http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286812.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286812.page GMT 40k for the feel. I can play a reasonably quick and tactical game using what feels like a good number of troops- not an "army" in the sense of real world, but reasonable close to an army in wargaming terms.

I love the clarity of the WM & Hordes rules, and the game is a great one (my third fave after WH and 40k, respectively) but the feel of the game is too focused on individual models for my taste, and it's way too clunky once you get up to a point size that feels to me like an "army". I also often feel kind of cheated out of a great tactical experience when a caster kill ends the game prematurely.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286844.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286844.page GMT 40K is a fun beer and pretzels game. The fluff/history is wonderful. It has a long-standing appeal to me and the models (prior to the last 2 years) have been one of the best in the gaming industry.

WM is vicodine and vodka. The ruleset is very clear and it is way more tactical than GW. This is a page 5 game in that the numbers are worked out for massive combos and there are frequent FAQs. Every model matters and is not useless (i.e., a single trooper can do massive damage; whereas 1 guardsman is hosed versus a wraithlord). I like how one can target their own troops and set up massive combos. I'd have to disagree with Mannahnin on the caster-kill as the 2ndary win via caster kill adds to the mission experience and can allow one to still "comeback" from a slaughter.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286895.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286895.page GMT 40k has just gotten staid to me, with not a lot of variety or diversity of experience. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286944.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286944.page GMT
I voted for 40k for what Warmachine doesn't even try to do: conversions, decades of old and intersting minis, vivid backstories (try as I might, I can't get fired up over Menoth or Khador, while Biel Tan and the 1k Sons seem very alive to me), and a range of play options beyond deathmatch. I know you can play warmachine a ton of ways, but the game, IIRC, bogs down at a certain size. I love giant games of 40k, I like narrative games, I like apocolypse, and I enjoy a rousing game of kill team or combat patrol. I like that I can create a regiment/craftworld/chapter and make it my own, or use a well established one.

For the 20-30% of the hobby that warmachine seriously compete with 40k, namely competitive play, it kicks ass. for models, it's a push (althought GW has a deeper and braoder range, and far more variety of model). For casual play, modelling, and fluff, I go with the incumbent.

I would say that while warmachine is a better game, 40k is a far better hobby.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286947.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286947.page GMT 40k and Warmachine are in as much direct competition as some may them out to be.

Warmachine functions much like "Magic", but with mini's. The game works by pulling of one-shot combo's typically to defeat an opponent in one swift blow usually. Unit synergy and combo's is what makes the game, and if game is won or lost depending on how well combo's are executed. Much faster paced and much more cut-throat game, and usually a smaller scale. If you lose a key unit, you are done with no hope of victory, and typically don't take much that isn't necessary to get off the combo. It is a much more competition based ruleset and very clear and concise, with very little room for wiggling. Games don't really work well beyond 750pts, they get too big and the synergies just don't work as well. The story is mostly there for a setting and not much else.

Warhammer is closer to a traditional wargame. Armies can stand the loss of any one unit (in a well designed list anyway) and generally have multiple units that *can* do multiple things. The armies function at a higher level and the games often end up as a series of smaller games being played out. The game is more laid back and has a larger overall feel to it. There may be redundant units or units in there only for fluff, and the army as a whole can still work. A much greater emphasis is placed on the visual aspect of the game and armies tend to have heavy themes. The backstory is also *HUGE* and is a big part of what drives the game and how it works.



They are both mini's games, but not really substitute games (IMO). They are too different in how they operate and the focus of what the game really is. 40k to me is more story driven, Warmachine more competition driven. If one wants a Tournament game, Warmachine is *IT*. If one wants a laid-back very visual experience and an overall "culture" if you will, Warhammer is where its at. They offer very different things, and can both be very fun, one just has to realize they are *different*. If you try to play one like the other you will lose, Warmachine because there is no margin for error and no redundancy, Warhammer because Synergies and combo's aren't as powerful and because there usually *is* unit or role redundancy. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286957.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286957.page GMT GW is doing with 40k I feel like games such as Warmachine/hordes and more recently AT 43 are looking like better alternatives.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286971.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286971.page GMT I've never cared for games where you have to keep a card by the table and keep track of stuff as the games go on. I was glad when GW got rid of a lot of that game tracking crap with damaged vehicles in 3rd edition.

So for me, I tried a game or two of warmachine and knew that, despite being a cool game, was just 'not for me'.

I also like the scale of 40k games as opposed to the more skirmish feel of warmachine games.


Plus the fluff/backstory of 40k is always a big factor since I like to 'imagine' the games playing out like a movie in my head, and to me the imagery of 40k is far more appealing than warmachine.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286976.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286976.page GMT 40K.

I prefer the ease with which I can get games. I think that WM has caught on to where I could find games most of the time, but 40K is more reliable.

I prefer the 40K fluff. WM is solid, and their d20, RPG elements are nice as well, but I leave that aside as thats sorta apples to oranges. WM has a very deep, thought out fantasy world, but ultimately 40K fluff is something truly unique, novel, and special.

I prefer 40K models. Most of the Warjacks just don't do it for me. PP puts out some very cool models, but they also put out some real duds. I'm sure it's all a matter of opinion, but I just don't like their stuff as much as GWs.

I am vastly more familliar with 40K rules than with WM rules. I really barely even know how WM plays. I've read the rules, I've pretty familliar with them on paper, but I don't have enough iterations of actual games to know how it all works out.

I'm fairly sure that 40K's rules are more poorly written. They might end up being more fun, easier to play, but they're not written with as much thought to consistency, nor are they well supported.

One aspect of 40K which I really appreciate, and which probably falls under "rules" is the customization of individual models. WM really falls short on this, has absolutely no fine tuning options in the game. I enjoy building a list, then actually arming the models with the gear the list specifies. Sometimes it's tough to put 10-20 hours into a squad, and have to HOPE the options you picked for them will work well in game, but it's also a payoff when they do work out.

40K has a lot of intangibles right. That's why it's so frustrating that their rules are meandering towards the suck.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286979.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286979.page GMT
I just wish GW weren't such a bunch of nubs. Bitz, LatD, Squats, etc, etc, etc.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286987.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/286987.page GMT should they lose people the way 40k seems to lose them.
With a corporate brand, an unmoving timeline, and a
world that remains intact, 40k can afford to lose good
people and then have people fill in and bide time until the
next creative genius comes in.

