It's unavoidable that these two would be compared. They're the two biggest wargames out there, and there is some bit of rivalry going on between them.

I've been sneaking around the forums abit, because honestly, while I do prefer 40K, I would tottally go with Warmahordes if not for a few select things which will likely be remedied in the future. Though, I did think it would be interesting to get a list of pros and cons of the two when compared to each other. I'll start off with what I believe are a few.

Market Saturation
Simply put, WH40K is still the dominant by a good amount. This has many perks, the biggest being it'll be easier to find a game, and if you move, you'll likely have an easier time finding new people to play with whereas in Warmahordes you may not find anyone at all if you had to move! Honestly, this is the biggest reason why I don't go with Warmahordes. I'm moving in about a year, and I have no idea if I'll find a gaming group for Warmahordes where I'm moving, but know I will for 40k.

Price
No question, it's cheaper to get into Warmahordes. You need less units, and it only becomes more costly if you want them all, this gap of prices just gets bigger each year as GW keeps raising prices, and I find it's the biggest reason people go Warmahordes.

Books
The way PP does their books is just better. You buy the two player box and you'll have a set of rules that'll be all you need, you only need to buy one book to play your army, and only need the army specific book if you really want it. Not only that, the book quality is just better for Warmahordes, with a section on the hobby itself rather than just the game.

Hobby: GW minis offer much more customization options (plastic and wargear). PP has a(n expensive) bits ordering service. Both have specialist collectors' items (Forgeworld and Extreme, respectively), though Forgeworld is much more extensive.

Your argument about books is the wrong approach: both games have starter sets, rulebooks (including mini and large), and army books, and both have hobby sections.* In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies. Quality is subjective.

The difference is that PP has a rolling release schedule for all armies, while GW has the (IMHO worse) "army a month" release schedule, which means big gaps between releases.

*Also, GW produces various hobby books which range from beginner to advanced, while PP has released one beginning level DVD (not making a judgment claim here, PP is smaller and younger, but both produce explicitly hobby-related material).

GW is a miniatures company that makes a game. They typically have beautiful multi-part plastics and shoddy rules mechanics that change dramatically with editions and codices and reward 'spam'. Specific models/units tend to have distinct hot/cold editions where what was good in previous editions is no longer good now, resulting in alot of army/model recycling. Ambiguities in their rules-writing and lack of R&D support results in models/abilities that can play dramatically differently based on interpretation. GW is also often criticized for monolithic release schedules and favoring 'Marine' armies. Factions can go years at a time with no updates, and release tranches dump a lot of merch on the market in a short period versus a more moderated release schedule. GW gameplay is typically linear (everything moves, everything shoots, everything fights).

PP is a gaming company that makes minis. Their game was basically built ground-up from the rules, resulting in a tight, near-technical terminology and continuity. This results in little to no ambiguity. PP tends to update armies/factions more equitably with everything getting something in 3-6 month tranches. Other than a Mk. II re-release, there's really no editions or continuity issues with PP product, and inter and intrafaction balance is generally very good, aside from a 'stinker' model/unit or two. PP gameplay is typically dynamic, dependent on resource allocation, usage of 1/game abilities, and building powerful combos. PP models tend to be metal and mono-pose, and there are definite quality differences between newer and older sculpts.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Hobby: GW minis offer much more customization options (plastic and wargear). PP has a(n expensive) bits ordering service. Both have specialist collectors' items (Forgeworld and Extreme, respectively), though Forgeworld is much more extensive.

Your argument about books is the wrong approach: both games have starter sets, rulebooks (including mini and large), and army books, and both have hobby sections.* In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies. Quality is subjective.

The difference is that PP has a rolling release schedule for all armies, while GW has the (IMHO worse) "army a month" release schedule, which means big gaps between releases.

*Also, GW produces various hobby books which range from beginner to advanced, while PP has released one beginning level DVD (not making a judgment claim here, PP is smaller and younger, but both produce explicitly hobby-related material).

Well I meant, for example, the 2p box for Warmahordes has a rule book, that it's all you'll need. Don't need to go out and buy a $50 book like in WH40K when you buy their bigass 2p box.

That, and there is no hobby section in WH40K codexes, but they do have those in Warmahorde "codexes". I don't exactly count the "model showcase" of 40k codexes as a hobby section (hell, it's more a BUY FW STUFF! showcase in the grey knights codex), it's just showing lots of images. PP gives freakin' building tips.

Pros:
- Generally well balanced
- Fast and tactical gameplay
- Tactical ability is more important than list building
- regular Army wide releases
- Easier but more flexible core gameplay
- relatively cheap to start with

Cons:
- Units often got only 3 sculpts in a 10 man unit
- in the long run as expensive as 40k
- lower player saturation
- very steep learning curve
- lots and lots of information to remember to become " good"

Generally i think Warmahordes is the superior game, the only cons i see are more " hobby" and less " gaming" related

spiralingcadaver wrote:In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. GW's system requires more models to play, rewards taking multiples of effective unit types, and the ruleset requires significant reinvestiture if you change your army archetype (within the same codex) - e.g. Kult of Speed vs. Kan Wall vs. Green Tide.

keezus wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. GW's system requires more models to play, rewards taking multiples of effective unit types, and the ruleset requires significant reinvestiture if you change your army archetype (within the same codex) - e.g. Kult of Speed vs. Kan Wall vs. Green Tide.

I don't get it either, but it always comes up.

I bought some of the starter boxes for warmachine when it first came out. I put them on the shelf since my group got heavy into 40k. I have been looking at Warmahordes a lot lately just for a change of pace and I was wondering if my beginner box jacks from the original release are still viable in todays game.

The boxes, all boxes, are all valid.

Well I guess my real question is does PP do a good job of not making the newer jacks so over the top that the older ones have no use anymore.

quite the opposite actually. PP has been scaling back their new releases, the older stuff is still usually the best stuff. bane thralls and doom reavers have been around for a long time and are still seen. i run juggernauts a ton when i play khador, menoth loves their choirs and vanquishers, and cygnar staples like jr and the defender have been here for a long time.

some of the newer stuff is really good, but it doesnt outshine older stuff.

OT:

this may sound weird, but i really value a game that lets me engage enemy models without having to charge them. also i really like the option to leave a combat, even at the risk of being destroyed. in this 40k makes little sense to me, when would a GK terminator care about being engaged with a grot?

warmachine is a lot more skirmish oriented. the ranges are shorter, topping off at the lower 20 inch range. troops have a chance to hurt heavy targets in both melee (CMA) and ranged (CRA). troops can interact with other troops and as a result warmachine has more inborn synergy than 40k.

40k is great for converting. i also really like the fluff, but the game leaves much to be desired. like i said above, elements like leaving combat are important for me, because its relaistic. GW also has a horrible release schedule, killed their bitz catalog and shunned the specialist games community. GW is surely still top dawg, but the gap between them and other companies is shrinking.

You will be happy to hear, that Codex creep is a GW thing. There are very few cases were something makes something older obsolete. In fact a lot of the most powerful units in the game are from prime/ primal ( Gun Mages, Banes....)
The same goes for the jacks. All Battleboxes contain a " basic" heavy jack that is still used quite often, mostly for its cheapness ( Slayer, Ironclad, Juggernaut...) and some light jacks that bring utility.
While some of them are not the most competitve choices ( Destroyer, Defiler....) they are all useful

Namica wrote:

keezus wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. GW's system requires more models to play, rewards taking multiples of effective unit types, and the ruleset requires significant reinvestiture if you change your army archetype (within the same codex) - e.g. Kult of Speed vs. Kan Wall vs. Green Tide.

I don't get it either, but it always comes up.

Cadaver's close: Warmachine/Hordes definitely have a lesser buy in cost - a game at 15 points is just as tactical and involved as one at 35 or 50 points - but if you want to collect an entire faction, then Warmachine/Hordes will be more costly. Which is kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. One of Warmachine's greatest strengths is the fact that a single change in an army list - 1 solo, unit, warjack/beast - can noticeably change how an list plays on the table. And changing a Warcaster is even bigger.

Namica wrote:

keezus wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:In fact, in the long run, GW will cost less, unless you plan on collecting a lot of armies.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. GW's system requires more models to play, rewards taking multiples of effective unit types, and the ruleset requires significant reinvestiture if you change your army archetype (within the same codex) - e.g. Kult of Speed vs. Kan Wall vs. Green Tide.

I don't get it either, but it always comes up.

Oh, my bad, I should have specified, I just meant in terms of books.

Hückleberry wrote:Well I guess my real question is does PP do a good job of not making the newer jacks so over the top that the older ones have no use anymore.

The consensus is that new releases do not make old releases useless.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394724.page

infinite_array wrote:Cadaver's close: Warmachine/Hordes definitely have a lesser buy in cost - a game at 15 points is just as tactical and involved as one at 35 or 50 points - but if you want to collect an entire faction, then Warmachine/Hordes will be more costly.

Frankly I continue to find this statement fallacious and flat out wrong (not calling you out, I think you roughly agree, just using the quote) even though I see it expressed often.

If you buy an entire faction, then you have an incredible number of potential lists at your disposal. The playability of a warmachine/hordes faction represents something like 50 separate 2,000 point 40k lists.

I think I priced the entire Trollbloods faction (one of the most expensive on a per model basis) out at around $1,000. The entire faction. Aside from a few specific tier lists, you can run whatever you want...almost a dozen warlocks, three or four distinct lists per warlock, easy.

What would $1,000 get you in Imperial Guard armies? One coherent 2.5k list? Maybe two distinctly different 2k lists if you went somewhat transport-light?

Frankly, I don't understand how 'buying an entire faction costs more'. If you're buying the entire faction, you have 1 of each model/unit. If you're buying an entire 40k codex, you have 3 or more of every model/unit. WM is cheaper on a list-by-list basis and on a faction-by-faction basis, and a LOT cheaper on an 'all possible combinations' basis.

infinite_array wrote:Cadaver's close: Warmachine/Hordes definitely have a lesser buy in cost - a game at 15 points is just as tactical and involved as one at 35 or 50 points - but if you want to collect an entire faction, then Warmachine/Hordes will be more costly. Which is kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. One of Warmachine's greatest strengths is the fact that a single change in an army list - 1 solo, unit, warjack/beast - can noticeably change how an list plays on the table. And changing a Warcaster is even bigger.

This is sort of the case. For instance, two infantry casters could run the same infantry list two different ways viably (hypothetically, faster vs. harder to kill). However, swapping in a jack caster could potentially require you to swap out 90% of your army to run it well. If you're willing to play with a limited set/style, then that statement is mostly true, but if you're playing 2 different styles, that's just as radically different as the Kult of Speed vs. Kan Wall.

Mercs and Minions also often have little overlap. For instance, the following casters are often run in theme lists:
-Shae (+ talion)
-pMagnus
-eMagnus
-Ashlynn

From that list, there is a partial overlap on jacks taken, and only one non-jack in common in those lists.

Add to that Searforge & the rhulic themes for one more solo overlap but no jack overlap with the above.

Mercs is literally four different 'armies': Dwarves, Pirates, Steelheads, and any mishmash of those plus various Khadoran and Cygnar units to create highborn or four star syndicate charters.

Even ignoring that this is the least favorable comparison basis for a dollar:%collectibility argument, I would gamble that a dollar spent on Mercs will still get you more playability in normal gaming formats than a dollar spent on 40k models.

Exactly! That's what I didn't get. Getting a list for Warmahordes is a few hundred less than a comparable 40K, and you can change that list for cheaper than 40K.

So you can buy an entire faction in 40K for cheaper, you'll have alot less options than buying the whole army in Warmahordes. You have a Space Marine shooty list. Almost horde like. How much would it cost to make that into more of an assault list? Buy lots of pistol + chainsword bits, a whole new HQ, maybe a whole different sort of termie. It'll likely cost over 100. Changing a tac in Warmahordes can be as easy as changing one warlock, or a warlock and a unit.

@spiralingcadaver:

Did you just really use the fact that 4 Mini-factions dont have a lot of overlap, if you use highly constricted lists, to say that warmachine is not cheaper than 40k? Seriously?

In terms of pros/cons (to get things a little back to topic)

Models:
GW is hands down better. I have yet to hear of anyone that thought PP's models were better. Detail, conversion possibilities, look/material.

price per model:
GW is generally better but price per army PP is generally better. This is just because PP uses smaller armies.
My 1850 GW army runs at around $350 and my 35 pt PP army runs at $230
Just the way it is mostly because my GW army has more than 2x the models in it (that makes a difference). Arguing about the versatility of armies, changing them, etc wont change that.

Book wise and rule wise (by rules here i mean the presentation of rules):
I like GWs method. Yes the army every 3 months means most armies are stagnate for a long time but this also means everything you need for one army is in one location. I find having to look through multiple books to find the rules for a single army in PP's method to be very annoying.
Yes i know you can just get the cards but that means I have to go buy all the models before seeing the actual stats, equally annoying.

In terms of actual rules:
Warmachine is actually closer to warhammer fantasy 6th edition. The vehicles in 40k have always been an issue for balance. In 3rd they were speed machines delivering troops, in 4th they were death traps, in 5th they are tough as nails. Take them out and many issues go away. Warmachine has nothing that far removed from the rest of the units rules wise (jacks and warbeasts are closer to monstrous creatures than vehicles rules wise, slightly tougher, lots more wounds).

In fantasy and in warmachine the factions are actually very similar with a few differences between them. Generally they had the same rules just in different combination and one stat or another was higher than the other factions. Wrmachine is the same. Throw in charge = win along with combat is far more likely to kill something that shooting and walla, direct comparison.

