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.

Hello,

Not sure if this question has been raised before, as searching yielded minimal results. Any thoughts on the major game play differences between 40k and Fantasy? I've been playing 40k for some time now and am looking at Fantasy Models for the sake of having some to play Fantasy with, but if the game play really isn't all that much different, I would probably just go ahead and start up a second 40k army.

Which do you enjoy better and why?

Thanks,

40k and Fantasy are very different beasts in terms of gameplay.

While they have the same core "engine" (stats and so on) the play is significantly different, and some of the biggest examples are:

1. Turn structure. Fantasy has an additional Magic phase which happens after movement and before shooting.

2. Importance of the movement phase. In fantasy, games are won and lost in the movement phase. And while it is important in 40k, movement is arguably the most important phase given the importance of positioning, charge ranges and combat bonuses.

3. Long-term strategy vs short-term tactics. Fantasy tends towards favoring players who can act and plan several turns ahead, while 40k favors more immediate and reactionary tactical play. Deployment, for example, is very critical in Fantasy as there is less room for error if you make a deployment mistake.

4. Force organization. Fantasy is broken into percentages of points, rather than raw selection. Regardless of game size, 25% of your points in Fantasy must be spent on your Core (read: Troops) units, and you can only spend up to 25% on your Lords and Heroes, for example.

5. Psychology. Fantasy has a slew of Psychology tests that 40k usually does not have. While Fear is a new thing to 40k, it has been in Fantasy forever, as well as things such as Terror, Stupidity, Frenzy, etc.

I need to go, and there's a lot more differences that I'm sure others will tell you, but for me 40k and Fantasy scratch very different itches.

curran12 brought up excellent examples of the differences between the two games.

I have to repeat one very big difference and that is movement. The movement phase alone can win or loose you the game, and it is a lot like chess in which you plan your moves and counter moves for turns ahead of the current one.

Force organization also is different and makes list building different as it is based on percentages of points and not FOC per say.

Honestly if you are looking at possibly getting into Fantasy I would highly recommend it. I got into 40k a long while after I started Fantasy and the games are different enough to make playing both fun.

I would also recommend starting Fantasy. It's very fun and more challenging than 40k.

Oh, something else worth mentioning as well.

Balance.

Now while there are outliers for power and underpower, the gulf between armies in Fantasy is much smaller than in 40k. Fantasy has very few 'netlists' or similar type builds. And while there are some cases of overpowered and underpowered armies, the external balance of Fantasy is considerably better than 40k.

 curran12 wrote:
40k and Fantasy are very different beasts in terms of gameplay.

While they have the same core "engine" (stats and so on) the play is significantly different, and some of the biggest examples are:

1. Turn structure. Fantasy has an additional Magic phase which happens after movement and before shooting.

2. Importance of the movement phase. In fantasy, games are won and lost in the movement phase. And while it is important in 40k, movement is arguably the most important phase given the importance of positioning, charge ranges and combat bonuses.

3. Long-term strategy vs short-term tactics. Fantasy tends towards favoring players who can act and plan several turns ahead, while 40k favors more immediate and reactionary tactical play. Deployment, for example, is very critical in Fantasy as there is less room for error if you make a deployment mistake.

4. Force organization. Fantasy is broken into percentages of points, rather than raw selection. Regardless of game size, 25% of your points in Fantasy must be spent on your Core (read: Troops) units, and you can only spend up to 25% on your Lords and Heroes, for example.

5. Psychology. Fantasy has a slew of Psychology tests that 40k usually does not have. While Fear is a new thing to 40k, it has been in Fantasy forever, as well as things such as Terror, Stupidity, Frenzy, etc.

I need to go, and there's a lot more differences that I'm sure others will tell you, but for me 40k and Fantasy scratch very different itches.

Fantasy sounds quite fun, how does psychology works btw? I mean in WH40k, fear is pretty much useless against most of the armies out there...

Baronyu wrote:


Fantasy sounds quite fun, how does psychology works btw? I mean in WH40k, fear is pretty much useless against most of the armies out there...

Here's a quick breakdown of the biggest psychology rules in Fantasy

Fear - Very similar to 40k. Roll an Ld test at the beginning of close combat, if you fail you are at WS1.

Terror - If you are charged by a Terror-causing model, you take a panic test, fail it and run.

