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.

Shorter game time, ease of conversions. You can write your own fluff easily.

I get my fantasy kicks through D&D.

This whole thread`s actually been a whole nice discussion, no sarcasme (don`t get me wrong, that`s what happened last time).Im impressed
But enough gossip, i have my opinion to state: Some weeks ago, I played my wood elves against lizards, rolled complete all the game, but managed to squeeze out a tie. I got 3 Tree Singings each turn, blocked his entire right flank, march blocked with my eagle and harassed with my riders (before they died). I rolled 5 1`s twice, lost my riders to blowpipes, but managed to tie. So tactical and so much fun. That alone got me back to warhammer fantasy. So i think while 40k is cooler, more "gangfight" and freekin sci-fi(!), while WHFB is like chess, tactics and movement being the most important. And i love chess

40k = More relatable. I find much more stuff fits with 40k in my head.

Tanks, Snipers, Mechs, Heavy Bolters, Valkyries, APCs, and sqauds of mobile and versatile infantry.

Oh wait, that's Guard

Yeah but overall 40k>WHFB in my opinion.

sA

I prefer 40k because I don't like the Fantasy metagame. It focuses too much on magic, characters and deathstars. Some army books are, in my opinion, way too powerful (but that's a discussion for another time). Granted, there are definite power differences between codices in 40k, the disparity between IG and Necrons doesn't seem to approach the difference between Daemons and Ogres.

I like the kits for 40k better, as well. I really like conversion, but Fantasy definitely offers fewer interesting conversion opportunities than 40k does.

Mostly, though, I don't like how little freedom Fantasy offers in terms of what to collect. Armies tend to devolve into "buy 6 boxes of basic troops, as many heroes as possible, and then you're done." I know 40k armies can be the same way, but I guess conversion opportunities and differing wargear make things slightly better.*

*Full disclosure: I play Bretonnians, so take my complaints with a grain of salt.

Why?

- 40k doesn't require me to spend $2-5 per wound marker
- 40k gives more freedom to personalize armies
- 40k rules are cleaner and more sensible
- 40k missions are more than just killing stuff
- 40k armies are better-balanced
- my friends prefer to play 40k

*and*

- I have more fun playing 40k
____

LunaHound wrote:Fantasy army as a whole looks very good when displayed.

Yes, WFB armies are basically cockteases. Pretty to look at, but no play.
____

aerethan wrote:Why fantasy over 40k? Because fantasy weeds out the 14 year olds.

My playgroup has nobody under 25, and is held together by people in their 40s. Also, young teens are generally more a joy to play with and young adults are to play against.

Guns, bombs, s'plosions and sag.

aerethan wrote:
Far fewer "children" play fantasy, and for good reason. It's far more tactically involved, and it is not so simple as point and shoot.

40k more or less comes down to 2 things: my gun is bigger, and I happened to roll better than you this time.

Yes I'm aware that there is a little more to it, but that is the jist of it. If you shoot at the right thing and roll well, you win.

What a joke.

In 40k assault is actually the decisive way to win ground, and since there are actual objectives (which there never are in WHFB) it makes 40k the real tactical game.

40k is a better assault game than WHFB too, why?

Troops make a vital difference taking objectives in missions. In WHFB, Core choices are just obligatory and serve no in game purpose.

40k has dynamic missions, WHFB is always just a line up and charge game.

40k has disclosure, you know where you stand, and make decisions accordingly, WHFB success largely comes from taking and hiding the dirty secret rules until it's to late.

Augustus wrote:40k has disclosure, you know where you stand, and make decisions accordingly, WHFB success largely comes from taking and hiding the dirty secret rules until it's to late.

You had me until this part. I can't agree with this, as I have had some nasty surprises in 40K, just as in WFB.

GG

I started playing Fantasy but quickly found that far more people of my age play 40k. If it was a 50:50 split, I would definately play both. I don't think either are more fun to play, and both have cool models and fluff.

