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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LuciusAR wrote:

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

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

I know, I am a big fan.

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

Are VC and Daemons really that imposing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrotherAtrox wrote:

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

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

Well of course.

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

Oh, that's just beautiful.

And so true.
____

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

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

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

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

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

But wfb requires so much more skill while ingame.

(Go go lord of the rings!)

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

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

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

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

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

@JohnHwangDD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boys like guns.

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

That's my two cents.

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

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

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

Darth wrote:@JohnHwangDD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darth wrote:@JohnHwangDD

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

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

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

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

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

JohnHwangDD wrote:Boys like guns.

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

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

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

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

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

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