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.

Not 100% sure where to post this topic. So any ways i have posted this topic in 2 areas. The reason being i want to get both sides of the story.

So what do you believe is more tactical and why? Fantasy or 40k?

I am personally interested on people opinions on the matter.

However please respect every ones option on the matter and no flame wars please.

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TY

I'll bite. My answer is neither.
If you asked this questions pre-WFB 8th edition, most people who know me would have been able to rattle my standard rant of how 40k is not tactical.

However that changed. They are both tactical games in their own regarding. WFB is known for being won historically during the movement and pre-army planning days. This is still acute, but random charge distance, big bang spells, and army comp have tweaked that a bit. Tactics come in combinations, knowing your opponents army, knowing how to deploy and react based on skill and experience.

Where did my opinion change? Because I am on a leave of absence from WFB for 40K. I had to re-learn 40k in the last year, learn what works, how, when, learn what GK / upper tier lists are, and learn how to counter them. I've still got lots of learnign to do.

40K requires the same thought processes as WFB. A big part of 40k is currently deployment, or sometimes lack there of. Knowing when to reserve or not. Knowing when to consolidate fire for effect or not. And knowing when to fight, and when to pull back and collapse part of your army to draw fire. 40K is huge on objective based play, not just smash face any longer. Despite the stereo type, its not just 4+ cover hammer. That can be a huge factor in the game, but its the terrain IE and how you use it to compliment what you need to do.

Both are highly tactical at the tournment level of play.

Up until 6th / 7th fantasy was more tactical although when 5th ed 40k came out it was close. Since 8th ed fantasy has emerged 40k has shot into the lead.

Im not to sure really although i have to agree partialy with Phototoxin as to the fact that it does seem currently that 40K is the more tactical of the 2 but we shall see......

Fantasy by a long stretch.

Much of 40k comes down to army lists and what armies you are up against. Very little comes from decisions made in battle, either in movement, shooting, or assaults. And army building in 40k is pretty simple - find the best unit and take as many of them as you can.

Army building in Fantasy is important, but there are a lot more issues to consider because combat resolution is more important and leadership actually matters. Likewise movement is much more important in fantasy. Magic adds another dimension to games, as opposed to 40k where psychic powers are usually just better guns.

I would say WFB still by a longshot. As Biccat says so much of 40k just comes down to army list composition.

However, WFB less these days than it once was, and there are other games on the market which are far more tactically involved if that is what you are after.

WHFB and 40k have a heavy strategic loading.

The accepted definitions I use:-
Strategic happens before the game/battle starts, (Army lists, and deployment.)

Tactics happen in the game/battle.

With WHFB generaly having shorter effective ranges than 40k.As most units in WHFB have to move into close combat to be effective,
The manouvering for advantage , provided a chunk of tactical interaction in WHFB game play.(3rd to 7th ed.Not sure about 8th as we didnt bother with it!)

With 40k most units start in weapons range,(after moving.)
And coupled with an army level alternating game turn ,40k has very little room for tactical concideration.
But has a bucket load of strategic options to make up for it.

As GW plc have a target demoghraphic of 11 to 16 year olds who can not grasp overarching tactical conciderations, but can remember tons of data.
(Thats why Top Trumps is also popular with this demoghraphic).
This is why WHFB and 40k are written with such a heavy strategic bias.(Also helps market the new minatures with awsome new rules!)

I'll preface by saying I don't actually play WFB, but from what I've read and discussed...

40K 5th edition is more tactical then WFB 8th edition. Reasoning being that WFB 8th edition has far to much randomness.

40k has a lot of "My gun is bigger then yours" situation. Dark Eldar can spam Dark Lances like no ones buisness and leave a mechinized force hoofing it. Only to get peppered by splinter weapons or -thrashed- by wyches or incubi.

In WHFB. You have a battle plan that would make Alexander the Great go "damn" but if my Bray-Shamans manage to roll well enough to summon and a fire-breathing dragon, or open up a black hole to the Chaos Realm that sucks up your units into it. Well that plan didn't survive contact.

Fantasy may have lost some ground with 8th, but it's still a tad more skill reliant than 40k.

40k ultimately boils down to target priority. If your list is sound and you cripple your enemy's good units your good to go.

Fantasy at the surface is match-ups, but thanks to magic and other rules (steadfast, for one) it allows for more tactical depth. 40k Ork Boyz simply cannot fight something like the Paladin Deathstar, while Skaven Slaves, if properly ranked up, can hold up even Chaos Chosen.

Cryonicleech wrote:Fantasy may have lost some ground with 8th, but it's still a tad more skill reliant than 40k.

40k ultimately boils down to target priority. If your list is sound and you cripple your enemy's good units your good to go.

Fantasy at the surface is match-ups, but thanks to magic and other rules (steadfast, for one) it allows for more tactical depth. 40k Ork Boyz simply cannot fight something like the Paladin Deathstar, while Skaven Slaves, if properly ranked up, can hold up even Chaos Chosen.

Lanrak wrote:WHFB and 40k have a heavy strategic loading.

