Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.
Right. There is not the concept of aerial units versus ground units, and the necessity to take anti-air (or suffer being virtually unable to hurt the enemy). I never claimed it was unique; it was just a comparison of WMH and 40k, because of the topic of this thread, and at some point we talked about the variety of units available in both.
And nothing of that changes that WMH also has flying units. Your quote was literally that WMH didn't have flying units and that that was a differentiation factor because it meant that WMH had less unit types than 40k.
Flying units are available in both games. The only unit type that 40k has and WMH doesn't is transports (and if the rumors about the new Rulic battle engine are true, even that is about to change).
Also, WMH also has heavy immobile artillery, see the Commodore Cannon for an example.
A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.
Also, WMH also has heavy immobile artillery, see the Commodore Cannon for an example.
A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.
You may not like how it is executed, but it certainly feels a lot more like 'flying' than it does in WM.
There was joke, way back when flying was first introduced in WM, to try to explain why flying worked the way it did. The explanation was that the wings simply pushed branches and models out of the way. Slightly improved pathfinder really doesn't feel much like flight.
Tamwulf wrote:Mmmm. Strawberries.
Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.
Strawberries!
I don't know- I've had a rather fun discussion so far, and it has been interesting to hear another's point of view, especially when you actively try to understand what their position /is/.
Right. There is not the concept of aerial units versus ground units, and the necessity to take anti-air (or suffer being virtually unable to hurt the enemy). I never claimed it was unique; it was just a comparison of WMH and 40k, because of the topic of this thread, and at some point we talked about the variety of units available in both.
And nothing of that changes that WMH also has flying units. Your quote was literally that WMH didn't have flying units and that that was a differentiation factor because it meant that WMH had less unit types than 40k.
Flying units are available in both games. The only unit type that 40k has and WMH doesn't is transports (and if the rumors about the new Rulic battle engine are true, even that is about to change).
Also, WMH also has heavy immobile artillery, see the Commodore Cannon for an example.
A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.
It isn't a question of whether dirigibles would be good in WMH or not. It's a question of variety of types of units you can deploy. Some people find it cool that a Descent of Angels formation is helicopters swooping in with marines jumping out of them.
You can think that it is unbalanced or not, but you can't deny that this exists as a playable option, whereas something similar doesn't exist in WMH. To some people some of these options are part of the 40k draw, and to others it is a hindrance to their enjoyment, but like it or not, it is core rules.
By the way, sticking wings on units don't make them flying units. Having special rules that give a class of units that fly special disadvantages and advantages makes fthat a unit class (rather than a game aesthetic). There are wings on ravenwing bikes, formexample, but they work like regular bikes, as opposed to Eldar jet bikes, which actually fly. There are demons with wings to look scary, and others that can fly.
Nobody 'wins'. I'm just stating the existence and option to select a type of unit in the game.
Just got my first Dust Tactics stuff from kickstarter so keen to see how this works as it seems quite 40k like in scale.
I think we have determined that 40K and WM/H are different games but little else?
Many people argue (and few disagree) that WMH is better playtested and better supported by its parent compnay, however both games have their good points and bad and I still mostly enjoy 40K whilst I didn't WMH.
Mr Morden wrote: Just got my first Dust Tactics stuff from kickstarter so keen to see how this works as it seems quite 40k like in scale.
I think we have determined that 40K and WM/H are different games but little else?
Many people argue (and few disagree) that WMH is better playtested and better supported by its parent compnay, however both games have their good points and bad and I still mostly enjoy 40K whilst I didn't WMH.
Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.
Strawberries!
Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.
Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.
Strawberries!
Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.
Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.
Strawberries!
Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.
<3 Raspberries
Raspberries are unbalanced and you can't eat the seeds so they are worthless, and the company that makes Raspberries sells them 5 for $20 and most people eat 10.
Raspberries are unbalanced and you can't eat the seeds so they are worthless, and the company that makes Raspberries sells them 5 for $20 and most people eat 10.
Am I doing this right?
Not quite. The company that makes Raspberries sells them in 7's but people eat them in 10's... so if you don't want any waste, you have to buy 70!
ClassicCarraway wrote: I don't think anybody would disagree that model appearance variety does no equal rules variety. I do, however, feel that too many of the pro-WMH crowd are dismissing 40K unit rule variety as "they all move/shoot/die" but then providing a very abstract interpretation of WMH unit variety (unit X just "feels" different, unit Y just "plays" different, etc).
40K unit types ARE different from each other, bikes play differently than infantry or beasts, MC play differently than walkers, Flyers play differently from Skimmers, which play differently from Tanks. Even amongst same unit types, individual units/models play differently from each other. Would you truly argue that a Bloodthirster plays the same as a Lord of Change? A Land Raider plays the same as a Predator? Sure, they might share similar rules and use the same kind of stat lines, but how is that any different from WMH units? They all use a stat line that is defined by the rules, they all interact with the game using rules established by the main rule books. Why discount one as some sort of false variety and praise the other?
Now, a few of the 40K unit type rules may not appear to be that different on the surface, but often times, the differences only come to light when the units interact with the terrain on the battlefield. Sure, bikes, beasts, and cavalry all have the same 12" move and infantry style statline. They also all three interact with other units in the same way (ie, shooting, assaulting). Beyond that however, how they interact with the battlefield terrain and deployments really makes a difference. Beasts interact with difficult terrain differently than cavalry and bikes, bikes have turbo boost to forego shooting for added manuverability.
Well, Talys /was/ talking about model variety earlier, so I wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same page.
If you would like some concrete examples of the differences, though, I'd be more than happy to give a few.
Many of the differences you listed above don't feel 'right,' because they are mixed in terms of role. A Lord of Change is a psyker, whereas a Bloodthirster walks in and beats things to death. A Land Raider is a transport, where a Pred is a gun platform. If we compared a Land Raider to a Rhino, and a Pred to a Russ, we might be more in the right frame.
And those differences you listed above are certainly real, but as you admit yourself, the difference is pretty subtle. It's a bit of change in regards to mobility. WM recapitulates that to some degree with things like 'pathfinder' and 'flying.'
When I speak of 'variety' in WM, I'm talking about the fact that units aren't often very easy to compare with eachother- there are huge qualitative differences. Shifting Stones, for example, can teleport a friendly model that exists within the triangle formed by the set of 3 stones. Stormblades get stronger if they are all within some distance of the unit leader, which makes their positioning interesting to deal with on the table. Mannikins can suicide themselves to put down 3" forest templates for a turn, which then can block line of sight to models behind them. The Prime Axiom has tow cables that can pull models that it hits 11" toward it, providing a sort of 'ranged' anti-armor capacity (in WM, it's very hard to 'shoot' something off the table, so being able to project that kind of threat at those distances is pretty crazy).
There are models that leave behind clouds that cause damage, models that allow you to choose where damage is allocated to warjacks (to rip off arms and such), models that project fields to slow down enemy troops, models that give huge fields that provide more armor. There are models that get stronger as they're wounded, models that are immune to blast damage, models that can see through clouds and forests. Some models can ignore magical buff/debuffs, some act as 'relay stations' that allow you to cast spells at a distance.
On top of all this are warcasters, who often not only have a bunch of significant special abilities, but also have a suite of abilities (much like psykers) that is different from warcaster to warcaster, as if each one of them had their very own personal discipline. The spells they have access to often have outsized effects on a wide swath that changes how the game works /qualitatively/, as opposed to mostly doing damage. Making enemies move more slowly, making your warjacks make an additional ranged attack, causing all models in your army to lose some speed in exchange for armor. etc etc.
All of these things combine to make the majority of units feel /unique/, not just between factions but within them. The fact that 40k has the concept of the 'MEQ' is probably the biggest thing I can point to as an example.
Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like you are still selling 40K variety short but over-emphasising the differences between similar units in WMH. You say that I shouldn't use a Bloodthirster vs Lord of Change comparison because one is a psyker and the other is a beatstick....well how is that any different from your own WMH comparisons? A BT and LoC both fill the exact same battlefield role as defined by the game (HQ and FMC) but function completely different based on each model's rules. One model uses overwhelming assault while the other model uses mastery of the warp. Same goes for the Landraider and Predator comparison, both are heavy support and tanks, one has added durability and both transport and assault capabilities but at a steep cost, while the other is more of a dedicated gun platform but is far less expensive.
You keep citing all the various rules differences between WMH units proves it has greater variety, but completely ignore the same thing for 40K units. Why are the various special rule and power differences between casters in WMH so much different from the various special rule and abilities of the many HQ options in a single 40K army? Are you saying a Chapter Master feels and plays the same as a Librarian? What about a generic SM Captain versus Pedro Cantor or Lysander? Abbadon the Despoiler is no different from Ahriman or a warpsmith? These 40KHQ models have unique special rules that impact how they interact with the army and with your opponent, just like the various WMH casters.
Now I will readily admit that the WMH caster variety is more impactful, but that is largely due to the way WMH is set up as the caster is the focal point of the army, and as the caster goes, so goes the rest of the army. However, this very feature is one of the things that kind of turned me off to WMH.
ClassicCarraway wrote: Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like you are still selling 40K variety short but over-emphasising the differences between similar units in WMH. You say that I shouldn't use a Bloodthirster vs Lord of Change comparison because one is a psyker and the other is a beatstick....well how is that any different from your own WMH comparisons? A BT and LoC both fill the exact same battlefield role as defined by the game (HQ and FMC) but function completely different based on each model's rules. One model uses overwhelming assault while the other model uses mastery of the warp. Same goes for the Landraider and Predator comparison, both are heavy support and tanks, one has added durability and both transport and assault capabilities but at a steep cost, while the other is more of a dedicated gun platform but is far less expensive.
You keep citing all the various rules differences between WMH units proves it has greater variety, but completely ignore the same thing for 40K units. Why are the various special rule and power differences between casters in WMH so much different from the various special rule and abilities of the many HQ options in a single 40K army? Are you saying a Chapter Master feels and plays the same as a Librarian? What about a generic SM Captain versus Pedro Cantor or Lysander? Abbadon the Despoiler is no different from Ahriman or a warpsmith? These 40KHQ models have unique special rules that impact how they interact with the army and with your opponent, just like the various WMH casters.
Now I will readily admit that the WMH caster variety is more impactful, but that is largely due to the way WMH is set up as the caster is the focal point of the army, and as the caster goes, so goes the rest of the army. However, this very feature is one of the things that kind of turned me off to WMH.
I suppose it's something like this: typically, in 40k, the differences in things come from how they deal damage, with the exception of a few support-type models and some psyker abilities. A Bloodthirster does a lot of damage in melee, but that's in- in that way, it's very comparable to most things that do a lot of damage in melee. It's better at it for a variety of reasons, but these are mostly quantitative differences (faster, hardier, does more damage, etc). The LoC has many more options available to it, and as such it can act in a more supporting role, this is why I feel that they're not great things to compare directly like that- they serve different purposes in the game.
The variety that I'm talking about it the variety in how a unit serves its purpose. In 40k, this is defined typically by number of attacks, threat range, 'power' of the attack, and whether or not it's melee or not. It is relatively rare that an offense ability doesn't simply change those values. Similarly, defensive options are typically relatively limited: cover/not, strength of save, inv save.
In WM, there are many, many things that influence combat beyond strictly damage parameters, things that have an outsized influence on the game. You have not only AoEs like spray templates and blast templates, you also have things like chain lightning, which forces you to be careful in how you position your exact units, and has a strong influence on target selection based on how your opponent positions their units. There are abilities that slow models down, generate rough terrain, put down damaging cloud templates, etc etc. Many of these things do exist in 40k, but in WM, these things are very common. This means that you often don't look at a model and say 'how much damage does this put downfield,' but you say 'how does this model put damage downfield? What additional parameters are there?'
