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.

Hi folks.
I prefer WHFB to 40k, because WHFB had it rule set written specificaly for its game play.

And as such has a better game play to written rules ratios.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Not quite sure why I like WHFB over 40k honestly, I just do.

It's imbalanced right now, if you play competitively of course. Sure, there are no marines, and John's right in that Daemons are certainly the cheesiest army out there, but not everybody plays daemons.

I find that 40k revolves more around list-building than Fantasy does, IMHO, and that fantasy is more about unit application. For example, rarely can I go wrong with a unit of TH/SS Termies, just stick 'em in a LR and shove 'em in combat, but there's still plenty of room for error if I incorrectly use my Giant (Throw him at a fully ranked unit from the front and expect to win combat)

I prefer fantasy now because after too many years of 40k I played myself out of it and just don't enjoy playing the game that much anymore.

@Reecius - You guys should run a WHFB vs 40K event at the Broadside Bash as some kind of exhibition event.

brettz123 wrote:I prefer fantasy now because after too many years of 40k I played myself out of it and just don't enjoy playing the game that much anymore.

this. plus:

(please note these are just my views, not an invitation for others to take them the wrong way and get all pissed off)

1. WHFB makes me think more, and i enjoy that in a game. 40k has become a bit too "point and click" for me. its kinda over streamlined now.

2. i really REALLY like combat resolution and how it is done in WHFB. i was psyched to see how they sorta introduced it in 5th edition 40k, but only slightly. i dont like how wounds are the ONLY with that matter.

3. i like the magic phase being prominent in WHFB and wish it was more in 40k. in fantasy every army has some measure of defense against magic as well. in contrast my 40k orks OR chaos have zero defense against all the jaws of the world wolf and Doom spells hitting my key units.

4. i would rather hit something in close combat then shoot it. this ties in well with my #2, since CR is where its at for me. i really like grand melees with characters challenging each other, standard and numbers mattering and all that, in 40k it just feels more like a scrum, where most things are just fearless anyways and take a few fearless saves if they lose and everyone just chills.

5. i dont care for True Line of Sight, it leads to way to much arguing.

WHFB is far from perfect, i have many gripes about it as well, but if someone called me up for a game and gave me the choice, 9 times out of 10 i would opt for a game of WHFB.

Hmmmm well I guess theres a few reasons I hadnt thought of before as to why I like fantasy over 40k.

In my opinion and experience I feel WHFB does require more thinking than 40k. It seems to me its much more important as to what you do in fantasy (such as making sure you charge) where as in 40k you can kind of just... get a target and go for it.. Its alot different in fantasy. Like flanking and saves and such. in 40k it doesnt matter which way you come from, your still going to to get most guys in and (Depending on the situation of coarse) you always have your save. With WHFB there are so many (so so many) variables in this. I just feel its more tactically inclined but of coarse thats my opinion as Im sure there are those who feel the opposite that 40k is more tacitcally inclined and I assume they also think 40k is a better game system... I guess its just our nature to defend and "push up" what we like.

I also agree that imo a fully painted Fantasy army looks better than a fully painted 40k army although there are definitely exceptions.

I definitely like Fantasy Lore better as it just feels more "heroic" I guess?

Models definitely play apart in it too. I used to love 40k and wasnt a b ig fan of fantasy models and such but now I look at 40k and think "Ooo a Stompa... a big robot with guns and a chainsaw... not extremely creative" Then I look at fantasy and think "OOOO theres a giant dragon with his head split in half thats breathing multiple kinds of fire whilst chopping heads off and melting your flesh with some kind of magic..." I guess that is also apart of fluff where imo its just cooler!

I tend to see that WHFB players are just overall nicer, more friendly, and cool people. Where alot of 40k players tend to be nit picky and just not fun (this is also just in my experience) of coarse there is always going to be people of both kinds in both systems.