I'm gonna guess that codex creep, or some flavor of it will work its way into warmachine but because of the method of updates it wont be as bad as it is with games workshop's release design.
Give it another 4 years and mark 3 will come out.

Vombaticus wrote:@spiralingcadaver:

Did you just really use the fact that 4 Mini-factions dont have a lot of overlap, if you use highly constricted lists, to say that warmachine is not cheaper than 40k? Seriously?

No, I used it to say that it isn't always as cheap as swapping out a $10 model to play a different army, as an extension of the comment about different caster styles often dictating army type.

cypher wrote:In terms of pros/cons (to get things a little back to topic)

Models:
GW is hands down better. I have yet to hear of anyone that thought PP's models were better. Detail, conversion possibilities, look/material.

Honestly, aside from the Dark Eldar, I like the PP models better.

The vehicles of 40k are lazy and uninspired, mostly just cliche tanks and METAL BOXES with little variations to themes. There is far to much uniformity, and even with the uniform look it's just so lazy looking with few exceptions. PP just has variety all over the place, and few models I feel look derpy, while I can take handfuls of units in WH40K and say they look derpy.

cypher wrote:In terms of pros/cons (to get things a little back to topic)price per model:
GW is generally better but price per army PP is generally better. This is just because PP uses smaller armies.
My 1850 GW army runs at around $350 and my 35 pt PP army runs at $230
Just the way it is mostly because my GW army has more than 2x the models in it (that makes a difference). Arguing about the versatility of armies, changing them, etc wont change that.

Book wise and rule wise (by rules here i mean the presentation of rules):
Yes i know you can just get the cards but that means I have to go buy all the models before seeing the actual stats, equally annoying.

In terms of actual rules:
Warmachine is actually closer to warhammer fantasy 6th edition. The vehicles in 40k have always been an issue for balance. In 3rd they were speed machines delivering troops, in 4th they were death traps, in 5th they are tough as nails. Take them out and many issues go away. Warmachine has nothing that far removed from the rest of the units rules wise (jacks and warbeasts are closer to monstrous creatures than vehicles rules wise, slightly tougher, lots more wounds).

In fantasy and in warmachine the factions are actually very similar with a few differences between them. Generally they had the same rules just in different combination and one stat or another was higher than the other factions. Wrmachine is the same. Throw in charge = win along with combat is far more likely to kill something that shooting and walla, direct comparison.

I'm gonna guess that codex creep, or some flavor of it will work its way into warmachine but because of the method of updates it wont be as bad as it is with games workshop's release design.
Give it another 4 years and mark 3 will come out.

I would love to see your army lists. Even with your numbers you're still showing a savings of 33% by playing PP over GW. How about telling us how much you spent for a second usuable list for 40K vs how much you had to pay to make your second PP army?

As far as finding all of the stats for the various units you can buy a deck of cards for whichever faction you're interested in for between 11-15 dollars. These decks have most of the cards of the faction for a small fraction of the cost of one GW codex and you don't even need the Forces of book from PP to play your faction. That's hardly the case for GW.

As for the rules themselves you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who's played each system claim that 40K has a better rule system than PP especially in terms of clarity of how to play.

What army is it, at that? Most armies will cost 300-400 (with some being much more) to get to 1k points, unless GK, which are BY FAR the cheapest army.

These decks have most of the cards of the faction for a small fraction of the cost

As i said. I enjoy the GW's policy of having ALL rules in one place. Finding most but not all gets annoying.

Clarity of rules, yea GW has missed that one. Will see if 6th fixes that but I'm not holding my breath.

One for PP, one for GW.

Not seeing your point on how much a second usable list would be. I can either replace some or all of the list ranging from some extra money to another $300.

cypher wrote:

These decks have most of the cards of the faction for a small fraction of the cost

As i said. I enjoy the GW's policy of having ALL rules in one place. Finding most but not all gets annoying.

Clarity of rules, yea GW has missed that one. Will see if 6th fixes that but I'm not holding my breath.

One for PP, one for GW.

Not seeing your point on how much a second usable list would be. I can either replace some or all of the list ranging from some extra money to another $300.

How are GW's rules and PP's rules not in the exact same place?

You want rules for 40k, you buy the BRB. You want the rules for Warmachine/Hordes, you buy Prime or Primal mk2.
I have a warmachine and a hordes army, but I only own the hordes rulebook, because with the exception of a few rules, they're exactly the same. I don't own the big rules for 40k, just the small book

You want information on your army's rules? You buy the codex, you want information on your army's stats? you pull out the card. The difference is that I don't have to flip through a book to find the right unit/model. I look down and see a pretty picture.

I'm thinking its more of a GW: 1, PP:2...

And as for the model issue, I love the look of the PP models more so than GW's models. I mean sure I can pose and convert easily with GW, but I suck at that anyways, so I try to just get a cohesive looking army on the table

cypher wrote:

These decks have most of the cards of the faction for a small fraction of the cost

As i said. I enjoy the GW's policy of having ALL rules in one place. Finding most but not all gets annoying.

Clarity of rules, yea GW has missed that one. Will see if 6th fixes that but I'm not holding my breath.

One for PP, one for GW.

Not seeing your point on how much a second usable list would be. I can either replace some or all of the list ranging from some extra money to another $300.

It shows that PP allows people to spend less money for a better variety of armies. In most cases if you just pull out 1 unit from a 40K army you're not changing the basic army tactic/feel that much. In PP changing 1 unit can make quite a difference in how the army plays/feels.
It also shows the flexibility of the systems in terms of choices for players. GW not so flexible without spending some significant amount of dollars (in most cases). PP changing one caster can cost as little as 12.00 and with that you've changed your army significantly.

Well, I buy both companies' models to collect and paint.

I only play with one company's models.

Rulewise, PP wins hands down IMO.

The rules are cleaner, better written and have less “zaniness” than what I encountered with GW. Rule issues are tackled fairly frequently by PP through online errata (note errata not just rules FAQs). The formatting of the books is better as well with the story and rules for a single character or unit in the one place (no flipping back and forth). The inclusion of rules on the character cards is a bonus IMO as it allows players to use a model without having to buy the army book (although I prefer to use the army book over the cards).

When an update occurs (like a new edition or expansion pack) all factions get updated therefore not leaving any ruleset outdated (making all factions viable for play). So far, all of the new additions in mk2 have not created any power creep (with core models technically being stronger than the Wrath additions).

Pros:
Every model does something useful in the right combo
Friendlier Playerbase (Your mileage by very)
Faster and more Tactical Gameplay

Cons:
Smaller Playerbase


Depending on how you view it:
Less Dice needed (You'll never need more than 6)

a game that requires more dynamic brain usage

It shows that PP allows people to spend less money for a better variety of armies. In most cases if you just pull out 1 unit from a 40K army you're not changing the basic army tactic/feel that much. In PP changing 1 unit can make quite a difference in how the army plays/feels.
It also shows the flexibility of the systems in terms of choices for players. GW not so flexible without spending some significant amount of dollars (in most cases). PP changing one caster can cost as little as 12.00 and with that you've changed your army significantly.

That's a side affect of the fact that in warmachine one unit occupies a greater portion of the army. in my 40k example my army has 4 indipendient chars and 7 units. My warmachine army has 1 caster, 2-3 solos, 1 jack, and 2 units. Replacing one unit and im dropping 25% of my army there. Do the same to a 40k army and you will change something of how it plays, just depends on what you replace it with.

The whole replacing caster thing doesn't work well because there is nothing remotely like that in 40k. If you move back to the fantasy comparison then it would be akin to replacing your lvl4 wizard with a lord on a dragon and that will definitely change how the army plays.


I would have thought faster would be one pro of warmachine but that last 2 hour game really dragged on. The guys in my are haven't progressed to scenarios yet, were still just playing assassination.

The major bonus warmachine has for me is that you are never truly out of the game. You can be down half your army and not have killed anything only to pull out a clutch caster kill to win the game. It can be frustrating to have it happen against you but pulling a win out of a bad situation makes for great games overall. In 40k if your significantly down it can be really hard to come back. Fantasy less so because positioning matters more but it is still difficult.

cypher wrote:
The major bonus warmachine has for me is that you are never truly out of the game. You can be down half your army and not have killed anything only to pull out a clutch caster kill to win the game. It can be frustrating to have it happen against you but pulling a win out of a bad situation makes for great games overall. In 40k if your significantly down it can be really hard to come back. Fantasy less so because positioning matters more but it is still difficult.

eCaine's Gate Crasher. 'Oh, you've killed my entire army? Well, have fun trying to catch my caster!'

@Cypher, what KIND of assassination are your playing?

Playing Kill Box will drastically reduce the time of play, as it restricts where casters can go(You lose if your Caster ends activation outside the Box). A single game in our group runs much faster now that players can't run away if they just have their caster left.

One of my biggest issues with GW (besides codex creep) is Force Allocation. Lets see, these guys suck and I don't really have any use for them but I will take them over other guys because I have to so that GW can sell models.......

The closest thing to madatory in WM/H is you have to take a 'caster/'lock.

GW games need FAs because of their poor intra-faction balance (rewarding of spam). Can you imagine what would happen if there was no Force Org chart? Logan Grimnar... and 12 Long Fang squads with 60 missile launchers.

I completely agree, with a better set of overall rules FA wouldn't be necesarry....oh wait....that would be WM/H.....
(That being said I play both, just haven't touched 40K in at least 1/2 a year of playing every Fri due to my opinion that PP makes a better game)

I think that FA is fine in both game systems: one of the easiest ways to break any system is doing one thing too much, so why not stop that from happening by restricting how much you can do?

Say they could spend X hours balancing one thing, or spend X hours balancing 2 things with FA restrictions: I'd prefer to go with the latter, because a lack of restrictions can still reward people with more money, because they have more options, regardless of balance.

Both versions of force allocations work well enough. Remove PP's and someones gonna take to the field with villemont and 15 paladins. A couple of armies could try to give it a run for its money, all others fall like grass.

Unit spam will always be a problem in games such as this. Both systems have good models, better models, always taken models, and useless models (they do exist).

Honestly if you removed PP's UAs, you probably don't see lists materially different than what they already are. Very few models/units are good enough to justify 'spamming'.

Vilmon/15 Paladins, for example, is slower than molasses when utilizing their defensive abilities and has no way to circumvent rough terrain. They're 1 dimensional and matchup prone; any Cygnar list wtih ATGM, for example, can shoot them dead 3-4 per turn. If they try using shield wall, then the non-magic weapon units simply walk up and tear them apart. Any WM army with Aiyana/Holt can do the same. Hordes has a tougher time, but Mulg, Molik Karn with Extoller, Legion lists with the new centipede beast (MW animus) all give Paladin spam a hearty roflstomping.

Yank FA from GW games, however, and you have a lot more potential abuse from the spam of super units/models. Dark Angels would jump right to the top of competitiveness, for example, due to 75 pt Typhoon land speeders. 26 Typhoons gives you more than 50 ML shots for anti vehicle/infantry and another 26 heavy bolters or multimeltas for dealing with elite infantry and MCs.

Karchev and 5 Beast 09's as a 50 point game (if I did the math correctly) would be insanely obnoxious. I bet that a whole army of tiny little Black 13's running around would fold under certain things, but give a lot of people trouble, simply because the unit is so cheap for decent power and lots of utility.

"FA:C" is also a FA limitation.

To add a few more to the list.

Pros:

New models for every army every year.
Models don't get left out of the rules, everything is playable forever.
A single purchase can change the way your army works dramatically.

Cons

Less convertible, less plastic.

Personally I have that games of Warmahordes are a lot more enjoyable than 40K ever was. Another thing that I like better about PP is that the starter boxes are actually legitamite starting armies. Where as the 40K starter box is not, nor are the battlalion boxes actually a starter box. Also i persaonally enjoy PP's models better then Gw's. Sure I can't do a lot of converting but I enjoy painting PP"s models a lot more then GW's models.

Warmahordes does seem good and all but for one thing mainly for me. Where I live, I have never met anyone who plays or seen any indication that anyone plays Warmahordes. It's all mostly WH fantasy or 40k, mostly 40k... And I love converting models which doesn't seem all that friendly in Warmahordes.

Well it does seem PP is moving more towards plastics with their new plastic beasts/jacks. And it's generally easier to get people to try Warmahordes than WH40K given that it literally only costs 50 bucks for them to give it a try.

Namica wrote:Well it does seem PP is moving more towards plastics with their new plastic beasts/jacks. And it's generally easier to get people to try Warmahordes than WH40K given that it literally only costs 50 bucks for them to give it a try.

It's best if you don't compare PP's plastics to GWs. They're really not even close to the same quality. Privateer is new at it, so that's fine, but IMO they've quite inferior and, despite being plastic, don't offer much more in the way of customization.

I disagree about the friendliness of the player base. In my area, page 5, and the overall competetiveness of the game itself, creates a very aggressive, unfriendly game setting. So much so, in fact, that I only will play with my buddies.

Big negative for me is Privateer's inability to have a consistent means of delivering their product. I try and support my LGS's as much as possible, but with PP's new "core" model set, it makes it very hard to get some things. Subsequently, I often have to order online. I don't mind it, but I'd much prefer if I could shop at my LGS for the things I need.

Big positive for Privateer is the support of their game. They do a really fantastic job supporting the entire system, from organized league play, to the Iron Arena at events. IMO Iron Arena at GenCon & Adepticon is better than GW's Games Day, and it isn't close.

