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.

Aside from when I started with 40k, I've essentially played what my friends were playing. When I was in San Francisco, my friends played WHFB, so that's what I played. When I moved to Santa Barbara, there wasn't a Fantasy scene, but there was a big 40k scene, so I switched back to 40k. Here in Tucson, 40k's big, so that's where I'm at here.

But I agree with a lot of what's been said here already - frankly, I think 40k is better for the conversions and Fantasy is better for strategy and tactics.

The following is my opinion, didn't look like anyone had said it so I thought I'd throw this out there. I'm not going to defend it, if someone doesn't agree with me we'll just be 2 folks with different opinions.

Fantasy has a lot more luck in it. I think that's illegal to say or something, but the reason Mauleed could count on the back of one hand the number of folks who could beat him when he played 40k is that it's a more predictable game. You can usually call a 40k game after deployment, if not after you look at army lists. Fantasy, by contrast, is much more influenced by the dice (obviously they are both dice games, but fantasy is far more of one than 40k). A good 40k player is closer to a good chess player, while a good fantasy player is closer to a good gambler.

40kenthusiast wrote:The following is my opinion, didn't look like anyone had said it so I thought I'd throw this out there. I'm not going to defend it, if someone doesn't agree with me we'll just be 2 folks with different opinions.

Fantasy has a lot more luck in it. I think that's illegal to say or something, but the reason Mauleed could count on the back of one hand the number of folks who could beat him when he played 40k is that it's a more predictable game. You can usually call a 40k game after deployment, if not after you look at army lists. Fantasy, by contrast, is much more influenced by the dice (obviously they are both dice games, but fantasy is far more of one than 40k). A good 40k player is closer to a good chess player, while a good fantasy player is closer to a good gambler.

I just think this is hilarious, because the exact OPPOSITE of this is what many of my friends believe (and dislike fantasy specifically because of it!). They say "You can tell how a Fantasy game will go just by deployment. But 40k is all about how well you roll", and that's their arguement for why 40k is better.

Personally I totally disagree with both opinions, as I think luck is an equal (and equally huge) factor in both games, but I think its funny to see two perfetly contrary ideas on the subject.

I think fanatsy leans toward the dice, but the set-up can predict alot, especially in certain armies.

I still think that 40k is all ablout army lsit and set-up

Commissar wrote:That being said I think Fantasy gives itself to WAY better painting. Most 40K armies are these uniforms that are all for the most part, one color or maybe I should say only really need to be one color. A well painted 3000 point 40K army isn't inspiring as it is imposing. A 2000pt well painted Fantasy army, especially Brettonians is inspiring.

That is because you are an Ork player, which is more about wierd, random conversions than beautiful painting.

A well-painted Eldar or Slaaneshi army will be at least as inspiring as anything from the Fantasy side of the house.

AlexCage wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:Fantasy has a lot more luck in it.

I just think this is hilarious, because the exact OPPOSITE of this is what many of my friends believe (and dislike fantasy specifically because of it!). They say "You can tell how a Fantasy game will go just by deployment. But 40k is all about how well you roll", and that's their arguement for why 40k is better.

Personally I totally disagree with both opinions, as I think luck is an equal (and equally huge) factor in both games, but I think its funny to see two perfetly contrary ideas on the subject.

In my opinion, Fantasy has a considerably higher luck factor, because you tend to roll a lot fewer dice, so the vagaries of fate have less chance to even out. In 40k, you tend to roll dice by the handful, so things tend to even out. In Fantasy, you can have the entire game hinge upon how a single 2d6 Leadership test turns out. In 40k, this rarely happens. So I say that Fantasy is a lot "swingier", in that you can have bigger swings in the game, whereas in 40k, the game will tend to snowball for the winner.

Fantasy tends to come down to the wire because the armies don't consist of nerfed and non-nerfed list. The player skill in fantasy (as mauleed has said) is also much higher per-capita in fantasy. I could ignore my army and roll dice in 40K and win more thanhalf my games. If I don't pay attention in a fantasy game I will get trounced (though I normally do anyway)

I don't know about that. A heavy Magic TK or TDL list is going to run roughshod over an army with only light Magical defense. Similarly Brets are a problem.

And if you're so sure about Fantasy being "balanced" and armies not mattering, perhaps you might just play Dogs of War.

Tomb Kings is a 2nd tier army, they can win but you better damned well know what you are doing with them. Which is entirely the point, TK and OK are like Kroot Mercinaries or IG yet they can place well and in some cases win big tournments. You can't say the same for say a SOB, KM, IG, GK, or any non Space Mariiineeez Hurr! list.

