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.

I'm looking for people who started GW gaming with Warhammer 40k and
then moved on to playing Fantasy. I'm curious as to what things hindered
your understanding and/or enjoyment of playing Fantasy. This can be
anything from the hobby aspect, to the gaming scene, to actual gaming
rules.

Also, what things stand out as improvements in Fantasy over 40k, and what
things do you miss in Fantasy from the switch from 40k?

(I mean, other than lasercannons and such)

When just starting out the hardest thing was thinking about how my models had to rank up. This was infact one of the biggest pains with black orcs.
Some more I've found are measuring, wargear, remembering generic weapons/armor, and not minmaxing.
Being able to guess distances is so much more important in Fantasy than it is in 40k as you have to figure out not only where you'll go when you charge, but where you'll go when you fail a charge.
There are so many different magic items that its really overwhelming when you're just getting started.
The generic weapons rules (bows, spears, etc.) and the armor rules (heavy, light, etc) are a bit of a pain to remember, it wouldn't have been that hard for GW to just print them in the back of a book or include them on a "cheat sheet."
Finally min-maxing takes on a whole different meaning in fantasy. You can't just take 4 units of night goblins and expect them to do basically anything.

At first, it was the whole arc of sight thing. A unit of skirmishers in the flank, for example, annoyed the hell out of me as they marched blocked my footslogging regiment, and sometimes could pick off a guy or two with shooting attacks. I mean, come on, they were right next to me but I couldn't do anything about them. Turn to face, and they slide to your flank again, making the unit act like it was chasing it's own tail.

Things I like about WFB over 40k:

1) Different movement rates, and march moving/blocking
2) In one turn, enemy units have to be shot OR charged, you have to make a decision, not do both.
3) Generally hard to win with Herohammer (in 40k, a Chaplain can charge a unit, kill one dude, and beat/run down the whole unit. Very hard to replicate that in WFB.)
4) More rewarding to win with clever support (flank/rear charges)
5) Modifiers for rolling to hit and armour saves, feel better to me than cover saves and AP.
6) Scaling of the game as points increase

The only real thing I miss in 40k is the modelling freedom - hard to do many unit conversions in WFB due to ranking up.

Zoned

The hardest thing to get used to for me was the panic "wave". But then again, my first army was an Ebay purchase of a Clan Eshin army, so any army with any worthwhile shooting could force two units to take panic tests and given that the army was only 800 pts worth, I couldn't field a master assasin to provide the army with any decent leadership and 3/4 of my army would be ran off in the first or second turn.

overall there are lots of changes to the game that you will have trouble dealing with and/or getting used to, but i believe that you will come to love whfb much better than 40k as i have. the game is far more in depth about how combat would actually be resolved in real life/that time period. also the movement and such make a ton more sense.

i guess the thing you may have trouble with most would be the combat resolution system, where even if you kill more enemy models you still may lose combat and run away

Zoned wrote:
The only real thing I miss in 40k is the modelling freedom - hard to do many unit conversions in WFB due to ranking up.

Zoned

I have to disagree with you there, most of the crazy OTT converted armies I have seen are in Fantasy from Pirate Cthulu to Smurfs, to King Kong's Skull Island native island. You may be able to make a cool conversion of of a jetpak marine with lightning claws but the stricter WYSIWYG means that it will still be a Marine with a jet pack and lightning claws dynamically posed. You can't get away with counts as like you can in fantasy (like my Smurf butterfly riders count as Spider Riders) so you see a lot more creativity and cool conversions or ideas on the fantasy table than you will on the 40K side.

Well, the hardest thing to adapt to was really the movement differences and charges. The fact that they all happen at the beginning is kinda freaky to a 40ker like me. Though the most annoying thing was the having to move something like 200 goblins in a 1000 pt army... Seriously if it weren't for the trays I would have given it up right there and then.

Dice Monkey wrote:I have to disagree with you there, most of the crazy OTT converted armies I have seen are in Fantasy from Pirate Cthulu to Smurfs, to King Kong's Skull Island native island. You may be able to make a cool conversion of of a jetpak marine with lightning claws but the stricter WYSIWYG means that it will still be a Marine with a jet pack and lightning claws dynamically posed. You can't get away with counts as like you can in fantasy (like my Smurf butterfly riders count as Spider Riders) so you see a lot more creativity and cool conversions or ideas on the fantasy table than you will on the 40K side.

