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.

I've seen some dudes playing Warmachine in my FLGS once, but I know nothing about the game or the universe and would like to know what it is about it that makes people prefer it over Warhammer Fantasy or 40k.

For me, it was that the rules are so much tighter. I don't have to negotiate with the other guy about house rules or conditions, or even special rule interpretations. Everything just works smoothly.

The world itself started as a D&D campaign setting, so there is a lot of interesting creatures, people, nations and cities if you look past the cover. They have a unique magic system, unique deity system and badass giant robots.

The rules are tight and though sometimes things get a bit out of hand they are usually errata'd in a timely order. There's next to no arguing over things.

There's a bit of a focus on combos and synergy which mostly takes place in game, which means which unit you choose to activate first really matters.

Some people love it and some people hate it, but a big part of the game is that killing your enemy's leader (warcaster or warlock) leads to immediate victory. Of course you can still win through scenario, but this means either side always has a chance for victory and you can't just relax when victory is in reach.

Combos, competitive environment, well-written core rules.

I really enjoyed it for a while, but after getting into other games, I feel like the balance is rather poor and find the alternating armies turns rather than alternating unit structure tiresome since it take so long.

I consider it a gateway between GW and other systems, but is still rooted in some older notions that make it rather repetitive and static in the long haul. It'd probably be a breath of fresh air from playing 40k if what you're looking for is competition.

Setting- it's gotten more complicated than most super hero settings by this point, though started in a fun fantasy steampunk setting. I love the setting, hate the story.

 Chef_of_Cadia wrote:
I've seen some dudes playing Warmachine in my FLGS once, but I know nothing about the game or the universe and would like to know what it is about it that makes people prefer it over Warhammer Fantasy or 40k.

Warmachine was the game that made me fall in love with wargaming again.

There are a lot of reasons why warmachine is my preferred ‘go-to’ game. Especially compared to 40k (though I have no real bones to pick with GW or its game anymore).

The first point is the watertightness of the rules. Privateer Press took a very professional and legalistic approach to their rules crafting. There are no grey areas. There are no various interpretations. There are the rules. Clear, and concise. The tightness and clarity is a huge bonus and means you can just get on with it, and know what to expect, and you wont have to deal with any gakkers who like to exploit poor wording and poorly written sentences.

The second point is the balance of the game. It is a competitively focused game (with nods towards narrative and casual leagues too) primarily, and generally speaking, it is regarded as one of the better balanced games out there. Not everything is perfect, but the vast majority of things are useable, and at worst, are ‘specialists rather than generalists, but work well with the right caster/support’. There are very few true value-less ‘duds’ in the game. Essentially, almost everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy, players notwithstanding (some players will crutch on ‘obvious’ solutions and push a narrative that only these obvious solutions will work-the reality is quite different. Sadly, this inertia, is the root of a good portion of any staleness that exists in the game (or any game for that matter), and after 6 years of Mk2, some of this has been ingrained.). On the macro-level, the factions are generally well balanced, but on the micro-level (ie the unit v unit level), there can be hard counters (there is an element of rock/paper/scissors, or ‘circular balance’, which is fine). Thankfully, PP have a pretty robust set of tournament packs for organised play, which includes things like list sideboards, and multi-list formats and multiple win conditions are standard fare for tournaments. The long and the short of it is that whilst hard counters can exist, PP have built in enough ‘shock absorbers’ into their games to mitigate it to a large degree.

This touches on the next point – Privateer Press’ relationship with its customers. I’m not going to say that ‘they care’, or any such rubbish – they’re a business. They’re out to make money. But they’re professionals. They are willing to work ‘with’ and ‘alongside’ the community, with the understanding that we’re all in it together, essentially, rather than simply produce products for consumption with no market research and seeing customers solely as walking wallets (ahem!gw!) and They’re generally quite good, and fairly open in their communications. They release frequent ‘insiders’ which open up their thought processes and design systems and are open to communication with the fans. They take feedback, and respond to it (if there is a general consensus on X being overpowered, or ‘not fun’, eg bradigus, haley 2, denny 2) and will actively errata and fix any obvious issues, both in terms of ‘power-pieces’ that somehow slipped through the gate (haley 2, denny 2, bradigus), rules issues that don’t work as intended (the ‘shield guard’ rule for example), and will correct any obvious errors and imbalances on their part (kaelyssa’s force wall theme that was released a few years ago was broken straight off the bat, and PP eratta’ed it within 24 hours.) Mk2 was built on a worldwide playtest, and with thousands of players playing thousands of games, they got some invaluable feedback from it. They’re releasing mk3 in a few weeks, and apparently, it’s had 3 years of playtesting, and community feedback built into it. They’re releasing almost daily insiders revealing different aspects of the update. Really, its quite good! Beyond this, PP is excellent for providing community support in the form of tournaments, leagues and so on. Their rules packs and ‘organised play’ mentality means it is very easy to organise the community and get everyone on board, get everyone active, and with the solidity of the rules backing this up, you don’t get the issues you see all the time in 40k.

Beyond this, another reason for me, personally is I like the models and I love the lore. Their quality of manufacture for their plastics is behind that of GW (but their recent releases have been huge leaps forward) and their metals are generally very solid. They have a cartoonish, WoW ‘look’ that takes a bit of getting used to, but once you start to appreciate them for their own merits, you really start to appreciate them. The character-centric nature of the game means there are some really great stand-out larger than life characters to get behind and follow. The lore is a real hidden gem, and you can readily see a huge amount of work and care has gone into it. The iron Kingdoms is a living, breathing, characterful, rich, deep and enthralling IP. Its not so much ‘steampunk’ as ‘romantic fantasy’ (look up that term!) and is essentially a fairly traditional ‘romantic’ fantasy setting undergoing an industrial revolution, but there are enough tropes turned on their heads and reimagined that make it quite distinct in its look and flavour and make it stand out. Each army/race in the game is distinct whether its dragon worshipping necromancer zombie/pirates, braveheart trolls, Russian imperialists, cannibal beastmen, lovecraftian machine-worshippers or whatever, there is huge variety out there. The setting has matured very well, as they’ve been writing the lore for 15 years now (when I got into 40k, GW had been writing lore for it for about as long), and it originally began as a D20 RPG back in the day-the quality of the lore is something that surprises a lot of people who simply do not question, and simply assume GW is ‘the standard’ and that no one could possibly match it. GW get too much unquestioned credit for theirs in my opinion and haven’t really ‘earned’ it for a long time now. The IK story has grown, continues to grow and the setting itself is simply immense and breathtaking. There is over 4,000 years of history and lore to go through. When I got ‘serious’ about WMH, I got all the D20 material and dived in, and came out the other end quite humbled, and very much in love with it. The lore is mainly covered by the Iron Kingdoms RPG books, and is well written with huge depth.

