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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Warmachine has more balance than 40k (which arguably has none at all) so it's more balanced as a result. Is it balanced in the 50/50 sense? No, of course not, but virtually nothing is (even Chess is slightly skewed).

I find WMH plays more balanced, but as I've said and others have acknowledged I repeatedly have urges to play 40k again; I ultimately shelve them due to the combination of only being able to play pickup games, a high startup cost and the fact that many of the themed armies I want to do are underpowered due to the aforementioned no balance, but I still have slight interests in the game or else I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

Also @Akiasura could you please use the quote function properly instead of inlining your comments in a different color? It's VERY hard to read.

Sure, though to be honest I've always thought it easier this way when others do it.

@Wayne --

Many PC RTS games are perfectly balanced, because two players can play the same faction and move concurrently. You also have matchmaking, winch is arguably more important than balance. SC2 is a perfect example of excellent balance and good matchmaking, and Hearthstone is an excellent example of an online TCG with great balance. In both games you can instantly find someone of similar skill to play against, and there's no ambiguity in anything. If you achieve high ladder rankings, there is never the implication that you are cheap; rather, people respect your gaming acumen. This is the case even on Hearthstone, where you stack your deck.

I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.

There are also wildly different opinions: some people think the new BA codex and formations are the next FoTM while others think it's mid-tier at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:

3. I was talking about the serpent shield. In that case it would be about a 240 firing arc because it can be fired from any point on the hull which wraps 3/4 of the way around the model. There is no clear answer on this which is why if you go to 6 different tournaments, you will see 6 different diagrams of the accepted firing arc of a serpent shield.

Hey, Toofast, originally, I didn't want to reply to this specific point because at the time I was pretty busy, but also because your point generally has merit. However, in this specific instance, I've not seen people argue about how Serpent Shield works and juraigamer is right, as the rules are pretty clear. I even re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing something (because often, a whole group of gamers can misread the same thing, and not make an issue of ambiguous language). Let me quote:

Serpent Shield

The Wave Serpent's shield protects the bow of the tank - wilst the shields are active, all penetrating hits inflicted against the Wave Serpent's front and side armor are downgraded to glancing hits on a D6 roll of 2+

In its Shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):

(stats)

If this option is used, the Serpent shield is inactive until the start of the following turn.

I'm not sure how this is ambiguous.

Akiasura wrote:

Such rage

Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.

 juraigamer wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Such rage

Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.

All of his points were valid though. Might not have been presented very friendly (but also not overly unfriendly either. It was hardly an attack). But they were all valid points.

 juraigamer wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Such rage

Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.

They were valid points.

 juraigamer wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Such rage

Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.

The only part where I said something vaguely rude was the very last line, and considering what you said before that, it was warranted. But I'll refrain from saying such things if you do.

Other than that, I:
Provided a source you requested.

Posed a common rules question and asked you to resolve it

Asked for a source for a ruling you claimed that I have not heard from. Maybe it's a thing, I don't claim to be a rules expert, but I'd like to hear it if there is such a thing.

Corrected a claim you made that you need a smartphone to use cards. Maybe you misread the person? I then did some math showing I could buy the main rules and factions for less than a single codex.

Then insulted you, which was wrong, because you insulted another user.

I would hardly say your victory at hand however. I wasn't aware asking for sources and refuting your points one line at a time is considered personal attacks or not discussing the issues.

I thought the rules for hull mounted weapons in 40k was that they can fire as far as they can see.


Good thing the wave serpent has a really obvious shield generator on the front hull.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I thought the rules for hull mounted weapons in 40k was that they can fire as far as they can see.


Good thing the wave serpent has a really obvious shield generator on the front hull.

I'm sure BRB has a diagram for front, hull mounted -- for consistency we use center front of model to measure, but rules are tip of "barrel". Also range is always stated for weapons.

You probably think serpent shield is LOS because its range is 60", which is effectively LOS on almost every spot of every 6x4 table you're likely to fire from. The SS range is one of those amazingly OP things (for a cheap troop transport that you can have with any troop unit).

