Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Well, after a year long absence from the game or so, I've decided that me and some friends might come back and start playing. We initially played 40k, however have always been interested in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
Based on just freedom, armies, tactics, uniniqness, and overall gameplay, which game (40k or fantasy) do you think reigns supreme? Basically what I mean is this:
Freedom: being able to create an effective and fun army that won't be like eveyrone elses...a variety of units and armies to choose from, and non-restricting rules.
Armies: Variety of unique armies with differnet playing styles
Uniniqness Differnet abilities spanning through differnent armies; lots of special abilities that isn't mimicked by other armies. For example, using 40k, the older Tyranid codex the Lictor had a very cool secret deployment rule. Dark Eldar have Grotescues and Mandrakes, which have very unique and cool rules themselves.
Tactics: Being able to win games based a majority on skill level and how you play, move, set-up, etc. compared to that of 40k.
I'd like to play a game where it isn't just tons of luck; where there's actually some tactics and skill; I know warhammer 40k has this, but sometimes it feels limited, and seems with each new codex it becomes more basic, and power game oriented introducing more powerful and powerful units. Basically, how does 40k compare to fantasy in these aspects?
This has kind've turned into a jumble of some of my ideas, but hopefully some of you guys can share your own in general about my statement earlier.
Anyways, thanks for any feedback. It'd be much appreciated. Heck, I might just end up playing both games if my budget and time permits!
My short and dirty (and biased) answer to this is: 40k is a better game, because of how you define tactics.
I find all to frequently WHFB games are decided by one thing, that makes you feel totally helpless, and is never fun to win or lose from: Combat Resolution.
Its just to easy to break in combat and lose, or to fail a shooting morale check, or a million other things that force Ld tests that will lose a game.
Albeit 40k is more forgiving in general tactics wise, its hard to be an idiot and just win a game due to leadership.
(I'll give more analysis when it is due, as this thread develops.)
Air Calv Guard: 3 - 2 - 1
Word Bearers: 23 - 9 - 4
For me WFB still reigns supreme in terms of tactics as there are so many small areas that a good general can use to out skill his opponent. Firstly is the ability to flee as a charge reaction, this opens a whole realm of bait and flee manoeuvres that can be used to move an enemy out of position. Additionally the bonuses provided by flank and rear charges can give the advantage to a general that can manoeuvre his army better (especially when combined with baiting). The ability to destroy an unit if it flees though an enemy unit also encourages the use of advanced tactics by superior generals. Additional elements used by a skilled WFB general include march-blocking, the use of sacrificial units, fast cavalry rules, varying troop movement speeds, and unit placements to block l.o.s. from enemy missile troops. How you deploy also requires more thought in WFB in order to protect units with weak leadership and secure your flanks. Many of these elements which promote advanced tactics are missing from WH40K.
That being said, WH40K can be a much faster/fluid game, making for fun game play and the potential for advanced tactics. If WH40K were to incorporate some of the WFB components particularly as the ability to flee as a charge reaction, as well as auto-destruction when fleeing through enemy troops (much more easily accomplished in WF then I think 40K would definitely overtake WFB as the most 'tactical' game system.
Definitely 40K (especially the Eldar codex). WFB is much more restricted in army selection than 40K, and many armies seem to end up fielding fairly similar armies. 40K allows much more choices, not just lots of elite/fast/choices, but a range of unit types (such as skimmers, jetpacks, dreadnaughts, monsters, tanks, bikes, etc...)
Armies and Uniqueness: (I've covered a bit of both aspects here
Hmmm ... hard to choose. I'd say WFB, it has some good race specific abilities. Eg: Empire can use the detachments rule (very powerful when used correctly), Beasts have the ambush rules, Dwarves are hard, slow and stubborn, Skaven can field a range of different army types (hordes/magic/monster/stealth), Bretonnians are knight heavy, Orcs and gobbos have animosity and magic mushrooms, High Elves all strike first etc... (and not to mention Wood Elves)
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm obviously slightly more a fan of WFB than 40K (though 40K is very cool) and I feel that with a little tweaking of the rules for 40K it may just become my favourite...
Last edited by CaptScott; October 1st, 2007 at 09:46.
fantasy is a better game tactically but 40k is simple and fun.
Personally i prefer fantasy its not as "dumbd down" as 40k
WELL SAID, NO MORE SQUATS THEY ARE DEAD GET OVER ITOriginally Posted by artificer
I can only agree with CaptScott (welcomme to the forum!). Fantasy's rule-system, while similar to 40k, is on a whole other level. Movement and positioning of troops is far more important than being able to deliver a powerful shooting phase or having that über-unit that eats trough any other in CC. While there are extremely powerful monsters in FB (Giants, Dragons, Greater Daemons etc.), none, or very few, can actually wipte entire units of the board since combat resolution (great system) decides the winner. You can't just charge in and hope you get some lucky rolls. You need to know that the unit will pull trough with ranks, outnumbering, standards etc., or you might want them destroyed to lure the opponent.
With the standardisation of 40k armies (every special rule being adapted to the Universal Special Rules), Fantasy gets the advantage in uniqeness of armies since every army has its distinct play style and rules.
Freedom, gotta give that to 40k because of the more loose way armies can be made and the larger range of unit types and veichles.
This post makes FB look like the superior system, but that isn't necessarily the case. It's all down to personal taste. You want a fast, fluid and easy-going game then 40k might be nice. FB requires a whole other level of dedication with all the movement rules and such.
I like 'em both a lot. I don't really have a favourite (though I love Warmachine, but that's another game... )
fantasy is great dont listen to what anyone else says what state are you in
Thanks for all the replys everyone! I think I'll end up going 40k seeing as that's what all my friends play, but maybe we can pick up fantasy as well!I'm in Colorado.what state are you in
For Tactics, I would certainly say Fantasy. There's just more to it, more to plan and do, and a great tactician can really flex more on the field than in 40k.
Shoot, for basically all the stuff you've mentioned, Fantasy probably has 40k beat. I would say it's a wash on the freedom of creating army lists, with good and bad examples on both sides. As mentioned, 40k is moving towards just following Universal Special Rules, so Fantasy has it beat there.
On a personal note, I would argue that the area in which 40k shines is in its fluff. Fantasy fluff is good, but not by any means spectacular, in my opinion. 40k has its own very unique future universe that really doesn't resemble anyone else's future universe. It's all very cool, and I think one of the main factors in drawing new players to the table.
I know you've already made your decision, but I'd like to reiterate what many people have stated..
I myself started out playing 40k, and the move to fantasy was a huge one (now all I play is fantasy).
When it comes to tactics, unlike what Double.Bind stated, the combat resolution system makes for a much more diverse tactical situation. Having to beware panic checks, or breaking due to combat res just adds that much more to the tactical plate. You can't have that uber deamon prince or hive tyrant that carves through whatever you throw it at. This is because in fantasy there actually can be strength in numbers. A perfect example is my army of choice, the Ogre Kingdoms. That army book is mainly comprised of a small number of large and powerful ogres, but you have to be really careful about picking your fights because they can be swamped and overrun very easily since they have low unit numbers. In a nutshell, in fantasy you have to think about all the different phases, movement, combat, shooting, and psychology, while in 40k its easy to create an army that only has to focus on the shooting phase, or the combat phase.
Fantasy also has 40k beat when it comes to variety, both in the number of armies to choose from, and each army's uniqueness. Fantasy (thank god) hasn't gone over to the universal special rule system.
I think in the freedom department its kind of a toss up, with 40k being just a smidge better. They both have their share of cookie cutter builds, but armies like eldar and chaos give 40k the edge.
"I am the architect of fate!"