Ok, This is something i keep seeing at my FLGS and sometimes here on the site.
Privateer Press vs. Games Workshop.
And this is something I quite frankly don't understand. I see people argue quite a bit that Privateer Press is less expensive. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books. But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider. While a Gargantuan/ Colossal is 100$ or more.
Now i'm not saying GW is perfect, far from it, They have expensive models as well and cruddy business practices. I have Seen some GW snobs. But i have also seen WM/H Snobs as well, sometimes passive aggressively insulting me for liking 40k.
I am not trying to say one system or company is better then the other, I'm just trying to figure out the rivalry we have here.

On average, PP is Cheaper than GW.. as you don't need to get a Battle Engine or Colossal, and when you do its half your army.

Where as for some armies Land Raiders are auto include, and take up a much smaller percentage of what you need to play.

I dont see many armies that auto include a land raider down here.

The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures.

They instantly discount a model per model cost analysis, or the value for people who collect models and not even play the games because it helps them promote their narrative that GW is evil and overpriced where every alternative out there is super cheap and shows GW is unreasonable.

Personally, I find GW and PP almost the exact same price and while they are slightly more expensive than everything else, they are not drastically so. The comparable quality models out there are either close to the same price, or extremely cheaper and poor quality sculpts or models.

There are also models out there way more expensive than both PP and GW but they get a pass being smaller runs, 3rd parties or specialty figures.

PP has a good thing going with thier system, but is hardly the savior from GW prices for many players... And price is not even a factor for many of us as a lot of people buy what looks good and play what is fun to play regardless of the system.

You also have to remember, a lot of gaming circles are a Zero sum system, so when someone chooses not to play *your* system, some people take that personally because that means less people playing and promoting the game they want to succeed.

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

Average games when i played 40k is 1850
ill put that to the same as a 50pt Warmachine game

I can buy a Collosal that is 18 of my 50pts 35% ish ? of the pts of your army.

I can buy a Vendetta that is 120pts of my 1850pts. 6% of the pts of your army.

Warmachine takes less models, and every army can be used in a competetive area rather then the new FOTM armies.


Now, Cry foul about the people who buy for collections ? yea its near the same price, but somone collecting Warmachine isnt going to buy 50-100 Of the same model, its more like 10-20.


I have a 9 month Old baby, house, car etc.

I can spend $300 and have 2x 50pt Warmachine armies that i can go to a tourney and have a chance.
Last time i priced a 40k army, it was $700 + for 1 List. at 1850.

For me, Warmachine is cheaper, and more variety of units i can use without painting Space Marine #35.

not to Mention tighter rules and balance of i can choose w/e army i like.

Thats my side of it.

I dont hate GW, i dont hate 40k, i can't afford 40k.

If im playing Blood Angels i can't really go, hey! Necrons look cool, ill go buy some and play against people at the same point cost they are playing.. as i would need alot of money.

I Play menoth and Mercs, i can say hey.. Cygnar look cool, ill go buy 1x 50pt army for $150 and play with friends and their current collections at the current meta of 50pts.


Thats the difference tbh, its not a Model vs Model price difference its a Game vs Game Price difference.

Now! not to mention, PP puts out 2 Expansion books a year.. in which EVERY army gets a new warcaster, jacks, Units, Solos.. its not wait 7-8 Years for your next book to have different units.. My army feels refreshed when i have a new Warcaster to use, or a new unit once a year.

Note: Most games here are 35pts and 50pts, i didnt feel it fair to even tosss 35 pts vs the cost of 40k.

In the end, we are all playing with Toy models.
You respect my game, and i will respect your game.

Also to add, if money wasnt an object, i would still play Warmachine over 40k due to the variety and balanced armies/rules.

Two points...

First, everything is local. Unless you travel a lot of move around a good amount for work, you are just seeing small fragments of the bigger picture. While you might not see too many armies that automatically use Land Raiders in competitive lists...they are there. In spades.

Second is more to the point - when you compare two different game systems you need to compare things which are comparable. For example, how much would it cost to get an OK army up and ready?

On the Warmachine side of things - lets say we go with a 35 point Khador army:

The Butcher of Khardov - $16.99
+ Kodiak - $29.99
+ Behemoth - $59.99
+ War Dog - $9.99
Doom Reavers - $32.99
Doom Reavers - $32.99
Widomakers - $19.99
Yuri the Axe - $14.99

Toss in a hardcover book for Khador at $44.99 and the Warmachine rulebook (also hardcover) for another $44.99. All prices are at MSRP with no discount. The total for that army ends up being $307.90.

By contrast, consider a 1500 point Spaz Marine Army:

Termie Librarian - $22.50

Tactical Squad - $37.50
Tactical Squad - $37.50
Rhino - $37.25
Rhino - $37.25
Scouts - $25
Sternguard $45x2
Drop Pod $37.25

Landspeeder - $30
Stormtalon - $45.50
Assault Squad - $33.00

Vindicator - $57.75

Plus the Codex and Rulebook at $41.25 and $74.25 respectively. Again, all at MSRP. The total for the SM army ends up being $606.

Both armies are not extraordinary, but should be competitive and allow for pickup games and all the rest. The Space Marine army though costs twice what the PP army does.

I tried to get into warmachine not that long ago, I picked up a starter box, built 1 jack, looked at it for a while and failed to come up with a proper paint scheme then never bothered with the other or the character.
I'm right behind you on the whole 'GW charges way too much' thing but I was really disappointed in the quality and material used by PP.

Apples and oranges. There's really not much that's particularly clever or useful about saying "these fifteen models cost me less than those fifty models!" Wow!

Warmachine may be cheaper to get a "competitive" force going, but the models are really no cheaper.

You may as well compare Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim, et al as well.

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

It's not pointless to state that it's cheaper to buy an army playable at standard game size. If you want to play the game everyone else is playing then it's a simple statement of fact that PP games are cheaper except for outliers.

You can state that collectors don't care, and that may be true, but that does not make the above statement invalid either.

And yes you could compare another even smaller/cheaper game, but that doesn't stop the comparison between Warhammer and WM/H from being true.

From what I've seen, a Privateer Press tournament level army is cheaper to purchase than a GW tournament level. The point systems are different, but the PP ones are still cheaper on a tournament level comparison. Individual model wise, Privateer (and a few other companies) are more expensive than GW. However GW keeps raising army sizes while lowering unit costs, so players have to buy more to maintain. So it depends on what level you're comparing. Individual or tournament army? Individual, GW is cheaper (scary to believe). Army-wise, PP wins.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Kill team tourneys, 40k in 40 minute tourneys, escalation leagues with 500 pt games, playing on 4x4 boards... there are tons of way people have been and do play 40k with smaller numbers and it is a Skirmish game.

Actually the local GW near me explicitly promotes smaller games as it helps new players play earlier.

This narrative that PP is cheaper simply isn't true simply because some internet people claim you can't play a 40k game less than 2000 points.

PP is not at all cheaper both to get into for starting players nor on a per model basis. GW may have a higher ceiling, but PP is actively promoting the concept of 'armageddon' style games and are susceptible to groups of collectors wanting to increase the game size so they can play with all their toys.

Don't discount that GW games can and are played in smaller point values and are perfectly acceptable when played as such or somehow that makes a 10$ cheaper than another 10$ model.

Of course Warmahordes can be played in smaller sizes as well.. like Battlebox games, which can be done for $50.

We have one GW in Northern Ireland, and a number of LGSs, which tend to have a pretty even mix of GW/PP/FoW/MtG (some more than others, depending, on obvs. not the GW. Go figure...)
I think its partly due to the sizes of the local clubs that not only is the mix relatively even, there is very little conflict/snobbery between the sides. (that being said, Mantic is gathering a new high-horse brigade round here, and it scares me).

Personally, the monetary cost is a non issue. Sure, for starting fresh, PP is cheaper to get into. But by now, for me, I have three/four armies I can use in WFB/40k, so starting a new army isnt a "buy in one go" job, its more of a "unit at a time" deal. So whether its PP or GW Id still only be spending £30-60 per month. (and army costs/points values aside, there is something to be said, quantity - wise, about getting ten models in a box).

Iv tried PP games, whilst it took a few games, yeah I can see the inherant balance in a system where most everything is developed at once, yeah it was fun, but its not for me.
Part of it is I like pushing around a hundred-odd ranked up men in pijamas, with ridiculous feathers and moustaches. The imagary appeals to me, the fluff and the background, to my mind, is just that bit deeper/better. I dont play competetive, hell, as I said above, my main army marches to war in jammies! But I do play for the evocative nature of a 3-4k (fantasy) game, which is why GW edges ahead for me.

But hey, at least I can say Iv tried both!

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Definitely agree with this.

I've never understood the whole 'either/or' mindset when it comes to gaming systems, and it always reminds me of when I was a kid and having arguments in the playground about the NES/Master System or later the SNES/Megadrive (Genesis).

Although perhaps in part it is due to the costs involved. I've found GW players to be a lot more myopic when it comes to trying other games, or not wanting to consider other systems. Part of this may be because they have come in to wargaming through the 'GW system', of intro games and sunday gaming at the club, then go to a FLGS and are simply not aware of those other systems (and therefore view them as something outside the all-encompassing GW hobby). But I think it's also because after the not-inconsiderable expenditure of playing GW games, a lot of people (especially kids) don't have the money to try anything else! A 15-16 year old could probably have forces for Infinity/Malifaux, Dystopian Wars and any other number of smaller games, but just one force for either 40k or WFB would require pretty much all of their time/money. In that sense, the GW games are like having a girlfriend who is a high-maintenance bimbo; looks great on the outside, but constantly requires expenditure and is actually pretty shallow when it comes down to it. And when her new latest thing comes along (a new rulebook/codex, that prompts further expenditure) she'll drop you in a heartbeat for one of your friends who has splashed out the cash.

The flip-side of the coin is the 'newly enlightened' - people who have switched to another gaming system (I guess PP being the most common) but then end up being massively sanctimonious and derogatory to people who still play 40k/WFB. I think that's a pretty nasty thing to see, and I don't understand why it's necessary to be completely polarised in one's opinion about any gaming system.

Ultimately, I'm all for a greater variety of gaming systems and experiences, and completely against people treating them like they are a football team that needs to be supported at all costs, even if the star striker turns out to be a jerk and does DUI or rapes someone. Although I realise the reasons for this and why it is sometimes the case.

 japehlio wrote:

I think its partly due to the sizes of the local clubs that not only is the mix relatively even, there is very little conflict/snobbery between the sides. (that being said, Mantic is gathering a new high-horse brigade round here, and it scares me).

Personally, the monetary cost is a non issue.

I agree cost is not at all the issue. People want more people to play with, and when you have a set number of people in your area, people get highly territorial on wanting people to play their system and will usually use digs and snide propaganda to put down other systems which leaves people who play multiple systems stuck in a custody war.

Many people when you say "I play game X" and they play game Y, you are nothing more than an invader taking up table space ruining their agenda.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

 scipio.au wrote:
Apples and oranges. There's really not much that's particularly clever or useful about saying "these fifteen models cost me less than those fifty models!" Wow!

Warmachine may be cheaper to get a "competitive" force going, but the models are really no cheaper.

You may as well compare Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim, et al as well.

I agree with that sentiment as well. However, when comparing systems - you do need to compare systems as opposed to the price of figures.

Generally, I play with other rules - so for me, the cost of figures is what matters. Per figure, they are not too far apart (when comparing things like metal troops to metal/finecast troops and solos to solos). GW plastics do provide cost savings in some cases, though not often a significant one. Both companies IMO are overpriced in that regard, however you can not argue that Warmachine is not a cheaper game to play than 40K. It just is based on the way the rules were written to be played and the manner in which most games are played with the rules.

In the breakdown I have listed above, you end up with 21 models and two hard cover books on the PP side of things and 51 models, a hardcover and a softcover book on the GW side. Remove the books quick from the prices and you end up with $10 per model for PP and $9.60 for GW. Considering that most the GW stuff is plastic, which should cost much less...I would still call PP the winner on a per figure basis (as if you were to compare an all metal/finecast army like SoB or one of the alternate IG armies it would run much higher than the Space Marines (which IIRC are one of the cheapest armies for the points).
__________________

Did a quick costing for a 1500 point SoB army and came up with 54 models (vehicles and figures) for $659.35 - $12 per model average. $2 more than you would pay out on a PP army per model.

Initial Cost is the key to the success to what PP is producing.

All I know that it only cost me $51 to get feel on how to play with a 15 point PP army (models only). Already posted on anoter topic that I did pick up a starter box set and again most satisfied with it.

If for some reason I did not like to play this game (WM), I did not waste that much money getting into it. Bty I do like the game and am slowly transitioning from 40K.

For whatever the reason, there are more and more people, such as myself are doing the same thing. Moving over (I believe) because of their dissatisfaction with Games Workshop.

Perhaps Games Workshop should have listened more to their customer base, but we all know that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

If they would have listen a little, just a little, we would not be having this kind of discussion as PP (or any other miniature game company) would have not gotten the serious traction on people wishing to play an alternative miniatures game.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I tried to get into warmachine not that long ago, I picked up a starter box, built 1 jack, looked at it for a while and failed to come up with a proper paint scheme then never bothered with the other or the character.
I'm right behind you on the whole 'GW charges way too much' thing but I was really disappointed in the quality and material used by PP.

I bought a Finecast Model, Looked at it and wondered why half the model was deformed.. i was disappointed with the Quality of the material.

I bought a Thunderfire cannon that was metal and it didnt fit together.... i was disappointed with the quality.

I bought Steelhead halbadeirs and i have to replace their poles... i was disappointed (i expected this as its an old kit)

I bought a Collosal and it came with 2 left legs.. i was Disappointed....


Both companies have issues

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books.

Pattenly untrue. Rule book is over $70 for the basic rule book, PP rule book is half that cost. Army book is cheaper then the older GW ones that YOU NEED, and current hardcovers of GW is now $50, even more expensive then PP.

But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider. While a Gargantuan/ Colossal is 100$ or more.

And Forgeworld titans are even more expensive then colossals. Your point?

Now i'm not saying GW is perfect, far from it, They have expensive models as well and cruddy business practices. I have Seen some GW snobs. But i have also seen WM/H Snobs as well, sometimes passive aggressively insulting me for liking 40k.
I am not trying to say one system or company is better then the other, I'm just trying to figure out the rivalry we have here.

And how are you better then them coming onto a forum to complain about them all the while getting some facts wrong?

I love me a good pp vs gw thread.


The discussion boils down to the two following things:

Privateer Press has a low cost of entry, you and a buddy can get 200 dollars worth of models for 100 bucks, that's 50 dollars per person and that's 2/3rds of an average sized tournament army.

Dark Vengeance is the same price, but contains almost nowhere near the same percentage of models. I'm not saying that DV is not a bad way to start playing 40k, I'm saying that your 50 bucks is going to be stretched a little bit farther with the 2 player boxes from PP.

The other thing is that PP's rules are 100 times clearer than GWs, which is another major selling point. There is almost 0 ambiguity in the way PP's rules are written.

You can clamor on for days about GW trying to out price their veteran players, and can yell and scream about PP making larger games to sell bigger models, thus making them the worst buy in comparison to GW, but when you look at it, you have to see cost of entry. If the cost of entry is too high, fewer people will want to join in.

carmachu wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books.

Pattenly untrue. Rule book is over $70 for the basic rule book, PP rule book is half that cost. Army book is cheaper then the older GW ones that YOU NEED, and current hardcovers of GW is now $50, even more expensive then PP.

Sir, That is what i said. that the rule books are not the expensive.
And my point is i always hear that PP is cheaper. But when I see a 5 model unit for 90$ and see that quite a bit of units are like that, it kinda rings Halllow.
And maybe i did get facts wrong, and maybe i am here complaining.
Or maybe im generally curious as to why people say its cheaper.
I get the fact that you dont need a whole lot of models, but models tend to cost more.

I am one of the people that started young with GW. Thankfully at the same time, being exposed to PP through the LGS in town. It took a bit of time, but eventually I've found GW no longer appeal to me. I'd pay the price if the game was good, but I'm having lots of fun with the PP system they have. After playing enough games I got converted from a large army to a skirmish level fan. Not saying I don't enjoy a large game once in a while if its a new system to try.

nkelsch wrote:
Kill team tourneys, 40k in 40 minute tourneys, escalation leagues with 500 pt games, playing on 4x4 boards... there are tons of way people have been and do play 40k with smaller numbers and it is a Skirmish game.

Except there's two little problems with that:

1) It's not how people, in my experience, actually play the game. If you show up to 40k night at a FLGS you either have the ability to play a 1000-2000 point game of normal 40k or you don't have an opponent. The most I've seen done with any consistency is escalation leagues, but that tends to be one game at 500 and then +250 points per week, so almost immediately out of reach of new players. It's fun if you're a veteran and want to play a variety of game sizes, but you pretty much have to start the league with a complete army to have any chance of keeping up.

2) It's not 40k. Kill team isn't 40k, it's an infantry skirmish game (and an incredibly poorly balanced one). Combat patrol isn't 40k, it's pseudo-40k with a lot of units banned. They might be fun once in a while if you have an army, but being able to play them doesn't mean you're able to play 40k. In fact, in some ways they make the problem worse since the units you'd want in a "skirmish 40k" variant are not necessarily ones you want in real 40k, so the new player can either buy stuff for the once-every-few-months kill team night, or buy stuff for real 40k.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.


