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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

dragonelf wrote:

WMH looks like a fantastic game to me. I am already reading through the rules. My only gripe is that the battlefields and armies don't have that epic feel. The terrain seems minimal and the armies seem small. Having said that I love the look of a Circle army and the depth of rules and army design really appeal to me...

Circle is a great faction to play.
However, note that Horde armies are a bit more involved to play than Warmachine ones, at least for a beginner.
This is due to the fury management. Focus management is much simpler.

It is really the difference between resource management (WM) and risk management (H). I prefer the later so Hordes is a better chice for me personally. I've never quite gotten the hang of resource management, so I've always had a harder time in games when using a WM faction.

For me its the opposite.
I've seen opponents risking too much, i.e., overloading their warbeasts with fury.
This can easily lead to a game loss.

Check out Warzone Resurrection by Prodos games. Beautiful models, great fluff, and a fun rules base. If you liked 40k, you will love WZR.

While I still play GW games, but don't get any more material, I've found the free tabletop wargames people put online quite nice. There are plenty out there, and if you don't like one, you really haven't lost all that much. They don't look as stylish as more commercial ones, but they do usually have some effort put in them.

dragonelf wrote:
I am another disheartened ex-GW customer. I won't be buying anything else from them after 20 odd years as a committed customer. I don't really want to get into their company strategy, financials or how good or bad AoS is.

What I really want is advice from people who have tried alternatives. I have looked carefully into WMH and like what i see, but haven't really looked at Kings of War which looks like a similar game to fantasy, some would say completely copied from fantasy in terms of the armies, imagery etc! The rules look interesting as well.

So I want to hear from people that actually play these games please.

Cheers.

To me the most important things are you need to work out what kinds of games you enjoy and what kinds of figures you already own. Starting a new mass battle system or even some skirmish systems from scratch can be an expensive endeavour. Almost as important is finding out what the locals who you're most likely to play with are interested in. No point in going all-in on Infinity if the locals all play WarMachine. Historicals can be more forgiving, but then you need to work out the style of game and basing you're interested in. Big blocks, skirmish or both.

 Azazelx wrote:

dragonelf wrote:
I am another disheartened ex-GW customer. I won't be buying anything else from them after 20 odd years as a committed customer. I don't really want to get into their company strategy, financials or how good or bad AoS is.

What I really want is advice from people who have tried alternatives. I have looked carefully into WMH and like what i see, but haven't really looked at Kings of War which looks like a similar game to fantasy, some would say completely copied from fantasy in terms of the armies, imagery etc! The rules look interesting as well.

So I want to hear from people that actually play these games please.

Cheers.

To me the most important things are you need to work out what kinds of games you enjoy and what kinds of figures you already own. Starting a new mass battle system or even some skirmish systems from scratch can be an expensive endeavour. Almost as important is finding out what the locals who you're most likely to play with are interested in. No point in going all-in on Infinity if the locals all play WarMachine. Historicals can be more forgiving, but then you need to work out the style of game and basing you're interested in. Big blocks, skirmish or both.

Though... there are people that are using Kings of War for Historicals.... I believe that Cavatore is actually working on an official version.....

(And given that I am planning on using Perry War of the Roses miniatures for my Kingdoms of Men army.....)

The Auld Grump

WMH has really great, balanced and interesting rules, full of moving parts that can appeal to the system lovers in all of us. It's also got a well supported and pretty fun competative scene. So I think if you choose to go with it, you'll be satisfied. I played it for a few years and was very satisfied with it.

In the end what got me was the need to use "official" PP models for the scene, much like GW, and the fact that the models were mostly metal or poor quality restic for really high prices. Even with pinning and varnishing I seemed to spend a lot of my time fixing my models and touching up paint. The prices also irritate me as though you do not need as many individual pieces, they are priced extremely high (equivalent to GW prices per miniature). Someone will no doubt come and point out that they are a few euros cheaper by now with the price increases, but they are in the same ball park

I will probably go back to WMH at some stage, but right now the refreshing aspect of KOW is being able to use whatever models I want for a variety of interesting armies. If I want to use my WMH stuff, I can, but equally I can use my WFB stuff or boardgame minis or plastic historicals- there's piles of freedom on the modelling side of things for KOW, and as a game system it is just as solid as WMH, just less heavy on detail and special rules.

