Topic: Differences between Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy

[Changeyname]

Under the rules for Fantasy, the average Space Marine would be a beast.  Straight *** stats, psychology/break test perks, gromril armor + shield, move and shoot X-bow, 2x shots, some real decent upgrades.  It's just not a fair comparison.

not really, hit him with strength 4 and suddenly hes in carapace armour, S5 and he's in flak armour, you see where this is going
likewise if he moves and shoots his multishot weapons he's hitting on 5+ and thats if hes within half range, also a bolter would clearly be black powder and all black powder weapons in fantasy are move or shoot....

comparing 40k equipment to fantasy only works if you apply the fantasy rules to it, making your average space marine no better than your average chaos warrior with shield and a repeating handgun
nasty yes, unbeatable.... far from it

[Spirit of Kurnous]

And look at the relative costs of heroes from Fantasy and 40k. Fantasy does give you way more unit options in terms of raw killing ability, yet at the same time you're paying through the roof for such powers, that you wonder if a sword of might is really worth the price of 3 more soldiers. Save for Orks whom have the Shokk Attack Gun and Kustom Forcefield, most factions in 40k have cheap upgrades relative to the power they provide (e.g. Powerfists)

well a marine commander is only the equivalent of an empire general, add in the equivalent of chaos armour and shield (or enchanted shield if artificier), a weapon that ignores saves and doubles strength, and a 4+ ward save and that makes him about 200pts in fantasy, which is not much more than his 40k cost.

[MagicJuggler]

Its about 150 for the Commander in 40k. Also, which army are you using? Many ones such as Empire will be generally incapable of loading up on magical combat monster items for want of such important tools like the Rod of Command.

[Spirit of Kurnous]

said empire general as thats about the same stats as a marine commander and quite mediocre in the fantasy world
but thats due to characters (apart from demons and some specials) in 40k being only slightly better than the troops they lead.

[MagicJuggler]

Fantasy gives you good stats at low price. Compare a Night Goblin in Fantasy to a 40k Grot for instance. In addition to the rank and BS bonuses, the unit is also capable of dirty tricks like reforming/hiding fanatics/etc. Also, getting a 4+ save for 6 pts or even 5 is not unheard of in Fantasy. Granted, when the superelite units enter the field, those saves are effectively moot, but many elite units in Fantasy are disproportionally expensive to their base troops (and in the case of Cavalry, if they don't break a unit in the first turn, they will lose to being run down after a CR grind).

[Slaaneshislave]

The very first thing i reacted on being different are all the modifiers, they're everywhere!

oh, and the ability to first take the armor save, then any ward save the model might have..


looking at the two i wouldnt call 40k a "dumbed down" version of fantasy, i'd call fantasy a more evolved/involved 40k.
(wrong way around i know, but strangely fits imo.)

[Spirit of Kurnous]

thing is original 40k (rogue trader) used to be similar in that units had move stats, weapons had save mods, cover provided to hit mods and you could use your inv save after your armour save.
that was far better than current version of 40k.

[Benis]

that was far better than current version of 40k.

Really? It wasn't the same game and can't really be compared. Rouge Trader was closer to Necromunda; it was a small skirmish game. The main reason for the changes of 3rd edition was to make 40k into a larger scale warfare. If you played a 2nd edition game of 40k it would usually take more than twice as long as the same point level in the 3rd to current editions.

[Spirit of Kurnous]

not at all, we played 10k of 2nd edition easily in a few hours.
I also ran a chaos roadshow which was 2 huge battles with hundreds of deamons and beserkers against marines and that was all close combat and we did both those easily in a GW working day.
we regularly got in multiple games of 3k+ size in a day (sometimes in an hour).  dunno what everyones hang up is over time of 2nd ed games (or 1st ed).

also rogue trader isnt 2nd ed, its close to now as in close combat is they same as now (and warhammer).
it can be compared as the things i mentioned would make 40k alot better apart from for the kids, its why warhammer is alot better as well IMO.

[Benis]

I know 2nd edition isn't Rouge Trader, I just used that to compare since what you mentioned was different modifiers that existed in 2nd edition as well, especially since the armies was closer to each other in 2nd edition and 3rd than Rouge Trader and 3rd edition.

What I remember of 2nd edition was time and powerful character combinations. Sure the in depth rules of 2nd edition was nice and armour/to hit modification are generally better system than AP if you ask me but GW wanted to make WHFB and 40k different and by streamlining these rules they made a game that, to me, is over all better and much more entertaining, all though the lack of psychology of is something I miss dearly.

[Spirit of Kurnous]

TBH going by your age Benis no offense but you couldnt have played much 2nd ed anyway so it may have seemed over complicated back then.
yes characters were powerful, you may have noticed i didnt mention them, i mentioned various rules which were better and would be better to be brought back in, the reason GW dont is because it will effect their posters boys adversly and most rules changes are about them not about streamlining.

2nd ed marines died very easily all the time.
3rd ed changed this by bringing in AP values which meant 3+ saves were alot better than in 2e, but everyone kept same relative numbers to each other as 2e.
4th ed changed rapid fire which helped marine bolters even more (ok it helped lasguns and splinter rifles but str3 GW isnt bothered about).
problem is marines still died all the time to starcannons and the like.
so along comes 5th ed, where marines can get cheap 3+ inv saves and theres cover everywhere.  notice how many people no longer use starcannons.  notice how many template and other cover ignoring weapons marines have (some at AP4 and even 3).

basically the winners of every change in rules have been marines and this is how GW likes it.

[Benis]

TBH going by your age Benis no offense but you couldnt have played much 2nd ed anyway so it may have seemed over complicated back then.