Armory: Woah this has a BIG part to do with it... and it just hit me actually. I personally liked 40k better when you had an armory to pick from and choose who had what (much like fantasy) and after they took that out the HQ's just became so boring and they didnt stand out as ""leaders" in my opinion... of coarse there are the exceptions. But in fantasy you can just tell whos in charge and it looks so much cooler. Is that a bigger sized ork with a bigger sized gun? Yes its my warboss.... maybe even on a bike? "Is that a giant fully plated chaos warrior riding a two headed dragon of death?" yes thats my chaos lord... they just stand out more in my opinion...

Combat resolution... I just like the way it plays out in fantasy rather than 40k...

Magic... yes it hurts and no I dont even play a magic army so saying I only like magic because I do a giant magic list... not going to work. It just makes so much more of a difference imo and it really adds to the feel of the game... Yeah you get those few rare casters in 40k that do some cool stuff... but when you get multiple armies with guys melting your armor, hurling giant fire balls at you, raising things from the dead or the warp, or even sending bolts of black lighting at your face... its just so much more intense!

Theres a number of other reasons, but rather than make my giant ( I like giants in fantasy too >.< ) wall o text even bigger (which Ive always wondered how people manage to do... I just found out) I will just leave it at that)

Buttlerthepug wrote:
I tend to see that WHFB players are just overall nicer, more friendly, and cool people.

this is a big one as well. at least in my area the WHFB crowd is a bit older, and a lil more chill and relaxed. i can pick out a few more 40k players who seem a bit high strung about winning and get whiny when they lose.

I prefer swords over guns. That's pretty much it.

aerethan wrote:1. Fewer kids play the game, but often the ones that do are usually pretty smart and nice, 40k kids not soo much.

2. The visual presence of an entire fully painted fantasy army is far more impressive than a 40k army of equal quality.

3. It is not a game of "my gun is bigger than your gun".

4. I have plenty of outlets for my sci fi needs thru video games and WoW (and more recently Dragon Age: Origins) is pretty much the only fantasy video game worth playing.

zackly. both systems are different enough to offer radicaly differnt styles of play. the awesomeness of seeing rank and file troops lined up on a well painted army is the bomb. and its really never the same game twice.

Big things I like about the game:

-Magic: It's nice to have the illusion that you'll stop something important (though against magic heavy that's really all it is) whereas 40K and psychic powers don't even give you that courtesy. This has become more a problem with the newer books like nids where there are a number of "I should really be able to stop this" powers that some armies don't have a solution to.

-Heroes: I like heroes challenging and having a fight amongst the countless irrelavant masses. This does have the dark side of some armies where a hero choice is barely a match for a unit champ, but in general I think it's a good idea and one I would like to see carried over

-Importance of Flank/Rear chargin: Obviously 40K is skirmish-based so you have no facing, but it does provide an interesting element to WFB where a fairly crappy unit in the flank or rear take a unit many times their points (or just get run the hell down, but that's how it goes).


A few comments though on what others have said:

-I disagree with WFB being more of a "thinking game" than 40K. I used to think this, but after getting some experience with the game the only areas where true thought is usually required is list building and army deployment. From that point on the charges, maneuvering and targets for spells/shooting are obvious. You've already committed to a course of action at the time of deployment and the fact that your units are on rails limits your ability to do anything clever.

-"my gun is bigger than your gun", really guys? most 40K games are decided by melee unless you're playing against IG, guns are most commonly used to destroy transports to ensure you can get the charge off. Anyone who has this impression of 40K has probably missed a few editions.

Cryonicleech wrote:Not quite sure why I like WHFB over 40k honestly, I just do.

Yeah, me too. I dont like WHFB than 4OK i lke them the same, but there is something about it that makes me like it that i just can't put my finger on...

I have to agree with some of the earlier posters. Back in the day I used to play both 40K and Warhammer but the end of 3rd and the entire 4th edition of 40K were so bad that I stayed away from the game altogether and focused on Warhammer. The tables have turned now, as 40K overall is decently balanced (possibly better than it's ever been) and quite fun, unlike Warhammer that is completely unplayable as far as competitive games go unless using a set of house rules (massive composition restrictions).