(Now, that doesn't mean that GW's prices per model are unfair or that the PP games are better, but GW does a horrible job of making their games accessible to new players.)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

And my point is i always hear that PP is cheaper. But when I see a 5 model unit for 90$ and see that quite a bit of units are like that, it kinda rings Halllow.
And maybe i did get facts wrong, and maybe i am here complaining.
Or maybe im generally curious as to why people say its cheaper.
I get the fact that you dont need a whole lot of models, but models tend to cost more.

Doesnt ring hollow. Point is that $90 unit can be used multiple casters. Its not always the case with a GW army.

FURTHER, lower army count/point games- 35/50 is standard. GW ones run much higher. 1500-2000pts, you need alot more models to play the type of game.

Redundancy, plus point games make it a cheaper game.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider.

Although interestingly enough, here in Oz that Battle Engine is also $84 (which for us does include tax) whereas the Land Raider has GW's trademarked You Live In Australia Tax applied, and so retails at $110.,

I will fully admit Gw are idiots when it comes to aussie prices.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.

Sure, if your sole criteria for choosing a game are entry price and the number of other people who play it, that would be valid. But that seems like an odd reason to buy into a game, to me. It goes into the same sort of category as people suggesting Flames of War as an alternative to 40K... sure, it's a wargame. But it's not a wargame that I have any interest in actually playing, regardless of how much or little it costs to buy into it, or how many other people are playing, because I'm not hugely interested in Historical settings.

Interest in a game, for me, comes from liking the setting, the miniatures and the scale, as well as having a rules system that is fun to play. And while Warmachine certainly (IMO) has those all going for it, that puts it in the 'another game that I would like to play' basket rather than the 'alternatives to 40K' basket.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.

Sure, if your sole criteria for choosing a game are entry price and the number of other people who play it, that would be valid. But that seems like an odd reason to buy into a game, to me. It goes into the same sort of category as people suggesting Flames of War as an alternative to 40K... sure, it's a wargame. But it's not a wargame that I have any interest in actually playing, regardless of how much or little it costs to buy into it, or how many other people are playing.

Interest in a game, for me, comes from liking the setting, the miniatures and the scale, as well as having a rules system that is fun to play. And while Warmachine certainly (IMO) has those all going for it, that puts it in the 'another game that I would like to play' basket rather than the 'alternatives to 40K' basket.

Actually, cost of entry is a big component with why I choose a game. If I like the setting, and like the models, I then look at the price of entry. I don't have a big gaming area to play with and my flgs doesn't play much other than 40k and Flames of War, so I often look at what the price is to get 2 starter sets so I can teach people to play. Every game I play has at least 2 starter boxes painted up.

Granted, my reasoning is very anecdotal and everyone chooses the game they like for some reason or another.

Here is what it comes down to for me.

1) GW is more expensive to get into
2) PP is more expensive on a per model basis
3) Both games I have to spend money
4) I enjoy 40K more than Warmachine
5) My FLGS has a large community for both games.
6) I have a lot more friends in the 40K community and the community is a lot more accepting at teaching new players, while the PP guys tend to isolate themselves, pretending to look down on the 40K players
7) I don't want to invest into another game. I already have WHFB, WH40K, Malifaux, Firestorm, Flames of War and Necromunda.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

Except for many people who are just getting into tabletop wargaming it IS a comparison. They don't come in with strong feelings about skirmish vs. army scale, they come in to the FLGS and see that the most popular games are 40k and Warmachine/Hordes. And for them it IS relevant that starting a PP game is "spend $50 on a starter set and come in for WM/H night", while for a GW game it's "spend $200+ and come in for newbie-only night once a month" or "spend $500-1000+ and you can play real 40k on 40k night". The barrier to entry for real 40k is MUCH higher thanks to the larger game sizes.


(Now, that doesn't mean that GW's prices per model are unfair or that the PP games are better, but GW does a horrible job of making their games accessible to new players.)

In that case, if the scale of the game is irrelevant and value for money on a per-model basis is absolute, everyone should just play Infinity.

You can buy a 300pt 'army' for peanuts. This is as big an 'army' as you'll ever need.
No models are redundant or worthless - you can literally buy an army of your favorite models, and as long as it fits in the selection criteria, it's going to be something you can win with as long as you know how to play it.

That's far better value for money than even PP offers. Added bonus is the models are drop dead fething gorgeous.

 insaniak wrote:
Interest in a game, for me, comes from liking the setting, the miniatures and the scale, as well as having a rules system that is fun to play. And while Warmachine certainly (IMO) has those all going for it, that puts it in the 'another game that I would like to play' basket rather than the 'alternatives to 40K' basket.

Yeah, but you're an experienced wargamer and have a good idea of what you like. A new player isn't going to know nearly as much about whether they'd prefer skirmish vs. army or whatever, and they're going to be a lot more influenced by who is playing, and how much it costs to get started. They might be leaning towards 40k for setting reasons, for example, but when they find out that it's going to cost $500+ to even start playing 40k the $50 starter price for WM/H starts looking very appealing even if it wasn't quite their top choice otherwise.

And of course there's always the people who really love the idea of 40k but give up because they can't afford to spend $500+ just to get started. The sad truth is WM/H is going to scare away a much smaller percentage of their potential customers thanks to the smaller army cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:
[In that case, if the scale of the game is irrelevant and value for money on a per-model basis is absolute, everyone should just play Infinity.

Sure. I agree that Infinity is a good deal, but the subject of the thread was PP vs. GW, not "what's your favorite game".

And then of course there's the popularity factor. 40k and WM/H are extremely popular (at least in my area) and it's easy to find opponents, while Infinity just doesn't seem to have that kind of player base yet. Veteran gamers might be able to pick it up as a secondary game and not feel too bad about not being able to play very often, but it's much less appealing as a first game.

I will admit that PP is very appealing to me. I like the setting and the lower entry cost. I still like GW but I can only buy a unit at a time. Meaning it will take quite a while to be able to play. I don't plan on quoting 40k but I am seriously considering setting it aside for a time.

Honestly with the annual price increase plus an increase every time they have a new release it's not going to take GW very long to out pace me. It's a bummer really but I like to build and paint mini's. Plus tossing dice . If its not GW it's somebody elses.

How does cost of entry for a doe-eyed mini collecting noob make a game cost me less money per model? How does it make 50$ for 10 models cost less than 10$ of other models because someone else somewhere can have a low cost of entry?

It makes no sense and it is just race war propaganda in people who have an agenda to promoting one game system and exterminating those who play other systems.


That is why I collect the models I enjoy painting which crosses most manufacturers... And I still don't see why the model I bought is cheaper for me because someone else spews talking points about the new players gaming in a made up scenario.

Everyone should play dreadball by this logic... It is low cost of entry, and it would make me happy and provide me with people to play with. And since like lots of people who promote gaming intolerance in FLGS I will say how you are better off and it is cheaper regardless if you like the models, the fluff, the rules or the game. Play my game!!!

PP and Gw both cost exactly the same and are both in the middle of the pack for minis. Play what you enjoy, not what is supposedly cheaper for people in random circumstances which may or may not apply to you.

nkelsch wrote:
How does cost of entry for a doe-eyed mini collecting noob make a game cost me less money per model? How does it make 50$ for 10 models cost less than 10$ of other models because someone else somewhere can have a low cost of entry?

Nobody said it did. They said that the TOTAL cost of playing the game is less, not that the per-model cost is less.

It makes no sense and it is just race war propaganda in people who have an agenda to promoting one game system and exterminating those who play other systems.

It makes perfect sense because, as I've explained, the TOTAL cost of playing a game is a very relevant factor.

Everyone should play dreadball by this logic... It is low cost of entry, and it would make me happy and provide me with people to play with. And since like lots of people who promote gaming intolerance in FLGS I will say how you are better off and it is cheaper regardless if you like the models, the fluff, the rules or the game. Play my game!!!

Except there's a huge difference between "cost is a factor" and "cost is the only factor".

For most gamers these days it is rarely a question of GW vs. PP and generally a question of new GW army vs. new game. Most folks these days are finding it much more appealing and economical to pick up a new wm/h army over their second or third 40k army. Now more than ever you are seeing people who regularly play more different games instead of more armies in one game.
I for one love this, as it creates a community of more well-versed gamers each having his or her own eclectic stable of games. As people branch out to new games they become more aware of what they like and what is out there helping the industry grow in leaps and bounds compared to how stagnant it has been in recent decades with a single giant company dominating the consumers' view of tabletop gaming.

Still, if the line had to be drawn between PP and GW I would firmly be in the PP camp. I feel GW is sorely behind the times on how they structure their games and what the expect of their customers. The startup costs and ideal army builds are unrealistic and conflicted with the product range offered. Fantasy Flight and Forgeworld do more to grow the 40k IP in a year than GW itself has in the last decade.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Total nonsense. The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor; a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs; an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

So if you really want to insist that we judge this on how cheap it is to get into the company's products based purely on how many models it takes; 7 beats 25 at the same cost per model.

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

nkelsch wrote:
...

They instantly discount a model per model cost analysis, or the value for people who collect models and not even play the games because it helps them promote their narrative that GW is evil and overpriced where every alternative out there is super cheap and shows GW is unreasonable.

...

Without going into the question of model versus model pricing, there is a non-trivial point to be made that GW, as a company, is vulnerable to charges of unethical conduct that PP (indeed, most gaming companies) are not similarly vulnerable to. A fairly extensive investigation exists in the Chapterhouse Lawsuit thread. That, however, is only the most public example of what I would classify as a pattern of abuse of the legal system*, wherein GW has used their superior resources to force smaller companies to comply with GW's directives, not on the basis of appropriate rights, but by threat of financial ruin incurred by defending against a merit-less lawsuit.

Whether the threat (or, indeed, attempt) to destroy a small business concern can be fairly characterized as evil, is, of course, subject to personal moral standards, but it is worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, no such similar actions have been undertaken by PP. While not everyone wishes to consider the moral conduct of the manufacturer, for those that do GW remains, according to my knowledge, the only company in this field vulnerable to accusations of this type and magnitude.


*Please not that this is a personal, academic opinion, and is not to be taken as a binding in any professional context. I'm an attorney, I'm not your attorney.

I hate both companys. But I play both games. To me, their D-baggery is present in equal amounts, just with slightly different flavors.
In the end, I like both games (40K and warmahordes), and play them. But neither company is better than the other.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor;

Not even the same rules as 40k, and not common. I'm glad you've found a use for the models, but this isn't very helpful for a new 40k player.

a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs;

Except not, since you don't have all the various upgrades. In fact Necromunda is especially bad for this because you get random weapons and need to have available models sitting around gathering dust in case you need that option. It's a game for experienced players who like converting, not a newbie game.

an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

Not 40k. Don't care.

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

Except:

1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

 deathholydeath wrote:
I hate both companys. But I play both games. To me, their D-baggery is present in equal amounts, just with slightly different flavors.
In the end, I like both games (40K and warmahordes), and play them. But neither company is better than the other.

How so?

I'm quite serious. There is ample evidence that GW has bullied smaller companies with inappropriate legal actions, and in at least one case they have tried to outright destroy a company with an extremely questionable lawsuit. They have, put simply, attempted to destroy other peoples' livelihoods.

What has PP done that leads you to say "But neither company is better than the other"?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
in at least one case they have tried to outright destroy a company with an extremely questionable lawsuit. They have, put simply, attempted to destroy other peoples' livelihoods

Let's be honest here, the Chapterhouse lawsuit is entirely justified ethically even if legally speaking it's a laughable mess. Chapterhouse is doing little more than ripping off GW's ideas and selling them, they're a parasite on GW and we'd be better off if the owner took the decent way out and voluntarily shut down the company.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
in at least one case they have tried to outright destroy a company with an extremely questionable lawsuit. They have, put simply, attempted to destroy other peoples' livelihoods

Let's be honest here, the Chapterhouse lawsuit is entirely justified ethically even if legally speaking it's a laughable mess. Chapterhouse is doing little more than ripping off GW's ideas and selling them, they're a parasite on GW and we'd be better off if the owner took the decent way out and voluntarily shut down the company.

At the risk of pointing out the blindingly obvious, I disagree.

EDIT: I suppose I should particularize that: I disagree that GW is acting in an ethical manner, I disagree that Chapterhouse is "ripping off GW's ideas", I disagree that "we" would be better off if the defendant were to acquiesce, and I disagree that the decent thing is shutting down.

 Dais wrote:
For most gamers these days it is rarely a question of GW vs. PP and generally a question of new GW army vs. new game. Most folks these days are finding it much more appealing and economical to pick up a new wm/h army over their second or third 40k army. Now more than ever you are seeing people who regularly play more different games instead of more armies in one game.
I for one love this, as it creates a community of more well-versed gamers each having his or her own eclectic stable of games. As people branch out to new games they become more aware of what they like and what is out there helping the industry grow in leaps and bounds compared to how stagnant it has been in recent decades with a single giant company dominating the consumers' view of tabletop gaming.

Still, if the line had to be drawn between PP and GW I would firmly be in the PP camp. I feel GW is sorely behind the times on how they structure their games and what the expect of their customers. The startup costs and ideal army builds are unrealistic and conflicted with the product range offered. Fantasy Flight and Forgeworld do more to grow the 40k IP in a year than GW itself has in the last decade.

I find this to be very true and probably better put than I could have done. I myself was entertaining the idea of that death guard army I've so very liked for some time now, but the chaos update took me back significantly. Good looking models, but the price was a big detractor. Meanwhile, my wandering eyes saw the Judge Dredd kickstarter and my persistent interest in Dredd and the movie pushed me to throw down money that could have very easily gone to GW. The more I thought about other games the more I realized that I cannot afford to maintain, much less get my current GW armies to where I want them to be and some are probably going to be let go and replaced with BattleTech minis from Ironwind, maybe a little more to my PP armies which have grown considerably and maybe some Infinity.

And as Dais said, it's not GW vs PP. Even though they're the big dogs with good reason, either one could very well lose out when compared to the market for miniatures as a whole. Many argue that is exactly what is happening to GW and there is significant evidence that indicates this may be the case that has been combed over in detail and debate many a time. The renaissance and golden age that we seem to be experiencing as players is inevitably good for us and bad for GW. We see progressive ideas being put forth that GW is slow to take up and it seems a new kickstarter launches aver week or two adding another rival to GW. The greatest thing is GW could die tomorrow and we would all be able to move on to other games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
in at least one case they have tried to outright destroy a company with an extremely questionable lawsuit. They have, put simply, attempted to destroy other peoples' livelihoods

Let's be honest here, the Chapterhouse lawsuit is entirely justified ethically even if legally speaking it's a laughable mess. Chapterhouse is doing little more than ripping off GW's ideas and selling them, they're a parasite on GW and we'd be better off if the owner took the decent way out and voluntarily shut down the company.

That's only one. Anyone remember how this was supposed to be a dual manticore/lammasu kit?

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

Or how Ronin miniatures who made not primarchs were shut down? The various C&D letters issued at websites that showed anything vaguely warhammer? How GW uses legal wrangling to prevent online sales by 3rd parties of Warhammer models, going so far as to disallow not only pictures but shopping cart usage. I'm sure if I took 30 minutes to google, I could come up with a more significant list, but these are ones that come to mind.

I started a Tyranid army around the time Macragge was replaced with Black Reach. There were tons of terms and genestealers on ebay and I got myself a proper horde. I painted them up and took 1000 points (around 80 or so models) to a local 40k night.

I'm fast at moving models. But between movement, fleet and possibly assaulting, my opponent got to sit there and wait while I did upwards of 200 model movements during a turn. Half way through I asked if we can just ignore the order of operations and let me move my fleet move right with my movement phase. We had to modify the rules to reduce his wait time.

And that was at 1000 points. What about at 1500? 1850?

I played a couple more times at 1000 points and then ebayed my army. I felt awful wasting my opponents time like that.

I prefer PP's games because the model count for a normal game is so much lower. I don't care so much about cost, but anything that reduces the wait time during a game where you go while your opponent waits is a good thing. My 50 point cryx army has 30 models in it. And that includes mechanithralls and scrap thralls-- two of cryx's cheapest points per model choices.

Over the last couple years I have never had a game where I felt what I was doing was making my opponent wait needlessly. And the damage system and constant rules interactions make the game much more engaging for both players.

 Surtur wrote:
That's only one. Anyone remember how this was supposed to be a dual manticore/lammasu kit?

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

Ok, I'll agree, that one was a bad lawsuit.

Or how Ronin miniatures who made not primarchs were shut down?

Oh, the poor not-primarch manufacturers. Perhaps if they had real talent they should make their own product and stop making thinly-veiled ripoffs of GW's ideas? GW has every right to stop a competing company from making use of their IP and selling models that GW intend to produce themselves.

How GW uses legal wrangling to prevent online sales by 3rd parties of Warhammer models, going so far as to disallow not only pictures but shopping cart usage.

There's no legal wrangling at all involved there. You can sell online with a shopping cart as much as you'd like, GW just won't ship you new inventory at the discounted price. It's entirely sane and reasonable for GW to want to avoid another company setting up an online store that makes their own store redundant, and they have no obligation to help you do it.

Im no GW fanboy by a long shot i pretty much hate them, but in my FLGS it is pitched to me that PP is cheaper.

Personally I hate this sales pitch as they state a comp game of PP is 35 pts... A few hundred bucks to play.

No where does it say in GW that you have to play at 1850 so 35 pts vs 1850 don't stack up.

My overall opinion on GW players is that they play at higher Points because they want bigger armies. There is nothing stopping PP players from going up to higher levels.

Actually in my mind 1850 is too high as it allows access to TOO much of the good stuff. 1500 is where you need to actually make tough choices in your lists.

PP is large in my area as is 40k... I choose to play FOW! LOL.

 Milisim wrote:
No where does it say in GW that you have to play at 1850 so 35 pts vs 1850 don't stack up.

