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.

Speaking of planets vs universes (really just one galaxy, but that's a quibble), the real history of this planet manages to outweigh that of all the fiction ever published about the entire galaxy of 40k.

I'm jus' pointin' that out.

I prefer 40k for primarily fluff (love the fluff/background) and of course my beloved Imperial Guard.

I don't mind the fact that melee is extremely brutal in 40k (read: so all 3 of my squads just got swept?), but only wish close range shooting was a bit more powerful.

Don't like the fact that my rifles sometimes can only fire twice (or even once) at an enemy before they close to melee. Only thing that irks me.

The thing about 40K is that GW want melee to be an important part of the game. So the rules favour melee over shooting.

Miniature wargames are games which simulate military conflict.

I think the main difference is that 40k trends more towards 'game', with chance and probability being the deciding factors (note this is not to say there is no skill involved, most top players have a very good understanding of the effectiveness of units and 'play the odds' in the game) while fantasy trends more towards 'simulation' with its emphasis on manoeuvre and morale.

@John. What I meant by "worse game" is that I feel there is less in the players control during the game that affects the outcome. 40k depends mostly on good list construction and good luck with the dice.
Fantasy seems to be based more on good maneuvering and tactical match up. So it's about how you as the player set up and move your army.

Just my opinion, but when most of a game comes down to blind luck it isn't as fun to play for me. And that makes it not as good as a comparatively more skill based game.

The reason I prefer 40k to Fantasy is that 40k is a better miniatures game. By which I mean every model has an effect in 40k, each model fights. In fantasy the back ranks of units exist only to be removed as casulties or increase the chance of enemy models running away.

40k not only has a more obvious and wider scope for conversion but it also has a greater effect on the game. Actually, thinking about it this is probably less true than it used to be.

Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

George Spiggott wrote:

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

The reverse could be said for 40k.

George Spiggott wrote:I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were too many Space Marines in it.

What!?! Over half of the codices are non Spase Mareens already, you ask too much!

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing the lottery or the lottery?

Fixed it for ya.

George Spiggott wrote:

Canaan wrote:Do you like playing chess or the lottery?

I don't see the connection.

@Nurglitch: I checked out some of this 'real history' but it was pretty dull, there were no Space Marines in it.

Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles. Here's an example...

Battle of Balaklava Oct 25th 1854

The Thin Red Line - A single regiment of 200 (the 93rd Highlanders) against 1000+ Russian Cavalry. Result? After firing two volleys, the 93rd Highlanders manage to turn back the Russian Cavalry. This was followed by;

The Charge of the Heavy Brigade - A section of the fleeing Russian Cavalry draws up in front of the Heavy Brigade on an elevated position. Despite being outnumbered 2:1, the commander of the Heavy Brigade, General Scarlet orders a charge (uphill) against the Russians who close in around them. Result? The Russians withdraw after being slapped about the face with British sabres. This was followed by;

The Charge of the Light Brigade - 673 British Cavalry charge down the now infamous Valley of Death into the mouth of a Russian Artillery battery because the officers in charge couldn't work out what their orders meant. Result - The Light Brigade capture the artillery battery and cause all kinds of merry havoc behind it, but are eventually forced to withdraw when they realise nobody bothered to support what seemed like a suicidal attack.

Not very plesant for those involved, but certainly not dull either

P.S. Apologies to any Russian posters for my slightly jingoistic account of this battle.

Fantasy all the way with me. Why?

No matter how battered and beaten my regiments are from the game, every single one can still deliver a game winning charge. I just need to think smart and exploit flanks and rears (ooer!)

In Fantasy, there is a definite breaking point around the 4th turn, when things start going in one players direction. I love this aspect, mainly because no matter how well you have played to that point, your opponent still has a chance to break your line just as you thought you had him.

Psychology as well! There is nothing as pleasing as sending an enemy packing just by being big and scary! Terror ftw! and yet, having said that, it's extremely rare that a Terror causing fiend can deliver you the game on it's own. Every single charge you commit to has some element of risk where the consequences of cocking it up are nasty.

The manouveres can take a while for new players to get used to, sure, but again thats all part of the appeal. He might think his super unit of Chaos Chosen all tooled up are invincible. Then he learns the threat of the combined flank and front charge, and loses his main combat block.

Though I do often worry about the competency of some players on the web, especially when they claim Zombies are useless, even in the flank, as they will apparently always give away more combat res than they bring, which is patently nonsense. If I've engaged you with a unit in the front, and bring Zombies on your flank....I get +1 for Flanking you, deny your up to +3 by stripping out your ranks from the equation, bring me redundant ranks most of the time, AND give me +1 for guaranteeing you're outnumbered. So, they bring +5's worth of Combat Resolution overall. Thats me starting the combat in an almost insurmountable advantage. Even if you are 5 deep, you have to hit and kill with every single attack. Statiscally highly unlikely!

flashman you forget the most important one,
the battle of thermopylae: where 300 spartans fought against... oh you know the story

Thinking about it a little more....

