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.
They are totally different games and both equally demanding in their own ways.
Fantasy is more about an overarching plan and strategy.
40K is more about turn by turn tactics and decisions. 40K is much more Dynamic, Fantasy much more calculated.
Apples and Oranges.
Trying to "prove" that one is more demanding than another is a futile effort as there are so many variables such as player skill, terrain, missions, etc. that you really can't draw any definitive conclusions as the game is different from person to person within a given system.
Play both, see which you prefer, and play that one, or both. That is really the only question that is pertinent.
Don't look at the below comment if you're not interested in Warmachine/Hordes.
Seriously. Don't look.
Spoiler:
I reeeally don't want to comment on this, since this is supposed to be '40k vs. Fantasy' thread.
But compared to GW core games in general (in the author's humble opinion) PP core games are far and above tactically. All 3 systems require a good amount of strategic thought - the pre-game army lists and overall plan of attack. It's during the game where Warmachine/Hordes shines. The games combines the free-form, squad based movement of 40k with the facing and resource management of Fantasy. Your units will have to be flexible in-game to deal with anything that may turn up - from a Caster's feat turn, to the special ability of a certain solo, or a Warjack's ability to throw other models around.
Did you look? I bet you did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/11 20:23:57
As others have adroitly pointed out: it used to be WHFB that was the more tactical game. Now it is 40k. 8e is just dice hammer. The more amusing part for me is the fact that, when 8e first came out, so many of my friends urged me to "Just try it" before panning it as awful. Those self same friends were the FIRST ones to bail on it when it was as terrible as they found out it could be. I stayed on long enough to find out it is WORSE than I thought it would be.
8e introduced great changes: 2 ranks of fighters, MI getting 3 attacks (Spear wielders should get all of theirs in the second rank, IMO) stomps, thunder stomps, swift reforms, two ranks of shooting...
But what it eliminated was far worse: marchblocking, rank negation (it still exists, but is essentially meaningless) through flanking your opponant, and essentially anything else that made the movement phase important.
Did fear need a nerf? Sure. Did it deserve to become nearly worthless? No. Did we need something like steadfast? Yes. Did we need it to become the entire focus of the game? NO.
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
Did fear need a nerf? Sure. Did it deserve to become nearly worthless? No. Did we need something like steadfast? Yes. Did we need it to become the entire focus of the game? NO.
Could you please clarify the present state of things mentioned above (fear nerf, steadfast, etc.) for those of us who havent played WHFB in a while and are not familiar with the specifics of the new edition? What about these changes is so bad? How have they changed the game?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/11 22:38:41
Grot 6 wrote:
Years ago, Fantasy was the more tactical of the two. Now it is down to buckets of dice and the flavor of the month.
Of your two choices?
40K is now nore tacticly of the two.
of the two games, I'll take the Advanced Squad Leader, any day if the week.
Pretty much this. Prior to 8th edition I would have said fantasy is more tactially challenging. But now that it seems like a rehash of 4th edition, with magic dice instead of power cards, its come donw to can you get the power spell off and decimate. Not much of a challenge tactically.
Hope more old fools come to their senses and start giving you their money instead of those Union Jack Blood suckers...
Fear went from a win in combat (no matter how narrow) being an almost certain break, to a reduction to WS1 each combat if you fail a LD test. Since you can reroll any LD tests with a BSB in 8e, fear is... nothing to be feared.
Steadfast means that so long as you have more ranks than the enemy, you are stubborn. Even if you are hit from the flank, lose combat by 50, or the enemy causes terror, you are still stubborn. Factor in the afore mentioned BSB, and any army with high numbers of disposable troops will be steadfast until judgement day. Now, if that army of cheap troops ALSO happens to be horrifyingly combat efficient and durable (read Savage Orc Bigguns) then you are in real trouble.
Even if you hit the enemy in the flank, after the fight is finished, they can reform to face you and will no longer be flanked for future combats. If steadfast were removed from being flaned, manuver could still matter, but it does not. In 7th ed, ranks could be negated by having a US of 5+ hitting the flanks or rear. Now you must have 10 MODELS hitting that side to negate ranks. This means that the difficulty of negating ranks has increased, but the WORTH of negating ranks has decreased. Hence, outmanuvering your opponant matters very little.
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
Nagashek wrote:Fear went from a win in combat (no matter how narrow) being an almost certain break, to a reduction to WS1 each combat if you fail a LD test. Since you can reroll any LD tests with a BSB in 8e, fear is... nothing to be feared.
Steadfast means that so long as you have more ranks than the enemy, you are stubborn. Even if you are hit from the flank, lose combat by 50, or the enemy causes terror, you are still stubborn. Factor in the afore mentioned BSB, and any army with high numbers of disposable troops will be steadfast until judgement day. Now, if that army of cheap troops ALSO happens to be horrifyingly combat efficient and durable (read Savage Orc Bigguns) then you are in real trouble.
