This is kind of a loaded question, but in short; the rules, balance, and release schedule are the largest and most universal factors that make wm/h more desirable. In this day and age I think it is much more likely to find eclectic gamers who play both than those that find it necessary to pit them against one another and chose only one.
There are several other factors that are all subjective including: background and continuing story, startup costs, army costs, game size, company public relations, and competitive play. Some people also have better communities for one game or the other but that tends to be very localized.
Thank you. I play both games, but my friends who play warhammer simply refuse to even play a demo game of warmachine. I for one think that you are right. I tend to drift a little bit more towards warmachine. Frankly, I just like privateer press much more. They are much less profit hungry, much less uptight about their products, and they are also much better at customer service and answering questions.
Having played and owned both (and now own only Warmachine), I prefer the tactical elements in the gameplay of Warmachine as to when I played 40k and got the feeling of 'who could bring the most guns to the table'. The rules are also a lot clearer in Warmachine and I prefer PP as a company
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:
Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine
You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.
However I'll generally echo the sentiments that main good points of the game are:
-Good Balance
-Most models are useful in some context.
-Clearer rules.
I'll also add that I like that the rules are more dynamic & varied, and the engine can handle actions more complex than "Shoot. With varying damage & AP ratings".
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:
Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine
You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.
This makes me wonder.
You state that 2 players of equal skill facing off against each other make list building a huge factor and then go on to build a, seemingly, random list of models. Then you presume the other player makes more deliberate choices and so will win. If both players are equally skilled then either they will both be taking subpar choices/armies or they will both be picking more rational lists. You can't say equal skill in play but not in model selection and then say that model selection makes the difference.
Obviously if one player is better than the other in one important aspect of the game and equal to the other in all other fields then that's what makes the difference. It's not the game, at that point, it's the players.
Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models
In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly
Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...
Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:
Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine
You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.
This makes me wonder.
You state that 2 players of equal skill facing off against each other make list building a huge factor and then go on to build a, seemingly, random list of models. Then you presume the other player makes more deliberate choices and so will win. If both players are equally skilled then either they will both be taking subpar choices/armies or they will both be picking more rational lists. You can't say equal skill in play but not in model selection and then say that model selection makes the difference.
Obviously if one player is better than the other in one important aspect of the game and equal to the other in all other fields then that's what makes the difference. It's not the game, at that point, it's the players.
This is mostly true. Once you get above a certain skill threshold, I think it's fair to include list building ability as a "Player" factor. The reason I take issue with the statements about "skill vs models" is mostly for new players. You can have two new players entering the game, both obviously at the same general skill level who have been told things like the post I quoted.
One player either by chance or by asking on the forums has put together a better list than the other, even if they're roughly at the same level in terms of understanding the rules, positional awareness and tactics. The player with the better list is going to win. Consistently. When the player on the losing end finds out it was his list after reading things like "It's 90% the player" or "You don't have to take certain models to win", or "It's all about your skill" they're going to surprised and probably (rightfully) feeling a bit mislead.
Similarly if a new player has whatever list and does well for a while but starts losing, despite the fact he runs into opponents that don't seem all that better at judging distances, or do anything more complex than him they just sort of win on their effective stat-lines he'll be frustrated.
I think it is fair to say ultimately that list building is on the player, but it's intellectually dishonest imo to say "Over here, this is player skill that's 90% of the game", "Over here, this is what models you take, that's 10% of the game". Taking the right models is very much a part of player skill in this case, you can't separate them. To that end you can't just take models you like, or think look cool, or have fluff that resonates with you and expect to do well. You have to take models that form a coherent list.
Maybe you get lucky and something like Exemplar spam resonates with you and you can run eKreoss' tier list and have the best of both worlds.
Maybe you get unlucky and something like Khador 'Jacks resonate with you and you can't run the models you want, because the models you take is a huge part of the game.
-Tighter Rules
-Steady-Stream updates (all factions get a few toys a year; no 10-year-long waits)
-factions balanced (I'd say relative balance >0.9)
-Good internal balance (Very few completely junk choices. Most things have at least some situation in which they can be useful)
-Small start-up cost. Can get a reasonable sized force for about half that of a 40k army.
-Variable lists. Due to low start-up cost, is very cheap to change up lists in-faction, especially if you start with some of the more versatile in-faction units, and just change casters and dressing.
40k pros:
-Lots of models?
-Lots of pieces to make conversions with.
I think the reason people say that 40k revolves around list building, is that in most armies, there are some very bad models and some very good models. And the secret to building a good 40k list is taking as many as you can of the good models and avoid the bad models completely.
There is also the common 40k idiom that some weapons are completely terrible for taking out certain kinds of enemy: lasguns vs tanks, lascannons vs guardsmen. In WMH, nearly everything can damage nearly everything else - I've seen colossals fall to Kriel Warriors under the right circumstances.
Warmachine I think is even more about list building than 40k. You generally don't have room in a list for much redundancy, and you need to focus on synergy to a much higher extent than in 40k where you can just build your army off a checklist (1. Do I have enough anti-flyer? If no, add anti-flyer. If yes, add infantry. Goto 1).
In 40k you can just throw together good models until you reach your points limit. WMH, nearly all models are decent. but some really don't work well together. Heavy infantry with Mulg? Not gonna work; but I can't think of a 40k army where I think 'oh wow, you took X hero with Y unit? bad decision'. It's generally, 'you took X hero? bad decision' completely independent of what other units are in the army.
So to what I like about WMH?
The rules are much tighter. There is a distinction between moving and advancing. There is a distinction between active and non-active. There is a distinction between 'after' and 'immediately after', and a defined order to resolve things which occur simultaneously.
All of that sounds quite peripheral, but it leads on to my next point:
The rules are more creative. There are abilities in WMH that would be utterly impossible to have in 40k, because the rules are tight enough to allow for them. Something like Overtake, quite common in Hordes but there would be so many flaws with its implementation in 40k that you just wouldn't want to see it.
Each army can change completely depending on the caster, to a much greater extent than a 40k army can change. You're never going to build a competitive shooty tyranids army, but you can run pretty much any hordes caster with at least one build competitively.
For me it depends on what type of style I want to play, for example if I want to play a casual time then I play 40k as I know the game is designed to be more of a beer and pretzel game and meant to re-create a story every time you play.
If I wanted to play a more competitive game however I will play warmachine, just to play a more tactical game to challenge my tactical skill and hopefully make me a better general on the table.
The only problem I have with Warmahordes is that some of the choices you want to play with are not the best units, for example I want to use stormblades but people at my FLGS tell me that I should get Forge Guard instead as they are better for Cygnar competitively. my only problem is that I started with Cygnar because I liked the Cygnar units, if I wanted Forge guard I would have started Mercs, I mean sure I can see a merc solos like Eyriss in my army but not my army getting replaced but Merc units (so here hoping that Synergy with a Stormclad will make them more tactically good ) .
But apart from that I do enjoy Warmahoredes, I like the army I play and I like the speed of the game as well as having clear rules for once .
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?
If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.
Both games have their merits. Focusing on the positives:
Warmachine~
-less time to play a game across equivalent point values
-lower model count, easy to transport
-almost quarterly releases, so everyone has access to new toys
-financially less to play... but not by much. as a tournment faction collection, usually includes multiple casters, units, kits, and models, thus the cost is deceptive.
-the game is built for competitive play, thus the rules are very clear, and a tournment usage is built in IF you are looking for that.
Warhammer 40,000
-can be more of a casual game, which is more enjoyable to some
-less strict rules and less clearly defined rules
-door is wide open for conversions and personalization of your army
-mostly dominated by shooting phase
-ability to field a more diverse army with the allies option. yes WMHD has Merc's... however the current 40k system leaves armies a lot more options
-ability to feel you are playing a grand epic scale game especially with the push for larger models
The games are really very different I think it is a do you like oranges or bananas question. I like both personally.
Privateer is actually not some paragon of virtue and GW is not the citadel of evil like many claim, both companies want your money and charge what they think they can get away with for their products.
-door is wide open for conversions and personalization of your army
Exactly the same as in WMH. There isn't anything preventing you from using conversions or personalizations in casual play and if you wan't to talk about WMH conversion rules for tournaments, then 40k has almost just as many restrictions for those.
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?
If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.
How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.
How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.
You don't run every model you own in every list, just swapping a caster can dramatically effect how your game plays, it's not 40k where you run infantry spam guard, tank spam guard, air guard, ect, all requiring hundreds or thousands in investment
22cthulu wrote: In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.
This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.
You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?
If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.
How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.
They are.
What I'm trying to say is that if the game is, like cthulu says, 90% player skill and 10% list building, if you take away player skill by saying that both players are of the same skill level, then list building becomes the only important thing.
But if I'm a worse player than you, then it doesn't matter if I lift Keith's eGaspy list from Iron Gauntlet, model for model, I would still loose more often than not.
PhantomViper wrote: What I'm trying to say is that if the game is, like cthulu says, 90% player skill and 10% list building, if you take away player skill by saying that both players are of the same skill level, then list building becomes the only important thing.
But if I'm a worse player than you, then it doesn't matter if I lift Keith's eGaspy list from Iron Gauntlet, model for model, I would still loose more often than not.
Here is the thing if the game was "90% Player Skill" and "10% List Building", in an even skill match the games should be roughly even or at least have a chance coming out either way no matter what the lists are. That is if list building is such a small factor, it should be able to at best "Nudge" the results one way or another, not result in one player getting ground to dust. The effect of list & matchup can be so overwhelming, it can hardly be called "10%" of the battle. Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.
Chongara wrote: Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.
Matchups are not list building, bethayne is a good caster, but reznik tier will generally stomp her into dust if you spam hex hunters like some people want to, even a /bad/ reznik tier list is largely immune to her tricks unless you want to trigger witch hunt over and over.
This doesn't mean that bethayne's list is /bad/ it means that if you are playing tourney rules (which are what the game is designed for) and bring 2 lists, and see one of your opponents lists is friggen rezniks death brigade which will take a dump on one of yours, /you don't take that list/
I'm confident that JVM would stomp me into dust no matter what he ran (largely) doing horrifically bad things like not spamming jacks with an inafntry caster I don't count as list building, I count them as common sense, you dont blame list building if someone brings an all fenrisian wolf space wolf army. What he is trying to imply is that tuning and squeezing every last poing out of your list is not nearly as important in WM as 40k.
Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models
In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly
Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...
Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe
O_O Holy Crap you just describd my life... *hiccup*
Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models
In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly
Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...
Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe
O_O Holy Crap you just describd my life... *hiccup*
Chongara wrote: Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.
Matchups are not list building, bethayne is a good caster, but reznik tier will generally stomp her into dust if you spam hex hunters like some people want to, even a /bad/ reznik tier list is largely immune to her tricks unless you want to trigger witch hunt over and over.
This doesn't mean that bethayne's list is /bad/ it means that if you are playing tourney rules (which are what the game is designed for) and bring 2 lists, and see one of your opponents lists is friggen rezniks death brigade which will take a dump on one of yours, /you don't take that list/
I'm confident that JVM would stomp me into dust no matter what he ran (largely) doing horrifically bad things like not spamming jacks with an inafntry caster I don't count as list building, I count them as common sense, you dont blame list building if someone brings an all fenrisian wolf space wolf army. What he is trying to imply is that tuning and squeezing every last poing out of your list is not nearly as important in WM as 40k.
These are sensible points, what I'm trying to say here is that we should be careful about how we frame these things. Like I said originally I agree with the spirit of the statement, I just think it gives a very misleading picture of the game to the inexperienced reader. I took issue with the post I was quoting because it was just too broad.
I've seen some very disheartened players feel very frustrated after hearing things like this and finding out it was their favorite models that have been holding them back. Khador 'Jacks seem to be particularly bad in this regard.
The WM/H community isn't as egregious with their downplaying the role the models you put down play as say.. the Infinity community is but it still bothers me.
I've seen some very disheartened players feel very frustrated after hearing things like this and finding out it was their favorite models that have been holding them back. Khador 'Jacks seem to be particularly bad in this regard.
Khador jacks are /NOT/ bad, it's just that the faction does not have much jack support meaning that they dont run lots of jacks very well and the one or two casters that do are difficult to play and have some bad machups.
The thing, and i may say brilliance about WM, is you start the game saying "well I want lots of jacks!" or "Lots of infantry" or "I like slamming stuff!" but eventually, you'll try more and more casters, your play style will adjust and you'll probably end up with a wide variety of armies you can play with the same models, On the other side of the coin you dont say "well this is my air cav IG army" and slowly expand and expand and expand on it forever and get that sense of accomplishment, it's more "this is my menoth!" and you have one or two of everything, just like most other long-playing players, because WM is comparatively cheap and awesome..
even if you change armies the 2ndary market for WM is pretty great and I know two or three players locally that have gotten dollar-for-dollar trades with other WM players to try out new armies.
The big selling point for me, is PP's way of doing buisness in general, the books for each army came out several years ago, every year or so they release an expansion which gives /all/ the factions stuff, and the game /STAYS BALANCED AND FUN/ They even release test rules occassionally and let you know whats coming up in NQ, complete with rules so you can try out the models rules before you buy them, its everything that GW used to do when I first started a million years ago, but better.
Better is a subjective word. What is better for me is not necessarily better for you. With that being said, WM/HD is better for me for:
1. Clear rules
2. lower cost
3. tactical options
The rules are clear and concise, granted some are quirky, but there is no question on how a rule reads.
Lower cost will always be debated by most die-hards. The math for me is that when you buy a $35 model that represents 10 points of you army, in a 35 point army that model represents slightly under 1/3 of your army. In 40k the $40 squad of marines equates to about 1/15-1/10 of your army points in a 2000pt game.
The tactical options in WMHD outpace the ones in 40k. Throw, slam, trample, etc... Monstrous Creatures in 40k wish they had these abilities.
IMO40k has to many rules variations or interpretations someone perceives one way, but someone else reads it another. Both players end up playing different. Units can contain 20 different war gear options making each time you see the unit a surprise. The armies tend to be flavor of the month / what codex just came out, Spam this unit and build a list around it because x unit is cheese. Your guys die when you assault/charge and they always charge/assault a different distance every time. Crap load of dice.
Hordes/warmachine - pretty clear rules, units war gear is always the same so you know what a model has when you see it without having to check. No petty rules like initive steps, defense grenades, force weapons, physic test deny the witch look out sir mess... Few dice needed, facing of model matters, any army is a viable army, One model does everything then you move to the next model... Whew - and there's more.
IMO warmachine/hordes is superior in almost every way. I enjoy Warhammer 40k less and less each time I play.
Out here in Cali its VERY difficult to sway 40k players to even try WM/H due to the financial investment in the game they've come to love. Also, I feel as a WM/H player that our community gets a bad wrap. I often hear 40k players describe WM/H players are "overly-competitive" and that the players clearly only play top tier lists all the time and they all curb stomp noobs and that PP supports this mind-set "just look at page 5!"
I'm here to tell you that all of that is untrue. The vast majority of players are casual gamers who enjoy PP's tight rule set which eleviates rules disputes and lets them focus on play. Also, if you read Page 5, yes it says play like you have a pair, but it also says Page 5 is NEVER an excuse to be a douche. Play like you have a pair is simply a message to play offesively because the game rewards aggressive play, meaning not holding much back, going all out and getting the most from every activation, and not falling back when things are looking bad but to push hard to overcome your opponent. The number one rule is THIS IS A GAME SO HAVE FUN. Just like not every 40k player is a tool, not every WM/H player is one either. Sure there are asshats in every game, and you can simply choose to NOT play with them, but please give the community a chance. There are great players and the game is A LOT of fun!
Here is one piece of advise though: When you start playing WM/H, you will lose a LOT early on, and that is not due to douchey players. The game has a high learning curve and it takes a while before you get your feet under you as a player, and I feel that this can sometimes lead folks to believe a more experienced player is being ruthless or unfair. Its a part of the game and it requires you to let go of your ego during the learning period. Battle box games are the best to learn simply because they are fast and there is a lot less to worry about on the board. I've seen many players attempt to jump to higher point levels too quickly and they have a really hard time and struggle for much longer than necessary because of it.
All of the above has been my experience and as a player of both games, I can't recommend WM/H enough. Its a great game, great community, and a great company who are themselves players and lovers of the game.
What got me into Warmachine was hearing that the ruleset is so much clearer than 40k. We'd just got into 6th edition 40k and I was finding it immensely frustrating to play due to how convoluted and ambiguous the rules are, so we tried out Warmachine. I wasn't disappointed - you can see the difference just by looking at the Warmachine YMDC here, where the usual format is post 1: question, post 2: answer provided in full.
I also find it a much more cinematic game than 40k. That's a bit weird given the 40k rulebook blathers on and on about forging a narrative and stuff like that, but at the end of the day 40k doesn't represent the events of the background very well in the game and almost all of it comes down to "I move and shoot at the guy." In Warmachine, you have a huge cast of interesting and very powerful wizards rolling around the table with unique spell sets and configurations of special rules and a posse of supporting characters and units that all have their own unique and meaningful stats and special rules and abilities. When it comes to representing the game world on the table, all of that does a way better job than "oh, my termagant can't shoot because her head is modeled too low to see over that small wall."
hivemind66 wrote: Out here in Cali its VERY difficult to sway 40k players to even try WM/H due to the financial investment in the game they've come to love. Also, I feel as a WM/H player that our community gets a bad wrap. I often hear 40k players describe WM/H players are "overly-competitive" and that the players clearly only play top tier lists all the time and they all curb stomp noobs and that PP supports this mind-set "just look at page 5!"
I'm here to tell you that all of that is untrue. The vast majority of players are casual gamers who enjoy PP's tight rule set which eleviates rules disputes and lets them focus on play. Also, if you read Page 5, yes it says play like you have a pair, but it also says Page 5 is NEVER an excuse to be a douche. Play like you have a pair is simply a message to play offesively because the game rewards aggressive play, meaning not holding much back, going all out and getting the most from every activation, and not falling back when things are looking bad but to push hard to overcome your opponent. The number one rule is THIS IS A GAME SO HAVE FUN. Just like not every 40k player is a tool, not every WM/H player is one either. Sure there are asshats in every game, and you can simply choose to NOT play with them, but please give the community a chance. There are great players and the game is A LOT of fun!
Page 5 is a good sentiment (try your best / be a good sport, win or lose) wrapped up in misleading and vaguely insulting verbiage. "Play like you have a pair" is remarkably dumb and, in my experience so far, completely misses the point of the game. At a word, the name of the game in Warmachine is precision. Every time I've seen someone say, "page 5 play like you have a pair yolo" and do something "aggressive", they've died. Horribly. Because Warmachine isn't a game about aggression, it's a game about precision, and the game gives you more than enough rope to hang yourself if you try to be overaggressive.