The same goes for defensive abilities. There are units that change the way wound allocation works in WM, allowing the defending player to remove targets of his choice. If you have debuffs that decrease armor, you need to make sure your models can deal with defense, and the reverse. You have large-scale abilities that greatly change the parameters of your units. Again, 40k has these things as well, but they're relatively rare. Warcasters are like psykers that each have their own unique discipline, and get all the abilities each game.
TLDR: You mention that WMH caster variety is more impactful, and that's sorta' my point. The caster variety is more impactful than HQ variety in 40k, and in that exact way the unit variety in WMH is more impactful than it is in 40k. Sure, the difference between HQs might be more impactful than between units in WMH (which I don't agree with, but it's certainly closer), but that's not the right comparison.
And yes, that can totally be something that someone might not like about the game, and that's an incredibly valid criticism. But 'lack of variety,' I feel, is not.
Has anyone else noticed that the people defending 40k, lauding its balance and bad mouthing WMH have never even played WMH? Also, they're quick to label people with valid, well thought out criticisms as "haters". I guess straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are all the ammo you have when you're wholly ignorant of one side of the debate.
40k has slightly more variety if you consider all the options. However, when you consider 75% of the options in a given codex are useless, that variety argument doesn't hold up. WMH has slightly less choices, but almost every option in a given army can be a good choice with the right synergy. 40k doesn't have that, some units just flat out suck no matter what else is in your army.
With each option having a point value, it isn't that hard to balance things out, especially after all this time. If people are only using 1 special weapon option out of 6 for their squads, raise the price of that and/or lower the prices of the other choices. If people are only using 1 or 2 tanks out of 10 options, raise the points on those 1-2 and lower the points on the rest of them. It isn't rocket science and with every codex being on its 3rd or 4th edition, some even more, they should be more balanced by now. The problem is GW keeps lowering the points on almost everything to make people buy more models without really changing the price of unit upgrades. If they cared about balance, they would focus more on refining things than changing for the sake of change and to sell more models. GW has said point blank "we make rules to sell models". WMH makes rules to have a fun and balanced game. This is the problem and all the straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks and white knighting in the world aren't going to change that fact or convince anyone that 40k is a balanced game when even the rules writers admit that it isn't and that was never their intention.
Toofast wrote: Has anyone else noticed that the people defending 40k, lauding its balance and bad mouthing WMH have never even played WMH? Also, they're quick to label people with valid, well thought out criticisms as "haters". I guess straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are all the ammo you have when you're wholly ignorant of one side of the debate.
40k has slightly more variety if you consider all the options. However, when you consider 75% of the options in a given codex are useless, that variety argument doesn't hold up. WMH has slightly less choices, but almost every option in a given army can be a good choice with the right synergy. 40k doesn't have that, some units just flat out suck no matter what else is in your army.
With each option having a point value, it isn't that hard to balance things out, especially after all this time. If people are only using 1 special weapon option out of 6 for their squads, raise the price of that and/or lower the prices of the other choices. If people are only using 1 or 2 tanks out of 10 options, raise the points on those 1-2 and lower the points on the rest of them. It isn't rocket science and with every codex being on its 3rd or 4th edition, some even more, they should be more balanced by now. The problem is GW keeps lowering the points on almost everything to make people buy more models without really changing the price of unit upgrades. If they cared about balance, they would focus more on refining things than changing for the sake of change and to sell more models. GW has said point blank "we make rules to sell models". WMH makes rules to have a fun and balanced game. This is the problem and all the straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks and white knighting in the world aren't going to change that fact or convince anyone that 40k is a balanced game when even the rules writers admit that it isn't and that was never their intention.
Some yes, but come on don't paint everyone who dislikes WMH and praises 40k like that, it just helps to reinforce the divide. I've seen bad arguments on both sides... yes, it's more frequently the pro-40k people who are dismissive, but some of them do make valid points that even if I don't 100% agree with, I understand where they're coming from.
I play both and have admitted that both have their strengths. However, saying 40k is balanced or that it can't be balanced due to the amount of options is ridiculous. Saying WMH lacks variety is equally ridiculous.
@Toofast -- Actually, I see very few 40k players make a claim that 40k has great internal or external balance; quite to the contrary, most bemoan how Eldar and Tsu need to be nerfed. I rarely see 40k players bad-mouth WMH.
Look through this thread: At most pro-40k folks say, they've looked at WMH or given it a go, but either because of aesthetics, gameplay, unit count, or whatever, it wasn't really for them.
On the contrary, it's mostly pro WMH folks (as opposed to pro-DUST or pro Mailfaux) who feel a need to bash 40k, and exaggerate strengths of WMH and weaknesses of 40k. I find this the case in stores as well: WMH players are very aggressive about evangelizing their product, while 40k players mostly couldn't give a hoot. I don't know why players can't understand why some people have different preferences -- hockey is neither better nor worse than alpine skiing.
In addition, your assertion about pro-40k players not giving WMH a chance cuts both ways: How many pro-WMH players own a competitive 40k army, or play scenarios with a proper army at a gaming club, store, or league?
I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.
Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.
Far more WMH players I know have played 40k with competitive armies than the other way around. Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH. As I said before, 40k is great for modeling, painting, getting into the fluff, etc. They both have their place which is why I collect and play both.
Toofast wrote: Far more WMH players I know have played 40k with competitive armies than the other way around. Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH. As I said before, 40k is great for modeling, painting, getting into the fluff, etc. They both have their place which is why I collect and play both.
Well, if someone thinks the game they play is great, why not just be happy for them, instead of insisting they give a different game a fair shot? I mean, there is a cadre of WMH players (for sure, not all) who give a hard time to anyone who defends 40k; I rarely see the reverse.
There are more former 40k players that play WMH than vice versa because 40k is older, and at one time owned most of the pie. However, a lot of disaffected 40k players (especially newer ones) really never played 40k in the right context or with terrible expectations. I find many disaffected 40k players to be people who thought they could buy a couple of books, a few hundred dollars of models, and then kick ass in a competitive or semicompetitive scene. When they show up at their first tournament or play against a streak of competitive or cheesy lists, they hate the game. Or, they just never get around to assembling and painting everything you need to play a full list.
Really, I'm sincerely glad that they've found a game that suits them better.
For other people, all those cool new models, endless new dataslates and formations and campaigns with supplements is a plus, not a minus. All that new stuff is exciting, and even if Imperial Knights or titans turn everything upside down, they'd rather have new cool stuff than not, and don't mind long stretches of possible wonky rules for those new toys.
I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...
Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight
karandras15 wrote: I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...
Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight
WH40k universe is a rediculous pile of grimdark mess. I mean just look at servitors, pentitent engines or basically anything CSM or Ork! Exterminating the whole planets to prevent EVEN worse results than deaths of billions. Danger everywhere. Before you finish with one foe, another arises and before you've done with them both, you're informed the 3-d is coming your way. Mutations and augmentations that make your life a constant agony. Dying mutilated heroes installed into walking kicking sarcofaguses. That's what WH40k is all about. Grotesque brutal bloody rediculous heap of grimdarkness. That's why i love it!
Talys wrote: I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.
Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.
Eh, they're sticking up for their game for the same reason that you're sticking up for yours. The better question, I feel, is why they're doing it here with such aggressive language. A comparison between the two games should at least try to be neutral. Luckily, I'd say that most of the people in the discussion here have been pretty good about it.
Talys wrote: @Toofast -- Actually, I see very few 40k players make a claim that 40k has great internal or external balance; quite to the contrary, most bemoan how Eldar and Tsu need to be nerfed. I rarely see 40k players bad-mouth WMH.
Look through this thread: At most pro-40k folks say, they've looked at WMH or given it a go, but either because of aesthetics, gameplay, unit count, or whatever, it wasn't really for them.
On the contrary, it's mostly pro WMH folks (as opposed to pro-DUST or pro Mailfaux) who feel a need to bash 40k, and exaggerate strengths of WMH and weaknesses of 40k. I find this the case in stores as well: WMH players are very aggressive about evangelizing their product, while 40k players mostly couldn't give a hoot. I don't know why players can't understand why some people have different preferences -- hockey is neither better nor worse than alpine skiing.
In addition, your assertion about pro-40k players not giving WMH a chance cuts both ways: How many pro-WMH players own a competitive 40k army, or play scenarios with a proper army at a gaming club, store, or league?
I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.
Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
You say you feel the need to stick up for your game a little, that's what the WMH players were doing in the first place. It's all well and good liking one game over another but if you go round saying stuff that isn't true don't you think the other side should be allowed to correct that?
And contrary to popular belief, in my experience (again, I play both, I'm happy both exist, im happy you're happy with your game), the WMH community is much more civil. I don't even know where this idea that they 'take every opportunity they can to bash 40k' comes from because generally what I've seen is that it is the 40k side who are more antagonistic, make ridiculous arguments, personal attacks, straw man, white knight, etc.
All the WMH players have done in this thread is correct some false statements made about the game.
karandras15 wrote: I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...
Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight
more fun for pick up games? What?
Some people must live in an alternate reality. 40k is universally bashed for being the worst game in the history of games to just show up for a random pickup game. Tell me how much fun you have showing up for a pickup game in my meta when you bring your fluffy 1st company terminators and game 1 you face farsight bomb with trip tides, game 2 you run into AV13 crons with a c'tan, game 3 is adamantine lance, game 4 is 5 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights, and your final game of the day is drop pod melta with tigurius and grav cents. You'll have a great time removing models for 2-3 turns and conceding because you have 20% of your army left and the opponent has 80% and already got first blood/warlord.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
Not really.
What happened is that people shared a comparison of 40K and WMH, many (but not all) of them stating that they - for various reasons (including balance, though that may be subjective) - preferred 40K over WMH.
In return, a few stubborn WMH-defenders keep coming back with ridiculous claims like
1. " Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. "
2. "Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH.
Both of the above, 1. and 2., are wrong as a generalisation. This very thread is proof of that.
Plenty of people know a lot about WMH (and other games like Infinity, X-Wing, Malifaux, whathaveyou) and still feel, that 40K is superiour to many, if not all of them.
Plenty of people gave WMH a good, long try and found that WMH rules, in the words of the quote above "suck" compared to 40K.
In the spirit of politeness you claim, it would be perfectly fine to disagree, if your own opinion/experience is the inverse.
But to continually claim that people who prefer 40K over WMH are somehow less informed, less grounded in evidence and experience, as they form their opinion, etc.. is just blatantly trolling out flamebait and the very opposite of the civil discussion you claim to seek.
"Most people I know" is aneanecdotal evidence. Saying that it's wrong is basically calling me a liar. As far as the second one, you're really going to dispute that a large amount of WMH players played 40k first and switched primarily because of rules? A look at the PP forums and WMH/40k discussion forums on this site would quickly confirm that is the case, along with all the WMH facebook groups I'm a member of. I lost track of how many people I've seen saying "what WMH army should I start? I got tired of 40k (usually because of the rules)." It's easily over 100. There's about 15 or 20 just at my local FLGS.
This is just my opinion, but anyone who has meaningful experience with multiple other systems and thinks 40k has better rules is delusional. Better for massive battles? Yes. Better for fluff and modeling? I think so. Better rules writing? Most definitely not.
You should probably go back and read some of Morgoth's posts if you want to see what I'm talking about. They basically amount to "I know nothing about WMH but I know it sucks compared to the infallible awesomeness that is 40k". People like him are far more common than people who know both systems and prefer 40k IN MY EXPERIENCE.
By the way, sticking wings on units don't make them flying units. Having special rules that give a class of units that fly special disadvantages and advantages makes fthat a unit class (rather than a game aesthetic). There are wings on ravenwing bikes, formexample, but they work like regular bikes, as opposed to Eldar jet bikes, which actually fly. There are demons with wings to look scary, and others that can fly.
