I've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

Compared to 40k, Warmahordes is balanced to a very fine point. I struggle to think of an individual model or build that is considered under or over powered. Obviously, you have to think about unit interactions while list-building, throwing things together randomly doesn't pay off as well.

I would say that this is among the most popular table-top games, probably just behind GW's.

Squidmanlolz wrote:Compared to 40k, Warmahordes is balanced to a very fine point. I struggle to think of an individual model or build that is considered under or over powered. Obviously, you have to think about unit interactions while list-building, throwing things together randomly doesn't pay off as well.

I would say that this is among the most popular table-top games, probably just behind GW's.

You'd be correct. Warmachine has been the second highest selling Wargame in the US since at least 2006, excepting one year. The only year it was beat out was when Hordes was released.

What is hordes like?

Magnuszered wrote:What is hordes like?

It's the "fleshy" side of the coin. It works exactly like Warmachine(same rules, they're really the same game) except for how Warlocks and Warbeasts interact.

You'll generally be bringing more Beasts than Warmachine players bring Jacks due to the mechanics: In Warmachine, the leader(Warcaster) generates and gives resources to his Warjacks, in Hordes, the Beasts generate the resources for the Warlock.

How big is a regular game of warmachine?

Magnuszered wrote:How big is a regular game of warmachine?

From what I have seen, the medium sized game is usually a Warcaster, 2-3 'Jacks, and 1-2 units, maybe some solos thrown in too.

From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Magnuszered wrote:From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Highly, but personally, I prefer Infinity however only slightly.

Ok,thanks!

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Magnuszered wrote:From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Highly, but personally, I prefer Infinity however only slightly.

You have defied the word of Menoth, Reznik shall be with you shortly.

I think you should look up some warmachine battlereports on youtube to give you an idea about the game flow. VaulSC is one of my favorites for instance.

The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

Apparently, the appeal is that it is the anti-Warhammer...

Lemme give this a shot, since I just started warmachine.

In WM, you can snatch victory from the claws of defeat not easily, or relying on heavy luck like 40k, but if your opponent makes a mistake and you can capitalize on it.

Ranges are close, most guns shoot like 10 inches, most units can run at least 8 or thereabouts, its all sticking and moving and blocking and such.

Then come the warjacks/beasts, who can slam people back, throw them, ect. ect. and shake things up.
Its all very, very balanced and indepth,

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

how is it going down in quality? How is it changing the scale since most tourneys are still 35 after this many years, and every convention will have a 15 pter, as has always been?

Are they forcing you to buy the new stuff?

Scenarios are kinda meh

Negator80 wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

how is it going down in quality? How is it changing the scale since most tourneys are still 35 after this many years, and every convention will have a 15 pter, as has always been?

Are they forcing you to buy the new stuff?

Scenarios are kinda meh

While I can´t comment on a decline in quality (for that I simply don´t play long enough yet, barely over a year) I can see where someone might get the idea that they are changing the scale, even though I don´t completely agree with that.

The more or less recent unbound rules make big games possible, and the Colossals and Gargantuans promote bigger games as well (due to the all-eggs-in-one-basket nature of a 20 point beast/jack). But as you said, 35 points is still the norm for games with the occasional 50 points or 15 points for starter lists.

But @OP: Yeah, Warmachine is still pretty balanced, played by many people (in fact, I can find a couple of Warmachine/Hordes players at any point in my FLGS, but I´ve never even seen a 40k or Fantasy game played in there) and I can wholeheartly recommend it.

I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

In my opinion, Warmachine/Hordes is a far superior game to GW's stuff, with the notable exception of Blood Bowl.* That is because I like a game to be challenging, I like to have to think very carefully about what I am going to do with my playing pieces before I move them, and I like to win or lose through player skill instead of bucketloads of dice. To me, GW games are completely annoying because victory depends more on what codex you use and how willing you are to ignore everything but the most useful choices and then spam them. In Warmachine, there is no useless unit. Every unit can be useful in the right combinations, and there are loads of possible synergies.

*I always liked Blood Bowl because it works just like that: you have to plan your complete turn in advance, and making mistakes will very likely cost you the game. Yes, dice can still cost you the game, too, but there is a lot more emphasis on player skill than on luck.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

I think you have a a very skewed view of what strategic options are. The things you call strategic options here are strategic options only in the fluff. In the game, it is just a different point of deployment, which is invariably followed by lots of dice rolling and the guy using the younger codex winning. I do exaggerate, yes, but I think you get my meaning. There are no real strategic options, nothing that will really test your skill as a player. GW's games are not really games that can be played competitively. They were never really meant to. I am not saying they can't be fun, but saying they had more strategic options when they are not even competitive games is just bullgak.

Also, in WM/H you do not have to know what every model or unit does. The game comes with stat cards for everything, and at 35 points, reading all of you opponent's stat cards is a matter of 5 minutes. Also, as you gain experience playing the game, you will know the most common choices in your local meta anyway. Yes, you do have to know a few things about your opponent's model's abilities. That is because this is a very tactical, challenging game, not a dice-rolling-fest where victory depends more on list building than what you actually do during the game.

Then there is the matter of casters. First off, the point of this is that by exchanging a single piece, you completely change how the army works. That is quite awesome. A Space Marine Captain makes almost no difference on the board. Exchanging him for a Chaplain makes even less difference. Second, while caster kill is a victory condition, most games seem to actually be won or lost by scenario. The caster kill victory condition just means you cannot just rush blindly forward, but have to take a few protective measures - and that means it will never become a boring I-throw-all-my-army-at-you-and-now-let's-roll-a-million-dice game. Almost no game ends with one army completely wiped out. You have to really balance your offensive game with your defensive game.

So yeah, I can understand people who prefer GW games, because you cannot argue taste and GW games and WM/H are two very different things (and I enjoy GW games for what they are, too, I merely enjoy WM/H more). But prefering GW games over WM/H because they have more strategic options means you haven't even begun to understand how WM/H works.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

Well not for everyone, but comparing this to 40k really isn't doing either justice as they are completely different in both army sizes and game play. GW likes the bigger scenario's when I played 40k my norm was between 2000 and 3000 pts. But in Warmachine the smaller games are just as fun and a lot more engaging, I haven't made it up to 100 pts yet, but having played 75 pts it's almost comparable to a 2000 pts 40k game. With the layout of how WM/H works there is no need for vehicles, deep striking, and there are games that incorporate some reserves I just haven't played one yet. You can play with more than one caster in the larger games, also there is nothing stopping you from making your own house rules, if you feel the games not over once you lose your caster why can't you play on? Yes you have a really bad disadvantage there but again your not painted into a corner on this issue if it's just for fun. This won't happen in a tourney, but in your own area that option is up to you.

As for the lack of Strategic options I disagree. There are way more options and synergies in WM/H than there ever will be in 40k as each Warcaster or Warlock can completely change how our army acts even though you have changed nothing but the WC or WL. I had a Marine army that could care less who the HQ was or did, a tact squad would always be a tact squad, Terminators would always be that and the HQ would just hang out. They did little to benefit my army except eat points of course there are a few exceptions, but over all an HQ does not help you as much as your Warcaster does in WM. The tactics are much better as you really have to plan your move out, activations for example are far better than Move, Shoot, Assault.

For game play I like the fact you don't have units in WM/H that can shoot 70" across the board, having less range makes for a more aggressive/active game to me, there is no sitting in a building just shooting with a mitt full of dice just hoping to kill something before they close the gap eventually and kill you (tau come to mind on this one). If you try this in WM your going to get run over. I know it comes down to preference in the end but after converting from 40k to WM I haven't really looked back. But I'm not saying 40k sucks as I enjoyed it when I did play, just wasn't as satisfying after I played WM, just think 40k's gaming system could be better.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does.

same for 40k. you need to know that, for example, grey hunters are great in cc and pretty damned mean at shooting. so getting close to them is a bad idea, unless you're equally good. knowing what every model/unit does is called knowledge. generals win wars as much with knowledge of the enemy as skills of the troops, and also, generals have lost wars because they underestimated, or clearly didnt know what the other guy was capable of doing. for me, unlocking all those combos is part of the appeal. its an easy game to learn, but incredibly difficult to master, due to all the combos and synnergies out there. its called "depth".

warpcrafter wrote:and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort.

and how is that different to 40k's Grey Knights/Space Wolves/IG versus tau and tyranids? there are plenty builds in 40k that if you bring to the table, you might as well just pack up. at least with WMH you get the option of 2 or 3 lists in a tournament. persoanlly, ive always found there is a workaround and a counter.

warpcrafter wrote:There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion.

they do have reserves, and outflanking (kossites etc) and have you ever heard of 2-caster games? as for "deep striking", thats kinda hard to do in a setting without air power, but gaspy and goreshade do a half decent job at summoning banes and other spirits into the middle of the field. and goreshade can swap out people for jacks. and while a few people dont like the "kill the caster, win the game" approach (Im not one of them) but there are thlose who houserule it that you keep going. personally, i find its great as you always have a chance. you can never let yourself be complacent.

warpcrafter wrote: In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

isnt that like saying GW painted themselves into a corner by centreing the game so much on space marines?

if "the leader dies and you win" works for chess and the king, then its fine for warmahordes warmahordes is a character centric setting. oddly enough, GW have very much followed PPs path in this with the new focus on herohammer, and SCs.

Magnuszered wrote:I've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

the rules, for the most part are extremely balanced. there are a few things that are overpriced by a point (long gunners, men o war) and a few things that are slightly underpriced (black 13th, tartarus) but this is balanced by the nature of the game where the emphasis is squarely on killing power. those slightly overpriced things can be built to work, and those underpriced things can be killed - ive never gone a game against the black 13th without killing them. the rules are among the deepest and most balanced rules out there. they're not perfect, but they are extremely, extremely good - one of the best balanced games out there, in fact.

a lot of people play the game, but ultimately it depends on the local meta. some places dont seem to have any, and some places have switched over entirely from GW games to warmachine and malifaux. check your local scene, but generally speaking, in the last 2 years warmachine's opularity has all but exploded.

Well, I seem to have pinched a few nerves. Allow me to be more specific about what I like about Warhammer 40,000. Tanks, flyers, deep striking, using the whole board instead of just the tiny area in the middle of a 4'x4' board where all your miniatures are supposed to be crammed together in some sort of a rugby scrum. There are a few things I like about Warmachine that I would like to integrate into a game that is somewhat more like 40K, like facing, but generally I like Warhammer 40,000 in large part because it represents to be a real battle scenario rather than a more limited skirmish, despite being nominally unit-based. And with the introduction of the Colossals, Privateer Press have come to the end of what they can do with the Warjack concept. That's another thing I like about 40K, it's not so narrowly focused. And I never mentioned anything about either games relative merits with regard to a competitive setting, because I don't care about that. It's just a more fun game.

I think you are way off on what warmachine is / can be.

First there are units that can reserve and come in from any table edge, you may just not have been exposed to them.

There is an aspect of competitive play where some scenarios have a kill box IE a box in the middle typically 12-18 wide, and 4-8 long. Its not about fighting in the middle its about "scoring" in the middle IE if your don't have models in there the game stops. You can move models outside of it, but have to fulfill a certain criteria.

It seems you definitely like 40K. Warmachine / Hordes are made to be a faster game IE games should not take 2 hours, a high pt game of 50 pts should take 30-45 mins. That's an equivalent of a 2000 pt 40k game played in a third of the time. The goal of warmachine is lots of game play, which is fast, and makes you fight instead of hiding like in 40K where cover is so important.

They are completely different games both of which have merits, both of which I play. Colossals are offered for higher point games and for the collectors. A regular tournment is usually between 35-50 pts, where you almost never see the bigger models.

This isn't meant to offend Warcrafter it seems you have a lack of knowledge how competitive Warmachine players. Warmachine players don't freak out when they lose like 40k players are prone to. They tend to laugh and say "wow i never saw that coming" "want to go again?" Usually because you have only invested 20-30 mins vs 2-3 hours.

njpc wrote:Warmachine / Hordes are made to be a faster game IE games should not take 2 hours, a high pt game of 50 pts should take 30-45 mins. That's an equivalent of a 2000 pt 40k game played in a third of the time.

While I agree that the game can play faster than 40k, I think 50 points in 30-45 minutes is a bit unrealistic unless you're talking about games when a quick assassination happens and then it can be over in less than 10 minutes. I think 1.5 hours is a better approximation for 50 points. Hardcore (tournament format) matches and successful assassinations can be quicker though.

warpcrafter wrote:Well, I seem to have pinched a few nerves. Allow me to be more specific about what I like about Warhammer 40,000. Tanks, flyers, deep striking, using the whole board instead of just the tiny area in the middle of a 4'x4' board where all your miniatures are supposed to be crammed together in some sort of a rugby scrum. There are a few things I like about Warmachine that I would like to integrate into a game that is somewhat more like 40K, like facing, but generally I like Warhammer 40,000 in large part because it represents to be a real battle scenario rather than a more limited skirmish, despite being nominally unit-based. And with the introduction of the Colossals, Privateer Press have come to the end of what they can do with the Warjack concept. That's another thing I like about 40K, it's not so narrowly focused. And I never mentioned anything about either games relative merits with regard to a competitive setting, because I don't care about that. It's just a more fun game.

its not about pinching nerves mate. disliking a game is fine. you're fully entitled to your POV. however disliking a game because it doesnt have a bunch of stuff (even though it does have said stuff!) is a bit of a logical dead end if you ask me. "fun" is also relative.Honestly, im glad you enjoy 40k. go for it. me? i havent enjoyed a game of 40k since halfway through 4th ed. 6th interests me, but i doubt it would hold me. warmachine and infinity are my games of choice, and i consider them to be more fun. YMMV. neither of us is wrong in our perceptions.

As i said, you are fully entitled to your POV. i tend to look at the mid-field WM "scrum" as more of a boxing match than a game of rugby. its all up close. and dancing around a limited space, rather than wide sweeping manoevres. some prefer the former, the others prefer the latter. both are fine.

I know what 40k is trying to represent, (but fails badly IMO) in that its meant to be a company level encounter I think it falls down, as it uses too much stuff that is more appropriate in an army level engagement (flyers, artillery, that by rights should be 10 miles behind the front lines etc) whilst at the same time using a kind of individual based customisation more appropriate to a skirmish (or even "gang" based) game the size of warmachine, or infinity. its not "real", but i completely understand the preference for a full-on engagement, and not just a skirmish between 20 guys and a steam belching mech. i think there are better games of that scale out there - Flames of War comes to mind, but thats just my opinion.

I dont think colossals are the end of the warjack concept. there is plenty more direction, and options PP can take. look at the news from lock 'n' load. Lylith3 on a super-large based chariot. warcaster, and warlock "units". light cavalry (and heavy cavalry) for all the factions that didnt get it before. alternative UAs (black dragons). as for jacks, colossals are something they've been kicking around with for years. all jacks are not suddenly gonna be colossals, and yes, there is plenty room for new character jacks, and new jack models to be released. dont worry, the horse isnt dead yet

but one quip. if 40k isnt so narrowly focused, then why is literally everying so focused on space marines? there is only so much they can do with them!

The appeal for me is that to build a more usable army its cheaper. 5 metal is 20$ for widowmakers while 5 finceast is 50$

WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers. In WM/H there is more strategy and tactics IMO than 40k.