How are the rules in 40k more strict for WYSIWYG? I've seen lots of crazy 40k armies to that were simply "counts as." I played a Tau army at a local tournament the other day were all the models were based on Halo characters. The player used mostly Tau and Tyranid pieces, and alot of green stuff and plasticard. Have you seen Dave Taylor's AdMech army from White Dwarf that counted as Lost and the Damned? Or James Craig's Zoat army that counts as Necrons?

http://ca.games-workshop.com/Community/Events_Coverage/Astro07/James/JamesCraig04_b.jpg

I'm not disagreeing that you've seen more crazy OTT armies in WFB compared to 40k, but I certainly don't think the rules or the game somehow lends itself better for "counts as."

And to be more specific about "hard to do many unit conversions in WFB due to ranking up," I meant it's hard to make outlandish characters in crazy poses in WFB due to the necessity of ranking up said characters in a unit. Hope that clarifies things.

Zoned

Combat resolution
Psychology
Arc of Visibility
Cannon Dice

just the rules in general, after playing 40k to death. Mostly why I never play, too much "how does this go again," that plus I play it so rarely.

uhhh

skirmishers/ movement in general. What happens before and after combat. Charge reactions, running off the table, etc. I seem to remember running off the table was a sticky one for some reason.

improvements? It's just a good ruleset. I don't think it gets enough credit, or maybe it does. Magic, Historical type infantry, characters and monsters. It's a cool system.

The two things I really like about Fantasy vs 40K are: A more robust leadership system, and a fleshed out magic system.

Pet peeve about 40K: Psykers can give some armies a massive edge against other armies without any defense other than playing "Kill the Psyker"

The hardest thing to get used to was the fact that nothing in WFB was nearly as strong as its 40k equivalent.

In 40k, one unit can make its points back in one good shooting phase. In WFB, you're lucky if you make your points back in 4-5 shooting phases.

In 40k, one close combat unit can take out 3-4 enemy units over a couple of turns. In WFB, a good opponent will make sure you end up spending 2-3 turns finding a 2nd target.

In 40k, you can move away from your opponent and redeploy. With the exception of flyers and possibly fast cav, once a unit is placed down on the table in WFB, its path is set in stone.


On the other hand, I find that most WFB games are over in about 3 turns. With no lateral movement, one player (the one with weaker shooting/magic) will charge and either break the opponent or die. I find it to be less tactical. The table always has a dead zone in the middle which means that every game plays pretty much the same. Much like if you played two 40k gun line armies with terrain around the edges. Most good 40k players I know will put terrain in the center of the table. Since it is a rule in fantasy that no terrrain can be within 12" of the center of the table, I find that most fantasy tables look the same (from a tactical point of view).

Once I realized that most fantasy games would play out the same, it was relatively easy to pick up the rest.

Daydream

Zoned wrote:
How are the rules in 40k more strict for WYSIWYG? I've seen lots of crazy 40k armies to that were simply "counts as." I played a Tau army at a local tournament the other day were all the models were based on Halo characters. The player used mostly Tau and Tyranid pieces, and alot of green stuff and plasticard. Have you seen Dave Taylor's AdMech army from White Dwarf that counted as Lost and the Damned? Or James Craig's Zoat army that counts as Necrons?

You have three examples, I can think of three I have seen and played against two of those with a 15 minute explanation of what was what and then still had to ask one guy had placards on his counts as CSM army and it took me several minutes reading what he moved every turn due to nothing even remotely similar to WYSIWYG. You don't have heavy weapons, Sgt. with Power Flaming Fist of Imperial Hotwings, or Private Guardman with flashlight and ham radio set that has to be modeled in 40K but not Fantasy.

Fantasy it is pretty much troops champion, musician, standard so long as those are represented you can pretty much do anything you want. You can also use non GW models to make your entire army, there are tons more Fantasy miniatures than Sci-Fi, and you can legally use all these at big tournaments. If you o to those tournaments you will see usually 3 or 4 off the wall heavily converted armies that you would never see in an 40K tournament, I know I spend a lot more time on my fantasy armies than I ever did on my 40K stuff.

