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

There seems to be a natural bias towards 40K on Dakka and other forums.

I have Fantasy bits and pieces, mostly Empire and Vampires, but I'm concentrating on 40K at the moment, probably due to the release of 5th Edition this year. I was also disapointed with the Fantasy Releases this year (namely Daemons/Warriors of Chaos).

I'm curious as to why other people favour 40K (or indeed Fantasy).

Another reason for me is the dispersed formations in 40K. Regiments in Fantasy are a pain in the backside to put together. I could not get my halberdiers to rank up so I abandoned them in the end. In 40K, you don't have to worry about whether models can stand next to each other or not, because they don't and therefore you're free to pose them how you like. It may seem minor, but it means a lot less time on modelling (arguably the most boring aspect of the hobby) and more time for painting and gaming.

My main problem with Fantasy is that the whole "regiment" format just seems like blocks of weaponry that get increasingly weaker and weaker as the game goes on, instead of actual troops of soldiers. I guess you don't have the same attatchment to your units that you get in 40k.

Also, this can make charges seem a lot less balanced at times (having the very corner of a weak regiment get caught on the edge of a much stronger unit comes to mind, as a single stronger unit can end up wiping an entire regiment of smaller units). Especially with the advent of 5th Edition 40k.

40K is a much cheaper and simpler game to get into.

40k wins!!!

Flashman wrote:There seems to be a natural bias towards 40K on Dakka and other forums.

I'm curious as to why other people favour 40K (or indeed Fantasy).

Overall, there are more 40k players than Fantasy players because Space Marines (alone) outsell the entire Fantasy line combined... So add in non-Space Marines to 40k, and you will have 40k much larger than Fantasy.

People like 40k because it has cool-looking Space Marines, which they then buy by the shovelful. Thus, there are lots of 40k players. And 40k plays reasonably well at small scales.

Fantasy needs more models and is much more fiddly, rules-wise. It just isn't as friendly of a game to start into.
____

@Techboss: B4SP and A0BR are the same cost.

I started with Dwarves, but became dismayed at how long it would take to field a fully painted army. So I went with Chaos Marines...and now I field my 25% painted CSM army. However, the Dwarves are next. Those models are too cool to deny.

I played Fantasy early on when it was rubbish, and gave up. If I want to play a game of formation based combat with ancient weapons, I play real Ancients like DBA or Field of Glory. If I want to play with magic, I play HoTT.

I play 40K because it is the most widely played SF game and I enjoy the modelling aspect.

I started 40k after a GW staff member showed it to me at a mall, with a little game of Battle for Macrage. I then started...... 5 years latter and 50 miles away

40k is cheaper, has more room for customivation, and has better models. It is easyer to model somthing on a large round base then a small square.

I got talked into playing fantasy and now I'm getting my first army(woc) for Hanukkah.

i played a game of it using half of a friends army against the other half (Bretonian knights vs. peasants) and one using both of them, go peasant revolt.

I really enjoy it as its much more tactful then 40K, and I'm the 2nd best chess player at my school, right behind the kid who scored 2nd in the junior nationals so I think I'm pretty good at tactics

I want to play a sci-fi game with plenty of guns, tanks, and things that go boom. So I go with 40k.

I like both really but I do play more 40k. I like 40k more just because i like the setting and the models a lot more. But, I think Fantasy is little more fun to play.

fantasy is a better game. it has a better rule set, requires more actual thought into what you are doing and costs a lot less to build a GT standard size army than 40K does.

but as a rule, si-fi does better than fantasy, and GW games are no different.

people like simple rules sets, guns tanks, and aliens

thats why 40K does better than fanstasy

40k is also talked about a lot more on forums.

Partly due to its worse rule set and balance issues leading to more talk of army lists and composition.

Partly due to a more diverse background that inspires and allows greater room for conversion of models and home brew rules etc.

This leads to it having a larger community foot print.

I don't believe Fantasy costs more than 40k either. 40k has cost me a lot of money just to get a competitive army, Fantasy seems roughly the same, if not a little cheaper. Especially now most regiment units are plastic. But 40k is going the same way with more plastic units so it's quite balanced I think.

I became frustrated with Fantasy when I realised the level of powercreep going on in the new edition. Up until then I had nearly given up on 40K. Now I spend most of my painting time on Hordes, 40K and LOTR. Most of my gaming is Hordes, but I have to say the metal models are a pain in the backside.
I like Fantasy but I really don't like how it doesn't reward background based forces in the same way 40K does for the armies I play. My common orc and goblin horde or my ambush based Beastmen are just inneffective when put against some of the incredibly gamey and broken tournament builds out there, whereas my plague marines lead by nurgle daemon prince and orks can hold their own against all comers. Also, being a dwarf player who hates the anvil and tech stuff blows.