You do realize that WMH does have special rules for units with flight and that is not just an aesthetic choice for the miniature?
This is just my opinion, but anyone who has meaningful experience with multiple other systems and thinks 40k has better rules is delusional.
So you admit that it is anecdotal, subjective evidence, but still draw the general conclusion from it to proclaim that people who see 40K rules as superior are, in general, delusional?
Anecdotal evidence and general conclusions don't go together. That's the one main drawback of anecdotal evidence, actually.
So ... um .. sorry. You either fail to see the contradiction in here, in which case you'd be arguably be lacking the mental skills to make evidence-based comparisons in the first place, no matter the topic, or you do see the contradiction in this and choose to deliberately ignore it for the sake of your little crusade, in which case you would indeed be a liar.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
Not really.
What happened is that people shared a comparison of 40K and WMH, many (but not all) of them stating that they - for various reasons (including balance, though that may be subjective) - preferred 40K over WMH.
In return, a few stubborn WMH-defenders keep coming back with ridiculous claims like
1. " Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. "
2. "Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH.
Both of the above, 1. and 2., are wrong as a generalisation. This very thread is proof of that.
Plenty of people know a lot about WMH (and other games like Infinity, X-Wing, Malifaux, whathaveyou) and still feel, that 40K is superiour to many, if not all of them.
Plenty of people gave WMH a good, long try and found that WMH rules, in the words of the quote above "suck" compared to 40K.
In the spirit of politeness you claim, it would be perfectly fine to disagree, if your own opinion/experience is the inverse.
But to continually claim that people who prefer 40K over WMH are somehow less informed, less grounded in evidence and experience, as they form their opinion, etc.. is just blatantly trolling out flamebait and the very opposite of the civil discussion you claim to seek.
Well first of all, I personally never said people who prefer 40k are less informed. I've said many times, they're different games and different people will like them and that's fine. I play both as I've said.
I don't think balance is a subjective point, and I think WMH is objectively more balanced. You might not care about how balanced a game is or see lack of balance as an issue, that is subjective, but objectively WMH is more balanced, pretty much every unit in the game can be used well, unlike in 40k. There's equally ridiculous posts from the 40k side too, such as the classic '40k is much cheaper'.
I have said, it's fine to disagree. It's fine to like one over the other for whatever reason. But at least know the full story to both sides, and don't go around saying stuff that isn't true about a game you haven't even played in some cases.
As you can probably tell, one person in particular is pretty much the source of my ire, and I was probably more defensive in some posts as I would be normally because of that. I don't have anything against 40k players, I understand why people prefer 40k because often the reasons they do often echo the reasons why I still play it, so I apologise if I've seemed too defensive about WMH. It's just annoying when someone is basically telling lies about a game they haven't even played, and then acting like they're an expert on absolutely everything when called out on it.
There are equally stubborn people on both sides but in my experience (and I hate to use this term) 'the 40k players generally start it'.
I'm not sure why it's impossible to form an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. I'm not the one on a crusade here. I play 40k weekly and have spent about $1,500 on GW products this year. I plan to start a new 40k army as soon as I'm done with this large commission for a local store. The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH. You can call me mentally deficient or a liar all you want, GW rules are still bad or there wouldn't be contradictions, day 1 FAQs, people quitting the game daily citing poor rules and YMDC threads going for pages and pages without any real resolution.
Toofast wrote: The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH.
Again, plenty of people in this thread have argued 40K to be their personal preference, despite thorough knowledge of WMH.
You keep sidestepping things by claiming that any pro-40K argument must be grounded in ignorance, when that is demonstrably not the case. Why do you keep repeating and perpetuating this lie, when people came forth time and again and time and again and time and again saying they do in fact know WMH, quite well often.
You're entitled to your opinion, sure, but if people kept claiming (repeatedly, over and over and over again) that your opinion is delusional and "wrong", because you have "zero knowledge" about 40K, you'd rightly point to your extensive knowledge of 40K.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
You say you feel the need to stick up for your game a little, that's what the WMH players were doing in the first place. It's all well and good liking one game over another but if you go round saying stuff that isn't true don't you think the other side should be allowed to correct that?
And contrary to popular belief, in my experience (again, I play both, I'm happy both exist, im happy you're happy with your game), the WMH community is much more civil. I don't even know where this idea that they 'take every opportunity they can to bash 40k' comes from because generally what I've seen is that it is the 40k side who are more antagonistic, make ridiculous arguments, personal attacks, straw man, white knight, etc.
All the WMH players have done in this thread is correct some false statements made about the game.
If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.
Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.
There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:
40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.
I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.
By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
You say you feel the need to stick up for your game a little, that's what the WMH players were doing in the first place. It's all well and good liking one game over another but if you go round saying stuff that isn't true don't you think the other side should be allowed to correct that?
And contrary to popular belief, in my experience (again, I play both, I'm happy both exist, im happy you're happy with your game), the WMH community is much more civil. I don't even know where this idea that they 'take every opportunity they can to bash 40k' comes from because generally what I've seen is that it is the 40k side who are more antagonistic, make ridiculous arguments, personal attacks, straw man, white knight, etc.
All the WMH players have done in this thread is correct some false statements made about the game.
If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.
Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.
There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:
40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.
I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.
By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.
I think maybe that's because a lot of the WMH players on here used to play 40k? No evidence for this, it's just a hypothesis, but maybe they used to play 40k so still read the 40k boards to kinda keep up with the game. Or they play both and so they read both for obvious reasons haha. People who just play 40k don't really have a reason to go on the WMH board. Just an idea, and it doesn't excuse any ridiculousness but it might explain why there's less pro-40k stuff on the WMH boards. I don't think WMH players go out of their way to hate on 40k like some people seem to think they do.
And that conversation is silly but it's just as silly as
40k: Warmachine doesn't have transports or flyers
WM: they don't really fit in the game
40kWM has less variety!
WM: it has as much variety, just less unit types
40k: no flyers = less variety!
Neither games need to have things the other games have. People prefer different things about each game. They have equal variety, just in different ways. They have different things for different people (or different things for the same people in our case). I agree that a lot of this thread is pointless, but the pointlessness comes from both sides, not just the pro WMH side.
Toofast wrote: The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH.
Again, plenty of people in this thread have argued 40K to be their personal preference, despite thorough knowledge of WMH.
You keep sidestepping things by claiming that any pro-40K argument must be grounded in ignorance, when that is demonstrably not the case. Why do you keep repeating and perpetuating this lie, when people came forth time and again and time and again and time and again saying they do in fact know WMH, quite well often.
You're entitled to your opinion, sure, but if people kept claiming (repeatedly, over and over and over again) that your opinion is delusional and "wrong", because you have "zero knowledge" about 40K, you'd rightly point to your extensive knowledge of 40K.
Why is the inverse so hard to grasp for you?
I'm not calling anyone out or referring to any specific individual, but there ARE people who are on a crusade to 'prove' that 40k is a bad game, and are astonished that any rational human could play such a bad game or support such a horrible company as GW.
I'm certainly not a WMH superfan, but I do own two complete armies (Menoth, Trollblods), and at least a couple thousand dollars of models and books, and I play here and there. I am not a great player and do not really strive to be, because the game doesn't really pull me in. I don't even find it 'competitive' for me, any more than backgammon or bridge -- it's socially entertaining but I could really care less if I win or lose. I actually try much harder to win at 40k, which is both my preferred hobby and tabletop wargame.
Neither games need to have things the other games have. People prefer different things about each game. They have equal variety, just in different ways. They have different things for different people (or different things for the same people in our case). I agree that a lot of this thread is pointless, but the pointlessness comes from both sides, not just the pro WMH side.
It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.
You say you feel the need to stick up for your game a little, that's what the WMH players were doing in the first place. It's all well and good liking one game over another but if you go round saying stuff that isn't true don't you think the other side should be allowed to correct that?
And contrary to popular belief, in my experience (again, I play both, I'm happy both exist, im happy you're happy with your game), the WMH community is much more civil. I don't even know where this idea that they 'take every opportunity they can to bash 40k' comes from because generally what I've seen is that it is the 40k side who are more antagonistic, make ridiculous arguments, personal attacks, straw man, white knight, etc.
All the WMH players have done in this thread is correct some false statements made about the game.
If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.
Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.
There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:
40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
This is not what was said, at least by me. You are using a straw man here. I said that the WMH has just as many unit types as 40k does. I then listed them, and they easily matched the number in 40k. You then said they didn't count, because reasons.
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
If you like collecting for collecting's sake, this doesn't matter. For playing a game, it does, or if your budget is limited. It's a legitimate point, and still concedes that 40k has the cooler and wider model range.
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
They both use IGYG, and nobody is claiming 40k is ancient in rules. In case you've forgotten, 40k is currently the newer rules set. 7th just released, MKII has been out for quite some time. The rules are worse in terms of balance, but if you like a simpler game then 40k is fine....if you work hard before the game setting up, or have a great meta
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.
Again, not what was said to refute this point. 40k has more models on the board, but in general, a unit of ten guys delivers 3 special weapons and the other 7 models are ablative wounds. In WMH, every model is important since LoS and charge lanes are a huge deal. Things get worse if we go into armies like orks. It is a bigger game, for the most part. WMH tends to top out at about 40 guys per side, if you like large battles because you like the way they look (and it is impressive) or play (which is a bit of a mess, Apoc is pretty devastating after the first turn), then yeah, 40k wins.
I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.
These conversations are stupid because, apparently, you are not reading what others are saying, waiting for them to be done talking, and just repeating your own point and strawmanning like crazy. Archidon is a flying unit. In 40k, flyers have 6's to hit and movement rules. in WMH, flyers are not allowed to take certain special actions and have movement rules. It's equivalent. Remember, you ALSO claimed WMH did not have GIANT ROBOTS, GIANT BEASTS, and artillery for quite some time, despite being told otherwise. I even included a picture, which you hand waved away because it takes 10 of them to make a titan (which...what? I don't even understand what you were getting at)
By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.
It'd probably help the discussion if you tried reading what people wrote and responding to that. I know strawmanning is easier, but it gets old.
I take it back. There's a somewhat large thread on the PP General Discussion forums about how in the next book, Man o War should get a buff what with them being an iconic unit that's also included in the 2 player starter box. A lot of back and forth about how things can be balanced at the casual level but not competitive, and how PP has never actually stated that something should be good in both environments, so that it shouldn't be, along with the "They're fine you're just using it wrong" approach and everything in between.
The more I think about it, there are more similarities between the games than it appears. I still dislike GW's general price gouging strategy while giving you less, but really it's different flavors of the same thing when you boil down to it. There's a guy on Warseer who keeps saying how in his group people use subpar 40k units and do well (he specifically mentions Warp Talons and Mutilators), and speaking from experience I can attest to the fact that using a good list in WMH guarantees you nothing because if you use it wrong, you'll get crushed by someone running suboptimal choices.
I really really hate to say it, but this does put 40k in a better light for me, although I'm still unlikely to play it because of the price and GW's general attitude towards the game. But the next time I start to think about it (probably in a week or two lol) it will be a harder fought battle before the 40k idea gets shelved again.
No. HelloKitty. Although I actually agree with him/her/it. 40k is great when played in a club environment where everything is laid back, poor rules be damned. It's just when you try to play it in pickup game format that it especially breaks down.
No. HelloKitty. Although I actually agree with him/her/it. 40k is great when played in a club environment where everything is laid back, poor rules be damned. It's just when you try to play it in pickup game format that it especially breaks down.
Oh, it's a him.
Yeah, I actually like a lot of what he has to say usually. He's a very good, logical poster that I enjoy following on the site. I can't handle a lot of warseer (Ssimilth, IcedCrow, Yabbadabba are just...oh dear god are they idiotic. They just fuel my vendetta against graphic designers) but there are a couple of very good ones.
