I know this thread has been done before... but here's a new one ;)

I prefer Fantasy fluff-wise and model wise and I love all the armies there.

However, Fantasy games just tend to be too long and boring - whereas 40K games are fast and fun duels. Also the majority of people play 40K and not many fantasy.

Currently into 40K but I read black library novels like Vampire Wars and I'm drawn back to fantasy... :qq:

Hex

40k has an expansive and very original story -- I find it fascinating and absolutely fun

warhammer has a good flavor all because of the 40k touch; I like both; but play fantasy atm

im slowly building a marine force from 3 squats 10 terminators and 10 marines I found in my old lead pile :O

but yeah I picked both -- i think they are great backdrops for decent games

40k for me. I have never really looked in to Fantasy, it's never really drawn my interest, where as 40k I love. I think the models are awesome, the fluff is amazing, and the games are really good. I've collected a few armies over the years, but have a sizeable Guard force now, with a few other smaller armys on the go.

But yeah, for me, 40k all the way!

I was never one for Sword 'n Spell games period. My favorite RPG is Fallout, as an example.

Which is why I don't really care for Fantasy battle.

WH40k has such nice fluff to boot ^^

Fantasy all the way for me. The game requires more tactical skill and is generally has more depth to it. It has its flaws, and admittedly I havent played 40K under 5th ed rules, where by the looks of it it vastly improved... but a lot of the game is still down to army and unit selection. In fantasy, points actually mean something lol (though less so in 7th it seems...)

Joseph Conrad said: "You shall judge a man by his foes, as well as by his friends and the number of corners on his base."

Tactically, it's just a richer game with a much higher level of involvement on the player's behalf and magic! I've taken to playing lists with no magic offense (The Slann I lovingly converted into Pikachu is back in his box *mourn*), because of its fickle nature and my own tendencies towards bad-luck but I still love the imagery of it.

Also... a ranked up FB unit on a decent movement tray just looks so much better on the table than a skirmishing 40k unit.

I prefer 40K. I like small scale fantasy. Skirmish.

I play both, but I far prefer WHFB. Model-wise, WHFB is infinitely better. I also prefer it fluffwise. Game-wise, there is also no contest- I find 40K rather dull. A lot of games go down to who has the first turn, and as Phoenix said, it's a lot to do with army selection etc.

-AFG//

Well at the moment I am playing 40k
but I am looking at geting the starter pack for fansty

Fantasy. I never really liked futuristic settings in games. Also, I've been sick of the term "space marine" since Final Doom for PS-1. Too many Space Marine fantasy games, and now they're invading my table top?!? Hand of God says SQUISH!

I play both, but I far prefer WHFB. Model-wise, WHFB is infinitely better. I also prefer it fluffwise. Game-wise, there is also no contest- I find 40K rather dull. A lot of games go down to who has the first turn, and as Phoenix said, it's a lot to do with army selection etc.

-AFG//

Fluffwise and modelwise, I prefer FB more. But gamewise, I find the small skirmishes are much more fun that the long, drawn out combats of Fantasy.

I picked both, though I'm leaning towards Fantasy. Here are my thoughts on it.

40K over Fantasy: Broader universe with more flexibility, more players to play against, slightly simpler, a little more fast paced.

Fantasy over 40k: A little more complicated, characters that can actually do something, better mdoels (my opinion), a few armies that aren't all "ooh, dark and gritty", no space marines.

This is one poster who won't disparage Space Marines. I like them.

I like 40k better. The style of game, the models, the setting, the fluff- oh my goodness the fluff. I love the fluff. Mmm... tasty delicious fluff. Er, anyway...

Plus every time I see beautiful new Fantasy models I think 'hmm, how can I use that in a conversion?'