The accepted definitions I use:-
Strategic happens before the game/battle starts, (Army lists, and deployment.)

Tactics happen in the game/battle.

With WHFB generaly having shorter effective ranges than 40k.As most units in WHFB have to move into close combat to be effective,
The manouvering for advantage , provided a chunk of tactical interaction in WHFB game play.(3rd to 7th ed.Not sure about 8th as we didnt bother with it!)

With 40k most units start in weapons range,(after moving.)
And coupled with an army level alternating game turn ,40k has very little room for tactical concideration.
But has a bucket load of strategic options to make up for it.

As GW plc have a target demoghraphic of 11 to 16 year olds who can not grasp overarching tactical conciderations, but can remember tons of data.
(Thats why Top Trumps is also popular with this demoghraphic).
This is why WHFB and 40k are written with such a heavy strategic bias.(Also helps market the new minatures with awsome new rules!)

Pacific wrote:I would say WFB still by a longshot. As Biccat says so much of 40k just comes down to army list composition.

However, WFB less these days than it once was, and there are other games on the market which are far more tactically involved if that is what you are after.

biccat wrote:Fantasy by a long stretch.

Much of 40k comes down to army lists and what armies you are up against. Very little comes from decisions made in battle, either in movement, shooting, or assaults. And army building in 40k is pretty simple - find the best unit and take as many of them as you can.

Army building in Fantasy is important, but there are a lot more issues to consider because combat resolution is more important and leadership actually matters. Likewise movement is much more important in fantasy. Magic adds another dimension to games, as opposed to 40k where psychic powers are usually just better guns.

Point taken. its true that in 40K you do usualy start in weapons range unless you play on a ridicously massive table. WHFB is more about manouvering although these new charge rules do make you have to account for your troops getting "cold feet" or your opponents going on a rampage and getting masses of long distance charge ranges.

I play both systems extensively and I have to WHFB is by far a more tactical game that rewards good play.

Deployment is massive in WHFB units cant cross from one flank to the other in less then 3 turns and knowing when to commit and when to hold is a hugely importent decision.

40k is hardly devoid of ways for a skillful player to shine but its mostly a case of list selection and target priority.

Ive noticed that alot of folk seem to take problem with the random charge range in WHFB but I have always found it to add yet another element of risk management (and If someone makes a long charge why did you hold if you didnt want to fight that unit?)

The magic phase in WHFB is also like a game within a game with its on tactics and yes the mega spells hurt but if your dumb enough to only run one combat block and then fill it with all your heroes then you have failed to adjust to how the game works and deserve to loose.

I would say WHFB is a more thinking game than 40k.


You could IMO sum up 40k with "Charge"

Every game of 40k is mostly about getting into CC as fast as possible or avoiding it at all costs. The extreme between CC and shooting in 40k is huge. CC is much more devastating to a game than shooting.

Since shooting in WHFB is less effective, setting up multi hits in CC becomes important.

How you hit a unit in 40k does not matter as long as you hit them your good.

I have played 40k for 20 years plus and have just jumped shipped to WHFB in the last 5 months. I would say they play close to each other but somehow at the end of the day WHFB is more FUN. Most people forget that games are played for fun.

Tactics mean nothing if the game is boring for you.

If your thinking of playing 1 game system you will have to play them both and find the one that made you smile the most! That will be the right choice,

.

Milisim wrote:

If your thinking of playing 1 game system you will have to play them both and find the one that made you smile the most! That will be the right choice,

Definitely agree with this.. play the one which you find yourself enjoying more.

Right now, probably 40K. Once 6th comes out, that may change...

Why limit your self to just WHFB and 40k though?

Most other game seem to have more focus on tactical game play than either of these two GW plc games.As WHFB/40k have heavy strategic focus to help sell minatures short term.

if the OP is looking for a more tactical game , there are plenty of alternatives out there!

Dagirlz wrote:Not 100% sure where to post this topic. So any ways i have posted this topic in 2 areas. The reason being i want to get both sides of the story.

So what do you believe is more tactical and why? Fantasy or 40k?

I am personally interested on people opinions on the matter.

However please respect every ones option on the matter and no flame wars please.

Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TY

Before the kiddy's "he whom rolls more / better dice" wins game that is WHFB 8th edition came along, WHFB blew almost every other game out of the water when it came to tactical depth.

If you compare 5th edition 40K with 8th edition WHFB, then 40k wins without a doubt (which isn't saying much, see previous paragraph), although, if most of the rumours are true, GW is looking to readdress this tactical balance, by turning 6th edition 40K into another kiddy's "you don't need to have any grasp of tactics, you just need to roll better" game!

Lanrak wrote:Why limit your self to just WHFB and 40k though?

Most other game seem to have more focus on tactical game play than either of these two GW plc games.

Such as?

And not just names, I'd like to see how people judge what is more tactical.

In my opinion, the answer is 'neither'. GW just isn't the game company for truly tactical gameplay.

Kaldor wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Why limit your self to just WHFB and 40k though?

Most other game seem to have more focus on tactical game play than either of these two GW plc games.