Big negative, and it's been addressed already in the thread, is Privateer's inability to give you multiple sculpts for a unit. 10 man units, I'm okay with doubling up. I think the inability to have 5 unique sculpts in a boxed set (like the Trollkin Sluggers, where there are only 3 sculpts in the 5 man unit) is inexcusable when the models aren't customizable. It may be a petty complaint, but it bothers me. Stemming from this, some of their recent sculpts have simply been boring to me. They're fairly static, and the recent trend seem to be "give everyone a lot of fligree on their armor." Those are all aesthetic complaints, so YMMV.

I think PP clearly has the superior ruleset. It's much more focused and tighter, but the combo's in the game, much like in a CCG like Magic, can get frustrating if you don't know them all. You won't win if you don't know how your opponents army works. Chances are it won't even be competitive. I typically like the more casual nature of 40k, and the fact that I can usually know what a unit will be doing just by looking at them. Someone can tell me a weapon is melta, and I know what that means, it doesn't matter if their Necrons, Marines, or Eldar. One model with a Magelock Pistol in Warmahordes may have completely different rules than another magelock pistol model in the same unit (see Black 13th). It's not bad, but the learning curve is certainly much steeper.

I like both, I play both, and I think they're completely different games.

While the friendliness of the players surely depends on the group, it seems to me the GW crowd is overall way more rude/ annoying. Sure there douches everywhere, but i have met far more douchy 40k/fantasy guys than warmahordes people. Also i dont think a competitive setting is bad at all, considering that you are competitive in any game where you at least try to win. Even in tournaments the matche are usually way friendlier and nicer than in all 40k tournys i seen to this day.

Also that PP is atm not able to produce enough to meet the huge demand is annoying, but not really a problem. Especially since they are aware of that and are trying to get production to the point were they can satisfy the costumers

That's because people that come to the game expecting competition dont get butthurt when they face tough odds.

sourclams wrote:Honestly if you removed PP's UAs, you probably don't see lists materially different than what they already are. Very few models/units are good enough to justify 'spamming'.

I tried to find the picture from this year's Gencon, but have so far failed. It was a Goreshade v Butcher game where they both spammed their FA:U infantry(Banes and Doom Reavers respectively). Not saying that you're wrong(these were extreme examples of the Tiers), but people do it.

Vombaticus wrote:
Also that PP is atm not able to produce enough to meet the huge demand is annoying, but not really a problem. Especially since they are aware of that and are trying to get production to the point were they can satisfy the costumers

Can we really call it "at the moment" at this point? Their supply issues have been going on for over a year... Privateer seems to get a huge pass on this, where if it were a GW problem the internet would be on fire.

@Negator - I don't really understand your comment.

Don't get me wrong; I don't mind the competition. However, based on my experiences (and bear in mind I play in the Adepticon Team Tourney every year), I find that Warmahordes tournaments are far more aggressivly competitive to play in, to the point the fun goes away. I like being able to drink during the Adepticon TT and relatively competitive. I don't have to study anyone else's army to do so. I simply don't have the time to know every combo possibility for every Warmahordes army I could face. As such, I'm at a significant disadvantage just walking into the game. For me, I prefer more casual competition, and for me, I've found that more often playing 40k. I typically play Warmahordes with 2 or 3 friends that have similar time constraints to me, and in that setting the game is really enjoyable for me.

cincydooley wrote:Can we really call it "at the moment" at this point? Their supply issues have been going on for over a year... Privateer seems to get a huge pass on this, where if it were a GW problem the internet would be on fire.

If GW suffered a year long stock shortage as a result of growth then the internet would indeed, as you say "be on fire".

Platuan4th wrote:

sourclams wrote:Honestly if you removed PP's UAs, you probably don't see lists materially different than what they already are. Very few models/units are good enough to justify 'spamming'.

I tried to find the picture from this year's Gencon, but have so far failed. It was a Goreshade v Butcher game where they both spammed their FA:U infantry(Banes and Doom Reavers respectively). Not saying that you're wrong(these were extreme examples of the Tiers), but people do it.

That's exactly my point. Things that 'break' the FA already exist, and you rarely see them played (T4 Goreshade vs T4 eButcher was a humorous exception because it came down to Bane vs Reaver spam) because they're one dimensional lists prone to matchup issues and aren't truly competitive. This was a funny/silly matchup, but neither of these guys made it to the top 3 for the tournament.

What, for example, does Goreshade do against a balanced Old Witch list with WGI? Mostly it runs forward into a hale of shotgun fire and dies horribly ten and fifteen bane thralls at a time.

George Spiggott wrote:

cincydooley wrote:Can we really call it "at the moment" at this point? Their supply issues have been going on for over a year... Privateer seems to get a huge pass on this, where if it were a GW problem the internet would be on fire.

If GW suffered a year long stock shortage as a result of growth then the internet would indeed, as you say "be on fire".

They've had OVER A YEAR to catch up. Over a year. They even halted production of new products for a full month. Now they think they're going to launch a brand new Sci Fi game... How are they going to sustain product production and supply for two games if they can't get caught up on one? And I'm looking forward to Sector 7, or whatever the hell they've named it. The fact still remains that Privateer is having MAJOR production issues. Their "core lists" are guaranteed to ship "within 2 weeks." If you want something not on their core list, you could be looking at 2 months? To me, this is a problem. Not to mention their core list doesn't include some important faction-specific pieces (Cough*Earthborn Dire Troll*Cough).

I love that they're finally getting around to doing plastic jack and beast kits. I think those kits still need a lot of improvement to be close to on part with similar plastic kits (including pre built kits like are included in Dust Tactics). Their resin is also, at this point, very rough. My Storm Striders had mould lines everywhere. There were a ton of bubbles too. Are they huge issue for me? Naw, they were fixable with some spit and elbow grease. But when we see similar issues with GWs new resin production in Finecast (which is being done on a MUCH larger scale, with much more detailed and smaller models), the fething internet explodes and all the meme-geniuses cleverly create "failcast." What I'm talking about is a decidedly unfair double standard. It is what it is, but to discount Privateer's severe inability to get their models to the market in a reasonable time for over a year is a problem in my eyes. I suppose I'm of the opinion that, if you can't keep your normal product in stock, STOP MAKING NEW gak until you can. You can't grow the game if you can't keep basic models (cough*titan bronzeback*cough) in stock.

With all that said, I'll still buy all my new Trollbloods & Cygnar models as they come out; If I don't, who knows when I may be able to get them.

I think the difference is in the communication and acknowledgement of issues, and the differences in approach between PP and GW.

GW, for example, hailed Finecast as the biggest leap forward in miniatures based hobbying since man first scrawled buffalo paintings to the light of newly-invented fire. Their first couple runs had significant flaws and they raised prices while touting lowered costs (for them).

This was coming after their trade embargoes against Australia and their annual across-the-board price hike.

PP by contrast, has been open and somewhat transparent regarding their production shortages, and if you go to their forums and create a thread with legitimate gripes against their company, you will get a paid employee to give you feedback, personally. PP has had a few customer-friendly bundles designed to save money and they even throw free stuff in to boot.

I'm no PP apologist, and I too was stuck with a lot of backlogged model orders from their about 6 months back, but recently I've had no problems getting stuff from my FLGS and I've always found their openness laudable.

I suppose I'm slightly insulated from this, for two reasons.

1. Almost all my purchases are new releases as they're released since I long since bought all the old models I need.

2. In the UK PP has a subsidiary manufacturer for producing metals. They don't seem to have the same backlog. Back when the plastics came out they were a royal pain to source in the UK.

IIRC the Titan Bronzeback is being redone as a resin/metal hybrid model. I know Black 13th are very difficult to source.

Some of the 'new gak' is stuff being repackaged or resculpted in plastic to alleviate these production problems.

cincydooley wrote:
They've had OVER A YEAR to catch up. Over a year. They even halted production of new products for a full month. Now they think they're going to launch a brand new Sci Fi game... How are they going to sustain product production and supply for two games if they can't get caught up on one? And I'm looking forward to Sector 7, or whatever the hell they've named it. The fact still remains that Privateer is having MAJOR production issues. Their "core lists" are guaranteed to ship "within 2 weeks." If you want something not on their core list, you could be looking at 2 months? To me, this is a problem. Not to mention their core list doesn't include some important faction-specific pieces (Cough*Earthborn Dire Troll*Cough).

I love that they're finally getting around to doing plastic jack and beast kits. I think those kits still need a lot of improvement to be close to on part with similar plastic kits (including pre built kits like are included in Dust Tactics). Their resin is also, at this point, very rough. My Storm Striders had mould lines everywhere. There were a ton of bubbles too. Are they huge issue for me? Naw, they were fixable with some spit and elbow grease. But when we see similar issues with GWs new resin production in Finecast (which is being done on a MUCH larger scale, with much more detailed and smaller models), the fething internet explodes and all the meme-geniuses cleverly create "failcast." What I'm talking about is a decidedly unfair double standard. It is what it is, but to discount Privateer's severe inability to get their models to the market in a reasonable time for over a year is a problem in my eyes. I suppose I'm of the opinion that, if you can't keep your normal product in stock, STOP MAKING NEW gak until you can. You can't grow the game if you can't keep basic models (cough*titan bronzeback*cough) in stock.

With all that said, I'll still buy all my new Trollbloods & Cygnar models as they come out; If I don't, who knows when I may be able to get them.

Ok, about Level 7. It's looking like it it's a whole load of different things set in the Level 7 universe and not a miniature wargame like warmahordes. If that is true then what happens to Level 7 will have very little impact upon warmachine. Also, PP have been open with explaining their issues. Their sales have increased rapidly and the owner (Matt Wilson?) has said that he doesn't want to hire anybody that would then have to be fired when they have sorted out the problem. Let me end this part by saying I have no idea how bad it is for you folks as I'm over in the UK and thus all our stuff is made by a local production plant and I haven't bought any thing major for a while now as money is very tight.

On to the finecast segment. I can see why you think there is a double standard but I think you're missing something. Did PP say anything like this, "providing you with incredibly detailed, high-quality resin kits"(here)? I don't believe they did but please prove me wrong. Yes GW did resin on a far larger scale but then they are the larger company. I doubt that PP HQ has more than 100 people, I'd be suprised if it was over 60. How many staff work at GW HQ? And yet they had retailers sending back entire orders because they didn't believe that they should sell it to their customers (Wayland Games). Finecast had problems with large bubbles and other such things, is that "high-quality"? I remember seeing somebody paint a finecast and metal model then compare the two. The only way people could tell the difference was by the casting error on the finecast's face. Not by an improvement on the detail. So people complained that the finecast stuff didn't match what the marketing had promised and that's why I think "the fething internet explodes".

BTW, I'm probably a bit biased in my writing as I played GW for many a year but PP seems like a more reasonable company, who put out a better rule system and communicate with its player base.

I'd mostly give PP a break with its production problems, but do I think that a degree of keeping up older stock is necessary for the health of the game/company, before expansion pieces. PP has been expanding immensely, and, while some of it is welcome, I think that they're basically letting their power get to them: Their old stuff was, in attitude and execution, more risky, and right now they're softening their language and ideas (compare: page 5 in the original vs. new Prime; negative descriptions of models vs. uniformly positive descriptions in the rewrites; apotheosis vs. wrath in terms of ambition).

I feel like PP has crossed the threshold from "new ballsy startup" to "the establishment." Of course, GW is still the old guard, but PP is working towards something more easily marketable (not that it wasn't before) and has lost a certain spark in there. This is the same spark GW lost years ago (though, I do believe there's life left in the niches (Forge World; Specialist Games (though I don't know if I can count that as active); maybe other areas).

Regarding the two approaches to new material, I think that GW did a poor job in overhyping the change and w/ quality control, and PP frankly sacrificed a lot of their look in moving to plastic: having handled a bunch of their plastic stuff, I feel like they're barely beyond the technical ability they had nearly at the start of their company. I feel like both companies dropped the ball with this, releasing products in a new material that neither was familiar with, so they released sub-par products.

cincydooley wrote:Don't get me wrong; I don't mind the competition. However, based on my experiences (and bear in mind I play in the Adepticon Team Tourney every year), I find that Warmahordes tournaments are far more aggressivly competitive to play in, to the point the fun goes away. I like being able to drink during the Adepticon TT and relatively competitive. I don't have to study anyone else's army to do so. I simply don't have the time to know every combo possibility for every Warmahordes army I could face. As such, I'm at a significant disadvantage just walking into the game. For me, I prefer more casual competition, and for me, I've found that more often playing 40k. I typically play Warmahordes with 2 or 3 friends that have similar time constraints to me, and in that setting the game is really enjoyable for me.

Dude, come up to Mansfield sometime, we're very calm there, and try to have some monthly events... Very calm demeanor...

PP wins hands down on cost and rule set.

Start up cost is alot cheaper. And I added up the MSRP of my 1850 40k armies and my 35 point PP armies. I could buy two PP lists and still have money left over for the cost of either 4K list. And none of my armies are extreme in the types of models I use. They are all a good balance.

Rule set and quality of books is won by PP hands down. If anyone disagrees simply look at the Errata for both games. ALL the PP errata for hordes and warmachine is shorter than the errata for the single 40K rulebook. And 40K has huge amounts of errata for each codex as well.


My personal experience is that PP is much more customer friendly and oriented, even with their production issues.

And I like the PP range of models a ton better than the 40K ones. But that is personal opinion.

Another thing worth noting is that WM/H is easier to find a place to play as you do not need such a huge table. For me, that is a huge deal. It is easy to set up a 4x4 table at my house, but a 4x6 is starting to get very large.

