Why is 40K more popular than Fantasy?

[agproductions]

Aloha everyone!

Since I'm more of a painter and teacher and not much of a gamer, I've got a question I've been wondering since I WAS a gamer 10 to 15 years ago.

Why is 40K a more popular game than Warhammer Fantasy? I'm not saying that one is "better" than the other, I'm just curious as to the popularity.

I'm serious about this now, so please don't just answer with something like, "cause fantasy sucks and 40k rules"...that doesn't help anyone.

I've got a couple of theories, but I'd like to see what you guys come up with as well.

Here are my ideas:

1) Fantasy, from what I've heard is a more complex game that requires a lot more thinking and a lot more strategy. Additionally, it takes longer to play. Therefore, 40k is more popular because new players can more quickly pick up the game than they can fantasy.

2) 40K is more popular because as people come into game shops, they see people playing 40K. They then ask if anyone plays fantasy, and most of the people there playing 40K say "no", so they figure that if they want to have someone to play with, they need to play 40k as well. Then, the cycle continues as more and more players come into the local game stores.

I'm leaning towards theory 2. When I first got into the hobby, I picked up several Fantasy boxed sets (back when they were only $12.50 for a box of 8 figures) and when I got to the register, the guy behind the counter told me that more people played 40k and if I wanted to have some people to play with, even though I liked the fantasy figures better, I should look into getting some 40k stuff instead.

Anyway, if you have any other theories, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks in advance!

[crazyredpraetorian]

3 words

guns......guns.....guns!!!

[sirrouga]

I best I can do here is explain my thought process when I first started.

Now I was never really into the scifi genre, I was always into the fantasy realm. I mean I have a collection of 100+ daggers, swords, spears, and axes and none of them are from a scifi setting or movie. For reasons unknown even to me, I HATE the concept behind mecha anime. Yet with all of that, when I looked into fantasy and 40k, and then dived into 40k.

Warhammer fantasy just didn't seem really unique at the time, I seen all the armies countless times before in other media, god forbid all the elves I have seen in DnD. The fantasy armies just don't seem that unique to me aside from a small few. I know Warhammer did most of the concepts first but the concepts have ran thin already. Now 40k does have similar races but they are done with an unique look and feel; Orks are their whacky meks, Elves riding jetbikes and walkers, dwarves being eaten by giant bugs. I mean 40k had it all!

I still think about fantasy every once in a while still and maybe would get back into it later in the future. But when I first started, it wasn't anything really stand out for me.

[Subject Keyword]

If you look at sales figures, Fantasy actually does quite well in Europe. 40k only really kicks the pants off WFB in the U.S., where MARINES ALONE out sell all Fantasy. Scary, huh?

My real answer: 40k is just easier to pick up.

[RocketRollRebel]

Warhammer fantasy just didn't seem really unique at the time, I seen all the armies countless times before in other media, god forbid all the elves I have seen in DnD. The fantasy armies just don't seem that unique to me aside from a small few. I know Warhammer did most of the concepts first but the concepts have ran thin already. Now 40k does have similar races but they are done with an unique look and feel; Orks are their whacky meks, Elves riding jetbikes and walkers, dwarves being eaten by giant bugs. I mean 40k had it all!

I still think about fantasy every once in a while still and maybe would get back into it later in the future. But when I first started, it wasn't anything really stand out for me.

I'm in the same boat with that. My GF even says that she is surprised that I'm not more into WHFB since I'm a big history nerd as well. But it just hasn't grabbed my attention in the way that 40k did.

Also I think that GW pushes 40k more and that 40k is easier to get into. Getting an army started is much cheaper and requires a bit less effort.

p.s. please for the love of god don't let this turn into another 40k v WHFB pissing match. Both games are awesome in their own way :)

[Jokubas]

I'm a number two.

I actually started with LotR, but it didn't pan out (that's another story). I still kinda wanted to play Warhammer, as I'd heard a lot of good things about it, so I looked at my other options.

I intended to play Fantasy at first, but at the time none of the armies really appealed to me. I normally play humans in pretty much anything, but both the Empire and the Bretonnian focused too much on what I hate about the medieval period, and Ogres weren't out yet.

40k, however, was just releasing the Daemonhunters, whose Grey Knights perfectly fit the paladin archetype I was really looking for, plus I had friends playing it. No one else I knew played Fantasy, so it would probably been as much of a waste as LotR (of course, 40k was still yet to really work for me, but that's also another story ;)).


Now that I know more about the games, though, number one might apply to me as well, but it didn't when I was getting into the hobby. My main two problems with 40k as things are is the rules and the length. I get to play 40k so rarely that I can't even keep up with its rules and most games run far longer than I'm comfortable with.

And it's not that I don't have the patience or the intellectual capability, it's just that I don't do it enough for the rules to stick, and even 40k has enough to remember if it's obsolete or you forget it every time. As for game length, I don't like committing long stretches of time to any one thing, it's one of the many reasons why I don't raid in MMOs.

[eagleboy7259]

For me it really has nothing to do with the game play mechanics, or even the warhammer swords and axes vs the 40k guns. It's just most WFB armies involve alot more miniatures than 40k. Two blocks of infantry have more mini's in them than the last 40k army I built. Not to mention IMOP most WFB minitures are harder to paint well than 40k ones, cloth is pretty trickey to master, along with animal hides, faces and skin... which can be avoided in some 40k armies completely. This factor alone has kept me away from the game for a long time, although I'm sure not everybody is as inconfident in their painting as I am.

[entendre_entendre]

to me it was this question: what's cooler? a huge metal sword and shield, or a chainsaw you used as a sword? i went with the one with the cooler weapons.

also: 40k has tanks and tanks are cool (<-- my actual 11 year old thoughts :p )

there's also the fluff to consider (maybe):

Fantasy: carnage on a global scale

40K: carnage on a galactic scale, i mean, there's probably dozens of Imperial systems that are simply devoted to f***ing just so they can have more guys for the guard in 20 years!

40k's background is just so much darker (to me at least) than WFB's, though this could be simply from the fantasy "it's all going to be okay" syndrome, i mean, how often does it look like all the humans are going to die in fantasy settings? it doesn't happen in the spotlight as often as in sci-fi (e.g. Battlestar Galactica).

[Shadoq]

For me I actually started with Fantasy then migrated across to 40k. My thoughts on the matter:

-I play 40k because I enjoy throwing dice with friends while using a fairly simple gaming system. 40K in my opinion is a lot easier to work with.

- 40K just "clicked" with me and has never let go.

-40K has a bigger fan base in my area than fantasy. Being able to play with a local group regularly is key to me otherwise I'd be more into other smaller games such as FOW.

-Never such a thing as too many treads!

[DarkLink]

1) Fantasy, from what I've heard is a more complex game that requires a lot more thinking and a lot more strategy. Additionally, it takes longer to play. Therefore, 40k is more popular because new players can more quickly pick up the game than they can fantasy.


Fantasy certainly is much more complex. But I certainly don't buy the "fantasy is more tactical/strategic than 40k" argument. And it's not something worth getting into here, we have a few other threads going right now arguing- I mean, discussing:p- it.

But, yeah, 40k is more visible, and much more streamlined. I'd be willing to bet that more people start gaming with 40k than Fantasy, so it gets more publicity. And then most of those 40k players see little reason to switch over, probably because it would cost a lot of money.

Plus, starting an army in a whole new system isn't like getting a second 40k army. Someone could try to go into fantasy and fall in love with one of the weak codices and spend a ton of money on bad units, only to get face stomped and realize that they made a bad choice. The complexity of Fantasy certainly doesn't help with this.

It takes a while to learn a new gaming system, and until you have a lot of experience with that system, you won't know what you really want. It's the initial investment required that's the issue. You need to play to get experience, but you can't play without an army.

So if most people start with 40k, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of them decided it wasn't worth the money and time to learn a second system.

[murrburger]

I started with 40K in 2nd edition (with an old rule book. I think 3rd had been out a while, and Fantasy in 6th.

I went back and forth between systems. (I stopped playing 40K for a while in 40K 4th)

Finally, through the combined forces of Dark Elves, Daemons, Vampire Counts (I play them.) and 40K 5th edition (with objective based missions) I stopped playing Fantasy. So did everyone else I knew.

In short, our group just wasn't having fun with WFB anymore. However, 40K was great. Every mission was a blast to play, and each game managed to be different. (At this point for me, Fantasy was just running forward and hitting each other a lot. I really preferred playing with massed blocks of troops, Now it's all about Deathstars. Other people might like it, but I don't.)

Maybe it was just my group, but 40K was simply more fun for us. The games were had a random length,they easier to set up, combat was faster, and the game didn't require a calculator to see who won.

Yeah, call us short-attention-spanned kids... but we know what we like.

I hope Fantasy becomes a more balanced game in 8th edition. Different missions would make a huge impact on the game, and would probably get me to start playing again.

[gensu11]

Your 11 year old hit the nail on the head. TANKS ARE COOL! I am a professional tanker, and started the hobby by buying a LEMAN RUSS to go on a display shelf with a bunch of M1 abrams. Five years later I have a 15000 point armored regiment.

[Aldramelech]

As I see it 40k was always GWs entry level game and WFB was something you progressed into. Back when I started 40k was definitely aimed at GWs younger audience. I'm not sure if that is true now, but certainly among older gamers in the UK thats how they see the two systems. 40k is certainly easier to collect with pocket money.

[Denzark]

You forget the 'entry' level games - Space Crusade, Space Hulk etc. Did a good Heroquest Campaign ever compare to all 12 missions before you started taking on the dreadnoughts and did it give you the good basis of an entire army's worth of minis?

[Aldramelech]

Happy days.......

[sketchesofpayne]

There are already a plethora of Fantasy games on the market. Not as many Sci-fi games.

[Xas]

because the iconics of 40k are better/stronger than fantasy.

fantrasy on its outmost shell is "just another game of wizards and elves" where 40k is modern knights in impenetrable armor wielding automatic shoot mini roket launchers!


so for one space marines ARE good AND cool. they only get boring when you are overdonew tih them :)

[Chaos]

First of all, Fantasy is not a more strategic game than 40k and as Dark Link said, their is a thread about that to discuss your thoughts. Secondly, I believe that 40k has a broader span of creativity and thousands of possibilities are available in scenarios and campaigns. Fantasy is something I have been looking into for a while and my friends have helped me play and kind of guided my hand in some practice games but in my opinion, 40k is just more universal and interesting. I know this differs with some people but I enjoy thinking of all the possibilities in the 40k universe and I enjoy all the fluff and the novels and this huge sandbox of possibilities is what took me in from the start and I dont think Fantasy has that.

[MVBrandt]

I have a full day meeting that will prevent me from saying more about this subject, but food for thought:

Any system where YOUR movements can render an opponents' movement options ILLEGAL and more condensed is a system that is LESS TACTICALLY DEEP.

Here is what I mean:

In Fantasy, there are numerous places you can put a unit of yours - more or less regardless of its value - that will heavily curtail your opponent's ability to move. That is to say, rather than needing to operate as a consolidated unit, bring greater power to bear on certain locations, create relevant flanks, etc., you can shut down areas of movement just by placing throwaway units in certain locations.

In 40k, an opponent is ALWAYS permitted to make his moves, and restricting his options is a far more difficult task. This makes for a far more tactically DEEP game, but also allows for a game that is inherently shallower as well.

To wit, if you place a novice player across the board from a novice player in fantasy, shenanigans at best will ensue. Intricate details of what's allowed and not allowed in terms of movement and opponent-applied movement restrictions will not be understood or applied. If expert players are across the table from each other, the series of movements is fairly "obvious," and the ability to utilize tactics that will eliminate your opponent's legal moves is fully realized.

In 40k, novices will enjoy a much smoother game with each other, because on face value many of the rules are simpler and more streamlined. Fortunately, at the veteran end of the spectrum the game is far more tactically dense than a comparable fantasy game. Why? Because your opponent may ALWAYS take all of his moves, actions, charges, etc., as long as units are assailable. As such, while in fantasy you may do things such as march block an entire flank by placing a cheap, worthless flying unit there (I exaggerate, go with me), in 40k such a thing would simply be the "throwing away" of a unit (as it rightfully should be). It requires far more work in 40k to completely dominate your opponent, and so allows for a greater expression of skill differentials among players.