Two things I do prefer about 40k though
1. I find that you have more freedom with convertions and making up your own fluff.
2. IMO, GW gives 40k far more love than Fantasy. More marine armies come out every year than fanasy army books.

I prefer 40K because it's Space Fantasy background appeals to me more than WFB and it's even-more-obviously-Tolkien-derived background. That said, if I'm doing any painting/modeling in 2010, it'll probably be for a Tomb Kings army, simply because I paint to play and I love the Ushabti models enough that they may get me off my arse to fielding stuff again.

I do find the ranks and things in fantasy more restrictive than the 2" coherency plus deep strike pus reserves you can have in 40K

I play both, but I play alot more 40k because of time constraints

Hmmmm alot of well made points thus far, that for sure.
I never really put in my perspective however many if not all of my perspectives of why I like fantasy over 40k, has already been covered.

-I like the way a completed fantasy army looks over a completed 40k army.
-I feel like if I start off bad in 40k its extremely hard to pull out a win. Where as in Fantasy I have gone over half the game doing horrible, and can still pull out a tie or minor win.
-I feel fantasy is more tactical. This might also be because my 40k army is built to run forward and not much tactic wise.
-I generally like the fantasy fluff/lore better

I like the background and the models more than fantasy.

lord_blackfang wrote:In my area, all the powergamers play WHFB, so 40k is much more fun to play.

This.

I have a nice Lizardman army, but I have only used it twice. Since the people I would play against are just the most cheesy, beardy power gaming nerds I have met, they aren't even fully assembled.

The guys I play 40K with have no problem making a fun list instead of a hard one. Hell, one guy will play RAVENWING, so you know he isn't taking it seriously...

I love the background in 40k so much. 40k has so many story lines and I find myself more emotionaly invested in the story lines. Sword and board is not really appealing to me. I do prefer LoTR over WFB, because of the background.

As far as the game goes I feel that 40k is more fluid then WFB.

Cheers

I'm in this hobby mainly for the modelling and I feel WHFB limits me somewhat in that regard:
You'll have to pose your rank and file troops in such a way that they line up in one neat uniform block. (boooooring)
In 40k individual models can be more dramatically posed and get the attention they deserve. Plus 40k offers a wider variety in thematic flavours between armies.
Just look at the difference between Elves and Dark elves in WHFB compared to Eldar/Dark Eldar in 40k.

Playwise I don't really care for the sluggish pace of WHFB.
The nature of its close combat feels unnatural to me. seeing a large block of warriors slowly make it's way across the tabletop, crashing into an opposing block and then only rolling between six or eleven dice just feels like an anticlimax.
Close combat in 40k is as it should be: fast, furious, bloody and relentless (plus you get to roll bucketloads of dice).

I don't think WHFB is a bad game or less of a game than 40k, It's just not the game for me.
I'll play the occasional game of WHFB though, because only one other player in my local 25 man or so player group plays 40k.
Fantasy rules supreme at my FLG. (probably because of the large number of power players)

Yup, just my two cents

ATM I prefer fantasy to 40K, but I might switch back after seeing the Beastmen Army book for myself. (Or I might just buy some computer games.)

Reasons why:
No SPACE MARINES in fantasy. I used to play in a 40K league where the MEQ armies were so thick I had to practically beg to get to play against anything else. As one of the few non-MEQ players, it was treated as practically my duty to fight against the space marines by most of the other people in the club. So, so dull.

Real-world connection. Because the Warhammer fantasy world is inspired by real world history/mythology, players' creative energy has a direction. I find it much more rewarding playing against an actual Samurai army than I do playing against Tau with sashimono, just as I prefer actual nights in shining armour to Space Marines with Brettonian bits stuck on their helmets.

Fewer Fluff-Nazis. Again, because of the real-world connection, being an "expert" in the Warhammer Fantasy world requires having some real-world historical knowledge. As opposed to 40K, where some guy who has read every bit of print GW has ever published can confidently declare that women can't be Space Marines and therefore your entire army is "incorrect".

Movement matters.

