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.

Hello guys,
i am new to gaming and i need to now whats the difference between WFB and W40K
i allready know the WH40K rules, so if you can tell me about WFB more, how do you play it, pros cons.... and if you can compare itto WH40K

thanx

Well, for a start magic is a great deal more important than physchic powers are in 40k. Mages tend to be pretty powerful.

Next, you'll almost certainly have a lot more models. 50-100 models is not unusual, even in relatively small points games, and many more if you want a low points army like Skaven or Night Goblins.

Next the game is more tactical. You need to avoid enemies to the side and rear of your units, and charging first is big advantage...but if you aren't quite close enough it will cost you.

And movement is a bit more complicated, thanks to the big blocks of guys you use rather than smaller squads.

In terms of game play, I prefer Fantasy. I will now attempt to explain why in as neutral a fashion as I can manage!

Right, Fantasy, more than 40k, is not so much about what you've got but how you use it. By this, I mean is more in the list writing. If you take choose your army around a particular strategy, you're on a much better footing then someone who just takes what they think will be individually hurt.

Sacrifical units, bait units, counter charge units etc are all important, but not strictly necessary depending on how you want the army to work. With most Armies, there are some forces well suited to different tactics, like Castling, Refused Flank, and the Oblique line (don't worry, they aren't as fancy as they sound! )

The biggest difference though, is how you use the firepower. Typically it's a lot less decisive in Fantasy than 40k, and it's pretty rare to lose a unit to one round of shooting (though not impossible. It does happen!). So rather than trying to inflict heavy casualties, I use it to swing forthcoming combats in my favour.

And combat is fairly different as well. In 40k, typically most members of a unit will get to throw a few punches, but in Fantasy, it's generally the front rank doing to fighting. The rear ranks however, bring automatic combat resolution. If one of my ranked units makes combat unmolested, I'll be looking at a static combat resolution of 4, even before blows are struck. Going 5 wide, 4 deep, gives me three points from the additional ranks (and thats the most rank bonus you can typically garner, barring magic items!) and one point from their banner. If I outnumber the opponent, thats another one, giving me 5 to start with. Each unsaved wound inflicted in combat adds another point. The loser (he with the lowest score) then takes a Ld test at the end of combat, with a negative modifier of the margin of loss to see if they stick around.

And winning those combats is central to the game. And also why I use firepower the way I do. To use the above example, and assuming I am fighting a similar sized unit (fairly common!) we go in facing a draw. But, if I kill just one member of the enemy unit with some shooting, I have a 2 point advantage. 1 comes from killing off a complete rank (you need 5 per rank to count!) and I then outnumber. This is a pretty tall order for the enemy, and only gets worse the more damage I do with the fisticuffs.

So more to think about in some respects, and less in others. I prefer Fantasy, and I highly reccomend you watch a couple of games for yourself, and see what you make of it.

Fantasy, as MDG said, has much more tactical depth. It seems that there are far less cookie-cutter lists, and fluff still holds a solid role in the game. It's actually possible to run a competitive, fluffy army without using any 'counts as'.

If you like realistic combat, Fantasy does it better than 40K. The whole concept of ranks and organised regiments just feels so right.

Of course, if you WANT to play dull cookie-cutter lists and use Spase Marienz (hurr), then you're going to want to play 40K.

Unfortunately, Fantasy has less players than 40K, which is why Space Marines outsell the entire Fantasy range, but who buys most of those Spess Mehrens? Younger gamers who have raging hardons for Ultramarines.

If you play Fantasy, you'll find a great deal more mature gamers. Trust me, a Fantasy tournament goes a lot more smoothly in my experience, because grumpy little kids don't pack up their armies and sulk in the toilets when they realise that they suck.

I just recently (last month) started a fantasy army because there are few 40k players at my FLGS. So here is a "new guy's" view of the differences.

To me the rules for Fantasy seem much more indepth and complicated. My main reasoning is your going from a typical squad of around 10 with a loose formation to a squad of 10+ which have to remain in some sort of block.

I veiw Fantasy scrimishers like regular 40 movement. LoS is different becuase of the restricted troop formations as well.

I would agree with what MGD said. There seems to be more tatics involved and not just run at your enemy to you get them in melee. I mean yes there is that option in Fantasy but moving to get flank and rear charges pay off in the long run.

thanx for replies guys

maybe i ll give it a shot

Best think to start with is box with dwarves and orks?

This question comes up fairly often, and it always creates a lot of "my games da bestest" strutting. I don't object to strutting, in moderation...

The reality is, either game is as strong as the local player base. Both are fairly tactical and have reasonable depth, but only if your opponent is at a similar/higher level as yourself. Choose the game besed on the locals that you want to play and you will enjoy it more.

Now that it's been said, time to take out the trash in favour of my favourite game:

1. Core rules are generally only half the story, with codexes and army books being the other half. Currently fantasy is hugely broken in favour of deamons, (and to a lesser extent) dark elves and vampire counts. 40k is much more balanced across it's armies.

