be left behind by the ever varied 40k one where pretty much anything goes (even if it does massacre the good old fluff!!!). The Horus Heresy is a prime example, that piece of background has been turned into its own game off the back of 40k. Now as far as i am aware no other game has done that.

Of course fantasy seems to have been done loads of times over the years and has gone stale. Game of Thrones however is a bright spark in that regard i've nearly read all the books and they've been fantastic.

40k has none of those problems all those big bugs, tanks, space marines, riptides etc are far more inspiring to many as they fire your imagination (who wouldn't want to be a riptide pilot ) Warhammer may have the army variety but they seem 'bland' when compared to the 40k offering. That is counting marines as one whole by the way, in saying that 40k has the imperium as the vehicle for the story. Whereas fantasy does not, and i think that is the major issue.

Just my humble opinion...

Game of thrones is somehow new?

All I see is someone desperately trying to not be tolkien and throwing lots of gratuitous softcore porn into the shot to get the "yay titties!" demographic.

In any case, 40k has Tyranids and oddly designed Tanks, and I've gotten much more invested into the lore than I have with Fantasy, due in large part to the fact that because of it's lack of support from GW.

It's also substantially easier to slot in your own stuff into some forgotten corner of a galaxy (space is big yo) than it is to shove stuff into a world with mostly defined geography.

TLDR

Did anyone say model count yet? I can make a 1500+ point WH40K army with 50 models. But in WHFB, that's like one or two units. WH40K is already expensive with just that many minis, I shudder to think of how much a FB army would cost me.

Oh yeah...and I remember when most of the Fantasy mini's were still metal. That was a while ago I know, but I started a Dark Elves army many years ago and stopped when I realized there were no plastic crossbowmen.

40k has more things like huge tanks, artillary, laser weapons and all kind of things attract the imagination more.

And admit it we all are big kids somewhere

Kain wrote:All I see is someone desperately trying to not be tolkien and throwing lots of gratuitous softcore porn into the shot to get the "yay titties!" demographic.

To be fair, that's the HBO show, not the books.

Of course, game of thrones isn't really a fantasy novel either. It's a soap opera with a non-historical medieval setting that has a little bit of magic lightly draped on top.

The thing that bugs me about fantasy, is that I've got a few dozen dwarves, individually painted, but throw them on a table in regiments and they're basically there to be taken off the table once the wounds start piling up. Each of my 40k guardsmen gets his moment to shine on the battlefield.

And for me, 40k fills a void in the video game lineup. Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War are poor substitutes for 40k. Most battles are blob battles or scoot-and-shoot, and lack the scope and scale of futuristic battles. You get a hint at these epic sci-fi battles in Star Wars, Mass Effect, BSG, etc. but you don't get the battlefield control like you do in 40k. And I love the story-lines you can create of some battle on a distant planet over lost technology or a defector or a communications tower. In a fantasy setting the story usually falls to the Lord of the Rings as the common denominator "they're invading" "why?" "just cause."

For fantasy, and block regimental combat, Rome and Empire Total War perfectly simulate everything that I'm trying to get out of fantasy. Realistic, historical combat with massed infantry, cavalry, war machines, and sometimes elephants, etc. Those games are great from a campaign and combat standpoint. Throw in the complicated rules, cost, and accounting necessary for a fantasy battle and it's just not as much fun next to those video games.

TLDR: video games are better at simulating regimented/block infantry combat than fantasy. Video games are not good at simulating large scale real-time or turn-based sci-fi combat.

My biggest problem with fantasy is two fold.

1) There isn't enough variety in the lists. Due to steadfast and the power of morale and magic every single list is 2-3 big blocks of troops, 1 Lv3+ mage, and 1 battle standard bearer...this causes most battles to be very similar. Funnily enough this is also why fantasy is "better balanced" than 40K as nobody expects to win without taking these elements whereas in 40K people expect to show up with almost random unit selection and be able to win. Often this is because SM are AWESOME!!!

2) The terrain in fantasy is essentially flat. There is no difference between a felt square with forest written on it and a ruins 10" tall. In 40K this actually matters and so the actual terrain used is usually much more important. If you don't buy the supplements fantasy becomes very formulaic whereas I can completely change the dynamics of the game in 40K by playing in a city type terrain vs an open field.