One of the things that I really like that the other posters have yet to mention is that a major win condition is killing your opponents Warcaster/Warlock. You constantly have to balance keeping your Warcaster/lock effective and in the game without exposing them. You're constantly thinking, do I move up so I can get that spell/feat off or does that put me in to much danger? Even then is it worth it? You always have a win condition, your opponent might be dominating you, and have killed twice as many models as you have, but they if they get overconfident and/or careless you can still win.

There was actually a major tournament victory last year because a trollblood player though he was safe and ran to far forward on his first turn, his opponent killed the warrior that was in front of his Warlock(I think it was Doomshaper) and killed him either the bottom of Turn 1 or the top of Turn 2. All because the Trollblood player played just a little to loose with his positioning, and his opponent saw the opportunity and took the risk. And it was a very risky play on his opponents part as if the assassination had failed there's a good chance that the trollblood player could position himself and bunker down for a scenario victory.

Though there the downside is that there a couple of casters like Ravyn and Lylyth2 who are a little unfair as they can kill you if you walk more than 4" outside of your deployment zone. Fortunately with MKIII they've already confirmed nerfing one of those casters and the other is likely right behind her.

I actually lost two games on Wednesday against Ret due to a turn two assassination.

I was half an inch over the killbox line.

I hope they nerf mage hunters into the dirt.

 jeratoll wrote:
One of the things that I really like that the other posters have yet to mention is that a major win condition is killing your opponents Warcaster/Warlock.

I actually did mention it, but you went into more detail so I'll let you go.... This time!

Zatsuku wrote:

 jeratoll wrote:
One of the things that I really like that the other posters have yet to mention is that a major win condition is killing your opponents Warcaster/Warlock.

I actually did mention it, but you went into more detail so I'll let you go.... This time!

Sory, All I read of your last line was 'Some people love it, some people hate it"

 welshhoppo wrote:
I actually lost two games on Wednesday against Ret due to a turn two assassination.

I was half an inch over the killbox line.

I hope they nerf mage hunters into the dirt.

Well they did nerf phantom seeker according to the newest spoilers. It's now a once per game ability.

http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-05-09-2016

 DrNo172000 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I actually lost two games on Wednesday against Ret due to a turn two assassination.

I was half an inch over the killbox line.

I hope they nerf mage hunters into the dirt.

Well they did nerf phantom seeker according to the newest spoilers. It's now a once per game ability.

http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-05-09-2016

I saw. And it also doesn't ignore concealment and cover.

Plus, if you kill the UA before he uses it. They can't use it at all.

 Chef_of_Cadia wrote:
I've seen some dudes playing Warmachine in my FLGS once, but I know nothing about the game or the universe and would like to know what it is about it that makes people prefer it over Warhammer Fantasy or 40k.

Rules. Rules. Rules.

the rules are so much better and tighter. And the game is overall more balanced.

also price. It is much cheaper to get started in and you can build a decent army for less. Per model cost might actually be a little higher. But you need alot less of them.

A couple things:

The rules. The rules are as clear and unambiguous as Privateer Press can make them. And in cases with ambiguity, the Rules Developer will update, clarify, and change the rules to make it easier to understand in a timely fashion. The errata and FAQ are living documents. There is no reading into the rules. It's something every ex-GW gamer has trouble with when they first start playing Warmachine/Hordes.

Every model is "balanced". Or, more accurately, every model is broken. Every model/unit has it's place, and every model/unit can be used to win a game. To this day, Privateer Press has NOT invalidated a single model or unit, and they have gone through technically three editions so far with a fourth edition on the way (Prime, Prime:Remix, MK II, and the upcoming MK III).

Cost: Getting into this game is SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER then Warhamer Fantasy ever was. What's more, once you have a 50 point list, if you swap out just one model (the Warcaster), the dynamics of the entire list could change basically giving you a totally different army. And that's from just replacing one model. Now, if you want to collect an entire faction, then yeah, it's gonna be right up there with a 2000 point 40K army (or 2000 points of Fantasy). However, that's only one 40K list. If you collected everything in a faction, you would have millions of possible army lists. And I'm not talking adding a sword or melta bomb and saying your list has changed. No, I'm saying you could have totally different armies from that collection.

Game Length: There is no fixed turns or random turns. Most games last 3-5 turns. But they could go 10+ turns if you really wanted to. You play until an established victory condition is met- either warcaster death or scenario or what ever you and the opponent agree on. There are no random objectives, no "take this point and score d3 victory points" nonsense. There is no "cast a spell and get +1 victory points!". That stuff has it's place in the other games, but not here. Time length: I can set up, play, and play again another game, then clean up in the time it takes to play one 2000 point 40K game. If I go to a tournament, there will be chess clocks or timers on the table, and depending on the size of the game or type of tournament, you will have as little as 3 minutes to take your turn, all the way up to 10 minutes or more. It all depends on the type of tournament and how many points you are playing.

Speaking of tournaments, the Steamroller Tournament System is a living, flexible document of extra rules for running Warmachine/Hordes tournaments. It clearly spells out sportsmanship, penalties for cheating, how to calculate pairings and overall placement, army list construction rules, and very balanced scenarios. I don't think GW has ever had a tournament system close to this, and in a lot of ways, it reminds me of Magic:The Gathering events rules. Privateer Press even has official Judges that take a qualifying test and are experts on the rules and running events. Oh, and there are official Privateer Press prizes for official tournaments (trophies, coins, certificates).