I play both, have multiple armies in 40k and Fantasy. I'm a bit of a Sci-Fi type guy than a swords and spells guy but I still like them equally. So I voted "I Don't Like LOTR tabletop"

i play both equally i am in a fantacy phase for the moment (WoC so exsited...)

but i constantly play both just played a game under the new marine codex and managed 55 minis in a 1500pt army... (and that was 20 regular marines 10 scouts 5 termies 5 assault marines 10 IST 2 SM chars inquizitor and retinue...) i had a total of 8 troop units...[deletes 20 lines of pointles waffle]

as you can tell i wil regail you with storys of all gameing systems so i will stop now
(i voted both)

I prefer 40k.
I like the gigantic universe of fluff, where anything can happen and nothing is as it seems.
I love Space Marines. They were my first army, and they are still my main army.

I really want to get into fantasy. I have a Dark Elf army that I built and painted over a year ago that has never reached the table. I have played 2 games with the Battle for Skull Pass and that was pretty cool. Too bad the nearest GW is 3 hours by train. The fluff is a lot less interesting to me.

So for now I will stick with 40k

At our local club, the situation is exactly opposite. More players play fantasy than 40K, and this is the same across the republic. Personally, I find 40K not as interesting as fantasy, especially in tactics. But I play both so that I can enjoy the best of both worlds (faster gameplay of 40K + more shooting).

40K.

I find the universe realistic (minus the aliens well, alright, the Nids are alien to my mind, Eldar and Orks are just fantasy hang overs). Minus the Empire, the FB world I find dull.

I prefer the models to fantasy as well, only Empire really attract me in WFB, but not enough to make me want to spend real money.

The game play is also better I feel, I like squad based rather than army based and the rank system in WFB turns me off. True WFB is more complex rules wise, but that isn't a big draw with me, I'm not a competitive player, I play 40K for fun, if I want to think to hard I'll play chess.

I prefer 40k. It just suits me better because I'm more of a sci-fi person, and the part of me that likes fantasy is satisfied by the close combat and fantasy similarities in 40k.

Hmm. I play both, through the nessesity of loving fantasy but needing to play games occasionally. However, I love fantasy and hold it nearest and dearest to my heart. Here's what I've come up with though, after some thought:

Fantasy: to say that fantasy is more 'tactical' is something that I actually believe is (at the core of the game) untrue. Fantasy games are often won or lost by deployment, and by the understanding of your army strengths against theirs. Obvious strategies are glaring: flank charges are rewarded, rear charges even more so, careful use of terrain gives you obvious bonuses. Just because you win at fantasy does not make you a grand strategist.
However, fantasy is a more BALANCED game. There are no 'space marines' and the armies are all well rounded. Each army has a distinct play style, as magic and manueverability play higher roles in the game's outcome. This means that you combine Moving, Shooting, Magic, Combat, and Cost all together to create an army. Fantasy desingers seem to favor units which are 'over priced' rather than 'over powered'.
Additionally, Fantasy is populated by older, more mature players. There aren't quite as many Smurfs present in fantasy rings.

40K: 40K is still a tactical game, but it's the armies which are becoming less tactical. Because of the wild variance in army styles, and the unbalanced ways that it can be done, 40k has become either a 'Run and Hack' game, or a 'Sit and Shoot' game. Some of the most rewarding games of 40K I've ever played was Gaurd vs. Gaurd. 40K still requires a mind to flanking, but there aren't concrete, numerical bonuses to it. Modern military tactics really do come into play in a very limited way. As someone who's father is an officer, and someone who's been raised towards that end- through military schools and constant reading on the subject- modern military tactics take LIFETIMES to master. They are far too indepth. Does anyone know the difference in crossing a suburban street, city streey, or a woodland clearing? I bet they don't. And how to you express that in rules terms?
40K has the benefit of faster game play, easier to learn game play, and more customizeable models. I often rebel against 40K for not letting my marines give one another suppressing fire, as they should be able to, but I cannot deny that it is still an entertaining game when played between two competent gamers.

I play both but started Fantasy first and have more fantasy armies. I like the fast pace of 40k but the armies seem to all be the same. Space Marines, Space wolfs, Blood angles, Dark angles, are the same models with slightly different rules. Because Space Marines get most of the attention the evil armies (which I play) aren't really cool model or fluff wise (cough Dark Eldar). I really do like the Fantasy characters and the fact that they can do something can influence your army more than in 40k.