PhantomViper wrote: Also, two Cygnar players also won 2 tournaments in that list without even having Haley2 in their lineup. She is such a dominating caster that she doesn't even have to be in the list to make Cygnar win tournaments!
During the WTC, out of 84 matches played involving Haley2, she achieved an astounding 51,2% win ratio. For such a powerhouse caster that manages to win games no matter the skill of the opposition, she sure does lose allot!
Since we know she doesn't even have to be in the list to make Cygnar win tournaments we can also assume that in the half or so of the games where they play her and lose, it was some other caster that contributed the loss. Perhaps a Darius sitting on a shelf somewhere contributed the loss.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This whole thread has really got me scratching my head as to why WMH didn't catch on in my town. There are so many dudes who play 40k full-on competitively but get miffed about the rules, there's an oddly strong following for Heroclix, and everyone plays MTG. It's not quite *The Dojo*, but WMH is pretty much the perfect game for some of these people.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This whole thread has really got me scratching my head as to why WMH didn't catch on in my town. There are so many dudes who play 40k full-on competitively but get miffed about the rules, there's an oddly strong following for Heroclix, and everyone plays MTG. It's not quite *The Dojo*, but WMH is pretty much the perfect game for some of these people.
I just like painting elves.
Because the ubiquitous nature of 40k. Everyone else plays it so everyone plays it. That's changing, but slowly. Also, sometimes people aren't willing to give something new a try.
That is part of it, part of it is also the fluff, outside of game support for the IP of 40k. Lots of people know the game, and if you have a big community it is easier to join a community than start one.
Throw in the "I've already invested hundreds on this game." factor and you have a lot of people that play 40k.
I also particularly like your posting history on the PP forums where you not only admit that you have no idea what the current state of the game actually is (something that is more than readily apparent to anyone that actually plays the game when they read your posts here)
I´ve stated on 2 different threads here that I have been on a break for some time now, your point therefore is? Next to that I am quite aware of the current state of the game, I merely made a thread inwhich I asked peoples own opinions regarding what they think are the top tier Warcasters of different factions currently, and why.
In any case you can from here on out be quiet about my lack of experience with WM/H, as I apparently out-experience you in said game.
Ahahahah! I've been playing WMH since 2003 and your trolling attempts are getting more desperate by the minute.
How is it trolling to find it dumb to think someone would lie about playing a game? Your comments that completely seem to sweep the rock-paper-scissors factor under the rug just make you appear like someone who only started the game a year ago max.
So what is it? Is WMH one of the most balanced game that exists or is it so unbalanced that simple warcaster pairings can decide the game before it even starts?
It is one of the most balanced games out there and simultaneously certain matchups can absolutely decimate others. Competitive WM/H has a strong rock-paper-scissors -aspect going for it. Have fun accepting this fact ( which you already probably know, but are refusing to admit for god knows what reason. ) If you claim I said WM/H is unbalanced, copypaste that bit to me, or I will consider your claim concessed automatically.
Haley2 won 3 major tournaments this year (out of 33 reported tournaments, such a powerhouse!). And curiously enough, all of the Haley2 lists used to win those tournaments were different from each other... So where is this dominating "netdeck tournament list" that somehow doesn't win more than one tournament?
Also, two Cygnar players also won 2 tournaments in that list without even having Haley2 in their lineup. She is such a dominating caster that she doesn't even have to be in the list to make Cygnar win tournaments!
During the WTC, out of 84 matches played involving Haley2, she achieved an astounding 51,2% win ratio. For such a powerhouse caster that manages to win games no matter the skill of the opposition, she sure does loose allot!
I said she dominates certain matchups and builds, I didn´t say she dominates tournaments around the globe. If you pit 2 highly skilled players against eachother, the one who is suffering from having a bad matchup is very, very likely to lose. Are you just taking things out of context on purpose? And if so, what purpose does that serve for you?
slowthar wrote: Another lesson I learned from this thread: An immature person (or group of people) is immature to matter what game they play.
Being exclusionary for the sake of chest-beating and talking about how badass you are is a sad state to be in, no matter what the activity. Human beings should strive to be better than that.
Well actually I almost get where that guy is coming from. If one likes a competive, 'tough' environment where everything is fair game, who am I to say that is wrong way to enjoy the hobby? I say all wargaming is good wargaming. Now, obviously, it shouldn't happen at the expense of mocking and shutting out other gamers who are not into that style of environment.
I haven't played WM/H, but I was into MtG big time in the '90s, but I jumped out as I saw that the field was moving almost exclusively to tournament scene. Tournament players, decks and games just weren't fun, in my opinion. Sure enough, they featured great competition and good players, but it was all very mechanical, very 'dry' (and surprisingly enough, IMO many of the players weren't even that good: their understanding of the core dynamics of the game was weak and they mostly thought in the terms of getting killer cards and combos to their decks). Also, MtG design was increasingly moving towards combination mechanics, where you attempt to link several cards or effects for force multiplier-type effects to gain huge 'cliff edge' advantage. This is, by the way, also how FFG designs some of their games, and I think it's pretty weak way of game design. I know everyone does not agree and some people are really into that type of mechanics, but for me, ruletechnic gimmickry is no substitute for strategy or maneuvering. Best MtG games were such where both sides had huge arrays of creatures, defensive enchanchments, artifacts etc. and you tried to figure out the best way to employ your creatures' abilities, first strikes, banding, etc and whatever cards you had in hand to maximize your gains. Worst games were those where other player got his combo in play and you were locked down and all you could do was to hope to draw that Disenchant or Crumble which would allow you to knock off the keystone card which kept the combo together. Of course such combinatorics are possible in 40k too (especially true in 6th edition Ally system!) but it's not anywhere as common, at least not in casual environment.
I don't know how it is in WM/H, but one thing I like in 40k is that comeback victories are very possible. In hex wargames I've played, if you conceded early advantage, you were generally toast as the opponent would just keep pressing on and getting stronger. Same goes for MtG duels: sure sometimes you managed to crawl back, but most of the time not. It happened more often in multiplayer games where tempo was usually slower, but most players didn't care for them. In fact 40k sometimes feels even too lenient in this respect, in that it's sometimes unfair that the dominant player lost the victory because other guy rolled '6' for Run and then '2' for ending game on 5th turn...this was especially true in 5th edition BRB missions.
Yeah, I know where he's coming from, too, and I think it's a bad place. Not because a game can't/shouldn't be played competitively, but specifically because they're being intentionally exclusive and pushing away newcomers. They also appear to encourage and thrive on poor sportsmanship and just a generally unpleasant playing experience.
I also played MtG in the 90s, too, and I was pretty competitive about it. I was a teenager back then, and I think playing it in tournaments environment taught me a lot about sportsmanship and not being a dick. I could sit down as a 15 year-old across from a 35 year-old and know I was going to beat the piss out of him. The immature route would be to be cocky, mock him openly, rules-lawyer, etc. The mature route, and one I hopefully learned, is to be friendly and sportsmanlike. This is already going to be a lousy match for him; what's the benefit to me of making it worse besides falsely inflating my own ego?
And yes, comeback victories are possible in WMH, mostly due to the "caster kill" rule. Learning how to negotiate that is part of learning the game's learning curve. On the whole, I like the game better: I like the more concise rules, faster turns, better balance, and less random feel the game has. Although, I also don't really have a group to play 40k with anymore; I think 40k could be a lot of fun as well with the right group of people in the same way that people have a D&D group.
I prefer warmachine much more to WH40K. I tried 40K for a few months, but if I wanted to play casually it was a pain with the rules and if I wanted to play competitively I would face a Tau Railcannon line half the time and a imperial guards gun line the other half.
I think that the way my FLGS plays is just like my local chess club. Lots of banter and jokes, smiles all around, and going to play for the kill. Our casual games are kind of like competitive games, without the death clock. I think I played stakov with a spriggan and winterguard deathstar as one of my first games there!(it was really fun actually)
You also have Elves in WMH... Join the Dark Side, we are nothing like zlayer77's "Dojo", I promise!
I own bloodtrackers, striders and mage hunters! Can i go unbound in WMH?
There are some rules about army composition in WMH, which basically concern only warcasters.
In smaller games, you can just take one. In larger games, two or more are allowed. See the rule booklet.
In tourneys up to 50 pts you play with one caster.
I think he was asking about playing units from three different factions at once. I'd play against it without a second thought, but I think most WM/H players would not.
I was just goofin. I don't play anymore, but I had to keep some of the models.
One of the things I hear about 40k/Fantasy people is that Warmachine/Hordes doesn't offer enough customization of units, but the sheer number of options (some better than others) in GW games makes my little old head spin.
You also have Elves in WMH... Join the Dark Side, we are nothing like zlayer77's "Dojo", I promise!
