For your consideration, 40K and Fantasy

This is NOT to start a flame war. It's to show a different point of view into both games systems. I prefer 40K over the current Fantasy game system and the below article presents good valid points as to how I personally feel. I eagerly await the 8th edition of Fantasy with hopes it's more streamlined; as 40K currently is. Easier to play (streamlined) doesn't make 40K less tactical. It makes it less frustrating. Fantasy is currently very frustrating to play, while needing a different set of tactics to achieve victory.

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/03/fantasy-vs-40k.html

Note: This came along from getting kicked in the teeth in the fantasy forums .

First, just wanted to say that I was not offended by your posts in the Fantasy section. I don't play 40k, so I'm not going to compare gaming systems. The article you posted, however, IS inflammatory and there are a bunch of points the author makes that I disagree with. Two of the main offenders:

"In fantasy, you don't lose when you spread your entire army out and run right at the other guy. In fact, if you don't do that...people will call your army 'beardy' or 'cheesy'."

"[In Fantasy,] You can only fire out your front 45 degree arc. You can't fire if you move. Etc, etc. Are the gunners in Fantasy retarded? They can't turn and fire? Are you retarded too?"

I don't see how you expect an article like that NOT to start a flame war.

My army in 40k:

Shoot the enemy until the end of the game.

contest/claim objectives on turn 5+

Its as simple as it sounds.

I agree the author is a douche, but if you look beyond his rough edges he makes good points. I used to be offended by his writing style, but I learned it was just his way of doing things.
As far as disagreeing with his points, is it because they are incorrect or because of his delivery?
I would hope this doesn't degrade to a flame war. I just wanted to get a conversation going that couldn't be started elsewhere. Thanks for your imput thus far.

I don't know man, I don't think this thread is going to do much.

The 40k-biased players feel it's more tactical than Fantasy.

The Fantasy-biased players feel it's more tactical than 40k.

Those of us who like both, won't contribute much.

It doesn't help that you don't have enough fantasy creds to carry this argument. If you played in more tourneys and had a rep in the local scene, the fantasy players might take more stock in the argument you present. Unfortunately, you're painted as a staunch 40k player, so that undermines your efforts a bit.

Personally, I think you can't compare them, they're just too different design-wise. The approach, feel, tempo, tactics...they're not the same.

One thing I don't like, however, is the somewhat more elitist attitude of fantasy players. I can't help but raise an eyebrow at the arguments that boil down to 40k is for little kids and fantasy is for intelligent adults. That's a stupid line of thought. Kids are attracted to 40k because it's flashy and popular, not because it's easy. It takes just as much effort, thought, and experience to get good at 40k as it does to get good at fantasy.

To Eldar Guy: I'm sorry, but how long have you been playing 40k now? I posit that 40k seems so simple to you because you have so much experience with the game, it's all second nature to you. How long have you been playing fantasy? A year? You also log in a LOT of game time, which I totally respect.

So yeah, how come no one argues wfb vs wotr? Aren't those closer in style?

The Eldar Guy wrote:My army in 40k:

Shoot the enemy until the end of the game.

contest/claim objectives on turn 5+

Its as simple as it sounds.

It is simple, but why is it simple? Is it simple because of the 40K rules, or is it simple because your army list is straight forward? It could be a combination of both.

Vycem wrote:I don't know man, I don't think this thread is going to do much.

The 40k-biased players feel it's more tactical than Fantasy.

The Fantasy-biased players feel it's more tactical than 40k.

Those of us who like both, won't contribute much.

It doesn't help that you don't have enough fantasy creds to carry this argument. If you played in more tourneys and had a rep in the local scene, the fantasy players might take more stock in the argument you present. Unfortunately, you're painted as a staunch 40k player, so that undermines your efforts a bit.

Personally, I think you can't compare them, they're just too different design-wise. The approach, feel, tempo, tactics...they're not the same.

One thing I don't like, however, is the somewhat more elitist attitude of fantasy players. I can't help but raise an eyebrow at the arguments that boil down to 40k is for little kids and fantasy is for intelligent adults. That's a stupid line of thought. Kids are attracted to 40k because it's flashy and popular, not because it's easy. It takes just as much effort, thought, and experience to get good at 40k as it does to get good at fantasy.

