# WFB and 40k: lay it on the line for me



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

It is hard not to notice the Fantasy stuff at my local GW store, especially given that it seems to be more popular than 40k around here. The problem is, I haven't ever built up enough interest in WFB to actually splurge and start collecting, learning the system, etc.. 8th ed. looks like it might be a good opportunity, especially if the box set is what it is rumored to be.

My question: what are the real defining differences between the two systems and how they play?

I picked up the latest White Dwarf and read the battle report on Empire vs Orcs. The impression I got (maybe just because of these armies) is that much of the game is spent in massive, all-out brawls, or setting armies up to get into those brawls. From a 40k perspective, that would be like making the game centered on the assault phase, with movement and shooting just being the icing.

Give it to me, folks. What's the diff, and would a 40k player be happy with WFB?

(edit: corrections for spelling)


----------



## ManOnTheMooney (Jun 19, 2010)

I'm in basically the same situation, long time 40k player making a switch to fantasy. From what I can tell, they are pretty similar, except for some extreme focus on Close Combat. Also, some rules seem to be a little more in depth, and complicated versus 40k, like the penalties to armor saves, shooting rolls, etc. I was always a heavy Close Combat user in 40k, so Fantasy is perfect for me. However that doesn't mean you can't make a shooting army in Fantasy. All of the elves seem to have a powerful ranged unit choice, while the Empire and Dwarves can form very solid gun lines with rifles and cannon. Even the Skaven have some power in shooting. Overall though, there are some major concept differences (CC>Shooting instead of Shooting>CC) and minor rule differences (as stated above), but they are also similar. Hope that helps, and keep in mind I am also new to it, so I could be off a little bit.


----------



## spudboy (Jun 13, 2008)

Thanks, that's a good start. Squads are also vastly different, it seems, and I'm wondering how all that works, especially little things like moving through terrain.


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

I've been playing both for years, so here's my take:
40k- Everybody skirmishes (no rank and file units), most everybody shoots, and you either get an armor save (at full value) or not at all. No mods to shooting, and "charge" move is split between 2 or 3 phases.Only one save per wound.
WFB- Movement more constrained (Think of marching bands), not everybody shoots (and those that do are usually not as good at CC), armor saves are modifiable, modifiers to shooting. Only one movement phase (assault move and normal move combined), and different movement rates for different races. Up to 2 saves per wound.
As for terrain, nothing slows you down. Certain units treat some types of terrain as dangerous (just like 40k). There are optional rules that add a more "spooky" feel to otherwise normal terrain.
Movement and maneuver are more important in WFB than in 40k. Which direction you attack from makes a difference.
Hope this helps.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

But still, the core, defining difference is that there are no Space Marines. 

Furthermore, the standard stat is 3 instead of 4, the most common save is 5+ (or maybe 4+ but then you have a shield), and the army books aren't retarded like many 40K codices. Every army can put up a fight against any other army, unlike in 40K where there are armies that can't help but fail (like Tau, almost everyone I know who had a Tau army sold it and got something else instead).

The difference I like the most are the victory conditions and the much wider variety of missions. No retarded kill points (imagine SM vs. horde Nids for instance) or trollface.jpg-style objectives (DURR-HURR I contest your objective with my Land Speeder in the last moment! DURR-HURR).

Sorry if my post sounds a bit biased, I'm just a discontent CSM player.


----------

