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.

A friend and i primarily play fantasy, although he has Tau and Tyranids,

Everytime we talk about 40k, he reverts to saying how much more its lacking compared to fantasy.. i.e no flank charges, no strength to armour modifiers, combat ress is alot different ect.

I was just wondering if you guys could perhaps give me the reasons why you play 40k more so than fantasy???

also, as a side question, what armies tend to play best as stand alone armies? and how are the new Khorne daemonkin?

thanks

40k has Tau.... That's why it's better.

Best stand alone armies:
Eldar
Necrons
Daemons

Nothing else really compares to those apart from the IoM.

Daemonkin are doing really well but they are nowhere near as OP as the other new-style codices

I play 40k over fantasy because it doesn't seem quite so complicated, and I find that due to the loose nature of squads the movement phase is much easier for me

Star Wars or Lord of the Rings? Mass Effect or Dragon Age? It really comes down to scifi or fantasy, and I prefer the scifi genre. Only army that interested me in Fantasy was Lizardmen, and that's only because they're dinosaurs, but the Aztec side of it turned me off to the idea. Tyranids were a much more enjoyable idea.

Almost all of the armies can be stand alone. Skitarii and the new AdMech can't do it amazingly well from what I've seen, but everything else from Tyranids, who have no real ally options, to Dark Eldar, who make many appearances as the taxi drivers to Eldar, can be played well on their own. Allies are an option, not a necessity.

40k and Fantasy may share a lot of mechanics, but they are whole-heartedly different affairs. Someone complaining that 40k lacks elements of Fantasy that (I guess) they think are what make Fantasy "good" can be the same elements that the opposite players say the lack of makes 40k "better". Hockey, soccer, and football are all very similar - you take an object from one side of one zone to the other side of the opposite zone to score a "goal". They're very similar in many respects, but also very different.

40k & Fantasy are not comparable. Yes you have Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, etc., but 40k has AP whereas Fantasy does not. 40k has Armour Values for vehicles, while Fantasy does not. 40k has Orbital Bombardments, flyers, Warlords, detachments, allies, psychic powers... Fantasy does not. It's easy to point to similar things in Fantasy, but their mechanics are just very different.

Personally, I don't care for flanking or strength modifiers to armour saves. I like being able to choose when I can group my models tightly, or spread them out, and for that to have an impact on the game. I like it when my "flank" refers to my whole army, rather than a single unit's flank - and trust me, against most opponents - hitting them on their flank is still devastating!


As for armies, well, there's no "best". Some are currently really good, and it's easier to make a competitive force out of them (Eldar, Necrons, Knights), but the idea of "best" lasts a short time as the release schedule's been insane lately, and the meta is constantly adapting. The Eldar, Necrons, and Knights probably have the strongest faction-pure forces out there, but that doesn't matter because you can mix and match massively.

Khorne Daemonkin, from what I've seen, are very fun and flavourful. There's a number of good videos of them doing their thing, and I'd suggest checking them out.

Cheers!

Why I play 40k in general:

- Few tabletop games can match the spectacle or visual appeal of 2 painted 40k armies meeting over nice terrain.
- As a setting, 40k is by far the best original game setting out there, with both impressive backstory on a grand scale and plenty of scope to create your own.
- Across the ranges, the minis are pretty consistently very nice.

The rules themselves I'm somewhat indifferent to. However, they do their job well enough and while they are pretty simple, they are fun. For all the flak they get, I've yet to find a ruleset that does combat on 40k's scale, scope and style as well as 40k itself does.

As to why I play it over Fantasy, aside from the fact that my gaming group were far more drawn to sci-fi, it was the power of magic, the dull ranked troops and reliance on huge blocks or monsters that put me off, along with the much higher time/money cost to get a WFB army done.

That said, if the rumours of 9th Ed Fantasy having a Skirmish mode more akin to LotR or 40k, with no regiments and with round based, individual minis, I'll be all over that like a thing that is all over another thing, as I do like the imagery and setting of WFB.

Thankyou for the insanely fast replies! really appreciate it

and i love how supportive of 40k you guys are! The reasons you've mentioned are more than enough for me to want to collect

The armies, in respective order that i like are...

Khorne daemonkin
Daemons
Necrons
Orks

I dislike the regimented formations of fantasy. If you like the historical combat vibe, it's fine, it just isn't my cup of tea. The inability of most units to interact with terrain in a meaningful way is a constant irritation to me.

I prefer the looser, guerrilla-tactics friendly rules of 40k. It's got some holes, like fantasy, but those don't irk me nearly as much.

