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 recently got back into wargaming overall and have been playing 40k for the last 6 months or so after a 15-year break. Finally today I decided to give Fantasy a try, as I have 1500 points of old HE models lying around and wanted to decide whether I wanted to keep them and double down on my return to wargaming addiction or sell them and reinvest in 40k.

To my surprise, I found Fantasy to be a stronger game in a lot of ways than 40k. The armies are more balanced and the game requires more thought on tactics than the luck of mass rolling, as getting into combat in the right situation, even with an inferior unit facing a superior unit, can cause them to break. Perhaps more importantly to my pedantic mind, is that the rules seem to make a hell of a lot more logical sense.

Long range shots and cover make it harder to HIT the enemy, it's not about them magically saving wounds that have already been made. Meanwhile, armor saves decrease with the strength of the hit, meaning that if, by comparison, a lascannon hits and wounds a guardsman, it doesn't matter that he's standing behind a tree at that point. At the same time, an autogun doesn't have the same chance of punching through terminator armor as krak missile.

And that's not even talking about the more consistent change ranges, the psychological affect of flanking, and the (very realistic) opportunity to flee an assault rather than be forced to engage with it.

Someone talk me down.

End

If you need to be talked out of preferring Fantasy to 40k, then the damage is already done.

(Myself, I prefer a game where the terrain is more interactive than just a big square I have to go around. I also loathe the concept of formations.)

Still, it isn't a gang war or anything. The 40k and Fantasy players aren't going to get their switchblades and zip guns for a rumble after game night. Play the game that you enjoy the most.

They are pretty different games actually. 40K is all about small unit tactics and the best players know how to interact with terrain and use model positioning to advantage. Target priority is probably the most "strategic" thought you put into the game.

Fantasy is more strategic with the games usually won in the deployment and movement being the most important phase of the game. Clever tactics can make a difference but creating a super deathstar unit means less when any single unit is unlikely to see more than 1-2 assaults and there are weapons and spells that scale their damage based on the number of models in the unit.

I find that rather than being competing games they are instead complementary and "scratch" two different itches if you will.

It is almost like comparing apples and oranges. They are both very different in play style.

I mean you could talk about the bat-poo insane magic phase or the complete and utter lack of terrain actually being a thing that people actually want to see on the battlefield. Maybe the fact that you need to assemble and paint 50+ rather identical and uninspiring models just to have one or two "blocks" done.

It's not working is it? To be honest I have always kind of wanted to try the game. Lizardmen keep calling my name, or tomb kings (but they're not in a good state at the moment). Even better I could rig up some custom kroot counts-as stuff...

Ok. I better shut up now.

BTW if you want large blocks of troops I highly recommend unit fillers (40/50 mm bases with terrain or statues, etc. to fill up space). They break up the jig saw that is unit assembly, give you something new to paint, and save you money. Just try not to use more than ~20% of your units as filler.

I love both 40k and whfb, but for different reasons.
I love whfb's large scale, cinematic play and the relative balance of it's rules.
I love 40k's squad based combat, aesthetic and background fluff.

I still really dig 40k's ability to give personality and individuality to single models, which is a bit lost in the big block formations. I also love the epic scale of 40k -- which is why I am an IG player in the first place. But, while I had been feeling like the unbalanced nature of 40k was natural to tabletop wargaming, it was refreshing to see that even in GW's other signature game, it's not inevitable. I could be wrong, but it does seem that unless you are a total fool in your choices of what to field and how, most permutations of army units come out evenly in a legal WHFB game.

In 40k though, there are so many caveats now. The battle brothers rules allow for insane combinations. Toss in escalation and fortifications and the gap between a casual game and competitive -- i.e. squeezing as much cheese through $$$ as possible -- is huge.

Again, I haven't delved much into Fantasy, so I could be wrong about that. This is why I posted this on the 40k side, to get those experienced in both to prove me wrong.

Clearly one game is enough to decide the relative merits of a complex gaming system.

There are now Battle Scrolls for WFB and can't see any reason why they will not introduce Allies into the next version of the basic rules.

In the end however it comes down to if you enjoy it more then its the better game

There are lots of things I don't enjoy in WFB - "Chaff " units, the power of magic, fidely movement, etc

playing WFB at 1500 pts and saying it is good, is like playing w40k at 750pts and saying that it is an interesting skirmish game with good game play dynamics.