There are many other points that could be made, such as the relative power disparity between top and median codices in fantasy vs. the disparity between top and median codices in 40k (that is to say that the balance is closer in 40k, if not perfect), but I just don't have the time.

Perhaps some discussion will be sparked.


I see and hear players on both sides argue passionately for their opinions, and that's fine. For my own part, in Fantasy, large square blocks of people run into each other, the flanks don't envelop, and the units stand there in an absolute mockery of realism that is actually worse for me than ... 9 foot tall superhumans with hand held rapid fire grenade launchers.

[Old_Paladin]

Two Words: Space Marines

They make up half the companies sales. 40K is popular because they are.
I think the two system actually have similar sales otherwise.

[Morgrim]

I have three main reasons for playing 40k:

1) While WFB fluff is interesting, it is also isolated. Of the ones I've read it isn't as interwoven as 40k. About the only ones I've seen that have any level of significant interweaving are dark and high elves. It's almost as if all the races had a few important battles in their history, but hang around in their own area and only have occasional skirmishes (I'm meaning in fluff, not in game). One of the reasons I was attracted to 40k was the complex nature, of how a change in one place ripples out into others (or roars out, in the case of the birth of Slaanesh or the Horus Heresy). I just find that there is a greater scope for different natures, instead of being rather 2 dimensional. Less 'I am a vampire so I must be evil, I am a high elf so I must be good'. And yes, I know that is an exaggeration.

2) My friends play 40k. This is a big one, since the group that drags you in is likely to dictate what you play. I'm lucky that I have a FLGS where you may ave a slightly better chance of a random points pickup game for 40, but you still have a good chance of getting a WFB one too.

3) I hate movement trays. This seems a rather pathetic objection, but... movement trays are so intrinsic to WFB, and for some reason that I'm not entirely sure of I don't like them. Whether it's the sliding chunks of bare plastic around or the fact that ranking up obsurers models that one has worked hard to paint (and makes assembling and converting a pain since they all need to fit), the fact that I don't like them is one of the strongest reasons I don't play.

This isn't to say that I don't like WFB, just that I haven't felt a great urge to play it. I'm sure I'll have a few casual matches some day, but I'll never get deeply involved. I am building a small lizardmen force, but it is a very painterly one. As in, one basic saurus model will take me 5+ hrs minimum to paint and feature nearly seamless blending for necron abyss to enchanted blue to warlock purple to liche purple and that is only the basic base colour for the scales alone sort of painterly army. It's my 'I feel like a break and I'm just going to enjoy myself' army. Well, if 3 models can be called an army...

[Majorcrash]

Trying not to start an argument, I started playing 40K back in 2nd Ed. But being a history major I love the medival genre and fantasy genre. I decided to try WHFB an quickly learned about why it was called hero hammer. I no that in the intervening years it has toned down alot, but many of the problems of back then still linger.
1. movement is npt an elegant rule mechanic. the rules are vague and overly stiff
2. Codex power balance is way more out of wack in compared to 40k.
3. many armies ignore some of the basic rules about leadership and morale. just look at how many armys include this.
4. Heroes are about combat not leading the army.
5 I have few more complaints but those are purely about appearance.

I will say that a game that has fixed many of these problems is WoR. although it has its own set of issues

[TAUfanatic]

me personally I'm more into sci-fi so 40k appealed to me better
plus my dad's into it and I got it from him (and I think he got into 40k for the same reason too, its sci-fi)

[Old_Paladin]

1) While WFB fluff is interesting, it is also isolated. Of the ones I've read it isn't as interwoven as 40k. About the only ones I've seen that have any level of significant interweaving are dark and high elves. It's almost as if all the races had a few important battles in their history, but hang around in their own area and only have occasional skirmishes (I'm meaning in fluff, not in game). One of the reasons I was attracted to 40k was the complex nature, of how a change in one place ripples out into others (or roars out, in the case of the birth of Slaanesh or the Horus Heresy). I just find that there is a greater scope for different natures, instead of being rather 2 dimensional. Less 'I am a vampire so I must be evil, I am a high elf so I must be good'. And yes, I know that is an exaggeration.

I think this is more of a 'what you put into it, is what you get out of it'
There's the First War against Chaos (Elves and Daemons)
The War of the Beard (Elves and Dwarves)
The Sundering (Elves vs. Elves)
The Birth of Sigmar and the old alliance (Man and Dwaves vs. Orcs)
The Fall of the Holds (Dwarves vs. Orcs vs. Skaven)
The Siege of Pragg (Men vs. Chaos)

I find both just as dimensional
Each have forces of Order (Men, Elves, Dwarves etc; and the Imperium and Eldar)
Forces of Disorder (Chaos, Dark Elves, Undead; and Chaos, Necrons, 'Nids)
and you have the neutral (Tau and Ogre Kingdoms; and sometimes Orks/Orcs [they tend to be disorderly, but sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
Saying 'I am a vampire so I must be evil, I am a high elf so I must be good' is no different then saying "I'm a Necron so I must be evil, I'm an Ultramarine so I must be good."

[Cryl]

The Fantasy fluff and world is for me one of the most appealing things about the game, I love the codexes and own pretty much all of them. This is only significant in that after attempts with 3 armies, Dark Elves, Warriors of Chaos and Skaven I now realise I just don't enjoy the game. Doesn't make it a bad game just that I don't like it.

40k is arguably more popular than fantasy because it's easy to recognise the 'cool' parts... space marines are easy to iconise (as someone has pointed out already) whereas the depth to the Fantasy world is only visible once you start to delve in. The point I'm making (badly) is that, in my opinion, the quality in the Fantasy fluff is only there once you start to read more of it. 40k appears very cool at first glance and then gets better from there. I think the difference is it's easier to be 'ok' at 40k than it is to be 'ok' at WHFB; being really good at either game takes equal effort I believe.

I think the effort required to enjoy fantasy is greater than 40k... larger armies, more depth in the fluff and the 11 to 14 year old boy demographic (and I generalise) doesn't want depth they want easy access.

[Brass Scorpion]

The answer is simple, robots and rockets sell better than Elves and Dwarves.

Not that 40K is hard science fiction, it definitely is not, but science fiction always sells better than sword-and-sorcery. This has always been true in the book industry and that preference for rocket ships and robots when it comes to novel buying also translates over to miniatures gaming. 40K is science fantasy, but again, blasters, killer robots and rocket ships sell better than Elves and Dwarves.

For me personally, my first Citadel Miniatures were Chaos Warriors purchased to use with D&D or some other fantasy RPG 20 years ago. However, once I started buying a lot of models and playing Warhammer with them I also found my 40K purchasing overtaking my Fantasy purchases by a wide margin. This is simply due to modeling project variety. While I still like Fantasy models and stil buy some, I can go a little crazier on the converting and wildness of my projects in the 40K realm. Science Fantasy allows for cool combinations of fantasy and SF elements that pure sword-and-sorcery type fantasy does not allow.

[Ssyrie]

Not that 40K is hard science fiction, it definitely is not, but science fiction always sells better than sword-and-sorcery. This has always been true in the book industry and that preference for rocket ships and robots when it comes to novel buying also translates over to miniatures gaming. 40K is science fantasy, but again, blasters, killer robots and rocket ships sell better than Elves and Dwarves.

While Sci-Fi toys and wargames may sell better than fantasy, fantasy still wins on the RPG side of the table.

As for why 40K is more popular, for me its that I prefer run and gun to marching in block formations. Also there's the fact that when I starting wargaming 25 years ago, the two main choices at my lfgs was WFB or Battletech (this was pre 40K). For the cost of one WFB unit, I could buy 4-5 Battletech mini's which was enough for a skirmish game with my friends. And when 40k eventually came out, the original plastic boxed set of marines was $23 for 30 plastic marines. With the higher point cost in Rogue Trader that was nearly 1000 pt army right there. Then came the original plastic rhino's which were 3 for $23 and land raiders which were 2 for $23. Plus since the metal mini's still used lead, they were really inexpensive compared to what they cost today (2 metal termies for $8). Building a large marine army was so much less expensive than building any modest WFB army, 40k was always my preference.

[Melissia]

I prefer Dark Heresy to most fantasy RPG games. I also enjoyed steampunk DnD more than fantasy DnD.


Regardless...


I think it's mostly because people like big guns and tanks.

[Brass Scorpion]

I wasn't talking about toys, I was talking about the publishing industry. Science Fiction outsells Fantasy in the publishing industry by a huge margin, something like a factor of ten. If you're a prospective new author you have a much better chance of getting published by a major publisher if you're peddling SF than fantasy fiction simply because the market audience is much larger. That same popularity of SF over fantasy translates well to Games Workshop's sales.

[Subject Keyword]

When I went from 40k to fantasy I actually found it quite refreshing.
But perhaps that's because I went from scraping the bottom of the victory barrel with the Undead in 40k :( (Necrons)
to triumphantly standing on a pile of the slain corpses of my enemies with the Undead in WFB :D (Vampire Counts).

I just like zombies so much it blinds me to any other contributing factors.:rolleyes:

[Aldramelech]

I never used to play 40k, never read 40k and had no interest in it at all (apart from SH). Then I left Wargaming for 7 years.
When I returned I was surprised to find the people I used to play with were all playing 40k, something Id never thought Id see. I looked into how much Id need to spend to join the party and I came across the "new" Cadians. I had to have some!
Now I'm reading 40k novels at a stupid rate, converting flak tanks and spending unhealthy amounts of time on here arguing with some bird from Texas Ive never met!!!!!

Its a slippery slope........

[Lord Azaghul]

When I went from 40k to fantasy I actually found it quite refreshing.
But perhaps that's because I went from scraping the bottom of the victory barrel with the Undead in 40k :( (Necrons)
to triumphantly standing on a pile of the slain corpses of my enemies with the Undead in WFB :D (Vampire Counts).

I just like zombies so much it blinds me to any other contributing factors.:rolleyes:

You just traded one undead for the other!

But I will say the same thing applies to me. I when from fantasy to 40k and found 40k very refreshing, very relaxed (movement and lack of shooting modifiers) and I was delighted with the lack of magic as fantasy made me sick of it (dwarf player)

I think 40k outsells due to the genre in general. If I'm playing a game (video type) at home I'm either going to pull out an Futuristic shoot 'em up, a modern shoot 'em up, or a futuristic rpg. That being said Tolkien has written the best fantasty work of all time, and it is my favorate, unfortunately most other authers seem like pale imitations. In sci -fi I have a few favorates as well (Dune, Enders game, Starship Troopers, Star Wars) but I'm more willing to read an author I haven't heard of then I am a fantasy author I haven't heard of, simply because experience as taught me I enjoy Scifi books for the more!

A fabled future holds something unique that a fabled past can not.

[Subject Keyword]

You just traded one undead for the other!


True that.



A fabled future holds something unique that a fabled past can not.

Huh. What an eloquent way of putting that...
I have to say that I agree with you.

[Mystery.Shadow]

So, you're saying that when Blizzard releases the WORLD OF STARCRAFT the 11 Million populating the World of Warcraft will look like a Ghost Town in comparison?

[Nabterayl]

Well, maybe. Currently WarCraft's oeuvre is more diverse than StarCraft's. I think that's a big factor in the popularity of 40K. The universe can be spun so many different ways - more ways, it seems to me, than can the Old World. I too enjoy the depth of the Old World lore, but I also feel it's not as broad as 40K lore.

[entendre_entendre]

Your 11 year old hit the nail on the head. TANKS ARE COOL! .

teehe. oh misinterpretations, how you entertain us (me).
those were my thoughts when I started, not any child pretending to be my non-existent offspring :D

"Hi Dad!"
"What?! Who the hell are you?"
"I'm your child."
"No your not."
"..."
"Bored again huh?"
"Yup."
"Parents leave you to blow in the wind while they're off being pretentious?"
"Actually they're at Starbucks currently, they said they'd be back in two hours."
"Case in point."

wow, how'd i get to this?
...

on topic (as opposed to Hot Topic <groan>), sci-fi is simply more popular than fantasy. more kids know who Darth Vader is than who Sauromon is.