To Eldar Guy: I'm sorry, but how long have you been playing 40k now? I posit that 40k seems so simple to you because you have so much experience with the game, it's all second nature to you. How long have you been playing fantasy? A year? You also log in a LOT of game time, which I totally respect.

So yeah, how come no one argues wfb vs wotr? Aren't those closer in style?

I'm a 40k player, but I'm by no means trying to champion 40k. I'm trying to champion the idea 40k is just as mentally invigorating as fantasy. It IS a different game system. That's my whole point. Fantasy and 40K do have a different tactical style, but one style is by no means greater than the other. It's just different. I'm trying to shake the attitude of fantasy needing more strategy than 40k and vice versa. It's all a matter of taste. My position is that of 40K being my prefered game system over Fantasy at the moment due to the rules of fantasy having lots o' restrictions. Flames of War currently has both systems beat in my book.

it saddens me that there are people out there who will be taken in by this rube instead of going out and actually doing the research for themselves.

instead they will just take this guy at his word and probably miss out on a great new game that they haven't yet discovered because they where lazy and foolish. what a shame.

I disagree with the author's points because I think he's wrong, not because of the way he writes. And what the hell is up with comparing these two systems to checkers and chess!?

I agree that the opinions of those who play both systems well, such as Chris, are the ones that carry the most weight.

Disamblet: What specifically do you disagree with? I get that you think he's wrong, but what points is he wrong on?

Spaz: The aurthor plays Fantasy. The article is not a bashing of fantasy. It's a bashing of the things wrong within the system. If people don't play fantasy on his word alone, then they are foolish and lazy.

KingdomCome wrote:
It is simple, but why is it simple? Is it simple because of the 40K rules, or is it simple because your army list is straight forward? It could be a combination of both.

It is simple, and easy, because of the rule system, the BRB. My army is simple in the same way that Space Wolves are simple. For example, in an army based around assault its strongest aspect is it's shooting. Shooting is the most simplistic aspect of the 40k game and also the most powerful.

I disagree with Stelek. Both games are predictable to an extent. His argument is that the freedom of movement in 40k makes it more unpredictable, and therefore more tactical. I would argue that, yes, while movement is more free it requires very foresight and thus little tactical ability. Moves are still a no-brainer.


edit: I do agree that fantasy is frustrating at times. I do sometimes enjoy the fact that 40k is an easier game to play.

I want to say that I was not offended by anything you wrote in the other thread. I just didn't want you to change the subject.

Starting a new thread was the right move.

I'm caught up here, but I haven't read the article yet. Let me take a look and see how accurate he is.

OK - I'm not even going to comment on that one sided post of nonsense.
You can watch Braveheart if you want a representation of rank and file units operating in battle. Fantasy is played in this time period.

I would like to comment on what Endre said - I don't think I'm better or smarter than any 40k players. Can't say I've met anyone who acts that way at Sunshine either.

I think fantasy is a more difficult game - but nothing someone couldn't learn with some experience. That doesn't mean I think 40k is for idiots - just easier than fantasy.

Endre learned in our game last month how fast calvary units can be used to bait the opponent. I dragged some ogres into the woods and exposed their flank to my canon. I'm sure he will watch for that next time as he learns the fantasy system. Fantasy is learned in many little bites like that.

The main problem with 40k is the standardized tournament mind set that most players play at. The game becomes much more fun, unpredictable, and actually tactical when you play unique scenarios and missions that require people to perform objectives, and not just always do the exact same thing.

Most people just take the main book, choose one of the standard missions and do this over and over again and really, the game becomes nearly automatic in this case, it's very predictable.

I've been happy with how GW has been promoting alternate ways to play the game with Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Battlemissions, and the upcoming Spearhead rules. These have all been more fun than playing plain old standard 40k.

KingdomCome wrote:Disamblet: What specifically do you disagree with? I get that you think he's wrong, but what points is he wrong on?

Well, pushing all your units straight forward at the enemy is *not* the way to win at warhammer, as the author would suggest. I don't even do this with my Orcs & Goblins, which is a "go get 'em" kind of army.

