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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.

This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.

Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.

The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.

Best post here...............

+1 haha

Litcheur wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.

Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?

Certainly, this facts all help to it.

1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.

1 - Chess has no terrain at all.
2 - Chess is very heavily combo based
3 - Chess has a I WIN button
4/5 - Objectives? What are objectives?

Thus 40k is more tactical than chess. Yeeeeaaaah... Right.

Plus, Chess is all about just pushing a button and activating your gambits.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.

This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.

Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.

The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.

Best post here...............

It's really not.

I want to like WM/Hordes, but Im not a fan of the artstyle at all.
I have tried to look past that, but then I see every game is played with no terrain, on a flat table. Thats a bit boring looking to me.

I generally like the rules, but the artstyle is just too unappealing for me to get into the game. Every time I start looking through the armies, prepared to take the plunge, I see these fugly minis and just cant pull the trigger.

Crimson Devil wrote:I think he must have trouble protecting his caster, since he seems to have a lot of contempt for that victory condition.

Yep. It's really common for people to blame their own failings on the situation.

Unnecessary caster risk is probably the most important factor in preventing a victory from being transformed into a defeat, but if a given person doesn't see it as a risk they have to manage and instead see it as a flaw in the rules, they will never, ever learn.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Yep. It's really common for people to blame their own failings on the situation.

This is doubly true I suspect for people who are coming from an unbalanced environment.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Unnecessary caster risk is probably the most important factor in preventing a victory from being transformed into a defeat, but if a given person doesn't see it as a risk they have to manage and instead see it as a flaw in the rules, they will never, ever learn.

A lot of people don't initially understand the depth of a caster kill. All they see is a bunch of movement, buffing, boosts and attacks that leaves their caster dead and their game a loss. All they internalise is 'My opponent did X and I lost'. They don't think back and realise 'Hey I should have cast Blur. I could have done the same thing from there which would have granted me cover. I shouldn't have allocated so much to my jack. I should have used that solo to engage.' Or a million other things, and that's before you even bring in 'oh I forgot they had True Sight...' or 'They have CMA? Really?' People don't see that their turn was the time to take defensive measures and the balance between offence and defence is one of the more challenging things to master.

Yeah, it's super complex. I just know I've seen my share of people try the game out, lose to an easy caster kill and get all snooty about it. As if winning that way is cheap or shouldn't count or something. Some quickly grow past it, but if someone's not willing to admit that it was something they did and instead blames the rules, the chance of them figuring it out before they quit, is very, very low.

My favorite way to win is to assassination trap against aggressive casters. Rahn is particularly good at it. The opponent thinks they're the one going for the caster kill but their setup turn before their run is my chance to assassinate. And with Rahn, he gets to be a million miles away and still go for it.

I had a laugh today at the FLGS when I noticed the Warmachine game being played had a good amount of terrain (GF9's 2 hills and 4-5 tree stands) on the board and the WHFB game next to it had nothing on the table. Completely empty. There was plenty of terrain on the shelves to use but they didn't want to.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.

Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.

Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.

In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.

sand.zzz wrote:
I want to like WM/Hordes, but Im not a fan of the artstyle at all.
I have tried to look past that, but then I see every game is played with no terrain, on a flat table. Thats a bit boring looking to me.

I generally like the rules, but the artstyle is just too unappealing for me to get into the game. Every time I start looking through the armies, prepared to take the plunge, I see these fugly minis and just cant pull the trigger.

I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......

Now I am not saying its a bad game - Just not a game I want to play - enjoying more: 40K Dropship Commander, Uncharted Seas, Dredd and others at the moment..............

I would agree that terrain in WFB is often ignored and 40K tables seldom have enough on them - especially at tournaments where they seem to like helping gunline armies..............

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......

wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......

wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?

nah we just set it up like one of our normal skirmish games - so several walls, few piles of large rocks and large expanse of trees

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......

wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?

Is that how people around you play it? Because they're doing it very, very wrong.