[Morgrim]

That would be why more play 40k than LotR, wouldn't it? :P


I should revise my comments. It's not that WFB fluff isn't good, it's that it has a different tone. I like the fact that in 40k, even the seemingly good races are anything but. Imperium defending the empire of humans? Yes, but they're also a vicious, intolerant fundamentalist society where questioning the status quo will get you a painful death. Chaos corrupting everything they touch and arguably responsible for most of the conflict in the galaxy? Yes, but they're also the avatars for honour, hope, love and acceptance.

It seems that while every WFB race has motivations, few 'evil' ones have 'good' motivations (the first vampire count arguably did, but none of the later ones), and none of the 'good' races have enough skeletons in the closest. Note, I haven't read the books for orcs and dwarves so I may be missing a touch there. This isn't a bad thing. I often like playing games where I am clearly the utter villain (and friends do as the pure paladin, I just can't keep a straight face doing so). It's just a different tone.

That does tie back into personal interests. I am a great fan of the themes of corruption, betrayal, seduction, changing views on natures and motivations and the variations between 'join us or die' and 'it really would be better to see things our way...'. 40k simply scratches that itch better than WFB does.


My previous comments about movement trays being the spawn of something unpleasant still applies, too.

[Aldramelech]

I have three main reasons for playing 40k:

1) While WFB fluff is interesting, it is also isolated. Of the ones I've read it isn't as interwoven as 40k. About the only ones I've seen that have any level of significant interweaving are dark and high elves. It's almost as if all the races had a few important battles in their history, but hang around in their own area and only have occasional skirmishes (I'm meaning in fluff, not in game). One of the reasons I was attracted to 40k was the complex nature, of how a change in one place ripples out into others (or roars out, in the case of the birth of Slaanesh or the Horus Heresy). I just find that there is a greater scope for different natures, instead of being rather 2 dimensional. Less 'I am a vampire so I must be evil, I am a high elf so I must be good'. And yes, I know that is an exaggeration.

2) My friends play 40k. This is a big one, since the group that drags you in is likely to dictate what you play. I'm lucky that I have a FLGS where you may ave a slightly better chance of a random points pickup game for 40, but you still have a good chance of getting a WFB one too.

3) I hate movement trays. This seems a rather pathetic objection, but... movement trays are so intrinsic to WFB, and for some reason that I'm not entirely sure of I don't like them. Whether it's the sliding chunks of bare plastic around or the fact that ranking up obsurers models that one has worked hard to paint (and makes assembling and converting a pain since they all need to fit), the fact that I don't like them is one of the strongest reasons I don't play.

This isn't to say that I don't like WFB, just that I haven't felt a great urge to play it. I'm sure I'll have a few casual matches some day, but I'll never get deeply involved. I am building a small lizardmen force, but it is a very painterly one. As in, one basic saurus model will take me 5+ hrs minimum to paint and feature nearly seamless blending for necron abyss to enchanted blue to warlock purple to liche purple and that is only the basic base colour for the scales alone sort of painterly army. It's my 'I feel like a break and I'm just going to enjoy myself' army. Well, if 3 models can be called an army...

Movement trays can be fun!

http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx135/andyblackmore/100_0323.jpg

:p

[Cryl]

They're movement trays that make the models look nice though. WotR armies look really good on a battlefield, it's the spacing that does it. WHFB on the other hand always felt to me a little too crushed together

[Aldramelech]

They're movement trays that make the models look nice though. WotR armies look really good on a battlefield, it's the spacing that does it. WHFB on the other hand always felt to me a little too crushed together

Im starting my Dwarf army for WFB in January, I'll be endevoring to make their movement trays equally attractive:D

[Cryl]

Fantasy models do look really nice... I'm tempted to make up some of them on round bases to go in WotR movement trays and make them "counts as" for that game... WoC could make a nice Isengard army :)

[Duke]

The main thing that keeps me from playing WHFB more is the whole way movement works. I like the "simplicity," of 40k

Duke

[Fellend]

In my case I think the fluff surrounding 40k is just that much better, it's unique and there's something for everyone. I play Black Templar because they are everything I think a fantasy battle should be. Heroic Warriors forsaking guns for close combat, crusading for the lost ideals and bringing death to anyone that dares tread on the Emperor's ground.

Also 40k is just that much more active. Things move, they fire, they assault, they flee, regroup and die in vain attempts to seize ground. The FB battles i've seen usually there's two guys, charging into the middle and then all you hear is "Wheel, wheel, wheel, scroll, scroll, scroll, panic test, scroll, wheel, I win" and they've been battering at each other in the center of the map for 2 hours without anything actually happening.

It also feels like you can get into your army a bit more in 40k. I'm one of those people that name all my squads (I don't do every marine...yet) and i actually crinch a bit inside everytime one of them dies. (thankfully there's apothecaries) In FB there's just a big faceless horde of minions and a hero of epic doom who is probably a namned character with no available fluff other than what GW has commanded.

Each marine has more story than a whole unit of nameless Empire soldiers.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I honestly think it has more to do with the fact that 40k's rules feel a lot more closely related to what is happening in the tabletop world.

In Fantasy, it is often not very immersive...there are a lot of things you do in fantasy that are more like chess than a war. I know for me, as a huge Warcraft fan, I was drawn to fantasy at first, but when I got there I found these boxy trays of guys moving in neat formations dancing around each other for three turns trying to find a moment to get off a charge at the other guy's flank.

The entire idea of regiments seemed silly to me. You have 30 guys but only want 10 of them involved in the fight at a time? (I know the rules do not necessarily reflect this but it is how I saw it at the time). Why on earth wouldn't your men (or in other cases, wild animals or monsters) break ranks and try to help their partners?

I disliked casualty removed in fantasy because it is an abstraction; the guy you take away isn't really the guy who died, the standard bearer for example dies, and you just take the guy BEHIND him because the next rank moves forward and is assumed to pick up the standard. This was a turn off for me because it seemed to me that I would have to paint 30 models but would be mostly just putting them back in the case when they dided and nothing else. Why even have them? I could just number bases and stick them on the tray. In 40k, each model has its own story, and there have been many times where the individual models in question have managed to do something noteworthy and heroic.

In fantasy nothing heroic happens. It is more gameplay driven than immersion driven. That's not necessarily bad or anything but it does create a noteworthy point of division.

Fantasy's balance has always seemed off to me. I know very little about the game's rules or army composition, but I have to say that some of the things I've witnessed make it seem very lop-sided in some regards. I know I once overheard a game going on behind me in which some guy fielded some kind of dragon and it cost some absurd anount of points but it killed most of the other guy's army and much of his stuff couldn't even hurt it back (at least this is what I inferred from the things I overheard during my own game). It seemed from what I heard them discussing that the game was very centered around heroes, and that oftentimes leaders in chariots or on winged mounts did huge amounts of damage. I heard similar comments about magic.

I would assume at least part of this is because such a model likely wouldn't be bound by the foolish regimental rules. If there is a model right next to your regiment in fantasy your men simply ignore it, and you can do nothing, really.

I will just come right out and say that I think 90% of the fantasy models suck, too. On my desk right now I have thousands of pieces from two boxes of space wolves alone, that have allowed me to create a wealth of dynamic and unique models to whom I will become endeared as gameplay goes on. I'm currently building a long fang who is holding his missile launcher with his left hand, standing it up vertically on his base, whilst defending himself with a chainsword. 40k's models are just cooler, and I think any 40k plastic's limitless conversion options make it conceptually more wide open. In fantasy I have seen a lot of sets that are basically a done body in a static post with some different arms. Yeah, you can convert them, but let's be honest, what are you really going to do? There are only so many ideas for conversions in a fantasy world. Sowrds instead of spears (both of which will be painted a nice boring metal color...as unlike in 40k where weapons have glowing energy fields for you to toy with cool fiery or icy effects or glows). One kind of banner instead of another. Mounted on a pig instead of a wolf. Compared to 40k, where it is reasonable to have all kinds of crazy conversions and colors, and the modeling is just bland.

And speaking of blandness I think that is probably fantasy's biggest failing point: it's bland. Why? Well 40k is an amalgam of all of science fiction's coolest and most intriguing ideas, which everything from unkillable robots to ancient universal star giods to superhuman super soldiers to the old classic "Hell is just another dimension" bit. It is just bursting at the seams with coolness and has a fresh, epic take on old familiar sci fi concepts.

Fantasy does not do this at all in relation to familiar fantasy concepts. We have...elves...and dwarves...who both act exactly like we all expect them to... we have orcs who do the same...the Chaos guys might as well have "Servants of Mordor" stamped on their box instead...we have griffins, dragons, goblins, vampires, etc. The only real unique stuff is the Lizardmen and the Tomb Kings. Fantasy doesn't reinvent or freshen up any of these concepts, and ultimately, I can get my fill of that stuff better playing World of Warcraft then buying a whole slew of 30 man regiments and watching them square dance.


Also 40k is just that much more active. Things move, they fire, they assault, they flee, regroup and die in vain attempts to seize ground. The FB battles i've seen usually there's two guys, charging into the middle and then all you hear is "Wheel, wheel, wheel, scroll, scroll, scroll, panic test, scroll, wheel, I win" and they've been battering at each other in the center of the map for 2 hours without anything actually happening.

It also feels like you can get into your army a bit more in 40k. I'm one of those people that name all my squads (I don't do every marine...yet) and i actually crinch a bit inside everytime one of them dies. (thankfully there's apothecaries) In FB there's just a big faceless horde of minions and a hero of epic doom who is probably a namned character with no available fluff other than what GW has commanded.

Each marine has more story than a whole unit of nameless Empire soldiers. The above is true a thousand times over. Basically what I said in a much more succinct manner. 40k is just more immersive and emotionally invested.

[Subject Keyword]

OK, you guys have obviously not read very much about Fantasy. There isn't an Evil Minotaur army in LOTR, the Lizard Men are extremely original. Several people have cited Elves and Dwarfs as reasons that WFB isn't as interesting. I agree, if you look at the ENTIRE game in such one-dimensional terms, it's incredibly boring (you know, just like Marines and Orks).

You can't ignore 13 other armies. Where are Tomb Kings in Tolkien? Where are the Skaven? Where are the Daemons of Chaos? Etc.

And this "40k" being more emotionally investing argument has really got me scratching my head. I'll agree that a lot of the stories (Dying Eldar race, fledgling Tau race) are quite emotional. But several people have cited SPACE MARINES!? How, and this is an honest question, am I supposed to feel empathy for an outrageously racist, steroid-pumped meathead with no genitals who is wearing half of a car? How is he more appealing or baddass than an Empire man who fights Daemons with nothing but the strength that he acquired through hard work, and a pointy stick?

Now, don't get me wrong, I actually like 40k better than fantasy. The rules are more flexible, the models are more fun to paint, and the stories are more epic. But the fantasy bashing here is just... Uneducated I guess. Everyone's just jumping on the Tolkien bandwagon while forgetting that most things in 40K were inspired by Fantasy. :eek:

Apologies for the slight bit of nerd rage.

[Renegade]

For me it was a case that after my WHFB army got crushed in a move, Ididnt have the hart to start another one. So I moved to 40K and just when the 13th Black Crusade kicked off to boot.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

OK, you guys have obviously not read very much about Fantasy. There isn't an Evil Minotaur army in LOTR, the Lizard Men are extremely original. Several people have cited Elves and Dwarfs as reasons that WFB isn't as interesting. I agree, if you look at the ENTIRE game in such one-dimensional terms, it's incredibly boring (you know, just like Marines and Orks).

You can't ignore 13 other armies. Where are Tomb Kings in Tolkien? Where are the Skaven? Where are the Daemons of Chaos? Etc.

And this "40k" being more emotionally investing argument has really got me scratching my head. I'll agree that a lot of the stories (Dying Eldar race, fledgling Tau race) are quite emotional. But several people have cited SPACE MARINES!? How, and this is an honest question, am I supposed to feel empathy for an outrageously racist, steroid-pumped meathead with no genitals who is wearing half of a car? How is he more appealing or baddass than an Empire man who fights Daemons with nothing but the strength that he acquired through hard work, and a pointy stick?

Now, don't get me wrong, I actually like 40k better than fantasy. The rules are more flexible, the models are more fun to paint, and the stories are more epic. But the fantasy bashing here is just... Uneducated I guess. Everyone's just jumping on the Tolkien bandwagon while forgetting that most things in 40K were inspired by Fantasy. :eek:

Apologies for the slight bit of nerd rage. The idea that MOST of 40k was inspired by fantasy is really hard to believe. While I can accept that a good amount of it was inspired by fantasy (the Eldar are elves, obviously; the orks are obvious; some others), the idea that it is "fantasy in space" doesn't hold water.