Even if you hit the enemy in the flank, after the fight is finished, they can reform to face you and will no longer be flanked for future combats. If steadfast were removed from being flaned, manuver could still matter, but it does not. In 7th ed, ranks could be negated by having a US of 5+ hitting the flanks or rear. Now you must have 10 MODELS hitting that side to negate ranks. This means that the difficulty of negating ranks has increased, but the WORTH of negating ranks has decreased. Hence, outmanuvering your opponant matters very little.
Thanks. That's remarkably specific!
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
I think at this point both games are equal, in terms of how they're played competitively.
Fantasy is about taking as many unshiftable blocks of cheap troops, deathstars and Level 4 Wizards as you can. You play by rolling tons of dice to cast spells and resolve unending combats.
40k is about taking as many Laz0rbacks and 36"+ range shooting as possible. You play by setting you entire army up outside of its respective transport and proceed to shoot the enemy.
Both of these irritate me to no end.
Kabal of the Void Dominator - now with more purple!
"And the moral of the story is: Appreciate what you've got, because basically, I'm fantastic."
Nagashek wrote:Fear went from a win in combat (no matter how narrow) being an almost certain break, to a reduction to WS1 each combat if you fail a LD test. Since you can reroll any LD tests with a BSB in 8e, fear is... nothing to be feared.
Steadfast means that so long as you have more ranks than the enemy, you are stubborn. Even if you are hit from the flank, lose combat by 50, or the enemy causes terror, you are still stubborn. Factor in the afore mentioned BSB, and any army with high numbers of disposable troops will be steadfast until judgement day. Now, if that army of cheap troops ALSO happens to be horrifyingly combat efficient and durable (read Savage Orc Bigguns) then you are in real trouble.
Even if you hit the enemy in the flank, after the fight is finished, they can reform to face you and will no longer be flanked for future combats. If steadfast were removed from being flaned, manuver could still matter, but it does not. In 7th ed, ranks could be negated by having a US of 5+ hitting the flanks or rear. Now you must have 10 MODELS hitting that side to negate ranks. This means that the difficulty of negating ranks has increased, but the WORTH of negating ranks has decreased. Hence, outmanuvering your opponant matters very little.
I'm beginning to think the design brief for 8th was: 'Lets make those big blocks of infantry as appealing as possible, and change a few other small things, despite the previous system being practically fine, just so we can warrant a new release and update of the system'.
It shows the inherent problem of change for the sake of change.
It has oft been said that the problem with 7th was the codices released for it, not the core rules. 8th ed does clarify much, and in so far as discrepencies are concerned, is certainly a very clearly worded rule set. for that I laud GW. However, it is a terrible SET of rules, no matter how clearly written.
I like the magic phase as it stands now (despite that being a major nerf for how I played VC, which needed a steady, reliable magic phase to function) but too many other items were a classic symptom of GW: provide 4 fixes to a problem where only one will do. Like the change from 3rd-4th ed. They wanted to ameliorate the effects of Rhino Rush. So they created Cleanse 2 (the mission). Then they also made you unable to assault out of rhinos, increased difficult terrain tests, and brutally increased the damage charts on vehicles and improved AP1 shots. Any of these may have been enough, but they added them all, creating a HUGE nerf of vehicles.
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
IMO, if youre looking for a tactically demanding game, GW isnt the place to look. Both 40k and Fantasy are both great, fun games, but they arent balanced or tactical, relatively. For me, these games are more about the models and the setting and seeing a bunch of crazy gak go down.
If you want a truly tactically engaging experience, play FoW or Napoleonics or Impetus/FoG/etc. I would mention PP or Spartan Games but I have yet to play any of their rulesets and thus cant comment on them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/20 19:57:17
40k, hands down is now the more tactical of the games.
In WHFB 8th Ed, they really screwed the game over in terms of tactics with how they changed the core rules. The details have been laid out, but right now, Infantry + Magic is what will always be the most competitive thing for the rest of the edition.
To be fair, while many will go on about how "great" 7th Ed was in comparison to 8th, it merely had a very different set of problems - blocks sucked save for very few/specific armies, and players had entirely too much control over their opponents movement.
In 40k at least, the games between well tuned/built armies can be very fluid with things swinging between players. In WHFB, it can be exceptionally easy to see where things will play out, or you can just have "SUPER SPELL" go off and watch your army/general/whatever die instantly.
Played both. Still suffering from "block of models" syndrome that happened years ago. I went to fantasy tournament "Less than a year ago", played with a partner I never knew before, with a fantasy army I cobbled together and we tied for 1st place. Like many people have stated, your first maneuvers are what dictates the game. Was a serious 6th ED player, 7th was eh to me. 8th I'm still iffy about it.
Adam's Motto: Paint, Create, Play, but above all, have fun. -and for something silly below-
"We are the Ultramodrines, And We Shall Fear No Trolls. bear this USR with pride".