Having to paint lots of expensive wound counters. Some people think this is Fantasy's weak point, but I think it's actually fantasy's strongest point. There's a certain macho-insecurity complex in 40K, where for most armies even the basic RaF soldier is made out to be a one-man army that can take on anything. Maybe it's because most armies are MEQ, but there seems to be a strong aversion in 40K to having any figures who are just cannon fodder, and who look it. Personally, I like how in Fantasy a sizeable chunk of most armies are shlubs or thugs, not Greek Gods the size of 4 brick ****houses with shoulders the size of Delaware and hand-held rocket launchers.

Buttlerthepug wrote:How long does a typical ame of 40k usually last for you?

3-4 hours.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Whats your favorite edition of Warhammer 40k?

2nd - When tanks were tanks and Jervis was less bland.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Would you buy race specific Warhammer 40k Terrain?

Yes.

Buttlerthepug wrote:Would you buy pre-painted 40k miniatures?

For tanks and whatnot, yeah, probably. As long as the quality of the model itself doesn't decrease.

Buttlerthepug wrote: What 40k races do you buy or collect?

Ultramarines
Black Templars
Deathwatch
Alpha Legion
Iron Warriors
World Eaters
Word Bearers
Death Guard
Lost & The Damned
Necrons
Tyranids
Imperial Guard
Inquisition

Buttlerthepug wrote:I want to know why YOU prefer it over WHFB

I like the vague open-ended back story of 40K, and I love tanks. Especially WWI tanks.

Buttlerthepug wrote:what draws you into [40k] more than the other?

Not a fan of fantasy battles, most of the races don't interest me, and I much prefer how open-ended 40K is for fluff reasons. You can write just about anything into 40k.

JOHIRA wrote:
No SPACE MARINES in fantasy.

I can sympathise with that. It's hard to keep your enthousiasm when you have to play the same type of army over and over again.

JOHIRA wrote:
Real-world connection. Because the Warhammer fantasy world is inspired by real world history/mythology, players' creative energy has a direction.

I disagree. The 40k fluff has plenty of allusions to real world history and mythology, not to mention biblical lore. With a whole heap of references to various Sci-fi and Fantasy sources thrown in the mix I feel my creative energy has plenty of directions to choose from.
Don't get me wrong though. WHFB fluff and imagery is WAY better than the contrived swords & sorcery stuff other fantasy games have.
I love the way the Empire imagery is based upon real life late medieval/early rennaisance military like Landsknechte, but that's the only army in WHFB I can think of with a consistent real life historical feel about it.

JOHIRA wrote:
Fewer Fluff-Nazis. Again, because of the real-world connection, being an "expert" in the Warhammer Fantasy world requires having some real-world historical knowledge. As opposed to 40K, where some guy who has read every bit of print GW has ever published can confidently declare that women can't be Space Marines and therefore your entire army is "incorrect".

That's probably because people with an interest in real world historical warfare usually are into historical wargaming I guess.
40k has a rich, detailed and unique background story. A lot of players get sucked into 40k because of it and really care about it. Personally I think it deserves more than being denoted as 'fluff' as it has really come onto it's own over the years. The story of the Emperor of Mankind alone is more akin to a mythical saga than some background filler for plastic space soldiers.

JOHIRA wrote:
Movement matters.

Sure, 'cause in 40k those objective markers come to you all by themselves.
WHFB takes the movement phase to a whole other level though, where players meticulously move big blocks of infantery by millimeters to carefully allign them for a charge. I've seen it many times and it makes my skin crawl everytime. I respect the strategic and tactical thinking that goes in it but it's just too fiddly and contrived for my taste.

JOHIRA wrote:
Having to paint lots of expensive wound counters. Some people think this is Fantasy's weak point, but I think it's actually fantasy's strongest point. There's a certain macho-insecurity complex in 40K, where for most armies even the basic RaF soldier is made out to be a one-man army that can take on anything. Maybe it's because most armies are MEQ, but there seems to be a strong aversion in 40K to having any figures who are just cannon fodder, and who look it. Personally, I like how in Fantasy a sizeable chunk of most armies are shlubs or thugs, not Greek Gods the size of 4 brick ****houses with shoulders the size of Delaware and hand-held rocket launchers.