Does aggression come into play? Sure, because as a general rule in a game (or life, huh) it's suboptimal to have resources sitting around doing nothing when they could be doing something. I don't think you'd call chess "aggressive," though, even though it's aggressive in much the same way as Warmachine. I feel it's inaccurate billing, and I'm glad I didn't really run into it much because it might have put me off the game, wrongly, if I'd known about it in advance.
Oh, and I want to agree with hivemind66's comments about newbies. This might sound crazy but it's much easier to play a game with a stranger when you're both playing by the same rules! You can play a relaxed game of Warmachine fine, because the rules are clear enough to allow you to do so easily. It's fun! A lot more fun than digging through a massive tome to figure out how to play a special rule of a "beer & pretzels game."
O another BIG difference between the games is 40k has you rolling on 100 different charts, half of which seem to be before the game even starts. It slows down the game pace big time.
Although I might be joining the bandwagon here I guess, to me I think Warmachine/ Hordes is a better game compared to 40k. This is because it has a tight ruleset, which makes it easy for both casual and tournament play. Also this combined with a low model count, and cheaper cost to get into the game/ start a new army make a game relatively quick on a Battlebox/ 15 pts level. Although some may complain how you cannot make your own warnoun or customize your outkit with models, I do not think Warmachine/Hordes really needs it since how it is designed.
Now it is a fact you are mostly going to lose a LOT when you are starting out, but it is based on the learning curve and challenge it gives the beginner, but I think it is a good challenge (my opinion on it, so I could be subjective with this).
And this is from coming from playing 5 years of 40k/ Fantasy about, and now I started to see how imbalanced the game is and so on. Also it does not help a bit how GW seems to raise the price to the point almost no-one but the well-off could play a decent list and kind of screw over the customer (although PP may.
Not trying to start a flame war, but this is how I feel about the situation. :/
I am a 40k player interested in warmahordes so this thread was nice to stumble upon. One thing I enjoy about 40k is rolling lots of dice and feeling like I have lots of my army men running around the board. I don't use much heavy armour, mostly just footmen. I also enjoy the backgrounds and models that games workshop has to offer even though they're rediculously priced.
One thing that looks cool about warmahordes is that the model you spent the last few weeks painting actually makes a difference in the game. Sometimes I'll spend forever on a marine for him to die before he gets to do anything.
But alas, I think it would be fun to be able to switch back and forth.
But alas, I think it would be fun to be able to switch back and forth.
Nothing is stopping you, I switch back and forth (and with Infinity as well), it just takes longer to save up for the forces you wish to field. It's good to have variety.
Warhammer has always had neat models for me (Tau for 40K, Skaven for FB). That said, I am not a big modelling person (awful eyesight and such tend to do that). So I stick to WM/H for the game.
That said, playing other games isn't prevented by that. I have tried Infinity and want to play the upcoming Arena Rex. Locals here play Warhammer, Infinity, Dust, and others about. I'm in the boat that loves games with good gamey bits, but different strokes will be the big factor I think in determining where your money goes.
In WarmaHordes, the 2d6 (sometimes 3, 4, or *gasp* 5!) mechanic gives a a better handle on the randomness/reliability.
40k by contrast now relies too much, IMHO, on random rolls. I swear, playing against a Chaos Daemon army is like this:
roll dice and consult multiple tables for 2.5 hours.
I think the coolest part about having strict rules like Warmahordes does, is that it lets you have really interesting rules.
Overtake for example is a mechanic often seen in WMH (kill a model, get to advance and make an attack). Yet if you tried to have the same thing in 40k, the game would just break. Or at least, the rule would be 3 paragraphs long with 3 paragraphs of FAQ's, instead of a single sentence.
I think that WMH is more about list building than 40k though: in 40k, you eliminate the 'bad' models from your codex and spam whichever models are left until you reach your points limit. WMH actively discourages spamming of more than 1 of each beast due to Animus abilities; and because nearly all units are 'good' you really need to work out which ones synergise well with the other models you already have and your caster.
Warmachine seems to cost less , even for a good army , then w40k does. On the other hand w40k you can get much easier carried by the list and even a bad or weak army can be carried by stats alone [marines mostly] , in warmachine you just get killed without a good army.I know it from personal expiriance of last month. I was forced to leave w40k and jump to warmachines , I knew that my collection is way off a perfect , but I though that using tactics and maybe some luck I could at least draw from time to time. Boy was I wrong , in w40k If I took a marines army and allied with orcs [but not the good units] , I could still have some fun. In warmachine my cygnar just gets killed turn 2 or turn one with assasination or scenario win. If I get realy luck , I get to run away for 3-4 turns sacrificing my whole army and then die . WM seems to be very pre made and focused on certain combinations of units . It doesn't mean tha w40k isn't , it is too. But in w40k you can play those 3-4 turns with a bad army . With wm you lose ultra fast and after 2-3 games no one wants to play against you anymore , because your weak army isn't a challange .
How are you constantly losing to T1 assassination and scenario wins? I'm actually really interested, I can only think of a few cases that is possible (the assassination at least) and even then it requires you using every trick you have to throw your caster out the front as far as you can
motyak wrote: How are you constantly losing to T1 assassination and scenario wins? I'm actually really interested, I can only think of a few cases that is possible (the assassination at least) and even then it requires you using every trick you have to throw your caster out the front as far as you can
Scenario victory is literally impossible on turn 1. Scenarios don't even start scoring until the bottom of the 2nd round and none allow the scoring of 5pts in a single turn. The fastest you can possibly lose to scenario is at the top of 3. That's if you stay in your DZ and contest nothing.
I suppose it is very easy to lose at WM when you're playing with rules that allow scenario victories turn 1 (any fast AD forces would do it). It would also be very easy to lose when playing with rules that allow your opponent to take out a leafblower and remove any models that can knock over with it from play as a "Super Tornado Attack". I'm not really sure either of those make any particularly meaningful statements about WM/H as a game though.
Makumba wrote: Warmachine seems to cost less , even for a good army , then w40k does. On the other hand w40k you can get much easier carried by the list and even a bad or weak army can be carried by stats alone [marines mostly] , in warmachine you just get killed without a good army.I know it from personal expiriance of last month. I was forced to leave w40k and jump to warmachines , I knew that my collection is way off a perfect , but I though that using tactics and maybe some luck I could at least draw from time to time. Boy was I wrong , in w40k If I took a marines army and allied with orcs [but not the good units] , I could still have some fun. In warmachine my cygnar just gets killed turn 2 or turn one with assasination or scenario win. If I get realy luck , I get to run away for 3-4 turns sacrificing my whole army and then die . WM seems to be very pre made and focused on certain combinations of units . It doesn't mean tha w40k isn't , it is too. But in w40k you can play those 3-4 turns with a bad army . With wm you lose ultra fast and after 2-3 games no one wants to play against you anymore , because your weak army isn't a challange .
Sounds like you're using your pieces incorrectly for a start. you open yourself up for a turn 2 or turn 1 assassination. How? then you say how you run away by sacrificing everything before dying. Cygnar is a nasty army, with plenty options available and tricks up their sleaves - they've no reason to be ending up in the situation as described above - maybe you should look for some advice and tactics in getting the most out of what you have? What stuff do you field, and who do you go up against?
you say its " a very pre-made and focused on certain combinations of units. " I think, whilst partially right, this also completely misses the mark. Warmachine is about synnergy. Its not what you take. Its what you take alongside it. You cant just have a hodge-podge of random units and expect to pull out a win through "luck". the game is hugely about tactics, but tactics feed off of good synnergies, and if all you have is a random collection of things, the tactics open to you will both be limited, and non optimal. Essentially, how can you pull off clever tactics when the pieces you have dont lend themselves to it? you cant play an assault army with tau, can you? its the same thing with warmachine. look to the synnergies and build your game from that. And I will reinforce the point here: there is no "one way" to play. there is no "one ring", no master plan, no "list to rule them all". there is no one "pre-set" way of play. combos and synnergies are huge in this game, but here's the thing: there is no "one" synnergy. everything can be built into a game winning strategy.
maybe you should look for some advice and tactics in getting the most out of what you have?
All the tactics say . Get stormwall , get 13 , get gunmages mounter or not , get haley . That doesn't help me at all.
But the thing is the shop here had only trenchers , trencher chainguns, ironclads ,
shieldwalls x2 which I bought , forgeguard which I again bought, cainx2 out of which I bought the non epic one . he is the one that does the runing around and then dieing . a hammersmith which I bought , stormguard but only in blisters so useless . 2 chargers which I bought with nemo. He is the fast dieing one. Also 3 out of 4 my opponents play horde so lot of his stuff doesn't work . Now I knew from the start that my army is going to be weaker then my friends They had their armies bought from US , so weren't limited by what the store has and they could pick any army they want . I had to pick cygnar , because it was the only faction they dont play and which had casters sold at the store .
As for how I lose turn with scenarios. My khadro playing friend plays two lists against me one with a horde of infantry that kills my casters with assasination using those ax dudes , snipers and aoe dmg and another one where he uses 2 jacks one twice the size of my ironclad with 2 bombardas that fires after runing and another twice the size of the 2 bombarda one . If I don't hide I eat 3 boosted and feated aoe shots on my cain or nemo . if I hide behind jacks or terrain I get only shot by the huge jack. Against the legion play I lose because his army is three times faster then my . Stuff flies or runs like crazy , ingores woods , ignores terrain .He never plays the same list ,as he bought all the models that are sold for legion right now.
If I even try to get anywhere near objectives with my caster and he goes second I die turn 1 , turn 2 if he starts.
Against the skorn player I have problems with dealing with his two bronzbacks parking on objectives or contesting stuff . If my stuff gets close it dies.
My last friend plays cryx . His army is faster , stealthed , his infantry hits harder then my jacks . Most of the games I played against his looked like this . He runs in to objective zone , now my option is to try to charge and use up my focus and die next turn from assasination or lose jacks that charged . Or let him win turn 2 from scenario points , if I don't get close.
Now I know my friends bought better armies , I also know that my army isn't the most optimal build in warmachine . Far from it . But in w40k , if someone makes a marine army based on tacticals without flyers and ally , he can still have a game that takes up 4-5 turns . He can hope for good rolls or bad opponent rolls , hope that stats will help him survive. In warmachine if you don't have the good stuff , you may as well not be playing . By the way I don't think that this is a bad thing , pre made armies can be fun too .
I went yestarday to a noob jack only tournament . I hoped to learn stuff , maybe see what cygnar players use and ask if people have cygnar to sell. My first opponent was a cygnar list haley with two huge jacks , second opponent was a druid army with everything with stealth and third was my friend with his all flying legion . I played nemo with ironclad , hammer smith and charger and got owned hard.
i have played a crazy more number of games of 40k than i have WMH but even in the like 4 games ive played ive noticed two major differences that i like.
1) There really is no sense of hopelessness. Because the game is less random due to the 2D6 system and is heavily more tactic based than list based, its pretty hard to get that "Well, im boned" feeling. Usually when i get that in 40k its true and i lose. Im 50-50 in WMH, and all 4 games i had that feeling i was boned but pulled something out of my arse to win (Borka passing a Tough test being dumb luck but good example lol)
2) Less confusing....by a LONG SHOT. 40k theres always WTF? rules you never encounter for months at a time...WMH for the most part is pretty straight forward. Ive played against 3 races and all i needed to know was what the spell they were casting did, but all the effects they listed i knew what it was. None of this "And they shall know no rules" bullcrap. With the exception of Mulg's attunment with Doomshaper, everything ive read so far was crystal clear to me...40k took me a couple months to even get a grasp lol
All the tactics say . Get stormwall , get 13 , get gunmages mounter or not , get haley . That doesn't help me at all.
But the thing is the shop here had only trenchers , trencher chainguns, ironclads ,
Ironclads are fantastic, efficient machines.
Trenchers are overcosted for what they do, and must be played carefully. I
don't think you ever make your points back with those guys so you have to
play them to deny your opponent points by judicious use of smoke walls. Try
presenting only three at a time and hiding your good stuff behind an advancing
wall of smoke. Unless they're playing Legion or have a rule called hunter,
you'll be safe from conventional ranged attacks and charges. Sure, the
trenchers will take it on the chin, but hopefully your counterstrike will be
well worth it.
shieldwalls x2 which I bought ,
I don't know what this is.
forgeguard which I again bought, cainx2 out of which I bought the non epic one . he is the one that does the runing around and then dieing .
Lieutenant Caine is amazing. He's also extremely fragile. You advance
him, shoot or feat, and then teleport safely away. Sometimes, if you're
feeling ballsy, you cast the Thunderstrike.
If your group is using 'beast or 'jack heavy lists, Caine is a lot more
difficult to use. Then you're just hoping he gives you a firelane to just
pump bullets into their caster until they're dead. His epic version Captain
Caine has the tools to pick apart high armor. Lieutenant Caine needs
a more specialized list to deal with that.
a hammersmith which I bought ,
Try this with pNemo. Locomotion, 5 focus, kill something big.
stormguard but only in blisters so useless . 2 chargers which I bought with nemo. He is the fast dieing one.
Which Nemo is this? Two chargers should be fantastic with Epic
Nemo. His feat gives them three focus and they blast things to pieces.
Regular Nemo will rely more on the Hammersmith and IRonclad. He
should probably have an arc node, too and other things that work well
with his spell list.
Also 3 out of 4 my opponents play horde so lot of his stuff doesn't work . Now I knew from the start that my army is going to be weaker then my friends They had their armies bought from US , so weren't limited by what the store has and they could pick any army they want . I had to pick cygnar , because it was the only faction they dont play and which had casters sold at the store .
My khadro playing friend plays two lists against me one with a horde of infantry that kills my casters with assasination using those ax dudes , snipers and aoe dmg
Caine can clear this. Just mind those AOEs. If his caster is Butcher though,
then you'll need to keep your hmamersmith alive long enough to finish the job.
and another one where he uses 2 jacks one twice the size of my ironclad with 2 bombardas that fires after runing and another twice the size of the 2 bombarda one . If I don't hide I eat 3 boosted and feated aoe shots on my cain or nemo .
Sounds like Butcher if the feat adds damage.
Against the legion play I lose because his army is three times faster then my . Stuff flies or runs like crazy , ingores woods , ignores terrain .He never plays the same list ,as he bought all the models that are sold for legion right now.
I have a hard time against legion.
If I even try to get anywhere near objectives with my caster and he goes second I die turn 1 , turn 2 if he starts.
Against the skorn player I have problems with dealing with his two bronzbacks parking on objectives or contesting stuff . If my stuff gets close it dies.
Remember, counter slam only works once per turn or will not work if the 'beast is engaged. Run
with your infantry and follow up with the 'jacks.
My last friend plays cryx . His army is faster , stealthed , his infantry hits harder then my jacks . Most of the games I played against his looked like this . He runs in to objective zone , now my option is to try to charge and use up my focus and die next turn from assasination or lose jacks that charged . Or let him win turn 2 from scenario points , if I don't get close.
Infantry screen.
Now I know my friends bought better armies , I also kno
w that my army isn't the most optimal build in warmachine . Far from it . But in w40k , if someone makes a marine army based on tacticals without flyers and ally , he can still have a game that takes up 4-5 turns . He can hope for good rolls or bad opponent rolls , hope that stats will help him survive. In warmachine if you don't have the good stuff , you may as well not be playing .
Not true. It's not that you don't have the good stuff. You don't seem
to have very many stuff that will work well together AND you're getting
creamed by veteran players. THis is a bad combination.
For instance, you have Forge Guard. They are frightfully slow and
are mercenaries to boot. Therefore, they won't benefit from any faction
buffs. However, there are 'casters who can make them sing and there
are support pieces that will help them do their job. To me, this is the
list building component of warmachine. You bring what you can to make
x model work .
I went yestarday to a noob jack only tournament . I hoped to learn stuff , maybe see what cygnar players use and ask if people have cygnar to sell. My first opponent was a cygnar list haley with two huge jacks , second opponent was a druid army with everything with stealth and third was my friend with his all flying legion . I played nemo with ironclad , hammer smith and charger and got owned hard.
A 'jack only tournament often has a point value. What was it and what
were you fielding?
I stopped playing 40k right after my first game of warmahordes. The balance and synergy between the components of each army really drew me in. Games only take as long as they need to and the winner is, more often than not, the more tactful player. From my experiences, there isn't a ton of impact on the outcome due to randomness, which is preferable in any wargame.
EDIT: I play Circle (my main army), Legion, Khador and Menoth. All for about the same cost as my single 40k army.
I noticed that you said that your friend with Khador uses his Behemoth (the one with the bombards) to run and then shoot. This is against the rules. Once a model runs it then losses any additional actions barring a special rule on its card.
Also it sounds like your misplaying the Line of Sight rules. Reread the Line of sight rules again and notice that all models are based on volume and not the actual figure. Also note that LoS is not symetrical. So, just because you can see him doesn't mean that he can see you.
If you stand your caster behind 2 Jacks that are in Base to Base contact then there is no way for his Jacks to see you. And if you stay within 1" of them and behind them then he can't see you with his behemoth. If he can't see you then he can't shoot at you. He can then shoot at your Jacks and your caster may eat blast damage but he can't hit you directly.
Caine can put blur on himself and his defence goes up to 20. The Khador jacks have RATs of 5. Even using 3 dice he's going to miss a lot more than he hits. And then it's up to the scatter dice to see if he remains in the AoE.
If you're using eNemo then just keep force field up and that pretty much ends the blast damage problem. pNemo should be disrupting enemy jacks with his feat and you should have disruption field on your main melee jack.
Sorry for the wall of text but I hope this helps you.
What else were you fielding? That Haley list you're describing is 33 points, while yours is 13...
2 chargers 2 ironclads 1 hammersmith. I don't own any other cygnar jacks .
If your group is using 'beast or 'jack heavy lists, Caine is a lot more
difficult to use. Then you're just hoping he gives you a firelane to just
pump bullets into their caster until they're dead. His epic version Captain
Caine has the tools to pick apart high armor. Lieutenant Caine needs
a more specialized list to deal with that.
the khador player uses infantry . I played one game against dudes that looked like jacks with the caster that lets them run through other units of the same type.all other games against infantry were with winterguard[I think that is how they are called] who run around with tough , def higher then cain , armor like jacks with tons of shoting of different kind and oddly enough not bad melee either.
The third infantry armies I got to play against were cryx . Tons of models some with stealth and everything very fast runing turn one to me or scoring zones. Trying to kill the infantry with cain doesn't seem to work so well , because if he doesn't kill them all he dies in melee and if he does kill them all there is still a good chance that the cryx caster is in range for an assasination .
Which Nemo is this? Two chargers should be fantastic with Epic
Nemo. His feat gives them three focus and they blast things to pieces.
Regular Nemo will rely more on the Hammersmith and IRonclad. He
should probably have an arc node, too and other things that work well
with his spell list.
a normal nemo. Arc nodes are only on lancers right?