The diagrams in the rule book are for tanks like the land raider. Serpent shield doesn't have a barrel but the generator is near the center so if it was 45 degrees from there it would actually be close to a 180 arc. Since the shield covers all but the back of the serpent, some tournaments play it as 45 degrees from all points on the hull which is closer to a 240 arc. A diagram in the eldar codex or an FAQ would fix this.

 Toofast wrote:
The diagrams in the rule book are for tanks like the land raider. Serpent shield doesn't have a barrel but the generator is near the center so if it was 45 degrees from there it would actually be close to a 180 arc. Since the shield covers all but the back of the serpent, some tournaments play it as 45 degrees from all points on the hull which is closer to a 240 arc. A diagram in the eldar codex or an FAQ would fix this.

The codex couldn't be more clear that the shield can be turned off (deactivated) and fired as a front, hull mounted weapon. I know what the model looks like (I own a bunch), but the shields are turned off to fire the weapon. I've never seen a tournament where you could fire it from any nub, or met a person other than on a forum try to call it otherwise.

Also, if you look at the BRB, the hull mounted weapon arc is 45 degrees square to the front of the vehicle, not the directional pointing of the barrel (which you use to measure distance), and the codex says to treat the weaponized serpent shield as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward (not from any of the shield generator points).

Besides, you have 60", lol! The SS is way too powerful as it is.. the last thing it needs is a all-but-back-facing firing arc hahaha.

Talys wrote:


I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.

Actually I think the lack of balance in 40k hurts casual players most. A casual player won't tailor his list to a specific power level, he will make alist out of units he likes. Now what happens when a guy who likes gast eldar in transports meets a guy who likes DA terminators on foot?

Anecdotal evidence: there's 2 guys in my group that have recently started playing 40k. They both went for stuff they liked:

Guy A loves Space Wolves, so he bought many Grey Hunters, Bjorn and a few fenrisian wolves to make a battle-forged 750 points army.
Guy B loves Mechanicum and titans. He went for a knight (saw the model and loved it) and Iron Hands (he even bought the mechanucal arms).

Now how do you think a match between these guys goes?

LordBlades wrote:

Talys wrote:


I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.

Actually I think the lack of balance in 40k hurts casual players most. A casual player won't tailor his list to a specific power level, he will make alist out of units he likes. Now what happens when a guy who likes gast eldar in transports meets a guy who likes DA terminators on foot?

Anecdotal evidence: there's 2 guys in my group that have recently started playing 40k. They both went for stuff they liked:

Guy A loves Space Wolves, so he bought many Grey Hunters, Bjorn and a few fenrisian wolves to make a battle-forged 750 points army.
Guy B loves Mechanicum and titans. He went for a knight (saw the model and loved it) and Iron Hands (he even bought the mechanucal arms).

Now how do you think a match between these guys goes?

Bjorn obviously crushed everything in front of him, because space wolves?

To be fair, Warmachine doesn't have OP choices, it has easier and harder ones to play.

Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.

In cryx, my friend started with the Witch Coven, arguably one of the hardest armies to play in the game.
I ran with eMakeda, specifically because I was told she is easy to learn.

Our first 10 games I crushed him. He moved on to Gaspy 2, and crushed me back. Now we can play any warcaster and have a decent win rate against each other, but learning curves for casters are not tied to power.

The opposite is true in 40k. Powerful units are generally much easier to use, resulting in it being possible for a new player to grab a few because he likes them, and just stomp everyone he plays through no fault of his own. How hard is a riptide's "apply special 5 point wargear, launch pie plate to face"? How hard is "spam WS, fire shields from 60" away"? How hard were Heldrakes before the nerf to use?
40k combines power with ease of use in a way that makes it unbearable at times.

Akiasura wrote:
Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.

Anybody who claims Haley is hard to play needs to think about what they just said for a bit. I'd honestly say that 75% of what you need to know about playing her is a general overview of how your opponent's list works, so you can tell them tthe worst order to take their turn.

 dementedwombat wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.