Ansacs

To answer your complaint about Terrain in fantasy... fantasy is a representative game. 1 guy is not one guy.... 1 tree is not one tree. Its a game that simulates mass battle in a small scale.

ansacs wrote:1) There isn't enough variety in the lists. Due to steadfast and the power of morale and magic every single list is 2-3 big blocks of troops, 1 Lv3+ mage, and 1 battle standard bearer...this causes most battles to be very similar. Funnily enough this is also why fantasy is "better balanced" than 40K as nobody expects to win without taking these elements whereas in 40K people expect to show up with almost random unit selection and be able to win. Often this is because SM are AWESOME!!!

Also, Id note that armies sort of play similarly as well. They're all sort of blocks of infantry that run into the middle and fight a big scrum while a few shooty support units plink at stuff. There are small variations, like if you're bringing archers or chariot archers, or if you're bringing fewer, stronger fast units like demygryphs or larger, weaker-per-model fast units like outriders, but in the end, it's just minor variations on a theme.

Meanwhile, you can set up a space marine army that's a drop pod assault, and it will play VERY differently from a raider rush or a bike horde or a razorspam list, and that's making very different armies just within the same codex. Likewise there are differences from codex to codex. A DoA BA list looks like nothing else in the game, for example.

Whereas fantasy seems more like "Well, my wizard bunker is exactly the same as yours, except the archers are slightly different, and my wizards use a different lore, and my stonethrowers are the same as yours, except slightly different, and here's my redirectors, which are the same as yours but have this special rule instead of that one".

I guess one might say that 40k's ability to have spam armies makes it more interesting.

 aapch45 wrote:
Ansacs

To answer your complaint about Terrain in fantasy... fantasy is a representative game. 1 guy is not one guy.... 1 tree is not one tree. Its a game that simulates mass battle in a small scale.

Not really. It is the number of models on the board with abstraction in the rules to deal with formations and terrain. It is supposed to be a small part of bigger battles or a smaller conflict within the overall framework of the bigger conflicts. 1 guy is definitely 1 guy but 1 tree is a forest if on green felt...

I understand why this is necessary but it is something they could really work on to improve the game. Introduce more rules for interaction with terrain features and let armies purchase terrain like in 6ed 40K (though hopefully they make more variety with less obvious choices, if they made forests purchasable then WE would actually be a decent faction).

I play WE and HE btw. HE are great but they play fairly similar to all other faction right now as steadfast keeps me from running all reaver core I also haven't been able to use my 4 phoenix build as without a banner and Lv3+ mage the game essentially ends when the opponent rolls a 3 dice difference between us.

Treekin WE (what I have and play) are in a terrible condition. The only way for me to even compete is to max out the big trees and use my poor skirmishers as chaff.


@Ailros
I think the biggest reason for this is the steadfast rules. Cavalry used to be more important before that rule as you could get flank charges on big blocks of infantry and it actually mattered. Now you need a big block of infantry of your own to deal with it and the flank charges are just a sort of bonus to help the block of infantry. If they fixed steadfast you could actually see things like cavalry and ambush armies which have the mobility to be really different. As it is it just doesn't matter if you get 4 skirmisher units charging the flanks of a steadfast block or 1, they will not win combat unless you have your own infantry block. The wonkiest part is when you charge the biggest baddest dragon in the game into a big block of skaven slaves and they are steadfast so eventually you loose combat...all without any hero to lead them within the ranks? How do a bunch of skaven slaves get the cahones that they are going to take on HE prince fancy magic death machine and his uber dragon?

Triumph and treachery is the only thing saving fantasy for me, at the moment. It is just so different and changes the game completely. Kind of like some of the altar of war missions (black legion) or changing armies does in 40K.

It's always been about the story...no clue about the story or fluff of WHFB but 40k has a very engrossing story and it also incorporates the most perfect use of the 'The Bad Guy Wins' idea. In every tabletop battle in 40k the Bad Guy Wins. The Bad Guy Wins is very appealing and allows the forward momentum of the overall story/fluff/history. Read the Horus Hersey novels to see the essence of the idea for the whole universe. Kaiser Soze gets away....LeStat continues his reign...George Lucas sells Star Wars for $$$$$$. All are examples of 'Bad Guy Wins' and all capture our interest.