The community is top notch, and the employees of Privateer Press will interact and discuss anything with the players on the forums or at conventions. And I'm not talking just the public PR guy. I'm talking the guys working down in the warehouse, all the way up to Matt Wilson himself (the Big Kahuna of Privateer Press). As a matter of fact, if you mention Bee Swarms or Batman, there is a high chance PPS_WillHungerford (rules developer) will chime in with some comment on the forums. Yes, they can be silly like that. But he could also pop into the rules forum to answer a question about why a particular rule is worded in a strange way. If you ask for list help on the PP Forums, you will get it, and it'll be pretty positive. Not full of sarcasm and vitriol like you can find at other forums.

Finally, Privateer Press has the Press Gang. An all volunteer program of players. This program is a lot like the old GW Red Shirt program before GW cancelled it. Press Gangers are overly enthusiastic, knowledgeable volunteers whose mandate is to get more people into the hobby and run local events (many PG's are judges themselves). If you look at the PP website, there is a list of PG's by area, and you can contact any of them for a demo of the game. They will bring everything to play the game (at least two armies, fully painted, dice, tape measure, rules), teach you how to play, and even help you pick your first faction/army depending on how you like to play.

When you get into Warmachine/Hordes, you are not just getting a game of little toy soldiers, You are getting into a thriving, living community of players that want to play a game, and not bicker about rules and interpretations or use a 20 page document of house rules just to play a game.

 Tamwulf wrote:


Cost: Getting into this game is SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER then Warhamer Fantasy ever was.

Not really much of a claim. WM/H is significantly more expensive than many other games out there. Selling it as cheaper than warhammer fantasy isn't saying much. Is it cheaper to play than AoS?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


Cost: Getting into this game is SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER then Warhamer Fantasy ever was.

Not really much of a claim. WM/H is significantly more expensive than many other games out there. Selling it as cheaper than warhammer fantasy isn't saying much. Is it cheaper to play than AoS?

Since the OP specifically asked what makes it different than Warhammer or 40K I think the cost is a valid point.

Per model, I don't think Warmachine is really any cheaper. It seems like their price point is about the same as other games. But I haven't extensively checked that. PP has been moving more and more to plastic and away from metal so that has reduced prices on a number of models. But not all.

But what helps makes Warmachine cheaper is free rules online, cheap starter boxes and the lack of codexes/additional books being required. Otherwise, the cost of a game is pretty proportional to the models needed. Warhammer usually uses a lot more models than warmachine. And smaller skirmish games like Malifaux use even fewer models and hence tend to be even cheaper.

Because of the way warmachine works, if you are playing totally casual you can literally play with cardboard cutouts. With free rules and being able to use Warroom, you can play games for less than a tenner.

IDK if that actually means anything, lots of games are moving to free core rules etc. and a few have the majority of, if not all, model content available for free now. The playing field is getting pretty level for trying out a game.

My experience with PP is a faction in PP costs about as much as a 40k army, since you're more likely to pick different options for varied WM/H lists than a 40k army where there's less synergy so less variety.

I've seen that said here several times in the past, but I don't really think it's a fair comparison.
You're comparing buying a single 40k list, to buying a wide variety of options for multiple WM/H lists.

If you're just getting enough models to play a normal sized game, then WM/H is far cheaper.

I was going on how people tend to collect the game:

-40k players I've seen tend to refine a list or two per faction and have fairly high faction loyalty (playing 1-3 or so) probably in large part because getting that base collection is very expensive. It's eventually a well-oiled all-comers list that's fairly static until an edition shift or new codex mixes up how things work again. Until recently, there was very little in the way of cross-faction options. 40k's highly modular in that there aren't a lot of combos, so trying out a new piece is as simple as making room for it, which is its own dynamic.

-Warmachine officially promotes a 2-list system, and players tend to play towards that. It's combo-heavy, so you often have modules consisting of several elements that'll end up coming out to maybe $150+. More often than not, you're not buying a single new piece, you're buying a few that go together, unless you already have a large collection in the faction.

-Malifaux, as a third example I know well, allows you to fully customize your list after finding out objectives, so encourages a broad faction collection for having exactly the right option, and multifaction options are common, which encourages players to play more than one, and new commanders are packaged in $50-ish bundles that are the common expansion increment- the whole "gateway" structure leads to a lot of players having collections that start to really sprawl.


Yes, each of the three systems has a very different entry point, but also a different way of expanding and it's one of the only times when I'd say comparing apples to oranges is the way to do it, because (continuing the metaphor), when you're buying your fruit, you might not buy apples the same way you buy oranges. While I could say, for instance, that Malifaux can get a competitive all-comers list for maybe $50-70 and be telling the truth (often a starter and one or two singles is plenty to run a full module, and pretty well), most players don't actually collect that way in practice. Similarly, WM players I've seen don't just get a minimum list and stay there.

I don't know what makes you think that most combinations cost ~$150 in Warmahordes. That kind of money usually can get you most, if not all, of a new list. There are some models that MSRP at $140 but that's the exception rather than the rule.
I also play Malifaux and can say that in my meta the only reason people don't spend as much on their collection as they do for warmahordes/40K is that Malifaux doesn't have as many models as the other 2 games. Another reason is that it is a true skirmish game so you're probably not putting more than a dozen models on the table at one time. So, of course, it doesn't cost as much to add to/change a list.

Arson Fire wrote:
I've seen that said here several times in the past, but I don't really think it's a fair comparison.
You're comparing buying a single 40k list, to buying a wide variety of options for multiple WM/H lists.
.

The difference is the relationship between models and lists for the games. In 40k, the aim is seemingly to aim for a 1500pt (or 1850pt) all encompassing 'lists' and play it all at once. In WMH, the aim is to aim for a similarly 'sized' amount of stuff, but to only play a small amount of it at any one time.

If 40k players chose to play 500pt games, or 1000pt games it would be exactly the same dynamics.

In other words, the nature of the size of lists doesn't matter as much as you think - after a year of purchases, when you look back, you'll probably have spent as much on WMH as 40k.

Arson Fire wrote:

If you're just getting enough models to play a normal sized game, then WM/H is far cheaper.