Anybody who claims Haley is hard to play needs to think about what they just said for a bit. I'd honestly say that 75% of what you need to know about playing her is a general overview of how your opponent's list works, so you can tell them tthe worst order to take their turn.

Play a relatively frail control caster is a lot harder than playing someone who goes for the attrition win like Siege or Stryker3. Or murdering the enemy warnoun like Caine2 or Stryker2, which, in the start of the game, is the way most people lose.
Knowing how your own list works is already immensely difficult for most new players, given how many special rules and actions there are in warmachine. Knowing how every enemy list works and how to use your own effectively is beyond most new players.
Haley2 also works better in 50pt games, because she generally wants a Stormwall. In a journeyman league (assuming alternate casters allowed), she is terrible and will lose a lot at the start.

So yeah
Bad for new players.

For expert players, one who know their list and most of what each enemy faction can do, she is obviously a strong choice with a lot of options. It's why she gets taken.

I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).

When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.

Instead of the game play differences it's the way the companies treat their customers that is the huge difference.

GW: "The joy is in the purchasing of GW products" (paraphrasing)

PP: "play our game, expect it to be challenging, try your hardest, it's an aggressive game."

GW refuses to communicate with its player base, shutting off from contact outside of local Store managers who are chosen for "attitude" over game knowledge. My local Store manager (Cottmon ave, Philadelphia, PA) was hired without any knowledge about the game. While a nice guy he had never assembled a model or played a game. Poor or infrequent FaQ's and so forth.

PP, despite being a "competitive" game manages to communicate with its players. It regularly podcasts upcoming releases, tease new models. Developers and sculptures post on the FB faction pages. It manages a forum that is not a complete sewer .

@Uncle Fester - The GW business model is to produce models, for people who want to collect them, and perhaps play them. The principle business is the production of models for those who want to build, model, and collect them, though. They very clearly say so -- it's not like they pretend to be something else.

In this, they excel. They make a lot of models, and the cost per model, relative to other companies that make scifi models, and relative in quality and aesthetic, is good.

They have a game context, which can be lots of fun, but in my opinion, it's a lot more fun for model collectors, than for people who just want to spend a bit of money and play a game.

On the other hand, PP isn't a great company for people who want to be model collectors. I could actually (easily) outpaint their new model releases, and there is really no modelling to speak of. The support for kitbashing, bits, and posing is nonexistent. This isn't to say that their models aren't good (I own more PP models than most people who I meet who play WMH); it's just that **in my opinion** GW models are of a wider breadth and depth and flexibility. And personally, I like straight scifi better than steampunk.

PP wants to focus on a small model count game, and does so relatively well.

I don't fault either company for being what they say they are.

For a long time, I used to feel GW had gotten really expensive. When I look back on it though, and when I look at today's prices, actually, model-wise, they are just middle-of-the pack for price, and actually what I should have said is that when I was a teenager, 40k was really cheap. But it's a different world, so c'est la vie.

Personally, every interaction I've had with GW by email or telephone has been excellent. They've bent over backwards to help me, unexpectedly so -- for instance, explaining dry compounds when they came out, and I described a problem I had with Necron Compound. The email back-and-forth was thorough, competent, and personal.

GW "feels" like a much bigger company to me; it has a corporate feel to it, while PP has more of a hobbyist feel. I don't really mind either, to be honest. For instance, I like supporting the little guy, I really do. But I hate PP's website, which looks like it was made by some kid on evenings after school. Some kid without much web design skills, too. It runs like dog poo on my phone, and it's not easy at a store for me to do a quick lookup to see if a model at the store is a good deal (by comparing discounted price to MSRP). And the model pictures on the website are awful (when you compare it to GW).

My local GW store guy has fair knowledge of the game and the hobby, but frankly, I think he's a bit full of it and gives people bad advice. Again, I think that's ok, because at my favorite FLGS, I've gotten and heard so much bad advice that it's not funny.