The fact that I made my post to get peoples attention to "WHY", "douchebags", "Power Gaming" and "screaming" does not effect the gameplay of Warmachine/hordes, and people directly assume that when this happens it "ruins gamplay" illustrated my point really well I think..
The people who play 40k do not understand that as soon as a game gets balanced, "YOU DO NOT GET FRUSTRATED AND PISSED OFF AT PEOPLE", But in a broken game like 40k "YOUR GAME GETS RUINED AND YOU GET ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED ALL THE TIME", so you have to house rule, and ask people is this OK, can i play this.. Or you tone stuff down so that you don't come off as a power gaming "JACK ASS".. This is not a good way to play a game it is not a healthy way to play a game...
READ MY POSTS all of them... I'm sorry that i have to "push your buttons" to get you to respond but the Facts are, you do not get frustrated playing a blanced game... And Even if you scream in horror over what just happend, you can then go back and find a counter for that move... IN 40k you might need to shelf your whole army and buy a new one to stay competetive...
And the dude who ran a way, was just the type of who has the ingrained 40k mentality that is a cancer in the gaming hobby today. He ran away Because he saw that we dident play 40k and after talking with us he understood that we would never ever play 40k and WHFB again in our lives.. WHY? because we do not like to get angry and frustraded .. We like to have fun in our Mental DOJO. But nobody really gets uppset outside the game and there are no lingering hard feelings, because you can't get mad at people for being better at a game then you are.. Unless you are the jealous type. I find that many people who stick with 40k are the people who do not really enjoy balanced games, because they cant "HANDLE THE TRUTH", that they actually suck at Tactics, and need the Hand holding of random broken rules to have a chans of winning anything...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: I was just goofin. I don't play anymore, but I had to keep some of the models.
One of the things I hear about 40k/Fantasy people is that Warmachine/Hordes doesn't offer enough customization of units, but the sheer number of options (some better than others) in GW games makes my little old head spin.
This is true.. If someone had bothered reading what i wrote before, I pointed out that 40k is an experince, from the moment you bring your new stuff home.. You pick and chose the stuff, and you also build it...In Warmachine you pick up the box and spend allot less time assembling it.. And the Unit you are using is always "Optimized".. In 40k you have to do your own Optimization(find the most broken stuff and Ower powerd things in your list etc)...
Lots of Customization leads to unbalanced combos.. And 40k really shines in that department (I would say it is the most Unbalanced and broken game on the market). WHY? because that is the way GW sells more miniatures, all the new shiny stuff is always better then what came before.. It is a market strategi to sell more armies.. that is FACT!
The people who play 40k do not understand that as soon as a game gets balanced, "YOU DO NOT GET FRUSTRATED AND PISSED OFF AT PEOPLE", But in a broken game like 40k "YOUR GAME GETS RUINED AND YOU GET ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED ALL THE TIME", so you have to house rule, and ask people is this OK, can i play this.. Or you tone stuff down so that you don't come off as a power gaming "JACK ASS".. This is not a good way to play a game it is not a healthy way to play a game...
The first statment here is incorrect. You can still get frustrated and pissed off at jerks in any game, sore losers, poor winners, and bad sportsman (which reading your posts it seems like your group is full of. This may not be the case, but it is the impression you give.). Balance does not forgive being a jerk. However, I agree that in 40k your game can get ruined really easily and you frequently need to self police to make that not the case. Which can work fine if everyone involved is ok with it, but the game straight out of the rules is a horrible experience quite often.
And the dude who ran a way, was just the type of who has the ingrained 40k mentality that is a cancer in the gaming hobby today. He ran away Because he saw that we dident play 40k and after talking with us he understood that we would never ever play 40k and WHFB again in our lives.. WHY? because we do not like to get angry and frustraded .. We like to have fun in our Mental DOJO. But nobody really gets uppset outside the game and there are no lingering hard feelings, because you can't get mad at people for being better at a game then you are.. Unless you are the jealous type. I find that many people who stick with 40k are the people who do not really enjoy balanced games, because they cant "HANDLE THE TRUTH", that they actually suck at Tactics, and need the Hand holding of random broken rules to have a chans of winning anything...
Again reading your previous posts this is not how it came across, rather that he walked in saw a buch of guys acting like in your face d-bags, and decided not to be part of it. Might not be the case, but that is how you presented it. The constant berating of players of other games also does not reflect well on the WM/H community and it turns people off. I know it is a very small part of that community, but it hurts the game in general.
Lots of Customization leads to unbalanced combos.. And 40k really shines in that department (I would say it is the most Unbalanced and broken game on the market). WHY? because that is the way GW sells more miniatures, all the new shiny stuff is always better then what came before.. It is a market strategi to sell more armies.. that is FACT!
Agree that lots of customization makes balance harder, and as such with lazy game design leads to unbalanced combos. The idea that GW does it by plan to sell models is anything but a fact. In fact it is provably false, they just suck at rules design. Want proof look at some new models at codex release, and just as many are terrible as are broken. Also plenty of older models get broken rules, even models everyone owns.
IF you were to look at current 40k stuff for powerful or broken stuff and horrible stuff
Here is some powerful stuff
Imperial Knights - New
Wave Serpents - old and people had a ton already in many cases
Wraith Knights - New
Ridptides - New
Broadsides - old and people owned a bunch
Hive Tyrants- Old
Fateweaver - old
Daemon Princes - Old
....
And look at some bad stuff
Dark Angel Flyers - new at codex release
Deathwing Knights- new at codex release
Tau Flyers- New at codex release
Pyrovores- have been terrible since model release
Mandrakes- always bad, new models did not change this
Haruspex kit- Meh pretty bad
Warp Talons
Mutlilators
So they put out as many bad new units as good ones in general...it is not a marketing strategy (rotating balance between factions might be), it is horrible game design.
zlayer77 wrote: This is true.. If someone had bothered reading what i wrote before, I pointed out that 40k is an experince, from the moment you bring your new stuff home.. You pick and chose the stuff, and you also build it...
Yeah, I agree. One squad of marines can be VERY different from another in capability depending on what you kit them up with.
This is why WYSIWYG is so important because every standard/choice unit is it's own snowflake.
No other game makes me agonize more over using magnets or just glue the darn thing on.
In Warmachine you pick up the box and spend allot less time assembling it.. And the Unit you are using is always "Optimized"..
Yes, I noticed the units are "standard" and you throw-in an attachment to change some capabilities.
This is why I find many Warmahordes armies not painted since the units and their capabilities are easily spotted / understood.
In 40k you have to do your own Optimization(find the most broken stuff and over powered things in your list etc)...
It allows the "flavor of the month" and create the new hot models with the appropriate markup.
I have seen many instances of glee on the face of the player being one of the first to take out for a spin the most recent OP/broken army after some kind of update.
Las wrote: God, based on that ^ post wm/h sounds awful. Just play magic ffs
"The miniature game makes me model miniatures!"
I read the last two posts and I'm not sure which one you are referring to or what your point is.
There is something to be said for a miniatures game that's good enough to get people wanting to play it even if they don't like building and painting miniatures. That'd definitely be a sign of quality game design to be able to bridge that sales barrier.
I agree that as a game for people not interested in miniatures, MTG is superior to both 40k and WM/H, but other than that, your post makes no sense.
Las wrote: If you don't like painting and modeling miniatures then don't play games that require painting and modeling.
Also, saying mtg is superior to 40k/wmh is like saying Mario kart is superior to those things. Apples and oranges.
Well, we have also players here who don't paint their models. Just gamers.
Not sure if it's just apples and oranges.
Both games have very different sides, like rule set and competitive play.
Las wrote: If you don't like painting and modeling miniatures then don't play games that require painting and modeling.
I agree that for many, painting and modelling is the core act of their hobbies, but this is by no means universal. Lots of people like to pay others to build and paint their miniatures and prioritize other factors over painting miniatures. Or (sadly in my opinion) are willing to accept bare metal or primered only armies.
Also, saying mtg is superior to 40k/wmh is like saying Mario kart is superior to those things. Apples and oranges.
That's why I qualified it by saying for those who aren't into miniatures. And yes, Mario Kart too would probably be a better bet than 40k or WFB if you aren't into miniatures. Now if you're into miniatures enough (which means something different person to person), then it would no longer be the case.
If a game is good enough that people who aren't into miniatures still want to play it, that seems like a vote of confidence in the game in terms of game design. So WM/H sounds pretty good from that perspective. It's good enough that people who don't really care for miniatures are still interested in it. That's a success in terms of game design.
Honestly, 40k used to be like that too. I'd say that during the last couple years of 3rd edition and most of 4th, the game was good enough that I knew lots of people who played it even though they hated painting and building miniatures. The game was solid and people really enjoyed it for the game experience alone. This has largely faded though and now the "game first" people are far better off pretty much doing anything other than 40k. It's sad how 40k's game quality and player base has contracted since the height of GW's success in the early to mid 00s.