Most of the universe revolves around the Space Marines, who honestly are not even close to anything in fantasy and are pure sci fi. The Chaos armies remind me more of Doom than of anything else. The Tyranids are pure classic sci fi, and the Emperor himself seems a mix of both fantasy and sci fi. The necrons being able to regenerate seems somewhat undead-like, but the fact that they are unkillable robots is clearly a nod to the Terminator series, among other classic sci fi "Killer robots from outer space" ideas.

The things in 40k that ARE fantasy inspired are far departures. The Eldar are a psychic race, dying out in the galaxy...they have created ways to preserve their souls in the form of wraithlords, and other means...they are cunning and interfere in other goings on throughout the galaxy to manipulate things to their own end. This is a reasonably far cry from their magic-wielding cousins. Similarly, the orks are a fungus-based malfunctioning biological weapon, far flung from their fantasy counterparts.

To ask us to include the sillier ideas in WFB to account for originality is anathema, really. Yeah, I've never seen anything like the Skaven. You know why? Because the idea of an army full of sniveling rat men has pretty much ZERO cool factor -- and that cool factor is something 40k has in spades.

When we talk about 40k being more emotionally invested, we don't mean the story line. I will give you an example. I have a lascannon model in my army who has always rolled incredibly badly. I was out of heads at the time, so he has an unhelmeted head and stands out from the rest of my devastator squad. I used to use the BS5 auspex thing on him all the time (the only lascannon in a squad of missile launchers most times), and he still would always manage to miss. I started to joke that his name was Lucky, and my opponents at my LGS love to watch his rolls, and often if he actually DOES hit I will announce it to the other guys and people will cheer him on.

Once, I stationed my devastator squad on top of a volcano, and there was an objective at the base of the volcano. The enemy had a victory well in hand due to having that objective. In desperation, I began to run the devastator squad down the volcano side, suffering dangerous terrain tests due to the lava everywhere. One by one, the squad members died. The only one left at the end was Lucky -- who had clawed his way out of the lava to contest the objective and subsequently win me the game.

My 40k life is full of models with this kind of history, and full of great and amazing stories like this. The bloody heroism depicted in the 41st millennium really comes to life in the game. This is something that fantasy will simply never have (at least, not in the volume 40k has it). I could tell you a hundred stories of epic wins (and fails, heh) for each squad I've ever owned. In 40k anything can happen, and that just isn't the case in fantasy.

[Renegade]

The idea that MOST of 40k was inspired by fantasy is really hard to believe. While I can accept that a good amount of it was inspired by fantasy (the Eldar are elves, obviously; the orks are obvious; some others), the idea that it is "fantasy in space" doesn't hold water.

++Stuff++

My 40k life is full of models with this kind of history, and full of great and amazing stories like this. The bloody heroism depicted in the 41st millennium really comes to life in the game. This is something that fantasy will simply never have (at least, not in the volume 40k has it). I could tell you a hundred stories of epic wins (and fails, heh) for each squad I've ever owned. In 40k anything can happen, and that just isn't the case in fantasy.

I dunno, I did have stuff like that happen when I use to play FB. I dont know how the rules work now, or some of the armies. But I once had a bunch of Marauders take out a unit of Black Orcs to win me a game, and this was when Black Orcs were one of the most feared units. This is one example, though it does seem when I watch FB armies now that a lot has change from 2002-3

[Subject Keyword]

Most of the universe revolves around the Space Marines
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
One army, with four offshoot codexes, out of 13 Armies is hardly the "point" of 40k. It's this type of "Warspacemarines 40,000" attitude that puts me off of ever wanting to play Marines. Only one person in my gaming community is even interested in them.


To ask us to include the sillier ideas in WFB to account for originality is anathema, really. Yeah, I've never seen anything like the Skaven. You know why? Because the idea of an army full of sniveling rat men has pretty much ZERO cool factor -- and that cool factor is something 40k has in spades.
Ooh... Yep. You're completely correct on this one! Good point.:D


When we talk about 40k being more emotionally invested, we don't mean the story line.
Whoops. My mistake. You're right on this one too.


I could tell you a hundred stories of epic wins (and fails, heh) for each squad I've ever owned. In 40k anything can happen, and that just isn't the case in fantasy.
This is fair. There is less room for epicness in WFB, but it does exist. It actually makes it a bit more exciting when it does happen. It also avoids those moments where you are about to win because of good list building, good deployment, and good strategy, just to have your noob opponent mow down you entire army with the lone Autarch he has left. But you make a very good point on this one.
Do you guys who are giving fantasy a hard time play it? Maybe you're playing the wrong army.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

I wish I could concur with the Space Marine sentiment, but I can't. When 5 of the 13 armies are of the same race, it speaks to how critical that race is to the overall arch of the story. The movie coming out is about the marines; the marines outsell everything else; the marines have more codex releases than anyone else and more models; the marines are the face of the game for better or worse.

In the end 40k's core story is about humanity's struggle to avoid its deserved end at the hands of all the xenos and other threats in the galaxy. I think it is hard to argue that the Space Marines are not central to this idea.

As for fantasy, I will be honest about it. I do not play it and have in fact gone so far as to not allow it to be played under the banner of the group I run. The reason isn't to be anti-fantasy so much as the fact that I find multiple games in a gaming group is how cliques develop and so since 40k is everyone's main game and we all have multiple 40k armies, I have decided to make it a policy to not really support other games.

Instead we plan on having specialized nights where people who want to play other GW games can do so, but I want the place to always be full of people playing the same game, so that when something epic DOES happen, everyone can share in it, and no one is annoyed that the epic moment that everyone's yelling about on the 40k table next door is ruining the quiet contemplation of someone's next move on the fantasy table.

I am not well versed on fantasy and to say that I know the rules or the armies particularly intrinsically is a fool's errand. But there is one aspect of fantasy that I am a real expert on: Why I don't like the idea of it as much as 40k.

Also, with respect, my friend...if there are armies in fantasy that, if I play them, I am playing "the wrong army," then to me that speaks only toward the idea that 40k is superior mechanics-wise.

Got to say, I'm shocked to see how many people really loath the movement system. It's too bad, I bet other than that one really silly non-immersive bit it is a good system.

[Subject Keyword]

When 5 of the 13 armies are of the same race, it speaks to how critical that race is to the overall arch of the story. The movie coming out is about the marines; the marines outsell everything else; the marines have more codex releases than anyone else and more models; the marines are the face of the game for better or worse.

In the end 40k's core story is about humanity's struggle to avoid its deserved end at the hands of all the xenos and other threats in the galaxy. I think it is hard to argue that the Space Marines are not central to this idea.

You make some valid points. I think it is necessary, though, to separate the fluff from the hobby. While they do sell more and have more models and codexes (considering that GW updates 40K on a "best selling" basis), you could just as easily say that the "story" of 40k is the Eldar's struggle to change with the times enough to keep their race alive, and humanity would be a large and powerful "frenemy" who may be the key to their salvation. You could say that the story is the story of Chaos trying to take control of a hellish future, or the Tau rising up against impossible odds to establish galactic peace, or the Necrons culling the races of the universe (which, need I say, they have done before), etc. More model and game support does not designate who is a main character.
Rather, we all make our own protagonists and antagonists. I have built up the Empire as a great enemy in my own Warhammer narrative. You have (I'm guessing) built up the progeny of the God Emperor as your protagonists. What makes Warhammer beautiful, rather than just expensive chess, is when our narratives clash. They can spin off in a million different directions depending on what happens. I just think that citing Space Marines as the "point" of 40k is a tad belittling to other players who have other things on their minds.



Also, with respect, my friend...if there are armies in fantasy that, if I play them, I am playing "the wrong army," then to me that speaks only toward the idea that 40k is superior mechanics-wise.

Hah! Yeah, I guess I should have been more specific!:D
This goes for both games. If a fantasy player who had started a Dark Eldar army came to me and said "I don't get it! Everyone else gets armor saves and I don't!" I would tell them they were playing the wrong army too. Everyone has a play style.



Got to say, I'm shocked to see how many people really loath the movement system. It's too bad, I bet other than that one really silly non-immersive bit it is a good system.
It's not that bad once you get used to it...
Oh, wait. Listen to me. You shouldn't have to get used to things that you are doing to have fun.:(
You're right. The movement system blows.:mad:

P.S.
I think having a 40k specific club is a smart move.

[DarkLink]

I wish I could concur with the Space Marine sentiment, but I can't. When 5 of the 13 armies are of the same race, it speaks to how critical that race is to the overall arch of the story. The movie coming out is about the marines; the marines outsell everything else; the marines have more codex releases than anyone else and more models; the marines are the face of the game for better or worse.

In the end 40k's core story is about humanity's struggle to avoid its deserved end at the hands of all the xenos and other threats in the galaxy. I think it is hard to argue that the Space Marines are not central to this idea.


Technically, it's 5 out of 16 armies. Vanilla, SW, BT, BA, DA and Grey Knights (might as well count C: DH), while there are 16 armies in the game, total.:p

[Subject Keyword]

Technically, it's 5 out of 16 armies. Vanilla, SW, BT, BA, DA and Grey Knights (might as well count C: DH), while there are 16 armies in the game, total.:p

Interesting, counting Grey Knights as Space Marines. Do they undergo the same implantation process and everything?

[EmperorEternalXIX]

They are a Space Marine chapter, albeit highly divergent. They actually are indicated in the newest SM codex as being Space Marines whose geneseed comes from an unknown source, vaguely indicated as the Emperor himself (though I'm not 100% sure of this, as I haven't read that codex in a while).

Keyword, you're fully correct in that the beauty of Warhammer (both of them) is when players' ideals clash and get resolved on the battlefield. I recently lost a Planetstrike campaign to a Tyranid player and its led to an incredibly fulfilling rivalry (friendly of course) that no pick up game could ever really yield.

[Subject Keyword]

They are a Space Marine chapter, albeit highly divergent. They actually are indicated in the newest SM codex as being Space Marines whose geneseed comes from an unknown source, vaguely indicated as the Emperor himself (though I'm not 100% sure of this, as I haven't read that codex in a while).

Keyword, you're fully correct in that the beauty of Warhammer (both of them) is when players' ideals clash and get resolved on the battlefield. I recently lost a Planetstrike campaign to a Tyranid player and its led to an incredibly fulfilling rivalry (friendly of course) that no pick up game could ever really yield.

Yeah, I've got a great rivalry and narrative with a pesky Space Wolves player whose (baddass) vikings keep trying to steal Necron technology from Tomb worlds for the use of the Emperor. He clobbered me last time though, so I fear for the fate of the Necrontyr if they can't catch up with the Space Wolf Fleet...

Grey Knights are cooler than I thought. It's saddening to see that there is even model and codex neglect among Marines.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I've got a great rivalry and narrative with a pesky Space Wolves player whose (baddass) vikings keep trying to steal Necron technology from Tomb worlds for the use of the Emperor. He clobbered me last time though, so I fear for the fate of the Necrontyr if they can't catch up with the Space Wolf Fleet...

Grey Knights are cooler than I thought. It's saddening to see that there is even model and codex neglect among Marines.

Yeah, basically we're Space Marines in principal. Grey Knight recruits are taken all across the galaxy, whereever extremely powerful psykers can be found that are suitable for the training. Then we have a bunch of highly secretive tests and training processes that weed out those not fit to be a SM, as well as those who are impure and cannot wield their psychic powers safely.

After being given the geneseed and going through extremely intensive training, the neophytes are put through the Rites of Destitution. If any remaining flaws or disloyalties remain, they fail. And knowing Space Marine and psyker training, this probably means they're killed in one horrible manner or another.

After they complete their training, they're granted a suit of Aegis Armor and put straight into the fight, as the training is so intesnsive that there is no need for an "apprenticeship" period like normal SM scouts.

And to put the power level of the Grey Knights into perspective, in order to earn the right to wear Terminator armor, the Grey Knight must have proven himself to be a Librarian-level psyker. A Grand Master has a body and training surpassing that of a Space Marine Chapter Master, and psychic abilities that dwarf that of Space Marine Librarians.