Sounds like Butcher if the feat adds damage.
big guy with an ax on feat turn , both the jacks roll 4d6+half strengh which kills cain always and nemo sometimes. I could probably keep cain away , i if I wasn't for his short control range.
Not true. It's not that you don't have the good stuff. You don't seem
to have very many stuff that will work well together AND you're getting
creamed by veteran players
aside for the haley player[store owner] and one skorn player who I played 1 time in my life , all my games were against my friends , which play this game for 3 weeks .
A 'jack only tournament often has a point value. What was it and what
were you fielding?
35pts . I played with 2 chargers 2 ironclads and a hammer smith.
The Winterguard don't get any armour buffs that I know of. Unless there are some random spells from a caster which do that, but then they aren't getting any DEF buffs from spells, just Bob and Weave.
What else were you fielding? That Haley list you're describing is 33 points, while yours is 13...
2 chargers 2 ironclads 1 hammersmith. I don't own any other cygnar jacks .
You're still only fielding 24 points then against his 33. I think I'm starting to see where your problem is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: The Winterguard don't get any armour buffs that I know of. Unless there are some random spells from a caster which do that, but then they aren't getting any DEF buffs from spells, just Bob and Weave.
They don't. The only armor buff Khador has access to is Harkevich's feat, which only works on 'Jacks.
I put gaming in terms of time spent playing and painting. I have a limited amount fo time to game, given a job, 2 kids and a wife and all the cool stuff associated with it.
I played 40k for almost 20 years, and picked up warmachine on a whim in 2008. Now I totally dropped 40k, and GW as a whole almost (still playing epic and BFG but GW is not related to these anymore). Warmahordes is just a better time investment for me, with cleaner rules and a more interactive experience.
What else were you fielding? That Haley list you're describing is 33 points, while yours is 13...
2 chargers 2 ironclads 1 hammersmith. I don't own any other cygnar jacks
If you are trying to run 5 jacks with Haley then that is probably a major issue. Most casters in the game usually only want one or two jacks. Both Haleys are in that group.
My major issue early on in laying was I wanted to go jack heavy with casters who don't like going jack heavy.
Work on getting some infantry, especially infantry that needs minimum support, and I think your odds will go up plenty.
And also, you need to learn your stuff and your opponents. This game is very much about knowing how both sides work. Until you know what everything does you are going to lose. A lot. At the minimum read over battle college and the other army pages on the PP boards for their tacticas. They will tell you the weaknesses of their army if you let them. Especially right after a battle. It let's you read more about the models you just played and how to defeat them next time.
If you have the money/time then get some of the other army books and the starter sets. If you can build those into 35 point armies then even better.
Just about everyone I know who plays WM with regularity has at least two factions. Some have 3, 4 or more.
Really it just comes down to knowing the rules. I love reading and knowing all the rules so am pretty good at them. But I notice a lot of people are not like that. If you don't know the rules or their rules then you usually get screwed.
What else were you fielding? That Haley list you're describing is 33 points, while yours is 13...
2 chargers 2 ironclads 1 hammersmith. I don't own any other cygnar jacks
If you are trying to run 5 jacks with Haley then that is probably a major issue. Most casters in the game usually only want one or two jacks. Both Haleys are in that group.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'll rephrase it that most casters want one or two jacks, sometimes three if 2 of them are focus efficient.
If you are trying to run 5 jacks with Haley then that is probably a major issue. Most casters in the game usually only want one or two jacks. Both Haleys are in that group.
My major issue early on in laying was I wanted to go jack heavy with casters who don't like going jack heavy.
Work on getting some infantry, especially infantry that needs minimum support, and I think your odds will go up plenty.
And also, you need to learn your stuff and your opponents. This game is very much about knowing how both sides work. Until you know what everything does you are going to lose. A lot. At the minimum read over battle college and the other army pages on the PP boards for their tacticas. They will tell you the weaknesses of their army if you let them. Especially right after a battle. It let's you read more about the models you just played and how to defeat them next time.
If you have the money/time then get some of the other army books and the starter sets. If you can build those into 35 point armies then even better.
Just about everyone I know who plays WM with regularity has at least two factions. Some have 3, 4 or more.
Really it just comes down to knowing the rules. I love reading and knowing all the rules so am pretty good at them. But I notice a lot of people are not like that. If you don't know the rules or their rules then you usually get screwed.
I don't have haley . I run nemo , I have huge problems with glueing darius up without pining and cain seems a bit stupid for a jack/monster format. My opponent had haley and 2 big jacks , the size of that khador one with a twin navel gun . First game he did some shoting I advence with nemo behind an ironclad and he cast a spell that lets him move a jack and hit nemo 4 big guns which killed him dead even unboosted , because I used up focus to make my jacks run and chargers to shot at his jacks. Second game he run to the scoring zone and poped his feat catching my whole battlegroup . I tried to move away as far as I could without going out of the scoring zone and camped focus . On his turn he took ever my ironclad turned my hammersmith around and used my ironclad to knock down everything and put 4 big cannon shots in to nemo. that didnt kill him , but on my turn only thing I could do is to shot haley with my 2 chargers I tried but one was blocked with some sort of pods and the other one didnt do enough damge.
the BC wasn't every useful to me , it doesn't give stats of stuff or lists , even If I read a caster or a unit or a solo , I don't know how it combos with other stuff and considering there is 2 factions to learn , there is well over a 100 combinations just at the 25-35 pts lvl.
If what you're describing is called a Stormwall ( http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/cygnar/colossals/stormwall ) then he cheated. You can only move a Stormwall, or any collosal, during its activation.
Also there is no way that he could force your ironclad to use its tremor attack. Tremor is a star action and domination (the spell he probably used) only allows normal attacks.
It seems like you and your friend really need to read through the rules thoroughly as well as the cards. At this point you should ask to see the card and read the spell very carefully before you allow him to do something.
So, from what you're saying is that your losing a lot. But the reason seems to be that your friends are not playing by the correct rules. Maybe you should go back to using just the starter rules and a battlebox until you become more familiar with the correct application of the rules.
no no , he was moving my jacks and turning them around and to shot at the back and stuff. And it was kind of the the store owner and TO of the whole thing . He won the whole noob tournament too.
as playing battlebox goes , non of us have one . My friends bought armies they copied from tournaments and one bought the whole legion model range . I don't have a battle box either , because there was no sold here . Am happy that they let me play 35pts , most games here 50 and people dont play lower point games at all .
Well I got the prime rulebook a couple days ago and have read through it. I've also gotten to see (not play) a couple games.
Here's how i feel:
Rules-wise, warmachine wins hands down. no question. Full stop. The rulebook is laid out amazingly clearly and the rules are pretty airtight. There was a few times I found myself thinking "ok, so can i do this... then the next paragraph in that section would explicitly answer my question for me.
Setting, conflicted at the moment. Warmachine is a cool setting, but 40k is pretty much the most awesome setting ever, so I have to give this one to 40k. Maybe once warmachine has some more time to grow the world out I'll re-evaluate.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
As far as players, the guys who play warmachine at my FLGS seem a lot nicer than the 40k guys ("check out my flying hive tyrant. it could totally crush your army. last game I tabled my opponent on turn 3", a guy walking around with a shirt that says "mount and do me" styled like the mountain Dew logo... it speaks for itself).
So at the end of that, i have to say I'll be sticking with 40k as my primary game, but warmachine certainly looks playable when I want to try something else.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
Yeah, that's a totally bad example. That's like me reducing 40k to "Roll dice, pick up dice, roll dice."
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
Yeah, that's a totally bad example. That's like me reducing 40k to "Roll dice, pick up dice, roll dice."
I'm just calling it like I saw it. In that game the most strategic decision was bringing more jacks/beasts than the opponent. There were buffs and debuffs cast a couple times (+2 to armor, -2 to attack, that kind of thing , but none of it really mattered because everybody knew that as soon as one thing got in melee range of another thing it was over since they would attack with their 3 weapons then buy 3 extra attacks.
Not saying the game always plays like that. It's just how i saw it played the couple times I've seen it.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
Yeah, that's a totally bad example. That's like me reducing 40k to "Roll dice, pick up dice, roll dice."
I'm just calling it like I saw it. In that game the most strategic decision was bringing more jacks/beasts than the opponent. There were buffs and debuffs cast a couple times (+2 to armor, -2 to attack, that kind of thing , but none of it really mattered because everybody knew that as soon as one thing got in melee range of another thing it was over since they would attack with their 3 weapons then buy 3 extra attacks.
Not saying the game always plays like that. It's just how i saw it played the couple times I've seen it.
Were you watching a battlebox game? Those tend to be like that. "Regular" games I don't see enough 'Jacks for the game to be like that.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
Yeah, that's a totally bad example. That's like me reducing 40k to "Roll dice, pick up dice, roll dice."
I'm just calling it like I saw it. In that game the most strategic decision was bringing more jacks/beasts than the opponent. There were buffs and debuffs cast a couple times (+2 to armor, -2 to attack, that kind of thing , but none of it really mattered because everybody knew that as soon as one thing got in melee range of another thing it was over since they would attack with their 3 weapons then buy 3 extra attacks.
Not saying the game always plays like that. It's just how i saw it played the couple times I've seen it.
Actually, the more Warbeast/ Warjacks one takes for one caster, that strains what the caster can do for spells and upkeeps, ect (think diminishing returns as the best way to put it). So that might have been a bad example of game to use. Also, Battlebox games tend to be like that just to get you into the basics of the game. You get infantry and solos later on and that.
This was a pretty huge throwdown. I think they said 50 points but I could be wrong. A colossal and 3-4 jacks/elephants. (but still only one caster per side).
From what I remember and my very limited rules knowledge:
Menoth brought a choir, some mechanics, a colossal, I think 4 heavy jacks and a light jack. I don't know which warcaster he used, but the model had a really fancy mace, really fast, huge defense, and made all his jacks run through terrain.
Skorne had a colossal, 3 elephants, 2 baby elephants, a bronzeback (that's the only name I actually know), some kind of guy with a big spear that got killed by the mechanic's wrench, alligators, and some kind of troop unit that let him heal his warbeast. His shaman was the big guy carried around by baby elephants.
I'm just calling it like I saw it. In that game the most strategic decision was bringing more jacks/beasts than the opponent. There were buffs and debuffs cast a couple times (+2 to armor, -2 to attack, that kind of thing , but none of it really mattered because everybody knew that as soon as one thing got in melee range of another thing it was over since they would attack with their 3 weapons then buy 3 extra attacks.
Not saying the game always plays like that. It's just how i saw it played the couple times I've seen it.
While you may be calling it as ya' see it, I really would strongly suggest playing the game before judging how well it plays. If it were as described, veteran players wouldn't be able to so easily distinguish themselves beyond their army list.
dementedwombat wrote: This was a pretty huge throwdown. I think they said 50 points but I could be wrong. A colossal and 3-4 jacks/elephants. (but still only one caster per side).
From what I remember and my very limited rules knowledge:
Menoth brought a choir, some mechanics, a colossal, I think 4 heavy jacks and a light jack. I don't know which warcaster he used, but the model had a really fancy mace, really fast, huge defense, and made all his jacks run through terrain.
Skorne had a colossal, 3 elephants, 2 baby elephants, a bronzeback (that's the only name I actually know), some kind of guy with a big spear that got killed by the mechanic's wrench, alligators, and some kind of troop unit that let him heal his warbeast. His shaman was the big guy carried around by baby elephants.
dementedwombat wrote: This was a pretty huge throwdown. I think they said 50 points but I could be wrong. A colossal and 3-4 jacks/elephants. (but still only one caster per side).
From what I remember and my very limited rules knowledge:
Menoth brought a choir, some mechanics, a colossal, I think 4 heavy jacks and a light jack. I don't know which warcaster he used, but the model had a really fancy mace, really fast, huge defense, and made all his jacks run through terrain.
Skorne had a colossal, 3 elephants, 2 baby elephants, a bronzeback (that's the only name I actually know), some kind of guy with a big spear that got killed by the mechanic's wrench, alligators, and some kind of troop unit that let him heal his warbeast. His shaman was the big guy carried around by baby elephants.
That may be why, those two are Beast/ Jack casters ( I know Amon is, but the other guy I am not sure, he might be). This is not the norm usually, since it is hard to run a lot of jacks/ beast due to how much focus you have and fury you can leech in and how much the points they are worth (Khador is a prime example. I say check out some other games, since there can be a lot of different combination of things that can synergies differently with each caster.
Setting, conflicted at the moment. Warmachine is a cool setting, but 40k is pretty much the most awesome setting ever, so I have to give this one to 40k. Maybe once warmachine has some more time to grow the world out I'll re-evaluate.
.
kaldor draigo says 40k fluff is terrible. heh.
Ill be honest. i love the 40k fluff - well, specifically the older fluff. I used to think that it was fantastic, but to be fair, everything since codex:grey knights has been woeful, whether it was the "they're so pure they bathe in the blood of dead nun" grey knights, the necrons as comedy robots and the recent 6th ed releases have been lacklustre for example. So to me, that puts paid to 40k as the greatest setting ever. when its good, its a great read. when its bad (and sadly, the older i get, the more falls into this category!) - forget about it.
With regard to warmachine fluff, its a hidden gem. Believe me when i say that whilst its a bit hidden, the iron kingdoms are as immense and as fantastic a world to get lost in as any other fantasy setting. its got 4000 years of recorded histroy, with great heroes, villains, culture, character, mystery, and scope. if you are genuinely interested, please check out the old iron kingdoms RPG material (especially the D20 stuff). I used to not get the warmachine fluff. after i did all that reading, and after getting lost in the iron kingdoms, i am utterly sold on it as a setting.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
.
To be fair, 40k only offers the illusion of choice. of all those builds and all that wargear for your commander, only a bare handful of builds will be useable, let alone good. I dont miss the faux-customisation of 40k characters at all. as well, to me, the notion of "my" character, as a personal experience of the game, was a lot harder to get behind (its like a single player game), and really comes at the expense of shared characters, like the named warcasters - i find it much easier to get involved with, and get behind them. set gear isnt a bug, its a feature.
Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
_____
I'm just calling it like I saw it. In that game the most strategic decision was bringing more jacks/beasts than the opponent. There were buffs and debuffs cast a couple times (+2 to armor, -2 to attack, that kind of thing , but none of it really mattered because everybody knew that as soon as one thing got in melee range of another thing it was over since they would attack with their 3 weapons then buy 3 extra attacks.
_______
Not saying the game always plays like that. It's just how i saw it played the couple times I've seen it.
.
you saw bad games with a very limited approach to the game if you ask me. either that, or it was almost a mangled metal approach.
Indeed, and once you get beyond the noob stage of "i charge first", followed by "i counter charge your charger that killed stuff", followed by "i counter-counter charge your counter-charger that killed the chargers", and start layering in control elements, denial elements, alphastriking, tarpits, attrition, board/model/terrain manipulations, spells and feats all the myriad synnergies involved between your casters, jacks/beasts, troops and solos, and start playing scenarios, you will really see the depth to this game and the sheer variety of approaches you can take. literally swapping out one piece can change an entire army's whole playstyle. 40k doesnt come anywhere close, im afraid.
compared to 40k, as a vet player of both systems, i have to give it to warmachine, personally. i found third ed 40k boiled down to either of two tactics - "rhino rush", or "shoot the rhino rush" and all armies were the same. fourth ed boiled down to "skimmer spam" if you had skimmers, monster spam if you had MCs, or 6man las/plas/camp in my deployment zone if i have marines. fifth was a tank car park. sixth is flyer spam. i see very limited elements at play in 40k im afraid.
id have to agree that 40k's options are illusions.
Every race has 1 MAYBE 2 units that actually has multiple viable combinations....the rest are "Take it this way or you are an idiot" - also its a lot more rock-paper-scissors based gameplay. Ive had far too many games with my orks/tau where i just fell apart with nothing i could do because my opponent guessed my list perfectly and countered it.
My WMH experience is very low but ive already felt like that doesnt exist. My first damn game i was expecting to lose because...it was myfirst game lol. I got wrecked by bad tough rolls and i missed most of my attacks the first turn we made contact. I still won because his warlock was JUST close enough for me to move my last warbeast up, kill something, then use eDoomie's gaod to push him up to slash at the warlock.
Up till that point i just felt like he had a scissors army to my paper. Because thats how i feel when i get crushed that fast in 40k. 40k youdont bounce back from that bad of a crush without unheard of luck...WMH you totally can without stupid luck.
Well it does exist. You have match ups like my eCaine list (admittedly it's not a perfect list but it isn't pure trash) against a bloke at my store who was running a Xerxis cataphract army. To be fair he allowed me a mulligan with my choice but I was happy to play a hard game. Anyway long story short I had maybe one chance to possibly assassinate, but I would have had to have been rolling hot, and it was really just quite brutal. But that's ok. You can't have a game without bad matchups, else what is the point of strengths and weaknesses.
dementedwombat wrote: Well I got the prime rulebook a couple days ago and have read through it. I've also gotten to see (not play) a couple games.
Army building, can't comment because I've never built a list. But I think I'll miss being able to chose all the wargear and such for my commander. Warmachine is a lot more restricting, but more involved at the same time ( units don't really have options, but building your list seems to require a lot more thought about what stuff compliments each other). Hard to explain. That's a draw at the moment.
I would say for unit building 40k defiantly wins (though as others point out with so many options in 40k being flat out better than others it gives you more the illusion of choice), but as far as army building goes I actually would give it warmachine. The way I would explain as someone who plays both is that in 40k many armies have play styles that are similar enough that it doesn't matter much what you take it will play the same. Prime examples are two 40k armies I play tau and Gk. Tau will pretty much play the same regardless of whether or not the tau player is using 3 ripetides or farsight bomb or whatever. It is a ranged army and it will play that way. GK is a more elite army with 2 viable builds anymore and the only difference is the did you bring mostly dudes in PA or mostly dudes in TDA?
Another way to look at is this at lot of times in 40k all you really need to say to give a general indication of what type game you had is just to list which armies and at what point value. If I say that its Tau vs. IG at 2000pts most 40k players already know how that game is going to go before you even see the lists/mission/table etc. However with warmachine you need more than just an army name, if I say I playing against a khador player with my Cygnar you won't know what to expect. Between all the different casters and army builds khador can build almost anything. All khador lists will be similar and may use some of the same models but can play very differently.
I tend to have have gamer ADD when it comes to playing lists, I only play the same list with the same army two or more games in row if I am at a tournament or practicing for one otherwise I almost never play the same list twice. In 40k this lead to me owning 4 different armies, but in warmachine I just got my cygnar. If I want to switch up my game I just use a caster I haven't used in awhile.
dementedwombat wrote: Gameplay, I actually have to give this to 40k. The game i saw was pretty much "my warjack charges your elephant and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your elephant dies." "ok, my turn, my elephant charges your warjack and buys a bunch of extra attacks. Your warjack dies." You might as well have been playing chess. The only thing that stopped it from being completely boring was when the warjack player managed to slip his warcaster around the last elephant to assassinate the opponent's shaman.