It's about positioning and kill vectors. Blocking charging lanes, and opening shooting lanes. Each piece of your army has a use and synergies with other parts of your army.

The big thing I liked is that these big Beasts and Warjacks with arms they can actually use them for more than chopping wood. You want to throw something or someone? You can do it in WM/H. Put another War-noun in a head-lock, it is doable. Melee options are plentiful: slam, trample, lock, throw, oh my!!

UsdiThunder wrote:WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers. In WM/H there is more strategy and tactics IMO than 40k.

I actually really like that. It's pretty appropriate as well. In 40k, units can be customized to perform the task of any other unit, everything is essentially the same across the board. In WM/H each unit is unique, each has it's role and it will take some serious skill to manage it effectively.

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going don in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

I think the first one is a bit of subjective opinion on this myself. I personally think some fairly cool stuff has been coming out as they expand on some parts of the Factions, such as the Circle eldritch things, Cygnar stormnouns, and what have you.

The second one is weird, but not I think what you think is happening. When PP started, games were small, using a bigger point system with about 270 battle boxes going to 350pt armies a lot. After a while they setteled into 500pts, and tried to push for 1000pt games. This can be seen in Escalation, the second book, with FA 2 warjacks, Mercenary warcasters and a couple of the Faction casters only having rules useful in higher point games.

This didn't happen. People played 500pts. anyways. PP then introduced a 750pt game bracket for epics, and this became popular because you could only play epics at 750+pt. games. In a lot of areas, 500pts and 750pts were kind of the standards. The only major important tournaments that used 1000pt lists was Gencon, as far as I can gather.

With MkII, the point scale shifted and people played 35pts. when they played 500pt., and 50pts when they played 750pts. The thing is that those are in some ways smaller armies with more warjacks or warbeasts in them generally.

Huge-based models actually don't in themselves shift things. Last year with their new releases, everyone got them, and all that happened is people fit them into their existing lists. And as I see lists being churned-out on forums for the new huge-based warnouns, most all of them are still 35pt or 50pt lists, and again, the only major tournament with higher than that right now is GenCon, which I think is a bit less considered the "top tournament" for PP stuff these days than the 50pt invitational one at Warmachine Weekend.

Kind of long-winded, but PP introducing huge-based models isn't actually moving the scale of games, unless you meant in piece side specifically. In this case, I don't see it in itself as an issue. But the game itself is simply changing list compositions with these in mind, rather than just tacking them onto existing armies.

And stuff.

The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost

People keep putting this forward, but the battle reports and posts about facing them don't really support it(other than the Stormwall's pods). Damage wise, they don't seem to be doing much more than 2-3 jacks(incidentally, what they happen to replace in most lists), but they're not as sturdy or flexible as those same jacks. The fact that a Bronzeback or War Hog can wreck them in one turn with a little support says a lot.

Yes, people are putting together stupid crazy lists(like Darius + 2 Stormwalls), but it's really not that different from Jack heavy lists and, like every new entry, we'll learn to adapt to them in a couple months.

spiralingcadaver wrote:The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)

It's not being pushed by the company; you're making that up with zero proof. For example, when GW pushes stuff, they devalue what used to be good, improve what theyre pushing, and fill their publications with crap about them. PP hasnt done any of that.

Your colossal review is also lacking facts; again just making that stuff up. As the above post states, there is plenty of stuf that kills colossals.

Finally its not about whoever has more money has a better army. A gamer that doesnt take a colossal and instead takes 3x heavys spends like 50$ more. 50$ is nothing.

Playing mercs primarily, the fact that heavier-hitting factions' stronger heavies can deal with them isn't very consoling, where I tend to have trouble taking out regular old heavies in bulk, though can at least avoid those :/. Also, when talking about new pieces, the mundane ones are never the issue, as they'll never heavily impact meta. The outliers are the problem, and I think that the outlying Colossals are pretty rough.

As mercs, my options are basically branch in to dwarves or get a colossal, neither of which is ideal. Since I don't do tourneys, I'll probably be putting a toy on a CD and saving $150($130? something like that), but that's mostly because I'm less invested in WM than I used to be (due to bad feelings towards PP).

For all its failings, at least GW's giant kits aren't part of regular play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NegatorXX wrote:It's not being pushed by the company; you're making that up with zero proof. For example, when GW pushes stuff, they devalue what used to be good, improve what theyre pushing, and fill their publications with crap about them. PP hasnt done any of that.

PP has been making bigger models and made a new format as the focus of two books, if that isn't pushing something, I don't know what is.

Your colossal review is also lacking facts; again just making that stuff up.

I didn't want to turn it into a detailed rant, so suffice to say that a bunch of guns and health provides a concentration of power that I believe is overpowered (or, at least strongly game/meta-changing) in the stronger cases.

As the above post states, there is plenty of stuf that kills colossals.

Yep, but, like I said, most require notably redesigning (at least my) lists, which is what I argued was an issue in design.

Finally its not about whoever has more money has a better army. A gamer that doesnt take a colossal and instead takes 3x heavys spends like 50$ more. 50$ is nothing.

every army (I believe) can buy 2 9-10 point heavies for $70 total.

I'm not sure where 3 heavies =same points as a colossal and costs more? The cheapest heavies (6 points) all cost ≤$35, and the expensive ($) heavies are 8-13 points, so wouldn't be 3 heavies

Colossals compare more to things like units. I did some math on this, but some multi-wound units actually are more per point. Some solos too. The Wrack, for instnace, costs something like $20 for 1pt. The game swings a bit. Traditional warjacks and warbeasts tend to be the lowest per-point cost though.

I think things like Unbound less "push for" big games than give support. People do play big games. People tend to of also found the to be a circle of hell. As I see it, PP isn't so much actually pushing for larger games (since again, lists seem to me just to be shuffling around more than actually getting nay bigger). But they have given tools for folks who do like big games (I have a guy about who loves them despite no one else wanting to go above 50) can do it more easily and without tossing out more infantry "Because I had nothing else tos pend it on."

And stuff.

Blaque wrote:Colossals compare more to things like units. I did some math on this, but some multi-wound units actually are more per point. Some solos too. The Wrack, for instnace, costs something like $20 for 1pt. The game swings a bit. Traditional warjacks and warbeasts tend to be the lowest per-point cost though.

I agree with this (except the Wracks example: every category, if big enough, will have a few pieces that fall outside the curve-- the fact that there is a $50 warcaster doesn't stop most from costing $10-20), but Colossals tend to replace heavies, not solos and units, so I don't find the comparison entirely accurate.

People tend to of also found the to be a circle of hell.

Not sure what this is, assume a typo/mistake.

Either way, I feel that magazine(i.e. the original NQ release of Unbound)/supplement books (like other companies have done) would be the way of providing optional format rules, rather than incorporating them into a main book with new unit type rules (Colossals, like cav, battle engines, etc. released in other books) and pieces designed for smaller/regular games.

Maybe it's just where I game, but my community almost unanimously felt like Unbound was an attempt to push more minis/larger games on a game that doesn't really support large scales...

It might be community-based. What I meant is that playing bigger games tend to well...suck. I played Unbound twice and kind of hated it. And I don't know many folks who liked it either about here. As I see it, it is there to facilitate a kind of game for some people. It is not meant to be the actual main game.

To add, a huge chunk of the appeal of WM/H (to me at least and I think a good chunk of the net community) is the competitive aspect. It is a game that does take tournament play and use in mind quite a bit, instead of secondary as I gather most other minis games do (Malifaux tried but I think handled it poorly). Unbound explicitly is not that. And so ends up being a niche thing even still.

Finally, a bit on explanation, Unbound was in Colossals apparently mostly as filler. PP has had issues meeting demand of late, and so part of the point of colossals and including Unbound was actually to have a light release to let them make sure they catch-up on everything (they still have some things from Wrath not out yet or even on the docket). It has, I think though, created an impression of them wanting bigger games as default. (Which again, I feel they seem more itnerested in different list set-ups than anything, with support for bigger games if you want being easier).

And stuff.

I guess all im sayin is 'I believe it is overpowered' is much different then 'the results of the last 15 tournaments'.

When you say 'regular play', can you list how many games youve played against colossals to give us some background on your opinion?

Has PP changed anythign about SR2012 that forces the use of them?

Have you always only used lists that cant deal with heavy armor, dont make use of all of your faction's models, and always been apprehensive about using the one or two lists you are comfortable with?

Re: clarification, -- haha, yeah, we're on the same page there, at least. And, no, we don't generally play Unbound here, we just felt like PP was saying we should.

And I didn't know that's why that was included. Personally, I would have preferred three smaller books (Colossals; Gargantuans (I cringe every time I write those... considering Colossus and Gargantua are already (real) words that frankly also sound way more intelligent, though that's neither here nor there); and Unbound), but I guess PP is still trying to claim that the games are technically separate.

I will say a couple things. First Warmachine is a resource management game. Hordes is a risk management game. Cryx is a swarm army that likes to drown people with bodies. Something I like about warmachine is that you ALWAYS have a chance to win (kill the caster and its game). Iv'e seen scrap thralls explode a caster to death. 40k you know who is going to win just by looking at the list. There are 3 types of list in warmachine (of course your list may not fall into 1 types) there is the rock... a few really hard hitters, paper... swarms of infantry, and scissors... the anti infantry list. Cryx is usually a paper/scissors army. Khador is Rock (wintergaurd is scissors). Something to consider with cryx is they are a glass cannon. They hit hard and fast but shatter with ease, so if you don't manage to kill something its probably gonna destroy you during its turn.

The point scale will depend on your area. If there is a mature society 35-50 will be the norm. If there is a bunch of new people then battlebox-25 will be the norm. Exp players don't usually mind playing a 15 point scale but don't ask them to play battlebox.

a good infantry unit for cryx and the staple for the army are Mechanithralls, Necro Surgeon, and Bile Thralls. Arch nodes are good, Slayers are better and deathjack will **** some **** up
Satyixs raiders with UA and Captian is considered a competitive list with some Mcthralls screening them with PSkarre backing them up is a very tournament savy list.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Cryx was my first army.... Turned into gators though xD

NegatorXX wrote:I guess all im sayin is 'I believe it is overpowered' is much different then 'the results of the last 15 tournaments'.

When you say 'regular play', can you list how many games youve played against colossals to give us some background on your opinion?

Has PP changed anythign about SR2012 that forces the use of them?

Have you always only used lists that cant deal with heavy armor, dont make use of all of your faction's models, and always been apprehensive about using the one or two lists you are comfortable with?

Not many games, and, playing non-rhulic mercs, like I said, I feel I don't have the punch to get through that sort of armor, even in jack-heavy/focus-efficient (magnus) lists, without getting my own merc colossal (stand in*). What's worse, in said list, not only is a colossal the only solid answer to other colossals, it's generally just a better choice than 2ish heavies (which I'd be replacing), reinforcing my feeling that they're not properly balanced: I feel it's objectively a necessary choice to field to deal with others, and an optimal choice, regardless of outside threats.

What really pisses me off, though, is my standard all-comers list, a skirmishing Bad Seeds list, which can handle most heavy lists by outmaneuvering and outgunning them, has zero answer to Colossals, since they have the firepower to wreck any infantry I have access to with AOES, other than Trencher Infantry, which are less than optimal choices...

*

spiralingcadaver wrote:
What really pisses me off, though, is my standard all-comers list, a skirmishing Bad Seeds list, which can handle most heavy lists by outmaneuvering and outgunning them, has zero answer to Colossals.

Try out a unit of Sword Knights with UA and a Marshalled Jack(I use either a Nomad or a Talon, personally, but in this case, I'd go Nomad). Charge the Colossal with the Jack first to an extreme angle(try to get just in the front arc on one side), then the Sword Knights(order is important because of the Flank bonus). Due to the huge base and Practiced Maneuvers, it won't be hard to get all 11 armed members engaged as well as the Jack. In addition to the Jack's damage, that's 11 models rolling 4D6 Damage with Precision Strike and the option to do Penetrating Strikes if there's only a few boxes left.

I'll keep an eye on this thread as I'm currently looking at starting Warmahordes, doing a Cryx and Everblight force side by side.

(the alternate was Retribution of Scyrah because they're kinda pretty, but Cryx has the starter kit + appeals to my darker side Also, the Hordes alternative was Circle Orboros, but frankly Dragons won out.)

I normally run my SKs as ambushers (so no marshal), but that'll actually work pretty well since, if I deploy them behind it, it'll at least force the jack to turn away from my main force. Thanks for the advice.

Too bad, I love my li'l trencher chain gun, but I guess they finally need to go, for the UA...

spiralingcadaver wrote:The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)

im actually curious as to the comment regarding artistic integrity. creativity is interesting - its a very tight path they're weaving with new stuff. if its too good its game changing, and if its not good enough, its not game changing. IMO theyve done a very good job of keeping the new stuff in line with the power level previously seen. its not codex:grey knights, is it? Also, in terms of creativity, have you seen the stuff they've come up with for the future? warlock units. epic based warlocks. PP seem to do tangents constantly - everyone expected kossite light cavalry. no one expected greylord scouts, and i think its a very new, innovative and exciting possibility. battle engines and colossals are interesting new pieces, and will shake up the meta enough without completely replacing it. thats the strength of PPs design ethos.

As for larger games, i dont see it. we still play 35pts and 50pts here mainly. what i do think is amusing is how when PP put in the rules for unbound games, as an optional "epic engagement" type deal, everyone jumps up and starts yelling how they're destroying the game, and wanting bigger games. my arse. Does anyone remember superiority, and escalation, and the huge campaign section? were people thinking PP were dumping on competitive gaming for the sake of narrative then? im sure there were some. Look, they're options. they're possiilities, not a direction.

