For those who also play the miniature games, which offers more strategy and tactics? Warhammer Fantasy or Warhammer 40k?

Just wondering what people think....

I think that Warhammer Fantasy offers a more tactical game, though the draw backs is the time setting up and time per turn over warhammer 40k. Though 40k is a much quicker game and people generally enjoy this system more for friendly gaming.

If its down to cost i think 40k is cheaper as you normally get about 500points (normal games being about 1500 points) per battle force which is ready to have skirmish games. While with Warhammer you will normally get about 300-400 points (with games on average being about 2000 so you can include a lord character).

Plus there is nothing like having your tanks blowing big holes in your enemy lines.

Cheers

YN

I'd say fantasy, in 40k it pretty much comes down to run forward shooting then bash some 'eads together. I think it has potential to be strategic but it seems to just miss the mark, a player doesnt worry about loosing a small squad of soilders when there is a tank right behind them to get revenge, but in fantasy all the utits are ussually big so they are all worth while, and the small units are the fantasy version of a tank.

In fantasy it is more tactics with flanking and stuff, the player would need any advantage he can get.

but tht is just my opinoin.

Both equally. In fact do you expect most people here to say otherwise?
This kind of discussions tend to annoy me. Not only do they stereotype frequently they tend to end up quite elitist in flavor.
They say the average Fantasy player is maturer than the average 40K player but if that is true it comes at the price of snobbery and elitism. At least if I am to form an opinion solely based on the response in threads like this on dedicated forums.

haha, careful not to start a flame war.

I have in the past played 40K.. But i think Warhammer Fantasy is more complex and tactical , it takes into account magic pools for the turn and charging from the sides and increasing movement but skipping shooting if running into melee.

I agree in that both equally offer tactical play, it's just a different type of tactics in each. I compare fantasy and 40k to chess and checkers. Both are very tactical games, simialr but different enough that you have to have a different style of game play.

It depends what you wanna go for Fantasy is a very involved game that requires a lot of time to play 40k is a lot quicker as a game but can be just as in depth.

Both have similar tactics involving shooting and maneuvering your troops to maximize combat.

Personally, I think Fantasy is more strategic because you have to maintain cohesion of your lines and not let enemy get to your side or behind you and charge. This is really bad in the game.

40k troop lines flow more in packs. You don't have to worry about flanks or rear charges, but you do need to worry about letting units get isolated.

I'm a 40K player for 15 years now and here's my two cents on the matter:

Warhammer Fantasy is the more tactical game, but the overall look and fluff of 40K makes it the better game/universe.

They'll tell you that WHFB has more tactics, which is true to a point... however, more than half the time in fantasy, after we're rolled off to set up and place terrain, we'd pretty much know who was going to win after set up was done. This was 4.0 iirc...

40K its all dice. A bit of terrain matters (the more terrain the better the HtH armies do naturally so that was usually indicative of the winner)... HOWEVER 40Ks all about throwing things at each other and smacking them around... Then again I played 3rd edition of 40k, i suppose its a bit different now?

I played the 40K 2nd Edition back in the 90's...it was a great system. I actually played this game for a year before I bought Warhammer Fantasy. When the 3rd Edition of 40K came out, I was not impressed. It seemed as if they "dummed down" the game to gain a larger and younger audience (If this makes me elitist, so be it.). All movement was made generic (every ground troop moved 6 inches), psychic abilties were greatly reduced, all things that made 40K armies uniquely different and fun to field.

In my opinion Warhammer Fantasy has maintained its superiority in the area of strategy/tactics over its various incarnations while the recent editions of 40K seem to have lost this (Once again, if this makes me elitist, so be it.). It's much harder to maintain your battleline (having your flank collapse is a very bad thing) and moving blocks of infantry and charging can be challenging as well. Also, the Warhammer Fantasy fluff is better than 40K fluff in my opinion.

I have played both games since the 80's... yes 1st edition...

Best way to say it is that 40K = checkers and WFB = chess...

Cheers,

Excellent analogy.

Kaledor said:

Luckily not exactly... look, chess lack luck. (uh, sorry) And the armies are completely the same.

While I dislike chess, I play WHFB for some time. I tried it because I became intersted because W:I. It's far from perfect, but a playable and interesting wargame.