His comments on shooting are misleading. Although he clarifies it later, he makes it seem like ALL shooting in fantasy is move-or-fire, when the truth is that only a minority of missile troops have that rule. If he thinks it's moronic, then maybe he should consider how missile fire was used in the Middle Ages up to the American Civil War, or simply stop comparing two systems in which one side shoots bolters and the other crossbows.

Excellent. Fantastic feedback.

It's ironic this came up this week because I've recently been downloading and reading the 40k BRB and codex torrents to give 40k another try.

One thing I find appealing in 40k is the futuristic, war torn, urban landscapes.

First off, you didn't offend me, though I know I wrote a lot on the subject.

This conversation has come up many times in the time that I have played both systems (about 8 years for Fantasy and 5 for 40k) so I've experienced it well. I will read this guy's article in a bit and comment, but here's a couple quick things that have come up here.

1. I don't think that I'm smarter then any other 40k player, by any means. In fact, particularly to play at the tournament level for 40k, you have to be very smart, particularly with list design.

2. I love the fact that the new edition of 40k has objective based missions, as it adds a whole new element which personally I think Fantasy lacks at times. The Kill Points mission unfortunately really removes from that, and also encourages a certain style of play.


I think the biggest thing that I have noticed is that the LEARNING CURVE of both games is extremely different, with the learning curve being faster in 40k. With 360 LOS and pretty much every unit being able to shoot, the game is faster to learn on a basic level. Fantasy on the otherhand, with LOS, charging at the beginning, psychology, and movement rules, has a much higher learning curve, making it harder on the on-set.

Both games take serious skill to play at a competitive level, and the fluff out there for 40k is loads more involved then it is for Fantasy (for the freedom to create your own chapter or regiment, for example), but Fantasy is just a more complex game to learn, IMHO.


I will read the article shortly and comment on it.

Ok, read the article...

Wowzers.

Here's a couple points I'd like to make, just about his article.

1. Movement: He comments on the 'chess vs. checkers' thing. Well, unfortunately I think Fantasy is like chess. In 40k, because every unit moves the same, it becomes MUCH more predictable, IMO. With everyone moving 6", and you know the board size and deployment zones, it doesn't become insanely difficult math to figure out ranges, movement, etc. Much more similar to checkers, where you know exactly how much each piece moves.

In Fantasy, each unit and army moves differently and behaves differently. While the moving forward bit is true, there are lots of ways for you to change direction, or take a new facing. It simply takes more skill to figure those things out, because you have to know your opponent's army and what movement abilities they can do, as well as what flyers, skirmishers, and fast Calvary can do as well. 40k has similar aspects to it (vehicles, bikes, etc.) but again, the rules are streamlined, you know that EVERY vehicle moves 6", or 12" flat out (unless it's a fast vehicle, etc). In Fantasy, you need to know that a wolf rider is going to move faster then a regular horse, but not as fast as a barded warhorse, etc. etc.

The author also makes a point about the "straight up against each other and charge" thing. I play a Calvary army, and I will tell you know, that "straight up against each other" will fail almost EVERY time in Fantasy. In comparison with my 40k army (IG) I LOVE standing right in front of you and blasting the crap outa you.

In short, the movement is much more complex then it looks in Fantasy, and the author of this article does not take any notice of the special rules, such as skirmishers or fast Calvary, to argue otherwise. If you follow his advice, all you see on the table are big blocks of infantry.


2. Shooting:
Shooting is always hard to argue in comparing this two systems. Why? Well, because one is the FUTURE where there are AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Sorry, but I find it hard to compare crossbows to bolters, as Matt mentioned earlier.
The author points out that in 40k, EVERY army has shooting and that it's 'unrestricted'. I would agree that it's 'unrestricted' for several points.
1. I can only think of about half a dozen UNITS in the entire 40k range (all of the armies combined) that DO NOT have a shooting attack. When this high a percentage of units SHOOT, then your shooting must be more feasible. This is not necessarily a bad thing, a matter of preference to be exact, but it's the future, so guns are more common. Fantasy, in this respect, is more 'restricted' simply because not everyone used guns or bows. In fact, some armies are unable to (Vampire Counts) or think it is 'unhonorable' to (Bretonnians). So, yes, in this sense, shooting is more 'restricted' then 40k.

