Is it just me or is 40K inferior to Fantasy in every way?
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Yeasir [ Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  Is it just me or is 40K inferior to Fantasy in every way?

I am a Fantasy player who has recently gotten into 40K with his playgroup for a change of pace. I have spent hundreds of dollars building up Space Wolves (~2500 points) and now Black Templars (~1500 points) and am very frustrated with the format.

I didn't really play before 6th ed, so I really have nothing to compare this edition to, but I feel the shooting phase is the only relevent phase in the game. Most of the games I play (vs. Dark Eldar, Daemons, Orks, Grey Knights, etc.) the game usually ends by turn 3 and is won by whoever goes first.

Maybe I haven't given 40K enough of a chance (I probably only have about 20 games under my belt) but it just doesn't seem as strategic or fun. The movement phase is far less relevant in 40k compared to fantasy and the goal seems to be either "shoot them before they get to you" or "get there befoer they shoot you off the board". The shooting phase is overpowered. One Lascannon shot can blow up a 250 point Crusader; every army has access to 100 AP2 shots per turn, etc.

Currently, I run a gunline list where I place a predator annihilator, two vindicators and 3 Las-Plas Rhino squads behind an Aegis defense line. If I go first they're in trouble and if they go first I usually am.

If anyone disagrees with my initial assesment, please tell me how I can adapt to this shooty, no strategy craziness.


Author:  Demetrius [ Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 

Everyone is different when it comes to preferences of gaming systems. But I am like you, I much prefer Fantasy over 40k, even though Ive been playing 40k for longer. Fantasy is my primary gaming system which I go to lots of tournaments, but 40k is more a casual game for me (6th edition and new Chaos codex has definitely re-inspired me though).

I started 40k in 4th, and I can say I really think 6th edition is the best of the three editions Ive played in. Its a lot more balanced IMO, even though Shooting has gotten stronger and Close Combat has been nerfed. I think this is a good thing because it is the 41st millenium, armies should be shooting at eachother instead of going staight for combat every game like in 4th.

Stick at it, if nothing else 40k is a fun shits and giggles game you can shoot lasers and stuff at the enemy.

Author:  Omnichron [ Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

40k is about shooting stuff and killing it before you get killed.... oh, and getting good terrain pieces for cover/hard cover.

I started out in 2nd edition of 40k, and I think (Even though I don't remember those days as well) that the game was more strategic back then than now. I think they based the 40k rules on the original fantasy rule back then (Again, I might be wrong), and so there were more complex rules that got simplified or just cut out during the editions.

I played a bit of 40k in 5th edition, and while I thought it was quite fun, it doesn't feel as rewarding as playing a game of fantasy... 40k is for easy fun, fantasy for more strategic fun and tournaments.

I guess the biggest reason for me enjoying 40k is the miniatures as well as the rather brutal fluff. It's a lot of fun RP'ing with Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader :)

Author:  Ghostface killah [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Before you judge it, you need to be doing the following:

1) Using D3 pieces of terrain per 2 by 2 of the board like is recommended in the rulebook. That averages 12 pieces of terrain on a standard 6 by 4 board. Shooting and 1st turn become a lot weaker with this.

2) Playing the scenarios from the rulebook. Having to move and capture objectives makes gun-lines less powerful and the game more tactical.

3) Play at the very minimum 1500pts. 1750 or more is better. The game becomes a matter of paper scissor rock with less units on the table.

Doing the above is how the game was designed to be played.

At the end of the day both Fanatasy and 40k are designed to be beer and pretzel casual games. For a proper game play Warmachine.

Author:  Omnichron [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Played 40k that way, still a lot more simplified and less about tactics than fantasy.

What makes Warmachine a "proper" game?

Author:  Setomidor [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

For once in a hundred threads I don't fully agree, Omnichron. :)

I think there are tactics in both games, but in different parts of the game. Fantasy is actually to a large extent about movement and deployment (which is actually also movement). Experienced players usually try to set up fights where only truly abysmal dice will mean that your units lose, and magic/shooting is often used to stack the odds in your favour.

I my opinion, 40k is more about threat analysis and target priority. Here, every model shoots and you have to make sure to set up good fire-lanes to have your "rock" shoot at his "scissors", without being assaulted or shot down by his "paper" in turn. List construction is also even more important in 40k than in Fantasy, to ensure that you have at least something to counter the most extreme builds that you might encounter.

My favourite "proper" game of all time is actually Blood Bowl. I've played it for 15 years and never had a rules dispute!

Author:  Omnichron [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

I guess we have to agree to disagree Setomidor. :)

Even though I can see your points, the 40k is much less about strategic movement and combat imo. It's a lot more dumbed down over the years, to the point where it's mostly about moving within reach and peppering down a unit before he can do that to you. I don't dislike 40k in any ways, it's just that it's more about the list and getting the first turn to win.

There is one thing I actually hate about 40k though, and that is the fact that half of the players are space marines of some kind. It's a natural reason for that though, GW always update them several times before any other army get any update, and they make them very powerful.

Author:  xFallenx [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

HaHa Omni, funny you say that. I just started a 40K army, last weekend in fact.
I searched for a competitive army that had the fewest models, guess what came up?

After reading through the multitude of Codices I decided on the grey knights as they can field an Inquisitor force(lots of painting, but I love the idea), as well as pure GK SM force. The amount of flexibility really appeals to me.

I’ve also never played a ‘good’ type army, although the inquisition may press those boundaries, which was my second requirement. I was an O’n’G player for the first three years before being converted by the saucy WE models. Been collecting them ever since.

