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.

dragonelf wrote:

My 40k armies are: tau, dark eldar/harlequins and space wolves

A close equivalent to Dark Eldar would be Retribution of Scyrah, they're angry elves who want to kill all human magic users. Each faction can have different playstyles depending on Casters but I think Ret strikes a nice balance between shooty gunline(Ravyn, Ossyan), magic shenanigans(Rahn, Kahlyssa), and Warjack spam(Vyros 1 for double Hyperion, Vyros2 for 8x light jacks and a heavy). Though their not the most powerful/popular faction, and they have a bit higher learning curve than other factions they can be extremely good. If you think of the armies like weapons some like Skorne and trolls massive hammers, Cygnar is like a pistol(eHaley is a Cassull .454), Retribution is like a rapier, difficult to master, but against an unarmored opponent(in this case any Warmachine Warcaster), it's the deadliest weapon in one on one melee combat.

I don't have one playstyle because I would get bored doing that so my armies reflect a mix of playstyles.

I'd suggest staying away from Menoth, Convergence of Cyriss, Minions, Legion of Everblight and to a lesser extent Cygnar. Those factions tend to have the least diversity between their lists. Don't get me wrong, each of those armies have a broad range of models and lists within their faction, but they've tended to homogenize to and extent where you rarely see anything revolutionary in those armies. I play Menoth and I am currently getting out of Legion and with the exception of a few minor variations, like in Legion swapping out Zuriel or the Sacral Vault for another heavy, 98% of lists are identical to where they were a few years back. Hell the most popular Legion of Everblight army list has basically remained unchanged since 2011 when it was first introduced.

That should get clarified.

Menoth: List creation is sort of stagnating because we haven't gotten many new releases of major note in Mk2. Most of our newer releases have been decidedly meh or just been a different variation of the same theme. Kreoss3 was an excellent new warcaster, but he didn't bring anything new to the table. He was another buff caster who had some decent offensive output. Which describes basically every Menoth caster.

Convergence are limited because they are new and just don't have a huge model variety yet. Only 5 warcasters, compared to the usual 15-16 for a faction, leads to a lack of variety. Minions have the same problem, just 10 times worse.

Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.

So its not that the factions lack variety, its just that they've not had much new stuff released for a good amount of time that the faction has sort of been figured out by everyone. There isn't much unexplored area for the factions at the moment. Every combination has more or less been discovered and analyzed. That isn't to say they can't be fun, but you won't be breaking new ground.

I'm playing around with different Menoth ideas right now but nothing has panned out, variations on the Kreoss gunline, feora2/judicator or (X Caster) zealots, errants and all th solos just isn't doing it for me any more. I love the faction, but I like many other Menoth players I've talked to are just being mopey right now.

The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.

 jeratoll wrote:
I'm playing around with different Menoth ideas right now but nothing has panned out, variations on the Kreoss gunline, feora2/judicator or (X Caster) zealots, errants and all th solos just isn't doing it for me any more. I love the faction, but I like many other Menoth players I've talked to are just being mopey right now.

The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.

Hopefully the new Paladin caster will shake things up a little for Menoth.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.

I completely disagree. I think if the Stormwall is the only "notable" release in your mind then you are being very jaded.

All the factions, including Cygnar, gotten alot of new things and many of them quite useful. For the most part most of the factions haven't gotten game changing models and, IMO, that is good for game balance. The Stormwall is actually one of, if not the, biggest game changers since Mk2 was released. It changed entire metas, the tourney scene and list design.

Otherwise, other than maybe CoC (which we still don't fully realize how much PP is going to add) all the factions have been getting new models and new toys to play with. Even minions has been getting some love lately.

jeratoll wrote:The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.

I think that was more in reference to where they are on the power curve rather than freshness. The issue Menoth players seem to have is more to do with new interesting stuff rather than issues with competitiveness.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.

This is completely incorrect, Tempest Blazers show up in almost every two list Cygnar pairing and are one of the best cavalry units in the game. The Minuteman is a great light warjack, Dynamo is one of the best shooting jacks in the game and characters like Murdoch and Runewood see plenty of use. The main complaint Cygnar players have is usually that their casters released in Mk2 haven't done much for the faction - there is an element of truth to this as Nemo3, Stryker3 and Blaize are fairly niche casters, but its also partly because Cygnar players use Haley2 as a benchmark (and its unlikely that any faction in the game will ever see a caster as game changing as Haley2 ever again).

