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.

Zatsuku wrote:
Saeryn, Omen of Everblight
Scythean
Neraph
Angelius
Nephilim Bloodseer
Striders Rangers
Strider Deathstalker
2 Blighted Nyss Shepherds

Never played the game so I don't know anything about the list's quality. I like 3 of the monsters but the Bloodseer loses a lot of coolness points for wearing armour and using a weapon. Pity it doesn't have any of the little compsognathus dudes, they're cute.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
It's like they knew exactly what I wanted for Khador!

I was just thinking that. Yeah it has 2 jacks and thats a bit of a downer, but really its a good Sorscha box. Even has the lady and the master, who you'll find a use for everywhere

The Devastator doesn't even need focus. Its job is to bulldoze and "rain of death" everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
errrr uhm is that the Decimator? who cares!

Demolisher.

durecellrabbit wrote:

Zatsuku wrote:
Saeryn, Omen of Everblight
Scythean
Neraph
Angelius
Nephilim Bloodseer
Striders Rangers
Strider Deathstalker
2 Blighted Nyss Shepherds

Never played the game so I don't know anything about the list's quality. I like 3 of the monsters but the Bloodseer loses a lot of coolness points for wearing armour and using a weapon. Pity it doesn't have any of the little compsognathus dudes, they're cute.

Saeryn is one of Legion's top warlocks for running big beasties and she does it very well. Plus Striders are our premier infantry clearing unit which the list would struggle with otherwise. It could easily be a competitive list, it's definitely better than a 40k battleforce or most other starters I've used in other games.

I know how to use a thesaurus!

If this has been mentioned before, I apologize, but why is it always WMH vs 40k, and not Infinity vs 40k? Does Infinity just not have as big a base of players, or is it something else? They're both SciFi games, and I would assume those compare better.

It's more because Warmachine is closer in model count to 40K than Infinity is; a Warmachine army will usually have something in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 models in 50 point game, though sometimes it could be quite a bit lower, as opposed to 40K's... I honestly don't even remember at this point, it's been so long. I think my 1500 point Space Marine army had 40 Models in it? Though obviously Tyranid or Ork or IG armies could have quite a lot more.

Point is, an Infinity game with more than 10 models per side would be considered pretty darn big, from what I understand.

Also Warmachine/Hordes is the second-most popular game system out there (around here I think it's actually more popular than 40K).


It's less to do with fluff, more to do with "crunch", so to speak.

I thought one of the big pros of playing WHM was the lower model count makes it so much cheaper for a playable force?

Of course if you can't find a game for Infinity, I can see why it wouldn't be a good comparison. Similar to Dark Age or other small skirmish games.

Well, I did say "closer" in model count. 40 models is on the larger side for WMH army, whereas the same number is average for a lot of 40K armies and super small for others. My 50 point Cygnar list is 29 models. Also that's at 50 points, which a lot of people usually compare to 2000 points of 40K, and 35 points of Warmachine (the other very commonly played size) is contrasted with 1500pts.

I basically compared the largest commonly played points value for Warmachine with the second-largest most commonly played points value for 40K. At least, last time I played 40K, that was the second-largest commonly played 40K points value. Most people locally tended to play 2000 point games. Other peoples' experiences may vary.

EDIT: My local 40K GT is and has been, for most its history apparently, 1850.

I appreciate the input.

I play 40k and played WM/H.

I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.

Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).

So, I still play 40k.

Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I play 40k and played WM/H.

I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.

Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).
.

Nothing stopping you building an all jack army in wmh. Convergence and protectorate do it quite well. You tried it with khador iirc. Just like wanting to do all melee samurai tau, it's a bad idea. A bit of research, and reading th fluff would back this up and would point you in the right direction.

No different to 'I want to play 40k and I want to play x type of army '. Chances are you'll gravitate to armies that wield x best; rather than pointlessly going for army y that doesn't, and complain about it.

In any case saying the game was about getting off the super combo first just shows how shallow your dive into the game really was. This is simply not the case at higher levels of play. If you're any way competent, you make sure you don't give your opponent such a leg up. They're called 'tactics', and frankly, if you present your army on a plate in any game for your opponent , you have no ground to stand on to complain. He'll do the same to you. So much of it involves very complicated inter plays and tactics to throw a spanner in the works and bugger up his plans whilst simultaneously trying to accomplish what you can with your own ever diminishing resources. Like solving a Rubix cube while it is slowly dissolving your hands.

Regarding army types in 40k, how is it that you praise 40k because it lets you build an army, even if it doesn't do well (your words btw.) but you slate WMH for exactly the same thing (despite being incorrect - all jack army, which is actually possible, let me remind you). Or should we go ask all-melee armies how they 'function', for example? I'd argue there is better scope for all jack in WMH than there is for some builds in 40k. All assault comes to mind.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.