And i think you're wrong about collossals. i've seenthe math done. a Conquest will not put out more damage than a behemoth, or even a pair of juggernauts. and you dont and wont "need" collossals to do well, you're flat out wrong on those scores. regarding changing lists - how is that a bad thing? i spent 4th ed 40k essentially playing the same tau list (hammerhead, fish and kroot spam) and it got very boring, very fast. Collossals are new options. for a start, they're alternatives. they're not replacements. as much as i want a conquest with eIrusk, Irusk, and Strakhov, its not going to make an inherently "better" list. its a different list. different strategies. different combos/synnergies. and thats a good thing" Because why would i want to just stick to my same old lists? PP is very fond of having a liquid meta - of constantly shaking tihngs up, and of always keeping the meta a little bit off balance with something new on the horizon that will shake it up. what has worked wont always work. Page 5, remember? prepare to change, evolve and adapt.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Playing mercs primarily, the fact that heavier-hitting factions' stronger heavies can deal with them isn't very consoling, where I tend to have trouble taking out regular old heavies in bulk, though can at least avoid those :/. Also, when talking about new pieces, the mundane ones are never the issue, as they'll never heavily impact meta. The outliers are the problem, and I think that the outlying Colossals are pretty rough.

playing a real faction might help! what contracts do you play, if you dont mind me asking? and to be fair, if you can deal with 2 jacks, you can deal with a collossal. they dont come with immunity: opponent. honestly, you shouldjust Page 5 it, and make killing collossals you're objective.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
As mercs, my options are basically branch in to dwarves or get a colossal, neither of which is ideal. Since I don't do tourneys, I'll probably be putting a toy on a CD and saving $150($130? something like that), but that's mostly because I'm less invested in WM than I used to be (due to bad feelings towards PP).

you're assuming everyone will be taking a collossal in every game. they're not that game-bending. and whats wrong with expanding your options?

spiralingcadaver wrote:
For all its failings, at least GW's giant kits aren't part of regular play.

see above, you're approaching this with the fallacy of thinking that collossals are, all of a sudden "regular play". trust me, collossals are a great new aspect of the game. but they're not IG valkyrie/vendettas necessary for competitive lists.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
]PP has been making bigger models and made a new format as the focus of two books, if that isn't pushing something, I don't know what is.

just like the summer campaigns, and the superiority campaign? its an option, its not a blueprint. as they said themselves the original unbound rules are in NQ. here is just them putting it into a more official book.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
I didn't want to turn it into a detailed rant, so suffice to say that a bunch of guns and health provides a concentration of power that I believe is overpowered (or, at least strongly game/meta-changing) in the stronger cases.

no, thats wrong. as mentioned, if you can take down 2 jacks, you can deal with a collossal. they dont do more damage than jacks (or weapon master infantry) of a comparable cost. and being a meta changer is a good thing. as mentioned, they're interesitng new alternatives, not replacements. it would be a bad thing if they're not worth taking.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yep, but, like I said, most require notably redesigning (at least my) lists, which is what I argued was an issue in design.

not mine. butcher. feat turn. epic butcher. 8X doom reaver squads. eirusk. battle lust + great bears, and demo corps. which is stuff im already quite happy to do. my circle will just rely on a charge from a primaled feral. but thats just me. Other factions have their options too. honestly, im not finding any changes to any other edition, in terms of new options, tactics, snyyergies and combos. and all this is a good thing, if you ask me :

Re: creativity, I meant that their model design is stagnant (no new concepts in my opinion: making a new version that has a different weapon, into a warcaster, or bigger does not impress me) and their writing and art are similarly lacking.

Regarding the rest, page 5 has been a boring and unproductive answer for years, as is "buy more figures" (within reason).

For the record, the vast majority of my games don't involve taking out 2 jacks together, but isolating them and destroying them, which is a very different matter.

I didn't cry doom about cav, character jacks, etc. --having been around the game since the beginning, I stick with my position that the new giants are not healthy for the game. I'd rather they didn't exist :/

Magnuszered wrote:I've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

The game has cool models and fluff imho.

As for gameplay:

1. it is all about "deck building", synergy and pulling off combos. It is M:TG in miniatures form.

2. It is a brutal game with little room for error because losing your warcaster (army leader) is the game ender. You can be wiping your opponent but if he pulls off an assassination run and kills your caster the game ends and you lose (you will like or hate this aspect depending on your own preferences).

3. In general the game is played ultra-competatively and rewards powergaming, deck tuning and theorymachine. This isn a bad thing if that is what your looking for in a game, but be prepared...

4. It has a staggeering number of units, combos and rules interactions at this point and the simplest thing overlooked can kill you if you aren't aware of a certain combo or interaction.It is a game that is hard to play smartly if you aren't willing to do your "homework".

Pulling off combos is important, but so is model placement
and positioning. I get the magic comparisons, but it's a
miniatures game and where you put your models matters.

I put them in my mouth.

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

What's this 'Page 5' thing I keep seeing in Warmahordes stuff?

Aww, cute. Good to see there's still plenty of PP white knights around when someone badmouths the game.

To be fair though, I am a fan of Warmachine and Hordes. The game does punish you for not doing your homework, though, and not being aware of certain combos can truly punish you.

Warmachine/Hordes is also decently balanced, with only Legion and Cryx slightly (read, VERY slightly) maintaining a higher lead in terms of victories. However, it is like M:tG in some sense, very combo reliant.

Perhaps my least favorite part of Warmachine/Hordes is the competitive nature. While the game doesn't encourage bad sportsmanship, and it's great that it offers a solid competitive game, there are many ultra-competitive gamers out there and WM/H's aggressive nature tends to breed some, "interesting" characters.

The storyline is, just like 40k, also stagnant, despite what some people might tell you. There might be an underlying story, but since the community gets in an uproar every time someone dies in the fluff, PP has refused to kill anybody.

(On a slightly unrelated note: Seriously, epic epic casters? Why should I care about the character's development anymore? If they never die, their development doesn't matter)

Actually, I'd like to see some characters die. You could still use them in games, after all using pSomeone now is also anachronistic already. So having some characters die would make the fluff better.

And one thing about the ultra-competitiveness: the game is indeed not for the casual gamer who plays once a month and spends the rest of his hobby time collecting, converting and painting, because you really need to practice, practice, practice. I've had maybe 30 games up to now during the last two months, and I don't know my units all that well yet (I have around 15 cards I need to learn - plus five casters), not to mention my enemy's. But I can sometimes pull off a victory here and there by paying really close attention to what my opponent does and, more importantly, to what I do. After all my defeats, I knew exactly what mistakes I made. And I remembered about half of those in later games.

Actually, I think what I want to say is that learning the game and losing a lot doesn't bother me at all, but is actually a lot of fun, too. If you don't mind losing and learning from it, this game is for you. If you want to nothing but to curbstomp your opponent every time and are easily frustrated when you lose, play 40K Grey Knights (although I have no idea whether they are still as good in 6th, if not then maybe Space Wolves are. Dunno).

Meh, competitiveness is the nature of the beast. However, I disagree that WM/H is not for the casual gamer. I've seen players who play only 2-3 times a month and pull out wins because they understand the theory behind it. Like MtG, if you know what you're doing and have a rough idea of what your opponent is doing you've got a good chance of winning.

It's not the competitive aspect I dislike, it's that WM/H has more examples of bad sportsmen than anything else. Because the game is marketed as competitive, there's a greater chance of encountering TFGs.

CT GAMER wrote:

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

Page 5 tells you to eat your models?

Cryonicleech wrote:It's not the competitive aspect I dislike, it's that WM/H has more examples of bad sportsmen than anything else. Because the game is marketed as competitive, there's a greater chance of encountering TFGs.

I dont play warmahordes yet, but I feel the need to argue this :p

My girlfriend breeds show mice, and we have friends that breed show rabbits, dogs, birds and hamsters.

Most of the people in any one of these hobbies make the TFGs in MTG, warhammer, yugioh and online gaming combined, look like tame fluffy kittens you just want to hug.

Seriously, the petty, cutthroat backstabby nature of these people, with numerous rumours, thefts, threats, police cases, etc has made it so much easier to deal witn pretty much everyone elses crap.

Your average TFG doesn't bother me anymore. xD.

There's TFGs everywhere, really, for every activity under the sun.

Surtur wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

Page 5 tells you to eat your models?

That is what I took from it.

I've found the opposite; that 40k's loose, gray area rules (relative to WM/H's tight ruleset) are a breeding ground for jerks to impose their jerky wills.

I like Warmachine because it's so vastly different than 40k. You use less models. Scenarios are less important. In fact, it's usually easier to just kill the enemy caster than win by scenario. It doesn't help that most of the scenarios in steam rollers are so darn complicated IMO.

In WM, you definitely need to know what everything on the table does, so there is a learning curve. You can also pull off some cool combos, so it's kinda like MTG with models instead of cards.

Oh, did I mention there is very little randomness in WM/Hordes? I hate randomness in games, especially randomness for no reason - I'm looking at YOU mysterious forests! GW has a hard on for randomness in their games.

I'm really glad there are no transports or big flyers in WM. If there were I would lose a lot of interest in the game. Oh, and you know what? PP doesn't make finecast models. Just metal and plastic with very few resin pieces.

Oh, and the rules are tight. Very well-designed and any loopholes are FAQ'ed, and unclear areas are answered by an infernal on the PP forums very quickly.

And there's no Matt Ward weird gak in Warmachine/Hordes background. There just isn't.

So yeah, WM/Hordes is the anti-Warhammer and that's why I like it.

Well, this has turned into one heck of an intense thread. I'm glad to see so many views expressed here though, hopefully the OP and others with similar questions can get a lot from this discussion. Magnuszered, don't be afraid to follow up with other questions or ask for clarifications here because I see many posts based on personal preferences (which is fair since those are the only preferences we each have to use as reference.)
The major points of difference between warmachine and other popular games are the rules and community. The models and background are different, but that is to be expected any time you change to a new game.
The warmachine and hordes mark two rules are wonderfully designed and, in my own opinion, two of the best rules documents ever written for tabletop gaming. The nature of explicit and directly worded rules means you can take a step back from trying to rationalize odd or complex interactions and just play the game by the wording of the rule.
Gaming communities are each unique and can be bastions of respectable players or dens of utterly despicable subhumans; In spite of this I feel most warmachine communities have one or two common threads of knowing at least the core rules and their own models' rules well. It has been said before that the game has a steep learning curve and I feel like that leads most players to have a pretty strong comprehension of the rules by the time they become capable players. You definitely want to know what kind of people are playing in your area before you buy in big though, any game can be ruined by a rotten group of opponents.
If anyone wants to check things out for themselves after reading the varied responses here check out the quickstart rules in the following link and proxy up a quick game with a friend.
http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/the-game

A couple points,

"WM/Hordes is the anti-Warhammer

Not really. It's been defined as such, but both are nominally skirmish, moderately large-scale, squad-based games. Infinity and Malifaux are far further away, due to scale and rules, in my opinion.

mark two rules are wonderfully designed and, in my own opinion, two of the best rules documents ever written for tabletop gaming

Despite my complaining, I agree entirely here.

Regarding community--

4 communities I've encountered:
-FLGS 1: moderately competitive, some jerks. One early game, I won against a vet. I said "good game," and was ready to shake hands. He responded, "no, it wasn't." 'nuff said.
-FLGS 2: friendly but highly competitive
-FLGS 3: non-competitive, low-key
-PP website: used to be a great and vibrant place, but then PP decided that saying non-positive things was bad, and the mods now rule with an iron fist. In a game where you play with a pair, you aren't allowed to write as if you or anyone else has one. Basically just rumor mongering and tactics now.

eh.. You cant really rate communities of games that much.


One group at this one shop are dicks that play so and so game, but the group that plays the other so and so game are nice.

but at this other location its the other way.

People suck, thats all there is to it, not matter what game you play. there is the bad ones and good ones.

Agreed.

Giving Unbound as an example of Privateer Press trying to push larger games onto players is like saying the same with Apocalypse and 40k. It's official rules for playing large game, that's about it. I don't think the standard sizes as adopted by the players and also accepted by the company at their event (Lock and Load) for tournaments will be changing.

I think push is the wrong term. Though WM/H has skirmish roots, it's nice to have rules for larger games.

Though, to be fair, it would be wrong to say that companies don't release rules for larger games without the intention of selling models. Colossals and GW Superheavies (Stompas, Baneblades, etc.) are created primarily to entice players to play larger games.

The only standard SR2012 event being run at higher than 50pts. is Gencon Masters. This actually caused some uproar as well, specifically on severe logistics issues it seems to cause for players in it. Whether it becomes standard or not is to be seen, but I know that until the forseeable future, for instnace, Warmachine Weekend is sticking to 50pts for the Last Chance Qualifier and Invitational. I see this kind of staying that way.

Tournament play, as I said upthread, affects a lot of what's actually played I think. And if things stick to 50pts being the most common "top" I don't see that changing and it isnt' in PP's goals it seems to shift that.

Now that said, making big-ass things, which was a complaint is a more valid one. They seem to live big-ass models and I am if anything getting annoyed with the logistics headache it is to move these damned things around sometimes.

And stuff.

The one thing that surprised me the most about the Colossals was the timing.

When the Battle Engines came out, the concept seemed rather similar. It seems like the Colossals overshadow the Battle Engines in concept.

I also agree that Privateer needs to stop re-hashing ideas. Bane Cavalry is just dumb, IMHO.

Negator80 wrote:I've found the opposite; that 40k's loose, gray area rules (relative to WM/H's tight ruleset) are a breeding ground for jerks to impose their jerky wills.

Exactly. You just cannot argue most of the rules of WM/H. In 40K, you can argue all day, and people abuse that a lot.

When you go to play a game expecting your opponent to really do his best to kill all your models and completely bash you, and if you intend to do the same to him, there can be no hard feelings about the game (except if he cheats or is just socially incompetent or similar crap, but that's a completely different level of TFG). Whereas in 40K, I have very often seen people expect their opponents to 'play nice' and not use the hardest options available to them. But why would anyone handicap himself? If GK razor spam is the currently most effective build, why wouldn't you use it? Sure, I wouldn't want to, for several reasons,* but that's exactly why 40K is gak in my world. In WM/H, there is no most effective build, nor a most effective faction. You can bring any number of effective combos. Some combos are hard counters for specific other builds, but that's why you bring two lists to tourneys and why you build lists after rolling scenario for league games.

* I don't like the look&feel nor the fluff of GK, I don't like spamming units, I don't like buying a completely new army every year to stay competitive.


40K has awesome fluff. But it is frustrating to lovingly collect an army that you really like the fluff and the miniatures of, just to be unable to compete even on the friendly match level with them. I collected Tau for several years. I still enjoy the models, really I do, but gaming with them was completely annoying. It was always an uphill battle, and while I enjoy tactical challenges, I do not enjoy them if I start at a constant disadvantage.

Skylifter wrote:If GK razor spam is the currently most effective build, why wouldn't you use it? .

If Deathjack with eSkarre is the most effective Cryx build, why wouldn't you use it? If Nightmare is better than a basic slayer, why wouldn't you use it?

GW has obvious, glaring rules issues. But GW doesn't claim to have a competitive, well balanced game. Because the rules aren't airtight doesn't make the game horrible, and if you've been to any of the major 40k tournaments you'll find that you can have a game where both players do their best to completely bash their opponents while having a great time. Just last year I was at the Socal Smackdown and two WM players got into a major argument over whether or not an opponent got the back strike bonus. The issue was resolved, but I guarantee you both of them had hard feelings.

While there is a huge degree of balance in WM/H, even here there are most effective builds/factions. Ask around, Cryx and Legion do better than most. Additionally, there are less useful options within every faction. Cephylax, Drudge Slaves, and Bloat Thralls are just examples in Cryx of units that constitute "least effective builds". That's not to mention the worst 'casters/locks, like Dominic Darius of Cygnar.

I enjoy both games very much, but what a lot of people seem to miss is that both games aren't perfect, or that one game is the anti-other. Casual Warmachine and Competitive 40k/Fantasy can exist without tearing the galaxy in half.

Okay, so I just wrote a long post replying to several items en détail, then my browser messed up and it was lost. So let me just give a summary:

Warmachine isn't the anti-GW and it isn't the one-and-only-perfect game. But since most gamers come from a GW perspective, GW games are the obvious comparison. I was very frustrated with GW games half a year ago and went looking for something new. I found Warmachine, and I am very, very happy with it, because it gives me a much more complete hobby experience.