Not sure if someone has brought this up or not but I see a significant difference in the community of players between 40k and WMH.

PP community seems a lot warmer and tends to be a little more mature overall. Of course you go onto Focus and Fury boards and this claim falters hehe, but in general I've found it very inviting and everyone is so eager to get new players involved. People geek out a lot about different combos etc. and I'd have to say that Sportsmanship seems to skyrocket for PP.

Its just my opinion, and of course this is all dependant on where you live/game/etc.

cincydooley wrote:Don't get me wrong; I don't mind the competition. However, based on my experiences (and bear in mind I play in the Adepticon Team Tourney every year), I find that Warmahordes tournaments are far more aggressivly competitive to play in, to the point the fun goes away. I like being able to drink during the Adepticon TT and relatively competitive. I don't have to study anyone else's army to do so. I simply don't have the time to know every combo possibility for every Warmahordes army I could face. As such, I'm at a significant disadvantage just walking into the game. For me, I prefer more casual competition, and for me, I've found that more often playing 40k. I typically play Warmahordes with 2 or 3 friends that have similar time constraints to me, and in that setting the game is really enjoyable for me.

My god. You went to a national level tournament and it was highly competitive? Say it ain't so!

hivemind66 wrote:PP community seems a lot warmer and tends to be a little more mature overall.

on a literal note, from my experience there is a lot less "grabby 11 year old" syndrome in Warmahordes. 40k caters to a younger audience, while Warmahordes seems to have a slightly higher barrier of entry. this suits me well, considering Warmahordes carries more synergy and rules, needs its players to have a higher grasp on interactions.

40k is practically made for twelve year old children. People rat on about GWs popularity slipping, PP is going to take the spotlight, they're just nerd ragers. People will always like 40k, it has some of the best background and most user friendly miniatures of all the miniature wargaming industry. Anyway even if this nonsense comes true, GW probably makes three quarters of there money out of pre pubescents anyway.

I like PP, but they have quite a way to go. I hope they end out having a more beautiful albeit metal range than GW, a bit like Malifaux. My main decrepancy with Warmahordes is that it is hard to personalise and 'count as' your units, every caster has a set background. 40k has sort of bread and butter tofu HQs that you can print your own background into. I mean 40k has many restrictions that I don't like too, though. I love the style of list building with Warmahordes, the fact it is so easy to make themed fluffy lists. Although that is following quite closely to the background of the Iron Kingdoms.

Although I have to say price wise 40k and PP seem about the same. Although that could be because I'm a brit and also my local miniature bargain bucket stocks 40k cheaper than Warmahordes. I mean £25 for a 10 piece unit of mcdonalds thralls to the £13 of a box of ork boys.

zilegil wrote:40k is practically made for twelve year old children. People rat on about GWs popularity slipping, PP is going to take the spotlight, they're just nerd ragers. People will always like 40k, it has some of the best background and most user friendly miniatures of all the miniature wargaming industry. Anyway even if this nonsense comes true, GW probably makes three quarters of there money out of pre pubescents anyway.

I like PP, but they have quite a way to go. I hope they end out having a more beautiful albeit metal range than GW, a bit like Malifaux. My main decrepancy with Warmahordes is that it is hard to personalise and 'count as' your units, every caster has a set background. 40k has sort of bread and butter tofu HQs that you can print your own background into. I mean 40k has many restrictions that I don't like too, though. I love the style of list building with Warmahordes, the fact it is so easy to make themed fluffy lists. Although that is following quite closely to the background of the Iron Kingdoms.

Although I have to say price wise 40k and PP seem about the same. Although that could be because I'm a brit and also my local miniature bargain bucket stocks 40k cheaper than Warmahordes. I mean £25 for a 10 piece unit of mcdonalds thralls to the £13 of a box of ork boys.

Mini to mini GW is no doubt cheaper.

It's that you need far fewer minis, and the "heavies" cost more in 40k than Warmahordes where the price difference pops up. I can have 35 points of a warmahordes army for the same price as a 1000pt WH40K army (and even then, I have to pinch pennies)

Laughing Man wrote:

cincydooley wrote:Don't get me wrong; I don't mind the competition. However, based on my experiences (and bear in mind I play in the Adepticon Team Tourney every year), I find that Warmahordes tournaments are far more aggressivly competitive to play in, to the point the fun goes away. I like being able to drink during the Adepticon TT and relatively competitive. I don't have to study anyone else's army to do so. I simply don't have the time to know every combo possibility for every Warmahordes army I could face. As such, I'm at a significant disadvantage just walking into the game. For me, I prefer more casual competition, and for me, I've found that more often playing 40k. I typically play Warmahordes with 2 or 3 friends that have similar time constraints to me, and in that setting the game is really enjoyable for me.

My god. You went to a national level tournament and it was highly competitive? Say it ain't so!

I like drinking while I play in the adepticon 40k TT... Wouldn't fathom playing in an adepticon warmahordes tourney. Congrats on your failed sarcasm.

cincydooley wrote:

I like drinking while I play in the adepticon 40k TT... Wouldn't fathom playing in an adepticon warmahordes tourney. Congrats on your failed sarcasm.

I hear the allnighter tourney is a blast.

Also, it's not like every 40K tourney is like the TT. I tend to find more rules lawyers, TFGs, and other unsavory characters in 40K Tourneys than I do in WM/H tourneys. It's why the Adepticon 40K TT is the only 40K tourney I do anymore. Hell, it's looking to be the only 40K I do anymore, period.

cincydooley wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

cincydooley wrote:Don't get me wrong; I don't mind the competition. However, based on my experiences (and bear in mind I play in the Adepticon Team Tourney every year), I find that Warmahordes tournaments are far more aggressivly competitive to play in, to the point the fun goes away. I like being able to drink during the Adepticon TT and relatively competitive. I don't have to study anyone else's army to do so. I simply don't have the time to know every combo possibility for every Warmahordes army I could face. As such, I'm at a significant disadvantage just walking into the game. For me, I prefer more casual competition, and for me, I've found that more often playing 40k. I typically play Warmahordes with 2 or 3 friends that have similar time constraints to me, and in that setting the game is really enjoyable for me.

My god. You went to a national level tournament and it was highly competitive? Say it ain't so!

I like drinking while I play in the adepticon 40k TT... Wouldn't fathom playing in an adepticon warmahordes tourney. Congrats on your failed sarcasm.

Sarcasm? Never. Just observing how unfair it is that being drunk hurts your chances of winning a game. Clearly, Privateer needs to cater more to the alcoholic portion of its fanbase.

There's an obvious difference on the PP forums themselves between the "casual" players and "competitive" players as well.


It's worth noting however, that in basically every notable instance the winners of major events are nice guys who don't rage over every detail or suggest only "competitive builds". More or less the main suggestion is to get a deep understanding of the varied units in the game and their interactions with each other.

There's always going to be poor players, no matter what game you play. That doesn't necessarily mean those players will lose - they can win every game and still be poor players.


In my personal experience the PP scene was more adoptive of me starting out than the 40k scene. I had the main PP guy around here literally walk me through the game and foster me through the process where the 40k players observed my entry into the hobby with casual disinterest. This is probably due to PP having a smaller player base, but, that served me well as a newbie.



tl;dr

all games have jerks in them - don't pay them too much mind

Go read a dozen or so high level 40k tourney reports, then read a dozen or so from WM/H, and take note on how many times a judge had to be called to resolve something.

My money's on WM/H having far fewer.

correlation2 wrote:It's worth noting however, that in basically every notable instance the winners of major events are nice guys who don't rage over every detail or suggest only "competitive builds". More or less the main suggestion is to get a deep understanding of the varied units in the game and their interactions with each other.

Part of the reason is because "competitive builds" are much more varied and dependent upon player ability in WM/H.

Right.

It's also worth mentioning that WM/H lends itself to less rules arguments due to having a superior rule base. Once you understand the fundamentals of the game most everything sinks into place. For specific issues the Rules section of the Privateer Press forums has ( usually ) fast answers to even the most bizarre situation.

Also worth noting that many key rules decisions are made there by Infernals, whose rulings are considered immediately... the rules.


As for lists, yeah, when you vary your list you aren't as easily accounted for. Virtually every competitive player accounts for Iron Flesh'd Kayazy/WGIDS, for example, Cryx tricks.

Not to mention if you bring a fully decked out Idrian list or something you might just have fun with it. No real need to sacrifice fun for the sake of competitiveness just because other people are. Could be worth it just to see how far you can get in a WM tourney with your favorite thematic force. ( not to be confused with the actual theme forces, although some of those (( eButcher Reaver spam )) are fun too ).

George Spiggott wrote:
2. In the UK PP has a subsidiary manufacturer for producing metals. They don't seem to have the same backlog. Back when the plastics came out they were a royal pain to source in the UK.

Tell that to my Rangers and mercs that I have ordered 4 months ago from Maelstrom and are still showing as "Out of stock at the supplier"!

Talk to anyone and they will tell you that I'm a PP fanboy, but the stock issues that PP has have really started to get on my nerves.

Negator80 wrote:Go read a dozen or so high level 40k tourney reports, then read a dozen or so from WM/H, and take note on how many times a judge had to be called to resolve something.

My money's on WM/H having far fewer.

I'd agree. And this is because of the rules, not the players.

Honestly, trying to compare a game based off its players is pointless.

Each game has players that are jerks, rules lawyers, unwashed, or just really angry that you dare face them.

I've seen a Hordes player taunting his losing opponent, only to fly into a rage when his opponent managed to kill one of his warbeasts... the only thing to die in that army during the game.

On the flip of the coin, I saw just the other night a Necron player with his shiny new codex pack up his army after the IG player he was across from manged to kill his C'tan Shard first turn. He said there was no point in continuing as "he took out my combo piece. I can't run the army without it." He then refused to play anyone else and pouted for the next 3 hours until he finally left.

Both men, each in their late 30's, are poor representatives of their gamer groups. Making sweeping generalizations based on personal observation of local groups does not serve anything.

However... WM/H leaves far, far less grey area for a rules lawyer to flourish, like mold in a damp crack.

I have never, ever had 'rules lawyer' issues in WM/H like I have had with 40k.

To quote Sourclam's Profile:

"I play Warmahordes. It's simply a better game. "

Both games are fun. Play what you like. Neither one is really "cheaper" than the other. As far as costs go, if you want to be competitive you will be spending roughly the same amount on each game. A heavy warbeast/jack is about 10 points and costs about $30-45. A unit costs about $50 with a unit attachment $20. Throw in a Light warbeast/jack and its another $20-30. Then you'll need a warcaster which is another $15-20 depending on the caster. If you go heavy infantry you're looking at $40-80 for a full unit. Add a Solo or two and its another $10-20. Its all a matter of perspective. The number of points and the faction will depend on the cost. In the Orlando area, most of the games played are 50 points.

boyd wrote:Both games are fun. Play what you like. Neither one is really "cheaper" than the other. As far as costs go, if you want to be competitive you will be spending roughly the same amount on each game. A heavy warbeast/jack is about 10 points and costs about $30-45. A unit costs about $50 with a unit attachment $20. Throw in a Light warbeast/jack and its another $20-30. Then you'll need a warcaster which is another $15-20 depending on the caster. If you go heavy infantry you're looking at $40-80 for a full unit. Add a Solo or two and its another $10-20. Its all a matter of perspective. The number of points and the faction will depend on the cost. In the Orlando area, most of the games played are 50 points.

Look at what you wrote. You've basically boiled down a heavy warjack, full unit with UA, light warnoun, and warcaster/warlock for less than $150. That's probably in the ballpark of a 20 point list. To expand that to a 35 point list, using your own numbers, you probably need to spend another $100. Using your own numbers, I've built a competitive tourney-level list for $250 ballpark. (And I do think your numbers are representative. I built my buddy a 35 pt Menoth list for $250 ballpark, and can do the same with most factions. Some factions are even cheaper, like Legion. The only one that is really more expensive is Trollbloods).

I would really like to see you build a variety of 1500 point 40k lists for under $250 MSRP when a single rhino is $33. Heck, let's try to do it:

SW Battle Force
2 max GH squads
min Scouts
Drop Pod
500 pts, $100

Long Fang squad
Dev box
2 extra missile launchers from bits site
115 pts, $46

Rhino

35 pts, $33

Logan Grimnar (just to fill points)
275 pts, $22.75

So far I'm at 925 points and $200 spent, and my army is pretty crappy on top of it because I've dumped Logan into a list where he doesn't really fit at all, but he gives a good $:army points pad.

Model:Model, WM/H and 40k have similar costs, if not WM/H being more expensive.

List:List, WM/H is a lot cheaper because there are fewer models on the table.

Faction:Faction, WM/H is far, far cheaper and gives you vastly more return on your gaming dollar due to only ever needing to buy 1-2 of any single model/unit.

Additionally, the Battleboxes provide a fairly decent base to start any faction army at the cost of like, 50$. Generally speaking you get around 10+ pts of models. The battleforces for 40k seem to comprise much less. ( in terms of lists )

Like if I buy a 130$ Tau battleforce I get something like 500 pts worth of models, barring weird amounts of upgrades and stuff. If I quadruple that to play a 2000 pt game that's like 520$.

If I bought 4 battleboxes it would cost me 200$ and I'd have like, 50+ pts.



Those would be some pretty gimped lists all around of course, but that's how it goes.