But a 'normal sized game' is only a stepping stone; it's not the full picture so it's not an entirely accurate position to make a case from. You have to factor in multi-list formats at the very least. And it entirely depends on what you are fielding. If you go with a beast heavy legion list for 50pts, your outlay won't be massive. If you go cavalry heavy 'charge of the horselords', or max out on doom reavers for 'mad dogs of war', for example, you'll be spending a heck of a lot - 40k will look cheap. Then again. It's known that cavalry is on the expensive side. heck, just go with butcher3, ruin and some iron fangs (14pts, so about 25% of a 50pt list) it'll set you back about £120 just for those few models. On the other side of the scales, it's entirely possible to do 'budgethammer' and get some sweet deals by not chasing the meta so 40k doesn't have to be expensive, either.

That's why a lot of people state that WMH is cheaper to get in to, it's often cheaper and easier to expand, (because the costs aren't entirely front loaded like 40k, and the in game 'worth' of a single solo/caster/unit can completely change the dynamics of your army so you can easily add to your army in tiny, incremental pieces), but at the end of the year, when you look back on what you've spent, you'll realise that damn, it all adds up and you've probably not saved much, if at all.

I disagree.

I played 40K and I tended to collect a lot of models as well. Well more than a basic 1850 or 2K list. I have way more Elder alone than all my WMH together and I have 4 WMH factions. Once you start trying to get a unit of each aspect warrior and all the other stuff there are a ton of options. And if it is a good unit you usually want 2+ of them. And that is not counting my Space Marine and Tau stuff I have. IMO, I spent a lot more time and money on 40K since you had to remake your army every edition and sometimes every new codex. You can get a 40K list and call it good. But you can do the same thing in WMH and Malifaux. And so far WMH has a lot fewer editions/new models/etc that invalidate your previous choices. I will admit I've played WMH for about 6 years and played 40K for 16. But I had to constantly remake my 40k lists while my first 35pt WMH list is still playable. I doubt I can simply pick up my 40K elder or Templar list from 6 years ago and say the same thing.

From my experience you get a few people who build a min list and then just stick with it in any game. If so, it really is just a game to them and a reason to hang out with buddies. They are often not as interested in some of the other aspects like tournies, etc. But if you are a collector in one game, you will probably be a collector in other games. IMO it is more about the player than the game. And at that point is really is more dependent on the person and how much money they have to spend. However, usually when people are asking about how "expensive" a game is to play they are almost always talking about getting started and getting a solid list that they can be competitive with down at their LGS. And in this aspect WMH is definitely cheaper than 40k just by the sheer volume of models. What happens after that initial list varies based on the person and their gaming budget. You might buy a few choice models to expand your options or attempt to collect the entire faction/army.

 Mordekiem wrote:

I disagree.

I played 40K and I tended to collect a lot of models as well. Well more than a basic 1850 or 2K list. I have way more Elder alone than all my WMH together and I have 4 WMH factions. Once you start trying to get a unit of each aspect warrior and all the other stuff there are a ton of options. And if it is a good unit you usually want 2+ of them. And that is not counting my Space Marine and Tau stuff I have. IMO, I spent a lot more time and money on 40K since you had to remake your army every edition and sometimes every new codex. You can get a 40K list and call it good. But you can do the same thing in WMH and Malifaux. And so far WMH has a lot fewer editions/new models/etc that invalidate your previous choices. I will admit I've played WMH for about 6 years and played 40K for 16. But I had to constantly remake my 40k lists while my first 35pt WMH list is still playable. I doubt I can simply pick up my 40K elder or Templar list from 6 years ago and say the same thing.

That’s just you! but seriously, Bear in mind what you have said about collecting a lot of models – for 40k, you collected a similar number of factions - three factions, as opposed to WMH’s four, over almost three times the time period as you’ve played WMH, and you approached it like a ‘collector’ whose approach is essentially ‘gotta catch ‘em all’(multiple copies of every unit, all the options etc)- of course you’re going to buy more. Whilst you’re not wrong in what you say, your approach and your experience/perception of how you’ve done it has greatly coloured and qualifiedyour statements, and that must be taken into consideration. And for what it’s worth, my own experiences must also be qualified for what they are as well. Maybe it was different in the earlier editions of the game that I am more familiar with, because the pace and output of new stuff is quite staggering compared to how things used to be. Maybe it was something particular about playing in competitive circles. Or even just about playing in Ireland. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. In other words, within the context of this debate, 40k can be expensive in terms of the initial buy-in and upkeep, but it certainly doesn’t have to be. And likewise, WMH can be a lot more expensive than a lot of people realise, or more crucially in these debates, WMH can be a lot more expensive than people want to admit to.

In my experience when I played 40k, people who played 40k simply went for the ‘best’ stuff, and defined their army by *that* list, if that makes sense, because really there often was no point purchasing outside that single build. Case in point: when I played tau back in fourth, my army consisted of 3 hammerheads, devilfish with fire warirors, kroot, and a few suits. Beyond that, there was no point spending more, because the rest of the codex was essentially worthless, or at best, mediocre. There was no point buying ‘the other stuff’ as you did, or aping pokemon’s ‘gotta catch em all’ in terms of buying every possible build in a codex. There wasn’t ‘a ton of options’, sadly. There was a single build. That list essentially did me for all of 4th edition with very few additions/changes. And tau weren’t alone in that. With some armies, the ‘remakes’ required for each new codex/edition don’t necessarily have to be as extensive as you claim, especially when the meta they’re played in is taken into consideration and especially when you stop ‘chasing the meta’. The ‘rhino rush’ space marine armies of third simply left their rhinos behind in fourth (only to bring them back out in fifth), and brought some more devastators and became 6man las/plas ‘camping’ builds. The ‘shoot the rhino rush’ armies of third carried on as normal. A tactical marine then is still a tactical marine now.