Not every groundtroop in 40k is a 7 foot tall superhuman clad in powerarmour. Whenever I see a IG army I just want to point at the units in front and yell:"dead men walking!". I won't though 'cause I'm not a total dick. Well, maybe some lawnmoyer noises when facing an Ork horde. And have you ever looked at the utter clueless expression on a Tau face? You just want to cuddle the thing and tell it everything's going to be all right, but you damn well know it's not.
Could the lack of Psychology rules makes 40k troops look more tenacious than they really are?

aerethan wrote:Easy answers:

Why fantasy over 40k? Because fantasy weeds out the 14 year olds.

Far fewer "children" play fantasy, and for good reason. It's far more tactically involved, and it is not so simple as point and shoot.

40k more or less comes down to 2 things: my gun is bigger, and I happened to roll better than you this time.

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've seen far too many 1 tree 2 hill fatasy boards that the supposed adults have that just smash into each other, that any 10 year old can do.

And having seen the last couple fantasy books.....Fantasy has turned far more into my gun(or magic) is bigger than yours and I roll better.

Belathane wrote:I disagree. The 40k fluff has plenty of allusions to real world history and mythology, not to mention biblical lore.

Yeah, "allusions". Like how the black marines allude to the Teutonic Cross on their heraldry, or how the red marines allude to vampires. Or how the space elfs have craftworlds that almost allude to Celtic holidays.

I'm not saying that the 40K fluff is bad, mind. It's quite good in it's own way and I'm a fan. But a lot of its connection to real-world stuff is superficial. "We named the head guy for Chaos after a demon in Revelations! Aren't we edgy?" It just doesn't click the same way fantasy does for me. Now naturally anyone can play Fantasy Battles just as superficially, like how in previous editions the Lizardmen were just a bunch of puns. But if someone really wants to build in that historical connection, it's far more possible in Fantasy than 40K IMHO, because Fantasy actually takes place in an imaginary history.

40k has a rich, detailed and unique background story. A lot of players get sucked into 40k because of it and really care about it.

I've got no problem with people who care about the fluff. It's people who have decided they're experts in it and that everyone else has to model and paint to their interpretation of it that chafe me. And I've definitely seen that happen more for 40K fluff than Fantasy.

Manchu wrote:I don't like the ranked units of WHFB. I also don't like the focus on lords/heroes in that game. Finally, I like 40k's models and fluff a lot better than Fantasy's.

This sums it up perfectly for me.

I play 40K because of the tanks. That is the only reason. Otherwise I'd be into Fantasy because the core rule set is just so much better. Army book vs army book is another story however.

Ive, done a thread on this a while back. Why not take a look:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/265114.page (failed link was edit)

I think its more popular because the machine guns and tanks appeal to people more, especially younger ones. If you look at a kid's games console games, the likelyhood is that they'll have more shoot 'em up games (4OK) than ones where you are armed with sword and shield and go kill people of whatever (WHFB).

I like the rules of WHFB better however, it just does it for me more than 40K. I like them the same, but 40K is obviously more popular. Look at my 2 threads: what would you change in your army's book? Ive done one for WHFB and one for 40K, ATM the 40K one has 125 answers, and the hot status, while the WHFB one has a measly 37. Proof.

I like that it's easier to make unique looking infantry and characters in 40k than in Fantasy. You can use Fantasy bits on your 40k figures but the reverse is rather difficult to pull off and still have it match the fantasy theme. I also dislike how needing to rank up my figures in Fantasy prevents a lot of interesting poses.