The only formal organization is based on squads. Grey Knight squads are led by Justicars. Terminator squads are led by Brother Captains. Brother Captains lead smaller battles involving multiple units. Grand Masters lead larger scale battles.

[Subject Keyword]

Yeah, basically we're Space Marines in principal. Grey Knight recruits are taken all across the galaxy, whereever extremely powerful psykers can be found that are suitable for the training. Then we have a bunch of highly secretive tests and training processes that weed out those not fit to be a SM, as well as those who are impure and cannot wield their psychic powers safely.

After being given the geneseed and going through extremely intensive training, the neophytes are put through the Rites of Destitution. If any remaining flaws or disloyalties remain, they fail. And knowing Space Marine and psyker training, this probably means they're killed in one horrible manner or another.

After they complete their training, they're granted a suit of Aegis Armor and put straight into the fight, as the training is so intesnsive that there is no need for an "apprenticeship" period like normal SM scouts.

And to put the power level of the Grey Knights into perspective, in order to earn the right to wear Terminator armor, the Grey Knight must have proven himself to be a Librarian-level psyker. A Grand Master has a body and training surpassing that of a Space Marine Chapter Master, and psychic abilities that dwarf that of Space Marine Librarians.

The only formal organization is based on squads. Grey Knight squads are led by Justicars. Terminator squads are led by Brother Captains. Brother Captains lead smaller battles involving multiple units. Grand Masters lead larger scale battles.

Wow! Thanks for the summery.
Dammit! Why are they neglecting you guys to make new Ultrasmurf models?! What the hell.:mad:
I wish the rules were more representative of the differences between you guys and regular Marines.
The Space Wolves don't really fit the elite army niche quite as well anymore, what with the new Grey Hunter Hoard... Grrr... 15 points. What Bullocks.

[DarkLink]

Wow! Thanks for the summery.
Dammit! Why are they neglecting you guys to make new Ultrasmurf models?! What the hell.:mad:
I wish the rules were more representative of the differences between you guys and regular Marines.
The Space Wolves don't really fit the elite army niche quite as well anymore, what with the new Grey Hunter Hoard... Grrr... 15 points. What Bullocks.

Yeah, I laughed when I heard the quotes from whoever it was stating that "Space Wolves would always be outnumbered", even before the 15pt Grey Hunters info was released.

I once played a 1000pt game where I had 13 Infantry and 2 Land Raiders, against a 101 model ork army. That was a fun game. I actually won, too.

Lets see the Space Wolves beat being outnumbered almost 7 to 1:p.

[Morgrim]

I'm amused that in my gaming group, I usually have the largest number of models on the board. I play DE so this is slightly odd, but I don't do raider rush, so understandable.

The amusing bit is that I come close to doubling the unit count of the ORK player. I expect to outnumber the marines, but orks is just amusing. (And a note to BA players: even if it is a 1000 point battle, landraider + Dante is a bad idea. It tends to leave you with about 5 assault marines...)

[Subject Keyword]

Yeah...
Playing Necrons, I've just gotten used to being outnumbered.
Outnumbered with an army that requires that you have a certain number to even stay on the board...
Against things that are more talented than you...
That have bigger guns...
And higher initiative...
And grenades...

[Aldramelech]

I reckon when the "Rons" get re-done its gonna be the mother of all horde armies

[Subject Keyword]

I reckon when the "Rons" get re-done its gonna be the mother of all horde armies

That's not what I'm expecting, but that would be super cool. I have upwards of 100 warriors now, so the "Metal Tide" would be pretty feasible. It'd look good on the battlefield, too. Necrons are supposed to be really intimidating, but they look less so when you only have 30 of them on the field and your being outnumbered by marines.

Plopping a Monolith down on the table will always feel great though.

It's like "Ooh... Wookit the wittle Land Waider! *sets Monolith on the table* BAM MUTHAF***ER!!! EAT DOOM!!!"

Truly it is a blessing from the Star Gods.

[Craftworlds_Voice]

hmm i dont agree with the topic. From my obersvasion wh40k is LESS popular than fantasy. As I was living in Cambridge , yes, there were a lot of 40k players around , but they were more like collectors and painters - when it went upon fighting - more fantasy players could have been spotted in the GW store.

And in Poland (where i live now) the proportion is like 4:1 . Every local fantasy tournament (and we have one every week) has between 20 and 100 players - in 40k just around 10-25.

More children collect 40k because they are more attracted by the miniatures (guns, space marines ..) but how many of them do have a 1500 army and play with it regularly ? I guess not many.

[Herald of Nurgle]

That's not what I'm expecting, but that would be super cool. I have upwards of 100 warriors now, so the "Metal Tide" would be pretty feasible. It'd look good on the battlefield, too. Necrons are supposed to be really intimidating, but they look less so when you only have 30 of them on the field and your being outnumbered by marines.

Plopping a Monolith down on the table will always feel great though.

It's like "Ooh... Wookit the wittle Land Waider! *sets Monolith on the table* BAM MUTHAF***ER!!! EAT DOOM!!!"

Truly it is a blessing from the Star Gods.
*SNORT* HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Sorry, but that just killed my throat, seriously.

Almost makes me miss trading 'crons for Nurgle.

[Craftworlds_Voice]

The entire idea of regiments seemed silly to me. You have 30 guys but only want 10 of them involved in the fight at a time? (I know the rules do not necessarily reflect this but it is how I saw it at the time). Why on earth wouldn't your men (or in other cases, wild animals or monsters) break ranks and try to help their partners?

break ranks ? That was impossible when two formations like falangs crushed into each other. Even the first rank had serious problems with dealing any damage, so difficult it was to penetrate a wall of shields. I guess that if You live in USA , You've never been to any event like 'Grunwald' - where people (maniacs :D) try to reconstruct the medieval battles of old times.

And if you would break your falang formation and try to attack loosely from all sides, you would loose the battle were quick.
So this was a bad example at showing that warhammer isnt reallistic - there is greater problem within 40k with that. Its fun to play, but i cant imagine myself things like a group of soldiers that jumps out from a transport vehicle and then moves 12 inches (1/4 of the battlefield) charging an enemy unit armed with heavy sub machine guns - where they welcome them with a smile and instead of shooting and tearing them to pieces, stand and prepare to fight in close combat (no stand and shoot reaction, or any other at all).



Any system where YOUR movements can render an opponents' movement options ILLEGAL and more condensed is a system that is LESS TACTICALLY DEEP.

Here is what I mean:
In Fantasy, there are numerous places you can put a unit of yours - more or less regardless of its value - that will heavily curtail your opponent's ability to move. That is to say, rather than needing to operate as a consolidated unit, bring greater power to bear on certain locations, create relevant flanks, etc., you can shut down areas of movement just by placing throwaway units in certain locations.

In 40k, an opponent is ALWAYS permitted to make his moves, and restricting his options is a far more difficult task. This makes for a far more tactically DEEP game, but also allows for a game that is inherently shallower as well.

To wit, if you place a novice player across the board from a novice player in fantasy, shenanigans at best will ensue. Intricate details of what's allowed and not allowed in terms of movement and opponent-applied movement restrictions will not be understood or applied. If expert players are across the table from each other, the series of movements is fairly "obvious," and the ability to utilize tactics that will eliminate your opponent's legal moves is fully realized.

In 40k, novices will enjoy a much smoother game with each other, because on face value many of the rules are simpler and more streamlined. Fortunately, at the veteran end of the spectrum the game is far more tactically dense than a comparable fantasy game. Why? Because your opponent may ALWAYS take all of his moves, actions, charges, etc., as long as units are assailable. As such, while in fantasy you may do things such as march block an entire flank by placing a cheap, worthless flying unit there (I exaggerate, go with me), in 40k such a thing would simply be the "throwing away" of a unit (as it rightfully should be). It requires far more work in 40k to completely dominate your opponent, and so allows for a greater expression of skill differentials among players.

There are many other points that could be made, such as the relative power disparity between top and median codices in fantasy vs. the disparity between top and median codices in 40k (that is to say that the balance is closer in 40k, if not perfect), but I just don't have the time.



I cant agree with that either...

In 40k there are units (like orcs or dark eldar) that can move and charge you from a distance of over 30 inches in one turn, zooming out from behind a rock or whatever and you (asw an opponent) do not even have any charge reaction. How tactically deep is that ?

Then... you can move most units with a high speed across the battlefield, where in fantasy it DOES really matter how you deploy them at the very beginning and you pay for even minor mistakes.

A small unit of flyers blocking march moves ? Thats a part of the tactics to use it well, as well as for your opponent to not allow you doing it (or making it not worth it). I dont see any problem with that, and no good player will allow you using such an advantage against him. It mainly works against newbies...

And its rather the opposite to what you say - being allowed to move in any direction, regardless of anything takes out a huge chunk of tactics - the game is more dynamic (thats why i like it so much) but there are FAR fewer things you need to take into consideration while playing it - its more predictible and you dont need that much concentration while playing it.

[DarkLink]

I guess that if You live in USA , You've never been to any event like 'Grunwald' - where people (maniacs :D) try to reconstruct the medieval battles of old times.


I think if you live in most places in the world you probably haven't been to events like this "grunwald'. There are reenactors like this in the USA, though they're usually Civil War reenactors. It's not exactly widespread.




And if you would break your falang formation and try to attack loosely from all sides, you would loose the battle were quick.
So this was a bad example at showing that warhammer isnt reallistic - there is greater problem within 40k with that. Its fun to play, but i cant imagine myself things like a group of soldiers that jumps out from a transport vehicle and then moves 12 inches (1/4 of the battlefield) charging an enemy unit armed with heavy sub machine guns - where they welcome them with a smile and instead of shooting and tearing them to pieces, stand and prepare to fight in close combat (no stand and shoot reaction, or any other at all).


40k has a pretty good cop-out, actually. A lot of armor (particularly MEQ) is capable of deflecting small arms fire very effectively in the fluff.

Plus, it's not like when you happen to jump into the same trench as an enemy the two of you will have time to make a formation with the rest of your squad. It's inevitable that things start to turn into a brawl when guns come into play. There isn't time to march in pretty formations.

[BuFFo]

I started with 40K in 2nd edition (with an old rule book. I think 3rd had been out a while, and Fantasy in 6th.

I went back and forth between systems. (I stopped playing 40K for a while in 40K 4th)

Finally, through the combined forces of Dark Elves, Daemons, Vampire Counts (I play them.) and 40K 5th edition (with objective based missions) I stopped playing Fantasy. So did everyone else I knew.

In short, our group just wasn't having fun with WFB anymore. However, 40K was great. Every mission was a blast to play, and each game managed to be different. (At this point for me, Fantasy was just running forward and hitting each other a lot. I really preferred playing with massed blocks of troops, Now it's all about Deathstars. Other people might like it, but I don't.)

Maybe it was just my group, but 40K was simply more fun for us. The games were had a random length,they easier to set up, combat was faster, and the game didn't require a calculator to see who won.

Yeah, call us short-attention-spanned kids... but we know what we like.

I hope Fantasy becomes a more balanced game in 8th edition. Different missions would make a huge impact on the game, and would probably get me to start playing again.

You sir, have hit the entire truth behind both systems PERFECTLY. You have created the single most accurate and honest portrayal as to why players play 40k and not fantasy. Fantasy is a complete power gaming mess at the moment, and 40k is simply more balanced and fun to play.

I don't think anyone could find a better description of the Fantasy v 40k debate anywhere on the net in such a nice, small, neat package such as this.

Fantasy is dead in my area for the exact same reasons. Players were getting tired of playing the same scenario that Fantasy has "Kill everything" and playing the same deployment over and over "line everything up, rush forward, hope Shooting/Magic doesn't over power the match, then slaughter your enemy in CC"

That why 40k is more widely played. Fun and Balance. You need a crap ton of models to play Fantasy, hence, making it generally more expensive, which scares most people from it.

[Fellend]

I cant agree with that either...

In 40k there are units (like orcs or dark eldar) that can move and charge you from a distance of over 30 inches in one turn, zooming out from behind a rock or whatever and you (asw an opponent) do not even have any charge reaction. How tactically deep is that ?

Then... you can move most units with a high speed across the battlefield, where in fantasy it DOES really matter how you deploy them at the very beginning and you pay for even minor mistakes.