Sounds like your comparison rests on the fact that Plague Marines are awesome in the new codex. And Orks came out pretty strong too.
Though you're right about the power creep in Fantasy.
I just don't hear less complaints about it in 40k.

I think 40k is more appealing to the younger audience that is often the age that gamers start at. It's background is deeper and more interesting which holds the older crowd too.

It also seems to take the generic fantasy races and put them in a more engaging setting (space and guns).
Not many science fiction games/films/anything take something that would be generic in one medium (fantasy) and put it in a setting that allows it to seem fresh but familiar and compelling.

Oh I know I lucked out with my army selection, believe me. But it just makes the game more fun for me right now. Maybe when the beasts of chaos get redone I'll be interested in playing fantasy.
So my reason for not playing is pretty much all my own choice, not much to do with the game system. It just happens that of the fantasy armies I have, 2 are underpowered and 1 is boring to play at the moment. I got tired of fighting uphill with the third edition ork codex.I like to be able to field something fluffy, that looks good, and plays good. Since Fantasy doesn't provide that for me at the moment I've moved to other games.

Does no one else get frustrated when fighting Undead, Daemons and MSU elf armies? They drive me up the wall, I never have fun games against these guys. And I've played the Brettonian "CHAAAAAAAARRRRGHE!" army so many times I could do it in my sleep. Fantasy has too many completely ganky builds, somewhat like 40K 4th edition.

For me 5th ed. killed my enjoyment of 40k due to the lack of realism. Yeah, I know that we have aliens, space elves and all sorts of unrealistic craziness, but that's part of the background of the game. What irks me is the fact that an infantry model with fleet can possibly move 18" in one turn. Meanwhile a skimmer, which compares loosely to a gunship in modern terms may only move 18". I don't care how light on your feet you are, there is no way in hell you should be able to keep up with a gunship flying full tilt while you're on foot, period, then end.. Also, a lot of the random movement values in 40k annoy me because I like to have things more dependable in my movement phase. Yeah, I get pursuit distances being random, that's believable. But when an Eldar Guardian attempts to run and gets 1" and an Ork Warboss runs 6", you need a little more backing that up than "I guess the Guardian tripped.." or "Looks like my Warboss remembered his Nikes". There are other reasons why when 5th ed. came out that I all but put up my Orks and Space Marines, but if I continue I'll start sounding more whiny than I already am.

[Edit]: Da Boss: your signature looks familiar? What is that you're Fraternity's Litanies of Beer?

It's from the Webcomic Goats, and is a Dune reference.

I don't like the relative slowness of vehicles either, but they are at least more survivable.

Yeah I was pleased with the Ork re-do since I've always been a fan ok kit bashing and the whole feel of the army is great.

I got tired of playing the game to win and loosing to luck or just my skill not being as good.

With Orks it feels like watching your own vehicles get blown up or your SAG get sucked into the warp adds to your enjoyment rather than it feeling like a loss. It brings out the better reason for gaming for me which is fun fair game, but only a well balanced rule set can create this. 40k still has its moments of "Oh FFS!"

Well, around here mostly, the 40k players are a bunch of whiney bullies. Always more concerned about what the other person has in thier armies, and not wanting to play by the rules, and call you names if you don't play the way they think the game is supposed to be played.

The Fantasy players are more mature and fun to play with.

Combine that with the lousy rules in 5th edition, and I've switched to Fantasy...

Apone wrote:Sounds like your comparison rests on the fact that Plague Marines are awesome in the new codex. And Orks came out pretty strong too.
Though you're right about the power creep in Fantasy.
I just don't hear less complaints about it in 40k.

I think 40k is more appealing to the younger audience that is often the age that gamers start at. It's background is deeper and more interesting which holds the older crowd too.

It also seems to take the generic fantasy races and put them in a more engaging setting (space and guns).
Not many science fiction games/films/anything take something that would be generic in one medium (fantasy) and put it in a setting that allows it to seem fresh but familiar and compelling.

40K's background would be deep if the company maintained a solid foundation on developing story elements over the "how to sell things" elements.

Take for example "close combat." 40K close combat, known prejoratively as the "swirling melee", is really a record of WHFB-hand-to-hand being spun backwards. "!1 tinu egrahc" Someone decided that 2e's system was "too hard", replaced it with WHFB's, took out that pesky "casualties reduce counter-attacks" with "Casualties? No one is safe! One day you won't even have to be in the unit to be wounded by a close combat! That's right! We want to make sure little Billy gets ALL the attacks he feverantly counted up not once, but five times by any means necessary EVEN if that includes FUBARING the game!".

Who came up with that near-infrared of an idea? "Swirling melee"? This isn't a toilet or a glass of wine, no swirling occurs save for the potential from the splattering patterns of blood.

WHFB 4e, WH40K 2e, epic.