Nothing like portnet back in the day though. They had this one guy, Iruga or something, he had an evangelion avatar, and what he would write was just amazing. Completely blew me away. I wish I could hire him in my department, he'd go far as a scientist.
@Akiasura -- I was giving a flavor of this and other threads, not pointing you out, so please don't take it personally.
Anyways: I have clarified that artillery in WMH is not remotely comparable to artillery in 40 in terms of size, scale, purpose, or any other measurable metric.
An Aquilla Strongpoint (it any other of many fortifications with giant guns) can table an entire WMH size force in one gak. It is a massive model on which you can place many other models to operate it, and to provide protection. I mean, it us a $130 model.
There are nit GIANT size units in WMH asi I clarified and distinguished. In both games there are infantry, medium size (warjack/dreadnought) and large size (imperial knight/colossal) models. ON TOP OF THAT there are playable models significantly larger in 40k. There is nothing close to the size of a Revenant Titan (twice the height of an Imperial Knight or Colossal) or with anywhere close to the bulk of s Baneblade.
So no, I don't retract anything, including my contention that troop carriers, aerial units and fortifications (with and without artillery) are s critical part of a war game on the scale if 40k, for which WMH does not have equivalents.
I am nit saying that 40k is a superior game, or that what pro-WMH people say have no merit. I'm saying that if the things above are what you like, WMH will not satisfy your needs.
In addition I have repeatedly said that if you are a model collector and like to play those models, 40k is a better environment, because there are a vastly larger number of playable models, and they are configurable to boot. WMH would do nothing to satisfy my modeling aspect of the hobby because I already own virtually every WMH model that I want to own, and have no reason to buy multiples of the same unit, unlike 40k where neither is true. If you add 50 or more models to your collection a month (I buy 50-100 and paint 20 or so), you run out if stuff in WMH very quickly. Plus, I have a desire to play more than less than 1% of my collection per game.
I have also said over and over that computer games fill my desire fir fast competitive games with total strangers better, because they intrinsically remove unfairness in unit availability and provide matchmaking so that I'm not playing games against someone I will always win or lose against, neither of which is fun.
I do not mean to push 40k onto anyone, but merely to point out factual differences and mg personal play preferences. WMH dies not need as much variety as 40k in terms of physics, buyable and configurable units to be s good game. However, it may not be as good a game for some people, whether ir not they are competitive.
Talys wrote: @Akiasura -- I was giving a flavor of this and other threads, not pointing you out, so please don't take it personally.
It seems like you were strawmanning, since the 40k guy comes off very reasonable and the WMH guy comes off as a dick, and not a single person has mentioned some of the things you claimed (keep in mind, you have morgoth on your side) but fine. I didn't take it personally, I was responding to your points directly.
Anyways: I have clarified that artillery in WMH is not remotely comparable to artillery in 40 in terms of size, scale, purpose, or any other measurable metric.
Both provide similar purpose/function. 40k is a sci fi game, so I would expect things to get bigger, but to claim no measurable metric is just blatantly false.
An Aquilla Strongpoint (it any other of many fortifications with giant guns) can table an entire WMH size force in one gak. It is a massive model on which you can place many other models to operate it, and to provide protection. I mean, it us a $130 model.
True, if you like terrain than 40k is really the only game for you. WMH tables tend to be a little barren, and although they have cool scenarios (like a game where the map floods) they tend not to use forts and such. I think this has to do with the settings being different, but a fact is a fact.
There are nit GIANT size units in WMH asi I clarified and distinguished. In both games there are infantry, medium size (warjack/dreadnought) and large size (imperial knight/colossal) models. ON TOP OF THAT there are playable models significantly larger in 40k. There is nothing close to the size of a Revenant Titan (twice the height of an Imperial Knight or Colossal) or with anywhere close to the bulk of s Baneblade.
I would argue about the term playable, since in standard games titans seem to be a dirty word on this forum and many others, while colossals are not. Your original example didn't include height requirements for giant, but if you want to move the goal posts that is fine.
So no, I don't retract anything, including my contention that troop carriers, aerial units and fortifications (with and without artillery) are s critical part of a war game on the scale if 40k, for which WMH does not have equivalents.
So fantasy is a terrible game? It doesn't have any of those things (it has flyers that work remarkably like WMH) but it is on the scale of 40k. My ogre army is not, but my dwarf army is larger than anything outside of the largest hordes. I would argue skaven outnumbers anything you can possibly field in either game, and manages to avoid having any of the things you mentioned.
I am nit saying that 40k is a superior game, or that what pro-WMH people say have no merit. I'm saying that if the things above are what you like, WMH will not satisfy your needs.
No one is arguing that 40k has some advantages, my argument is that some of the things you claim are flat out wrong. You are free to disagree. I do not intend to drive to your house, hold your wife captive with a loaded revolver, and demand you destroy anything GW and only buy PP models. I own a massive collection of GW compared to PP myself, but some things you claim are factually incorrect, and I enjoy a good argument while waiting for students to complain about their grades.
In addition I have repeatedly said that if you are a model collector and like to play those models, 40k is a better environment, because there are a vastly larger number of playable models, and they are configurable to boot. WMH would do nothing to satisfy my modeling aspect of the hobby because I already own virtually every WMH model that I want to own, and have no reason to buy multiples of the same unit, unlike 40k where neither is true. If you add 50 or more models to your collection a month (I buy 50-100 and paint 20 or so), you run out if stuff in WMH very quickly. Plus, I have a desire to play more than less than 1% of my collection per game.
I would say I play less than 10% of my GW models for any faction given how new codexes invalidate old units and most of the units in a dex are pretty terrible. I use all of my WMH collection in at least one list, and own a lot of minions guys as well. If your goal is to spend money and collect huge amounts of models, than yes, 40k is for you. Buying 50-100 models a month is 250-500 a month it seems, which seems...excessive....even at my pay grade, but if that is where you are at GW is for you. It's practically in their mission statement.
I have also said over and over that computer games fill my desire fir fast competitive games with total strangers better, because they intrinsically remove unfairness in unit availability and provide matchmaking so that I'm not playing games against someone I will always win or lose against, neither of which is fun.
What you like to do doesn't invalidate the concept that WMH is overall a better game (GW has better models though). I don't enjoy RTS games because they are click fests, and games like civilization take days and are horribly imbalanced. I used to do competitive fighting games and I was sponsored as an FPS player at one point when I was younger, but table top remains my favorite.
I do not mean to push 40k onto anyone, but merely to point out factual differences and mg personal play preferences. WMH dies not need as much variety as 40k in terms of physics, buyable and configurable units to be s good game. However, it may not be as good a game for some people, whether ir not they are competitive.
When people in this thread say WMH is a better game, they mean in terms of being a workable set of rules and models. They don't mean that the models are better, or anything else in that area. I can argue your differences are not factual (what is the factual definition of giant in a wargame? Why don't flyers count as flyers? Why does the bigger amount of special rules and unit types in WMH not count?) but your personal play preferences are your own. I do play both remember. I play WMH when I want a good game between strangers and to make new friends at a comic book store (or to crush a student). I play 40k with friends I've had for a long time because we all own huge collections and I love trash talking, but it's a much simpler, and worse, game. But damn does that table look nice.
WayneTheGame wrote: I take it back. There's a somewhat large thread on the PP General Discussion forums about how in the next book, Man o War should get a buff what with them being an iconic unit that's also included in the 2 player starter box. A lot of back and forth about how things can be balanced at the casual level but not competitive, and how PP has never actually stated that something should be good in both environments, so that it shouldn't be, along with the "They're fine you're just using it wrong" approach and everything in between.
The more I think about it, there are more similarities between the games than it appears. I still dislike GW's general price gouging strategy while giving you less, but really it's different flavors of the same thing when you boil down to it. There's a guy on Warseer who keeps saying how in his group people use subpar 40k units and do well (he specifically mentions Warp Talons and Mutilators), and speaking from experience I can attest to the fact that using a good list in WMH guarantees you nothing because if you use it wrong, you'll get crushed by someone running suboptimal choices.
I really really hate to say it, but this does put 40k in a better light for me, although I'm still unlikely to play it because of the price and GW's general attitude towards the game. But the next time I start to think about it (probably in a week or two lol) it will be a harder fought battle before the 40k idea gets shelved again.
There are lots of threads that crop up here and there making a parallel between the direction that PP has taken and the direction that GW took in its seemingly distant past, and some of those parallels are definitely true. I still contend that if PP wants to grow, it will have to find a way to sell more models and more books to people. As someone pointed out, this could be new IP, but it has to be in a way where someone doesn't choose between WMH and NewGame; since there is a finite pool of players, and diminishing returns to horizontal growth (ie spending resources to win players), at some point, they have to try to sell more stuff to their playerbase.
For GW that meant unit size creep (in RT days, it was mostly infantry and a few bikes and small tanks... look at it now). Who knows what it means for PP. But model size creep, unit power creep, and unit count creep are, at the end of the day, what turns straightforward rules (3e WH40k for example) into a complicated encyclopedia (6e 40k for example). At some point, the company has to try to fix it (7e), and it may take a while to achieve a new equilibrium, if that's even possible.
I have no illusions that GW's first priority is their pocketbook. I don't think they are good corporate citizens. But then again, I buy stuff made by Proctor & Gamble and Monsanto too, when there are clearly alternatives by better corporate citizens. I don't particularly reward good corporate citizens or companies that I like by buying their product. I spend my money on companies that make things I like whether I like their vision or practices or not.
I don't think Games Workshop hates their own game or that they're totally incompetent (I think, the game does generally get better and richer). Excluding the management end of it, the creative side mostly just tries to sculpt new models per some type of release calendar, and then a group of people try to figure out how to work it into a game context, in a hodgepodge, relatively unplanned or unstructured way. At some point, someone goes, "oops" and tries to fix it. I have no proof of this -- it's just how it feels to me. This is different from a computer game, for example, where there are major revisions where everything gets reset every now and then (new major version), and in between, there are expansions/DLCs that are carefully planned (and not every week, lol).
If I were to describe the differences between the two games succinctly, Warmachine is a better game, 40k is a better hobby.
Warmachine has better-balanced range (internal and external, no factions are better than others and there are maybe one or two unplayable models per faction) and they don't have 40k's release schedule problem since they give everyone new toys at the same time. They write much tighter rules, you can't argue that a grey area in the Warmachine rules could be interpreted different ways, since the rules are clear and consistent enough that there is an answer in your rulebook. These make it much, much easier to play a pick-up game with someone you've never met; you don't end up playing a casual list against a munchkin list and losing before deployment, and you don't end up getting in arguments about different interpretations of the rules. Warmachine is also much more of a skill game; you can't automatically hit the other guy with all your stuff every turn, you have to manoeuvre to take advantage of your army.
Warhammer has vastly better models; multi-pose customizable models with variable equipment and decorations let you make your army your own in a way that's difficult in Warmachine. Warhammer encourages conversions; if it's the right size and has the right gun you can use pretty much anything, I've never seen proxies used in Warmachine. The lore in Warhammer is bigger, there's more to the universe and they encourage you to create your own characters where in Warmachine it's all about the preexisting characters. Warhammer is more flexible, you may not have a much wider variety of different unit types but the simplicity of the rules/model interaction makes it easier to come up with house rules and make your own scenarios.
They're both great games in their own right, but which one is better for you is dependent on how you want to play.
First, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy playing on the same table as you, whether it's 40k or WMH. I don't disagree with you on a whole bunch of stuff, and we argue over a lot of semantics. I have to get to work, so I'll keep it short.
I hope you see the difference between these two units:
This is what I meant between a support unit that provides heavy weapon type artillery, and heavy artillery. Originally, I only brought it up because Peregrine pointed out that 40k had nothing above light artillery -- and that's a key component of the entire Apocalypse setting, plus the two types go into different slots on a force org chart (heavy support vs fortification).