A small unit of flyers blocking march moves ? Thats a part of the tactics to use it well, as well as for your opponent to not allow you doing it (or making it not worth it). I dont see any problem with that, and no good player will allow you using such an advantage against him. It mainly works against newbies...

And its rather the opposite to what you say - being allowed to move in any direction, regardless of anything takes out a huge chunk of tactics - the game is more dynamic (thats why i like it so much) but there are FAR fewer things you need to take into consideration while playing it - its more predictible and you dont need that much concentration while playing it.

Yes. but because there are units that can charge from 30 inch away (don't actually think there is any that can do it THAT far but still) where you deploy and what you do with them brings up alot of tactical options. Do you want to go out in the open and risk a potential assault, Do you run for cover and hope that they don't have grenades. Do you pull back and wait in your transports hoping your long range weaponry disable them.

You are basically proving yourself wrong by saying that because people can move far deployment is less important. A small unit blocking 30 inch charges, well that's part of the tactics we use or using transports to zoom in and block off pathways forcing them to go around.

Can you honestly say that a battles where you line up on a field and march straight ahead to beat each other up is more tactical than todays combat where people desperately search for cover, high ground, defensive positions. setting up heavy weapony, avoiding sniper fire. caring about airsupport and avoiding reinforcements from behind the lines watching out for airdropping troops, constantly moving to not remain in the line of fire.

I am not saying that WFB is less tactical than 40k, it probably has it's aspects I haven't played in many many years so I wouldn't know. But the day you can march up to a modern army commander and tell him that his battles are untactical and he should go back to the days of deciding a date, meeting up on a field and blasting the hell out of each other untill one side runs then you have the right to say that W40k lacks tactics.

[Subject Keyword]

*SNORT* HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Sorry, but that just killed my throat, seriously.

Almost makes me miss trading 'crons for Nurgle.

Don't ever regret giving some love to the grandpappy of filth, even if it means less Necrons in the world.
Father Nurgle loves you back in the only way he knows how...
With pus.

[Magos]

Just as long as its not a Slaanesh Nurgle army. There is no anti-biotic for that....

Anyway, I rather enjoy both systems, but I feel that comparing fantasy and 40K tactically, is a terrible idea. It doesnt make any real sense.

Fantasy is FAR mnore unbalanced then 40K...

[Subject Keyword]

Fantasy is FAR more unbalanced then 40K...

Provided that you exclude Space Wolves from the equation, I agree with you completely.

[Bedroom General]

I have bretonnians, Orcs n' gobbo's, and Lizzies in boxes, I'm not inspired to paint 'em. (except for the Brets and thats as a painting project (love knights , haven't painted horses before)

The reason is that with ranked up figures, I don't see the effort that I put in. Only the front rank(s) fight, the rear models get removed before they do anything except add a rank bonus, and I want more from my lil guys than math modifiers. 25 guys, five fight = not worth painting 20 guys, could use five guys and 20 bases. Thats what it feels like for me, and thats my biggest beef with the system, herohammer monstrosities notwithstanding.

I love historical/fantasy stuff, always have, and I know fighting in blocks was historically accurate to some degree, but for value for FIGURE I'd go for 40k any time. I like a game where the lowliest grot can, by himself still be a contributor, even take/ contest an objective. Not likely, but possible.

I like all of my models to have the potential to shine, and with 40k its just more possible.

This can be a little(lot) like arguing about religion (you mean it isn't???) or favourite football teams. Say what you will, but you won't change my mind. Horses for courses I guess.

Of course flagellants and suchlike are fabulous for conversions, and my 'ardboys are all converted black orcs (stick a gun in one hand...jobs a gud 'un) so fantasy does have its uses!:D

[Subject Keyword]

The reason is that with ranked up figures, I don't see the effort that I put in. Only the front rank(s) fight, the rear models get removed before they do anything except add a rank bonus.


You could remove the front five and shove the rest forward, painting every five as a command unit.

I believe the correct phrase here would be "lol."

[Craftworlds_Voice]

Can you honestly say that a battles where you line up on a field and march straight ahead to beat each other up is more tactical than todays combat where people desperately search for cover, high ground, defensive positions. setting up heavy weapony, avoiding sniper fire. caring about airsupport and avoiding reinforcements from behind the lines watching out for airdropping troops, constantly moving to not remain in the line of fire.

You are right, but its something totally different - i'm just comparing our two warhammer games and not the real reality of our XXI century. And i think that the rules do not give an appropriate reflection of all that what You wrote. One of the problems is lack of reaction in the opponents phase.

It's just my personal opinion that fantasy is more tactically deep. And 40k in the opposite more dynamically and fun. That's why i play the first one on tournaments, and the second mainly at home with friends...

[Bedroom General]

Lol indeed Sub/Key lol indeed!! Merry Xmas to all BTW!:)

[Oz56]

Here is the answere in simple stats

1990-2000 decade of Fantasy

2000-2010 decade of 40k

2010-2020 is said to be decade of fantasy (all of the 40k players at the 3 stores that I go to play fantasy as well now exept for a few who just started the hobby);)

[Bigred]

I think the trends go deeper and are cultural in basis.

40K has always been the far more popular system here in the US. Fundamentally America is a culture of the new, the explorer, the unknown. We aren't too keen on our history, and compared to places like Europe we only have 3 centuries of it. Sci fi and all it signifies is a much closer fit to the American psyche.

Europe with its rich cultural tradition and its thousands of years of civilization offers deep connections to things stirred by Fantasy. I had a small glimpse of it when I visited Rome and stood in the Colosseum and thought about how much had occured on that spot...

Its a deep kind of connection that you can't replicate anywhere in America, so instead we focus on making new history to make up for our lack of it.

[mysterex]

I got into 40k via a second hand copy of 1st edition Space Hulk 10 years ago. I had been involved in historical (ancients) 15mm wargaming for a few years before that but had stopped after losing interest.

Although I bought my first figures 40k simply because I felt like painting them, I enjoy 40k because it is a skirmish game. I always felt that moving little rectangles of 20 or so models around a table (and often avoiding terrain) somewhat unrealistic and visually unappealing. Moving "loosely connected" groups of models as in 40k round, over and through terrain just looks more interesting and makes more sense. As a result I doubt I'd ever get into fantasy.

The other thing is that I think there's more of an emphasis on modeling in 40k. If you're not ranking models up you can build more variety into their poses and if a model's not hidden in the middle of a unit I feel there is more of a tendency to put more effort into it.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Madness]

IMHO it's because 40k has a background that while being a mashup of stuff already seen ends up being somewhat unique, fantasy is much closer to the bread and butter high fantasy, with a hint of gothic in the empire area.

[Lord Azaghul]

IMHO it's because 40k has a background that while being a mashup of stuff already seen ends up being somewhat unique, fantasy is much closer to the bread and butter high fantasy, with a hint of gothic in the empire area.

Actually I have always found GW understanding of 'fantasy' to be more of a RA Salvatore style. I have never found GW lore to be as rich and detailed (or glorious and wondrous) as what I define high fantasy. GW seems to prefer scenes of violence and gore to mythos. When I think of high fantasy I think of Tolkien and Eddings. GW fantasy is fine, but it’s not what got me into the games, it was my love of Tolkien. I always felt with GW fantasy that there is a lack of cohesion in the realm. Compare the empire to brittonia, or the empire to chaos, or high elves to empire, or dwarves. I'm referring to stylistly here, there is almost no cohesion - things just don't mess.

So what does that leave the players with - enjoyment of a wargame in the fantasy realm? And now that the game isn't enjoyable for half the armies...well there you go!

I will agree with you on the GW bit. The fluff is much more original, and thanks to a group of very talented writers (not the codex fluff people) the 40k universe is a rich and wondrous place.

For me the fluff is only some what important. I feel compelled to be a good guy, so I choose my armies based upon that first. Then it is what models would I like to paint. So being a history guy, coming from fantasy to 40k, the Imperial Guard drew me in, and later I actually did become hooked on the fluff of the 40k realm, in a way that fantasy fluff failed to do.

[elrodogg]

Lots of things to touch on...

First, regarding popularity. Fantasy in my part of the US, the northeast from DC/PHilly through NYC (me) up to Boston (ick), has a far superior tournament scene. I'm not sure what the percentage of sales or anything like that is, but simply put in most gaming clubs around here it's much easier to find a fantasy player than a 40k player. Basically, in the Northeast US Fantasy is king.

Second, 40k and Fantasy are two different systems (duh). Fantasy is a game based on units where individual non-character troops tend to and aren't supposed to do all that much. The game is played using units of ___. 40k on the other hand is squad type game, where each specific trooper has a role to do and thus each model is used independently. Both are very good systems, it's really a matter of what you want your army to do.

Third, regarding painting. Whomever it was that said they didn't like painting the back 20 in a squad of 25, well you should do scenic inserts. Instead of painting 25 troopers, paint 16 and then to a 3x3 scenic insert into the middle of the unit. Example: 25 Orc boyz carry in the middle of their unit a big effigy of gork. Or 25 dark elves who carry a slave princess in a cage. The modeling opportunities are there for you to whatever it is you like.

Fourth, regarding tactics. 5th edition is the best edition of 40k yet. It finally is on par with fantasy in terms of tactical gaming. People don't like the movement restrictions in fantasy, well that's part of the game. Controlling movement is a tactic which has to be countered. The same as for 40k, positioning vehicles / units to stop drop pods from landing in a given area. Controlling movement / space is an important tactic of the game. A personal distaste for one aspect of a game is just that (though true line of sight is epic-ly bad for 40k).

Last, about me. I have 5 fantasy armies (Empire (personal fave), Warrior of Chaos, Dark Elves, Tomb King and Vampires) and 2 40k armies (CSM and Tau). I genuinely hate the current CSM codex, and I don't mind my tau (uphill battles can be fun i guess). I spend most of my time playing fantasy, so I truly don't understand the loathing of fantasy (especially the outright ban). People argue that it's unbalanced, well play in a comp-d tournament environment and you'll see that it isn't as bad as you think. If you play in a friendly environment, then simply don't take the broken lists. If all else fails, then just ban demons.

[Old_Paladin]

The question shouldn't be why is 40K more popular, but rather why are space marines more popular?
40k is popular because Space Marines makes up 50% of all GW sales (that's half of the sales of all 40k, fantasy, LotR's and Specialst games combined; coming from one army).

I personally don't think there's any problem with the Fantasy world (even though it does take heavily from Tolken). If you look through european history you do have cultures that "just don't mesh" living in close proximity [the greeks and egyptians, the greeks and the Persians, the romans and the goth/visagoths/huns/celts, the spanish and the moors].
It's not hard to believe that a gothic english/germanic culture would live next to a 'romantic' french culture with southern renesance italian societies near that; with egytian and arab cultures across a small sea and barbarians to the north, south and east.

The reason I like 40k more is that, from a purely gaming aspect, it's a cheaper game to get into (at least with several armies) and maintain. With 40k you simply need less guys on the field (20 tact marines or necrons is nearly 400 points), in fantasy every army needs to take several large blocks of troops (and with many box sets only having 10 models a box you have to buy at least 6-8 of them).

@Elrodogg:
Thats part of the problem people have with fantasy. That you call it a game about 'units' but it really comes done to HeroHammer. Why do I have to buy 100+ guys when it's ALWAYS the supercombat tooled lord that does all the work. I actually dislike that 40k has also begun to fall back to the HeroHammer mentality of 2nd Ed; where one character costs 200-400 points and has several super abilities.
I also the the seeming ignorance of fantasy players; you say the game isn't unbalanced, but only when it's played in an environment that has major restrictions. The clue is that if you need a system of reblancing (ie. significant comp'ing or points adjustments [like they do in Austrialia] or you cannot take 'broken lists' against friends or you need to ban an army) then things are broken and unbalanced.
What is the only unit that people say is totally broken in 40K, bikerNobs (and maybe thunderwolves, and th/ss termies and a few of the new nids). Those units cost huge amounts of points bikernobs cost at least 800+ points. I find it hard to say it's a broken element when it's half the army and can be easily killed by 300 points of leman russes/vindicators.

[MVBrandt]

You know, caveat that I haven't been through the whole thread yet, so if I'm repeating anyone ... my b.


There's a couple of reasons I think that 40k is more popular than Fantasy, and each is probably "enough" in its own right, which makes all of them together a true landslide.

First off, gameplay and balance ...