When you say that GW refuses to communicate with its player base, that's not entirely true. They're happy to communicate by phone and email. They just don't have an official forum. While I wouldn't mind one, I do see the pitfalls -- Blizzard (a company that makes products that I really like) has forums, and most of it is filled with boundless negativity, when in fact, the games people b*tch about are pretty fun.

GW also announces upcoming releases and there are some unofficial sources (like Lords of War) that are extremely accurate for rumors (as in batting 100%). Hell, most issues of White Dwarf isn't really much more than a product announcement anymore (though the latest, #47 was pretty awesome). Yes, they charge $5 for it, but it's not you have to buy it.

Also, GW provides *by far* the best free painting/modelling videos (via its YouTube channel). They are of a professional quality, and really, better than most paid product (including, often, their own).

It's all in what you want out of a game, I guess. Personally, I'm pretty cynical -- 99% of the companies I like stuff from don't really care about me as an individual, so it's more important to me that I like their product. I just lump it together with Microsoft, Apple, HP, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, BioWare, Bethesda, Infiniti, Chevrolet, Ikea, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, Pizza Hut..... the list would never end. But see, I don't care if Pizza Hut cares about me, as long as they can make a good pizza and deliver it on time. I don't care if the guys Bethesda are wonderful people or jerks, as long as the next Elder Scrolls is fun.

I know it's cynical, and it wasn't always so... like I say, world we live in.

I'll throw my full on opinion in here as someone who has played both games. I honestly prefer 40k simply because of the mindset the games are designed in.

The group I play with and myself don't think "forging a narrative" is some kind of bad joke. Our armies have back-stories that we have developed over years of games and campaign events. We are also fans of the model and hobby aspect of 40k and will convert our models based on what they have done in various games.

Let me make this clear, Warmachine is by far the better designed game from a game-play standpoint, and I do enjoy playing it sometimes, but it is so incredibly limited and designed in the "competitive tournament game" mindset that I just can't support it as a favorite game. Ever since MKII rules dropped there has been pretty much 0 support for campaigns, cool storyline scenarios, or really anything that is not yet another 50 point Steamroller game. I can't count how many times I have surprised Warmachine players by showing them that there are basic rules for playing campaigns in the core rulebook, because nobody uses them. Also the converting/custom model side of the game is pretty much nonexistent because everybody has to be 100% sure that it is impossible to mistake the model for anything else, and the game is so reliant on 100% perfect to the millimeter positioning that any terrain other than colored squares of felt does not allow the game to be played as designed.

So, in my frank opinion (and only my opinion), Warmachine is the better game, but I just don't enjoy playing it as much as the difference in quality between the rules should indicate in a vacuum.

No quarter had three articles about modeling and conversions last issue. Thats normal.

Sargow wrote:
I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).

When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.

To be fair, the game probably got stale quicker for you than most people because you play Gators who are one of the factions with the least amount of choices. And net lists aren't as bad in WMH. If you look at the WTC lists for this year, there's a few casters that crop up a lot but the lists are all different, for example.

Talys wrote:


On the other hand, PP isn't a great company for people who want to be model collectors. I could actually (easily) outpaint their new model releases, and there is really no modelling to speak of. The support for kitbashing, bits, and posing is nonexistent. This isn't to say that their models aren't good (I own more PP models than most people who I meet who play WMH); it's just that **in my opinion** GW models are of a wider breadth and depth and flexibility. And personally, I like straight scifi better than steampunk.

To be fair though talys - I'd feel you are an outlier when it comes to being a model collector. Not a criticism btw, but didn't you say you bought 150 models to paint up/model per month? I own quite a bit of pp stuff (khador, and circle mainly) but neither me, I know no one who even remotely comes close to what you'll do. I'm fine with 'just' keeping pace with the new releases - even there, I often end up with backlogs (just three more doom reaver squads now, plus operation ice storm to follow!)

