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.

Here's a question that has been bugging me for sometime.

Considering that 40K is probably more popular do you think WHFB does well as a rival game?? I know they're by the same company but they do rival each other in a way.

WHFB was GW first game they made but despite that 40K is probably more popular. I think this is because a lot of people (especially younger ones) prefer blasting the enemy with heavy machine gun fire than shooting arrows at them.

What are your opinions on this?? Which is better?? If there is anyone from GW on the forum we would be intrested to hear about what sales you get on the two comparitevly.

Discuss.

First of, search for the topic "why not play fantasy?" it gives you all the opinions you need.

Popularity is very fickle and subjective, especially with young kids, most of them do not stay in the hobby for long, older gamers pick their game based on more than just what the game action represents (Dakkadakka guns or ka-chink-chop axes). Both are good games and their respective themes appeal to different people. A lot of people like both though. WFB does quite well in comparison to 40k. It depends greatly on the place and the players. I'd say a lot of other people prefer chopping off heads with axes and broadswords to shooting machine guns.

And honestly, I will not say one is better than the other in general. I prefer fantasy, but that says nothing about 40k's quality. If it had been more popular at my hometown when I collected, things could have been different, but at the time (late nineties, early 00's) WFB was played by more people. I for one don't believe 40k outsells WFB by an extreme margin.

Hmm perhaps my OP was of only my opinions. I voted not sure but i have seen more 40k armies than Fantasy ones at my FLGS.

40k is certainly the more popular one, and I think it's the better game.

I like WHFB okay though. The fluff for it is better than the fluff that gets tossed around a lot in the generic "high fantasy" type of settings. (I'm looking at you, Warcraft.)

Oh god.

Yes?

These threads always tend to go the same way, but so far the responses have been really measured and cool.

I like both. At different times I've prefered one or other though- at the end of 5th ed fantasy/start of 3rd ed 40K I liked 40K more. As 4th edition went on I started to like 6th edition fantasy a lot more, and then 7th edition was my favourite game for a while. As 7th progressed I found that I was not enjoying the game as much as my local metagame got ubercompetative (I don't play WFB competatively, I like to play around with fluff and campaigns and narratives linking battles instead) and my Orcs and Goblins got totally outpaced by codex creep. When the new Ork codex came out I jumped back into 40K with both feet, and enjoyed it loads, and I have been enjoying 5th edition. I'll be curious to see if 8th edition fantasy fixes any of the problems I have currently, and how the new book for my army plays. We're planning to get back into fantasy as a group soon, as my club seem to be suffering mild 40K fatigue.
I actually have more armies for fantasy, but less models. I like how each army in fantasy has it's own niche and generally a strong design aestethic. I don't always like the playstyle as much though- I bought Dwarves for the fluff, which I love, and found the miniatures and playstyle really uninspiring. I love Orcs and Goblins (obviously) and Beastmen, but found both frustrating to play. My first army was lizardmen but the models are in need of some serious TLC and I never play with them.

I dunno, for me it comes down the the state of the game and the armies I am into at the time. It looked like WOTR might replace Fantasy for me completely as my fantasy fix, but only one person in my group also plays so I suppose I'll keep playing.

It's sad how new editions can fix some issues (the WFB flying and magic rules were a nightmare balance-wise before 6th edition), but then the new army books undo all the good work by breaking rules, making baseless exceptions and adding underpriced powerhouses that become no-brainers.... and some units just become weaker and weaker with each new edition, that's justified at times (Chaos Warriors) but can be "wrong" in other cases (Empire Flaggelants really got a bad case of nerfing in the last two eds. I fear for their capabilities in the next... they'll get WS1 and T2 for sure! ).

It all depends on publicity. In large markets for wargaming, ie the US and the UK, 40k does great. I lived in France for 2 years, and I assure you, it is WHFB who steals the spotlight over there. Anyway, everything was overpriced and the french translations pulled out of #@%;.....No wonder it put me off starting wargaming for so long.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yes?

Nicely said.

Turbo10k wrote:It all depends on publicity. In large markets for wargaming, ie the US and the UK, 40k does great. I lived in France for 2 years, and I assure you, it is WHFB who steals the spotlight over there. Anyway, everything was overpriced and the french translations pulled out of #@%;.....No wonder it put me off starting wargaming for so long.