I guess it comes down to what flaws you can ignore better.

I like tanks, lazers, aircraft, giant walkers and titannic clashes. So yeah 40k.

Just like many have said, I prefer tanks and artillery over fantasy. In 40k, it's even better because there is an insane potential for creation, which WFB has not, IMO. 40k is very special in its style and history, even though many features have been imported from our modern times. Conversely, I feel WFB is just a big rehash of Tolkien and other mythical stories, with not that much imagination behind.

Can any WFB stuff can stand the sheer amount of epicness of an Imperial Armour Volume? Or a fully painted swarm of Tyranids? Or the diversity of IG?

40K is better because of the impressive possibilities of customization.

I prefer 40k mainly because of two key reasons:
1. It's popular! If my area and friends played fantasy more I would hop on that bandwagon in an instant
2. I dont care much for the ranks and bases of fantasy, cant pose models without issues mostly.

Because the visual spectacle, because it has a cool community around here, and because Orks

As an actual game, it has nothing going for it at all.

The thing that always turns me off fantasy is the quality of the infantry models. Because of how tightly grouped they are, so many of them have awkward, unnatural poses and there's just an overall laziness to the sculpting because you know they're just gonna look like a bristly mass of spears and shields and whatever when you're done.

Also, playing fantasy to me feels like playing a game of 40k with only like 5 models that have really complicated, convoluted movement rules and like a million HP. Every game I've played has been a slow affair of my blocks of dudes trundling up the board unitl they come into contact with the other blocks of dudes, then we slowly remove models until the game is over.

 Andy140491 wrote:
A friend and i primarily play fantasy, although he has Tau and Tyranids,

Everytime we talk about 40k, he reverts to saying how much more its lacking compared to fantasy.. i.e no flank charges, no strength to armour modifiers, combat ress is alot different ect.

I was just wondering if you guys could perhaps give me the reasons why you play 40k more so than fantasy???

also, as a side question, what armies tend to play best as stand alone armies? and how are the new Khorne daemonkin?

thanks

Why do you play Fantasy? You have no tanks, no titans, no superheavies, no real flying units, terrible shooting in general, and all your units are in silly square trays. Truth be told this is an apples and oranges situation. Both of them having warhammer in the name doesn't necessarily make them direct substitutes and both games have interesting things to offer players. The tone of your post is very accusatory, simply asking what you like about 40k in general would have been a more reasonable route to go and would help mitigate the knee-jerk 'No your game sucks!' reaction a post like this causes.

More or less, I prefer sci-fi over fantasy. It does help that the models are easier to customize too. I play CSM, so I still get a dragon too.

I think the number one reason for me is 40K was my first wargame. It was the most popular game at TLFGS when i started and I had a blast. It's what I learned and enjoyed as i grew up. So, when TFLGS went over to Warmachine/Hordes, I didn't follow. I still have a couple friends I play an occasional match with. It's really became more about the modeling and painting for me. I still try to keep up with the lore too.

In the end, I also don't want to invest into another wargame. Money and shelf space is limited as is. Plus, the settings of the other games really don't interest me much. I think the only other game I would get into is Maelstrom Edge. Something about it just tickles my pickle.

40k has a very cool backstory and I rather future than past (albeit not by many degrees), so 40k it is.

Sadly (or luckly, reagarding my wallet) no WHF faction really grew on me... while Tau in 40k (and TS on 30k) are dead set on my heart

I prefer the Sci fi fluff over the general fantasy fluff. (though i prefer the near future infinity style)

Terrain is a little more useable which i prefer. compared to how finicky it can get with fantasy and movement trays.

I like big guns and I can not lie.

RazgrizOne wrote:Just like many have said, I prefer tanks and artillery over fantasy. In 40k, it's even better because there is an insane potential for creation, which WFB has not, IMO. 40k is very special in its style and history, even though many features have been imported from our modern times. Conversely, I feel WFB is just a big rehash of Tolkien and other mythical stories, with not that much imagination behind.

Can any WFB stuff can stand the sheer amount of epicness of an Imperial Armour Volume? Or a fully painted swarm of Tyranids? Or the diversity of IG?

40K is better because of the impressive possibilities of customization.

I think you just don't know the Fantasy background very well. Fantasy is not just a Tolkien rip-off. It has a very deep expansive background almost equal to 40k.
Fantasy is a rehash of generic fantasy tropes in the same way 40k is just a rehash of many different sci-fi and fantasy tropes.

