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.

Im possibly going to start a warhammer fantasy army. I have a small army of 40k orks in the works but i kinda want to give fantasy a shot. But i was wondering if somone could tell me whats the upsides to fantasy vs 40k, or even the downsides. Thanks

The upside is that the game in my opinion runs more smoothly. Also the fact that for heroes and lords can only be 25% in each category so you can't just bring the most powerful characters with you for every game. Core must be at least 25% special can be up to 50% and rare can only be 25%. And the magic phase is really fun. Furthermore, imho fantasy is much more tactical because of flank charges and rear charges and. Finally i think it is much more fun to play over fantasy

I'm sure I'll get some hate about this from the people that win all of their games with Daemons based on pure skill, but Fantasy seems to be much less balanced than 40k.

It seemed that way in 7th at least. We'll see what happens with 8th.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure I'll get some hate about this from the people that win all of their games with Daemons based on pure skill, but Fantasy seems to be much less balanced than 40k.

It seemed that way in 7th at least. We'll see what happens with 8th.

8th plays completely differently to 7th. Demons just arent the power houses they once were. In 8th all of the armies seem to be a lot more balanced against each other.

I prefer fantasy to 40k. The rules are writted more succinctly and much more accurately than 40k. There is also more support for all of the armies, with all of the armies having up to date FAQs.

The games play faster than 40k once you know the rules. Its easier to move half a dozen movement trays of models than measuring for 40 individual models. Lots of stuff dies and you can rolls big handfuls of dice but it doesnt slow the game down.

Magic is a very big difference to 40k, where psychic powers dont hold the power they once did. Magic can really swing a game in your favor if you time it right and get lucky, but if it goes wrong it can literally blow up in your face (which is very exciting to watch).

Combats are easy to understand and even the rules for multiple combats are clear and quick to pick up. There are lots of useful diagrams in the rulebook that show you exactly how things are meant to work so there is little confusion.

The background, while probably not as deep as 40k, is still very detailed. There are lots of stories to read and awsome art work to look at that it will take you a while to get bored. Some of the battle scenes in the rulebook are really cool (although there is one with what looks like ships on stilts that doesnt really make sense).

There is a huge amount of variety in the armies as well, which makes a pleasant change from 40K, where the vast majority are MEQs. GW have done the smart thing over the past few years of releasing starter sets containing different armies. The one comming out soon, for example with High Elves vs Skaven. The one before that was Dwarves vs Goblins and the one before that was Empire vs Orcs. If I go down to be FLGS there will usually be at least one person playing each army (even though demons, VC and Dark Elves are the most common since people like to jump on bandwagons, at least they play differently from each other).

The armies are fun to collect, as long as you dont mind paining dozens of rank and file infantry. There are a lot of easy conversions you can make to existing models to make them your own, but some of the current ones are fantastic anyway. A friend of mine plays warriors of chaos and he has that Lord on Juggernaught model that is just gorgeous.

The worst thing about the games is that the random terrain is difficult to justify from a narrative standpoint if you like to make story to go along with your games, but then it's entirely up to you what you play with. There's also a mission called Blood and Glory that is terrible. It's like a worse version of KP but without any justifiable reason for it. Fortunately that mission is only one of six, the others of which are good fun. We usually dont bother playing Blood and Glory because it really ruins some armies more than others and puts unnecessary restrictions on army building.

All in all, fantasy is good. Play it, you'll have fun.

Fantasy generally has older gamers, as most people start with 40K and some branch out from there.

Typically fantasy has been more of a herohammer game, in 40K sinking a pile of points into a combat monster was a quick way to build a losing list, in fantasy a lot of powerful builds have featured powerful single models. This looks to have changed with 8th though, two of the big new changes seemed (two ranks fight, steadfast) are there to make rank and file infantry more effective.

You tend to get more extreme results in fantasy, if your game plan doesn't match up to your opponents you might not just lose, you might get tabled without inflicting more than a handful of casualties in response. 40K has it's fair share of spankings, but not like fantasy can.