My overall opinion on GW players is that they play at higher Points because they want bigger armies. There is nothing stopping PP players from going up to higher levels.

Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the rules impose an absolute maximum point cap or not, what matters is the average point values that people play. And the answer to that question is that to play a random pickup game on 40k night at your FLGS you need to spend $500+ on an army, while to play a random pickup game on WM/H night you need to spend $50. Even once you've paid to expand your WM/H starter box and play at the higher end of average games you've still spent way less than the minimum to start a 40k army.

.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right but my main point was that is how warmachine is being presented to new players. As cheaper, when in reality it is not.

I can simply play Kill team in 40k.... I can spend $50 there as well.

So the $$$ argument is moot in most cases.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can sell online with a shopping cart as much as you'd like, GW just won't ship you new inventory at the discounted price. It's entirely sane and reasonable for GW to want to avoid another company setting up an online store that makes their own store redundant, and they have no obligation to help you do it.

I have to question the logic in that. They may lose more direct sales and lose some profit that way but increased sales volume from more visible product available through more channels could certainly recover the losses; and in a community-based business like gaming the more customers you have, the more opponents new customers will have.

Every other gaming company seems to be doing fine with "redundant" direct sales. Hasbro owns some of the biggest games in the business with MTG and D&D and don't even carry those products on their own webstore, though they do offer their many board games. PP in particular only offer exclusives, starters, and books through their direct sales service, preferring third party retailers and distribution to direct sales. (trying to at least stay a little on topic)

This was already said by others, but my opinions are:

- A single playable list for 40k is larger model-wise and more expensive than for WM/H. Warhammer FB takes even more than 40k, plus you have to paint dozens of similar models for every unit and they are not even visible when in formation. That being said, complete army with variety of units to choose from may cost about the same in all systems.

- Model-wise, I would say GW models are better. Their plastic kits are definitely the best, no question.

- Personally I like 40k general atmosphere and visual decisions more than other games (though novels and detailed fluff often make me laugh and vomit at the same time, I don't read it). Bad thing is, GW likes to change fluff and style for an army dramatically. Which means your whole army concept you invested years of work in may one day become invalid. Iron Kingdoms fluff is somewhat less appealing, but they have giant steam battle robots, that have to count for something.

- Any GW rules are written ridiculously badly, considering their experience and resources. IMO, GW does not make ANY effort to write good rules. WM/H rules does show that effort.

- GW loves its Codex Creep.

Generally, I like GW models, but not their rules or codexes or general attitude towards players. In PP, I like all these things.

 Milisim wrote:
.Right but my main point was that is how warmachine is being presented to new players. As cheaper, when in reality it is not.

Except it IS cheaper once you consider the game sizes that people actually play at most frequently, not the game sizes the rules technically allow.

I can simply play Kill team in 40k.... I can spend $50 there as well.

One tiny problem: nobody plays kill team. If you go into your FLGS on 40k night you aren't going to find a kill team game, you're going to find a bunch of people interested in playing between 1000-2000 points or not at all.

These threads suck, hard. They really do.

It boils down to about 5 categories of opinion.

1. Strong inclination for PP over GW. Extreme dislike for GW or outright hatred.

2. Slight inclination for PP over GW. Dislike for GW or neutrality towards GW.

3. No strong inclination either way. Dislike for GW and PP, or neutrality towards one or both.

4. Slight inclination for GW over PP. Rare, often boils down to dislike of models. Actual negative feelings towards PP possible, but unlikely

5. Strong Dislike of PP. Usually strong dislike of models or scale of armies. Doesn't necessarily mean like towards GW.


Does the war gaming community honestly need all the endless comparisons to GW? I'd love to jump into Dakka for once and not see a "Is GW X?" or "Is Y Better than GW?" thread. Is it so wrong to like one, or the other, or both, to the point that we need a "discussion" (which inevitably ends up being an argument) on it?

 Dais wrote:
I have to question the logic in that. They may lose more direct sales and lose some profit that way but increased sales volume from more visible product available through more channels could certainly recover the losses; and in a community-based business like gaming the more customers you have, the more opponents new customers will have.

Oh, I agree, I suspect they might be losing money in the long run, my point is just that it's a legitimate business strategy (even if it's a bad one), not some unethical system imposed by the threat of expensive lawsuits for violating it.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I started a Tyranid army around the time Macragge was replaced with Black Reach. There were tons of terms and genestealers on ebay and I got myself a proper horde. I painted them up and took 1000 points (around 80 or so models) to a local 40k night.

I'm fast at moving models. But between movement, fleet and possibly assaulting, my opponent got to sit there and wait while I did upwards of 200 model movements during a turn. Half way through I asked if we can just ignore the order of operations and let me move my fleet move right with my movement phase. We had to modify the rules to reduce his wait time.

And that was at 1000 points. What about at 1500? 1850?

I played a couple more times at 1000 points and then ebayed my army. I felt awful wasting my opponents time like that.

When I fleet/run my Tyranids, I always inform my opponent I'm doing it in my movement phase. Moving multiple 20+ model strong units once per phase is enough. Moving them twice is terrible. So I simply tell them I'm rolling for my fleet/run during movement, and move them 6" + what I rolled. I have never, ever, ever had an opponent complain about what I was doing. They actually seemed grateful.

So yeah, that's a pretty poor reason to sell an awesome army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gnawer wrote:
- Any GW rules are written ridiculously badly, considering their experience and resources. IMO, GW does not make ANY effort to write good rules. WM/H rules does show that effort.

Overstatement is over stated. Their specialist games are generally very well written. While they are no longer supported with new miniature releases, the rules and most of the existing models are still sold by GW, so I wouldn't discount them.

Actually, i'd say their specialist games being written very well is a testament to GW sales getting in and gumming up the works with the main games, rather than the designers themselves being bad at designing games (something they admitted the sales team does at the open Q&A day).

Their specialist games are generally very well written.

I actually played several years of Mordheim and some Necromunda. The games are brilliant. There's a huge modelling/converting potential, general atmosphere is very interesting. Also very low-cost. But the rules suck. There's no way to play them without house rules (we had a long list of these). Lists for different factions are not in any way balanced against each other, especially in long campaign. Tactical flexibility is also not great: in Mordheim, basically you can only stand on a building and shoot, or run with your whole mob and quickly get into melee while you haven't been shot, that's it. Because of that, playing one-on-one is boring, we only ever played for 3-4 players, this allowed for some alliances, interest in who will be attacked first and meta-game like this. Again, despite all of that, great games, we had a lot of fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
That's only one. Anyone remember how this was supposed to be a dual manticore/lammasu kit?

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

Ok, I'll agree, that one was a bad lawsuit.

Or how Ronin miniatures who made not primarchs were shut down?

Oh, the poor not-primarch manufacturers. Perhaps if they had real talent they should make their own product and stop making thinly-veiled ripoffs of GW's ideas? GW has every right to stop a competing company from making use of their IP and selling models that GW intend to produce themselves.

How GW uses legal wrangling to prevent online sales by 3rd parties of Warhammer models, going so far as to disallow not only pictures but shopping cart usage.

There's no legal wrangling at all involved there. You can sell online with a shopping cart as much as you'd like, GW just won't ship you new inventory at the discounted price. It's entirely sane and reasonable for GW to want to avoid another company setting up an online store that makes their own store redundant, and they have no obligation to help you do it.

Non-primarchs can have other purposes. GW hasn't made primarchs since rogue trader. That's a pretty big gap there. In many cases their IP is broad and unoriginal (see lammasu) and draws from many other influences. Not stepping on "their toes" in the first place is pretty hard.

Preventing sales of their own product is a new strategy they implemented, that nobody has ever heard, of called, intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, This is something i keep seeing at my FLGS and sometimes here on the site.
Privateer Press vs. Games Workshop.
And this is something I quite frankly don't understand. I see people argue quite a bit that Privateer Press is less expensive. When it is not. Sure books are not, and you don't need their army books. But a Battle Engine will cost you 84$ not including tax, In the same ball park as a Land Raider. While a Gargantuan/ Colossal is 100$ or more.
Now i'm not saying GW is perfect, far from it, They have expensive models as well and cruddy business practices. I have Seen some GW snobs. But i have also seen WM/H Snobs as well, sometimes passive aggressively insulting me for liking 40k.
I am not trying to say one system or company is better then the other, I'm just trying to figure out the rivalry we have here.

I want to stay locked onto this.

People are arguing symantics. On the whole, BOTH games are expensive. I got into the game with 1 starter pack of Cryx. When I picked it up, I instantly knew it was going to become a hit.

At the time, they touted the game as the old page 5 mentality, the cheaper prices.... "FOR METAL!!!" and the old, "We don't just sit back and pew pew each other, we get in and "Play like we got a pair..."

then in the space of a year, you began to see the price creep, the expansions, and the laughable overfhypes of the "New guys". as they continued, the issue became even more when some of the older stuff became unplayable.

As PP evolved, they have grown into what they touted that they were not. NOW we see a corperate PP getting into the same exact "GW mentality".

One basic box started out at around 30 bucks. I picked mine up on release day, and payed a little extra, based on mall price. War Witch, a couple of cryx jacks, and three chickens. around $31.00.

the extra guys came out later, and that is where you saw the insanity begin. they started out around 20 bucks on Jack blisters, and the basic troop extras were around 10-15 bucks for 2-4 guy blisters.

As with most games, they start low with a cheap price to get players, then increase the price over the space of 2-3 years. Increase the price, increase the market value.

NOW?

PP is on par with GW's brand of monkey spank. Look over the way in which they have even evolved their website. It is even as tight as GW. Not to the point of "We co0ntrol everything you need to knowe....." but to the point that they crank out whatever, put a PP tag on it, and instantly, it is supposed to be "Cool". They do not even have to put a figure in it, and you are supposed to blindly follw the pack.

Thier on par unit prices are about the same. You are still paying fifty bucks a unit, sometimes more.

FRP- 49.99, but you can get them at 39.98.

"Contents: This starter box (PIP 34067) contains quick start rules and a complete battlegroup of five plastic models, each model featuring a completely new sculpt for Mark II, and corresponding stat cards for WARMACHINE including:
o Warcaster Warwitch Deneghra
o Slayer Helljack
o 2 Deathripper Bonejacks
o Defiler Bonejack "- FRP


Plastics at a little over the same price as I bought my metals.

Add in a boxed set of Bane Thralls, and 2 more defilers, and even an extra caster?

15.98 for a set of two plastic Defilers.
39.98 for a set of six Bane Thralls
27.18 for 2 sets of Bane thralls- (Gives you a unit of ten.)

All told for this basic unit? $220.14 US AND- the guys are evolving into plastics...

We didn't even add in the extra snacks, such as the scarlock, the pistol wraths, the Mech thralls..... etc.etc.etc.

THEN we didn't even discuss the books.

On par? both games cost some seriuous chedder, it is just a matter of how much and how much you want to get into to play.


These companies are all going to do the same thing, though, and it just boils down to your personal perspective and preference.

FOW? uh... I'll break your heart with that one as well.

The units ruin around 25-40 bucks. Then you can get down into the blister packs, books, dice, etc. scenery.....

On par? Same prices, different games.


Don't pick games on price. Pick a game on durability, your local interest, and outright fun.


And for the record? I like them both. It is just that GW has peed in my face a little too much for me to bear in the recent past that I care to take.

PP is just on the verge of peeing in my shoes, so some of thier chicanery I can still put up with....

 Surtur wrote:
Non-primarchs can have other purposes. GW hasn't made primarchs since rogue trader.

Oh please. Let's be honest here, the not-primarch models are intended to be used as 40k primarchs. The people making them know it, the people buying them know it, and calling your Leman Russ model "Space Commander in Wolf Fursuit" is just your attempt to do barely enough to keep the GW lawyers away. Whether or not it's legal it's still ripping off GW's IP.

And whether or not GW is actively making the models or not they're still characters in GW's IP. They have every right to keep the concept for their own later use, and now guess what, FW is making official primarch models.

Preventing sales of their own product is a new strategy they implemented, that nobody has ever heard, of called, intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

The idea is supposedly to defend the physical retail store and avoid having an online discounter selling everything at 30% off with a site that's as easy to use as GW's own. But, like I said, I'm not saying it's the best idea, just that it has nothing to do with threatening to bankrupt anyone who puts a shopping cart for GW products on their website.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Er... that's exactly what makes it a bad comparison.

If someone says 'I want to buy a truck, but don't want to pay for a Mack, what's a good alternative?' is offering a Mini as an alternative in any way relevant?

A skirmish game is not an alternative to 40K. It's a completely different style of game. Yes, you can say that a skirmish game is cheaper to buy into... but that's really a bit of a 'Derr, really?' observation. Buying a single text book is also generally cheaper than buying an entire set of Encyclopedias.

Your point only makes sense because you've introduced an artificial choice between battle games and skirmish games (or cars and trucks). If the choice is miniature games of any type (or a vehicle of any type) then none of that matters. Do people want to play battle games, or do they generally want to play with toy soldiers? Probably a bit of both, but I would suggest the over-riding interest is social competition and the majority of consumers will not make the distinction between sub-genres within miniature games.

As for £/model versus total cost, well people tend to have lumps of disposable income so whilst £/model might be a factor in evaluating relative value between companies/games, what their total pot for buying miniature games will get them, and how quickly it will get them to the sweet spot for playing that game are more important - at least for older players.

sigh...

do we really need to have this conversation again?

Look, plain and simple, Warmachine is cheaper to get into...it just is, I could run the numbers, but other people in the thread have already done it, so I won't waste your time.

To deny that this is case is pure, unadulterated fanboyism... But here is the thing...who cares! If you prefer 40k, awesome, great! Have fun playing the game you love. Just because a games cheaper doesn't mean that it's inherently better.

We, as a hobby, need to get away from this us vs. them mentality...we are all a bunch of big dorks that like pushing toy soldiers around a bit of felt. Embrace it, there's no reason that that gamers can't get along. If you hold a grudge against a certain company, that grudge doesn't need to carry over to the people who play that company's game...everyone likes what they like...move on, you'll be a happier person for it.

Around here, both are bloody expensive as hell.

They both are not cheap, lets face it. WarmaHordes tend to cost ~ 10-15 pounds for one solo model and then there are boxes of units which cost approximately the same as GW (10 models for 16- 30 pounds). Three Menoth Exemplar Vengers cost around the same as the box of Space Wolves Thunderwolf Cavalry (which contains three models either). I am by no way a GW fanboy and although I continue to buy their stuff I do it wisely. often searching for discounted products or second-hand market, but getting into W/H is not much cheaper than buying a new army.
Now, Flames of War with third party models - that's the cheapest wargame so far - for ~100 pounds You can get Yourself 1500-1750 points army.

 Tronbot2600 wrote:
sigh...

do we really need to have this conversation again?

Look, plain and simple, Warmachine is cheaper to get into...it just is, I could run the numbers, but other people in the thread have already done it, so I won't waste your time.

To deny that this is case is pure, unadulterated fanboyism... But here is the thing...who cares! If you prefer 40k, awesome, great! Have fun playing the game you love. Just because a games cheaper doesn't mean that it's inherently better.

We, as a hobby, need to get away from this us vs. them mentality...we are all a bunch of big dorks that like pushing toy soldiers around a bit of felt. Embrace it, there's no reason that that gamers can't get along. If you hold a grudge against a certain company, that grudge doesn't need to carry over to the people who play that company's game...everyone likes what they like...move on, you'll be a happier person for it.

Exalted and I really can't quote you enough to show how much I agree with you. Just play whatever you like for whatever reason you wan't it really is nobody's business but yours!

I just checked what my 2 Protectorate 50 pts (the big tournament format) tournament armies cost in GBP from Maelstrom. Not taking advantage of any box deals, it come down to 325 GBP. This includes quite a few pricey models such as the Battle Engine, and (if you are handy with magnets) both Menoth chassis heavy warjack kits. The two armies are based on my rather extensive collection and I just re-use 1 jack, 1 unit and 1 solo between the two builds, meaning I buy close to the maximum. This in one of the more model-rich factions for the game.

I'm not sure if it is expensive compared to other systems, but for me, it is more a matter of the quality of the rules than anything else. WM/H brought me back into miniatures gaming after a decade, although I had been looking at different games in that period without finding anything. I would not mind price competition bringing the figure prices down, though. They certainly can be a barrier of entry into the miniatures wargames hobby.

 Peregrine wrote:


Let's be honest here, the Chapterhouse lawsuit is entirely justified ethically even if legally speaking it's a laughable mess. Chapterhouse is doing little more than ripping off GW's ideas and selling them, they're a parasite on GW and we'd be better off if the owner took the decent way out and voluntarily shut down the company.

Except GW has been parasitic on OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas, and hasnt proven in court that they actually OWN the ideas. In fact so far they have demostrated by quitely dropping claims here and there that they dont own what they are suing for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Milisim wrote:
.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right but my main point was that is how warmachine is being presented to new players. As cheaper, when in reality it is not.

I can simply play Kill team in 40k.... I can spend $50 there as well.

So the $$$ argument is moot in most cases.

Except, there are no kill team rules, and they wont work in 6th edition rules.

If you base your decisions in life on which one is cheaper you will be disappointed with what you get almost every time. That being said, 40k is just cooler than the rest. I've never considered getting into any other miniature wargames simply because they have no appeal to me. The setting, history, novels, artwork, miniatures, etc of 40k are so vast and immersive that I see most of the start up miniwargames (PP included) to be cartoony and silly or just downright offensive. Threads like this are what perpetuate the "mine is better" attitude. It almost seems like anyone who "used to play 40k" and now plays other games is determined to tear down the game they used to play rather than simply moving on to what they enjoy and leaving us be.

