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.

Between 40k and WHFB, which is the game that demands more skill from the player in terms of list construction and tabletop tactics?

Your asking this question on a 40k centric forum, I think the results may be a bit skewed.

As for which is more tactical? They both have their own gimmicks. 40k is a bit more set in stone with measurements and charge distances and the like so you don't have to consider it, where Fantasy you do. Furthermore Fantasy is a bit more difficult to manuver in then 40k.

But to answer your question? Flip a coin.

Dorksim wrote:Your asking this question on a 40k centric forum, I think the results may be a bit skewed.

As for which is more tactical? They both have their own gimmicks. 40k is a bit more set in stone with measurements and charge distances and the like so you don't have to consider it, where Fantasy you do. Furthermore Fantasy is a bit more difficult to manuver in then 40k.

But to answer your question? Flip a coin.

I see. Never really played WHFB. Collected some models and books about eight years back but I never had a proper game or understanding of the rules, so wasn't sure.

IMO WFB is the more involved of the 2 games. There are things like hit modifiers, manuvering etc.

I personally believe that WHFB requires more tactical sense.

If you only look at the movement phase, WHFB requires more thought than 40K. In 40K, any unit can move in any direction it likes. In WHFB, movement is much more restricted. This requires a player to think farther ahead when making decisions on how to move/chargee/overrun/pursue/etc.

I've played both and fantasy is definently more tactically demanding. That isn't to say that 40K isn't it just isn't as much. In both you have to worry about the potential of the enemy counter charging you (not the USR), by that I mean I charge an assault marine squad into some plague marines yeah I should win in a turn or two assuming kit outs favor me, but then my opponent throws a squad of bezerkers on there. The same is true for fantasy but you have to consider that flanks matter. It's also a little more difficult to move (non-skirmishers) in fantasy so that's another tacticall issue. And don't even get me started on the modifiers.

I think it'll basically be a toss-up between whichever the crowd prefers based on who steps into this thread, but for what it's worth I think they both have a relatively low level of tactical complexity compared to other games on the market.

And I am NOT trying to say that either game is 'bad'. The rules systems are relatively straightforward and streamlined for ease of play, especially given higher model counts than most game systems. IN MY OPINION this also results in a lack of sufficient complexity to make either game system tactically demanding.

sourclams wrote:I think it'll basically be a toss-up between whichever the crowd prefers based on who steps into this thread, but for what it's worth I think they both have a relatively low level of tactical complexity compared to other games on the market.

And I am NOT trying to say that either game is 'bad'. The rules systems are relatively straightforward and streamlined for ease of play, especially given higher model counts than most game systems. IN MY OPINION this also results in a lack of sufficient complexity to make either game system tactically demanding.

Yeah, I sometimes think that GW games are at a pretty basic level of complexity.

I mean, heck, Advanced Squad Leader had a rule book that was, what, 20 pages or so, and it is FAR more complex than an GW creation that I'm aware of.

I'll second the Advanced Squad Leader.


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.

Advanced squad leader. Hands down.

I think WHFB would edge out 40k.

It is tough between the two.

I think that WHFB requires more thought ahead.

I think that 40k involves more decision making.

Grot 6 wrote:I'll second the Advanced Squad Leader.


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.

QFT

90% of a WHFB game is over as soon play starts. Most of the important thinking is done ahead of that point in time, mostly in the form of deployment.

DarknessEternal wrote:90% of a WHFB game is over as soon play starts. Most of the important thinking is done ahead of that point in time, mostly in the form of deployment.

This is very true. The last 10% comes down to dice rolling really. Deployment determines what combats will happen and it is that decision that will decide the game, barring any bad dice rolling.

An example of this is say you are going against Dark Elves. Odds are they will have a hydra, which can be a real pain in the ass. So it would be wise to wait until that unit is deployed and then plop down whatever unit has flaming attacks via banner or what have you.

That right there neutralizes a major threat before the game has even started.

Polonius wrote:I think that WHFB requires more thought ahead.

I think that 40k involves more decision making.

This, in a nutshell.

In Warhammer, you're always planning three steps ahead. The combat is usually the result of a careful plan laid at the beginning of the game. The game is practically decided in the earlier stages.

This contrasts to 40K, where things happen throughout the game, and your snap decisions throughout and the later turns are more crucial. Deep striking, reserve rolls, trying to hold objectives, etc. Transports mean units move around the board a lot more. In general, it's a lot faster paced.

WFB is more like chess. You have to have your strategy planned out from the start. It's a lot less reactive.

sourclams wrote:I think it'll basically be a toss-up between whichever the crowd prefers based on who steps into this thread, but for what it's worth I think they both have a relatively low level of tactical complexity compared to other games on the market.

And I am NOT trying to say that either game is 'bad'. The rules systems are relatively straightforward and streamlined for ease of play, especially given higher model counts than most game systems. IN MY OPINION this also results in a lack of sufficient complexity to make either game system tactically demanding.