I wonder if Warmachine/Hordes can outlast Seacat and the
other creative types at PP. Private ownership means
that if the individuals who drive the ship leave, you're left
with an abandoned ship. 40k can run on machine spirits.

At least I can enjoy the scenery for now!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287001.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287001.page GMT should they lose people the way 40k seems to lose them.
With a corporate brand, an unmoving timeline, and a
world that remains intact, 40k can afford to lose good
people and then have people fill in and bide time until the
next creative genius comes in.

I wonder if Warmachine/Hordes can outlast Seacat and the
other creative types at PP. Private ownership means
that if the individuals who drive the ship leave, you're left
with an abandoned ship. 40k can run on machine spirits.

At least I can enjoy the scenery for now![/quote]

I worry about that too. It was one of the few things I hated about Fasa's handling of Battletech and Shadowrun: there was always a need to keep the story going and in so doing, come up with cool upgrades. So it was this bad combo of 'new things are shinier and better' (though not really) and 'OMZG Dunklezahn runs the Free Raselhague Republic now!' Not that I want my game to be 'static' per se, but I also don't want my mini (or character, or plot) to be suddenly 'expired'. WM/Hordes have dodged that so far (you still see people fielding regular Denny despite being undead now, for example), but it's a slippery slope.

I also worry about them losing the feel of WM/Hordes, including the 'everyone gets an update' thing, and especially the 'big skirmish' feel (vs. the massed horde armies of 40k or WHFB). ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287008.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287008.page GMT GW

Don't really like the fluff or style of WM. The bigger the army, the better in my book.

CK]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287009.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287009.page GMT WHFB, FOW or AT43 as options, which surprises me, as those seem to be the other big games that 40kers 'graduate/defect' to. What was the rationale? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287013.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287013.page GMT WM because it was cheap to get started and the ruleset was so much more fun to play than 40k. Over time, the story has really grown on me and the models continue to blow me away. GW can make a mean model, but you've got to have a worthwhile game to play along with it. 4th edition was not, and 5th isn't looking so hot either.

Plus: Pirates!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287016.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287016.page GMT WM is my favorite. I also like the flexability of the "wrasslin moves" that jacks and warbeasts get.

I do read 40K novels though. They have replaced starTrek and Battletech for my medicore known wquantity sci-fi novel needs. And I like the $11-$12 omnibus editions of the older novels. I also like the imitation factor where some novels are loosley modeled on Michael Harris style horror or Flashman style comedy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287039.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287039.page GMT 40K because I've actually played it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287044.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287044.page GMT 40K in much the same light as Jeff Carroll from Podhammer, so I voted Warmachine.

40K has wonderful fluff and models, but falls down when it comes to actual play. For what it's worth (~$0.02).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287088.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287088.page GMT WM game, it gets boring knowing you'll only ever see a few different factions. GW and PP both are driven to grow and make a profit, but GW has a much deeper and broader game universe to exploit.

I also agree with Yakface that the scale of the battles is better with 40K. WM games started to feel very similiar to me after a while, strategy and interaction wise. 40K, with up to 4 times the models, is much more varied. When I go to a tournament I don't know if I'll be playing monstrous nids, floaty eldar, gun line guard, demon chaos, ork horde or something else entirely. Even in the 40K factions the variants are dramatic.

Finally, all my best friends play 40K, and I figure we'll play till we're eighty and teaching our grandkids. That may not speak to which game is better, but it tells me where to hang [i]my[/i] hat...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287097.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287097.page GMT
I prefer the background of 40K and like the ability to make my own characters. I might be more interested in Warmachine if there was some way of making your own casters.

RZ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287111.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287111.page GMT
The reasons I prefer Warhammer, well lets make a list.

For starters, the background is huge, I mean huge. I cant think of any Sci Fi/Fantasy that is as big in background material.

The models. I have always felt GW made the best figs.

The rules. Warmachine plays like a CCG on the table top.

The hobby aspect. Warmachine offers little in painting and conversion compared to 40k.

The scope. The more the better.

The Players. 40k players are on the average the best sports and most fun from my experiance]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287119.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287119.page GMT doesn't mean I have to play the game ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287143.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287143.page GMT HQ choices. The HQ are looking more like the 'casters/'locks.

Then again, Harlequins > Leather-clad Ninjas > Pirates > Space Marines > uhhh.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287162.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287162.page GMT 40k has the advantage of being a lot more mature and refined than WM/H.

40k just has a lot more of everything: more armies with more options, based on more Fluff, and more models giving more variety.

WM/H is fine for what it is (small tactical / combo minis game), but it's not for me. I got in with WM, and it just doesn't scale to army-type battles at all, and the cards are just total fail at large points.

I think, if I want to play combo, I'll just play Magic, thanks. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287197.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287197.page GMT
Yes, the million and one versions of Space Marines offer quite a variety.


I voted Warmachine. The rules are better and PP actually takes making the game seriously. What I really like about Warmachine/Hordes is that the game is exciting and keeps you engaged through the whole thing. The game isn't over until the dice stop rolling, and no army is unbeatable.

I no longer look forward to the next edition of 40k, I dread it.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287198.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287198.page GMT
Yes, the million and one versions of Space Marines offer quite a variety.
[/quote] On the flip side, seeing the 923898398403849th Sorcha army with the same composition isn't all that different.

[quote]

I voted Warmachine. The rules are better and PP actually takes making the game seriously. What I really like about Warmachine/Hordes is that the game is exciting and keeps you engaged through the whole thing. The game isn't over until the dice stop rolling, and no army is unbeatable.[/quote] However the game usually ends abruptly and quickly, it is a very "win big/lose big" game. It depends on what you want out of the game. The rules are much better written, however the games often play out very similarly (oh look, windrush-charge again?)