It's the same way in stores. I wander around and check out what everyone is playing in any store I go into and without exception the "play like you gotta pair" folks are always attempting to exclude or demean 40k players. I also don't see many PP players that picked that as their first mini wargame... it's usually some jaded 40k player with a chip on their shoulder and an intense hatred of GW for whatever reason. I always show interest in other peoples hobbies and about half the time I am surprised to get the Comic Book Guy response of "oh you play THAT game... worst... game... ever..." and I just walk away.

On the subject of IP, I believe that there are no truly original ideas anymore so I don't care who made the thing that looks like my model first... I spend my time enjoying my hobby and models, not analyzing their origins and legal history.

 Peregrine wrote:


1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

1) Games that use the stock 40k models are closer to 40k than games which use totally different models. 28mm =I=munda and Kill team are lumped in with 40k as you can play it without all new models in most circumstances.

2)Nobody plays them in your personal bubble where you are forging your anti-GW narrative. Lots of people do play them, and lots of people do play smaller point 40k games. My local GW is almost exclusively 500 points or less primarily because the owner is promoting building of armies, learning 6th edition and 4x4 tables. It is very fun to pop in, play a quick game or two without lugging a whole army and go home. Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality. There is a FLGS near me who plays massive Warmachine games all the time. No one is ever playing 15 point PP games ever so this idea that somehow you can make a tiny investment and play with the big boys and be complete with PP is simply not reality for a lot of people.

The companies are the exact same, the prices are the exact same, the games are the exact same, and you guys are pawns waging an imaginary war for gamers to join your force to hopefully exterminate the other camp from your FLGS so you can have more people to play against. And you guys do it through misinformation and backhanded snotty insults. The truth is no one is going to quit one game and go to the other over actions like that. All the semantic acrobatics is not going to convince me that one 10$ model is cheaper than another 10$ model which is the only thing that matters.

Maybe you should talk to your group about playing smaller 40k, lots of people do it? Or does them playing1850 40k help you with your race war to exterminate new players who may like 40k over Warmachine?

Propaganda is just that. Your problems seem local to your FLGS and are not at all valid for all players situations.

Mohoc wrote:

6) I have a lot more friends in the 40K community and the community is a lot more accepting at teaching new players, while the PP guys tend to isolate themselves, pretending to look down on the 40K players

Ok, I actually play at the same store that Mohoc does, and I kind of have to agree. With a few notable exceptions, the PP players around here do come off as kind of elitist and have a superior attitude towards non-PP players. Some of the PP players also get into some of the other skirmish games like Malifaux and Dark Age, but I'd say at least half of them are into PP almost exclusively. We used to have a much larger active PP game group at the FLGS, but they've almost totally dried up over the last few years. That's odd because the store owner has a quite large Menoth army.

There is one specific guy in the PP group that is very inclusive and always inviting people to play, but I'm pretty sure he's a Press Ganger, so that's to be expected. The other guys tend to not be very outgoing towards people not part of their PP play group.

Now, this is just an anecdotal situation at one particular store in North Metro Atlanta, not an indictment on PP players worldwide. I think it has a lot to do with the individuals we have. The game store has a gaming club, and none of the avid PP players actively participate in the club or run for officer positions. I believe there is one guy in an officer position that plays WM/H, but he also plays just about everything else, too, having 40K, WHFB, Dark Age, Malifaux, MtG, and board games, too. I think our local store perception of PP games would improve if there were more of an active casual and engaging group of PP players here to help grow interest in the game.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic, but I wanted to back up Mohoc so that people didn't think his opinion was out of line; his experience mirror my own.

For me it is versatility of the game, not price.

I like 40k fluff, but it eventually lost me as a player.

I like WM/H for the mechanics and how versatile it is on a per warcaster/warlock basis.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
in at least one case they have tried to outright destroy a company with an extremely questionable lawsuit. They have, put simply, attempted to destroy other peoples' livelihoods

Let's be honest here, the Chapterhouse lawsuit is entirely justified ethically even if legally speaking it's a laughable mess. Chapterhouse is doing little more than ripping off GW's ideas and selling them, they're a parasite on GW and we'd be better off if the owner took the decent way out and voluntarily shut down the company.

No offense, Peregrine, but your post clearly indicates that you haven't been keeping up with the suit at all. Just for an example, the court proceedings thus far seem to indicate that GW doesn't even own the "ideas" you claim Chapterhouse is "ripping off." I suggest reading the linked thread in it's entirety, including the interpretations given by the small group of actual attorneys who have been following the thread.

nkelsch wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

1) Games that use the stock 40k models are closer to 40k than games which use totally different models. 28mm =I=munda and Kill team are lumped in with 40k as you can play it without all new models in most circumstances.

2)Nobody plays them in your personal bubble where you are forging your anti-GW narrative. Lots of people do play them, and lots of people do play smaller point 40k games. My local GW is almost exclusively 500 points or less primarily because the owner is promoting building of armies, learning 6th edition and 4x4 tables. It is very fun to pop in, play a quick game or two without lugging a whole army and go home. Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality. There is a FLGS near me who plays massive Warmachine games all the time. No one is ever playing 15 point PP games ever so this idea that somehow you can make a tiny investment and play with the big boys and be complete with PP is simply not reality for a lot of people.

The companies are the exact same, the prices are the exact same, the games are the exact same, and you guys are pawns waging an imaginary war for gamers to join your force to hopefully exterminate the other camp from your FLGS so you can have more people to play against. And you guys do it through misinformation and backhanded snotty insults. The truth is no one is going to quit one game and go to the other over actions like that. All the semantic acrobatics is not going to convince me that one 10$ model is cheaper than another 10$ model which is the only thing that matters.

Maybe you should talk to your group about playing smaller 40k, lots of people do it? Or does them playing1850 40k help you with your race war to exterminate new players who may like 40k over Warmachine?

Propaganda is just that. Your problems seem local to your FLGS and are not at all valid for all players situations.

There can be only one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRWH_seUNRo

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh, the poor not-primarch manufacturers. Perhaps if they had real talent they should make their own product and stop making thinly-veiled ripoffs of GW's ideas? GW has every right to stop a competing company from making use of their IP and selling models that GW intend to produce themselves.

You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of how IP law works.

GW has no IP protection of a model they "intend to produce." The protection doesn't exist until there is an actual product.

I have to wonder if you have a problem with GW ripping off Moorcock's IP for the entire concept of Order vs Chaos? Or his IP for the eight pointed star being a symbol of Chaos? Or Heinlein for the idea of power armor, or Smith or Olsen's concept of "space marines" from the 1930's. How about the blatant use of Elves, Dwarves, Orks, Halflings, etc. from Tolkien? Dragons from ancient Germanic literature? Tyranids, specifically Gene Stealers, which are thinly veiled imitations of Alien 1-3? Necrons, which were originally almost duplicates in appearance to Terminator?

I could go on, as could just about anyone else who has played GW games since the late 1980's. My only point is that IP protections don't really work the way you seem to think they do.

Saldiven wrote:

Mohoc wrote:

6) I have a lot more friends in the 40K community and the community is a lot more accepting at teaching new players, while the PP guys tend to isolate themselves, pretending to look down on the 40K players

Ok, I actually play at the same store that Mohoc does, and I kind of have to agree. With a few notable exceptions, the PP players around here do come off as kind of elitist and have a superior attitude towards non-PP players. Some of the PP players also get into some of the other skirmish games like Malifaux and Dark Age, but I'd say at least half of them are into PP almost exclusively. We used to have a much larger active PP game group at the FLGS, but they've almost totally dried up over the last few years. That's odd because the store owner has a quite large Menoth army.

There is one specific guy in the PP group that is very inclusive and always inviting people to play, but I'm pretty sure he's a Press Ganger, so that's to be expected. The other guys tend to not be very outgoing towards people not part of their PP play group.

Now, this is just an anecdotal situation at one particular store in North Metro Atlanta, not an indictment on PP players worldwide. I think it has a lot to do with the individuals we have. The game store has a gaming club, and none of the avid PP players actively participate in the club or run for officer positions. I believe there is one guy in an officer position that plays WM/H, but he also plays just about everything else, too, having 40K, WHFB, Dark Age, Malifaux, MtG, and board games, too. I think our local store perception of PP games would improve if there were more of an active casual and engaging group of PP players here to help grow interest in the game.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic, but I wanted to back up Mohoc so that people didn't think his opinion was out of line; his experience mirror my own.

I have been to shops where the opposite is true as well. There's been a couple of shops where it was the GW players who isolate and alienate themselves from those who play "other" games. Again, this is just me, and one or two isolated stores, YMMV (obviously).


I guess that I am lucky to have such an "open minded" gaming group. When we recently all decided we'd had enough of price increases from GW we all independently searched out different games. And thus far, everyone has been at least keen to try each others found "preferred" game

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Mohoc wrote:

6) I have a lot more friends in the 40K community and the community is a lot more accepting at teaching new players, while the PP guys tend to isolate themselves, pretending to look down on the 40K players

Ok, I actually play at the same store that Mohoc does, and I kind of have to agree. With a few notable exceptions, the PP players around here do come off as kind of elitist and have a superior attitude towards non-PP players. Some of the PP players also get into some of the other skirmish games like Malifaux and Dark Age, but I'd say at least half of them are into PP almost exclusively. We used to have a much larger active PP game group at the FLGS, but they've almost totally dried up over the last few years. That's odd because the store owner has a quite large Menoth army.

There is one specific guy in the PP group that is very inclusive and always inviting people to play, but I'm pretty sure he's a Press Ganger, so that's to be expected. The other guys tend to not be very outgoing towards people not part of their PP play group.

Now, this is just an anecdotal situation at one particular store in North Metro Atlanta, not an indictment on PP players worldwide. I think it has a lot to do with the individuals we have. The game store has a gaming club, and none of the avid PP players actively participate in the club or run for officer positions. I believe there is one guy in an officer position that plays WM/H, but he also plays just about everything else, too, having 40K, WHFB, Dark Age, Malifaux, MtG, and board games, too. I think our local store perception of PP games would improve if there were more of an active casual and engaging group of PP players here to help grow interest in the game.

Anyway, that's a bit off topic, but I wanted to back up Mohoc so that people didn't think his opinion was out of line; his experience mirror my own.

I have been to shops where the opposite is true as well. There's been a couple of shops where it was the GW players who isolate and alienate themselves from those who play "other" games. Again, this is just me, and one or two isolated stores, YMMV (obviously).


I guess that I am lucky to have such an "open minded" gaming group. When we recently all decided we'd had enough of price increases from GW we all independently searched out different games. And thus far, everyone has been at least keen to try each others found "preferred" game

Absolutely, EF.

It really comes down to the people in your local area. Here, the most open and receptive and friendly people tend to play 40K/WHFB. For whatever reason, the majority of the WM/H people just come off as less friendly and open. We actually have a burgeoning Dark Age group because a lot of the players are really friendly and inviting to new players...it doesn't hurt that it's a pretty cool game with interesting fluff, too. If you haven't tried it yet, give it a shot.

Oh dear god, hotsauceman1, what have you done?

Looks like its "sharpen your 28mm pewter spear point and stand 10 paces apart and try and stab each other with your spears time" again.

Still it is an amusing thread.

I like PP, the rules are great, the updates are great, and i'm really starting to like the fluff.

For me it's cheaper, I'm in aus, i'd hate to think what a 2000 point army of orks would cost, I may as well buy a car instead. :/

 Tronbot2600 wrote:
sigh...

do we really need to have this conversation again?

Look, plain and simple, Warmachine is cheaper to get into...it just is, I could run the numbers, but other people in the thread have already done it, so I won't waste your time.

To deny that this is case is pure, unadulterated fanboyism... But here is the thing...who cares! If you prefer 40k, awesome, great! Have fun playing the game you love. Just because a games cheaper doesn't mean that it's inherently better.

We, as a hobby, need to get away from this us vs. them mentality...we are all a bunch of big dorks that like pushing toy soldiers around a bit of felt. Embrace it, there's no reason that that gamers can't get along. If you hold a grudge against a certain company, that grudge doesn't need to carry over to the people who play that company's game...everyone likes what they like...move on, you'll be a happier person for it.

*slow clap*.

I agree. I feel that these arguements lose their luster real quick.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
From what I've seen, a Privateer Press tournament level army is cheaper to purchase than a GW tournament level. The point systems are different, but the PP ones are still cheaper on a tournament level comparison. Individual model wise, Privateer (and a few other companies) are more expensive than GW. However GW keeps raising army sizes while lowering unit costs, so players have to buy more to maintain. So it depends on what level you're comparing. Individual or tournament army? Individual, GW is cheaper (scary to believe). Army-wise, PP wins.

The thread really should have ended here. The bolded part is key.

Though I find PP doesn't have the mean spiritedness you get from GW as well.

 BladeWalker wrote:
If you base your decisions in life on which one is cheaper you will be disappointed with what you get almost every time. That being said, 40k is just cooler than the rest. I've never considered getting into any other miniature wargames simply because they have no appeal to me. The setting, history, novels, artwork, miniatures, etc of 40k are so vast and immersive that I see most of the start up miniwargames (PP included) to be cartoony and silly or just downright offensive.

Opinions

Threads like this are what perpetuate the "mine is better" attitude. It almost seems like anyone who "used to play 40k" and now plays other games is determined to tear down the game they used to play rather than simply moving on to what they enjoy and leaving us be.

You just perpetuated the mine is better what with the 40k is cooler and other wargames are cartoony, silly or offensive remark.

It's the same way in stores. I wander around and check out what everyone is playing in any store I go into and without exception the "play like you gotta pair" folks are always attempting to exclude or demean 40k players. I also don't see many PP players that picked that as their first mini wargame... it's usually some jaded 40k player with a chip on their shoulder and an intense hatred of GW for whatever reason. I always show interest in other peoples hobbies and about half the time I am surprised to get the Comic Book Guy response of "oh you play THAT game... worst... game... ever..." and I just walk away.

I see many a GW player with the exact same attitude towards other games. These people are not exclusive to one wargame.

 Surtur wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
If you base your decisions in life on which one is cheaper you will be disappointed with what you get almost every time. That being said, 40k is just cooler than the rest. I've never considered getting into any other miniature wargames simply because they have no appeal to me. The setting, history, novels, artwork, miniatures, etc of 40k are so vast and immersive that I see most of the start up miniwargames (PP included) to be cartoony and silly or just downright offensive.

Opinions

Threads like this are what perpetuate the "mine is better" attitude. It almost seems like anyone who "used to play 40k" and now plays other games is determined to tear down the game they used to play rather than simply moving on to what they enjoy and leaving us be.

You just perpetuated the mine is better what with the 40k is cooler and other wargames are cartoony, silly or offensive remark.

Heh, I always find the defense of GW games on the background perplexing, as I find the universe incredibly derivative, juvenile and cliched. Both in aesthetic and tone, it has always struck me as being a creature of the mid-80's "it's dark therefore it's deep", analogous to the Dark Age of Comics.

Now, that's not to say dark need be bad (indeed, the Dark Age started on the strength of fantastic works like Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One and The Killing Joke), but there is a very particular tone some of these things works have that dates them, and GW has it in spades. Albeit, they either don't recognize that they do, don't care, or think that it's a plus.

In any case, arguing that one game system is cooler then another has all the rhetorical heft of claiming that Mars is superior to Venus because it's red.

I find the whole "my game is better/cheaper than your game" nonesense very tiresome.

Play what you like. But I really don't see the need to speak crap about a game because you've chosen to play another.

There is no 'Better' game, just the one you like.

 Ugavine wrote:
I find the whole "my game is better/cheaper than your game" nonesense very tiresome.

Play what you like. But I really don't see the need to speak crap about a game because you've chosen to play another.

There is no 'Better' game, just the one you like.

I think that you can base an argument in fact, with "cheaper" however, I do agree... No game is better than another based on these sorts of arguments. Personally, my main games right now are Hell Dorado, and moreso, Malifaux. Every game on the face of the earth has positives and negatives associated with them.

Also, I think we should consider that what may be expensive for one person, is a "throw away" item to another.

 Surtur wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
If you base your decisions in life on which one is cheaper you will be disappointed with what you get almost every time. That being said, 40k is just cooler than the rest. I've never considered getting into any other miniature wargames simply because they have no appeal to me. The setting, history, novels, artwork, miniatures, etc of 40k are so vast and immersive that I see most of the start up miniwargames (PP included) to be cartoony and silly or just downright offensive.

Opinions

Threads like this are what perpetuate the "mine is better" attitude. It almost seems like anyone who "used to play 40k" and now plays other games is determined to tear down the game they used to play rather than simply moving on to what they enjoy and leaving us be.

You just perpetuated the mine is better what with the 40k is cooler and other wargames are cartoony, silly or offensive remark.

It's the same way in stores. I wander around and check out what everyone is playing in any store I go into and without exception the "play like you gotta pair" folks are always attempting to exclude or demean 40k players. I also don't see many PP players that picked that as their first mini wargame... it's usually some jaded 40k player with a chip on their shoulder and an intense hatred of GW for whatever reason. I always show interest in other peoples hobbies and about half the time I am surprised to get the Comic Book Guy response of "oh you play THAT game... worst... game... ever..." and I just walk away.

I see many a GW player with the exact same attitude towards other games. These people are not exclusive to one wargame.

*slow clap* The thread is PP vs. GW what did you expect?

Statements of opinion as opinions, not fact. Of personal experiences as reference. Introduction of facts such as price and business dealings. Discussing opinions of facts, like back ground problems such as Warcaster plot armor or the overzealous hype of certain space marine factions. All of these are points one can bring to the debate constructively without necessarily dismissing or degrading the other side.