Also, how does one apply to be a member of the Ultramodrines? Are harsh trials involved, ones that would test my faith as a wargamer and resolve as a geek?
You must recite every rule of Dakka Dakka. BACKWARDS.
Pacific wrote:I'm beginning to think the design brief for 8th was: 'Lets make those big blocks of infantry as appealing as possible, and change a few other small things, despite the previous system being practically fine, just so we can warrant a new release and update of the system'.
It shows the inherent problem of change for the sake of change.
It wasn't really change for the sake of change, it was trying to get Fantasy back to being about blocks of infantry. 7th edition and its army books is what spawned the whole MSU army composition, which was a big change from previous editions, which were about larger blocks of infantry and powerful magic (magic in earlier editions actually was more powerful than it was in 7th, and less so than it is now. People are just used to 7ths magic, so going back to powerful magic is a bit bitter to some people).
Also, about game complexity being low, thus removing the strategy and tactics behind GW's latest game editions, well, game complexity has nothing to do with tactics and strategy. Look at Epic Armageddon. That is one stripped down ruleset - even moreso than 3rd edition 40k was. It's still regarded as a very tactical game. The ruleset does decide how tactical a game is, but it's not the complexity of the rules that does it.
Aerethan wrote:IMO WFB is the more involved of the 2 games. There are things like hit modifiers, manuvering etc.
Nailed it right here. Fantasy is a lot more involved and has many increased rules. Hit modifiers, armor modifiers, heroic duels between characters, and supporting units are all big deals that 40k doesn't have. 40k is squad based, rather than regiment, so movement is more loose and unconfined-making it easier. Fantasy is definitely more difficult and there are MANY more options. However, if the leaked rumor about 6th edition has any validity, it appears 40k will emulate the immersive gameplay of fantasy. And that sounds good to me.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Caster kill = win is actually a pretty ingenious rule in WM. It means that even if you are wrecking someone's army, there is still suspense, because you can always come from behind if you manage an assassination run. In most wargames, once you establish a lead by beating down the other person's army, it becomes more and more difficult for them to recover. This is part of why 5th ed 40k is no longer about Victory Points; because if Objectives win you the game, then your army can get absolutely butchered, but if you have the better position/control of the objectives at game end, you still win. In WM it's even moreso, because you can use your models and their special rules in complex combinations which may actually take your opponent by surprise and genuinely catch him flatfooted and unexpecting with a caster kill.
Panzerboy + Nagashek summed up my thoughts and sorrow pretty well. I really loved 6th and 7th, and it was my favorite wargame, and now 8th comes after 5th ed 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 02:38:14
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
DukeBadham wrote:This is slightly off-topic, but is warmachine tactically and/or strategically demanding, or is it simple
All I know about the game is that you win if you kill the other sides commander. You make the call on how tactically difficult that may be.
If you haven't played WM/H (and by this comment I'm going to assume you haven't), then bold broad-brush statements like this may make you feel good but to those who have played the game, you come across as trite and stupid. Doubly so if this comment is meant to dissuade others that haven't played the game from thinking there might be a more tactically involved system than what GW offers.
WM/H is far, far, far more tactically intensive than 40k. The simple reason is that there are more options available to models at any given point in the game. And because the death of a warcaster/warlock is often a win condition, players must truly balance offense and defense. Because of line of sight arcs and bonuses to attackers for being 'behind' models like the ability to ignore shields and other defensive bonuses, flanking actually matters. Because models are never 'locked', and specific, powerful models have the ability to trample over weaker ones, creating and countering attack vectors is a big part of the game.
Mannahnin wrote:Caster kill = win is actually a pretty ingenious rule in WM. It means that even if you are wrecking someone's army, there is still suspense, because you can always come from behind if you manage an assassination run. In most wargames, once you establish a lead by beating down the other person's army, it becomes more and more difficult for them to recover. This is part of why 5th ed 40k is no longer about Victory Points; because if Objectives win you the game, then your army can get absolutely butchered, but if you have the better position/control of the objectives at game end, you still win. In WM it's even moreso, because you can use your models and their special rules in complex combinations which may actually take your opponent by surprise and genuinely catch him flatfooted and unexpecting with a caster kill.
Panzerboy + Nagashek summed up my thoughts and sorrow pretty well. I really loved 6th and 7th, and it was my favorite wargame, and now 8th comes after 5th ed 40k.
Give this man a cookie and lock the thread, because after this, there is nothing more to be said.
We don't give Mannahnin cookies. Not after the last time.
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
Kabal of the Void Dominator - now with more purple! 
Thought for the day 
-and for something silly below-
Desert Hunters of Vior'la 
The Purge 
Iron Hands 
Adepts of Pestilence 
Tallaran Desert Raiders 
Grey Knight Teleport Assault Force