[quote]
I no longer look forward to the next edition of 40k, I dread it.
[/quote] Sadly, I must agree. It breaks just as much if not more things than it set out to fix.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287419.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287419.page GMT
I'd respectfully disagree with this view, as one-shot-combo armies are the exception, and not the rule for competitive Warmachine armies. Successful armies have redundancy built into them such that elimination of any one unit (save the warcaster) is not debilitating. It was noted earlier that even the most basic trooper can be a gamewinner. Conversely, in 40k, if one looses their tank-hunting element, units like Landraiders and Monoliths are virtually invicible, while in Warmachine, there are always ways around this problem, be it knockdown from a weaker unit, immobiliziation, tarpit in a horde of cheap infantry etc.

This, IMO the huge numbers of options available to each unit is the biggest draw of Warmachine over 40k for me...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287761.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287761.page GMT
Hmm... I can see how being repeatedly thrashed by Sorscha's OMGWTF feat (while ignoring the fact that she has low ARM for a warcaster, and is easily killed once knocked down) might make Warmachine seem like an inferior game system compared to 40k.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287766.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287766.page GMT 40k. I played WM when it first came out, but I soon released that the game plays too much like a CCG. I like CCG's, but if I want that type of a feel for the game I'll play CCGs and save myself the time of not painting the models.

Like someone else posted, 40k is a more complete hobby...and WM..is well just a game.

Capt K]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287775.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287775.page GMT WM, and am starting Hordes. Gameplay basically. The fluff and models are nice (I prefer metal to plastic), but the clincher was being able to get a painted playable force on the table in 3 models for £30 or whatever the starter box was.

I love the 40k fluff though, just can't be bothered to go to the hassle of building an army for a game that is so random and lacking of reward for tacticians.

In the meta-experience, I prefer the feel of respect as a customer I get from PP as opposed to being taken for granted as I feel for GW.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287778.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287778.page GMT
Had the rules with the minatures, status tracking, low model count and the best minatures in the industry.

Pity about Confrontation 4.

May have to try Warmachine.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287789.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287789.page GMT
I voted WM for a few reasons. The first is a very tight rules set that works very well with 5 models on the table or 80 models on the table ( the only eception to this is AOE's but even they can be done quickly), The other is the living rule book, they errata and FaQ every thing, they have a rules forums and problems get at least a we are looking at it quickly ( though the answer might not come quickly).

Now I do have a theory on WM tight rules, I honestly don't think they are that much better at editing the rules for the game. I think they are better at spinning some of their mistakes. Basicly with the somewhat over the top nature of warmachine a fig that is "overpowered" is much easier to pass off as intended than in a GW game. Now with that said unlike GW the guys a PP will correct the fig if it starts to cause real issues with game play.

Basicly lets take bane knights, they have had 3 fixes to tone them down, A GW example would be the eldar falcon ( with all the trim), PP would have fixed it after a couple months GW as let it zip around for almost 2 years now. If GW would put out a FaQ and Errata every 4 to 6 months for each army alot more people would play as it would be a much tigher rule set.

Now don't get me wrong GW makes great models, the rules aren't that bad really, and i honestly wish PP would get over the whole metal is better for mini's. I never really had problems with minis breaking and falling apart with 40k stuff, but you look at a warmachine fig wrong and it drops it shield.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287792.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287792.page GMT 40k.

While I like the background of WM and the rules for the most part, I find myself liking the WM models less and less with time. Something to do with all the weird/mutated faces they tend to give a lot of their models (though I suppose that's more Hordes...)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287881.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287881.page GMT 40k and then spend the next 5 turns getting shot up before even getting close to CC, that never makes for a fun game for me. WM/Hordes encourages playing in your opponents face, even if you are a SAFH. You're penalized for being static in WM, in 40k it seems encouraged. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287882.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287882.page GMT UK. I have had a number of armies, and I've adapted to rules and edition changes over the years. And I voted for Warmachine.

40k didn't break down at the release of 4th ed, but it might have broken down with the loss of Andy Chambers. I don't like the current ideology that they are using for the new codecies (we don't need everything to be simpler, and simple rules and no options aren't the same thing... Also, Chaos ought to feel less like some new Marines chapter).


The Hordes minis have had consistently superior quality to GW plastics (although the poses on the plastics is really nice). I really like the interplay between your own troops that you have to balance in Hordes and Warmachine, and the game balance is very solid (something that 40k has sometimes been lacking... does anyone else remember the 2nd ed Eldar?).

So, I prefer Hordes and Warmachine.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287907.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287907.page GMT
Had the rules with the minatures, status tracking, low model count and the best minatures in the industry.

Pity about Confrontation 4.

May have to try Warmachine.[/quote]


OH, LAMENTATION!!!

How could Rackham betray us like this? How could they trade in their brilliant sculpts for Pre-painted plastics?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287910.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287910.page GMT WM, I feel like I get to use my brain every once in a while when I play this game. 40k is won in army builder, not on the tabletop.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287933.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287933.page GMT
Hmm... I can see how being repeatedly thrashed by Sorscha's OMGWTF feat (while ignoring the fact that she has low ARM for a warcaster, and is easily killed once knocked down) might make Warmachine seem like an inferior game system compared to 40k.[/quote]

Actually, I really haven't had too bad of an experience against her, its just that she seems to be in every other Khador army I see, which admittedly hasn't been many in the past few months as WM has practically ceased existing up here. It's not so much that she is overpowered, but relatively easy to use I think.

Personally I think Warmachine is a fine game, and has a much better maintained ruleset than 40k, however it does have its problems. Examples are how Warjacks are often a 2nd rate choice and that scaling into larger games tends to get messier much faster than 40k. Also some of the player attitudes are a bit odd, I know many people who play it as much out of protest at GW as anything else, although odd attitudes are definitely not unique to WM. It's also not quite as cheap as some make it out to be, what I paid for my 500pt Khador army was equivalent to the first 1500pts of my Tau army. Some of the Mini's are also rather badly designed, if *very* nice looking, such as the Behemoth (my favorite WM model so far) which requires a good deal of pinning and basework so that it will actually *stand* and not fall apart.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287957.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287957.page GMT MtG, don't like Warmachine.

Different strokes, sure, but it just wasn't for me. Plus, I like plastic models...

Ozymandias, King of Kings]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287981.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/287981.page GMT 40k for dead.