2. Fantasy does not posess more tactical depth, it's just that the benefits for manouveur are more obvious. I generally liken it to poker- it looks like it's all about luck, but the same people keep winning. Is it all about luck or can you just not see the gambits in play? The comment above about just charging across the table to get into melee was particularly telling in this regard.

3. Luck is a bigger deal in fantasy. When combat is decided by only a few models, only a few dice are rolled. This means that it is easier for extremes of luck to have a decisive effect. More dice equates to a more normalised outcome.

4. In 40k I get to make dakkadakka noises and get to play with big stompy robots. It obviously winzors.

In summary- play what your friends/preferred opponents play.

OddJob. wrote:40k is much more balanced across it's armies.

Not so much anymore. In 4th edition that was fairly accurate, but with 5th Edition and codex ORKS, SM, Chaos Deamons things have become pretty un-balanced and mono listish when lookign at compatitive lists. I like 40k alot, but the current trends are putting a serious dent in the enjoyment of the game for myself and many of the local players I game with.

Fantasy is heading down the same road though, so in that regards the point is becoming moot. Both games have their pros and cons from my personal experience. Current trends in powerbuilds aside, 40 k has more modelling opportunities(mostly due to the lower model count and he squad based organization that lets each individual model shine) while fantasy tends to reward more tactical players who want to make a plan and enact it on the battle field. Fantasy's rules make more sense across the board, but it is also more complicated, while 40k has oddball arbitrary rules but is usually fairly simple(except when dealing with those oddball arbitrary rules LOL).

MDG summed up everything else nicely above. The biggest difference in play is the actual use of tactics, such as sacrificing a cheap unit to bait an enemy unit into charging it so you can get a more favorable charge on taht unit yourself on the next turn. In fact, in general in fantasy you need to be thinking a turn or two ahead of time. The number of dice is also a big deal. When you only have five guys attacking from the front rank you can often see the extreme ends of both sides of luck in very critical moments. A unit of 20 ork boys charging will only throw 10 attacks(or even only five if they have two handed weapons), not the 80 they would in 40k, so chance is a much bigger factor. You can tool up an 800 point hero to kill dragons and greator demons and watch him miss his 3 attacks and then die from one hit with killing blow to which you then fail your armor and ward(invulerable - ish) save (in fantasy you get both!, not just the better one).

I have found that most areas of the country also have smaller pools of fantasy players, but like was mentioned earlier they tend to be more mature(though not always more casual, some of the fantasy power gamers put 40k TFG's to shame ). Some areas are differnet though, I think fantasy is a little more prevelent on the east coast.

The best thing to do is go watch someone play fantasy at an FLGS. If you are bored to tears it's not the game for you. If you watch and are excited about all the different ways to bait and switch, march block, flank charge, etc then you should start with a battle for skull pass to pick up the rules cheaply and get a few starter figs to play around with. Dwarves(one of the armies that come with BFSP) are a slightly boring (tactically speaking) army to play, but are pretty easy to grasp and do well with even with little experience(tough units with good stats, sit and shoot most of the game, no pesky magic to deal with, etc).

Meph

Cheese Elemental wrote:Fantasy, as MDG said, has much more tactical depth.

No, it's more fiddly, but actually far *less* tactical.

Fantasy is *strategic* in the sense that your pre-game strategy and planning (including army-building and deployment) will determine the game's result most of the time.

40k is *tactical* in the sense that units react and counter each other in more of a real-time fashion.

For details, I'll refer to Beetlejuice's excellent rebuttal of Fantasy "superiority".

And with that, I'll take my leave.

HI all.
Firstly both 40k and WH are games writen to help sell lots of Citadel Minatures.

Warhammer is loosley based on Napoleonic type wargames , and as such represents some elements of real war tactics and strategy.
Strategic conciderations are mainly initial deployment, as this can influences the battle outcome conciderably .
As unit movement is more controled and this is where alot of the tactical elements develop.
Getting the best close combat match ups by out manouvering your opponent is the aim of the game.This is supported by ranged attacks.
WH tends to use more widley known strategy and tactics.

40k started as a clone of WH 3rd ed , used at the skirmish level.(fewer models larger distances between them= more manouvering.)
It was hacked to bits for 3rd ed, and 4th and 5th ed have filled in the holes left in the game play with lots of special rules.

As such 40k is a very abstract game, and although lots of skill is required to concistantly win games of 40k.
It is more to do with knowing how to exploit the rules and force compositions.
40ks strategy and tactics are more to do with the current 40k rules and codex books, than proven military actions.

Well in 40k everyone plays Orks, Chaos Marines or Daemons

In Fantasy everyone plays Dark Elves, Vampire Counts or Daemons.

OddJob. wrote:Choose the game based on the locals that you want to play and you will enjoy it more....In summary- play what your friends/preferred opponents play.

Well spoken sir!

avantgarde wrote:Well in 40k everyone plays Orks, Chaos Marines or Daemons

In Fantasy everyone plays Dark Elves, Vampire Counts or Daemons.

That's funny, I've been to many GW stores and have seen plenty of other armies. Skaven and Wood Elves in particular.