EDIT: Do I detect some goalpost-shifting? Because first it was "Terrain doesn't matter in Warmahordes", and now it's "No one uses terrain in Warmahordes."


Either way, good troll A+ would read again.

PhantomViper wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).

But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.

Regardless of who GW think they're aiming at, doesn't the fact that the overwealming majority of gamers are adults mean that 40k is not for kids? Wasn't there a survey recently showing that the average gamer has been playing for 30 years or something?

I think looking at the aesthetics and pricing of 40k it's very difficult to say that it's aimed at children.

Thinking about the Terrain argument that's going on in here. I think it might be a bit more than that...

I have a feeling that people that are complaining about it never really got past a few battle box games, or just played Caster Kill a few times and never played Scenario for which the game was actually designed.

WM/H does get really boring quick of all you are doing is lining up two armies on the table with no objectives and no terrain, but pick a scenario from the steamroller packet and through down some forests, a hill or two, walls and a house. and blam funzzies as far as the eye can see.

KommissarKarl wrote:

Regardless of who GW think they're aiming at, doesn't the fact that the overwealming majority of gamers are adults mean that 40k is not for kids? Wasn't there a survey recently showing that the average gamer has been playing for 30 years or something?

I think looking at the aesthetics and pricing of 40k it's very difficult to say that it's aimed at children.

That poll was overwhelmingly directed towards historical wargames, which tend to attract an older crowd.

I would hazard a guess and say that most adult 40k players started in earlier editions, the earliest of which were targeted towards an older crowd.

GW's current strategy is to get a Birthday and Christmas buy for teenagers either with their own disposable income, or parents willing to buy their kids GW products.

Backfire wrote:

5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.

Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.

Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.

In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.

But random tables that are many times pointless are what people tend to complain about though. If 7th ed had removed random charge distances and replaced it with every HQ doesn't get to pick their gear but the player randomly rolls on a set of tables to determine what the quatermaster handed them before the battle. You would get weird combinations like SM captains in scout armor, with a storm shield and a bolt pistol or something stupid. People would probably complain a lot about how they are no longer in control over what gear their HQ gets, and focus very little on the change to charge ranges. People don't generally like randomization with stupid charts and when the game randomizes what stuff they get to use like what psychic powers they get.

Backfire wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.

Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.

Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.

In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.

For the first, that was just only due to the terrain rules, unlike 6th and 7th where it is overall random. And if I remembered correctly, that was not used too much from what battle reports I saw a while back from what I remembered (and even then, I used to terrain not obstructing movement too much. Again, this is anctedotal for me). For the vehicle chart, that served as a way to see if you did any type of damage, and even on a three or four it still took out a weapon and immobized it and still hindered its effectiveness. Granted it is still a 1/3 chance that it is unaffected, but the other 2/3 can hinder its effectiveness. In 5th the rules where made, in theory, that you needed dedicated unit or weapon to take out heavy vehicles and that. Again, I am not sure how this is more random than before, save for the glancing hit doing an auto damage, which I felt was silly (but that is a different discussion). It may have mitigated the randomness, but it felt like it was not a vehicle. It was almost essentially the same chart as before.

For the reserve rules, I can say I can kind of agree with that, since it was kind of an unreliable tactic, even if it was one higher. Also, the scenario you where describing is not really random at all since it is basically two forces pushing into enemy territory while holding your own. Again, not seeing how this is anyway random.

Maybe some of the randomness was removed from 5th to 6th, but it decided to add a lot more randomness that was not even needed or even went against the 'Forge the Narrative' mindset the game touts. This to me shows that 40k became a lot more random in the long run.

I want to like Warmachine more. If think a lot off the background could be better (although I think that about every wargame). The tight gameplay appeals to me as it reminds me of card game interaction, however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot. I also wish there were more warjack viable armies across the board and better models. Also the original page 5 didn't endear me to PP.

On the other hand 40k is a horrendous mess, with the only redeeming feature being 30k rules under 6th edition or whatever Forgeworld designed them for.