TDL Turtle Dwarf List? The Daemonic Legion? Tortoise Digs Lesbians?

personally, I prefer 40k for the following reasons:

- I like Scince-fiction more than generic fantasy.
- I really like to convert things, even troop ifantry, but with those infatry blocks you have with fantasy it will be barely noticed. and even if you build them normaly, they're still a pain in the butt to get them in line.
- regiment movement may be historicaly accurate, but I find it boring and over complicated. besides, there are so many units in fantasy who just SHOULDN'T MOVE LIKE THAT:
Empire, of course, I'll buy that. Skelettons, yeah, there controlled by dark magic, okay. Dwarfs, Elves, even Chaos Knights, makes sense.
BUT: Marauders? Ghouls? Greenskins of any kind? I just don't believe that they would behave like that.
- I don't wanna paint 20 Orks, if you see only the front 5 all the time....that is why, my only Fantasy army are ogres
I think that's most of it.

TDL = Tzeentch Daemonic Legion

The issue with Magic is that Tiering oversimplifies things. Armies like TK and TDL are hugely dependant upon having more Power Dice than the opponent can deal with. TK / TDL don't squeak to minor victories as a Tier 2 army. If TK / TDL have more PD, great, they will win big. If the opponent has "enough" defense, those armies automatically lose. You can almost count PD and Bound Items vs DD and Scrolls to determine the winner before the first model hits the board. The idea of getting a nice "balance" of Magical attack and defense is really difficult.

When the Magic is way out of balance, it isn't fun because the game becomes non-interactive. "I nuke your guys with Magic" - "OK, I bend over and take it."

Oh yeah, why don't you want to play Dogs of War? Is it because they're a bottom-tier army? But if army doesn't matter, and it's pure skill, then how can Dogs of War be bottom-tier and Tomb Kings be second tier???

Anung Un Rama wrote:- I don't wanna paint 20 Orks, if you see only the front 5 all the time....that is why, my only Fantasy army are ogres

This can be used to your advantage - just paint the heads and shoulders of the rear ranks - the rest stops at basecoats.

yea, but I don't wanna do that. I only play with fully painted models. my decision, and I stand to it. If I don't get it painted, I won't field it, and that's why I'm annoyed if I paint stuff which won't be seen at all.

Rotate them around. Get them all seen at some point

edit: Or play Wood Elves.

FLUFF.

Warhammer 40,000 is, hands down, my favorite fandom to write in, ever.

A: It's so large that almost any plot scenario you can imagine that doesn't involve the truth of the emperor or blowing up half the galaxy can be written in without disrupting cannon.

B: There's a race for faction to suite almost anyone's taste. From the dark elder emo kids to the SST-ogling marines. : ]

C: Come on. Chain sword! Bolter!
How much SPLATtier can you get? ] :



Also, the background and origins of the different races leave a LOT of room for sociopolitical thought. I could easily and enjoyably reason for you just how the Imperium is the best course of action in the 40k universe, or what the individual chaos gods are representative of in reality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:TDL = Tzeentch Daemonic Legion

The issue with Magic is that Tiering oversimplifies things. Armies like TK and TDL are hugely dependant upon having more Power Dice than the opponent can deal with. TK / TDL don't squeak to minor victories as a Tier 2 army. If TK / TDL have more PD, great, they will win big. If the opponent has "enough" defense, those armies automatically lose. You can almost count PD and Bound Items vs DD and Scrolls to determine the winner before the first model hits the board. The idea of getting a nice "balance" of Magical attack and defense is really difficult.

When the Magic is way out of balance, it isn't fun because the game becomes non-interactive. "I nuke your guys with Magic" - "OK, I bend over and take it."

Oh yeah, why don't you want to play Dogs of War? Is it because they're a bottom-tier army? But if army doesn't matter, and it's pure skill, then how can Dogs of War be bottom-tier and Tomb Kings be second tier???

The Tzeentch Flying Circus is not based on magic it is based off of shooting and manuvering out of charge arcs and choosing when to charge your chariots and LOC. Magic is a bonus considering Tzeentch magic is not that great, Slaanesh spells are quite useful. I would love to play against a magic heavy non flying DL with lots of horror blocks. Tomb Kings don't generate power dice they basically do X spell at d6 or 2d6 power. None of there spells are very scary, 1 MM spell average power, 1 move spell, one add skeletons/heal wounds spell, 1 attack again spell IIRC. If you want big magic last edition stompy orks, free range slann with spotting skinks, uber magic high elves on dragons. None of these armies are unbeatable, I have beaten and tied with all of these listed in a tournment. My poor GK would get cut to ribbons my min maxed marines or the Drop Pod army of doom.

