Everyone at my FLGS, save for a select few devoted 40K players, has started playing WarmaHordes. Some of our most devoted 40K players have switched over to WarmaHordes. This is annoying me since I have been a devoted 40K player for going on 8 years now. Even one of our best 40K players refuses to play 40K and only wants to play WarmaHordes now.

This is seriously bothering me, especially as a serious 40K player, and because of all the money I spent on 40K. I'm not a big WarmaHordes fan either. I have an army but I find the game much less fun than 40K. Well, I was curious so I asked them what they didn't like about 40K. Their response? They believe that both 40K, and Fantasy, have gone down the proverbial toilet. They think that 8th edition Fantasy rules are pretty bad (I agree with them on this point I'm quitting Fantasy until 9th Edition comes out...or Bretonnians get a new codex). They believe that 40K's problem is the models.

They think that 40K's models are ugly and they say that WarmaHordes models are so much better. They think that 40K has become too cartoony. They referenced some of the new Dark Eldar and Grey Knight models and said that they think the models and sculpting have gone down hill. I disagree with them on this. While I think the new Grey Knight models are not as good as the old metal ones, I think they are still very nicely crafted models and sprues. I also think that Dark Eldar have some of the nicest models to come out yet.

They also mentioned how 5th edition 40K is broken. I don't wholly disagree on this, I think Mech Guard, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Spacewolves are incredibly broken. I also think some of the new models are rediculous. Stormraven, Vendetta, Voidraven Bombers, all of these models you would never see in 4th Edition. I personally think 4th Edition was the best. So anyway, I don't think 40K has gone down quite as far as they say it has and I am still very partial to Warhammer 40K and will continue to play it for many years to come. It just bothered me what they said, and their comments are still lingering in my head.

So Dakka what have you to say?

I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony. Also, anyone who thinks the Dark Eldar models are bad is objectively wrong.

I'm guessing these players just want to try a different game. It doesn't have as much to do with 40k as a system as it has to do with being tired of game X and wanting to try something new.

5th ed 40k isn't broken. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights aren't broken either. They have effective builds but they die the same as any other Marines. Mechanized Guard happen to be very good at what the recent metagame is all about: mobility and meltaguns. Even so, they're dead in killpoints games and a bunch of AV12 vehicles and T3 dudes inside aren't hard to kill. They're effective, but I wouldn't say they're broken by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, a lot of this is probably them getting tired of a game they've been playing for years on end. They just want a change for a while.

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Sounds like the guys at your FLGS just got burnt out on 40k and decided to play Warmahordes for awhile. They'll be back they always comeback.

I started to get into Warmachine because I was getting bored with 40K, but then the Warmahordes fad came and went before I ever got my force painted. I refuse to constantly spend money on whatever the new fad is just to have a game to play. Perhaps I'll go back to drinking and fighting like when I was young.

Brother SRM said:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40K models are ugly and cartoony. Also, anyone who thinks the Dark Eldar models are bad is objectively wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree on this statement. I think the Dark Eldar models are some of the best models yet!

Platuan4th said: I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

I don't think I understand what your saying. I think what you mean is that the models are not proportional? I think the GW models are very proportional, Guard, and especially DE models are very well sculpted and look like normal people. Yes I will agree that the space marine models, especially the regular Tactical Squad Marines can be a bit...oversized. However, I think you should look at the troll models in Warmachine, they look downright unnatural!

Huckleberry said: Sounds like the guys are your FLGS just got burnt our on 40K and decided to play Warmahordes for awhile. They'll be back they always comeback.

I hope your right man, I hope your right. The one still plays 40K and actually I played him in a game today, but the rest of the day he played WarmaHordes and the other people there all love it. The one player, who is one of our best, says he thinks WarmaHordes is more "strategic" than 40K.

I think WarmaHordes is, as one guy at my FLGS (who hates WarmaHordes) put it, Marvel vs. Capcom. It's Magic meets Warhammer Fantasy. It's a game of who can pull out more combos than anyone else and I find that less strategic than 40K. In my opinion of course.

They'll be back. I swore off 40k in 2007 when the terrible, and unfortunately still in use, Chaos Space Marine came out and destroyed my Iron Warriors. But I never stopped reading Black Library Novels and when the Salamander novels started coming out I decided to dust off my Sallies and get back in the game. Luckily I discovered that my Sallies had gone from an army of Initiative 3 Marines, to the one of the most competitive armies in the game.
Good stuff.

I still refuse to field either of my two Chaos Space Marine armies until they get a new codex, but i'm having alot of fun with my Sallies and my Orks.

They always come back!!

(Not really... but probably )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hückleberry wrote:Sounds like the guys at your FLGS just got burnt out on 40k and decided to play Warmahordes for awhile. They'll be back they always comeback.

I agree

Sanguinis wrote:Proportional models, comments on Warmachine, etc.

As much as I do love GW models - their proportions are very much out whack. The average man is 7 and a half heads tall or so, while a Guardsman is about 4.5. They exaggerate points of interest like faces and weapons, which almost all miniatures have and do. Warmahordes models do this as well. The idea that Warmachine is more like Magic is very true though; it's very much about combo plays. That's cool if that's what you're into, but nothing about PP games really appeals to me.

40k has gone down the toilet?, no no no, games workshop in general has gone down the toilet, and started doing so long long ago, every single system that was good they dumped, every system thats bad they make worse and worse and worse, how they treat customers gets worse, there attitude to everything related to them in general is awful.

but going by 40k alone, then sure its gone down the toilet
models keep getting worse, they are either too static nowadays or just far too busy to look good because they are covered in trash

the rules keep getting worse, each codex being more shiny than the last to make more sales with no thought as to game balance or playtesting more than once at best

the players are getting far worse, the bunch of jerks into 40k and GW in general is far higher now than it ever use to be, its no longer about playing with toys, its all about who can be the bigger jerk.

the fluff as we know is tripe now, sure there are plenty of moronic blind fools who happily follow matt ward and lick his boots at every step hoping to get his attention on the next codex and let tyranids ally with dark angels against an eldar squat alliance while slaughtering Tau women to bathe in the blood, but thankfully it seems most people over the age of 5 know that he is a pathetic excuse for a man who shouldn't be allowed to hold a pen, or even speak.

but then to say warmahordes is better than 40k?, well sure ok if you wanna play a system that encourages you to be a crying baby jerk and pay what feels like millions of pounds for an ill-fitting steam driven dreadnought directed by librarians then go ahead, GW may be stupid, condescending and evil, but at least its not warmachine...or flames of awfullness

Stella Cadente wrote:words

Okay, so every game everywhere is horrible forever. Thanks for letting us know; I'm going to go watch paint dry because it is literally all there is to do since gaming is the worst hobby ever.

Just on the proportion of the models that a few people have mentioned, GW have never made any bones about the fact that they're not in proportion and why. Some things have to be exaggerated to be seen or they'd be lost like some of the weapons, other things like vehicles need to be smaller or they'd dominate the whole map.

I luvs 40k lots, but know a good few people who have cracked the proverbials with GW and are either taking an extended break or not playing at all anymore. These guys generally haven't gone to Warmahordes but to Dystopia.

Stella Cadente wrote:40k has gone down the toilet?, no no no, games workshop in general has gone down the toilet, and started doing so long long ago, every single system that was good they dumped, every system thats bad they make worse and worse and worse, how they treat customers gets worse, there attitude to everything related to them in general is awful.

but going by 40k alone, then sure its gone down the toilet
models keep getting worse, they are either too static nowadays or just far too busy to look good because they are covered in trash

the rules keep getting worse, each codex being more shiny than the last to make more sales with no thought as to game balance or playtesting more than once at best

the players are getting far worse, the bunch of jerks into 40k and GW in general is far higher now than it ever use to be, its no longer about playing with toys, its all about who can be the bigger jerk.

the fluff as we know is tripe now, sure there are plenty of moronic blind fools who happily follow matt ward and lick his boots at every step hoping to get his attention on the next codex and let tyranids ally with dark angels against an eldar squat alliance while slaughtering Tau women to bathe in the blood, but thankfully it seems most people over the age of 5 know that he is a pathetic excuse for a man who shouldn't be allowed to hold a pen, or even speak.

but then to say warmahordes is better than 40k?, well sure ok if you wanna play a system that encourages you to be a crying baby jerk and pay what feels like millions of pounds for an ill-fitting steam driven dreadnought directed by librarians then go ahead, GW may be stupid, condescending and evil, but at least its not warmachine...or flames of awfullness

Lololol that was a good one. Matt Ward personally bashed down your door, stomped your dog to death, and MADE you keep playing tabletop wargames didn't he?

I think dakka must represent an unusually large percentage of the masochist community; seriously how many people are out there being made to continue playing this game at gunpoint and post incessantly about how painful it is? Does it just hurt so good to hate your hobby this much?