Las wrote: If you don't like painting and modeling miniatures then don't play games that require painting and modeling.
Honestly, 40k used to be like that too. I'd say that during the last couple years of 3rd edition and most of 4th, the game was good enough that I knew lots of people who played it even though they hated painting and building miniatures. The game was solid and people really enjoyed it for the game experience alone. This has largely faded though and now the "game first" people are far better off pretty much doing anything other than 40k. It's sad how 40k's game quality and player base has contracted since the height of GW's success in the early to mid 00s.
First to Las; sadly many people do no enjoy the painting, they like to play table top games but they are not into the hobby side of things..
Sedond to frozenwastes; I agree 100% with what you wrote. I would also like to add that GW looks to be oblivious to the fact that people often get into the hobby as a group of friends.. And in that group there are always people who just join because of the game aspect.. I would say that the people who love the Hobby side, painting and modelling are the miniority.. Most people pick up Table top Games for the GAME aspect, not for painting miniatures... That is why GW is doomed in the long run unless they start changing thier ways,,
Sedond to frozenwastes; I agree 100% with what you wrote. I would also like to add that GW looks to be oblivious to the fact that people often get into the hobby as a group of friends.. And in that group there are always people who just join because of the game aspect.. I would say that the people who love the Hobby side, painting and modelling are the miniority.. Most people pick up Table top Games for the GAME aspect, not for painting miniatures... That is why GW is doomed in the long run unless they start changing thier ways,,
WM/H definitely stands on it's own merits when it comes to rules. I know the largest volume customer at the local store definitely is driven by gaming desires rather than miniature desires. If a new NQ tier list comes out and he thinks it's cool, he'll buy it, spray it with an army painter spray of the majority colour, paint the base black and give the figure a black wash and a coat of varnish. I would never call a miniature that's a solid colour with a wash done, but he's in it for the game and a washed & sprayed model is easier to tell apart than bare metal/plastic or primer. I think he makes a new 50pt army every month or two this way.
Back in the late 3rd days he was doing the same thing with 40k armies. Now all that money is going away from GW to PP.
Sedond to frozenwastes; I agree 100% with what you wrote. I would also like to add that GW looks to be oblivious to the fact that people often get into the hobby as a group of friends.. And in that group there are always people who just join because of the game aspect.. I would say that the people who love the Hobby side, painting and modelling are the miniority.. Most people pick up Table top Games for the GAME aspect, not for painting miniatures... That is why GW is doomed in the long run unless they start changing thier ways,,
WM/H definitely stands on it's own merits when it comes to rules. I know the largest volume customer at the local store definitely is driven by gaming desires rather than miniature desires. If a new NQ tier list comes out and he thinks it's cool, he'll buy it, spray it with an army painter spray of the majority colour, paint the base black and give the figure a black wash and a coat of varnish. I would never call a miniature that's a solid colour with a wash done, but he's in it for the game and a washed & sprayed model is easier to tell apart than bare metal/plastic or primer. I think he makes a new 50pt army every month or two this way.
Back in the late 3rd days he was doing the same thing with 40k armies. Now all that money is going away from GW to PP.
This is an interesting guy.
Modeling of PP figures seems to be a bit more of a problem than in 40k due to the different plastic and metal miniatures.
There's a good 10 or so WM/H players locally who don't paint their miniatures at all. Or clean mould lines or anything. While I think a few more hours of work would make his spray and wash look even better, I'd rather play against that than the bare metal and plastic.
I've been trying to get the 10 or so who never paint to pick it up, even if all they do his adopt his spray and wash technique, but I haven't succeeded yet.
Modeling of PP figures seems to be a bit more of a problem than in 40k due to the different plastic and metal miniatures.
40k is definitely a better choice if someone only cares about miniatures and not playing games. There are some great PP sculpts though and if a person doesn't care about gaming, they might as well pick the best up from any given range to paint.
Sedond to frozenwastes; I agree 100% with what you wrote. I would also like to add that GW looks to be oblivious to the fact that people often get into the hobby as a group of friends.. And in that group there are always people who just join because of the game aspect.. I would say that the people who love the Hobby side, painting and modelling are the miniority.. Most people pick up Table top Games for the GAME aspect, not for painting miniatures... That is why GW is doomed in the long run unless they start changing thier ways,,
WM/H definitely stands on it's own merits when it comes to rules. I know the largest volume customer at the local store definitely is driven by gaming desires rather than miniature desires. If a new NQ tier list comes out and he thinks it's cool, he'll buy it, spray it with an army painter spray of the majority colour, paint the base black and give the figure a black wash and a coat of varnish. I would never call a miniature that's a solid colour with a wash done, but he's in it for the game and a washed & sprayed model is easier to tell apart than bare metal/plastic or primer. I think he makes a new 50pt army every month or two this way.
Back in the late 3rd days he was doing the same thing with 40k armies. Now all that money is going away from GW to PP.
This is an interesting guy.
Modeling of PP figures seems to be a bit more of a problem than in 40k due to the different plastic and metal miniatures.
Building PP models is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. You're lucky if you have all the parts right out of the box and don't have to wait 2 weeks for PP to send you a part that's necessary to complete the model. They often have tiny bits that you have to glue on with no support and no way to add any so they break off every time you transport your models (choir of menoth, sword on the piper). The plastic in the starter and battle boxes is just awful. There's mold lines everywhere, usually in really bad places and you have to forcefully cut them off with a hobby knife. You can't really pose them at all. The resin/plastic mix is brittle so stuff like the Vanquisher CCW arm and Kreoss1 staff snap off easily. The aesthetics are nothing to write home about so when you're done with all the "fun" of putting them together and painting them, they're still not all that impressive to look at.
However, the rules are so much better than GW people still switch to PP and never look back. I will probably always play both while wishing PP made better models or GW knew how to write rules. The difference in the 2 companies is PP has acknowledged that their models suck and started producing normal plastic models on sprues while GW screams "forge the narrative!", sticks their head in the sand and doubles down on everything that made the last edition of the rules suck.
Building PP models is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. You're lucky if you have all the parts right out of the box and don't have to wait 2 weeks for PP to send you a part that's necessary to complete the model. They often have tiny bits that you have to glue on with no support and no way to add any so they break off every time you transport your models (choir of menoth, sword on the piper). The plastic in the starter and battle boxes is just awful. There's mold lines everywhere, usually in really bad places and you have to forcefully cut them off with a hobby knife. You can't really pose them at all. The resin/plastic mix is brittle so stuff like the Vanquisher CCW arm and Kreoss1 staff snap off easily. The aesthetics are nothing to write home about so when you're done with all the "fun" of putting them together and painting them, they're still not all that impressive to look at.
.
I've never had missing parts bud. Similarly, I've never really had any issues with any of the plastics I've bought.
You've been unlucky. It's not par for the course.
Regarding the aesthetics - they're subjective. I happen to like the WMH 'look'.
The most interesting thing is that many of us "dont like the look of the miniatures in Wormahords", but we still left GW in the dust for the rules.. I would be so bold to say that both PP, Corvus belli and Mantic and many other companies that have come along in the past decade, dont put as much focus on the miniatures as GW does.. But still they are growing and GW is tanking (You just have to read the the financial reports, from the last years to see that, Sales are down, and they still make a profit by cutting costs, staff and closing stores)..
That means "RULES" are the most important thing, Not price or what they look like.. There is a thread in the GW general section on these boards about why people quit GW etc.. And the leading argument is "BAD RULES" and "TREATING Us as long time Customers badly", Pricing comes on 3rd place...
I truly belive that even if GW made their hobby cheaper, people would still leave the game and not come back...
The only thing that can FIX GW in the long run are the "RULES"... But for some unknown reason this aspect of the game always gets put on the back burner at GWHQ.. At one point when they had the "exclusive produkt", they kinda had a monopoly on the Fantasy/sci fi genre of table top gaming for over 2 decades.. This strategi was a good choise, make broken rules, force people to buy more armies etc.. not Uppdating rules/codexes in a timely manner was a good market strategi...
But in 2014, after the computer gaming industry has really broken into the mainstream, and talk of Blance and uppdates is something everyone, including avrage joe, knows about.. THAT gak DOSENT FLY ANYMORE.. If GW did any market Reserch they would come to understand this, but sadly they dont... At this rate I would give them another decade and then they are gone...
Most of the Oldschool companies that were around back in the day have crumbled and closed.. TSR and Whitewolf and many more that were big in the 90s.. are all gone now.. The industry has changed.. And if GW dosent change they will die like the Dinosaur they are. IT is just Evolution "survivial of the fittest"
I'm not a big fan of wm/h, to be honest. I keep trying to get into the game but it turns me off. I see it as another version of 40k (with all the special rules), just a version that is actually done well. I think thats the appeal for some people though (just my opinion here) - its what 40k might look like if it were done well.
