Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2023/05/03 22:36:07
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
triplegrim wrote: Does anyone know which year 40k began outselling WHFB?
The answer is complicated by the release of LotR, which sucked a lot of the sales out of WHFB. I don't necessarily mean players quit the one and took up the other, but I for one liquidated two whole WHFB armies and replaced them with LotR figures, and I know a lot of other people were doing the same.
LotR's cost of entry at that point was laughably low, so people could get their fantasy on for far less.
Before LotR came out, 40k was gaining ground, but LotR accelerated the trend, not the least because all the "fantasy" energy was there, rather than the Old World.
Easy E wrote: Reminds of the title of some YouTube video to drum up clicks.....
"Are you mature enough for Historical gaming?"
No one gate keeps better then people WITHIN the the gates all ready! There must be a hierarchy of wargames and players darn it!
Humans are hierarchical creatures. As soon as a community emerges, a social structure is put into place.
One of the amusing aspects is the mutual disdain that flows from this. For a long time, historical gaming vastly outnumbered the upstart sci-fi community. Those numbers may well have been reversed, but being outnumbered has never bothered a group of people who consider themselves to be among the elite.
40k is arguably no longer fringe, but that doesn't mean historical gamers don't consider it childish and immature.
I belong to both communities, but I think the historical gamers have a point. Having designed historical and current/future wargames (for strategic/operational planning), I look at GW's design choices with a mixture of horror and admiration - horror at the actual mechanics, but admiration at the money they are making.
Lord Damocles wrote: That was what Fantasy players thought; while imagining themselves wearing top hats and monocles as they pushed their blocks of wound counters directly forwards into the enemy blocks of wound counters to see who won combat due to having the best magic banner.
Never actually played WFB, did we?
Yes. Actually. I had three Fantasy armies, and encountered the attitude which I described almost exclusively. So nyeh.
Cyel wrote: What is interesting, though, I never thought people actually play WFB as you're describing it, until recently, when I saw some 6th edition reports on YouTube. It is a very different take on the game from the one I remember and I have already talked about how surprising it is for me in the Old World topic: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/5700/782431.page#11502979
Spoiler:
For example recently I've been surprised to watch some of the 6th edition reports from this channel
and, boy, if you played WFB like that no wonder your opponent having a few inches of charge range advantage made all the difference! To copy my comment from underneath this report:
I have watched a few of these reports already, and the saturation of player agency, interesting, meaningful and non-obvious decisions per unit of gameplay time (or per page of rules) seems abysmal. These blocks just get shuffled forward until they meet what was deployed directly across the battlefield from them and then totally random combat Yhatzee gives some result which tips balance in favour of one of the sides...
My memory tells me that the game was far more strategic than that. Or maybe it's the fact that for some reason you don't use a lot of sacrificial units, especially fast cavalry which can redirect these expensive blocks at unfavourable angles. I remember always playing with 3 min. Wolf Rider units in O&G, 3 min. units of Warhounds inChaos, 3 min. Dire Wolves in Vampires etc. Can't imagine just having nothing to throw away to delay this Black Knight Bus for a turn (or to toy with those Khorne Knights all newbies erroneously thought were awesome because stats ;D)!
I remember using your shooting, magic and support units to kill enemy support units, because with more sacrificial support than your opponent you could control their movement (by baiting or redirecting, or taking a charge and overrun into an anvil and countercharging in a flank). With so little support it really feels like blocks shuffling forward and dice deciding everything...simple, shallow gameplay not justifying dozens of pages of rules and 2 hours spent doing it.
I'm sure that 6th ed Fantasy (amongst other editions) could be played to a higher level - much like 8th ed. didn't have to boil down to 'throw all of your power dice at the biggest spell possible, aimed at the opponent's massive deathstar, and hope to roll irresistible force, before they do the same to you', but I don't think that in all of my time playing or watching later editions' games I've ever really seen any more meaningful tactical play than 'ho ho old chum, I've parked my minimally sized unit of disposable fast cavalry in front of your block of fellows. But see here! It's at a slight angle, so your chaps will be effectively removed from the game if they charge me! Tally ho!' *drops monocle*.
Meanwhile, those same players would play 40K, and adopt an attitude of 'since there isn't a codified mechanical flanking bonus, manoeuvring must be worthless, so I'll just rush directly forwards and get shot', and then complain that because they lose every game 40 must have no tactics...
