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.

So I listen to a few Podcasts (D6G and Podhammer in DA hizzzous)... Ahem.... Anyways...

It was mentioned on both shows, and now recently joining Dakka it is even more apparent that 40k is far and away the more popular game.

Im curious as to WHY?

I play fantasy, my friends play fantasy. They dabble in 40k a bit, but not near enough as WHFB. For the past several years Ive heard them go on about the rules in 40k being horrible. (there was even a running joke where one friend would turn to another and say 'Hey, quick game of 40k?' and then proceed to do Rock Paper Scissors) 4th Ed help a lot I hear, and 5th ed is coming out now, so hopefully it will be better.

Mechanics aside, why are people drawn to 40k over fantasy? At least to cause such a large discrepancy between the number of players. Is it the fluff? the models? the huge giant machine guns trying to compensate for something else?

Okay, bashing aside, Id like to hear why people play 40k and not Fantasy. What is your take and reason?

Honestly, I like the background and look a lot more than anything else.

The saga of the Traitor legions of the Chaos Space Marines just isn't matched in any other game. The Death Korps of Krieg has no fantasy counterpart. The universe is overall much more epic and widespread in 40k than in fantasy. You just don't get the massed ranks of innumerable guardsmen and tanks without number churning the world to ruin fighting against the near infinite forces of the massive tyranid hive mind falling from the skies in Fantasy. Personally I find the background and visual feel much more appealing than fantasy. I prefer Autocannons, tanks and Terminators to wizards and dragons. I'll agree the 40k ruleset could use a huge redo.

That said, I do very much like the fantasy background as well, but just not as much as 40k. The battles in fantasy are also much different than 40k ones. While 40k has its problems, it seems a much more mobile game than fantasy, even if directional placement of units matters more in fantasy.

Also, after a long time of looking at it, I've finally decided to dive into fantasy with Daemons (although I would have rather done Hordes, but they are going to undergo major changes in rapid succession).

I think most people will second the fluff aspect. The 40k universe is deep, broad, and while it steals shamelessly, it does so well and with good taste.

In all honesty, i think the gameplay is more varied in 40k as well. In fantasy, you have ranks and flanks, MSU, skirmishers, gunlines, and flying circus and other oddities. In 40k, you can go infantry horde, mechanized, tank heavy, skimmer heavy, monster heavy, assaulty, shooty, drop troops, etc. etc. The combat resolution system of fantasy is what makes it a better wargamer, but it also allows nearly any army to win by playing it's game plan. in 40k, armies win through different means.

Also, 40k supports a wider range of missions and variants (combat patrol, apoc).

40k is a *lot* easier to get into, and the 40k game mechanics are less fiddly.

Plus, 40k has giant robots. Who doesn't like giant robots?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Plus, 40k has giant robots. Who doesn't like giant robots?

Honestly? Me. Mecha, be it Gundam, Robotech, or Evangelion, I just never really dug. The only reason I finished Evangelion is that the Mechas, Evas, were used as a means, not the as the show itself. I also didnt get into Escaflone, though I hear its awesome....

So giant robots... not my thing.... well... Aside from Voltron. Though I think voltron comes from my love of the 4 (or 5) classical elements....

Definately the models, for me. I had these Space Marines, wanted to buy more, and like gaming. I considered using my marines as proxy models in some other system, but finally managed to brow-beat my gaming buddies into adopting 40K. Now I can hardly get a game of anything else!

All of the reasons listed above, most certainly. The imagery of 40k is, to me, pretty iconic. Both games are derivative of so many things (but isn't everything these days?) but 40k just feels.... epic.

Guns vs pointy sticks. Simple as.

Although, according to a recent poll, LotR beats them both: http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90516

That poll i would guess people voted for the 'best' game, rather than the one they prefer.

I prefer 40K and I think it's down to lots of minor reasons...

Small 'cheap' (££) games are easier, a couple of small squads skimishing is more fun than a couple of similar WFB egiments, whether they're ranked or not, there's a little more variety of how they can be armed etc. WFB doe have different weapon options but little in the way of special equipment - e.g. vet sarg with power fist, squad with ML and PG

Many 40K squads are half the size of a WFB regient - doesn't take as long to paint so more time can be spent on it

much more variety in games

Personally I don't like wfb movement system, it a bit too dependant on direction, probably lack of practise.

they're different games - 40K although you're the 'general' you still feel a bit more a part of the game due to it's cinematic nature (being pushed even more in 5th ed) where as WFB I've always felt more like the general who sits at the back telling his troops what to do and doesn't really get that involved.

I prefer 40Ks background

40K seems easier to 'theme' an army, partly due to (usually) having less models - more modelling time per model, and with tanks etc they can be converted much more with them still being recognisable, everything has a standard look, whereas WFB with all the different magic items etc. it's not always easy to distinguish what a conversion is meant to represent, especially if you're unused to the army.

