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.

40K is more unique so it stands out from the competition more.
Also, it has more guns. Lots more guns.
And bigger guns.

There are a large number of reasons. Some are being fixed though.

1) Less distinctive setting. 40K has drifted a fair ways from its origins and now the factions are distinctive with their own flavors. Fantasy is still very generic fantasy though is slowly starting to move away.

2) 40K models have historically been much better looking. This is changing as all the new GW models are pretty good looking or at least well executed. The old fantasy ranges (2+ years old) are aweful looking and just poorly done sculpts.

3) The money to start is several times higher in fantasy that 40K and you need to assemble/paint several times the models. Conversions are much less possible and don't fit as well. Finally the rules have a steeper learning curve to get started.

4) Support; 40K has always had much better support from GW with more releases. This has not changed per se but the support level of fantasy is excellent now.

All of this adds up to a lower player base.

There is also a misconception about 40K vs fantasy. People say fantasy is a more tactical game...actually it is a more strategic game and 40K is actually the more tactics based game. That is actually the only place fantasy really outshines 40K in a definitive way. In fantasy you come up with a plan for the entire game and it will determine your victory or defeat whereas most 40K games only have tactics you are going to employ without an overall plan.

 DarkWind wrote:
Price and pop-culture

Scifi is more popular then fantasy rite now in pop culture (Halo, Star Trek remakes, Super Hero movies, Titanfall, ect..)

Sci-Fi might still be more popular, I dunno, but thanks to The Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft and Game of Thrones (and Harry Potter if you count that) Fantasy has reached a wider audience than ever before.

1) 40K has more unique setting.

2) You need more models for Fantasy, so it takes more time to paint them and costs more.

3) Ranking models is an utter pain.

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish


Now
Why is it that the sci fi variant is played by so many more people (and is omnipresent in so much media) compared to the fantasy variant?

Let me know your thoughts
thanks
Austin

Guns and tanks etc appeal more to kids than magic, which is when many start this sort of thing, and it kind of just grows from there, with 40k.
And the rule set is also simpler for 40k than fantasy

Just my thoughts

 aapch45 wrote:
I don't mean to start an argument here, but why is it that 40k is more popular than fantasy?

Before you answer, lets set aside the stereotypes:

40k players are not all kids (though most are under the age of 30)
fantasy players are not all old men (I'm 18, but most are right around 25-35 age)
40k players don't have a pure competitive attitude
And fantasy players aren't arrogant or snobbish


Now
Why is it that the sci fi variant is played by so many more people (and is omnipresent in so much media) compared to the fantasy variant?

Let me know your thoughts
thanks
Austin

Steadfadt, Horde rule and spears. Banners on guys on big horsies. skirmishers. Thats about it, as far as I was concerned.

Net result: INCREDIBLY similar armies every time you play. 3 x 30 blocks, big dude on horse with banner. Spears any time you can get em.

Fantasy took its most important element, its most important distinction from 40K and even other games, and just ejected it. And that was a shame because the rulebook for Fantasy was put together SO DAMN WELL. Its a thing of beauty, what they were able to do with that 8th Edition book. Absolutely perfect in its presentation and so on.

But...Steadfast, hordes, spears. big dudes on banners. Every time. Boring.

40K is dynamic, theres stuff all over the board, theres a ton of interesting strategies, ENDLESS list variety and theres no "underlying combination" throughout 40K that all competitive armies have. 40K is more fun because more stuff happens and the blood angels and Imperial Guard or whatever aren't just carbon copies of each other using their respective codex's rules.

 aapch45 wrote:
I honestly don't see how fantasy is more expensive....

20 zombies for 35 bucks? Hell yeah!

I personally don't like 40k all that much. I like the primarchs... that's about it.
I think the rest of the setting is utter gak. As for game mechanics, you cant bring fluffy lists that inspire the imagination as many have said, because BOLS said you cant. You have to build a certain way and break the codex to get a good game out of 40k. Otherwise your opponent blasts you into oblivion with ap1 and 2 weapons.

Ranting aside, I still don't see why 40k is so popular! The armies are not varied (pick your marine!) And every gun is a bolter. Some bolters rend, others are range 18... but they are still bolters. There is nothing inspiring about marines.