Building PP models is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. You're lucky if you have all the parts right out of the box and don't have to wait 2 weeks for PP to send you a part that's necessary to complete the model. They often have tiny bits that you have to glue on with no support and no way to add any so they break off every time you transport your models (choir of menoth, sword on the piper). The plastic in the starter and battle boxes is just awful. There's mold lines everywhere, usually in really bad places and you have to forcefully cut them off with a hobby knife. You can't really pose them at all. The resin/plastic mix is brittle so stuff like the Vanquisher CCW arm and Kreoss1 staff snap off easily. The aesthetics are nothing to write home about so when you're done with all the "fun" of putting them together and painting them, they're still not all that impressive to look at.
.
I've never had missing parts bud. Similarly, I've never really had any issues with any of the plastics I've bought.
You've been unlucky. It's not par for the course.
Regarding the aesthetics - they're subjective. I happen to like the WMH 'look'.
Here I can underline what has been said by Toofast.
Recently I was missing part of Mother Directrix and the GW plastic is superior to that of PP.
It appears that there will be a long way to go for PP in order to keep up with GW when it comes to models and modeling.
Building PP models is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. You're lucky if you have all the parts right out of the box and don't have to wait 2 weeks for PP to send you a part that's necessary to complete the model. They often have tiny bits that you have to glue on with no support and no way to add any so they break off every time you transport your models (choir of menoth, sword on the piper). The plastic in the starter and battle boxes is just awful. There's mold lines everywhere, usually in really bad places and you have to forcefully cut them off with a hobby knife. You can't really pose them at all. The resin/plastic mix is brittle so stuff like the Vanquisher CCW arm and Kreoss1 staff snap off easily. The aesthetics are nothing to write home about so when you're done with all the "fun" of putting them together and painting them, they're still not all that impressive to look at.
.
I've never had missing parts bud. Similarly, I've never really had any issues with any of the plastics I've bought.
You've been unlucky. It's not par for the course.
Regarding the aesthetics - they're subjective. I happen to like the WMH 'look'.
Here I can underline what has been said by Toofast.
Recently I was missing part of Mother Directrix and the GW plastic is superior to that of PP.
It appears that there will be a long way to go for PP in order to keep up with GW when it comes to models and modeling.
I don't think it's going to take as long as you think.
That's the new battle engine showcasing their new plastic.
Also, Iron Mother Directrix is my favorite model from any range.
wuestenfux wrote: [
Here I can underline what has been said by Toofast.
Recently I was missing part of Mother Directrix and the GW plastic is superior to that of PP.
It appears that there will be a long way to go for PP in order to keep up with GW when it comes to models and modeling.
I´ve had parts missing from my WM/H models on atleast 5 different occasions. And yeah, some of the models are absolutely ridicilous to assemble, but doable if you just have the patience and use pinning.
Building PP models is about as much fun as a trip to the dentist. You're lucky if you have all the parts right out of the box and don't have to wait 2 weeks for PP to send you a part that's necessary to complete the model. They often have tiny bits that you have to glue on with no support and no way to add any so they break off every time you transport your models (choir of menoth, sword on the piper). The plastic in the starter and battle boxes is just awful. There's mold lines everywhere, usually in really bad places and you have to forcefully cut them off with a hobby knife. You can't really pose them at all. The resin/plastic mix is brittle so stuff like the Vanquisher CCW arm and Kreoss1 staff snap off easily. The aesthetics are nothing to write home about so when you're done with all the "fun" of putting them together and painting them, they're still not all that impressive to look at.
.
I've never had missing parts bud. Similarly, I've never really had any issues with any of the plastics I've bought.
You've been unlucky. It's not par for the course.
Regarding the aesthetics - they're subjective. I happen to like the WMH 'look'.
In 1 box, I was missing a head, waist piece for a warjack and one of the weapon arms for the warjack. All 5 Cinerators had horribly bent swords that wouldn't straighten out. Kreoss1 staff broke off below his hand while he was sitting in a foam case that was never dropped or handled roughly. Crusader had the worst mold lines I've ever seen. I'm not unlucky as all my friends that tried to switch from 40k to WMH made the same complaints. They love the rules and want to get out of 40k completely for WMH, but as long as the models suck this much they will keep playing both systems.
The only real problems I've had in terms of missing pieces for WM/H was during the 2010-11 popularity boom where PP could not keep up with demand. They were obviously rushing as fast as possible to fulfill the orders coming in and lots of things were falling through the cracks. For the last 3 years though, I've had no missing parts.
Sadly almost everything I've got has had a missing piece. They are quick to replace it but still. A few weeks ago I got my brother a Raek for his Legion, the back leg was missing. Before that it was a base for Aiyana. Before that a pikemen arm. Before that a Skinwalker axe from the Hordes two player box. Every time I buy something I need to open it up and check parts.
WayneTheGame wrote: Sadly almost everything I've got has had a missing piece. They are quick to replace it but still. A few weeks ago I got my brother a Raek for his Legion, the back leg was missing. Before that it was a base for Aiyana. Before that a pikemen arm. Before that a Skinwalker axe from the Hordes two player box. Every time I buy something I need to open it up and check parts.
Totaly correct I have had tons of stuff missing.. I have started to buy stuff at my local gaming store for this reason(and not online).. I open the boxes before leaving the store... This has cut down on the hassel of having to send for things that are missing hehe.. I open stuffs and find something missing I return it right away in the store and get replacement and leave the hassel of sending for missing stuff up to them....
I've actually had more boxes missing pieces from GW than I have from PP. Admittedly that was back when they were hand packing them in the same way as PP currently does.
It took me four different tries with my Dark Elf Executioners and Black Guard orders back before they were made into the still on sprue plastics in order to get everything I needed, since they were constantly missing parts or arrived broken. On top of that, the shop owner I ordered from went through hell in order to get replacements, since GW, or possibly their supplier, were very reluctant to replace the missing parts.
In comparison, I've had two boxes out of dozens from PP that were missing parts, and they were sitting on my step within three days of me asking for replacements.
Impressed that PP is almost at 50% against what is largely acknowledged to be the world's biggest minatures game. None too shabby...
My last 20 -30 pp purchases have been free of the missing parts problem. Back in 2011 it was another matter, I had to make three missing parts calls. It seems they have fixed the issue. It strikes me a very strange people are claiming to encounter it so often now. My player group, which is pretty large, hasn't complained at all about it since early 2012.
My last 20 -30 pp purchases have been free of the missing parts problem. Back in 2011 it was another matter, I had to make three missing parts calls. It seems they have fixed the issue. It strikes me a very strange people are claiming to encounter it so often now. My player group, which is pretty large, hasn't complained at all about it since early 2012.
It could be, but I may be wrong, that most of these boxes that other posters are complaining about missing parts are still from that era?
I know that, at my LGS, certain factions move like hotcakes, and others sit for months or even perhaps years before being bought up.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: Impressed that PP is almost at 50% against what is largely acknowledged to be the world's biggest minatures game. None too shabby...
Just 300 votes though. A small part of Dakkas userbase, and a tiny fraction of all wargamers. The fact that these votes can also be tampered with by using a simple free online proxy server doesn´t really give them much credit. But Dakka seems to be having some sort of WM/H boom now with some folk just discovering the game within a year, and seemingly the most fanatic posters/active users are mostly WM/H ... oriented. For now.
I´d say the most active wargamers are the ones who even bother posting to forums or participating in these. Ofcourse, in some cases it might be the least active wargamers ( the ones that play twice a year, but post twice an hour. )
I just got into WMH this year and all my boxes were from mini market so I doubt they were that old. I just know I haven't received a kit without at least 1 missing piece, something broken, etc. For the money PP is charging I wouldn't expect these issues. I've spent $1200-1500 on GW this year and $300 on WMH. 0 missing or broken pieces in GW kits, too many to remember them all in PP kits.
I don´t think it has anything to do with it. I find it more likely it´s due to PPs own efforts. Afaic 7th is the best edition in a while. Some silly stuff in but there always is really.
There are quitters every time when an edition changes, just like there are people who say the game was ruined because of edition X. That never changes.
A boom I saw in other games actually came around This time last year when GW started the data slate push, and superheavy push, and the destruction of the FOC. Then they reinforced it with 7th edition. So for those that did not like the direction GW was going left for other games (mine is not WMH), but prior to about midway through 6E 40k I had no real interest in looking at other games. Since then I've played a lot less 40k, and a lot more of other things.