Author:  Brad [ Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't think 40k and fantasy can be directly compared, as - superficial similarities aside - they are different games in totally different genres.

Author:  Ghostface killah [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 

Omnichron wrote:

What makes Warmachine a "proper" game?

There is no true line of sight, everything has a set height and occupies the area of the base.

The factions and units are balanced. There are strong and weak units but not to the extreme degree of GW games.

The rules are written 100% black and white. Rules query's pretty much never come up unlike in GW where they come up all the time.

The books are written by people who actually play the game and are good at the game. Not like Gervais Johnson saying "we never noticed dwellers below to be that powerful a spell..."

The company supports the tournament scene and tweaks the tournament scenarios on a annual basis based on player feedback.

Players win tournaments not armys, unlike GW games. I know top GW tournament players who say 'I only play at tournaments'. The idea of playing a warmachine game only at a tournament with zero practice games and doing well is absurd. The game has too much depth and requires too much skill.

I cant even play fantasy now and I only do 40k because I enjoy painting up the armys. Playing warmachine is like being introduced Behotovan, you simply cant bear to listen to Justin Bieber and the Spice Girls anymore.

Author:  Omnichron [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:09 am ]
Post subject: 

@xFallenx: Yeah, it's almost only space marines in the 40k tournaments I've seen around here. It's a bit sad to be honest, but the more unique it'd be if I played with my dark eldar... except that I'd have to make it a space marine killer army.

@GHOSTFACE KILLAH: Some valid points... GW does a shoddy work about the rules and messes up balance within the armies as well as the units several times. You can easily see what they try to sell the most of each edition as they make the point cost too low on some units compared to others.

However, I disagree that it's the armies and not the players that wins the tournament. Sure, some armies are not balanced well (Like dark elves and daemons), but there's a reason it's mostly the same players who are on the top 10 in the tournaments I go to even while they change what armies they play with.

Also, most tournaments have their own set of tournament rules with restrictions or adjustments (So there's almost never any true line of sight in the tournaments I join).

I might have to have a look at warmachine though.

Author:  Tzelok [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 


I started playing warmachine/hordes about 3 years ago as Skorne. While I agree that Privateer is overall the better company who treats its player-base with a lot more respect there is something to be said about the primary difference between the games. I don't think its fair to say warmachine is "more" tactical/strategic of a game due to the way that activations work. If I want something to happen, I can dedicate resources one unit at a time and stop without over committing. Compare that to fantasy, where you have to plan entire phases and it paints a very different strategic picture.

Warmachine is a great game but in my gaming group it is the "skirmish" game for when we don't have enough time to dedicate to a nice solid 3k game of fantasy.

Author:  Red... [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

Any and all games have their problems.

Warmachine is an excellent game, with significant pros and cons.


Thought-provoking tactical game supported by in-depth rules that encourage and reward deep thinking and synergistic playstyles.

Strong fluff that fits well with the models in the game.

The factions have lots of balance (although personally I still hold that Menoth is OP) and lots of variants and choice.


"Your model did what now?" "Oh, I didn't realise you could do that" "Well, because I hadn't read or fully understood that one special rule buried deep down on one of your cards (which have tons of other special rules on them too), I lost. Well, that was fun". Special rules have their place, but Warmachine has just too many (even with Mk2 being much better than Mk1 about that), and it can ruin games sometimes. The best games occur when you know your opponent's army well, because otherwise you face a decent possibility of losing because you didn't realise he could do something that he just did, and that's not really ideal.

Also, it's a tactics game, not strategy. It's a very good tactics game, but sometimes it's nice to play strategy.

Some choices are indeed much better than others, and some are indeed much worse. Take Cygnar, for example. Captain Caine is very OP (to the point where I never field him because I like having opponents), whereas taking a full unit of Trenchers with unit attachment is a terrible choice (13 points for a middle of the road unit that does nothing well).

Bit of a rock/paper/scissor risk with some games. If I bring a Defender and some long gunners to a game against a couple of Menoth Warjacks supported by a Choir, I may as well surrender before unpacking my bag (choir blessings can make Menoth Warjacks immune to non-magical shooting).

Lack of real personalisation options (your warcaster will be a named character from the fluff. You have no option to customize your own character, it must be one of the special characters listed. Bit of a shame that.

Finally, it is a game that relies on the guess range mechanic very highly. That harks back a bit too what made 7th ed weak - there's nothing more annoying than having a game outcome revolve around whether or not you estimated that 9" charge correctly (and nothing more petty feeling than having a long argument about whether that's 9" between the two models or 9.25").

Author:  Murphy'sLawyer [ Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is it just me or is 40K inferior to Fantasy in every way

Started with Warmachine (when it first came out.) and have now finally sold the last of it.

The game is simple to figure out once you know what to do. Kill the Caster/Warlock. That is it in a nutshell, it is an asassination game. Sure there are Scenarios but in over the ten years I played every game ended in an assassination. 85% of the models available are considered underpar and if you use them you are handycapping yourself. So only 15% of the models out there ever get used becuase the power curve is HUGE!

Getting your Caster killed top of turn 2 15 minutes after you started is totally lossible, even if you play defensively. Many players play predesigned web lists that win tournaments and are as fun playing againt as having your nuts being held down by a burning couch with only a rusty dull knife in your hand.

Sorry, Warmachine is not for everybody. It is for the competetive players that just like the thrill of winning but if you like a fun relaxed game with luaghs over a beer stay away.

Any talk of table tactics is misleading. 75% of the game is your list.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group