Now an empire regiment who is campaigning against a vile skaven army is inspiring. If any of them speak of the skaven, they take a permanent vacation from life. But if they don't fight the skaven, then their little Germanic style village will be burned to the ground, and all of the people of the empire would be in danger.

I think fantasy touched on more personal notes with 1 cooler characters and 2, the fact that only heroes are heroes. Not every single guy in a unit can carve out a name for himself.... no. Only those. Blessed (cursed?) Enough to take on vile daemons, cannabalistic beasts, and giant rats (in one sitting some times!) Have the honor of being a hero.

Plus you can tactically set up charges, and dish it out like an ancient battle, its a big grind fest where the better general usually wins. Bring your deathstar! (Looking at you WOC) I'll match it with raw skill.
In 40k I bring a LOC 3 DPs of tzeentch lvl3 (flickering fire) then minimum troops, then chariots. I win, unless I roll gakky, then my opponent wins. Much like rock paper scissors. As opposed to.....chess.

Well, the problem is those 20 zombies won't give you a good unit. You will need at least 40 more of them to get a decent unit. Fantasy is more expensive because it involves a lot more models than 40k. The 'standard' point size of Fantasy also seems higher (in my area at least).
You can take fluffy lists as much you want in 40k, you just need to make sure your opponent does the same. That is not any different from Fantasy.
Fantasy has a really nice, inspiring setting, but its problem is that it is not unique. There are tons of settings and factions like those in Fantasy. 40k on the other hand is very different from all other sci-fi/sci-fantasy settings there are. The Space Marines and the Imperium are really unique factions. Whether you find them inspiring or not is your own opinion, but most people will disagree with it.
The main reasons for 40k's popularity are thus its unique, interesting setting and its comparetively lower cost. Another factor is that many people do not like the big, unpersonal blocks of Fantasy, whereas the squad based system of 40k allows for more individuality and customisation.
The only advantages Fantasy has over 40k are its better, more tactical gameplay and the fact that some people prefer sword and sorcery over artillery and tanks.
Personally, I am unable to choose between the one or the other. I love both settings to death. That is why I play both and end up lacking the money to complete my armies for either

I can agree with most of what you say, iron_captain.

I guess 40k just isn't my cup of tea any more (not since 6th ed came out) while it was still 5th, I liked it a lot better.

I love fantasy though... I can march to war with an army that is tier 3, and win. In 40k, taking a themed army is berg difficult.

I don't like many of the plastic kits for WFB. I want to paint some of the bigger monsters, but the rank and file is too off-putting (looking at you, Saurus Warriors, Ghouls, Halberdiers etc)

I can make tank-, laser- and machine gun sounds while playing! And now plane sounds too!!!

 Art_of_war wrote:
I used to do WHFB but it died at my club so i got rid of it all and then it began to come back...

The game itself is good, arguably it is way more balanced than 40k seems at the moment (i'm not joking...).

However the setting seems to be left behind by the ever varied 40k one where pretty much anything goes (even if it does massacre the good old fluff!!!). The Horus Heresy is a prime example, that piece of background has been turned into its own game off the back of 40k. Now as far as i am aware no other game has done that.

Of course fantasy seems to have been done loads of times over the years and has gone stale. Game of Thrones however is a bright spark in that regard i've nearly read all the books and they've been fantastic.

40k has none of those problems all those big bugs, tanks, space marines, riptides etc are far more inspiring to many as they fire your imagination (who wouldn't want to be a riptide pilot ) Warhammer may have the army variety but they seem 'bland' when compared to the 40k offering. That is counting marines as one whole by the way, in saying that 40k has the imperium as the vehicle for the story. Whereas fantasy does not, and i think that is the major issue.

Just my humble opinion...

Game of thrones is somehow new?

All I see is someone desperately trying to not be tolkien and throwing lots of gratuitous softcore porn into the shot to get the "yay titties!" demographic.

In any case, 40k has Tyranids and oddly designed Tanks, and I've gotten much more invested into the lore than I have with Fantasy, due in large part to the fact that because of it's lack of support from GW.