GW games have awesome fluff. Warmachine fluff is good, but not as complex or developed yet. GW produces awesome models, PP's models are good, but there are some bad sculpts in there. However, for a GW army I have to paint a lot of very similar models. Even my characters tend to look very similar to my troopers. Warmachine armies consist of vastly different models, and rarely will I have to paint more than 10 very similar ones. Therefore, I enjoy my painting more, because I don't have to do the (boring) extreme highlights on the 25th space marine. Playing GW games is certainly fun, but finding new effective ways to fully subjugate my enemy isn't as much fun, because I must disregard so many fluffwise interesting units from the get-go and when I finally have my cool new and effective build, I must expect my opponent's to hate me for it. In Warmachine, my opponents expect me to do my worst.

TL;DR: Both companies make enjoyable games, but I like Warmachine better because it doesn't frustrate me as GW does and it covers every aspect of the hobby to an equal degree, which I like.

Skylifter wrote:Okay, so I just wrote a long post replying to several items en détail, then my browser messed up and it was lost. So let me just give a summary:

Warmachine isn't the anti-GW and it isn't the one-and-only-perfect game. But since most gamers come from a GW perspective, GW games are the obvious comparison. I was very frustrated with GW games half a year ago and went looking for something new. I found Warmachine, and I am very, very happy with it, because it gives me a much more complete hobby experience.

GW games have awesome fluff. Warmachine fluff is good, but not as complex or developed yet. GW produces awesome models, PP's models are good, but there are some bad sculpts in there. However, for a GW army I have to paint a lot of very similar models. Even my characters tend to look very similar to my troopers. Warmachine armies consist of vastly different models, and rarely will I have to paint more than 10 very similar ones. Therefore, I enjoy my painting more, because I don't have to do the (boring) extreme highlights on the 25th space marine. Playing GW games is certainly fun, but finding new effective ways to fully subjugate my enemy isn't as much fun, because I must disregard so many fluffwise interesting units from the get-go and when I finally have my cool new and effective build, I must expect my opponent's to hate me for it. In Warmachine, my opponents expect me to do my worst.

TL;DR: Both companies make enjoyable games, but I like Warmachine better because it doesn't frustrate me as GW does and it covers every aspect of the hobby to an equal degree, which I like.

I can dig this.

I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd. I got into miniature war gaming through 40k. I expanded to Hordes, and later to Infinity (which I've yet to play a game of). They're different enough to not be the same - which is good! I don't want to play Hordes so I can play 40k while I don't play 40k, I want to play Hordes so I can play Hordes. However, they're all still miniature wargames with degrees of similarity - you roll for hits and wounds and all that jazz. So what? It's called being the same media. You can't complain that Exalted and D&D are polar opposites and thus one is good and the other bad when they're both the same media - tabletop RPGs. It's an illogical and nonsensical argument!

Similarly, with all the "b'aww PP are forcing me to play big games! They're literally coming to my house and putting a gun to my head, making me play big games and buy millions of models I don't want!"? Baseless argument. Some people say that 2000pt 40k is the only way to go. Others say that 1500pts is the minimum, or 1000pt, or whatever. Personally, I like to play a 600pt game every now and then. These are arbitrary values that are totally up to you and your opponent in a casual setting, or up to a tourney organiser or what-have-you. They also release solos every now and then. What, they're forcing us to play smaller games, because solos are small? The only thing that Unbound does is enable those people who enjoy large games to play large games more effectively, just like Apocalypse in 40k.

We must also not think of Colossi/Gargantua as 40k's Titans. They're super-jacks. They're better, but they're more expensive as a result. If you field a big unit it means you have fewer smaller units. Once it is gone, your army has lost its spine, so to speak. As a Tyranid player, I know this very well. It's not "Oh, you've killed my one 'jack" any more. It's "Oh, crap, you broke all those eggs in that one basket I put them in".

Some people like quality over quantity. Large, powerful units and few of them. That's what the big guys are - all that means is that more of their army is concentrated into a single unit. They're not army-destroyingly powerful, but they're better than regular 'jacks. As a Legion player, if I don't take as many Carnivean as I can, am I screwed? No! I can take other things. That is the point of lists, after all. Similarly, if I don't take a pseudo-Titan, am I screwed? No.

As for being forced to change your list - well, not really. That's not much to complain about, though. Rules change, and you should change with them. Plasma guns are crap in this edition because a unit came out which might possibly maybe negate them? Take something else or continue to use them, it's your call.

Honestly, I'll probably only get a big guy because they look awesome, and for no other reason. I probably will never field it.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd. I got into miniature war gaming through 40k. I expanded to Hordes, and later to Infinity (which I've yet to play a game of). They're different enough to not be the same - which is good! I don't want to play Hordes so I can play 40k while I don't play 40k, I want to play Hordes so I can play Hordes. However, they're all still miniature wargames with degrees of similarity - you roll for hits and wounds and all that jazz. So what? It's called being the same media. You can't complain that Exalted and D&D are polar opposites and thus one is good and the other bad when they're both the same media - tabletop RPGs. It's an illogical and nonsensical argument!

Similarly, with all the "b'aww PP are forcing me to play big games! They're literally coming to my house and putting a gun to my head, making me play big games and buy millions of models I don't want!"? Baseless argument. Some people say that 2000pt 40k is the only way to go. Others say that 1500pts is the minimum, or 1000pt, or whatever. Personally, I like to play a 600pt game every now and then. These are arbitrary values that are totally up to you and your opponent in a casual setting, or up to a tourney organiser or what-have-you. They also release solos every now and then. What, they're forcing us to play smaller games, because solos are small? The only thing that Unbound does is enable those people who enjoy large games to play large games more effectively, just like Apocalypse in 40k.

We must also not think of Colossi/Gargantua as 40k's Titans. They're super-jacks. They're better, but they're more expensive as a result. If you field a big unit it means you have fewer smaller units. Once it is gone, your army has lost its spine, so to speak. As a Tyranid player, I know this very well. It's not "Oh, you've killed my one 'jack" any more. It's "Oh, crap, you broke all those eggs in that one basket I put them in".

Some people like quality over quantity. Large, powerful units and few of them. That's what the big guys are - all that means is that more of their army is concentrated into a single unit. They're not army-destroyingly powerful, but they're better than regular 'jacks. As a Legion player, if I don't take as many Carnivean as I can, am I screwed? No! I can take other things. That is the point of lists, after all. Similarly, if I don't take a pseudo-Titan, am I screwed? No.

As for being forced to change your list - well, not really. That's not much to complain about, though. Rules change, and you should change with them. Plasma guns are crap in this edition because a unit came out which might possibly maybe negate them? Take something else or continue to use them, it's your call.

Honestly, I'll probably only get a big guy because they look awesome, and for no other reason. I probably will never field it.

Quoted for so much truth I could barely handle it.

Colossals are cool, yo.

Nobody's arguing which game is better, just stating the fact that WM/H has better written rules, and better written rules mean less opportunities to abuse them or cause problems.

For me the appeal is that it is cheaper to start, the models are really nice, the background is great and the rules are much more balanced and in depth than in 40k.

Castiel wrote:For me the appeal is that it is cheaper to start, the models are really nice, the background is great and the rules are much more balanced and in depth than in 40k.

I would suggest cheaper initially to start when you factor a battlebox plus a download of the quick start rules and you can walk into a battle box event for $5. Your not going to get that in GW land. However I will say, PP games are not cheaper in the long run. They are easier to collect as an example, where 1 box typically gets you a full unit to play with. Where as often in GW land your dropping case for 2 boxes to build a "competitive unit" ie terminators, orks, necrons, most space marine elite units.

Where WMDH shines, is the cross army method which 40K 6E has now adopted. Being a Mercenary player is wonderful, because you can easily branch into a 2nd or 3rd faction without killing yourself financially, and still play at a competitive level. You cannot do this is 40K where you need a entire new army which allies may change slightly but likely not at the tournment level.

I returned to M2 with Searforge (i played Mk1 but sold my cygnar as meta game was all cryx and I was bored, Mk2 changed that and I returned). Mercs can easily branch into Cygnar, Khador, Menoth, and still use some of your loved models. If your going to paint your army, just have a unified basing scheme, and your likely good to go!

Play what you like in the end, just play, because the world needs more dice chucking wargamers.

How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

The cost comparison really depends on how you want to play the game. WM/H is frequently competitive, though it doesn't have to be. Steamrollers often require multiple (2-3) lists at 50 points each and sometimes reserve units are needed too. You may have some unit overlap between the lists, but maybe not. In my experience, even competitive army building is cheaper in WM/H but it is not a huge difference.

Even 2 50 pt lists would still come out less then a single 2000 pt list (barring the most extreme cases)

I agree that it is probably cheaper, but not by a huge margin.

Negator80 wrote:How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

who ever plays "one list" with warmachine? Yup - you are correct but only to an extent. it is cheaper to buy in to warmachine. absolutely. i did my starter 25pt circle army (and a reasonably competitve one - kromac, 2 argus, feral, lord of the feast, totem hunter gorax, war wolf) based on the battle box and a few bits extra, and it cost me shy of £80. quite reasonable. if thats all i played.
like i said though, who ever plays only one list? take my khador faction - my primary force.. i have all the warcasters. all the jacks. and multiples of some of them. i have 8 squads of doom reavers (eButcher theme list), at least 1 squad of most other infantry types (bar men o war demo korps and bombadiers - for the moment, and kossites). i have most of the options avilable to me. I also have all the books from mk1 onwards. tell me how this is cheap! i am awaiting my Conquest with bated breath too. then factor in all the extra beasts and units i've picked up for circle in the meantime.

Its not cheap in the long run.

haendas wrote:The cost comparison really depends on how you want to play the game. WM/H is frequently competitive, though it doesn't have to be. Steamrollers often require multiple (2-3) lists at 50 points each and sometimes reserve units are needed too. You may have some unit overlap between the lists, but maybe not. In my experience, even competitive army building is cheaper in WM/H but it is not a huge difference.

This is why its cheaper, but in the long term your savings probably are minimal, but something.
With the jump to 50 points, most of the tournments in the Philadelphia area request you have to 3 lists, many of them have made a push to Tier 2 or higher. That's the part that catches you, fleshing out 3 different lists, with 3 different casters to make Tier 2 requirements.

The nice part, you basically end up with about 3 playable armies from the same faction at 50 pts, with some reusing of jacks. You end up with a nice collection, with less models then 40K, which often fit in 1 figure case. My guess, to competitively play at the Hardcore events, your probably looking $400-500 at the end including your case, you save money yes, but its kind of a slow creep to case. Then you end up starting a 2nd faction...

I play Khador at the tier 2 events. I start Khador to play before many of the events when Tier 2, so I never really wanted a huge collection. I had been running Karchev and Epic Butcher non tier. I fleshed my lists out to Tiers for 50 pts. Figure those units of Man O Wars were about $40, there had to be 2, and the requirement to have 3 units of Doom Reavers at $40, the unit of Greylords, my wardog (obligatory Khador model, it should just be included in the butcher pack for an extra $10)

JUST in infantry my list has about $220 of models
Jacks: Beserker, Beserker, Spriggan, Jugger, Destroyer: about $200
Casters: Karchev (ouch), Butcher: $70
Solos: Wardog, Drakhun, Kovnik about 80
Total for 2 lists ~ around 600

Deadnight wrote:

Negator80 wrote:How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

who ever plays "one list" with warmachine? Yup - you are correct but only to an extent. it is cheaper to buy in to warmachine. absolutely. i did my starter 25pt circle army (and a reasonably competitve one - kromac, 2 argus, feral, lord of the feast, totem hunter gorax, war wolf) based on the battle box and a few bits extra, and it cost me shy of £80. quite reasonable. if thats all i played.
like i said though, who ever plays only one list? take my khador faction - my primary force.. i have all the warcasters. all the jacks. and multiples of some of them. i have 8 squads of doom reavers (eButcher theme list), at least 1 squad of most other infantry types (bar men o war demo korps and bombadiers - for the moment, and kossites). i have most of the options avilable to me. I also have all the books from mk1 onwards. tell me how this is cheap! i am awaiting my Conquest with bated breath too. then factor in all the extra beasts and units i've picked up for circle in the meantime.

Its not cheap in the long run.

You cant punish the company for making miniatures you like to buy. Saying what you just said is like saying 'starting 40k is cheap until you start buying terrain and novels and other armies'. You are ignoring the point here.

It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h.

It IS alot cheaper then playing 40k.

This is how.

For example local shop plays 1850 40k games..

To start a new army, to play in that meta, i have to shell out $500-800 to start playing, or for a new army.

Lets say on the high end here. Warmachine plays at 50pts (Its a mix of 35 and 50)

I can spend $200-$250(usually on high end of that price )on a 50pt army and play, then expand it later and keep playing.

I can get 2x 50pt lists that share some units, then im able to play in tourneys and go start a different faction if i wanted.

Now with that, i own Menoth and some Legion. When im done, i will have over 75% of the menoth faction if not more, that doesnt even include duplicate units.

Why ? I like the faction, i could of had 3 different 50pt armies if i wanted, but i wouldnt have had Everything i wanted for all of them.
----

Another appeal to the game is...

You get new stuff every year, there is no.. Hey! you got a new Codex.. now you get nothing new for your army for 5-10 years. Have fun.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd.

One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

CT GAMER wrote:

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd.

One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

seems to happen on all forums about other games

At least its not as bad as MMo forums..

Negator80 wrote:

You cant punish the company for making miniatures you like to buy. Saying what you just said is like saying 'starting 40k is cheap until you start buying terrain and novels and other armies'. You are ignoring the point here.

It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h.

firstly, you can do 40k on the cheap too. frankly, it is relatively possible. especially for me, as i bought all my stuff when it was cheaper, and frankly, i dont need to invest much else at the current ridiculous prices. fullily enough, i tend to only buy 40k stuff these days as conversion bits for my WM pieces.

What "point" am i ignoring? How am i "lying"? I spoke the truth - its a lot cheaper to buy into warmachine. starter pack. there you go. i even pointed out you can build up effective, tournament winning armies for less than £100. absolutely. but thats 1 list. buy the casters. £8-£10 each. sorschs. eSorscha. Irusk. eIrusk. Butcher. eButcher. Old Witch. Harkevich. Strakhov. Karchev. Zerkova (who still eluded me) Vlad. eVlad. lVlad. buy 1 of each of the warjacks, so you can swap things out - seriously, who wants "just" a juggernaut, and a destroyer. I dont. there's Drago, Beast, the behemoth (personal favourite), torch, spriggans, berzerkers devestators. thats pricy. if you want more than just the winter guard deathstar, and a max squad of kayazy, again, it;ll cost you if you want the great bears, iron fangs, doom reavers (ive got 8 squads f these at £18 each for my dream force - eButcher 50pts mad dogs of war list). a full squad of Uhlans will set you back £50. look at collossals. £100 each. gun carriages. then the books. if you're a completionist like me you've got all 11 forces of... books, along with Hordes Primal, Warmachine Prime, Wrath and Domination. *shrug* i dont know what to say. Im not lying, and frankly, i am quite insulted at what i feel is an extremely unjustified, and extremely short sighted comment.

and for the record, im not complaining either. Nor am i giving out. I am quite happy to save up over a month or two, make an order, and then put down £200 on warmachine stuff (in fact, i will be. again. soon. full unit of druids+UA, ghetorix, plastic warpwolf, conquest, warmachine: collossals) and that in itself puts paid to the notion that it is a cheap game.