Definitely agree with this. If nothing else, there seems to be more variety in the way that WFB games pan out. So many of my 40k games, especially with armies which force you into a particular style of play, seem to follow exactly the same routine to the point where I started to become bored with it. By turn 2 you could see what was most likely going to live and what was going to die, how the game would pan out, and the rest of the game became a formality. Adding some narrative and campaign elements (or of course having a fun opponent) helps to mitigate that problem somewhat however.

They're different, but I don't believe one is more complex than the other. In fantasy the details of movement are more important, however in 40k there's a lot more movement and deployment possibilities. In fantasy you pretty much just have to worry about relative positioning, in 40k you have to worry about board position a lot more as well as the threat of units randomly appearing in places, significantly speedier movement of many units, and various deployment/reserve methods and events. In terms of shooting, Fantasy has more detailed mechanics but 40k has a much greater variety of weapons that have a greater variety of purpose. In regards to assaults and close combat, 40k is much more straightforward in terms of combat and resolution, but again has some differences in weapons having different effects. Most units in fantasy aren't going to have a hidden powerfist that can wreck a character or a monster for instance.

TL;DR they're different, but it's hard to say one is more demanding than the other.

Fantasy is more of a Strategy game, with 40k being more about on the spot tactics.

In Fantasy, once you're army is going in one direction, it's very difficult to make it go another (lots of wheeling). So I say it is strategic as it requires forward planning. There are of course tactical opportunities within that, charges of opportunity, making use of the terrain etc.

Now, 40k I see as tactical because it's more reactive in it's rules. There is of course your overal strategy, but the freedom of movement allows for a more off-the-cuff style of play than Fantasy.

Hope that helps to explain it. Plus, Fantasy has Ogres, which is a win in my book!

With the current editions, I would say that 40k is more tactical.

This is only as of the most recent set of editions, and not because 40k became hugely more tactical than it has been in the past, but because the 8th edition of Fantasy took massive amounts of tactics and skill out of the game.


A unit's charge distance is now a random number instead of a fixed multiplier of a stat.
Flanking rarely matters now in the game with Steadfast.
Getting the charge is far less important now that people always strike in Int order
People can now march move while within 8" of the enemy by passing a LD test.
Reforms are given out like candy
Skirmishers have been neutered in a BIG way

These 6 things above have destroyed many of the things that used to make Fantasy more tactical than 40k. Why? Because all of these things have to do with the movement phase, which is where Fantasy used to be won and lost. Fantasy USED to be a game where, with a few expensive exceptions, the combat effectiveness of a unit was determined by it's use as much as it's stats. The hardest unit could be taken out and wiped off the board by a middle of the road unit if the hard unit was used poorly and got charged from a disadvantageous direction. It had a much deeper tactica, going beyond 'hit this unit with that, and hit that unit with this'. Fighting ______ in the front was a completely different ball game from fighting ______ in the flank.

Now, sadly, the game has changed. It now takes ranked troops to beat ranked troops, which because of the scalable nature of steadfast, means that many games devolve into 'my big unit vs your big unit'. This wouldn't be 'as' sad if at least maneuver could still play some role in ranked troops having to fight ranked troops. And, it does not. Because of how steadfast works, flanking does zero to mitigate it.

40k is certainly more popular.

In terms of skill, Fantasy is definitely more tactical. In terms of feel (for lack of a better term) 40k is more tactical. Both games are rather simple all things considered, and basically come down to the randomization effect created by the dice.

remilia_scarlet wrote:40k is certainly more popular.

which is a damn shame.

Hi all.
First off a quick definition.
Tactics, are IN GAME decisions.

Strategy , is list composition/synergy and deployment options.

Using the correct terminology, WHFB has slightly more tactics than 40k.
But 40k has a heavier strategic loading.

Both WHFB and 40k are more strategicly focused to appeal the GW plcs prime demoghraphic, than most other game systems.
As GW plc corperate belive children have difficulty in grasping over arching tactical conciderations.

Fantasy is much more tactically demanding. You can't argue otherwise. I charge the rear of your orks! Does nothing in 40k, means the world in fantasy.

This is slightly off-topic, but is warmachine tactically and/or strategically demanding, or is it simple

Aerethan wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:40k is certainly more popular.

which is a damn shame.

Sad but true.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
First off a quick definition.
Tactics, are IN GAME decisions.

Strategy , is list composition/synergy and deployment options.

Using the correct terminology, WHFB has slightly more tactics than 40k.
But 40k has a heavier strategic loading.

Both WHFB and 40k are more strategicly focused to appeal the GW plcs prime demoghraphic, than most other game systems.
As GW plc corperate belive children have difficulty in grasping over arching tactical conciderations.

Going with that definition of Strategy (which I disagree with entirely), Fantasy is still more 'strategic' than 40k.

I'd say Fantasy in that maneuvering is a lot more involved. Unit facing means something unlike in 40k. That said, I enjoy 40k significantly more.

Brother SRM wrote:I'd say Fantasy in that maneuvering is a lot more involved. Unit facing means something unlike in 40k. That said, I enjoy 40k significantly more.

I'd say fantasy too for the maneouvering. I mean, in 40k, making your units go behind enemy lines to charge them is exactly the same as charging them from the front.