2023/05/07 08:40:26
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
I do recall a lot of effort from historical gamers trying to sell the superiority of their games, and trying to 'poach' gw players. I remember taking one look at some Napoleonic figures (remembering that this was probably around 1997) and mentally comparing it to my wights and ghouls, to my khorne berzerkers and terminators, to my cawdor gangers and redemptionist zealots, and to the newly released Abaddon and Khârn the Betrayer models. As someone who has always been in the hobby for the models, I had absolutely no intention of switching based on what I saw.
Lord Damocles wrote: That was what Fantasy players thought; while imagining themselves wearing top hats and monocles as they pushed their blocks of wound counters directly forwards into the enemy blocks of wound counters to see who won combat due to having the best magic banner.
Never actually played WFB, did we?
Yes. Actually. I had three Fantasy armies, and encountered the attitude which I described almost exclusively. So nyeh.
Much is explained. New players often lack the skill in playing the game beyond 'shove everything to the middle and let the hardest unit win'. It's often as true in 40K as it is in WFB. It's the mindset that leads to Deathstar army builds.
After a months to years of losing, you start learning the value of deployment, of positioning, of maneuver, of prioritizing fire, and when to - and when not to - charge into battle. Once that happens, you find the 'shove everything into the middle' crowd to be quite easy to defeat. Again, just as true in 40K as in WFB.
If your group is not very experienced, or has never played against experienced players, yeah. "Shove everything to the middle" is going to be the default. And the lot of you will get your heads handed back to you in a tournament setting, even if you're using a 'top-tier netlist,' because they understand how to use deployment, positioning, maneuver and fire to manufacture a decisive advantage when engaging the blocks you're just shoving forward into the middle of the board.
I started making a point of having a post-battle debrief of my opponents who used 'shove it to the middle' as their main tactic. "Here's what you did, and here's what I did to counter it; that's why I won so easily. Now, what can you do next time to keep me from doing that?"
It gets boring to win easily a lot, and someone who loses a lot tends to quit, reducing the number of available opponents. Not a good thing for my entertainment, nor for the hobby at large.
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done.
2023/05/08 06:18:45
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
Exactly what Vulcan said. The game was won not with mainline units but with support. The side that won the early support game, could do whatever they wanted with enemy mainline stuff.
And yeah, of course there were mindless shooty/magic lists, no denying it. But saying that the game was about pushing everything forward until they met the opponent's units just means somebody played at the similar level to the video I linked a few posts above (which shows very basic understanding of how the game plays).
2023/05/08 07:59:16
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
Completely anecdotally, in my area you generally had the younger players collecting LoTR and 40k (this extended through to late teens) and older guys (20+) player WHFB (which was the 'main' game of my local club) along with historicals.
I don't think this was anything intrinsic about the games - but I guess coming to the club if you're 25+ most people don't want to hang about and play with someone that is 13, and visa-versa. So a lot depended on existing gaming groups.
When WHFB was killed off that split the groups up, you had some moving to AoS, others to other games. I guess there is every chance you could go 10 miles down the road to another club and find a different picture.
Pacific wrote: Completely anecdotally, in my area you generally had the younger players collecting LoTR and 40k (this extended through to late teens) and older guys (20+) player WHFB (which was the 'main' game of my local club) along with historicals.
I don't think this was anything intrinsic about the games - but I guess coming to the club if you're 25+ most people don't want to hang about and play with someone that is 13, and visa-versa. So a lot depended on existing gaming groups.
When WHFB was killed off that split the groups up, you had some moving to AoS, others to other games. I guess there is every chance you could go 10 miles down the road to another club and find a different picture.
It's almost certain the club 10 miles down the road was different. Everyone's a little different, and every group is likewise different.
In the last group I was in, there were a couple youngsters who were in and out irregularly. Good kids, by and large. The more hardcore tournament players didn't like to play them, but others of us would play them and help them learn the tactics of the game.
So, yeah. Each group has it's own dynamic, to suit the needs and likes of the people in that group. Just the way people are.
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done.
