# Convince me



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

Hey all, I'm mainly a 40k player and I attempted to start a dwarf army but my hearts just wasn't in it. So what benefits would I get if I played whfb, my main confers are being to set in the ways of 40k and that none of my friends collect it. I'd probably play warriors of chaos just so you know.


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

I've been very tempted to start WHfb, and Mantic, Blood Angels, Deathguard, Dark Eldar, and recently Kroot Mercs, but rest assured you WILL get over it in due time .


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

when the hardcore fantasy players show up, you'll hear that fantasy is a "smarter" game, and it takes "Real" strategy.

Not true.

All fantasy is, is *different.* Different kinds of strategy, differant ideas behind it. Not any smarter than 40k. So if you like medieval style combat, and arcing fireballs, then go for it.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l have been playing both of them for a while,

the main bonus is that you can enter any tournament's all year round. as the ones down here either are 40K or WF never both


----------



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

I know what you mean, the new wave of BA is tempting me and emprors children were luring me last night but, It's been at me for almost 6 months now so I'm pretty sure I'm not getting over this one.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

I've been using chaos daemons, both with fantasy and 40k. Only difference is the bases, and I can just switch the bases round depending on which game I'm playing


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Fantasy is, simply, a better game. It rewards actual skill on the table, whereas 40k rewards being able to netdeck a list these days, and not a lot else. What you bring in Fantasy doesn't matter that much-- even the most "competitive" army list can be trounced by a bunch of one-armed goblins if you aren't playing well. I wouldn't describe that as necessarily "smarter"-- just... that actual strategy on the table exists. 40k has become a game of tic tac toe at the best on the table-- someone's got a tank, you've got a meltagun. If you don't, the tank wins because there's nothing you can do about it.
Weighing the odds of success in every circumstance, maneuvering, and how much faith you put in chance all are what make or break Fantasy. 

Also, there's not any other game out there quite like it. 40k, Warmahordes, and Flames of War are all fairly interchangable these days, but Fantasy is the only game where you deal with blocks of infantry, massed armies, and emphasize outmaneuvering your opponent rather than just battering your way through.

Fantasy also has some other totally extraneous advantages, I think. The miniatures are usable in D&D, Pathfinder, and the like-- and that's a big thing to be able to do. Also on the modelling front, the miniatures tend to be easier to paint, and more forgiving of a bad paintjob on the table since units are massed together and you can't see the flaws in individual models easily. Finally, it's just plain cheaper to play in some cases. You can buy a 2000-point Warriors of Chaos army for about $175-- a 2000-point Space Marine army runs at least $250 these days, for example.


----------



## Gigantor (Jun 21, 2009)

Being a 40k player for the last 10 years who only recently started playing Fantasy I can tell you that I enjoy the change. It helps that many of my friends started playing at the same time and all of our armies are different. I find in 40k that I run into the similar lists and the dreaded MEQ armies. Fantasy armies vary greatly. Also, Horus has a good point about the painting. I can hardly finish painting a tactical squad. But over 3 weeks I finished a unit of 42 marauders. It just seems to go faster. And the sneaky tricks that are available to a chaos army are very numerous.

The fact comes down to finding people who will play with you. You may be suprised at how many rules you already know as well.


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

Fantasy is more tactically heavy as you have to watch your flanks managing your dispells using your magic items when there most effective. Instead of in 40k where I can yell Michalbaysplosion and win.


----------



## Flindo (Oct 30, 2010)

the biggest diffence I noticed while playing fantasy besides unit blocks is the magic is vastly supiror, the magic in 40K is pretty much just tucked away in the shooting phase, where here it is celebrated in its own turn where there are a ton of rules behind it, where in 40K its pretty much just shooting with fancy names.