M1a2 tanks? Your comparison is ridiculous and stupid, erm... you do realise wmh is pretty much a pseudo19th century level of technology? (The telegraph is the latest cygnaran invention that that taking the world by storm.)Warjacks are not tanks - they never were, and never will be. They're an Industrial Age take of a traditional fantasy stone golem trope. The comparison with tanks (let alone one of the most advanced tanks of the 21st century) is both pointless, unfair and frankly, utterly invalid. War jacks are fairly crude steam engines with legs. and they've got plenty moving parts and exposed and vulnerable points on their chassis. The fact that you compare 19th. Century tech against 21st century tech and dismiss it simply displays your utter lack of interest in any kind of a fair appraisal of it or any desire to immerse yourself in the world.

regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "hilarious", fair enough. To me though, i rather put a bit of effort in. rather than a "dry" mechanic, i try to picture what its representing. Rather than disconnecting myself, and seeing it as something "gamey" i try and evoke it in my mind. I immerse myself in the game. to me its less ten guns blazing away, and more eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass a jack (hey, in a world where armies field warjacks, infantry will be trained in anti-warjack tactics and manoevres), beast or warrors. aim for eyes, pistons, vents etc. split its concentration against multiple threat vectors. make it lose focus and hesitate. Make it drop its guard a bit as a result. all the time the one other guy hanging back is waiting for that perfect killshot. Now sure - you could have twenty pages of rules to describe this. And dozens of random 'help the prime shooter' tables to roll on for effects. and all that will happen is over complication for no benefit. What you are trying to represent will get lost in the process. or as an alternative to this, you could have a simple in game mechanism that gives an accuracy and damage buff proportional to the number of dudes that are involved in it. And leave the rest to your imagination.

Forge the narrative harder, in other words.

In any case. its a game mechanic. Personally i find 40k has far more game mechanics that actively fight my immersion - for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in. or how a grot can hold up a dreadnought from moving.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I play 40k and played WM/H.

I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.

Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).
.

Nothing stopping you building an all jack army in wmh. Convergence and protectorate do it quite well. You tried it with khador iirc. Just like wanting to do all melee samurai tau, it's a bad idea. A bit of research, and reading th fluff would back this up.

In any case saying the game was about getting off the super combo first just shows how shallow your dive into the game really was. This is simply not the case at higher levels of play. If you're any way competent, you make sure you don't give your opponent such a leg up. They're called 'tactics', and frankly, if you present your army on a plate in any game for your opponent , you have no ground to stand on to complain. He'll do the same to you. So much of it involves very complicated inter plays and tactics to throw a spanner in the works and bugger up his plans whilst simultaneously trying to accomplish what you can with your own ever diminishing resources. Like solving a Rubix cube while it is slowly dissolving your hands.

Regarding army types in 40k, how is it that you praise 40k because it lets you build an army, even if it doesn't do well (your words btw.) but you slate WMH for exactly the same thing (despite being incorrect - all jack army, which is actually possible, let me remind you). Or should we go ask all-melee armies how they 'function', for example? I'd argue there is better scope for all jack in WMH than there is for some builds in 40k. All assault comes to mind.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.

tanks? erm... you do realise its a 19th century level of technology? Warjacks are not tanks - they're steam engines with legs. and they've got plenty moving parts and exposed and vulnerable points on their chassis. The fact that you compare 19th. Century tech against 21st century tech and dismiss it simply displays your utter lack of interest in any kind of a fair appraisal of it or any desire to immerse yourself in the world.

regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "hilarious", fair enough. To me though, i rather put a bit of effort in. rather than a "dry" mechanic, i try to picture what its representing. Rather than disconnecting myself, and seeing it as something "gamey" i try and evoke it in my mind. I immerse myself in the game. to me its less ten guns blazing away, and more eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass a jack (hey, in a world where armies field warjacks, infantry will be trained in anti-warjack tactics and manoevres), beast or warrors. aim for eyes, pistons, vents etc. split its concentration. make it lose focus. Make it drop its guard a bit as a result. all the time the one other guy is waiting for that perfect shot. Now sure - you could have twenty pages of rules to describe this. and it will get lost in the process. or you could have a simple in game mechanism that gives an accuracy and damage buff proportional to the number of dudes that are involved in it.

Forge the narrative harder, in other words.

In any case. its a game mechanic. Personally i find 40k has far more game mechanics that actively fight my immersion - for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in. or how a grot can hold up a dreadnought from moving.

I was about to jump on it, but you fisked it much better than I could. It shows a remarkable misunderstanding of what WM/H is and how it plays. I'll just go back to my melee Tau army now.

for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in

Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?