I have a DOW army, they just won't let me play it anymore

Fantasy has overpowered armies just like 40k, it's just not as bad.

And 40k is a game where you can say it "relies more on the dice" because so many armies are now being based around the idea that you just throw tons of dice at something and it will die.

Shooty Orks, Godzilla, IG Gunlines, etc.


The thing with Fantasy is that if you give a half wit a really, really good army, and another guy who's good at the game a middle of the road army, the guy who's a good general can still pull off the win, despite the disparity in army lists.

There are certainly terrible match-ups in the game, but in general I think it's much more "balanced" than 40k is.

I definitely disagree with the opinions stated that WFB is more about luck. In a game that's more about maneuvers and tactics, that's just impossible. In fact in my last game as Skaven I beat a powerful Chaos army through one simple maneuver - Him making the mistake of putting his Chosen Knights in position to be flank charged by a slave block, causing it to pursue sideways and then get overran by my infantry blocks, and opening up the rest of his formation to my guns and magic. That move was the single deciding of that game, and although it's true that I could have had a horrendous batch of luck with various attacks/etc., the same is the case for 40K.

That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

malfred wrote:That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

Lies! When did you win a battle?

Dice Monkey wrote:

malfred wrote:That might explain why it took so long for me to win a WHFB game...

Lies! When did you win a battle?

http://plasticlegions.blogspot.com/2008/01/battle-report-empire-vs-wood-elves-v.html

Schepp himself wrote:Never thought that the Dwarfs could be imagined as gay, like, at all.

Other then that, the 40k Universe really has some more diverse fluff. Orks, Necrons, Tau and Space Marines, they are very different in their appearance and background. Not so much in the fantasy universe. Both games are worthwhile playing, though.

Greets
Schepp himself

personally I prefer WFB as its the only game I regularly play. I still collect and build armies for 40k though, mainly inspired via background fluff.

the "gay" debate is strange one, I'm sure its all meant very tongue in cheek but for most gayness 40k has WFB beaten.

There was a gay poet who wrote a poem regarding his inner battle with his forbidden (gay) desires...

His name? Lionel Johnson

the poem? "The Dark Angel"

So now we know the 1st legions terrible secret

40k appeals to sci fi fans - when you start looking as star wars, star trek, etc, this is a much larger fanbase of die hard gamers.

40k is easier to paint. Painting a unit of marines is rewarding for players as they can be fielded in a unit of 6 or 10. Its a chore to paint the 30th slaven slave just to finish a unit, or Bretonnian knight #45.

40k has more dice. People like to throw dice. rolling 5 dice for the charging greatswords is not as appealing as rolling 60 for the charging nids.

The movement system isn't as appealing to new players, who sometimes get frustrated with not being able to charge a unit 1" away that is out of sight, or who wastes all the movement wheeling past obstacles while march blocked.

I think it is gennerally accepted that fantasy is for those who have mastered 40k and moved on, unless they really do prefer the sci-fi fluff.

Personally the 40k universe doesnt appeal to me, just two categorys; those who attack randomly (orks,tyranids,necrons) and those who complain about always being attacked (IG,SPACEMAREINZZ!,Eldar). Also the fluff throws the game out of scale talking about battles in standard form.

9999 x 10(to the power of) orks attacked the ten planets and had a big battle with lots of big guns.

legoburner wrote:

stonefox wrote:Oh, and guns.

he he... bows and arrows or gauss rifle which flays the armour and flesh down to nothing... hmmm

Ahh, but 40k will never see entire Regiments simply sat on by a Dragon!

Nice threadomancy!

IBFTL!

I didn't do the Threadomance.

I just added. Apologies to the Mods!

Aduro wrote:I don't like the block movement.

Since we are in the misdt of a threadnemancer, I will say that this sums up why I like 40K more.

I enjoy both games but for different reasons, but I enjoy the way that you can disperse your models over the field with 40K more.

Tactiacally, WHFB is far superior, so that game offers more in that regard.

With the change to 5th edition I find 40k far more fun to play than fantasy. Especially since the introduction of daemons and the newest vampire counts to fantasy. Those armies for me break the bank on fun in fantasy. The lizardmen are drawing me back but I still think i'm gonna be focused on 40k for the forseeable future.

40K is Dune+Dark ages Europe=Grimdark Win!!! The second best background is Warmachine, what with the mix of magic and guns and robot/golem things.