Why is 40K more popular than Fantasy?

[Aldramelech]

I reckon when the "Rons" get re-done its gonna be the mother of all horde armies

[Subject Keyword]

I reckon when the "Rons" get re-done its gonna be the mother of all horde armies

That's not what I'm expecting, but that would be super cool. I have upwards of 100 warriors now, so the "Metal Tide" would be pretty feasible. It'd look good on the battlefield, too. Necrons are supposed to be really intimidating, but they look less so when you only have 30 of them on the field and your being outnumbered by marines.

Plopping a Monolith down on the table will always feel great though.

It's like "Ooh... Wookit the wittle Land Waider! *sets Monolith on the table* BAM MUTHAF***ER!!! EAT DOOM!!!"

Truly it is a blessing from the Star Gods.

[Craftworlds_Voice]

hmm i dont agree with the topic. From my obersvasion wh40k is LESS popular than fantasy. As I was living in Cambridge , yes, there were a lot of 40k players around , but they were more like collectors and painters - when it went upon fighting - more fantasy players could have been spotted in the GW store.

And in Poland (where i live now) the proportion is like 4:1 . Every local fantasy tournament (and we have one every week) has between 20 and 100 players - in 40k just around 10-25.

More children collect 40k because they are more attracted by the miniatures (guns, space marines ..) but how many of them do have a 1500 army and play with it regularly ? I guess not many.

[Herald of Nurgle]

That's not what I'm expecting, but that would be super cool. I have upwards of 100 warriors now, so the "Metal Tide" would be pretty feasible. It'd look good on the battlefield, too. Necrons are supposed to be really intimidating, but they look less so when you only have 30 of them on the field and your being outnumbered by marines.

Plopping a Monolith down on the table will always feel great though.

It's like "Ooh... Wookit the wittle Land Waider! *sets Monolith on the table* BAM MUTHAF***ER!!! EAT DOOM!!!"

Truly it is a blessing from the Star Gods.

*SNORT* HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Sorry, but that just killed my throat, seriously.

Almost makes me miss trading 'crons for Nurgle.

[Craftworlds_Voice]

The entire idea of regiments seemed silly to me. You have 30 guys but only want 10 of them involved in the fight at a time? (I know the rules do not necessarily reflect this but it is how I saw it at the time). Why on earth wouldn't your men (or in other cases, wild animals or monsters) break ranks and try to help their partners?

break ranks ? That was impossible when two formations like falangs crushed into each other. Even the first rank had serious problems with dealing any damage, so difficult it was to penetrate a wall of shields. I guess that if You live in USA , You've never been to any event like 'Grunwald' - where people (maniacs ) try to reconstruct the medieval battles of old times.

And if you would break your falang formation and try to attack loosely from all sides, you would loose the battle were quick.
So this was a bad example at showing that warhammer isnt reallistic - there is greater problem within 40k with that. Its fun to play, but i cant imagine myself things like a group of soldiers that jumps out from a transport vehicle and then moves 12 inches (1/4 of the battlefield) charging an enemy unit armed with heavy sub machine guns - where they welcome them with a smile and instead of shooting and tearing them to pieces, stand and prepare to fight in close combat (no stand and shoot reaction, or any other at all).

Any system where YOUR movements can render an opponents' movement options ILLEGAL and more condensed is a system that is LESS TACTICALLY DEEP.

Here is what I mean:
In Fantasy, there are numerous places you can put a unit of yours - more or less regardless of its value - that will heavily curtail your opponent's ability to move. That is to say, rather than needing to operate as a consolidated unit, bring greater power to bear on certain locations, create relevant flanks, etc., you can shut down areas of movement just by placing throwaway units in certain locations.

In 40k, an opponent is ALWAYS permitted to make his moves, and restricting his options is a far more difficult task. This makes for a far more tactically DEEP game, but also allows for a game that is inherently shallower as well.