Fantasy is not a terrible game at all. I actually have a WHFB wood elves army, too (mostly because I love the models, lol). Transports are actually possible in Fantasy -- for example, a giant elephant with an armored platform, a flying carpet, a dirigible, a dragon, et cetera.
It's also not terrible that WMH doesn't have transports. I'm just saying that it doesn't (as a fact), not making a judgment on whether or not such a thing has any place in WMH or if it would encourage me to play more WMH.
I also play a tiny fraction of what I in 40k, but it's a lot more than what when I play WMH.
My monthly hobby budget is pretty high, and I admit that I unnecessarily buy things that are just cool. But if you are a big 40k fan, you buy something if you like it, because next year it will either be OOP or more expensive. Also, on boxing week and Black Friday sales, where I can get up to 40%-50% off, I go totally nuts, in the most epic of ways.
In fairness, I buy everything PP makes that I find aesthetically pleasing, too. And whatever else my FLGS brings in that is a cool SciFi or Fantasy model -- it is not at all limited to Games Workshop stuff; it's just that GW produces more models / new releases than other companies.
I would point out that I spend MUCH more annually on golf, eating out, or skiing, just to pick 3 things at random that I do that are entertainment. I mean, a good golf club costs more than hundreds of models (well, dozens at least); three days at a ski resort costs as much as I spend in three months on 40k, and in 1 dinner for two at a very mediocre restaurant costs more than a 40k battleforce (heck, a good bottle of wine at a restaurant costs more than a 40k battleforce). My wife's Christmas gift is way more than I'll spend on hobby for a year. I'm not saying that 40k is cheap; rather that I accept that all forms of luxury entertainment is expensive.
I won't argue with you at all that WMH works better in a PUG environment for many reasons. In my opinion, transportability of models and setup time is high up there. Usually, WMH players need 1-2 carrying cases; regular 40k players either have lots of boxes or have display cases at FLGS where they can store their armies, because it's impractical to move some of the big complicated models (or too much work to magnetize everything). It's nice that someone owns 6 Riptides, 6 Wave Serpents, or 6 Imperial Knights, but carrying them from place to place without breaking them is not fun.
Toofast wrote: Has anyone else noticed that the people defending 40k, lauding its balance and bad mouthing WMH have never even played WMH? Also, they're quick to label people with valid, well thought out criticisms as "haters". I guess straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are all the ammo you have when you're wholly ignorant of one side of the debate.
The exact same is true of some warmachine players. Also for having no knowledge of 40k and bashing it.
Instead of attacking the person, go after the info and clarify. Both sides are guilty of needing to focus on this.
Regardless, there is currently no cost comparison between 40k and warmachine, a 2k 40k army is about the same as a 50 point warmachine army. There is also relatively the same time it takes to play each game.
Now, why did I leave warmachine? It's a mediocre game with tight rules. That's it. I'd rather play a real skirmish game like infinity and keep my wars/battles with 40k. Also warmachine is far too combo reliant.
My vision of what warmachine should be is warjacks wacking each other, possibly destroying key systems, infantry doing their thing, warcasters trying to control the favor of the battle, solos providing fire-fighting and to have the game feel like a quick brawl. Instead, it's lots of positioning and everything hinging on one turn, or you losing before the match starts due to your army composition and the opponents (max stealth vs shooting, slow melee vs fast melee, ect). Also when your warcaster dies the game is over, even of the mission isn't to kill it, because warcaster destruction shuts down warjacks and free's beasts.
Warmachine should have stayed small, instead it wants to be big like 40k and this will prove to be it's undoing.
Here's why I say WMH has better rules. We'll go with some objective things so I don't get accused of having the wrong opinion again.
Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.
Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.
Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.
Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.
Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app
These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH. You might prefer 40k for subjective reasons which I have no problem with. However, I have yet to see 1 objective way that 40k rules are superior. Most arguments boil down to they're better because you can use flyers and titans.
The issues that you mention are not real problems that most people who actually play the game spend much time worrying about, much less arguing over.
That's not to say that you're wrong at all: 40k is a universe about a constant stream of new models, to which a constant stream of new rules are tacked on. If this isn't your thing, you probably won't like 40k.
The only thing that you mention that isn't quite right is the price of rules. The core rules for 40k are almost free in my gaming region, because so many people have bought so many copies of deathstorm/stormclaw. However, most people don't just buy 1 codex, they buy a lot of them. Also, be fair: most people who like WMH don't just use cards; they buy at least one faction book, if not more.
Neither game is really cheap to get into or play, but 40k is more expensive as a hobby. In either case, the cost of the rules pales in comparison to what you'll spend on models and modelling supplies.
One objective fact you didn't mention is that they are, at their core, quite different games. Sure, both games have painted models that fight each other on a table, but the dissimilarities are greater than what they have in common.
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that perfectly written, perfectly balanced rules by the perfect company are unhelpful if it isn't the type of fame you want to play.
These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.
I don't think anyone is accusing you of having the wrong opinion, just a misguided one. If those are all objective reasons, then the term objective changed when I wasn't looking.
If you like warmachine, thats ok. If you don't, that's ok. Same with 40k. At least try to have concrete reasons rather than hand picking ones that help your cause. No game is perfect, that's because perfect isn't a game.
If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.
To be fair, there are more players who start 40k, and move on to other games like WMH, than start WMH and move on to 40k. Therefore, there is more reason for folks to still be interested in posting on a 40k board. Whatever else, for a lot of people, 40k is their first game, and there is always a sense of attachment, fondness and nostalgia. I can’t speak for anyone else (though I doubt my thoughts on the matter are unique) when I say this, but I still like to keep tabs on 40k, and know what’s going on. As an Irishman living abroad, to me it’s no different to keeping tabs on the news (both local and regional) from the old country. Remember as well, there isn’t a requirement to ‘play the game’ in order to post on the 40k boards. Some people post out of interest in the fluff, interest in the hobby, or, as in my case, a general interest in the regular goings on.
its not just “pro-WMH folks” who critically comment on 40k. I’m pretty certain a few members of the feared and infamous ‘riders of the GWpocalypse’ such as Azreal, Peregrine and others don’t even play WMH. Regardless, they still raise a lot of valid points with regard to 40k’s issues. Others such as Wayne and Toofast, whilst they play/enjoy WMH, they still seem to maintain an equal amount of interest in 40k and are actually quite vocal in their criticisms of WMH – toofast for model quality/missing pieces (and my experiences differ) and Wayne for fluff preferences and the lack of immersion he finds in WMH. Surprisingly, though my experiences difference from Toofast’s in terms of model quality/missing pieces (never had an issue) and Wayne’s in terms of fluff/immersion (I love the IKRPG’s fluff and setting), I am also quite happy to be critical of PP if/when they screw up, or if I see legitimate issues. Open up a “do you have any issues with PP” thread and I’ll have my say.
Regarding the comment about critically commenting on 40k to improve on it, surely it makes sense to compare its functions with how other companies (not just PP, but Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Hawk Wargames, the Bolt Action guys, the Flames of War guys etc) do things. And for all the issues WMH has, Privateer Press do a lot right. They are brilliant at actively supporting the community, with frequent and open communications, and very few complain about the balance they aim for in their games. They are among the movers and shakers in the industry right now for a reason.
Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.
I've played both too. But robots the size of cities and mobile transport bigger than a horse and cart (whilst cool) are not strictly necessary, nor entirely fitting for a fantasy setting. I made this point before - It’s an equivalent to Fantasy and it compares well there. And please don’t fall back on the ‘steampunk’ argument – aside from one faction wearing goggles and the occasional nod, WMH isn’t really a steampunk game – a lot of the steampunk tropes and features don’t really exist in WMH, and PP themselves don’t use the term, preferring ‘full metal fantasy’, which I feel does a better job at evoking a traditional fantasy setting undergoing an industrial revolution. (amusingly enough, the iron kingdoms conform a lot better to a ‘romantic fantasy’ setting/trope than steampunk)
Regardless, there was an argument earlier which went along the lines of ‘40k has more variety, because it has more categories of stuff; even its infantry can be split up into HQs, heavy support, elite, fast attack etc”.
You’ve said it. Morgoth said it. And I’m not entirely sold on ‘more categories = more variety’ as an argument. I find the ‘more categories’ can be more misleading that anything else. 40k has very basic mechanics on which the game is built, within which there is little scope for variation. Take the ‘Infantry move 6” ‘ as a constant for example. All infantry. Regardless of race. Well, fine. But then to have ‘different’ infantry move differently, you need to artificially bloat the system. Fleet for faster infantry (elder, tyranids back in the day for example). Bikes (and jetbike exceptions). Jump packs (and jet pack exceptions). Cavalry. Infantry. And exceptions/special cases. And exceptions/special cases to the exceptions/special cases. Etcetera. Bloat. And unneccessary bloat at that*. Does it ‘add to the game’ more than it ‘adds bloat to the game/rules’? And is there a better/alternative way of adding to the game, without adding bloat? PP approach this in a different way, and focus less on categories and more on statlines and special rules/feats/abilities. Rather than a new artificial category of ’infantry type’ to separate things out, and make things different, they use a Spd value of 7 or 8 and add in different special rules for flavour. Variety is still there. Or are Kayazy eliminators the same as Iron Fangs? Regardless, the end result is still functionally different units and a valid state of diversity, irrespective of artificiall constructed or defined ‘classes’ of infantrty.
Regarding the splitting on ‘infantry into types’ as a further argument of variety, whilst WMH doesn’t have the categories, but it does have units that conform to a lot of the tropes/niches mentioned (HQ, Elite, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Troops etc). As mentioned, kayazy eliminators are quite different in terms of application from Iron Fangs, even if they’re both technically ‘infantry’. Variety exists.
40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
Strictly speaking though, Its not silly. It’s a valid argument that things like artillery (which should be 10 miles behind the front line) and aircraft have no place, or are very poorly implemented for the scale that they are being used for. 40k never used to have flyers, and it wasn’t a worse game for the lack of it.
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
'Practical variety' sold me on WMH. Different strokes, I suppose. The lack of it was one of the main reasons that ultimately drove me from actively playing 40k. And on a point of order, no one has really said 'most of the models suck'.
Arguably though, ‘Paper’ variety versus ‘real’ variety is a thing
With the caveat that all the variety you seem to like/want can be attained, but really, it requires a huge investment of time, and energy, the ‘right kind’ of people, and arguably, a lot of compromises, gentleman’s agreements, self-policing, self-restraint, and in some cases social pressure (ie bullying) in order to ‘force’ the meta. Fair play if it’s what you want, but for me, that is a massive investment for little gain – the investment/gain ratio is just too high for it to be worthwhile as a matter of course. I've never really had the environment or time/space resources available to accommodate what's needed in order to do what you do. Slightly jealous by the way!
Amusingly enough though, I would play 40k, with the ‘right kind’ of people. For what it's worth, I think you'd probably be one of them. For all our differences, you seem an enjoyable guy to play a game against.
For me though, since the rules for 40k are so clunky and unwieldy, I’d treat it as an opportunity to be creative, use my own homebrew, and pretty much ignore the points/stats and mechanics GW give/offer and instead try and design my/our own mechanics that fit better for us. But it won’t be 40k though…
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
Arguably, liking the rules (or at least, tolerating, or having no issues actually ‘using’ them) and pointing out inconsistencies, loose, woolly writing, vague terminology and other issue are not mutually exclusive. I’d argue a lot of GWs rules are overly clunky and unwieldy, and better systems have evolved in the thirty years since 40k was designed.
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
Where was this said? Source. Being honest, Peregrine is about the only person I’ve seen who goes on about the ancient/flawed IGOUGO mechanics, so thanks for writing strawmen, putting words in my mouth, and trying to tar everyone with the same brush?