Then remind me to never invite you to my shootouts with IG when I playing my tau. At least the game you described had some movement involved, my tau vs. IG games is mainly just me and my opponent placing models on the table and standing still and rolling dice at each other.
Sorry if this is a bit of threadromancy, but I figured I'd add my 2 cents (or at least more fuel to the fire).
I've played 40k for a little over a year, and the guys in my gaming group just started to get into WarmaHordes, so admittedly my view may be a little skewed. From what I can tell the games only have 4 things in common.
1- It's played on a tabletop
2- There are models on said table
3- Both games use dice, templates, and measuring tape
4- Players still don't tell their parents/significant others how much they spend on the game
Outside of these, both games are totally different in scope, rules, game size, and pretty much anything else you can imagine. The oranges and bananas comment from earlier comes mind.
Fluff wise- Warmachine is meant to be a skirmish game with small groups fighting over tracks of land and/or towns. 40k represents large armies marching across blasted landscapes to annihilate the enemy and take over a planet. This, and the setting/time periods of each game, change the overall feel of the game. Warmachine may feel more tactical because most units have close range weapons and Warcasters are able to buff and micromanage their army. 40k is pretty close to how a real fire fight between armies would happen: get to cover, hope you have the bigger gun, shoot until the other guy is dead or you are. Both of these appeal to different people in different ways. A guy in my group prefers the steampunk feel of the Mercenaries from WM, and I prefer the mass mounts of infantry of the Imperial Guard in 40k. So comparing the two by fluff is kinda stupid.
Rules- Yes I'll give some extra credit to WMH and PP here, from what I can tell they have less FAQs. Other than this, the two rules are drastically different and, as with the fluff, shouldn't be compared as much as people tend to do. WMH may have tighter rules, but you're dealing with a single model against a single model (sometimes more, but not much more), not squads of models against another squad of models. As someone said before, the rules of one would not work for the rules of another. Can you imagine making some sort of test every time you wanted to use focus in a Warmachine game? Or what if you had to roll individually for each model in an IG infantry army? Both would get really old and tiresome really fast. And back to personal preference; some rules for both games may annoy some players. I hate how killing a Warcaster in WMH is an auto-win/lose, another person may hate how kill-point games work in 40k. A lot of the rules confusion in 40k seems to come from players experimenting with terrain (some of which is woefully underused and can really add to games. I'm looking at you razorwire), or players using obscure rules that may only work in a particular situation. If 40k rules are to be blamed for anything, it's that there is a lot of them.
Competitiveness- *If you're not interested in competitive play, feel free to skip this section of my rant*. This one amuses me the most I think. WMH players say 40k is rock-paper-scissors, 40k players say that WMH is rock-paper-scissors. People that play both say that both games are rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. Yes there are some match-ups in 40k that are just bad (Mech-IG vs. Greentide Orks, Tyranids vs. Everything), but I've seen the same in Warmachine. My understanding is that the tournament scene compounds this unfortunate occurrence. I've heard from both groups of players that there are some units/lists in either game that just dominate tournament play and everyone takes that unit/build. To digress for a moment, MtG also has the same problem. Deck X wins a pro-tour, everyone buys the cards to make Deck X. The same goes for 40k and WMH. Unit/List X wins a tourney, everyone buys Unit/List X. I will give credit to WMH in that each faction has that one list, whereas all of 40k has that one army list that people run.
Ultimately I feel as if the WMH vs. 40k debate can be summed up in one question: which do you like? Both have pros, and both have cons, it all just comes down to which set of rules and/or models you like more.
WM is a great skirmish level game, and with any game that relies on using not a lot of models, the rules are pretty integral to making the game interesting.
40k focuses instead on engagements at a much larger level, and simply because of the scale of the game, it's going to be a simplified system lest you run into twelve hour games or whatever absurdity.
Other points:
WM has a lower cost of entry into the hobby, but the stuff, on a per model basis, as about the same as 40k (some are lower, some are higher), so if the hobby is primarily about models, there's not much difference between the systems.
The backgrounds are considerably different as well. I will say my primary love of 40k is the background, and how it is tailor made to allow any player to customize their force to their liking. Correspondingly, my biggest beef with WM is you can't really have customization in the sense that your general will always be one of a list of guys. This obviously has no bearing on how your play the game though.
I don't think it's much of a dispute to say that WM rules are much better written, and the game requires a lot more thought.
Cost is kind of odd since I will agree that WM/H indeed is a bit cheaper to get into a Faction, it is a bit of how you get in. A friend of mine dropped $400 on Convergence recently when he was at Lock & Load. That seems comparable to what a Warhammer force is, but the army he got (with what's out) Includes a lot of repeats, Prime Axiom, and can support three different warcasters at 50pts. quite fine for what he plans to do in an event coming this September.
A big factor of cost I think is options. If you want the most opitons, you start to build a bit of a list of things to pay for. I have probably over $1,500 of Circle Orboros, but this is a result of buying literally every single model for the Faction since I started over the course of about six or seven years. This means I have the ability to support twelve warlocks, with two or three armies each, and a lot of interchangable parts. I'm not familiar how many lists you build for 40K, but the nature of how lists are in WM/H means that models move about between them a bit, and you mostly get things if you want the more specialty use after a point.
I think the main thing people are confusing here is that when people say 40k rules are bad. They mean they are not clear. They mean the rules are ambiguous. They mean depending on how you read it, it can mean 2 different things.
No one minds if the rules are simple or complex, they care that the rules are concise. They care that is a rules question that often pops up, they want a clear answer.
A great example of this is the Dakka 40k Tournament Rule Book that was like 40 pages long that literally took the time to clear up every issue the way they believed is the correct interpretation, the fact that Games Workshop doesn't do this themselves is rather frustrating. Especially since I know plenty of people that believe the Dakka 40k rules were slightly wrong in some cases, in how some situations should be handled. But overall they agreed to play the tournament by those rules and they appreciated Dakka for fixing the ambiguity.
and I know GW has FAQs but they usually only cover like 1/10th of all the rules issues the game has
I think the main thing people are confusing here is that when people say 40k rules are bad. They mean they are not clear. They mean the rules are ambiguous. They mean depending on how you read it, it can mean 2 different things.
Don't think so . Random terrain , warlord/psychic powers , random charge range when shoting has a fixed ranged. Stats or rules that either do nothing or make most of the factions ignore it , like LD and ATKNF . It is not just unclear writing.I played 5th with Wards GK being legal , their rules were bad because they broken even the build in specifics of 5th ed. if 5th was designed with msu mecha shoting in mind , then giving one factions all the tools to both do it and be immune to the stuff that was suppose to counter it was foolish. It also ties with how offten w40k is updated . An edition is four or more years old and if you happen to get a bad codex at the start of an edition you will be stuck with it for years. WM brings new units much more offten. One faction may seem to be weaker and then it gets a colossal or a new caster and suddenly people find new ways to play again.
I think the main thing people are confusing here is that when people say 40k rules are bad. They mean they are not clear. They mean the rules are ambiguous. They mean depending on how you read it, it can mean 2 different things.
Don't think so . Random terrain , warlord/psychic powers , random charge range when shoting has a fixed ranged. Stats or rules that either do nothing or make most of the factions ignore it , like LD and ATKNF . It is not just unclear writing.I played 5th with Wards GK being legal , their rules were bad because they broken even the build in specifics of 5th ed. if 5th was designed with msu mecha shoting in mind , then giving one factions all the tools to both do it and be immune to the stuff that was suppose to counter it was foolish. It also ties with how offten w40k is updated . An edition is four or more years old and if you happen to get a bad codex at the start of an edition you will be stuck with it for years. WM brings new units much more offten. One faction may seem to be weaker and then it gets a colossal or a new caster and suddenly people find new ways to play again.
That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written
I think the main thing people are confusing here is that when people say 40k rules are bad. They mean they are not clear. They mean the rules are ambiguous. They mean depending on how you read it, it can mean 2 different things.
Don't think so . Random terrain , warlord/psychic powers , random charge range when shoting has a fixed ranged. Stats or rules that either do nothing or make most of the factions ignore it , like LD and ATKNF . It is not just unclear writing.I played 5th with Wards GK being legal , their rules were bad because they broken even the build in specifics of 5th ed. if 5th was designed with msu mecha shoting in mind , then giving one factions all the tools to both do it and be immune to the stuff that was suppose to counter it was foolish. It also ties with how offten w40k is updated . An edition is four or more years old and if you happen to get a bad codex at the start of an edition you will be stuck with it for years. WM brings new units much more offten. One faction may seem to be weaker and then it gets a colossal or a new caster and suddenly people find new ways to play again.
That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written
Sometimes 40ks rules just downright don't work. The one I always remember was the Space Wolves (5th edition) Saga of the Hunter. As written it basically did nothing. The community basically had to handwave and go "Oh it's fine, it works this way" despite the fact there was no support in game text for it.
There were also inconsistent with terms like "Removed as a Causality" or "Killed" "Destroyed", "Removed from Play" being using interchangably codex-to-codex, sometimes meaning the same thing, sometimes not. It was just a total a mess.
40k is terrible as a game. It's a such a waste of a awesome IP and some neat models. I'm just glad the 40k video games have been pretty consistently decent.
Ponen19 wrote: Sorry if this is a bit of threadromancy, but I figured I'd add my 2 cents (or at least more fuel to the fire).
40k is pretty close to how a real fire fight between armies would happen: get to cover, hope you have the bigger gun, shoot until the other guy is dead or you are.
Um no, neither game is in anyway realistic because both them are first just games and two the units that are involved in both games don't exist. 40k has giant mecha, psykers (who are basically mages) shooting lightining out of their eyes and having the earth open up and swallow their enemies, and a race of giant bug monsters. Warmachine has giant robots that are controlled through peoples minds. Neither is realistic, so trying to say one is more realistic than the other is a moot point.
Ponen19 wrote: Competitiveness- *If you're not interested in competitive play, feel free to skip this section of my rant*. This one amuses me the most I think. WMH players say 40k is rock-paper-scissors, 40k players say that WMH is rock-paper-scissors. People that play both say that both games are rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. Yes there are some match-ups in 40k that are just bad (Mech-IG vs. Greentide Orks, Tyranids vs. Everything), but I've seen the same in Warmachine. My understanding is that the tournament scene compounds this unfortunate occurrence. I've heard from both groups of players that there are some units/lists in either game that just dominate tournament play and everyone takes that unit/build. To digress for a moment, MtG also has the same problem. Deck X wins a pro-tour, everyone buys the cards to make Deck X. The same goes for 40k and WMH. Unit/List X wins a tourney, everyone buys Unit/List X. I will give credit to WMH in that each faction has that one list, whereas all of 40k has that one army list that people run.
No offense what you wrote there is a perfect example of a argument for false equivalency. Just because every card game and minis game will have balance problems somewhere doesn't somehow mean the degree of balance problems is equal. Yes both WMH and 40k have balance problems, that doesn't mean they have the same level of balance problems. Using MtG as the example, every arch of type 2 MtG has balance problems but some to different degrees than others.
Ponen19 wrote: Sorry if this is a bit of threadromancy, but I figured I'd add my 2 cents (or at least more fuel to the fire).
40k is pretty close to how a real fire fight between armies would happen: get to cover, hope you have the bigger gun, shoot until the other guy is dead or you are.
Um no, neither game is in anyway realistic because both them are first just games and two the units that are involved in both games don't exist. 40k has giant mecha, psykers (who are basically mages) shooting lightining out of their eyes and having the earth open up and swallow their enemies, and a race of giant bug monsters. Warmachine has giant robots that are controlled through peoples minds. Neither is realistic, so trying to say one is more realistic than the other is a moot point.
Totally not what I said at all. Of course neither is realistic, and for the exact reasons you pointed out above. I only said that one was a simulated battle between armies, and another was a simulated fight between small groups. Both games are equally as fantastical as they are real. I only pointed out that neither game plays like the other, and that both are designed to have a completely different feel. This aspect of the games comes down to a personal preference. Someone may enjoy the feel of leading a small group of highly elite warriors, while another person may enjoy the feel of commanding entire armies of grunts and conscripts. I never said either game was more realistic than the other, just how each was as close to real as they can get for what they are.
I think WM is pretty close to an army based game as 40k is
Especially since both of them have the same ideas
Units, both large and small
Heavy Weapons, Dreads and Tanks in 40k and Jacks/Beasts in WM
Honestly they also both often have similar army sizes, the only exception is that WM 100% avoided the dirt cheap unit slot, and 40k tends to play with comparably larger points
but a Space Marine 1500 point Army will probably have roughly the same model count as an Infantry based WM list
but as I said, any 40k army that is based on dirt cheap unit spam will obviously blow the model count out of the water
There are plenty of true skirmish games that focus on true small model count like Infinity and Helldorado
That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written
Now am no expert at table top game design , but to me making a codex based around bikers and forcing people to play bike armies , one codex after you make the helldrake seems like bad rules writing .
That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written
Now am no expert at table top game design , but to me making a codex based around bikers and forcing people to play bike armies , one codex after you make the helldrake seems like bad rules writing .
Once more and as you said yourself making codex that force you to play certain style is not what we mean by bad rules
Bad rules is literally the core of what you are allowed to do, and what you are not allowed to this. Regardless of what is good or bad, what is intended for an army or what is not
I'm having a bit of trouble explaining this to you properly, When we say 40k has bad rules. we literally mean we do not understand what we should do to legally play the game, what is allowed and what is not allowed. It means as two different people read a rule, they end up with different outcomes on what the rules allow to do and what it does not allow you to do.
What you are saying is Bad Balance and Bad Game Design. A game could be completely unbalanced with armies that are horribly designed, but could still have clear and concise rules on how the game should be played.
That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written
Now am no expert at table top game design , but to me making a codex based around bikers and forcing people to play bike armies , one codex after you make the helldrake seems like bad rules writing .
Once more and as you said yourself making codex that force you to play certain style is not what we mean by bad rules
Bad rules is literally the core of what you are allowed to do, and what you are not allowed to this. Regardless of what is good or bad, what is intended for an army or what is not
I'm having a bit of trouble explaining this to you properly, When we say 40k has bad rules. we literally mean we do not understand what we should do to legally play the game, what is allowed and what is not allowed. It means as two different people read a rule, they end up with different outcomes on what the rules allow to do and what it does not allow you to do.
What you are saying is Bad Balance and Bad Game Design. A game could be completely unbalanced with armies that are horribly designed, but could still have clear and concise rules on how the game should be played.
I believe you mean clarity of rules Talamare. 40k has had a long historical problem with clarity in it's published works and with it's FAQ's. What's worse is it's rulings have not been uniformly addressed where two instances of very similar rules were clarified in opposite manner ie spore pods vs drop pods. Warmachine has had none of this.
What you are referring to Makumba is more of a balance and game design issue. The armor save/AP design of 40k causes a multitude of scaling problems in the game. AP 3 flame template with the stupid 12" range highlights several problems with the game mechanics and balance. Mechanics routinely ignoring other mechanics causes a LOT of problems for balance.
Talamare wrote: I think WM is pretty close to an army based game as 40k is
but a Space Marine 1500 point Army will probably have roughly the same model count as an Infantry based WM list
As epic as a 1500 point WM army would be, I don't think it would have the same amount as a SM army, or any 40k army for that matter, at all.... the points costs for units in WM are generally so much lower, that there would be be no way... If i remember right from the WM rule book, like 200 pts is considered the equivilant of an "Apoc" game of 40k....
The unbound rules (warmachine's version of apocalypse) start at 150 points. Typically any game with ore than one warcaster is considered very large.
There aren't even enough warcasters to go beyond 800 points -and that's for the faction with the most mercenaries!
That aside, a 100-150 point wm list is about the same size as a typical large 40k army. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make.
It's a bit deceptive. In Warmachine you take your big, scary, tank-kinda units with your very first points and then start adding infantry, whereas with 40k it's more the other way around. At 35 points you're like, well, this looks a bit more skirmishy than 40k. Then you see 50 and 75 points (and potentially even 100) still just have one warcaster so all of those extra points are in infantry and suddenly you're like whoa where did all these dudes come from
Talamare wrote: I think WM is pretty close to an army based game as 40k is
but a Space Marine 1500 point Army will probably have roughly the same model count as an Infantry based WM list
As epic as a 1500 point WM army would be, I don't think it would have the same amount as a SM army, or any 40k army for that matter, at all.... the points costs for units in WM are generally so much lower, that there would be be no way... If i remember right from the WM rule book, like 200 pts is considered the equivilant of an "Apoc" game of 40k....
I meant, 1500 pt 40k Space Marine Standard Army will give you roughly same model count as a 35~50 point WM Infantry based list
But as I said as well, if you go Infantry/Spam based in 40k, it will easily blow the model count number out of the water
40k = look, cinema
WM/H = precision, MUCH better company
About the listbuilding issue: I do play 40k on a competetive level, and I am starting WM/H and try to achieve a competitive level.
The thing is, they play totally different. What I love about WM/H is the precision in the rules, 40k is much more greyish there. I also love the creativity it supports.
However taking on random units against with a maxed out list at an equal player skill will surely not result in a draw.
So its not 10% models, 90% player. I dare say, it is about equal to 40k if you take competitive builds into account (40k has a wide range of nonsense unfortunately).
40k certainly isn't 90% models, 10% player either. Those who say can't play competitively I guess.
What is true, is, that Warmachine might have a wider range of possible builds and 40k tends to support the newest released units/books. But that doesnt mean that just by taking them you will win any game.
They just have completely different game mechanics.
There are two things I must disagree:
1. WM/H being harder to master: Nope, it isn't. It is different, thats the point. 40k demands operational skills, WM/H demands tactical skills. Forethought, knowledge of your force and the enemies are necessary in both systems (although WM/H is harder on the latter I agree). But after a few games I think I do get a grip of what I need and start to realize how the game works.
2. WM/H having more reliable dice. Yes, in a small scale maybe (2d6 tend to have more average rolls than 1d6 which has no average at all). But the sheer weight of dice rolled in 40k evens out a lot more than one tends to think. But both games aren't about dice rolls, so that is somehow irrelevant.
However the support from PP for competitive gameplay is absolutely fantastic. And the way the rules are written is also a joy to read compared to 40k.
But in 40k there are specific FAQs that replace the good rule writing to a certain extent.
What I like about 40k is that every game used to look just gorgeous with so many painted models in action. It is just cineastic. Also the tables tend to look better. Warmachine always has a certain cold analytic uninspired look which is somehow sad, but inherent to the game system. (Obj zone markers and cloud effect/forest/whatever-templates and empty tables with mathematical symmetry ruin the look a lot)
But I need about a year or so to judge it better, so it is just my opinion.
