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.

So I just decided the Warhammer Fantasy is for the tactical Geniuses of the world as I study up on the rules for it while my army comes in. I'm a long time 40k player and I've decided that 40k is for those with ADD or are war-gaming adrenaline junkies (I'm the junkie, and cheese is my crack!!! both the food and the gaming type). The rules for fantasy are seemingly so in depth and foregin to me that it will take some time to get any sort of tactics down.

So heres to you fantasy players... your IQ is bigger than mine.

I play both, but find that fantasy requires much more planning and mistakes seem to add up quickly. Getting a strong dwellers off on turn one can essentially set the rest of the game decidedly in your favor.

And the thread dies because some guy has seen the post a few times over the years he's been on this site. To bad I haven't been with DakkDakka as long as you.

If youre going to go around saying bold statements, at least try to back it up. Neither one involves that much strategy, and fantasy especially has become like 40k in that in-game strategic thinking doesn't matter as much as list building and setup. You build armies and send them smashing into each other (flanking isn't as important, getting the charge isn't as important, magic has a huge impact, monster mash, etc). Both games are about rolling dice and having fun, and getting all elitist about it seems silly.

I used to feel this way, but reading some 40k battle reports I am not so sure (I am also doing the reverse, picking up 40k again while still playing fantasy).

Fantasy does involve more tactical movements in wheeling, trying to get flanks, moving in formations, etc...

But in 8th edition, some of this has become less due to flanks not being as important.

Overall, while there could be some merit to discussing the differences of the two, saying one's for "geniuses" and one's for "children with attention-deficit-disorder" is probably not the best way to go about it

People are calling 8th edition more of a "beer and pretzels" game than fantasy ever has been, and I agree with that in some ways. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just that it's more a game of chance than it ever was... at least with normal armies and not the extreme builds that you see at 'Ard Boyz type events.

ssREV wrote:Neither one involves that much strategy, and fantasy especially has become like 40k in that in-game strategic thinking doesn't matter as much as list building and setup.

I actually disagree with that, esspecially depending on the army you play as in fantasy. If you have a unit of things that are weak in combat but get get knowing they're gonna be fighting in close combat, you have to have some tactics in order to make sure they have a better chance of winning. You can't just charge in and hope for the best (although the hoping part helps). A unit of woodelf archers isn't likely to win against warriors of chaos, but you get in a good flank charge and maybe a buff spell, you have a better chance. Timing with magic can help tremendously and can even decide combat for a unit. Lists can be made to be ridiculously powerful, but all lists have some form of weakness. Look at the ogre death star list. Idea may work, and in game might work, but you hit that thing with an initiative test and they're so far beyond screwed it's hilarious.

Going as far as to say fantasy is for "geniuses" and 40k for kids with ADD might be stretching it quite a bit though. Just so happens that a lot more small kids (at least in my area) play more 40k while the older guys play fantasy.

Scarecrow456 wrote:
Going as far as to say fantasy is for "geniuses" and 40k for kids with ADD might be stretching it quite a bit though. Just so happens that a lot more small kids (at least in my area) play more 40k while the older guys play fantasy.

It was meant to be a stretch. I've just noticed that there seems to be more in game strategy in fantasy. Heres a new comparison: Fantasy = Novels, 40K = Comics.

40k seems more fast paced and fantasy more of a slow buildup of enjoyment. Both are great but different flavor.

But...I like comics.

malfred wrote:But...I like comics.

LOL... you should try 40K.

ShivanAngel wrote:

Just about sums it up.

Look, we get it. Square-basers hate round-basers. Round-basers hate square-basers. And of course, these two groups are mutually exclusive. God help you if you try to bring your square demons to a 40k game, or vice versa.

Here's the thing - both 40k and Fantasy are strategic games. Really, most games are decided before they even begin - it begins with the armies chosen and the list building. When the actual game starts, the amount of dice thrown and their tendency to ruin every damn plan a general makes ruins any tactical chances.

infinite_array wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:

Just about sums it up.

Look, we get it. Square-basers hate round-basers. Round-basers hate square-basers. And of course, these two groups are mutually exclusive. God help you if you try to bring your square demons to a 40k game, or vice versa.

Here's the thing - both 40k and Fantasy are strategic games. Really, most games are decided before they even begin - it begins with the armies chosen and the list building. When the actual game starts, the amount of dice thrown and their tendency to ruin every damn plan a general makes ruins any tactical chances.

I put my round base daemons on magnetic square bases.

I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. I find alot of players at FLGS play both. I just think that Warhammer fantasy is much more involved and that 40K is Warhammer on crack.

Neither game is particularly involved. To be honest, you should have a pretty clear idea about the core strategies in each game just from reading the rulebook. From there, after about a half dozen games you should have just about got the strategies down pat, and the only learning from there will be the best way to approach a specific army (which should take one game to understand, for the most part).

You can refine things and learn subtle bits and bobs from there, and learn about the vast number of tricks and combo things that you may or may not be able to do something about, but none of that will make you a significantly better player.

This isn't chess, people.

LOL, is this a troll post?

WFB is probably more tactically challenging than 40K, but both games are childish even compared to some board games.

Or it could be (BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS A PRETTY MAD CONCEPT) WHFB is in-depth while 40k is streamlined?