As long as folks are having fun though it's good for wargaming as a whole.

RatBot wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......

wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?

Is that how people around you play it? Because they're doing it very, very wrong.


EDIT: Do I detect some goalpost-shifting? Because first it was "Terrain doesn't matter in Warmahordes", and now it's "No one uses terrain in Warmahordes."


Either way, good troll A+ would read again.

Yeah, I still in the court of he never played the game or only played like once or twice. Sheep and all that jazz.

Zond wrote:
... however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot.

The last reboot wasn't that long ago. Like 4 or 5 years depending on how much of the field test you count. Part of the plan though, was to provide rules for all existing models. In the future, I think they'll approach it the same way. A reboot won't reduce the number of choices you have for your armies, so you'll have the same issues.

That said, I'm surprised how well my stuff made up from models appearing in the original mk1 Prime book works today. They seem to have figured out how to not have total powercreep. The only things that have come out in the last while that cause me concern are the huge based models and the proliferation of the spell purification (the one that removes all upkeep spells in a caster's control radius).

The colossals and gargantuans ended up being less of an issue than I first thought. I keep killing them with a heavy and some armour cracking infantry. Or two heavies. Or in some cases, a single unit charging. Or in other games, I avoid them entirely and win around them. I do have a couple opponents though, who play at the various US national level competitions who really know how to use them and protect them. Even then, I'd still rather see an archangel or a judicator than two angels or two reckoners.

The proliferation of purification just means that upkeep dependent archetypes become less reliable. Like when someone plays eVlad infantry support and meets eMorvana. Camp and cast upkeeps as needed as single turn buffs because if you actually deploy your spells, they're just wasted focus. So you play differently and you do fine, but it is a hard counter to what's cool about a particular list and you have to figure out how to use it differently.

Sometimes you just want your list to shine doing the cool thing it does. Whether it's eDeneghra denying a list's cool thing related to movement with her feat, or Purification taking away the cool thing of unkeep casters, or feats that limit the allocation or spending of focus/fury on feats, abilities or spells that deal with that, sometimes you just have hard counters to deal with. Upkeep buffs just happens to be an approach I like, so naturally I find an approach that just says "no" to be boring. I find the Withershadow Combine unbinding something and causing some damage way, way more interesting than just "all those spells go away."

 frozenwastes wrote:
The colossals and gargantuans ended up being less of an issue than I first thought. I keep killing them with a heavy and some armour cracking infantry. Or two heavies. Or in some cases, a single unit charging. Or in other games, I avoid them entirely and win around them. I do have a couple opponents though, who play at the various US national level competitions who really know how to use them and protect them. Even then, I'd still rather see an archangel or a judicator than two angels or two reckoners

This is something that IMO highlights a difference between the games:

In 40k if you bring a titan to the game, unless your opponent is prepared for it you're going to win no matter what, because the titan is super-powerful.

In Warmachine if you bring a Colossal/Gargantuan to the table, it's just another tactical choice in your army because the Colossal/Gargantuan is little more than two Warjacks/beasts in one.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

But random tables that are many times pointless are what people tend to complain about though. If 7th ed had removed random charge distances and replaced it with every HQ doesn't get to pick their gear but the player randomly rolls on a set of tables to determine what the quatermaster handed them before the battle. You would get weird combinations like SM captains in scout armor, with a storm shield and a bolt pistol or something stupid. People would probably complain a lot about how they are no longer in control over what gear their HQ gets, and focus very little on the change to charge ranges. People don't generally like randomization with stupid charts and when the game randomizes what stuff they get to use like what psychic powers they get.

Sure thing, and if you noted, I said myself that many random tables in 6th and 7th edition gets annoying. Often they don't have that much effect on game, but they're annoying. I kinda see the point why they introduced Warlord traits - to make the HQ's matter more than just being a big melee beatstick - and I think the current system where named characters have fixed traits, and generic roll from the table, is ok. Also I don't think random charges are bad, they are sort of necessary if pre-measuring is allowed - which IMO is a good thing.