They are both as easy and pretty much the same as each other. I play both now and dont talk about balance when my gunline army I made (thinking it was gonna be rubbish) slaughters any force it comes across so far. Then my wizards are ridiculously good too.

I mean at the end of the day they are practically the same. After playing 40k fantasy can be picked up and learnt in 1 game. The only difference is the tabling doesnt happen until turn 3 usually. If that.

They are just variations of the same game at the end of the day. I enjoy both of them and both use different skills but remember they are both different periods of war so there will be minute differences.

In my experience they are both equal, just one has boring lore and the other slightly less boring lore lol.

IMO Fantasy is an inherently more balanced system. I will admit I haven't played a lot of 8th edition, so I'm not sure how much that's screwed things up. But previously, Fantasy has always been a game that's harder to lose in the army creation stage where as 40k is easy to lose in the army creation stage. The difference between a TAC list in Fantasy and a tailored list is much smaller than the difference between a 40k TAC list and a 40k tailored list, and I much prefer Fantasy for that reason.

I think its funny how some people are saying that in Fantasy there is no terrain....I play with lots of terrain when I play fantasy........you just need to strategically move around it (or move into it you can do that you know). Lots of individual models and skirmish models in fantasy as well as blocks. It is much more about movement and combat than shooting, which is just used to whittle down units for close combat.

I think 1500 points of Fantasy is a low points game I like 2000-2500 points that is a pretty standard game but I play 1500 when doing a 3 person battle.
I think you should play fantasy more, it is definately more balanced and the rules are much better than 40k IN MY OPINION. That being said though why not just play both? I play both and even though I have more 40k armies I actually play Fantasy far more often.

The only problem you might see if the magic phase can get a little over the top when playing 2500+ point games. I don't think it is a bad thing though and I wish that 40k had more magic....the stuff in it now is so bland compared to fantasy in my opinion.

Bottom line: Play both because they both play differently and when you get tired of one you can play the other.

Jimsolo wrote: The 40k and Fantasy players aren't going to get their switchblades and zip guns for a rumble after game night.

Speak for yourself. I'd hate for this to get ugly.

Anyways, I'd say that 40k is better than WHFB in every way except for the rules. 40k has the better models, and the better fluff, and is much more zany bonkers when you want it to be. 40k is also, though, about as strategically challenging as yahtzee. I've only played a few games of WHFB, but it definitely felt like there was way more opportunity for players to make meaningful decisions, rather than merely lining up, pointing your biggest guns at the biggest targets and then working your way down.

Fantasy has the better game mechanics... and I'd be playing it en masse now... but then I'd have to run around with blocks of poorer-quality miniatures with saltine levels of fluff...

 Ailaros wrote:

Anyways, I'd say that 40k is better than WHFB in every way except for the rules. 40k has the better models, and the better fluff, and is much more zany bonkers when you want it to be. 40k is also, though, about as strategically challenging as yahtzee. I've only played a few games of WHFB, but it definitely felt like there was way more opportunity for players to make meaningful decisions, rather than merely lining up, pointing your biggest guns at the biggest targets and then working your way down.

Fantasy has the better game mechanics... and I'd be playing it en masse now... but then I'd have to run around with blocks of poorer-quality miniatures with saltine levels of fluff...

There are a lot of things about the implied fluff that is pretty great about fantasy. However the fantasy fluff is definitely not evolved and refined itself to the level the 40K universe has. Some of the interesting tidbits are; HE in fantasy do not honor nature like most elves in fantasy do, they are more than willing to restructure an entire bay into a harbor. HE also use and practice the magics normally associated with evil in the fantasy settings (death, shadow, etc.) and in the old rules they used to be able to practice necromancy (I loved those rules). Wood elves are not friendly or helpful and have a significant portion who want to make the human disappear from ever being able to set foot on their lands. Magic in WHis much more dangerous than in normal fantasy literature and so wizards have sort of a reverse philosophy than the normal fantasy wizards, a WH wizard would much rather shoot a fireball in a battlefield and get paid big than do small acts with his magic for accumulating rewards. Both efforts have a significant chance for him to blow himself up.