I do like WM/H and I still like 40k. Both have competitive potential, the point is: GW is about to ruin everything. But I can play 40k without GW as well so thats not my problem.
My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.
My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.
I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.
Mad4Minis wrote: My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.
My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.
I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.
Actually thats one of the main things i DO like about WMH - one model kill = win. It makes me think of this game as a fancy chess board. Placement of your "king" is ungodly crucial as a single piece can checkmate you if you arent paying attention. Warlocks are usually so crazy strong that it makes sense if you take them out you should win...even if the game didnt end suddenly your army just took a HUGE hit and probably cant fight now anyway. For hordes (dont know Warmachine rules that well) all of our Warbeasts immediately frenzy and we lose them. They become "wild" unless another warlock claims them. I'd just call it if i lost my warlock because i'd have what 1-2 solos and half an infantry left that i can even use at best?
What you are referring to Makumba is more of a balance and game design issue. The armor save/AP design of 40k causes a multitude of scaling problems in the game. AP 3 flame template with the stupid 12" range highlights several problems with the game mechanics and balance. Mechanics routinely ignoring other mechanics causes a LOT of problems for balance.
This is one of my biggest issues with 40k. Set basic rules, then subrules to override those basic rules. Some rules are almost worded exactly the same, but are FAQ'd to be diverse as hell and confusing.
To go with your Hellchicken complaint, it also breaks the rules for aiming from a vehicle and this was given to it by a FAQ for no reason. Normally, you aim from the vehicle's gun being fired (i.e. the head in this case). They FAQ'd it to say the torrent is measured from the base now. Not only does that give it better rear-access since it doesnt have that 3-4 inches of model to get past, but it gives it better range in general because now it doesnt have the 3D aiming issue that all fliers have.
GW's idea of balancing things that need help is to give it a special rule to ignore other rules, even in cases where it makes 0 sense to break it. For instance, Ork Flash Gitz were given Ignores Cover for no reason and it makes no sense for it to have it...it was just a bad attempt to make the unit useful (which it didnt). WMH lacks this. My WMH experience is very low but so far i have seen ONE rule that straight up jacks with the basic rules, but its commonly used and very straight forward - Free Strikes. Plain and simple, any push/pull or directly stating no free strikes, then no free strikes happen. What other rule on a model's card goes against the basic rules so fiercely in this game? Mind you, fiercly being an exaggerated term.
The fact that one model killed can mean game over is actually one of the coolest parts of WM in my mind, just b/c you have to think very hard about any opening you might be leaving as you play. You can't just haphazardly move up a unit and leave a gap to shoot/charg/cast through. You really have to pay a good bit of attention to what you are doing with each model in order to protect your caster (at least most casters... darn butcher ) It honestly in a way reminds me of MTG as a miniatures game, b/c you have your caster who is the ultimate goal... to be protected at all times and then their minions who go out to kill the opposing caster... and I love me some MTG, so ....
In the League I ran earlier this year, there was a long time 40K player, a really strong and competitive 40K player, who started to play Hordes. Oh, he did his research. He got online, and downloaded the "best" list he could find for his Skorne army. I told him he should start small, and learn the game, then step up to 35-50+ points. He ignored me, and jumped right in at 50 points.
For the next six weeks, he lost EVERY SINGLE GAME he played. 80% of the time it was to Warcaster/Warlock assassination. He would ALWAYS just run his entire army straight ahead the first turn of the game, and not watch where he would place his Warlock. I got to listen to him complain incessantly about how bad the assassination rule was. He would always say how he just saw this great list online and just knew it would win him the game.
Finally, he "got it", and started to not run across the table the first turn, started to watch where his Warlock was at on the table, and stopped looking at internet builds. He started to play the same list for a couple weeks and really learning how to use it. Suddenly, he started winning games with assassinations.
The point here is that both games are VERY different. You can't play them the same way. It takes a different mind set and understanding of the rules in both games to be an effective player. Some people get it, and have fun playing both games, others don't. Not a big deal. Myself, I play them both for very different reasons. One game is no better then the other for me; they satisfy different gaming needs.
40k is a beer & pretzels miniature game with loosely written rules and army imbalance. GW is a substandard company, who really doesn't care about anything but profits, because they are publicly traded and have to answer to their stock holders.
With that being said, 40k is a good game if you don't take it too seriously, because their development team sure don't.
Privateer Press, on the other hand, is a great company. They go to great lengths to insure game balance and painstakingly write and correct their rules.
Warmachine is also a fun game, but plays out much better in the tournament scene. The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.
Agreed on the above, they simply feel different needs. I highly disagree that WM is better in every way, and would generally argue that it largely depends on what you are looking for.
40k is a much better hobbist game. The minis are easy to convert, they generally are well made, and they have a lot of really impressive centerpieces. The game itself, while it does suffer from balance issues, tends to be a lot more cinematic and immersive than any other wargame I've played. I simply have far more crazy stories and anecdotes from 40k than any other system, and it's hardly my most played game. It also allows you do do things like pit a 100 model force against a 15 model one and possibly win. That's fun, there is no doubt about it. Finally, the obviously have the most developed fluff out there. However, it is also by far the most expensive wargame out there, and it is NOT a good game if you are extremely competitively oriented. Only few spammy lists are optimal, and they change every time a new codex comes out. I'd only suggest 40k to people who care about the models and the fluff first, and want to play to immerse themselves in the universe, NOT if you are looking for a competitive "sport".
Warmachine is a much tighter rule system, which means it's far better for competitive minded people. If you want a chess like tactical experience, it's simply a better game. Most units are useful, and the is a lot more gameplay variation. It's also a lot more focused on objectives and killing the enemy leader, which gives it a bit more of a puzzle element, instead of a more sweeping war vibe. It's also cheaper, though not as much as you'd think. The main problem I have with it is that it also feels very gamey. Things like shooting your own models to trigger AoEs, trying to miss on purpose to scatter, charging your own army in the back to move faster are common and expected in WM, which kinda ruins the immersion. In addition, WM does suffer on the mini's sides, which offers limited conversion opportunities, and does not really encourage you to personalize and make your own fluff. It's a gamers game, not a hobbist's.
Heck, I play both. I love Warmachine because I don't always have the time to play a three hour game of 40k. Also, my 40k armies are generally a whole bunch of conversions and I paint that army to the highest standard I can. I see it more as a show piece army, same as the people I play with. We don't take 40k seriously, we just love the lore and the quality of the models, as it challenges us as painters.
But, I love Warmachine because in the three hour period it takes to play a game of 40k, I can squeeze about three games in of Warmachine, and since I don't really worry about having to convert every model, it makes it a much quicker when it comes to actually finishing an army.
Mad4Minis wrote: My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.
My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.
I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.
Infantry does a lot, to be sure. But they screen the warjacks.
I just switched from warhammer to warmachine playing khador. Switch isn't really the best word since I will continue to play both, however I was in a position in warhammer where i needed the biggest most expensive toys for my army and just decided it wasn't worth it anymore.
So now I bought the khador half of the starter set off a friend. And then dropped another $100 dollars to get a nice 35 point army going.
If this were 40k I would be able to drop $200 all together if I wanted them first hand. And get a 500 point list. But then when I wanted to expand this army, it would cost more to get to 1000, and then even more to get to 1500. The price just goes up and up as you get bigger more expensive models.
The trend I see with warmachine, is that the models are much cheaper for what they are. And if not cheaper they are at least reasonably priced. Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units. I honestly think that people gravitate towards this game because of the rule set, and because of the tactical play required.
In the League I ran earlier this year, there was a long time 40K player, a really strong and competitive 40K player, who started to play Hordes. Oh, he did his research. He got online, and downloaded the "best" list he could find for his Skorne army. I told him he should start small, and learn the game, then step up to 35-50+ points. He ignored me, and jumped right in at 50 points.
For the next six weeks, he lost EVERY SINGLE GAME he played. 80% of the time it was to Warcaster/Warlock assassination. He would ALWAYS just run his entire army straight ahead the first turn of the game, and not watch where he would place his Warlock. I got to listen to him complain incessantly about how bad the assassination rule was. He would always say how he just saw this great list online and just knew it would win him the game.
Finally, he "got it", and started to not run across the table the first turn, started to watch where his Warlock was at on the table, and stopped looking at internet builds. He started to play the same list for a couple weeks and really learning how to use it. Suddenly, he started winning games with assassinations.
The point here is that both games are VERY different. You can't play them the same way. It takes a different mind set and understanding of the rules in both games to be an effective player. Some people get it, and have fun playing both games, others don't. Not a big deal. Myself, I play them both for very different reasons. One game is no better then the other for me; they satisfy different gaming needs.
I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.
But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:
40k is a beer & pretzels miniature game with loosely written rules and army imbalance. GW is a substandard company, who really doesn't care about anything but profits, because they are publicly traded and have to answer to their stock holders.
This is to a certain extent true (everything related to the company). Army imbalance though is not as big as people make it. There is no unplayable codex. Loosely written rules are clarified by TOs and players in advance so 40k in a competitive community can be a good system for tournaments.
-Nazdreg- wrote: This is to a certain extent true (everything related to the company). Army imbalance though is not as big as people make it. There is no unplayable codex. Loosely written rules are clarified by TOs and players in advance so 40k in a competitive community can be a good system for tournaments.
Unless you are being very generous in your definition of unplayable, I suggest you take a look at the current Sisters of Battle Codex. Not only is it unplayable without some major Ally support it isn't even readily available to most people.
I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.
But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:
I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.
Nafarious wrote: Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.
Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.
They're a 6 point speed bump.
They could be used in reinforcement events to Ambush behind enemy reinforcements
(especially if the enemy opts for a very shooty reinforcement). They can be used to
harry enemy flankers. They will die, but they are 6 points.
Also, don't forget that they have reform. So even if they miss, you have a really good
chance of repositioning to annoy even more shooters.
I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.
But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:
I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.
Have you read page 5 of war machine rule book it is pretty straight forward saying you will lose and you can't cry about it. You just have to play the game and keep learning.
Nafarious wrote: Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.
Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.
Kossite Woodsman are amazing, they are an extremely rare flanking unit that harasses your opponents important solo's and supports the entire game
Then when the enemy forces resources to hunt them down, you take advantage of the fact that the enemy probably needed to use more than 6 points to take them out so their front lines are weakened
I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.
But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:
I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.
I'm not sure I would call assassinations stupid, any more than one might term a checkmate stupid in chess. In much the same way, I can't see that being "curbstomped" is something that is peculiar to Warmachine. Learning any game, regardless of whether it is Warmachine, chess, or some other game altogether, will often yield severe beatings the first several games until an individual figures out the mechanics of the game and the strategies that work for him or her. When starting Warhammer 40k, I played against several experienced players and lost several of the first games I played until I realized the fundamentals of how the game was played, part of which included the realization that once you fall behind to a certain degree, there is often no way to get back in the game. When learning to play chess, I played against less experienced players and won a more or less equal number of games, a trend which continued to progress until I started playing against more experienced players, at which point I began to lose until I started picking up the tricks and techniques of more experienced players, including four move checkmates and the impasse. When I found out about these techniques and how they were accomplished, I didn't feel that they were cheats or somehow stupid, but that they were a part of the game that I needed to learn about if I wanted to get good at it.
The point I'm trying to make in the previous paragraph is that while a part of the game may seem cheap or unfair when you are learning and don't know or understand it, that doesn't somehow cheapen the game to the point of being inferior to a game that one knows well. It's just another facet of play to be learned and utilized.
Nafarious wrote: Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.
Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.
Kossite Woodsman are amazing, they are an extremely rare flanking unit that harasses your opponents important solo's and supports the entire game
Then when the enemy forces resources to hunt them down, you take advantage of the fact that the enemy probably needed to use more than 6 points to take them out so their front lines are weakened
I'm surprised at the reactions to my comment, maybe I've just been lucky against them
I don't think assassination should be that big a deal unless you're unfamiliar with the enemy's models. One of the biggest criticisms I'd level at Warmachine is the burden of knowledge can be immense. There are a stupid number of units in the game and all of them have their own stats and special rules, and failing to consider them can make you lose instantly.
When you play a game and on turn two your caster gets shot and dies because you didn't know a special rule, that's pretty dumb. That said, it's probably only going to happen to you once. With that particular setup. You just have to worry about all the others you haven't seen.
It's not all bad, though. You eventually pick up a feel for how certain types of units are going to behave, and you can sort of muddle through with that to guide you. One thing to keep in mind is that while you're struggling to remember all the weird units your opponent has, they're probably struggling to remember certain ones of yours that they aren't as familiar with.
1) Figuring out what the best models are and running them.
2) Making sure you run the best models properly and not botching up the game.
Warmahordes is about proper list building. Everything is broken and OP, but not everything is broken and OP with each other.
If you just take a random collection of models and run them, you won't win. The game is about stacking and meshing complimenting abilities together to create an unstoppable whirlwind that blows your opponents army away. You stack units whose abilities don't mesh and you will lose.
And along with that proper list building, you need to know how to play the list. Unlike 40k, you MUST know every detail about your army AND much of your opponents army. You have to consider the order of operations.
Its almost like a game where the goal is to create a mathematical equation bigger than your opponents equation. You must have your units increase each others effectiveness exponentially. If you take units that don't compliment each other you only have the sum of their parts, instead of their parts multiplied by each other.
For me it was price of entry. I was starting to collect some orks when I asked my boyfriend when we can do a small skirmish. Then he told me how many points I needed for basic game, those points add up to way more money then then starting price of warmahordes.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.
Not to mention Warmachine colossals are cheaper than appoc models now.
BlueBlitz wrote: For me it was price of entry. I was starting to collect some orks when I asked my boyfriend when we can do a small skirmish. Then he told me how many points I needed for basic game, those points add up to way more money then then starting price of warmahordes.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Fair point on the price of models. My only counter point is that you don't have to use GW models for 40k games. Yeah it may get kinda weird for your opponent if you have a bunch of ork-looking models and you run them as Space Marines, but aside from extreme examples like that, I can't see too many people complaining about you using non-GW minis. Too many times people get caught up in the price and look of minis and forget that 40k (and WarmaHordes now that I think about it) is just a rules set, and there's no rule that says you have to use GW models for a casual game. Tournaments is where this get strange, but that seems to be more of a TO choice than anything.
As for aesthetics; ultimately this is a personal taste issue. I do think some of the 40kHQ choices look infinitely better than the standard troop/grunt unit (that and if you feel like you have to individualize 300 Guardsman you may need to talk to a professional),. To be honest I think the majority of WarmaHordes models look rather cartoony and dopey, the Warjacks/beasts being the worst.
I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.
BlueBlitz wrote: For me it was price of entry. I was starting to collect some orks when I asked my boyfriend when we can do a small skirmish. Then he told me how many points I needed for basic game, those points add up to way more money then then starting price of warmahordes.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.
A fair point that I also at time find a virtue. With 40k I at times will become so obsessed with having a unique look that I will spend more time converting and trying to paint my models then play. With Warmahordes I know I need fewer models and I don't stress as much with my models, which allows me to buy an army and get it to the board much quicker.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.
Not to mention Warmachine colossals are cheaper than appoc models now.
On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.
BlueBlitz wrote: For me it was price of entry. I was starting to collect some orks when I asked my boyfriend when we can do a small skirmish. Then he told me how many points I needed for basic game, those points add up to way more money then then starting price of warmahordes.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Fair point on the price of models. My only counter point is that you don't have to use GW models for 40k games. Yeah it may get kinda weird for your opponent if you have a bunch of ork-looking models and you run them as Space Marines, but aside from extreme examples like that, I can't see too many people complaining about you using non-GW minis. Too many times people get caught up in the price and look of minis and forget that 40k (and WarmaHordes now that I think about it) is just a rules set, and there's no rule that says you have to use GW models for a casual game. Tournaments is where this get strange, but that seems to be more of a TO choice than anything.
As for aesthetics; ultimately this is a personal taste issue. I do think some of the 40kHQ choices look infinitely better than the standard troop/grunt unit (that and if you feel like you have to individualize 300 Guardsman you may need to talk to a professional),. To be honest I think the majority of WarmaHordes models look rather cartoony and dopey, the Warjacks/beasts being the worst.
I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.
I'm not saying that such conversions are the norm, but they are possible. The mini-magazine that comes in two-player box sets even has a brief primer on how to do a basic conversion, so it's not as though PP doesn't endorse it. It just doesn't seem to have gained any real popularity in the community as a whole.
Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.
Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.
Not to mention Warmachine colossals are cheaper than appoc models now.
Heck, they're on par with "normal" models depending on where you live
On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.
Which is every game?
They technically even fit in 15 pt games
And then you have the 'squadron' rules in Unbound (like running 3 of a specific jack grants some specific ability) on the other end of the spectrum, so you feel like unbound can be a different and expansive game unto itself (no to mention the activation changes).
On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.
Which is every game?
They technically even fit in 15 pt games
Except with Old Witch and eThagrosh (off the top of my head). Neither have enough warnoun points.
I'm seeing the usual arguments being trotted out here. 40k is a joke of a game. They've thrown all of balance out of the window to make everything random "cinematic". WMH opens your eyes to a simply better game. Although 40k's background for the most part is what keeps me giving it a look (even though I simply will not play it. 6th ed is craptastic). The IK background is fantastic too. Yes, as touched on by others in this thread, it is a little difficult to find; as it is in the RPG books, but it is there, and it is fantastic.
40kOTOH, is constantly stuck at "2 minutes to midnight", and even then they've supposedly gone back in time, as with the latest CSM codex, the 13th Black Crusade has not happened yet. WMH has an ongoing, engaging storyline that always leaves you wondering what is going to happen next.
I would definitely say 40k isn't a joke. GW is a joke with their pricing and release schedule.
Yet the rules can still work.
Oddly enough, if you ensure to use ALL the rules together the game works out fine. Both Fantasy and 40k.
People often don't use the GW terrain generation rules for Fantasy, and then wonder why Steadfast is so powerful.
If people played GW games with the correct amount of terrain the games would play a lot differently. 40k should have at LEAST 40% of the board covered, with plenty of LoS blocking terrain. Fantasy should have lots of steadfast stripping terrain, like rivers and forests, along with buildings and impassable terrain to create choke points.
the game becomes much better with proper amounts of terrain. Don't complain about the game when your limited terrain collection is what is really screwing you over.
I find the models for 40k light years ahead of PP, GW has better plastics and metals and resins, however finecast is crap. PP has cheaper models but you get what you pay for. Also the inclusion of instructions is a GOD send, i just bought the convergence BB and my god the amount of tiny dohicky's drove me insane as there was no clear indication of what went where.
Also the games play different but they both give you the illusion of tactics. What it really comes down to is dice rolls, all it ever comes down to is dice rolls. Don't get me wrong both games have their ways of stacking the odds in your favor, but it comes down to dice rolls.