Ghyslain Xaroit wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:40k has gone down the toilet?, no no no, games workshop in general has gone down the toilet, and started doing so long long ago, every single system that was good they dumped, every system thats bad they make worse and worse and worse, how they treat customers gets worse, there attitude to everything related to them in general is awful.

but going by 40k alone, then sure its gone down the toilet
models keep getting worse, they are either too static nowadays or just far too busy to look good because they are covered in trash

the rules keep getting worse, each codex being more shiny than the last to make more sales with no thought as to game balance or playtesting more than once at best

the players are getting far worse, the bunch of jerks into 40k and GW in general is far higher now than it ever use to be, its no longer about playing with toys, its all about who can be the bigger jerk.

the fluff as we know is tripe now, sure there are plenty of moronic blind fools who happily follow matt ward and lick his boots at every step hoping to get his attention on the next codex and let tyranids ally with dark angels against an eldar squat alliance while slaughtering Tau women to bathe in the blood, but thankfully it seems most people over the age of 5 know that he is a pathetic excuse for a man who shouldn't be allowed to hold a pen, or even speak.

but then to say warmahordes is better than 40k?, well sure ok if you wanna play a system that encourages you to be a crying baby jerk and pay what feels like millions of pounds for an ill-fitting steam driven dreadnought directed by librarians then go ahead, GW may be stupid, condescending and evil, but at least its not warmachine...or flames of awfullness

Lololol that was a good one. Matt Ward personally bashed down your door, stomped your dog to death, and MADE you keep playing tabletop wargames didn't he?

I think dakka must represent an unusually large percentage of the masochist community; seriously how many people are out there being made to continue playing this game at gunpoint and post incessantly about how painful it is? Does it just hurt so good to hate your hobby this much?

It must be wonderful to live in a fabulous country where only your opinion can possibly be right. If you can't stand the complaining, get out of the internet.

warpcrafter wrote:It must be wonderful to live in a fabulous country where only your opinion can possibly be right. If you can't stand the complaining, get out of the internet.

No need to bash the guy when all he is merely getting at is if you hate the game so much why do you keep playing it? Seriously, if I hated 40k why would I play it? It seems like some people on here play simply to hate on it more.

I actually don't mind the people who leave because warmahords is a more tournament friendly game. Now I can get back to modeling my army to look cool and having fun at big events without hearing 5 tables of people arguing about if Blood angel Rhinos have doors or not (you old school players will know what i'm talking about). I remember when people fled from MTG and came sulking back after a year or so.

warpcrafter wrote:

It must be wonderful to live in a fabulous country where only your opinion can possibly be right. If you can't stand the complaining, get out of the internet.

It actually is! Beautiful scenery, and I'm always right!

And I can stand the complaining quite well. I wasn't complaining about the complaining, I was laughing at it. You should try it some time, its fun! We do it alot in my country.

Brother SRM wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:words

since gaming is the worst hobby ever.

yes thats exactly what I said, "gaming is the worst hobby ever" is exactly the thing my message was saying because GW are the ONLY gaming company that exists obviously, so to dislike tham means you dislike gaming in all forms...........

personal comments removed.

Stella Cadente wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

Stella Cadente wrote:words

since gaming is the worst hobby ever.

yes thats exactly what I said, "gaming is the worst hobby ever" is exactly the thing my message was saying because GW are the ONLY gaming company that exists obviously, so to dislike tham means you dislike gaming in all forms..........

Ooh, personal insults; classy! I'm very happy to have you on my ignore list I just don't understand why someone would come to a primarily 40k/GW forum just to bitch about GW games and one of their more popular alternatives in Warmachine/hordes.

Also, there's only three periods in an ellipses.

40k has not gone down the toilet. Teetering on the seat, maybe, but not in. I suspect that some of the people who think Warmachine or Hordes are flat out better are looking at the issue with biased glasses. They have full right to their opinion, though.

@model proportions: For those who don't know, Games Workshop do that on purpose. it's called Heroic scale. Personally I like it, and people who want a "realistic" scale on a small model are in the same camp as the people who thing games look better with a brown filter and bloom.

A Moderator wrote:I would like to remind users that, when people sign up to DakkaDakka.com, they undertake to abide by a set of terms and conditions which include the posting guidelines.

Among those, Rule no.1 concerns rudeness.

Personal rudeness is never justified when discussing games of toy soldiers.

Users also are asked to format their postings clearly, with proper use of grammar, spelling and so on.

If you are uncertain about the full rules, please refer to them via the link embedded in my sig.

warpcrafter wrote:I started to get into Warmachine because I was getting bored with 40K, but then the Warmahordes fad came and went before I ever got my force painted. I refuse to constantly spend money on whatever the new fad is just to have a game to play. Perhaps I'll go back to drinking and fighting like when I was young.

+1

Sanguinis wrote: I think the GW models are very proportional, Guard, and especially DE models are very well sculpted and look like normal people.

You've been playing GW far too long if you think that GW models are well proportioned. The DE aren't bad but cadians are awful. Heads are way too big, guns are enormous, legs are short and chunky.

That's not to say that it doesn't work on the tabletop - in particular, the gigantic guns makes identifying weapons much easier - but they certainly are not well proportioned.

Compare this cadian (who is looking better proportioned than usual thanks to a smaller head) against a Dust Tactics mini. The difference in height vs width is huge.

I think 40k is getting better and better actually. 5th edition is, IMHO, a great rules set thanks to its varied and balanced missions. Things like cover and wound allocation can be tweeked but that is not what defines 5th edition to me.

As for the codex creep, its not bad really. Every 5th ed codex is decent at least... the worst power level wise is tyranids I think, but a poor FAQ was really the straw that broke that camel's back. Spacewolves are perhaps the best on a cursory examination, but only because longfangs, greyhunters, and priests are all individually very efficient. The wolves are actually a bad army for force multipliers, and with proper force multipliers an enemy can take away the wolves advantage of efficiency.

You hate 8th Edition Fantasy?


What the hell?

Sanguinis wrote:Everyone at my FLGS, save for a select few devoted 40K players, has started playing WarmaHordes.

PLAY LIKE YOU'VE GOT A PAIR!

But seriously, 5th ed isn't perfect but it is a solid game system. And GW models looking bad? Sure the Dreadknight looks stupid, but so does practically every model for Warmachine. Derp I'm a dreadnought... with steam! And cogs! Or if you play Cygnar you just have lightning crap all over your units.

Tell them if they're going to play a skirmish game to at least play Malifaux...unless you like to PLAY LIKE YOU'VE GOT A PAIR! (I can't believe they wrote that in the freaking rulebook).

Warmahordes 'Play like you got a pair' had to get changed right? 'Play like you got a pair but stop acting like jerks and using this sentence to try and validate your poor sportsmanship you morons' is how it reads now in the new rulebook right?

the fluff as we know is tripe now, sure there are plenty of moronic blind fools who happily follow matt ward and lick his boots at every step hoping to get his attention on the next codex and let tyranids ally with dark angels against an eldar squat alliance while slaughtering Tau women to bathe in the blood, but thankfully it seems most people over the age of 5 know that he is a pathetic excuse for a man who shouldn't be allowed to hold a pen, or even speak.

Wow, how's the ride on the Bandwagon?

I dunno about this proportion thing I think superman robot suits should be based of propper superman robot suits and I've seen an ork before those teeth are too sharp. Also lasrifles what the front door? they should be a little shorter in the front and longer in the back. Derp durp.

Comic book characters aren't 100% proportionate. Why? 'Cause proper proportions are boring. (Even the 7 or 8 head high thing is off and taught on purpose because fudged proportions look better so they teach proportion wrong so its built in to exaggerate). Also proportion does differ from person to person if you wanna be exact. Anyway look at a picture of Arnold schwartsanegger then look at a comic picture of wolverine. wolverine looks cooler he's also not real. If your friends are splitting hairs over game model proportions they need to pursue a career in law or some similar humorless profession.

I did look at warma shrug. I think they're character design is lackin for sets of three or four guys. And as for 40k models man 15 ish years ago (yeesh) they've come along way. Didnt paint back then but spent a lot (understatement) of time in a comic shop that sold 40k kits. Shrug I like the 40k character design of pretty much everything at the moment except that new grey knight 'naught. That thing is a bit too,.. delicate? DE 's remind me of the hellraiser movies.


better?!

You know, Noztrill, you might try breaking that up in to... something a bit smaller, perhaps.

On the other side, my FLGS no longer does 40k at all. They stopped carrying it. Bizarrely, we do, still have Battlefleet Gothic...

Eh, did that from an ipod, I didn't realized I babbled so long.

It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Personally I like 5th edition rules better than 4th edition rules, and they are not broken.
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition is nice for non-competitive play, but magic maybe too erratic and strong for competitive play. But narrative games got a boost, which is fine for me.

Personally, at WarmaHorde I don't like the lack of terrain effects and the spellmaster-kill-rule (whatever the army, just kill one person and win the game). And there is no fraction I really like (although I use several miniatures for 40k and Warhammer).

My guess is that your friends are more interested in competitive tournament gaming and want a customisable chess. GW is less for competitive games now but has other things to offer.

Watched a game of Warmachine on Miniwargaming.com( check them out , they do awesome batreps for alot of games) involving Khador and some sort of beast army, it looked really fun, but also like a skirmish game, which quite frankly doesn't suit my tastes

Personally I like big battlefield type games, where you get a sense your really throwing a army at someone
Plus I didn't like the use of cards to represent wounds, seems like a really annoying system

Plus what exactly would motivate me to play it other than a decent rule system? Is there any background thats as full of rich history and interesting stories such as Warhammer?

I'm not much of a gamer, so I need that sort of motivation to make me do it

Besides that your friends are flatout wrong on Dark Eldar models being cartoony

I think they may be looking through biased eyes if they honestly think that

Asuron wrote:
Plus what exactly would motivate me to play it other than a decent rule system? Is there any background thats as full of rich history and interesting stories such as Warhammer?