I Think the only thing I have trouble with being relatively new to fantasy is to remember charging before starting the next phase

It sounds like the categories of differences are:

1. Modeling
2. Maneuverability
3. Combat Resolution
4. Magic
5. Equipment
6. 40k Peeves

The biggest change for me was coming to grips with how Fantasy has so much more dependance on luck. In 40k, if you can get a small to moderate advantage, it's not hard to ride it to a victory. In Fantasy, so few dice are rolled, it's easy to have big swings in fortune stemming from just a few oddball dice.

The other thing with Fantasy is that things move very slowly. It's like 40k in slow motion.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The biggest change for me was coming to grips with how Fantasy has so much more dependance on luck. In 40k, if you can get a small to moderate advantage, it's not hard to ride it to a victory. In Fantasy, so few dice are rolled, it's easy to have big swings in fortune stemming from just a few oddball dice.

The other thing with Fantasy is that things move very slowly. It's like 40k in slow motion.

I find this to be just the opposite. The decreased emphasis on dice rolls usually means that who ever is playing better will come out on top. For example, with fantasy's static combat resolution fights can often be decisively won with only one or two casualties being done so even if you fluff your attacks you can still win if you managed to do something such as rear charge your enemy.

Compare notes then. Where are the freak stat changers
in Fantasy and where do they occur in 40k?

I'm thinking John is talking about freak leadership checks.

But aren't they just exceptions? I always had the feeling that
the good Fantasy players I was up against already knew
the CR before I ever got a charge off.

Biggest thing I forget? You don't get a bonus attack on the charge.

Platuan4th wrote:Biggest thing I forget? You don't get a bonus attack on the charge.

Big difference there is no bonus attack but chargers always strike first.

Combat resolution - specifically, I can have a unit that my opponent cannot realistically hope to actually hurt (say, night goblins against ironbreakers), but one bad Ld roll and I'm running, and most-likely cut down. I think this really stands out with characters and monsters. A monster with T7 cannot be hurt by S3 models. And yet, if it whiffs on its attack dice, and only kills one model, all of a sudden it's testing Ld with negative penalties.

Shouldn't there be some sort of exception, like, you never ever run from a combat when you took no damage. If they can't hurt you, why do you need to run away?

----

The utter futility of shooting in fantasy. If my opponent goes first, I get exactly one round of shooting at his cavalry units before they hit my lines. Given that cavalry are given ridiculously good saves, I'm lucky to kill one or two knights, unless I play nothing but a gunline, and even then, chances are good that he's going to have enough knights survive to roll up my side.

the hardest thing for me to get used to was winning by making stuff run away instead of winning by blowing stuff up

For me it's the fact that 40k goes : Move, Shoot, Assault

While fantasy goes: Move/Assault, Shoot (magic and shooting are basically the same phase for me)

For me this is the biggest distinction. I'll echo everyone else about LOS, terrain being impossible to get through, combat res, etc, but for me the biggest change is that you can't move, shoot, assault.

Tactics! Strategy!




(I play both)

Redbeard wrote:Combat resolution - specifically, I can have a unit that my opponent cannot realistically hope to actually hurt (say, night goblins against ironbreakers), but one bad Ld roll and I'm running, and most-likely cut down. I think this really stands out with characters and monsters. A monster with T7 cannot be hurt by S3 models. And yet, if it whiffs on its attack dice, and only kills one model, all of a sudden it's testing Ld with negative penalties.

Shouldn't there be some sort of exception, like, you never ever run from a combat when you took no damage. If they can't hurt you, why do you need to run away?

----

The utter futility of shooting in fantasy. If my opponent goes first, I get exactly one round of shooting at his cavalry units before they hit my lines. Given that cavalry are given ridiculously good saves, I'm lucky to kill one or two knights, unless I play nothing but a gunline, and even then, chances are good that he's going to have enough knights survive to roll up my side.

-the static combat res systems stops big t7 gribblies rolling up a battle line, introducing that silly rule would herald the return of hero hammer in a big big way. That fact that most big monsters cant break ranked units solo is a good thing not a bad thing >> static combat res is representing the sheer weight of troops surrounding you its not all based on pew pewing like in 40k.

-shooting is far from futile but in fantasy alot of it is the 'what if' senario. What if: that helblaster rolls 30 shots, the outriders hit with 12/15 shots, the cannon hits my (insert big point sink monster) shooting can influence the game without doing anything.