Wouldn't go so far as to say I like 1 system more than the other, they both offer a different gaming experience. The things I like about 40K over WFB:

-More free form: your units aren't stuck on rails so if you make a minor mistake in deployment or get baited by another unit it doesn't cost you the usefulness of the unit for most of the game

-Less random: 40K rolls larger dice pools for attacks/shots meaning averages usually bear out, but in Fantasy so few dice are generally rolled in combat that small anomalies can lose you the combat and often the game

-Ridiculous magic items: In games of 40K it's pretty rare to see an "I win the game" piece of gear being toted by a model, but in WFB it's pretty easy to stumble across a magic item that just wrecks your team with nothing to be done about it REF: Black Tongue in WoC vs. VC, RoH in DE vs. any magic heavy list.

-Games aren't generally won before the 1st turn: Lets face it, if two players have the same skill level, you can usually look at a WFB game and how the armies are deployed and see what's going to happen short of a dice rolling anomaly. This is the biggest negative point for me as in 40K even an overmatched army if well-played can eek out a draw or possibly a victory. Far too often in WFB it simply isn't happening.


I still wouldn't say I prefer 40K over fantasy, they both have their unique qualities they bring to the table. One feature I really enjoy about WFB over 40K is the handling of Magic V. Psychic powers. Even if you don't plan ahead for magic you get 2 dice for showing up so you can maybe block something. If you don't have/bring anti-psychic you just have to watch your opponent doing ridiculous crap all game.

Buttlerthepug wrote:This has been bugging me for a while now... I notice it alot in the Dakka Poles...

Polish people on Dakka bug you?

Why do I prefer 40K?

For a few reasons.

1.) 40K is FAR more balanced than Fantasy, you can pick up any army and have a reasonable chance of success against a like skilled opponent. In fantasy, the Armies are way out of balance, anyone who argues that point come bring your tier 3 list against my tier 1 list and let's see who winds 90% of the time. The simple fact that their is a tier system shows the lack of balance in the game.

2.) In my opinion, the background in 40K is SO much more engaging. Fantasy is just that, a very typical Fantasy setting. 40K, while borrowing heavily from a lot of sources, is in its entirety something unique and really very awesome. Look at the multitudes of fan sites about just the fluff for 40K, they vastly outnumber the same for Fantasy because their is so much more to it.

3.) 40K is, in most cases, less about uber characters and, super magic and deathstar units than Fantasy is. In competitive Fnatasy you need these over the top, super units or crushing magic, or, ironically enough, super shooty armies to win. 40K is more about using the units you have effectively, and troops are vastly more important in 40K.

4.) 40K has more variety of ways to play, from city fight, to apoc, to planetstrike to all kinds of different scenarios where Fantasy is ALWAYS line up, charge and fight.

5.) Fantasy is more a game of luck. Why? The all important leadership test (which some armies ignore!). 2D6 that can win or lose the game. I have outplayed people in Fantasy, then seen it all fall apart on the last turn because of one failed leadership test. That is silly, and far too random. That mechanic of the game needs changing, something more like Warhammer ancients would vastly improve Fantasy, IMO.

Now in regards to some of the ways people stereotype the two games:

1.)40K has more kids, or less mature players: I do see more young people playing 40K, but I see just as many adults playing it, if not more, than Fantasy. I have lived in quite a few cities with large gaming communities and the 40K scene has always been bigger, with more people to play and just as many nice people as douche bags as Fantasy did. Preferring Fantasy does not automatically make someone more mature, it is simply a preference.

2.) Fantasy requires more thought. bs. They are apples and oranges. There is a reason the best players consistently win in 40K and that is because they are smart and skilled. Fantasy is more a game of power units and strategy, you need to have a plan before the game starts and execute it. Once your army is set up, that is pretty much it, you can't make any drastic changes. 40K is a game of tactics and reacting to changing situations. 40K has more fluidity and therefore requires a different type of skill. The whole chess to checkers comparison is so stupid. Both games require a lot of skill to win at, they are just different skill sets.

I love both games, but for me, 40K is the better system.

Haha, the questions I had in the OP were examples of threads from the Dakka Poles.. so no need to answer them as a few of you have >.< Theres alot of good points in here and although I dont 100% agree with all of them, its just my opinion.