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.

I'm sorry if this doesnt belong here, but I couldnt find any other place to post this. But lately if been thinking that Warhammer 40k is much more serious and competetive then fantasy. I want a casual game to play with awesome fiction and so far Warhammer Fantasy has shown me exactly that.

I just feel that after many years of playing 40k the people that play are generally very up tight about both the games rules AND fiction, honestly I guess I could say i'm getting sick of it. The few games of Fantasy that I have played (wich I wont and lost brutally in) I had morefun then I ever did with 40k and saw myself drawn in to the pure fantasy realm of its backround (And thats coming from a guy who really likes scifi).

I just wanted to know YOUR thoughts.

I can't say that 40k is more serious or competitive than Fantasy. I think it just seems that way because there are less Fantasy player.

I personally think Fantasy is more competitive than 40k because it isn't as big of an "arms race" biggest guns wins type thing. It is more strategy and the armies are far more balanced along with the rules. (unless we are talking wood elves...sorry guys). It really depends on your definition of competitive though.

Bottom line is you can make 40k AND Fantasy as casual or competitive as you want....it has nothing to do with the game system really because both games are equal in all honesty. Just because there might be less Fantasy Tournaments doesn't mean that it isn't as competitive. It is all about your mindset towards a game.

I've just started fantasy but 40k is totally dependent on your play group/scene. I have friends I play against who are not competitive at all and then guys who would cut my throat for a objective points.

I find that 40k Rewards spam thus if you pay lots of $$$and spam strong units you get to throw dice and just win. Where as fantasy is a more in depth and tighter rule set and is more strategic. IMO 40k is played at a tactical level based upon squads combat, with some synergy, and fantasy is played on a strategic level where the entire army must support each other. Both have their ups and downs and it is really what you make it and who you play with.

This really depends on your local and friends
Atm where i play 40k tends to be more tournament based lists... while a few times some random fun cassual lists
while in fantasy it's mostly cassual stuff.

My experience always used to be that Fantasy was far more hardcore and tournament focussed than 40K. This is before 8th dropped as I got tired of the rankings/comp nonsense and went over to other games/40K.

40k If you are new to strategy and the game. There is not so much dependent on planning or setup. Play space noobs get the biggest guns you can roll and win. Not to mention it is alot less costly.

In my experience, fantasy is more competitive, but there are never any rules arguments or tantrums.

(My experience only)
40k games without a ref always turned into "that's not how lance works, you're thinking of beam" things like that, then either way you get ap1 and 2'd to death.

In fantasy (only been playing for a few months) there are rarely any arguments, and there is more talk during actual play. But we play seriously, and give serious thought to our actions

I think it all depends on your group and your attitude.

 aapch45 wrote:
"that's not how lance works, you're thinking of beam"

"This is Ordnance, you're thinking of Barrage" "But isn't that both Ordnance AND Barrage?" "No." "But I'm a Monstrous Creature, doesn't that exempt me from those Barrage rules?" "... no?"

"Should I look under Emplaced weapon or Weapon Emplacement?" "... yes. One of those two."

40k rules. The more I think about it, the more I just want to leave it.

Fantasy is a bit more casual because large ranks of models really get used as one model each. You just move them as a group and away you go, repeat some 6-7 times and you get to think strategy the rest of the time. Some exception to skirmishers but you do not typically have an army of them.

40k, you move every single model = bit of a grind especially if you are Tyranids, Orks or Imperial Guard.

OgreChubbs wrote:
40k If you are new to strategy and the game. There is not so much dependent on planning or setup. Play space noobs get the biggest guns you can roll and win. Not to mention it is alot less costly.

Fantasy less costly than 40K? Wat? £15 for little more than 10 wound markers!

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
40k If you are new to strategy and the game. There is not so much dependent on planning or setup. Play space noobs get the biggest guns you can roll and win. Not to mention it is alot less costly.

Fantasy less costly than 40K? Wat? £15 for little more than 10 wound markers!

He said 40k is less costly than Fantasy. Which is not saying much as you can spend an insane amount on any army in 40k too. There isn't really an economic cap on this hobby.

 Talizvar wrote:
Fantasy is a bit more casual because large ranks of models really get used as one model each. You just move them as a group and away you go, repeat some 6-7 times and you get to think strategy the rest of the time. Some exception to skirmishers but you do not typically have an army of them.