Might as well go Warmahordes because nobody actually plays KoW.

 Breotan wrote:
Might as well go Warmahordes because nobody actually plays KoW.

My local area begs to disagree with that nonsense - KoW players outnumber WMH by a goodly number, and most of the WMH players also play KoW. (I can't think of any offhand that don't, but I could be misremembering.)

The Auld Grump

Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

Rules wise, Kings of War is actually deeper than Warhammer.

Simpler, but there are choices that aren't just built around list building. (Which is why I have said that KoW is closer to older editions of WH - WH used to have more depth than it has had for the last few editions.)

The background for Mantica, on the other hand, isn't all that impressive.

It is a setting to have battles in, and not much mre, though they are working on it.

Miniatures wise.... GW definitely has an edge. I like the Mantic figures, some of them more than GW, but overall... GW does have better minis. (I like the Mantic Orcs, Ogres, and Undead more than GW, Dwarfs about the same as GW, and like the Elves as something other than Elves. But I love the Empire, and intend to use a mix of GW Empire and Perry War of the Roses for my League army.)

One of the things about the less attractive, but much cheaper minis - it encourages having multiple armies.

The Auld Grump - for that matter I also use Reaper and Avatars of War miniatures in my KoW armies....

 Dez wrote:
Look into Malifaux too. I've played them all, and Malifaux has grabbed on and won't let go!

I came here to echo this. The great thing is: Malifaux is inexpensive enough to not stop you from getting into other games as well, and the rules are as balanced and deep as any game you'd find.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Though... there are people that are using Kings of War for Historicals.... I believe that Cavatore is actually working on an official version.....

(And given that I am planning on using Perry War of the Roses miniatures for my Kingdoms of Men army.....)

The Auld Grump

Yup. The potential problem there is whether people playing historicals in a "serious" manner will be willing to play against your Orcs or Elves, so it still depends on the meta of your local players. But yeah, Alessio is working on the lists, and the latest I heard is that the RC will be helping to balance and point them, which is good news for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

I "use" my own take on the WHFB background, which has room for things like Blood Elves (High Elves with paint and lore inspired by WoW) and a non-exploded world for many of my KoW games. I can ignore "Mantica" as easily as I can ignore "The End Times", all while using the KoW ruleset for my models.

 Azazelx wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Though... there are people that are using Kings of War for Historicals.... I believe that Cavatore is actually working on an official version.....

(And given that I am planning on using Perry War of the Roses miniatures for my Kingdoms of Men army.....)

The Auld Grump

Yup. The potential problem there is whether people playing historicals in a "serious" manner will be willing to play against your Orcs or Elves, so it still depends on the meta of your local players. But yeah, Alessio is working on the lists, and the latest I heard is that the RC will be helping to balance and point them, which is good news for everyone.

Gods above and below that makes me feel old... I played in Sturmgeschutz & Sorcery, once upon a time.

A scenario by Gary Gygax, WWII Germans vs. a fantasy sorcerer...

The German players knew that the Allied forces were just beyond a fog bank, but couldn't see them.

The fantasy players knew that there was a force led by a paladin, just beyond a fog bank, but they couldn't see them....

Neither the WWII players nor the Fantasy players knew that they would be facing the other.... The fantasy players had a blast, most of the WWII players were less amused. )

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

I "use" my own take on the WHFB background, which has room for things like Blood Elves (High Elves with paint and lore inspired by WoW) and a non-exploded world for many of my KoW games. I can ignore "Mantica" as easily as I can ignore "The End Times", all while using the KoW ruleset for my models.

The KoW rules are pretty much setting neutral - which makes them pretty flexible.

A lot fewer spells, but that is because as far as KoW is concerned a Lightning Bolt is pretty much the same as a Fireball. It's magic, and it does damage, so why have special rules for each spell that amount to the same thing? Just call it Zap or Breath Attack, list the number of dice rolled, and have done.