Stupidity - At the start of your turn, roll an Ld test. If you fail, you stumble forward and cannot act.

Frenzy - +1 Attack in close combat. If an enemy is within charge range at the start of your turn, you must pass an Ld test or auto-charge that target. Can be lost if you lose in close combat.

Hatred - Re-roll misses in close combat. If an enemy breaks you MUST pursue them.

Those are the big ones.

Whf also has far fewer fearless units than 40k,.where it seems everything is fearless or as good as.

 curran12 wrote:

Baronyu wrote:


Fantasy sounds quite fun, how does psychology works btw? I mean in WH40k, fear is pretty much useless against most of the armies out there...

Here's a quick breakdown of the biggest psychology rules in Fantasy

Fear - Very similar to 40k. Roll an Ld test at the beginning of close combat, if you fail you are at WS1.

Terror - If you are charged by a Terror-causing model, you take a panic test, fail it and run.

Stupidity - At the start of your turn, roll an Ld test. If you fail, you stumble forward and cannot act.

Frenzy - +1 Attack in close combat. If an enemy is within charge range at the start of your turn, you must pass an Ld test or auto-charge that target. Can be lost if you lose in close combat.

Hatred - Re-roll misses in close combat. If an enemy breaks you MUST pursue them.

Those are the big ones.

Do they affect everyone then? Or only a select few that aren't poster boys?

Yeah, it is way more widely affecting. There is no ATSKNF rule, and no Fearless rule though there are some ways to get immunity from psychology:

Some units are straight Immune to Psychology (undead, daemons and the like). While this is normally a good thing, it comes with a drawback in that Immune to Psychology units cannot do anything but hold as a charge reaction, so if they are charged and it would tactically be better to flee, too bad.

Additionally, Frenzy (while active) grants Immune to Psychology, as does Stupidity if you fail your test.

But even though they are immune to psychology, they are not immune to breaking and running in combat (unless you are undead or deamons, but they have their own rules to handle that). And when you run, you can get run down.

Interesting.

Typically in 40k I enjoy the games that involve objectives, such as capture and hold type missions or kill the opponents HQ or capture the flag style.

In Fantasy, what is it that forces you to think multiple turns further ahead than your opponent and plays out more like chess?

I love chess and was looking for something along those lines.

Well, that is a bit of a complex answer, but I'll do my best here.

Victory conditions in pretty much every Fantasy scenario is defined through Victory Points. This is something along the lines of kill points, awarded by destroying or running off the enemy. The difference, however is that Victory Points are not just 1 unit = 1 point, instead you are award VPs equal to the point cost of the destroyed unit. So if an enemy unit is worth 300 points, killing them nets you 300 VPs. So one layer of complexity is squeezing the points out of your opponent while defending yours.

Also, Movement. Unlike 40k, units in Fantasy are mostly locked into a tighter movement structure. First, all charges are declared at the very beginning of the Movement phase, so you have to be positioned correctly to get a charge (as you cannot move to position, then assault as you can in 40k). Also, since most units are rank and file blocks as opposed to loose squads, they have a smaller charge and shooting arc, and have to move as that block does. This means that your movement has to be planned, if you charge forward, you cannot adjust to correct the mistake or cover a weakness before your opponent gets a chance to exploit it.

What I think it really boils down to is that Fantasy gains more complexity through structure in movement. A unit being attacked on the flank or rear is a critical weakness and puts you at a severe disadvantage in Fantasy, where 40k it does not matter because of assault rules.

I'm still pretty new to Fantasy, but I can tell you that its a far 'better' game than 40k in terms of rules, balance, and so on.

For instance, shooting is similar in strength (maybe a bit weaker?) than assault in this game as opposed to being dozens of times more powerful in 40k ~ so things like first turn alpha strikes, Manticores and other heavy weapons that can obliterate pie plate sized holes in the other army each turn with impunity and so on, just don't exist here. It also makes movement actually matter, rather than being a game of 'whose gunline is bigger/rolls first turn/includes the cheesiest Initiative stealer'

Army list rules are also different. Here, you can only spend 25% of your total points on things like Uber-powerful heroes, giant monsters etc, while having to spend the rest on more mundane 'core' units. This makes 'spam the most powerful unit in the codex' lists virtually nonexistant.