Cerebrium wrote:Or it could be (BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS A PRETTY MAD CONCEPT) WHFB is in-depth while 40k is streamlined?

BURN HIM.

OP: Whilst I don't think this was intended to be a troll thread, it kinda is. I know you're exaggerating for the sake of emphasis, but come on man, this is the internet. That stuff gets ugly reeeal fast.

infinite_array wrote:

Look, we get it. Square-basers hate round-basers. Round-basers hate square-basers. And of course, these two groups are mutually exclusive. God help you if you try to bring your square demons to a 40k game, or vice versa.

Bad argument: GW says you must use the bases that come with the models, and daemons come with both-either choice is optional. I play daemons in both games: if someone told me mine were on the improper base I'd show them the rule that states that models must be used on the bases they come with. If they continued to be a D*** I'd tell them so and refuse to play a donkey cave like them. Anyone who tries to say daemons can only be on one type of base is an ass. I find it's easier to play on round bases and just use movement trays personally-and if you (general 'you,' not specific 'you') can't do the math measurements to decide how many models should be able to touch said daemon, you don't deserve to be playing fantasy. If people need help, here's a hint: greater daemons, princes and blood crushers go on 50mm bases. fiends, nurglings, beasts, and screamers go on 40mm. Fleshhounds and Seekers go on 25x50mm bases and everything else goes on 25. There. Easy for the people who have issues. And if you use square in 40k, it's actually easier for deep striking and I have found in EVERY game I've played, it made no difference for me whether I used round or squared bases: my models just faced forward and I measured from the flat edge of the base, not the corner. If a player is measuring from the corner, he's measuring for advantage and doesn't deserve to play-he's a WAAC TFG player. There, now that I've pissed off somebody from BOTH systems, go ahead and bash me back.

I would base the models on the round bases (except the BC, as I think their round bases are larger than the square bases) and get (or create) those move trays with the correct measurements with the correct round holes in them, and mark off the locations if the models had the 25mm bases, so you can tell who are in btb.

For the larger models, I would magnetize the square and round bases so that the model can stack on top of the square base. Makes the model taller and easier to be seen, but hell cannons go through things anyway, and demons don't care anyway....

This is why getting a daemon army = bang for the buck, especially if you play both systems.

Both are "Beer and pretzel" games to play socially. Anyone can pick up the basics given a few battles. It's more the communities that play each that's made me prefer fantasy. Though there's good and bad in either. Theres definitely more maturity amongst a lot of fantasy players.

Hytanthas wrote:So I just decided the Warhammer Fantasy is for the tactical Geniuses of the world as I study up on the rules for it while my army comes in. I'm a long time 40k player and I've decided that 40k is for those with ADD or are war-gaming adrenaline junkies (I'm the junkie, and cheese is my crack!!! both the food and the gaming type). The rules for fantasy are seemingly so in depth and foregin to me that it will take some time to get any sort of tactics down.

So heres to you fantasy players... your IQ is bigger than mine.

Troll threads are always fun. I never found either tactical to be honest, play epic or warmaster instead of summarizing hundreds of people into your offensive stereotype.

Toastedandy wrote:Troll threads are always fun. I never found either tactical to be honest, play epic or warmaster instead of summarizing hundreds of people into your offensive stereotype.

They're also not particularly tactical games.

Doesn't anyone play Go anymore?

IMO both require a bit of tactics but I play both because they are fun and the minis are cool simple as that.

40k when I forget to take ma ritalin and fantasy when I have taken my ritalin or when I didnt take my ritalin and grabbed the wrong case because I got distracted with my keys

Strategy? Play chess.....or maybe Fire and Fury.


Both systems (fantasy and 40k) have an inordinate amount of cheese to be completely strategical. Though fantasy does require a bit more careful planning, deployment, and movement IMO.

OP, why do you think anyone here would care about your opinion?

JudgeHolden wrote:Both systems (fantasy and 40k) have an inordinate amount of cheese to be completely strategical. Though fantasy does require a bit more careful planning, deployment, and movement IMO.

It isn't the cheese that stops the games from being very tactical. It's that moves are limited, and so dependant on turn by turn dice rolling, that it makes any real measure of long term planning almost impossible. Instead you spend each turn reacting to the chaos of the last turn. Which is fun and everything, but we shouldn't confuse it with really in-depth strategy.

nectarprime wrote:OP, why do you think anyone here would care about your opinion?

Same reason you posted... Why did you post? do you care?

Why do people keep making fun of my ADD and or ADHD like come on both games has flashy shiny models and you roll dice when you can't focus all too much do you have any idea how awesome dice are and in general dice = awesome.

It's a nice idea for strategy but there are better games for if you want strategy but hey the fun is as said dealing with the chaos of the previous turn.

May I just say if your looking for the most in depth tactical game from GW, LOTR SBG. You move every model individually have to therefore make escape routes push back routes for normally over 10x the amount of units. And as others have said tactics in these games comes in third after fun and dice rolls.

cowpow16 wrote:Why do people keep making fun of my ADD and or ADHD like come on both games has flashy shiny models and you roll dice when you can't focus all too much do you have any idea how awesome dice are and in general dice = awesome.

You lost me at dice. Or die, depending on the amount of them. Dice are awesome