Breng77 wrote: A boom I saw in other games actually came around This time last year when GW started the data slate push, and superheavy push, and the destruction of the FOC. Then they reinforced it with 7th edition. So for those that did not like the direction GW was going left for other games (mine is not WMH), but prior to about midway through 6E 40k I had no real interest in looking at other games. Since then I've played a lot less 40k, and a lot more of other things.
This was exactly the time when part of our gaming group started (or restarted) WMH.
We still play apoc games and organize RTTs every two or three months, but 40k lost an edge here.
One thing I will say, I do not miss having to work with metals. Some of PP's metal figures are broken into the most ridiculous components (Nyss Hunters looking at you, worst models I have ever tried to put together in nearly 20 years). It's almost enough to drive me back to 40k just for the joy of working with polystyrene plastic for virtually everything.
Almost
And then I look at the price of a normal sized army, and sigh, unglue my fingers and get back to work assembling the Nyss...
Deadnight wrote: I must be strange... I actually prefer working with metal.
It's not so much metal itself, it's the completely stupid way some of the models are broken into individual components. An arm with a weapon should be a single piece that connects to the torso, not have the hand separately or the weapon itself separate to the hand.
How about choir of menoth? The leader has the little cross at the top of his staff as a separate piece. Even in a foam case it has broken off 3 times. The staff is too tiny to pin it so after the last time I just said screw it and didn't glue it back on. The only way it's going to stay is if I put a giant ball of green stuff around the joint and try to sculpt it and make it look like it belongs there.
Toofast wrote: How about choir of menoth? The leader has the little cross at the top of his staff as a separate piece. Even in a foam case it has broken off 3 times. The staff is too tiny to pin it so after the last time I just said screw it and didn't glue it back on. The only way it's going to stay is if I put a giant ball of green stuff around the joint and try to sculpt it and make it look like it belongs there.
What brand glue are you using? I personally use Loctite, and have never had any issues with case travel with ANY metal models, regardless of manufacturer. In fact the only model that I've recently had any issues with, as far as assembly and keeping together is one from the Helldorado line, where I got a mediocre cast on the wrist, combined with a bad mold line on the "gluing surface" of the hand
I pinned every single joint in Nyss Hunters, my Croe's Cuthroats and my Steelhead Halberdiers. It was a lot of pinning, but totally worth it. I had to use the smaller drillbit and wire Privateer sells to make some of the Nyss joins pin properly, but it really worked well.
I'd much, much rather go through that than go through mould line removal on small base pvc plastic miniatures like the cyriss infantry I built for a friend. I *hate* that stuff.
Zap a gap medium. I've used it with and without the quick bond spray. I've heard that the spray weakens the bond so I tried using it without but stuff still comes apart. The metal GW models I have were put together with GW thick super glue and have never come apart.
Toofast wrote: Zap a gap medium. I've used it with and without the quick bond spray. I've heard that the spray weakens the bond so I tried using it without but stuff still comes apart. The metal GW models I have were put together with GW thick super glue and have never come apart.
I had a similar problem. Switched to Locktite control gel, haven't broken a model since.
Seems like a small change, and I wouldn't have believed it myself had I not seen the change in repair frequency.
I had a similar problem. Switched to Locktite control gel, haven't broken a model since.
Seems like a small change, and I wouldn't have believed it myself had I not seen the change in repair frequency.
I personally don't like the Loctite control gel, it seems that it takes twice as long to set to a point where I can let go of the part being glued.
I agree, I find the same things. However this is also drifting way off topic
Back on topic one thing that really just stands out to me is the nonsensical pricing. A BATac Squad is $43 for 10 models (which is a little high but not unreasonable, although let's not include the fact you likely want a Rhino or something which will bring it up to $80 for one unit choice). Death Company is FIVE models for $33. Last I checked, half of $43 was $21.50. If I wanted 10 DC, I'd have to pay $66, over 50% more than I would for the Tactical Squad, because reasons. That's just ridiculous and is a big reason I can't bring myself to play 40k again despite probably enjoying it (and the aforementioned enjoying working with polystyrene plastic). There is no reason for their seemingly random prices. Models of the same size should cost the same across the board, so that a box of 5 elite troops or whatever costs half of the price of 10 regular troops.
I would even be okay with larger models (like Terminators) being slightly more expensive than just straight half of the price of 10 regular sized models. But for two kinds of models of the same size to be priced like that for basically zero reason at all is beyond ridiculous.
There is then of course the balance/rules issue. The price can somewhat be offset (not a lot but still every bit helps) by their actual boxed sets (not the web bundles). The problem with those is they tend to give you different models for variety (which is fine) but due to the rules being unbalanced often doesn't provide an effective force (which is not fine) without a significant extra cost on top of that, which all but removes the benefit of buying the box in the first place.
Well to be fair the death company box contains more plastic than half of the Tac Squad box. It has 2 sets of arms for each model (tactical squad does not so far as I know), has 2 backpack options (standard, and Jump packs) and is listed as a 94 piece kit. Vs the tac squad at 165 pieces. Which means it should run about $25 based on number of pieces but many of the DC pieces are larger as far as I know. This doesn't mean their pricing structure makes any sense though as a regular tactical squad box is $40 and has 179 pieces.
Breng77 wrote: Well to be fair the death company box contains more plastic than half of the Tac Squad box. It has 2 sets of arms for each model (tactical squad does not so far as I know), has 2 backpack options (standard, and Jump packs) and is listed as a 94 piece kit. Vs the tac squad at 165 pieces. Which means it should run about $25 based on number of pieces but many of the DC pieces are larger as far as I know. This doesn't mean their pricing structure makes any sense though as a regular tactical squad box is $40 and has 179 pieces.
Right. I would be fine with paying $25 for it, since it has the jump packs and presumably additional pieces with Death Company iconography. But $33, especially when I'm going to need more than 5, seems like a ripoff which is sadly what I feel when looking at most GW products.
I know it doesn't excuse GWs dumb ass pricing, but just FYI it is quite easy to get GW kits for 20% off from most independent retailers which would put it much closer to your idealized number.
Las wrote: I know it doesn't excuse GWs dumb ass pricing, but just FYI it is quite easy to get GW kits for 20% off from most independent retailers which would put it much closer to your idealized number.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
I wish mine was like that. It's basically all 40k with a small group of WMH players (usually 4-6) that meet one day a week for a few hours. Usually when I'm at work or at the Bama game . The last 40k tournament the store held had over 20 players and they do them monthly. There's a GW 1 mile away that's always full of people playing and painting too so it's not like that FLGS has a monopoly on 40k gaming in the area.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
I wish mine was like that. It's basically all 40k with a small group of WMH players (usually 4-6) that meet one day a week for a few hours. Usually when I'm at work or at the Bama game . The last 40k tournament the store held had over 20 players and they do them monthly. There's a GW 1 mile away that's always full of people playing and painting too so it's not like that FLGS has a monopoly on 40k gaming in the area.
Maybe I'm seeing a trend where there is none, but 40k appears to have a stronger grip on the US South than it does in the Northeast. Not that the following in the Northeast is weak, just appears to be losing audience at a faster rate to competitors as far as I can tell.
The biggest overall thing for me is the quality of the game. I would be okay (not happy with, but not vehemently against) most of GW's prices if it was a good, solid game that wouldn't kick me in the ass for wanting to play a heavily themed army, since the unit types would be within a few steps of each other on the power scale not huge jumps.
Since 40k doesn't do that and can have a bad game for any number of reasons (e.g. opponent and I disagree on what makes a fun game, opponent picked powerful units w/out regard for fluff while I picked fluffy units, opponent picked fluffy Eldar which is better than fluffy anything else, random mission objectives favored opponent, etc.) and Warmachine has a solidly written set of rules that is almost as close to balanced as a game can reasonably be, it's no contest for me.
Even as someone who constantly wants to give 40k another shot I find that I can't because why spend that kind of money for a poor game? If I didn't care about the game and wanted pretty figures, then maybe, but seeing as I want a solid game to play frequently not just models to collect, 40k has some pretty major dealbreakers going for it.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
I wish mine was like that. It's basically all 40k with a small group of WMH players (usually 4-6) that meet one day a week for a few hours. Usually when I'm at work or at the Bama game . The last 40k tournament the store held had over 20 players and they do them monthly. There's a GW 1 mile away that's always full of people playing and painting too so it's not like that FLGS has a monopoly on 40k gaming in the area.
Maybe I'm seeing a trend where there is none, but 40k appears to have a stronger grip on the US South than it does in the Northeast. Not that the following in the Northeast is weak, just appears to be losing audience at a faster rate to competitors as far as I can tell.