Finally, theres no Space Marines. No one faction thats vastly overrepresented which makes up 90% of your opponents.

Pretty much, IMO the only things that Fantasy fails at as opposed to 40k is
~their Orks are super gakky, not fun, not powerful, nothing. This is honestly the only reason I play 40k over Fantasy.
~the setting isn't as good, though that depends on who you ask ~ some say its much better. I personally hate the whole 'not saying it was aliens' thing.
~Movement trays and huge numbers of models on the board are both very awkward. Wish they'd take a leaf out of KoW

The only Fantasy game I've ever seen was a bunch of dwarf crossbowmen and siege engines on a hill with a bunch of Skaven walking across the board to reach them. I don't think they ever made it past halfway...

Good to hear that's not the usual way games turn out.

One of the things I like about Fantasy is the fact there is not "Shining Armor" race. Like Space Marines are to 40k. No one tends to get special treatment, and thus you tend to get a nice variety of opponents and a good feeling of balance

 dementedwombat wrote:
The only Fantasy game I've ever seen was a bunch of dwarf crossbowmen and siege engines on a hill with a bunch of Skaven walking across the board to reach them. I don't think they ever made it past halfway...

Good to hear that's not the usual way games turn out.

That sounds odd because the Dwarf player managed to kill the Skaven by about turn 3 (if he never got past half way). Skaven are the hordiest horde army that ever horded. Killing an entire Skaven army at range in a couple of turns... I didn't think you could field an army with that much firepower, even Dwarves. Or I should say especially Dwarves, who can't supplement their firepower with megaspells like Empire can.

I'm sorry, I could be misremembering. I think what happened is the Skaven player was new to fantasy and using a borrowed army. Each player got to set up their own table half's terrain (so many problems with that...) and the skaven player put a wall across the entire table with about 2 gaps just wide enough for one of his troop bases to get through. I guess he figured he'd choke point the enemy or something.

Basically what happened was the troops going through the choke point ate the entire Dwarf army's firepower, broke, then ran backwards through the entirety of his army which was clustered around the checkpoint. This started a wonderful cascade of Skaven failing panic tests and running for the hills. (in whatever edition he was playing any unit that saw a friendly unit run past them had to make a test or start running too).

He also put his general in front... he didn't last long.

There was one rat ogre that kept failing his panic test, running backwards through a couple of troops units, then regrouping the next turn, advancing forward through said troops units, then breaking again...It was a real nightmare.

I think now I recall more closely some shell of the skaven army got to the foot of the dwarf hill, but what was left of it just crashed into a wall of wooden stakes the dwarfs had somehow for defence and didn't manage to inflict any real damage.

Another difference is that models have a new stat. Their movement stat. This is how many inches they can move.

A normal human has a movement of 4. A horse has a movement of 8, but if its wearing armor its only movement 7.

A slow stumpy Dwarf has only a movement of 3, while an Ogre has a movement of 6.

This, combined with units moving in formation, means movement is very important.


Shooting, aside from warmachines, is basically little more than a prelude to combat where the game is won. Its very difficult to win the game with BS based shooting, and even cannons and stone throwers are relegated to support pieces. Its all about movement, magic, and combat.


I like to think of Fantasy as the "Big Boy's game" in relation to 40k. If you want a more challenging strategic experience you play Fantasy.

Fantasy also kinda clamps down on numbers a lot more. Its very rare to have high strength or high toughness stuff outside of using magic (3 and 4 are the most common here, rarely higher).

Also the way fantasy handles saves is much better i think - armour saves modified by the strength of attacks, cover merely making you harder to hit and not being a save, and then secondary saves in the form of regen or ward, which you get in addition to armour, etc.

 Micky wrote:
Fantasy also kinda clamps down on numbers a lot more. Its very rare to have high strength or high toughness stuff outside of using magic (3 and 4 are the most common here, rarely higher).

Also the way fantasy handles saves is much better i think - armour saves modified by the strength of attacks, cover merely making you harder to hit and not being a save, and then secondary saves in the form of regen or ward, which you get in addition to armour, etc.

Lower strength is probably a result of the armor system after-all. When you can break armor you don't want it too high normally.

Course you also got to remember that S5+ is actually far more common then in 40K due to the weapon system, you'll often see it with Great Weapon Units.

And just so you are aware, Fantasy is very high on the model count. Even a lowish model count army is going to be more than what the typical 40k army of the same point cost will have.

