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.

Its a simple question, why do you prefer one over the other?

40k for the feel. I can play a reasonably quick and tactical game using what feels like a good number of troops- not an "army" in the sense of real world, but reasonable close to an army in wargaming terms.

I love the clarity of the WM & Hordes rules, and the game is a great one (my third fave after WH and 40k, respectively) but the feel of the game is too focused on individual models for my taste, and it's way too clunky once you get up to a point size that feels to me like an "army". I also often feel kind of cheated out of a great tactical experience when a caster kill ends the game prematurely.

40K is a fun beer and pretzels game. The fluff/history is wonderful. It has a long-standing appeal to me and the models (prior to the last 2 years) have been one of the best in the gaming industry.

WM is vicodine and vodka. The ruleset is very clear and it is way more tactical than GW. This is a page 5 game in that the numbers are worked out for massive combos and there are frequent FAQs. Every model matters and is not useless (i.e., a single trooper can do massive damage; whereas 1 guardsman is hosed versus a wraithlord). I like how one can target their own troops and set up massive combos. I'd have to disagree with Mannahnin on the caster-kill as the 2ndary win via caster kill adds to the mission experience and can allow one to still "comeback" from a slaughter.

Warmachine/Hordes as a complete game experience. 40k has just gotten staid to me, with not a lot of variety or diversity of experience.

Warmachine is great at what it does: it provides a quick playing tactical minis game, with good looking minis supported by if not great rules, at least well patched rules.

I voted for 40k for what Warmachine doesn't even try to do: conversions, decades of old and intersting minis, vivid backstories (try as I might, I can't get fired up over Menoth or Khador, while Biel Tan and the 1k Sons seem very alive to me), and a range of play options beyond deathmatch. I know you can play warmachine a ton of ways, but the game, IIRC, bogs down at a certain size. I love giant games of 40k, I like narrative games, I like apocolypse, and I enjoy a rousing game of kill team or combat patrol. I like that I can create a regiment/craftworld/chapter and make it my own, or use a well established one.

For the 20-30% of the hobby that warmachine seriously compete with 40k, namely competitive play, it kicks ass. for models, it's a push (althought GW has a deeper and braoder range, and far more variety of model). For casual play, modelling, and fluff, I go with the incumbent.

I would say that while warmachine is a better game, 40k is a far better hobby.

Personally, I don't think 40k and Warmachine are in as much direct competition as some may them out to be.

Warmachine functions much like "Magic", but with mini's. The game works by pulling of one-shot combo's typically to defeat an opponent in one swift blow usually. Unit synergy and combo's is what makes the game, and if game is won or lost depending on how well combo's are executed. Much faster paced and much more cut-throat game, and usually a smaller scale. If you lose a key unit, you are done with no hope of victory, and typically don't take much that isn't necessary to get off the combo. It is a much more competition based ruleset and very clear and concise, with very little room for wiggling. Games don't really work well beyond 750pts, they get too big and the synergies just don't work as well. The story is mostly there for a setting and not much else.

Warhammer is closer to a traditional wargame. Armies can stand the loss of any one unit (in a well designed list anyway) and generally have multiple units that *can* do multiple things. The armies function at a higher level and the games often end up as a series of smaller games being played out. The game is more laid back and has a larger overall feel to it. There may be redundant units or units in there only for fluff, and the army as a whole can still work. A much greater emphasis is placed on the visual aspect of the game and armies tend to have heavy themes. The backstory is also *HUGE* and is a big part of what drives the game and how it works.



They are both mini's games, but not really substitute games (IMO). They are too different in how they operate and the focus of what the game really is. 40k to me is more story driven, Warmachine more competition driven. If one wants a Tournament game, Warmachine is *IT*. If one wants a laid-back very visual experience and an overall "culture" if you will, Warhammer is where its at. They offer very different things, and can both be very fun, one just has to realize they are *different*. If you try to play one like the other you will lose, Warmachine because there is no margin for error and no redundancy, Warhammer because Synergies and combo's aren't as powerful and because there usually *is* unit or role redundancy.

Warmachine hands down! It has a better ruleset than 40 crap! Lately with all the things GW is doing with 40k I feel like games such as Warmachine/hordes and more recently AT 43 are looking like better alternatives.

I've never cared for games where you have to keep a card by the table and keep track of stuff as the games go on. I was glad when GW got rid of a lot of that game tracking crap with damaged vehicles in 3rd edition.

So for me, I tried a game or two of warmachine and knew that, despite being a cool game, was just 'not for me'.

I also like the scale of 40k games as opposed to the more skirmish feel of warmachine games.


Plus the fluff/backstory of 40k is always a big factor since I like to 'imagine' the games playing out like a movie in my head, and to me the imagery of 40k is far more appealing than warmachine.

I voted 40K.