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.
Source for that WMH comment? You’re right though - WMH isn’t a mass battle game, and in its standard form is less than ideal for mass games. Then again, there is the unbound format that exists to wield massive armies costing hundreds of points. Would that scratch the ‘lets do something epic’ itch, I wonder? Multiple colossals stomping around, squadrons of battle engines, and phalanxes of Iron fangs? Could be fun. Not ideal. But I would say that I wouldn’t use it for that as a first thought. Neither would I use 40k. There are better mass battle games. Epic 40k comes to mind as a brilliant game. Dropzone is fun. Flames of War is great for having hundreds of models on the board. 40k is functional (as is WMH to a lesser extent), and can work, but IMO isn’t best suited for it.
*And lets be clear, PP is guilty of adding bloat too. Mark 1 was ridiculous in the end. Mark2 needed to happen, and as much as the game is lean, mean, and fighting fit, its been putting on a bit of bulk over the last four years, and I for one, along with others I am sure, feel a Mark2:remix is necessary sooner rather than later to tidy things up a bit.
These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.
I don't think anyone is accusing you of having the wrong opinion, just a misguided one. If those are all objective reasons, then the term objective changed when I wasn't looking.
If you like warmachine, thats ok. If you don't, that's ok. Same with 40k. At least try to have concrete reasons rather than hand picking ones that help your cause. No game is perfect, that's because perfect isn't a game.
So you're saying good balance, clarity, consistency, support from the company and affordable price are subjective? They seem pretty objective to me. I wasn't hand picking reasons, I gave a pretty wide variety of reasons and examples. How do you objectively compare rule sets if not based on those criteria? Anything else can be a matter of preference. A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points, they would rather dismiss them as subjective opinions and give the age old argument that no game is perfect. I never said WMH was perfect. Please, show me where I said that. Nobody is arguing for perfect balance, perfect rules or an overall perfect game. What we want from 40k is BETTER balance/rules/game. Not only would that not be impossible, it wouldn't even be that difficult if the company actually gave a feth about it.
The issues that you mention are not real problems that most people who actually play the game spend much time worrying about, much less arguing over.
Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.
That's not to say that you're wrong at all: 40k is a universe about a constant stream of new models, to which a constant stream of new rules are tacked on. If this isn't your thing, you probably won't like 40k.
The only thing that you mention that isn't quite right is the price of rules. The core rules for 40k are almost free in my gaming region, because so many people have bought so many copies of deathstorm/stormclaw. However, most people don't just buy 1 codex, they buy a lot of them. Also, be fair: most people who like WMH don't just use cards; they buy at least one faction book, if not more.
It's unrealistic of us to present gaming groups. If we do, WMH is free because my store allows people to borrow models from the display case and use them in a game, and instantly wins the price battle. WMH is much cheaper than 40k in a pickup game at what is the accepted size. Even starting up, it's cheaper.
Neither game is really cheap to get into or play, but 40k is more expensive as a hobby. In either case, the cost of the rules pales in comparison to what you'll spend on models and modelling supplies.
True. Many hobbies are cheaper. You could always play necromunda for example.
One objective fact you didn't mention is that they are, at their core, quite different games. Sure, both games have painted models that fight each other on a table, but the dissimilarities are greater than what they have in common.
Eh, ish. I couldn't explain the difference easily to someone who isn't familar with the rules, but I get what you are saying here.
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that perfectly written, perfectly balanced rules by the perfect company are unhelpful if it isn't the type of fame you want to play.
@ Deadnight, I was the source for the WMH comment about it being for gamers. I don't remember where, but I did indeed say it. I stand by it.
@ juraigamer, the definition of objective hasn't changed. I am not sure you know it though.
@ Talys, I also wouldn't mind playing a game against you. I have friends who make it difficult to play 40k with, but are a lot of fun in Necromunda, Gorkamorka, WMH, and a bunch of other games. They just don't accept house rules very well, and hate self handicapping to any large extent (Necromunda requires very little to be playable, god I love that game).
@Deadnight -- dunno where you got that I directed any of that to you. The 40k/WMH banter was made as snark -- I think most outside observers would agree that the arguments are very circular. I wasn't even trying to be pro-40k.
By the way my comment about most 40k models sucking was not the physical model, but rather the game unit. In other words, many people would argue that a terminator with an assault cannon or cyclone is a model, but not with playing.
Since you obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your post, I would love to reply properly, but I can't as real life takes precedence atm
I completely agree with the sentiment that 40k is a lot easier to love with the right people to play it with. That did not come overnight though as I started playing in Rogue Trader.
Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.
Point of order, the Witch Coven's feat does not grant stealth (which only makes ranged attacks from over 5" auto miss) it reduces models LOS in their control area to 5". Huge difference there.
Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.
Point of order, the Witch Coven's feat does not grant stealth (which only makes ranged attacks from over 5" auto miss) it reduces models LOS in their control area to 5". Huge difference there.
Ah, thank you. I think that was the only game I've ever had versus Witch Coven...he quickly bought Gaspy2 and the games have been a lot harder ever since.
Toofast wrote: A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points
Well clearly you're asking for a game from the imaginations of dreamers, because such a thing will never exist.
But, to be fair, lets go ahead and refute those points:
Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.
Warmachine doesn't have balance, it has the perceived notion of balance. If everyone is running the best warcaster possible, with the best units, that's not the same. Warmachine has a very small pool of useful units that do not require massive synergies. You cannot argue that Warmachine has balance when you can instantly lose without playing the game, IE a shooting force vs a fast full stealth melee/shooting army. I see players win with blood angels, dark angels, sisters of battle, tyranids, and any other "bad" army. Please cite your win rate sources, as they are subject to tournament house rules which make certain armies better, such as eldar and knights.
Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.
If you simply open the eldar codex to page 67, it states to treat the wave serpent as a hull mounted weapon. Hull mounted weapons in the BRB have a 45 degree firing arc. Please do not cite internet arguments as a valid "objective" reason.
Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.
Refer to the more specific entry on the weapon page and not the reference sheet, or call GW's rules hotline for a quick fix. You can even email them.
Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.
Have a rules argument? Call the GW hotline or email them, or ask someone respected when it comes to the rules at your FLGS. Some people just like to argue after all. These people tend to be lawyers. Or donkey-caves. Or both.
Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app
$37 (I assume USD) plus the price of a smart phone for rules and a single faction? Since when was having a smart phone required for warmachine? I won't argue the prices of books are expensive, but then again they are hardback and were $33 USD for a softcover codex and $60 for the older massive BRB. Instead we should be arguing that digital books should cost less than physical ones.
These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.
As stated before and in this post, I hearty disagree with your opinion and request you do more research on the subject matter before returning to the podium.
1. Such a thing does exist. WMH and many other games are able to accomplish it.
2. There really isn't a best war caster or best units. I follow menoth closely and people have placed in the top 3 of large tournaments with 6 or 7 different casters, 10-12 different war jacks and every unit other than cinerators appearing in those lists.
3. I was talking about the serpent shield. In that case it would be about a 240 firing arc because it can be fired from any point on the hull which wraps 3/4 of the way around the model. There is no clear answer on this which is why if you go to 6 different tournaments, you will see 6 different diagrams of the accepted firing arc of a serpent shield. Please tell me which unit in WMH has this type of issue.
4. That was just one example. What is the strength of a power fist on a TWC? Do you apply the +1 S bonus before you double it for the power fist or after? I could list things like this for days and if you talk to 2 different people on the rules hot line you will get 2 different answers.
5. I don't add the price of a smart phone because it's 2014 and you can get them for free when you sign a contract. Everyone I know spending $500-1000 on an army has a smart phone already. $37 doesn't get you rules for a single faction, it gets you the full game rules and the rules for a single faction. That's $21 less than just the 40k core rule and $13 less than a codex for a single army. Yes, the digital rules should be cheaper. That's why it's cool that PP gives you the faction rules in electronic format for $7 as opposed to $33 for the physical book. GW seems to think pixels cost as much to produce as physical rulebooks and charges the same amount no matter which format you purchase the rules in.
I don't think I need to do any more research. I've been playing 40k since 6th grade and playing both WMH and 40k weekly for about the past year. I think people need to stop moving goal posts and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in 40k.
Toofast wrote: A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points
Well clearly you're asking for a game from the imaginations of dreamers, because such a thing will never exist.
Affordable might be debatable but the rest is not
But, to be fair, lets go ahead and refute those points:
Yes, let's.
Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.
Warmachine doesn't have balance, it has the perceived notion of balance. If everyone is running the best warcaster possible, with the best units, that's not the same. Warmachine has a very small pool of useful units that do not require massive synergies. You cannot argue that Warmachine has balance when you can instantly lose without playing the game, IE a shooting force vs a fast full stealth melee/shooting army. I see players win with blood angels, dark angels, sisters of battle, tyranids, and any other "bad" army. Please cite your win rate sources, as they are subject to tournament house rules which make certain armies better, such as eldar and knights.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?212314-Crunching-some-WTC-results-numbers-and-I-had-a-question For my source. Have fun. Also, Warmachine has a wide pool of very useful units and warcasters. Go through the skorne army list and find 3 units that nobody takes ever. I'll wait. I can make a similar argument in 40k; If I don't take a single anti-tank weapon, and you take all tanks, I will lose. But let's assume each opponent has a functional frontal lobe and not use a slippery slope to win arguments, hmm?
Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.
If you simply open the eldar codex to page 67, it states to treat the wave serpent as a hull mounted weapon. Hull mounted weapons in the BRB have a 45 degree firing arc. Please do not cite internet arguments as a valid "objective" reason.
How many powers can a pysker use per turn? Please cite the source
Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.
Refer to the more specific entry on the weapon page and not the reference sheet, or call GW's rules hotline for a quick fix. You can even email them.
Source that this is how it works?
Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.
Have a rules argument? Call the GW hotline or email them, or ask someone respected when it comes to the rules at your FLGS. Some people just like to argue after all. These people tend to be lawyers. Or donkey-caves. Or both.
Personal attacks are so trendy. You got contradictions in answers from the GW hotline, and someone respected when it comes to rules? So, an appeal to authority?
Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app
$37 (I assume USD) plus the price of a smart phone for rules and a single faction? Since when was having a smart phone required for warmachine? I won't argue the prices of books are expensive, but then again they are hardback and were $33 USD for a softcover codex and $60 for the older massive BRB. Instead we should be arguing that digital books should cost less than physical ones.
Cards don't require an app, so $37. An additional $7 per faction. In what world is this more than $60 for core rules, $50 per army in 40k? And yes, $ usually donates USD.
These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.
As stated before and in this post, I hearty disagree with your opinion and request you do more research on the subject matter before returning to the podium.
That kettle is so black, right Mr. Pot?
edit: I can't spell it seems
Warmachine has more balance than 40k (which arguably has none at all) so it's more balanced as a result. Is it balanced in the 50/50 sense? No, of course not, but virtually nothing is (even Chess is slightly skewed).
I find WMH plays more balanced, but as I've said and others have acknowledged I repeatedly have urges to play 40k again; I ultimately shelve them due to the combination of only being able to play pickup games, a high startup cost and the fact that many of the themed armies I want to do are underpowered due to the aforementioned no balance, but I still have slight interests in the game or else I wouldn't even give it a second thought.
Also @Akiasura could you please use the quote function properly instead of inlining your comments in a different color? It's VERY hard to read.
WayneTheGame wrote: Warmachine has more balance than 40k (which arguably has none at all) so it's more balanced as a result. Is it balanced in the 50/50 sense? No, of course not, but virtually nothing is (even Chess is slightly skewed).
I find WMH plays more balanced, but as I've said and others have acknowledged I repeatedly have urges to play 40k again; I ultimately shelve them due to the combination of only being able to play pickup games, a high startup cost and the fact that many of the themed armies I want to do are underpowered due to the aforementioned no balance, but I still have slight interests in the game or else I wouldn't even give it a second thought.