40k, you move every single model = bit of a grind especially if you are Tyranids, Orks or Imperial Guard.

So fantasy is more casual because of movement?? please tell me your not serious.

Also if your worried about moving your horde units they do sell movement trays for LOTR

I think it completely depends on your scene and what you look for. Both are games that can be played casually and competitively. So they're equal, really.

40k perhaps gives the illusion of being more competitive, since there's more ruckus regarding tournaments, rules interpretations, comp and power builds, but I think that's down to all the dataslates, supplements and allies, the fact it's not as good a ruleset and also the fact that there's simply more players. More players means more noise. They can still be equally competitive though really.

40k is more suited to casual gameplay. Fantasy actually has a competitive and fairly balanced ruleset(once all the books are updated it will be more balanced)

I'd definitely say that 40k is more accommodating of casual play. Each has a really complicated rules system, but I've found Fantasy to be far less forgiving for new players. A good player will punish you SAVAGELY for your mistakes, making the skill disparity a lot more apparent between new and old players.

On the other hand, Fantasy doesn't reward spamming or list construction in the same kind of way. That makes it a lot easier to get away with a "fluffy" list than it is in 40k. A friend of mine recently took 1st overall at a 60-man tournament with his Bretonnians, which are considered a "bottom-tier" armybook.

So I guess it really depends on how you define "casual." If you mean people who just want to play a game here and there and not worry about the competition, then 40k is probably the better fit (though your community may change that). Fantasy is a lot harder for casual players in that regard, but more forgiving of "hobbyist" players than 40k in my opinion. You can run cool themed lists and expect to win games here or there, once you have a good grasp of the game.

 DarkWind wrote:
So fantasy is more casual because of movement?? please tell me your not serious.
Also if your worried about moving your horde units they do sell movement trays for LOTR

Quite serious, I never have more of a chance to yack during a game than FB.
It is more strategic but essentially the placement of the unit is the prime consideration (supporting attacks, lining up for attacks from the side) and all the other attack and magic phases get resolved pretty easy in comparison.

40k has the rule of taking models closest to closest when resolving wounds so you have to carefully place every single model depending on how you want to protect certain models.

Summary: FB you get to think more of overall strategy while 40k is a horde of details so think again: which is more "casual"?
Depends on what you think of it's meaning: Casual: "relaxed and unconcerned".
I am more relaxed and unconcerned in FB far more than 40k and have far more time to plan moves and get on with the game, so I would not make fun: FB is a nap in comparison to 40k based on shear effort.

Yes there are movement trays for LOTR for their more horde based version of the game, but then you are sticking them into a cookie cutter configuration that you just cannot do and be "competitive" in the 40k game.

 Purifier wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:
"that's not how lance works, you're thinking of beam"

"This is Ordnance, you're thinking of Barrage" "But isn't that both Ordnance AND Barrage?" "No." "But I'm a Monstrous Creature, doesn't that exempt me from those Barrage rules?" "... no?"

"Should I look under Emplaced weapon or Weapon Emplacement?" "... yes. One of those two."

40k rules. The more I think about it, the more I just want to leave it.

This is a big reason why 40k is getting to me. The rule are always causing problems. Trule line of sight is one of the worst (Which is by far easyer to resolve in Fantasy)

40K is trying to be a casual game for competitive people. Fantasy is just trying to be a game that can be played as casual OR competitive.

Just what ive noticed anyway.

 Talizvar wrote:

 DarkWind wrote:
So fantasy is more casual because of movement?? please tell me your not serious.
Also if your worried about moving your horde units they do sell movement trays for LOTR

Quite serious, I never have more of a chance to yack during a game than FB.
It is more strategic but essentially the placement of the unit is the prime consideration (supporting attacks, lining up for attacks from the side) and all the other attack and magic phases get resolved pretty easy in comparison.

40k has the rule of taking models closest to closest when resolving wounds so you have to carefully place every single model depending on how you want to protect certain models.

Summary: FB you get to think more of overall strategy while 40k is a horde of details so think again: which is more "casual"?
Depends on what you think of it's meaning: Casual: "relaxed and unconcerned".
I am more relaxed and unconcerned in FB far more than 40k and have far more time to plan moves and get on with the game, so I would not make fun: FB is a nap in comparison to 40k based on shear effort.

Yes there are movement trays for LOTR for their more horde based version of the game, but then you are sticking them into a cookie cutter configuration that you just cannot do and be "competitive" in the 40k game.