However, the author says that shooting is unrestricted in the sense that units cannot move and fire. Well, quite to the contrary, the only units that cannot move and shoot to my knowledge are Warmachines (duh), crossbows (regular), and handguns. Obviously, due to the nature of the game, since guns are relatively new, and warmachines are effectively the same concept as Heavy Weapons (which cannot move and fire in 40k, a point he FAILED to mention in this article), the 'restrictions' are not as best as he lays out.

2. Shooting is very streamlined in 40k, mainly through the use of the 'cover save.' This makes it unrestricted because you basically do not have to worry about anything to be able to shoot your target, only if you are in range. In Fantasy, there are lots of modifiers involved, including long range, skirmishers, large targets, cover, etc. While none of those factors effect the overall armor save, it effects the "To Hit" modifier. This makes the game a bit more complex, but also means that things like range and positioning are much more critical. You will have a hard time convincing me (personally that is) that a guardsmen has an equal chance of hitting an Ork in the open as well as when the Ork is at long range, and in a building.

Again I feel the author does not paint a valid picture of the shooting phase, as he fails to point out the 'unrestricted' parts of Fantasy shooting (bows, thrown weapons, etc), while also ignoring the 'restricted parts' of 40k shooting (heavy weapons, etc.)


3. Assault/Close Combat:
If the author has actually played Fantasy, then he would hopefully understand that not EVERYTHING boils down the +5 CR that infantry blocks get. He leaves out a lot of elements that Fantasy has in place (striking first on the charge, which is huge in comparison to 40k's +1 Attack, for example) that truly make close combat a huge deal.
To quote the author: "In 40K, units are not huge wastes of your money like they are in Fantasy and actually contribute to assaults in a real way and not an illusion of contribution."

Unfortunately, the author fails to notice the time genre difference. 40k is designed around squad warfare, where units rarely go above 10 to 15 man squads (unless special rules like the 'mob' rule dictate otherwise). With everyone also carrying a gun, assaulting doesn't become as necessary, especially if you get to fire your gun on the way in (pistols, etc). In Fantasy, and Medieval times, units were solely dedicated to fighting in CC, and particularly in a block formation so as to minimize casualties. The style of warfare wasn't necessarily 'boring,' it was simply a tactic used to hold out against your opponent so that you can then charge into their flank in the next turn, securing victory. The amount of special rules, items, and magical abilities that different armies have make combat a very dangerous but also very rewarding system. There's nothing more intense to me (between both games) then watching a unit of Black Orcs crash into a Temple Guard and see who comes out victorious. Sure, your not getting every single model to attack, but in that time period, the guys in the back didn't see combat unless their buddies in the front were dead, which usually wasn't a good thing.


All in all I found this article a bit amateurish. The writer failed to point out the flaws in his own logic regarding the 'bad aspects' of Fantasy (see my comments on shooting for an example) while failing to mention any of the other benefits of Fantasy which make up for any of these downsides (such as movement, etc.). There are several 40k players out there in the world who are successful in 40k but were unsuccessful in Fantasy. My local example is Max, who is a top-tier 40k player, but simply never got going with Fantasy. Not anything against his abilities, but he very quickly got turned off to the game and usually sites some of the same reasons as the author has. Also, the author's tone is way too condescending towards the game, IMO. As was stated earlier, if this is style normally, then no worries.


Sorry for the long message, I just felt compelled to respond to the article presented in the best manner possible. Hopefully this makes some sense.

PS (sorry to triple post).

FOW FTW!!

I have played fantasy and 40k for about 12 years now. I have liked some editions of 40k more than some of Fantasy and viseversa. I do not like the way 40K has been going, GW has toned down the rules and mechanics WAY to much. This was a smart move on their part because they wanted to increase sales, now any 5 year old can get the Starting box and play after just browsing the book. But as a player and startegist , i freaking hate it.

