Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've got a bit of experience with WH40K and have just started collecting WHFB. As a bit of fun I played a 1000 pts battle with myself (my prototype Empire army vs. Vampire Counts zombie horde that I had lying around from a game of Apocalypse I ran recently). This was an interesting and fun exercise just to get the feeling of how things played.

Be interested to know how you experienced guys feel the "flow" of play is in Fantasy vs. 40K.

For example, I liked being able to measure everything, but still not knowing what the charge ranges were. This made it a bit more of an art than a science getting the charge- but also somewhat less of a calamity if you miscalculated to the tune of an inch or two and got charged instead.

The movement rules sounded complicated on paper but were totally natural on the table. I did have a question here that I couldn't see in the rules which I wonder if someone can enlighten me on.

At the end of a close combat, a vampire plus unit of zombies which had been charged by Knights was wiped out. This left just the vampire still in combat.

Then a second unit of zombies charged the knights on the Vamps' turn. The vampire who had originally been in combat was still there, and was kinda blocking the new unit from making maximal contact with the knights. I decided to absorb the vampire already in combat into the appropriate place on the front rank of the incoming unit, displacing one of the rank and file back... so I moved the unit as if the vampire wasn't there, then put her back in the front rank where she had been and moved a zombie to the back. Is that the way one is supposed to do it?

Magic seems hideously hit and miss, but fun. If I were a competitive player I think this huge degree of random variation might turn me off, especially in low point games where a single magic phase can rob you of a good fraction of your strength. But since I'm mostly a storytelling player, it should be interesting.

Shooting seemed to be the biggest difference from 40K. It is a lot less reliable, and much shorter range with factors like the -1 to hit at long range. There aren't the multiple pie plates of death being lobbed 48" across the board... but nor are there 3+ armour saves across the armies as standard. So a good round of shooting can be very deadly to a lightly armoured unit, and Great Cannons are terrifying to single units (memo to self- do not leave independent characters standing around in line for cannon shots!) but "shrug so you killed a few zombies, well done you" to hordes. There doesn't seem to be a magic bullet like in 40K where a S9 AP2 large blast at long range can be used to good purpose attacking anything you need it to.

Combat on the other hand felt more or less the same, although the penalties for being on the losing side of a combat are maybe harsher. The main thing again was the lack of 3+ armour save MEQ which means your basic Halbardier is capable of holding his own and dishing out some appreciable damage. Of course I didn't have any real close combat specialists on the table!

Can't wait to play my first actual game, of course, but it was fun seeing how different the feel and flow of the game was. What was most interesting of all is that despite the rules being 90% identical, a combination of those 10% differences plus the army lists being quite radically different produced a game that really did feel more like a grungy fantasy setting than armies lobbing huge deathbuster shells across a futuristic battleground.

What do you think? Do the rules sets nicely differentiate between the two games, and which is more fun for you?

Cheers, Hywel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,190 Posts
I think fantasy is very different because of one thing: Vehicles.

In 40k, a normal infantryman cannot appreciably injure a tank. At all. So you need to take specialist weapons/troop types to deal with them. You also need to have vehicles of your own.

In fantasy, that lowly halberdier can potentially wound anything, and his 30 buddies can potentially wound anything enough to kill it. I find that there are more contests between equals than in 40k, because everything is more or less the same statline. Yeah, some might have extra strength or initiative or leadership, but at the end of the day most troops are S3/T3/W1/5+ Save.

I like them both for different reasons. I like 40k because it moves fast and I blow stuff up, and annihilate entire units at a time. I like fantasy because it lets me create beautiful units (ranked units ALWAYS look better than 40k units painted to the same standard) that can grind each other into the dirt slowly while mages lob fireballs overhead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
Sethis is correct. In fantasy, you're dragon can be killed by 20 skinks with poisoned shots (if the rolls are there-autowound on a 6 with poison).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,561 Posts
I think fantasy is very different because of one thing: Vehicles.

....In fantasy, that lowly halberdier can potentially wound anything, and his 30 buddies can potentially wound anything enough to kill it.
I would third that.

Also, movement is very different: 40K troops are able to go anywhere, shoot in any direction, even move forwards then charge sideways; WFB you have to actually think about how to move your troops as a part of a several turn long series.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,175 Posts
Yes, a lot more thought has to go into movement in fantasy, and setup also has a much bigger impact, because it's nowhere as easy in fantasy to change the direction your facing and where on the board your unit is placed.

Magic in fantasy has a much bigger impact on the game than psychic powers do in 40k, but shooting has far less of an impact (although war machines are just as effective as barrage). Fantasy has larger units of troops and their heroes are far more important, although 40k has vehicles, transports, and walkers. Virtually all battles in fantasy are decided by close combat, which adds a more epic and visceral aspect to the game. 40k units and armies are very unique and different from each other, and a lot of the battle is settled by shooting.

It really comes down to what you find more exciting. Personally, I like both for different reasons.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top