If you think about it you'll find that the whole thing is about proletyzing (sp?). I get this and hear about this when people are buying product opposite of what the commenter plays. "Tom" buys 40k so "Bob" says WHFB is more of a startegy game than 40K. Then if Tom argues Bob will defend his statement until the phrase come out: "Well, you'd know if you actually played WHFB."

Tom in a moment of weakness says "Yeah, right! You're on!" Now Bob has a new friend to play with. It's like Door-to-door Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. It's all about getting you to play the game and then get you into the game.

40k players can be just as bad. Neither side is innocent. For me I like the fluidity of modern combat. The staticness of the old ways is not my cup of tea.

So what if I or anyone else like space marines. I never understand the need to bash the most popluar thing within an experience. X automatically sucks because it's popular, for X can equal: Brittany Spears, Orks, Space Marines, Titanic, Twilight, Vampires, etc...to the Nth degree. If you don't like it fine. If you don't like it because it's popular that's fine too, but you are not different.

The complexity of the WHFB rules keep the little ones out. I have read them and there are things I do like and some I don't. It's hard for kids to understand the WHFB. but as far as mature, well I know a very mature 14 year old that thanks his opponet for a good game when he either wins or loses, and I know a 34 year old man who twists rules to win and throws dice and complain when he doesn't win. The game doesn't matter it's the person playing. Just because you play WHFB you will not become a socialite versed in manners and good graces. On the other hand just because I play 40k and like space marines doesn't mean that I am some raving lunatic that will scream and cry when I don't get my way.

To the OP find a group and play on. If you like 40k, or WHFB get your game on and have a good time.

Harm no one and be happy.

I agree with OddJob on the quality of your opponent's being the most important thing. That and the models, and fluff.

In terms of gameplay, I'd say fantasy allows adds clearer advantages for maneuvering, but also lessons the intrinsic value of movement somewhat do to the restrictions in place. Fantasy is also more reliant on deploying well than 40k, so you'll have to decide whether that's a strategic variable you'd rather have emphasised.

Fantasy is also mostly based on ranked blocked instead of loose, skirmishing, squads. Some people think this makes their army look more impressive and uniform, some think it detracts from the work spent on the individual model, so you'll have to decide whether you like the ranking or not. The ranked units further emphasise the model vs. unit difference in combat, where the unit in fantasy acts together more than in 40k.

Shooting is less powerful in fantasy, and close combat is more powerful. Magic can also be very powerful in fantasy, sometimes overly so. Fantasy armies tend to be affected by the morale rules more so than 40k armies, although the top armies in fantasy usually aren't.

People will argue back on forth over balance, but overall there isn't much of a difference. Both games have similar problems with powerbuilds and one trick pony lists at this point.

Neither game is particularly realistic. Obviously fantasy has closer roots to historical gaming, while 40k isn't based off of actual warfare.

UsdiThunder wrote:If you think about it you'll find that the whole thing is about proletyzing (sp?). I get this and hear about this when people are buying product opposite of what the commenter plays. "Tom" buys 40k so "Bob" says WHFB is more of a startegy game than 40K. Then if Tom argues Bob will defend his statement until the phrase come out: "Well, you'd know if you actually played WHFB."

Tom in a moment of weakness says "Yeah, right! You're on!" Now Bob has a new friend to play with. It's like Door-to-door Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses. It's all about getting you to play the game and then get you into the game.

40k players can be just as bad. Neither side is innocent. For me I like the fluidity of modern combat. The staticness of the old ways is not my cup of tea.

So what if I or anyone else like space marines. I never understand the need to bash the most popluar thing within an experience. X automatically sucks because it's popular, for X can equal: Brittany Spears, Orks, Space Marines, Titanic, Twilight, Vampires, etc...to the Nth degree. If you don't like it fine. If you don't like it because it's popular that's fine too, but you are not different.

The complexity of the WHFB rules keep the little ones out. I have read them and there are things I do like and some I don't. It's hard for kids to understand the WHFB. but as far as mature, well I know a very mature 14 year old that thanks his opponet for a good game when he either wins or loses, and I know a 34 year old man who twists rules to win and throws dice and complain when he doesn't win. The game doesn't matter it's the person playing. Just because you play WHFB you will not become a socialite versed in manners and good graces. On the other hand just because I play 40k and like space marines doesn't mean that I am some raving lunatic that will scream and cry when I don't get my way.

Dude... WTF are you talking about?

UsdiThunder wrote:To the OP find a group and play on. If you like 40k, or WHFB get your game on and have a good time.

Harm no one and be happy.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything the OP said. He asked about the differences in the two game systems...



I whole-heartedly disagree with the people saying Fantasy is a less tactical game. In Fantasy, everyone doesn't have the same cover save, for one example. Maneuvering is far more difficult and shooting? With the limited numbers of ranged units in a given army in a given game, it matters WAY more where you put your projectiles downrange.

I will say this, though: when G-Dubbs went to the dice mechanic for the Magic Phase, they screwed the pooch. They completely pushed me away from the game with that and the points revisions when the Beastmen came out after the Ravening Hordes list. I haven't played a single game since 5th ed. came out in the late 90's.



Ghidorah