( the new holiday bundles might alleviate this to some degree, they range in the 150-300$ range but include battleboxes and then a few additional jacks or units themed to each specific faction. )

sourclams wrote:

boyd wrote:Both games are fun. Play what you like. Neither one is really "cheaper" than the other. As far as costs go, if you want to be competitive you will be spending roughly the same amount on each game. A heavy warbeast/jack is about 10 points and costs about $30-45. A unit costs about $50 with a unit attachment $20. Throw in a Light warbeast/jack and its another $20-30. Then you'll need a warcaster which is another $15-20 depending on the caster. If you go heavy infantry you're looking at $40-80 for a full unit. Add a Solo or two and its another $10-20. Its all a matter of perspective. The number of points and the faction will depend on the cost. In the Orlando area, most of the games played are 50 points.

Look at what you wrote. You've basically boiled down a heavy warjack, full unit with UA, light warnoun, and warcaster/warlock for less than $150. That's probably in the ballpark of a 20 point list. To expand that to a 35 point list, using your own numbers, you probably need to spend another $100. Using your own numbers, I've built a competitive tourney-level list for $250 ballpark. (And I do think your numbers are representative. I built my buddy a 35 pt Menoth list for $250 ballpark, and can do the same with most factions. Some factions are even cheaper, like Legion. The only one that is really more expensive is Trollbloods).

I would really like to see you build a variety of 1500 point 40k lists for under $250 MSRP when a single rhino is $33. Heck, let's try to do it:

SW Battle Force
2 max GH squads
min Scouts
Drop Pod
500 pts, $100

Long Fang squad
Dev box
2 extra missile launchers from bits site
115 pts, $46

Rhino

35 pts, $33

Logan Grimnar (just to fill points)
275 pts, $22.75

So far I'm at 925 points and $200 spent, and my army is pretty crappy on top of it because I've dumped Logan into a list where he doesn't really fit at all, but he gives a good $:army points pad.

Model:Model, WM/H and 40k have similar costs, if not WM/H being more expensive.

List:List, WM/H is a lot cheaper because there are fewer models on the table.

Faction:Faction, WM/H is far, far cheaper and gives you vastly more return on your gaming dollar due to only ever needing to buy 1-2 of any single model/unit.

My point is still neither game is that much "cheaper" than the other. My 2,000 point space wolf list cost me ~$350 (Logan + Retine+LRC = ~800 points). With the exception of a horde army you're in the $300-$350 ball park. If you want to be hated by your opponent you could field a Draigo list and for ~ $175 you can have a 2,000 point army that is pretty competitive as well. From the tone of the original author it sounds like he's more familiar with 40K. I've heard people in person and read threads on this forum over the years that make it sound like for $100 you're able to play at a competitive level. Truth is, you're not. In order to really play at a very competitive level you're going to need a lot as these steam rollers allow you to take two (or three lists and you can't play the same one twice). Its all a matter of perspective. Warmahordes allows you to start playing faster than 40K which is pretty true (the battle box offers a nice starter where the WH40K starters are decent starters. The only issue I have with Privateer Press is that its still hard to get their minis. I waited about 4 months before they filled my order for a unit of Beast Handlers for my skorne. I still enjoy the game and their product line is starting to fill back up but its still not great.

I've got a skorne army - its just now reaching the point where I can probably go to an event and play a somewhat competitive game. I am working on a Rasheth and Makeda lists. Rasheth and Nihilators are very mean. Makeda , Molik Karn and Nihilators are just as mean I'm trying to build a Zaal list but I'm having trouble finding the infantry as I want Karax rather than Swordsmen. I enjoy both games as each offers something different.

I'm torn as I like the rules PP has put out but I am in love with GW's models. I think its just the fact that I can customize my GW models more that makes me like their models. I was drawn into Warmahordes strictly because I liked the Skorne models. Its not that I don't like PP models, its just that I can't customize them as much as I can with 40K/WHFB models. Both put out a good product.

boyd wrote: I've heard people in person and read threads on this forum over the years that make it sound like for $100 you're able to play at a competitive level. Truth is, you're not. In order to really play at a very competitive level you're going to need a lot as these steam rollers allow you to take two (or three lists and you can't play the same one twice). Its all a matter of perspective.

Fortunately, what you said is definitely not true. First: the basic SR format and the one that is being played mostly allows two lists but the second is fully optional. Most of the players take the second list only as a "backup" just in case of a bad matchup or really specific scenario. It is not unusual for many players to play and win tournaments using only one list during entire event. So in fact you can play at a "very competitive level" with a single list only. That is because effective playing WM depends much more on the player's skill than the list used (not that the list itself is unimportant).
Second: the case of three or more lists required that you mentioned is the "Divide and Conquer" variant of SR format and a variant only. And even then it is not that hard to build several different lists with different abilities/playing styles that will share 80%-90% of the same models. Sometimes it is enough to change a single model (caster/warlock) to get a list that plays totally different.

mazgier wrote:

boyd wrote: I've heard people in person and read threads on this forum over the years that make it sound like for $100 you're able to play at a competitive level. Truth is, you're not. In order to really play at a very competitive level you're going to need a lot as these steam rollers allow you to take two (or three lists and you can't play the same one twice). Its all a matter of perspective.

Fortunately, what you said is definitely not true. First: the basic SR format and the one that is being played mostly allows two lists but the second is fully optional. Most of the players take the second list only as a "backup" just in case of a bad matchup or really specific scenario. It is not unusual for many players to play and win tournaments using only one list during entire event. So in fact you can play at a "very competitive level" with a single list only. That is because effective playing WM depends much more on the player's skill than the list used (not that the list itself is unimportant).
Second: the case of three or more lists required that you mentioned is the "Divide and Conquer" variant of SR format and a variant only. And even then it is not that hard to build several different lists with different abilities/playing styles that will share 80%-90% of the same models. Sometimes it is enough to change a single model (caster/warlock) to get a list that plays totally different.

To build off of this argument, I run mainly two troll lists that work well for my local area. I'm not a great player by any standard, but I manage to pull out wins based mostly on sheer luck, and amazing tough rolls. My last two tournament lists were as follows:
pMadrak
Dire Troll Mauler
Impaler
Axer
Champions w/Skaldi
Krielstone Bearers w/ Stone Scribe Elder
Fell Caller Hero

eDoomshaper
Mulg
Dire Troll Mauler
Champions w/Skaldi
Krielstone Bearers w/ Stone Scribe Elder
Runebearer

Both lists use roughly the same models, and it costs like 200 bucks with some change...

Turn this around, and go to my IG army (which I bought second hand), I spent 425 dollars on over 3k points worth of models, but if I had bought my 1750 list retail, I would have spent almost 550 dollars on just chimeras, Russes, Basilisks and a single Valk...

And I really only have 2 lists if you consider the fact that I can scale up to 2000 points just by adding in some extra upgrades and another troop unit, which would have me spend another 35 bucks on a chimera...


Consider the fact that I've only been playing for a year, and I find Warmachine a better buy because I'm not spending 600 bucks on support units/transports, but I'm able to spend 200 on an army, and have the freedom to change the list up with an additional twenty dollars. Sure it means I don't go to the movies, but thats why I have dvds...

I gotta say, one of the things I love about PP games is the ability to be sitting in my local game store running my Rogue Trader game, and decide I want to drop a tenner or so on a warbeast/warcaster/solo. If I do that, suddenly I have a new dimension to my lists, or an entirely new list, if it's a warcaster or warlock. With 40K, that is simply not common at all. I'd have to buy several boxes of infantry most of the time, or a few transports, or whatever.

Honestly...both irk me in some form or fashion, yet getting the chance to game, model, model-and-game, does mean that it's the hobby itself rather than a particular brand that interests me. I won't speak of balance, for both games are ones where the balance is internally rather loopy, and the differences are fairly marginal externally barring a few "losers." (Meaning...nobody wins in balance...)

GW's insistence that they're a "Minature company" first and foremost is troublesome. Granted, tabletop combat gaming is a fairly diverse hobby and people play it for a wide variety of reasons, yet asking for polished, unambiguous rulesets that don't result in humorous YMDC-threadfights should not be the perogative of tournament gamers. Having open-correspondence with fans of the game (much less an actual forum) likewise. It's nice to see they actually write FAQs/Erratas with unambiguous answers (as well as proper changelogs), for it took them long enough.

On the other hand, the general rules for Warmachine Customization and Conversion bother me. Given that there are *less* models in a Warmachine army rather than in a 40k army by default, and they generally have more options overall, it's especially irksome to know that you can't customize your units or jacks. While a *lot* of the "upgrade" options in 40k are pointsink items ("Buy Extra Armor, a Hunter-Killer Missile, and a Storm Bolter and you've doubled the cost of your Rhino!"), and others weaker than others ("Melta precedes Plasma if you're not Relentless"), the options exist. You could alter the loadout of your Razorback, army-dependent. A Dreadnought isn't "Mortis Dread. Melta Dread. Missiledread..." A Dreadnought is a Dreadnought, with loadout options available. Given the option to say "This is a Charger Chassis. It *must* equip its hardpoints with the following options," it would open up more conversion/modeling opportunities and (if properly balanced) army options.

An interesting point, although at the same time you can easily look at the different jacks as various customization options. The classic Ironclad chassis has 2 hardpoints, and you can equip it with a Quake Hammer and Open Fist, Heavy Barrel and Shock Hammer, or Metal Storms mounted on open fists.

While the potential to have more customized loadouts might seem appealing, it also exists at odds with the goal they have of making sure that you can identify a jack and its abilities at a glance without having to worry about sneaky customization. It also gives an advantage to warmachine, as a lot of warbeasts don't have hard points that can be used like warjacks, and are effectively purpose 'grown' for the job. You might say that some could swap roles (IE, various titans using weapons meant for other titans) but others don't have the option - a Rhinodon isn't anything other than a Rhinodon, a Gharlhorn can't become a Shadowhorn, and a Wrassler doesn't develop tentacle lust for schoolgirls like a Swamp Horror.

Rules are not in the same place in PP.

Core rules? Rulebook.

Building a list? Assume I don't own the models yet (I don't.)

Well, I'm looking through my Menoth book. Whoops, also need my Wrath book. You know what, better grab my Merc and Minion book too. Can Saxon Orrick join Menoth...?

So no, building an army is not fun when I have to flip through 2-4 books to make lists.

hivemind66 wrote:Not sure if someone has brought this up or not but I see a significant difference in the community of players between 40k and WMH.

PP community seems a lot warmer and tends to be a little more mature overall. Of course you go onto Focus and Fury boards and this claim falters hehe, but in general I've found it very inviting and everyone is so eager to get new players involved. People geek out a lot about different combos etc. and I'd have to say that Sportsmanship seems to skyrocket for PP.

Its just my opinion, and of course this is all dependant on where you live/game/etc.

I loved PP's rules system and models, but got burnt out on the general focus on powergaming/min-maxing/net-listing/etc.

Warmahordes is M:TG in miniatures form. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I prefer story based/scenario/campaign style gaming, and that is hard to find with Warmahordes.

GW games can have that focus as well in the tourney scene, but you can usually find people willing to play scenario/campaign games as well far more readily...

Cost of warmachine: 35 point armies with rule book and accessories $187-220 so about $400 for a 50 point army.

Cost of 40k: Complicated, will attempt to calculate my IG
2 CCS + 1 PCS=$75
HWS=$39
2 infantry squads and 5 vets=$203 or 250 if you want Karshin's for the models, but am going to call it $203
Demo SWS + spare demo charge=$28
2 squads of 6 psykers=$60
5 Chimera=$175
Manticore=$50
2 hydra flak tanks=$133 from forge world, or $110 if you kit bash them from an aegis and chimera. Call this one $133 because kit bashed from an aegis looks like crap if you don't buy some kind of turret.
3 Vendettas=$198 for the Valkyrie kit+70 for the conversion kit=$268
Melta guns bits from gw websight=$25, will cost a lot more if you want plastic melta guns

Grand total=$1,056 for 2,000 points.

Most marine armies will rung about $600 for 2,000 points, and non MEQ armies tend to cost even more.

In order for a 50 point warmahordes to cost $1,000 the average point to $ ratio needs to be $20 per point. The most expensive units I could possibly find still tend to go for less than $10/point which makes it difficult to break $350 for 35 points or $500 for 50 points.

40k costs a lot more than warmahordes.

That being said warmahordes has a higher quality player base because it has a smaller player base. Douchebag WAAC players burn bridges with other players. There are plenty of bridges to burn in the 40k community, and less bridges to burn in the warmahordes community. If a douchebag/WAAC player does get into warmahordes he will start to burn bridges, have a hard time finding games within a smaller community, get bored, and move back to 40k.

Clarence wrote:Building a list? Assume I don't own the models yet (I don't.)

Well, I'm looking through my Menoth book. Whoops, also need my Wrath book. You know what, better grab my Merc and Minion book too. Can Saxon Orrick join Menoth...?

So no, building an army is not fun when I have to flip through 2-4 books to make lists.

Forward Commander or iBodger if you use a smartphone - no more than a minute to build and validate a list. Oh, and they're free...

Warmahordes: 100$ for 3 minis (Khador Battlebox). Yea, no thanks. But the 2 player battle box is not a bad idea ;D

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Warmahordes: 100$ for 3 minis (Khador Battlebox). Yea, no thanks. But the 2 player battle box is not a bad idea ;D

Where are you getting 3 minis from? The Khador Battle Box is $50 - the Two Player starter is $100, and has about $200 retail worth of models in it as well. The starter boxes themselves average between $70 - $85 retail for the individual minis.

mazgier wrote:Forward Commander or iBodger if you use a smartphone - no more than a minute to build and validate a list. Oh, and they're free...