Also the Tomb Kings NecroSphinx, the Vampire Counts Coven Throne, and the High Elf Phoenix kits. GW definitely has the better models, even if 85% of them are in the fantasy line.
I completely agree, but I honestly believe that this comes from GW doing this for a longer time. Sure their business form is abysmal now. But they used to be a great company that everyone loved. Through retirement and loss of those who made it that way it has now become the dreaded company we know today. That doesn't, and should not make you reflect any differently on the models because you don't like the game or company. There are many models out there that I have bought just to paint with no idea who made them or what game they were for.
Grey Templar wrote: There is a difference between model quality and a model you don't like the look of.
From a design and assembling perspective, the Dreadknight is absolutely brilliant.
You may not like the aesthetic but that is a matter of personal taste.
True. Although I think the Dreadknight is kind of silly looking (I mean it looks like a Baby carrier...), but then again we have a faction of Elves who are animesque in design. And Infinity is anime-based as well, so yeah different strokes.
Although I will go on the record that some of the Tau stuff that recently came out is pretty decent (I like the look of the Fireknife a lot), and the stuff for assembling Warmachine is usually relatively straighforward in assembly (at least what I experienced minus having to pin the Standard Bearers arm for the TFGUA).
Yeah, many of the PP models tend to have weak wrist syndrome.
Trying to support a large piece of metal on a very small and weak joint. Sometimes on a joint that is nearly impossible to actually pin even if you had the equipment to do it.
Overall, I'd say the Warmachine model design is at least 10 years behind GW. But that is ok because the aesthetic of warmachine can be shown with simpler modeling techniques and their well designed rule system makes you want to keep playing.
I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.
Sargow wrote: I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.
I don't consider difficult of assembly as part of somethings "quality"
I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.
I will agree a lot of elf models for PP do have problems, the nyss hunters I have been repeatably told are a royal pain to put together.
Personally the two lines are both somewhat hit and miss, it really depends what figs you are talking about for both of them. With PP I don't have to deal with finecast though, which is really nice. I do prefer metal models over finecast any day.
If a model is very difficult to put together that is something that can make the customer upset.
GW has had their own share of difficult to assemble models, which has led to a reduction in use. The Thunderfire cannon didn't see much play for several factors, one of which was assembly difficulty, despite being a very efficient unit for the point cost.
If a model is hard to put together it is a poor design choice on the part of the creators.
And damn are PP models hard to put together... Okay, I am new to the tabletop hobby in general and I am spoiled by GW quality but I almost threw a fit today after Vlad3 kept losing his arms... And oh boy, those gaps between the parts are HUGE... Guess i need to greenstuff it then... Well at least i get to improve my modeling skills
Not a big fan of the whole warcraft thing in WMH, and the whole "named characters in every army" thing, and some of the unit descriptions well and truly sound like some nerd's out-of-touch-with-reality idea of combat and war.
On the other hand, theres jack-all skill element in 40k and the rules here are well and truly open to abuse. It's advertised as a "beer and pretzels" game and really shines in this regard, but feth playing it competitively.
Is it wrong to want GW (namely Fantasy) aesthetics and fluff with Warmahordes rules, scale, and company?
That said, I'm probably going to go pick up those Croc dudes or Pig dudes as a Hordes army because those are the only models I actually like.
The rules for 40k aren't that bad and competitive play is possible, it is no where near cut and dry as most rules for WM are.
Just so you know You can have both as they are minions, They can't be in the same list but you could take a list each in tourny play.
Dakkamite wrote: Not a big fan of the whole warcraft thing in WMH, and the whole "named characters in every army" thing, and some of the unit descriptions well and truly sound like some nerd's out-of-touch-with-reality idea of combat and war.
On the other hand, theres jack-all skill element in 40k and the rules here are well and truly open to abuse. It's advertised as a "beer and pretzels" game and really shines in this regard, but feth playing it competitively.
Is it wrong to want GW (namely Fantasy) aesthetics and fluff with Warmahordes rules, scale, and company?
That said, I'm probably going to go pick up those Croc dudes or Pig dudes as a Hordes army because those are the only models I actually like.
No, there is nothing wrong with that, although how Fantasy is suppose to be like (I.E Rank and file, units in formation), the rules Warmachine/ Hordes have would mostly complement 40k more in my honest opinion. There is Kings of War for your fantasy needs, and I have good things about the ruleset (Not played it myself, but this is from a few friend). And if you do play Blindwater Congregation or Thornfall alliance, you will not have that much of unit/ Warnoun choices to choose from compared to Main factions, just to keep in mind a bit.
Daner0023 wrote: The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.
Im one of those people. I also dont like the fact that everything important happens within the casters control range...so the majority of the game is taking place on 18 inches or less of the table. Terrain is pointless as you cant maneuver around it without getting outside of CR.
I love the hit and damage system, some of the special rules/abilities are very cool...but a couple of the key mechanics really brings the game down for me.
Daner0023 wrote: The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.
Im one of those people. I also dont like the fact that everything important happens within the casters control range...so the majority of the game is taking place on 18 inches or less of the table. Terrain is pointless as you cant maneuver around it without getting outside of CR.
I love the hit and damage system, some of the special rules/abilities are very cool...but a couple of the key mechanics really brings the game down for me.
For the battle group, perhaps. Flanking models, solos, jack marshalls, extended control range, and ambushing units say otherwise. I'm not sure what type of terrain you're using, but most things SHOULD be happening directly with in control range (remember, average 12in CR in either direction + 1.5in base = 25.5 inches of a 48 inch wide board). It's kind of harder to be outside of it than in it. Especially if you play killbox.
Daner0023 wrote: The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.
Im one of those people. I also dont like the fact that everything important happens within the casters control range...so the majority of the game is taking place on 18 inches or less of the table. Terrain is pointless as you cant maneuver around it without getting outside of CR.
I love the hit and damage system, some of the special rules/abilities are very cool...but a couple of the key mechanics really brings the game down for me.
Yeah...most games don't end in 20 mins. If they constantly do, one side is doing something very very wrong...
Also, infantry don't rely on your control range most of the time. Only warjacks/beasts do.
No, there is nothing wrong with that, although how Fantasy is suppose to be like (I.E Rank and file, units in formation), the rules Warmachine/ Hordes have would mostly complement 40k more in my honest opinion. There is Kings of War for your fantasy needs, and I have good things about the ruleset (Not played it myself, but this is from a few friend). And if you do play Blindwater Congregation or Thornfall alliance, you will not have that much of unit/ Warnoun choices to choose from compared to Main factions, just to keep in mind a bit.
When Mantic puts a magic system in KoW on par with that in Warhams I'll be keen as. I much prefer the whole not removing casualties thing and the speed and simplicity of their rules overall, interesting magic is all those rules are lacking at the moment.
I've heard stuff like that from other people as well... I guess being "minions" they're sort of like half a faction instead of a fully fleshed out one. Guess I'll have to find a main faction to back up my Pigs of War
For me, the major things that made me like wm better are
Reliability: by this, I mean that I can generally expect certain things from certain models without randomness issues. Oh, and when bob gets punched in the face by a giant robot, bob dies. (Not a fan of the 1/6 to not wound with a giant cannon on a grot)
The rules mean what they say.
A company that cares about me. Regular updates AND spoilers for upcoming things.
No, there is nothing wrong with that, although how Fantasy is suppose to be like (I.E Rank and file, units in formation), the rules Warmachine/ Hordes have would mostly complement 40k more in my honest opinion. There is Kings of War for your fantasy needs, and I have good things about the ruleset (Not played it myself, but this is from a few friend). And if you do play Blindwater Congregation or Thornfall alliance, you will not have that much of unit/ Warnoun choices to choose from compared to Main factions, just to keep in mind a bit.
When Mantic puts a magic system in KoW on par with that in Warhams I'll be keen as. I much prefer the whole not removing casualties thing and the speed and simplicity of their rules overall, interesting magic is all those rules are lacking at the moment.
I've heard stuff like that from other people as well... I guess being "minions" they're sort of like half a faction instead of a fully fleshed out one. Guess I'll have to find a main faction to back up my Pigs of War
Yeah, and it goes for Mercs as well in the Warmachine part of it. Not saying they cannot be played on their own, but with no real starter set like the main factions and so on, they are not that Beginner friendly and to get starting up as well. If you can find a friend who might be interested as well, try to aim for the two-player battlebox set, as that is a great bang for your buck in my honest opinion.
The 1/3 chance to not die doesnt work for warbeasts though, which is pretty big. If they had that too, good grief......
Also, yes GW has some better models than PP theres no doubt about that and their plastic is way better (though TO HELL with finecast). However, this is really only for more important models such as MCs, bigger vehicles, HQs, and a few random models here and there. PP their entire lineup looks pretty damn good and doesnt devour your pocket in the process.
Only one race for PP i think looks kinda funny, and thats because i think they look a little to alien with their sleek warjack designs n such (name escapes me....) which doesnt fit in a steampunk/fantasy world.
Also i like how some people were comparing Fantasy Battle to PP models. Who cares if the models are better when the game is absolute garbage lol. 8th edition completely and utterly killed that game...and the models are STILL expensive as hell!
Skaven have some sweet things. I thought of jumping to WHFB for those, but the cost of entry is too high and play opportunity too low myself.
As for cost of things, I opened a spreadsheet yesterday to see how much Circle Orboros and Minions support I have, and it totaled to about $1,770 without including books, acessories, bags, foam, or painting. That is a lot but it includes at least one of everyting in Circle (including maximum units) and quite a few repeats of warbeasts, solos, units, and all that. This includes twelve warlocks, enough to play to 150pt games pretty easily if the desire came to me, and built up over the course of six and a half years. Not sure how this compares to WHFB but I remember trying to build a Bloodbowl team and that in itself being over $100. If this adds anything to the pile.
Blaque wrote: Skaven have some sweet things. I thought of jumping to WHFB for those, but the cost of entry is too high and play opportunity too low myself.
As for cost of things, I opened a spreadsheet yesterday to see how much Circle Orboros and Minions support I have, and it totaled to about $1,770 without including books, acessories, bags, foam, or painting. That is a lot but it includes at least one of everyting in Circle (including maximum units) and quite a few repeats of warbeasts, solos, units, and all that. This includes twelve warlocks, enough to play to 150pt games pretty easily if the desire came to me, and built up over the course of six and a half years. Not sure how this compares to WHFB but I remember trying to build a Bloodbowl team and that in itself being over $100. If this adds anything to the pile.
And stuffl
To put it in perspective for anyone who may not be familiar with the game, Blaque has a tremendously large collection. He is a fully committed enthusiast of his chosen faction and has more things in his collection than some people with two tournament-ready factions.
Blaque wrote:Skaven have some sweet things. I thought of jumping to WHFB for those, but the cost of entry is too high and play opportunity too low myself.
As for cost of things, I opened a spreadsheet yesterday to see how much Circle Orboros and Minions support I have, and it totaled to about $1,770 without including books, acessories, bags, foam, or painting. That is a lot but it includes at least one of everyting in Circle (including maximum units) and quite a few repeats of warbeasts, solos, units, and all that. This includes twelve warlocks, enough to play to 150pt games pretty easily if the desire came to me, and built up over the course of six and a half years. Not sure how this compares to WHFB but I remember trying to build a Bloodbowl team and that in itself being over $100. If this adds anything to the pile.
And stuffl
1770?
I have about 750 worth of trollbloods and i honestly only think i need a few more models...maybe another 100 unless i wanna get a mountainking. Most of this are models i probably wont use since i tend to like the Warbeast spammers over infantry spammers, so i doubt i'll ever use max Krielwarriors and Fennblades in the same game lol (actually i havent even seen a use for fennblades yet without going heavy heavy infantry).
However, 40k wise.....i have about 2400+ of orks alone and i also have some tau (nowhere near as much, i'd say ~800). Most of those orks i got off ebay for cheap or kitbashed. Hell, i know 1250 worth of it i got for half of since that was a single auction for new in box orks lol. You have easily the largest army you'd ever need PERIOD for a single race, i have enough to say i can do every tactic except straight Warbiker lists for 40klol. PP is still way cheaper.
$1,770 in market value. I actually paid a bit less than that since a lot of the models I have I got discounted or before PP did a price increase due to material costs and inflation back in 2008 (they haven't done anything like that since, probably due to the use of plastics to stabalize things).
Doing maths in the spreadsheet for points, it's 282pts. right now. This isn't counting warlocks, which average to about 5pts each and so with them it'd be 342pts.
The amount you get out of this in WM/H is kind of notable with how resuable things are too. Since a model doesn't have widgets on it to alter for rules, that 10pt. Warpwolf Stalker I have is good for all my lists. That 342 pts. of model can do much more of it total in lists. As I understand in WHFB or 40K, this is not exactly the case, as oftentimes you have to build for a specific list. I'm not so well-versed in its systems though, so am going to caveat there now.
Blaque wrote: $1,770 in market value. I actually paid a bit less than that since a lot of the models I have I got discounted or before PP did a price increase due to material costs and inflation back in 2008 (they haven't done anything like that since, probably due to the use of plastics to stabalize things).
Doing maths in the spreadsheet for points, it's 282pts. right now. This isn't counting warlocks, which average to about 5pts each and so with them it'd be 342pts.
The amount you get out of this in WM/H is kind of notable with how resuable things are too. Since a model doesn't have widgets on it to alter for rules, that 10pt. Warpwolf Stalker I have is good for all my lists. That 342 pts. of model can do much more of it total in lists. As I understand in WHFB or 40K, this is not exactly the case, as oftentimes you have to build for a specific list. I'm not so well-versed in its systems though, so am going to caveat there now.
And stuff.
The thing is I helped out at an apoc game where it was nids vs. guard and it was 10k on both sides. It was one whole guys collection of nids vs. another guys whole collection of guard. Looking back at the pics on my phone there had to be at least 5k+ dollars worth of figs involved in that game easy.
I would say there is more stuff in the average collection of a 40k player for three reasons: 1) 40k generally plays a larger scale 2) The game has been out longer 3) since models need to WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) for tournaments and what not this leads to people owning more figures too since you end buying more to give yourself more options.
Also just on a side note having 2d6 base for most actions is a wonderful thing in my opinion, since it makes a bell curve instead of a flat probability distribution. I like the fact that I can say something like "on average, this unit will hit" and actually have it mean something.
40k is only a flat probability when single dice rolls are looked at.
Since the vast majority of actions will involve multiple dice there is almost never a situation in 40k that is really a flat probability, 10 tactical marines firing their bolters is a curve. Warmachine is really no different in this respect. 2D6 is simply the combination of 2 single D6 rolls.
In 40k I can say that on average my squad of 10 marines firing their bolters will get roughly 7 hits.
6th ED game mechanics + codex + costs really let the door open for PP press to gain customers. The cost to game is very reasonable (comparative speaking) and the rule set is well thought out.
TIME! Time is the key issue for me to switch over to WM/H. It takes a lot less time to play a game of WM/H compared to 40K now.
And quite honestly I am getting tired seeing Robohammer.
I have some Legion. Kinda like the models, and enjoy the idea of the rules. Haven't played, and its because of the actual hobby stuff. Converting WMH feels kinda pointless, as it kinda muddies the rules for me, as my conversions might change something.
The models themselves are kinda a pain to assemble for resin or whatever they are, small gaps here and there is enough for me to slow down building the faction.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
PP is slightly lacking in the model quality department. Some of their plastics don't fit together well, and the kind of plastic they use isn't helping.
I have actually stopped building my convergence because i hate their plastics so much. I am looking at about $550 worth of models sitting on a shelf because of the dislike of it. I guess you get what you pay for, I will eventually put the models together but not when i have other models that i might enjoy putting together.
Sargow wrote: I have actually stopped building my convergence because i hate their plastics so much. I am looking at about $550 worth of models sitting on a shelf because of the dislike of it. I guess you get what you pay for, I will eventually put the models together but not when i have other models that i might enjoy putting together.
Darn shame. I really want to start with convergence. I'm not liking this news.
Also, before you mentioned you were going to put them together I was going to offer to buy them
I just had my first game of 40k last night and loved it!! Yeah I got hammered by tau but I'm looking forward to my next game. I also saw some guys playing warmachine I didn't think much of the models to be honest.
I have recently picked up WMH myself. It seems to me that the big difference as far as the meta-game is the aforementioned most models do find some sort of use, unlike 40k which specifically makes some units useful and others not so much, and in the fact that you have a lot more options, like, I'm playing Captain Bartolo Montador, who has access to a wide range of models and things to work with, even those completely unrelated to himself(I'm going to play a strict-Themed list of sea dogs and naval units, but that's personal preference on my part), this differs from say, Ghazghkull Thraka who, while a good HQ on his own, is hampered by his own gakky codex being all he has access to. As far as list-building and meta-game, options is the big difference.
As far as gameplay, it's the speed with which you play is the big difference to me. A game that would take two to three hours in 40k, takes like 20 minutes in WMH. So it's much easier to play multiple games and really get into who is the more skilled player/list-builder, because straight luck becomes less of a factor when the games are shorter. There's also fewer models you have to buy to play the game so it's much cheaper than 40k to get started in.
And lastly, just from a company standpoint, there seems to be a much greater effort to keep the game balanced, it's not like 40k where you have to keep the sheer numbers of SM players happy and coming back. You can keep it balanced because you're not relying on say, just Khador to be your big seller.
Sword Of Caliban wrote: I just had my first game of 40k last night and loved it!! Yeah I got hammered by tau but I'm looking forward to my next game. I also saw some guys playing warmachine I didn't think much of the models to be honest.
Warmahordes is less about the models and more about the game play. The models are cool figures, but for all rules purposes could be replaced with empty bases.
I like it because of that. Its something I can play competitively while also having the painting experience. While 40k is more about really cool models.
Grey Templar wrote: PP is slightly lacking in the model quality department. Some of their plastics don't fit together well, and the kind of plastic they use isn't helping.
I was impressed by the Retribution models due to the really good way they make the joins. Left leg only fits on the left side and I managed to glue some of my jacks with plastic glue to hold together quite nicely before I got the the arm joins and realized a) I need to pin these because glue will not hold (I don't trust glue) and b) this isn't plastic, this is resin.
And then I got to Mage Hunter Strike Force and those crossbows turned my life into a couple of hours of misery and green stuff. But the MHSF are metal, not plastic nor resin, so that is to be expected.
Still, I like Warmachine models. Just don't be fooled into thinking they are plastic.
Grey Templar wrote: PP is slightly lacking in the model quality department. Some of their plastics don't fit together well, and the kind of plastic they use isn't helping.
I was impressed by the Retribution models due to the really good way they make the joins. Left leg only fits on the left side and I managed to glue some of my jacks with plastic glue to hold together quite nicely before I got the the arm joins and realized a) I need to pin these because glue will not hold (I don't trust glue) and b) this isn't plastic, this is resin.
