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.

Not really. Hordes is a better game then warmachine, but both are fun.

I hate fantasy, and the fact you have 5 guys and basically 15 bullet catchers.....Its one of my annoyances with it.

Posted By The Power Cosmic on 08/16/2007 6:08 PM
  They never make anything obsolete, either.

  My Squat army is USELESS! 

Yep!  It still works!

I've seen a lot of people moving from Waiting4GW to Whining@GW.

It takes some adaption to go from:
"Maybe we'll get a Squat/Demiurge codex in the next 5 years, Jervis said its not impossible!"

to:
"That bastard Jervis promised my Squats would return! I hate him! I hate his whole family!"

But the game is much more exciting.

Hordes IS Warmachine. They use all the same rules, the same concepts, the same scale, hell they are so similar you CAN play them against one another. The only difference is fury vs focus. Which while a pretty important mechanic apparently doesn't differentiate them enough from being compatible clones of one another with different models. Its one system for two "Seperate" games. Saying hordes and warmachine are different is like saying DC and MARVEL heroclix are different.




Love it or hate it thats roughly how formation fighting worked back in the day. Though it does make things kind of stale to think of troops in blocks rather than in individuals.




I started playing like 8 or 9 years ago. Squats were dead then. I think its time to give up the fight.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 08/16/2007 9:08 PM

The only difference is fury vs focus. Which while a pretty important mechanic apparently doesn't differentiate them enough from being compatible clones of one another with different models. Its one system for two "Seperate" [sic] games.

Focus vs. Fury is a huge difference.  Fury actually makes you plan quite a bit ahead of what you're doing.  Focus is a little more immediate.  It's a significant enough change that they made it a different game, rather than a Warmachine expansion.

But again, what is it you like about Fantasy that makes it 10x better than the other 3 combined?

In my mind its the pinnacle of strategy model gaming right now. The armies play very differently and are very easy to customize with near endless options for wargear, spells, items, and actual troops choices. Thats something neither warmachine nor hordes have in any capacity. Its also very strategic. Games of warmachine or 40k can be won by simple luck or army building with little experience or planning (moreso with 40k or warmachine than hordes) , that doesn't happen in fantasy. A vet will destroy you, not because his army is better but because he is just better at the tactics of the game.


Fantasy has the tactical and strategic edge of hordes with the customization of 40k and is more balanced than both of them. Or at least thats my opinion of the game, though to be fair of all the games mentioned in this post I've played fantasy the least.

Hmm, I think you qualify as an "older gamer"   <-- ignore that, it's an inside joke.

Interesting.  I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your stance, but I want to clear up a little about WM (my Hordes knowledge is minimal, but I would imagine it's similar).

Warmachine is very much not about army building.  Yes, you want to make intelligent choices, but  it's not like 40k where you look across the table after setup and know how the game's going to go.  Example: halfway through one game I was basically on the ropes.  I was rolling like crap and pretty much wanted to throw in the towel.  I stood back and assessed the situation, changed tactics and managed to win.

It also is very concerned with combo building, but on the table, not in the army list.  If you've set up your forces right, or your opponent has made a few wrong moves, you can basically eliminate them in a turn.  Trust me though when I say that this level of coordination happens very rarely.  You've got to be lucky to get that much synchronicity.  But, normally the order in which you do things matters very much, similar to Fantasy.  Placement becomes very important in this regard.

Also, the sheer amount of special rules each unit has makes the game a little confusing, but in a good way.  Unless you've memorized all the books, your opponent will always be able to pull something on you that you didn't anticipate.  While you can't customize your squads like you can in 40k/Fantasy, your armies can be almost completely altered by changing your Warcaster (leader-guy).  They can play completely differently.  That's one of the things I like most about it: such a (seemingly) simple change and you have to change your tactics.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 08/16/2007 9:54 PM

But again, what is it you like about Fantasy that makes it 10x better than the other 3 combined?