Gameplay in 40k is both simpler and more complex. In terms of simplicity, the uniformity of movement distances and the quicker solution to armor saves and other things generally makes 40k a simpler game to learn. There's also one less "phase" to have to plan for. In terms of mastery, without saying that 40k is "harder" to master (to avoid that hornet's nest), there is an important difference in terms of tactical depth and the ability to make balance issues less of a factor in terms of movement.

In 40k, it is FAR more difficult to limit your opponent's "avenues of escape." That is to say, that no matter where your units are or what they are doing, your opponent's units can move away, in whatever direction they would like. While this is less rewarding to the superior opponent in terms of being able to "maneuver" your opponent's units into a place where they have literally no legal route of escape, it presents an issue where there's a limit to how tactically deep movement can go. I enjoy the fact that in games of 40k I have to work far harder to put an equally skilled opponent with an arguably less powerful codex in a position from which he literally has no avenues of escape. For me, 40k has a far higher *tactical* ceiling than fantasy, though it also has a far LOWER one ... that is to say, that between very average minds a game of 40k is going to basically be simple movements and target prioritizations, whereas the average fantasy game will probably be more complex than that.

The sum of the above point is that it is far easier to "break into" 40k on a gameplay level, and for skill as an art players the argument can be made that there's a higher ceiling to reach for as well. Note please that it is not important to my point to "prove" that 40k has a higher ceiling. Once you are IN the game, if you are a highly skilled and intelligent player, you can BELIEVE the above argument, and that's all that's required ... I fully acknowledge that it's opinion. The point is that there's sufficient "stuff" there to make the above argument and believe it that a player who enjoys 40k after its easy entry is not going to find himself running into the wall of "well I've mastered all there is to master, this game is simple," unless he just sucks at 40k (sorry to those of you who were thinking that, you do).

Fluff is the secondary level of interest, and again this is just opinion, but I think of it as "believeable opinion," which is important. If you start with the premise that it is easier to break into 40k from a gameplay perspective and understanding perspective, if the fluff/skillcaps/etc. can be believed by you the player as more fascinating or interesting, you're far less likely to switch over to the more difficult entry-skill of fantasy.

In 40k, everything is happening on a galactic scale, and everything is 5 minutes to midnight. The Tyranid have arrived and they are the word for word END OF ALL LIFE IN THE GALAXY, nothing will be left, and chaos will fail to boot when all of its worshippers are turned into bio-sludge doggy biscuits. Any speck of biological life that remains will eventually grow up to be big, strong, intellect-ridden and ... tasty food for the C'Tan. Wonderful. If somehow the Tyranid are stopped via some crazy deus ex machina, well congrats Chaos wins the day and the galaxy becomes the plaything of ... well, you know, chaosy stuff.

What makes it all even cooler is that every race has - however small - a speck of hope in the form of a crazy universe-saving deus ex machina of its own ... the Imperium has the Emperor, yatta yatta. Except the Tau. Those soulless test tube mother****ers are just the whipping boys of a galaxy that's way bigger than they anticipated. Whatever.

The point is, in the Warhammer world, the very WORST that can happen is Chaos floods the world and consumes it, killing all the little players ... annnnnd so who cares? In 40k that's just another day in the life of an Inquisitor. Oh look, a new undiscovered planet to be brought into compliance! Wait, it's been overrun by chaos? *Pushes red button*

No matter how cool and fantastic the individual stories of the Fantasy world are, it's just another speck in the universe awaiting a red button from a passing inquisitor, or the predations of some raiding dark eldar, or you know, whatever. There are plenty of heroic individualistic galaxy-shaking stories in 40k, but there's also the setting itself. Fantasy's individualistic or army-istic or w/e stories are pedestrian by setting, no matter how heroic by myopy.

Flame me if you wish, I'm not trying to dish on the fantasy lovers out there ... I enjoy the settings and rules of fantasy myself as much as the enxt average joe, I just think that taken from the perspective of detachment you get what you get ... 40k is a simpler game to understand, and has plenty of depth and a decently high skill ceiling, so it's not going to see a lot of people bail on it after 3 months or anything ... and the setting is just plain broader than the fantasy one ... the bigger the tapestry, the longer the imagination takes filling it up.

$.02 at best, but free for the intarweb

[Lord Azaghul]

The question shouldn't be why is 40K more popular, but rather why are space marines more popular?
40k is popular because Space Marines makes up 50% of all GW sales (that's half of the sales of all 40k, fantasy, LotR's and Specialst games combined; coming from one army).
).

I think the space marine is the idea futuristic warrior that appeals to the little boy in all of us! And of course it appeals to little boys as well.

Currently my only 40k army is IG. However there is just something awesome looking about spacemarines. I'm already planning my 2nd army: Crimson Fist!
Why, because they look cool, and I want a reason to buy/paint a couple of drop pods!

Cohesion/close proxcemity stuff: When I look at the GW world map, and the respective races and cultures I just don't feel many of them makes sense, either individually or interacting. The one that bothers be most: Brittonia/ Empire. They sit right next to each other. One is stuck in 12 century and the other the 17th century! Shouldn't there be a little bit of cross over? Wouldn't brittonia be interested is some of those nice armour piercing guns? Stuff like this I mainly why I just ignore gw fantasy fluff. I just don't find it appealing.

But - base line: its just a game, suspension of disbelief is required - I do (did) enjoy the game itself (I'm holding out for 8th ed)

[Duke]

The main reason I don't like Fantasy as much is because of the way movement works....I can't stand it! move, wheel, move, wheel...oh wait I didn't want to do it that way... can I go back? wheel, move, wheel move... Grrr.

I wish the movement was something more like "Move 12 inches," and rotate as many times as possible as long as no part of the base is outside of the 12 inch move." Much like War of the ring does it.

Duke

[david5th]

The main reason i play 40K is simply that i am a Sci-Fi fan and not a fantasy fan. In 40k you have an entire galaxy to explore/conquer while fantasy it's one planet.

Tried to play fantasy but did not like to movement phase + other minor irritations.

Always prefered Guns to wands, psykers to sorcerers, tanks to dragons..erm did i mention guns?

[elrodogg]

Thats part of the problem people have with fantasy. That you call it a game about 'units' but it really comes done to HeroHammer. Why do I have to buy 100+ guys when it's ALWAYS the supercombat tooled lord that does all the work. I actually dislike that 40k has also begun to fall back to the HeroHammer mentality of 2nd Ed; where one character costs 200-400 points and has several super abilities.

I actually have to disagree with you. Many players do extraordinarily well with fewer characters. I regularly win games using just a single Lvl 4 mage and a bsb, as compared to the full compliment of characters. The game isn't hero-hammer, but some players do field it that way. I find that the better players routinely win games with units and not characters. Then again there is the argument that an ancient lord of blah blah riding his dragon of blah blah should be able to decimate whole armies at will because he is riding a frikken dragon. lol.


I also the the seeming ignorance of fantasy players; you say the game isn't unbalanced, but only when it's played in an environment that has major restrictions. The clue is that if you need a system of reblancing (ie. significant comp'ing or points adjustments [like they do in Austrialia] or you cannot take 'broken lists' against friends or you need to ban an army) then things are broken and unbalanced.

Maybe there is a fundamental difference, but I have no problems with a game system being unbalanced (apart from Demons, but GW really did screw the pooch on that one). The comp thing is really just for tournament settings, and has been approved in some manner or form by virtually the entire gaming community. It's really just a different way of looking at the game is all.


What is the only unit that people say is totally broken in 40K, bikerNobs (and maybe thunderwolves, and th/ss termies and a few of the new nids). Those units cost huge amounts of points bikernobs cost at least 800+ points. I find it hard to say it's a broken element when it's half the army and can be easily killed by 300 points of leman russes/vindicators.

hahaha.. bikers and t-wolves and termies and nids? that's 4+ units and from each of the last 4 to be released (i know some folks who would say the same for ig psker squads). Look, everything in fantasy can be dealt with through a variety of means also. Magic, cannons, bolt throwers, redirectors, etc. Fantasy breaks down primarily due to one or two units in one or two armies, but that's really it. The only genuine thing most good fantasy players complain about are demons as a whole and the abomination in skaven.

The point is is that there isn't a real answer as the games are fundamentally different. It's like comparing monopoly to risk and complaining that you don't like the movement rules in monopoly. Unit based and squad based games ARE inherently different.

Besides, what it really comes down to is what you like to paint. And on that note, I am off to use my dark elves. good day!

[elrodogg]

The main reason I don't like Fantasy as much is because of the way movement works....I can't stand it! move, wheel, move, wheel...oh wait I didn't want to do it that way... can I go back? wheel, move, wheel move... Grrr.

I wish the movement was something more like "Move 12 inches," and rotate as many times as possible as long as no part of the base is outside of the 12 inch move." Much like War of the ring does it.

Duke

Play wood elves.

[Duke]

That is what everyone is beginning to tell me... Sadly though I have a lot of WoC.

Duke

[Lord Azaghul]

Play wood elves.

I won't. After what gw just did to beastmen, and WE are supposed to be there rivals I'll bet that skirmish my drop out of alot of WE units as well.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I prefer 40k because it has minor-races and a wider variety of monsters and creatures that appeal to my taste.

Fantasy doesnt really have stuff like say..enslavers, umbra, thyrrus, saruthi ect.. I like most the official 40k armies too..

Fantasy has only 2factions that appeal to me, chaos dwarfs (yes the ones with big hats) and Tomb Kings (which look pretty dated now to me) maybe if one or both get a decent update id start fantasy though..

[Old_Paladin]

I actually have to disagree with you. Many players do extraordinarily well with fewer characters. I regularly win games using just a single Lvl 4 mage and a bsb, as compared to the full compliment of characters. The game isn't hero-hammer, but some players do field it that way. I find that the better players routinely win games with units and not characters. Then again there is the argument that an ancient lord of blah blah riding his dragon of blah blah should be able to decimate whole armies at will because he is riding a frikken dragon. lol.
This just kinda proved my point.
'Herohammer' isn't about filling out your character slots, it's about having very powerful individuals (ie. tooled up lords). You take a level 4 mage; if you don't feed into herohammer school, why not take 2 lvl 2's? It's because lord levels are so much better. Your mage is more likely to get the spells you want, and more importantly get off the spells you want/need. They're a factor multiplier. Going from a 1850 (with only hero's) to 2000+ (with a lord and possibly powerful mount) makes it like playing two different kinds of games.
40K doesn't really have that.



Maybe there is a fundamental difference, but I have no problems with a game system being unbalanced (apart from Demons, but GW really did screw the pooch on that one).
Thats a big difference. Before you said that there was no imbalance. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean other people aren't affected and do care.


Fantasy breaks down primarily due to one or two units in one or two armies, but that's really it. The only genuine thing most good fantasy players complain about are demons as a whole and the abomination in skaven.
and hydras, dark elf magic, the ring of Hotek... and vampire counts...

Both systems have the 'new edition syndrome' All the newest books in 40k contain some new superpowered unit(s). But they all do. All the codexes from Ork's to Nid's are generally better then the older books. But at least all the 5th ed books are about equal to each other.
Fantasy kind of has that, but it still bounces all over the place.
Lizardmen and Warriors of Chaos seem really balanced (if still on the creep trend), High Elves have their one bothersome trick; dark elves and vampires are very powerful; and Daemons are just nuts.
We'll see how beasts end up; but they're looking more like dark elves and vampire tier, then lizards and warriors.


But this aside; this is an internal issue. It's something that the veterns discuss. If you're newer to the game you don't know which is more powerful; you go after the system and army that is most visually and fluffally(?) appealing to you.
I don't think power balance actually has anything to do with what is most popular. If you're a lifer you're going to stick with you're army through think and thin [all the blood angel players are finally being vindicated; and we all know about those 3 dark eldar players that continue to slug it out] (although most long time players also have at least a couple of armies they can go back and forth between...).

[OCdt Mephiston]

My take on WHFB Vs. 40k comes down to this:

In both systems you lead troops decked out in fantastic armour into glorious battle, ready to hack and cleave the enemy. But only in 40k do you have the additional aspect of rumbling tanks, unimaginable technology and furious firefights. Fact is, that guy walking into the GW store for the first time sees a bunch of empire knights, but then walks three paces and sees a bunch of imperial SPACE knights, with big f@$k off guns and frankly, for most battle glorifying men, that box of black templar sword bretheren is going to be much more appealing. The point I suppose is this, on the fluffy side of things, 40k is a shinier more expansive fantasy battles and to the casually interested gamer, this is usually the first choice.