2)Nobody plays them in your personal bubble where you are forging your anti-GW narrative. Lots of people do play them, and lots of people do play smaller point 40k games. My local GW is almost exclusively 500 points or less primarily because the owner is promoting building of armies, learning 6th edition and 4x4 tables. It is very fun to pop in, play a quick game or two without lugging a whole army and go home. Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality. There is a FLGS near me who plays massive Warmachine games all the time. No one is ever playing 15 point PP games ever so this idea that somehow you can make a tiny investment and play with the big boys and be complete with PP is simply not reality for a lot of people.

And with respect, just because people play small games where *YOU* play doesnt make it the reality either. (dont worry mate, im not having a go! ) In any place i've played, for example, between ireland and the UK, its been 1500-200pts 40k, and 35-50pts warmahordes. thats the standard. and as the guy, who in the past has played games no one else had (starship troopers anyone?), i think its important to buy into something with a viable playerbase. i see a fair few bloodbowl games, and bloodbowl leagues, but other GW spec games are few and far between- its a shame, really. there is a niche for it. although judging by the forum comments(not definitive), and my own large city gaming network, i dont see smaller point 40k games as being something a lot of people are interested in. i find PP players are more willing to scale down than 40k players, as PP games tend to be smaller scale affairs, whilst 40k stays as an army level one. never played warmachine:unbound though! i'd lke to though. 150 points of doom reavers!

 BladeWalker wrote:
If you base your decisions in life on which one is cheaper you will be disappointed with what you get almost every time. That being said, 40k is just cooler than the rest. I've never considered getting into any other miniature wargames simply because they have no appeal to me. The setting, history, novels, artwork, miniatures, etc of 40k are so vast and immersive that I see most of the start up miniwargames (PP included) to be cartoony and silly or just downright offensive. Threads like this are what perpetuate the "mine is better" attitude. It almost seems like anyone who "used to play 40k" and now plays other games is determined to tear down the game they used to play rather than simply moving on to what they enjoy and leaving us be.
.

opinion. and you're fully entitled to it. Personally, i disagree. Im quite the opposite.

For me, when i got into wargaming, GW was all that. and yet, as i played more and more of the game, i got more and more frustrated. I ended up burning out and had to walk away from the hobby. What made me fall in love with the hobby again wasnt GW, it was PP and the release of WM mk2. I've been getting more and more disillusioned with GW over the years. codex grey knights was terrifyingly bad, and codex necrons was even worse (i was hoping for epic tragedy, i got bad, goofy comedy). And PP have been impressing me more and more. I admire how, rather than "trad fantasy in SPAAAAACE", they're able to take traditional fantasy tropes, and turn them on their heads in very cool, and unique ways. bear in mind, they've been around over 10 years now. Anymore who says their settings isnt vast an immersive simply hasnt been looking in the right places. do yourselves a favour, and have a gander at their RPG books. their worldguide is over 400 pages long. their RPG material is fantastic, and now with the release of the new IK RPG book, its a golden time to go and have a look. And dont do this because GW is worse, or PP is better, or because of any of that garbage. Do it because a bunch of guys have put their hearts and souls into bringing an imaginary world to life. we're all geeks. we're all nerds. Lets all enjoy it.

And im not interested in tearing down GW, 40k or whathave you. you're making sweeping statements. and its not entirely fair. people move on for a variety of reasons. I hit my 20s. i got older. 40k simply wasnt offering me the game that i wanted. its not "bad". its just meant for different people now. But that doesnt mean they can, or should stop having an interest in what brought them into the hobby. as an aside, im irish, living in scotland. using this analogy, i shouldnt keep up with whats happening at home. But i do. Its nice to keep a look in, and see whats going on. Its a part of you, for better or for worse.

 BladeWalker wrote:

It's the same way in stores. I wander around and check out what everyone is playing in any store I go into and without exception the "play like you gotta pair" folks are always attempting to exclude or demean 40k players. I also don't see many PP players that picked that as their first mini wargame... it's usually some jaded 40k player with a chip on their shoulder and an intense hatred of GW for whatever reason. I always show interest in other peoples hobbies and about half the time I am surprised to get the Comic Book Guy response of "oh you play THAT game... worst... game... ever..." and I just walk away.

sweeping statements, again. the newly converted fanboys can be a pain. but to be fair, it goes both ways. you hear enough stories about blind and rabid GW fanboys who refuse to look at, or accept any other games as well. and can be quite hostile to other players. and i think 40k players can be quite demeaning amongst themselves too - "Oh, you play grey knights? lol loser powergamer".

to the OP, on the topic of price, Privateer Press games have a significantly lower cost of entry for their main game, when compares to GW. However, in the long run, it can cost you a lot more. buy the books, buy all the warcasters, start a second faction etc...

I'll be sure to preface everything I say with "This is my opinion" from now on. It's a discussion forum people... opinions are everywhere!

I was commenting on my personal experience with PP vs. GW both as a system and as a player base. YMMV but in 3 different cities in 3 different parts of the country the player base of GW has been welcoming and fun while the PP people have grudgingly answered the tiniest questions while never missing a chance to snicker as they pass a 40k table. Drawing lines in the sand over which game system you prefer is exactly what the OP was talking about and I was representing one side of that line as a GW player. But, again... it's just my opinion.

When my boys get older I can easily see myself getting into Warmahordes with a "captive audience" for home games... but as it stands (based on personal experience) I would not get into PP games for the reasons I stated earlier.

nkelsch wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

1) Games that use the stock 40k models are closer to 40k than games which use totally different models. 28mm =I=munda and Kill team are lumped in with 40k as you can play it without all new models in most circumstances.

2)Nobody plays them in your personal bubble where you are forging your anti-GW narrative. Lots of people do play them, and lots of people do play smaller point 40k games. My local GW is almost exclusively 500 points or less primarily because the owner is promoting building of armies, learning 6th edition and 4x4 tables. It is very fun to pop in, play a quick game or two without lugging a whole army and go home. Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality. There is a FLGS near me who plays massive Warmachine games all the time. No one is ever playing 15 point PP games ever so this idea that somehow you can make a tiny investment and play with the big boys and be complete with PP is simply not reality for a lot of people.

The companies are the exact same, the prices are the exact same, the games are the exact same, and you guys are pawns waging an imaginary war for gamers to join your force to hopefully exterminate the other camp from your FLGS so you can have more people to play against. And you guys do it through misinformation and backhanded snotty insults. The truth is no one is going to quit one game and go to the other over actions like that. All the semantic acrobatics is not going to convince me that one 10$ model is cheaper than another 10$ model which is the only thing that matters.

Maybe you should talk to your group about playing smaller 40k, lots of people do it? Or does them playing1850 40k help you with your race war to exterminate new players who may like 40k over Warmachine?

Propaganda is just that. Your problems seem local to your FLGS and are not at all valid for all players situations.

nkelsch You are my hero! Everything you said i agreed with 100%

I play kill team, I play death squads , i play 40k in 40 mins. I agree that people are shooting themselves in the foot insisting that its only 1000-2000 point games that matter. NEWS FLASH: you dont have to play 40k that way. My LGS at my parents house has gone nearly pure WM/H because of the view that 40k was "wrong" and PP was better due to the price.

Personally I HATE WITH A PASSION PP models because they just dont appeal to me (I am in no way a games workshop Fanboi either). Steam powered and steam punk arent my thing. Im a sci fi / space fantasy kinda person. Games like Malifux actually interest me and i might pick a box up for christmas. Infinity also has no interest for me. Tried it and didnt like it. Yet when i talked to a PP person he insisted that i was a white knight for GW and i sucked because i couldnt see the amazing logic that the PP corperation had come up with to save our poor souls who were trapped playing GW games. One of my buddies built up a beautiful airforce IG army and now is burnt out on wargaming because people told him how he sucked because he played 40k and not WM/H like everyone else. Not having the money to buy another whole game, left him feeling bitter.

My LGS here at Uni is a mix of PP and GW. Both are played but the store owner pays more attention to the WM/H players than the 40k players. Annoying yes, because he uses it as a day care for his kids to come up and bug us about how we are playing the wrong game and they want to use the table for thier models because "they are bored"

Peregrine stirkes me as such. PP like GW is a company. They dont care about you, Only your money and how they can come up with the next best thing to seperate you from it. If you are gonna spend it, spend it well on something you like.

5 models for 50$ compared to 10 models for 29.99$ I know where my money is going.....even if i pay more in the long run at least im having fun playing the game i want to..

 BladeWalker wrote:
I'll be sure to preface everything I say with "This is my opinion" from now on. It's a discussion forum people... opinions are everywhere!

I was commenting on my personal experience with PP vs. GW both as a system and as a player base. YMMV but in 3 different cities in 3 different parts of the country the player base of GW has been welcoming and fun while the PP people have grudgingly answered the tiniest questions while never missing a chance to snicker as they pass a 40k table. Drawing lines in the sand over which game system you prefer is exactly what the OP was talking about and I was representing one side of that line as a GW player. But, again... it's just my opinion.

When my boys get older I can easily see myself getting into Warmahordes with a "captive audience" for home games... but as it stands (based on personal experience) I would not get into PP games for the reasons I stated earlier.

dont forget bladewalker, this is the internet, and your opinion is always wrong! apparently, haha! I suppose im just offering the same opinion from the other side of the coin, so we're not that far apart!

What i find is that every gaming group that i've went to up here in the UK is different. my main hub is evenly divided between warmahordes, and flames of war. another place is evenly divided amongst 40k/fantasy, warmahordes and bloodbowl. theres a few guys that play dystopian wars too. pretty good atmosphere amongst them all. We all like to see our hobby grow.I've got no problem saying which games i prefer (clearly, warmahordes, and infinity, and dropzone commander is tempting me sorely) but saying "i like/prefer X" is not the same as saying "I hate Y". SImilarly, (and im not going into it here), explaining why i dislike the GW games (or another company) and moved on is not the same as me bashing them, the community, or the company. Im as happy to lay down my criticisms of Corvus Beli and Privateer press as well. I get the impression some people assume ojective comments and reasons are the same as flames. i guess some folks just take this whole hobby too damned seriously. i'll leave those that play GW games to it. quite happily. im quite happy buying GW bitz for conversion purposes, and PP options are quite limited.

For what its worth though, your experiences with the PP community sadden me. We're not all like that. Over here, its all fun and banter. if anything, id argue the rapid growth of the community since Mk2 hit is proof enough that, on the whole, the community is quite welcoming. Its just a shame your experiences differ.

Deadnight wrote:


What i find is that every gaming group that i've went to up here in the UK is different. my main hub is evenly divided between warmahordes, and flames of war. another place is evenly divided amongst 40k/fantasy, warmahordes and bloodbowl. theres a few guys that play dystopian wars too. pretty good atmosphere amongst them all. We all like to see our hobby grow.I've got no problem saying which games i prefer (clearly, warmahordes, and infinity, and dropzone commander is tempting me sorely) but saying "i like/prefer X" is not the same as saying "I hate Y". SImilarly, (and im not going into it here), explaining why i dislike the GW games (or another company) and moved on is not the same as me bashing them, the community, or the company. Im as happy to lay down my criticisms of Corvus Beli and Privateer press as well. I get the impression some people assume ojective comments and reasons are the same as flames. i guess some folks just take this whole hobby too damned seriously. i'll leave those that play GW games to it. quite happily. im quite happy buying GW bitz for conversion purposes, and PP options are quite limited.

For what its worth though, your experiences with the PP community sadden me. We're not all like that. Over here, its all fun and banter. if anything, id argue the rapid growth of the community since Mk2 hit is proof enough that, on the whole, the community is quite welcoming. Its just a shame your experiences differ.

One thing people may not realize is that the my game vs your game is much more of a problem in the states than other parts of the world.

vhwolf wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


What i find is that every gaming group that i've went to up here in the UK is different. my main hub is evenly divided between warmahordes, and flames of war. another place is evenly divided amongst 40k/fantasy, warmahordes and bloodbowl. theres a few guys that play dystopian wars too. pretty good atmosphere amongst them all. We all like to see our hobby grow.I've got no problem saying which games i prefer (clearly, warmahordes, and infinity, and dropzone commander is tempting me sorely) but saying "i like/prefer X" is not the same as saying "I hate Y". SImilarly, (and im not going into it here), explaining why i dislike the GW games (or another company) and moved on is not the same as me bashing them, the community, or the company. Im as happy to lay down my criticisms of Corvus Beli and Privateer press as well. I get the impression some people assume ojective comments and reasons are the same as flames. i guess some folks just take this whole hobby too damned seriously. i'll leave those that play GW games to it. quite happily. im quite happy buying GW bitz for conversion purposes, and PP options are quite limited.

For what its worth though, your experiences with the PP community sadden me. We're not all like that. Over here, its all fun and banter. if anything, id argue the rapid growth of the community since Mk2 hit is proof enough that, on the whole, the community is quite welcoming. Its just a shame your experiences differ.

One thing people may not realize is that the my game vs your game is much more of a problem in the states than other parts of the world.

Indeed, arrogance is part of our cultural charm, or as those more positive about it might call it, our 'competitive nature'.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor;

Not even the same rules as 40k, and not common. I'm glad you've found a use for the models, but this isn't very helpful for a new 40k player.

Wait, and Warmachine IS the same rules as 40K? I thought you were arguing that players would be picking up Warmachine because GW is ludicrously expensive by comparison and, to a new player, that extra cost would matter more than the system?

a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs;

Except not, since you don't have all the various upgrades. In fact Necromunda is especially bad for this because you get random weapons and need to have available models sitting around gathering dust in case you need that option. It's a game for experienced players who like converting, not a newbie game.

See, that's odd, because the gangs that GW sell, and have sold since the inception of the game, don't have "all the various upgrades", yet people still played and play it with those minis. Weapon changes can easily be tracked on paper rather than on the models, indeed that's how the group I played the game with when I was a kid who could barely paint did things.

an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

Not 40k. Don't care.

More epic goalpost shifting. What happened to new players just buying the cheaper option regardless of system?

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

Except:

1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

Gnawer wrote:
Tactical flexibility is also not great.

That's what I would say about 40k. Tactical flexibility should be their priority and with 100+ pages of rules, possibilities should be plenty and a game should be a tacitian wet dream. It's not, it's mediocore ruleset especialy looking at prices.

40k is also going downhill imo, as highlighted by cheesy necrons and It seems to be leaving grimdark for fantasy/ herohammer and caters to kids more than ever, GW seems unaware of the fact that it's gritty, grimdark that is the greatest feat of their game. Rules of 6th are not exactly promising either, if the trends continue, I'm out just am waiting to see if maybe they change direction. For the moment I'm only buying used stuff, some of their paints, bought a starter lately but that's it, it will take a few good codices or faqs to make me buy from them again.

Btw there was dark age of comic books mentioned, yes exactly dark is better and the new tone of those stories was catering to adults where the previous ones were purely for kids. Blood, slaughter, hopelessness, facism, coruption, fanatism, untold billions dying, terror, all great and makes 40k stand above the rest for me. Mixing that with awesome things stolen from everywhere around, through blatant IP theft and OTT grimdark treatment GW created something great, imo. That instead of going further in that direction they ruin it is another topic, for me it's still acceptable but their fear of bleeding some money for the sake of awesome is going to bury the game sooner or later.

That said, as much as I hate GW, for me it's 40k or nothing. It's exactly what I want, fluff, scale or game type wise. If Gw pisses me off too much, I'll be done with wargaming and just stick to PC games. Or maybe I'll just write my own rules for home play, or settle with a set of rules codieces and organise a game from time to time.

As for Warmachine, the models, fluff and the mood instantly put me off. I'm not competing for player base or some other crap, this is purely my impression. The artwork has those American style curves, that nice roundness and happy colors that I can't stand, also it looks like a bad parody of 40k imo. Some of my friends like that "modern American comic book" look but I hate it, I can't look at Starcraft artwork for example without seeing that cheap "coolness" or sth, I don't even know how to call it. The final straw is the lack of grimdark. My opinion and my taste obviously, I have nothing against the players or the game, if 40k runs out of players that will be GW fault not people playing other games or switching because they can't put up with the crap anymore.

TLDR: Grimdark FTW

 -Loki- wrote:
When I fleet/run my Tyranids, I always inform my opponent I'm doing it in my movement phase. Moving multiple 20+ model strong units once per phase is enough. Moving them twice is terrible. So I simply tell them I'm rolling for my fleet/run during movement, and move them 6" + what I rolled. I have never, ever, ever had an opponent complain about what I was doing. They actually seemed grateful.

So yeah, that's a pretty poor reason to sell an awesome army.

Moving that many models once while my opponent waits is a great reason to sell the army. And I've had way more fun with a lower model count game since.

The fact that your opponents are grateful when you do anything at all that reduces their wait time might be an indicator that they're being polite about just how boring and annoying it is to wait for a giant horde army to be moved in 40k, fleet or not.

I've sampled both and I don't think I'll play a GW or PP game again for a variety of reasons.

I enjoy the FFG line of 40k based RPGs, and similarly I enjoyed the Witchfire Trilogy although the new Iron Kingdoms RPG leaves a lot to be desired. I enjoy the grand, grimdark sweeping history that comes with GW, and I also enjoy the more heroic, character foccused exploits of PP fluff.

I still paint models from both companies from time to time, and like every range they both have their hits and their misses.