I don't have a smartphone. But even if I did, do these programs tell me what I need to know? For example, I'm looking for a way to give Pathfinder to my units. I saw another player use Saxon Orrick to give it to his units (different faction.) I read through the Minion book and found out he can't join Menoth.

So now I'm looking for another character to do it. I did find one eventually - but could I have done this with the programs you mentioned? Specifically, not only do I need to know that I can take that Merc/Minion with my faction, I need to know what that Merc/Minion does (grant Pathfinder, in this case.)

Clarence

Clarence wrote:Rules are not in the same place in PP.

Core rules? Rulebook.

Building a list? Assume I don't own the models yet (I don't.)

Well, I'm looking through my Menoth book. Whoops, also need my Wrath book. You know what, better grab my Merc and Minion book too. Can Saxon Orrick join Menoth...?

So no, building an army is not fun when I have to flip through 2-4 books to make lists.

Or you could just look at the card that came with the figure for all the information you need. Don't own the figure? Then why are you worrying about placing him in your army in the first place? I see, you're borrowing the figure from your friend. Well then just ask your friend to lend you the card and the figure before you need to play. Then you can just look at the card... .

Also all of the rules for playing warmamhordes are in their core rulebook. If you mean the special rules for the individual figures then you will need more than one rule book or the figure itself. But the same holds true for 40K. You need to check both the main rule book and your army book for the meaning of some of the special rules for the units. Like what does the slow and purposeful rule do when you see it in Codex: Chaos Marines under the Thousand Sons entry (the rule isn't found in the Codex itself just the main rule book). And what happens when you want to add a Baneblade to your IG army when playing with the spearhead rules? You would need the main rule book, plus the army book, plus Imperial Armour X, plus a printout of the spearhead rules (which aren't in any published GW book).

I guess I just don't see the points in your post as to how warmahordes is worse than 40K.

Again, I'll stress that unofficial army composition methods are good for general list building but should be verified by official media. Occasionally there are errors, oversights, or things that become outdated. It's better to make sure you have the right information since any mistake in the list-building aspect is entirely your own.


In regards to the rules availability, faction decks include a card ( usually multiples for things with FA: 1 or more ) for each model in the army up until the time of their release. This is also true for the FORCES OF WARMACHINE books, which include additional fluff, gallery, etc. Asking the card decks or books to include information on models that came out after they were published ( Wrath ) doesn't make any sense.

Wrath is an expansion. It is not necessary to play. If you want all the Wrath fluff, data, etc, you need to buy the book. If you want just specific models, you can buy them and get their card. You can't just look at an expansion to some video game and complain that it isn't free.


In my personal experience, I've always had the option to check something in a book or look at the product ( model / card ) before I bought it. That could just be the store I go to, but, I wouldn't buy from one that didn't give me that option. With 40k however, as far as I know, many of the books and boxes come "sealed" so that you can't do that.



Don't be lazy. Do your research. Go to the stores, the forums, or battlecollege and do some light reading. Don't complain about non-essential gaming products not being free.*


*For the record, the game is full disclosure - your opponent has to show you his cards any time you ask, so even if you never buy any of the other books, the information will always be ready for you at the time of the game.

The nice thing about iBodger is that it also has links on every unit to the corresponding page on Battle College - so you can just drill down on the model itself and get the overview about what its abilities do, even if the exact stats are not available to be published.

It really is an amazing program, and is probably the best army construction / builder tool available for WM/H today. The big thing it gives you access to is *everything* you need for theme lists, including the bonuses that Forward Kommander only lists as 'in game effect'.

The availability of good information and the excellent programs available for free to utilize it is, I think, an amazing part of the PP community.

Just be aware that battle college does not always give the correct information. Sometimes it still uses Mk I rulings or just gets its facts wrong. It doesn't happen often but it does happen.

RuneGrey wrote:An interesting point, although at the same time you can easily look at the different jacks as various customization options. The classic Ironclad chassis has 2 hardpoints, and you can equip it with a Quake Hammer and Open Fist, Heavy Barrel and Shock Hammer, or Metal Storms mounted on open fists.

While the potential to have more customized loadouts might seem appealing, it also exists at odds with the goal they have of making sure that you can identify a jack and its abilities at a glance without having to worry about sneaky customization. It also gives an advantage to warmachine, as a lot of warbeasts don't have hard points that can be used like warjacks, and are effectively purpose 'grown' for the job. You might say that some could swap roles (IE, various titans using weapons meant for other titans) but others don't have the option - a Rhinodon isn't anything other than a Rhinodon, a Gharlhorn can't become a Shadowhorn, and a Wrassler doesn't develop tentacle lust for schoolgirls like a Swamp Horror.

At the same time, is there some unwritten rule that says "No, there has and never will be an Ironclad with a Buckler until PP releases one. No, nobody in their right mind would give a Quake Hammer to a Stormclad?" Similarly, there's a certain disconnect in noting that Asheth Magnus is a fluffwise Jack-salvager who will build his army on an as-needed basis...yet one can then go "Right, a Renegade has a Chainfist, Obliterator Rocket, and Arc Node, Standard-Issue." Allowing jack/beast customization, as well as strict ability-based WYSIWYG, both adds more options in-game, and more modeling opportunities. Tying individual 'odd' abilities to the weapons in a manner they're easy to remember also helps too.

Customization options should be around for beasts too, given there are several "paths" that individual factions go down in that regard. Trolls are fairly intelligent given enough time to bond with their kriels, and are capable of wielding weapons of different make, craft, etc. The elemental ones have more restrictions in what you could do, but having "elemental affinities" as the loadout-setups would be an option. And...Pygs continue to make their Trollblood cousins cringe in horror when they come up with new and terrifying ways to wage war. ("did they seriously train it to use pickaxes for mining?"). The Circle druids have their mix of runeworkers, warpwolf breeders, and other similar nature-manipulators. And Skorne and Everblight *both* are big on modifying the capabilities of their Warbeasts, be it through neurochemical-genetical-biochemical crime, or through manipulation of Blight.

Point is...options are nice.

MagicJuggler wrote:

RuneGrey wrote:An interesting point, although at the same time you can easily look at the different jacks as various customization options. The classic Ironclad chassis has 2 hardpoints, and you can equip it with a Quake Hammer and Open Fist, Heavy Barrel and Shock Hammer, or Metal Storms mounted on open fists.

While the potential to have more customized loadouts might seem appealing, it also exists at odds with the goal they have of making sure that you can identify a jack and its abilities at a glance without having to worry about sneaky customization. It also gives an advantage to warmachine, as a lot of warbeasts don't have hard points that can be used like warjacks, and are effectively purpose 'grown' for the job. You might say that some could swap roles (IE, various titans using weapons meant for other titans) but others don't have the option - a Rhinodon isn't anything other than a Rhinodon, a Gharlhorn can't become a Shadowhorn, and a Wrassler doesn't develop tentacle lust for schoolgirls like a Swamp Horror.

At the same time, is there some unwritten rule that says "No, there has and never will be an Ironclad with a Buckler until PP releases one. No, nobody in their right mind would give a Quake Hammer to a Stormclad?" Similarly, there's a certain disconnect in noting that Asheth Magnus is a fluffwise Jack-salvager who will build his army on an as-needed basis...yet one can then go "Right, a Renegade has a Chainfist, Obliterator Rocket, and Arc Node, Standard-Issue." Allowing jack/beast customization, as well as strict ability-based WYSIWYG, both adds more options in-game, and more modeling opportunities. Tying individual 'odd' abilities to the weapons in a manner they're easy to remember also helps too.

Customization options should be around for beasts too, given there are several "paths" that individual factions go down in that regard. Trolls are fairly intelligent given enough time to bond with their kriels, and are capable of wielding weapons of different make, craft, etc. The elemental ones have more restrictions in what you could do, but having "elemental affinities" as the loadout-setups would be an option. And...Pygs continue to make their Trollblood cousins cringe in horror when they come up with new and terrifying ways to wage war. ("did they seriously train it to use pickaxes for mining?"). The Circle druids have their mix of runeworkers, warpwolf breeders, and other similar nature-manipulators. And Skorne and Everblight *both* are big on modifying the capabilities of their Warbeasts, be it through neurochemical-genetical-biochemical crime, or through manipulation of Blight.

Point is...options are nice.

Something about the storm chamber of the Stormclad interferes with the
technologies of the Quake Hammer. I just made that up.

I kind of like that they only release rules for models they intend to
provide.

MagicJuggler wrote:Point is...options are nice.

Even in 40k, there are very few "valid" options. With the way the game is currently played, Melta is almost always the choice. Not much of an option if you want a chance at winning.

As someone who plays 40k, Malifaux, Battletech and other games. I like the idea of Warmahordes and have played a grand total of 6 games now so far.

My biggest issue with Warmahordes is the fact there are all these scenarios, some of them quite fun, yet, you can win or lose by losing just the caster/warlock of an army.

I am sure my inexperience makes this seem a hard obstacle to overcome and wrap my mind around. But this is my biggest obstacle to the game.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:My biggest issue with Warmahordes is the fact there are all these scenarios, some of them quite fun, yet, you can win or lose by losing just the caster/warlock of an army.

I am sure my inexperience makes this seem a hard obstacle to overcome and wrap my mind around. But this is my biggest obstacle to the game.

This is a well known issue but that's how this game is designed. And it's also the reason why this game is not for everyone. You either like the casterkill option and hyper aggressive style of play or maybe should try a different game. Don't get me wrong here, it's just that WM promote a certain style of playing that doesn't suit everyone's taste.
Just remember that the main role of the scenarios (especially in competitive/tournament play) is to force both armies to move forward and move fast.
Casterkill on the other hand gives you a chance to win even if your entire army got slaughtered. As long as your caster/warlock is alive you may still pull a victory by killing opponent's one. BTW it's almost a signature style of play for eCaine

Leo_the_Rat wrote: Or you could just look at the card that came with the figure for all the information you need. Don't own the figure? Then why are you worrying about placing him in your army in the first place? I see, you're borrowing the figure from your friend. Well then just ask your friend to lend you the card and the figure before you need to play. Then you can just look at the card... .

Also all of the rules for playing warmamhordes are in their core rulebook. If you mean the special rules for the individual figures then you will need more than one rule book or the figure itself. But the same holds true for 40K. You need to check both the main rule book and your army book for the meaning of some of the special rules for the units. Like what does the slow and purposeful rule do when you see it in Codex: Chaos Marines under the Thousand Sons entry (the rule isn't found in the Codex itself just the main rule book). And what happens when you want to add a Baneblade to your IG army when playing with the spearhead rules? You would need the main rule book, plus the army book, plus Imperial Armour X, plus a printout of the spearhead rules (which aren't in any published GW book).

I guess I just don't see the points in your post as to how warmahordes is worse than 40K.

Hey Leo, I'm talking about building a list for a normal game of Warmachine. I'm not talking Apoc/Spearhead/whatever Strawman argument you'd like to use. I play Trolls and Cygnar, and I'm thinking of building a Menoth army. I came across the annoyance of building an army list the other day as I sat down with my 4 books.

My claim is that to explore all the options in building a competitive army for a normal game, one has to look beyond the Faction army book. A starting point would be the Wrath book, which adds more casters, battle engines, solos...etc for every faction. Sometimes you're looking for a particular buff, say, adding Pathfinder to a unit. The other day I saw Saxon Orrick do just that to a unit of Bane Thralls, which I thought was a pretty cool trick. He's in the Minion book, by the way. Whoops, can't join Menoth. Ok, flip through the Merc book to look for something similar...I did find something, I'm just saying it's inconvenient looking through 4 books when I want to build a list.

Clarence

P.S: I'm not saying I hate Warmachine and love 40k. I find both games fun and strategic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

correlation2 wrote: In regards to the rules availability, faction decks include a card ( usually multiples for things with FA: 1 or more ) for each model in the army up until the time of their release. This is also true for the FORCES OF WARMACHINE books, which include additional fluff, gallery, etc. Asking the card decks or books to include information on models that came out after they were published ( Wrath ) doesn't make any sense.

Wrath is an expansion. It is not necessary to play. If you want all the Wrath fluff, data, etc, you need to buy the book. If you want just specific models, you can buy them and get their card. You can't just look at an expansion to some video game and complain that it isn't free.

In my personal experience, I've always had the option to check something in a book or look at the product ( model / card ) before I bought it. That could just be the store I go to, but, I wouldn't buy from one that didn't give me that option. With 40k however, as far as I know, many of the books and boxes come "sealed" so that you can't do that.

Don't be lazy. Do your research. Go to the stores, the forums, or battlecollege and do some light reading. Don't complain about non-essential gaming products not being free.*

*For the record, the game is full disclosure - your opponent has to show you his cards any time you ask, so even if you never buy any of the other books, the information will always be ready for you at the time of the game.

This feels like it's directed to me, so allow me to reply.

1) I'm a pretty competitive player, and so is the gaming group at the FLGS. Wrath is an expansion that gives Factions more options. I'd like to know what these options are when I'm building an army so that I can take the best options possible.

2) I never complained about buying gaming products. I like buying the books. What I don't like is flipping through 4 of them when I want to make a list.

3) The local FLGS has open copies of the book, so I can peruse them for free. Doesn't help me when I'm daydreaming about building lists at home. I don't feel like driving out there just because I can't remember every special rule they do or their exact points cost.

4) All 40k codexes come unsealed, and you can look through them too. The FLGS has open copies of them as well.

5) How about instead of reading the internet wisdom out there (which I generally think very poorly of,) I, you know, read the actual rules and make my own decision?