I agree.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:


Fantasy is a lot harder for casual players in that regard, but more forgiving of "hobbyist" players than 40k in my opinion. You can run cool themed lists and expect to win games here or there, once you have a good grasp of the game.

And I love this because I care far more about the fiction, modeling and painting then winning. And BOTH players can have fun almost every game.

 Purifier wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:
"that's not how lance works, you're thinking of beam"

"This is Ordnance, you're thinking of Barrage" "But isn't that both Ordnance AND Barrage?" "No." "But I'm a Monstrous Creature, doesn't that exempt me from those Barrage rules?" "... no?"

"Should I look under Emplaced weapon or Weapon Emplacement?" "... yes. One of those two."

40k rules. The more I think about it, the more I just want to leave it.

This sums it up very, very well. Look in a codex some time... " flying monstrous creature, shroud, daemon, fearless." Now look at those rules... they have 2-5 sub rules and exceptions.

FB is more about strategy and placement (words that you'll grow tired of) than elitism.

On a side note, fantasy is more open (in my area) for new players. We need new guys to keep the hobby alive. Yes practise and experience win fantasy... but the 40k scene is mostly about gearing up for tournaments and winning with WAAC lists. New guys who get rules wrong are just a nuisance.

Lately I've been growing tired of the arms race in 40k, even though I'm still enjoying painting the models. That being said, I am looking to come back to fantasy entirely because I believe it to be a more balanced game rewarding a wider range of builds.


The only problem I have.....

Well, wood elves need some love, and bretonnians are in a similar but lesser boat (what luck do I have).

Ogopogo wrote:

The only problem I have.....

Well, wood elves need some love, and bretonnians are in a similar but lesser boat (what luck do I have).

Well that's why Wood Elves and Brettonia are the next two Fantasy armies slated for release.....a what what :O

I think the rock/paper/scissors nature of 40k leads it to feel less casual. Its a lot harder to bring a fun list to a pick up game of 40k and walk away after feeling like you had a good game that fantasy where the list doesn't matter AS much.

In 40k, if you don't bring the right tools to combat your opponent it will be a very rough game. Whereas in fantasy everything can hurt everthing else (to some degree).

So while they can both be very casual, fantasy feels more casual because, regardless of the list, when the armies are deployed both stand a better chance of winning than 40k

List-building is indeed HUGE in 40K. I'm not sure if by itself that makes something more or less casual.

I think duration of games adds to casualness. If you're playing for 30mins, it's hard to say it's a super duper hardcore game unless the whole time you're wracking your brain like chess.

Okay, here's another test. Which game falls to pieces first upon mild intoxication?

Neither game is more casual than the other, it simply comes down to the attitudes of the players involved.

Unfortunately because of how GW's system works and because they want players to have near-infinite choice in terms of collecting their army(s), all it takes is a couple of d-bags to abuse the crap out of the system and ruin it.
For example, if you play Daemons in my local, you either bring a Cacobomb or Portal-denial list or don't bother showing up because every High Elf and their mother shoves a unit of Phoenix Guard + a nasty BotWD unit down your throat, ranging from a DP characterstar up to and including an Alarielle Light Coven.

 DukeRustfield wrote:


Okay, here's another test. Which game falls to pieces first upon mild intoxication?

40k for sure would fall apart first. You'd forget which rule did what!

 aapch45 wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:


Okay, here's another test. Which game falls to pieces first upon mild intoxication?

40k for sure would fall apart first. You'd forget which rule did what!

Agreed. Games where you have to use your memory a lot in general are bad with intoxication. 40k is like playing chess without looking at the board with all the things you have to remember to do and all the rules you have to remember how they work with each other.

40k in general is all about remembering what does what, which creates a competitive atmosphere.

Our fantasy games usually don't take as long, and tend to be friendlier
which is odd, because the model count is almost always higher.

What I like about fantasy is that you only have to remember your own rules... where in 40k you pretty much have to remember everybody else's rules so you don't get stiffed by a bad interpretation.

 aapch45 wrote:
40k in general is all about remembering what does what, which creates a competitive atmosphere.

Our fantasy games usually don't take as long, and tend to be friendlier
which is odd, because the model count is almost always higher.

What I like about fantasy is that you only have to remember your own rules... where in 40k you pretty much have to remember everybody else's rules so you don't get stiffed by a bad interpretation.