Regarding the point about having to remake your lists constantly for 40k, while your first WMH list remains playable – I don’t think that is an entirely ‘fair’ statement. Firstly, I won’t argue the point that GW’s cyclical changes are extremely cynical in how they invalidate builds and units from top tier status- PP are not as different as you think- their game is built around circular/perfect imbalance, and essentially mimics a ‘liquid meta’ where everything is essentially fluid, for want of a better word. Things are always in flux. In game value goes up and down, all the time. And often for no apparent reason. New releases/erratas can change the entire landscape very quickly. Heck, we had an example yesterday in the MK3 updates where things like Magnus’ Bad Seeds and other theme lists are being removed, and where a bunch of cryx stuff was removed from the Cephalyx mercenary ‘contract’ (although its not called that any more) and its annoyed quite a lot of people who had purchased stuff, only to find them now cynically invalidated. Now sure, it was probably an oversight, and even then, it was a handful of solos, but is it a sign of things to come? Now sure, you can start a cryx army, or sell them on, and whilst its limited, the point stands that PP invalidated a bunch of people’s purchases. With GW, often times, despite those similar cynical changes they love to do that invalidate builds, things are still ‘playable’ to some degree. Especially when you stop chasing the meta and ‘chasing the dragon’ to keep up with all the new changes. That tau list I showed above for example, or even your elder or templar lists are still playable. Certainly not top tier, but since the models wont self-destruct when I put them on the board, they’re still playable. Especially if you play with a few house rules or a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, which is one of the core ‘soft’ aspects of making 40k work. Heck, I’d probably prefer to play them using some kind of bastard homebrew of third/fourth edition. Its also arguably just as true for WMH in terms of how lists have had to be remade as editions have aged and evolved. If you look at the lists that people played at the dawn of Mk2 versus the lists that are played now, there is more often than not, not a huge amount of cross over. For example, look at the typical khador lists of that early era – most were typically built around a core of an iron flesh caster, winter guard infantry deathstar and kayazy. Now it’s built around Butcher 3, double black dragons, and often, the only crossover is a unit of widowmakers. The winter guard haven’t been anywhere near as prominent since all the infantry hate and the demise of ‘high DEF’ that came about since the start of the ‘colossals era’ of Mk2 and the rise of the ‘armour skew’ in late Mk2. And it’s true for pretty much every faction – as the game ages, some things rise, some things fall. Could I take an early-era Mk2 khador list and run it as well as a late-era khador Mk2 list? Maybe. But into the current meta? Probably a bit more uphill than you realise. While it’s still ‘playable’, it would only play well into a more limited set of match ups, it wouldn’t be anywhere near as ‘evolved’ for the current meta as currently favoured builds. And this is just as true when applied to your old 40k stuff.

 Mordekiem wrote:

From my experience you get a few people who build a min list and then just stick with it in any game. If so, it really is just a game to them and a reason to hang out with buddies. They are often not as interested in some of the other aspects like tournies, etc. But if you are a collector in one game, you will probably be a collector in other games. IMO it is more about the player than the game. And at that point is really is more dependent on the person and how much money they have to spend. However, usually when people are asking about how "expensive" a game is to play they are almost always talking about getting started and getting a solid list that they can be competitive with down at their LGS. And in this aspect WMH is definitely cheaper than 40k just by the sheer volume of models. What happens after that initial list varies based on the person and their gaming budget. You might buy a few choice models to expand your options or attempt to collect the entire faction/army.

I disagree. It might just be my own personal experiences, but when it came to 40k, I found the ‘min list’ approach was the approach of the proper serious tournament gamer rather than the ‘minimum investment so I can hang out with buddies’ crowd, because he wouldn’t waste his time on anything less than an optimum build. He would build that, maybe with a tiny amount of extra stuff, but essentially his 40k ‘list’ was his 40k ‘army’ with very little fat after the fact-it didn’t require the constant ‘updating’. CSM Iron Warriors for example stayed as one of the premier top level builds for the end of 3rd, and most of 4th edition. In terms of what you say about WMH, the initial purchase is often less, but the mistake is ending the conversation there and declaring a conclusion. ‘a solid list that they can be competitive with down at the LGS’ is not the end of the conversation. For WMH, that’s just the start. To me, that’s the ‘initial buy in’, as I’ve previously stated. It does not cover multi-list formats, or sideboards, which are hugely relevant in WMH. It does not cover expansion or upkeep which are considerations that are just as important in the debate. (And being fair, what’s stopping me buying the 30k BaC set and playing 40k at an ‘infantry raid’ skirmish scale? Initial buy in is pretty OK, and expansion/upkeep are not hugely relevant, but im still playing 40k for cheaps).Any conclusions with regard to price, and which game is cheaper that are drawn from the point of the ‘initial buy in’ are inaccurate for any discussion beyond ‘what do I need to get started with’?

I will agree with you to a very large extent when you state what people are talking about when they talk about how ‘expensive’ something is. To me, the ‘expense’ of a game is a combination of a number of factors:

1: Price of entry. Hoe easy/expensive is it to ‘buy in’ and get playing at a reasonable level.

2a: Price of ‘expansion’. How easy is it, or how expensive it ‘feels’ to expand your army. If the requirement is entirely ‘front loaded’, it ‘feels’ a lot more expensive than ‘incremental’ purchases, even though the end cost can quite often be similar.

2b: Upkeep. What is necessary to stay afloat and to keep your army/list ‘relevant’ and ‘updated’ and to ‘replace’ invalidated builds etc.– new books, new editions, new cards, new shinies.

To me, price per model isn’t a huge concern

Deadnight wrote:
I will agree with you to a very large extent when you state what people are talking about when they talk about how ‘expensive’ something is. To me, the ‘expense’ of a game is a combination of a number of factors:

1: Price of entry. Hoe easy/expensive is it to ‘buy in’ and get playing at a reasonable level.

2a: Price of ‘expansion’. How easy is it, or how expensive it ‘feels’ to expand your army. If the requirement is entirely ‘front loaded’, it ‘feels’ a lot more expensive than ‘incremental’ purchases, even though the end cost can quite often be similar.

2b: Upkeep. What is necessary to stay afloat and to keep your army/list ‘relevant’ and ‘updated’ and to ‘replace’ invalidated builds etc.– new books, new editions, new cards, new shinies.

To me, price per model isn’t a huge concern

I still think that what people do in one game they are likely to do in another game. But let's stick to just this part.

1. WMH wins hands down. A battlebox and maybe a couple units and solos and you are good to go.

2a. I think WMH still wins at this. Even if you expand your selection somewhat past your base list you are still coming out ahead of an entire 40K list. Though I think the price point is getting closer. And as you say WMH cost can be much more incremental and much easier on the pocketbook.