Positioning matters more in fantasy, whereas 40K was more about target priorities. That is, in 40K if you can recognise the biggest threats to your army, and know the best options in your list for taking out those threats you are a long way to winning. In fantasy there are less extremes between unit types, what matters is flanking and overwhelming enemy units. Getting the right match ups still matters, but positioning is key.

I got in a big debate about this with some friends recently. Some stuff we agreed on:

-40K is a younger crowd. Let's face it, Space Marines are superheroes. Each one is worth a zillion billion guys and can get shot in the face by a cannon and swear to the emperor and keep going. That appeals to younger boys (and some older).
-Fantasy is more tactical. The amount of overlapping special rules isn't so extreme where list-building becomes the primary goal. In 40K you can look at 2 armies and know if one will even have a chance right away. Because of positioning and such, it's a lot less in Fantasy.
-In Fantasy, everyone is mortal. Some people don't like this. But if you take the greatest greatest hero in the game, and put him up against a massive horde of the worst troops in the game, the hero will eventually die. If you take a Land Raider in 40K, there's maybe, what, 75% of the units in the game that will never ever be able to hurt it given infinite time. I like Big Bad Guys, but I also like games that end. And I don't like rock/scissors/paper, where you're screwed if you brought 2 rocks and the enemy brought 2 paper. There just isnt' the same preponderance of invulnerability (ward) saves and such. It's really easy to die.
-I really like the lore of 40K. The fantasy lore seems a bit more haphazard. And as dark as fantasy is, 40K is darker. The idea of a corpse emperor that spawned his own religion and those that defy him are heretics and killed--and those are kind of the GOOD guys--well that's a dark place.

My 1 cent, anyway.

DukeRustfield wrote:I got in a big debate about this with some friends recently. Some stuff we agreed on:

-40K is a younger crowd. Let's face it, Space Marines are superheroes. Each one is worth a zillion billion guys and can get shot in the face by a cannon and swear to the emperor and keep going. That appeals to younger boys (and some older).
-In Fantasy, everyone is mortal. Some people don't like this. But if you take the greatest greatest hero in the game, and put him up against a massive horde of the worst troops in the game, the hero will eventually die. If you take a Land Raider in 40K, there's maybe, what, 75% of the units in the game that will never ever be able to hurt it given infinite time. I like Big Bad Guys, but I also like games that end. And I don't like rock/scissors/paper, where you're screwed if you brought 2 rocks and the enemy brought 2 paper. There just isnt' the same preponderance of invulnerability (ward) saves and such. It's really easy to die.

I agree it is more tactical, but I can't agree with these. I play both and if anything it's easier to lose a land raider or a squad of 400 point terminators than it is for my storm vermin to lose a combat. One shot is all it takes, and there are a whole lot of big guns, everywhere. The younger crowd depends on where you live I think. At my GW store, we have three fantasy players under 14 and me, and about eight 40k players, all of them in their twenties.

The uniformity of MEQ armies can get old, but once again, that depends where you live. We have one CSM player and one guy who plays Blood Angels. Everyone else is Daemons, Necrons, two Eldar, a Tau, Witch Hunters and Imperial Guard.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sure I'll get some hate about this from the people that win all of their games with Daemons based on pure skill, but Fantasy seems to be much less balanced than 40k.

It seemed that way in 7th at least. We'll see what happens with 8th.

8th seems to have done a great job in addressing this issue, although it's too early to tell the power levels yet. The good thing now is that when discussions about power levels in WHFB now occur, it involves a whole lot more armies than simply the unholy trinity of 7th ed (DoC, DE, and VC), which is a good sign....

I'll tell you this though, this is an excellent time to start both systems. I'm having a great time playing 5th ed 40k, and in my few games of 8th ed WHFB this is also the case so far...and I started gaming with 5th ed WHFB and 3rd ed 40k since 1998....and it is just so much FUN playing these days....