To be honest most fof these threads turn inot a pissing contest for those who really like one system or another - its like almost every kind of comparison where there is no right answer - no one is suddenly going to shift thier view.........so its pretty pointless. Both games have their merits and people who enjoy or dislike them for what they are.....

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?

Having the choice to do precisely that would be a nice thing though.

I dislike the fact it's the same automatic response,whether my tactical marines are engaged by a grot or a carnifex. And regardless of whatever else is happening.

As an alternative, I could decide to not drop my gun for a knife, and try to shoot the bugger (even with a firing into melee penalty, which other games like WMH and infinity have), if for example, the knife won't do any damage, or else trust to my engaged trooper (and perhaps some members of the squad) to occupy those close combat specialists while I try to use my missile launcher and take out that bloody tank which is a far bigger threat to the company's position. Or I could simply ignore them.

If you've got a squad of guys with automatic rifles and an alien thing jumps in on one of the guys on the edge of where your squad is, the correct response is to aim at it, back away and keep firing.

 Mr Morden wrote:

for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in

Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?

To be honest most fof these threads turn inot a pissing contest for those who really like one system or another - its like almost every kind of comparison where there is no right answer - no one is suddenly going to shift thier view.........so its pretty pointless. Both games have their merits and people who enjoy or dislike them for what they are.....

Well, sometimes a person's opinion of a game is based off of incorrect ideas. Example. Some people say WM has no fluff when in reality is has a great deal of fluff and its very high quality and in depth.
In those cases there can be progress one way or another.

Drop your rocket launcher, grab your sword and charge that tank.. Makes a lot of sense

 Chute82 wrote:
Drop your rocket launcher, grab your sword and charge that tank.. Makes a lot of sense

Or its exactly as was stated perviously:

"eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass the crew of the tank , throwing grenades, aiming for eye slits, periscopes and the like whilst one other guy is jumping onto top of the beast, wrenching oen the hatch and dropping a grenade down."

and then its does not work - so you can run away - cos you can't hurt it..........

WM/H has some great art (hate the Trolls and love the Scourage, Cryx and Everblight stuff) and some cool stories - although its does seem to be alot of takles whjeer they never quite manage to kill the other named character no matter how hard they try or hard the situatiuon is..........but 40k does have this issue at times as well.................

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Chute82 wrote:
Drop your rocket launcher, grab your sword and charge that tank.. Makes a lot of sense

Or its exactly as was stated perviously:

"eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass the crew of the tank , throwing grenades, aiming for eye slits, periscopes and the like whilst one other guy is jumping onto top of the beast, wrenching oen the hatch and dropping a grenade down."

and then its does not work - so you can run away - cos you can't hurt it..........

WM/H has some great art (hate the Trolls and love the Scourage, Cryx and Everblight stuff) and some cool stories - although its does seem to be alot of takles whjeer they never quite manage to kill the other named character no matter how hard they try or hard the situatiuon is..........but 40k does have this issue at times as well.................

they'd have a combined melee attack rule to represent it. no doubt certain posters would find this 'hilarious' and 'unintuitive' though.

And to be fair, 'names' die in WMH all the time. It's only when the 'names' don't have a model that they stay dead though. :p but yeah, that's the nature of a character centric game. As you say, I don't to see gw offing Marneus calgar anytime soon either.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I thought one of the big pros of playing WHM was the lower model count makes it so much cheaper for a playable force?

For those of us who were around during 2E 40K, the army sizes and composition of armies (infantry to "big dudes" & characters) are very close indeed.

I said 40k because I have no interest in Warmachine at all. But that said, 40k is a pile of excrement at the moment, so if it were "40k and any other game I collect" then I'd have to vote for "any other game I collect".

Warmachine just fails to capture my imagination.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:I said 40k because I have no interest in Warmachine at all. But that said, 40k is a pile of excrement at the moment, so if it were "40k and any other game I collect" then I'd have to vote for "any other game I collect".

Warmachine just fails to capture my imagination.

That's fair. While I still play WM/H quite regularly, in terms of my imagination, the elements of muzzleloaders, cannons and cavalry ended up being better served by historicals*. I also don't know when the last time was that I bought a new release for WM/H. I don't buy PVC miniatures and find that other than adding a solo here and there, the stuff from the earlier books is still perfectly viable. In terms of actual purchases, my vote is neither. In terms of playing WM/H as I don't play 40k at all.

I would love a game that blends the two ideas together. CLEARLY UNDERSTANDABLE RULES and models that aren't full of durp. Also, the dynamic background of an entire galaxy lends itself more to customization than Steampunk Eurp. Reading through both IK RPG settings, there isn't a lot of leeway. If PP could teach GW how to put together a rulebook, I'd probably settle for that.