Additional note this concept also allows players to keep fighting the good fight....SM trying to make order from Chaos, Tau trying to 'Lets Be Friends Borg-style, Eldar trying to right the wrongs of their history and the Saving Private Ryan ideals of IG. Just my two cents.

Because if I'm going to paint and move blocks of infantry, I'm going to play a real historical game, not the joke that is WHFB.

well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

 Jancoran wrote:
well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

I think it does end up competing, though, because of the formations and such. I know that actual historical games are why I'd never touch GW's interpretation of an ancients battle. If Flames of War weren't equally as ludicrous as 40K, I doubt I'd even play 40K.

 Orblivion wrote:

 changerofways wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

40k didn't define star wars in any way, shape, or form. Unless George Lucas could see the future.

George Lucas didn't create Star Wars. He created movies from the books.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

I think it does end up competing, though, because of the formations and such. I know that actual historical games are why I'd never touch GW's interpretation of an ancients battle. If Flames of War weren't equally as ludicrous as 40K, I doubt I'd even play 40K.

Can't account for taste, but I assure you that Fantasy in no way competes in the "historical" market. I play Flames of War (and its fun, probably my number 2 game) I play DBA and have played Bolt Action and some other lesser known historicals and they differ considerably in feel from anything Fantasy does. Most of those players (not all, and I'm an example) don't play 40K nor Fantasy. There seems to be an enmity between the camps that I've never come to fully appreciate.

My take on things is simple: why choose. If I can have fun in ten different ways, then do i really care...really... which one is "better"? Nope. Not really. Even if money were an issue, I wouldn't see a value in "grading" them all comparatively. I tell my kids and anyone who will listen: "Unmet expectations are the true root of unhappiness".

Maybe. They just look so similar on the table top formation-wise that it's hard to believe there is no competition.

In our group, when we wanna play in a fantasy setting, the LOTR game setting is far superior to Fantasy. I never really understood why GW decided to compete against its own product, but I'm glad they did.

If I'm gonna play with Fantasy-style rules, I'd personally rather just play historic games.

But the real thing that has always thrown me off of Fantasy is the comical models.

jasper76 wrote:
In our group, when we wanna play in a fantasy setting, the LOTR game setting is far superior to Fantasy. I never really understood why GW decided to compete against its own product, but I'm glad they did.

Well, GW has quashed that issue with the very high prices for Hobbit models (I'm looking at you, 3 Lake-town guards for $25). Any hope of upping the popularity of this range back to the days of LOTR, which was already unlikely, went to zero when the pricing for new releases came out. Which is a pity because I've always heard that LOTR has an exceptional ruleset.

Maybe it is like you said jasper, and GW decided they didn't want the Hobbit to compete with the Fantasy line and priced it at collector-only level. I think that move though doomed the line to an even quicker demise.

Yeah, fortunately one of our gaming group has an obsession with (a) Lord of the Rings, (b) wargaming, and (c) collecting miniatures, so due to this perfect storm we are able to play just about any scenario with the models he's collected over the years. I think he started and got most of his models back when LOTR models could be had relatively cheaply.

It does have an awesome ruleset. Probably my favoritist game on the market rules-wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also suspect they've lost a TON of money on their LOTR/Hobbit line. Think of the licensing fees. And, lets face it, the new Hobbit movies (all THREE of them) have so far been huge dissappointments when compared to the Lord of the Rings movies. I doubt anyone will be isnpired to start an expensive wargaming hobby based on these new films.

I also doubt anyone is salviating over 3 Laketown guards that any number of 28mm human miniatures from any line could easily substitute. Or are you really itching to buy an elf chick model for a character who was never even in the book? Or would some D&D model from 1982 work just as well?

I love the OP:

"Not starting an argument" ...argues more than anyone in the thread.

"No stereotypes".... Gives us shallow stereotypes.

"40k isn't tactical enough" .... Likes 5th ed better than 6th

"I like rich settings"....prefers DnD Birthright-like copy cat to 40k setting

"I hate marching up and just shooting and then charging".... Likes WHFB better than 40k

"I'm all about fluff and complex tactics"... Cites BoLS

If it's trolling, it's a troll folks, don't feed it.

 Lobukia wrote:
I love the OP:

"Not starting an argument" ...argues more than anyone in the thread.

"No stereotypes".... Gives us shallow stereotypes.