2b. Again, WMH wins hands down. While the meta shifts and new things are released you don't need to buy much to stay relevant. 40K OTOH you have to retool constantly and usually on a much bigger scale as entire lists can become invalidated very quickly. That is pretty rare in WMH.

So to me WMH is winning, and by a very clear cut amount in two of your 3 categories.

But again, I think those who are concerned about "costs" are new people getting interested in the hobby and are more than likely casual players. These aren't tourney players asking the cost. They know they will have to dedicate much more money than your standard player. You don't become a tourney player if you are not sure you can buy a new solo when it comes out. So when someone asks, "which costs more?" 40K is definitely the more expensive one.

 Mordekiem wrote:

I still think that what people do in one game they are likely to do in another game. But let's stick to just this part.

1. WMH wins hands down. A battlebox and maybe a couple units and solos and you are good to go.

2a. I think WMH still wins at this. Even if you expand your selection somewhat past your base list you are still coming out ahead of an entire 40K list. Though I think the price point is getting closer. And as you say WMH cost can be much more incremental and much easier on the pocketbook.

2b. Again, WMH wins hands down. While the meta shifts and new things are released you don't need to buy much to stay relevant. 40K OTOH you have to retool constantly and usually on a much bigger scale as entire lists can become invalidated very quickly. That is pretty rare in WMH.

So to me WMH is winning, and by a very clear cut amount in two of your 3 categories.

Oh, absolutely. Completely in agreement mordekeim. I think saying that 'wmh is cheaper' is dishonest and misleading (I've spent far more on WMH than I ever did on 40k), but it's absolutely correct to say it's a far easier game to 'buy into', and it's a far easier game than 40k to expand, since all the costs aren't front loaded.

That said, 2b is alleviated to a huge degree by not chasing the meta and not shelling out to keep abreast of the power curve, both of which happen in WMH as well - see my point about how list design as evolved over the course of mk2. But for 'not chasing the meta' to work, it requires house rules, a 'general understanding', an 'easy, easy' and more 'relaxed' approach to the game; in other words a shock absorber of 'soft' social skills etc. WMH might be 'ahead' here, but it's not necessarily by as much, and it might be a straight draw depending on how you approach the games.

 Mordekiem wrote:

But again, I think those who are concerned about "costs" are new people getting interested in the hobby and are more than likely casual players. These aren't tourney players asking the cost. They know they will have to dedicate much more money than your standard player. You don't become a tourney player if you are not sure you can buy a new solo when it comes out.

Possibly. It's not just 'new' people. We all like to spend as little as we can, but there are plenty 'entitled gamers' out there that feel they are owed the 'full experience' without having to pay up on their end (or else should only have to invest the bare minimum), and then they throw a tantrum when this isn't the case, and they're asked to cough up, and see it as unreasonable or 'evil' of companies to act in such a manner.

Like I said, maybe it was different back in third/fourth, but buying into a top build kept you pretty relevant for the entirety of the edition. Rhino rush existed for almost 7 years, skimmer spam, iron warriors and las/plas did for fourth in a similar manner.

 Mordekiem wrote:

So when someone asks, "which costs more?" 40K is definitely the more expensive one.

With caveats.

It can cost more. But it depends entirely on how you approach the game. If you're chasing the meta, and constantly upgrading/changing your army to keep up with the edition shifts and drifts, then yes, you will spend more. Same with WMH. If you buy into a 'small raiding force', only play 500-1000pts with your stuff that you bought in third edition, or buy battle at calth and play skirmish/raids just with that, in a group who doesn't chase the meta, your pieces have a lot more 'staying power' and 'value'and your outlays for 40k will be a lot less.

40k generally is probably more expensive, but it doesn't need to be, and It isn't all of the time is what I am trying to say.

When I started playing Warmachine I ought my army bit by bit over time. A couple of Deathrippers first, followed by Denny and then a Pistol wraith. After that came a Bloat Thrall and then a Seether for a Yule present. A box of Bile Thralls after that and then a Necrotech and the Witch Coven for an alternate caster.
I bought my army the expensive way, without using the starter box. And I still spent less on it than I spent on Infantry for my Imperial Guard.

Let that sink in for a second: My entire Cryxian army plus extra caster cost me less than a single minor component of my Imperial Guard army.

So, apart from being cheaper Warmachine is also, as others have said:

Less ambiguous: The rules say what the rules say. There is nothing left open for interpretation, unlike in 40K

Everything has its place: Even less optimised units have their place as specialist's. Man o' War infantry are not that good generally, but they make a great bodyguard unit or 'Jack hunter's

The game is fast paced: In the time it takes me to play a 35pt game I might have had one and a half, maybe two turns of a 40K game.

The models look good: There is none of the cartoonishness about them, unlike the recent GW releases

PP listen to their community: They really do. And they take action too.

All in all, Warmahordes is a far more pleasing experience than EldarMarinTauhammer 40K.

Playing devil’s advocate here:

 master of ordinance wrote:

When I started playing Warmachine I ought my army bit by bit over time. A couple of Deathrippers first, followed by Denny and then a Pistol wraith. After that came a Bloat Thrall and then a Seether for a Yule present. A box of Bile Thralls after that and then a Necrotech and the Witch Coven for an alternate caster.
I bought my army the expensive way, without using the starter box. And I still spent less on it than I spent on Infantry for my Imperial Guard.

Let that sink in for a second: My entire Cryxian army plus extra caster cost me less than a single minor component of my Imperial Guard army.

So… Less than 20 models for your WMH 'army'. Compared to how many infantry for your guard? Price per model between the two games is generally comparable. I mean, I can buy 20marines for, what? Compare it to what I had to invest for my Colossal, and 2 squads of Uhlans (11 models) in my Charge of the Horselords list (Uhlans… Dear god, they’re horrible to put together!), or Butcher 3 and the Black Dragon boat (2x Iron Fang units, 2x iron Fang Kovniks, the then required 2x BD conversion kits-29 models which makes up just shy of one half one typical list when 2-list formats are the norm). I'll quite happily price it for the sake of discussion, and it is quite pricey. I’ve spent a lot less on my Battle at Calth set, which functions at a similar model scale and will represent my 30k 'army' to all intents and purposes.