[eldargal]

In my experience 40k is more popular because it has a smaller learning curve* and provides more initial gratification*. Tanks do have more of a visual impact on new players, too. These are not bad things. Fantasy seems to daunt newer players, and even some more experienced players. It can also come accross as far more rigid, what with the blocks of ranked troops. Most new players in my group start with 40k and move onto Fantasy. A few stick with 40k and some start with fantasy and move into 40k



*I am not saying that 40k is more simplistic than Fantasy.

[Vorlon]

I prefer 40k because I am so burnt out with the entire fantasy genre. After playing D&D, everquest 1, DAoC, WoW, Everquest 2, and more D&D I needed a change of scenery. Both 40k and Fantasy have rich universes with good player bases but in the end if I am give the choice of A. Fight the dragon with a magic sword or B. Fight the alien with the assault rifle.... Assault Rifle wins every time!

[elrodogg]

@ Old paladin - Beastmen certainly aren't in that top tier bracket. In fact alot of people think the new book is actually weaker than the previous ones. They are much more susceptible to psychology in the new book and have less armor. I haven't had a chance to properly read it myself though. Plus the models are awful. The new minotaurs look like they've been pumping roids since they were calves. the razorgor is a joke. It amazes me that the same company produced both nids and beasts.

I do agree with you that for most people the visual appeal of 40k is greater. It's a fantastic game now too, wanna buy 4000ish points of chaos marines?

[pgarfunkle]

Since before my little break with the hobby I've always been into 40k rather than fantasy. I've occasionally thought about starting up a lizardman army. Then I think about my three 40k armies and the fact that I'd need to learn another rule set and can't be bothered lol

[archimbald]

for me it was the amount of minis i had to paint
i started tomb kings as my first army, and dont get me wrong, they look great as an army, but combined with no-one i know playing wfb and the amount of minis needed to get a decent sized army, i didn't feel it was worth time money etc, whereas with 40k, its reasonably easy to get a good sized army together with nowhere near as many minis. plus the gaming system i feal is easier and less focused on specifics, eg charging angles, tho i do like the idea of hurge units charging


whoohooo go 6x20 strong units korne beserkers

[Col_Festus]

Ahh.. so the old fantasy vs 40k beast rears its ugly head yet again! Here is my rundown on both game systems and why I think 40k is more popular right now (notice I didn't say better because thats a matter of opinion!).

Fantasy for one has a terrible learning curve. Prepared to get pounding into the dirt 9 times out of 10 when you first start out. Better yet prepare for that and like it at the same time. It's movement rules can be some what slow (at first) and yet are a crucial aspect of the game, right down to where you hero is standing in the line up.

For me psychology in fantasy is terribly fickle. It will make or break your best laid plans. Period. Unless your immune.. but that's a whole other topic which I will get to. But in Fantasy most of the time your plans always come down to one crucial roll, and if you make it your standing tall, if you fail your in trouble. I don't care for such a swing in a system. You can be doing everything right, roll bad and end up losing an entire regiment including characters off a botched leadership check. I'm not saying this is impossible in 40k, I'm just saying it happens more often in fantasy.

Enter Army Book balance. Some Army Books ignore entire parts of the core rules for better or worse. A good example is shooting. Some armies have a ton, some have none. Say your fighting an army who has a weakness to massed shooting, but can't bring shooting to the table, even if you wanted to. Well you are at a big disadvantage before you even place your minis down. A very rock-paper-scissors match up. Once again something I don't like in a system. I believe this to be a fault of the army books not the core rules however. Psyc is also a great example. When its so crucial to the game systems, and you have armies that flat out ignore it, your going to have issues.

Most army books are very unidimsensional as well. They basically have a few or one strong build that most people tweak slightly (if they know what they are doing). I think this is mainly because there is one objective in fantasy. That is to kill your enemy. period. There is hope though, if you take a look at the lizzies and skaven army books there are multiple builds that work. Lets keep our fingers crossed that this is a sign of things to come.

40k in retrospect is very easy to learn. You just have to know how to measure and roll some dice (and a bit of math). This however doesn't mean its by any means more simple, in fact I think 40k is much harder to master. In Fantasy its an issue of static CR with some swing thrown in. For 40k its nothing but swing. You have to compare statistical analysis on the fly instead of being able to somewhat accurately judge the outcome of a fight based off of static CR.

The other big thing that 40k has going for it is the missions. Objective missions just make things so much more interesting than I kill you, you kill me, for me anyway. I'm hoping with 8th on the horizon we will see a shift to this style of play as its proven so balanced in 40k (with few exceptions).

Also codecies in 40k for the most part are very balanced (there are a few exceptions... like necrons.). There are numerous builds for Marines, IG, nids, SWs, and Orks that are very strong. They can all be taken to a tourny and have a good chance at winning. This to me is the sign of a good book, and one that will stand the test of time.

That being said I think fantasy is a great game, but for other reasons than whats stated. With 8th edition looming and some of the fantastic rule changes I'm hearing, I have a feeling you will see a surge in Fantasy popularity!

[Lerra]

I started with Chaos Daemons, and the idea was to base them so that I could play in both systems. I played one game of 40k and one game of fantasy. The 40k game was all about the cool stuff I could do. The Fantasy game was about all of the cool stuff that I wanted to do, but couldn't. Also, I was informed that playing fantasy as chaos daemons makes me a douche. I haven't played a second game of WHFB and haven't looked back ;)

[auspexRex]

There are plenty of orcs and elves fantasy games out there, but relatively few orcs and elves IN SPACE! games. I think the fluff for 40k is slightly more interesting and a bit darker too.

I think a lot of folks simply don't want to play games where your armies are mostly blocked together in rank and file. I know it's sensible and a bit realistic, but it doesn't strike me as fun really. I dig it for Warmaster and other smaller scale games, but at 25mm and higher, I want my troops to have some more freedom of movement. I hate the idea that in Fantasy, your units are almost like a single combatant with hit points = the number of soldiers. I know it's not that simplistic, but I still don't like it as much. Also, for whatever reason, I just love circular bases over square bases. I love the Fantasy range of miniatures and I even think Fantasy is an OK game, just not as interesting to me personally as 40k, from a rules perspective at least.

[RocketRollRebel]

Yeah some of my friends at my new store here play WHFB exclusively and I've tried very hard to get into it but I just cant. Kinda sucks. Wish I could tho. 40k is just a lot more fun to me. The fluff is more unique too for sure.

[doublek666]

I stumbled upon WHFB over 20 years ago, because of the cool models and the amount needed, big massed squads and crazy warmachines, etc. WH40K came out soon after and was a pretty young game, not as many models/armies out yet, etc. Though it looked promising I didn't get into 40k until 4th edition(besides SPACE HULK). I think Lord of the Rings has diluted the player pool into that aspect of the hobby. Also over the last 5-6 years of growth and maturity, expansions, and a rich ,evolving historyand the customizable aspects of the armies has turned 40k into the most popular tabletop game out there. Plus SPACE MARINES! WHFB needs it's own "SPACE MARINES". An very customizable army, gaming, fluff and hooby wise. and like the guy said GUNS!!!!!! Kids love guns, and young peolpe drive many entertainment industries.

[Force21]

Warhammer = Flintlocks, Swords, Dragons, Magic. = Awesome.


Warhammer 40k = Boltguns, Chain Swords, Mighty God Machines of War, The F&$#ING WARP DEMONS THAT TRY TO EAT YOUR BRAIN WHEN YOU USE PSYCHIC STUFF!!! = OMG THAT IS F&$#ING AWESOME


It is sad...but true...


I like both Warhammer & 40k but I can only afford one.... so....Imperial Guard & Grey Knights FTW.

[Daemonette666]

Aloha everyone!

Since I'm more of a painter and teacher and not much of a gamer, I've got a question I've been wondering since I WAS a gamer 10 to 15 years ago.

Why is 40K a more popular game than Warhammer Fantasy? I'm not saying that one is "better" than the other, I'm just curious as to the popularity.

I'm serious about this now, so please don't just answer with something like, "cause fantasy sucks and 40k rules"...that doesn't help anyone.

I've got a couple of theories, but I'd like to see what you guys come up with as well.

Here are my ideas:

1) Fantasy, from what I've heard is a more complex game that requires a lot more thinking and a lot more strategy. Additionally, it takes longer to play. Therefore, 40k is more popular because new players can more quickly pick up the game than they can fantasy.

2) 40K is more popular because as people come into game shops, they see people playing 40K. They then ask if anyone plays fantasy, and most of the people there playing 40K say "no", so they figure that if they want to have someone to play with, they need to play 40k as well. Then, the cycle continues as more and more players come into the local game stores.

I'm leaning towards theory 2. When I first got into the hobby, I picked up several Fantasy boxed sets (back when they were only $12.50 for a box of 8 figures) and when I got to the register, the guy behind the counter told me that more people played 40k and if I wanted to have some people to play with, even though I liked the fantasy figures better, I should look into getting some 40k stuff instead.

Anyway, if you have any other theories, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks in advance!
I actually started palying in other gaming systems non GW before moving over to Fantasy 1st edition, then 40K rogue trader. For me Fantasy was more enjoyable than 40K back then. I got out of everything GW back in 1995, sold or swapped 2500 40K minis + vehicles, 4000 fantasy mi nis, and 15000 Epic Spaace Marine minis, even my blood bowl.

I went full time into Battletech, my first and most favourite game. I only started to play 40K miniatures/vehicles back in early 2006, when a mate of mine, who I still think is based at 1st Combat Engineer Regiment in Darwin showed me 4th edition 40K. I held out buying any 40K minis for myself using his, and playing Battletech with him as well.

When I got transferred to the 17th Signals Regiment as a Comms Rigger in Sydney, and had more money than I needed. I had no-one to play Battletech for about 1 year, as I lost contact with my old friends who I played against years ago. In frustration I went and started collecting 40K chaos space marines - Dec 2006. I loved the Noise Marines, just because they were not standard, and so bright.

I did not get back into fantasy until the Chaos Daemons were released, and the local GW shop guy said I could use them on nights when no one brought in any 40K, and I could also use them for 40K. I have only played 2 games of Fantasy - 7th edition, and none using the 8th ed. 40K is great for me because I can use my Infantry/ combined arms tactics for platoon, squad and company level tactics, that I used to be taught while I was in the Australian Regular Army.

I still am a history buff, just not a fantasty player as much any more.

In my local GW shop, most of the players play both games, with some players having 3 or 4 armies for each gaming system. War of the ring and lord of the rings have not been as popular with the local gamers though. I miss Epic Space marine. That should be made back into a main stream game.

This is my army I had collected by Sep 2009. It has grown a fair bit since then though.

http://i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy251/Daemonette666/40KCollectionSep2009.jpg

I'll get them all painted one day.

[Aldramelech]

Threadromancy! Poor show.......

[Brettila]

I grew up in rural Wyoming. The only gaming option was role playing. When I moved after college I discovered that all the new guys I met played this game callked 40K. I decided that if I was going to keep gaming, I would have to give it a try. The rest is history. 15 years, goodness knows how many armies, etc.

I have to agree with what many have said. Our euphemism for playing 40K is, "Let's blow stuff up." Tanks, guns, and menacing troops like terminators seem to appeal to people. And pure and simply, WFB is waaaaayyyyyy more expensive than 40K. For a couple hundred dollars you can field a reasonable starter army. For the same amount of money you might have 2 blocks of infantry in WFB. Infantry that can be run off the table in 2 turns by some ri-freaking-diculous character O doom.

Another issue is the look. With the terrain, spaced models, vehicles, and fast play, 40K probably looks more appealing to the casual observer than a game with very little terrain, movement trays, and guys all squished together in what would appear to said observer as quite static.

I know the difference, but they don't.

[eldargal]

Not so much anymore, thanks to 8th.;)


And pure and simply, WFB is waaaaayyyyyy more expensive than 40K. For a couple hundred dollars you can field a reasonable starter army. For the same amount of money you might have 2 blocks of infantry in WFB. Infantry that can be run off the table in 2 turns by some ri-freaking-diculous character O doom.