40k is an expensive hobby. but to be fair, i've spent a lot more on warmachine than i ever have on 40k. Ultimately, its a hobby thats as expensive as you want to make it as i can testify. If all you want is "a" 35, or 50t army, it wont set you back all that much (and i've said as much - i had a top contending 25pt circle army for less than £80), but if you want options, and want to invest fully into a faction, it will cost you as much as 40k ever will. Now, to be fair, the money you spend might be equal, or more, but in 40k, you get 1 army - in warmachine you get a vastly greater amount of possible combos for an equivelant amount of cash, but its still an equiveland amount of cash! So no, its not "cheaper". you get more, relatively speaking (though not in terms of the model count!) but it still costs about the same if you go all in.

personally, im hardly "punishing" PP for the game. stop acting like a fanboy. No, im not ripping on your beloved game. Im not having a go. im a huge fan. again, im quite insulted by that comment. and since i've come on here (and you can check my posts) ive done nothing but encourage people into the warmahordes game. all im saying is while its cheaper at the start, it is as expensive in the long run, if you want to be able to properly swap your faction out.

I think where the cost of warmahordes comes into play is that it is cheaper for each list. You are talking $300 for a full-sized list, as opposed to the $600 for 40k. With PP, you can radically re-work your army for maybe $100-$200 if you use compatible models, as opposed to the $400-ish for similar amounts of change for 40k. Thus players are more willing to shell out the money to expand their collection, as it looks smaller to start with. This results in the player racking up more bills than with 40k, which kinda evens out.

CT GAMER wrote:
One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

This x1,000

Everything needs to be compared to GW, and everything GW does is inferior on the PP forums. It's not even opinion anymore, it's considered fact over there.


And yes, WM can be cheaper than 40k. WM can also be more expensive, depending on how much you spend.

And WM is expensive in the long run, if you buy more stuff. ANYthing is expensive in the long run.

Cryonicleech wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

This x1,000

Everything needs to be compared to GW, and everything GW does is inferior on the PP forums. It's not even opinion anymore, it's considered fact over there.


And yes, WM can be cheaper than 40k. WM can also be more expensive, depending on how much you spend.

And WM is expensive in the long run, if you buy more stuff. ANYthing is expensive in the long run.

This isnt a wm vs 40k thing. This is good information for prospective players based on logical comparisons.

Also guys, comon, stick to the context and use your heads. Of course it 'can' be more expensive if you buy more; the point is what it takes to 'get into it'. Thats what prospective players want to know. Telling them 'Yeah its cheap until you buy more stuff' is a terribly stupid and pointless comment.

Negator80 wrote:

This isnt a wm vs 40k thing. This is good information for prospective players based on logical comparisons.

Also guys, comon, stick to the context and use your heads. Of course it 'can' be more expensive if you buy more; the point is what it takes to 'get into it'. Thats what prospective players want to know. Telling them 'Yeah its cheap until you buy more stuff' is a terribly stupid and pointless comment.

Telling them "WM is ALWAYS cheaper than 40k" is a stupid and pointless comment.

No one is arguing that WM is cheaper than 40k, especially in terms of starting up. Prospective players can look up the prices themselves and see the prices for themselves. However, "cheaper than 40k" also does not necessarily mean "cheap to play", as that $50 dollar investment only nets you basic rules and a bare minimum force, you'll need a rulebook in some form (which you can get off e-bay for not too much) and some infantry to get a solid start, which can end up being anywhere between $85-$100, depending on where you buy stuff.

I like WM/H, and I want people to start it. But it's still an expensive hobby, even if it's cheaper to start than 40k.

Negator80 wrote:

This isnt a wm vs 40k thing. This is good information for prospective players based on logical comparisons.

Also guys, comon, stick to the context and use your heads. Of course it 'can' be more expensive if you buy more; the point is what it takes to 'get into it'. Thats what prospective players want to know. Telling them 'Yeah its cheap until you buy more stuff' is a terribly stupid and pointless comment.

sadly, a lot of people make it out to be 40k v warmachine. its a shame really. 40k has its place, and its fans, and a lot of great conversion material!

to be fair, no one is saying its not cheap to get into, we are disagreeing with what YOU wrote above regarding it being cheap in the long run: It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h. please, dont play the game of pretending you didnt say that.

its as important to say "yes its cheap until you buy more stuff" if that is an accurate description of what the hobby is. warmachine is not cheaper, merely cheaper to start.

It IS cheaper, as has been proven by the math, which makes it not pointless and stupid. Unless math is not your forte.

Nobody said its not an expensive hobby.

Ah, i guess i missed typign in their 'cheaper then 40k'. cuz thats what i meant

We all know it's cheaper than 40k. Stop being obtuse.

It's cheap to start. That doesn't make it an inexpensive game.

Negator80 wrote:
Nobody said its not an expensive hobby.

actually, you did.

It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h.

page 3 of this thread. quoted multiple times. please dont pretend you didnt write it my friend. and please dont pretend its not there.

Negator80 wrote:It IS cheaper, as has been proven by the math, which makes it not pointless and stupid. Unless math is not your forte.

didnt i also show you where the math earler that shows quite the opposite of what you said, in that warmahordes can be very expensive? or did you blank it out and dismiss/ignore it? Just with Collossals, my Conquest, druids, ghetorix, and the warpwolf plastic, i'll be shelling out over £200 on a handful of models. thats a good third to a half or a 40k army as well! *goes looking. actually, what could i get for £200 in a GW store*

but if you really want me to do this?

i can do math too. and im almost terrified of the number that im gonna come up with. without even including the books (which is easily £200 sterling on top of everything else), and my checking prices against Maelstrom, i've spent about £1600 on my khador, and circle armies, with mercenary bits on the side over the last 3 1/2 years. dont forget the big splurge im gonna make soon as well. *shrug* 400pts of khador, and 180pts of hordes costs a bit! *shrug*

Negator80 wrote:
Ah, i guess i missed typign in their 'cheaper then 40k'. cuz thats what i meant

cyronicleech has it best. its cheaper to start, its cheaper to get into, and frankly, thats about it[u]. drop the flag waving please - its not needed. warmachine gets as expensive as 40k ever was. fact. and please dont try to deny it .

I just bought a decent brand new eHexeris army at a good discount last week and I can tell you right now that it wasn't cheap. I certainly got a lot more high-quality models and vehicles when I bought my Venomspam Dark Eldar (and that was at a smaller discount) for a similar price. The secondhand Warmachine market is also much smaller if you want to go the super discount route.

Saying Warmachine is cheaper as a blanket statement is misleading at best. Maybe at the battlebox/40K 1,000 point level the cost comparison is favorable. But above that the unit cost is comparable to Games Workshop, if not worse. A box of 6 daughters is about $33 retail (realistically $22 from a decent retailer after discount), a box of 10 Wyches (with WAY more stuff in the box) is $29 from the evil GW direct (I get them for c. $15 max via Ebay) and the PP miniature quality is much lower (not terrible by any means, but you can't even begin to compare the detail, and the PP plastic/resin stuff are still pretty bad). A heavy warbeast can run you into GW vehicle cost range pretty quick (the new plastic kits are a godsend though, if you spend the time to magnetize them).

Harping on the price is not to WarmaHordes advantage, whatever the hardcore fans want to delude themselves into thinking - especially as many local metas mainly do 35 or 50 point games which is quite a few models on the table. Concentrate on the rock solid rules, the amazing tactical gameplay, the faction balance, that sort of thing - THAT'S where Privateer absolutely deuces all over GW.

FFS guys, yeah, i didnt type what i was thinking. No, it's not cheap. Yes, its cheaper in the long run.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Every 2000 point army there is $800.00 or more. You can nearly buy a whole wm/h faction for that.

I guess the baseline control here is 'what does it take to play in an average tournament for both systems? 35-50 and 1500-2000'.

I'm not flag waving or trying to argue its a better game. im arguing with someone that said its more expensive. im just ocd nerding about it.

Auxellion wrote:Flying Hive Tyrant
15 Termagaunts in Spore
15 Termagaunts in Spore
15 Termagaunts in Spore
15 Termagaunts in Spore
5 Ymgarls
5 Ymgarls
2 Venomthropes in Spore
Trygon Prime
Trygon Prime
Trygon Prime
3 Raveners

A 2000 point list that I played a few games with this past weekend. Casual play. I've basically stop trying at tournaments with Tyranids. Lost a few games, but it looked great! Now the Spores are Scratched built! but everything else is GW Online prices.

Merchandise Sub-Total:

$499.50 + Shipping

From the thread you just linked to... 2,000 points and $500 odd dollars.

Yes, one exception. with conversions as well.

Didnt mean for this to get all testosterony. The math i see says one thing, you guys say another. Im willing to leave it at that.

Even with the conversions you're looking at $625 tops.

No one's "testosterony", we're attempting to maintain neutrality from what we see as a biased post.

I meant me mostly.

Ahh, different story then.

I think the major thing that we're trying to convey here is that one is not better than the other, simply that both offer different things.

Negator80 wrote:FFS guys, yeah, i didnt type what i was thinking. No, it's not cheap. Yes, its cheaper in the long run.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Every 2000 point army there is $800.00 or more. You can nearly buy a whole wm/h faction for that.

I'm not flag waving or trying to argue its a better game. im arguing with someone that said its more expensive. im just ocd nerding about it.

i dont know what so say -ive pretty much debunked the notion that its cheaper, even in the long run. Looking at some of those 40k armies though, £500 seems pretty reasonable. that first list - £350 odd, and its 9 kans, 2 dreds, and 80 boyz. tyranid list had 78 gribblies. 5 dreads, and 42 marines in another for the same. again, not bad. pretty much what id expect. and again, see mine above - £1800 and then some. about £1200 on my khador stuff. and im still not done! its far from "nearly a whole WM faction".

heres the thing though- and here's where we're coming to blows. how often do you see *that* 40k scale army equivelant- as in 9 jacks, and 80 grunts in a warmachine army? typically, at 50pts, you'll see a caster, 2 jacks, and 2 squads of infantry, plus support pieces. 30-35models, on average.

you're missing out on scale. and thats it. an "army" in 40k is 60 odd guys for an effective force - for 1 army. the same "army" of 60 guys in warmachine wont be fielded in one piece; it will be fielded as multiple different buildsof 20 guys in each build with the other 40 sitting out. but it still costs the same.
the cost per model is roughly the same between both games. thats a fact. you need less models to play warmachine, and budgetmachine armies can be done - as i pointed out, my 25pt circle list was £80. But no one plays one list in warmachine. its the great thing about the game - that everything is so balanced, and the fact that there is no "one list to rule them all". its worth taking those iron fangs instead of the men o war. you can have just 1 if you want, but wheres the fun in that? people who play this game tend to want more and more as they buy into the game more and more. While at any one point, you might only be fielding £100-£150 worth of stuff on the table at any one point, that £100-£150 worth of stuff is coming in from a rotation from a bigger, more expensive pile of stuff. its the nature of the game. while you're still only playing 35, or 50pt games, you might have 100s of points worth of stuff sitting out on the sidelines. but all that stuff still costs money. the only difference is that stuff is fielded at the same time in 40k (as its a game that focuses on larger battles), while in WM, the scale is smaller.

Been playing Warmachine for a while, originally got into it after picking up the Iron Kingdoms books for D&D.

Prior to that I had played 40K, mostly Imperial Guard but the setting and fluff of GW's game was kinda 'meh' to me. Friend linked me to the PP website and I fell for the steampunk style.

Really enjoy the resource management of WM and the fact that I really have to think about what I'm doing, a great many times I've lost games because I put my 'caster in a position where my opponent could draw a bead on him.

The only real drawback I find is the lack of players, my local area is still heavily dominated by 40K.

Deadnight wrote:
What "point" am i ignoring? How am i "lying"? I spoke the truth - its a lot cheaper to buy into warmachine. starter pack. there you go. i even pointed out you can build up effective, tournament winning armies for less than £100. absolutely. but thats 1 list. buy the casters. £8-£10 each. sorschs. eSorscha. Irusk. eIrusk. Butcher. eButcher. Old Witch. Harkevich. Strakhov. Karchev. Zerkova (who still eluded me) Vlad. eVlad. lVlad. buy 1 of each of the warjacks, so you can swap things out - seriously, who wants "just" a juggernaut, and a destroyer. I dont. there's Drago, Beast, the behemoth (personal favourite), torch, spriggans, berzerkers devestators. thats pricy. if you want more than just the winter guard deathstar, and a max squad of kayazy, again, it;ll cost you if you want the great bears, iron fangs, doom reavers (ive got 8 squads f these at £18 each for my dream force - eButcher 50pts mad dogs of war list). a full squad of Uhlans will set you back £50. look at collossals. £100 each. gun carriages. then the books. if you're a completionist like me you've got all 11 forces of... books, along with Hordes Primal, Warmachine Prime, Wrath and Domination. *shrug* i dont know what to say. Im not lying, and frankly, i am quite insulted at what i feel is an extremely unjustified, and extremely short sighted comment.

I'm sorry, but I simply have to point out how this makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase, so it can be plainly seen how silly that argument is.

It's cheaper to get into 40k. Battleforce, there you go. But that's one list for one army. Buy the Finecast solos. £10-£15 each. Hive Tyrant. Swarmlord. Tervigon. Carnifex. Trygon. You have to buy them all because 40k is Pokémon. Buy multiples of every monstrous creature so you can swap things out - I mean who wants 'just' a Trygon. I don't. There's Harpy conversions, Mawlocs, and Trygon Primes in there. Lictors, Broodlords, Hive Guard, Tyrant Guard, Zoanthropes. Old One Eye. If you want to run multiple lists and can't bring yourself to proxy regular Genestealers as Ymgarls, you're forced to buy more. Look at Titans. £300 each. Hierodules. Hierophants. You need these to play Tyranids effectively. Then the books. If you're a completionist like me you've got the books of all the armies in every edition (even the ones you don't own, for some unknown reason) and every rulebook, all 83 of them. Planetstrike. Cities of Death. Apocalypse. Epic. Planetary Empires. Spearhead. Battle Missions. Imperial Armour.

Yes, I feel that the fact many Warhammer armies cost more than a single Warmachine army means that Warmachine is cheaper. Clearly.

(Sarcasm ends here)

To be absolutely fair, you can build a generic WM army that plays completely differently than another army by just swapping out the Warcaster.

my 35 Point Dr. Arkadius list plays completely differently with 1 purchase, Lord Carver.

Negator80 wrote:FFS guys, yeah, i didnt type what i was thinking. No, it's not cheap. Yes, its cheaper in the long run.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Every 2000 point army there is $800.00 or more. You can nearly buy a whole wm/h faction for that.

I guess the baseline control here is 'what does it take to play in an average tournament for both systems? 35-50 and 1500-2000'.

I'm not flag waving or trying to argue its a better game. im arguing with someone that said its more expensive. im just ocd nerding about it.

During the last year, I priced a 2000 pt Blood Angels DoA list for $400 and that includes the cost to make it WYSIWYG with funding for meltaguns and extra bits for veterans, priests and such.

The rules are very balenced and in america it just took over fantasy in number of players, so yes its popular but not so much over here in england. But there still is at leat 8 players in my town alone

Frozen Ocean wrote:It's cheaper to get into 40k. Battleforce, there you go.