The only real difference is in 40k, the army cost is front loaded, and you play it all at once. In WMH, the army cost is incremental, and you play small sections of it at a time. If you played 500-750pt 'raids' selected from a 2000pt 'core' army in 40k you'd find a fairly similar picture would emerge.

 master of ordinance wrote:

So, apart from being cheaper Warmachine is also, as others have said:

But it’s not always cheaper MoO. I’ve got some builds at home amongst my khador stuff that cost me quite a bit to put together, as illustrated above. Please don’t think I’m trying to be cheeky here MoO – I genuinely like a lot of what I have to say, but you are illustrating perfectly two of the things I pointed out earlier – firstly, that WMH is a lot more expensive than WMH fans care to admit to, and secondly, what you are doing here with your WMH purchases is describing what amounts to an ‘initial buy in’, stopping the conversation at that point, declaring a conclusion (that WMH is cheaper) when the point you are at is really only the start of the conversation and the conclusion you have drawn is ‘misleading’ at worst (I won’t say dishonest, nor do I think it, because I seriously doubt that that is your intent) and ‘missing the bigger picture’ at best. WMH is generally easier to start. It’s easier to expand your army. Arguably, its ‘upkeep’ isn’t so bad, but it’s not necessarily ‘cheap’, nor is it necessarily ‘cheaper than 40k’.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Less ambiguous: The rules say what the rules say. There is nothing left open for interpretation, unlike in 40K

This is mostly true. Issues do arise (the Shield Guard rulings immediately come to mind), PP do make mistakes (Rok was originally FA:U!) but PP are generally pretty good at fixing the obvious stuff. PP are light years ahead of GW in this area.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Everything has its place: Even less optimised units have their place as specialist's. Man o' War infantry are not that good generally, but they make a great bodyguard unit or 'Jack hunter's

There are some duds, but generally, most things can be worked into something useful. Incidentally, look at the changes for MoW for Mk3 – they’re looking beastly.

 master of ordinance wrote:

The game is fast paced: In the time it takes me to play a 35pt game I might have had one and a half, maybe two turns of a 40K game.

Depends on what, and more importantly who you are playing. I know some folks that suffer from ‘analysis paralysis’ in WMH and turns take forever. The time it takes to run an infantry heavy list in WMH (for example, running just the winter guard deathstar, and deal with all the damned sprays when they’re buffed with hand of fate!) takes a lot longer than it does to run a tank-heavy build in 40k that comprises half a dozen models. When I played tau, I had my turn done in a handful of minutes.

 master of ordinance wrote:

The models look good: There is none of the cartoonishness about them, unlike the recent GW releases

Oh? I think you’re tripping here MoO. Don’t get me wrong – PP’s models certainly look good, but to say there is ‘none of the cartoonishness about them’ is laughably untrue, with their severely over the top ‘world of warcraft’ proportions and stylings. I mean, the ridiculous Shoulder pads, weapon scale/sizes/shapes and troll hands and features immediately come to mind as bring seriously ‘cartoonish’ and severely over the top. Not that I mind – cartoonish isn’t necessarily a negative trait in a fantasy game if you ask me.

 master of ordinance wrote:

PP listen to their community: They really do. And they take action too.

Generally, they listen, at least on a macro scale. But often, there’s silence. How long did it take to errata Gaspy 2, Haley 2 and Denny 2 for example? For all of Mk2, they did nothing about Men o War. What was it that every khador player wanted sorted? MoW. They don’t respond (and rightly so!) to the vast majority of the white noise that the fanbase throws out but they don’t, and won’t always either listen or take action. Likewise, there have been more than a few instances over the years where the community and PP have been at odds. Look how well the removal of pistol wraiths and Mobius from the cephalyx builds is going down on the PP boards for an example.

 master of ordinance wrote:

All in all, Warmahordes is a far more pleasing experience than EldarMarinTauhammer 40K.

Generally yes. Assuming you're into that kind of thing. Unless you were stuck playing against Haley2HarbyGaspy2Denny2machine for most of Mk2. Or if you wanted to make jack-heavy work in any faction other than the Protectorate. Or if you aren’t into the competitive scene/approach, which dominated a lot of the groupthink and attitude of MK2. Or if you dislike the aesthetics and style. Or if ‘kill the king!’ the ‘gotcha!’ moments, and the severe learning curve and the ‘knowledge burden’ required to play a game properly is something that doesn’t appeal to you. WMH, for all its greatness, has plenty 'not-fun' match ups, and less than pleasing elements, depending on taste etc.

WMH isn’t for everyone. And that’s OK too.

#1 Tight Rule Set

#2 You models will ALWAYS be usable.. even if they redo the rules... no more.. oh new codex.. i have to change X and X etc.

#3 you get new Units every year... for every faction... it keeps things fresh.. not having to wait for a 2-5 year codex cycle

#4 Cost is to the person.. You and friends can play for $50 battlebox games. Price all depends on the point size... people play 35...50...25... Battlebox... you have a variety.

#5 If you have a good Local shop, you can join a Journeyman league and slowly grow an army while learning the game or just getting together to have fun.



Its a very cheap game to try... If your in a Populated area.. find a local shop and ask if they have a press Ganger or someone who does Demo's... or someone that will let you and a friend play a Battlebox game even... For free to try...

You cannot lose giving the game a try. as its cheap to try all considering.

Deadnight wrote:
Playing devil’s advocate here:

 master of ordinance wrote:

When I started playing Warmachine I ought my army bit by bit over time. A couple of Deathrippers first, followed by Denny and then a Pistol wraith. After that came a Bloat Thrall and then a Seether for a Yule present. A box of Bile Thralls after that and then a Necrotech and the Witch Coven for an alternate caster.
I bought my army the expensive way, without using the starter box. And I still spent less on it than I spent on Infantry for my Imperial Guard.

Let that sink in for a second: My entire Cryxian army plus extra caster cost me less than a single minor component of my Imperial Guard army.