In my mind its the pinnacle of strategy model gaming right now. The armies play very differently and are very easy to customize with near endless options for wargear, spells, items, and actual troops choices. Thats something neither warmachine nor hordes have in any capacity. Its also very strategic. Games of warmachine or 40k can be won by simple luck or army building with little experience or planning (moreso with 40k or warmachine than hordes) , that doesn't happen in fantasy. A vet will destroy you, not because his army is better but because he is just better at the tactics of the game.


Fantasy has the tactical and strategic edge of hordes with the customization of 40k and is more balanced than both of them. Or at least thats my opinion of the game, though to be fair of all the games mentioned in this post I've played fantasy the least.

Your kidding right. If Fantasy is you pinnacle for wargamming can I suggest a new hobby. ANY game is better. Fantasy is done when the table has been set up. The game is just an exercise in moving the models in the predetermined routes that you set up in deployment. If you are thinking after deployment you need to learn the game better. A robot is capable of moving the parts once set up has finished (barring an idiot opponent) as you will never be suprised. 40K at the least allows dynamic reformation of your lines.

You should really try Warmaster, which is an actual tactical game.

You know I've heard that said a ton of times about 40k but never about fantasy. Fantasy is for the most part game. Other than putting an artillery piece on a hill theres not much that setup actually does for you.



I make it a policy not to play games that are deader than necromunda.

Posted By ShumaGorath on 08/16/2007 9:08 PM

My Squat army is USELESS!

I started playing like 8 or 9 years ago. Squats were dead then. I think its time to give up the fight.

  Squats never give up!  They stubborn!  No, wait, they're slow!  That's it. 

I had a squat army. That was my first drink from the bitter cup.
These days I'm sitting in the bitter cup, filling it with my own vile secretions.

Posted By efarrer on 08/16/2007 10:26 PM

Fantasy is done when the table has been set up.

And 40k is done when you build your army list, and toss that die for first.  I know jack about warmaster, except that nobody plays it, but fantasy is the best game I've played.  Other than UNO perhaps, but I rock so many house rules it's sick

@ Da Boss - HA!

- Salvage

Posted By Da Boss on 08/17/2007 5:28 AM
I had a squat army. That was my first drink from the bitter cup.
These days I'm sitting in the bitter cup, filling it with my own vile secretions.

Exalt!

Warmachine is a ton of fun, but it's a little constrained by the mechanic of "who kills the warcaster wins..." meaning that while it makes for incredibly dramatic comeback wins, where the last two models for one side wins, there's really no other way to win other than going for the jugular. Since that's the game they wanted, they succeeded admirably.

WFB is superior, IMO, for a couple of reasons:
1) refinement of the rules. It's the 7th edition, and the rules are for the most part pretty tight. While Warmachines are tighter, the infamous perputal errata machine takes a bit of getting used to.
2) diversity of armies/builds. PP offers effectively 10 factions, 4 for each game plus two mercs. Each has a number of different builds, but I don't suscribe to the notion once posited that every caster was effectively his own list. Most WFB armies have more Lord choices than warmachine has casters, and nearly every unit has some value or use. In PP, Khador is the aggresive, choppy power while Cygnar is the more nuanced, magic and shooting power. Compare that to WFB, where there is profound difference between the three elven factions, or the huge difference between Mortal/Daemon/beastman armies, or even the difference between a knight heavy empire build and a brettonian army.
3) Tactical considerstions. In 40k, and to a certain extent PP, there are only a few factors for a model: offensive power, durability, cost, mobility. Numbers really only either affect the units effective durability (gaunts, grots, conscripts), or offensive power. In WFB, factors include unit size/strength, formation, mobility, durabily, Offensive power. While another poster lamented having 20 models, 15 of whom are simply cannon fodder, WFB actually rewards you for having more bodies in a fight, or having a flank/rear charge, or being on a hill. Terrain does more than simply affect LOS, it dramatically changes how a unit can move, shoot, charge. Skirmishers are weaker in combat than ranked units, but far more manueverable. Fast Cav is expensive and fragile, but it's mobility allows it to change games.