I did start off with WFB an d played it for several years, but then switched to 40K and I can't see myself going back anytime soon. It could also be that as 'more' people play 40K it's easier to find an opponent, you see more armes (although there's way too much power armour out there). When I go into the flgs there's always a game of 40K on the go, the only time I've seen wfb being played in the last two years has been for the demo games!!! Could also be down to forgeworld etc.doing far more with 40K than wfb, after all a universe is infinate, where the wfb world has limits, there's only so many huge wars, races, famous heros it can support with some level of believability about it.

however, mordhiem vs necromunda, I'm mordheim all the way!

I am not big into mecha (I think Crises suits for one are a little uninspired, other than the FW and Shadowsun variants) but Dreads are cool and so are titans, generally.

Why do I play 40k?

I mean, after 20 years, I should know better, right?

I like SF, and I've never really liked fantasy. 40k shamelessly appropriated concepts from all of my favourite SF novels and put them into one cohesive (mostly) universe.

I guess it comes down to space-ships, guns and stuff blowing up.

If I wanted to play Fantasy I wouldn't as I would play historical Ancients instead.

I like 40K because it is the most widely played SF wargame.

(Having said that, Classic Battletech, Infinity and AT43 look like good alternatives.)

Everyone likes a good HTH fight or sword fight, but usually you can't have sword fighting and tanks and space ships at the same time.

Star Wars managed to do it, and so does 40K, so that's why I like it.

I can have all my tanks and explosions and huge guns and walkers etc., and still have heroic sword fights at the end of it all.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Everyone likes a good HTH fight or sword fight, but usually you can't have sword fighting and tanks and space ships at the same time.

Star Wars managed to do it, and so does 40K, so that's why I like it.

I can have all my tanks and explosions and huge guns and walkers etc., and still have heroic sword fights at the end of it all.

BYE

well said. 40k is just fun.

One of my mates got me into 40k a few years back.. We went to this inductory thing at Games Workshop where we battled Chaos vs Necrons.

The night before i'd seen I-Robot on TV and that was it... I was hooked ^,^

Upon the release of Ogre Kingdoms I made a small 500pt army which I took to a few local clubs, despite winning 3:1 of my matches I've just never been snagged to Fanstasy.

Also, to those of you who have heard of/played the MMOFPS Planetside, that game really fuelled my interest in 40k

40k is a quick, fun game. Rules are fairly simple and the mechanics are forgiving.

Fantasy is done at deployment. If the matchups are bad, there is very little you can do.

My favorite joke about the difference is that people who play WFB can read.

I think that, in my area at least, the 40k players are more accepting of whatever you bring. In WFB, people seem to be more persnickity - much like historicals where people get upset when you have the wrong color tabs on Russian Guard Infantry.

40k is more beer and pretzel and made for fun. WFB with its more restrictive movement rules and LOS is more rule-lawyery.

For a fun game, I would rather play 40k.

PapaNurgle wrote: My favorite joke about the difference is that people who play WFB can read.

Me fail english? That's unpossible!

I was brought into the game by my friends at high school, and loved all the fluffy goodness, the models, and the fact that playing a game is just good fun! I've been looking at starting a WFB army for years now, but when I really think about it I always decide that I'd rather spend my time and money on something new in 40K, as WFB seems like a much greater undertaking than throwing together a few squads for a Combat Patrol.

Plus, 40K has Dreadnoughts. You can't get much cooler than that!

Polonius wrote:I think most people will second the fluff aspect. The 40k universe is deep, broad, and while it steals shamelessly, it does so well and with good taste.

Nailed it. The creators were very, very smart thieves. Good writers crib, great writers steal. And not only did they steal, they stole from Blade Runner, Alien, Tolkien, the Bible, Camelot, Wagner, Moorcock, mythology, Lovecraft, and actual good sci-fi. It's easy to steal, but it's very hard to make so many disparate concepts (great individually) actually form a compelling and cohesive universe with it's own flavor.

The 40k universe can literally adapt itself to almost any gamer/audience desire for drama, action, horror, etc. It is, in my opinion, one of the most capable fictional playgrounds ever conceived.

Fluffifty puffity marshalades...


Yeah, it's the background paired with good models and the openness to convert, scratch build, etc.

40k also feels more "open" than WFB or PP stuff. You can imagine anything happening in the 40k universe even though it can be super detailed at the same time.

Going against the grain I led the rebellion againt 40K in my group for the following reasons.


1. 40k has terrible terrible rules

2. 40K has a higher tool ratio with it's players

3. 40K is more attractive to 8-16 year olds

4. Fantasy has better players

5. Fantasy has Indy Grand Tournaments

Simply put: 40K is checkers. Fantasy is chess.

Dice Monkey, please explain each of those points... I kind of disagree with them all as stated.