The models in WHFB have always been uninspiring but with the new better plastic kits they have taken a drastic leap up. A great example are the IoB HE who look good and the HE book can field all calvary armies so they can get away with relatively few models. The VC armies also look pretty great if done right with graveyard unit fillers and bases with arms busting out of the dirt. Honestly though for my money a treekin WE army is the best looking army in the game and can be made with some real flavor (I have a nice eerie feeling treekin army myself, the woods are alive and they are very hungry mortal ).

I think part of the issue in general is that 40k feels more like an arms race: Whoever brings the most guns tends to win, no strategy required. On the contrary what I've seen from WHFB is that it's still a tactical game, and much less so "Bring 3x of some uber-unit to beat your opponent at deployment".

Maybe the issue is that 40k is better at lower points? I was just giving this some thought after looking at some old White Dwarfs from the 2nd edition 40k days. Back then, armies were much smaller (a SM Tactical Squad was 300 points with no upgrades, and they had to add buying 5-man Combat Squads in a White Dwarf), a 2,000 point force in 2nd edition 40k is like around 1250 points in 6th edition. I think that would go a long way to fixing a lot of the general issues with 40k if most games were around the 1250 mark instead of 1500/1850 or beyond.

 Ailaros wrote:

Speak for yourself. I'd hate for this to get ugly.

Anyways, I'd say that 40k is better than WHFB in every way except for the rules. 40k has the better models, and the better fluff, and is much more zany bonkers when you want it to be. 40k is also, though, about as strategically challenging as yahtzee. I've only played a few games of WHFB, but it definitely felt like there was way more opportunity for players to make meaningful decisions, rather than merely lining up, pointing your biggest guns at the biggest targets and then working your way down.

Fantasy has the better game mechanics... and I'd be playing it en masse now... but then I'd have to run around with blocks of poorer-quality miniatures with saltine levels of fluff...

That vid was hilarious haha

I have only read the fluff of the armies I have plus lizardmen and I would say the fluff is fine but I am not all about the fluff but I see nothing wrong with it.
The older models in Fantasy (wood elves for example) have ugly models but all the ones that have been re-released are just as good as 40K...it has alot to do with if you prefer Fantasy or Sci-Fi.

I know some people don't agree but for me gameplay and rules should be number 1 then model quality then fluff. Just pick an army you like the models (new releases have been impressive)

I tried to take up fantasy, and have a decently sized army.

My main problem was there simply were not enough players at my FLGS. Lesser problems included: Painting 40-60 identical models is not fun, and getting dynamic models to line up in formations is a pain in the ass.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
I still really dig 40k's ability to give personality and individuality to single models, which is a bit lost in the big block formations. I also love the epic scale of 40k -- which is why I am an IG player in the first place. But, while I had been feeling like the unbalanced nature of 40k was natural to tabletop wargaming, it was refreshing to see that even in GW's other signature game, it's not inevitable. I could be wrong, but it does seem that unless you are a total fool in your choices of what to field and how, most permutations of army units come out evenly in a legal WHFB game.

In 40k though, there are so many caveats now. The battle brothers rules allow for insane combinations. Toss in escalation and fortifications and the gap between a casual game and competitive -- i.e. squeezing as much cheese through $$$ as possible -- is huge.

Again, I haven't delved much into Fantasy, so I could be wrong about that. This is why I posted this on the 40k side, to get those experienced in both to prove me wrong.

Honestly, wait until you try non-GW games. Its a serious eye opener thats for sure.

I see Fantasy as a better *game* in pretty much every single regard than 40k, but a worse hobby experience. Overall though, I wouldn't recommend either for gameplay because 40k is honestly not impressive and Kings of War seems to be a better, simpler Fantasy

 Dakkamite wrote:

Honestly, wait until you try non-GW games. Its a serious eye opener thats for sure.

I see Fantasy as a better *game* in pretty much every single regard than 40k, but a worse hobby experience. Overall though, I wouldn't recommend either for gameplay because 40k is honestly not impressive and Kings of War seems to be a better, simpler Fantasy

I have looked at Kings of War (just a glance at the rules honestly) but I agree that it seems more simple to play but I feel the complexity or Fantasy allows for the perfect amount of strategy and power. I might have to try kings of war though, but the lack of as much magic isn't as appealing haha
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I dislike the Kings of War models though, those elves are tuuuurible haha

Armor saves and cover saves do make sense.

Your ability to hit something being your ability to hit the silhouette, the cover mitigates it.