I prefer the ease with which I can get games. I think that WM has caught on to where I could find games most of the time, but 40K is more reliable.

I prefer the 40K fluff. WM is solid, and their d20, RPG elements are nice as well, but I leave that aside as thats sorta apples to oranges. WM has a very deep, thought out fantasy world, but ultimately 40K fluff is something truly unique, novel, and special.

I prefer 40K models. Most of the Warjacks just don't do it for me. PP puts out some very cool models, but they also put out some real duds. I'm sure it's all a matter of opinion, but I just don't like their stuff as much as GWs.

I am vastly more familliar with 40K rules than with WM rules. I really barely even know how WM plays. I've read the rules, I've pretty familliar with them on paper, but I don't have enough iterations of actual games to know how it all works out.

I'm fairly sure that 40K's rules are more poorly written. They might end up being more fun, easier to play, but they're not written with as much thought to consistency, nor are they well supported.

One aspect of 40K which I really appreciate, and which probably falls under "rules" is the customization of individual models. WM really falls short on this, has absolutely no fine tuning options in the game. I enjoy building a list, then actually arming the models with the gear the list specifies. Sometimes it's tough to put 10-20 hours into a squad, and have to HOPE the options you picked for them will work well in game, but it's also a payoff when they do work out.

40K has a lot of intangibles right. That's why it's so frustrating that their rules are meandering towards the suck.

both!

I just wish GW weren't such a bunch of nubs. Bitz, LatD, Squats, etc, etc, etc.

My only worry is wondering if Warmachine can continue
should they lose people the way 40k seems to lose them.
With a corporate brand, an unmoving timeline, and a
world that remains intact, 40k can afford to lose good
people and then have people fill in and bide time until the
next creative genius comes in.

I wonder if Warmachine/Hordes can outlast Seacat and the
other creative types at PP. Private ownership means
that if the individuals who drive the ship leave, you're left
with an abandoned ship. 40k can run on machine spirits.

At least I can enjoy the scenery for now!

malfred wrote:My only worry is wondering if Warmachine can continue
should they lose people the way 40k seems to lose them.
With a corporate brand, an unmoving timeline, and a
world that remains intact, 40k can afford to lose good
people and then have people fill in and bide time until the
next creative genius comes in.

I wonder if Warmachine/Hordes can outlast Seacat and the
other creative types at PP. Private ownership means
that if the individuals who drive the ship leave, you're left
with an abandoned ship. 40k can run on machine spirits.

At least I can enjoy the scenery for now!

I worry about that too. It was one of the few things I hated about Fasa's handling of Battletech and Shadowrun: there was always a need to keep the story going and in so doing, come up with cool upgrades. So it was this bad combo of 'new things are shinier and better' (though not really) and 'OMZG Dunklezahn runs the Free Raselhague Republic now!' Not that I want my game to be 'static' per se, but I also don't want my mini (or character, or plot) to be suddenly 'expired'. WM/Hordes have dodged that so far (you still see people fielding regular Denny despite being undead now, for example), but it's a slippery slope.

I also worry about them losing the feel of WM/Hordes, including the 'everyone gets an update' thing, and especially the 'big skirmish' feel (vs. the massed horde armies of 40k or WHFB).

GW

Don't really like the fluff or style of WM. The bigger the army, the better in my book.

CK

Also: I noticed you didn't list WHFB, FOW or AT43 as options, which surprises me, as those seem to be the other big games that 40kers 'graduate/defect' to. What was the rationale?

I started WM because it was cheap to get started and the ruleset was so much more fun to play than 40k. Over time, the story has really grown on me and the models continue to blow me away. GW can make a mean model, but you've got to have a worthwhile game to play along with it. 4th edition was not, and 5th isn't looking so hot either.

Plus: Pirates!

I like goggles, big riveted iron plates, and great coats so WM is my favorite. I also like the flexability of the "wrasslin moves" that jacks and warbeasts get.

I do read 40K novels though. They have replaced starTrek and Battletech for my medicore known wquantity sci-fi novel needs. And I like the $11-$12 omnibus editions of the older novels. I also like the imitation factor where some novels are loosley modeled on Michael Harris style horror or Flashman style comedy.

I prefer 40K because I've actually played it.

I see 40K in much the same light as Jeff Carroll from Podhammer, so I voted Warmachine.

40K has wonderful fluff and models, but falls down when it comes to actual play. For what it's worth (~$0.02).

I like the rules, models and style of Warmachine, but when Hordes came out my interest waned. The idea of magically controlled steam powered robots is terrific fluff wise, but big creatures whaling on each other I've seen done. I think Privateer Press should have introduced new factions to the WM game, it gets boring knowing you'll only ever see a few different factions. GW and PP both are driven to grow and make a profit, but GW has a much deeper and broader game universe to exploit.