I suppose my opinion is colored a little by not having many Cygnar players in my meta till very recently.

Powerguy wrote:

jeratoll wrote:The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.

I think that was more in reference to where they are on the power curve rather than freshness. The issue Menoth players seem to have is more to do with new interesting stuff rather than issues with competitiveness.

I'm happy where the faction is competively. When playing locally, I feel like I've q good game against most lists; the traditional problem match ups are there like ret and trolls, and bradigus is theoretically a bugbear that should be scared of if I ever played against him. So I've got at least a 50% chance of winning most of my games, even when my opponent picks who they want to play ahainst. Maybe I'm a bit stagnant in faction, I've basically played nothing but kreoss1 and freora2 as my Menoth casters for the last year, with a bit of Sevvy1 and kreoss3 sprinkled in randomly.

The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.

welcome to Cryx! The faction of moar banez.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.

welcome to Cryx! The faction of moar banez.

Or the faction of Body and Soul, Gorshade3, Bane cav, and who are getting a new shield guard heavy with reach that will likely become the go to non-character heavy jacks, and make Mortenebra even more popular.

Compared to Reznik2, Flamebringers, and the indictor which is so meh o can't even rember what it does. The only model I've picked up for Menoth that's been released in the last year was Tristan and whilst useful he does nothing new, he just more focus for the pKreoss gunline.

I might suggest to OP, and when I say this I am not a great player, nor is my knowledge of WMH super deep, IE I couldn't tell you what a bunch of different casters can do from every faction, I'm trying to really learn the game more, but if you're looking for a faction with variety, there is always Mercs, which I do have slightly more knowledge , and a bias which I am trying to be as open about, over then the other factions since I really enjoy them. The different contracts have variety, 4 star and Highborn really don't aside from a few casters and units IE 4 star gets the kayazy and Magnus1/2, and Highborn can choose between Long Gunners or Gunmages and get Constance Blaze who can get Sword Knights. 4 star is supposed to be the evil mercs, and the Highborn is the good guy mercs. Other then that though, there is the Seaforge Comission which is all about the Rhulic models and casters and Jacks, which are pretty decent. There is the Puppet Masters, which is all about Domination over models. Basically, mindslavers, however they have only one caster but they are an interesting group. The last one is the Talon Charter, which is a theme of PIRATES! So you get all the pirate casters, units, solos, it's fun.

Well as a new player myself I seriously have to question the validity of statements that claim WM is written better. Consider this line from the section dealing with movement and models contacting one another. Page 46.

One model contacts another when it changes from not being base to base with it to being base to base with it.

Okay. Who wrote that? What the hell kind of convoluted sentence is that? Let's try this instead...

One model contacts another model when their bases are touching each other.

Seems a bit less wordy and understandable no?

Plenty of things people hate about the 40k rules are present in WM too. For example, trying to figure out what a Jack Marshall does requires a flip to page x where it says briefly that Jack Marshalls have different rules as outlined on page y.

While 40k has the laughable Narrative Boxes and the much loved rules roll off, Warmachine has page 5. Just gonna throw it out there, but if your number one rule is don't be a bitch, you maybe have a problem of your own?

 darkcloak wrote:
Well as a new player myself I seriously have to question the validity of statements that claim WM is written better. Consider this line from the section dealing with movement and models contacting one another. Page 46.

One model contacts another when it changes from not being base to base with it to being base to base with it.

Okay. Who wrote that? What the hell kind of convoluted sentence is that? Let's try this instead...

One model contacts another model when their bases are touching each other.

Seems a bit less wordy and understandable no?

Plenty of things people hate about the 40k rules are present in WM too. For example, trying to figure out what a Jack Marshall does requires a flip to page x where it says briefly that Jack Marshalls have different rules as outlined on page y.

While 40k has the laughable Narrative Boxes and the much loved rules roll off, Warmachine has page 5. Just gonna throw it out there, but if your number one rule is don't be a bitch, you maybe have a problem of your own?

Your statement and the original mean two different things.
Things in WMH are worded very deliberately and something small like that can make a huge difference.
Also, page 5 says don't be a jerk. 40k could use something like that.


Also, isn't this a necro?

Yeah, seems like this whole area of the board is kinda dead. Probably because all the WM fans are over on their official forum! Hint hint GWs...

As for page 5... Well like I said if you gotta tell people not to be a jerk then maybe you need to toughen up a bit? Especially if you're whole gimmick is being super cool and tough.

Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed my first foray into WM. I got smoked hard, like the newb I am, but I almost won that game too. I am really enjoying mk2, the writing is great and the art is prime, and that is something that GW is lacking right now.

Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.

I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.

I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.

Well that's a relief!

At first I was like... Page 5? That's not so bad... Wait a tick here... My opponent is a genius by default because we are playing Warmachine? What!? I have to wear an unassuming black shirt? Hell no!

Also, I am sorry for the threadromancy but I guess I assumed page 1 was mostly still legit. Most of the current threads are from new players/ interested parties. This one caught my eye as I am a WFB/40k fan, but not so much a GW fan.

And yes, the rules are written in a very concise manner, which is a far cry from Mat Wards chummy descriptions. Yet the almost clinical quality of some things leaves a lot to be desired. And again, the structure of some areas is a little spotty. For example as a new player, I read through the book and started trying to figure out what stuff can do. Okay, I read a unit box and wonder what power attacks I can make with 2 open fists. Thus begins the page flipping which some so venomously criticise GW for.

My point is that you can't really compare the two games in any meaningful way to begin with. But some will insist anyways. I'd just like to point out that even though one company actively flounces its own balance, while the other does God knows what, the two are susceptible to the same problems that plague miniature wargames everywhere. Rules will always have loopholes or vague and ambiguous meanings, models will always make LOS management difficult, and dice will never not be random.

Boosting damage, or min maxing screamers, 1s are always 1s. Whether it's beer n pretzels or duel of the Mensa students, we are still dudes who play with dollies and dice. That will never not be awesome and diverse. So sit back, paint a mini and enjoy your hobby.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.

I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.

Then get out more.

Doesn't Page 5 say that rofling stomping a noob is a very unpage 5 like move?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Doesn't Page 5 say that rofling stomping a noob is a very unpage 5 like move?

Yup. It also says page 5 isn't an excuse.

 darkcloak wrote:
And again, the structure of some areas is a little spotty. For example as a new player, I read through the book and started trying to figure out what stuff can do. Okay, I read a unit box and wonder what power attacks I can make with 2 open fists. Thus begins the page flipping which some so venomously criticise GW for.

Nobody complains about having to look up rules sometimes. And being new, you're guaranteed to have to do it more. The difference is, Trollbloods don't get one set of rules for two handed throws that are separate and different from the ones in the core rule book. No new dataslate will arrive that changes the way Skorne charges work. That is what people are talking about.

Hmmm... Must not spend much time on those boards then hey? Lol.. Before use 40kers had formations to worry about we did actually used to bitch about stuff like that. Thankfully GWs fixed all that by making sure entire codices were written so badly that a bit of page flipping was quickly dismissed. Now instead we worry that our flyers will turn into princes or something to that effect.

Warmachine is not magically exempt from stupidity either. Everyone jumps up and down about WM being future proof, but how long is that going to last? Is that an actual thing anyways? How are my toys future proof if I don't buy the new cards or download the app?

Already the books are obsolete. Why buy mk2 or an army book when all I need are cards? And why should PP keeps selling cards once they perfect their apps?

Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game, both of them, but only one company strikes me as pompous idiots who don't have a clue, and just want to be the cool kids. The other company reminds me of a farty old man who has some cool stories.

And about terrain... Look at all these WM players who cite terrain as game changing. Well duh! That's why we put it on the table! But then notice how much "better" the balance is in WM. Yeah we use minimal terrain because it gives some armies too much of a boost and it inhibits some too much! Only d3+1 terrains please! Wait, what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Long story short there is nothing better or worse about either game in comparison to one another. They are different games entirely, using very different mechanics to represent the exact same thing. Toy soldiers going pewpew.

Any attempt to dress either bride up in fancy linens is blatant fanboy-ism.

Deadnight wrote:


Then get out more.

I'm not sure what you mean... The only times I have ever seen someone actually something like "Page 5 man" is as an excuse.

I don't know what "getting out more" will do to change that. Usually when someone loses hard the people I play with will walk them through their mistakes like "You were out of position here, you took the bait there,and you completely forgot about counter-charge. Also try either adding a UA or switching skinwalkers for Gatormen posse." rather than just "Page 5 go hard or go home".

I'd much rather play with people who will point out your mistakes so you can get better than someone who says "Page 5 step-up". Page 5 even states its not an excuse for being a knob, but the only people I have seen who have ever explicitly quoted it have sed it as an excuse for TFG behaviour.

darkcloak wrote:Already the books are obsolete. Why buy mk2 or an army book when all I need are cards? And why should PP keeps selling cards once they perfect their apps?