I'd like to re-iterate, it's not a game about 1 trick pony combo lists. Those exist, the same as the do in 40K, but they don't do well because it's very rare for two armies to line up and the game to be almost decided before the first dice roll.

That's all too common in 40K.

40K wins out on the hobby aspect imo though. The models are easier to convert, and I prefer the fluff.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288002.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288002.page GMT WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288020.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288020.page GMT 40k for dead. [/quote]

I disagree with that statement..and I'll leave it at that. LOL. And a game of 40k is most never decided by who goes first. That mantra is tired and old...and quite frankly...untrue.

Capt K ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288027.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288027.page GMT WM, so I'm biased here, but I'm saying WM because I honestly don't have any drive to play 40k ATM.

Right now I'm playing WHFB primarily and WM as my second game. I'm waiting for 5th Ed to come out before I think about building anything for 40k again. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288032.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288032.page GMT WM for many reasons I covered in the show (see sig)...

To sum up:

- Love the solid rules
- Love the way they relese new stuff
- Love the intense tactical options
- Dude ... it's guys in steam powered armor, force fields, giant steam powered mechs and Pirates!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288051.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288051.page GMT WM/Hordes.

Both are good. If you want a game of checkers play 40K. If you want chess play WM/Hordes.

Qoute: 40k is won in army builder, not on the tabletop.
I would have to agree with the current state of 4th edition.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288070.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288070.page GMT WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?[/quote]

WM Casters (Generals) have these once-per-game "Feats". These feats are usually very powerful, because they tend to affect everything within a particular radius. So if you can set things up well, you can get a very large effect that can be exploited to simply win the game.

This often results in players taking a very synergistic force to maximize leverage of the feat, to gain maximum advantage.

So when you have an army that is basically built around the caster and feat, it's very much like playing a combo deck in a CCG game.

Nothing wrong with that, but that's how many players choose to win their games.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288072.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288072.page GMT 40k. This is mostly due to the hobby aspect that others have mentioned. While you can do some converting here and there on your WM/Hordes models, you really can't personalize your army to the degree you can in 40k.

It is also easier to get a 40k pick up game going and interest doesn't come and and go as much as with WM.

Still like WM/Hordes though.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288104.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288104.page GMT WM in your areas and I feel bad you for you because I think you're missing out.

Around here, people build their armies to be competative with or without feats. Synergy is always there but every game is close to the end and the common consensus, and my own personal experience, is that the game can go either way up until it is actually over. As a general rule. Certain scenarios or player mistakes notwithstanding.

In both games you go up against certain "builds" in certain armies (haley denail and nidzilla are two such examples) so they have that in common. Warhammer has had years to build up it's background and lore so I don't think it's terribly fair to compare the two. I think PP is getting better at drawing you into theirs but they are still relatively young so I cut them some slack. I'm not going to go into actual writing quality because in that arena, nobody wins.

I prefer to play WM/Hordes but the two aren't mutually exlusive of one another.

One area that I have to seriously disagree with people in is this: the hobby aspect. WM/Ho allow you plenty of opportunity for conversion and alternate paint schemes. Just because you can't take a large variety of weapons on your commander and jacks/beasts doesn't mean you can't convert them. A conversion is a lot more than a weapon swap and I think WM/Ho is getting an undeserved reputation.

40k, at the unit level, has a ton of options whereas WM has none. However at the army level, to me, WM has just as many. This is even more so when you consider that in WM most units retain their usefulness in a number of builds and as such are always a legitimate option to take.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288120.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288120.page GMT
One of the things I enjoy about WM is that a unit consists of only 6 models. So that means I only have to paint 6 of the same models to begin using a unit. When I finish painting those 6 models there will be instant value added to my army. I could also just paint a new Jack, caster or solo and bam my army just changed dramatically. In 40k the minimum unit size is usually ten models and the only ones who will really add value are the special and heavy weapons. This is multiplied by the fact that in order to get a playable 40k army you need to paint around 1500 points worth of models.

Another aspect of WM that I like is that I can play a game in about 2 hours (casual social play). The game is also always in the balance for that two hours. Every unit has the potential to swing the game in crucial way. A game of 40k takes about 4 hours or so in a social setting. I also find that many of the games of 40k are over when the army lists are revealed during setup, so then I just spend 4 hours moving my miniatures with a predetermined outcome.

WM rules tend to be more flexible. I love how my unit can continue to function even if one member is engaged in Hand to Hand combat. I hate how a squad gets locked down in 40k because one squad member gets engaged.

Many people posted that the 40k background is so much more detailed. I must say I would hope so, 40k has been around for more than 20 years. WM has only been around about 5. I really love a lot of the 40k fluff, unfortunately GW hasn't found a way to translate fluff into a fun army. Many of the cool fluff armies are really unpleasant to play because one or two of your opponents choices render their army unstoppable or force you to choose certain units, etc.

I also don't think there is much difference between having a card by the table or a codex. The WM units are also printed in the books just like in 40k, so you aren't required to use the cards.

In the end I don't think that it is necessary for 40k and WM to be mutually exclusive. People should play the games that they enjoy. If 40k had a skirmish game that had decent rules, missions that rewarded all armies, and fluff armies that could win games I would definitely play it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288153.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288153.page GMT
Flames of war,
AT-43
40k
WM/H

So I voted 40k as my choice of the two. Dont get me wrong, I think WM/H is a beautiful game with spectacular rules and cool models but it just comes down to the fact that I am a tread head, and the plastic tank kits in 40k are irresistable for me!

Flames of war is my favorite for the same reason, just cant beat tons of armor on the table for me, even if they are (in the words of Jeff Caroll from Podhammer)Matchbox tanks.

At-43 doesnt have tanks, but the walkers are cool and I think the ruleset is the best in the business to date.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288559.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288559.page GMT GW's revisionist policies can play havoc on army-lists through the invalidation of previously legal formations...