Clarence wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote: Or you could just look at the card that came with the figure for all the information you need. Don't own the figure? Then why are you worrying about placing him in your army in the first place? I see, you're borrowing the figure from your friend. Well then just ask your friend to lend you the card and the figure before you need to play. Then you can just look at the card... .

Also all of the rules for playing warmamhordes are in their core rulebook. If you mean the special rules for the individual figures then you will need more than one rule book or the figure itself. But the same holds true for 40K. You need to check both the main rule book and your army book for the meaning of some of the special rules for the units. Like what does the slow and purposeful rule do when you see it in Codex: Chaos Marines under the Thousand Sons entry (the rule isn't found in the Codex itself just the main rule book). And what happens when you want to add a Baneblade to your IG army when playing with the spearhead rules? You would need the main rule book, plus the army book, plus Imperial Armour X, plus a printout of the spearhead rules (which aren't in any published GW book).

I guess I just don't see the points in your post as to how warmahordes is worse than 40K.

Hey Leo, I'm talking about building a list for a normal game of Warmachine. I'm not talking Apoc/Spearhead/whatever Strawman argument you'd like to use. I play Trolls and Cygnar, and I'm thinking of building a Menoth army. I came across the annoyance of building an army list the other day as I sat down with my 4 books.

My claim is that to explore all the options in building a competitive army for a normal game, one has to look beyond the Faction army book. A starting point would be the Wrath book, which adds more casters, battle engines, solos...etc for every faction. Sometimes you're looking for a particular buff, say, adding Pathfinder to a unit. The other day I saw Saxon Orrick do just that to a unit of Bane Thralls, which I thought was a pretty cool trick. He's in the Minion book, by the way. Whoops, can't join Menoth. Ok, flip through the Merc book to look for something similar...I did find something, I'm just saying it's inconvenient looking through 4 books when I want to build a list.

Clarence

P.S: I'm not saying I hate Warmachine and love 40k. I find both games fun and strategic.

Battlecollege and Forwardkommander, go and google them...

I'm going to have to agree with the Battle College and Forward Kommander comments.

Since the second one limits you to only models you could ever take, you're already down to a small list of models. If you have the Menoth book, you can sit down, and say well I want to see what these guys do.

If you want to add a merc or minion, you just look them up on Battlecollege. I don't have a single faction book, and my trolls do quiet well.

Also many stores (at least in my area) don't mind if I open a blister to read a card if they don't have a book in stock.

mazgier wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:My biggest issue with Warmahordes is the fact there are all these scenarios, some of them quite fun, yet, you can win or lose by losing just the caster/warlock of an army.

I am sure my inexperience makes this seem a hard obstacle to overcome and wrap my mind around. But this is my biggest obstacle to the game.

This is a well known issue but that's how this game is designed. And it's also the reason why this game is not for everyone. You either like the casterkill option and hyper aggressive style of play or maybe should try a different game. Don't get me wrong here, it's just that WM promote a certain style of playing that doesn't suit everyone's taste.
Just remember that the main role of the scenarios (especially in competitive/tournament play) is to force both armies to move forward and move fast.
Casterkill on the other hand gives you a chance to win even if your entire army got slaughtered. As long as your caster/warlock is alive you may still pull a victory by killing opponent's one. BTW it's almost a signature style of play for eCaine

The game runs fine without Caster kill, though. Try running a few scenarios without it, it's a very different dynamic. Casters/Locks run more like Queens than some Queen/King(Quing? Keen?) combo.

On Multiple Books:

The faction books are fully competitive on their own. In fact, some of the factions actually seem to get worse if you try watering them down with a bunch of merc support.

The "good" merc solos are a very small selection, easily referenced on both the PP forum tacticas and Battle College articles. Eirysses, Rhupert, Gorman, Aiyana&Holt are the 'big ones' for Warmachine because they each bring something unique that most factions don't have access to (disruption/focus and upkeep stripping, Tough or Pathfinder, Black Oil/damage buff/smoke, magic weapon access/damage buff).

Every other merc solo is some variation of 'nice but not necessary'.

Merc units, the only two that really show up a lot are Forge Guard and Nyss Hunters. There are plenty more, of course, but 'nice but not necessary'.

Bottom line, if all you have is the faction book, you're still fine. And no matter how competitive a player you are, if you can remember those 6 merc solos/units you're probably good with just the Forces of Warmachine faction book.

And no matter what your faction is, save Retribution, Wrath releases were firmly in that 'nice but not necessary' category nearly across the board.

On Caster Kill:

You can play without caster kill as a win condition. You can also play 2-warcaster lists with caster kill as a win condition, since generally assassination lists will leave themselves horribly vulnerable if they circumvent most of your army to kill one of your casters.

Well, not to try and turn you off to the game or anything, but from a strictly competitive standpoint ( SR, for ex ) none of the unreleased Wrath stuff is even an option. Don't worry about seeing any of that stuff, because for all intents and purposes ( competitive scene ) it doesn't even exist yet!

You could proxy of course, but then that's a friendly game outside of the official competitive structure. You could make green parts of the board terrain that gives cont. fire at that point. Really doesn't matter.

Wrath stuff was mostly "eh" though. Bigger AOEs. KD spam. UAs that don't do much. Like the Cleanser UA. Worth it? I don't know - does anyone even use Cleansers anymore? What else did Menoth even get? Their BE and like, a jack with a wrench who can hit incorporeal targets.


Game. Breaking.


I'm going to stop teasing you now, though. Sufficed to say, I think you're stuck using multiple books until you actually buy the models. Once you do that you'll have the convenience of having all the cards in one place ( your card sleeves or w/e ) and by checking the backs of them ( Mercenary: ) you can easily reference who works for who.

=)

Stuff to expect to hit the "competitive" scene:

Cryx:
Malice

That's about it. Not because Cryx got the shaft in Wrath, but because so much of their stuff is already pretty dang good.

Khador:
Kayazy Eliminators -- acrobat gang fighters are insane with pButcher, both Vlads, and both Irusks.
MoW Mechanic--repairs are kind of nice, but no-knockdown is significant.
Battle Engine--Khador got a pretty good battle engine. Not a must-have, but def good.

Menoth:
Nicia--crazy insane solo whose card looks like a christmas tree with all the special abilities and goodies

Cygnar:
Battle Engine--arguably the best battle engine of the lot, and the eHaley tier with 2 BEs is really not too shabby
Minuteman--good non-linear threat, and nice at clearly low ARM infantry (not that Cygnar needed a lot more in this respect)
Jonas Murdoch--with Nyss Hunters, he's pretty darn good.

Alfndrate wrote:

MagicJuggler wrote:Point is...options are nice.

Even in 40k, there are very few "valid" options. With the way the game is currently played, Melta is almost always the choice. Not much of an option if you want a chance at winning.

The melta part is mostly untrue. Search for "The Melta Myth" on this forum. Having enough melta (or equivalence/alternate plans for negating Land Raiders) matters of course, but a melta-bumrush isn't as tactically valid as using melta for point-blank mopup after the initial exchange of autocannon/missilepod/shuricannon/etc fire. Granted, it varies by army, but there will be some diffusion in weapon capabilities/purposes...and even then, there's still room to bring flamers instead of meltas (for the guys in the Lasplas Razorback, for one). The main limits on 40k listbuilding come in the use of the restrictive Force Organization Chart (versus a FA or even a percentage system) alongside not only making sure you have the tools to take on many threats, but that they're efficiently spread-throughout your army ("I don't need to worry about Land Raiders. This *one* unit of 10 Fire Dragons will emerge from their *dead Wave Serpent* WAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRD").

As for "valid options" in loading out an army, allocation/customization of Wolf Guard, loading out Guard vet squads (granted, only one of the doctrines is worth the cost), alternating between running your rank-and-file as foot-blobs (optionally there just for screening, or for melee attrition) or as cheap Chimera-filler (or even ride-stealing shenanigans), and some other areas show that there is more variance between "Yes, the UA makes the unit *that* much better. Seriously, why didn't you take the UA for the [insert Errants/Gunmages/Mage Hunters/other stuff]" (I'm being a bit unfair here though).

Now, I'm not saying "go all battletech/2nd edition 40k" and go "See Page 11b for all Left-handed weapons of the Cult of Cyriss; Morrowan-aligned Charger-jacks may not use these alongside Tha...wait a sec!". Moreso than adding options, adding *viable* options matters too. GW really should have taken the hint about nobody taking twin-linked Heavy Bolters for Dreadnoughts, for example.

@Malfred
I mostly stuck with Orks. I've run into the attitude that "If you like modeling/converting, this comes at cost to gaming" and have found that troublesome as well. PP is already doing multi-part jack kits too, weapon-pack upgrades for other jacks/beasts...would it be so much of a stretch to expand the rules to take this into account?

@Sourclams:
Still chugging around. I found battlecollege mostly useless, and the PP forums to a fair extent. What benchmarks are you using still for "this army works?" So far I'm finding Menoth entertaining because I have been able to apply a lot of 40kthought to making them work, and because they're really good at messing up "unbalanced" armies. (One of my first games was versus Morvhana. Spell-dependency doesn't go well in that sense.).

Correlation 2:

That's kind of my point. I'd like to plan out and buy a decent 35pt list in one go (maybe two.)

I don't think it's unreasonable to for me to sit down and look at all my options. Of course I have to take into account what's actually available.

I've looked up the programs people have been advertising. They're nice and cool, but ultimately not enough info. I know most Merc/Minion stuff is there for a specific reason, but I'd like to actually read their stats, read exactly how their rules work...etc.

I stand by the fact that it's a little troublesome to do so with several books in hand. It's not a big deal, I don't rage about it, but I do prefer the 40k method where all I need is the codex.

Of course, 40k suffers from the fact that the codex in hand probably won't be updated for 5-6 years. (Do I really care? Not particularly.)

I don't see a huge difference between the FORCES OF X books and the Codex books. They have all the major elements to a force and if you want additional options you simply need to look at the 1 expansion book that applies to the army you like.

Mininons and Mercs aside, 2 books is pretty standard. The Mercs and Mininons that are available to your army are included in the Card decks with the exception of the expansion books.

So If you're going to do Legion, you'd need Primal (core rules), Forces of Legion and possibly the deck of cards to play with (optional). Might look at Domination for newer models but you don't NEED that book.

I would like for them to re-release the card decks to include the newer models. Its been awhile and the decks are becomming dated a bit. For example I don't have any Ravagore cards, nothing from Domination obviously, and I think there are a few others missing. I really like the card system because it helps with Proxy models for testing before you buy. Everyone hates getting a model just to find out they are crap on the table.

^Perhaps, instead of a new release of the decks, why not a 'booster pack' for the new updates and what isn't in the decks?

I agree a booster pack would actually be an excellent way to go. Make it cheaper and include the new stuff from Domination/Wrath.

+1 to you sir.

Of course, it wouldn't help the 'Warmachine is M:TG with minis' claims!

sourclams wrote:Stuff to expect to hit the "competitive" scene:

Cygnar:
Battle Engine--arguably the best battle engine of the lot, and the eHaley tier with 2 BEs is really not too shabby
Minuteman--good non-linear threat, and nice at clearly low ARM infantry (not that Cygnar needed a lot more in this respect)
Jonas Murdoch--with Nyss Hunters, he's pretty darn good.

Then why am I salivating at the thought of geting a Avenger?

PhantomViper wrote:

sourclams wrote:Stuff to expect to hit the "competitive" scene:

Cygnar:
Battle Engine--arguably the best battle engine of the lot, and the eHaley tier with 2 BEs is really not too shabby
Minuteman--good non-linear threat, and nice at clearly low ARM infantry (not that Cygnar needed a lot more in this respect)
Jonas Murdoch--with Nyss Hunters, he's pretty darn good.

Then why am I salivating at the thought of geting a Avenger?

Because groupthink =/= actual usability, most likely.

I wouldn't go for the booster route, but that's just because it doesn't seem financially sound. PP intends to release expansions for Warmachine and Hordes every year now. That would be a lot of boosters to print and take up store space that might never sell. I still see at least one of each faction deck at the local store and they'll probably never leave. Ever.


As far as model mods go, it's a nifty idea that will probably never happen. Magnetizing seems to be as close as it gets for the core chassis of each faction. I think the people at PP have said its for the sake of ease of reference/remembering. There's already enough of a problem with weapon systems occasionally not matching their models in terms of placement.

Not that I've ever, EVER seen an arm lock actually done in game, but still~

RuneGrey wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Then why am I salivating at the thought of geting a Avenger?

Because groupthink =/= actual usability, most likely.

More because in the accuracy-buff faction, a giant KD round is 'nice but not necessary'.

Still chugging around. I found battlecollege mostly useless, and the PP forums to a fair extent. What benchmarks are you using still for "this army works?"

To get use out of the forums, I think you have to go into the stickied 'tactica' style posts that are generally at the top of the faction specific sub-forums. The list-building and discussion stuff is either too broad or too granular for real use. Even then, list building and matchup counters is just not as significant a part of the game as it is in 40k. It's much more important to find a list/faction that you can play well with your playstyle against a mix of opponents.

The reason I'm excited about the Avenger? It most likely means a hammersmith/centurian/avenger plastic kit. And that does excite me.

Ooooh yeah, plastic clamjack chassis. Devastator, Demolisher, Spriggan.

Gimmegimmegimme!

MagicJuggler wrote:
Still chugging around. I found battlecollege mostly useless, and the PP forums to a fair extent.