Such as?

And not just names, I'd like to see how people judge what is more tactical.

Warmahordes, Malifaux, FoW, FoF, Infinity... The list is quite extensive and varied...

The only other "major" games that I play that I would consider to be LESS tactical than 40K or WHFB is the "Spartan Trilogy".

PhantomViper wrote:Before the kiddy's "he whom rolls more / better dice" wins game that is WHFB 8th edition came along, WHFB blew almost every other game out of the water when it came to tactical depth.

What is it that makes WHFB less tactical than 40k?

40K is, essentially, a simplified version of WHFB:
Movement is simplified - 6" for everyone instead of Movement values;
Assault is simplified - 6" charge;
Combat is simplified - just about everyone gets to fight;
Shooting is simplified - based only on BS, no modifiers;
Armor saves are simplified - roll against your AS, no modifiers;
Magic is simplified - psychic powers are shooting attacks, roll 2d6, very little magic;
Combat resolution is simplified - count up your casualties.

The only difference is in the armies, and I think 40k armies are much more uniform than those in Fantasy.

biccat wrote:
What is it that makes WHFB less tactical than 40k?

- Random movement / charge values;
- Less terrain interaction / influence in the course of the game;
- Less decisive combat leading to extended dice rolling bouts;
- "Supernuke" type spells that leave game resolution exclusively to dice rolling;

Can't really say either. But fantasy takes more thinking. 40k is just shoot across the board and hope they fail their cover saves... That is all 40k is now who failed their cover save first.

biccat wrote:Much of 40k comes down to army lists and what armies you are up against. Very little comes from decisions made in battle, either in movement, shooting, or assaults. And army building in 40k is pretty simple - find the best unit and take as many of them as you can.

Spoken like someone who has a very poor grasp on competitive 40k. The armies that have been winning tournaments over the past few years are generally not the ones that mindlessly "spam" units, with the exception of Troops which are intended to be taken in multiples by design.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Why limit your self to just WHFB and 40k though?

Most other game seem to have more focus on tactical game play than either of these two GW plc games.

Such as?

And not just names, I'd like to see how people judge what is more tactical.

Warmahordes, Malifaux, FoW, FoF, Infinity... The list is quite extensive and varied...

The only other "major" games that I play that I would consider to be LESS tactical than 40K or WHFB is the "Spartan Trilogy".

I specifically asked you not to just rattle off a list of names. I want to see why you think those games are more tactical.

Kaldor wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Why limit your self to just WHFB and 40k though?

Most other game seem to have more focus on tactical game play than either of these two GW plc games.

Such as?

And not just names, I'd like to see how people judge what is more tactical.

Warmahordes, Malifaux, FoW, FoF, Infinity... The list is quite extensive and varied...

The only other "major" games that I play that I would consider to be LESS tactical than 40K or WHFB is the "Spartan Trilogy".

I specifically asked you not to just rattle off a list of names. I want to see why you think those games are more tactical.

Because in every single one of them, the decisions that you make during the game matter more than the list you brought or how "hot" your dice / cards are at any given moment.

Kaldor wrote:I specifically asked you not to just rattle off a list of names. I want to see why you think those games are more tactical.

For WM/Hordes:
Limited Resource Allocation/Risk Management aspects of Focus/Fury management and 1x/game Feats and Minifeats
Diversity of list construction (spamming is often detrimental to list construction) and 2-list formats
Ability to influence critical die rolls/operating on a bell curve versus 'bucket o' dice'
'Important Piece' aspect; not just Warcasters/Warlocks but significant support solos--protecting yours and eliminating your opponent
Combo-building and order-of-activation, actively managing list synergies
Depth and breadth of knowledge required for competitive play; knowing the minutiae of your opponent's list as well as your own
Far more depth for control/denial play versus pure aggression
Synergies, buffs, and 1x/game abilities allowing even the weakest in-game models to become a threat to heavier/elite models
Inability to 'lock' anything in combat resulting in more varied and therefore tacitcally complex threat vectors

Overall it's simply a much more complex game system. Complex can easily be bad, but WM/H really pulls off a streamlined, interactive system. I have *never* encountered the same degree of tactical problem-solving in 40k as I have in WM/H. The options in 40k are simply too limited.

I'd say neither, they're both more about who can build the cheesiest army list and roll the luckiest dice than anything else.

Fantasy had some tactical depth before 8th. these days stuff like march blocking is pretty useless, as is basic tactical stuff like flanking.

"Make sure X unit gets into combat with Y enemy unit" is about as tactical as either system gets.

So... out of all these other games that are more tactical than WFB (I don't play 40K and so could care less), how many of them are:

Regimental based rather than skirmish

NOT steampunk or some variation thereof

Popular enough to regularly find opponents without having to call to make appointments (i.e. is it likely that someone will be hanging out at the FLGS waiting to play)


Seriously wanting to know. Because WFB isn't really all that tactically speaking. I couldn't say whether it is more tactically sound that 40K, and I'd really like to play a game where flanking a big block means something other than an endless grind versus an effectively unbreakable unit.