"40k isn't tactical enough" .... Likes 5th ed better than 6th

"I like rich settings"....prefers DnD Birthright-like copy cat to 40k setting

"I hate marching up and just shooting and then charging".... Likes WHFB better than 40k

"I'm all about fluff and complex tactics"... Cites BoLS

If it's trolling, it's a troll folks, don't feed it.

I've long been desensitized to hypocrisy on the internet I'm afraid.

sand.zzz wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:

 changerofways wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

40k didn't define star wars in any way, shape, or form. Unless George Lucas could see the future.

George Lucas didn't create Star Wars. He created movies from the books.

Ummm, how about no. George Lucas did create star wars.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars

 Kain wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I love the OP:

"Not starting an argument" ...argues more than anyone in the thread.

"No stereotypes".... Gives us shallow stereotypes.

"40k isn't tactical enough" .... Likes 5th ed better than 6th

"I like rich settings"....prefers DnD Birthright-like copy cat to 40k setting

"I hate marching up and just shooting and then charging".... Likes WHFB better than 40k

"I'm all about fluff and complex tactics"... Cites BoLS

If it's trolling, it's a troll folks, don't feed it.

I've long been desensitized to hypocrisy on the internet I'm afraid.

What the hell just happened?
Since when am I a troll? I never quoted BOLS... I made a reference that everyone uses BOLS as their tactic hub.... I do enjoy rich settings?
I do prefer 5th ed to 6th ed... less gak and better vehicle rules..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did give shallow stereotypes, to prevent them from popping up in this thread.
I was legitimately curious as to why 40k is more popular, because I see fantasy as the superior game.

Fantasy probably WAS...past tense...superior in a lot of ways from a tacticians point of view.

It WAS, probably.

Now the forces look...so...similar. Can you deny this is the case? I can walk into a tourney tomorrow (if anyone shows up) and expect to see exactly what I EXPECTED to see.

I will not give in to TOO much hyperbole here, but can't we all agree that the "meta" of Fantasy has become stale and...well predictable. I know what you're going to use CLOSE ENOUGH that I dont hjave to expend much in the way of planning my counters to any of it.

I think 40k benefits from the smaller units and easier to paint models. I find painting a 2500p WFB army with 100+ humanoid faces a daunting task. The large infantry blocks popular in this edition don't help in that regard. It may discourage new players.

I don't believe it has much to do with the difference in popularity between scifi and fantasy genres. Fantasy seems more popular than ever and 40K owes as much to fantasy as it does to scifi. WFB still has to deal with living in the shadow of Tolkien making the fluff less unique. Space Marines are another advantage for 40k, providing new players with recognizable and identifiable characters as an easy entry point into the setting. There is no real equivalent in WFB.

The 40k Universe is exponentially more developed than the fantasy one. That and the grimdark setting works much better for the models themselves. Warhammer Fantasy is supposed to be grimdark in its own right but many of the models come off as cartooney without intending to. Yes, I realize that if you really look at a space marine it's ridiculous, especially chaos space marines...but something about a majority of the fantasy models just puts me off.

Mostly though, I think it's because 40k is flashier and they have developed the lore much, much more.

The irony is that if you look at the WHFB forum the players appear to be mostly happy with the state of the game as it is. I think it can safely be said that that's not the case with 40K players.

40K, as a game, is suffering from its own success, with GW pushing out more and more releases with the sole intent of selling something - anything - and little thought to how it will all hold together.

That's because 8th culled the fantasy fanbase, and the only folks left are diehard fans. It's a niche game nowadays, unlike 40K.

 -DE- wrote:
That's because 8th culled the fantasy fanbase, and the only folks left are diehard fans. It's a niche game nowadays, unlike 40K.

Just about to say something similar

 ashcroft wrote:
The irony is that if you look at the WHFB forum the remaining players appear to be mostly happy with the state of the game as it is. I think it can safely be said that that's not the case with 40K players..

Many people stopped playing fantasy, but the people who still play enjoy it. Mounds n circles, really.

 -DE- wrote:
That's because 8th culled the fantasy fanbase, and the only folks left are diehard fans. It's a niche game nowadays, unlike 40K.

Ah, I didn't know that. My last involvement with WHFB was around when Brettonians and Lizardmen were in the starter set.