Yes, actually. The Iron Kingdoms(IK role playing, Warmachine, Hordes) has a great story if you're willing to spend the time to read it. The problem is that a lot of it is OOP(the IKRPG books, older issues of the magazine, and older WM/H books). Plus, unlike 40K, the story actually advances with each release. The fluff is just as rich and filled out as GW's, despite GW's 15-20 year "head start" of retcons.

They also have better editors(meaning, y'know, that they HAVE them).

That said, to keep up with the entire story, you NEED to buy every book.

Platuan4th wrote:

Yes, actually. The Iron Kingdoms(IK role playing, Warmachine, Hordes) has a great story if you're willing to spend the time to read it. The problem is that a lot of it is OOP(the IKRPG books, older issues of the magazine, and older WM/H books). Plus, unlike 40K, the story actually advances with each release. The fluff is just as rich and filled out as GW's, despite GW's 15-20 year "head start" of retcons.
.

I'm not completely convinced of that to be honest, I think the background is OK but not a patch on the depth that GW (having already plundered some fine ideas from other sources) as managed to create in 40k. In fact, I don't think there is any other popular sci-fi franchise that even comes close.

Plus I'm not entirely convinced many WarmaHordes players even read the background, which is a shame as it is quite readable. Certainly a lot of the players I have come up against in the past have had nothing more than a cursory understanding of why the people and warjacks are running around killing each other.

It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Definitely +1 on that one.

Pacific wrote:I'm not completely convinced of that to be honest, I think the background is OK but not a patch on the depth that GW (having already plundered some fine ideas from other sources) as managed to create in 40k. In fact, I don't think there is any other popular sci-fi franchise that even comes close.

While it's definitely your opinion to think that, I think you'd change it if you read the IKRPG books. They're extraordinarily in depth, to a point that I've rarely seen in a GW fluff source(only the FW stuff is more so, IME). We're talking about that they've made it a point to not only detail all the religions and political systems of each nation, they've detailed the entire solar system for no reason but to do it.

The fluff on the 12 or so varieties of human living in the Iron Kingdoms was almost unnecessary.

I will agree, though, that it seems like not many of them read it, but as I've pointed out in other threads, I've run into just as many 40K players that don't read the fluff, too. Going onto the PP boards, it seems that most of them do, because there's plenty of fluff discussion there.

I honestly have to say that I think both 40K and Warmachine fluff is very cool. I love Sci-Fi, its my favorite genre so 40K has everything I could ever want. I'm also a huge Dune fan so the Grimdark setting really sent me over the edge in terms of wanting to play the game really bad.

Warmachine is great because, aside from Sci-Fi, I love Fantasy too, but even more than Fantasy I love steampunk.

When I first played WarmaHordes (back when it was Warmachine) I liked the old first edition rules when it came out. I used to be quite good at it too, I won best Protectorate player in a tournament once. When the new rules came out I lost interest because, like I said before, it became more of a Magic meets Fantasy type of thing. It was like who can pull out the best combos and win. I used my army just the other day against a "used to be 40K player" at my FLGS. He was playing Circle of Oroboros and he used these druids against me and totally just blew me away, I literally killed nothing because his Druid things pulled my army around. I'm Protectorate, my army is so darn slow!

I feel like with Warmachine each and every character is a special character. It would be like in 40K if the codex's were nothing but individual units with 5 different special rules. It makes the game too much of a "oh I use unit b with unit a and combine powers of unit c and I win". I don't like that system. I like 40K where each unit is individual but also the same as every other unit so that each unit has a specific role that can be done alone or with another unit. Some units are best used on their own, like Long Fangs and Tactical Squads, others are best used in a combination, like Lightning Claw Terminators and Chaplains, or Sanguinary Priests and Assault Squads.

The other thing that bothers me about Warmachine is how sacraficing units is a part of playing the game. I like playing a game thats more like real life where you don't send your own men into a meat grinder. In 40K there is really only two armies that do that on purpose, those two being Imperial Guard and Tyranids.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I agree with all of what you guys say and the Heroic Scaling is not a terrible thing with 40K. Your right WarmaHordes does it too. I think GW as a whole needs to start rethinking their writing strategies so as to stop this Codex one uping. I'm fearful as to what the Necron Codex is gonna be like or even the Sisters of Battle Codex. I'm not gonna hate on GW though. I play the game and that means I like 40K which means I like GW. I just don't like some things that they do and I think some of the writers are quite poor in my opinion. I'm not, however, opening up the Matt Ward can of worms, lets keep him out of this.

Keep the comments coming I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say, and please keep it civil!

I don't even know anyone who plays warmachine. I see it always fully stocked at the store but no one buys it lol

*looks at Grey Knight Codex*


*looks at the 40K RPG products FFG is making*


Yeah... there's a reason I've not played 40K in nearly a year, yet spent a solid 24-hours playing Deathwatch over Friday/Saturday.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at Grey Knight Codex*


*looks at the 40K RPG products FFG is making*


Yeah... there's a reason I've not played 40K in nearly a year, yet spent a solid 24-hours playing Deathwatch over Friday/Saturday.

Yeah, while FFG will goof a little occasionally, particularly with editing, but also occasionally with fluff and/or logic, it takes GW to truly Ward a book.

Red Comet wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It must be wonderful to live in a fabulous country where only your opinion can possibly be right. If you can't stand the complaining, get out of the internet.

No need to bash the guy when all he is merely getting at is if you hate the game so much why do you keep playing it? Seriously, if I hated 40k why would I play it? It seems like some people on here play simply to hate on it more.

Because my friends play it, and I enjoy spending time with my friends. I feel Warmachine/Hordes is an objectively better game in every single respect, but since I can't get them to play it, I go with the majority and play because I value spending time with them.

I love the lore of 40K. I just think the game system is almost completely terrible, the models are mediocre and GW as a company is absolutely horrendous.

No is my short answer.

I keep reading about all the anti-GW, pro 'Warmahordes' views and it's getting really old as well as being, largely, unsconstructive. I think the sheer amount of complaints/rants/arguments and negativity surrounding 40k at the moment seems to be influencing far too many people, far too easily IMO.

GW's models have only been getting better. Yes they release the odd 'mare of a pose, but their quality is great and they are easy to work on/convert. I find the arguments for proportional realism of a fictional representation for an abstract game to be slightly lol worthy. If anyone here had played 2nd Ed they'd know the true meaning of 'static'. Warmachine is anything but proportional &, by and large, I don't think the models are any better/worse than GW's (I like Infinity's models better), but the argument that GW is too 'comic book' like is a little silly considering the immensity of the fictional background. Yes, I'd love all the models to look like the artwork, but that'll never happen. I like big, chunky surfaces to paint on - the universe is larger than life, so why should the models be any different?

As for the gaming side I always enjoy my games, which is the main point. Yes, I find some rules silly but know I can develop house rules more to my liking. If I play in a store then I have no problem with the rules as they are & find most of my opponents to be rather sensible people. If you just like the fluff then buy the books/play the computer games, no one is forcing anyone to play 40k.

Obviously GW could improve their public relations to the gaming community, but people will always find something to complain about & can you imagine the sheer amount of mail/email/hate letters they'd recieve if they asked how we would all choose to write a particular book? I believe that as customers/gamers/hobbyists we can have the power to change things, even if but a little - should we choose to. There's nothing stopping any single one/group of us to re-write rules as a project and 'take the power back' if we chose to. GW is a very large company - which means it has sacrificed a more personal approach to its customers. I can't blame them after all the rants/rules I see on the interent for not asking all of us to help contribute to their rules sytem like they did in the past.

The competitive nature of many on the internet, it seems to me, is never, and has never been, the main motive behind GW games. I ALWAYS expect issues in GW games, having played them for nearly 18 years - yet I have never played a game that wasn't fun, not once. The plethora of Tournament-like mentality and focus on the 'meta-game' dominating the net at the moment is as equally to blame as GW. GW games have never had a tournament theme as their focus, and their rules have to cater for kids and adults alike - which is a tricky balance to maintain (though I'd like to see more advanced rules as an option). You can't blame GW for the character of some of the people playing their games, but rather the society/parents of said individuals.

GW haven't abandoned their Specialist Games, but Gamer's have. If we all started demanding stores to supply Blood Bowl Teams, Necromunds Gangs etc & started to demand dedicated playing time for such games, low and behold even getting the kids involved, then perhaps things will start to change. There Specialist Games rules are FREE - yet I've never heard anyone praise GW in providing them as such.

40k isn't going down the toilet. Codex escaltion is, I agree, an issue (perhaps THE issue) but a lot still rides on how you play/what the dice gods bring - even if a unit of mine gets slaughtered that had no real mathematical right too, I don't complain about it, and neither should anyone else. Not one of us is perfect, not any country, government, religion or law is perfect, or even balanced - so why should any set of abstract rules be expected to be?

I love 40k - so I'll continue to play it because I enjoy it.

Let me tell you a story, about 2 years ago I went to my FLGS after a bit of a hiatus from 40k.

Nobody played Warhammer 40,000 anymore! They didn't even stock it. They were all playing some game called AT-49 or AT-69 and they thought it was the shiznat and WH40k was dead.

A year later, all the store does is focus on WH40k and WHFB again.

Do not let it bug you, they will get tired of Warmachine and go back to their beloved 40k armies.