To wit, if you place a novice player across the board from a novice player in fantasy, shenanigans at best will ensue. Intricate details of what's allowed and not allowed in terms of movement and opponent-applied movement restrictions will not be understood or applied. If expert players are across the table from each other, the series of movements is fairly "obvious," and the ability to utilize tactics that will eliminate your opponent's legal moves is fully realized.

In 40k, novices will enjoy a much smoother game with each other, because on face value many of the rules are simpler and more streamlined. Fortunately, at the veteran end of the spectrum the game is far more tactically dense than a comparable fantasy game. Why? Because your opponent may ALWAYS take all of his moves, actions, charges, etc., as long as units are assailable. As such, while in fantasy you may do things such as march block an entire flank by placing a cheap, worthless flying unit there (I exaggerate, go with me), in 40k such a thing would simply be the "throwing away" of a unit (as it rightfully should be). It requires far more work in 40k to completely dominate your opponent, and so allows for a greater expression of skill differentials among players.

There are many other points that could be made, such as the relative power disparity between top and median codices in fantasy vs. the disparity between top and median codices in 40k (that is to say that the balance is closer in 40k, if not perfect), but I just don't have the time.

I cant agree with that either...

In 40k there are units (like orcs or dark eldar) that can move and charge you from a distance of over 30 inches in one turn, zooming out from behind a rock or whatever and you (asw an opponent) do not even have any charge reaction. How tactically deep is that ?

Then... you can move most units with a high speed across the battlefield, where in fantasy it DOES really matter how you deploy them at the very beginning and you pay for even minor mistakes.

A small unit of flyers blocking march moves ? Thats a part of the tactics to use it well, as well as for your opponent to not allow you doing it (or making it not worth it). I dont see any problem with that, and no good player will allow you using such an advantage against him. It mainly works against newbies...

And its rather the opposite to what you say - being allowed to move in any direction, regardless of anything takes out a huge chunk of tactics - the game is more dynamic (thats why i like it so much) but there are FAR fewer things you need to take into consideration while playing it - its more predictible and you dont need that much concentration while playing it.

[DarkLink]

I guess that if You live in USA , You've never been to any event like 'Grunwald' - where people (maniacs ) try to reconstruct the medieval battles of old times.

I think if you live in most places in the world you probably haven't been to events like this "grunwald'. There are reenactors like this in the USA, though they're usually Civil War reenactors. It's not exactly widespread.

And if you would break your falang formation and try to attack loosely from all sides, you would loose the battle were quick.
So this was a bad example at showing that warhammer isnt reallistic - there is greater problem within 40k with that. Its fun to play, but i cant imagine myself things like a group of soldiers that jumps out from a transport vehicle and then moves 12 inches (1/4 of the battlefield) charging an enemy unit armed with heavy sub machine guns - where they welcome them with a smile and instead of shooting and tearing them to pieces, stand and prepare to fight in close combat (no stand and shoot reaction, or any other at all).

40k has a pretty good cop-out, actually. A lot of armor (particularly MEQ) is capable of deflecting small arms fire very effectively in the fluff.

Plus, it's not like when you happen to jump into the same trench as an enemy the two of you will have time to make a formation with the rest of your squad. It's inevitable that things start to turn into a brawl when guns come into play. There isn't time to march in pretty formations.

[BuFFo]

I started with 40K in 2nd edition (with an old rule book. I think 3rd had been out a while, and Fantasy in 6th.

I went back and forth between systems. (I stopped playing 40K for a while in 40K 4th)

Finally, through the combined forces of Dark Elves, Daemons, Vampire Counts (I play them.) and 40K 5th edition (with objective based missions) I stopped playing Fantasy. So did everyone else I knew.

In short, our group just wasn't having fun with WFB anymore. However, 40K was great. Every mission was a blast to play, and each game managed to be different. (At this point for me, Fantasy was just running forward and hitting each other a lot. I really preferred playing with massed blocks of troops, Now it's all about Deathstars. Other people might like it, but I don't.)