----------



## Iraqiel (May 21, 2008)

I've never played a proper game of fantasy, but I have played a lot of 40k, and painted a lot of models. Although painting some of the more detailed fantasy models can be a pain, I find that they are extremely rewarding to have as finished products.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

When the limited community of players playing LOTR (chosen by my son initially) fell apart and WOTR was a bust due to imbalance issues, we switched completely to WHFB, not WH40K. We didn't like the emphasis in WH40 on shooting and tanks and stuff and found the strategic and tactical aspects and flexibility of WHFB (with a combination of magic, shooting, and combat) to be more appealing. Additionally, WHFB tends to have an established culture of sportsmanship more than WH40K and an older audience that regular plays at various regional tournaments throughout the year. Finally, WHFB tends to have more playable options and varying armies and tactics, as is borne out by the results from the tournies we play in. Given the choices, no two armies are the same or close to being exactly the same and nearly every one of the 15 armies is playable and played at a tourney with 60 to 100 entries. 

WH40K has more players that show up and play regularly and is the more commonly chosen GW option. It is, in some ways, easier to play but the rules are less well-defined and subject to varying interpretations from one locale to another such that some tourneys adopt a set of consensus interpretations not from GW to avoid many of the rules arguments that arise. Also, arguing over LOS is not as common, even with 8th edition switching to true LOS, in WHFB as it is in WH40K. 

If done right, WHFB is probably as or more expensive to play than WH40K. I find that, even buying discounted boxes and partial armies on e-bay, I often spend as much as $500 to $1000 per army to have all the models and flexibility to play the different strategies for each army we own (now own complete Dark Elf, Lizardmen, Daemons of Chaos, Warriors of Chaos, High Elf, Skaven, and Orc and Goblin army sets and enough parts and models to credibly play Dwarves). Then one has to buy paint (primers, foundations, highlights and washes) and brushes and paint those models to a tournament standard, which means some customization and modifications and more detailed painting (highlighting and washes for shading). Finally, one has to buy materials to design and create movement trays and displays for tournaments. But the payoff is that one has armies and models that will be playable for many years and a community of players that are committed to the game (at least where I live) long term and have a more respectful culture. One can choose one, two or three armies to play and be assured of being reasonably competitive long-term in WHFB.


----------



## Tatsumaki (Oct 22, 2009)

The difference I notice is that in 40k, you either win in the assault phase or the shooting phase. In fantasy, victories are won in the movement phase. Especially in old rules, the emphasis was on charge range and flank maneuvers, whereas in 40k the emphasis is on the range of your gun. 

Fantasy is a far, far less forgiving game than 40k. In fantasy, a whole army could be put to flight by a lucky cannon snipe, and leaving your battle line so much as 1" too close to a unit of knights could cost you a lot.

Having said that, it's not as though there isn't strategy in 40k, it's just the phase where the battle is won or lost is different.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

As someone who just started playing WFB in this newest edition, I can share some of my observations. I disagree that WFB is better than W40K... it's just different. 

In a lot of ways, I think the game is more forgiving. If you have a bad list in 40K, it's really noticable. In WFB, it's a bit more forgiving... I *think* it's because you have fewer choices in the FoC... so a bunch of Empire guys with spears and a bunch of elfs with spears are more evenly matched. The bonuses that you get for being an elf/empire are reflected in the overall cost of your unit. So you don't have the same opportunity to optimize your list like you do in 40K, where you have LOTS of choices... and over the course of the list building, you can really put focus where you need to... In WFB, you don't get the same ammt of options...

The other big difference is that magic is truly a wild card and can turn a game on you in an instant. A big spell can really change the tide of battle (It can also pants your army if you're wizard rolls poorly) - 

Also, movement is really key... you have to think a turn ahead and set stuff up. You CAN do the same in 40k... but it happens in your movement and normally, 6" isn't that big a deal. In WFB, close combat in initiated at the beginning. So if you need to shoot up a unit before you charge, then you're gonna have to do it over two turns... 

It's not really better or worse, it's just different... And, IMO, another fun way to blow off an afternoon/evening...


----------