The problem with WFB is that it isn't a very flowing
game rules wise.It seems to be over complicated to the
point of boredom.Believe me I'm due to be playing in
my club's tournament and I've tried to read the rules
but keep getting bored and do something else.To my
mind if you can't grasp a set of rules after a read through
are they worth it? 40k always fires my imagination whereas
WFB leaves me cold.

Slipstream: 40k rules fire your imagination? Really? I can see how the Codex
rules do that, but the rulebook?

I love fantasy much more than 40k. I play both, but as time goes on, 40k is geared more and more towards 10 years olds. (Mommy I want those neato models! They are just like in halo!) To play fantasy, you have to be more on the ball. Fantasy is unforgiving. Small erros are harder to recover from. 40K does not suffer from this. Re-deployment is a snap for every army. Fantasy for the Real MEN!!!! (And the real dorfs, and elves, and orcs, and so on...)

themandudeperson wrote:What irks me is the fact that an infantry model with fleet can possibly move 18" in one turn. Meanwhile a skimmer, which compares loosely to a gunship in modern terms may only move 18".

Actually, if you check the BBB, Fast Skimmers still move 24", but other Fast vehicles only move 18".

Regwon wrote:fantasy is a better game.

it has a better rule set, requires more actual thought into what you are doing and

costs a lot less to build a GT standard size army than 40K does.

Actually, if you consider that we're talking about games, and define "better" as "more fun", then 40k wins hands down. At least, if you were to look at numbers of active players, money spent, and so forth. But just saying "Oh, Fantasy is better" without properly defining "better" in an agreed-upon way, is pretty empty. It smacks of mindless Fantasy elitism.

Fantasy has a fiddlier and more contorted ruleset, but that isn't necessarily better. For the most part, Fantasy is a determined by deployment, rather than tactical results on the board. It is "swingier", because very few dice are rolled in any given encounter, so there are more chances for dumb luck to occur.

Cost-wise, I think, this depends a lot on which army you choose, and how you choose to build it. 40k Space Marines can be built very inexpensively, which is part of the appeal. Fantasy-wise, if you focus on AoBR models, can probably have very similar cost structure savings.

Apone wrote:40k is also talked about a lot more on forums.

Partly due to its worse rule set and balance issues leading to more talk of army lists and composition.

As above, define "worse".

As I noted earlier, 40k is talked about more because it sells more. More players = more talk. The idea that Fantasy doesn't have rules or balance issues is merely symptomatic of the smaller active player base. Fewer players = fewer viewpoints = fewer arguments.

personally i prefer 40k because it has more room for fluff. i mean which gives you more variety? one planet or an entire universe?

nailed it Corpses.

HI all.
To be fair I think both backgrounds are equaly engageing.
And it realy is just down to personal preference if you like 'old world grimdark' ,TM or 'grimdark amounst the stars' TM.

Both games use a rule set developed from a Napoleonic rule set.(RP worked at WRG before writing WH )
A rule set developed for large formations of troops armed with close combat weapons , with restricted manouvering supported by ranged attacks.
Where the game is about out manouvering to get favourable close combat match ups.

WH rules work realy well for the WH game.

The mutated WH rules are just inane choice for 40k IMO.
Mangling game play to make taking a knife to a gunfight the prefered option , is just so wrong!

TTFN
lanrak.

corpsesarefun wrote:personally i prefer 40k because it has more room for fluff. i mean which gives you more variety? one planet or an entire universe?

Depends on what you want.

In terms of a generic universe of everybody killing everyone, sure 40k has plenty of space.

In terms of evolving characterization that doesn't rely on retcons, there are games like
Legend of the Five Rings.

There's big, and then there's interesting.

From a marketing standpoint, 40k and Fantasy have the same scope/problem with their
background. It doesn't change, and anything that changes in the present changes
everything in the past. The scope allows a lot of entry, and admittedly it allows them
to wipe out mistakes or bad ideas, however, it doesn't necessarily make it better.

I don't think 40k has more room than Fantasy. It has the same room as Fantasy, ie, it's
the size of both genre's plots. Their histories are even about the same length given that
there's really not much to know. Big conflict at location x means that paint scheme y
exists.

40k is represented here because, surprise, Dakka is a 40k forum and 40k sells more in
the United States. It's also, ostensibly, a science-fiction ruleset. People like science-fiction.
I don't know why it attracts more wargamers. Maybe the Fantasy market gets sucked up
into World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons?

Fantasy is the better game. 40kv5 just turned me off from the game.

Of course, WHFB has gone down the same bad path 40kv4 did, with a few lists rising to the top that are ridiculous and are beatable by taking other power lists, it's annoying as hell to face.

In the end, it's good enough to get me to play the game...in order to hang out with my friends who play GW games.

Otherwise, I play PP stuff because it's just better IMO.