Also @Akiasura could you please use the quote function properly instead of inlining your comments in a different color? It's VERY hard to read.
Sure, though to be honest I've always thought it easier this way when others do it.
Many PCRTS games are perfectly balanced, because two players can play the same faction and move concurrently. You also have matchmaking, winch is arguably more important than balance. SC2 is a perfect example of excellent balance and good matchmaking, and Hearthstone is an excellent example of an online TCG with great balance. In both games you can instantly find someone of similar skill to play against, and there's no ambiguity in anything. If you achieve high ladder rankings, there is never the implication that you are cheap; rather, people respect your gaming acumen. This is the case even on Hearthstone, where you stack your deck.
I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.
There are also wildly different opinions: some people think the new BA codex and formations are the next FoTM while others think it's mid-tier at best.
3. I was talking about the serpent shield. In that case it would be about a 240 firing arc because it can be fired from any point on the hull which wraps 3/4 of the way around the model. There is no clear answer on this which is why if you go to 6 different tournaments, you will see 6 different diagrams of the accepted firing arc of a serpent shield.
Hey, Toofast, originally, I didn't want to reply to this specific point because at the time I was pretty busy, but also because your point generally has merit. However, in this specific instance, I've not seen people argue about how Serpent Shield works and juraigamer is right, as the rules are pretty clear. I even re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing something (because often, a whole group of gamers can misread the same thing, and not make an issue of ambiguous language). Let me quote:
Serpent Shield
The Wave Serpent's shield protects the bow of the tank - wilst the shields are active, all penetrating hits inflicted against the Wave Serpent's front and side armor are downgraded to glancing hits on a D6 roll of 2+
In its Shooting phase, the Wave Serpent can deactivate its shields to shoot a burst of energy with the following profile (treat this as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward):
(stats)
If this option is used, the Serpent shield is inactive until the start of the following turn.
Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.
Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.
All of his points were valid though. Might not have been presented very friendly (but also not overly unfriendly either. It was hardly an attack). But they were all valid points.
Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.
Wow, I don't even have the words. If anything, thank you for resorting to red rage text and complete nonsense plus attacking me rather than discussing the issues. I will not be taking your bait and look forward to the next interaction were-in I am all but assured victory. If anyone else has some time to spare and would be willing to try talking to this sadly misinformed user, please do.
The only part where I said something vaguely rude was the very last line, and considering what you said before that, it was warranted. But I'll refrain from saying such things if you do.
Other than that, I:
Provided a source you requested.
Posed a common rules question and asked you to resolve it
Asked for a source for a ruling you claimed that I have not heard from. Maybe it's a thing, I don't claim to be a rules expert, but I'd like to hear it if there is such a thing.
Corrected a claim you made that you need a smartphone to use cards. Maybe you misread the person? I then did some math showing I could buy the main rules and factions for less than a single codex.
Then insulted you, which was wrong, because you insulted another user.
I would hardly say your victory at hand however. I wasn't aware asking for sources and refuting your points one line at a time is considered personal attacks or not discussing the issues.
welshhoppo wrote: I thought the rules for hull mounted weapons in 40k was that they can fire as far as they can see.
Good thing the wave serpent has a really obvious shield generator on the front hull.
I'm sure BRB has a diagram for front, hull mounted -- for consistency we use center front of model to measure, but rules are tip of "barrel". Also range is always stated for weapons.
You probably think serpent shield is LOS because its range is 60", which is effectively LOS on almost every spot of every 6x4 table you're likely to fire from. The SS range is one of those amazingly OP things (for a cheap troop transport that you can have with any troop unit).
The diagrams in the rule book are for tanks like the land raider. Serpent shield doesn't have a barrel but the generator is near the center so if it was 45 degrees from there it would actually be close to a 180 arc. Since the shield covers all but the back of the serpent, some tournaments play it as 45 degrees from all points on the hull which is closer to a 240 arc. A diagram in the eldar codex or an FAQ would fix this.
Toofast wrote: The diagrams in the rule book are for tanks like the land raider. Serpent shield doesn't have a barrel but the generator is near the center so if it was 45 degrees from there it would actually be close to a 180 arc. Since the shield covers all but the back of the serpent, some tournaments play it as 45 degrees from all points on the hull which is closer to a 240 arc. A diagram in the eldar codex or an FAQ would fix this.
The codex couldn't be more clear that the shield can be turned off (deactivated) and fired as a front, hull mounted weapon. I know what the model looks like (I own a bunch), but the shields are turned off to fire the weapon. I've never seen a tournament where you could fire it from any nub, or met a person other than on a forum try to call it otherwise.
Also, if you look at the BRB, the hull mounted weapon arc is 45 degrees square to the front of the vehicle, not the directional pointing of the barrel (which you use to measure distance), and the codex says to treat the weaponized serpent shield as a hull-mounted weapon pointing forward (not from any of the shield generator points).
Besides, you have 60", lol! The SS is way too powerful as it is.. the last thing it needs is a all-but-back-facing firing arc hahaha.
I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.
Actually I think the lack of balance in 40k hurts casual players most. A casual player won't tailor his list to a specific power level, he will make alist out of units he likes. Now what happens when a guy who likes gast eldar in transports meets a guy who likes DA terminators on foot?
Anecdotal evidence: there's 2 guys in my group that have recently started playing 40k. They both went for stuff they liked:
Guy A loves Space Wolves, so he bought many Grey Hunters, Bjorn and a few fenrisian wolves to make a battle-forged 750 points army.
Guy B loves Mechanicum and titans. He went for a knight (saw the model and loved it) and Iron Hands (he even bought the mechanucal arms).
Now how do you think a match between these guys goes?
I think that to say there is *no* balance in 40k is really extreme. I would actually argue that between casual players, balance isn't an issue, and among competitive types, they have adjusted because even with 'weaker' factions there are some very good units and combinations.
Actually I think the lack of balance in 40k hurts casual players most. A casual player won't tailor his list to a specific power level, he will make alist out of units he likes. Now what happens when a guy who likes gast eldar in transports meets a guy who likes DA terminators on foot?
Anecdotal evidence: there's 2 guys in my group that have recently started playing 40k. They both went for stuff they liked:
Guy A loves Space Wolves, so he bought many Grey Hunters, Bjorn and a few fenrisian wolves to make a battle-forged 750 points army.
Guy B loves Mechanicum and titans. He went for a knight (saw the model and loved it) and Iron Hands (he even bought the mechanucal arms).
Now how do you think a match between these guys goes?
Bjorn obviously crushed everything in front of him, because space wolves?
To be fair, Warmachine doesn't have OP choices, it has easier and harder ones to play.
Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.
In cryx, my friend started with the Witch Coven, arguably one of the hardest armies to play in the game.
I ran with eMakeda, specifically because I was told she is easy to learn.
Our first 10 games I crushed him. He moved on to Gaspy 2, and crushed me back. Now we can play any warcaster and have a decent win rate against each other, but learning curves for casters are not tied to power.
The opposite is true in 40k. Powerful units are generally much easier to use, resulting in it being possible for a new player to grab a few because he likes them, and just stomp everyone he plays through no fault of his own. How hard is a riptide's "apply special 5 point wargear, launch pie plate to face"? How hard is "spam WS, fire shields from 60" away"? How hard were Heldrakes before the nerf to use?
40k combines power with ease of use in a way that makes it unbearable at times.
Akiasura wrote: Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.
Anybody who claims Haley is hard to play needs to think about what they just said for a bit. I'd honestly say that 75% of what you need to know about playing her is a general overview of how your opponent's list works, so you can tell them tthe worst order to take their turn.
Akiasura wrote: Haley2 is the *best* caster in cygnar, also is really hard to use. Stryker 2 is much easier, even though he's not quite as competitive since he can't deal with as many threats. Both are viable and taken, but for a starter I'd say stick with Stryker2.
Anybody who claims Haley is hard to play needs to think about what they just said for a bit. I'd honestly say that 75% of what you need to know about playing her is a general overview of how your opponent's list works, so you can tell them tthe worst order to take their turn.
Play a relatively frail control caster is a lot harder than playing someone who goes for the attrition win like Siege or Stryker3. Or murdering the enemy warnoun like Caine2 or Stryker2, which, in the start of the game, is the way most people lose.
Knowing how your own list works is already immensely difficult for most new players, given how many special rules and actions there are in warmachine. Knowing how every enemy list works and how to use your own effectively is beyond most new players.
Haley2 also works better in 50pt games, because she generally wants a Stormwall. In a journeyman league (assuming alternate casters allowed), she is terrible and will lose a lot at the start.
So yeah
Bad for new players.
For expert players, one who know their list and most of what each enemy faction can do, she is obviously a strong choice with a lot of options. It's why she gets taken.
I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).
When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.
Instead of the game play differences it's the way the companies treat their customers that is the huge difference.
GW: "The joy is in the purchasing of GW products" (paraphrasing)
PP: "play our game, expect it to be challenging, try your hardest, it's an aggressive game."
GW refuses to communicate with its player base, shutting off from contact outside of local Store managers who are chosen for "attitude" over game knowledge. My local Store manager (Cottmon ave, Philadelphia, PA) was hired without any knowledge about the game. While a nice guy he had never assembled a model or played a game. Poor or infrequent FaQ's and so forth.
PP, despite being a "competitive" game manages to communicate with its players. It regularly podcasts upcoming releases, tease new models. Developers and sculptures post on the FB faction pages. It manages a forum that is not a complete sewer .
@Uncle Fester - The GW business model is to produce models, for people who want to collect them, and perhaps play them. The principle business is the production of models for those who want to build, model, and collect them, though. They very clearly say so -- it's not like they pretend to be something else.
In this, they excel. They make a lot of models, and the cost per model, relative to other companies that make scifi models, and relative in quality and aesthetic, is good.
They have a game context, which can be lots of fun, but in my opinion, it's a lot more fun for model collectors, than for people who just want to spend a bit of money and play a game.
On the other hand, PP isn't a great company for people who want to be model collectors. I could actually (easily) outpaint their new model releases, and there is really no modelling to speak of. The support for kitbashing, bits, and posing is nonexistent. This isn't to say that their models aren't good (I own more PP models than most people who I meet who play WMH); it's just that **in my opinion** GW models are of a wider breadth and depth and flexibility. And personally, I like straight scifi better than steampunk.
PP wants to focus on a small model count game, and does so relatively well.
I don't fault either company for being what they say they are.
For a long time, I used to feel GW had gotten really expensive. When I look back on it though, and when I look at today's prices, actually, model-wise, they are just middle-of-the pack for price, and actually what I should have said is that when I was a teenager, 40k was really cheap. But it's a different world, so c'est la vie.
Personally, every interaction I've had with GW by email or telephone has been excellent. They've bent over backwards to help me, unexpectedly so -- for instance, explaining dry compounds when they came out, and I described a problem I had with Necron Compound. The email back-and-forth was thorough, competent, and personal.
GW "feels" like a much bigger company to me; it has a corporate feel to it, while PP has more of a hobbyist feel. I don't really mind either, to be honest. For instance, I like supporting the little guy, I really do. But I hate PP's website, which looks like it was made by some kid on evenings after school. Some kid without much web design skills, too. It runs like dog poo on my phone, and it's not easy at a store for me to do a quick lookup to see if a model at the store is a good deal (by comparing discounted price to MSRP). And the model pictures on the website are awful (when you compare it to GW).
My local GW store guy has fair knowledge of the game and the hobby, but frankly, I think he's a bit full of it and gives people bad advice. Again, I think that's ok, because at my favorite FLGS, I've gotten and heard so much bad advice that it's not funny.
