Easter Trashdome: WH40K vs WHFB (closes May 8th)

WELCOME TO TRASHDOME!


This is a special Easter 'dome, so everybody gets ample opportunity to join in the fray. Something to get your teeth sunk in deep. It will run for two weeks (mostly because I will be on holiday, so be nice to each other!). You have until Sunday May 8th when I tally the bets and declare the winner. I will reserve my bet for any tie-breakers.


Two games enter! One game leaves!

WH40K. Only because it's closest to the "Heresy" time line.

WHFB for being the better game, better theme: WH40K is just WHFB but with space suits! (Space Dwarfs, Space Elves, Space Orks, Space Faraohs) The only redeeming quality of WH40K being Space Marines and Space Hulk.

Vote: WHFB

Vote: Warhammer 40k

I found WHFB too pedantic for its own good.

40K. It's part game, part space opera, and all fun.

I do like Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but it's just not as engaging as helping the Emperor of Mankind crush the forces of Chaos, dig?

I've actually never played either game, so I'm going purely on the fluff. I think that I slightly prefer 40K, but perhaps because I'm more familiar with it. It follows that insane level of darkness that has crossed the line from disturbing into goofy, and I find that almost admirable.

I have a suspicion that I might prefer WFB if I was more into it, but for the time being, I'm going with what I know.

Vote: 40K

Bah, 40K, it's for the kids!

Vote: Warhammer Fantasy Battles

It's got more variety, more manoeuvering, more awesome looking on the tabletop (ranks and ranks of soldiers, war machines, monsters, heroes, cavalry), more equipment for your characters, duelling, etc.

40K has a lot going for it though, what with a better setting once it got farther than Warhammer Fantasy in space idea , and fighting with space tanks and aliens is pretty cool. But as I said, it's for the kids.

Both games have around the same number of army books/codexes, but half of 40K's are variations on space marines, so ultimately a lot less variety.

WarHammer Fantasy Battles. WH40K has a great background story but the 5th edition rules are just really elementary.

S.

Please.

WFB may be derivative or uninspired to some, but I think it's hodge-podge of fantasy genres is a strength. There's an army for pretty much any flavor of fantasy fan. From the Moorcockian Dark Elves to the Arthurian Bretonnians.

I've always been amazed that WFB has more army choices for a setting that covers a handful of continents than 40K which is galaxy wide. Where's the variety in 40K? GWs bread is buttered with all the Space Marine players (seemingly 80% of all lists I see).

Gameplay. No comparison. None. One game is based on maneuvering whereas the other is based on army build and initial deployment.

Besides all this, there is nothing in 40K that is as metal as a Troll Slayer.

Anyone voting for 40K hasn't played both games, and is reading too many Dan Abnett novels.

Vote: Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

I'll be the first of many, I'm sure, to note that I have indeed played both games and still like 40K better.

I'm not a huge fan of Eldar, but playing Genestealers or Orks is not a bad deal. Marines are invariably cooler and they do get a ton of fans, hence the reason (I believe) for the schism in the "known universe" that allows Marines to fight Marines; were it not for that I'm not sure too many people would be able to play since, as you pointed out, 80% of everybody has a man-crush on Marines.

Still, I think 40K has a far more compelling theme, and it is a fun game even though I agree that a lot of the game has to do with deployment and build. That beiong said, war is about setting the preconditions for victory as much as about the actual battle itself, so I don't see that as antithematic or as a negative.

Both are fine games, I just like 40K better.

Jeff White wrote: Please.

WFB may be derivative or uninspired to some, but I think it's hodge-podge of fantasy genres is a strength. There's an army for pretty much any flavor of fantasy fan. From the Moorcockian Dark Elves to the Arthurian Bretonnians.

I've always been amazed that WFB has more army choices for a setting that covers a handful of continents than 40K which is galaxy wide. Where's the variety in 40K? GWs bread is buttered with all the Space Marine players (seemingly 80% of all lists I see).

Gameplay. No comparison. None. One game is based on maneuvering whereas the other is based on army build and initial deployment.

Besides all this, there is nothing in 40K that is as metal as a Troll Slayer.

Anyone voting for 40K hasn't played both games, and is reading too many Dan Abnett novels.

Vote: Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Played both and thought that WHFB sucked hot volcanic rocks.

Me? I DESPISE THE SPACE MARINES. Give me Pimp Guard or Eldar any day of the week. I'd rather give up playing altogether if I were forced to play them. The only time I do is when I play DOW on the PC, and that's when I paint them day-glo flamingo pink for the fairy munchkins that they are.

Jeff White wrote: Moorcockian

vote: WFB

SuperflyTNT wrote: Still, I think 40K has a far more compelling theme, and it is a fun game even though I agree that a lot of the game has to do with deployment and build. That beiong said, war is about setting the preconditions for victory as much as about the actual battle itself, so I don't see that as antithematic or as a negative.

Sure, but when the focus of the games themselves are actually about playing the battle at hand there isn't a comparison. I'll take jockeying for position over sitting back and throwing handfuls of dice ten times out of ten.

Rliyan wrote:

Played both and thought that WHFB sucked hot volcanic rocks.

Please elaborate. Outside of the theme and modelling, reading, video games etc (all that stuff you do on your own time) I'd enjoy hearing how 40K plays as a better game than WFB.

I've only played the latest edition of 40K once, as most of my plays where with 3rd and 4th. If 5th is better (I didn't find it better than WFB) I'd like to know what I'm missing.

I am not a fan of either, really. Tabletop minis just ain't my bag...too expensive, and I can't paint for shit.

However, Sci-Fi is harder to come by as a theme where I can get fantasy pretty much anywhere. So if pressed, I gotta go 40K.


VOTE: WH40k

They're different game styles, though, Jeff. 40K is a pure and simple skirmish game where each unit is an individual (although they can and do move in loose formations) where FB is a unit game more closely tied to a civil war game than anything else I can compare it to.

With 40K, facings don't really matter, and the details are left in the nebula; you must assume that as professional soldiers they know what they're doing and will always assume the best defensive or offensive positions.

With FB, everything is left to the user; facings, movement type (charging/marching..) and it's far more of a "war simulator" than a skirmish. It's a lot more work if you dig that sort of thing.

Then there's the shooting. You can't equate the two because one is using powered armor and firearms where the other is sticks and bows and whatnot. There has to be range modifiers in FB because the weapons are far more primative where the 40K weapons are assumed to have very, very long range.

Then there's all the other checks and whatnot....panics, frenzies..there's a lot more shit going on in FB. Maybe that's why I like 40K better...there's less chrome and more "I want to fucking nuke you...roll...you're nuked" versus "I want to nuke you...decide movement type..move guys...check for morale (yada yada)...roll...(check for so and so)...wait while everything is tallied...ok, you MAY be nuked, and you have to break ranks and flee".

Too much minute detail in FB, hence my vote.