I also agree with Yakface that the scale of the battles is better with 40K. WM games started to feel very similiar to me after a while, strategy and interaction wise. 40K, with up to 4 times the models, is much more varied. When I go to a tournament I don't know if I'll be playing monstrous nids, floaty eldar, gun line guard, demon chaos, ork horde or something else entirely. Even in the 40K factions the variants are dramatic.

Finally, all my best friends play 40K, and I figure we'll play till we're eighty and teaching our grandkids. That may not speak to which game is better, but it tells me where to hang my hat...

Frankly, I find the "Play [with your little painted models] like you've got a pair" statement pretty laughable.

I prefer the background of 40K and like the ability to make my own characters. I might be more interested in Warmachine if there was some way of making your own casters.

RZ

The only thing of Warmachine I like, is that future past feel. I have always liked that setting.

The reasons I prefer Warhammer, well lets make a list.

For starters, the background is huge, I mean huge. I cant think of any Sci Fi/Fantasy that is as big in background material.

The models. I have always felt GW made the best figs.

The rules. Warmachine plays like a CCG on the table top.

The hobby aspect. Warmachine offers little in painting and conversion compared to 40k.

The scope. The more the better.

The Players. 40k players are on the average the best sports and most fun from my experiance

Just because I like the background and the plastic kits
doesn't mean I have to play the game

Alas, with 5th ed. there is less customizability for the HQ choices. The HQ are looking more like the 'casters/'locks.

Then again, Harlequins > Leather-clad Ninjas > Pirates > Space Marines > uhhh.

40k has the advantage of being a lot more mature and refined than WM/H.

40k just has a lot more of everything: more armies with more options, based on more Fluff, and more models giving more variety.

WM/H is fine for what it is (small tactical / combo minis game), but it's not for me. I got in with WM, and it just doesn't scale to army-type battles at all, and the cards are just total fail at large points.

I think, if I want to play combo, I'll just play Magic, thanks.

Krak_kirby wrote:.... it gets boring knowing you'll only ever see a few different factions. ...

Yes, the million and one versions of Space Marines offer quite a variety.


I voted Warmachine. The rules are better and PP actually takes making the game seriously. What I really like about Warmachine/Hordes is that the game is exciting and keeps you engaged through the whole thing. The game isn't over until the dice stop rolling, and no army is unbeatable.

I no longer look forward to the next edition of 40k, I dread it.

Crimson Devil wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:.... it gets boring knowing you'll only ever see a few different factions. ...

Yes, the million and one versions of Space Marines offer quite a variety.

On the flip side, seeing the 923898398403849th Sorcha army with the same composition isn't all that different.

I voted Warmachine. The rules are better and PP actually takes making the game seriously. What I really like about Warmachine/Hordes is that the game is exciting and keeps you engaged through the whole thing. The game isn't over until the dice stop rolling, and no army is unbeatable.

However the game usually ends abruptly and quickly, it is a very "win big/lose big" game. It depends on what you want out of the game. The rules are much better written, however the games often play out very similarly (oh look, windrush-charge again?)

I no longer look forward to the next edition of 40k, I dread it.

Sadly, I must agree. It breaks just as much if not more things than it set out to fix.

Vaktathi wrote:Warmachine functions much like "Magic", but with mini's. The game works by pulling of one-shot combo's typically to defeat an opponent in one swift blow usually. Unit synergy and combo's is what makes the game, and if game is won or lost depending on how well combo's are executed. Much faster paced and much more cut-throat game, and usually a smaller scale. If you lose a key unit, you are done with no hope of victory, and typically don't take much that isn't necessary to get off the combo.

I'd respectfully disagree with this view, as one-shot-combo armies are the exception, and not the rule for competitive Warmachine armies. Successful armies have redundancy built into them such that elimination of any one unit (save the warcaster) is not debilitating. It was noted earlier that even the most basic trooper can be a gamewinner. Conversely, in 40k, if one looses their tank-hunting element, units like Landraiders and Monoliths are virtually invicible, while in Warmachine, there are always ways around this problem, be it knockdown from a weaker unit, immobiliziation, tarpit in a horde of cheap infantry etc.

This, IMO the huge numbers of options available to each unit is the biggest draw of Warmachine over 40k for me...

Vaktathi wrote:On the flip side, seeing the 923898398403849th Sorcha army with the same composition isn't all that different... (oh look, windrush-charge again?)

Hmm... I can see how being repeatedly thrashed by Sorscha's OMGWTF feat (while ignoring the fact that she has low ARM for a warcaster, and is easily killed once knocked down) might make Warmachine seem like an inferior game system compared to 40k.

I voted 40k. I played WM when it first came out, but I soon released that the game plays too much like a CCG. I like CCG's, but if I want that type of a feel for the game I'll play CCGs and save myself the time of not painting the models.

Like someone else posted, 40k is a more complete hobby...and WM..is well just a game.

Capt K

I play W