40k is still a better game.

But i suggest to you.. try warmachine/hordes.

Its a decent game, but nothing worth quitting 40k over.

I really dont like the rules or models (Warmahorde models are sub par to most around)

I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

but its still amusing now and then.

Spyder68 wrote:40k is still a better game.


I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

Could you source this? Because I can go to my FLGS and buy a "starter" set which comes with a warcaster and 3 warjacks (all metal, about the size of dreadnoughts) for the cost of 1 GW plastic Dread.

Spyder68 wrote:40k is still a better game.

It's really not. It's a different game. What has generally gotten people in my area hooked on WM/H versus 40k is the tightness of the rules, the ease of navigation of the rulebook, and the incredible ease of referability (a big book index that... y'know... works, and the use of cards), and a far lower cost of entry.

WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

Really, they're not substitutes for each other (okay, they are, but they cater to completely different gameplay preferences). WM/H is small scale skirmish and will probably stay that way to a large extent. WM/H rewards unit synergies and combos to a greater extent than 40k does, and this can result in both more flexibility from similar units or more cookie cutter style listbuilding. WM/H is about finding the proper balance between resource allocation and risk management within a game system that gives you a lot of leeway with both.

40k is 40k. It's largescale, it generally rewards more dice over better dice, and your tactical options are generally much more limited than in WM/H (in the quantitative sense. Assault Terminators can move, run, embark, disembark, and assault. Warjacks can move, run, charge, slam, trample, attack, boost, head/weapon lock, throw, headbutt, special attack/move where applicable, and push). In short, it's easier to play 40k. This isn't to say that playing 40k is morons (chess is also easier to play than WM/H), it's just that relative to WM/H, there are generally fewer options and fewer restrictions to keep track of.

warspawned wrote:Words

Quoted-for-mega-awesome-super-duper-truth

GW isn't dead, 40k/Fantasy aren't dying, and, to be honest, all those "super-pro" douchemahordes people need to stop ripping on GW all the time.

I love Warmachine/Hordes, it's a great game that rewards tactical thinking and risk. However, it's a different game than 40k/Fantasy. I personally love Fantasy, the background, the minis, and will continue to play regardless of whether it's actually dead or not. They're different games, as sourclams said, and they're both great.

As to the OP, they'll probably get bored and come back. It happens. I had a friend go from loving Fantasy, to Warmahordes, to quitting, to just getting back into Fantasy again. People's taste changes. And you may like WM/H, so it may be a good idea to learn the rules at least, or maybe even pick up a small side army.

Spyder68 wrote:I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

Totally depends on what you're comparing what to. WM/H has both a lower model count (so less $$ with comparable per-model cost) and more flexibility of play for the models you already own via different warcasters or unit attachments.

I can build a Warjack-centric list for Karchev at 50 pts for roughly $250 (Karchev, Beast-09, 7 Berzerkers). It's not a great list, but it's far from uncompetitive. In general, WM/H will probably run you $300-$400 for two warcasters with 50 pt lists. Some could be more, but others will be less.

Building a 2k 40k army that is 'far from uncompetitive' is, by and large, fairly difficult to do for under $300 without a ton of AoBR kitbashing. For some armies, like MechIG, it's hard to do for under $750.

Bottom line, there's less variability in the cost to accumulate WM/H armies given a similar scope to 40k. Yes, you can spend $5,000 on WM/H. In practical terms, this will give you the equivalent to about 20,000 pts of 40k--i.e. more than you'd ever need for a single, normal game. You also won't get stuck with a 'faction fee' to build the competitive list out of a specific army book in WM/H like you can in 40k. 2,000 pts of Deathwing Terminators ($300 or so) has a very different pricetag than 2,000 pts of now-OOP Sisters of Battle, especially if you're forced to buy the correct individual special weapon models (50+ Sisters, 9 immolators/rhinos/exorcists)...

I'm in the waiting for the next edition camp. There are many aspects of 5th ed. 40K that I just dislike. I'd much rather return to 4th ed, even with its problems.

I've also disliked the unsetteling trend that has shown up in the last few codexs that have come out where everything just seems faster and is able to shrink the battlefield to where tactical shooting is becoming non-existant and its all just one great melee. (which in 5th ed terms is a perfect way to win).

I still love the 40K models, I love the tanks, but I've just not been able to bring myself to actually play a game. Its just not fun for me anymore.

Maybe 6th ed. will fix that.

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony. Also, anyone who thinks the Dark Eldar models are bad is objectively wrong.

I'm guessing these players just want to try a different game. It doesn't have as much to do with 40k as a system as it has to do with being tired of game X and wanting to try something new.

5th ed 40k isn't broken. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights aren't broken either. They have effective builds but they die the same as any other Marines. Mechanized Guard happen to be very good at what the recent metagame is all about: mobility and meltaguns. Even so, they're dead in killpoints games and a bunch of AV12 vehicles and T3 dudes inside aren't hard to kill. They're effective, but I wouldn't say they're broken by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, a lot of this is probably them getting tired of a game they've been playing for years on end. They just want a change for a while.

Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Personally I like 5th edition rules better than 4th edition rules, and they are not broken.
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition is nice for non-competitive play, but magic maybe too erratic and strong for competitive play. But narrative games got a boost, which is fine for me.

Personally, at WarmaHorde I don't like the lack of terrain effects and the spellmaster-kill-rule (whatever the army, just kill one person and win the game). And there is no fraction I really like (although I use several miniatures for 40k and Warhammer).

My guess is that your friends are more interested in competitive tournament gaming and want a customisable chess. GW is less for competitive games now but has other things to offer.

I take it from your name, avatar and ranking track that you're a Tau player, Tau, as in the army who was damaged the most by 5th ed? Wins have become a lot less common since the new book...

im2randomghgh wrote:

Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...

Heck with that, how about Gk's deepstrking teleporting librarian landraiders?

Sanguinis wrote:They think that 40K's models are ugly and they say that WarmaHordes models are so much better. They think that 40K has become too cartoony. They referenced some of the new Dark Eldar and Grey Knight models and said that they think the models and sculpting have gone down hill. I disagree with them on this. While I think the new Grey Knight models are not as good as the old metal ones, I think they are still very nicely crafted models and sprues. I also think that Dark Eldar have some of the nicest models to come out yet.

GW is producing some of the best sculpted miniatures you can buy right now! And if any game is percieved as cartoony it should be Warmachine. The size and proportions of some GW models is a problem, but it doesnt detract at all from the great looking line of models they offer. Warmachine seriously looks like something a 10 years old plays with.

I play Warmachine, as I said above I have a fairly large Protectorate army.

I do, however, agree with many of you that WarmaHordes is actually the same if not more expensive to play than 40K. You shouldn't be lured in by the fact that the starter kit is so cheap and gives you a playable army. The 40K starter kits are cheap too they just don't give you playable armies because GW wants you to go out and buy an HQ. For most armies that isn't a problem, most HQ's run around $10-20 but Tyranids get shafted in that their HQ is a $45 model.

I don't think WarmaHordes is a bad game in any sense of the word. It just doesn't appeal to me like 40K does. I will continue to play WarmaHordes with the guys at my store, even the ones who have quit 40K for it. I just find 40K's system to be a much less memory significant system. I feel in Warmachine you have to memorize all the units of every army to have any chance of winning. I personally don't like WarmaHordes to that extent that I want to read every book and memorize everything, I have invested to much time in 40K doing that already and it's kind of tiring.

Finally, I love Warmachine and its fluff. What did it in for me with WarmaHordes is the Hordes part. I thought combining the systems would be cool but instead I find that A. PP likes Hordes much better than Warmachine, and B. PP made Horde units (IMO) much better than Warmachine units. Hordes units are faster, stronger (a Warbeast is stastistically better than a Warjack), and gave them better rules. This frustrated me especially since I was playing Warmachine since it first came out and I love the Steampunk look and feel. I just don't like Hordes and it doesn't seem like it fits into the world. Anyway I don't want to open that can of worms because this isn't a Warmachine forum or thread.

I think 5th Edition 40k is no where near what 4th Edition was. I would be ecstatic with some sort of 4th/5th Hybrid system for 6th Edition especially one that doesn't emphasize Mech in the metagame so much. I personally think vehicles need to be nerfed the most.

Element206 wrote:Warmachine seriously looks like something a 10 years old plays with.

I would challenge you to find me several WM/H models that look that bad.

But GW plastics are, by far, the best quality the market currently offers. Aside from the PA GKs (which I dislike the aesthetic of, not the execution of) everything I've seen in the new plastics is simply gorgeous and loaded with details.

im2randomghgh wrote:Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...

Yes, please deep strike your Land Raider so it's closer to my melta guns, I really appreciate that. Deep striking Land Raiders is objectively terrible. If you scatter you're almost guaranteed to mishap because of the size of the vehicle, and it's not like you can assault out of the thing. Flying Librarian dreads is a bit wackier and more dangerous, but whenever people bring up deep striking Land Raiders I just have to laugh. It's not broken whatsoever, it's not even a useful rule.

There's nothing wrong with playing more than one game, or playing different games with different groups. If you go to your FLGS to play Warmahordes on weekends but play 40k with your buddies on weekdays, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like Jervis is going to get mad at you for cheating on him with other game systems. Also, to the bunch of you who don't like 5th ed 40k - why don't you just play 4th ed? Or homebrew a few rules to make 5th ed more to your liking? I'm sure you have a friend or two who wouldn't mind playing 4th ed with you.