There also feels like a greater variety of troops at my disposal, and definite stages to the battle.

For example, Fast Cavalry. These are odd units. Lightly armoured, generally lightly armed, yet can be a total nightmare for your opponent if he has nothing to counter them with. Generally, only one player will have his still standing after the first couple of turns. Too good at Flank Charges to just ignore!

Skirmishers. Odd little units. Excellent at taking out Fast Cavalry, manouverable enough to really exploit terrain, and a general nuisance to your opponent. Rarely if ever game winning outside of Wood Elves (grumble) but too useful to just discard out of hand (I never bother with Shades...though I think I will try a unit!)

Heavy Infantry. Heavier armour, higher stats...they need the right opponent. Get them stuck into enemy light infantry and watch the limbs fly!

Heavy Cavalry...not as nasty as many make out (at least, not in my experience, point for point) but horrific if you didn't anticipate their presence.

Ranged weapons...unless a gunline (BORING!) an oddity. Very rarely wipe out units with pure firepower, but incredibly useful for swining the inevitable combats your way, by picking off ranks and thus ranks bonus from your opponents best units, and giving you a better crack at having the outnumber bonus.

Artillery...varies wildly in it's applications. Bolt Throwers are good, Repeaters are even better. Cannons, Stone Throwers etc all hit like a tonne of bricks, but getting that hit requires as much luck as it does skill, lest the shot fall short of veer wildly off course.

Overall, I feel Fantasy is just much more satisfying a distraction than 40k. Each have their strengths, but I like those Fantasy offers a lot more! Plus, it scales pretty well the bigger you go!

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Fantasy is the better game...

I hear this a lot from primary WHFB players. Really?

I agree there is a lot to like in WHFB. But the argument that supports this view that WHFB is abetter game is usually some variant of: 'better because it is a game of maneuver and that is superior to a firepower game'.

40K and WHFB share so many qualities that I can't help but think of them as nearly the same game these days anyway, with a major difference:

You can "hide" things in WHFB. Things like, oh, assasins, characters and magic items, especially banners. While I see some validity to a game of maneuver being a good game and possibly better than a game which essentially boils down to "line up and shoot", in actual practice, what wins WHFB is all the nasty tricks, as the mission there is always the same: set up 12 inches in and kill the other side. So all the key engagements are never really decided by maneuver but instead by army choice and set up when the nasty "hidden" tricks are revealed.

The effective things I have seen in WHFB aren't combinations of clever maneuver but are nasty surprise tricks that actually reverse the effects of clever maneuver:

Characters and Heros
Goblin Fanatics
Magic Items
The Banner of Ignore Rank Bonus
Flying Units
Terror
Running skirmish bait lines of Light Cav/Dogs
Massed artillery

It leaves the game feeling gimicky and false:

WHFB is a game of maneuver and secretive tricks, 40K is a game of missions and shooting, tastes will of course vary, but playing for a variety of missions is actually a better game.

Fantasy is my preference due to the age factor and wanting a laid back playing enviroment. The fact that there are more well organized fantasy tournements across the country does not hurt either.

@Augustus, fantasy has better players in it than 40K does. You can rant all you want to about uber killy lords, magic or whatever else you were whining about does not stop the better players from winning with all goblin, or ogre kingdom and other nerfed list. Name me the last time you saw Kroot Mercenaries or any of the other 2nd tier 40K armies rise to the top over uber killy builds.

What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Generally in my experience the above is very much true.

I don't really play 40k at the moment (though second wave Orks are changing that!) but I am a Fantasy Junky. The majority of Fantasy players in my area all early 20' and up.

I think it's mainly because Fantasy suits well to a relaxed play style. I'm happy for my opponent to take his time during his manouvers, because sometimes it's tricky to known what you want to do. 40k however, has a faster pace to it which I feel rubs off on the players. Not a bad thing per se, it's just I prefer to make an evening of a game (though I got the Realm of Battle Board today, and I fancy seeing if I can chin my Flatmates Vampire Counts in the first turn!).

And the things you listed above are not cheap tricks. I *know* Fanatics are likely to pile out of Night Gobbos, which is why I trigger them with something fairly cheap as early as possible. If I get it right, they do a heap more damage to him than they do me.

Terror....as I said above, the tactical application of a Terror test or two can be game changing, but it is far too unreliable to ever be considered game winning. Fear, or more appropriately, outnumber with Fear is nasty, but Terror is a one shot thing. Once they pass, thats it, they aren't scared anymore, and passing happens far more often than not.

Magic Items...they are there to bolster my plan. Every Fantasy army will have a core strategy at it's inception. My Savage Orcs for example are about disruption. Hence Lord, on Wyvern, Screamin' Sword, Collar of Zorga, and Iron Gnasha's. Sod all armour, but designed entirely to head for the great concetration of enemy characters on the first turn, and break as many heads as he possibly can. This is stage one. Should it be successful (about 50/50 thus far!) then the ladz have a much easier time of it, as I have thrown my opponents line into disarray, usually having killed his General and seen off whichever unit he was in.