Just had a quick look on GW's website, an IG* Cadian Battleforce costs £75 and contains at least one unit you can't technically legally use on its own if you go the HQ + 2 Vet squads route unless you break it up and spread amongst the squads. Going the other way requires a second battleforce and a HQ unit which adds another £90 on top, totalling £165 if you buy direct from GW (or £123.75 if you can get a 25% discount). Quick look at the IG Codex and eyeballing equipment shown on the box covers you'll have a 815pt army, throw in a tank and you're looking at almost £200 for a 1,000pt army. Going the HQ + 2 Vets squad route will give you a 400pt Combat Patrol force for £75, though you'll have to be careful with points. Then theres another £65 on top for the rulebook and Codex.

In comparison a Warmachine Battlegroup box gives you a set of Quick Start Rules, the stat cards and models for a fully legal force for £35.

*Chosen as an example since I had the Codex to hand.

I never thought that my comment about it being cheaper to start would spark this!

Here's the thing, looking at the most common ways to start:

To start Warmachine at the 15 point level will cost you around £40 = £30 for the Battlebox and £10 for a unit to pad you out to the full 15 points.

To start Warhammer 40k will cost you around £72 = £60 for the battleforce and another £12 for an HQ to lead it.

However, for Warmachine your £40 is buying you around 10 models, whereas for 40k you are getting around 30 odd models. So while it is more expensive to start 40k, you are probably getting more for your money.

stormwell wrote:

Frozen Ocean wrote:It's cheaper to get into 40k. Battleforce, there you go.

Just had a quick look on GW's website, an IG* Cadian Battleforce costs £75 and contains at least one unit you can't technically legally use on its own if you go the HQ + 2 Vet squads route unless you break it up and spread amongst the squads. Going the other way requires a second battleforce and a HQ unit which adds another £90 on top, totalling £165 if you buy direct from GW (or £123.75 if you can get a 25% discount). Quick look at the IG Codex and eyeballing equipment shown on the box covers you'll have a 815pt army, throw in a tank and you're looking at almost £200 for a 1,000pt army. Going the HQ + 2 Vets squad route will give you a 400pt Combat Patrol force for £75, though you'll have to be careful with points. Then theres another £65 on top for the rulebook and Codex.

In comparison a Warmachine Battlegroup box gives you a set of Quick Start Rules, the stat cards and models for a fully legal force for £35.

*Chosen as an example since I had the Codex to hand.

Frozen Ocean wrote:(Sarcasm ends here)

Did you notice that? I was parodying your post, pointing out that your logic makes no sense. Warmachine is cheaper - but you were arguing that it is not cheaper because nobody collects only one army? What? You can't say "Well, an apple is 50p and a banana is 70p, but apples are more expensive because I like to buy lots of them". I didn't believe anything I said in the post. It was a sarcastic attempt to show you what your post was saying. Changing the context from Warmachine to 40k doesn't make nonsense start to make sense.

And yes, you do get more models. However, it's not quantity we're talking about, here. We're talking about the required cost to play the game, which is the main factor. It's like buying a video game - it doesn't matter how many GB of data are on the game disc, you're still fully able to play the game because you have the disc. Of course 40k can be cheaper on a per-model basis, but that's not a fair comparison. The majority of Warmachine models are the equivalent to GW Finecast solos - which are, on the model-per-model basis, generally more expensive. Warjacks and warbeasts are generally cheaper than things like Dreadnoughts or Monstrous Creatures. It's not fair to say "Sorscha costs £7, a Space Marine solo costs £13, but 40k is cheaper because I can get 12 Hormagaunts for £18, or £1.50 each".

Personally, I don't particularly care about the price differences. Sure, it's nice and all (and lo and behold - PP actually decrease their prices occasionally!) and lets me buy more models, but I've been in 40k long enough to have just accepted the high cost of wargaming and I can continue to live with it. If I wanted to save a lot of money but still wanted to play the game, I'd proxy a lot more. Personally, I play Hordes because it's fun. I play 40k because it's fun. I hear that Infinity is fun, and hope to play it soon.

If you're wondering why I commented as I did even though I have no personal opinion on the matter - it was because stormwell's* logic in the post I quoted in my previous post just hurt my brain so badly.



EDIT: * - I meant Deadnight. Sorry. DX

Frozen Ocean wrote:

Frozen Ocean wrote:(Sarcasm ends here)

Did you notice that? I was parodying your post, pointing out that your logic makes no sense. Warmachine is cheaper - but you were arguing that it is not cheaper...

Missed the sarcasm bit and to be honest you're mistaking me for somebody else, my previous post is the only one I've made in this thread regarding the price difference between the two games and even then if you read my post I pointed out much much cheaper it was to start Warmachine and get playing.

I suggest you go and check back through this thread, I have only made one other post that outlined why I started playing Warmachine but didn't make any mention of the price difference.

A little bit more on topic:

There are many things that appeal to me about it, but far and away the biggest appeal to me are the rules. I'm not extremely competitive by nature and can easily have fun while losing, but I'm a stickler for following game rules. I try to learn the game rules backwards and forwards. This has proven problematic for me with other games that don't have very clear rules. I'm not a rules lawyer, because I don't get into arguments during matches. Instead I usually let it slide in game, but afterwards I'm left frustrated if they don't follow the rules very well.

With Warmachine there is very very little grey area in the rules. If you encounter a seemingly grey area, most of the time a quick rereading of the card will set you straight. I was doing a battlebox match this past weekend to help teach a friend the game. He would read a section in the quick start rules or on a card and then ask, "well how does this work with ..." or "can I do this then this?" I would then ask to see the card or rule he was looking at and every time there was a qualifying word in the rule that he was just missing on a quick once over. After carefully reading whatever rule he had a question about, the answer to whatever question he had always presented itself. There was no debate over what the true written or intended rule was. In the end it was always clear.

Also, because the basic rules in the rulebook are so clear, rarely do I ever see experienced players needing to reference the rulebook during a game. If there is ever a rule question it is almost always about a card rule and those are easily accessible during play. Therefore, when there is a rules question in a game, it is often solved very quickly by showing the player the card and moving on with the game, not digging through a rulebook to find the right page then read whatever section applies.

Other things that appeal to me about the game:

I also like the fact that the number of models used in a match is smaller than some other games I've played. The idea of having a massive battle with hundreds of models appeals to me in theory, but in practice I always found it to be more tedious than enjoyable.

Also due to the smaller model count, and well written rules, I like the fact that a tournament point sized match should be easily played in under 2 hours, often under 1.5 hours. There is also a higher likelihood that more people achieve a fully painted army than in other games, myself included.

I like the strategy that goes into the game. Knowing your army, your opponent's army, threat ranges, synergies, model placement, orders of activation, mathematical probabilities (how can fury or focus be spent to achieve the highest return) and such are just as important as the army list itself. Only at the highest levels of tournament play can opponents look at a match and see a clear winner on paper, and that is only with highly experienced players and the most extreme of bad list match ups. Certainly, strategy goes into list building, but the list alone does not win the match.

@haendas:
WORD! I can't possibly agree more!

@Stormwell; sorry! I got confused. I was backreading the thread through the post editor when I wrote that, and I got confused by the copious amounts of quoting. I meant Deadnight, not you! DX

EDIT:

haendas wrote:I also like the fact that the number of models used in a match is smaller than some other games I've played. The idea of having a massive battle with hundreds of models appeals to me in theory, but in practice I always found it to be more tedious than enjoyable.

Yeah... I play Tyranids. Ten-minute movement phases are not fun things.

stormwell wrote:...IG* Cadian Battleforce costs £75...

IG are honestly a terrible example when comparing any costs. About the only one worse is Forgeworld.

One should pick an average (mean/median/mode, depending), not an outlier.

I could argue that "WM/H units are ridiculously expensive," citing Kriel Warriors (over $100 for a fodder unit), though that doesn't stop most WM units from being around $50, give or take (unit size, unit attachments, etc.)

WM is cheaper for a playable army, but the encouraged (and tourney-required) variety means that a serious collector will still spend around as much per faction as a 40k player, in my experience (again, ignoring outliers: one man's titan is another's 6 colossals)

Frozen Ocean wrote:@Stormwell; sorry! I got confused. I was backreading the thread through the post editor when I wrote that, and I got confused by the copious amounts of quoting. I meant Deadnight, not you! DX

Thats fine dude, it happens. So no worries.

spiralingcadaver wrote:

stormwell wrote:...IG* Cadian Battleforce costs £75...

IG are honestly a terrible example when comparing any costs. About the only one worse is Forgeworld.

One should pick an average (mean/median/mode, depending), not an outlier.

As I stated in my post I usually used that as a sample because I had the Codex to hand to also show how it fitted in with points size.

But looking at GW's website the price ranges from £65 for Eldar or Ork through to £80 for (I think) Marines, so the average is typically £72.50 at a rough guess.

Frozen Ocean wrote:


I'm sorry, but I simply have to point out how this makes no sense at all. Let me rephrase, so it can be plainly seen how silly that argument is.

It's cheaper to get into 40k. Battleforce, there you go. But that's one list for one army. Buy the Finecast solos. £10-£15 each. Hive Tyrant. Swarmlord. Tervigon. Carnifex. Trygon. You have to buy them all because 40k is Pokémon. Buy multiples of every monstrous creature so you can swap things out - I mean who wants 'just' a Trygon. I don't. There's Harpy conversions, Mawlocs, and Trygon Primes in there. Lictors, Broodlords, Hive Guard, Tyrant Guard, Zoanthropes. Old One Eye. If you want to run multiple lists and can't bring yourself to proxy regular Genestealers as Ymgarls, you're forced to buy more. Look at Titans. £300 each. Hierodules. Hierophants. You need these to play Tyranids effectively. Then the books. If you're a completionist like me you've got the books of all the armies in every edition (even the ones you don't own, for some unknown reason) and every rulebook, all 83 of them. Planetstrike. Cities of Death. Apocalypse. Epic. Planetary Empires. Spearhead. Battle Missions. Imperial Armour.

Yes, I feel that the fact many Warhammer armies cost more than a single Warmachine army means that Warmachine is cheaper. Clearly.

(Sarcasm ends here)

you can drop the sarcasm mate, and the bad attitude. neither do you any favours. regardless, what exactly are you trying to *prove* with that sarcasm? seriously. i could have told you that you can get into 40k for as little as the cost of the battleforce (my space wolves cost me 80 euros back in the day, and i complained at the price!) If you want all the bells and whistles, and especially the hugely expensive forgeworld pieces (i still want a Manta!) then its quite obvious it will cost a bunch. unfortunately, you'll need opponents permission to field the FW stuff as well as not being able to take it to tournaments, which would annoy me no end considering the investment. buy they serve their purpose for the avid collector, and fair play. regardless, all you've *proven* with that little pathetic rant is that you cant read, or accept another posters POV and experience. if domeone wants to, they can invest a sizeable proportion of their income into 40k. and if thats what they want to do, fair play. if all they want to do is budgethammer, then itll be a huge amount cheaper However, the same can be said for warmachine and hordes. In the long run, it can get quite expensive. its not "cheap".


your post doesnt invalitate what ive said in any of my above posts. its cheaper to start warmachine. I've said that. Its cheaper to build "an" army. Again, i pointed out that a tournament winning (well, 2nd place) 25pt circle army cost me £80 odd - built up from the battbox, plus kromac, gorax, lord of the feast, war wold, and totem hunter. But in the long run, Warmachine can be quite expensive. If you want "one list", then you're fine. But if you want options, it'll cost you. i've pointed out where. If you want to read the story, and have the books, again that will cost you. I've spend a hell of a lot of money on warmachine (gladly too - its a hobby i enjoy) and i can say that with a degree of certainty. Investing in a faction, and the increased playability that more options gives you will cost you. Whats so wrong, or utterly outrageous about that statement?

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Yes, I feel that the fact many Warhammer armies cost more than a single Warmachine army means that Warmachine is cheaper. Clearly.

thats not a fair assessment. nor is it the whole story.

it depends, really. the post above listed a 1500pt ork army with 80 boys and 9 kans and dreds, that cost $500. £350 will get you a nice warmachine army, but will it get you 9 jacks and 80 infantry? I get what you are trying to say - that a typical 50pt army, as it appears on the tabletop costs less than a 1500pt army. absolutely. i'll agree 100%. i've never denied it, or argued against it. My point was though that to me, that 50pt army on the tabletop isnt the end of the argument. to me, *in the long run* means having more options to hand. to me, expanding a warmachine army doesnt mean going from 35 to 50. it means playing 35 to 50pt games, but having 50, or 100pts extra on the side, that you can swap out. to me, that is the *long term*, and its something you see more of in WM than 40k. 40k is dominated by a focus on a larger scale game (ie MOAR models!!) and having *the list*. thats not the case amongst WMH gamers, where the focus seems to also have the MOAR models, but not at the same time!, because of the small scale skirmish nature of the game, (a) you put less stuff on the board at any one time, (b) swapping stuff out can radically change the feel of an army - hence a reason, and incentive to buy more. and there is where i say that the hobby can be as expensive as 40k. Just because you have less stuff on the table doesnt make it cheaper, if you have more stuff on the side. thats partly due to the difference in scale between the 2 games. With 40k, your "army" is fielded almost in its entirety. With warmachine, even though you might have an equivelant sized "army" only a skirmishing party is fielded. (imagine if you only ever fielded your 2000pt IG force in 500pt forces - if 500pts was the accepted standard of game, and if the rules were more focused to allow for greater detail, depth and interplay that this scale would allow. sounds like the scale of warmachine, and the "feel" of the armies as i see them) Overall, while whats fielded in equivelant table top forces might be cheaper in WM, you need to remember that for me, its only a part of the greater whole. Maybe that clarifies my position for you.

Frozen Ocean wrote:

Did you notice that? I was parodying your post, pointing out that your logic makes no sense. Warmachine is cheaper - but you were arguing that it is not cheaper because nobody collects only one army? What? You can't say "Well, an apple is 50p and a banana is 70p, but apples are more expensive because I like to buy lots of them". I didn't believe anything I said in the post. It was a sarcastic attempt to show you what your post was saying. Changing the context from Warmachine to 40k doesn't make nonsense start to make sense.

well, for a start, it would be nice if you would actually read what i wrote. im not saying its not cheaper because no one collects only one army. come on! did you actually read anything i wrote, or did you just pick and choose random words and make up the rest of the stuff yourself? sheesh.

Its cheaper to get into warmachine. But in the long run, it can cost you a huge amount of money - as much as GW games ever did. Again, i dont see whats so outrageous about that? where does my logic make no sense, as you claim? Where have i mislaid my maths? If you want, i can list the things i've bought. I've pointed out where, and how the £££s all add up. Must it go that way? No, and i never claimed that you're forced to buy in to that extent. *shrug* i, and many others do though, voluntarily. I dont know what to say. I'll reiterate. its cheaper to get into the game, but expanding your force for further options will cost you as much as a 40k army ever would.

and for the record, if apples are cheaper than bananas, but you buy more of them, then yes, they are more expensive overall.