Armor is either penetrated or it isn't. If an arrow does not pierce but merely dents your breastplate, you get a bruise instead of having an arrow puncture your aorta and you bleed to death.

Tactics in ancient eras involved dense infantry formations and complex large-scale flanking maneuvers. After the introduction of rifles, skirmishing tactics were effective enough to totally displace static infantry formations which became sitting ducks. Gigantic blocks of infantry are totally obsolete.

One thing that is cool about WHFB though is movement trays.

ansacs wrote:The models in WHFB have always been uninspiring but with the new better plastic kits they have taken a drastic leap up.

Yeah, they're taking a big step up from total junk with their larger minis especially. Lots of the rank and file are in old plastics that just aren't as good. Things proportioned worse, more obvious stray sculpting tool marks, less detail, etc. It's pretty clear that GW has been pouring most of their love into 40k these last 5+ years.

They're also in pretty desperate need of better fluff writers. It's not just a difference between sci-fi and fantasy (I like both genres), it's a difference in 40k starting as a mishmash of sci-fi tropes but then really developing its own stuff far beyond its roots. WHFB started with fantasy tropes, and never bothered to advance any further in 30 years. Well, except skaven, but you've got to do more than that.

Dakkamite wrote:Kings of War seems to be a better, simpler Fantasy

So, I read the KoW book, then played a couple of games of fantasy, and then went back and read the KoW book. From this very surface level look at the two, it seems that KoW is, in fact, much simpler. I would be hard pressed to say it's better, though.

What some people see as pointless bloat, others see as interesting ways to do creative things. In a way, KoW feels like zero-calorie cola. It looks the same, and tastes roughly the same, but there's just not nearly as much THERE there. Or like smoking ultra-thin menthols vs. a double maduro cigar - what some see as inhaling asphalt, others see as robust flavor.

Or, put another way, KoW looks sort of like how you'd introduce someone to a game like WHFB - the light, stripped down version that you play to familiarize yourself with the rules before you play the real game.

 Ailaros wrote:


Or, put another way, KoW looks sort of like how you'd introduce someone to a game like WHFB - the light, stripped down version that you play to familiarize yourself with the rules before you play the real game.

You know, this is pretty much the exact conclusion I made after I read through the rules and watched a few demo videos. I was looking for a cheap alternative to WHFB. Cheap it may be, but I didn't really consider it a real alternative, much like a 2% beer isn't a real alternative.

 TedNugent wrote:
Armor saves and cover saves do make sense.

Your ability to hit something being your ability to hit the silhouette, the cover mitigates it.

Makes sense? Maybe. But it also slows down the game to roll extra dice. A tighter, more streamlined and outright better game system would simply move cover into armour and or to hit rolls, representing you actually having to hit the viable part of your target, hitting then the potential for cover to take the hit before it gets to the armour or both.

The way 40k does it a guardman with a camo cloak in dense trees is exactly as easy to hit as a land raider sitting in the open. A marine is offered no protection against las guns even though he is hiding behind some craters. A guardsman and a terminator both standing in 4+ cover have equal chances of being hit, wounded and killed by a plasmagun.

There is a lot in 40k that technically makes sense but would make so much more sense and make the game a lot better if they just put back in the damn modifiers.

Yeah, WHFB is way better about this.

In fantasy, your armor save gets worse the stronger your opponent hits you. A minotaur with massive axe reduces the usefulness of that chain mail a lot more than a goblin with a dagger.

In 40k, on the other hand, you have some very curious situations like the manticore with its S10 Ap4. It's a cruise missile system whose rockets are so powerful that their explosions easily level buildings and blast everything into dust... but if you're wearing power armor, you just walked away unscathed? What? Furthermore, if that bunker buster bomb lands right on top of me, but I'm chilling out in a hedge, there's a 33% chance that the twigs catch the blast and I'm okay?

Cover saves being another way fantasy just makes more sense. You become harder to hit, but when you're hit, you're hit. Plus, it doesn't strangely and arbitrarily hurt area effect weapons.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
Armor saves and cover saves do make sense.

Your ability to hit something being your ability to hit the silhouette, the cover mitigates it.

The way 40k does it a guardman with a camo cloak in dense trees is exactly as easy to hit as a land raider sitting in the open. A marine is offered no protection against las guns even though he is hiding behind some craters. A guardsman and a terminator both standing in 4+ cover have equal chances of being hit, wounded and killed by a plasmagun.