As discussed elsewhere, the KoW rules are also pretty much scale neutral, so folks playing games with the KoW rules in 6mm is not unheard of. (I know you know, and I know you know that I know you know, but not everyone knows that....)

The Auld Grump

Play both if you like, see what you enjoy.

Kings of War is the best in terms of mass battle fantasy.

Warmachine is the best in terms of skirmish fantasy. Way better than AoS.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

Neither would be my vote

 Breotan wrote:
Might as well go Warmahordes because nobody actually plays KoW.

KoW has lots of players in my area (Southern California). Many more now that GW shot themselves in the foot with Age of Sigmar.

buckero0 wrote:
Neither would be my vote

Any particular reason why neither? Have you played them both and found them too tactically difficult? Or perhaps they're not OTT enough for you.

Point is, you deny both without a reason and offer nothing else instead. So basically, unless you can provide a reason, expect nobody to listen to your post.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Biggest problem with either game is finding people that play it in your area. Check your FLGS, or see if there is any clubs nearby first before committing.

This is exactly my problem. No FLGS within 50 miles of my home. Even the GW is a 30 minute drive for me. No one around here, that I can find anyway, plays anything but GW games. So I'm stuck. I'll keep playing AoS and 40K until I move or a store opens

Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

I "use" my own take on the WHFB background, which has room for things like Blood Elves (High Elves with paint and lore inspired by WoW) and a non-exploded world for many of my KoW games. I can ignore "Mantica" as easily as I can ignore "The End Times", all while using the KoW ruleset for my models. The KoW rules are pretty much setting neutral - which makes them pretty flexible.

A lot fewer spells, but that is because as far as KoW is concerned a Lightning Bolt is pretty much the same as a Fireball. It's magic, and it does damage, so why have special rules for each spell that amount to the same thing? Just call it Zap or Breath Attack, list the number of dice rolled, and have done.

As discussed elsewhere, the KoW rules are also pretty much scale neutral, so folks playing games with the KoW rules in 6mm is not unheard of. (I know you know, and I know you know that I know you know, but not everyone knows that....)

The Auld Grump

This so much^^, I never understood rules can only use the fluff writing for it view point. If the rules suck it doesn't matter how good the fluff is the rules still suck, but if the fluff suck and the rules are good it much easier to go, this is my fluff vs. lets rewrite the rules into something we can all agree on.

Noir wrote:

Depends on the community. My area doesn't like KoW not because it's a bad game, they like the rules, it's just that KoW and Mantic has spent so much time and effort merely being a weaker and cheaper clone of GW. It's worked to get them established, but they don't have an interesting setting or interesting non-generic miniatures or rules.

After coming from Fantasy, despite all its problems, it's hard to lose that amount of depth.

I "use" my own take on the WHFB background, which has room for things like Blood Elves (High Elves with paint and lore inspired by WoW) and a non-exploded world for many of my KoW games. I can ignore "Mantica" as easily as I can ignore "The End Times", all while using the KoW ruleset for my models. The KoW rules are pretty much setting neutral - which makes them pretty flexible.

A lot fewer spells, but that is because as far as KoW is concerned a Lightning Bolt is pretty much the same as a Fireball. It's magic, and it does damage, so why have special rules for each spell that amount to the same thing? Just call it Zap or Breath Attack, list the number of dice rolled, and have done.

As discussed elsewhere, the KoW rules are also pretty much scale neutral, so folks playing games with the KoW rules in 6mm is not unheard of. (I know you know, and I know you know that I know you know, but not everyone knows that....)

The Auld Grump

This so much^^, I never understood rules can only use the fluff writing for it view point. If the rules suck it doesn't matter how good the fluff is the rules still suck, but if the fluff suck and the rules are good it much easier to go, this is my fluff vs. lets rewrite the rules into something we can all agree on.

I'd take it one step further - I like worldbuilding, creating my own setting.

So, I have been testing out an army list for Kings of War to represent 18th Century Fantasy. (Orc & Elf War - think French & Indian War with the Orcs as the Indians and the Elves as the French. Humans are the English and both Ogres and Dwarfs are the Hessian mercenaries....(As the Dutch as well - not that it matters overly much in this case, but if ever I need to do the Anglo-Dutch Wars for a pirate game in the same setting... it might.)