40k has a decent set of rules in my opinion. Now I don't do tournament play, just for fun. Which is the way 40k should be played IMO

40KNobz11 wrote:
40k has a decent set of rules in my opinion. Now I don't do tournament play, just for fun. Which is the way 40k should be played IMO

On this note, reading the 7th edition rules I don't get how 40k can actually be fun to play. I mean, I get that it is fun for people. Just comparing it to WMH the rules seem much more simple and with random stuff thrown in for no reason. For example,I was looking at the terrain rules in 40k (in part because I couldn't remember if there were any terrain rules at all) and the level of simplicity was almost mind-boggling:

In 40k if you want to move into (or start your move in) a forest/outcrop/etc. ("Difficult Terrain") you roll 2d6 and the highest number is the number of inches that all models in the unit can move, whether or not you actually enter the terrain.

In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.

WMH seems like a much more tactical option in this regard, since some models might be hiding and some might be out in the open. 40ks seems to be kind of tacked on without much thought and hand-waved away with some talk about how it's assumed the unit is moving cautiously to explain it. The 40k rules in general seem to be extremely simple and come down to "roll a ton of dice".

I've seen a lot of games with practically no terrain in WMH, and it's sad. Looking at games like Mordheim and Malifaux have reminded me just how awesome heavy terrain can be.

Terrain rules seem pretty dumb in 40k to me, but so does random charge/run distance.

I vote Warhammer because I like that game best.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
I've seen a lot of games with practically no terrain in WMH, and it's sad. Looking at games like Mordheim and Malifaux have reminded me just how awesome heavy terrain can be.

Terrain rules seem pretty dumb in 40k to me, but so does random charge/run distance.

I have no idea what you mean by no terrain...

WayneTheGame wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
40k has a decent set of rules in my opinion. Now I don't do tournament play, just for fun. Which is the way 40k should be played IMO

On this note, reading the 7th edition rules I don't get how 40k can actually be fun to play. I mean, I get that it is fun for people. Just comparing it to WMH the rules seem much more simple and with random stuff thrown in for no reason. For example,I was looking at the terrain rules in 40k (in part because I couldn't remember if there were any terrain rules at all) and the level of simplicity was almost mind-boggling:

In 40k if you want to move into (or start your move in) a forest/outcrop/etc. ("Difficult Terrain") you roll 2d6 and the highest number is the number of inches that all models in the unit can move, whether or not you actually enter the terrain.

In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.

WMH seems like a much more tactical option in this regard, since some models might be hiding and some might be out in the open. 40ks seems to be kind of tacked on without much thought and hand-waved away with some talk about how it's assumed the unit is moving cautiously to explain it. The 40k rules in general seem to be extremely simple and come down to "roll a ton of dice".

It depends on what you like really - and that's true of most games, I like a lot of aspects of 40k - so when we are seeing if you are in charge range and roll low or high - that can sometimes make a friendly game - can he make it, then you come up with reasons why he didn't etc - but then we often add RP elements to the game. Guess that the dreaded forge the narrative but hey we enjoy that aspect.

WM/H - love the fluff and then found the rules just frankly dry, restrictive and finicky but that's down to what I do and don't enjoy. I switched to Malifaux and found whilst some of the same elements were there it was and remains much more fun to actually play.

To me Pre-measuring helps immensely in this and whilst being able to guess a distance maybe a "skill" its simply not "tactics" - that comes with using the information at your disposal. You don't guess the distance in many many games - from Chess, Go through to Risk and they remain tactical/strategic games of skill.

In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.

You also have Move through Cover SR - so just like Pathfinder I guess?

but isn't that just as odd - why do you get a penalty when you enter a "swamp" and not when you are moving in it or trying to leave - that's just weird IMHO. You can move round terrain in 40k as well - in fact one of the issues with many 40k games is that the table is way way too open - but that's a player issue.

Also WM/H Terrain only matters if you are within a certain distance, so a stone wall between two figures does not matter unless the target is close to it? That stuck us as very odd

 Mr Morden wrote:
why do you get a penalty when you enter a "swamp" and not when you are moving in it or trying to leave - that's just weird IMHO.

That is not how difficult terrain works in WMH, you also move at half SPD when you are inside it.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Also WM/H Terrain only matters if you are within a certain distance, so a stone wall between two figures does not matter unless the target is close to it? That stuck us as very odd

Why?

Its how obstacles actually work in the real world. If you are standing close to an obstacle you are much more protected by it than if you are several meters away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I suspect he is talking about all the other tables apart from the gorgeous tower table in the foreground - the ones with a couple of low hills on and a tree - looks like usual tourney fare for most games sadly

That is not a problem of the game, its a problem of the players (or a matter of resources, actually).

The game is perfectly playable in heavy terrain tables. The problem is that making enough tables like that to cater even to a medium sized tournament would make it prohibitively expensive.