# Thread answer to jigplums "why is 40k more popular than fantasy"?



## Mr. Black Orc (Feb 9, 2013)

As I'd already said this thread is an answer made to jigplums "why is 40k more popular than fantasy"? My answer was too long and complex so I made it another thread because it changed subject. Now, this is my answer to "why is 40k more popular than fantasy"?

To be honest, I think one of the major parts that matter is the type of strategy in the game. As we all know 40k is based more around individual models acting by themselves, instead of numbers. Where a devastator squad could instantly blow up a common tank or perhaps a tyranid monster (based on Equipment of course). You'll need a lot of firepower in a fantasy army to destroy something like a steam tank or A-bomb. Besides from the fact that individual characters with unique Equipment have a big impact on gameplay, tactics used in the both games are very different. 40k is the kind of urban strategy game and use tactics that modern warfare not surprisingly does. Because 40k miniatures have round bases this offers them a lot more flexibility. Individual models can hide in cover, shoot from windows in a ruined building and set up unique formations impossible in fantasy. This has given the game a modern strategy feeling around it. As you might expect, Fantasy's strategy is mostly based on classical strategy used centuries ago. All units (except skirmishers) belong to a regiment made up with likely a sergeant, musician and or standard bearer. The unit has a strict battle formation where it's set up as a rectangle. Instead of having squads in low numbers operating by themselves these regiments are less flexible but was ideal for controlling an army at that time. I personally think that fantasy strategy is actually more difficult considering the placement of troops and need of control in units really play a big part of fantasy. If fantasy Archers would act like space marines it would all sound absurd, wouldn't it? The two gaming strategy styles are very different and suit different people. It also matters whichever tactic you prefer. I know plenty of people that have a hard time controlling lots of troops simultaneously and maybe that’s because they might choose 40k over fantasy?

Please tell me your thoughts about this matter. When I write too much I always get fed up with weird ideas.

-Mr. Black Orc


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

I just like sci-fi more than fantasy pretty much every time.

Well thought out though.


----------



## Mr. Black Orc (Feb 9, 2013)

And here I came up with a long well thought answer, haha! Yeah that's pretty much how it is. I like the both genres though so I looked deeper on the subject. Thank you for replying!


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I think also the 40k rules are much simpler, shooting for instance doesn't have a list of modifiers, or assault doesn't have a list of thing to add on (e.g banner, whether you charged and where etc.) and then there is the fact a lot of people that get into the game are kids, and when they are asked 'do you like giant genetically modified superhumans with guns that fire giant exploding bullets, or a really tall person with point ears' they gnerally go for space marines. 

I think fantasy is longer too, I mean there is a whole phase dedicated to magic and also movement takes ages when you have to figure out when you turn and how far, and also you decide to charge before the assault phase, so it is harder to make it up as you go along


----------



## Xabre (Dec 20, 2006)

Honestly, there are two answers with this question really.

The first answer is the same based around 'do you prefer Lord of the Rings to Star Wars?' If a person is willing to hold to his genre, then he's gonna play the game that matters. I'm busy putting together an army of High Elves and Dragons, mostly because my friend is a huge fan of all things dwarves.

Now, the second answer is based on the game itself... I find 40k Much easier, far more forgiving on the rules, but I often use armies with a fantasy-style bend... Thousand Sons sorcerers, Space Wolves and Blood Angels for the dramatic wolf-riding charge, etc. On the other hand, i also enjoy large robots with huge laser guns.


----------



## Shadowz-Demon (Jun 5, 2012)

You raised several good points, especially the one about strategy and how they drastically change the game. I personably enjoy fantasy more for that reason as you have to think about angels for charges and counter charges and actually react more to how your enemie positions his troops, I also like the fact that (as you've already mentioned) it's your whole army that wins the game not just a few specialised units. And as it's already been mentioned I find 40,000 to be a much more forgiving gaming system and with rules that are easier to pick up


----------



## Mr. Black Orc (Feb 9, 2013)

How fortunate to find wargamers with the same thoughts! You've all made unique answers and they were very interesting to read. It seems we all can agree on some things regarding the subject.

And sorry Shadowz-Demon for stealing your quote. I am an OnG fan so I picked the most famous quote from the BO warboss Grimgor 'cause I like black orcs (look my name ).


----------



## iamtheeviltwin (Nov 12, 2012)

I agree that Fantasy has different tactical and strategic choices than 40k that do not have the cinematic or individual feel of the 40k game. That may be part of the reason the games have such divergent popularity. However, I believe the "model count" is actually the larger block to a wider audience to the game of younger players.

Personally (like I said in the other thread) if I want to play a game that uses historical tactics and strategies I will pull out my historicals and play. There is no magic involved, but an incredible array of armies and playstyles in historical minis.


----------



## HOGGLORD (Jan 25, 2012)

Well, I really like the 'small units/modern warfare tactics' theme, as well as the look of an inumerable hoard of rabble, no formation, just a mess of troops screaming as they throw themselves forwards.
I also find that shooting is more important and simpler, where I am very pleased by the addition of the 'challenge' rules in 6th ed, which I thought 40k was really lacking.


----------