I'm currently working on tidying up a 1700 point 40k army for an upcoming tournament - and by tidying up, I mean, make "tournament legal", since the new Chaos dex invalidated my Iron Warriors list (deservedly so, that list was stupid effective) - small sized squads need filling, and left me with a huge glut of heavy support, since my formerly elite oblits made their way over to HS... so from my old army, I've been forced to compress from 5 usable troops units to two! (due to a shortage of bolter troopers and too many orphan heavy weapons and special weapons troopers), and stuck with a glut of 7 heavy support! So, in short, 60% of my 1700 point army had to be re-constructed from scratch! This hasn't happened with Warmachine [i]YET[/i].

I did a quick inventory of the new list... Granted, as a longtime player, I was able to dip into my considerable closet of figures to rebuild the chaos army - but looking at the contents of this army - I honestly can not see how army cost between 40k and Warmachine can be treated at par... I added the terminators, daemons and around 20 additional infantry and a rhino - which would have cost a lot, if I had to buy them - rather than repurpose some old space marine stuff.

Chaos 1700 - current MSRP cost (Infantry:46, Large Infantry:9, Vehicles/Jacks:2)

$15 - Sorceror on bike
$175 - (5x box) 40 Chaos infantry (marines - 20 in tacticals, 12 in chosen, 8 havocs)
$22 - 6 Daemons (New plastics)
$50 - 4 Terminators
$88 - 4 Obliterators
$60 - 2 Rhinos
--------
$400

My current Khador 500 tournament list: (Infantry:16, Large Infantry:5, Vehicle/Jack: 1)

$10 - Kommandant Irusk
$35 - Devestator Heavy Warjack
$75 - 5x Demolition Corps
$40 - 8x Assault Kommandos
$15 - Greylords Ternion
$18 - Widowmakers
$10 - Eyriss
--------
$203

So in conclusion... money-wise - tournament sized 40k is a better match for 1000 WM/Hordes - (the model counts match up better as well if you double the contents of the WM list to simulate 1000 points) Finally, a point of interest is that the 40k army is mostly plastic other than obliterators.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288569.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288569.page GMT 40K is more tactical in my opinion. Cost is not as important to me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288572.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288572.page GMT WM to a CCG, but I think I'm missing the connection. I played Magic during my halcyon days of jr. high, but can't wrap my brain around grouping the two together. Anyone care to explain please?[/quote]

I'll give it a try (though I never played MTG, Pokemon, Jyhad or any other CCG).

1. Killer combos: The way turn/unit activation works and the emphasis on harmony between units, caster, solos and warjacks/beasts gives it a (perceived) CCG feel: "I put 3 focus on this warjack. Unit X creates cover, Unit Y shoots up target, Solo 1 Charges from the left, knocking target over. Move caster up, cast spell. Warjack with 3 focus walks up and finishes target off."
2. Special rules: everything has a special rule, and the trick is to use the special rules in the right order, on the right opponent (as opposed to no one has special rules, and you're just trying to shoot/bludgeon the enemy, which is more typical of most tabletop miniatures games).
3. Synchronization/harmony (see above): building an army has the feel of building the 'right' deck.

Again, I don't play CCGs, but I think that's the perception. Someone feel free to correct anything on this list. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288578.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288578.page GMT GW's revisionist policies can play havoc on army-lists through the invalidation of previously legal formations...

I'm currently working on tidying up a 1700 point 40k army for an upcoming tournament - and by tidying up, I mean, make "tournament legal", since the new Chaos dex invalidated my Iron Warriors list (deservedly so, that list was stupid effective) - small sized squads need filling, and left me with a huge glut of heavy support, since my formerly elite oblits made their way over to HS... so from my old army, I've been forced to compress from 5 usable troops units to two! (due to a shortage of bolter troopers and too many orphan heavy weapons and special weapons troopers), and stuck with a glut of 7 heavy support! So, in short, 60% of my 1700 point army had to be re-constructed from scratch! This hasn't happened with Warmachine [i]YET[/i].

I did a quick inventory of the new list... Granted, as a longtime player, I was able to dip into my considerable closet of figures to rebuild the chaos army - but looking at the contents of this army - I honestly can not see how army cost between 40k and Warmachine can be treated at par... I added the terminators, daemons and around 20 additional infantry and a rhino - which would have cost a lot, if I had to buy them - rather than repurpose some old space marine stuff.

Chaos 1700 - current MSRP cost (Infantry:46, Large Infantry:9, Vehicles/Jacks:2)

$15 - Sorceror on bike
$175 - (5x box) 40 Chaos infantry (marines - 20 in tacticals, 12 in chosen, 8 havocs)
$22 - 6 Daemons (New plastics)
$50 - 4 Terminators
$88 - 4 Obliterators
$60 - 2 Rhinos
--------
$400

My current Khador 500 tournament list: (Infantry:16, Large Infantry:5, Vehicle/Jack: 1)

$10 - Kommandant Irusk
$35 - Devestator Heavy Warjack
$75 - 5x Demolition Corps
$40 - 8x Assault Kommandos
$15 - Greylords Ternion
$18 - Widowmakers
$10 - Eyriss
--------
$203

So in conclusion... money-wise - tournament sized 40k is a better match for 1000 WM/Hordes - (the model counts match up better as well if you double the contents of the WM list to simulate 1000 points) Finally, a point of interest is that the 40k army is mostly plastic other than obliterators.[/quote]


Again, it depends on your army build and what you have.

My 1500pts Iron Warriors army under the last codex was usually as follows:

Termi Lord-$17

4 8man Chaos marine squads $25 each/100 total

4 Predators $40each/160 total

$277 total.

32 infantry
1 Lord
4 tanks

for 2000pts I added a squad of terminators and 6 Oblits, bringing it up to about $450 MSRP I think (I only payed about $360 for the army however because my FLGS has 20% of everything basically)

Warmachine *is* generally cheaper, but it also generally has smaller armies. If you expand WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive. And Yes, most of the 40k stuff is plastic, but I have no problem with this, I like most of the GW plastics alot. Granted the PP metals are amazing, but they are also generally very easy to break and some are *very* heavy.



[quote]Another aspect of WM that I like is that I can play a game in about 2 hours (casual social play). The game is also always in the balance for that two hours. Every unit has the potential to swing the game in crucial way. A game of 40k takes about 4 hours or so in a social setting.[/quote] I find most of my games (for both systems) take about half that time, even for casual games. I don't think I've ever played a 4 hour game of Warhammer that wasn't a megabattle.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288712.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288712.page GMT WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive.[/quote]

Oh, I don't disagree with you that 40k nets you more models and has better moldel/dollar value on a pure quantity basis.