I wouldn't say that Warmachine/Hordes is a skirmish game anymore, as you usually have a few units and some stompies/gribblies. It's a smaller, more intimate scale at a lot of point levels, but at 50 points plus and the advent of Colossals/Titans it's clear that PP are looking at the bigger picture (pun intended/not intended based on how chucle worthy it was). GW has some reasonably priced multi-part plastic model kits, they just expect you to buy a lot of them to get the most out of their game. I don't think one is better than the other at the price point scale. I feel that GW expect a bigger initial outlay for an army that potentially has more playstyles and then want you to expand with smaller add ons, whereas PP expect you to build a tightly focused force and then expand with more tactical options that drastically alter the playstyle whilst still retaining the same art style or theme of a faction. Feels like six and half a dozen.

Both PP and GW offer a variety of advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day they want your money. This hobby, like any other, is expensive but you'll get more enjoyment buying something you like than constantly trying to find a game system that offers you the cheapest deal.

But collosals/gargantuans reduce your model count, not increase it. they're also amazing at killing infantry which is going to slowly shift many local metas away from infantry and towards jacks.

And even in the giant sized games of 75 or a 100, we're still talking less models and total cost than an average 40k army. 50 points is a big game, but it's still around 20-40 models. Much, much less if you go with a colossal.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Pardon me but 1) That's a third time you've tried to pull this, and it's still not going unnoticed. If the new player is desperate to play 40k and only 40k, they will play 40k regardless of the cost, and if they're choosing to base their decision on cost of entry rather than system, then I fail to see how saying "Hey go play Warmachine it's cheap" is any different from offering them BFG, Necromunda, Inquisitor, or GorkaMorka, excepting of course that those games are all set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play, as opposed to an entirely different one, and that several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play, meaning they could expand their force later if they found themselves with some spare cash rather than having to start from scratch and having a bunch of models from another company they can't or don't want to use.

And 2) Nobody at your FLGS plays them. Four guys at my local GW store have multiple Necromunda gangs, three of my old Uni friends regularly run Inquisitor28 campaigns, and I can get a game of anything from BFG to Dystopian Wars at my town's main gaming club just by sticking a note up on the board, except for Warmachine which is actually rather rare around here. Personal experience is not universal, but then I don't have the sheer hubris to try and assert that my own local scene is somehow an objective standard.

You said there were no 40K skirmish games, which is patently false, when this is pointed out to you, suddenly your argument changes from "newbies will pick whichever system is cheapest" to "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener". Either defend your stated position or concede the point, don't try tacking on endless additional conditions, some of which directly contradict your initial argument.

I'm honestly not sure if this is an argument for the sake of argument, or you actually believe these things. The notion of claiming "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener" would stretch the definition of "published" to the breaking point.

Gorkamorka?

Inquisitor, the "large scale narrative skirmish game using beautifully crafted 54mm models, and set in the dark world of the Imperium's most covert and mysterious agents"?

Necromunda and... BFG?

So when you say "several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play", you mean... I dunno, Necromunda? If GM does, heck if I know, but if GW can't be bothered to even list it on their own website, I hesitate to imagine it's a good jumping off point. Why in the world would you recommend Inquisitor or BFG, two game systems that use radically different miniatures then 40k, as a means of getting into 40k?

Heck, if the only criteria is "set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play", why not recommend Fantasy Flights' line of RPGs?

It's simply foolish. If we were to apply this logic, we wouldn't be comparing WM/Hordes against whatever moribund GW product is still feverishly played in kreplachistan, but the Iron Kingdoms RPG versus the FFG RPGs, or BFG versus Grind. Which is just silly.

If people are getting into 40k, they start playing 40k, they don't learn a new set of rules based solely on fact that a reasonable person will be shell-shocked by the price of actually playing 40k. Now, those are arguments for playing games made by GW other then 40k/fantasy (oddly, a position GW seems to have totally abandoned), but they scarcely convince that 40k/fantasy has a plethora of inexpensive options. Simply being set in the same universe is... cute? Heck, might as well claim the Black Library books are a good way for someone to get into 40k... think of the savings in miniatures!

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Total nonsense. The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor; a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs; an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

So if you really want to insist that we judge this on how cheap it is to get into the company's products based purely on how many models it takes; 7 beats 25 at the same cost per model.

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

Sorry, but this response is total bull. Gorka Morka? Inquisitor? Most people don't play these anymore in comparison to regular 40k. Congrats if you are lucky enough to have a group that still plays all GW offshoot games, most people don't have these options in their gaming circles. Just because you're lucky enough to have them doesn't mean everyone else is, and you shouldn't look down on the 85% or so of us who don't. I chose a random, high percentage. I don't have actual info on who plays what, it would be impossible to determine. But there is a reason regular 40k still sells and GM does not.

 swampyturtle wrote:
Peregrine stirkes me as such. PP like GW is a company. They dont care about you, Only your money and how they can come up with the next best thing to seperate you from it. If you are gonna spend it, spend it well on something you like.

Yeah, way to miss the point there. I play 40k, and I have absolutely zero interest in anything PP produces. However, that doesn't change the fact that GW does a poor job of making their game accessible to new players, while PP does a very good job of getting new players started for a reasonable cost.

nkelsch wrote:
1) Games that use the stock 40k models are closer to 40k than games which use totally different models. 28mm =I=munda and Kill team are lumped in with 40k as you can play it without all new models in most circumstances.

Except they don't use the stock 40k models. Necromunda uses completely different stuff unless you play a certain variety of IG, kill team doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, Inquisitor is not a 28mm game, and GorkaMorka uses only orks. None of these games allow you to just buy the start of a 40k army and start playing them.

Also, Inquisiumunda is not a GW game.

Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality.

1000 points is not a "massive game" for 40k. The game is designed to be played between 1000-2000 points, so 1500 is about average, 1000 is small, and 2000 is just above average. Don't bring up this weird strawman where everyone just plays Apocalypse every week.

All the semantic acrobatics is not going to convince me that one 10$ model is cheaper than another 10$ model which is the only thing that matters.

You can say that all you want but YOUR comparison is the fanboy one. Fanboys argue all day about which company is more overpriced. People who actually want to play the game worry about how much the TOTAL cost of playing the game is.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wait, and Warmachine IS the same rules as 40K? I thought you were arguing that players would be picking up Warmachine because GW is ludicrously expensive by comparison and, to a new player, that extra cost would matter more than the system?

No, I'm arguing that bringing up non-40k games published by GW is stupid as a counter-argument to the fact that 40k is expensive. Necromunda might be a fun game but it isn't 40k, so it doesn't matter how cheap Necromunda is.

See, that's odd, because the gangs that GW sell, and have sold since the inception of the game, don't have "all the various upgrades", yet people still played and play it with those minis. Weapon changes can easily be tracked on paper rather than on the models, indeed that's how the group I played the game with when I was a kid who could barely paint did things.

And guess what: those aren't 40k models. The argument was that you could just use your first 40k purchases to play the alternate games as a way of starting 40k, which is entirely different from GW producing separate Necromunda models which happen to be a decent deal.

excepting of course that those games are all set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play, as opposed to an entirely different one, and that several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play, meaning they could expand their force later if they found themselves with some spare cash rather than having to start from scratch and having a bunch of models from another company they can't or don't want to use.

Really? So if I want to buy a Tau army I can use my battlesuits in Necromunda?

And 2) Nobody at your FLGS plays them. Four guys at my local GW store have multiple Necromunda gangs, three of my old Uni friends regularly run Inquisitor28 campaigns, and I can get a game of anything from BFG to Dystopian Wars at my town's main gaming club just by sticking a note up on the board, except for Warmachine which is actually rather rare around here. Personal experience is not universal, but then I don't have the sheer hubris to try and assert that my own local scene is somehow an objective standard.

Then you're lucky. Your experience does not seem to be typical. None of the FLGS I've ever been to have had any significant player base for any of those games.

You said there were no 40K skirmish games, which is patently false, when this is pointed out to you, suddenly your argument changes from "newbies will pick whichever system is cheapest" to "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener". Either defend your stated position or concede the point, don't try tacking on endless additional conditions, some of which directly contradict your initial argument.

Nice strawman.

And yes, I said there are no 40k skirmish games. There aren't. There are skirmish scale games published by GW but they don't use the same models or rules. They are entirely separate games, and irrelevant to the question of how expensive it is to start playing 40k.

I agree with Pere up there. Most people also forget that GW has been trying to suppress the idea that they make games other than fantasy, 40k and lotr. That many of the quoted games haven't received an update in over what, almost decade now? GW isn't interested in cheap games like these and puts no emphasis towards them. The only people that keep them alive are people that know of them in the first place.

Hi folks.
GW plc and PP have different target demoghraphic.

GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong asthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

There are many companies out there producing good games and associated minature ranges.

Simply find a minature range /system that suits you, and enjoy YOUR hobby.

Happy hobby time to one and all.

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong asthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

Speak for yourself. The reason I'm still playing 40k is I enjoy the rules. The reason I'm not playing Warmachine is the demographic it has attracted in my area (to put it in the words of someone who does play in my area, it's attracted 'the very worst').

He's not speaking for himself. He is repeating the words of GW's leadership

 Peregrine wrote:
Except they don't use the stock 40k models. Necromunda uses completely different stuff unless you play a certain variety of IG, kill team doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, Inquisitor is not a 28mm game, and GorkaMorka uses only orks. None of these games allow you to just buy the start of a 40k army and start playing them.

I'm sorry, what? A 40k scenario in a 40k supplement doesn't let you use models from the core 40k game?

Sorry, but throwing Killteam in there was a dumb addition. The whole point of Killteam is a small game of 40k using 40k models. Because it's a 40k scenario. in a 40k supplement.

 -Loki- wrote:
I'm sorry, what? A 40k scenario in a 40k supplement doesn't let you use models from the core 40k game?

Sorry, but throwing Killteam in there was a dumb addition. The whole point of Killteam is a small game of 40k using 40k models. Because it's a 40k scenario. in a 40k supplement.

Read again: I said killteam doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, not killteam doesn't let you use ANY 40k models. It uses 40k models, but let's say you play marines and bought a Land Raider. You can't wait to use this awesome tank in a real game, and you're really excited about it. Oops, too bad, it's a heavy support choice. Good luck using it in killteam. Good luck using your HQ you just bought in killteam. Good luck winning a killteam game with your tactical squad you got out of the battleforce if your opponents are making dedicated killteam forces from a large pool of models.

In short: playing killteam well requires you to buy different models than starting a standard 40k army. It's not as bad as the others, but it's still far from "buy a cheap box, get started playing the real game". It's more like "buy a box, get started playing something that's kind of like 40k, but missing a lot of the things that make 40k fun".

HI Loki.
Just to clarify.
When I said no one plays 40k becuse of the rule set.
I meant that the rules are usualy well behind , the background artwork sculpt -artistic direction etc .When it comes to picking the resons why people play games of 40k.

If the rules were laid out side by side with other rule sets from other games / companies.
(Devoid of all 'background filler/theme.')
I seriously doubt anyone would pick 40k 3rd-6th ed as thier favoritre rule set.

Good rule sets ...
Everything works like this.

40k rule set.
Everything works like this...Well apart from this...And this ...And sometimes this...And this if this happens..But not if this happens before that...
Well what we mean is '' everthing works like this, apart from the things that dont, and the things that dont sometimes...''

 -Loki- wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong aesthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

Speak for yourself. The reason I'm still playing 40k is I enjoy the rules. The reason I'm not playing Warmachine is the demographic it has attracted in my area (to put it in the words of someone who does play in my area, it's attracted 'the very worst').

As a Whole, My Experience with the PP crowd at my local meta was, how to put it, Lack Luster. I was there to watch the game because i wanted to see if i liked it, I did, but i dont like the players, outta the 8+ there only 2 answered my questions. and i didnt ask questions during a game, and inbetween.
But 40k can be jerks too, But i dont see it that often as i do with the warmachine crowd.
Im not saying everyone who play WM/H is a jerk and 40k are saints. We all know what 40k can do.

I dont think we should let the judgment of a company be effected by how a minority of its player base is percived.

BUT on the goals and direction of the company , and the level of support , not to mention the value for money the company gives its customer base.

Some players are asshats , no matter what system they play....

Exactly, Just giving my experiance there. I should have mentioned that they used to play 40k, and many where jerks then. Im just giving my experience in WM/H.

I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

xxvaderxx wrote:
I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

No offence but that is spoken like a person who has never played a game of Warmahordes. If you do that then you're asking for trouble, yes yo/u have to go for the throat as many of the scenarios encourage it, even going as far to punish you if you don't (Killbox) but if you rush mindlessly into your opponent then you're gonna have a bad time.

Neither 40k nor Warmahordes are "hurr durr run forwards!" but WM's tactical depth is like the laurentian abyss compared to 40k's paddling pool.

 Grimtuff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

No offence but that is spoken like a person who has never played a game of Warmahordes. If you do that then you're asking for trouble, yes yo/u have to go for the throat as many of the scenarios encourage it, even going as far to punish you if you don't (Killbox) but if you rush mindlessly into your opponent then you're gonna have a bad time.

Neither 40k nor Warmahordes are "hurr durr run forwards!" but WM's tactical depth is like the laurentian abyss compared to 40k's paddling pool.

Excuse me, what i like or not is not really relevant to the OP, which is which one is cheaper to play. Having said that, it is written all over the WM/H books that those games are designed specifically for that. Ofcourse there is some tactics to it, just like there is in checkers, but that is not what i personally like, too unidimensional for my taste, but again that is personal preference. And no, fielding the best combo is not a tactic is simply optimizing your list, and given there is one victory condition, perfectly attainable by most armies in most games that default overrides all other victory conditions, i dont really consider WM/H more tactical than 40k, they are pretty even in my opinion.


text removed. No need for language like this on Dakka. Please refrain from posting in such a manner in future.
Reds8n

xxvaderxx wrote:


Excuse me, what i like or not is not really relevant to the OP, which is which one is cheaper to play. Having said that, it is written all over the WM/H books that those games are designed specifically for that. Ofcourse there is some tactics to it, just like there is in checkers, but that is not what i personally like, too unidimensional for my taste, but again that is personal preference. And no, fielding the best combo is not a tactic is simply optimizing your list, and given there is one victory condition, perfectly attainable by most armies in most games that default overrides all other victory conditions, i dont really consider WM/H more tactical than 40k, they are pretty even in my opinion.

PP fans can get a little... defensive, cant they when it comes to standing up for their game?

for what its worth though, i will disagree with you. the tactics, combos and interplay in warmachine is deeper than what 40k offers. here is the thing though, you are very much approaching the game from a 40k POV if you're saying its about "fielding the best combo". define the best combo, please. Here's the thing. If i ask you for advice on playing guard, chances are you will point out the half a dozen builds that are seen as the "go-to" builds for imperial guard. if you try and do the same for, say the Circle or Orboros, or Cryx or Khador, you will get laighed at. there is no "best combo". everything can kill everything else, and everything has a hard counter. deneghra? Meet Kromac. Kromac? Meet Skarre. and so on.

Similarly, "optimising your list" is an inherently different proceedure in warmahordes since swapping out a single model or unit can completely, drastically and utterly change the dynamic and playstyle of your army.

Also, there are 2 victory conditions. Win by scenario, and win by assassination. Both are perfectly viable, and both exist for that hail mary moment. i've been on both ends where i've snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a daring, and balls to the wall assassination run, where everything bar my caster was dead, and i've had it done to me. What it means is you can never count yourself out of the game, and that is a good thing. complacency is bad. complacency loses you games. You always have to keep an eye out for caster kills, but i've won more games on scenario than to losing my caster, on the whole. "protect your caster" is the first thing you learn in the game.

I personally look at 40k like a soccer match. lots of space big sweeping movements and manoevres. warmachine? More of a boxing match. far more enclosed arena, but movement, manoevre, feints, dodges, sidesteps and so on - just as important. the only thing is you cant run 60" away like a tau!

Both have their pros and cons and both have their own distinct brand of flavour when it comes to gameplay.

Deadnight wrote:


for what its worth though, i will disagree with you. the tactics, combos and interplay in warmachine is deeper than what 40k offers. here is the thing though, you are very much approaching the game from a 40k POV if you're saying its about "fielding the best combo". define the best combo, please. Here's the thing. If i ask you for advice on playing guard, chances are you will point out the half a dozen builds that are seen as the "go-to" builds for imperial guard. if you try and do the same for, say the Circle or Orboros, or Cryx or Khador, you will get laighed at. there is no "best combo". everything can kill everything else, and everything has a hard counter. deneghra? Meet Kromac. Kromac? Meet Skarre. and so on.

Hard counters are as dramatic in WM/H as they are in 40K. The PP boards are full of list advice that whittles each army down to the handful of "optimal" choices that the majority acknowledges are simply superior to every other selection available. People don't play Trencher heavy Cygnar armies because they're just as good as any other selection for Cygnar...they play them because they want to, just like people play less than optimal 40k lists because they want to.
Cross faction balance in WM/H is generally good, thanks to the variety offered by casters/locks. Internal faction balance is as "poor" as 40k IMO.

Deadnight wrote:

Also, there are 2 victory conditions. Win by scenario, and win by assassination. Both are perfectly viable, and both exist for that hail mary moment. i've been on both ends where i've snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a daring, and balls to the wall assassination run, where everything bar my caster was dead, and i've had it done to me. What it means is you can never count yourself out of the game, and that is a good thing. complacency is bad. complacency loses you games. You always have to keep an eye out for caster kills, but i've won more games on scenario than to losing my caster, on the whole. "protect your caster" is the first thing you learn in the game.

This is exactly what i dislike about WM, since scenario objective varies, but assassination stays the same, there is no reason to not optimize for assassination. This is what 40k and Fantasy are trying to break away from, if this was not there, i would probably play WH. But again that is personal preference.

Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

Because, similar to every other hobby in the world, people generally only have the time/money/etc to commit themselves to one brand/product. They need to believe that they have made the best choice, so therefore the other brand/products _have_ to be terrible.

xxvaderxx wrote:


This is exactly what i dislike about WM, since scenario objective varies, but assassination stays the same, there is no reason to not optimize for assassination. This is what 40k and Fantasy are trying to break away from, if this was not there, i would probably play WH. But again that is personal preference.

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

With respect to you, you can't discount either approach, but to say scenarios are pointless and optimising assassination as the thing to go for is an extremely shortsighted viewpoint. YMMV, but on the whole, preparing for scenario play is a huge side of tournament gaming.

 Ugavine wrote:
Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

this. this times one hundred.

Deadnight wrote:

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

xxvaderxx wrote:


To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

you still seem to be taking the approach that casterkill is the optimized approach. i thought i'd just demonstrated while viable, the game doesnt revolve around it.

oprimisation is good, but the thing i like about WM is with the sheer amount of combos and builds, both to play with and to play against. there is no "best" optimisation. there is no one way to play Khador, for example.

personally though, i like casterkill as a win condition, (and timed turns!) as it always keeps you on your toes. you always have plan B. I've seen too many games of 40k that were one horse races for the same reason there was no scope for a different win condition.

as you say though, to each their own.

 Ugavine wrote:
Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

This is entirely true for me, however by eliminating 40k from my personal "repertoire" of games played, I suddenly find that I have a lot more money the many other games that I play. Which is ultimately what this thread is about, the money for your personal hobby, and which company you send that money too.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

From your argument there is basically no reason I should ever not be optimizing air based ranged alpha strike shooting. You acted like both games didn't have imbalancing over-optimized builds. My argument was that both games have that problem and that its under 20 dollars to fix those imbalances in warmachine, it's easily 200+ to fix it for 40k. The tournament and army building formats in warmachine also make it very cheap to have several different army builds that play very differently. If you want that in 40k you'll be in for upwards of a thousand dollars.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

From your argument there is basically no reason I should ever not be optimizing air based ranged alpha strike shooting. You acted like both games didn't have imbalancing over-optimized builds. My argument was that both games have that problem and that its under 20 dollars to fix it in warmachine, it's easily 200+ to fix it for 40k.

1- I never compared one game to the other(never said one was better than the other, they are different which is not the same thing as better), i said what i did not like about WH period, no need to go on the defensive.
2- I said WM/H was in fact cheaper than 40k.
3- If you want me to compare, bad rolling aside, 40k has 2 victory conditions for every game, tabling, and objectives, objectives have primary and secondary. Overall it is much harder to table an opponent to win a match (not as the result of it) than it is in WH to simply assassinate your opponent, which is the overriding wining condition. While tabbing happens, you hardly if ever make it a tactic to win the game(you dont build around it), not the same can be said about assassinating, and as i said before, i rather get tabled and loose on turn 5 after i played basically an entire game, than assassinated out of the blue turn 3, is too anticlimactic for my taste, that is more suited for CCGs than wargaming in my opinion. But as i said on my first post, to each his own.
4- Since flyers come in from reserve, dont arrive until at least turn 2, you can not alfa strike with them, establishing air superiority is a different thing.

1- I never compared one game to the other(never said one was better than the other, they are different which is not the same thing as better), i said what i did not like about WH period, no need to go on the defensive.

You were comparing your experiences in both games and spoke negatively of one without pointing out similar flaws in the other. That is an indirect form of praise.

2- I said WM/H was in fact cheaper than 40k.

But you said you disliked a type of gameplay that is easily rectified and defended against by certain army builds. Warmachine is a lot like magic, it has good and bad matchups which are made more even with multiple army selections and sideboards. I was noting that those systems are totally absent from 40k and that the only base option for dealing with bad matchups is to spend an awful lot of money.

3- If you want me to compare, bad rolling aside, 40k has 2 victory conditions for every game, tabling, and objectives, objectives have primary and secondary. Overall it is much harder to table an opponent to win a match (not as the result of it) than it is in WH to simply assassinate your opponent, which is the overriding wining condition. While tabbing happens, you hardly if ever make it a tactic to win the game(you dont build around it), not the same can be said about assassinating, and as i said before, i rather get tabled and loose on turn 5 after i played basically an entire game, than assassinated out of the blue turn 3, is too anticlimactic for my taste, that is more suited for CCGs than wargaming in my opinion. But as i said on my first post, to each his own.

When an IG gunline kills half of my army turn one i have been beaten. Sure, I could grab the objectives, but I won't. It's an unrealistic assessment to think I have anything to do with the outcome of the end of the game two hours later. I will lose that game because of the fundamentally unbalancing gameplay that is 40ks turn based ranged game. When, if ever, have you been tabled and felt like you played a game? I never have. In Warmachine dedicated assassination lists are actually not particularly good or powerful. There is all of one high level tournament caster based on optimizing for that out of something like 80 warcasters/warlocks. In my own personal view it's much less aggravating to lose quickly than to lose quickly but still have to play for two more hours knowing that nothing I can do will change anything.

4- Since flyers come in from reserve, dont arrive until at least turn 2, you can not alfa strike with them, establishing air superiority is a different thing.

The player to strike first and hardest is alpha striking. It's easy to alpha strike with a flying demon army by just hiding your army or landing outside of the enemies range. Alpha strikes don't have to happen turn one.

xxvaderxx wrote:

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

Your fundamental assumption that assassination is always the optimal strategy in WM/H is flawed, however. A major case in point: Terminus. Between his feat, the ability to camp at 24 ARM, and Sacrificial Pawn (which prevents you from getting rid of his focus with one shot from Eiryss), Terminus is extremely difficult to kill with most conventional assassination methods. If you try the typical death or glory assassination run he will roll over you and laugh.

Terminus really isn't the only example, though. Assassination seems really strong when you're a newer player because everyone has yet to catch on about how quickly even most casters/locks can be taken off the table, and so a lot of games end quickly because people get greedy or don't realize the vulnerable situations they put their casters in. As people play more though, you tend to find that people get much better about protecting their casters, and your "optimal" strategy of assassination becomes riskier and riskier to the point where playing to the scenario/objective is often a better way to force your opponent's hand. In the case of Irusk (both versions), he's a backline support caster with a 14-inch control radius, so the "only" thing between you and him is usually his entire army: you generally aren't going to kill him without getting through a substantial swath of his army first. This is where objectives/scenarios come in: if your army can use the objectives to force trades in your favor, you eventually win because Irusk has few options if his army is heavily wounded or dead. Against good opponents this is generally going to be the safer/more reliable play than going for the Hail Mary assassination run.

This isn't to say that assassination is never the better choice in some situations, but if your current view of WM/H strategy is "caster kill every time, all the time", you have clearly never tried to pin down Caine or Gaspy.

Has anyone wondered why GW plc call it 'The GW hobby.'

Becuse quite simply most people can not afford to play anything else when they have 'fully invested' on 40k/WHFB.
And GW plc depend on this to sustain sales.

Other companies ,(including PP,) rely on engaging game play to retain customers.Who if are 'average gamers' ,(not asshats.) Will promote and grow the customer base by positive word of mouth.

Something GW plc has to spend over £60M every year to do with thier B&M stores.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:
Your point only makes sense because you've introduced an artificial choice between battle games and skirmish games (or cars and trucks).

Ah... but there are players who don't like skirmish games. I'm one. So I don't care how great a skirmish game is, how neat the models are, how cheap the game is to get into, how many players there are, or how wonderful the manufacturer treats its customers, a skirmish game brings me no joy so it is a VERY bad value for my money. I'd rather go home and watch TV than play a skrimish game. In my opinion, 40K is a skrimish game... just on a bigger scale.

I want to maneuver blocks of troops. I want facing to mean something. I want tactics to mean something. And skirmish games generally don't cater to that desire of mine. (Neither does WFB anymore, but that's a whole different subject.)

Does this mean that all skirmish games are bad? Heck no! All it means is that I, personally, don't care to play them, that's all. So the example of trucks vs. cars is an entirely valid one, from my point of view.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'

6th Ed rule set increased the time on playing this game. One of the reasons why I'm trying WM. 1500 point 40K games where I play at now take 2 hours on the average because of the amount of models that are needed to play competitive. Then toss the shoddy rule set and wind up with a time sink. Don't get me started about the 2000+ crowd. I do not have all day play one game when I can get 2 or 3 with WM.

Finally it is clear that in my region that 40K is dying. Reasons are can be found in the hundreds of postings and topics that can be found here on this site. There is no 40K games in one of my LFGS but there is plenty of WM/H games. The rest of the LFGS are scaling back as well, primarily to the recent policy changes GW has imposed on them.

I'm the one of those customers that have wads of cash in their pockets that can throw down a few grand to buy whatever I want, but I'm tired of Bloathammer. I'm tired of absolute BS coming from corporate office and the years of missteps they have done.

I want to play a game with a reasonable set of rules with a reasonable cost to play it in a reasonable amount of time. WM/H fits the bill.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'

6th Ed rule set increased the time on playing this game. One of the reasons why I'm trying WM. 1500 point 40K games where I play at now take 2 hours on the average because of the amount of models that are needed to play competitive. Then toss the shoddy rule set and wind up with a time sink. Don't get me started about the 2000+ crowd. I do not have all day play one game when I can get 2 or 3 with WM.

Sure.

Finally it is clear that in my region that 40K is dying. Reasons are can be found in the hundreds of postings and topics that can be found here on this site. There is no 40K games in one of my LFGS but there is plenty of WM/H games. The rest of the LFGS are scaling back as well, primarily to the recent policy changes GW has imposed on them.

Understood.

I'm the one of those customers that have wads of cash in their pockets that can throw down a few grand to buy whatever I want, but I'm tired of Bloathammer. I'm tired of absolute BS coming from corporate office and the years of missteps they have done.

Give PP a few years, they are catching up to GW in many aspects. It's a feature of the corporate mentality, not a flaw peculiar to GW.

I want to play a game with a reasonable set of rules with a reasonable cost to play it in a reasonable amount of time. WM/H fits the bill.

For you.

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

League of Legends is free.

Is there a mini game for that? Because all I'm finding is the video game.

Video games interest me less than skirmish games.

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Mantic Games might work for you. I have 6 WFB armies collecting dust due to 8th ED fantasy rules. League of legends? I'll have to take a look at this myself.

 Vulcan wrote:
Is there a mini game for that? Because all I'm finding is the video game.

Video games interest me less than skirmish games.

There is no minis equivalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Mantic Games might work for you. I have 6 WFB armies collecting dust due to 8th ED fantasy rules. League of legends? I'll have to take a look at this myself.

It was a joke, league of legends is a popular free to play videogame with very few analogues to warhammer fantasy beyond being vaguely magical and medieval.

Seems a pointless argument really, both companies are pretty popular, so both companies are expensive. Isnt that just how it works though?

If in 5 years time Mantic are super popular, then no doubt their prices will rocket!

Nothing really to discuss, both are popular, both are pretty expensive, such is life.

 mattyrm wrote:
Seems a pointless argument really, both companies are pretty popular, so both companies are expensive. Isnt that just how it works though?

If in 5 years time Mantic are super popular, then no doubt their prices will rocket!

Nothing really to discuss, both are popular, both are pretty expensive, such is life.

I find almost all minis games are similarly priced at this stage with a few strange outliers like spartan either falling way under or going way over the scale depending on model. The issue is that 40k requires a collection the size of most of their competitors combined to play the game. I don't mind that fact, but with comparable pricing to the other games and the upward trend of prices way beyond inflation and oil costs it's become prohibitive to me personally. Thats a bad breaking point that the competition hasn't reached.

@ vulcan try out armies of arcana. It has rules for point costing any models in your collection and has all of the fantasy equivilant army lists in the book along with a bunch of others.

I would like to second Armies Of Arcana.(Provable level of balance is great.)
Or you could try Mantics Kings of War rules for free.(On thier website.)
Both are good for alternatives to WHFB.(Most WHFB players I know have switched to one or the other post 8th ed.)

So not just a chioce of PP and GW,after all!

It seems as if the GW haters here don't know how to use discounted Warhammer stores/ebay stores(20-25% discounts). But you know what, at least GW miniatures are in plastic and thus is cheaper to build larger armies of them.

And people, if you don't like high model count games, then don't play 40k, the point of 40k is to have large scale battles with high model counts, not 10 man skirmishes with monopose metal miniatures.

PresidentOfAsia wrote:
It seems as if the GW haters here don't know how to use discounted Warhammer stores/ebay stores(20-25% discounts). But you know what, at least GW miniatures are in plastic and thus is cheaper to build larger armies of them.

There is so much flawed logic here. Discount retailers tend to be even across all games, if you can find 25% off 40k you can find 25% off wm/h. Also, the medium which a model is made of has no direct bearing on the cost of an army. only the price tag of the constituent kits affects the cost of the army directly. It is true that plastic should facilitate a lower price than metal or resin, but that isn't always true.

And people, if you don't like high model count games, then don't play 40k, the point of 40k is to have large scale battles with high model counts, not 10 man skirmishes with monopose metal miniatures.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. The scale of the game is one of the unique assets of 40k and fantasy. Mantic is trying to compete but they only really do infantry right now and can't touch GW's large plastic monsters and vehicles. If you want non-historic mass battles in 28mm scale GW is the premier choice.

I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

 Breotan wrote:
I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

Plastic beyond some very specific models, does not work for PP. Plastic works for mass production and mass usage, something they have basically designed their game against. Where 40k armies have smaller number of units you could use, pps model has several and works on adding more, the compromise they can make is something like finecast, and we all know how that worked for GW.

 Breotan wrote:
I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

I agree but I believe they need to bring plastic production in house to make it a viable medium for them. What they have done with their suppliers so far has been great and shown considerable improvement, but until they have full control of the process PP won't be able to utilize plastic to the same degree they use metal now.

My biggest personal grudge with Warmahordes is the fact that, if you ask me, half the models are butt ugly.

Protectrate of Menoth? Sister of Battle ripoffs with stunted legs.

Scyrah? Eldar bootlegs, also with stunted legs.

Khador? Grossly out of proportion World Eaters knockoffs.

And as for Hordes, there's the Skorne (I swear they weren't even trying with that name) and the Circle of Ouroboros, AKA Tyranid wannabes.

And on top of that a lot of them are metal, which I loathe with a passion.

Protectrate of Menoth? Sister of Battle ripoffs with stunted legs.

That doesn't even make sense. SoBs don't have a copyright on religion, and if anything they much more closely resemble any other generic catholic inspired crusader force. They don't have "nothing but distastefully designed and poorly modeled nuns in bondage gear" going on, so they hardly rip off sisters.

Khador? Grossly out of proportion World Eaters knockoffs.

I'm starting to doubt you have eyes or know what human proportions are if you think they're khorne ripoffs or that they're somehow less disproportional than world eater models.

Scyrah? Eldar bootlegs, also with stunted legs.

This i'll give you. It's hard to do futuristic elves without it looking like eldar in some respect though.

And as for Hordes, there's the Skorne (I swear they weren't even trying with that name) and the Circle of Ouroboros, AKA Tyranid wannabes.

Circle Orboros is the druids. I don't think tyranids have any giant werewolves. As for naming conventions, how're blood missiles, pyrovores, thunderwolves, or space marines any less cringe worthy?

And on top of that a lot of them are metal, which I loathe with a passion.

So is a lot of GW product..? Your complaints reek of fanboism and a lack of familiarity with either the human form or anything that isn't a GW product.

OK, the Ouroboros thing...Is it them who have the Carnivean and stuff like that?

Those are the Tyranid wannabes I'm talking about.

With the Khador, and the stunty legs on Scyrah and Menoth I'm not talking about the humans. I'm talking about those ludicrous Warjack things. They make the Dreadnought look positively realistic.

And yes, GW have metal models. But they've started to replace them with resin. At some point moreorless the whole Citadel range will be plastic or resin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait a minute...I meant Legion of Everblight, not Ouroboros. Ugh.

OK, the Ouroboros thing...Is it them who have the Carnivean and stuff like that?

No, that's legion of everblight.

Those are the Tyranid wannabes I'm talking about.

And GW owns the concept of scythe arms? Conceptually they're closer to chaos since they're all mutants and possessed. If this is as close as it takes to be a ripoff GW owes aliens a hell of a lot of money.

With the Khador, and the stunty legs on Scyrah and Menoth I'm not talking about the humans. I'm talking about those ludicrous Warjack things. They make the Dreadnought look positively realistic.

They look pretty comparable to me, with the exception of the fact that a dreadnaught could never stand up if if fell down and it doesn't have the ability to step over curbs.

nd yes, GW have metal models. But they've started to replace them with resin. At some point moreorless the whole Citadel range will be plastic or resin.

PP started doing that years ago too. Your complaint is totally invalid.

I seem to be getting a vibe that "complaining about GW is fine, but don't you dare say anything bad against PP or you're a no good white knighting fanboi!" The fact is I don't like most of the PP miniatures. Deal with it. I have as much right to dislike them as you have to dislike GW minis.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I seem to be getting a vibe that "complaining about GW is fine, but don't you dare say anything bad against PP or you're a no good white knighting fanboi!" The fact is I don't like most of the PP miniatures. Deal with it. I have as much right to dislike them as you have to dislike GW minis.

Seems like all he is doing is arguing your criticisms. If you had just said "I don't like their models" I doubt he would have responded. However you tried to claim that PP copied some of their army concepts from GW.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I seem to be getting a vibe that "complaining about GW is fine, but don't you dare say anything bad against PP or you're a no good white knighting fanboi!" The fact is I don't like most of the PP miniatures. Deal with it. I have as much right to dislike them as you have to dislike GW minis.