And I also disagree that there is no modelling to speak of. Now that said, I will agree with you that gw kits have more bitz for conversion (I tend to raid gw kits for my pp conversions) but it's annoying that gw closed the bitz store. Pp do a lot of conversion corner stuff, and conversion competitions in nq. Beyond that, there is scope for doing crazy impressive stuff.

For example:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?98-Stormhammer-the-Assault-on-Sul
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?194308-Crimson-Harvest-the-Revenge-of-the-Orgoth
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?198539-And-now-for-something-completely-different

In my mind, if you are going to model/convert in WMH, make like a warcaster and go epic.

Sargow wrote:
I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).

When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.

First of all, the house rules I've seen everyone using in GW games basically re write the rulebook. You have to decide how to play psykers, whether to discard maelstrom cards you can't complete, which LOW are allowed, unbound or not, etc. The house rules in WMH are quite simple, usually just "no water". If the extent of house ruling 40k needed was "no ruins, they're imbalanced", I doubt everyone would be complaining about the balance of the rules. You say they errata stuff all the time like it's a bad thing. I wish GW would keep up like that. How many powers can a psyker cast per turn? The rules came out like 8 months ago and nobody has bothered to answer that. Net lists are worse in WMH? Quick, name a net list that a new player can use and roflstomp people 70% of the time with in WMH. Oh wait, there isn't one. Every list out there has a counter. What's the counter to 6 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights? Running 6 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights yourself and hoping you get first turn or lucky dice rolls.

Talys wrote:
Also, GW provides *by far* the best free painting/modelling videos (via its YouTube channel). They are of a professional quality, and really, better than most paid product (including, often, their own).

Sorry but I can't let this comment go, I know this isn't PP vs GW related specifically but I burst out laughing when I read that.

Have some VASTLY superior, and entirely free, videos.






That Horus one by the way, about 3 hours long and comes out a hell of a lot better looking than anything I've seen GW paint recently.
The burna boy covers a ton of freehand as well.
They cover a ton of different techniques and between them the two painters have 4 Slayer Swords, 19 golden demons, 15 silvers, 7 bronze and 4 ForgeWorld best in shows.

It's a great channel, well worth subscribing

To put this into perspective, I calculated that I've spent approximately $600 on my Khador army for Warmachine (not 100% accurate as for example I bought some pieces with different discounts, including buying a colossal from another player for half its regular price), which gives me just shy of two 50 point lists (still could use another bit for a second list).

In comparison how much could I get from 40k for that amount? Probably one 1,500 point army or thereabouts (depending on exact army composition).

WayneTheGame wrote:
To put this into perspective, I calculated that I've spent approximately $600 on my Khador army for Warmachine (not 100% accurate as for example I bought some pieces with different discounts, including buying a colossal from another player for half its regular price), which gives me just shy of two 50 point lists (still could use another bit for a second list).

In comparison how much could I get from 40k for that amount? Probably one 1,500 point army or thereabouts (depending on exact army composition).

You do not use similar units in different lists?

My skorne collection runs me just over that, cause minions, and I can field a competitive list with every caster. Probably the only thing I can't run are certain tiers that are unit spam heavy.

Also, it should be said that while in the case of GW you'd get at least 1500 points for that number, you'd also have more models and of a um... improved quality.

600$ seems like itd go as far as 1850 at my mind - if you grab the easy to find 20% discounts. My 1000 point base for my new csm army cost me about 200$

When people compare prices between 40k and WM they go by MSRP from my understanding.

Yes both games are expensive but what has made me give my money over the year to PP are several reason:
Better rules
Balance of the game
Support to the community
Tournament support

Ironically I'm at a WMH tournament now. It's not as fun as I thought it would be.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Ironically I'm at a WMH tournament now. It's not as fun as I thought it would be.

I played in a league last night. I lost but the game came down to one friggin' dice roll at the end. One. If I would have just hit, I would have won. It was fantastic. Love it!

My WMH games always seem to be close. In 40k it's usually fairly lopsided. Either I'm playing against tau or eldar and I get tabled or I'm playing against any other army and I table them.