It's also substantially easier to slot in your own stuff into some forgotten corner of a galaxy (space is big yo) than it is to shove stuff into a world with mostly defined geography.

TLDR

Did anyone say model count yet? I can make a 1500+ point WH40K army with 50 models. But in WHFB, that's like one or two units. WH40K is already expensive with just that many minis, I shudder to think of how much a FB army would cost me.

Oh yeah...and I remember when most of the Fantasy mini's were still metal. That was a while ago I know, but I started a Dark Elves army many years ago and stopped when I realized there were no plastic crossbowmen.

40k has more things like huge tanks, artillary, laser weapons and all kind of things attract the imagination more.

And admit it we all are big kids somewhere

Kain wrote:All I see is someone desperately trying to not be tolkien and throwing lots of gratuitous softcore porn into the shot to get the "yay titties!" demographic.

To be fair, that's the HBO show, not the books.

Of course, game of thrones isn't really a fantasy novel either. It's a soap opera with a non-historical medieval setting that has a little bit of magic lightly draped on top.

The thing that bugs me about fantasy, is that I've got a few dozen dwarves, individually painted, but throw them on a table in regiments and they're basically there to be taken off the table once the wounds start piling up. Each of my 40k guardsmen gets his moment to shine on the battlefield.

And for me, 40k fills a void in the video game lineup. Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War are poor substitutes for 40k. Most battles are blob battles or scoot-and-shoot, and lack the scope and scale of futuristic battles. You get a hint at these epic sci-fi battles in Star Wars, Mass Effect, BSG, etc. but you don't get the battlefield control like you do in 40k. And I love the story-lines you can create of some battle on a distant planet over lost technology or a defector or a communications tower. In a fantasy setting the story usually falls to the Lord of the Rings as the common denominator "they're invading" "why?" "just cause."

For fantasy, and block regimental combat, Rome and Empire Total War perfectly simulate everything that I'm trying to get out of fantasy. Realistic, historical combat with massed infantry, cavalry, war machines, and sometimes elephants, etc. Those games are great from a campaign and combat standpoint. Throw in the complicated rules, cost, and accounting necessary for a fantasy battle and it's just not as much fun next to those video games.

TLDR: video games are better at simulating regimented/block infantry combat than fantasy. Video games are not good at simulating large scale real-time or turn-based sci-fi combat.

My biggest problem with fantasy is two fold.

1) There isn't enough variety in the lists. Due to steadfast and the power of morale and magic every single list is 2-3 big blocks of troops, 1 Lv3+ mage, and 1 battle standard bearer...this causes most battles to be very similar. Funnily enough this is also why fantasy is "better balanced" than 40K as nobody expects to win without taking these elements whereas in 40K people expect to show up with almost random unit selection and be able to win. Often this is because SM are AWESOME!!!

2) The terrain in fantasy is essentially flat. There is no difference between a felt square with forest written on it and a ruins 10" tall. In 40K this actually matters and so the actual terrain used is usually much more important. If you don't buy the supplements fantasy becomes very formulaic whereas I can completely change the dynamics of the game in 40K by playing in a city type terrain vs an open field.

Ansacs

To answer your complaint about Terrain in fantasy... fantasy is a representative game. 1 guy is not one guy.... 1 tree is not one tree. Its a game that simulates mass battle in a small scale.

ansacs wrote:1) There isn't enough variety in the lists. Due to steadfast and the power of morale and magic every single list is 2-3 big blocks of troops, 1 Lv3+ mage, and 1 battle standard bearer...this causes most battles to be very similar. Funnily enough this is also why fantasy is "better balanced" than 40K as nobody expects to win without taking these elements whereas in 40K people expect to show up with almost random unit selection and be able to win. Often this is because SM are AWESOME!!!

Also, Id note that armies sort of play similarly as well. They're all sort of blocks of infantry that run into the middle and fight a big scrum while a few shooty support units plink at stuff. There are small variations, like if you're bringing archers or chariot archers, or if you're bringing fewer, stronger fast units like demygryphs or larger, weaker-per-model fast units like outriders, but in the end, it's just minor variations on a theme.

Meanwhile, you can set up a space marine army that's a drop pod assault, and it will play VERY differently from a raider rush or a bike horde or a razorspam list, and that's making very different armies just within the same codex. Likewise there are differences from codex to codex. A DoA BA list looks like nothing else in the game, for example.