However, I feel that you are misrepresenting the true cost of 40k models as you need to reach that 2x the price of Privateer to play standard sized games - there isn't the option to go half way. Also, whether or not your retailer discounts product or not is irrelevant, since many retailers discount the same amount off Privateer product. Current MSRP is the only even basis for comparison. Finally, IMO, it is hard to compare armies built on older rulesets against another system, as those armies may not be representative of common builds (different meta-game, models had different buy-in costs) and introduces unwanted variance into the comparison. The IW in particular have changed drastically in playstyle as they have been deprived of their formerly fearsome firepower and must take a more mobile approach.

I have tried to provide what I feel to be effective lists, that I have [b]recently[/b] designed, with the intent to do well in competitive play. In fact, the described 40k army is actually cheaper than I have constructed it, as it was purchased a few years back at the then-bizzaro-land +30% Canadian prices, and I forgot to take special and heavy weapons troopers into account. The Warmachine army is also not especially cheap with the inclusion of the 86 point, $75 Demo Corps... It is simple to create a cheap Warmachine/Hordes army for purely arguementative reasons - For example, a 500 point Legion of Everblight army I own consists of the Battlebox, 2 seraphs, 2 forsaken and Vayl. It cost $112. It was a near unbeatable terror before Privateer errata'd Vayl, and is still very effective when used right. Is that type of army typical of what you see? Not by a long shot.

Of course, YMMV.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288802.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288802.page GMT 40k pick up game going and interest doesn't come and and go as much as with WM.[/quote]

This varies from store to store. At my local game store, Flames of War is king with Warmachine/Hordes a strong second. If you want to play 40k you have to set it up in advance.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288831.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288831.page GMT WM/Hordes. I play 40k too, but I find myself less involved in a game of 40k - it's more like watching things unfold than playing the game, as the tactical options are so limited in 40k. WM I'm scheming the whole time, weighing the risk of various tactics, setting up countercharges etc.

By far the main reason is that the game is exciting until the end. I've pulled off a caster kill when my entire army has been slain, and I've had the same done to me. Whereas in 40k, often by turn 4 it's pretty obvious who's going to win (sometimes it's obvious in the 1st turn, haha). I know lots of people who just give up on a 40k game and cede, rather than playing out the slaughter. But in WM/Hordes, it's FUN to pull off a comeback. You take more risks when you're losing anyways, so you just might pull off that slam with your headless/arcless bonejack, that knocks the enemy's biggest jack out of the picture to clear a charge lane to his caster.

Various tactical options is great: I can advance, or run double speed, or stand still to get an aiming bonus; I can charge attack, walk up and do a power attack (headbutt, throw, etc.), trample over infantry. Many of the infantry can attack individually or combo attack, so they can kill lots of weak stuff or gang up on a big thing. In 40k, I can walk 6" and shoot, possibly charge 6". There are no options, other than walk 6" or stand still to fire a heavy weapon. 40k is much more predictable than WM/Hordes. Also, the massive numbers of troops in 40k means that the law of averages kicks in, and that adds to the predictability.

WM/Hordes using a 2d6 mechanic gives a normal distribution rather than a linear one. This means that even a mostly-sure thing never is (I hellfired Vilmon 3 times one turn, needing to get a 6+ on 2d6, and missed every time), and it's possible to pull off ridiculously lucky shots too (like the Zealot who killed my DEF 15 bonejack...). As for the combo-MTG-like aspect: sure there are combos, but they're never a sure thing, due to the 2d6 mechanic.

The very 1st models from WM are still competitive (eg the Sorscha mentioned above, and Kreoss) - new models are neat, but the old ones still work. There are no "ratlings" (nor squats) in Warmachine.... Also the combo-able nature of the game means that new units can easily make previously underpowered stuff better (Unit Attachments, etc.). 40k has to change point costs and/or rulesets in order to acheive the same. Let's not even go into the quality and robustness of the actual rules, it's obvious that WM/Hordes wins hands down there.

I'll play 40k, but I always *want* to play WM.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288861.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288861.page GMT SM force from 3 Battalion Boxes - or a little over $200 USD if bought from the Warstore.

If you're playing standard 1000 pts of WM/H on budget, you'll probably spend the same $200 USD for your stuff, but just have a lot fewer models.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288862.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288862.page GMT WM armies to be roughly the same size as Warhammer armies in terms of model #'s and points level, they become much more expensive.[/quote]

Oh, I don't disagree with you that 40k nets you more models and has better moldel/dollar value on a pure quantity basis.

However, I feel that you are misrepresenting the true cost of 40k models as you need to reach that 2x the price of Privateer to play standard sized games - there isn't the option to go half way. Also, whether or not your retailer discounts product or not is irrelevant, since many retailers discount the same amount off Privateer product. Current MSRP is the only even basis for comparison. Finally, IMO, it is hard to compare armies built on older rulesets against another system, as those armies may not be representative of common builds (different meta-game, models had different buy-in costs) and introduces unwanted variance into the comparison. The IW in particular have changed drastically in playstyle as they have been deprived of their formerly fearsome firepower and must take a more mobile approach.

I have tried to provide what I feel to be effective lists, that I have [b]recently[/b] designed, with the intent to do well in competitive play. In fact, the described 40k army is actually cheaper than I have constructed it, as it was purchased a few years back at the then-bizzaro-land +30% Canadian prices, and I forgot to take special and heavy weapons troopers into account. The Warmachine army is also not especially cheap with the inclusion of the 86 point, $75 Demo Corps... It is simple to create a cheap Warmachine/Hordes army for purely arguementative reasons - For example, a 500 point Legion of Everblight army I own consists of the Battlebox, 2 seraphs, 2 forsaken and Vayl. It cost $112. It was a near unbeatable terror before Privateer errata'd Vayl, and is still very effective when used right. Is that type of army typical of what you see? Not by a long shot.