-ur last comment on shooting kinda shows ur a 40k player, ever heard of redirecting? screens? bait and flee? and tbh a normal empire knight unit or silver helm unit isnt going to break a block with 5 static CR, 6 attacks with a champ 3-4 hit, 3 kills + standard thats it.

Alot of the stuff people are talking about rules wise is becuase fantasy cant be won with a big uber unit of doom which pwns everything. They will be marchblocked they will be redirected they will be fleed from and they will be fed crappy 30pt units for 6 turns. its good units need the whole game to make their points back, if every unit can wtfbbq 3 times their cost in a turn or 2 that just sucks >>

Fantasy is just a more tactical game than 40k, this isnt saying 40k is a bad game, it needs improving imo and i wount play it in its current incarnation but it has potential.

You need alot of forward planning to get the most from ur units in fantasy, movement wins and looses games.

Watcher wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Combat resolution - specifically, I can have a unit that my opponent cannot realistically hope to actually hurt (say, night goblins against ironbreakers), but one bad Ld roll and I'm running, and most-likely cut down. I think this really stands out with characters and monsters. A monster with T7 cannot be hurt by S3 models. And yet, if it whiffs on its attack dice, and only kills one model, all of a sudden it's testing Ld with negative penalties.

Shouldn't there be some sort of exception, like, you never ever run from a combat when you took no damage. If they can't hurt you, why do you need to run away?

----

The utter futility of shooting in fantasy. If my opponent goes first, I get exactly one round of shooting at his cavalry units before they hit my lines. Given that cavalry are given ridiculously good saves, I'm lucky to kill one or two knights, unless I play nothing but a gunline, and even then, chances are good that he's going to have enough knights survive to roll up my side.

-the static combat res systems stops big t7 gribblies rolling up a battle line, introducing that silly rule would herald the return of hero hammer in a big big way. That fact that most big monsters cant break ranked units solo is a good thing not a bad thing >> static combat res is representing the sheer weight of troops surrounding you its not all based on pew pewing like in 40k.

-shooting is far from futile but in fantasy alot of it is the 'what if' senario. What if: that helblaster rolls 30 shots, the outriders hit with 12/15 shots, the cannon hits my (insert big point sink monster) shooting can influence the game without doing anything.

-ur last comment on shooting kinda shows ur a 40k player, ever heard of redirecting? screens? bait and flee? and tbh a normal empire knight unit or silver helm unit isnt going to break a block with 5 static CR, 6 attacks with a champ 3-4 hit, 3 kills + standard thats it.

Alot of the stuff people are talking about rules wise is becuase fantasy cant be won with a big uber unit of doom which pwns everything. They will be marchblocked they will be redirected they will be fleed from and they will be fed crappy 30pt units for 6 turns. its good units need the whole game to make their points back, if every unit can wtfbbq 3 times their cost in a turn or 2 that just sucks >>

Fantasy is just a more tactical game than 40k, this isnt saying 40k is a bad game, it needs improving imo and i wount play it in its current incarnation but it has potential.

You need alot of forward planning to get the most from ur units in fantasy, movement wins and looses games.

Let's not turn this into a 40k flamewar, now. While the content is helpful, the tone is
a tad on the harsh side. I'm trying to put together the pieces of an article a 40k player
would read, not one that would make them combative.

malfred wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:Biggest thing I forget? You don't get a bonus attack on the charge.

Big difference there is no bonus attack but chargers always strike first.

Yeah, it was hard to remember after a year or so of 40Kv3 then switching to fantasy to keep that in mind.

But it's more startling playing 40k, then playing fantasy a lot, then playing 40k for the hell of it and realizing that your guys who just charged in for the kill have to stop and get mangled by the I6 stealers first :S

- Salvage

Let's not turn this into a 40k flamewar, now. While the content is helpful, the tone is
a tad on the harsh side. I'm trying to put together the pieces of an article a 40k player
would read, not one that would make them combative.

sorry i tend to get a little defensive of fantasy.

I felt i needed to defend the fact that its really really good big monsters and super lords dont rule fantasy. It also sounds like 40k players find it hard to get used to the idea that you cant usually win your points back with one massive point sink unit or character.

What about the idea of point sinks in 40k? do they exisit? Nearly unkillable units which tie up a winning ammount of VP so the oponent simply cnt get to them?

Part of the point is to interest them, not alienate them. If
they have misconceptions it's better to clarify them than
to make fun of them.