A typical man sized model will be between 2.5 to 8 pts each(yes, there are some models that are 2.5 pts each) and you'll be running them in units of 20 to 50(or even 100) depending on the specific unit.

Only a super elite unit(or a fodder unit) will be under 20 guys typically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Micky wrote:
Fantasy also kinda clamps down on numbers a lot more. Its very rare to have high strength or high toughness stuff outside of using magic (3 and 4 are the most common here, rarely higher).

Also the way fantasy handles saves is much better i think - armour saves modified by the strength of attacks, cover merely making you harder to hit and not being a save, and then secondary saves in the form of regen or ward, which you get in addition to armour, etc.

Lower strength is probably a result of the armor system after-all. When you can break armor you don't want it too high normally.

Course you also got to remember that S5+ is actually far more common then in 40K due to the weapon system, you'll often see it with Great Weapon Units.

Its also a little more situational.

If you are attacking T3 enemies the difference between Str5 and Str6 isn't going to matter unless the enemy has really good armor saves(as there is no ID mechanic)

Baronyu wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

Baronyu wrote:


Fantasy sounds quite fun, how does psychology works btw? I mean in WH40k, fear is pretty much useless against most of the armies out there...

Here's a quick breakdown of the biggest psychology rules in Fantasy

Fear - Very similar to 40k. Roll an Ld test at the beginning of close combat, if you fail you are at WS1.

Terror - If you are charged by a Terror-causing model, you take a panic test, fail it and run.

Stupidity - At the start of your turn, roll an Ld test. If you fail, you stumble forward and cannot act.

Frenzy - +1 Attack in close combat. If an enemy is within charge range at the start of your turn, you must pass an Ld test or auto-charge that target. Can be lost if you lose in close combat.

Hatred - Re-roll misses in close combat. If an enemy breaks you MUST pursue them.

Those are the big ones.

Do they affect everyone then? Or only a select few that aren't poster boys?

You missed a couple of really big ones.

1) If a unit is within 6 inches and is destroyed in combat you take a leadership test, pass or flee (unless you are in combat)

2) If one of your units flees through another of your units, pass ld check or flee

3) Lose 25% due to shooting or magic and pass ld check or flee

Anyway, fantasy is very different and has a lot to recommend it if you like GW games.

Resolving who wins combat is also way more interesting than in 40k because there are factors like, standards, musicians (in case of tie), rank bonuses, flank and rear charges that determine who wins, not just based on total wounds.

WHFB sounds kindof fun... too bad the military won't fund the "buy me warhammer just because" project

Another thing worth restating is the formations. In Fantasy most units have to stand in ranks (like phalanxes and the like) and can't manuever like 40K units do. Which ofc is why the Movement Phase is so important - if you bungle your positioning an enemy might get a flank or rear charge which is a bad thing for you. Why? Because unlike 40K units get penalized for that, they just can't respond as well if an enemy hits them in the rear. 40K has no rear...

 Grey Templar wrote:
And just so you are aware, Fantasy is very high on the model count. Even a lowish model count army is going to be more than what the typical 40k army of the same point cost will have.

A typical man sized model will be between 2.5 to 8 pts each(yes, there are some models that are 2.5 pts each) and you'll be running them in units of 20 to 50(or even 100) depending on the specific unit.

Only a super elite unit(or a fodder unit) will be under 20 guys typically.

To put it into perspective, I play Vampire Counts and Tyranids.

My 1500pt Tyranid army has 52 models. It's rather scatters - a pair of Zoanthropes and a pair of Hive Guard, a Venomthrope, a Flyrant, a pair of Carnifexes, a Tervigon, 20 Hormagaunts, 10 Termagants, 10 Gargoyles and 3 Warriors.

My 2000pt Vampire Counts army has 91 models. My Core makes up the bulk of that, with 40 Skeletons and 25 Ghouls, backed up by 20 Grave Guard. Sprinkled in are large models and characters - 2 Vampires, a Necromancer, 3 Vargheists and a Terrorgheist. Add to that 40 Zombies for raising in game, and it's actually 131 models.