Of course, YMMV.[/quote]

I used my old Chaos list because I had the prices right in front of me, I have no idea what I spent on my current Chaos stuff (don't want to think about it, I've bought way too much stuff just because I wanted to try crap out, and I don't stick to a single list )

I'll agree that it costs less to get a standard sized game of Warmachine going that an standard sized 40k game. It's cheap to buy the basic box and a couple extras. But to build much more than that, say if you want to have a couple of 500pt armies or a couple sideboard items, it gets close to 40k real quick. That and I see a lot of WM players (usually bitter ex 40k players) in stores saying to new people "it'll cost you almost $2000 to get a 40k tournament army" and stuff like that.

I'll agree again about Canadian prices being whack. when the WarStore sells a Hellhound for $40 shipped and it costs $65 CDN for one, It's not hard to see where this gap would explode quickly.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288919.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288919.page GMT 40k army for $200, I think the PP fans would point out that nearly any tournament force can be built for ~$250. I think that 40k hits diminishing returns later in the spending curve, however. I've spent thousands of dollars on 40k, and I still feel like I'm expanding my options and having fun when I buy a new army (I'm building eldar, and It's a ton of fun). Warmachine, I assume, has the same thing, just on a smaller scale. I know the arguemtn "But I can spend more on 40k" sounds a little silly, but this board is full of people that will spend more on a single 40k model then a giant WM army.

Additionally, there's been a lot of casual comments dismissing 40k's in game tactics. Nobody is going to confuse 40k with Go or Panzer General, but with good terrrain and objective based missions 40k has some rich tactical depth. It's easy to dismiss critiques of 40k's depth by citing missions and terrain, but it's shocking how often it comes up. with a mix of terrain and the GT missions, every game becomes a challenge.

Finally, I'd challenge the notion that 40k is unplayable at low points totals. $200 can buy some really interest 1000pt armies, and 1000pt games really aren't that uncommon. The reason very few people stay at that point level is that they want to bump up their points, not that 1k is unplayable.

With regards to PP itself, I wish them all the best. The better PP is at what they do, the more likely GW will get better at it does. If I were PP, however, I'd be terrified by the history of competing against the giant of the gaming world. I don't just mean in miniatures, but in any arena of gaming: ccgs, tabletop roleplaying, miniatures: all have one giant, periennial player and constant pretenders to the throne. There are minis games that emerge, flower for a bit, and then for one reason or another collapse. No ccg has lasted anywhere near as long as magic, even the big hitters like Star Wars and Legend of the five rings faded. WotC itself can't keep a second banana on the shelf.

I think Yak raised a valid point in that the business cycle for games involves gaining new players to the point of saturation, then add new players while old ones leave while veterans keep buying new stuff. PP has done better then most in adding a second edition and a new product line, but gamers want more stuff, but they want good stuff.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288924.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/288924.page GMT 40k army for $200, I think the PP fans would point out that nearly any tournament force can be built for ~$250.

I think that 40k hits diminishing returns later in the spending curve, however. I've spent thousands of dollars on 40k, and I still feel like I'm expanding my options and having fun when I buy a new army (I'm building eldar, and It's a ton of fun). [/quote]

Yup. Minimum tournament-sized spend is comparable. And it is definitely true that you can spend a lot more on 40k than other armies. A lot of this is due to the genius of the 40k FOC. For example, a SM army wants 3 Land Raiders, 3 Predators, 3 Vindicators, 3 Whirlwinds, and 3 full Devastator squads to max out the Heavy support options. That's a lot of spend.

WM doesn't work that way, because a lot of their stuff is unique. And having lots of Jacks is unplayable due to the limited amount of action points that are generated.

Eldar, in particular, is an army that you can spend a awful lot on. With so many distinct units, even trying to have one of each type adds up quickly. If you want to double down, it's even more spendy.

For 5th Edition, I'd like to see a push to get back to 1500 points precisely because it opens the board up for more movement and reduces players ability to concentrate capabilities, forcing more thought on list design.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289011.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289011.page GMT GW ability to make you spend more money is an asset to the players?

BTW 500 to 750 points is the standard for WM.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289142.page GMT CCG feel: "I put 3 focus on this warjack. Unit X creates cover, Unit Y shoots up target, Solo 1 Charges from the left, knocking target over. Move caster up, cast spell. Warjack with 3 focus walks up and finishes target off."
2. Special rules: everything has a special rule, and the trick is to use the special rules in the right order, on the right opponent (as opposed to no one has special rules, and you're just trying to shoot/bludgeon the enemy, which is more typical of most tabletop miniatures games).
3. Synchronization/harmony (see above): building an army has the feel of building the 'right' deck. [/quote]

See, this doesn't really seem like valid reasons for decrying WM as a CCG-style game. Maybe in the hardcore tourney scene you're totally focused on metagame <shudders>, but I don't believe most people play like that. Besides, even if these are the reasons for calling WM a CCG, it's not bad. You've got to have a much more concrete plan going into WM than 40k. If you don't know how your units interact and can affect a certain situation, you're going to get you butt handed to you every time. It's called [i]tactics [/i](or maybe strategy, can't remember), and WM has it in spades over 40k.

To me there's really no comparison between playing WM vs. 40k. WM is much more engaging and interesting. You've got to figure out what you want to accomplish each turn, what order to use your units in to accomplish your goal, and tip the odds in your favor with the 2d6 system. If you miss one thing or roll a snake eyes, it can royally screw up your plans. But while there is usually less redundancy in WM armies, most of the time you're never out of the fight completely. You just have to think about it, something you rarely have to do in 40k.