2023/05/09 22:20:54
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
JamesY wrote: I do recall a lot of effort from historical gamers trying to sell the superiority of their games, and trying to 'poach' gw players. I remember taking one look at some Napoleonic figures (remembering that this was probably around 1997) and mentally comparing it to my wights and ghouls, to my khorne berzerkers and terminators, to my cawdor gangers and redemptionist zealots, and to the newly released Abaddon and Khârn the Betrayer models. As someone who has always been in the hobby for the models, I had absolutely no intention of switching based on what I saw.
I had zero interest in Napoleonic gaming because of the emphasis on correct uniforms. The Fantasy/40k crowd was much more flexible in that respect. Anything above "ghost army/tin boyz" generally was accepted.
The other problem I had was that there were board game versions of many of those historical battles that took up far less space, making them more attractive. Buy a game of Gettysburg for $25 or spend that much on a couple of units? I know where I'm going.
Because it was scaled to D&D, a lot of the WHFB minis could do double duty as NPCs and monsters and of course 40k was highly individualized army men.
I wonder how much the 3rd ed. 40k "schism" factors into opinions? Up till 1999, they both used the same core rules (and some of the same units!). After that was when the game play differences became more pronounced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/09 22:22:16
JamesY wrote: I wonder how much the 3rd ed. 40k "schism" factors into opinions? Up till 1999, they both used the same core rules (and some of the same units!). After that was when the game play differences became more pronounced.
Quick, other than Deamons, name me 1 unit used in both 40k 3e & WHFB of the time.
2023/05/10 05:15:58
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
@CCS You've quoted someone else's words as coming from me.
The chaos codex had a daemon worlds list that included chaos warriors, beastmen, etc. So a lot of fantasy chaos could have been used. Never saw anyone actually use them in 40k, however.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/05/10 05:20:04
@CCS You've quoted someone else's words as coming from me.
Yeah, that was really confusing.
The chaos codex had a daemon worlds list that included chaos warriors, beastmen, etc. So a lot of fantasy chaos could have been used. Never saw anyone actually use them in 40k, however.
In 2nd ed., there were provisions for "primitive" worlds in the Imperium, and both Tyranid Cultists and Chaos Cultists could use what would otherwise have been WHFB figures.
Was there a significant difference between the Exodite Dragon Knights and Cold One Knights?
Before 3rd, there was much more crossover potential. It dropped dramatically after it was introduced.
Lord Damocles wrote: That was what Fantasy players thought; while imagining themselves wearing top hats and monocles as they pushed their blocks of wound counters directly forwards into the enemy blocks of wound counters to see who won combat due to having the best magic banner.
Wow the burn is real
Actually, the "adult" games in our group ended up being non-GW, such as Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Guildball (before it died ), etc.
GW specifically markets heavily to children, while these other games seemed to do the opposite. Almost every player had passed through the gateway of GW games previously, though.
2023/06/23 02:32:53
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
I am an American who lived in Britain as a child before 2003.
My experience was that the WFB and 40k crowds weren't significantly different in the US and Britain. Kids and adults played both.
Adults were more likely to know other miniatures games, but we still had kids into Battletech and Warzone.
There was a moment in the 1990s that someone told me that WFB was the more tactical game and that 40k shpuld be looked down upon, but that proved to be untrue for the editions current to that moment (it was during the Herohammer era in which my Slann Mage Priest literally destroyed his main regiment and caused him to conceed on turn 1).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/23 02:37:50
2023/06/23 08:45:58
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
Fantasy came out first (off the back of Historicals). 40k later. So a lot of fantasy players joined in with 40k as it appeared, making up a lot of the older 40k players, but often mixing games. Not all early Fansasy players went to 40k, staying with Fantasy.
Newer players get the choice of where to start, often beginning with 40k.
Fantasy was quite regimented, with 40k more skirmish, which appealed to different types of gamer.
Everyone I hear about who played when in the armed forces played/painted 40k, so that was their 'in'. I hear that it is more a US thing than a UK thing, with 'soldiers' taking their models when deployed.
And Sci-fi is more 'pew-pew' than fantasy, despite the magic, and probably appeals to younger players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/23 12:51:25
Skinnereal wrote: Fantasy came out first (off the back of Historicals). 40k later. So a lot of fantasy players joined in with 40k as it appeared, making up a lot of the older 40k players, but often mixing games. Not all early Fantasy players went to 40k, staying with Fantasy.
Newer players get the choice of where to start, often beginning with 40k.