Fantasy puts huge emphasis on rank and file models, and larger supporting models are just sprinkled in for flavour. 40k tends to be much more mixed. Rank and file and larger models like dreadnoughts and vehicles are closer in total makeup of an army.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And just so you are aware, Fantasy is very high on the model count. Even a lowish model count army is going to be more than what the typical 40k army of the same point cost will have.

A typical man sized model will be between 2.5 to 8 pts each(yes, there are some models that are 2.5 pts each) and you'll be running them in units of 20 to 50(or even 100) depending on the specific unit.

Only a super elite unit(or a fodder unit) will be under 20 guys typically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Micky wrote:
Fantasy also kinda clamps down on numbers a lot more. Its very rare to have high strength or high toughness stuff outside of using magic (3 and 4 are the most common here, rarely higher).

Also the way fantasy handles saves is much better i think - armour saves modified by the strength of attacks, cover merely making you harder to hit and not being a save, and then secondary saves in the form of regen or ward, which you get in addition to armour, etc.

Lower strength is probably a result of the armor system after-all. When you can break armor you don't want it too high normally.

Course you also got to remember that S5+ is actually far more common then in 40K due to the weapon system, you'll often see it with Great Weapon Units.

Its also a little more situational.

If you are attacking T3 enemies the difference between Str5 and Str6 isn't going to matter unless the enemy has really good armor saves(as there is no ID mechanic)

Considering the amount of knights some armies can get.

Also 1+ saves are far more common as well. With Ward Saves being far better then 40k's invulnerable.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And just so you are aware, Fantasy is very high on the model count. Even a lowish model count army is going to be more than what the typical 40k army of the same point cost will have.

A typical man sized model will be between 2.5 to 8 pts each(yes, there are some models that are 2.5 pts each) and you'll be running them in units of 20 to 50(or even 100) depending on the specific unit.

Only a super elite unit(or a fodder unit) will be under 20 guys typically.

To put it into perspective, I play Vampire Counts and Tyranids.

My 1500pt Tyranid army has 52 models. It's rather scatters - a pair of Zoanthropes and a pair of Hive Guard, a Venomthrope, a Flyrant, a pair of Carnifexes, a Tervigon, 20 Hormagaunts, 10 Termagants, 10 Gargoyles and 3 Warriors.

My 2000pt Vampire Counts army has 91 models. My Core makes up the bulk of that, with 40 Skeletons and 25 Ghouls, backed up by 20 Grave Guard. Sprinkled in are large models and characters - 2 Vampires, a Necromancer, 3 Vargheists and a Terrorgheist. Add to that 40 Zombies for raising in game, and it's actually 131 models.

Fantasy puts huge emphasis on rank and file models, and larger supporting models are just sprinkled in for flavour. 40k tends to be much more mixed. Rank and file and larger models like dreadnoughts and vehicles are closer in total makeup of an army.

And you could easily have twice that many models in your VC army.

Very true. It's a small count because I've included some expensive stuff for 2000pts - a second Vampire, a Terrorgheist and Vargheists. That kind of stuff usually waits until 2500pts, but I like my big monsters, and I don't find Vampire Counts armies fun if they're lacking Vampires.

DrCrook wrote:
Hello,

Not sure if this question has been raised before, as searching yielded minimal results. Any thoughts on the major game play differences between 40k and Fantasy? I've been playing 40k for some time now and am looking at Fantasy Models for the sake of having some to play Fantasy with, but if the game play really isn't all that much different, I would probably just go ahead and start up a second 40k army.

Which do you enjoy better and why?

Thanks,

I prefer 40k, because I just get annoyed moving around big blocks of minis throughout the battle...primarily a personal preference thing for me. Of course I also got out of fantasy after GW chopped both of my primary Fantasy armies into 2 separate armies each which I didn't have enough points of either to continue with (Undead: Khemri/Vampire Counts, Chaos: Warriors/Beastmen). Fantasy is much more about unit placement and proper maneuvering to achieve your goals, so doesn't play quite the same as 40k. Even though they have the same basic stats and concepts, they do play very differently. So if your motiviation is a "different style" of play, then by all means I recommend you play fantasy as well as 40k because they do play differently from each other.

Skriker

Sounds good. I'll probably start with Daemons of Chaos since I can play 40k and WHFB with them.

Any suggestions on a good starter group to go with? I am wanting few strong units what have some sort of interesting rules, maybe cause fear, strong magic, something along those lines. The Demon Princes look pretty gnarly.