Fantasy is a game of subtlety, where the outcome is rarely assured. I get you prefer 40k, but don't go criticising things you don't appear to fully get.

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Every fantasy tournment the youngest players there are 18 and usually bought by their fathers who also play. I have had to play against 13 year olds in a GW run 40k Grand Tournament 3 times (twice in one tournament no less). This even extends to local stores, gaming clubs and RTT's. So yes 40K attacts the kiddies far more than fantasy ever has or ever will, at least in anty gaming group I have been in for the last 15 years.

Also, in Fantasy the terrain does more than just make you harder to kill. Highest up the hill has an advantage in combat. They can also see more, but be seen by more.

Hiding in woods is all fine and well, until you realise you again need to be seen in order to see (generally speaking).

Rivers are a nightmare without a bridge, walls are the bane of Cavalry (no Lance S increase, and I may well be striking before you. Get that up you!) and so on.

Fantasy doesn't work well for mission, that much is true, so if you like mission parameters beyond 'kick his head in' then 40k is probably more your thing. But Fantasy, because of how it works, does mid table brawls beautifully.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also, in Fantasy the terrain does more than just make you harder to kill

What terrain? Everytime I see a fantasy board it is a featureless plain, with perhpas a single building in the middle, or a pair of hills.

In that case, there is a flaw in the players, NOT the game.

Just bought me the Realm of Battle today, and to go with the current scenery I have already (2 Chapels, 1 Watchtower, Fortified Manor, loads of walls and a Wood) I procured a wood, and over the coming months, I will be expanding my scenery collection drastically.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Fantasy is a game of subtlety,...

Tricks, subtlelty...

Mincing words

Dice Monkey wrote:

Augustus wrote:What Age factor? Are you suggesting Fantasy to be an older crowd?

Every fantasy tournment the youngest players there are 18 and usually bought by their fathers who also play. I have had to play against 13 year olds in a GW run 40k Grand Tournament 3 times (twice in one tournament no less). This even extends to local stores, gaming clubs and RTT's. So yes 40K attacts the kiddies far more than fantasy ever has or ever will, at least in anty gaming group I have been in for the last 15 years.

I see, in my local store the demographic seems to be about the same.

Seems a like a good reason to play WHFB.

Again, you are missing the point in order to prove yourself correct.

In Fantasy, spells and magic items are kept secret until used. Indeed, there are specific items concerned with the forced revelation of such things on targetted characters.

All of these things still cannot win you the game outright on their own. Sure, I might well have the Banner of the Lady, which IIRC, is 125 points to ignore enemy Rank Bonus, PLUS the BSB to carry it, knocking up around the 200 points. He wants to do that? Fine by me! I always go for the flanks with Brets anyways. Standard goes in the middle, I'm not touching it, I win the combat by loads, I bag 200 VPs for his Banner and the Units alone, THEN the VPs for character and banner cost. Lovely!

You also raised issue with flying units...that'd be the same flying units which, generally, are utterly incapable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag, and once you get your paws on them get beaten senseless? Only exception here are Peagsus Knights, but even then they are of limited uses once the Artillery has snuffed it.....

Good work on the terrain, I bet your boards are more interesting!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You also raised issue with flying units...that'd be the same flying units which, generally, are utterly incapable of fighting their way out of a wet paper bag, and once you get your paws on them get beaten senseless? Only exception here are Peagsus Knights, but even then they are of limited uses once the Artillery has snuffed it.....

Flying units like, Dragons, Greater Demons? These units simply move up a flank and then destroy everthing in their path. They essentiaslly circumvent all the normal rank movement and charging rules because they can see over everything man sized and charge wherever they want because they fly.

Yes and no.

I have a great deal of experience with these bad boys, as my Dark Elf list which I've been using for yonks contains a Black Dragon and a Manticore. These things HAVE to get your flank. They have to. If the engage in the rear, they need 6 wounds to win, which is a tall order even for them when you hit on 3+. Hatred now helps somewhat, but I will avoid risking it still.

Also, consider the points of a Dragon with rider, and Bloodthirsters. In a 2,000 point game, those models are eating up around 25% of the points allowance. Thats one big target usually worth and extra 100VPs (being the general). You bet your arse they had better hit like a tonne of bricks! Yet even so, they are surprisingly easily overcome if you put your mind to it. Dragons tend to have a massive liability in the character astride it. Softer target than the mount means easier CR from it.

Bloodthirsters need the full 100pts being spent on them, taking them up to 550 if memory serves....

They can't charge where they want though...sure, they can see over enemy units and charge over them, but if there's not enough room to land, they are stuffed. They can also be easily baited, as a failed charge from a flier is still the full 20" inches. Used cunningly, you can get them in a position for a multiple charge they'll be lucky to survive. Then there are cannons and great weapons and nasty spells to consider as well.

Flashman wrote:Go back and check again, not for Space Marines obviously, but for some pretty awe inspiring battles...

WOOOOOOOOSH!!!

As punishment for your blatant lack of humour I am confiscating your Flashman books. You can have them back when I've finished reading them.