However, I don't understand the point of random psychic powers. I guess it's to stop people from spamming certain good powers. Also as said, I don't like Mysterious terrain or Objectives, they should be just optional rules.

Backfire wrote:

Sure thing, and if you noted, I said myself that many random tables in 6th and 7th edition gets annoying. Often they don't have that much effect on game, but they're annoying. I kinda see the point why they introduced Warlord traits - to make the HQ's matter more than just being a big melee beatstick - and I think the current system where named characters have fixed traits, and generic roll from the table, is ok. Also I don't think random charges are bad, they are sort of necessary if pre-measuring is allowed - which IMO is a good thing.

However, I don't understand the point of random psychic powers. I guess it's to stop people from spamming certain good powers. Also as said, I don't like Mysterious terrain or Objectives, they should be just optional rules.

I am pretty sure the random powers thing game from warhammer fantasy, as did the pre-measuring and random charge distances. 8th ed WH added pre-measuring and random charge distances and had random generation for spells and was released before 6th ed 40k.

I agree on mysterious terrain/objectives people I played 6th ed with never used them, a lot of times because both players forgot.

 frozenwastes wrote:

Zond wrote:
... however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot.

The last reboot wasn't that long ago. Like 4 or 5 years depending on how much of the field test you count. Part of the plan though, was to provide rules for all existing models. In the future, I think they'll approach it the same way. A reboot won't reduce the number of choices you have for your armies, so you'll have the same issues.

Yeah I'm aware of Mk 2 rules update. However I honestly can't see all th factions continually getting one or two models forever before PP pull a GW and remove some units. In some ways it makes sense don't a full reboot of that nature at some point. I'm just not sure I want to be playing when PP divide the community into standard, modern and legacy.

I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.

At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.

That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.

At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.

That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.

GW has managed it for a while. There are many ways they can do it:
- release new sculpts of old models
- release plastic versions of old models
- add new factions
- alternate models
- theme force specific models
- new / more varied unit attachments
- more concrete support for large-scale games of 2+ warlocks
- gradually reduce release schedule
- add a handful of new units
- repeat

Trasvi wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.

At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.

That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.

GW has managed it for a while.

Well that is encouraging for PP fans

I quickly brisked the the latter part of this post and I laughed at the notion entertained pertaining to sexism and homophobia. I find so many more women playing Warmahordes than I do 40k. I have came across numerous people in person and on the web that play 40k treating women differently while in Warmahordes it seems to not be brought up at all.

Anyways, back to the original post, Warmahordes is not a replacement for 40k. I have come to find out as of late, that I needed a change of pace, something more competitive and contrasting to the very laid back attitude of 40k. I recently sold my GK army but I have kept my BAs only because I will have the itch to play 40k. I have shelled out thousands of dollars on 40k and I am nowhere near that for Warmahordes but I have no shame or regret in doing so if it comes to that.

40k is fun, laid back, and everybody I have played with is the same way (of course, that can be attributed to your community). While in Warmahordes, I have learned to overlook the .2 inch extra movement cry babies by simply not playing them. I am still a new player so I am almost constantly losing as everybody in my area have played since MK1, but I have no qualms.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.

At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.

That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.

People should not fall into the fallacy that books beyond Prime are needed. Rules for each model are on the cards themselves.

The "Forces Of" books are nice for the fluff but thats about it.

If you want all the rules in an easy to read and reference place get War Room and spend the $6 on a single faction and Blam all the rules area available to you..... all the theme forces are right there. New cards are in it the day they are released, and its updated when new errata hit too. Also the latest verisions List builder is pretty solid now that they added theme forces etc.


As far as bloat in the game goes..... I know its something that looms on the horizon. I am really not sure what PP has planned. They do however plan 2-3 years in advance so who knows...I think maybe that as they do have an evolving time line in there fluff I could see them "killing" off Casters/ Locks and just not making new versions of those models.