I'm actually a little shocked by this comment. Battlecollege has some great write-ups for nearly every unit entry in Warmahordes. 90% of all 'casters even have a small section describing lists and units that couple well with them. The PP forums are saturated with modeling, list building, and rules information and the community there is highly responsive to questions about just about everything. With a shotgun comment like yours, try and say exactly what you don't like about them.

I would like to also say that I'm actually glad PP at least maintains (unlike some other companies) an official forum that is actually frequented by company members.

I've found the PP boards useful but there is a bit of Groupthink going on and sometimes people will state things that are not backed by anything resembling facts.

Just got to take from it what wisdom you find and make your own decisions. Don't take someone's word on it, try it yourself and see how it plays out.

Well that's pretty much any forum/website detailing what models do what and how. Battlecollege is nice but it has a bit of an issue making everything seem equally awesome. Well, except for the absolutely terrible things, in which case BC makes them seem mediocre. It is nice for when you're not entirely sure what X models does, or why someone referenced it to you. The same applies to general information on the forums. For instance, why take a Stalker with pSkarre? Oh, because from 24" away it gets +5 STR/ARM on feat turn. That's not necessarily a combination I would've thought of right off the bat upon reading pSkarre's card, but it will show up in my next pSkarre game for sure.

But definitely after getting a grasp of the game really look at what models do and form your own opinion. The only thing is don't post a list somewhere and refuse any and all constructive criticism without explaining your battle plans.

More directly, if you want to know who works for who, there's a table on BattleCollege ripe for the picking, and you'd have to read the whole faction book anyway if you're looking for a specific ability. That's true for any game.

If you want to narrow down what mercs will work for your faction then just use one of the lisdt building tools such as Ibodger or Forward Kommander. It'll only show the mercs that will work for what ever faction your building a list. That way you can narrow down who to look at for what ever it is your looking for. Then use battle college to look at the different models abilities. You don't have to read the opinion parts on BC if you don't want to but it usually is pretty accurate on what the abilities are that the models have.

Gonna try to organize my thoughts here between the modeling aspect, gaming (this is rules and gameplay and all that) community and the business.

Also, I'm gonna preface this by saying that my favorite game is WHFB. So both of these are kinda "second choices" for me. Deal.


40k

For the modeling and painting aspect, I think 40k has a small edge. It is a game system that is conversion friendly. Both physically with the actual models and in the rules. I see a lot of creativity flowing out of the modelling community from 40k. This may be something that changes in time, but that is something that is yet to be seen.

Gaming, I feel the game has a more mid-game tactical feel. It is impossible to say which is better in this aspect, because it is all apples and oranges. I do enjoy that 40k games are rarely (weird cheesy alpha strikes nonwithstanding) completely over in one decisive turn. A bad start can be turned around with strong mid-game play. Balance-wise, yeah there are some issues, but on the whole, 40k is reasonably balanced (obviously there are exceptions).

Community wise, it is a very mixed bag. Are there young, annoying players? Absolutely. But that can be due to store, and even if they annoy me, I do like the idea of bringing young players in and growing the playerbase. However, a lot of community really hinges on choice of where one plays. I can't say anything broad about 40k as a whole's playerbase because of that.

GW as a business definitely has its pros and cons. On the positive side, I never have to worry about about finding a model or kit. If it isn't in the store, the tools for getting it are right at my hands. Also, some GW store folks are among the best people I've met. They hire (generally) well, and from watching their interview things (forgot the name) for new employees, they know what to look for. That said, on a broader sense, price hikes and some of their policies for operating their stores irk me greatly. I generally can live with price hikes, mostly because I tend to buy small amounts over a long time, but their store policies make things difficult.

Warmahordes

Modelling/painting wise, they are awesome models. However, they are a lot less friendly to conversions. In my experience of WM/H play (roughly 5 months) I can't remember seeing significant conversions apart from my own conversions I had for Ravyn, and magnetizing some of my 'jacks. It is kind of sad, because some models (warcasters in particular) have very static, boring poses in my mind. On the one hand, consistency is nice, it is a very nice thing to look at a unit and know exactly what it is, but on the other hand, you never see spectacular conversions in my experience. I hope this is something that has the potential to change.

HOWEVER, WM/H has a huge edge over GW in the realm of in-book artwork. That stuff is gold. And makes me want to convert stuff to it. So the inspiration is there, just not the mechanics.

Gameplay, WM/H is much more of a turn-by-turn game, with an exceptionally slim margin for error. It is definitely a game that punishes the hell out of a player for a poor turn. However, it also punishes a player for a bad rolling turn. And honestly, I find this frustrating, though it may be a result of inexperience. I am not a fan of games that I know will end in a loss for me after, for example, my feat turn fails to have the damage I hoped thanks to bad rolling (coughcough, 7 Ravyn-feated Stormfalls doing 4 damage to Thagrosh >.> ). But I am not going to let my bad experiences dictate the overall opinion, because when things are rolling, WM/H is an excellent tactical game, and requires a lot more in-depth, chess-style thinking. So the nasty learning curve is both a blessing and curse.

Community-wise, I have pretty much the same thing to say about WM/H as I have for 40k. But WM/H has one addition. I actually find the community a little more hostile over many stores and forums. Not necessarily to new players, but frankly, I think the WM/H community has a bit of a smug attitude that I find distasteful. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I always have the sensation that WM/H communities actively look down on other games. Now preferring ones' game is all well and good, but when I am looked down on actively in a LGS for 'ugh, you play GW?' followed by cursing, it quickly erodes my enjoyment of the game.

PP's business, like GW, has its pros and cons. In its advantage, a smaller game means that they can react very quickly to balance issues, and are not shackled to a schedule of updating codices. And I've talked to some of their people on a professional level, I've applied to jobs with them and they are AMAZINGLY polite and kind. I still want to work for them, and would jump at the first opportunity to do so. They are awesome. But they do have the disadvantage of a very sporadic distribution system, going out looking for models in LGS is a crapshoot at best. Also, I like to buy from the manufacturer, but man...the PP ordering website (as far as I can tell if it is that) is awful and unfriendly.

Anyway, this ran on way too long. Take it as you will.

You know, one of the things you consistantly see in this sort of discussion is that GW is always available or just a short period of non-availability. And from a personal experience I find this misleading.
I play Sisters and can't find a single model at my FLGS. In fact they haven't been able to get anything for almost a year. It's the same with all the online stores that I know of as well. So saying that GW is easier to get is a bit misleading.

curran12 wrote: In my experience of WM/H play (roughly 5 months) I can't remember seeing significant conversions apart from my own conversions I had for Ravyn, and magnetizing some of my 'jacks.

You need to read the PP boards more often, then:

Cryx-nar, a Cygnar army made up of heavily converted models combining Cryx and Cygnar models

Stormhammer, a heavily converted Khadoran army designed to look like a Cygnar force. It even has its own fluff to justify it.





There's plenty of converting in the PP community. It tends to be in the same ratio as 40K armies, 40K just seems to have more because of the larger player numbers.

That and the painting + conversions section of PP ( and the people who frequent it ) are squirreled away hermits.

PP doesn't really support conversion in their mainstream competitive scene so it gets brushed under the rug. Most of the news is about new models/gameplay with painting on the side - that's painting not necessarily converting.


Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

correlation2 wrote:
Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

So that is about 1 article more on each than WD ever does?

correlation2 wrote:Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

Plus the conversion contest every issue.

40K

Pros:
Awesome Mulit-part Plastic kits
Large Player Base
Good Product Availability

Cons:
Bad Rules writing/support
Codex Imbalance
Bad competitive support

Warmachine/Hordes

Pros:
Great Rule Books & Support
Great Competitive Support
Great league Support
Generally balance Factions
Lower Initial Startup cost

Cons:
Lack of sweet Plastic kits
Model Availability


I think what it really comes down too when you compare the two is what is your primary goal of miniature war games. If you are primarily a modeler, that 40K is amazing, I love the multi-part plastic kits they are coming out with the are amazing and are there is really no one on the market as advanced as them at this time. 40K suffers greatly in the rules and balance department though, from vaguely written rules to their general lack of rules support. This is where PP shines, their rules are tight and their factions are generally balanced. Additionally PP League Support and tournament support is top notch.

I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

On a side note I was a hard core 40K player, and loved the game. My friends convinced me in MK1 to give Warmachine a try and I was sold after my first tournament. After playing 40K and having to House rule some many small items it was refreshing to see how PP approaches game design.

You will find that most Warmachine players are old school 40K players.

BryanC wrote:
I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

Model:Model costs are similar, if Warmachine isn't just a bit more expensive due primarily to metal figs.

But Playability to Dollar Spent, Warmachine goes a lot further than I ever got in 40k with similar funds. The reason is you are almost never using duplicate warjacks/units/models, so the 'endpoint' of a collection (owning an entire faction with almost all its options) comes out to be far cheaper than the equivalent in 40k/WHFB, owning multiples of the exact same unit/model until you max out your Force Org chart.

People repeatedly gloss over the Playability to Dollar investment and I don't know why. It's a real issue, especially in times like these when people are generally trying to find ways to get more for their money.

infinite_array wrote:^Perhaps, instead of a new release of the decks, why not a 'booster pack' for the new updates and what isn't in the decks?

A reason this won't happen is in part what the goal of the decks themselves are, I think.

Rather than be a way for players to proxy, the intent of the decks was more of a way to easily upgrade models. Models pretty much always come with their respective card. However, in the MkI -> MkII change-over, a lot of people had collections of models who's cards suddenly were outdated. And there was still stock of models out there which had the MkI card in them still.

The decks updated these models. The only models in the decks were those that were originally available in MkI. Any new models have MkII cards in them by default (as they only exist in MkII rules). PP gets nothing for selling boosters of these models, since the assumption is that you will get the card with any new model you purchase. It's a way to save them time, and hastle, really.

Now that said, PP may at some point do an updated deck. They did thise twic ein MkI. The first was to update all the cards from B&W to color, and introduce a new card format (warcasters use to be on a single card, for instance.) They did this again in late MkI, again updating the layout, as well as incorperating any new errata that had happened since the previous deck. EVen then, it only had what needed to be updated in it. Any later models were not in the deck.

Now this said, with the two-books-a-year format, we'll maybe seen another deck sometime in the future. But remember that the point of the decks is different then what boosters and such imply your intent for them is.

And stuff.

sourclams wrote:

BryanC wrote:
I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

Model:Model costs are similar, if Warmachine isn't just a bit more expensive due primarily to metal figs.

But Playability to Dollar Spent, Warmachine goes a lot further than I ever got in 40k with similar funds. The reason is you are almost never using duplicate warjacks/units/models, so the 'endpoint' of a collection (owning an entire faction with almost all its options) comes out to be far cheaper than the equivalent in 40k/WHFB, owning multiples of the exact same unit/model until you max out your Force Org chart.

People repeatedly gloss over the Playability to Dollar investment and I don't know why. It's a real issue, especially in times like these when people are generally trying to find ways to get more for their money.

Especially when on the board, WM/H models just plain DO more then 40k stuff. In 40k, units do ONE thing well, and under the limitations of the boring movement system of 40k. WM/H has so many options that what may constitute a single army can play multiple ways.

Simply put: If you are a "fun" gamer then warhammer is better: more customisation, not as competitively based, big fights massive models etcetc.

If you are a competitive player (like myself) then you will find that warmachine wins without a doubt: the rules are much cleaner, it is much more geared towards being competitive and everything is balanced creating a real fun tournament scene.

I am a "fun" gamer but I don't enjoy the arguments that come with almost every 40K game. I also don't enjoy the fact that once my troops enter HtH combat they're stuck until everyone on one side or the other dies.

I'm definitely in the same category as Leo, I'm a "fun" gamer, and while I love the customization of warhammer models, the lack of rules arguments I receive in warmachine makes for a more enjoyable game. When I have to stop, pull out my codex, and show someone a rule they've been using incorrectly, and I waste 10 minutes trying to get a rules interpretation, no amount of customization in the world could make that enjoyable. I also prefer the speed at which the game flows. While I often forget that there are no phases in warmachine, the hassle of moving all my models at once sucks. 40k is still my first war game, but warmachine is providing a lot more fun for me right now.

Edit: I would also like to add that as a casual gamer, my tournament experience has been much better in warmachine

As others have said, I found arguing over Deff Rollas, God of War, and all of the other BS rules 'grey areas' for two years each to be quite a bit less than 'fun'.

If 'fun' is giant blobs of miniatures and throwing buckets of dice at each other until the other guy rolls more '1's, and I realize for some people this is how they define it, then WH edges out WM/H.

sourclams wrote:As others have said, I found arguing over Deff Rollas, God of War, and all of the other BS rules 'grey areas' for two years each to be quite a bit less than 'fun'.

If 'fun' is giant blobs of miniatures and throwing buckets of dice at each other until the other guy rolls more '1's, and I realize for some people this is how they define it, then WH edges out WM/H.

I play 40k and Fantasy with a friend or two, someone who I can be reasonable with when rules become difficult, and GW hasn't made any official indication of what their, sometimes, poorly written rules are supposed to mean. The guy who I played 40k/Fantasy with the most, moved a few states over, and I haven't touched either game since.

I play Warmachine/Hordes as much as I am able, because I have more fun. Any rules questions are made relatively quickly and official. I enjoy my local community and the people. IMHO it is definitely a more tactical and less forgiving game (if you make a mistake, it will bite you in the behind much faster than in 40k/Fantasy).

If I want to throw some dice with buddies and drink some beer and joke around, I want play 40k/Fantasy. If I want to have a game that engages my thought process, beyond creating the army list, I play Warmachine/Hordes.