So… Less than 20 models for your WMH 'army'. Compared to how many infantry for your guard? Price per model between the two games is generally comparable. I mean, I can buy 20marines for, what? Compare it to what I had to invest for my Colossal, and 2 squads of Uhlans (11 models) in my Charge of the Horselords list (Uhlans… Dear god, they’re horrible to put together!), or Butcher 3 and the Black Dragon boat (2x Iron Fang units, 2x iron Fang Kovniks, the then required 2x BD conversion kits-29 models which makes up just shy of one half one typical list when 2-list formats are the norm). I'll quite happily price it for the sake of discussion, and it is quite pricey. I’ve spent a lot less on my Battle at Calth set, which functions at a similar model scale and will represent my 30k 'army' to all intents and purposes.

The only real difference is in 40k, the army cost is front loaded, and you play it all at once. In WMH, the army cost is incremental, and you play small sections of it at a time. If you played 500-750pt 'raids' selected from a 2000pt 'core' army in 40k you'd find a fairly similar picture would emerge.

 master of ordinance wrote:

So, apart from being cheaper Warmachine is also, as others have said:

But it’s not always cheaper MoO. I’ve got some builds at home amongst my khador stuff that cost me quite a bit to put together, as illustrated above. Please don’t think I’m trying to be cheeky here MoO – I genuinely like a lot of what I have to say, but you are illustrating perfectly two of the things I pointed out earlier – firstly, that WMH is a lot more expensive than WMH fans care to admit to, and secondly, what you are doing here with your WMH purchases is describing what amounts to an ‘initial buy in’, stopping the conversation at that point, declaring a conclusion (that WMH is cheaper) when the point you are at is really only the start of the conversation and the conclusion you have drawn is ‘misleading’ at worst (I won’t say dishonest, nor do I think it, because I seriously doubt that that is your intent) and ‘missing the bigger picture’ at best. WMH is generally easier to start. It’s easier to expand your army. Arguably, its ‘upkeep’ isn’t so bad, but it’s not necessarily ‘cheap’, nor is it necessarily ‘cheaper than 40k’.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Less ambiguous: The rules say what the rules say. There is nothing left open for interpretation, unlike in 40K

This is mostly true. Issues do arise (the Shield Guard rulings immediately come to mind), PP do make mistakes (Rok was originally FA:U!) but PP are generally pretty good at fixing the obvious stuff. PP are light years ahead of GW in this area.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Everything has its place: Even less optimised units have their place as specialist's. Man o' War infantry are not that good generally, but they make a great bodyguard unit or 'Jack hunter's

There are some duds, but generally, most things can be worked into something useful. Incidentally, look at the changes for MoW for Mk3 – they’re looking beastly.

 master of ordinance wrote:

The game is fast paced: In the time it takes me to play a 35pt game I might have had one and a half, maybe two turns of a 40K game.

Depends on what, and more importantly who you are playing. I know some folks that suffer from ‘analysis paralysis’ in WMH and turns take forever. The time it takes to run an infantry heavy list in WMH (for example, running just the winter guard deathstar, and deal with all the damned sprays when they’re buffed with hand of fate!) takes a lot longer than it does to run a tank-heavy build in 40k that comprises half a dozen models. When I played tau, I had my turn done in a handful of minutes.

 master of ordinance wrote:

The models look good: There is none of the cartoonishness about them, unlike the recent GW releases

Oh? I think you’re tripping here MoO. Don’t get me wrong – PP’s models certainly look good, but to say there is ‘none of the cartoonishness about them’ is laughably untrue, with their severely over the top ‘world of warcraft’ proportions and stylings. I mean, the ridiculous Shoulder pads, weapon scale/sizes/shapes and troll hands and features immediately come to mind as bring seriously ‘cartoonish’ and severely over the top. Not that I mind – cartoonish isn’t necessarily a negative trait in a fantasy game if you ask me.

 master of ordinance wrote:

PP listen to their community: They really do. And they take action too.

Generally, they listen, at least on a macro scale. But often, there’s silence. How long did it take to errata Gaspy 2, Haley 2 and Denny 2 for example? For all of Mk2, they did nothing about Men o War. What was it that every khador player wanted sorted? MoW. They don’t respond (and rightly so!) to the vast majority of the white noise that the fanbase throws out but they don’t, and won’t always either listen or take action. Likewise, there have been more than a few instances over the years where the community and PP have been at odds. Look how well the removal of pistol wraiths and Mobius from the cephalyx builds is going down on the PP boards for an example.

 master of ordinance wrote:

All in all, Warmahordes is a far more pleasing experience than EldarMarinTauhammer 40K.

Generally yes. Assuming you're into that kind of thing. Unless you were stuck playing against Haley2HarbyGaspy2Denny2machine for most of Mk2. Or if you wanted to make jack-heavy work in any faction other than the Protectorate. Or if you aren’t into the competitive scene/approach, which dominated a lot of the groupthink and attitude of MK2. Or if you dislike the aesthetics and style. Or if ‘kill the king!’ the ‘gotcha!’ moments, and the severe learning curve and the ‘knowledge burden’ required to play a game properly is something that doesn’t appeal to you. WMH, for all its greatness, has plenty 'not-fun' match ups, and less than pleasing elements, depending on taste etc.

WMH isn’t for everyone. And that’s OK too.

Eh, each to their own but I just like the fact that I can get started with an entirely new army and not have to spend £300+ on it.
(BTW, I have about 22 - 23 models in that army )

 master of ordinance wrote:


Eh, each to their own but I just like the fact that I can get started with an entirely new army and not have to spend £300+ on it.
(BTW, I have about 22 - 23 models in that army )

Don't get me wrong, I love warmachine, and it is my game of choice for a reason. I just try and be honest about it when it comes to price because there are a lot of misleading statements about it that can easily skew people's perception of it being some kind of a 'cheap game'.

It's nice that you can 'get started' with a new army on the cheap, but this is not always going to be the case in WMH. It depends entirely on the build. Some builds are ruinously expensive. That charge of the horselords list cost me upwards of £300, and that's with a discount. In a two-list format, there is very little crossover between that and my butcher 3 black dragon boat/steelhead boat. My most recent investment in 40k (getting started again, but on a very set and defined scale) was the battle of calth box set which cost me £90.