So what went wrong? From a brief browse all I've seen is that 7th was dominated by a few cheesy armies (hmm, this sounds familiar) and that 8th introduced some new horde rule which was simply a push to buy more models.

Makes me wonder if the best argument against a 7th edition of 40K is that if it doesn't fix the current issues it will, in turn, cull the 40K fanbase.

We are a ghost town here as far as fantasy goes and it was a very very sudden dropoff from about 16 players to 0. None play now. Its a shocking thing to see.

The meta in my LGS is really WHFB focused, I was collecting an IG army for a while and when I started frequenting this store I realized everyone was playing/starting to play WHFB and there were barely an 40k players, so I had to get an IoB box to play.

 ashcroft wrote:

 -DE- wrote:
That's because 8th culled the fantasy fanbase, and the only folks left are diehard fans. It's a niche game nowadays, unlike 40K.

Ah, I didn't know that. My last involvement with WHFB was around when Brettonians and Lizardmen were in the starter set.

So what went wrong? From a brief browse all I've seen is that 7th was dominated by a few cheesy armies (hmm, this sounds familiar) and that 8th introduced some new horde rule which was simply a push to buy more models.

Makes me wonder if the best argument against a 7th edition of 40K is that if it doesn't fix the current issues it will, in turn, cull the 40K fanbase.

dakka is quite representative of the community world wide, I think. You can see that the WHFB forums have many times less posts. Being a person that frequents them, the most common topic is "I'm a 40k player that wants to try WHFB, what army should I take?"
I also don't think it's true that 8th culled. I think it brought back as much as it culled. I'd love to see the dakka Gods draw up statistics on the amount of posts on the WHFB forum in the past year as opposed to the amount of posts in the last year of 7th to actually get some type of statistics on what people are interested in.

 Jancoran wrote:
We are a ghost town here as far as fantasy goes and it was a very very sudden dropoff from about 16 players to 0. None play now. Its a shocking thing to see.

It's the opposite at my club.
Hardly anyone brought their square-bases, until the end of last year, and people who'd given up on 40k dug them all back out again.
Of the 4 games on 2 weeks ago, 3 were Fantasy. The other was Dreadball.
Last week, we're up to 2 40k and 2 fantasy and 1 of Deadzone, though.

 Purifier wrote:
dakka is quite representative of the community world wide, I think. You can see that the WHFB forums have many times less posts. Being a person that frequents them, the most common topic is "I'm a 40k player that wants to try WHFB, what army should I take?"
I also don't think it's true that 8th culled. I think it brought back as much as it culled. I'd love to see the dakka Gods draw up statistics on the amount of posts on the WHFB forum in the past year as opposed to the amount of posts in the last year of 7th to actually get some type of statistics on what people are interested in.

Isn't Dakka a 40k orientated board more than anything? I'm not an ancient member, but back when I was primarily playing FB rather than 40k I didn't frequent Dakka at all, usually just frequented the forums for the specific armies I collected. If there's no a lot of people chatting about WHFB then you'll tend to not attract a lot of the WHFB players. I DO collect WHFB, I have more WHFB armies than I have 40k armies, and I still rarely ever check the WHFB section of this site.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
dakka is quite representative of the community world wide, I think. You can see that the WHFB forums have many times less posts. Being a person that frequents them, the most common topic is "I'm a 40k player that wants to try WHFB, what army should I take?"
I also don't think it's true that 8th culled. I think it brought back as much as it culled. I'd love to see the dakka Gods draw up statistics on the amount of posts on the WHFB forum in the past year as opposed to the amount of posts in the last year of 7th to actually get some type of statistics on what people are interested in.

Isn't Dakka a 40k orientated board more than anything? I'm not an ancient member, but back when I was primarily playing FB rather than 40k I didn't frequent Dakka at all, usually just frequented the forums for the specific armies I collected. If there's no a lot of people chatting about WHFB then you'll tend to not attract a lot of the WHFB players. I DO collect WHFB, I have more WHFB armies than I have 40k armies, and I still rarely ever check the WHFB section of this site.

That's certainly not untrue. Something you see more in WHFB is that each army has its own community. I think WHFB caters more to a race loyalty than 40k does, which would explain it. I still think dakka is generally the defacto all-around forum.

simple. it's checkers compared to chess.

It all comes down to setting

Two words- Space Marines

xxx