I saw a post in which Apollo3 said," if I regressed to a 12 year old mind set and thus wanted to start playing 40k over Fantasy..."

This got me thinking, why do people think 40K is such a kiddie game? I've been playing it exclusively for over a year, and it's a really fun game. The movement is alot easier than Fantasy, but everything else has its own nuances and tweaks, just as the rules in Fantasy do.


Why does everybody hate 40K/ think its a kiddie game? Please leave comments, I'm curious on your thoughts.

Personally my dislikes of it branch off of the turn of childish likes into Space Marine spam, for one. I also dislike the many different equipment items for one model, like one with a rocket launcher, and another with a burna. I also like Fantasy genre more than Sci Fi, I also don't like the fact that it brings children along, who are prone to fits when they lose and most lack actual strategy.

Older versions of 40K were indeed great fun - lots of details, rules, options, etc. The newer versions are all dumbed down in comparison and it seems to many that its more about dice rolling than true tactics.

Perhaps...

40K = Checkers

WHFB = Chess

I'm going to disagree. 40k 5th edition is great fun...a lot of mobility and decision making on the field. Not less tactical, just different to Fantasy.

I certainly don't hate 40k... It's quite nice to paint! The only thing I hate about it is THOSE...DAMN...ULTRAMARINEEEEEES! I personally don't find it childish, although I've only played a single game of it against myself... Plus, I'm a huge Sci-Fi and Fantasy nerd, so if I had to choose between the two I wouldn't be able to. People think it's childish? Imagine a bunch of tall black guys in heavy armor with flamethrowers, scorching hideous deamons who's very presence burns the eye because of colors incomprehensible by human minds... Then think of children. Do they mix? I think not!

Old prejudices. 40k is based on the WHFB ruleset but has been changed, often by removing rules, so naturally you'd say it was a "dumbed down version".
And sure its is maybe easier to get into, though I'd say mainly its the model range, fewer models, more big stuff that makes it easier for young people to get into the hobby and 40k then gets tarnished with the image "only kids play it".

That's not even going into te relative psychology of gamers, "what I do is serious, its those other games that are fore nerds, children, etc ,etc".

Fifth I keep hearing consistently has been a big upgrade in tactical decision making.

I think there was a period (3rd, maybe 4th) certainly after the Tau's release where the impression was - whoever gets first turn and has the big guns wins. That is a long time ago though.

I personally think the WFB block movement system adds a lot to the tactics of the game in WFB's favor - but I've heard very consistently that the 4th and 5th ed 40K mission system does the same for 40K.

I am an avid 40K fan (10 painted 40k armies) and the thing with 40k is that learning the basics is much easier but - much as it is with WFB - great tacticians are great tacticians. I could let my opponent pick which of my armies they want to face and will outplay and beat the avg 40k players using their own OMFGKIILLYOOZAHL "tier1" kitted out army.

a lot of 40k only players think that fantasy is boring and slow, just to give voice to the other side.

i don't mind 40k for a bit of a laugh, but i look to fantasy for serious games. that's only because i find the way movement works in fantasy to be a more involved part of the tactics.

@ShaggothLord: I think one of the reasons you think the way you do about it being the "kiddie" game is because at the Palatine store, I've only seen kids play 40K. At Woodfield and the internet cafe/gaming table place I go to, it's all 18+.

I think 5th Edition has really changed 40K in general. It's alot quicker than Fantasy, and it takes a different tactical mindset than Fantasy. In Fantasy, deployment and movement is the key, but in 40K its completing the mission objective(s) and combining movement with shooting.

Also, there is alot less of a "Codex/Army Book Creep" in 40K. For example, every time a book comes out, there are options to make the list abusive, but there alot of ways to make your army fun and unique as well.


and @The Albino- I agree, there is alot of Ultramarines craziness, but nobody plays them seriously, they're for hte most part just the paint scheme on the boxes.

The newer Codexes have also been getting back to the size they were in 2nd ED. and are choc-full of special rules, wargear, new units and fluff. Good riddance to the thin catalogues that defined 40K as the 'kiddie' game.