Ordo Dakka wrote:I play both and if anything it's easier to lose a land raider or a squad of 400 point terminators than it is for my storm vermin to lose a combat. One shot is all it takes, and there are a whole lot of big guns, everywhere.

We have one CSM player and one guy who plays Blood Angels. Everyone else is Daemons, Necrons, two Eldar, a Tau, Witch Hunters and Imperial Guard.

Terminators have invulnerability saves and 2+ armor. No one shot in the game will take them out. It's virtually impossible. And like I said, a land raider is immune to 75% of the units in the game. If you have a pure MEQ army (for whatever reason), a LR could run them over all day and never be hurt. They can do absolutely nothing to it unless they took some heavy weapons or power weapons. That's rock/paper/scissors.

Blood Angels are a perfect example of cascading special rules. Take your blood chalice and leaders and your whole army has 3+ armor saves (which aren't reduced by strength like Fantasy) and the equivalent of Troll regeneration on another 3+. Put 3 large pie charts over that perfectly centered and you'll still shrug it off. No skaven are going to do that. Daemons all have invulnerability saves. Necrons all regen and their monolith makes the LR look like tinfoil--if you don't have some str 10 weapons, you won't even scratch it.

While I'm sure the different stores and areas vary in terms of player age, I feel pretty confident that 40K is marketed to a younger audience.

Fantasy is different.


the rules are more "Real to Life" Str reducing armor, flank attacks....


many armys are expensive to get decent sized forces.

Skaven, Empire, Lizardmen, O&G, beastmen. these armys can get really expensive to purchase if you go for loads of grunts. they can also run Elite troops for cheaper to get a decent sized force.

most armies can do multiple builds. Empire can go infantry heavy/balanced OR all cavelry. Brettonia is pretty much all Cavelry.



Pick an army you like. you will be painting alot more models then you did in 40K(unless you pick ogres) so you better like painting the same troop type.

Heros are the big focus in the game. Customization is easy with 100s of combonations for a single Charector.

there arn't really any "Power builds" right now since everyone is feeling about with the new rules, but time will tell. looking like there arn't really any bad or good armys. the rules really balanced things out.

Deamons are no longer the "Auto-win" button they once were.

DukeRustfield wrote:Terminators have invulnerability saves and 2+ armor. No one shot in the game will take them out.

You've never seen a Vindicator on the field? Or a shokk attack gun? Or a squad of genestealers? Seriously, terminators are a good unit but it sure isn't because they're indestuctible.

There are counters for everything in 40K, just as there are in Fantasy. That's how both games work. We could argue all day about which game makes it too easy to get a certain kind of unit, and two hard to get its counter, but both games have that issue.

Grey Templar wrote:the rules are more "Real to Life" Str reducing armor, flank attacks....

I think arguing that either game represents something true to life is kind of odd, and missing the point of both games. Neither attempts a simulation of reality on any level.

most armies can do multiple builds.

This is also true of 40K.

there arn't really any "Power builds" right now since everyone is feeling about with the new rules, but time will tell. looking like there arn't really any bad or good armys. the rules really balanced things out.

This is really the product of having a new ruleset, in time the internet will pick it's favourite builds and convince people they have to take them.

what i meant by "Multiple builds" is this.


most armies in 40k are built to a Steriotype. 1 or 2 strengths that you must take into a account when building the army or the army will, most likely, fail.

IE: you wouldn't build a CC T'au or a Shooty BT army would you? you could, but it wouldn't work due to lack of units(cc T'au ) or it isn't what the special rules support.

Fantasy is slightly different in that most armies are built like Space Marine armies. you have a wide varity of units to chose from and can go down a shooty gunline route or go for CC domination or a mix of the 2.

Empire can run nothing, but shooty troops and support. it can also run tons of CC infantry. it can do an elite cavelry based army. or it can do a nice mix.

only a few armies are stuck in a "mould"(for lack of a better word) Ogres, for example, are stuck with a CC focus having only 3 units with ranged attacks(2 are unreliable and the others can only be taken in limited numbers)

sebster wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:Terminators have invulnerability saves and 2+ armor. No one shot in the game will take them out.