Brother SRM wrote:
Yes, please deep strike your Land Raider so it's closer to my melta guns, I really appreciate that. Deep striking Land Raiders is objectively terrible. If you scatter you're almost guaranteed to mishap because of the size of the vehicle, and it's not like you can assault out of the thing. Flying Librarian dreads is a bit wackier and more dangerous, but whenever people bring up deep striking Land Raiders I just have to laugh. It's not broken whatsoever, it's not even a useful rule.

Actually, it can be very useful. Deepstrike it on a flank or behind the enemy and then assault them from the front. You know, the usual way to get the most out of deep striking. Flinging them headlong into the jaws of meltas is dumb. And, in the case of GKs, remember that they are also psykers on their own. The Landraider, that is.

Warmachine suffers from a "small" feeling and lacks the feel even ~1,000 point 40k armies have in scale, while skirmish/squad vs. squad games can certainly be fun at my heart I'm a grand-scale kind of guy.

Also warmachine's not-very-developed fluff is another weak point imo, I'm into 40k primarily because of the fluff and it's a great universe. I certainly like WM's steampunk look and the warjack models look great, but it lacks the epic universe.

All that being said it still looks like a solid game imo.

Harriticus wrote:Warmachine suffers from a "small" feeling and lacks the feel even ~1,000 point 40k armies have in scale, while skirmish/squad vs. squad games can certainly be fun at my heart I'm a grand-scale kind of guy.

The new Warmachine: Unleashed rules that have been traveling the rumor circuit are going to allow for a more 40k-level scale to Warmachine battles with roughly 100 models per side. The cost of entry for that, of course, will be much higher than normal but still overall pretty similar to 40k.

Also warmachine's not-very-developed fluff is another weak point imo, I'm into 40k primarily because of the fluff and it's a great universe. I certainly like WM's steampunk look and the warjack models look great, but it lacks the epic universe.

I like both game systems but there seems to be a lot of 'wrong' info out there for WM/H. The background material is actually pretty well developed, and I would say it's a lot more coherent and structured than what you find in the 40k rulebook and codices. The other nice thing is that the backstory actually progresses, and what happens in national league play can and does impact how factions and characters respond and develop.

40k has "more" background, because the Black Library churns out a book every month (and I collect and read all of them, or at least all of the ones that I can stomach to get through because there are truly horrible BL books) but it's fragmented and rarely fits into an overarching narrative, like what the Horus Heresy follows.

Has anyone ever actually brought a LR in via DS here?
Not that good due to its size and scattering and all that.
Also, who runs LR's in BA?

I thought is was all DoA and Razorspam.


OT:

Model wise - I think its actually getting better.
Seems alot of the new kits are worth picking up and there are very few poor ones. (DK IMO isnt the best)

Rules wise - As much as i loved 4th, ive learned to get into 5th.
Only real gripe was getting used to the basics again, but thats something that needed to be done.

Armies wise - No real broken ones just yet.
Some have more competative builds than others, but thats about it.




However, im more of a painter / converter that likes to play a few games a month.
Do drop by a few tournies, but its rare.

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...


Our gaming group tends to play in cycles. I haven't played Flames of War for about a year, I think. Eventually we will get back into playing it. I've had more fun with this edition of 40k and play more often than I have with any edition from 2nd to 4th. I don't think it's going downhill any more than it was the other times I've heard this argument during every other edition.

With GW, most of their disproportion-ification is to make things look tougher. They make the Guard wider than they should be, which makes them look buff. They make SM SP huge, but if you have read the novels, this is so that they can protect themselves by turning their shoulders. It all makes sense, unlink WarmaHorde models.

Jackal wrote:Has anyone ever actually brought a LR in via DS here?
Not that good due to its size and scattering and all that.
Also, who runs LR's in BA?

Didn't do it with BA, but had it done to me with GK. Took forever for my melta vets and vanquisher to kill it, since they kept using the Summoning to jerk the thing out of melta range.

im2randomghgh wrote:With GW, most of their disproportion-ification is to make things look tougher. They make the Guard wider than they should be, which makes them look buff. They make SM SP huge, but if you have read the novels, this is so that they can protect themselves by turning their shoulders. It all makes sense, unlink WarmaHorde models.

I dunno, Warmahordes models probably have their out of whack proportions intentionally too. Most miniatures are out of proportion to emphasize key features like weapons and faces - this isn't just a GW or PP thing. Old Glory, Copplestone Castings, or just about any other company makes models like this. I don't care for the aesthetics of Warmahorde models, but I'm going to guess most of their proportional wackiness is intentional.

sourclams wrote:I would challenge you to find me several WM/H models that look that bad.

You misconstrued my argument. I never said they looked bad, my contention is that they look too much like toys. Its as if Hero Clix met yu-gi-oh. The physical presentation of many of the warmachine characters looks too illogical to be feasible.

Ya know, if peep's dont like 40k anymore stop playing it and stop complaining about it! You are like those uptight people who watch 2 hrs of a 'disgusting' tv show just so they can complain about it! The averedge number of channels is around 100, so change it!. If you dont like the game rules or the mini's, try Necromunda or Inquisitor. Or even BattleFleet Gothic....
I myself will be trying 'Infinty' this week for the first time, looking forward to the change from 40k, but will still be playing a 500pt mini tourney this weekend....Remember, a change is as good as a rest! Peace..........

My local gaming club has seen two big shifts. One is that a lot of us have picked up Warmachine and Hordes. I didn't, simply because I never liked steampunk too much, and the look of the models just never really appealed to me. Not to mention, I like the epic feeling of lining up a hundred Guardsmen, a dozen tanks, and then begining to move them forward. I look over at the Warmachine table and it just looks...too small scale. I want my battles to feel like their epic and world shaking, and I just don't get that feeling with Warmachine.

However, what I did, and a lot of other 40k players did is move into Battlefleet Gothic. We really like the rule set, the models are gorgeous, and it's a much more tactical game than Warhammer 40k. We've been enjoying it a lot, and we've even been considering running some joint 40k-BFG campaigns in the near future.

However, we all kept our hands on our 40k models. We all love the 40k lore, and every single one of us has a 40k army. However, we tend to reserve them nowadays for big Apoc games, or maybe fun games overall. The one person who has never considered moving game systems is our local tournament player.

Overall, I don't think 40k is down the toilet. However, I do think that a lot of people are looking at some of the new codexes, and then taking a glance around at the other gaming systems out there, both GW and non-GW. I think that 40k is still a fun system, and I still love my disproportiantely shaped Guardsmen and tanks....but I'm having fun trying out a new system of game play. I'll never ditch 40k, but it will become a secondary game system for a while.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Ya know, if peep's dont like 40k anymore stop playing it and stop complaining about it! You are like those uptight people who watch 2 hrs of a 'disgusting' tv show just so they can complain about it! The averedge number of channels is around 100, so change it!. If you dont like the game rules or the mini's, try Necromunda or Inquisitor. Or even BattleFleet Gothic....
I myself will be trying 'Infinty' this week for the first time, looking forward to the change from 40k, but will still be playing a 500pt mini tourney this weekend....Remember, a change is as good as a rest! Peace..........

I play BFG and it is pretty awesome.

LOL Locally we actually abandoned 40k in favor of BFG.

BaronIveagh wrote:LOL Locally we actually abandoned 40k in favor of BFG.

IKR. Railguns are EVEN BETTER on Star-Ships HERO CLASS!

BaronIveagh Wrote:

On the other side, my FLGS no longer does 40k at all. They stopped carrying it. Bizarrely, we do, still have Battlefleet Gothic...

Seen this pattern as well at other FLGS.

I'm getting into WM because it really to me is a better system all around. I still play 40K and I really like the new Tomb kings codex. The problem is that GW for several years has been pushing too damned hard on "higher points games". I also hate GW terrain, their paint has declined in quality as they try to nickle and dime you to death on supplies.

It is not one problem, it is a majority of problems and greed that is getting people to change over to something else.

There's definitely a feeling of decline in some ways, in other ways its business as usual. The rules are getting wackier and more outlandish, much more 2nd edition in nature, however we are stuck with a core ruleset designed by a guy who left immediately afterwards, who was hired because he was seen as being good at tournaments, whose big credo was all about making stuff simple and vanilla, and army books primarily written by authors (aside from DE and SW) that have never written anything before this edition and a primary author who really writes as if he were an overimaginative 12 year old.


There's a huge disconnect there.


The big thing for most people I know is the background. That's what makes this game and what sustains GW, and has of late been subject to savage assault under and unrelenting storm of what amounts to tweeny internet fanction quality material. It's not the rules, or the models that seems to be irking many players, it's the background.

Um, I love 40K and Warmachine. Why does it have to be one over the other? Both systems are good and serve a different purpose. Both have flaws. I just don't understand why one has to be better than the other.
Are you having fun playing?
Are you having fun hobbying?
Be glad you can spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on a FRIGGIN GAME! We should all be supporting anyone who is into miniature gaming. Its best for us all to have variety and competition.
So, I have
Necrons,
Daemons,
Tau,
Cryx.
I love em all.
Stop being donkey-caves.

I quit playing 40k for Warmahordes back in 4th edition do to that crap-fest.

I then Quit Playing Warmahordes with the advent of MarkII.