I also think the the sci fi elements - big guns, monstrous aliens, tanks, power-armoured superheroes, etc - appeal to the younger generation more than regiments of often weedy-looking troops armed with simple weapons.

Plaguebeast

I love the fluff, really like the models. Where I am, it is the teenagers that play the game and I don't enjoy playing against kids, I'm a grumpy old coot. The gray hairs and bald heads all play fantasy. And I really don't like the rules right now of that game. Fantasy and WAB are much more to my liking.

oddly enough my FLGS has an almost exclusive 40k base, very few players for fantasy and most of the 40k players are grey beards ;p

GREYFOX! Sorry... Couldn't resist.
Yes, hopefully 40k will return to it's former self, that way you'll have less people calling it simple and stuff.

40k is a great game for kids. They don't need alot of models and the rules are simple. I think Games Workshop really had kids in their mindset when this game was introduced. Its great for marketing and model sales.

In my gaming area 40k is kind of like the training game set for young players. Then they move up to play Fantasy with the big boys. At our gaming store you hear kids talking about how they can't wait to start playing the "Huge Fantasy armies". I guess to 40k player seeing a Orc and Goblins 2250pt Battleline would look pretty massive.

I started playing warhammer junior when I got into the hobby 10 years ago. I thought WFB was 'boring and slow' until I the 6th ed beast book. I bought an army, because it was practically free with the old GW discount and soon learned that I had written off the 'boring and slow' game for no good reason. I've been on and off interwoven with the hobby on a few levels since then, barring a break of a few years along the way. I've got a few fully painted 40k armies and a boat load of game experience in 3rd and 4th ed. I'm a Tau guy (I love hooves, what can I say) and I own pretty much everything forgeworld for them. 5th edition didn't change enough and added cover saves so I quit probably for good.

I say all these things to show that I'm clearly not biased against 40k. But I can still put my hand on my heart and call it Warhammer Junior. It's easier to get your head around and it's 'simpler' to cheese up where cheesing up is possible.

Playing WFB is for the big boys and playing it ethically is for the even bigger boys (cheap shot at you gits out there, you know who you are :)).

I would love 40k if the hitting was according to charge and not Initiative
and if force weapons would be less over the top :D
anyways got my hands full on warhammer...

well i dont mind 40k... neither do my 8000+ points of chaos space marines (Seriously I counted them a few weeks ago and its like :blink: :unsure: :run: )

Most people that hate 40k dont like it because 40k doesnt worry about unit possitioning, flanking and all the stuff that makes warhammer so interesting to play. That is basically most of their arguement and it can be blown out of the water with logic.
Think about it, when was the last time you seen real life soldiers advancing in ordered, tightly packed blocks beside one another before they get within hand to hand combat range and charge then counter charge?
You wouldn't see it out in afghanistan or iraq, so why would it be happening thousands of years in the furture. That kind of war fare doesn't even make sense in current or future times.
Modern warfare is being fought at long range and it is basically a "who has the biggest gun" fight.
Don't beleive me, you may want to check the news recently, the british army decided to use a type of rifle that was designed to be short and compact, perfect for the close quarters fighting that was expected when we were clearing every room in a city of insurgent extremists. Now we are protecting places in helmand province where there are alot of the ground is open and exposed we had a problem, the insurgent's guns were capable of a greater range. So what did we do?
We went out and got bigger guns.
If our current warfare strategies are just "Get the biggest gun and apply it liberally to the enemy's face" can you imagine what it is like in the future?
Saying "40k players just line up and shoot each other from across the table" is just redundant, because that is the only logical way to win a battle in a time where the average guy on the board has a mini grenade launcher. (if that point doesn't work just point them at an empire/dwarf gunline)
What is the point in marching over a corpse strewn battlefield to get in someone's face when you can just blow him up on the other side of the battlefield with a giant tank? And since when do you need a flank charge to melt someone with a lasergun?