Next week I will ask around why many of the new players choose warmachine over 40k. Most are first time gamers but my bet would be the start up cost. I live in a place where the economy really sucks and good paying jobs are a thing of the past. I know warmachine is expensive but it seems like you get more for your dollar. He also has two really good Pressgangers that work at the shop which helps push the warmachine product.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
I wish mine was like that. It's basically all 40k with a small group of WMH players (usually 4-6) that meet one day a week for a few hours. Usually when I'm at work or at the Bama game . The last 40k tournament the store held had over 20 players and they do them monthly. There's a GW 1 mile away that's always full of people playing and painting too so it's not like that FLGS has a monopoly on 40k gaming in the area.
Maybe I'm seeing a trend where there is none, but 40k appears to have a stronger grip on the US South than it does in the Northeast. Not that the following in the Northeast is weak, just appears to be losing audience at a faster rate to competitors as far as I can tell.
Next week I will ask around why many of the new players choose warmachine over 40k. Most are first time gamers but my bet would be the start up cost. I live in a place where the economy really sucks and good paying jobs are a thing of the past. I know warmachine is expensive but it seems like you get more for your dollar. He also has two really good Pressgangers that work at the shop which helps push the warmachine product.
I all but guarantee that it will be one of A) Cheaper start up cost/cheaper to get a regular sized force for average games and B) Better/more balanced rules.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
I wish mine was like that. It's basically all 40k with a small group of WMH players (usually 4-6) that meet one day a week for a few hours. Usually when I'm at work or at the Bama game . The last 40k tournament the store held had over 20 players and they do them monthly. There's a GW 1 mile away that's always full of people playing and painting too so it's not like that FLGS has a monopoly on 40k gaming in the area.
Maybe I'm seeing a trend where there is none, but 40k appears to have a stronger grip on the US South than it does in the Northeast. Not that the following in the Northeast is weak, just appears to be losing audience at a faster rate to competitors as far as I can tell.
Next week I will ask around why many of the new players choose warmachine over 40k. Most are first time gamers but my bet would be the start up cost. I live in a place where the economy really sucks and good paying jobs are a thing of the past. I know warmachine is expensive but it seems like you get more for your dollar. He also has two really good Pressgangers that work at the shop which helps push the warmachine product.
I all but guarantee that it will be one of A) Cheaper start up cost/cheaper to get a regular sized force for average games and B) Better/more balanced rules.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. For me, better rules with more tactical depth was #1. The models and character of the game was #2. Fluff #3 and cheaper #4.
I started it because of the rules, that's it. I like the aesthetics, fluff and models of 40k wayyy more than WMH. The price was a toss up because they will both cost about the same amount of money over time. It says something about how terrible GW rules are when I would rather play another game despite not liking the aesthetics, quality of models or the fluff.
Toofast wrote: I started it because of the rules, that's it. I like the aesthetics, fluff and models of 40k wayyy more than WMH. The price was a toss up because they will both cost about the same amount of money over time. It says something about how terrible GW rules are when I would rather play another game despite not liking the aesthetics, quality of models or the fluff.
I get that there's rhetorical utility to reducing everything to opinion or personal taste when other people don't like the thing you do. It's an effective means of invalidating what they have to say.
I must be all alone in that opinion. That's why it's the number one complaint I hear about GW games in forums, Facebook groups, FLGS and even the GW store by my house. We have a long list of 'house rules' at the local GW so that everyone knows what to expect when they come there for a game and there's no 20 minute discussion about what rules we're playing by. Funny how that isn't necessary when I go somewhere to play WMH, infinity, malifaux or MTG...
I've always thought rules should be "top down" in that the game developer creates a system within which a game can be played. Concessions are made and disbelief is then suspended, as the actual is modified or replaced by the abstract, which is reformulated into a ruleset.
frozenwastes wrote: I get that there's rhetorical utility to reducing everything to opinion or personal taste when other people don't like the thing you do. It's an effective means of invalidating what they have to say.
I'm not invalidating what he has to say, I'd just like to avoid the "this objectively sucks" arguments.
Chute82 wrote: My LGS has voted for Warmachine.. We have 20 players in the journeyman league while the 40k escalation league has 3 players.
My flgs was like that too. Everyone wanted to give warmachine a go. Now that the journeymen is over a lot of people hate the higher point games as its to competitive. A lot of people are going back to 40k haha!!! I love 40k, nough said.
There isn't really a way to objectively say rules are good or bad. However, when they are the number one complaint and cause a large amount of people to play game Y instead of game X, when they prefer the aesthetics, background and quality of game X models and when game X rules are heavily house ruled just to have a playable game, that's about as close to objectively bad as you can get.
Toofast wrote: There isn't really a way to objectively say rules are good or bad. However, when they are the number one complaint and cause a large amount of people to play game Y instead of game X, when they prefer the aesthetics, background and quality of game X models and when game X rules are heavily house ruled just to have a playable game, that's about as close to objectively bad as you can get.
Can you not see how subjective all of these opinions are? There is no data, for one. Two, the only thing close to objective is that these are the main viewpoints that lead people to leave 40k for warmachine. Even then that's not what objective means.
So what? If multiple people are having issues with 40k and people are choosing other options because of rules issues, then subjective vs objective is irrelevant. It does not matter if it's opinion or subjective or whatever, because the actual result is that there is a declining 40k player base and those who do play often play house ruled variants. 40k's comparative advantage of reliably local opponents has faded away for many people. If a given person makes a 40k army they won't know whether or not they're going to be able to find opponents willing to play against their army. Will unbound be okay? What about certain types of detachments? Forgeworld okay? Defensive structures? Will the people who play even want to use the rules as written or will there be fixes? Who decided which fixes?
Those who have a cohesive and functioning 40k community are the lucky ones. It's an objective fact though, that you don't need to worry about any of these things for WM/H.
As I said, I understand the utility of minimizing people's issues by claiming they are subjective, opinion or idiosyncratic to something about them, but in this case, doing so would be irrelevant.
Toofast wrote: There isn't really a way to objectively say rules are good or bad. However, when they are the number one complaint and cause a large amount of people to play game Y instead of game X, when they prefer the aesthetics, background and quality of game X models and when game X rules are heavily house ruled just to have a playable game, that's about as close to objectively bad as you can get.
Can you not see how subjective all of these opinions are? There is no data, for one. Two, the only thing close to objective is that these are the main viewpoints that lead people to leave 40k for warmachine. Even then that's not what objective means.
So the basis you have for rejecting the argument is the lack of data. So on what basis are you rejecting the argument?
You want data? Look at the polls on which edition of 40k people preferred. 7th came in behind 5th, 4th and 6th. Look at the poll on what GW should change. A significant number of people chose "better rules authors". Look at the GT turnouts. They have been declining since 6th was released. Look at the amount of rules alterations in a tournament packet now compared to one from 5th. If the rules are so great, why do they need 20 pages of changes? Look at YMDC threads for 40k compared to WMH. 40k threads can go on for pages and often get locked because there are different ways of interpreting a rule, this is BAD rules writing. WMH threads are often quickly solved without a whole lot of argument by simply saying "read sentence X on page Y carefully, this is what it means". Look at the eldar facebook group where we had a 3 day debate on the firing arc of a serpent shield because the rules are not clear on this. Again, BAD rules writing and lack of comprehensive FAQs causes this. Look at the fact that a lot of codexes almost immediately have an FAQ released to clarify all the things they failed to clarify in the $50 codex they rushed out the door. You can use semantics to dismiss complaints all you want but you aren't going to convince anyone that GWs rules are even acceptable, let alone good, especially compared to PP.
agnosto wrote: Subjective: GW's rules suck because I think so.
Objective: GW's rules suck because the majority of rational humans say so.
Technically both are subjective. If you want an objective reason why GW's rules suck, look at Toofast's latest posts. Those are real facts of the matter. Actual situations people are finding themselves in as they try to make 40k work for them. One of 40k's strengths used to be that it put strangers on the same page. Now, objectively speaking, the rules no longer do this.
frozenwastes wrote: So what? If multiple people are having issues with 40k and people are choosing other options because of rules issues, then subjective vs objective is irrelevant. It does not matter if it's opinion or subjective or whatever, because the actual result is that there is a declining 40k player base and those who do play often play house ruled variants. 40k's comparative advantage of reliably local opponents has faded away for many people. If a given person makes a 40k army they won't know whether or not they're going to be able to find opponents willing to play against their army. Will unbound be okay? What about certain types of detachments? Forgeworld okay? Defensive structures? Will the people who play even want to use the rules as written or will there be fixes? Who decided which fixes?
Those who have a cohesive and functioning 40k community are the lucky ones. It's an objective fact though, that you don't need to worry about any of these things for WM/H.
As I said, I understand the utility of minimizing people's issues by claiming they are subjective, opinion or idiosyncratic to something about them, but in this case, doing so would be irrelevant.