I am now back to just 40k because, while my warmachine army may not have changed(Khador) everyone esle that I know had their army completely changed. Also I had just spent over $200 on books, and bought 2 separate main rulebooks already(Prime, and remix), only to have to buy 3 new core books(MarkII, The Khador book, and now wrath, just so i can keep up) and another set of cards just to be able to play my army, and I now have to go try and Find out-of-print blisters to fill out a few of my squads because I didn't field them in full squads before. That means just to play my army I need to spend $96.95 more(not including wrath).

I used to Love PP; now I Loathe them.

Adam LongWalker wrote:BaronIveagh Wrote:

On the other side, my FLGS no longer does 40k at all. They stopped carrying it. Bizarrely, we do, still have Battlefleet Gothic...

Seen this pattern as well at other FLGS.

I'm getting into WM because it really to me is a better system all around. I still play 40K and I really like the new Tomb kings codex. The problem is that GW for several years has been pushing too damned hard on "higher points games". I also hate GW terrain, their paint has declined in quality as they try to nickle and dime you to death on supplies.

It is not one problem, it is a majority of problems and greed that is getting people to change over to something else.

Their paints are actually one of their redeeming qualities in my eyes. They dry nigh-instantly, paint perfectly over each other, have just the right amount of pigment, have a type for every painting stage etc...Love the washes, I hate the inks, so they helped me a lot.

The large games are being promoted because before the large game system was completely awful not all that long ago. Many people want to fight large battles, myself included, to better fit with the scale of Wh40K. What do you think better fits in the grimdark universe of the far future: 400pts, or 4000 pts?

I’ve been following 40k for about 11 years now. I started out in third edition, took a hiatus during 4th and started again during 5th. My post is based on comparing my experience with 40k in third edition and in 5th.

My issue with GW is not so much the paints or the models (which have improved greatly IMO) but with the codices. I’d have to say the codex quality has definitely gone a little down hill versus my experiences with the codices released during third edition. Part of the problem is codex creep. If one were to compare Matt Ward’s Vanilla Marine Codex with his BA/GW codices, it’s as if they were written by different people. His earlier conservative style of writing seems to have been ditched in favour of a more zany approach. We’d probably see less Ward hate if the BA/GK codices were written in his earlier style of codex writing. Given that Matt Ward now appears to be the main codex writer for MEQ, I can see why this can be off putting for some people.

Personally, the biggest deal breaker for me is the lack of supplementary rules/errata for older rule sets. Errata were a big thing in third edition and its kind if sad to see it go. Currently BT and DA are the only 2 forces to have gotten some kind of rules update without getting a new codex. It would be great if this approach was applied across the board.

At the end of the day, whilst we can acknowledge that there are issues with 40k currently, I don’t think it will stop fans from finding some way of enjoying 40k.

BlackMath said:

Um, I love 40K and Warmachine. Why does it have to be one over the other?

Normally I'd agree with you, but a lot of people only have time and money to support one wargame. I know quite a lot of people who want to play 40k and haven't, or have only recently collected a small army they can play socially with but won't start collecting beyond that, simply because mortgage/kids/etc they can't afford it and can't find the time to sink into it.

GW proportions make them look cute, and you need a little cute to offset the boring/brown.

Everyone at my FLGS, save for a select few devoted 40K players, has started playing WarmaHordes. Some of our most devoted 40K players have switched over to WarmaHordes. This is annoying me since I have been a devoted 40K player for going on 8 years now. Even one of our best 40K players refuses to play 40K and only wants to play WarmaHordes now.

I say fools - warmahordes is magic the gathering with minatures. They are just as expensive and while it’s a ‘better’ game (in terms of design and rules clarity etc) it will never beat 40k for massed battle and conflict. It is also comparatively just as expensive.

This is seriously bothering me, especially as a serious 40K player, and because of all the money I spent on 40K. I'm not a big WarmaHordes fan either. I have an army but I find the game much less fun than 40K. Well, I was curious so I asked them what they didn't like about 40K. Their response? They believe that both 40K, and Fantasy, have gone down the proverbial toilet. They think that 8th edition Fantasy rules are pretty bad (I agree with them on this point I'm quitting Fantasy until 9th Edition comes out...or Bretonnians get a new codex). They believe that 40K's problem is the models.

8th edition fantasy is tripe, I agree. Fantasy was the superior game up until 6th, 7th was so so but 8th is ‘extracting the urine’ (ie taking the p**s) However 5th edition 40k is actually a good game. I say this as a person who reluctantly played 3rd and 4th.

They think that 40K's models are ugly and they say that WarmaHordes models are so much better. They think that 40K has become too cartoony. They referenced some of the new Dark Eldar and Grey Knight models and said that they think the models and sculpting have gone down hill. I disagree with them on this. While I think the new Grey Knight models are not as good as the old metal ones, I think they are still very nicely crafted models and sprues. I also think that Dark Eldar have some of the nicest models to come out yet.

Ok your friends need to get their eyes checked. GK are a bit ‘what we expected’ but DE were ZOMGWTFBBQ-ingly awesome. In addition how do you differentiate between the 16 different units of the SAME TYPE in warmahordes? If you have 3 deathrippers they all have to be armed and look the same more or less….

They also mentioned how 5th edition 40K is broken. I don't wholly disagree on this, I think Mech Guard, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Spacewolves are incredibly broken. I also think some of the new models are rediculous. Stormraven, Vendetta, Voidraven Bombers, all of these models you would never see in 4th Edition. I personally think 4th Edition was the best. So anyway, I don't think 40K has gone down quite as far as they say it has and I am still very partial to Warhammer 40K and will continue to play it for many years to come. It just bothered me what they said, and their comments are still lingering in my head.

It’s escalating that’s for sure. But there’s only so much that people can take. Warmahordes beats 40k on a few points – rules clarity, speed, tournament-ability. However it isn’t actually fun. Luck is minimised by focus so its more about lists and crunching numbers. Despite several people/blogs best attempt at it that doesn’t happen in 40k as you cannot control how far your men wade through terrain, or run or leadership or anything like that. You can skew the odds but unlike warmahordes it doesn’t practically eliminate it (like hitting 12 on 4d6… that’s a bit too easy!)

Brother SRM:

5th ed 40k isn't broken. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights aren't broken either. They have effective builds but they die the same as any other Marines. Mechanized Guard happen to be very good at what the recent metagame is all about: mobility and meltaguns. Even so, they're dead in killpoints games and a bunch of AV12 vehicles and T3 dudes inside aren't hard to kill. They're effective, but I wouldn't say they're broken by any stretch of the imagination.

I think part of the issue is popularity and the ‘meta’game. When a game comes down to a metagame it’s not really a good game anymore… that’s why GW should balance things and we as players shouldn’t buy into a metagame…

Stella

the rules keep getting worse, each codex being more shiny than the last to make more sales with no thought as to game balance or playtesting more than once at best

the players are getting far worse, the bunch of jerks into 40k and GW in general is far higher now than it ever use to be, its no longer about playing with toys, its all about who can be the bigger jerk.

I agree that this seems to have been the trend with the internet, BOLS, YTTT and tournament mentality in genral

I think dakka must represent an unusually large percentage of the masochist community; seriously how many people are out there being made to continue playing this game at gunpoint and post incessantly about how painful it is? Does it just hurt so good to hate your hobby this much?

We love the hobby but hate the Hobby

Goddard:
You hate 8th Edition Fantasy?
What the hell?

Hmm I need THIRTY models to make one horde to have a chance, not that it matters as he has more ranks so doesn’t run away even when I mangle him.. oh wait now my block of dudes is axed by some OP-ed spell.. and every army needs to have a £30+ monster in it…

DevianID
Warmahordes 'Play like you got a pair' had to get changed right? 'Play like you got a pair but stop acting like jerks and using this sentence to try and validate your poor sportsmanship you morons' is how it reads now in the new rulebook right?

+1

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I agree with all of what you guys say and the Heroic Scaling is not a terrible thing with 40K. Your right WarmaHordes does it too. I think GW as a whole needs to start rethinking their writing strategies so as to stop this Codex one uping. I'm fearful as to what the Necron Codex is gonna be like or even the Sisters of Battle Codex. I'm not gonna hate on GW though. I play the game and that means I like 40K which means I like GW. I just don't like some things that they do and I think some of the writers are quite poor in my opinion. I'm not, however, opening up the Matt Ward can of worms, lets keep him out of this.

Necrons will suck because they aren’t spaze mharines.
Sisters will suck as only old skool people will buy any and GW wants to attract 12 year olds with rich parents… oh and sisters are also not spaze mharines. The models will be awesome and that's all that matters to a 'minatures' company.. (the 'games' in gamesworkshop is misleading)

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I used to play Blood Bowl & Space Hulk when I was a Kid by the age of 14 I lost interest (I couldn't paint, the nearest store was in London not many of my friends played). So 17 years later I picked up a few of the heresy novels enjoyed them and was inspired to create a 40k army.
I think the hobbys great it's gone from strength to strength since I left more stores bigger premises yes the sales assistants can be buy this buy that please buy something but there all nice people with a real interest in the hobby when I was younger their was a bit of an elitest attitude to the shop assistants.
The paints have improved massively I can actually produce something a bit respectable.
And lastly the rules are fine If people want to produce boring lists like 5 man assault squads all in razerbacks with 3 Baal preds and 3 Preds let them you don't have to play them personally I like to play them give them a tough game and they'll rethink using their all conquering Internet list.

sourclams wrote:

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks.