And then I got to Mage Hunter Strike Force and those crossbows turned my life into a couple of hours of misery and green stuff. But the MHSF are metal, not plastic nor resin, so that is to be expected.
Still, I like Warmachine models. Just don't be fooled into thinking they are plastic.
Trazyn the Murderous wrote: I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but is there anything that makes Warmahordes better than 40k or vice versa? Thanks in advance.
I guess you have not been in miniature gaming as long as I do. Otherwise, you will not even bother to ask this question. I refuse to consider 40K at all for the following reasons:
1. All my old 40K models are outdated. Imagine the money you spent and time you painted going into a waste in a few years. That is unacceptable. Same has not happened so far with WM.
2. GW does not back up their products. Before they wore down their official forum, any word that mentioned "squats" or "Man o' War" would get your post banned and deleted. They gave up all their specialist games. Fxxk you, GW. I did purchase your products with my hard earned money. I have not encountered any other companies that have such polices.
3. Their products are either outrage in prices or quality being sub-standard.
4. Armies are never balanced on purpose and I guarantee that they will never be.
5. Rules, in comparison with other gamers, are mediocre at best.
5. It brews a community of power-gamers that are native, short-sighted and have an altitude problem.
Trazyn the Murderous wrote: I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but is there anything that makes Warmahordes better than 40k or vice versa? Thanks in advance.
I guess you have not been in miniature gaming as long as I do. Otherwise, you will not even bother to ask this question. I refuse to consider 40K at all for the following reasons:
1. All my old 40K models are outdated. Imagine the money you spent and time you painted going into a waste in a few years. That is unacceptable. Same has not happened so far with WM.
2. GW does not back up their products. Before they wore down their official forum, any word that mentioned "squats" or "Man o' War" would get your post banned and deleted. They gave up all their specialist games. Fxxk you, GW. I did purchase your products with my hard earned money. I have not encountered any other companies that have such polices.
3. Their products are either outrage in prices or quality being sub-standard.
4. Armies are never balanced on purpose and I guarantee that they will never be.
5. Rules, in comparison with other gamers, are mediocre at best.
5. It brews a community of power-gamers that are native, short-sighted and have an altitude problem.
I've been wargaming since 1988, and I still prefer 40k. I used to play WMH, but my group and I dropped it when 6th edition came out. Anyway, thought I'd counter some of your points:
1. That's your choice. I cannot see how GW has forced all of your 40k models to become outdated. If it was because of new rules, maybe you would stop using one or two units. But it does appear you are exaggerating somewhat.
2. They don't have to back up their products. There are plenty of companies that drop particular lines if they are not selling or not considered to 'work' any more.
2.1. Stating that people were banned or had posts deleted simply due to mentioning squats or Man of War is nonsense. Again, an exaggeration.
3. That's quite ironic, as I've considered PP models designs to be way below average (the gargantuans look awful [Skorne dinosaucers?], and most of the 'jacks and hordes beasts convey a He Man toy look), and no way is WMH cheaper than GW. The models are often on par in price, with few modelling options. Personally, I think GW's models are miles ahead in quality and design than PP's stuff, and the same can be said for a number of companies.
4. True, but the latest codices are bringing things into balance. Mind you, many many games (wargaming and computer games) are unbalanced.
5. Not sure what you mean by comparing rules with other gamers. How do you compare 40k against gamers? Ahhh typo Anyway, you are exaggerating. The rules, whilst lacking clarity, still provide a coherent framework for having a fun battle. I admit that WMH has better rules, but the system only seems to work in skirmish settings; it becomes cumbersome with larger engagements.
5. Good lord, what company does not have its fair share of powergamers? I've encountered just as many power gamers in roleplay and WMH sessions as I have playing 40k. Is GW now at fault for allowing powergamers?
Look, each to their own with games. But this PP versus GW debate is reaching ridiculous levels. I wish we could all enjoy both games with the snarkiness evidenced in your post. When WMH came out, I understand many GW fans trashed it. Unfairly so. But the pendulum seems to have swung the other way, as some WMH fans have consumed too much PP Koolaid
I went and took a look at WMH models today, and I was shocked at the prices.
They wanted $100 NZD for three Khador... Storm troopers or something. Guys in armoured suits, though not warjacks. My comparison someone earning minimum wage takes home $80 NZD at the end of the day after tax.
That said, five Sternguard Vets for 40k was like $80, but with that game I haven't bought a model from a store in over a decade - why do that when you can find Orks online for 50c per model pretty reliably?
Any way to get these guys cheaper? Nobody seems to be selling them 2nd hand, which does speak volumes in itself.
Dakkamite wrote: I went and took a look at WMH models today, and I was shocked at the prices.
They wanted $100 NZD for three Khador... Storm troopers or something. Guys in armoured suits, though not warjacks. My comparison someone earning minimum wage takes home $80 NZD at the end of the day after tax.
That said, five Sternguard Vets for 40k was like $80, but with that game I haven't bought a model from a store in over a decade - why do that when you can find Orks online for 50c per model pretty reliably?
Any way to get these guys cheaper? Nobody seems to be selling them 2nd hand, which does speak volumes in itself.
Online Vendors mostly. I don't know what vendors ship to you, but as an american these guys are good: http://www.discountgamesinc.com/ . You might get pounded on the shipping though.
Dakkamite wrote: I went and took a look at WMH models today, and I was shocked at the prices.
They wanted $100 NZD for three Khador... Storm troopers or something. Guys in armoured suits, though not warjacks. My comparison someone earning minimum wage takes home $80 NZD at the end of the day after tax.
That said, five Sternguard Vets for 40k was like $80, but with that game I haven't bought a model from a store in over a decade - why do that when you can find Orks online for 50c per model pretty reliably?
Any way to get these guys cheaper? Nobody seems to be selling them 2nd hand, which does speak volumes in itself.
Units and that tend to be very expensive (either they are made with all metal or their Plastic which seems to be PVC or resin) granted if you look around, you can find it 25% off or so most stores. While it may be expensive as Warhammer 40k and/ or maybe a bit less, it is much, much cheaper to actually start up. Then again, it seems Australia has always gotten the gakky part of the deal when it comes to pricing of Miniature Wargaming it seems. :/
The thing is about WMH, the individual models maybe pricy but you buy them once....MAYBE twice on a few of them. Many of them you cant even have multiples of, and others wtf would you take multiples of it for.
40k you spend 50-80 dollars on a few models, and cant even field them becaus eyou need another box same price to run them. In most cases, to max the unit out you need 3-4 boxes at that price. Then you gotta factor in all the other options that box might work for, so you buy it again. Then the big stuff that costs even more than that that you get 2-3 of. It never ends. i STILL want to get some more orks, but i keep going "Wtf are you thinking look under your cardtable ya idiot you still got 600worth of orks unassembled" lol
I've been wargaming since 1988, and I still prefer 40k. I used to play WMH, but my group and I dropped it when 6th edition came out. Anyway, thought I'd counter some of your points:
1. That's your choice. I cannot see how GW has forced all of your 40k models to become outdated. If it was because of new rules, maybe you would stop using one or two units. But it does appear you are exaggerating somewhat.
2. They don't have to back up their products. There are plenty of companies that drop particular lines if they are not selling or not considered to 'work' any more.
2.1. Stating that people were banned or had posts deleted simply due to mentioning squats or Man of War is nonsense. Again, an exaggeration.
3. That's quite ironic, as I've considered PP models designs to be way below average (the gargantuans look awful [Skorne dinosaucers?], and most of the 'jacks and hordes beasts convey a He Man toy look), and no way is WMH cheaper than GW. The models are often on par in price, with few modelling options. Personally, I think GW's models are miles ahead in quality and design than PP's stuff, and the same can be said for a number of companies.
4. True, but the latest codices are bringing things into balance. Mind you, many many games (wargaming and computer games) are unbalanced.
5. Not sure what you mean by comparing rules with other gamers. How do you compare 40k against gamers? Ahhh typo Anyway, you are exaggerating. The rules, whilst lacking clarity, still provide a coherent framework for having a fun battle. I admit that WMH has better rules, but the system only seems to work in skirmish settings; it becomes cumbersome with larger engagements.
5. Good lord, what company does not have its fair share of powergamers? I've encountered just as many power gamers in roleplay and WMH sessions as I have playing 40k. Is GW now at fault for allowing powergamers?
Look, each to their own with games. But this PP versus GW debate is reaching ridiculous levels. I wish we could all enjoy both games with the snarkiness evidenced in your post. When WMH came out, I understand many GW fans trashed it. Unfairly so. But the pendulum seems to have swung the other way, as some WMH fans have consumed too much PP Koolaid
Let me add a few counter points:
1. In Rogue Trader, Space Marines could be armed with Shuriken Catapults, Lasguns, or Bolters. In the 6th ed Dark Angels codex, you can no longer field an entire squad of T-Hammer/SS Deathwing Terminators. GW took away whole squads with the SoB White Dwarf update. If you played Space Wolves from 3rd-4th Ed, you probably had a Leman Russ Executioner tank. 6th Ed? No more. Every time a Codex get's "updated" or re-written, units are changed or dropped, and new ones added forcing some players to purchase new models and shelve old models. In WM/H, units fall into and out of favor depending on the tournament scene or release of new models that make other models more attractive for a particular play style.
2. A company that doesn't stand by its products isn't a good company. People were indeed banned at the "official" GW forums for pressing the Squat issue, or a bunch of other issues (mostly just the Trolls). They also deleted any thread critical of GW, it's models, or company policy. In the end, the GW Forums were so polarizing, that it became too much trouble for GW and they were brought down. Same thing with GW's Facebook page. Also, up until a month ago, if you bought a model from one of those other companies, you were "violating GW's Intellectual Property Rights". Despite the fact that GW produced rules for units that they had no models for... and don't get me started on the Dark Angels codex and how GW dropped the ball on that one (editing? What's that? You mean their are Vampires in the Dark Angels? Disappearing wargear? No stats on some wargear? Conflicting stats? An entire UNIT FAQ'ed? ) PP has not invalidated whole armies (Squats), nor effectively updated a line into obscurity (SoB's). PP also still has Forums and a Facebook page. Moderating a forum is always a challenge, and let's be honest here- a company isn't going to let an internet poster (Troll) trash their company on it's own forums.
3. GW is a better modeling company. Then again, GW has always stated they are a model company first, game company second and their products reflect that. This is a niche hobby, and both companies charge players/hobbyist/enthusiasts what they think they can afford. Warmachine/Hordes however has a lower starting price point. So... if you compare the costs of a 50 point competitive Warmachine list with a 2000 point tournament40K list, you would find the Warmachine/Hordes list way, way cheaper. $50 gets you a 10-15 point list and rules. For $100, you get two armies around 20 points, dice, tape measure, and rulebook. Buy the current 40K Starter box, and you get what, about 300-400 points worth of models? Want a new WM/H army? Swap out your Warcaster/Warlock and watch your entire army play differently. If I collected every model available for a faction, yeah, it'll cost about the same as a large 40K army. However, I'll have an infinite way of playing that entire faction compared to a similarly priced 40K army. I would add here that while PP may not be up to the same model quality as GW, they have an excellent customer service department similar to GW's.
4. You concede this point, then go on to introduce other games. Warmachine/Hordes is the most balanced, player customizable table top miniatures game I've ever played. GW is inconsistent with its Codex/Army Books. They can't seem to find a good balance within their own game system... but then again, GW is a modeling company first.
5. I guarantee the game of 40K you play between you and your group in your area is different from the way I play 40K with my play group. If we went to another area, they would play the game differently too. Don't believe me? /shrug It's true. I've seen more then one game dissolve into a rules argument that was never resolved. Every single time I have played 40K, I've had to open up the rule book and talk about a rule. So many rules often contradict each other, with no timing or rule priority. To solve a rules issue, I have to roll a d6? I can travel all over the world, and be able to throw down a game of WM/H and not have to worry about House Rules or the interpretation of some rule.
6. Yup, every game has it's share of power gamers, WM/H and 40K are no exception. Neither one made the other (chicken or egg? ).
Your last point I agree with 100%. You have also added snarkiness to your post talking about drinking PP Koolaid. I play both games to satisfy different wargamming needs. Both are fun in their own unique ways, and unfortunately, threads like this will continue to be created comparing both systems to each other. It's human nature.
Dakkamite wrote: I went and took a look at WMH models today, and I was shocked at the prices.
They wanted $100 NZD for three Khador... Storm troopers or something. Guys in armoured suits, though not warjacks. My comparison someone earning minimum wage takes home $80 NZD at the end of the day after tax.
That said, five Sternguard Vets for 40k was like $80, but with that game I haven't bought a model from a store in over a decade - why do that when you can find Orks online for 50c per model pretty reliably?
Any way to get these guys cheaper? Nobody seems to be selling them 2nd hand, which does speak volumes in itself.
As noted already, individual pieces might cost more, but you need much less of them. The unit you are looking at is even an old sculpt of the current Man'o'War Shocktroopers. The metal ones (three dudes) are no longer available. The plastic unit they have now is actually less than the metallic version you saw and comes with all five guys in it.
Even the most infantry-heavy armies aren't a lot of models in PP stuff. The largest army in my Circle Oroboros force I would bring to a game has something like 40-50 models. So while a Wolve of Orboros might be $7.00USD per for a grunt, the fact that I will only ever need 12 models of the unit for any game I ever play normally is going to have longterm savings.
As far as pricing goes, some LGS seem to gouge prices really hard. I purchased pButcher online for 13$, the only LGS within an hour of me charge triple that for the same sculpt. I am all for supporting your LGS, small retail stores have it tough sometimes, but I need to live too and I cant justify spending that much more on the same product.
Also - Speaking of start up costs. With many factions, there are several warjacks that are built on the same chassis design. What is awesome about this is that it allows us to magnetize the different parts between models so that we can switch the model based on which one we want to run. Want to run a jugg but only have a destroyer? No problem, just pop it's arms off and change em out. Need a marauder? same thing. Need a black Ivan? Torch? well those are more complicated but definately doable. Rare earth neodymium magnets around 1/8" in dia. will hold any bit together. Due to these designs that translate directly from the fluff, I can switch between half the warjacks in my faction and it only cost me around 40$.
Warmachine may have a lower entrance price, but when you take into consideration making a tournament ready collection its about on par with a 40k tournament sized army.
To play Warmachine competitively, you are usually looking at 2 50 point lists plus 20 points of specialists. There may be some overlap between the lists but only certain basic units.
100ish points of Warmachine is going to easily run you $500 to $600. About what a smartly purchased 2k 40k army will run.
The only difference is you could have just about everything you'd need to have a nice varied casual and competitive experience with Warmachine.
Bottom line. You will spend just as much on Warmachine as you do with 40k, but you get a little more bang for your buck in Warmachine.
A single purchase can completely alter your playstyle with Warmachine. In 40k it usually can't.
Grey Templar wrote: Warmachine may have a lower entrance price, but when you take into consideration making a tournament ready collection its about on par with a 40k tournament sized army.
To play Warmachine competitively, you are usually looking at 2 50 point lists plus 20 points of specialists. There may be some overlap between the lists but only certain basic units.
100ish points of Warmachine is going to easily run you $500 to $600. About what a smartly purchased 2k 40k army will run.
The only difference is you could have just about everything you'd need to have a nice varied casual and competitive experience with Warmachine.
Bottom line. You will spend just as much on Warmachine as you do with 40k, but you get a little more bang for your buck in Warmachine.
A single purchase can completely alter your playstyle with Warmachine. In 40k it usually can't.
Total cost is sadly so wildly effected by the reasonable prices you can get in your region,
Here the price equivalency is lost almost completely if you are buying anything other than tac marines and a few other items. If you are buying fine cast in comparison to solos and war casters you can expect to pay twice or Triple with what GW is offering.
And that's both with local and Australian stores, if you start adding in rules GW shoots up in price massively.
The warmachine or hordes rule book cost me about 34$ each with the 40k one costing 100$.
Value wise I think the warmachine and hordes books are beyond better value.
With codex getting to about 70$ now the prices are getting further apart very quickly D:
Now in other thoughts I was so excited for the daemons release, but I have even only been able to play a few games since. 40k dieing off so much and the players here being reluctant to even play daemons after the first few games at where I play.
Something I think I share with them :0 I just can't see 40k retaining players here in comparison to wm/h being that one of the bigist draws people place on the ease of getting a game.
Just a sad state to be in as a 40k player here it would be
Grey Templar wrote: Warmachine may have a lower entrance price, but when you take into consideration making a tournament ready collection its about on par with a 40k tournament sized army.
To play Warmachine competitively, you are usually looking at 2 50 point lists plus 20 points of specialists. There may be some overlap between the lists but only certain basic units.
100ish points of Warmachine is going to easily run you $500 to $600. About what a smartly purchased 2k 40k army will run.
The only difference is you could have just about everything you'd need to have a nice varied casual and competitive experience with Warmachine.
Bottom line. You will spend just as much on Warmachine as you do with 40k, but you get a little more bang for your buck in Warmachine.
A single purchase can completely alter your playstyle with Warmachine. In 40k it usually can't.
Much of what you are saying is extremely opinionated. You are saying that 2 full armies of warmachine plus half as many specialist units that you can swap in and out of those armies to customize the lists is the same cost as a single warhammer list with no options? Arent you just proving everyone's point there?
I can only speak from a khador standpoint but there is massive overlap in that faction, and I reckon there is massive overlap in other factions as well. Iron fang pikemen for example, they can be effective in so many lists with so many warcasters, e/pIrusk, e/pButcher, strakhov, sorscha, Old witch, well pretty much any warcaster can effectively run IFP except maybe karchev. The same goes for Winterguard, and Kayazy, and manhunters, and widowmakers, and beast 09, and greatbears, and... well you see my point. You could go to a tourny with two warjacks and a couple squads of infantry and be all set for pretty much anything, not to mention the fact that you can swap warjack chassis into half a dozen different models which just expands your options even more. What about factions like Cygnar? How many lists do you see running a squire, a journeyman warcaster, ATGMS, black 13th, a defender, ol rowdy, etc etc. Oh yes, there is much more overlap between lists than just a certain basic unit. Granted some lists will have much less overlap but I do not think that is hugely common.
I do not know about the pricing in your area, but, I pay about the same price for the same number of models for warhammer as I do for warmachine. I purchased a slann mage priest for lizardmen for around 50$. Necron infantry were about 3$ per model. However, I need many times more of them than I do with warmachine.
Grey Templar wrote: Warmachine may have a lower entrance price, but when you take into consideration making a tournament ready collection its about on par with a 40k tournament sized army.
To play Warmachine competitively, you are usually looking at 2 50 point lists plus 20 points of specialists. There may be some overlap between the lists but only certain basic units.
100ish points of Warmachine is going to easily run you $500 to $600. About what a smartly purchased 2k 40k army will run.
The only difference is you could have just about everything you'd need to have a nice varied casual and competitive experience with Warmachine.