1) I like the rule

2) I like the players I meet

3) I am 26. Most people I know who play are older

Etc

I like 40k because it *is* more popular where I play. I simply am more likely to get a game at any given time with 40k. I also like the imagery and background of the 40k universe. With the exception of the Empire, and perhaps Dwarves and the lizardmen/lustria stuff, I just don't find WHFB fluff that compelling.

Another reason I like 40k is the very reason that some WHFB and historicals people dislike it. It is the pure adolescent pleasure of it. Big guns, big dudes, anatomically improbable women. Its kind of refreshing to have a little of that once in a while.

That being said I rarely play fantasy and really would like to do so. I love the movement, which is very regimented and tight. Basically I think of 40k and then adding on top an extra dimension of depth, primarily from the more complex movement phase. I really like the entire ECW type battles, which is of course why I like empire.

Le Grognard wrote:Simply put: 40K is checkers. Fantasy is chess.

Then what is chess?

And I'd argue 40K is like checkers with Christina Ricci and WHFB is chess with Colin Firth.

That means you are queer

I don't care which game is better so much. The fantasy setting is just so... so... SO tired.

There is a big argument that you can have about the role of luck in each game, and where you come down on that one probably determines which game you prefer.

I dunno, Ricci has some scary hands. Seriously, have you seen them next to say an orangutan's for scale? I could wear her gloves as a light jacket.

But I see what you are getting at.

I like 40k for the fluff and conversion, as has been stated quite a bit in this thread. I am just starting Fantasy, but only because some of my friends play. Honestly I am fantasied well nigh to death anymore, and have become fairly set in what is "right" when it comes to the matter. Anymore a lot of fantasy just seems to be "Tolkien, but with a twist!" which is really old.
40k also has the advantage of making nearly any wierd army idea feasible in terms of fitting with the universe, instead of say my Celtic mythological counts as Chaos Mortals army, which just is there. It might be mostly in my head, but WHFB just seems more boxed in conceptually.

Wehrkind wrote:It might be mostly in my head, but WHFB just seems more boxed in conceptually.

Case in point, you can play fantasy with properly sized blank bases, preferrably colored to signify what rules they use. Using MS Paint, let's say, and an online dice roller ... The rules and the diversity of possible armies are the draw in fantasy, less the modeling aspect. You can and should make great looking armies and the game is of course at its best when two excellent painted armies go at it on great terrain. But still, you can run the game purely conceptually and the game aspect remains strong divested of the visual aspect.

3rd ed. 40k I was attracted to because it was SO stream-lined and simpler than the fantasy I'd been playing for years and the 2nd ed. I'd been avoiding. Things are becoming more and more complicated - 5th with blocked LoS, run, allocating wounds, etc makes it more so - but I still like 40k because it's ultimately simple to play. Put down cool models, roll LOTS of dice, things go away. Speaking of cool models, as noted the modeling aspect is great in 40k. You really can justify anything and have fun making it happen on those round bases.

The GrimDark background of 40k is also a big draw, a great polyglot of sci fi elements. Fantasy's background was interesting to me when I was 12, but I grew up into the dark future and prefer to play in its skull-laden embrace.

dienekes96 wrote:Then what is chess?

Funny thing, I was playing chess the other night after having played a bunch of fantasy in the last year and found myself drawing parallels with the much more complicated wargame. Movement is everything in fantasy and luck the next most important element, and chess was feeling like again pure movement but without that messy luck involved. And where both armies are identical, playing on featureless terrain ...

- Salvage

Wehrkind wrote:I dunno, Ricci has some scary hands. Seriously, have you seen them next to say an orangutan's for scale? I could wear her gloves as a light jacket.

I could make a joke about needing a woman with big hands But it would be just that...a joke. Ricci also has a huge forehead, but she offsets that by being ridiculously sexy.

1) 40k is what my friends play.
2) Models. On the whole, I like 40k models better, not just because of sculpts, but also because I think aliens with high-tech guns and swarms of space-bug-dinosaurs are more exciting than ranked blocks of more Tolkien clones. 40k's rules on upgrades and squad mechanics, for instance, also seem to do a better job of enabling the creation, presentation, and in-game impact of personalized, characterful models.

I'll go against the grain and say that I don't care for any of GW's fluff; I think that the 40k background especially takes itself far, far too seriously. [Puts on flame-retardant armor] I just can't see it as anything more than an elaborate justification for having a universe that is essentially a feudal fantasy setting transplanted into space. It's a mile wide and an inch deep; a metric ton of background material, but none of the consideration for making a consistent and plausible world that (I think) makes for good sci-fi. Of course, I may be biased because I don't like any of the imperial factions; I don't own a single imperial model and can't see that ever changing. [/Takes off flame-retardant armor]

Of course, that's all just my personal opinion. And as long as the fluff still supports the creation of cool-looking alien models for the game, then it's accomplishing everything I want from it. That's what it all comes down to: I like 40k for the models and because I know people who play it. If I wanted a game for its rules or fiction, I wouldn't play whfb; I'd play a game from another company entirely.