Posted By carmachu on 08/16/2007 7:36 PM

I’m really tired of all the wine and cheese I hear on this web site. All I hear is “My army is ruined; I’ll never play them again. Tomorrow there going on eBay.” When you and I and everyone known’s that we are still going to buy the books and the figures. So what are they really complaining about? Not the changes, the fact that they have to buy a new book to get them.

Why are you still here then? Dakka is famous, or infamous, for being critical of GW, and not buying much of their load of crap.

I havent bought anything in a year that wasnt from B-town or ebay. I havent PLAYED since April.

Maybe this isnt the place for you son. Perhaps Warseer is more your cup of tea.

You know i am sure it was never like this.  Dakka has just turned into a whine fest.  the thing that strikes me as funny is the whining usually comes from people like you who dont even buy there stuff so why bother critisise something you dont spend your time playing or money on?  Why waste you "time " complainingg about something you have nothing to do with anymore?

I will tell you why cos to you guys GW is like the Ex girlfirend you can never ever get over because while it was good it was real good but when it went bad it went really bad.  No other GirlFriends since  (warmacgine/hordes etc) have ever made you feel the way that that X GW did.

So she is still on your mind and you will never be over it and it hurts to see new players with her having fun/

This thread is getting off topic, but why not help?  I won't argue WFB vs WM/Hordes, but WFB is much better than 40K because:

• Leadership and morale matter
• You can flank and outnumber your opponent - the person who thinks the other 15 members of the unit are "cannon fodder" must not have played the game.
• Certain army books may have better current incarnations, but there isn't a central army focus like Space Marines
• Simply put, there are more choices to be made during the game: whether to charge or not, where to hold, flee, or shoot, how to allocate casting and dispel dice.

Oh? I didnt realize you allocated focus to warbeasts, not leeched fury from warjacks.

The games are COMPATABLE. But they are two DIFFERENT games, in how you build and play. You can get away without jacks in warmachine, you cannot get away with beasts in Hordes.

I find Hordes to be the better of the two, but both are fun.

Agree. Hordes for me is the better of the two because it seems to flow better IMO. I still enjoy playing both. PP seems to be the best system going currently and if current trends continue should continue to grow and take market shares. I keep hoping they develop a futuristic game using the current rule sets.

No, beef; dakka has pretty much always been like this. Whether it's complaining about the way the summer campaigns run, erratic rules development, game designers' egos, tournament issues, lack of plastic cadians, the ugliness of doomrider, why certain units suck (and always will), how units/models got nerfed in this/that/the other edition.

The complaining has always been here. What's sad is how many of the SAME complaints have always been here (so-and-so designer favors X army, bad rules, Gary Morley, etc.), often voiced by new people.

And there's always a few optimistic souls who compare GW to porsches, girlfriends, sodomy, whatever, and insist that unit of rhino-bourne devastators with mixed weapons wins them tournament games all the time (when they're not flipping out and killing people with their ninja skilz).

That is what makes Dakka Dakka. That's why I love her.

I disagree with syr. I don't think Dakka has always been like this. I joined in mid-2001, and it was a bit more optimistic than it is now. I'd like to believe the turn towards cynicism coincided with GW's bad decisions, but I think Dakka got more angry before the GW bone-headedness warranted.

There's always been some healthy skepticism at Dakka. And there have always been those who complained about EVERYTHING (Drew). But it unbalanced itself a while back, and has yet to right itself. In defense, GW's poor relationship with veterans in the past few years hasn't helped. I acknowledge that. I'm hopeful they are working to fix it...we'll see.

But Dakka has not always been like this. But it's far more tolerable now than it was a year or so ago. beef needs to man up.

It's really just a filtering effect. The cynical veterans have stayed here at Dakka Dakka because they feel welcomed and understood. The fanboyz have all gone to Warseer and other places while too many have sadly gone the way of the dinosaur (spooky, JTS1486, Bugswarm, MegaDave... the list goes on.)

PS- Good to see you back JTS, enjoying your ROI posts.

I also think that a lot of the reasons that Dakka posters have become so cynical is that many of us (myself included) can remember when we could get the same stuff we're buying now for about 40% cheaper. Increasing the price while decreasing the quality of the game is something to gripe about.