I don't hate any system (except maybe vista occasionaly) but I dont see why people like to rag on 40k because they don't have fun with it. Most of the old "roundbase" vs "squarebase" stuff is just for laughs and doesn't really matter but I hate the use of the word "immature", sure alot of the kids get into it because they see the big blue man (dont get me started on the ultramarines) holding off an entire horde of jibbering aliens by himself and think "ooh shiney! me wanty! me use daddy's money!" but that shouldn't make the system any less valid than warhammer and shouldn't be a flak magnet for hate.

It's certainly true - that modern infantry don't fight in closed formations and that the lack of formation based effects is part of the reason WFB players feel 40K is less tactically interesting.

However saying 'gee modern warfare doesn't use formations so why should warfare in 39,000 years' ignores the the fact that modern warfare also doesn't have elite well equiped troops defaulting to the use of swords, axes etc. as a preferred choice.

Nor do you find many elite troops choosing to bust tanks by running up to it and hitting it with their bionically enhanced fist (or a grenade)

That ignores the fact that these firefights including the use of missile launchers etc are functionally limited to ranges a fraction of what's achieved with modern weaponry (how often in modern warfare is a tank running down enemy troops vs shelling them from a distance)

There is already a pretty significant suspension of disbelief with the 40K rule set. I'm not by any means saying there should be formations - but let's not pretend that the rules conventions make much if any sense compared to modern warfare.

WH40k is just as tactical as WHF. If you deny that you either did not play the game (or not enough to really be able to say you really have played the game), or you were just not good at it. But don't blame the game. B)

And yes I think I can be arrogant (for once :P ) to think I'm right, because I won some fantasy tournaments and play both games for Fantasy 11 and 40k 5 years now.

Saying it is a junior version because some of its rules are easier then those of WHF is ridiculous as for example chess has even less rules and isn't really a baby game, is it? ;)

You have to see the entire picture. For example, the scenario's are really important to 40k. I could say fantasy is just hack and slash, while in 40k you have to fulfill a mission. Now it looks like fantasy is the junior version, doesn't it? :P This is offcourse not true as well. They are just both more or less equal strategic games. I don't think any one can say what game is the most strategic one. They are actually not comparable. You can't just compare them on the movement phase alone.

Just my point of view. ;)

I thought I'd contribute here, since this subject has arisen recently in my circle of friends.

The power creep has, for me, killed Fantasy. GW hasn't improved the books in terms of the game, they've just added attacks and ridiculous rules, and made some armies borderline invincible in the right hands, and others woeful. 40k is different, therefore better, in my opinion.

I love both system. I tihnk that are fun and got very good backround and lovley models. You can really enjoy the system in there own ways :)

I got btw a Lamenters chapter and Nurgle daemons in 40k :) My daemons are deadly, has ever only lost one game (and I don´t even use epidemus)

It's good to see some 40K backers now.

Like the Great Unclean One posted, fantasy has a huge power-creep going on. The newest book is the strongest. In 40K, you have the ability to make a fluffy or competitive army from any book.

Another thing about Fantasy that I've realized is that it gets repetitive after awhile. In 40K, there are 3 missions and 3 different deployment types, all of which require a different set of tactics and strategies, meaning that your army must be good at different things, and you must be able to switch to a different mindset every game. This is becoming even more prominent with the new Battle Missions book. With Fantasy, your army can be a one-trick pony, doing the same thing in the same deployment every game.

40k is ok. I think the newest rules really hurt shooting armies and helped fighty horde armies.

Kill points is interesting but the objectives ruin it for me. Nothing too tactical about sitting a squad of marines inside a landraider on top of an objective.

But seriously, we love 40k it keeps all of the children out of fantasy!

I'm of the opinion the Fantasy Power Creep has been declining since the Daemons last may. And I can assure you that the new Beastmen are not the most powerful Fantasy book out there, despite being the newest.

On topic, I'm alright with 40k (playing Eldar is just as tactical as the average fantasy army, and more tactical than some), but I do find that Fantasy lends itself better to competitive play, so it's my favourite system at the moment.

Last May were Empire. The Deamons came two years ago. ;)

I don't think you mean Empire Mrtn :) that was 4 years ago.