Armybooks, for fluff & in case you want to proxy & test a new model / caster in a friendly game.

Cards - Because it is MUCH faster to use physical cards than flip between screens on an electronic device. Remember tournaments are timed and the extra 5-10 seconds to pick up the device, click the card you want, swipe to the back, go back to the army screen, click on the other card, swipe to the back to see how it's animus interacts with the first model then go back to the fight screen will really eat up your time. With physical cards I can pick both up and read them side by side in less than 1/2 the time.

darkcloak wrote:Look at all these WM players who cite terrain as game changing. Well duh! That's why we put it on the table! But then notice how much "better" the balance is in WM. Yeah we use minimal terrain because it gives some armies too much of a boost and it inhibits some too much! Only d3+1 terrains please! Wait, what?

It is better balanced but it is not perfect. The closest to perfect balance is chess. Chess is almost perfectly balanced the only changer being who goes first. My group tends to play with 4-6 pieces. A forest, severe terrain, an LoS blocker such as a tower and 2 obstacles such as hedges or fences. The reason too much terrain imbalances things is due to a faction like legion, where every beast has eyeless sight / pathfinder. They are balanced by being comparatively frail. So yes they can hide in terrain no problem, but if the entire board is terrain it gives them an unfair advantage. Also remember WM/H is primarily a melee game. Think of it more like fantasy than 40k. Yes you can shoot but eventually it will come down to melee & because of how melee works terrain can really inhibit gameplay.

Terrain should be used as a tactical piece, if you have too much there is no tactics around avoiding it. With out 4-6 I can just avoid that forest that I know circle players love, but at the same time it means giving up the flank. I can hide behind the tower which protects me but also hinders my ability to deal dmg, but if my opponent has something like leash I may be in trouble.

Think of diminishing returns. An open board is bad, adding terrain up to (IMO) 4-6 pieces makes gameplay better anything after that and it starts to hinder because you can't use the terrain when it is everywhere.

Well that is no different from 40k then. Too much terrain and Ork players can't move their army, not enough and Tau autowin.

What the OP described was players using very minimal terrain or not using it at all.

So now instead of having a pre-game talk about lists, we are discussing how much terrain to use so that someone doesn't have an "unfair" advantage.

How is this any different than 40k? The subject matter is different but we are still using our own brains to even out a potential wrinkle in the game.

Plus there is still the air of obvious superiority that makes WM stink just a little. When GW claims it, we laugh because its silly to think that they are the "best". But along comes everyone else claiming to be better than! Better than what? Drunk Englishmen? That was a milestone hey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And future proof.

How is it future proof if PP keeps releasing cards?

Just buy the cards? Well then GW is future proof too, the cards are just way bigger! And more expensive!

Already power creep is present in WM and shows no sign of abating. Tier levels are just another way of saying it without calling it power creep. Sure PP might be an involved and seemingly compassionate company, but that is historically proven to be the idealistic dreams of any homegrown company. How long before PP says feth it and starts jacking the prices and lowering quality? They are obviously doing well enough now, but the funny thing about money is that once you have a bunch of it you want more and more.

 darkcloak wrote:
Well that is no different from 40k then. Too much terrain and Ork players can't move their army, not enough and Tau autowin.

What the OP described was players using very minimal terrain or not using it at all.

So now instead of having a pre-game talk about lists, we are discussing how much terrain to use so that someone doesn't have an "unfair" advantage.

How is this any different than 40k? The subject matter is different but we are still using our own brains to even out a potential wrinkle in the game.

Plus there is still the air of obvious superiority that makes WM stink just a little. When GW claims it, we laugh because its silly to think that they are the "best". But along comes everyone else claiming to be better than! Better than what? Drunk Englishmen? That was a milestone hey?

Even in 40k you should have a pregame talk about terrain. Where I play it's usually me & the local press gangers who get there early & set up what we feel are fair tables. That way players can just sit down & play. I get the air of superiority thing. I find it's usually WM/H players saying "look how much better than GW we are" and it can stink of an ex girlfriend showing off her new bf for the sake of trying to make you jealous. I'm still a fantasy player at heart & I get it, I get sideways looks when I tell people I like fantasy better.

 darkcloak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And future proof.

How is it future proof if PP keeps releasing cards?

Just buy the cards? Well then GW is future proof too, the cards are just way bigger! And more expensive!