As far as the visual appeal of armies goes, that changes too. I have commission painted both a Daemons of Chaos army and a DIY Space Marines army, and I wouldn't go as far as saying that my DoC look more impressive. Different, sure, especially in the sense that Warhammer models form nice cohesive units and armies but 40K models are usually much more interesting individually. This is a sweeping generalisation, but in my experience and certainly regarding my own armies this is the case.

I strongly believe the next edition of Warhammer will be nothing short of changing the game completely around. No minor fixes and adjustments this time.

Things I like about WHFB:
1. I like the way big infantry blocks look.
2. I never grow tired of vampires, evil elves, evil knights, demons from beyond, and powerful wizards.

Things I DON'T like about 40k:
1. Too focused on over-the-top heroic hand-to-hand combat (not to be confused with close combat). Why is an automatic shotgun less useful than a giant machete when two squads clash at point-blank range? Why are heavy crew-served weapons so poor at actually suppressing infantry? Why don't frag grenades kill people?
2. Status Quo Is God. It took approximately 50 years (1904 Russo-Japanese War --> late-war WW2) for major armies to adopt something resembling fire team tactics with squad automatic weapons and bounding overwatch. Meanwhile, planets in the Imperium have had 10,000 years (or more, if you think about fairly-stable worlds from before the Great Crusade) without any noticeable improvement in their tactics, organization, or hardware. Not to mention greater strategic issues, as if the High Lords have never sat down and done a systematic analysis of the IoM's institutions and methods and concluded "Hmmmm, maybe we aren't going about this the smartest way."
3. Baroque Gothic Styling. It just doesn't work for me anymore. I like my future to be sleek, clean, and minimalist. Flying cathedrals for spaceships just looks ridiculous. I'll take Ghost in the Shell or Mass Effect, styling wise, any day. If the figures for Infinity were less heroic/cartoony (and less expensive) I'd probably switch to buying them.


In many ways WHFB embodies all the things I like about heroic fantasy movies, and 40k embodies all the things I hate about cheesy, heroic action movies. In terms of movie references, I want a sci-fi game that is more like Band of Brothers or Black Hawk Down, but with laser rifles and power armor.

Noble713 wrote:2. Status Quo Is God. It took approximately 50 years (1904 Russo-Japanese War --> late-war WW2) for major armies to adopt something resembling fire team tactics with squad automatic weapons and bounding overwatch. Meanwhile, planets in the Imperium have had 10,000 years (or more, if you think about fairly-stable worlds from before the Great Crusade) without any noticeable improvement in their tactics, organization, or hardware. Not to mention greater strategic issues, as if the High Lords have never sat down and done a systematic analysis of the IoM's institutions and methods and concluded "Hmmmm, maybe we aren't going about this the smartest way."

In the Imperium's limited defense, everyone was promoted way above their level when the Emperor took 'early retirement.' Part of the 'epic tragedy' aspect of the 40k setting, to me, is the idea that no one (but the Emperor, maybe the Primarchs) could hold the massive organization together and keep it moving even remotely forward, at least not for long. Everyone is too busy worrying about their stuff to think of the big picture no matter what they may claim. The Inqusiiton has probably had countless people killed for 'dangerous innovation' and that the Adeptus Mechanicus probably is happy about that. (Plus, hey, it keeps the Inquisiton out of the A-M's secret projects.) The High Lords talk about sponsoring great Crusades, but that's jsut to keep to populace motivated and make sure planets aren't strong enough to ask what the real value of the Imperium is.

My personal theory is that if the Orks, Eldar, Tau, Chaos, and lesser Xenos all disappeared into a black hole the Imperium would rip itself apart with internal strife. They need the external threats to give them something to at least kind of focus on.

I'm only rarely in the mood for this kind of bleak future myself, but it does 'work' for me when I'm in that kind of mood, I admit. Normally I prefer happier, if still somewhat gritty, settings like Heavy Gear. (Sorry, shameless plug. )

It comes down to just liking the fantasy setting better than the sci-fi setting.

I haven't actually played a game of 40k yet so it is hard for me to compare the actual game play, but it seems to me that fantasy takes a little more thought.