I guess if you just want to push some plastic around and roll buckets of dice, then by all means, 40k is for you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289163.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289163.page GMT
It's always fun. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289207.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289207.page GMT
I guess if you just want to push some plastic around and roll buckets of dice, then by all means, 40k is for you.[/quote]

Don't forget making little 'pew pew' sounds when you shoot. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289237.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289237.page GMT SM force from 3 Battalion Boxes - or a little over $200 USD if bought from the Warstore. If you're playing standard 1000 pts of WM/H on budget, you'll probably spend the same $200 USD for your stuff, but just have a lot fewer models.[/quote]

Battleforces are the best way to build up a solid army in 40k, no doubt about that. Spaze Marienz HURR aside, I'm not sure what kind of decent army you can make out of 60 Space Marines (15 tac/battleforce, 5 command/battleforce) and 3 Razorbacks (and or rhinos) though... A more solid example might be Necrons (1 Lord + 2 battleforces + Necron Phalanx Apoc Box = 1 world of hurt on a budget)

I think the discussion is getting off track though. WM players seem to be drawn to the game for rules and tactical reasons. 40k players drawn to the modelling, army and fluff aspects of their hobby. There are no wrong answers.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289250.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289250.page GMT WM fan before Prime came out through Escalation. I thought it was a lot of fun.

Then everyone realized you were better off using hordes of infantry.

It's not a bad game for very small skirmishes. Hell, the HeroClix mechanics lend well to that type of game. It's when you're fielding 60+ models, which I easily did with Cryx and Menoth, that the game broke down to a ton of rolling. The mechanics don't work for how the game is played these days, especially at 750, and take forever and a day to just roll dice.

Also, PP used to have pretty good quality control. Nowadays they're letting those ridiculously 2 dimensional Pirates be sold and tons of other really crappy figures.

I'm also not a huge fan because to play the game I need to have intimate detail about my opponent's army so I know exactly what combos he can do and how. The game requires the level of twinking that only hardened D&D powergamers can bring. I'd rather play and learn from my tactical mistakes instead of getting my ass kicked by some twink with an unpainted army because I didn't know every detail of how his army worked.

It's laughable that people talk about 40k being won or lost in the army building, it's not, but are willing to forgive the silly combo nature of WM's one turn caster kills.

WM is also just as expensive as 40k. Competitive Menoth or Cryx armies can cost quite a bit and if you're playing at 750 points, the level most people I know played at before I quit, then the price really is on par with 40k. Short of taking 3+ heavy warjacks, which sucks, the game is going to cost as much as 40k.

I don't want to argue about balance, even though some things in WM are really too good, but there are a lot of mechanics that are simply Not Fun To Play Against (TM).

Sorscha, regardless of balance, sucks to play against. It's not fun to have your entire army static for a whole turn. Kreoss isn't much better. Goodluck fighting Bane Knights. Hell, I ran Zealots and a Monolith Bearer and I know that couldn't have been much fun to play against as those freaks would crash into an army with hellish fire bombs of unstoppable 84 points kickassery.

Sure, 40k has some annoying things. Falcons and Harlies are annoying and Nidzilla is stupid but the game is much more mission based and you can more easily get around those things.

For now, PP isn't getting my money and I sold almost all of my armies. Hopefully they'll clean the game up once WM2 comes out and they'll make 'jacks good again and make it so models like those Kommandos won't ever see the light of day. If that happens I might play again.

Until then, I'll be happy playing 40k and historicals.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289269.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289269.page GMT 40k, both for the fluff and the system.

I consider the fluff to be self-explanatory, looking at PP's offering vs. GW's enormous stable of rulebooks, novels, codexes, RPG etc. and its no context.

In terms of game play 40k has rules and each unit has exceptions. In WM/Hordes each model is entirely unique, creating a far more difficult to balance game,, and while I think they've been better than GW at it I don't think they've been better enough to overcome their systemic disadvantage.

Maybe if I really dove into WM/H I could get a handle on every unit/model and figure out the combinations, but as a superficial player I can't quite grok it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289377.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/289377.page GMT I'm also not a huge fan because to play the game I need to have intimate detail about my opponent's army so I know exactly what combos he can do and how. The game requires the level of twinking that only hardened D&D powergamers can bring. I'd rather play and learn from my tactical mistakes instead of getting my ass kicked by some twink with an unpainted army because I didn't know every detail of how his army worked.[/quote]

I don't have every army memorized and I get by pretty well. But that has more to do with every WM army having a chance to win, which is not something 40k can boast.

Its a good thing no one who plays 40k plays with unpainted models or twinks their lists.

[quote]It's laughable that people talk about 40k being won or lost in the army building, it's not, but are willing to forgive the silly combo nature of WM's one turn caster kills.[/quote]

I have been playing WM since it came out and I have never seen a one turn caster kill. I have read several posts from people on here complain about it, but no one ever bothers to explain how this happens. Seriously I want to know.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290646.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290646.page GMT SM force from 3 Battalion Boxes - or a little over $200 USD if bought from the Warstore. If you're playing standard 1000 pts of WM/H on budget, you'll probably spend the same $200 USD for your stuff, but just have a lot fewer models.[/quote]

Battleforces are the best way to build up a solid army in 40k, no doubt about that. Spaze Marienz HURR aside, I'm not sure what kind of decent army you can make out of 60 Space Marines (15 tac/battleforce, 5 command/battleforce) and 3 Razorbacks (and or rhinos) though... [/quote]

You forgot that you get 5 scout/battleforce and 5 assault/battleforce, so there are a bunch more warm bodies in the force.

3 boxes gives:
45 tacticals
3 rhinos
15 scouts
15 assault

That's not terrible at all. Decent mobility and very solid numbers.

All you would need after this is a Devastator Box for the extra Heavy weapons to share around.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290654.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290654.page GMT WM since it came out and I have never seen a one turn caster kill. I have read several posts from people on here complain about it, but no one ever bothers to explain how this happens. Seriously I want to know.[/quote]

I've done this in a game. 350 pts and both sides moved to the center. My opponent's Feat kind of fizzled and whiffed. On my turn, I was able to really leverage Dennie's Feat with 2 Slayers loaded with Focus... squish! pulp! ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290663.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290663.page GMT
I'm missing something right?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290680.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290680.page GMT ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290748.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290748.page GMT [/quote]

Silly me, I was a sleep at the wheel. I was thinking [b]FIRST[/b] turn caster kill when I wrote that.

[b]ONE[/b] turn caster kills happen all the time. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290756.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290756.page GMT 40k, I've never seen one in Warmachine. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290783.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290783.page GMT
Truthfully, I like them both.

40 k because you never get over your first crush, and for Warmachine- a game with five models can be as fun as a game with 100.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290817.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/211334/290817.page GMT