WFB vs. 40k Culture

[Mr Mystery]

Ahh! True. I think!

And it's something opponents often over look.......that yes, you're low point unit has just tar pitted his high point unit quite nicely....shame 5 things in your army decided to celebrate with a good old fashioned chain detonation/accidental gassing off your best unit....

[Cap'nSmurfs]

You see, I read threads like this and I ask myself why I'm not playing Fantasy. Need to paint up those Tomb Kings I started ages ago!

[Mr Mystery]

So worth getting into!

Because the mechanics are more restrictive, I find it gives better character to each army. Tomb Kings and VC's both share many of the same strengths and weaknesses, but play in quite different manners!

More later. About to start work!

[Kirsten]

I do think fantasy is more unforgiving personally. As Mystery so eloquently put, one bad movement phase can end the game, or bad deployment. 40k is far more forgiving in that stuff can move about freely, so it is much easier to recover from bad positioning. I think that can make things a bit more tense, and maybe make people seem a bit more competitive

[Mr Mystery]

I also find there is more variety in your opponents, and not only because Fantasy has more armies, or because of the predominance of Marines in 40k.

Whilst some armies appears superficially similar, they do all play quite differently.

For instance, Orcs and Goblins, v Skaven. Both are fundamentally Horde armies. Cheap, cheerful, but pretty shoddy over all. Skaven get one over on Gobbos due to their (tempramental) war machines and equipment. Gobbos get one over on Skaven because they have good old Orcy muscle on their side, muscle which is not to be sniffed at (toughness 4 makes a world of difference in Fantasy), not to mention the really cool/daft stuff like Fanatics and Squigs!

Some armies just can't do some forms of battle. My Ogres for instance positively excel in full frontal assaults. In a horde formation (6 wide, 3 deep) each and every bigfattyboomboom gets their 3 attacks. Even with the humble Ogre Bull, that's a hell of a lot of pain for your opponent. Take into account the 6 impact hits and 6 stomps, and it's really, really hard to beat that unit in combat, even though it will typically strike last. Elves of most stripes however? Yeah, manic charge into the enemy is not what you need. They need finesse, and army cohesion. They tend to do well at envelopment tactics, something my Ogres royally suck at due to massive unit footprints, and a general lack of unit count!

However, you do often see daft comparissons, such as judging a new unit by how quickly a Cannon can take it out. A worthy consideration I guess, but only if you're playing against Dwarfs, Empire, Daemons or Ogres, and they've brought said cannon along. Nobody else has them!

I think one of the biggest mental hurdles with Fantasy is learning to accept your army has a natural nemesis, one which whilst far from unbeatable, has a distinct advantage against your force, more or less regardless of what you put into your list. Bretonnians for instance tend to struggle against Ogres, or other Monstrous Infantry. Lance formation or not, they'll typically lack to attacks to break a large unit of them, and the volume of incoming attacks reduces the effectiveness of their armour save. For my Ogres, I seriously dread fighting Elves. They're nearly as fast as me, and have lots of toys and Ld effects which hurt me loads!

[Chris*ta]

However, you do often see daft comparissons, such as judging a new unit by how quickly a Cannon can take it out.

Isn't the correct answer, in all cases, pretty f**king quickly?

And I feel the need to use the word whoopsiecide now ...

[cerebros]

However, you do often see daft comparissons, such as judging a new unit by how quickly a Cannon can take it out. A worthy consideration I guess, but only if you're playing against Dwarfs, Empire, Daemons or Ogres, and they've brought said cannon along. Nobody else has them!

Skaven also have cannons, which makes for a third of the armies out there (I won't count Chaos Dwarfs as the only place I ever see them is tournaments). And Brets, Tomb Kings and Orcs and Goblins also have stone thrower type machines that are also capable of one- or two-shotting big monsters (which, considering such weapons, like cannons, are normally taken in pairs for redundancy, means your big gribbly can be dead before it even gets a chance to move) means just over half of armies can potentially spoil your carefully (or not) made plans before the game gets going

[cerebros]

I go to 40k tourneys fairly regularly and usually perform slightly better than average (maybe 6-7 on a scale of 10). Last weekend I went to my first fantasy tournament in about three years. I figured I would get beaten but went because I wanted to support a new store in town.

Wow. Did I get schooled (maybe 2-3 on a scale of 1-10). There were decidedly fewer players but damn, were they good! I got beaten so badly I could not see the dice. I felt abused by the end of it. My son had a similar experience and we were trying to figure this out. The players seemed to revel in ultra-powerful lists rather than be slightly embarrassed by them (or at least pretend to be embarrassed by them which is the 40k norm around here).

Is there a different culture in WFB than 40k? Are WFB players more aggressive, or am I just suckier since I don't play as much? I used to think Fantasy was more laid back but now I'm not so sure.

Is it possible that since there are less Fantasy players around, those who do continue to play the game represent the survival of the fittest? They seem to have honed their games to the razor's edge and suffer no fools gladly.

It's probably a combination of things. Some armies have poor matches or find it difficult to deal with certain types of list unless you build your army in a certain way, so if you're not playing Fantasy regularly your list probably won't have evolved to match the meta-game in your area and your playing experience will be lacking so you may not know how certain armies are going to play when you come up against them.

Another issue is tournament length and size. If it was only a one day event you probably didn't play enough games to get matched against players closer to your own skill level and so your impression was that the people you played were more aggressive. And of course, at a tournament, I'd expect even the fluffiest players to be a bit more focused on winning than normal