And given by your age you couldn't have played so much Rouge Trader anyway . I've re-played both 1st and 2nd edition in my adult years and I see the reasoning behind much of the changes made by GW. The Marine argument is valid but also wanted, they should be tough, AP isn't perhaps the most gracious method of implementing this but it works and has been improved over the latest three editions. The latest codex will always contain most great things, it's the codex creep and GW makes a lot of money on Marines so making their creep-bump grander makes sense for them, but I wouldn't say that the whole game is based around it neither that it was better in 2nd or 1st edition.

I think we are  waaay of topic so perhaps a new thread (again) or simply simmer it down...

[Spirit of Kurnous]

just 5 years from 88 until 93 when 2nd ed was introduced   and rogue trader could handle big games as the rules are similar to now. 

but on topic these are the major differances between 40k and fantasy, hit mods, save mods, move stats, psychology, all of which should be reintroduced to 40k.

[MagicJuggler]

Heck, look at the old Rogue Trader books then. Compare 'Ere We Go, with the 4th edition Ork codex, and the amount of options in the first one is mind-blowing by comparison. You could kustom-job pretty much anything, and they had rules for all sorts of bionik bitz, from fuel-injection legs to spring-loaded arms and legs. Or look at The Lost and The Damned, where you could have a Bloodthirster armed with an axe that contained another Bloodthirster (that could be summoned onto the battlefield).

[Bouargh]

Please stick to the topic of differences between fantasy and 40k, under the current set of applicable rules.
Any disgression about Rogue trader, 2nd Ed and other evolutions of 40k itself is out of topic and parasitics the main topic.

Thank you

Bouargh fantasy mod

[D-Tox]

O.K, Firstly I'm not sure if I'm going to get into trouble for reopening this thread, but I'm new and plead ignorance.

The difference between the two games can be summed up in one word, accessibility.

In the early days (and I am unfortunately old enough to remember) 40k and WFB were pretty much identical to the point where fantasy chaos could get bolter's! If my memory serve me well GWS struggled for a time due to the niche market they traded in and really made a push to go more main stream (remember heroquest!)

Certain genres of the game flourished as it fitted the market at the time (spacehulk for example when aliens was about) and that was seen as a clear economic direction to move in. When the opportunity arose to bring the fantasy market to the masses GWS decided to release a whole new game rather that develop WFB (LOTR).

IMHO this is what underpins the difference between the games and to be honest, I like the fact that they both now have a distinctly different feel. 40k is faster to play, also I don't have as many mini's to paint compared to fantasy which for me is a real event when I play and I glowed with pride when I finished my 3000 point undead army paint job!
 
40k is clearly more accessible as the rules have been more tailored to the modern gamer and hence will probably have a larger percentage of younger players (this is no bad thing). Fantasy is a bit more old school and the rules haven't changed that much at all.
 
It would be interesting so see the average age of players on this forum based on preferred game.

[Wyddr]

I would disgree that 40K is necessarily 'faster' to play. Given two players with a firm grasp of the rules, Fantasy can actually go faster. This is simply because of movement trays--your 100 guys are all distributed on 4 trays, making it pretty easy to move them around. Your 100 orks, meanwhile, have to each be moved by hand in a disorganized blob, taking up lots of time. Fantasy makes up for its movement speed with an extra phase (magic), but that doesn't take too long, either.

I'd say that Fantasy has more rules than 40K, but if you know those rules, the two games take about the same amount of time. When we consider that Fantasy games tend to played on a higher point scale than 40K, 40K takes longer, point-for-point.

[D-Tox]

@ Wyddr: I agree with you about the actual physical movement of troops to a degree (increased mech in 40k decreases model count on the board and I play undead and eldar (my eldar are sooo much quicker to move about).

But please, let me elaborate on my comment; I said faster not quicker, by this I mean the feel of the game; Deepstriking, outflanking, fully mech plus the massive differences in the movement phase, not having to consider facing of a unit makes a huge difference in how you approach and react to/in the game. Combat and especially shooting seems so much more definitive in 40k, you don't get whittled down by bows you get wiped off the table by rapid fire bolter's!

Just my experience, it may not be the same for every one. My original point still stands, 40k is more accessible to the modern gamer.
 

[Wyddr]

I would use the term 'fluid' rather than 'fast'. 40K is very fluid and reactive in play style--you typically have many more (percieved) options on a unit-by-unit basis. That said, I find 40K to be oddly more predictable in outcome--there are fewer make-or-break rolls than there are in Fantasy, and I've found my fortunes far more likely to swing wildly from one side to the other in WHFB than in 40K.

Granted, you don't get shot off the board in Fantasy, but combat is frequently far more decisive and is engaged in more readily. I find 'whittling' to be more of a 40K thing, especially given the prevalence of cover, stubborn, and ridiculously high leadership scores.

As for 'more accessible', I can't really comment. I haven't found one to be more accessible than the other, precisely (and I don't ascribe to the view that one or the other is more 'tactical'), though I will readily concede that the number of rules makes the learning curve in Fantasy a bit steeper. If by 'accessible' you mean 'easy to pick up and play quickly', I agree with you. If by 'accessible' you mean 'easy to become interested in', I don't think that's necessarily true.

[D-Tox]

Yeah 'Fluid' is the word to use, I also agree about the predictability of 40k compared to WHFB (I think this is down to pyschology in WHFB).

I think my 'Whittling' statement may come from being an undead player (I used to play a lot against empire) so I'm probably biased.

When I say 40k is accessible I mean both to pick up and play and more attractive to new gamers, just go down to your local store and look at who plays what, I would put money on the average age of 40K player being significantly less that the WHFB gamers.