See this wonderful page by our own Avian for a list of releases

http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/misc/releases.php

He's missing some recent releases - but after DE it goes
Warriors of Chaos
Lizardmen
Skaven
Beastmen

Bottom line since DE in august 2008 the books have been generally fairly balanced with each other - Beastmen of course being a topic of key debate here on our own forum.

I actually think most folks on this thread haven't been that anti40K - it is a WFB forum so it does select for folks who are playing the square based toys game.

We had a similar thread on LoTr not too long ago . . .

40k always struck me as a game you played with about 1500 points, tops.

Fantasy on the other hand, I imagine large armies of multitudes of everything, each unit being characterful in it's own right, with powerful heroes who actually can sometimes defeat an entire unit on their own due to their sheer awesomeness.

I play some 40k, (coincidentally, I've only started making three different space marine armies :S) and something that struck me was many armies have like one or two core/troop choices (SMs, Tau, Necrons, Dark Eldar) when I can't recall a single WFB army book that has less than three core choices (excluding the fact that dwarves could have two, if thunderers were changed to be an upgrade of quarrellers) which tells me there is less freedom of a characterful army.

Hm... power creep in 40K... let me see. No, no power creep found in there. No huge overpowering monsters leading swarm armies. No machines whose armour can soak attacks that are designed to destroy armour. No weapon teams that are actually cheap for the devastation they can make. No cannons that shoot 2 times the width of the table without line of sight.
Nope. No power creep in 5th edition 40K. Just every new army is better in many ways than the previous ones.
And the necrons and the dark eldar can crush the new IG, Tyranids and space marines without need of a new codex.

Don't get me wrong. I love my tinheads and will not change them for any other 40K army. Even if they need urgent update.

I have nothing against 40K, it just requires a very different approach to the game as it is a very different game. But I must agree that in many ways it is Warhammer Junior.

Necrons are bad since they just didn't fit the 5th edition rules. Tau too. Aside from that, pretty much everything can compete very well (DE are still damn good with the right choices, just they aren't very popular).

I think that there is very little power-creep in 40K, as everything can be countered easily if you made a good army.

Those over-powering monsters- Battle-Cannon, Demolisher Cannon, Plasma Cannon...the list goes on.

Machines with high armour- melta-bomb, power klaw, meltagun, multi-melta, lance, a couple lascannon teams...

Cheap weapon teams (Guard only basically)- anything will kill them in combat, even a Tau

Cannons- deep-strikers/podders, long range anti-tank (lascannons, battle-cannons...)

Really, 40K is a really balanced game, all the books have competitive options, and fun options, just as decker said.

Just wished they'd update my bloody DE. Or please please please don't drop them.

I doubt DE are going to get updated for quite a while, after Blood Angels this year is supposed to be all Fantasy, and next year I've heard to be the year of another Fantasy release and then Inquisition.

Which is sad but fine. To be honest at this rate I live in terror of joining the squats.

I'm sure there were solid rumours that Jes Goodwin was working on the model range. I know, I know - they're rumours, but I seriously doubt DE will be dropped.

Plaguebeast

I even think I saw some artwork some months ago for Dark Eldar.

It´s pretty solid rumour that DE is coming out (finally).

Hmmm... that's the other thing that gets me with 40K. Marines have had 15,000 updates since 3rd edition and Necrons have had 0.

Way too much favoritism (a little I can understand, but how hard is it to publish something to help out these neglected lists?).

Well, as soon as GW publishes a book, they need to make new models to please us. And what everybody wants is plastic (Wyches and Incubi in the case of DE), which I'm sure you know isn't expensive. But the molds are.

And the favoritism isn't so much because GW designers are Space Marine/Ultramarine fanboys, they are money fanboys, and Space Marines are what sell.

Apparently the entire DE range has been redone by Jess Goodwyn (100%, which no army has gotten in either system since Wood Elfs).

The only books redone in 5th edition that weren't extremely old and/or desperately needed it were Tyranids and Marines. As two of the signature armies from 40k, they're going to be redone every edition.