Frozen Ocean wrote:
And yes, you do get more models. However, it's not quantity we're talking about, here. We're talking about the required cost to play the game, which is the main factor. It's like buying a video game - it doesn't matter how many GB of data are on the game disc, you're still fully able to play the game because you have the disc. Of course 40k can be cheaper on a per-model basis, but that's not a fair comparison. The majority of Warmachine models are the equivalent to GW Finecast solos - which are, on the model-per-model basis, generally more expensive. Warjacks and warbeasts are generally cheaper than things like Dreadnoughts or Monstrous Creatures. It's not fair to say "Sorscha costs £7, a Space Marine solo costs £13, but 40k is cheaper because I can get 12 Hormagaunts for £18, or £1.50 each".

its a mix really. 6 doom reavers is £18. 5 uhlans is £50. khador jacks tend to come in at £15 with some characters at £30. model per model, i'd argue they come out roughly the same, Different things are cheaper/more expensive (depending on your viewpoint!)

but to be honest, im not talking about the "required cost to play the game". Again, do yourself a favour, and *read* what i wrote. if thats all we're talking about, then the battlebox is literally *all* you need to buy in - caster, 2-4 jacks and the QSRs. done! And where have i denied that? While i've even gone and referred to individual 35 and 50pt forces and mentioned that yes, they are reasonable - thats not what im getting at when i say warmachine is as expensive in the long run. What im talking, specifically is about in the *long term*. the overall picture. if you want a complete set of options, and multiple builds. if you want to be able to play a variety of casters and styles. To me, saying "i play khador" doesnt mean "i have a 50pt list". to me,i it means you have, or are building a collection. An army, from which you select your shirmishing force of 35-50pts. I've given the numbers. I've given me as an example (personally, i have over 350pts of Khador, and over 100pts of Circle, yet i still play 35 and 50pt games). If you buy into a faction, it will cost you. Again, what is so outrageous about saying that in the long term, considering this, about saying WM is (or can be) as expensive as 40k? I'm expanding my force next week with WM:collossals, a conquest, ghetorix, a plastic warpwolf and a unit of druids + UA. £200. its pricey.
GW tend to use rather cynical ploys to push their new shinies (making the new pieces game breakingly good, and nerfing what was great in previous additions and making you buy into more of rge options that up until now you left by the side, for example). PP use other means to push their new shinies. In this case, they make everything (more or less) balanced. but other stuff wil lchange the feel of the game, and will play differently. you will get a different experience out of it. you can build and explore new tactics, new combos, new synnergies and new builds. Nothing is stricktly better as everything is worth taking; so there is an incentive to purchase more stuff and explore these options. All those tactics, combos and synnergies? yes, All of them are positives for me as a gamer. So im happy to buy in. Im just not gonna lie about the fact that its gonna have a nice little price tag to it. What can you *not* see about what im saying? these options cost me money. as much as 40k ever did. So to me, its extremely obvious that WM is an expensive as 40k.

Frozen Ocean wrote:
Personally, I don't particularly care about the price differences. Sure, it's nice and all (and lo and behold - PP actually decrease their prices occasionally!) and lets me buy more models, but I've been in 40k long enough to have just accepted the high cost of wargaming and I can continue to live with it. If I wanted to save a lot of money but still wanted to play the game, I'd proxy a lot more. Personally, I play Hordes because it's fun. I play 40k because it's fun. I hear that Infinity is fun, and hope to play it soon.

Me neither, to be honest. I have a good job, and for me, the cost of investment in new shinies isnt a kicker at all. For me its the tabletop experience. 40k doesnt do it for me sadly. WMH does. Same with Infinity - for what its worth, you should look into it. the quick start rules, army lists and full rules are free to download on the website. starter cost is tiny - any of the faction starter packs and you're ready to go. And for what its worth, im the infinity guy here - i've been doing a fair few demos lately, and with 6 demos, ive had 6 people buy in. that tells me people are very interested in the game. id argue the layout of the rulebook could be better - IMO it makes the game appear excessively complicated, but to be honest, it flows extremely well - any factions catch your eye in particular?

Great place to have a pointless argument guys. I'm quite sure the OP had an e-peen contest in mind when he made his post.

Bullockist wrote:Great place to have a pointless argument guys. I'm quite sure the OP had an e-peen contest in mind when he made his post.

It's not exactly pointless, but yeah, it's devolved pretty quick.

Bullockist wrote:Great place to have a pointless argument guys. I'm quite sure the OP had an e-peen contest in mind when he made his post.

Most "what's PP like" threads tend to break down as:

stage 1:
-"PP is awesome!"
-"rules are great"

stage 2:
-"PP is better than GW, regarding X, Y, and/or Z", including but not limited to price, fiction, number of pieces involved

stage 3:
-refutation of stage 2
-support of stage 2
-fanboyism by most parties
-occasional valid points
-"to each his own"
-"you can play more than one game"
-calling out stage 3, which rarely actually does anything

stage 4:
-slow thread death as everyone gets bored of repeating themselves...

spiralingcadaver wrote:

Bullockist wrote:Great place to have a pointless argument guys. I'm quite sure the OP had an e-peen contest in mind when he made his post.

Most "what's PP like" threads tend to break down as:

stage 1:
-"PP is awesome!"
-"rules are great"

stage 2:
-"PP is better than GW, regarding X, Y, and/or Z", including but not limited to price, fiction, number of pieces involved

stage 3:
-refutation of stage 2
-support of stage 2
-fanboyism by most parties
-occasional valid points
-"to each his own"
-"you can play more than one game"
-calling out stage 3, which rarely actually does anything

stage 4:
-slow thread death as everyone gets bored of repeating themselves...

Exalted.

--The rules are tight, and PP draws on player feedback with test rulesets for public play testing with the current ruleset.
--The books are beautiful and easy to navigate.
--The cards make for simple referencing instead of having to flip through a book when playing a game.
--No need for a ton of dice. Between three and five dice is all you ever need. That makes to faster gameplay.
--A ton of combinations of units and spells/abilities that make for a number of different army types within each faction.
--Quality models, and improvments made with every release.
--Compelling fluff that drives changes in the game rather than the game universe being static.

To Sum it up: Warmachines / Hordes is a strong system that is fun to play.

I believe Privateer Press Warmachine/Hordes to be an excellent game. I have played about all the different wargames available and I do find myself liking the WM/H the most. I love the fact that it is easy to learn but difficult to master. You can and should buy both the warmachine and hordes core rulebooks. You can and should check out the community boards and most especially the Privateer Press official rules forum. They have active "infernals" (in house judges) that will generally rule on a subject within an hour, in most cases, and it lets you get a good idea of what people can and do try to pull off.

The game does have 2 very powerfull factions, but they are far from being boss. They are Legion of Everblight in hordes and Cryx in Warmachine. Common saying is Cryx bends the rules the most and Legion outright breaks them. Funny thing though is that after a few games against them with just about any faction you know what the hard counters are to their shenannigans and will not forget it. The chess versus checkers comparison a few posts up was very accurate as well. Until you either buy all the books or have played every faction, I would recommend checking your opponents cards before the game as some units/ solos can very much ruin your best laid plans. This aspect of the mercenary(warmachine faction) and minions (hordes faction) that will work for other factions so you can include them in your forces really throws some curveballs at you when you least expect it.

As to the progress of the game, it does appear that PP is trying to push players to go bigger since the major cons for the rest of this year will be 75 point Steam Rollers. That being said though, Cons like Gen Con always do a wide range of events that start with 15 point tournaments, 25 pts, 35 pts, and 50 pts and take the winner of the overall from the most points scored throughout the con while the masters and invitational scene will be whatever format that Privateer press wants. That being said we really cannot fault a private company for trying to make money by increasing the size of the games at major conventions since the local scene press gangers can run whatever size tournaments they want.

All in all I honestly believe that Warmachine and Hordes are a fresh new face to gaming and that they are a very competative set of games that can be fun no matter what point level you decide to get into. You can always spend around 50 bucks and get about a 15 point army and try it out locally and if you like it you can go bigger.

Tyras wrote:--The rules are tight, and PP draws on player feedback with test rulesets for public play testing with the current ruleset.
--The books are beautiful and easy to navigate.
--The cards make for simple referencing instead of having to flip through a book when playing a game.
--No need for a ton of dice. Between three and five dice is all you ever need. That makes to faster gameplay.
--A ton of combinations of units and spells/abilities that make for a number of different army types within each faction.
--Quality models, and improvments made with every release.
--Compelling fluff that drives changes in the game rather than the game universe being static.

To Sum it up: Warmachines / Hordes is a strong system that is fun to play.

I agree with all of the above points except for the fluff. The fluff, in my opinion, is dumb beyond belief. The stories are awful and the characters are not very compelling or believable. Just one man's opinion.

Kurce wrote:
I agree with all of the above points except for the fluff. The fluff, in my opinion, is dumb beyond belief. The stories are awful and the characters are not very compelling or believable. Just one man's opinion.

Im actually gonna call you on this (but in a good way, dont worry!) the thing is, what you read in the books isnt "the fluff". think of whats written as a glorified battle report, just like the kind you used to read in White Dwarf years back. To be fair, since they've moved it from its RPG roots to a wargaming setting, the needs of a wargame are different. In fairness, unlike GW, they move the plot on - its not continually stuck at c.605AR - years actually go by. wars are fought, battles are won and lost, and the positions of the pieces shift from book to book. that said, as a wargame, all the factions present ulitimately must remain on an equal footing, to maintain this semblance of (a) balance, and (b) eternal conflict - the setting exists now to promote this. if it was a novel, someone would win, someone would die and the plot would advance and end. they cant do that though, so im quite happy whilst things stay the same, at the same time they stay constatly in flux.

Now, regarding what id like to call you on - the notion that the fluff is dumb beyond belief. No, its not. Maybe you're not exposed to it, or dont know where to look. and that happens - a lot of people dont look beyond the Forces of... books. Most people base their impression of the fluff solely on whats in the Forces of... books and the expansions, without realising there is so much more out there. Its like basing your opinion on the fluff of 40k solely on Kaldor Draigo's story. this completely ignores the specialist game fluff, the IAs, the various worldwide campaigns, codices and fluff going back to 2nd ed and RT. its the same with warmahordes. this game started as an RPG back in the day, and the RPG books sre where its at if you want the seriously good background material - they go into *HUGE* depth exploring the worlds, telling the myths and the histories of each and every nation (even those long dead) and describing each region, with famous places, stories and figures. the RPG material turns it from a setting that exists to promote war into a living, breathing, lived-in world. you can almost taste the soot in the Corvis air whern you read it. If you're interested, and i hope you (and others are!) please go and look into the books - chances are you can download them off the net for free these days. you will not be disappointed. Personally, im really looking forward to the relaunch of the Iron Kingdoms RPG - thats going to have some seriously good material in it.

Having read all of the fiction (including the NQs, and having DM'd a lot of their RPG campaign stuff) , through Wrath, gotta say, the fluff was decent, and is now bad.

Temporal progress doesn't not equate to narrative or character progress.

Their setting had a ton of potential (which is why I liked the RPG), but it's squandered on some really dumb stories (and plot armor). Also, their religions don't make sense.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Also, their religions don't make sense.

I lol'd.

That said, I think the fluff is fine. It isn't half as complex as GW's, and it doesn't have too much depth, but it is nice. PP could, and imo should, let one faction or another lose a few characters here and there, as I said before, but even without that, it is a nice read. If I really want awesome fluff, I have to agree, I'll go elsewhere though. Like an actual RPG, for example, or something without an actual game, even.

Skylifter wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:Also, their religions don't make sense.

I lol'd.

That said, I think the fluff is fine. It isn't half as complex as GW's, and it doesn't have too much depth, but it is nice. PP could, and imo should, let one faction or another lose a few characters here and there, as I said before, but even without that, it is a nice read. If I really want awesome fluff, I have to agree, I'll go elsewhere though. Like an actual RPG, for example, or something without an actual game, even.

Plot Armor shouldn't be there. Write like you got a pair, PP! Kill Haley! Kill Alexia! Cripple Vayle! We don't get generic characters to lead our armies. Every skirmish to major battle is lead by named characters. With that much war, someone is going to die, and it needs to stop being Cryx. Just because they're undead and defeat is only a speed bump DOESN'T mean Cryx should just get Worfed in every book.

I agree that the background is also a little... stagnant, to say the least. Why do I care about the characters if they never die/everyone remains equally powerful? It's not like 40k isn't guilty of that either.

Though another thing that peeves me is the accessibility of the fluff. If you want to get all of it, you essentially need every rulebook and some of the NQ's, which I hear are sometimes hard to find.

As a note, some GW playable characters that have died... spoilers, I guess:




-Captain Tycho
-Lord Solar Macharius*
-Eldrad
-A bunch of FW characters
-Naaman(? that Dark Angels super scout)*
-At least one Ravenwing Master
-the squats ()*

*no longer playable, though there are plenty of characters who haven't died, who just faded out of the game



Also, yeah, 40k's been stuck at the end of the milennium for ages. At least they're doing stuff like the HH to access other time periods, which is almost as good as moving the present one along.

Nagashek wrote:

Skylifter wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:Also, their religions don't make sense.

I lol'd.

That said, I think the fluff is fine. It isn't half as complex as GW's, and it doesn't have too much depth, but it is nice. PP could, and imo should, let one faction or another lose a few characters here and there, as I said before, but even without that, it is a nice read. If I really want awesome fluff, I have to agree, I'll go elsewhere though. Like an actual RPG, for example, or something without an actual game, even.

Plot Armor shouldn't be there. Write like you got a pair, PP! Kill Haley! Kill Alexia! Cripple Vayle! We don't get generic characters to lead our armies. Every skirmish to major battle is lead by named characters. With that much war, someone is going to die, and it needs to stop being Cryx. Just because they're undead and defeat is only a speed bump DOESN'T mean Cryx should just get Worfed in every book.

Actually Cryx has been kicking arse the last couple of books. I would like to see some casters die on each side though (so long as Goreshade isn't one of them).

AduroT wrote:

Nagashek wrote:

Skylifter wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:Also, their religions don't make sense.

I lol'd.

That said, I think the fluff is fine. It isn't half as complex as GW's, and it doesn't have too much depth, but it is nice. PP could, and imo should, let one faction or another lose a few characters here and there, as I said before, but even without that, it is a nice read. If I really want awesome fluff, I have to agree, I'll go elsewhere though. Like an actual RPG, for example, or something without an actual game, even.

Plot Armor shouldn't be there. Write like you got a pair, PP! Kill Haley! Kill Alexia! Cripple Vayle! We don't get generic characters to lead our armies. Every skirmish to major battle is lead by named characters. With that much war, someone is going to die, and it needs to stop being Cryx. Just because they're undead and defeat is only a speed bump DOESN'T mean Cryx should just get Worfed in every book.

Actually Cryx has been kicking arse the last couple of books. I would like to see some casters die on each side though (so long as Goreshade isn't one of them).

Well I might as well jump in on this

I bought into WM back in MKI, had a Menoth army and didnt like it.

Now a few years later and somewhat wiser, I have gotten bored with GW and a bit frustrated. Yes i will still play 40k but i need a break from it for a while.

I played a few test games of MKII and am pretty in love with the rules. The models are growing on me as well.

As to the cheaper or not debate. I've dropped about $200 so far and have a 35pt Khador army. I cant remember spending that little to play a 40k game

It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

Infantry are very important, but many warjacks can crush infantry with relative impunity.