Already power creep is present in WM and shows no sign of abating. Tier levels are just another way of saying it without calling it power creep. Sure PP might be an involved and seemingly compassionate company, but that is historically proven to be the idealistic dreams of any homegrown company. How long before PP says feth it and starts jacking the prices and lowering quality? They are obviously doing well enough now, but the funny thing about money is that once you have a bunch of it you want more and more.

I don't agree with "future proof" NOTHING is future proof. I honestly don't see power creep in WM/H. Usually it's a power shift. Where the weak become stronger & the strong become well... less stronger. I play skorne and use primarily MkII release models. The only models I use not in the basic army book are cataphract incindiarii, and soon to be Keltarrii (Because I magnetized a swordsman kit).

Colossals are not intrinsically better than anything else. Sure they're better than a heavy but they're also around double the cost. I mean I always think I why would I take a mammoth when instead I can have TWO bronzebacks? Naresh & Grayle came out in wrath & are considered the worst casters in their faction. Tier levels are NOT power creep. Tier levels are ways of promoting a theme force, granted some are better than others. I'd almost ALWAYS take rasheth in tier however I'd likely NEVER take Xerxis I in tier because I find it too limiting.

Tier lists are a trap for new players. You need to weigh the benefit of the tier with the limitations of it. Xerxis tier II looks great until you realize how few bodies you have on the table. There are several ret tiers I LIKE but they don't allow houseguard which means I don't get my 14" ignore stealth CRA into melee awesomeness. Tiers are double edged swords and while he benefit is immediately apparent the downside is seen with experience.

Another thing to consider is cross-book interactions. A LOT of people cry that the legion colossal, while gorgeous, is not great on the table. There is a reason for that. pThagrosh's feat says "Revive a dead warbeast" Archangel IS a warbeast. So they had to make it less powerful because otherwise Thagrosh makes it disgusting when you kill it & he brings it back.

Finally you need to keep in mind minions & mercenaries. Circle Skinwalkers were a pretty good unit. Then they got a UA which lets them make 2 attacks a turn. That is a PHENOMENAL boost. Some people see that as power creep. but the reason was this: Circle could also hire Gatorment posse. Gatormen posse were a bit more expensive but a LOT better than skinwalkers. The common question was "Why take skinwalkers when I can take a GMP?" So PP gave them a UA with a great bonus. Now it's a toss up which one you want to take. Yess the unit got better but it just brought them in line with another choice circle has.

 darkcloak wrote:

So now instead of having a pre-game talk about lists, we are discussing how much terrain to use so that someone doesn't have an "unfair" advantage.

How is this any different than 40k? The subject matter is different but we are still using our own brains to even out a potential wrinkle in the game.

Actually you don't need to discuss anything, you just need to follow the terrain rules that are in the SR package.

It is easy to determine which game has better written rules.

look at the rules boards.

40k has rules arguments that rarely get solved. The threads go on and on.

WMH has clarifications. When there is a rules issue PP will errata it or address it. You simply don't see the rules issues like in 40k.

Are the rules perfect? No perfect rules system exist. But I've yet to see better. And GW is the worst I've seen.

you can argue personal preferences, models, which is funner, etc. But for rules writing there is no competition.

Yeah. How many w/h YMDC END up being a multiple page thread arguing over a basic rule.


Most of them are like What does this mean? And someone points them to the rule book, an faq, or an infernal ruling.

Yeah, okay citing 40k YMDC is a terrible idea. People don't even know how to read in there, so... no wonder debates rage on and on.

And I'm sorry, but the rules in WM are not "better", they are different.

How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k? How is turn sequence in 40k superior to WM?

Neither question can be answered without resorting to personal preference. I mean this isn't a matter of X unit vs Y unit, this all boils down to how you want the game to play, and this in essence is dependent on the player, not the rules.

I will say however, that one company certainly handles their rules in a more professional way, and THIS main difference is why people think one is superior to the other.

As someone said, it's like an ex gf showing off her new hunk. And again, making the comparison to GW is kind of utterly pointless. Anyone who is seriously interested in either game is going to immediately, and intelligently, discount any such claims of superiority by either side.

Ultimately the differences between the two games are negligible and anyone who hasn't an axe to grind is going to see this.

 darkcloak wrote:


How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k?

Because in 40k Melee is the only point in the game where an enemy can kill you on your own turn. Not to mention overwatch hurts. 40k melee has sucked for imo at least 3 editions.