At this time i am enjoying playing Fantasy way more than playing 40K. Fantasy makes you think more tactics wise. Is an unforgiven game if you make to many mistakes, but this is a strategy game and mistakes will cost you. But even if you make mistakes, you can still pull through if you adjust your tactics and rethink your strategy. Fantasy has several rules that make it more tactically challenging than 40k; Psychology, units with diff movement rates, guess weapons, wheeling of units, line of sight, ect.

I completely dislike the current 40K edition;
True line of sight "hey i see the foot of that model, i can now hit your whole squad"
You cant continue assaulting after you whiped out a squad: wtf....let me just stand here 2 steps away from that squad of guys with big guns because im so tired after killing his friends i just cant continue to fight.
My favorite: 1 Grot contesting the objective against a Landraider full of Grey Knights and a Grey Knight Grandmaster.

I used to love 40k and play it exclusively, but each edition has gotten more and more toned down, the tactics this days come down to let me run arround with some guys in vehicles and rush to the objective on the last turn. It just doesnt appeal anymore, 5th edition to me has totally killed the enjoyment i would get out of 40k

luis the young wrote:
True line of sight "hey i see the foot of that model, i can now hit your whole squad"

Well I've never played or met with anyone who would actually accept or claim such a BS things as you describe, and pretty much anyone I know would just not play with such people. On a competitive level in a tournament though I can see why this kind of shit would happen though, but thats why I stopped bothering with competitive 40k years ago. On the other hand true line of sight has promoted the use of terrain as it's much more important now, and cover saves are more generous at least.

luis the young wrote:You cant continue assaulting after you whiped out a squad: wtf....let me just stand here 2 steps away from that squad of guys with big guns because im so tired after killing his friends i just cant continue to fight.

Assume you played an assaulty army previously? Cause serious, this was the greatest change in 5th edition. My problem and I know many others who thought the same with 40k was how overpower assaulting was. Assault dedicated armies and units dominated the game for so long that it often was a joke how a universe of advanced weapons and firepower, that close combat ruled. The whole pacman effect of assaulting was one of the worst aspects of 40k, and frankly, good riddance. Assaulting is now a risk that requires proper risk management, no longer can you depend on your uber assault unit to get to enemy lines, and gobble up unit after unit because it was untouchable, nor could a person run away from them since move + charge ranges were greater than a units full move. This change to the rules made assaulting much more risky and required more careful planning overall, one of the changes that has added some more tactical depth to the game since you got to plan for your assaults aftermath and either provide support for said unit. Defenders now can finally perform actual defense and counter attacks instead of just basically stand there waiting for the consolidation charge.

luis the young wrote:My favorite: 1 Grot contesting the objective against a Landraider full of Grey Knights and a Grey Knight Grandmaster.

The objective contesting rules are not much different from countless other games. Even Flames of War presents similar situations for contesting an objective. It's pretty common method of objective holding, point is that at end of game you only score for objectives you have control over, not those you are still fighting around. This is not something exclusive to 5th edition or 40k.

The overall push towards more objective play has been good, it brought alot of improvements to lesser used units or stuff that was often simply taken to fulfill requirements, now troops were important and not throw aways to get elites and heavy support, now board control meant something instead of kill kill kill kill mentality of 40k of old.

luis the young wrote:the tactics this days come down to let me run arround with some guys in vehicles and rush to the objective on the last turn.

And this is how the game was mostly during the previous editions as well when playing any holding territory based scenarios. Holding table quarters being the most commonly done 40k match where this took place also, last turn rushes for control at last minute.

Not everything about 5th edition has been great, but it's changes for the most part I think have been positive and much more game changing than 4th edition which was pretty insignificant. Overall the game hasn't changed a whole lot in over 10 years.

To Kyle (because quoting will take up too much space):

1. That's how it is in the rules- that is how its played.

2. Maybe for the army you play- but in my book 100% of my assaulty units are worthless because of two things: Pile in and no consolidation. I get that harlequin were OP, but all I can say is its a half assed way of handling it.

ex. Banshees kill 4 marines on average... and then the 6 other kill them due to piling in. Lets say I am able to get Doom off (unreliable because of all the anti-psychic defense now), my girls just killed all 10 of them... and die due to bolter fire on the following turn.