You've never seen a Vindicator on the field? Or a shokk attack gun? Or a squad of genestealers? Seriously, terminators are a good unit but it sure isn't because they're indestuctible.

There are counters for everything in 40K, just as there are in Fantasy.

You're talking about SPECIFIC counters for a unit. Not even counters but something with even a conceivable chance of hurting the unit. The counter for anything in Fantasy is literally: anything. Anything can kill anything. You can have 4 trillion Ork boys attacking the vindicator you just mentioned and they will never ever ever ever hurt it unless you upgraded them with stick bombs or nobs with power klaws. A Snotling can kill the greatest hero in Fantasy if both sides roll crazy enough, so you can't rely on simply list-building or your enemy not having something that can hurt you (efficiently or not).

I'm not saying one way is better. You can go crazy thinking up strategies by yourself, making the perfect list in 40K. But in Fantasy, I see a lot less emphasis on lists, because it's still going to boil down to what happens on the table to a really huge degree. You could roll up with your 40K "perfect list" and find the enemy has one specifically designed to obliterate it, and there's not a tremendous amount you can do about it.

Grey Templar wrote:Empire can run nothing, but shooty troops and support. it can also run tons of CC infantry. it can do an elite cavelry based army. or it can do a nice mix.

only a few armies are stuck in a "mould"(for lack of a better word) Ogres, for example, are stuck with a CC focus having only 3 units with ranged attacks(2 are unreliable and the others can only be taken in limited numbers)

Empire is noted for it's level of variety, just as Space Marines and Orks are in 40K. For the most part Fantasy has the same limitations on build types as 40K, that is to say there are a few versatile armies and a number of more specific limited armies. This does not detract from either game, the variety of individual armies is maintained by giving them specific strengths and weaknesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:You're talking about SPECIFIC counters for a unit.

You're claiming AP2 guns and power weapons are rare?

You can have 4 trillion Ork boys attacking the vindicator you just mentioned and they will never ever ever ever hurt it unless you upgraded them with stick bombs or nobs with power klaws.

Umm, those ork boyz are auto-hitting the vindicator and glancing the rear armour on a 6, given they've got either 3 or 4 attacks one the charge each, you can expect to do crippling damage to the vindicator with a might horde of around 5 boyz. And it's funny that you talk about the boyz maybe having a powerklaw, outside of specialist shooting builds you'll always find a powerklaw in the unit.

A Snotling can kill the greatest hero in Fantasy if both sides roll crazy enough, so you can't rely on simply list-building or your enemy not having something that can hurt you (efficiently or not).

Well, snotling can't kill a character in 40K because there aren't any on the field. There's grots, they can kill a character and it could be argued that it's even easier for them to do it because the character can only access one save. But it's odd you're talking about characters in 40K, in 40K characters are really not that great, and taking one is generally only worth the points when he grants the army a special rule. The thing is, in 40K almost every list has the capability to pick a unit and say 'that unit will not survive the turn' and pile all their fire into it - this is very dangerous thing to a player who's invested a pile of points into Abbaddon and his retinue. Hell, even if they get to combat they'll only wipe one unit, and you have to kill a load of guards squads to make up for Abbaddon's points cost.

I'm not saying one way is better. You can go crazy thinking up strategies by yourself, making the perfect list in 40K. But in Fantasy, I see a lot less emphasis on lists, because it's still going to boil down to what happens on the table to a really huge degree. You could roll up with your 40K "perfect list" and find the enemy has one specifically designed to obliterate it, and there's not a tremendous amount you can do about it.

The internet vastly overestimates the benefit of list building in 40K. It certainly matters, and focussing on a certain type of unit can ensure the enemy lacks enough guns to kill that kind of troop (see nidzilla in 4th ed or the leafblower today) but a player still needs to be able to prioritise his targets, but fantasy has always been prone to similar list building focus.