*EDIT* One of these days I want to play a dwarf Mennonite.

If a rules set is too tied to its setting it actually gets less useful for me.

The Auld Grump

 wuestenfux wrote:

dragonelf wrote:

WMH looks like a fantastic game to me. I am already reading through the rules. My only gripe is that the battlefields and armies don't have that epic feel. The terrain seems minimal and the armies seem small. Having said that I love the look of a Circle army and the depth of rules and army design really appeal to me...

Circle is a great faction to play.
However, note that Horde armies are a bit more involved to play than Warmachine ones, at least for a beginner.
This is due to the fury management. Focus management is much simpler.

He's played tabletop games for 20 years- he'll be able to pick it up faster than a 'beginner.'

Circle is awesome. Go for it.

Warmachine/Hordes is a game that seriously rewards players for playing extremely well, so if you find yourself losing, don't fret too much.

And if you want to learn how to beat any particular faction or force, try playing as them. You learn your forces weaknesses faster than anything in the game.

I absolutely love Kings of War. Very simple rules, and very fun. I recently played Age of Sigmar (my first game of Warhammer Fantasy!) and it was fun too, but there was lots of pausing, looking up special rules, and wondering how this or that worked. KoW is much simpler, and to me (a very casual player, if I get in one tabletop wargame in a month, I'm lucky!) a much more fun game.

I also played a lot of Warmachine. It's less about two armies fighting, and more about two big heroes fighting. You have a lot of "holy crap how did you just do that" turns where you or your opponent line up special abilities, synergies and pull off a crazy turn to kill the enemy boss, which ends the game. Very brainburny. Though I painted up two full armies, it ultimately wasn't my cup of tea. KoW for me!

Yeah, Warmachine can get pretty brain-burny. Things get very epic very quickly.

While the rules are quite simple (and clear) there are a lot of factors on any given battlefield that you need to account for. The game's strategy can get really complex, and the choices you make in any given turn can win or lose you the game.


One huge advantage that I've always felt about it was that if you swap out only your warcaster/warlock, your army now plays completely differently.

Also, you are either playing to 'caster kill or scenario win, which means that you don't end up with a game's strategy being over well before the game is finished (you get that a lot with games that play to the death of the last man).

And for the record, I've won with the last man standing, and I've also been beaten by a last man standing before.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Yeah, Warmachine can get pretty brain-burny. Things get very epic very quickly.

While the rules are quite simple (and clear) there are a lot of factors on any given battlefield that you need to account for. The game's strategy can get really complex, and the choices you make in any given turn can win or lose you the game.

And that's exactly what I love about WMH. My first game I realized it was what I had wanted and not gotten in wargames before. It's not for everyone because relaxing, it is not. I'm the opposite with video games. The video games I like to play are the ones I can just goof around, kill stuff, die and just shut my brain off. Some people want that in a wargame.

But I love Warmachine. Lots of good lore and fluff. Check out "Into the Storm" by NY Times Best Selling Author, Larry Correia. Great stuff.

Dan Well's novelette about the Butcher is brilliant fiction, and completely deserved its Hugo nomination.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Dan Well's novelette about the Butcher is brilliant fiction, and completely deserved its Hugo nomination.

Hey, what Lola wants, Lola gets....

The Auld Grump

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Dan Well's novelette about the Butcher is brilliant fiction, and completely deserved its Hugo nomination.

A truer statement has never been said. I lost to Dan Wells once.

Both are fine games. The question you need to ask is really do you prefer a mass battle style of wargame or a skirmish one.

Myself I prefer big battles. But everyone has their own tastes.

 IcarusRising wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Biggest problem with either game is finding people that play it in your area. Check your FLGS, or see if there is any clubs nearby first before committing.

This is exactly my problem. No FLGS within 50 miles of my home. Even the GW is a 30 minute drive for me. No one around here, that I can find anyway, plays anything but GW games. So I'm stuck. I'll keep playing AoS and 40K until I move or a store opens

Same sort of problem for me. 25 miles to a single LGS that stocks GW/Privateer only, with no tables, and the nearest GW store is a three-hour drive one-way.