3)
a) VP was leagues better. "Because other games do it" isn't a valid justification.
b) For a marine, guard, or ork player- sure. For an army with shitty troops- not so much.

The Eldar Guy wrote:To Kyle (because quoting will take up too much space):

1. That's how it is in the rules- that is how its played.

2. Maybe for the army you play- but in my book 100% of my assaulty units are worthless because of two things: Pile in and no consolidation. I get that harlequin were OP, but all I can say is its a half assed way of handling it.

ex. Banshees kill 4 marines on average... and then the 6 other kill them due to piling in. Lets say I am able to get Doom off (unreliable because of all the anti-psychic defense now), my girls just killed all 10 of them... and die due to bolter fire on the following turn.

3)
a) VP was leagues better. "Because other games do it" isn't a valid justification.
b) For a marine, guard, or ork player- sure. For an army with shitty troops- not so much.

1.) And have never met anyone who would call it as such so far, but I guess again it's who you play with. I got 30 orcs completely behind a wall and the dude can see a foot, and claims he can shoot them all, nah never had it, though as I said I understand people would pull this crap out, I just never played with such a nitpicky group of people who would make such ridiculous claims, nor bother with competitive scene which has always been pretty much ass. It's going to be abused since it's as written abusable, but yes it is pretty lame how it was handled when simply adding in a little bit that says impacts can only be applied to actual models that can be seen partially, instead of allowing a whole unit to be hit. Can see a single model, you can only hit that one model, simple as that. True line of sight is not the bad guy, it's the way they handled wound allocation.

2.) Seeing as my ork army is primarily assault oriented, no it still doesn't bother me as I still find it a superior way of handling the game. It was a big game changer no doubt but one that I think goes in the right direction. As I already pointed out assaulting was ridiculous in previous editions and dominated the game. Assault units are now more specialized and perform a shock trooper role that deliver deadly blows where needed, instead of having the game turn into a rush fest cluster fuck that it used to be with piles of figs in the middle stabbing each other. Army balance design is much more desirable now, and yes the game has gone more towards the shooty side, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Frankly I thought it was stupid how a single unit would charge an enemy line and be heavily outnumbered, yet they easily would charge and murder a unit, then fly into another, then another, then another, and wipe out scores of squads like nothing. Oh shit those 10 elite dudes just killed 3 of our squads..... maybe we should have shot them. Yea let's complain about realism in one aspect of the game but want a return to the ridiculousness of old editions?

3.) VP/Killpoints/objective missions are different things. I would agree on Killpoints being a dumb system, but the objective holding design is fine as again, it's not perfect but it also involves massive changes to the way the game is played overall which is far superior to the way of old. Frankly get rid of killpoints and use a VP style of system and things would be better off. The new objective missions though have been for the better in army design, and game play mentality. People bitch about how stupid 40k is, then complain about one of the few things changed in recent years that has added some tactical depth to the game.

As for sucky troop choices.... so yea basically your not happy with the Eldars troops

Kyle wrote:

1.) And have never met anyone who would call it as such so far, but I guess again it's who you play with. I got 30 orcs completely behind a wall and the dude can see a foot, and claims he can shoot them all, nah never had it, though as I said I understand people would pull this crap out, I just never played with such a nitpicky group of people who would make such ridiculous claims, nor bother with competitive scene which has always been pretty much ass. It's going to be abused since it's as written abusable, but yes it is pretty lame how it was handled when simply adding in a little bit that says impacts can only be applied to actual models that can be seen partially, instead of allowing a whole unit to be hit. Can see a single model, you can only hit that one model, simple as that. True line of sight is not the bad guy, it's the way they handled wound allocation.

True line of sight is the bullshit. As per the BRB you check LOS from the eyes of the firer. How the hell are you supposed to do that? The models aren't glass- you can't see through them. You can see ABOVE their head- but then you're at an incorrect angle. It is literally impossible to draw true LOS for a non-vehicle model.

Kyle wrote:2.) Seeing as my ork army is primarily assault oriented, no it still doesn't bother me as I still find it a superior way of handling the game.

Why should it bother you- 5e changes mostly benefited orks.