In my admittedly small experience with Warmachine, it seems to be way too reliant on combos.

And the whole 'lose your warcaster, lose the game" mechanic seems a bit limiting too.

Is this not the case?

The Scenarios and victory points help offset the caster kill mechanism, but that is a prevalent endgame. Probably as prevalent as "I killed all your units" in 40k.

As to Dakka's cynicism: it's always been there. It was more snark and humor back in Imperial Dakka, and it has gotten more aggressive now, with a "The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs" attitude, but it was there too.

Posted By Polonius on 08/17/2007 6:10 AM

I don't suscribe to the notion once posited that every caster was effectively his own list.

Then you haven't played very much.  If, for instance, you play Cryx and try to play Denegra the same way you play Goreshade, you will lose.  They have completely different playstyles, and they're on the same "team."

Posted By dienekes96 on 08/17/2007 10:17 AM

But Dakka has not always been like this. But it's far more tolerable now than it was a year or so ago. beef needs to man up.

Me man up?  YOur kidding right?  The person who was accused of Trolling and flaming on my first few posts when i joined  ~(hell i did not even know what those terms ment then)

Your right maybe I have become softer in my old age BUT seriously We all know that complaining about these things never changes it so why the HEll do people still do it? 

To get it off there chest?  Hell if GW make s people so angry go get THERAPY or Man up and get on with playing the game.  Just for the love of my sanity atleast stop complaining

You're on crack.

1) Its reaqlly 6.5 edition. There is not NEAR enough changes to warrant a whole new edition.

2) What you think on the different caster is irrelveant. Each faction CHANGES based on who you put down as caster, which is fact. My skorne army alone plays COMPLETELY different when I put down Xerexs, Hexitus or any other caster. It effects choices.

But lets put that aside for a moment, since you dont subscribe to that theory, we can discard your chaos/mortal/beastman differences or empire and bretonia(they ARE a different army).

PP offers, by YOUR estimate, 10 factions.
GW offers 14. 15 if we count beasts.

There's PLENTY of diversity in both games. Plenty of choices. Casters or lords or whatever.

3) Its STILL 5 guys and 15 bullet catches no matter how you spin it, with a +1 for 5 guys. Thats just silly. I'd rather play 40k where at a bare minimuim, everyone moves, everyone fights.

Terrian has a big effect in other games, such as PP, and 40k so thats a none issue.

WHFB is ok. But its not the super game you claim.

Dont worry beef, I like your exgirlfried analogy.

People are just "Chasing GW."

I love Dakka. When I first started here it was less about attacking GW and more about attacking bad list making and bad rules interpretations.

I would rip into stupid lists like a Bloodthirster... wait... sorry... like a Generic Greater Daemon, and people would respond well, alter their mistakes a move on.

When I attempted that at Portent, my intial responces were:

"Oh! Stop being so harsh!"
"Don't be so mean!"
"Hey! Why are you attacking [insert poster's name]."

And my advice was ignored based upon my 'tone' and because I was 'mean'.

F$#$in' pansies...

Here people will look at what I'm saying rather than how I'm saying it, and that's refreshing.

BYE

Posted By beef on 08/17/2007 11:55 AM
Just for the love of my sanity atleast stop complaining

No.

Posted By dienekes96 on 08/17/2007 10:17 AM
I disagree with syr. I don't think Dakka has always been like this. I joined in mid-2001, and it was a bit more optimistic than it is now. 

Thats because in 2001 there was more to be optimistic about.

As always, I think Crimson Devil said it best:

Dakka is a noisy group of disenchanted believers who want some changes made to better the system and are labelled heretics for breaking with the faith.

Posted By dienekes96 on 08/17/2007 10:17 AM
I'd like to believe the turn towards cynicism coincided with GW's bad decisions, but I think Dakka got more angry before the GW bone-headedness warranted.

Thats quite possibly true, but thats what happens when someone tells you to expect great things, then fails to deliver. Expectations always lead to disappointment.