Whereas fantasy seems more like "Well, my wizard bunker is exactly the same as yours, except the archers are slightly different, and my wizards use a different lore, and my stonethrowers are the same as yours, except slightly different, and here's my redirectors, which are the same as yours but have this special rule instead of that one".

I guess one might say that 40k's ability to have spam armies makes it more interesting.

 aapch45 wrote:
Ansacs

To answer your complaint about Terrain in fantasy... fantasy is a representative game. 1 guy is not one guy.... 1 tree is not one tree. Its a game that simulates mass battle in a small scale.

Not really. It is the number of models on the board with abstraction in the rules to deal with formations and terrain. It is supposed to be a small part of bigger battles or a smaller conflict within the overall framework of the bigger conflicts. 1 guy is definitely 1 guy but 1 tree is a forest if on green felt...

I understand why this is necessary but it is something they could really work on to improve the game. Introduce more rules for interaction with terrain features and let armies purchase terrain like in 6ed 40K (though hopefully they make more variety with less obvious choices, if they made forests purchasable then WE would actually be a decent faction).

I play WE and HE btw. HE are great but they play fairly similar to all other faction right now as steadfast keeps me from running all reaver core I also haven't been able to use my 4 phoenix build as without a banner and Lv3+ mage the game essentially ends when the opponent rolls a 3 dice difference between us.

Treekin WE (what I have and play) are in a terrible condition. The only way for me to even compete is to max out the big trees and use my poor skirmishers as chaff.


@Ailros
I think the biggest reason for this is the steadfast rules. Cavalry used to be more important before that rule as you could get flank charges on big blocks of infantry and it actually mattered. Now you need a big block of infantry of your own to deal with it and the flank charges are just a sort of bonus to help the block of infantry. If they fixed steadfast you could actually see things like cavalry and ambush armies which have the mobility to be really different. As it is it just doesn't matter if you get 4 skirmisher units charging the flanks of a steadfast block or 1, they will not win combat unless you have your own infantry block. The wonkiest part is when you charge the biggest baddest dragon in the game into a big block of skaven slaves and they are steadfast so eventually you loose combat...all without any hero to lead them within the ranks? How do a bunch of skaven slaves get the cahones that they are going to take on HE prince fancy magic death machine and his uber dragon?

Triumph and treachery is the only thing saving fantasy for me, at the moment. It is just so different and changes the game completely. Kind of like some of the altar of war missions (black legion) or changing armies does in 40K.

It's always been about the story...no clue about the story or fluff of WHFB but 40k has a very engrossing story and it also incorporates the most perfect use of the 'The Bad Guy Wins' idea. In every tabletop battle in 40k the Bad Guy Wins. The Bad Guy Wins is very appealing and allows the forward momentum of the overall story/fluff/history. Read the Horus Hersey novels to see the essence of the idea for the whole universe. Kaiser Soze gets away....LeStat continues his reign...George Lucas sells Star Wars for $$$$$$. All are examples of 'Bad Guy Wins' and all capture our interest.

Additional note this concept also allows players to keep fighting the good fight....SM trying to make order from Chaos, Tau trying to 'Lets Be Friends Borg-style, Eldar trying to right the wrongs of their history and the Saving Private Ryan ideals of IG. Just my two cents.

Because if I'm going to paint and move blocks of infantry, I'm going to play a real historical game, not the joke that is WHFB.

well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

 Jancoran wrote:
well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

I think it does end up competing, though, because of the formations and such. I know that actual historical games are why I'd never touch GW's interpretation of an ancients battle. If Flames of War weren't equally as ludicrous as 40K, I doubt I'd even play 40K.

 Orblivion wrote:

 changerofways wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Couple things:

1) I think it's mostly in North America that 40k is more popular; I think I recall reading that Fantasy was more popular in Europe, which might be due to that area's longstanding historical miniatures history.