Fantasy was quite regimented, with 40k more skirmish, which appealed to different types of gamer.
Everyone I hear about who played when in the armed forces played/painted 40k, so that was their 'in'. I hear that it is more a US thing than a UK thing, with 'soldiers' taking their models when deployed.
So I guess I can see why there would have been an era in which 40k players were younger (because the older players already had WFB armies). That must have been a good long while ago, since I think the audiences were both mixed before we hit the 2nd ed era (my experience starts just a little before 2nd ed)
And Sci-fi is more 'pew-pew' than fantasy, despite the magic, and probably appeals to younger players.
That last bit is where I lose you. I think geek kids love fantasy as much as science fiction. They love Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, Lord of the Rings, and World of Warcraft as well as Star Wars and Halo. Like how older people liked Hero Quest and Space Crusade when they were kids.
I think that 40k is more popular, and I think that popularity kind of breeds popularity in tabletop miniatures games (ie- you've got to have friends get into the game or else you've got no one to play with). The first version of Warhammer Age of Sigmar seemed like it was primarily targeting a younger crowd (ie- 12 year olds who want to assemble and paint the cool minis and don't necessarily want to think about force composition and stuff like that).
2023/06/25 12:42:53
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
odinsgrandson wrote: That last bit is where I lose you. I think geek kids love fantasy as much as science fiction. They love Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, Lord of the Rings, and World of Warcraft as well as Star Wars and Halo. Like how older people liked Hero Quest and Space Crusade when they were kids.
Yes, but do they like assembling and painting fantasy armies and then having to pay close attention to which formation they are using to optimize combat results?
40k dispenses with all that, and all you really worry about is getting the most guns aimed at whatever you want to kill. Fantasy is about using flank marches, skirmishers to screen vulnerable units and the boards are a lot less dramatic.
You may have some hills, a forest or a creek, but there has to be room for the armies to maneuver and the whole business with "clipping" and guess weapons "accidentally" overshooting the visible target to hit units in the backfield made it a very different tabletop experience.
Yes, Herohammer downplayed those aspects, but they were still in the rulebook, and someone who wasn't exposed to beardy play might think that characters and magic were just add-ons. Finding out the truth was always a harrowing experience.
I will also say that historicals had a higher relative profile back then. Micro-armor was available in all the hobby shops of the era, and a large chunk of my Empire army came from Old Glory's historicals line (the balance is from Battle Master).
So I can see that mentality, though around here it was very muted. "Serious" gamers stayed away from GW altogether.
In my area, there were 9 local shops. From 2008 - AOS's release, Fantasy slowly phased out of the game shops but there was one guy who kept it alive. Had tournaments at his house, monthly game days, etc. One of the best tournaments I ever participated in was at his house - 40 players and 20 tables setup. Beer, BBQ, and WHFB. While WHFB was slowly dying, it was still strong with some of the older crowd. It officially died when AOS was released only because they didn't have the General's Handbook.
At this time, many players moved to Warmachine / Hordes. This game was in its Prime as Mark 2 was new, new models coming out, new rules and the game was very tight. Warmachine was very popular and then they changed editions when 40k changed editions. 8th edition 40k was massivey popular and 3rd edition WMH didn't hit as hard and the game slowly died. I'm a bit biased as I was a Skorne player and the army was nigh unplayable because they got lazy with their rules writing here. So while every faction got new models and buffs, Skorne got a re-write about 6-10 months in and ended up spending the edition behind every other faction. I just put my models in a box and left them in the closet.
[/sarcasm]
2023/06/26 14:46:19
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
Our group ranged primarily from late 20's and up. I was in my early to mid 30s at the time and on the younger side. Most were mid 40s to early 50s. If the player was in HS, their dad was in the gaming group too.
AOS started to take hold after GHB1 and AOS 2.0 dropped. Now AOS is popular and you can find a couple of players at 1-2 shops. Some driving may be required though. The guy who kept Fantasy on life support moved and his kids are in college (or recently graduated?). I still keep in touch with him as he's friends with my parents. Some of these guys would be in their late 60s now.
[/sarcasm]
2023/06/30 10:14:02
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
Got in to 40k when 3rd edition came out and 40k was definitley the more popular option at that time. The amount of places you could get GW product in locally was quite limited, and both places had very limited fantasy stock shelf warming for years while they would get in a decent amount of new 40k stuff. God help anyone who wanted any blisters or character models, it meant a 3 hour train journey to the only GW store in the country or stumbling across a rare FLGS if you were ever in a different part of the country.