Look, the reason I made that post was because I find this topic interesting, but often instead of discussing the highlights and shortcomings of each game it devolves into either side making wild statements as if they are fact. I could say wmh has bland rules and is mtg with bad minis, then someone will mention how it is actually more dynamic than 40k. Niether are so.
As for the above, I have a hard time believing that this scenario is the rule rather than the exception for most 40k players. I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game. Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference
frozenwastes wrote: So what? If multiple people are having issues with 40k and people are choosing other options because of rules issues, then subjective vs objective is irrelevant. It does not matter if it's opinion or subjective or whatever, because the actual result is that there is a declining 40k player base and those who do play often play house ruled variants. 40k's comparative advantage of reliably local opponents has faded away for many people. If a given person makes a 40k army they won't know whether or not they're going to be able to find opponents willing to play against their army. Will unbound be okay? What about certain types of detachments? Forgeworld okay? Defensive structures? Will the people who play even want to use the rules as written or will there be fixes? Who decided which fixes?
Those who have a cohesive and functioning 40k community are the lucky ones. It's an objective fact though, that you don't need to worry about any of these things for WM/H.
As I said, I understand the utility of minimizing people's issues by claiming they are subjective, opinion or idiosyncratic to something about them, but in this case, doing so would be irrelevant.
Look, the reason I made that post was because I find this topic interesting, but often instead of discussing the highlights and shortcomings of each game it devolves into either side making wild statements as if they are fact. I could say wmh has bland rules and is mtg with bad minis, then someone will mention how it is actually more dynamic than 40k. Niether are so.
As for the above, I have a hard time believing that this scenario is the rule rather than the exception for most 40k players. I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game. Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference
I apologize if this is not the case, but it seems a lot of the time that your main defense of 40K basically boils down to, "It has more players than any other game", as if that somehow is more important than anything else. Now, to me at least, it's not. It's not that hard to convince people to try out WM/H or another, similar game, because they have relatively low entry points. I've gotten several people to start playing locally because the buy in to learn if they would like the game or now was $50, lower if you're smart.
Even if the number of players was a huge decision maker, the fact that "you can get a game of 40K anywhere" seems to be less and less true as time goes on.
Having the biggest player base is kind of meaningless when that player base is shrinking by the day and other games are experiencing record growth. Look at the icv2 industry numbers, WFB used to be in the top 5 every year. Now it has fallen out and Warmachine and Hordes are both in the top 5. For some reason they separate the sales numbers for those two. At this rate, it won't be very long before 40k loses the top spot.
As someone else said, the amount of people playing is not a measure of quality. Lots of people eat McDonald's, far less eat Hyde Park, Ruth Chris, or Eddie Merlots, that doesn't mean McDonald's has better food.
Toofast wrote: Having the biggest player base is kind of meaningless when that player base is shrinking by the day and other games are experiencing record growth. Look at the icv2 industry numbers, WFB used to be in the top 5 every year. Now it has fallen out and Warmachine and Hordes are both in the top 5. For some reason they separate the sales numbers for those two. At this rate, it won't be very long before 40k loses the top spot.
As someone else said, the amount of people playing is not a measure of quality. Lots of people eat McDonald's, far less eat Hyde Park, Ruth Chris, or Eddie Merlots, that doesn't mean McDonald's has better food.
And lots of people listen to Justin Beiber.... Yeah, popularity =/= quality.
frozenwastes wrote: So what? If multiple people are having issues with 40k and people are choosing other options because of rules issues, then subjective vs objective is irrelevant. It does not matter if it's opinion or subjective or whatever, because the actual result is that there is a declining 40k player base and those who do play often play house ruled variants. 40k's comparative advantage of reliably local opponents has faded away for many people. If a given person makes a 40k army they won't know whether or not they're going to be able to find opponents willing to play against their army. Will unbound be okay? What about certain types of detachments? Forgeworld okay? Defensive structures? Will the people who play even want to use the rules as written or will there be fixes? Who decided which fixes?
Those who have a cohesive and functioning 40k community are the lucky ones. It's an objective fact though, that you don't need to worry about any of these things for WM/H.
As I said, I understand the utility of minimizing people's issues by claiming they are subjective, opinion or idiosyncratic to something about them, but in this case, doing so would be irrelevant.
Look, the reason I made that post was because I find this topic interesting, but often instead of discussing the highlights and shortcomings of each game it devolves into either side making wild statements as if they are fact. I could say wmh has bland rules and is mtg with bad minis, then someone will mention how it is actually more dynamic than 40k. Niether are so.
As for the above, I have a hard time believing that this scenario is the rule rather than the exception for most 40k players. I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game. Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference
I apologize if this is not the case, but it seems a lot of the time that your main defense of 40K basically boils down to, "It has more players than any other game", as if that somehow is more important than anything else. Now, to me at least, it's not. It's not that hard to convince people to try out WM/H or another, similar game, because they have relatively low entry points. I've gotten several people to start playing locally because the buy in to learn if they would like the game or now was $50, lower if you're smart.
Even if the number of players was a huge decision maker, the fact that "you can get a game of 40K anywhere" seems to be less and less true as time goes on.
No harm done. That isn't what I'm getting at, though I can see how you might have drawn that conclusions. The reason I bring up the playerbase is that I just don't see the whole "40k is a clusterfeth and everyone has to negotiate like the UN to get a game" argument as valid on a macro scale considering my experiences with people who play the game.
Las wrote: I could say wmh [...] is mtg with bad minis
Here's the thing. That's not just a subjective claim. We can actually identify the salient characteristics of Magic: the Gathering and then see if Warmachine/Hordes has the same characteristics. And given your lack of knowledge about either, I'll let you know now that they have some characteristics in common, but none of the ones that make up the core of the game experience.
I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game.
No. It doesn't have them because it's specifically designed not to. It's designed, from the ground up, to have the rules be understandable and clear and have an actual correct answer when things are not clear. To the point where Privateer even has dedicated rules personal who talk to the designers and find out what the actual answer is and provide it on the forum. Similarly, MTG has a judge program and an amazing comprehensive rules document and every single rules question has an actual real right answer. And MTG isn't some younger game. It has way, way more rules text and rules interacts than any miniature game ever will when you combine a 207 page rules document (with no diagrams) with over 10,000 cards with differing degrees of text on them.
Age did not turn 40k into a mess. Lazy design and bad product development and support did. And the fact that the rules are basically an idea used to sell models rather than an actual game to be played in its own rights. According to Jervis, even back in 2009 most of GW's customers never actually played their rules and were just interested in the modeling and painting side of the things and the idea of maybe playing a game someday (Games Day UK 2009 Q&A).
Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference
40k has it's player base as the result of it's past success. It was a solid game that people enjoyed for the game experience until relatively recently. And GW has (again-- until recently) great success with direct sales and word of mouth marketing to recruit new gamers. 40k is popular because GW does everything they can to maintain a segmented customer base that is ignorant of other options. How else are you supposed to sell them glue at $10 for a tiny, tiny bottle? It requires customer ignorance.
No harm done. That isn't what I'm getting at, though I can see how you might have drawn that conclusions. The reason I bring up the playerbase is that I just don't see the whole "40k is a clusterfeth and everyone has to negotiate like the UN to get a game" argument as valid on a macro scale considering my experiences with people who play the game.
I think you are one of the lucky ones who has found a cohesive local community.
Right now a local tournament organizer is having to defend his decision to not allow unbound, defensive structures or special detachments and having everyone use the normal force org chart. At another event, they decided certain detachments were okay, but banned forge world models. And in a league some people run in the next city over, you can take whatever you want, but if you go unbound, forge world or use a non-standard detachment, your results worth 1 less point (normally it's 3-2-1 for wins-draws-losses, but instead it'll be 2-1-0) and has a rule that you can't create new units during the game (wonder why they had to do that?).
You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because games are not balanced with equal points and some fairly basic assumptions (e.g. Both players are making an attempt at building a force capable of winning). An all Terminator army vs an all Jetbikes army is going to be lopsided in virtually all situations.
You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because you need to agree on what rules to use with your opponent. Even if it doesn't really turn into a "U.N. debate" the fact you can't just agree on a points value and sit down to play indicates there is some flaw with the rules. By the same token, when you have to interpret the rules rather than having an actual answer, it means the rules are vague.
These are not opinions, these can be facts, regardless of whether they impact one's enjoyment. For someone like Las they clearly don't, but for people like MWH, Azreal and myself they certainly do.
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.
This is the exact kind of response I was talking about.
WayneTheGame wrote: You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because games are not balanced with equal points and some fairly basic assumptions (e.g. Both players are making an attempt at building a force capable of winning). An all Terminator army vs an all Jetbikes army is going to be lopsided in virtually all situations.