When you say that GW refuses to communicate with its player base, that's not entirely true. They're happy to communicate by phone and email. They just don't have an official forum. While I wouldn't mind one, I do see the pitfalls -- Blizzard (a company that makes products that I really like) has forums, and most of it is filled with boundless negativity, when in fact, the games people b*tch about are pretty fun.
GW also announces upcoming releases and there are some unofficial sources (like Lords of War) that are extremely accurate for rumors (as in batting 100%). Hell, most issues of White Dwarf isn't really much more than a product announcement anymore (though the latest, #47 was pretty awesome). Yes, they charge $5 for it, but it's not you have to buy it.
Also, GW provides *by far* the best free painting/modelling videos (via its YouTube channel). They are of a professional quality, and really, better than most paid product (including, often, their own).
It's all in what you want out of a game, I guess. Personally, I'm pretty cynical -- 99% of the companies I like stuff from don't really care about me as an individual, so it's more important to me that I like their product. I just lump it together with Microsoft, Apple, HP, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, BioWare, Bethesda, Infiniti, Chevrolet, Ikea, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, Pizza Hut..... the list would never end. But see, I don't care if Pizza Hut cares about me, as long as they can make a good pizza and deliver it on time. I don't care if the guys Bethesda are wonderful people or jerks, as long as the next Elder Scrolls is fun.
I know it's cynical, and it wasn't always so... like I say, world we live in.
I'll throw my full on opinion in here as someone who has played both games. I honestly prefer 40k simply because of the mindset the games are designed in.
The group I play with and myself don't think "forging a narrative" is some kind of bad joke. Our armies have back-stories that we have developed over years of games and campaign events. We are also fans of the model and hobby aspect of 40k and will convert our models based on what they have done in various games.
Let me make this clear, Warmachine is by far the better designed game from a game-play standpoint, and I do enjoy playing it sometimes, but it is so incredibly limited and designed in the "competitive tournament game" mindset that I just can't support it as a favorite game. Ever since MKII rules dropped there has been pretty much 0 support for campaigns, cool storyline scenarios, or really anything that is not yet another 50 point Steamroller game. I can't count how many times I have surprised Warmachine players by showing them that there are basic rules for playing campaigns in the core rulebook, because nobody uses them. Also the converting/custom model side of the game is pretty much nonexistent because everybody has to be 100% sure that it is impossible to mistake the model for anything else, and the game is so reliant on 100% perfect to the millimeter positioning that any terrain other than colored squares of felt does not allow the game to be played as designed.
So, in my frank opinion (and only my opinion), Warmachine is the better game, but I just don't enjoy playing it as much as the difference in quality between the rules should indicate in a vacuum.
Talys wrote: @Uncle Fester - The GW business model is to produce models, for people who want to collect them, and perhaps play them. The principle business is the production of models for those who want to build, model, and collect them, though. They very clearly say so -- it's not like they pretend to be something else.
In this, they excel. They make a lot of models, and the cost per model, relative to other companies that make scifi models, and relative in quality and aesthetic, is good.
They have a game context, which can be lots of fun, but in my opinion, it's a lot more fun for model collectors, than for people who just want to spend a bit of money and play a game.
On the other hand, PP isn't a great company for people who want to be model collectors. I could actually (easily) outpaint their new model releases, and there is really no modelling to speak of. The support for kitbashing, bits, and posing is nonexistent. This isn't to say that their models aren't good (I own more PP models than most people who I meet who play WMH); it's just that **in my opinion** GW models are of a wider breadth and depth and flexibility. And personally, I like straight scifi better than steampunk.
PP wants to focus on a small model count game, and does so relatively well.
I don't fault either company for being what they say they are.
For a long time, I used to feel GW had gotten really expensive. When I look back on it though, and when I look at today's prices, actually, model-wise, they are just middle-of-the pack for price, and actually what I should have said is that when I was a teenager, 40k was really cheap. But it's a different world, so c'est la vie.
Personally, every interaction I've had with GW by email or telephone has been excellent. They've bent over backwards to help me, unexpectedly so -- for instance, explaining dry compounds when they came out, and I described a problem I had with Necron Compound. The email back-and-forth was thorough, competent, and personal.
GW "feels" like a much bigger company to me; it has a corporate feel to it, while PP has more of a hobbyist feel. I don't really mind either, to be honest. For instance, I like supporting the little guy, I really do. But I hate PP's website, which looks like it was made by some kid on evenings after school. Some kid without much web design skills, too. It runs like dog poo on my phone, and it's not easy at a store for me to do a quick lookup to see if a model at the store is a good deal (by comparing discounted price to MSRP). And the model pictures on the website are awful (when you compare it to GW).
My local GW store guy has fair knowledge of the game and the hobby, but frankly, I think he's a bit full of it and gives people bad advice. Again, I think that's ok, because at my favorite FLGS, I've gotten and heard so much bad advice that it's not funny.
When you say that GW refuses to communicate with its player base, that's not entirely true. They're happy to communicate by phone and email. They just don't have an official forum. While I wouldn't mind one, I do see the pitfalls -- Blizzard (a company that makes products that I really like) has forums, and most of it is filled with boundless negativity, when in fact, the games people b*tch about are pretty fun.
GW also announces upcoming releases and there are some unofficial sources (like Lords of War) that are extremely accurate for rumors (as in batting 100%). Hell, most issues of White Dwarf isn't really much more than a product announcement anymore (though the latest, #47 was pretty awesome). Yes, they charge $5 for it, but it's not you have to buy it.
Also, GW provides *by far* the best free painting/modelling videos (via its YouTube channel). They are of a professional quality, and really, better than most paid product (including, often, their own).
It's all in what you want out of a game, I guess. Personally, I'm pretty cynical -- 99% of the companies I like stuff from don't really care about me as an individual, so it's more important to me that I like their product. I just lump it together with Microsoft, Apple, HP, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, BioWare, Bethesda, Infiniti, Chevrolet, Ikea, Proctor & Gamble, Pfizer, Pizza Hut..... the list would never end. But see, I don't care if Pizza Hut cares about me, as long as they can make a good pizza and deliver it on time. I don't care if the guys Bethesda are wonderful people or jerks, as long as the next Elder Scrolls is fun.
I know it's cynical, and it wasn't always so... like I say, world we live in.
No quarter had three articles about modeling and conversions last issue. Thats normal.
Sargow wrote: I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).
When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.
To be fair, the game probably got stale quicker for you than most people because you play Gators who are one of the factions with the least amount of choices. And net lists aren't as bad in WMH. If you look at the WTC lists for this year, there's a few casters that crop up a lot but the lists are all different, for example.
On the other hand, PP isn't a great company for people who want to be model collectors. I could actually (easily) outpaint their new model releases, and there is really no modelling to speak of. The support for kitbashing, bits, and posing is nonexistent. This isn't to say that their models aren't good (I own more PP models than most people who I meet who play WMH); it's just that **in my opinion** GW models are of a wider breadth and depth and flexibility. And personally, I like straight scifi better than steampunk.
To be fair though talys - I'd feel you are an outlier when it comes to being a model collector. Not a criticism btw, but didn't you say you bought 150 models to paint up/model per month? I own quite a bit of pp stuff (khador, and circle mainly) but neither me, I know no one who even remotely comes close to what you'll do. I'm fine with 'just' keeping pace with the new releases - even there, I often end up with backlogs (just three more doom reaver squads now, plus operation ice storm to follow!)
And I also disagree that there is no modelling to speak of. Now that said, I will agree with you that gw kits have more bitz for conversion (I tend to raid gw kits for my pp conversions) but it's annoying that gw closed the bitz store. Pp do a lot of conversion corner stuff, and conversion competitions in nq. Beyond that, there is scope for doing crazy impressive stuff.
Sargow wrote: I always found it interesting that in WMH that everyone house rules the game. Even Lock and Load and warmachine weekend. They choose to play without a big part of the game because it makes it imbalanced. I own a gatormen army at 50 pts, yet every steam roller i play or tourney i have been too everyone decides that deep water is not balanced and should not be used(water in general is nowhere to be seen).
When i started i thought this was a load of crap the models i use have amphibious built in to the cost that i pay to use them. I have NEVER used this rule unless i created the water. I find it funny people bitch and complain about balance yet both systems have their flaws. Also PP erratas their models all the time. Gaspy i think has been errated 3 times??? so his feat no longer matches his card at all now.
I kinda stopped playing WMH as the game got stale. Same opening moves, gatormen run up, barnabas IF them casts 2 puddles and charges. Everything else runs. The rules are good and had very few conflicts but the excistance of netlists are far worse in my opinion.
First of all, the house rules I've seen everyone using in GW games basically re write the rulebook. You have to decide how to play psykers, whether to discard maelstrom cards you can't complete, which LOW are allowed, unbound or not, etc. The house rules in WMH are quite simple, usually just "no water". If the extent of house ruling 40k needed was "no ruins, they're imbalanced", I doubt everyone would be complaining about the balance of the rules. You say they errata stuff all the time like it's a bad thing. I wish GW would keep up like that. How many powers can a psyker cast per turn? The rules came out like 8 months ago and nobody has bothered to answer that. Net lists are worse in WMH? Quick, name a net list that a new player can use and roflstomp people 70% of the time with in WMH. Oh wait, there isn't one. Every list out there has a counter. What's the counter to 6 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights? Running 6 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights yourself and hoping you get first turn or lucky dice rolls.
Talys wrote: Also, GW provides *by far* the best free painting/modelling videos (via its YouTube channel). They are of a professional quality, and really, better than most paid product (including, often, their own).
Sorry but I can't let this comment go, I know this isn't PP vs GW related specifically but I burst out laughing when I read that.
Have some VASTLY superior, and entirely free, videos.
That Horus one by the way, about 3 hours long and comes out a hell of a lot better looking than anything I've seen GW paint recently.
The burna boy covers a ton of freehand as well.
They cover a ton of different techniques and between them the two painters have 4 Slayer Swords, 19 golden demons, 15 silvers, 7 bronze and 4 ForgeWorld best in shows.
To put this into perspective, I calculated that I've spent approximately $600 on my Khador army for Warmachine (not 100% accurate as for example I bought some pieces with different discounts, including buying a colossal from another player for half its regular price), which gives me just shy of two 50 point lists (still could use another bit for a second list).
In comparison how much could I get from 40k for that amount? Probably one 1,500 point army or thereabouts (depending on exact army composition).
WayneTheGame wrote: To put this into perspective, I calculated that I've spent approximately $600 on my Khador army for Warmachine (not 100% accurate as for example I bought some pieces with different discounts, including buying a colossal from another player for half its regular price), which gives me just shy of two 50 point lists (still could use another bit for a second list).
In comparison how much could I get from 40k for that amount? Probably one 1,500 point army or thereabouts (depending on exact army composition).
You do not use similar units in different lists?
My skorne collection runs me just over that, cause minions, and I can field a competitive list with every caster. Probably the only thing I can't run are certain tiers that are unit spam heavy.
Also, it should be said that while in the case of GW you'd get at least 1500 points for that number, you'd also have more models and of a um... improved quality.
600$ seems like itd go as far as 1850 at my mind - if you grab the easy to find 20% discounts. My 1000 point base for my new csm army cost me about 200$
When people compare prices between 40k and WM they go by MSRP from my understanding.
Yes both games are expensive but what has made me give my money over the year to PP are several reason:
Better rules
Balance of the game
Support to the community
Tournament support
WayneTheGame wrote: Ironically I'm at a WMH tournament now. It's not as fun as I thought it would be.
I played in a league last night. I lost but the game came down to one friggin' dice roll at the end. One. If I would have just hit, I would have won. It was fantastic. Love it!
My WMH games always seem to be close. In 40k it's usually fairly lopsided. Either I'm playing against tau or eldar and I get tabled or I'm playing against any other army and I table them.
.