Your criticisms are illogical, betray a lack of familiarity with the human form, scream of fanboism, and imply that you don't have any experience with science fiction or fantasy settings outside of GW. I'm arguing your criticisms, and calling you a fanboi because you sound like a shrill fanboi who has no experience outside of his bubble. There's plenty to complain about concerning PP, most of it involves tournament formatting and release schedules as well as some pricing issues. Calling them copycats, especially as a defense of GW who is probably the most egregious copycatter out there is just silly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ugavine wrote:
Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

This is entirely true for me, however by eliminating 40k from my personal "repertoire" of games played, I suddenly find that I have a lot more money the many other games that I play. Which is ultimately what this thread is about, the money for your personal hobby, and which company you send that money too.

From my experience gamers have a lot more money to spend on toys than they like to admit.

Gamers also like complaining. A lot.

And low and behold anyone that doesn't like a gamers favourite game.

It was a joke, league of legends is a popular free to play videogame with very few analogues to warhammer fantasy beyond being vaguely magical and medieval.

Ahhhh well that figures. Not up to those fangled dangled video games people keep referring about

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I seem to be getting a vibe that "complaining about GW is fine, but don't you dare say anything bad against PP or you're a no good white knighting fanboi!" The fact is I don't like most of the PP miniatures. Deal with it. I have as much right to dislike them as you have to dislike GW minis.

Your criticisms are illogical, betray a lack of familiarity with the human form, scream of fanboism, and imply that you don't have any experience with science fiction or fantasy settings outside of GW. I'm arguing your criticisms, and calling you a fanboi because you sound like a shrill fanboi who has no experience outside of his bubble. There's plenty to complain about concerning PP, most of it involves tournament formatting and release schedules as well as some pricing issues. Calling them copycats, especially as a defense of GW who is probably the most egregious copycatter out there is just silly.

Point taken. However I wasn't talking about the proportions on the human models, which are alright. My complaints are directed towards the Warjacks, which I simply do not like.

And your argument reeks of "well obviously you won't like it, it's far too high out of your bubble of meager experience" elitist snobbery, as if your Warmahordes models and games are so undoubtedly superior to anything that GW makes and I'm a filthy commoner for enjoying such lowbrow entertainment.

Point taken. However I wasn't talking about the proportions on the human models, which are alright. My complaints are directed towards the Warjacks, which I simply do not like.

Which is perfectly fine, but don't do it in comparison to incomparables. You can't say that khador are a ripoff of world eaters and have bad proportions. First of all, space marine propotions are the worst in the industry, second of all space marines have their own tiny legged robot. It's a bad criticism and boils down to you not liking something for no reason other than because it competes with something you do like.

And your argument reeks of "well obviously you won't like it, it's far too high out of your bubble of meager experience" elitist snobbery, as if your Warmahordes models and games are so undoubtedly superior to anything that GW makes and I'm a filthy commoner for enjoying such lowbrow entertainment.

I have a much larger 40k army than I do a warmachine one. I don't like your arguments because they're really bad arguments that make you sound like a child. It has nothing to do with my preference for warmachine. If I sound elitest to you, that's your problem. Being right doesn't make me elitest.

Personally I'm just curious how Khador rips off Blood Eaters other than being red and having a single unit type of berserkers, a common archetype.

 AduroT wrote:
Personally I'm just curious how Khador rips off Blood Eaters other than being red and having a single unit type of berserkers, a common archetype.

Axes? I'm at a loss too. I think it's just that they're red.

 AduroT wrote:
Personally I'm just curious how Khador rips off Blood Eaters other than being red and having a single unit type of berserkers, a common archetype.

Clearly the Khadoran anvil is a ripoff of the World Eaters symbol. I mean, just look at it! This side by side is damning evidence!

I read the comment and thought HAH! Then I looked at the pictures and wow, they're actually rather close. Clearly the World Eaters are Russians! Who knew?!

O great. Here come the GW lawyers out of the woodwork to try to get at PP saying Khador Copied World Eaters..

GW Lawyer: World Eaters are indeed Russions, it may not say it on the box or symbol directly, but one of our Designers thought it at one time...... along with the little globe on the world eaters symbol is supposed to show russia on the map, so Sir, to court we go..

And! how dare you have 8 points on the Khador Symbol like the World eaters Symbol no one else thought of that before us.

AND! RED.. How dare you make a Red army.. that is our Color/Colour.

 AduroT wrote:
I read the comment and thought HAH! Then I looked at the pictures and wow, they're actually rather close. Clearly the World Eaters are Russians! Who knew?!

Now post a Star of David up there as well. OMGWTF!! Common symbolism is common!

 sourclams wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I read the comment and thought HAH! Then I looked at the pictures and wow, they're actually rather close. Clearly the World Eaters are Russians! Who knew?!

Now post a Star of David up there as well. OMGWTF!! Common symbolism is common!

I think he was being sarcastic

 sourclams wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I read the comment and thought HAH! Then I looked at the pictures and wow, they're actually rather close. Clearly the World Eaters are Russians! Who knew?!

Now post a Star of David up there as well. OMGWTF!! Common symbolism is common!

The Star of David only has 6 points. Chaos Star (and the World Eaters symbol) has 8 points. The Star of David doesn't have enough spiky bits for GW to claim a copyright on it.

 Surtur wrote:
I think he was being sarcastic

Yeah, me too.

*drum roll* and.. time for a post about Michael Moorcock's Chaos star?

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that the chaos 8-pointed star hasn't been quietly sidelined and replaced by a new, copyrightable version of something to represent the 'evil guys' in 40k/WFB? It's not like that the current description of chaos in the background is anything like the original concept of 'chaos' in any case.

Not only an eight pointed star, but isn't that a "Skaven" rune symbol in the middle.

I love people who accuse anyone of ripping off GW, when you look what GW ripped and then slapped an IP order onto.

PP or GW, SCI Fi/Fantasy or Flames of War, get a grip we all play with toy soldiers - I like the green army men, but the tan ones are better - the whole idea is to have fun?

wilycoyote wrote:
but the tan ones are better

I beg your pardon?

 jonolikespie wrote:
I tried to get into warmachine not that long ago, I picked up a starter box, built 1 jack, looked at it for a while and failed to come up with a proper paint scheme then never bothered with the other or the character.
I'm right behind you on the whole 'GW charges way too much' thing but I was really disappointed in the quality and material used by PP.

This is what it is for me. The quality of mini's. Yes, GW charges a bit too much....yes, they are very self centered when it comes to their product and they often seem to care much more about money then their customer....yes, they don't have the best and most professional business practice. That being said, GW produces the best tabletop RPG around...the models are of the highest quality for that genre and their game system is the most balanced and thoughtful.

Whenever one of my buds tries to get me into WM/Hordes..they show me models. I tell that "that looks horrible" and they don't disagree. With GW, you get what you pay for...well, what you overpay for. They are still the best and PP is very far behind. Just talking the talk about "playing like you have a pair" isn't enough....you need to actually produce high quality models. They don't. GW still wins...for now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spyder68 wrote:
O great. Here come the GW lawyers out of the woodwork to try to get at PP saying Khador Copied World Eaters..

GW Lawyer: World Eaters are indeed Russions, it may not say it on the box or symbol directly, but one of our Designers thought it at one time...... along with the little globe on the world eaters symbol is supposed to show russia on the map, so Sir, to court we go..

And! how dare you have 8 points on the Khador Symbol like the World eaters Symbol no one else thought of that before us.

AND! RED.. How dare you make a Red army.. that is our Color/Colour.

You spelled Russians wrong, maybe you should call GW and ask how to spell it....hahaha

the models are of the highest quality for that genre and their game system is the most balanced and thoughtful.

If you are claiming that 40k is the most balanced and thoughtful system in the market I'll start suspecting you're some sort of lizard creature from the core of the earth entirely unfamiliar with human customs or games.

Whenever one of my buds tries to get me into WM/Hordes..they show me models. I tell that "that looks horrible" and they don't disagree.

Just talking the talk about "playing like you have a pair" isn't enough....you need to actually produce high quality models. They don't. GW still wins...for now.

You spelled Russians wrong, maybe you should call GW and ask how to spell it....hahaha

He'd probably get a different answer every time he called.

To me seems people are confusing quality with design... besides for me the only way I can conclude x miniature has quality or not is by looking to the sum of all parts that makes a miniature... not only design... Sculpting level, Design, casting, scale, material are some of the parts in the mix...

If your world is only PP and GW IMO I can say both miniswise are on the exact same level, both are a hit and miss each new release, both have issues with the casting but GW wins there with finecast issues.... To me they are similar even if their designs are quite diferent.

Looking at other comparisons between companies I believe PP started by following GW biz model ( one company sells you a package deal that includes minis, rules, artwork, paints, publications and 2 main ranges) but PP took it to a much higher level of quality there, paints superior, artwork more professional and consistent, all factions supported, comunities with own forums and lots of previews etc etc etc... PP is more aggressive and knows the internet crowd importance they also give you more options and choices along the way... while GW is one trick poney you buy one army and your stuck with it for years.

If I had to choose just one of the two I would pick Corvus belli Seriously I have armies from these 3 companies all cool with diferent flavours all with pros and cons.

almostreal wrote:
That being said, GW produces the best tabletop RPG around...the models are of the highest quality for that genre and their game system is the most balanced and thoughtful.

I... by genre you mean science fiction, right? Because if you just mean they have the most balanced tabletop game..

wilycoyote wrote:
Not only an eight pointed star, but isn't that a "Skaven" rune symbol in the middle.

No, it's a clearly a stylised anvil. Good lord! if anyone did their homework before saying "Hurr durr PP rip off GW look!" then we'd have less of these discussions.

almostreal wrote:
That being said, GW produces the best tabletop RPG around...the models are of the highest quality for that genre and their game system is the most balanced and thoughtful.

You're... you're kidding, right?

Mattman154 wrote:

wilycoyote wrote:
but the tan ones are better

I beg your pardon?

This comment has made me have the best start to the day.
Good dry humour successfully pulled off on the interwebs? awesome

Balanced and thoughtful game? GW? Now look, that has to be more dry humour.

almostreal wrote:
That being said, GW produces the best tabletop RPG around...the models are of the highest quality for that genre and their game system is the most balanced and thoughtful.

Whenever one of my buds tries to get me into WM/Hordes..they show me models.

So without ever actually playing WM/H for any amount of time, or possibly at all, you know that 40k/Fantasy are better? That's some fair and balanced, right there. The simple existence of the YMDC forums 10+ page threads shows that GW games are prone to murkiness and player uncertainty.

I tell that "that looks horrible" and they don't disagree.

Warjack models are generally plain. The warbeast models are some of the most gorgeous figs I've seen in any game system. Total stylistic appeal, not just the amount of skulls they crammed onto a dude.

They are still the best and PP is very far behind. Just talking the talk about "playing like you have a pair" isn't enough....you need to actually produce high quality models. They don't. GW still wins...for now.

GW's new models are better executed than PP's old models, primarily due to production technology. PP's old models have hits and misses just like GW's. PP's new models are overall better quality and cleanness of detail than everything I've gotten from Forge World, and it's primarily the less cluttered aesthetic that can make them look plain or unadorned next to new GW models which, while at a high detail level, also suffer from a lot of clutter. I LAFF at the new chaos space marine power armor lord, not to mention the general SKULLS EVERYWHERE aesthetic..

Even then, you cannot look at the Thunderhawk, the Grey Knight Baby Carrier, the Chaos Space Dragon, the Space Marine Cockpit+Guns, and other stylistically weird models in the GW line and tell me with a straight face that GW nails it all the time, every time. When GW makes a fantastic model, like the Ork fightabomma, it's a truly fantastic model. I strongly dislike the distinctly cartooney bend that has slipped through with several of their more high profile releases recently.

 NAVARRO wrote:
To me seems people are confusing quality with design...

This here. I've got no problems with the quality of PP's stuff (for the most part. Like all miniatures companies, they have quality sculpts and abysmal sculpts), but the aesthetic they've chosen for the game just doesn't sit will with me. I'm not even against steampunk looking stuff either like their warjacks, but the aesthetic still rubs me the wrong way.

This isn't pro-GW snobbery either - Corvus Bellis stuff far surpasses GW and PP.

PP and GW couldn't be more different from model design. The universes are so drastically different to the point where most of the models in Warmahordes and warhammer/40k can't even be remotely used in each other's games.

I love a lot of the Hordes line as pure models. They are abstract, neat and well sculpted with great poses. They are one of the lines while I don't enjoy playing the game, the models are awesome for collectors/painters.

I gotta say tho, both lines have amazing sculpts and 'blah' models... Both have issues with their resin-ish casted models and have great plastics and they cost about the same which make them as reasonable wash when it comes to 'superior' models. Boils down to which ones you like to look at and paint or mechanics you enjoy.

 -Loki- wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
To me seems people are confusing quality with design...

This here. I've got no problems with the quality of PP's stuff (for the most part. Like all miniatures companies, they have quality sculpts and abysmal sculpts), but the aesthetic they've chosen for the game just doesn't sit will with me. I'm not even against steampunk looking stuff either like their warjacks, but the aesthetic still rubs me the wrong way.

This isn't pro-GW snobbery either - Corvus Bellis stuff far surpasses GW and PP.

I personally love the aesthetic and love the game. Warmahordes hits all the right buttons with me that GW has consistently not been doing recently. Whilst I agree that the Infinity stuff is utterly amazing, the setting simply does not appeal to me. I love drooling over whatever they produce, but that's about it. I sated this lust somewhat by deciding to do Retribution for WM. One a side note, with one of aesthetics, my Ret get no end of comments when people see them about how much better the models look IRL. The studio Retribution colour scheme is one of the standout examples of PP's stylistic misses IMO.

The thing is, I do like a lot of the Hordes range. I was dead set on starting an Everblight army before I decided I didn't want another full army to paint and went with Infinity instead. It's mostly the Warmachine side of the range, which I simply just don't like the look of.

 -Loki- wrote:
The thing is, I do like a lot of the Hordes range. I was dead set on starting an Everblight army before I decided I didn't want another full army to paint and went with Infinity instead. It's mostly the Warmachine side of the range, which I simply just don't like the look of.

You know you want to...

I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but the main contributing factor of my getting into Infinity aside from the amount of models to paint is that my friends won't get into Warmahordes with me, and my local scene is, well, the less said about the players, the better.

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but the main contributing factor of my getting into Infinity aside from the amount of models to paint is that my friends won't get into Warmahordes with me, and my local scene is, well, the less said about the players, the better.

Here's the deal everything boils down to a preference. GW fans will stand by GW and PP fans with side with PP its a moot point the deal is play what you like and have respect for a fellow gamer regardless of what they play, unless they happen to be a douche then treat them according to their attitude rather then by the game they play.

Mattman154 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but the main contributing factor of my getting into Infinity aside from the amount of models to paint is that my friends won't get into Warmahordes with me, and my local scene is, well, the less said about the players, the better.

Like I said, I don't want to get into it again, because last time it caused a few page flame fest. However, notice when I say my local scene. The people I would be playing against. It's not a dig at Warmahordes players in general.

 -Loki- wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I don't want to get into the whole argument again, but the main contributing factor of my getting into Infinity aside from the amount of models to paint is that my friends won't get into Warmahordes with me, and my local scene is, well, the less said about the players, the better.

Like I said, I don't want to get into it again, because last time it caused a few page flame fest. However, notice when I say my local scene. The people I would be playing against. It's not a dig at Warmahordes players in general.

Roll up a newspaper and every time they get uppity, you SMACK THEM ON THE NOSE! And say firmly, "No."

Or just, you know, play a game I enjoy with people I like.

 -Loki- wrote:
Or just, you know, play a game I enjoy with people I like.

But then what would we go on the internet to complain about?!

Maybe if I keep kicking this dead horse, I'll change your mind about PP... or GW... ?

Nope! I guess I'll keep kicking.

boyd wrote:
Maybe if I keep kicking this dead horse, I'll change your mind about PP... or GW... ?

Nope! I guess I'll keep kicking.

Who are you? Have you posted in here before?

Just wanna make sure we are all on the same page:

If I need to paint a fence.

Brand A paint costs $20 per can and I'll need 1 can to paint the fence.

Brand B costs $20 per can and I'll need 3 cans to paint the fence.

It's a "worthless" and "untrue" comparison to call Brand A cheaper in this case since they cost the same per can? Ok, good to know!

I play both and wish they were both cheeper...

Brother Gyoken wrote:
Just wanna make sure we are all on the same page:

If I need to paint a fence.

Brand A paint costs $20 per can and I'll need 1 can to paint the fence.

Brand B costs $20 per can and I'll need 3 cans to paint the fence.

It's a "worthless" and "untrue" comparison to call Brand A cheaper in this case since they cost the same per can? Ok, good to know!

bullcrap analogy

Paint coverage is based upon quality. The issue is not quality, it is you have two different sized fences. You are still buying 1 can of paint for 20$ from both companies which have the same level of coverage. You just have the perception that you plan to paint a small fence which takes one can with one paint and a larger fence which you feel takes 3 cans to paint a different fence. Having a smaller fence to paint doesn't make the paint cheaper per can unless the can covers more... Which in the case of PP and GW, it doesn't.

The issue is perception of fence size is subjective and not at all always valid. Lots of people have small GW fences, lots of people have massive PP fences, so the price per can is still the same as everyone has variable and personal fence sizes... The quality is the same.

The only way your example works is if you got more models for your 20$ so you could do more with it. That is not valid in a PP vs GW discussion, only if we were discussing mantic... Though even their prices have increased as of late.