There is a lot in 40k that technically makes sense but would make so much more sense and make the game a lot better if they just put back in the damn modifiers.

Yeah because the plasmagun goes through the armor save. So it's a non-factor. The only question is how much of your body is exposed, which comes down to the percentage of your body that is behind cover. Hence the cover save.

Maybe you have a point about streamlining it, but maybe someone who plays Fantasy can answer this - how long does it take to figure out -hit and -armor modifiers before rolling compared to rolling for armor saves?

I mean, you just brought up how a guardsman and a terminator only have one save behind cover against plasma, yeah, that means you only have one roll for saves. That sounds streamlined to me. The only save that matters in a given situation is the highest allowable save, the others are discarded. I know for one thing that in fantasy you can have a ward save on top of an armor save, which means two saves. In 40k you only have one save no matter what, one dice roll.

I really like the models for fantasy (just as much as I love 40K models).

So I bought Battle For Skull Pass a few years ago (what edition was that? 6th?). Also bought lots of other models and just enjoyed painting them.

I don't think the fluff is as good as 40K, but I prefer it to other fantasy game settings (like D&D).

I played a few games with my set, but didn't think much to it. I know that is a very limited experience so I would like to try it again. I didn't like how most of your men are just wound counters effectively. If I was to play again (and I would), I would use regiment fillers like the person above suggested.

Otherwise, I'm going to play some Warhammer Skirmish with my models instead. I think that would be more fun than large scale battles. (Necromunda is my favorite GW game).

I'm also hoping the next specialist game to get a limited rerelease will be Warhammer Quest (after the success of the App)

I much prefer Fantasy Battles over 40k, but how shall I put it? I'm not picking up yet another wargame. Enough is enough. I've got friends who actively play 40k while the same can't be said for Fantasy. However, it's the tactical aspect of a wargame that I actually play wargames for, which is also why I am so hyped about my Retribution of Scyrah army.

--

TedNugent, I'm wearing a reinforced flakk-coat. It's a pretty good armour all things considered and provides a 4+ armour save. I'm standing next to a waist-high wall that goes up to my abdomen and is made of plasteel, effectively a 4+ cover save that's more robust in structure than a flakk-coat. The wall is also part of a ruin which gives me a 5+ area save. You're using a lasgun. It's got no ability to penetrate my armour, and will only wound me if you hit me in an area that's exposed. Luckily, you're not exactly using a single-shot but firing in burst mode, significantly increasing the surface area each salvo will hit. I can stand out in the open, exposing the less-protected legs where the armour is made of less sturdy stuff to allow for movement. Or I can choose to stand behind the wall, where I will in fact be able to brace myself against it, exposing pretty much only my helmeted head, shoulders and arms when shooting.

In 40k, it doesn't matter where I stand. Your ability to wound me is the same since I can only ever use the wall or my armour to mitigate damage dealt to me.

In any other major wargame you will be significantly less likely to wound me if I stand behind the wall.

Your argument only holds water if the weapon used is capable of defeating the armour I am wearing. However, the system used in nearly all major wargames actually provides that suspense of disbelief as well since those weapons will actually have a harder time hitting me. Again, in the example I used and taking the S10 AP4 cannon shot. It doesn't ignore cover, but it does ignore my armour, yet an explosion exactly the same as the one that reduced the building I am standing in to a ruin now suddenly has a 33% chance of not reducing my internal organs to unusable goo because I am standing on it?

Or for that matter, I am standing in a thriving plantation that provides 6+ cover. How does barley provide any protection against a D-Cannon if I'm actually hit by it?

I got mostly tired of the arms race thing going on for 40k, so I jumped ship and am now mostly working on Warriors of Chaos for WHFB. They have awesome models (Knights and Skullcrushers are amazing as well as this guy:
Nurgle Lord on Daemonic Mount). So far, I haven't run into any problems with magic (since most of the stuff gets dispelled anyway), but I find that I do have to be more careful with movement since my battles seem to be lost when I let the enemy Lance wielding cavalry to get the charge when in turn my own chariots could destroy units when they get the charge.
I can say for certain right now that the fluff for WOC is way better than the fluff for Chaos Space Marines. It's only now that I realize how angst ridden the Chaos Marines are.