Um.... Actually, Magic was like that for YEARS. (Let us recall Rukh Egg...) And have you SEEN the full rulebook for MtG? It's a phonebook.

It was only when WotC realized that the Internet Existed that they made card FAQs easy to access. GW continues ot deny that the internet is real, or understand how to actually utilize it to have meaningful contact with their fanbase.

I love the GW models. I have to say I find all of them extremely pleasing to the eye with a few exceptions. Anyone claiming that as a reason is probably just hiding their true reasons for it.

BaronIveagh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks.

Um.... Actually, Magic was like that for YEARS. (Let us recall Rukh Egg...) And have you SEEN the full rulebook for MtG? It's a phonebook.

MtG parallel is interesting, but not for the reasons people usually cite. For Magic began as a fun game, not intended for competive play at all. Original rules had no card restrictions whatsoever. You could have a deck with nothing but Black Lotuses, Channels and Fireballs with nearly guaranteed 1st turn victory. Developers recognized those broken decks existed, but didn't care. They reasoned that "They're not fun to play, so people won't play them. Besides, Black Lotus is a Rare card, no way anyone buys enough boosters to collect several Lotuses." Clearly, the whole concept of WAAC players was alien to them. First expansions followed this suit, they were horribly unbalanced. At some point they recognized that there were too many broken cards, and expansions concentrated around fluff & themes, but with weak cards...expansions like Fallen Empires...and people HATED them. Nobody wanted to buy expansions with gakky cards. So they started "expansion creep" and began to release huge number of expansions with new, powerful cards. As MtG concentrated around competive play, I and everyone I know, bailed out. It didn't matter how good the tournament scene was, the game wasn't FUN anymore.

I still own about 3000 cards, maybe one day...

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Eh, it's just the natural ebb & flow of isolated gaming groups. I dealt with this exact situation when 40K moved from 2nd to 3rd edition. Honestly there's only two things you can do... 1. Try and revitalize the game amongst your group or... 2. Travel elsewhere for 40K games.

im2randomghgh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

Classics always fall under scrutiny. There will always be people who complain that a something isn't nearly as good as it used to be.

Do I think WH40k will die out? No. Do I think Warmachine will? No. Is there room for more than one wargaming game on the earth? Yes.

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Magic and WM/H have ridiculous power creep. Nids didn’t get much in the way of creep! Tau are lethal in 1000 point games (can max out a lot of their good stuff!)
Addiitonally WM/H is magic with minatures, 40k is a wargame - The ability to adapt to random elements is the challenge in a wargame. WM/H is about countering your oppoenents build seeing as everything is more rigidly defined.

. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

That’s a fallacy – ‘if you’re not X you’re Y ‘– you might be Z or even Q! (Or else I am an ultra genius!) as I don’t find WM/H as engaging. Heck chess is more engaging that WM/H
I find that it is too similar to magic in some ways and is too predictable in others. At least with 40k I have to think what happens if X, Y or Z doesn’t happen. I have to adapt. Think ahead in a different way.
With WM/H you can pretty much know what is going to happen. Takes the fun out of it.

MtG parallel is interesting, but not for the reasons people usually cite. For Magic began as a fun game, not intended for competive play at all. Original rules had no card restrictions whatsoever. You could have a deck with nothing but Black Lotuses, Channels and Fireballs with nearly guaranteed 1st turn victory. Developers recognized those broken decks existed, but didn't care. They reasoned that "They're not fun to play, so people won't play them. Besides, Black Lotus is a Rare card, no way anyone buys enough boosters to collect several Lotuses." Clearly, the whole concept of WAAC players was alien to them. First expansions followed this suit, they were horribly unbalanced. At some point they recognized that there were too many broken cards, and expansions concentrated around fluff & themes, but with weak cards...expansions like Fallen Empires...and people HATED them. Nobody wanted to buy expansions with gakky cards. So they started "expansion creep" and began to release huge number of expansions with new, powerful cards. As MtG concentrated around competive play, I and everyone I know, bailed out. It didn't matter how good the tournament scene was, the game wasn't FUN anymore.

Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

Grimtuff
Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

While I agree in terms of ‘noodle scratcher’ that’s just it – It’s more like a puzzle or an mtg game (where you know he has deck A and to counter it you need to pull series of moves B)
than a wargame. I find that it’s more about who know’s the rules inside out and back to front, knows the opponents rules (not hard as the rules are clear and there’s the card) and most importantly who can get their uber combo off and kill the caster first.

In 40k you have to adapt, in WM/H you just have to execute your plan, hope it goes right and that it's better than your opponents list/plan.

I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

Grimtuff wrote:

Quote Pyramid wrote:Unnecessary Clutter

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

You can't really dismiss that Warhammer has no tactics because it rolls a lot of dice. There's a lot of important stuff, like unit placement, predicting your opponent, leading a enemy into a trap (or away from an important unit), and a lot of the same tactics you find in a pure tactical game like chess. If anything, rolling a lot of dice produces an average, preventing a game being won and lost on a lucky die.

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

The Guard codex didn't come out until well into 5th ed, so I don't know what sort of timewarp you're playing in!

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

5ed better? You don't understand how stressful these cover saves are for Tau!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

Unless you're using the exact same army as your opponent, the number of squads in apoc is obviously not likely to be the same. You have to allocate squads A to fire a volley at opponent squad Z then move A over to assaullt opponent squad Y while getting firing support from tank A etc.

Plan around what your opponent does, but adapt and account for the dice.

Especially from my hit-and-run Tau, my battlesuits are jumping all over the place, and rarely fire upon the same units twice.

Phototoxin wrote:
Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

In fairness to GW, Apoc is hardly shoved down the players' throat, though. MtG's original designers were sorta idealistic and didn't envision the game as competive, hence lots of stuff was funky and rules were sometimes horribly muddy (anyone remember the "fast effect chart" published in Duellist?). But it was a fun game. It was during 5th Edition when MtG was cynically transformed to ruthless money grab. I feel GW (unlike WotC) has attempted to maintain some of the 'friendly game' ideology in Warhammer, unfortunately sometimes these efforts are misguided, and often difficult to distinguish from sheer laziness & complacency of their dominant position.

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Pen≥Sword wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Holy gak, that just looks plain wierd 0.o

Edit: I'm also kinda wondering how it stays upright.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Pen≥Sword wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Holy gak, that just looks plain wierd 0.o

Edit: I'm also kinda wondering how it stays upright.

Well I have seen convos where the balance looked MUCH trickier. Has anyone seen the Tau XV8 convos on the GW site? The one kicking the UM in the face? WOW! It's nice!

I have armies for Fantasy, 40K, Warmachine and Hordes. I play them all extensively. All the games have their own appeal. In respect to competitive play and clarity of rules, Warmachine/Hordes are by far the better option. Also, this being a skirmish game, each individual model can be capable of quite a few things, so you always have to keep the various synergies and angles of approach in mind. Add the resource/risk management of focus and fury, and I feel Warmachine/Hordes requires more quick thinking and situational awareness than the GW offerings. This is especially true when playing in a timed Hardcore format.

Fantasy is my "beer & pretzel" game (although I dislike pretzels and am very picky about my beer), as all sorts of wacky things can happen and you get to push giant monsters and blocks of models around. It is probably the most "pure fun" of the games I play. That said, there is a relatively deep tactical game underneath all the crazy magic and big beasties. Mastering maneuvering within the constraints of formations is an experience very akin to chess. The only thing that keeps Fantasy being as competition-worthy as Warmachine/Hordes is GW's awful muddy rules, sluggish clarification pipeline, and the sometimes enormous imbalances between armies stemming from their irregular release schedule and lack of collaboration between armybook authors.

40K... I don't know what to say about 40K, I'm a tad burned out on it right now. Tactically, even at its best it is probably the least robust of the game systems, and at the moment I don't even find it particularly fun. I'm just so sick of blowing up razorbacks.

withershadow wrote:I have armies for Fantasy, 40K, Warmachine and Hordes. I play them all extensively. All the games have their own appeal. In respect to competitive play and clarity of rules, Warmachine/Hordes are by far the better option. Also, this being a skirmish game, each individual model can be capable of quite a few things, so you always have to keep the various synergies and angles of approach in mind. Add the resource/risk management of focus and fury, and I feel Warmachine/Hordes requires more quick thinking and situational awareness than the GW offerings. This is especially true when playing in a timed Hardcore format.

Fantasy is my "beer & pretzel" game (although I dislike pretzels and am very picky about my beer), as all sorts of wacky things can happen and you get to push giant monsters and blocks of models around. It is probably the most "pure fun" of the games I play. That said, there is a relatively deep tactical game underneath all the crazy magic and big beasties. Mastering maneuvering within the constraints of formations is an experience very akin to chess. The only thing that keeps Fantasy being as competition-worthy as Warmachine/Hordes is GW's awful muddy rules, sluggish clarification pipeline, and the sometimes enormous imbalances between armies stemming from their irregular release schedule and lack of collaboration between armybook authors.

40K... I don't know what to say about 40K, I'm a tad burned out on it right now. Tactically, even at its best it is probably the least robust of the game systems, and at the moment I don't even find it particularly fun. I'm just so sick of blowing up razorbacks.

I partially agree. 40K is my favourite wargame, but all those SM players make it less fun. If everyone played xenos or daemons and the IoM were a minority, I think it would be WAAAAAY more fun.