That's because French only speak French.... they just make up their own when they "translate" things. Read Le Seignieur des Anneaux (LOTR) once, it was about a jewelry shop.

40k for dice chucking, good painting and fluff

WHFB for more tactics, more of a head game. painting here as well.

studderingdave wrote:WHFB for more tactics, more of a head game. painting here as well.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I C WUT U DID THAR

I hope to start WHFB soon for my fix of Swords and Sorcery.

I prefer Fantasy myself.

I enjoy the 'breakpoint' of the game, where the ultimately losing player is staring down the point of no return, and his efforts switch from trying to win to damage limitation.

To see your game winning charge go off and send the enemy reeling is spectacular, but it's even better when cunning plans and tricks can see your opponent's game winning charge blunted, held, then driven off. The game mechanics really do help this, as with a typical 3+ to hit being the best you can get, the Dice really can betray you!

The shooting in the game works for me, as it's about tipping otherwise close combat situations into ones where you have a distinct advantage

The game itself is a little rickety, I have to admit, and quite often you will come up against oddities in the rules which aren't quite covered. This is often a case of which 'well, which comes first?' and easily dealt with as players during the game, be it a dice off to keep things rolling, consulting an FAQ or what have you.

At the risk of sounding insulting to 40k players, I must say I do find my local Fantasy crowd more mature than the 40k crowd when it comes to rules oddities etc. It's very rarely that a rules dispute derails the game, or a player doesn't allow you to 'go back' and shoot with a unit you forgot about. Perhaps it's just a game to game psychology, but I find Fantasy games to be far more relaxed affairs.

This is only my opinion, and not meant to be sweeping statements creating a rule!

EPIC uber alles.

Frazzled wrote:EPIC uber alles.

BFG for great victory!

studderingdave wrote:40k for dice chucking, good painting and fluff

WHFB for more tactics, more of a head game. painting here as well.

Word to that. 40k is fun to model and build fluff for, and enjoyable when laid back and letting the dice flow. But WHFB is where it's at for me as far as getting drawn into the game, beyond list building and monkeying dice.

- Salvage

I prefer Fantasy myself.

I enjoy the 'breakpoint' of the game, where the ultimately losing player is staring down the point of no return, and his efforts switch from trying to win to damage limitation.

To see your game winning charge go off and send the enemy reeling is spectacular, but it's even better when cunning plans and tricks can see your opponent's game winning charge blunted, held, then driven off. The game mechanics really do help this, as with a typical 3+ to hit being the best you can get, the Dice really can betray you!

The shooting in the game works for me, as it's about tipping otherwise close combat situations into ones where you have a distinct advantage

The game itself is a little rickety, I have to admit, and quite often you will come up against oddities in the rules which aren't quite covered. This is often a case of which 'well, which comes first?' and easily dealt with as players during the game, be it a dice off to keep things rolling, consulting an FAQ or what have you.

At the risk of sounding insulting to 40k players, I must say I do find my local Fantasy crowd more mature than the 40k crowd when it comes to rules oddities etc. It's very rarely that a rules dispute derails the game, or a player doesn't allow you to 'go back' and shoot with a unit you forgot about. Perhaps it's just a game to game psychology, but I find Fantasy games to be far more relaxed affairs.

This is only my opinion, and not meant to be sweeping statements creating a rule

Sure, they have different playing styles. *Go 40k!*. The WHFB battles involve much more units than 40k, become an argument of scale. However, that maturity may be due to GW marketing scheme of putting 40k forward as a game for youngsters. (Look at the games, fiction and workshops, they all got blue Speisss Maweens shooting Boltaaaz madly. Sure a snotty, spoilt 12 year old would go for trigger happy smurfs than dark, gritty WHFB. However, anyone mature and with a bit of experience of wargaming knows that both are great games with a variety of options, gaming styles, tactics and extensive fluff.

Conclusion, this thread should not exist. It whittles down to a question of taste or budgetary issues restricting to a single game.

Ok guys thanks for the replies. It's been interesting hearing your thoughts. As far as the poll goes, 40K is more popular but im not surprised. I had never considered putting in a choice including other countries or stopped to think how things span out elsewhere (thanks turbo10k).