Also, WHFB stuff, with its huge monsters towering over large formations of infantry and cavalry charges can definitely stand up to anything in an IA volume, a fully painted Fantasy army looks as good if not better than a Tyranid swarm and the Empire is even more diverse than the IG (by a large degree even).
It just comes down to what you prefer. Do you like monsters and cavalry or do you like tanks and aircraft?

Jimsolo wrote:I dislike the regimented formations of fantasy. If you like the historical combat vibe, it's fine, it just isn't my cup of tea. The inability of most units to interact with terrain in a meaningful way is a constant irritation to me.

I prefer the looser, guerrilla-tactics friendly rules of 40k. It's got some holes, like fantasy, but those don't irk me nearly as much.

I guess it comes down to what flaws you can ignore better.

I prefer the looser formations too for modelling reasons, but functionally they are much the same. Both a Fantasy regiment and 40k squad function are one single whole. The difference is that a 40k squad can be spaced out somewhat and a fantasy regiment has clear front, flanks and rear.
Both can interact with terrain in the same way.

ERJAK wrote:

 Andy140491 wrote:
A friend and i primarily play fantasy, although he has Tau and Tyranids,

Everytime we talk about 40k, he reverts to saying how much more its lacking compared to fantasy.. i.e no flank charges, no strength to armour modifiers, combat ress is alot different ect.

I was just wondering if you guys could perhaps give me the reasons why you play 40k more so than fantasy???

also, as a side question, what armies tend to play best as stand alone armies? and how are the new Khorne daemonkin?

thanks

Why do you play Fantasy? You have no tanks, no titans, no superheavies, no real flying units, terrible shooting in general, and all your units are in silly square trays. Truth be told this is an apples and oranges situation. Both of them having warhammer in the name doesn't necessarily make them direct substitutes and both games have interesting things to offer players. The tone of your post is very accusatory, simply asking what you like about 40k in general would have been a more reasonable route to go and would help mitigate the knee-jerk 'No your game sucks!' reaction a post like this causes.

The OP's post is not accusatory, that is just you reading too much into it. He is just asking why you prefer 40k over Fantasy, that is all.

I play both, granted I have been holding of on the newest forms & shapes both games seems to morp into.
But my mian reason for playing WH40 is that I enjoy the setting, the abject loss of hope and the sense of impendig doom for one and all. That and I like to wage warcross a well made terrain board with nice gotic and gritty looking terrain.

I play both 40k and Fantasy, and I really love both.
I play 40k the most though, mostly because I do not like the infantry all having to be in tight blocks as it puts so much limits on modelling and makes individual miniatures less noticeable and interesting.

 Blacksails wrote:
I like big guns and I can not lie.

You battle brothers cant deny

There is a thing called emergent game design. It happens when you do not make a hard coded rule, but instead the way the rules interact cause an element in the design to occur naturally.

As some have mentioned, you don't need a hard coded rule for flanking. You need the mechanics of the game to allow for flanking to occur naturally.

You don't need the rules to tell you to put your people into formations. You need the individual armies rules supported by the core mechanics to make it beneficial or natural to put those armies in the places they would be and then make it a tactical decision to do so or not.

Big exsplosions, large robots and awsome fluf, and rediculas speeches that are now a meme

Just because I haven't read it here specifically, I'll throw in a big thing for me: Less models=less repetitive modeling/painting.

Most (not all) 40k armies have units of 5-10 models, or even less. Vehicles and Monstrous creatures are plentiful, and armies can be built around them.

Most (not all) Fantasy armies have units of 10-20 models, or even more. Large vehicles and monsters are far more rare.

I'm terrible with the painting side of the hobby because I don't enjoy painting. But I DO enjoy looking at a painted army and knowing "Hell yes, that looks gorgeous, I did that." 40k is easier to get to that point.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Because the visual spectacle, because it has a cool community around here, and because Orks

As an actual game, it has nothing going for it at all.

This. But replace orks with IG.

I play GW Games because I enjoy hanging out with friends, having a few beers and a good time.
I enjoy Fantasy much more than 40k (more tactical) but most of my friends like tanks more than cavalry - so I bought a few SoB.

Playing the underdogs is kinda my thing. SoB, DE, Orks, 30k Mechanicum, Infantry only Guard, White Scars (before they where cool).

I prefer 40k because I prefer actually playing games against other people.

MarsNZ wrote:
I prefer 40k because I prefer actually playing games against other people.

Oh my word, this made me chuckle a bit.

I used to play 40k for the fluff, models, and competition.
Now it has a bit changed. Competitive play is more questionable.
The tournament scene seems to die a bit.