2) Fantasy isn't quite as exciting, and is bland by comparison because fantasy tropes have been done to death by various sources, and a lot of WHFB is cliche or stereotypes anyways (german humans, french humans, stereotypical drunk dwarfs). On the other hand 40k gives you a lot more customization - for example if you have an Empire army in WHFB, there's a set number of provinces, so it's that or go with a mercenary/Border Prince army; compare that to 40k where you can make your own SM Chapter or IG Regiment or Craftworld or whatever and can do almost literally everything from scratch.

this. I think its because the 40k is a unique, sci-fy, gothic horror universe that is incredibly unique. The amount of people in the world who recognize the term space marines is huge, and the amount of people who know about the fantasy counterpart is small because 40k is so unique and has defined so many other lores like starcraft and star wars

40k didn't define star wars in any way, shape, or form. Unless George Lucas could see the future.

George Lucas didn't create Star Wars. He created movies from the books.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
well, Fantasy isn't a historical game nor meant to compete with them.

DBA and others handle that fine.

I think it does end up competing, though, because of the formations and such. I know that actual historical games are why I'd never touch GW's interpretation of an ancients battle. If Flames of War weren't equally as ludicrous as 40K, I doubt I'd even play 40K.

Can't account for taste, but I assure you that Fantasy in no way competes in the "historical" market. I play Flames of War (and its fun, probably my number 2 game) I play DBA and have played Bolt Action and some other lesser known historicals and they differ considerably in feel from anything Fantasy does. Most of those players (not all, and I'm an example) don't play 40K nor Fantasy. There seems to be an enmity between the camps that I've never come to fully appreciate.

My take on things is simple: why choose. If I can have fun in ten different ways, then do i really care...really... which one is "better"? Nope. Not really. Even if money were an issue, I wouldn't see a value in "grading" them all comparatively. I tell my kids and anyone who will listen: "Unmet expectations are the true root of unhappiness".

Maybe. They just look so similar on the table top formation-wise that it's hard to believe there is no competition.

In our group, when we wanna play in a fantasy setting, the LOTR game setting is far superior to Fantasy. I never really understood why GW decided to compete against its own product, but I'm glad they did.

If I'm gonna play with Fantasy-style rules, I'd personally rather just play historic games.

But the real thing that has always thrown me off of Fantasy is the comical models.

jasper76 wrote:
In our group, when we wanna play in a fantasy setting, the LOTR game setting is far superior to Fantasy. I never really understood why GW decided to compete against its own product, but I'm glad they did.

Well, GW has quashed that issue with the very high prices for Hobbit models (I'm looking at you, 3 Lake-town guards for $25). Any hope of upping the popularity of this range back to the days of LOTR, which was already unlikely, went to zero when the pricing for new releases came out. Which is a pity because I've always heard that LOTR has an exceptional ruleset.

Maybe it is like you said jasper, and GW decided they didn't want the Hobbit to compete with the Fantasy line and priced it at collector-only level. I think that move though doomed the line to an even quicker demise.

Yeah, fortunately one of our gaming group has an obsession with (a) Lord of the Rings, (b) wargaming, and (c) collecting miniatures, so due to this perfect storm we are able to play just about any scenario with the models he's collected over the years. I think he started and got most of his models back when LOTR models could be had relatively cheaply.

It does have an awesome ruleset. Probably my favoritist game on the market rules-wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also suspect they've lost a TON of money on their LOTR/Hobbit line. Think of the licensing fees. And, lets face it, the new Hobbit movies (all THREE of them) have so far been huge dissappointments when compared to the Lord of the Rings movies. I doubt anyone will be isnpired to start an expensive wargaming hobby based on these new films.

I also doubt anyone is salviating over 3 Laketown guards that any number of 28mm human miniatures from any line could easily substitute. Or are you really itching to buy an elf chick model for a character who was never even in the book? Or would some D&D model from 1982 work just as well?

I love the OP:

"Not starting an argument" ...argues more than anyone in the thread.

"No stereotypes".... Gives us shallow stereotypes.

"40k isn't tactical enough" .... Likes 5th ed better than 6th

"I like rich settings"....prefers DnD Birthright-like copy cat to 40k setting

"I hate marching up and just shooting and then charging".... Likes WHFB better than 40k

"I'm all about fluff and complex tactics"... Cites BoLS

If it's trolling, it's a troll folks, don't feed it.