40k was easier to get in to because of the cost, the Space Marine Battle Force had 10 Marines, 5 Terminators, 3 Bikes, a Landspeeder and some ruins for £40. In comparison 3 metal High Elf Spearmen were £8 and you needed loads of them that you couldnt buy because nowhere stocked them.
2023/07/01 01:14:40
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
40k was the kids game because fantasy had a much longer life span in the 90s. Old grogs had those big armies built over years while the kids wanted skirmish games of 40k. Points cost wasn't that important, hell half the rules weren't either. 40k was much much easier to play unit vs unit and that's why kids were more drawn to it.
Necrons were 2nd edition not 3rd.. they had 2 units and a hq in 2nd ed.
2023/07/04 04:53:28
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
This also overlooks the town/country divide. Stores in cities were typically 40k stores, those in towns or a bit more rural (provincial, if you will :p) were typically WHFB strongholds. The Liverpool store for example would do gangbusters on new 40k releases around this time, whereas Southport (~15 miles away) would be packed with Fantasy gamers, and that was across the age range. It's always struck me that it's at least superficially similar to the football/rugby divide, interestingly.
I've no idea if this still holds true with AoS, my contacts in the retail side of the company have long since moved on.
The game is much more popular in the United States than in its native Britain, with most of the spin-off video games being developed by American and Canadian companies. United States having a population five times larger than the United Kingdom is a factor. The other major factor is that in Britain 40k had generally been considered a children's game while adults played the Fantasy equivalent or more serious historical wargames, while in the U.S. it was associated with college students and other grown adults.
How true would you say this claim is (or was anyway before 2000)? I can say at least as being half Brit who's living in America my relatives who were into the game before 2003 tended to play Fantasy more while bust of my now adult uncles and cousins played 40K as kids and prefer playing 40K now.
Can any one still living in the country give their input?
OK, so, first post on DakkaDakka in probably 10 years or more, back with a new account.
I’m from the UK and grew up 30 minutes away from what is now Warhammer World. ok, so to start... From what I understand, the spin off video games are developed by American and Canadian studies because financially that serves GW best.
OK then games for kids vs games for grown ups. I started WHFB in second edition I think and got my first Bob Naismith Space Marines around the same time shortly before 40K was even a thing so 86ish. They were all individual figures and I think they were 75p each.
What I found back then was that the WHFB players basically were younger than the historical gamers, often the kids played WHFB under the wings of fathers who played historical. One of my friend's father ran the local wargaming club and I think he saw GW as like a gateway drug into the world or "real" wargaming
Then when 40K came along, the slightly older kids some of whom were themselves becoming young adults, had already invested in WHFB and didn’t want to reinvest in a new system whilst the younger kids, who'd not committed financially to either system at that point, when offered the choice, liked the idea of mixing the “fun” element of WHFB with the “sci-fi” aspect of 40k. I went more with 40K because 40K was like WHFB crossed with Star Wars.
I think that is when it was “established” that 40K was for kids. But honestly, I don’t really think that was ever true.
Nowadays though, I think everyone who started at the beginning is roughly the same age, we all have jobs and home and cars etc. So now it’s just whatever you’re into.
I think the heroes of 40K tend to appeal to the younger crowd too, along with the narrative of a bigger story (kind of like playing with toys that are linked to a movie series). With WHFB and AoS, the story never seemed to move people like the 40K narrative has and that too I think is what has made 40K so popular.
2023/07/14 23:14:57
Subject: Is 40K traditionally a child's game while Fantasy Was the serious game Adults played Circa 2003?
I reluctantly played WHFRPG in 1987. I was a tough customer then, critical of all my friends WHF minis, but I wasn't playing historical instead collected all the D&D related minis. I began to warm up to 40k in the early '00's, attempted to understand the lore in the 2010's, for a short period and put it on the back burner until now.
But even thought I wasn't playing the wargame, I'd probably agree with Jono777's experience. Warhammer Fantasy felt like it jumped into the scene all of a sudden so the younger crowd grabbed it up.
), etc.
6000 pts - 
4000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
1000 pts