Me, i like them both the same. I agree with what others have said, WHFB is better for narrative games/campaings.I also prefer the WHFB rules and system and am particulaly fond of the magic, monsters and how you can equip your heroes in many different ways and make stories about thier heroic deeds.

So why dont i like WHFB better then?? I dont know what it is, it seems more exciting and cinematic and i know more 40K players than WHFB ones.

Thanks again for the replies.

Conclusion, this thread should not exist.

THIS.

Jeez, I'm tired of the 40k vs. Fantasy "debate" that always pops up...just play whatever appeals to you. Personally I don't think either system is truly "superior", I have more fun playing 40k since I've never actually played Fantasy, but I hear both systems have their problems. No need to get an ego.

And besides, no matter which one you play, historical gamers will look down their noses at you.

40k = tanks = awesome.

Fantasy = dragons = awesome. The hydra made me want a Dark Elf army...with like 4 hydras in it...

I started with 40k and ended with Fantasy- Been playinfg 40K since 2nd and Fantasy for the last 2 editions. I have to say that Fantasy is overall a better game-IMO- but definately has it's problems. When 4ed 40k came out it was okay- it didn't fix everything but it was pretty good update- the armies were alot better in fourth than in third IMO. 5th ed was kinda the nail in the coffin for me and most of my friends- it is just a big mess to us now- GW really doesn't seem to care about game balance or customers anymore- it has just been a downward spiral for us- Honestly in a weird way I kinda blame Privateer press- haha I know- I know- but alot of the new rules that I thought were good were from Warmachine /Hordes- setup- templates- ect. The new progression for herohammer - to make everyone play special characters is there I think to rival PP- because their games are very character centric. In Fantasy with the exception of Daemons and Vampire counts all the new army books have been cool. I think it is just a bit much for some people to collect some of the fantasy armies- Skaven? Orks? some of those armies are gigantic in size...Then you have to paint them-whoa! also the movement is very restricted as oppossed to 40k's lets set up 24 inches away and smash models in the middle approach. Also magic for Fantasy just can't seem to get a good system down- it is always a bit quirky and weird- I remember when I was first learning Fantasy I hated it and almost quit playing but after you set you first real trap or plan out an attack and it works - you get a great feeling that you did something cool that you just can't really get from 40k- Storywise it is hard to beat 40k they have taken enough aspects from almost everything we can think of and rolled it into an epic single tale with something for just about anyone... So for a tally- Fantasy like the current incarnation- 40K last good edition was third- with the exception of Rhino rush and sweeping advance- I enjoyed it the most.

Oh, one more thing that keeps me playing Fantasy over 40k, I find the visual spectacle of an army aesthetically pleasing.

Just put together my Screaming Bell, and when surrounded by 39 Stormvermin, you have a truly impressive looking unit. This sort of stuff to my mind is missing in 40k. Sure you can have just as impressive centrepieces, but it's just not the same to me.

Hi all.
I belive 40k is more popular as its asthetics are currently more in line with the target demoghraphics preference.

WHFB has a different asthetic that appeals to different demoghraphic.

WHFB tends to attract more 'gamers' as it has rules written specificaly for the game play of WHFB ,so has better rules to game play ratio.

Collectors tend to go for 40k, as its athetics overshadow its game play.

(WOTR has much beter rule set than either game, IMO.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

Yes, WHFB has better rules IMO. The thing that is really annoying for me about 40K is when you fill the FOC. You have to have two armies each with its own HQ etc. which is annoying whereas Fantasy says what you can include for a certain points limit.

It wasn't an option but I do think WHFB is better dispite liking 40k better, particularly for the fluff.

Kyley wrote:It wasn't an option but I do think WHFB is better dispite liking 40k better, particularly for the fluff.

state of confusion...

He means he thinks WHFB is better as for rules, fluff, how it plays etc. but he actually enjoyes 40K more.

Why didn't you look at WotR? It's WFB done with a clean sheet of paper.

WHFB is much better games wise.

40K is all kinds of awesome fluff wise.

40k is more popular for kids.
WHFB has ALOT of converts as the kids grow older, and you tend to find the average age of WHFB gamers is much older.

Yeah, HAY KIDDIEZ- we gots an armee just for you - Daemons of Chaos! It's all kinds of PURE WIN!