Yeah. Dropping a minuteman in the middle of the enemy on Siege's feat turn is... fun.

ChocolateGork wrote:It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

This is a keen observation, but reports of infantry's overbearing presence has been over-exaggerated in in many cases. I find warjacks to be problem solvers and game-enders while infantry are better suited for jockeying for position and earning you board control. Most warcasters have a soft cap of 2-3 jacks they can run effectively because of focus limitations so taking excess jacks leaves one operating at a very basic level; spending those extra points on infantry is a matter of rounding out your list with efficiency. There are a couple of really strong infantry units that have a dominant presence, such as bane thralls, but it is usually best to strike a balance. I for one and happy infantry are still viable.

ChocolateGork wrote:It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

The thing to remember about the 'jacks is that they scale in quanta: a 'caster can only support so many 'jacks, so until you get to a second 'caster (barring Jack Marshals) you will necessarily need to make up points with infantry.

That is, suppose a 'caster can keep 2 heavies in focus and working well. It doesn't matter if it's a 25 point game or a 50 point game (more or less), so the rest of the points have to be things other then 'jacks.

As an aside, I always find it amazing when people compare anything unfavorably to GW's background. It's like listening to someone extol the virtues of, say, the original endings to Mass Effect 3, or the deep, emotional experience of Matrix Reloaded.

Different strokes, and all that jazz.

Buzzsaw wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

The thing to remember about the 'jacks is that they scale in quanta: a 'caster can only support so many 'jacks, so until you get to a second 'caster (barring Jack Marshals) you will necessarily need to make up points with infantry.

That is, suppose a 'caster can keep 2 heavies in focus and working well. It doesn't matter if it's a 25 point game or a 50 point game (more or less), so the rest of the points have to be things other then 'jacks.

As an aside, I always find it amazing when people compare anything unfavorably to GW's background. It's like listening to someone extol the virtues of, say, the original endings to Mass Effect 3, or the deep, emotional experience of Matrix Reloaded.

Different strokes, and all that jazz.

I find it amazing that people defend GW's fluff when it is erratically inconsistent and often retconned to the point of being unrecognizable.

The complaints of plot armor against PP is rather odd. The casters are sort of the main characters. Just because they don't kill one off every few minutes like a snuff film doesn't mean it's bad. People are still dieing around them, they have things happen to them, they are moving forward with their own schemes.

ChocolateGork wrote:It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

TLR: Just because people field more infantry doesn't mean they dominate.

Warjacks are concentrated force whereas infantry cover the field. Certain kinds
of infantry CAN trash a 'jack, but that infantry needs a wider area to get all those
models to concentrate their attacks, and one way to screen against
infantry is to bring your own infantry. Certain warjacks CAN clear infantry, but a
warjack that tramples needs a clear path in which to trample and their main
attacks are generally overkill for dealing with infantry.

Surtur wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:It seems to an outsider that Infantry Dominate Warmachine

The thing to remember about the 'jacks is that they scale in quanta: a 'caster can only support so many 'jacks, so until you get to a second 'caster (barring Jack Marshals) you will necessarily need to make up points with infantry.

That is, suppose a 'caster can keep 2 heavies in focus and working well. It doesn't matter if it's a 25 point game or a 50 point game (more or less), so the rest of the points have to be things other then 'jacks.

As an aside, I always find it amazing when people compare anything unfavorably to GW's background. It's like listening to someone extol the virtues of, say, the original endings to Mass Effect 3, or the deep, emotional experience of Matrix Reloaded.

Different strokes, and all that jazz.

I find it amazing that people defend GW's fluff when it is erratically inconsistent and often retconned to the point of being unrecognizable.

The complaints of plot armor against PP is rather odd. The casters are sort of the main characters. Just because they don't kill one off every few minutes like a snuff film doesn't mean it's bad. People are still dieing around them, they have things happen to them, they are moving forward with their own schemes.

I don't want PP killing off casters every few minutes, just an occasional one to show that it Can happen. As it is, no warcaster or other character with a fig has ever died, except the ones who get free ressurections. It means you know that no matter how bad it looks for someone, if he has a fig, he'll be fine. Now that guy standing next to him? He might as well be wearing a red shirt.

There have not been any deaths of playable characters but there has been some loss of life, health, and major setbacks for each faction.

Baldur, Denegrah, and the harbinger all died and got brought back through supernatural means. The plot armor may have kept them active in the story, but Denegrah and Baldur are both changed for their experiences. Also, while not playable, the single mightiest living human in the setting has died.
After Wrath Karchev and Haley are both in poor condition and hanging by a thread.(nobody spoil colossals fluff please, I haven't had a chance to read it yet.)

Kallus also died in his debut fluff story, just to promptly resurrect. But that's just it, it's stupid. The only ones who die are those who get to be brought back. Haley and Karchev are hanging by a thread, but I have no fear for them because we know they're going to be fine, and probably end up stronger and more Epic because of their problems. There's no worry or fear or suspense. We know everyones going to be fine at the end of the day, unless you have no fig like the previous Menoth supreme dude then no matter how strong you are you're just a red shirt. Vinter seems to be the one exception to be red shirt thing, unless you count his Iron Kingdoms fig. They need to kill off just a couple dudes with figs, just to show that they're willing to do it, then you know it's possible and a threat that exists.

AduroT wrote:Kallus also died in his debut fluff story, just to promptly resurrect. But that's just it, it's stupid. The only ones who die are those who get to be brought back. Haley and Karchev are hanging by a thread, but I have no fear for them because we know they're going to be fine, and probably end up stronger and more Epic because of their problems. There's no worry or fear or suspense. We know everyones going to be fine at the end of the day, unless you have no fig like the previous Menoth supreme dude then no matter how strong you are you're just a red shirt. Vinter seems to be the one exception to be red shirt thing, unless you count his Iron Kingdoms fig. They need to kill off just a couple dudes with figs, just to show that they're willing to do it, then you know it's possible and a threat that exists.

The Seacat mentionned they would kill named characters once they felt they exhausted each of their story lines, for what it's worth. This is also a setting in which it was stated from the start that resurrection was possible for Very Powerful People Who Have A God On Their Side. The Warcasters of the game are the most powerful characters In Universe, a little like the Magnetos and Wolverines of the setting, so although I agree it's too convenient, it's somewhat warranted by the fluff.

Personnally I like to think of WM's fluff as something closer to Marvel comics than regular war stories. Once I accepted that mindset, everything made much more sense in the writing style...

This discussion of fluff i find rather strange.
Most fantasy novels have characers who swan through everything with little harm (george.r.r.martin being a noticable exception but i'm sure there are others). Not only is the style of PPs writing similar in style to fantasy novels (each caster is the equivalent to a fantasy novel hero), but fluff exists to evoke a mood and contribute to the setting and ethos of the world. I had never considered it to need "suspense".

On a practical level how can they kill someone who is a part of the game????? I can imagine this happening, you show up for a game with a caster and someone says " you can't use him, he's dead!"
ALso , how the hell would PP kill off a caster without alienating a portion of your audience? Do they roll a dice to pick which faction loses a viable game piece each expansion?

On a related note 40k fluff is trite, boring, very very one dimensional, I'd personally say it is the Mills and Boon of fluff. Just replace tall, dark ,rich man with an emo driven marine, the woman seeking a new life with a heroic marine captain and her existing life (before the arrival of the tall rich man ) with the foul gibbering legions of chaos. BAM! instant 40k fluff/novel.

Bullockist wrote:On a practical level how can they kill someone who is a part of the game????? I can imagine this happening, you show up for a game with a caster and someone says " you can't use him, he's dead!"

If someone says that in a non-joking way, call me so I can come punch him in the face.

Bullockist wrote:On a practical level how can they kill someone who is a part of the game????? I can imagine this happening, you show up for a game with a caster and someone says " you can't use him, he's dead!"
ALso , how the hell would PP kill off a caster without alienating a portion of your audience? Do they roll a dice to pick which faction loses a viable game piece each expansion? .

The figure would still be playable, no reason it wouldn't be. It's not like you're no longer allowed to use Iron Lich Asphyxious because he's now Lich Lord Asphyxious in the game.

AduroT wrote:

Bullockist wrote:On a practical level how can they kill someone who is a part of the game????? I can imagine this happening, you show up for a game with a caster and someone says " you can't use him, he's dead!"
ALso , how the hell would PP kill off a caster without alienating a portion of your audience? Do they roll a dice to pick which faction loses a viable game piece each expansion? .

The figure would still be playable, no reason it wouldn't be. It's not like you're no longer allowed to use Iron Lich Asphyxious because he's now Lich Lord Asphyxious in the game.

Yup, no reason to assume all battles are taking place in the 'now' of the setting. To take an example from 40K, Eldrad is dead, but still a playable character.

AduroT wrote:The figure would still be playable, no reason it wouldn't be. It's not like you're no longer allowed to use Iron Lich Asphyxious because he's now Lich Lord Asphyxious in the game.

Can't use Lich Lord Asphyxious either. It's Asphyxious the Hellbringer now.

I think another nice thing about Warmahordes is the fact that they will show you what is coming up. For example, I know that The centurion/Hammersmith/Avenger is being released in plastic in a month or two. Thus I can decide that, if I hate the new model (I don't), I can hunt down the classics before they are all gone. Also, if I hate the classics (still don't), I know that if I hold off for a little, I can get the new models.

GW doesn't do that.

yastobaal wrote:

AduroT wrote:The figure would still be playable, no reason it wouldn't be. It's not like you're no longer allowed to use Iron Lich Asphyxious because he's now Lich Lord Asphyxious in the game.

Can't use Lich Lord Asphyxious either. It's Asphyxious the Hellbringer now.

Maybe i misread, but you can always use every version of every caster.

Steampunk.

Negator80 wrote:

yastobaal wrote:

AduroT wrote:The figure would still be playable, no reason it wouldn't be. It's not like you're no longer allowed to use Iron Lich Asphyxious because he's now Lich Lord Asphyxious in the game.

Can't use Lich Lord Asphyxious either. It's Asphyxious the Hellbringer now.

Maybe i misread, but you can always use every version of every caster.

...That's kinda the point they're trying to make about the dead characters not being useable thing...

It would be nice if they consolidated all the background from Mark 1 and old NQ's into a book or something. I'm interested in reading it, but I'm certainly not interested in buying out dated books and hunting down old NQ's.

Shadowbrand wrote:Steampunk.

Not really.

CT GAMER wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Steampunk.

Not really.

A decent amount of steam, mostly just fantasy with some tech. Also, it's all about military-industrial complexes and fantasy drama: not a lot of punk.

A major plus for PP is that they will go out of their way to give a unit that many people dislike a UA that makes them playable.

Scattergunners and Hammerfall High Shield Gun Corps. are great examples. From gak to decent, if not good.

Cryonicleech wrote:A major plus for PP is that they will go out of their way to give a unit that many people dislike a UA that makes them playable.

Scattergunners and Hammerfall High Shield Gun Corps. are great examples. From gak to decent, if not good.

I view this more as a negative myself. With how their card system works for model rules they Should errata bad units to improve them, not band aid on additional UAs that you need to make the unit worthwhile. They also have the problem with some UAs being Too good. I'm looking at you Bane Thralls and Winterguard.

Meh, true. But at least units get a band aid, as compared to having to wait out a whole edition to hope that a unit becomes viable.


I don't know why Bane Thralls got their UA. They weren't desparately needing tough, and a standard with undead? Really?

Now we're getting Bane Cavalry, which IMHO is just dumb...

Bane Thralls getting a UA is itself not bad. I'm fine with the standard, more as a psychological effect on the enemy rather than as a rallying point, and the standard giving them Tough is good, but not yet too good. Where it gets stupid is the Officer letting them stand up for free, which removes the one downside of Tough, while giving him TWO attacks. If they got rid of Dead Rise and just left him with two attacks the UA would be fine and still plenty good enough to take.

Winterguard are the same way. Too many stacking buffs. Sprays are fine. Boosted attack rolls are fine. Boosted sprays are Stupid, especially on a unit that can fire off Fifteen sprays a turn. Bob and Weave is fine, but when stacked with the factions ready access to Iron Flesh they become defense Stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Bane Cav isn't dumb, it's Amazing. I don't know what they"ll do (other than hit like 100 ton trucks) but I'll get them because I love the look of the Bane models and have been wanting Bane Cav for a while.

My problem with tough is similar to your problems with bob and weave. Band Thralls already have stealth, why do they need tough? And yes, Dead Rise was completely unnecessary as well. To be fair, the UA isn't cheap, but I still think that tough was uneccessary for a unit that was already good.

As for Winterguard. Yeah, no complaints here. DEF 18-17 Winterguard with Grigorovich is just dumb. High DEF infantry are always a problem, only Saeryn and eDenny really have solutions to them that ignore the luck of the dice... :/

To each his own I guess. While I'm not super excited about a cavalryman without legs I guess I'll have to wait and see. The Retribution Cav were pretty.

Banes aren't nessisarily legless. Look at the Knights, several of the poses/flow of the robes suggest knees under there. I don't feel like lifting their skirts to check though.

Also, whenever someone complains about Tough on Banes I counter with Rhupert, a two point solo who can give whatever unit you want Tough.

My favorite way to deal with Winterguard is pAsphyxious. Parasite followed by Feat. They die on fives.

AduroT wrote:I'm looking at you Bane Thralls and Winterguard.

The Knights Errant are having quite the laugh at this.

12thRonin wrote:

AduroT wrote:I'm looking at you Bane Thralls and Winterguard.

The Knights Errant are having quite the laugh at this.

Oh dear lord they're a whole other source of gak.

And the poor regular Knights Errant can't compete...

I'm sure the OP has gathered what he needs from the thread and so forth, but I'm just going to offer my two cents here. I got into Warmachine in the past year/year and a half, and I've been absolutely loving it compared to Warhammer. I love the Warhammer fluff and universe, but on the rare occasions I got to play a game (my local meta at the time was incredibly small and I usually wound up working on the days that they usually met up) I could never really keep up with all the rules that well. It could be fun, for sure, but it was confusing and time consuming, and eventually I wound up just setting my models aside and keeping myself to the Black Library books.

Then I got into Warmachine, and it's been the exact opposite. I don't really care much about the fluff - it's not important to me beyond the idea of "Faction X has this sort of background, whereas faction Y has this background". I haven't kept up with the storylines they've put out at all, and while this may seem very strange coming from a fluff-oriented player like myself, I'm actually enjoying it much more that way. It's allowing me to focus on the game first, not the background, and between that and the fact that I've gotten in FAR more games (I moved into the city and now have access to a decently-sized meta that meets once a week, every week baring holidays) I've been having a much better time actually playing the game rather than just sitting at home list-building and rereading the fluff. The rules are simple, easy to pick up and understand, and are consistent, and the tighter scale of the game (smaller battlegroups vs huge 2000pt armies in Warhammer) has a much greater appeal to me. I feel like I understand my army more.

Again, this is just my experience, but I think Warmachine's a fantastic game, and it's been quite a lot of fun to play. I still love the Warhammer universe, but I doubt I'll ever really get back to playing it - I'll just limit myself to the BL novels. For me, Warhammer's my source for fluff, Warmachine's my source for actual gaming.