The thing is, if the IoM was a minority, everyone would be griping about how all the different Eldar codexs get all the fun stuff! I mean they have 2! and in the past had 3!

The end result would be the same with only a different army being on everyones list. Remember from the hey deys of 4th when it took something like 36 lascannon shots to down a Falcon? They were bloody everywhere.






Edited because I didn't realise the b word was not autocorrected.

Ratbarf wrote:The thing is, if the IoM was a minority, everyone would be griping about how all the different Eldar codexs get all the fun stuff! I mean they have 2! and in the past had 3!

The end result would be the same with only a different army being on everyones list. Remember from the hey deys of 4th when it took something like 36 lascannon shots to down a Falcon? They were bloody everywhere.






Edited because I didn't realise the b word was not autocorrected.

Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

That's the thing that wouldn't happen though, as even if you had equal codex distribution, you would have imbalances among player numbers due to codex hopping. One of the reasons why you see so many marines is simply because of codex hopping, and the fact that the last 3 books of theirs have been sticky gooey goodness.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Daba wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Yes they are. Add to that, that simply picking another faction in a PC game (that comes with all factions as default) is just a matter of clicking a button, rather than investing hundreds of bucks and many hours of free time, you quickly see differences amplified.

Rather than from a random forum poll with a sample size of 39, these statistics here show they are rather close (though these are those who submit replays):

http://www.sc2replayed.com/statistics?cookieTest=1

with currently Protoss leading the pack.

Blizzard say:

http://m.kotaku.com/5661592/the-zerg-are-starcraft-iis-least-popular-race

Protoss are played 38.5% of the time.

Terran are played 38.0% of the time.

Zerg are played 23.5% of the time.

Backfire wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

In fairness to GW, Apoc is hardly shoved down the players' throat, though. MtG's original designers were sorta idealistic and didn't envision the game as competive, hence lots of stuff was funky and rules were sometimes horribly muddy (anyone remember the "fast effect chart" published in Duellist?). But it was a fun game. It was during 5th Edition when MtG was cynically transformed to ruthless money grab. I feel GW (unlike WotC) has attempted to maintain some of the 'friendly game' ideology in Warhammer, unfortunately sometimes these efforts are misguided, and often difficult to distinguish from sheer laziness & complacency of their dominant position.

I agree with Backfire. Apocalypse fits more into the "game for fun" side than the moneygrab side. Also agree completely about Money the Gathering. Playing old decks with friends is fun, but anywhere else I'd rather just play "who can lay the biggest pile of cash on the table" because at least I'd still have it afterwards.

40k doesn't feel like it's going that way yet. I would appreciate it if GW would slow down on pumping out new codexes/editions nonstop but nothing new to say there. Also, unless you're a tourney player there's nothing keeping you from using the older (more fun IMO) chaos codex for example. If GW does go the route of MtG I guarantee you I won't stop playing it, but I also guarantee you I won't be using the latest rules set

Daba wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Don't meantion THAT GAME in a wh40k forum. It is too blatantly a knock-off to be played by wargamers. Also, video games are the bane of a wargamer, as they consume A LOT of time that you need to spend painting. Not to say I don't play a littl, of course.

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Brets and Empire aren't the most popular Fantasy armies. Even if you include WOC as humans (and I wouldn't), the combination wouldn't dominate over any other group of 3 armies in the same way that Space Marines dominate in 40k.

Skaven and Elves tend to be the most popular, in my experience.

People play Space Marines because they're intentionally made to be the best armies, they get the most support, and they're the 40k poster child.

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out

The absurdity of this statement really can't be quoted enough.

My way of getting round all these problems (I only recently reached this conclusion) is to regard models, fluff and rules as entirely separate entities which only cross over superficially.

Personally I've not played a lot of 40k in the past year. This is not due to 40k as a whole, but I find fantasy to be totally well done and kinda balanced There are some nasty biulds, but if you play an All comers list like I have for my HE and DOC.

I look forward to playing 40k, when I get ready for a break with my fantasty, but that may be summer when I get ready for ard boyz.

biccat wrote:
People play Space Marines because they're intentionally made to be the best armies, they get the most support, and they're the 40k poster child.

Though, it is good to remember that just few years ago the situation was reverse - one SM codex was more or less competive, all other Imperial books were weak.

I don't think 40k has gone down the toilet. It is a constantly evolving game with a solvent company that continuously puts out new figures.

Now, I don't always agree with their sales, rules and codex policies, I still can't find a game and game universe that comes close to 40k.

My one wish, as good as some of the new figures are, is that they try and move to a more 'realistic' (for humans) and less campy esthetic. Heck, why not make a few 'true-scale' guys as an option?

Mentat wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...

The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

Quote Pyramid wrote:Unnecessary Clutter

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

You can't really dismiss that Warhammer has no tactics because it rolls a lot of dice. There's a lot of important stuff, like unit placement, predicting your opponent, leading a enemy into a trap (or away from an important unit), and a lot of the same tactics you find in a pure tactical game like chess. If anything, rolling a lot of dice produces an average, preventing a game being won and lost on a lucky die.

I was referring to Apocalypse. Not standard 40k. Normal 40k is incredibly tactical, just in a different way to WM. APOC OTOH is just "lets see how many dice I can roll and watch me place this dinner plate sized template on your army"

Scott-S6 wrote:
The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

I didn't say GWs miniatures are realistically proportioned. Google 'human proportions", the miniature on the left's torso is too many heads in length (by about 1). Thats why it looks weird. Ironically, I looked at some other miniatures from that brand and they looked more in proportion than your example.

Love the game my self

What really makes me stop playing people outside my group is the lose rules and with special characters.
Also GW making the old models that i have sux so I have to by the nes siney ones

ie: a trygon is way better for the same points as a carnifex

ie: eldrad, fortuning vechile cover saves :(

Scott-S6 wrote:

Mentat wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...

The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

If you think the trooper on the left is proportioned like a real person, you have some SERIOUS issues, go see a doctor.

His torso is thinner than each of his thighs.

Also, the waist, also known as the thinnest part of the torso, is not the thinnest part of HIS torso.

He looks more like a Tau air caste pilot.

On a side note, GW FW are fairly well proportioned, though it is hard to say with xenos, I just assume they are well proportioned since they are humanoid, and their minis proportions are human, except for areas where their anatomy is different.

Pen≥Sword wrote:Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

I'm glad you know what the proper real life proportions of a Warp Wolf are.

Can you now inform the rest of the class as to what they are?

I don't think the comment is based on proportions of the "warp wolf" I think it's just confirming that it looks like it came from thundercats.

Also that's a wolf? I thought it was a blue lion with rocky tail stuff or whatever you wanna call that. Are you sure it's not a cat related creature. Maybe a wisp of smoke?

I honestly think that 40k is looking to become better, especially if the guys at GW can balance the codeices a litttle better...

Also, while some 'dexes may be better than others, FAq's are a way to try and fix this- and I hope they work.

I have to agree with others saying that the proportions of 40k models could definitely be better. An example would be my sniper drone spotter and normal fire warrior. The crouching spotter is much larger than the fire warrior model if it were to be stood up which always bugged me. I thought it was a flawed model at first but it turned out they were all like that.

I think the move is more on wanting to try new things than anything. Warmahordes is growing fast and has good mechanics, balanced armies, and a fun new system compared to 40k with things such as magic and hit points.

You guys seem like hardcore veterans so it seems reasonable that some players would like a hiatus from 40k.

Me personally. I'm definitely a noob at 40k only having played around 4 games and swearing not to play another until i get my army painted (local shop is also pretty terrible). But at the same time with little experience at 40k i am also getting a 15 point trollblood army because it looks interesting and is a game i can play quickly with only 13 models being needed to paint. Their models are also damn smexy

Anyone defending the Warp Wolf Extreme is guzzling the Privateer kool-aid. Don't get me wrong, I love their game and the majority of their models, but the Warp Wolf Extreme was not well-received by the majority of their fans either.

That said, Wolf/Cat/whatever, we're basically taking about a giant mutating were-creature, so it can look like whatever.

withershadow wrote:
That said, Wolf/Cat/whatever, we're basically taking about a giant mutating were-creature, so it can look like whatever.

This was my point. Not necessarily defending it(although I like the model), just stating that you can't really use it as an example of wrong proportions since Warpwolves don't have any set or correct proportions as they can literally alter their bodies at will.

I think the new sculpts are pretty awesome looking personally, the new GK terminators look great alongside the old metal ones, and those were the best sculpts overall imo.

I also like 5th edition much better than 4th, and I certainly don't think the new codicies are broken. Some may be easier to play, and/or have more builds than others, but there isn't anything wrong with that. I also think the gameplay is quite tactical at certain point levels, obviously dinner plate size templates in Apoc aren't quite so, but we usually don't use those weapons in our Apoc games.

I can't really see myself playing a different tabletop system, it would take a lot to get me to switch. MtG is entertaining, but I don't want to try and keep up with the releases. I have my 4 land raiders, tons of PA SM and terminator SM, and other stuff, and I can make quite a few builds out of that. Also, my bookshelf is packed with 40k books. Also I play DoW2 quite a bit, and am really looking forward to Space Marine.

I'd say I'm invested in 40k, to say the least.

Other units that look good:

Death Company
Trygon
SW Terminators
DP (plastic)