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.

@Iron_Captain

As a matter of fact, I started GW games with WFB and I was really involved in the lore back in the days. Just like you said, both games are rehashes but WFB is way over 40k in this regard. Just compare the Empire and the Imperium? Which one is the most original? Not really the simple copy of the Habsbourg Empire with griffons and magic. The Imperium is better IMO because it is a cross of more things and it has more original background in it.

Plus, you should definitely read the Siege of Vraks if you never did. The precision and the complexity of the campaign is just amazing and I don't think there are such pieces of fluff in WFB.

But it is just my opinion and in the end, it is just a matter of cavalry or tanks, just like you pointed out.

It is an eternal debate.

Would you prefer Fantasy or Sci-fi.

Fantasy is fun how ever it ask you to imagine a new environment knowing that every thing told/happening is just fantasy.

While Sci-Fi bring the idea of "this could happen". Which make it much more interesting to my opinion.

I may make million enemy by saying that but this is the reason why I prefer Star Trek rather than Star Wars.
Star Wars ask you to imagine something happening long time ago very far away. While Star Trek is an hypothetical way of seen the future of humanity.

I play both systems extensively, but I don't prefer one or the other, it all depends on what aesthetic i'm into at the time, Sci-Fi or Fantasy.

However, generally speaking, I find 40K is:
- Alot faster then WFB in terms of playtime
- Completely different set of tactics (Objectives win over pitched battles anyday)
- Lends itself to a narrative better, for example bunkering down to hold an objective against a horde
- Movement is free-form and arguably better
- Cover and terrain is actually worth something

Oh, and the stubborn rule gained from more ranks then your opponent is crap. Why? Because after getting butchered by Chaos Warriors in combat, inflicting nothing back, You SHOULD break and run, but no apparently mere humans and goddamn skaven slaves have an Ironclad will equal or greater then that of Walking Metal Juggernaut Vikings....

(Yes I am very bitter about this ¬¬)

 Xenophon00 wrote:
Would you prefer Fantasy or Sci-fi.

Or, in this case, fantasy with swords or fantasy with chainswords.

I may make million enemy by saying that but this is the reason why I prefer Star Trek rather than Star Wars.
Star Wars ask you to imagine something happening long time ago very far away. While Star Trek is an hypothetical way of seen the future of humanity.

Sorry, but if you think that Star Trek is in any way a plausible vision of the future of humanity then you don't really understand much about science. All of Star Trek's "science" is meaningless technobabble, and its concepts are no more or less plausible than the ones in Star Wars (or any other "space opera" story). You know, kind of like 40k.

Sorry, but if you think that Star Trek is in any way a plausible vision of the future of humanity then you don't really understand much about science. All of Star Trek's "science" is meaningless technobabble, and its concepts are no more or less plausible than the ones in Star Wars (or any other "space opera" story). You know, kind of like 40k.

 Andy140491 wrote:

Everytime we talk about 40k, he reverts to saying how much more its lacking compared to fantasy.. i.e no flank charges, no strength to armour modifiers, combat ress is alot different ect.

This is not lacking, just different rules.

My one problem with WHFB is that the insane amount of no original ideas, but everything is borrowed from somewhere else is way more obvious in fantasy than in 40k. In fantasy you have generic chaos (still best looking gak ever), generic wood elves, generic high elves, generic dark elves (seriously? dark/high/wood elves the best you can come up with?), generic dwarfs, generic human knights, generic everything. In 40k we have the very same, it just have a really really thin layer of illusion, that the whole universe is not a complete rip off of something else. We still have high elves in space (eldar), dark elves in space (BDSM and only not chaos because eldar can't be chaos eldar), even wood elves in space (hippie eldar somewhere in the depth of fluff), generic bad guys (chaos), alien rip off (tyranids which was ripped off by starcraft, yay), orks in space, dwarfs in space (removed from fluff though), we even have lizadmen in space (either removed or forgotten), generic knights, but not in plate armor, but in power armor (smurfs and co). And the list goes on for some more.

I wouldn't say I don't like fantasy, I like it, but in different settings, for some reason, not in wargames.

 Xenophon00 wrote:
I did not know that Dakka Dakka is a platform to critic other personal opinion.

It's a public discussion forum. Anything you post is open to criticism, including your opinions.

I just found it easier to get into a world/story where the explanation is "shut up, it is the future" rather than "Shut up, this is a fantastic world which does not respect any law/rules as we know it" as it is clearly mention in the very first line of every star wars intro "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away".

So how exactly is it that you get into Star Trek? It very clearly says "shut up, this is a fantastic world which does not respect any law/rules as we know it", it just says it with ridiculous technobabble instead of explicitly saying "a wizard did it".

Fantasy require you to imagine and get in to an imaginary world.

So does 40k. Or have you forgotten that this is a setting with literal space wizards, FTL travel that involves traveling through a literal demon-infested hell, space elves complete with pointy ears, etc? I can understand preferring science fiction over fantasy, but I can't see how that preference leads to "40k is awesome".