Bottom line. You will spend just as much on Warmachine as you do with 40k, but you get a little more bang for your buck in Warmachine.
A single purchase can completely alter your playstyle with Warmachine. In 40k it usually can't.
Much of what you are saying is extremely opinionated. You are saying that 2 full armies of warmachine plus half as many specialist units that you can swap in and out of those armies to customize the lists is the same cost as a single warhammer list with no options? Arent you just proving everyone's point there?
I can only speak from a khador standpoint but there is massive overlap in that faction, and I reckon there is massive overlap in other factions as well. Iron fang pikemen for example, they can be effective in so many lists with so many warcasters, e/pIrusk, e/pButcher, strakhov, sorscha, Old witch, well pretty much any warcaster can effectively run IFP except maybe karchev. The same goes for Winterguard, and Kayazy, and manhunters, and widowmakers, and beast 09, and greatbears, and... well you see my point. You could go to a tourny with two warjacks and a couple squads of infantry and be all set for pretty much anything, not to mention the fact that you can swap warjack chassis into half a dozen different models which just expands your options even more. What about factions like Cygnar? How many lists do you see running a squire, a journeyman warcaster, ATGMS, black 13th, a defender, ol rowdy, etc etc. Oh yes, there is much more overlap between lists than just a certain basic unit. Granted some lists will have much less overlap but I do not think that is hugely common.
I do not know about the pricing in your area, but, I pay about the same price for the same number of models for warhammer as I do for warmachine. I purchased a slann mage priest for lizardmen for around 50$. Necron infantry were about 3$ per model. However, I need many times more of them than I do with warmachine.
I am comparing what it takes to play the game competitively. Or simply have what I would consider a normal collection(with plenty of extra options to swap out)
If you only ever play with a single list in warmachine, yes its cheaper than 40k. But if you have a tournament ready army, or a moderate sized collection, you are spending about the same as you would for a 40k army.
The Warmachine army just gives you more flexibility within its game system. its not any cheaper.
If you have large, equally priced collections of 40k & WHM you'll probably have 1 viable "Build" with your 40k list, you'll have 10+ WM/H lists you can play. This is because it takes a comparatively much smaller change in models to make a meaningful game play difference in WM/H. Put another way the cost per unique gameplay experience, is much much lower for WM/H.
Grey Templar wrote: The Warmachine army just gives you more flexibility within its game system. its not any cheaper.
Yes it is. Just because you can spend as much on your Warmachine or Hordes collection] as you can on your 40k army doesn't mean Warmachine is just as expensive.
I am comparing what it takes to play the game competitively. Or simply have what I would consider a normal collection(with plenty of extra options to swap out)
If you only ever play with a single list in warmachine, yes its cheaper than 40k. But if you have a tournament ready army, or a moderate sized collection, you are spending about the same as you would for a 40k army.
The Warmachine army just gives you more flexibility within its game system. its not any cheaper.
To achieve flexibility in Warhammer 40k can take up to 6 of the same unit with the double force org. 6 stormhawks is going to cost almost $600 by itself. 6 space marine units + rhino/razorbacks + drop pods is going to be closer to $720. If you're trying to collect an army or even a company of space marines, it's going to cost a lot more than Warmahordes. Neither of these choices even makes an army, it's just achieving flexibility. Many tourney players cut corners and get minimal flexibility, but there's no reason that warhordes can't do that either.
Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models
In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly
Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...
Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe
The way you tell the story of what could happen reminds me of those annoying DISH commercials that tell you to get rid of your cable. good show, friend. I like your spirit.
The discussion on the cost for 40K has not even taken Forge World models into consideration. But, of course, it is not tournament legal because most of the fanboys cannot afford them and therefore have them banned.
World Forge makes products that have been accepted by copyright by GW. I spent money on them and therefore I feel that I should be able to use in any tournaments I want. If you have an issue, tough luck. Work hard and earn more money instead of wasting time to play games instead.
The argument also seems to center on a 2K list comparing to 2 50 points armies in WM. This is very biased out right. 2K is the minimal standard. 3K is a more appropriate comparison. And as I mentioned in my previous post, most of the models will be outdated in a few years making the hobby extremely expensive to own.
Templar, you are saying that it would cost roughly similar amounts of money to field a 2000pt 40k army as it would to field 120 points worth of war machine/hordes. But 120 points of war machine would give you two complete armies of the largest size plus 20 points of extra models, whereas 2000 points of war hammer gives you a single army that is smaller than your standard army size (standard size is still 3000 right?). How is there any comparison here? Your example lands me 140% more
army than warhammer.
KingKodo wrote: Templar, you are saying that it would cost roughly similar amounts of money to field a 2000pt 40k army as it would to field 120 points worth of war machine/hordes. But 120 points of war machine would give you two complete armies of the largest size plus 20 points of extra models, whereas 2000 points of war hammer gives you a single army that is smaller than your standard army size (standard size is still 3000 right?). How is there any comparison here? Your example lands me 140% more army than warhammer.
You are right here, but standard 40k size is 1850-2000 points these days.
But yeah, I did a price comparison once between an 1850pt 40k list that placed at adapticon, and everything in a 3-list 50pt set that won a warmahordes tourney (and the three lists had very little overlap), and they were both about the same price. But that's 3 lists at 50 points which could be made into many other lists easily by mixing and matching or just adding a different warcaster, against a single list and setup.
So yeah, it can be the same price, but you generally get more game out of Warmahordes for it. At the same time, I know people who have 10,000 pts plus of a single 40k army, but most people who get into warmahordes only get one or two of any unit, and so that sort of collectors habit generally turns out cheaper as well.
Grey Templar wrote: Warmachine may have a lower entrance price, but when you take into consideration making a tournament ready collection its about on par with a 40k tournament sized army.
To play Warmachine competitively, you are usually looking at 2 50 point lists plus 20 points of specialists. There may be some overlap between the lists but only certain basic units.
100ish points of Warmachine is going to easily run you $500 to $600. About what a smartly purchased 2k 40k army will run.
The only difference is you could have just about everything you'd need to have a nice varied casual and competitive experience with Warmachine.
Bottom line. You will spend just as much on Warmachine as you do with 40k, but you get a little more bang for your buck in Warmachine.
A single purchase can completely alter your playstyle with Warmachine. In 40k it usually can't.
This is obscured on both ends
50x2+20 points of Warmachine is closer to $400
Here is a random swarm of Menoth stuff Coolstuffinc, this is probably more than enough to make 2x 50pt lists + bunch of extra solo specialist. This totals around $400
It has a Battlegroup
3x Extra Heavy Jacks
3~5x Full Units with their UA (or appropriate Seneschal solo)
6~8 Solos
Spoiler:
Name In Stock In Cart Price Total
Protectorate Battlegroup Box Set - Plastic Thumb Nail Protectorate Battlegroup Box Set - Plastic
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $37.49 $37.49
Protectorate Castigator/Reckoner/Sanctifier Heavy Warjack Kit (plastic) Thumb Nail Protectorate Castigator/Reckoner/Sanctifier Heavy Warjack Kit (plastic)
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
2 $26.29 $52.58
Protectorate Choir of Menoth Unit Box Thumb Nail Protectorate Choir of Menoth Unit Box
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $23.99 $23.99
Protectorate Epic Warcaster Feora, Protector of the Flame Thumb Nail Protectorate Epic Warcaster Feora, Protector of the Flame
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $13.49 $13.49
Protectorate Errant Officer & Standard Bearer Thumb Nail Protectorate Errant Officer & Standard Bearer
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $17.49 $17.49
Protectorate Exemplar Bastion Seneschal Thumb Nail Protectorate Exemplar Bastion Seneschal
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, Near Mint)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $18.79 $18.79
Protectorate Exemplar Bastions Unit (5 Plastic Models) Thumb Nail Protectorate Exemplar Bastions Unit (5 Plastic Models)
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $33.99 $33.99
Protectorate Exemplar Errant Seneschal Thumb Nail Protectorate Exemplar Errant Seneschal
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $10.99 $10.99
Protectorate Exemplar Errants Unit Box Thumb Nail Protectorate Exemplar Errants Unit Box
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $37.49 $37.49
Protectorate Flameguard Unit Attachment Thumb Nail Protectorate Flameguard Unit Attachment
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $14.99 $14.99
Protectorate Flameguard Unit Box Thumb Nail Protectorate Flameguard Unit Box
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $24.99 $24.99
Protectorate Heavy Plastic Warjack Kit Thumb Nail Protectorate Heavy Plastic Warjack Kit
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $25.99 $25.99
Protectorate Hierophant Warcaster Attachment Thumb Nail Protectorate Hierophant Warcaster Attachment
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $7.49 $7.49
Protectorate Knights Exemplar Unit Box (plastic) Thumb Nail Protectorate Knights Exemplar Unit Box (plastic)
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $26.29 $26.29
Protectorate Nicia, Tear of Vengeance Solo Thumb Nail Protectorate Nicia, Tear of Vengeance Solo
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $9.79 $9.79
Protectorate Paladin of the Order of the Wall Thumb Nail Protectorate Paladin of the Order of the Wall
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $8.99 $8.99
Protectorate Reclaimer Thumb Nail Protectorate Reclaimer
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $7.49 $7.49
Protectorate Vassal of Menoth Thumb Nail Protectorate Vassal of Menoth
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
2 $5.99 $11.98
Protectorate Warcaster High Allegiant Amon Ad-Raza Thumb Nail Protectorate Warcaster High Allegiant Amon Ad-Raza
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $8.99 $8.99
Protectorate Wracks (3) Thumb Nail Protectorate Wracks (3)
(Warmachine - Protectorate of Menoth, New)
Delete · Save For Later
1 $14.99 $14.99
An average 40k serious list ballpacks in the $600 for 1500, or near $1000 for 2000. Yea you can try stretching your points, taking tons of upgrades you don't need but seriously...
40K is more expensive overall because they choose to be more expensive, their entire goal is to sell you stuff. That is why they are making so many powerful but expensive low points models or extremely low point models where you need like 50 of them to have a decent point score of that model
The individual model price for 40k might be slightly cheaper than PP, but the overall army price is way way higher
The individual model price for 40k might be slightly cheaper than PP, but the overall army price is way way higher
But that's not even true for a large chunk of models. Individual 40k models are now over $20 a pop for man sized where as WarmHordes is as low as $9 for some. Terminators are more expensive than bastions/manowars. 10 power armor grey knights costs more than the new exemplar errants. Warjacks are cheaper than dreadnaughts. Battle engines and colossals are cheaper than most appoc models.
Battle Engines and Colossals aren't even close to the size of some apoc models.
They're roughly equivalent to a baneblade as far as what you get for your money. And point to cost ratio is much worse than getting other warmachine stuff. I can get 4 warjacks for the same cost as a Colossal, but the Colossal is only the equivalent of maybe 2-3.
Grey Templar wrote: Battle Engines and Colossals aren't even close to the size of some apoc models.
They're roughly equivalent to a baneblade as far as what you get for your money. And point to cost ratio is much worse than getting other warmachine stuff. I can get 4 warjacks for the same cost as a Colossal, but the Colossal is only the equivalent of maybe 2-3.
Well considering a baneblade costs $5 more than a colossal, I wouldn't consider my point invalidated.
And the second part doesn't even fit in to what we are discussing, but it's largely irrelevant. Transports have terrible money/point cost ratios it doesn't make them bad buys because the model kit isn't as cheap as it's points.
My new Cygnar list at 35pts which is standard in my area cost £147.80 - That includes an £81 Colossal (I could've just got a 'Jack at £12 and a unit at £20 instead - Depends how you want to play).
If I wanted to build the standard effective 1500pts list it would cost a minimum of £300. Double the price, it really is that simple.
You can build an effective Warmachine 25pts army for as little as £50 brand new. That wouldn't buy you a legal 40k Army of any point size.
If you wanted to bump your 35pt Warmachine army to the 50pt range it could cost anything from £30 to £100. If you wanted to bump that 40k army to 2000pt, you would really be starting at £100.
You know, something just struck me as being very funny. 40k players in general seem to make almost religious significance about complaining how expensive GW models are, then we get all defensive and start rationalizing when we hear that Warmachine is less expensive.
Cost isn't everything. i find I enjoy Warmachine more at the moment and I've made a Space Marine army entirely out of Scibor Monstrous miniatures so even if you spend sometimes stupid amounts of money on your hobby there are benefits to the systems. I find that I've grown fed up with Warhammer's feature creep and the obnoxious deity models. I don't want to have to get a Crimson Hunter per potential flyer I will face and I don't want to have to go Mech Eldar on the off hand that I'll face a high amount of Noise Marines. While Warhammer offers a lot of variety, you will find eventually that if you are to have a balanced game then your local meta will dictate what you have to bring along. It's not even optional unless you really do like uphill battles.
So far Warmachine doesn't seem to be that way. Sure, I have to bring something that can punch through or disable ARM22+ because one of my Warmachine friends play Khador. I also have to deal with the very different Cryx and soon it looks I'll be facing beasts from Circle as well, but none of those mean I have to worry about being hard countered the way a window hard counters a small song bird.
And, honestly, for what you get, I would still argue that 40k is a better deel for the cost. That said, to get started with Warmachine you need a ton less. For instance, a unit of winterguard infantry costs $50 US for 13 dudes...
Dude, disregard what I wrote above because I just shot my own theory in the foot when I actually did research. For a "price per model" perspective winterguard cost the same as guardsmen and pikemen cost the same as terminators (less actually).
I know it isn't the be all and end all price, but it was the only real point I took in from the previous page.
It is a large contributing factor however, I can afford maybe one 40k army a year along with all my other hobbies, but if that army doesn't play as well as I'd like, I'm stuck with it and its very expensive and hard to change it.
However I can easily afford a Warmachine army or two and pay the small amount to completely change the way it plays - £6-£20 for a caster won't break the bank but can 100% change the way an army plays.
Wombat- it's never been a question of price per figure. Everyone will admit that's about a wash between the various types of figures. It's about how many figures you need. There's no question that 40K requires the use of more figures, on average, than Warmahordes. Therefore a player doesn't have to pay as much to play Warmahordes compared to 40K.
If you really want to try to analyze the games fairly (for price) then pull off a couple of random tournament winning lists from each game and price them out accordingly. Tournament winning lists will make sure that the list isn't just some thrown together units/models and I'd be suprised if you find more than 1 or 2 40K armies that were cheaper than the Warmahordes armies. For comparison 2000 in 40K is about 50 in Warmahordes and 1500 = 35.
Leo, you also need to analyse how many respective models you need in order to get variety in and what type of models you need for casual games as well as the over all "mistake purchases". Causal games is more a game design point than cost.
Variety: In Warhammer in order to make a force that plays differently and which forces my opponent to re-think the game when facing me I have to bring a completely different army. Due to the system design this means that I need to change not 10% of my army, but most likely 80% of my army.
With Warmahordes you can change your army drastically with just the 'caster.
This means for variety Warhammer is an order of magnitude more expensive.
Mistake purchases: In Warhammer it's easy to make a mistake purchase. If I buy Howling Banshees I'm going to have a really hard time making use of them. If I buy Houseguard Riflemen they are still very useful, even if they are often down-rated.
This means that for mistake purchases Warhammer is typically slightly more expensive.*
* and it also means Warhammer is significantly worse designed.
I was surprised because I actually thought that 40k stuff would be lower price per model than warmachine stuff, if only because you need to buy less warmachine stuff so I figured they'd crank their profit margins higher. The fact that they're roughly equal (even with some of the warmachine stuff still being metal) honestly shocked me.
dementedwombat wrote: I was surprised because I actually thought that 40k stuff would be lower price per model than warmachine stuff, if only because you need to buy less warmachine stuff so I figured they'd crank their profit margins higher. The fact that they're roughly equal (even with some of the warmachine stuff still being metal) honestly shocked me.
I think it was said that PP prices models only according to the amount of metal and the materials cost. That's why when the cost to make those Winterguard went down, they reduced the price.
dementedwombat wrote: I was surprised because I actually thought that 40k stuff would be lower price per model than warmachine stuff, if only because you need to buy less warmachine stuff so I figured they'd crank their profit margins higher. The fact that they're roughly equal (even with some of the warmachine stuff still being metal) honestly shocked me.
I think it was said that PP prices models only according to the amount of metal and the materials cost. That's why when the cost to make those Winterguard went down, they reduced the price.
On the other end of the scale it also explains the Gobber Tinker. You'd be looking at 250 for a battle-box sized game over $1k for a 50pts game, if everything was priced per point like it is. It's just that it's a metal model on medium base that's only worth 1pt.
dementedwombat wrote: I was surprised because I actually thought that 40k stuff would be lower price per model than warmachine stuff, if only because you need to buy less warmachine stuff so I figured they'd crank their profit margins higher. The fact that they're roughly equal (even with some of the warmachine stuff still being metal) honestly shocked me.
I think it was said that PP prices models only according to the amount of metal and the materials cost. That's why when the cost to make those Winterguard went down, they reduced the price.
No, they also price based on how many they expect will be sold/army. That's why characters tend to be more- if you're only ever going to sell one/person, then the cost needs to be a bit higher to make up for the significantly lower volume.
Most of the WMH models are metal, actually. Theyre also hollow and use a different metal than GW did. I bought an Earthborn Dire Troll and when i got it i was kinda surprised it was so thin on the model before becoming hollow. But it was still sturdy and heavy, in fact it doesnt like sitting on its base since it tends to tip its so top heavy lol.
GW charged 30-40 for a model half that size made of metal. Earthborn was ~40 give or take a few and is huge. And i'll never need morethan 1 unless i wanna go to insane game levels.
Earthborne was $50 when I bought it, and I have not been upset overall with both the quality of the model and utility in game. PP makes sense in pricing models in relation to others, but so does GW. Before you start raging, I said in relation to other models, referring to the same range. GW may not have the cheapest line, but at least they keep prices steady throughout the whole range.
m14dude wrote: Earthborne was $50 when I bought it, and I have not been upset overall with both the quality of the model and utility in game. PP makes sense in pricing models in relation to others, but so does GW. Before you start raging, I said in relation to other models, referring to the same range. GW may not have the cheapest line, but at least they keep prices steady throughout the whole range.
The "price for return" thing is a tad different as I gather. From what I am told, GW tends to price models based on how many folks think they'll need for their armies. But this means that it takes into account rules on the model itsefl for that, so sometimes the power level of the model plays into its retail cost.
PP as I can gather only costs things based on their FA. Even then, I think there have been models who's FA was itself changed based on ease of distribution and cost. That's my personal theory on the Gallows Groves and colossals, models which I think are the FA they are due to price choices.
) .
.
Also, Battlebox games tend to be like that just to get you into the basics of the game. You get infantry and solos later on and that.
) It honestly in a way reminds me of 
) 
I can travel all over the world, and be able to throw down a game of 