Maybe it was just my group, but 40K was simply more fun for us. The games were had a random length,they easier to set up, combat was faster, and the game didn't require a calculator to see who won.

Yeah, call us short-attention-spanned kids... but we know what we like.

I hope Fantasy becomes a more balanced game in 8th edition. Different missions would make a huge impact on the game, and would probably get me to start playing again.

You sir, have hit the entire truth behind both systems PERFECTLY. You have created the single most accurate and honest portrayal as to why players play 40k and not fantasy. Fantasy is a complete power gaming mess at the moment, and 40k is simply more balanced and fun to play.

I don't think anyone could find a better description of the Fantasy v 40k debate anywhere on the net in such a nice, small, neat package such as this.

Fantasy is dead in my area for the exact same reasons. Players were getting tired of playing the same scenario that Fantasy has "Kill everything" and playing the same deployment over and over "line everything up, rush forward, hope Shooting/Magic doesn't over power the match, then slaughter your enemy in CC"

That why 40k is more widely played. Fun and Balance. You need a crap ton of models to play Fantasy, hence, making it generally more expensive, which scares most people from it.

[Fellend]

I cant agree with that either...

In 40k there are units (like orcs or dark eldar) that can move and charge you from a distance of over 30 inches in one turn, zooming out from behind a rock or whatever and you (asw an opponent) do not even have any charge reaction. How tactically deep is that ?

Then... you can move most units with a high speed across the battlefield, where in fantasy it DOES really matter how you deploy them at the very beginning and you pay for even minor mistakes.

A small unit of flyers blocking march moves ? Thats a part of the tactics to use it well, as well as for your opponent to not allow you doing it (or making it not worth it). I dont see any problem with that, and no good player will allow you using such an advantage against him. It mainly works against newbies...

And its rather the opposite to what you say - being allowed to move in any direction, regardless of anything takes out a huge chunk of tactics - the game is more dynamic (thats why i like it so much) but there are FAR fewer things you need to take into consideration while playing it - its more predictible and you dont need that much concentration while playing it.

Yes. but because there are units that can charge from 30 inch away (don't actually think there is any that can do it THAT far but still) where you deploy and what you do with them brings up alot of tactical options. Do you want to go out in the open and risk a potential assault, Do you run for cover and hope that they don't have grenades. Do you pull back and wait in your transports hoping your long range weaponry disable them.

You are basically proving yourself wrong by saying that because people can move far deployment is less important. A small unit blocking 30 inch charges, well that's part of the tactics we use or using transports to zoom in and block off pathways forcing them to go around.

Can you honestly say that a battles where you line up on a field and march straight ahead to beat each other up is more tactical than todays combat where people desperately search for cover, high ground, defensive positions. setting up heavy weapony, avoiding sniper fire. caring about airsupport and avoiding reinforcements from behind the lines watching out for airdropping troops, constantly moving to not remain in the line of fire.

I am not saying that WFB is less tactical than 40k, it probably has it's aspects I haven't played in many many years so I wouldn't know. But the day you can march up to a modern army commander and tell him that his battles are untactical and he should go back to the days of deciding a date, meeting up on a field and blasting the hell out of each other untill one side runs then you have the right to say that W40k lacks tactics.

[Subject Keyword]

*SNORT* HAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Sorry, but that just killed my throat, seriously.

Almost makes me miss trading 'crons for Nurgle.

Don't ever regret giving some love to the grandpappy of filth, even if it means less Necrons in the world.
Father Nurgle loves you back in the only way he knows how...
With pus.

[Magos]

Just as long as its not a Slaanesh Nurgle army. There is no anti-biotic for that....

Anyway, I rather enjoy both systems, but I feel that comparing fantasy and 40K tactically, is a terrible idea. It doesnt make any real sense.

Fantasy is FAR mnore unbalanced then 40K...