...right up until you forget that Night Goblins can take fantatics. Or that the Scar Vet cowboy probably has a 2++ vs flaming, so your big horde of flaming white lions are suddenly gunna have a really bad time.

"Remembering what does what" is just as important in Fantasy as in 40k.


I could try to make a coherent argument for why 40k is more "casual," but in the end of the day it really just comes down to bias. I think that 40k is a fething stupid game. The models are awesome, the fluff is awesome, but the rules are absurdly unbalanced and the near complete lack of composition restrictions just makes it a game of seeing how much silly broken bs you can bring to a game. It's great fun on a casual basis, but the more competitive you get with the game the dumber it gets.

Fantasy, on the other hand, I find that I enjoy MORE the more competitive I get. Sure you still get "sub-optimal" units that fall to the wayside as you start building competitive lists, but the game remains fundamentally the same as you scale the complexity of the game. I just don't think that 40K holds up in the same kind of way, and really only shines in non-competitive, casual play.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:
40k in general is all about remembering what does what, which creates a competitive atmosphere.

Our fantasy games usually don't take as long, and tend to be friendlier
which is odd, because the model count is almost always higher.

What I like about fantasy is that you only have to remember your own rules... where in 40k you pretty much have to remember everybody else's rules so you don't get stiffed by a bad interpretation.

...right up until you forget that Night Goblins can take fantatics. Or that the Scar Vet cowboy probably has a 2++ vs flaming, so your big horde of flaming white lions are suddenly gunna have a really bad time.

"Remembering what does what" is just as important in Fantasy as in 40k.

I just feel like Fantasy has a doable amount of "remember to do this at the right time and remember how the rule works with all the other rules" while 40k has absolutely insane amounts of that stuff.
It's just as important, but not nearly as hard to grasp it all.

And like aapch said, you have to know your enemy's codex too in 40k, because there is a good chance he has found some thread on dakka where an interpretation allows him to do some combination of items on a model that might not be strictly speaking legal, but if you twist the rule just so....

In Fantasy the discussion I've seen lately that is like this is the dwarf rune "do dwarf runes of slowness stack" on YMDC. In 40k, every single codex has at least a few of those things, where it's hard to say if something is allowed.
In 40k there are so many exceptions that if your opponent says "well I can do that, even though you can't." then you really need to know his codex or you will simply have to accept it.

 Purifier wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 aapch45 wrote:
40k in general is all about remembering what does what, which creates a competitive atmosphere.

Our fantasy games usually don't take as long, and tend to be friendlier
which is odd, because the model count is almost always higher.

What I like about fantasy is that you only have to remember your own rules... where in 40k you pretty much have to remember everybody else's rules so you don't get stiffed by a bad interpretation.

...right up until you forget that Night Goblins can take fantatics. Or that the Scar Vet cowboy probably has a 2++ vs flaming, so your big horde of flaming white lions are suddenly gunna have a really bad time.

"Remembering what does what" is just as important in Fantasy as in 40k.

I just feel like Fantasy has a doable amount of "remember to do this at the right time and remember how the rule works with all the other rules" while 40k has absolutely insane amounts of that stuff.
It's just as important, but not nearly as hard to grasp it all.

And like aapch said, you have to know your enemy's codex too in 40k, because there is a good chance he has found some thread on dakka where an interpretation allows him to do some combination of items on a model that might not be strictly speaking legal, but if you twist the rule just so....

In Fantasy the discussion I've seen lately that is like this is the dwarf rune "do dwarf runes of slowness stack" on YMDC. In 40k, every single codex has at least a few of those things, where it's hard to say if something is allowed.
In 40k there are so many exceptions that if your opponent says "well I can do that, even though you can't." then you really need to know his codex or you will simply have to accept it.

Fair enough. In WHFB you really only get that playing Goblins or Skaven Sometimes I think that even Skaven players themselves have no idea what the hell is going on with their book (and by think, I mean know...their FAQ is almost as long as the damned rules were in the first place).

I think the complexity is really what's holding 40k back. The rules are so loosely written, the composition requirements so practically non-existent, and the abundance of combinations and add-ons so ridiculously abundant that it's practically impossible to cobble together a decent competitive environment out of it. It becomes a game of who can bring the gamiest combos "gotchya" combos rather than who can play the best game on the table.