 Desubot wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I like big guns and I can not lie.

You battle brothers cant deny

When a Marine comes in with a big shooty gun

With lots of modifications done.

I played chronopia , but it had very different rules, never liked the idea of cartwheeling big blocks of infantry.

40K is still an oversized wargame with skirmish mechanics, so it plays more fun, at least for me.

 Andy140491 wrote:
A friend and i primarily play fantasy, although he has Tau and Tyranids,

Everytime we talk about 40k, he reverts to saying how much more its lacking compared to fantasy.. i.e no flank charges, no strength to armour modifiers, combat ress is alot different ect.

I was just wondering if you guys could perhaps give me the reasons why you play 40k more so than fantasy???

also, as a side question, what armies tend to play best as stand alone armies? and how are the new Khorne daemonkin?

thanks

I've played both and to me the two convey very different sorts of conflict.

Fantasy portrays large scale combat. Entire regiments clashing together upon vast rolling fields leaving hundreds if not thousands dead at the end of the day. There's pageantry, heraldry, standards, banners, and all the finery and ostentation of combat in a bygone age.

40k on the other hand is suited to a closer, harsher sort of battle. Fire-fights and skirmishes, fighting block to block or tooth and claw... the white knuckles and gritted teeth of battle... the visceral side of things rather than the grand strategic.

Which is why I don't particularly like comparing the two. They use similar rules and mechanics, yes, similar principles, but they illustrate very different sorts of warfare.

 Dust wrote:

40k on the other hand is suited to a closer, harsher sort of battle. Fire-fights and skirmishes, fighting block to block or tooth and claw... the white knuckles and gritted teeth of battle... the visceral side of things rather than the grand strategic.

It may have been some decades ago, but now the 200 IG guardsman or multiples of superheavies and/or gargantuans disagree with you.

 krodarklorr wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:
I prefer 40k because I prefer actually playing games against other people.

Oh my word, this made me chuckle a bit.

That was true a few years back Mars, but theres all sorts of games being played around here now.

I've played both, but only play wh40k now. The fantasy setting is just too generic and bland. The real world analogies are just too obvious in terms of warfare. A lot of the things in Warhammer Fantasy also breaks immersion, like cockney orcs, skaven hamster wheels etc. This kinda works in wh40k, because it doesn't take itself as seriously, as it's kinda more Mad Max.

Also, the 25-man regiments annoys me. A regiment had around 200 men. It breaks immersion. In wh40k, an armed engagement of 50 SMs vs. 100 IG and a few tanks seems much more realistic. Yeah yeah, I know realism and wh40k doesn't really mesh, but yah.

But I somewhat prefer the Fantasy rules. They are more streamlined imho, as there aren't thousands of different small rules (at least when I played) to bog the game down.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Because the visual spectacle, because it has a cool community around here, and because Orks

As an actual game, it has nothing going for it at all.

That is all.

One day 40k will not be the fustercluck it currently is, but today is not that day.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Because the visual spectacle, because it has a cool community around here, and because Orks

As an actual game, it has nothing going for it at all.

That is all.

One day 40k will not be the fustercluck it currently is, but today is not that day.

I'm with Dakkamite and Grimtuff. 40k looks visually wonderful- armies can look great even without impressive terrain (which is often the weak link in wargames, as people tend to focus on the more "sexy" miniatures side of things), and the size of the game going on makes people say "wow, that's an impressive game."

The art style and theme do a lot for the game as well, people enjoy the dark and gritty appearance of the miniatures.

But the game itself could be entirely rewritten for how little the rules improve the experience. Which is sad since the problem could be so easily resolved with a little effort from the company.

Personally I rather Fantasy, but that's nearly dead around my parts. I like 40k for the story elements.. Designing your own planet, with it's own culture, Being able to completely customise your army without having to adhere to strict uniforms... Good fun.

MarsNZ wrote:
I prefer 40k because I prefer actually playing games against other people.

^ This. There's probably a 10/1 ratio here of 40k/fantasy players. Fantasy has been dying a slow, agonizing death since 8th was released. Our average 40k league has 20-24 players. Fantasy leagues are lucky to get 10. Nobody wants to paint a block of 50 guys that are all the same color scheme and pose just to have a core unit that's like 10% of their army. Nobody wants to spend $1,000 on models just to have a 2500 point army for a game that few people play.

I love the background of both games - just love it.

I have, however, always preferred the rules for 40k:

I like the freer movement system.
I like the fact terrain usually matters.
I like the fact that even one or two models left in a unit can do stuff

I quite liked the 8th ed version of WFB but the magic finally killed off my interest in the system and hugely disappointed when it became part of the 7th ed of 40k.

I enjoy the novels and lore, specifically the HH stuff.

If I didn't like the lore, I wouldn't play a game where I have 100x hobby time to paint and gak than I get play time.