You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because you need to agree on what rules to use with your opponent. Even if it doesn't really turn into a "U.N. debate" the fact you can't just agree on a points value and sit down to play indicates there is some flaw with the rules. By the same token, when you have to interpret the rules rather than having an actual answer, it means the rules are vague.
These are not opinions, these can be facts, regardless of whether they impact one's enjoyment. For someone like Las they clearly don't, but for people like MWH, Azreal and myself they certainly do.
They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.
See, were just screaming at walls here. "X game sucks" "no it doesn't" is a poor way to have a discussion.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.
Ok but does it specificaly impact balance between armies/ playstyles as much as in 40k? Because I can make 6th into assault edition just by dropping hills at the board.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.
This is the exact kind of response I was talking about.
Huh? I was just clarifying because he didn't know something about WMH.
Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I didn't mean anything beyond a simple clarification.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?
Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. ImoGW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.
I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.
Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.
Ok but does it specificaly impact balance between armies/ playstyles as much as in 40k? Because I can make 6th into assault edition just by dropping hills at the board.
That's an interesting question. Are some armies more affected by cover and terrain advantage than others? Cryx has several ways to get through walls via incorporeal and such. They're not a shooty lot so they don't care about cover as much. Cygnar and CoC will maybe be affected by cover, but each army has a lot of tools to deal with the higher DEF cover offers. But to be honest, I can't answer that question. I don't know the ins and outs of each army, but I will say that in the armies I've faced, they've all had some kind of answer weither it be flying, teleporting, high Rat, AOE blasts, etc. The question is, can they get their tools to where they're needed to make a difference.
No, but they are the reality for many people, as can be demonstrated by the number of people who agree with the assertions.
There comes a point where whether something is a quantifiable "fact" or not essentially becomes a question of semantics and in terms of moving the discussion forward, the thread would probably be better served by you acknowledging that a good number of people feel differently than you do, rather than getting distracted trying to pin down some definition which serves no real purpose in the broader discussion.
Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.
On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?
Surely someone stating something that is a matter of opinion implies that it is their opinion?
I mean, we can start using IMO every other sentence, but unless someone is using something subjective as evidence to support a point, we can take it as a given?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But, to add to the discussion, at time of writing there's only a 3% swing between the two, frankly, my personal opinions aside, I would have thought there's still many more 40K players than WMH, and would have expected something like a 60/40 split.
Las wrote: Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.
On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?
The first and largest thing is, everyone can benefit from terrain. Unless the weapon has a special rule, light concealment, aka forrests and fences, adds +2 to defense (which is bigger than it sounds) and more substantial terrain such as walls grant +4 def, which is huge.
Example, a caster with def 16 stands behind a stone wall, his def is now 20. He is now essentially unhitable unless you have a lot of AOE weapons (templates) or charge him.
There are other terrain features that do different things as well. Trenches protect against AOE weapons and deep water kills units automatically. And in a game where jacks can throw things around, deep water could be quite game changing.
So, the rules for cover benefit everyone using, unlike 40k and its more than an armor save, yet also is quite simple and easy to use.
Also difficult terrain halves moving speed, which I like better than random rolling.
That doesn't sound that different than 40k to me. Cover saves are huge in the game and the def 20 thing sounds a lot like a 2+ cover or jink save being big against everything but ignores cover. Granted there is lots of that available in game but not enough that 2+ cover isn't very substantial.
Las wrote: That doesn't sound that different than 40k to me. Cover saves are huge in the game and the def 20 thing sounds a lot like a 2+ cover or jink save being big against everything but ignores cover. Granted there is lots of that available in game but not enough that 2+ cover isn't very substantial.
The difference is that if someone has armor, they still benefit from cover as opposed to being an either/or thing. Example, a terminator would be even more resilient behind cover instead of the cover being wasted due to the terminator's armor which is better. Spread that out over every troop and the difference is huge. Also, a +2 in WMH is a much bigger difference than 40k due to the game mechanics and amounts of dice.
Not necessarily due to a number of factors; unsupported, heavily armored units are often slow which is a big deal in a game where positioning and maneuvering are very important, their attacks might be rather inaccurate, there are units with armor debuffs that can neutralize that particular strength, sometimes you can kill a heavily armored unit via the "death by a 1000 cuts" method, etc... In WMH, Armor isn't a binary "take no damage or take damage" system like it is in 40K; instead:
strength of attack+Xd6 (base is 2d6 but 3d6 is not uncommon and 4d6 is possible in some situations) - target's armor stat, and the final number is the amount of damage taken. In general light infantry are destroyed with one damage, heavy infantry with five or eight, and things like Warjacks are destroyed after two dozen or more damage, depending on the jack or beast in question. They also become less effective when heavily damaged.
There are ways to mitigate the slowness and inaccuracy but, in general, shoring up a weakness in your army represents a not-insignificant investment of resources.
Las wrote: Ah, I see. Does the game then heavily favor well armoured units as they are then always super durable in any situation?
Not really, the game is actually far more focused on offense. Even if you take the more heavily armored models/ units (stormwall with arcane shield for example) with armor buffs and everything, positioning is still incredibility important to keep those units alive. This is due the way the math works out a lots with lots of models and if heavy infantry are really a problem you can always apply a collossal to the problem who will be one shooting a dude with every swing. Also those units do tend to be slow like RatBot said.
Also with the way the game ends up working, not getting hit is a better defense than armor is most times.
Both. Clearing and blocking charge lanes is a big deal; generally you can''t charge something if something else is in the way, friend or foe. Larger models block line of sight to smaller models, but smaller models do not block larger models. This applies to both friendly and enemy models. I can't shoot a target if anyone is blocking the shot, whether the blocker is your model or mine. Putting a wall between my models and yours means neither of ours can charge unless someone can ignore terrain.
In scenario games, objectives are well outside either player's deployment zone, and when combined with the generally short range of ranged attacks, this means turtling and trying to make your enemy come to you is almost never an option. A "gunline" army is generally not going to do very well, though there are some exceptions, and you can still play a ranged-heavy army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: also, models only have a 180-degree LOS, and hitting a model in the back gives the attacker bonuses.
As I said on another thread - I think its much more realsitic to compare WM/H with other Skirmish games such as Malifaux, Infinity, Dredd Necromunda etc? Especially if you arre making cost comparisons
Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun
Las wrote: What do you mean by positioning, are you talking about LOS or charge maneuvering?
Warmachine unlike 40k does not have random charge distances. So if you know opponents spd, range on their guns, if they have reach on their melee weapons, spd buffs, etc. you can calculate how far your opponent's models can potentially reach out and attack your models. Positioning is trying to put your models into areas of the board where you can still affect the game this turn or in later turns while still staying out of range of what could hurt them. You do this by judging distances on the table when you move your models. Also in a lot of match ups certain models in one players list are going to very important and if they give them away too easily then the game can go south for that player very quickly. In those cases trying to screen your important models with cheap infantry, which every faction has, or jam your opponent all in an attempt to deny your opponent the ability to get to your important models. Also control affects and defensive spells/abilities like Inhospitable Ground or enliven help keep your pieces alive.
I have played/watched a lot of ex40k players playing warmachine that didn't pick up on this and lost of lot of games because they gave away key pieces or just ran straight at the enemy and then got alpha struck and lost way too much stuff. In 40k this is not nearly as important due to having much longer ranges on the guns and units like the seer council on bikes that in previous editions could soak almost of my entire tau army's fire power over several turns and still live. Warmachine doesn't work that way, you have to pay much closer attention to ranges and charge distances than in 40k.
Like I said not getting hit is the best defense in warmachine, you accomplish this with high defense and good positioning.
Mr Morden wrote:
As I said on another thread - I think its much more realsitic to compare WM/H with other Skirmish games such as Malifaux, Infinity, Dredd Necromunda etc? Especially if you arre making cost comparisons
Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun
Not really, Warmachine is more a mid way point between 40k and games like infinity. Most games of infinity I see have a max of 10 or so models per side sometimes 6 or less if they have one of the big powered armor suits while warmachine armies can range from 12-60 models generally.
They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.
As someone who traveled and moved for work a great deal while I played 40k, I throw the "cow feces" flag on the field. You're right if you're playing with the same group of people and you've already established the Rules of Engagement (RoE). Otherwise, no, everyplace I went, be it once or multiple times, has their own RoE, interpretations, and styles of play. Just by looking at the national meta/tournament scene, the folks most interested in having a level and equal playing field, cannot agree on interpretations of "how the game is to be played". In fact, that major exodus you see from 7E is partially due to Games Workshop doubling down harder on this very notion written within the core rules.
Inversely, Steamroller Warmahordes is Steamroller Warmahordes. The only thing that differs is local metas, which is fun and exciting. Getting snagged by local RoE that you had no clue about is a huge pet peeve of mine and one of the many that I stopped playing 40k.
As an aside, it's interesting that this thread grows. I could not imagine this sort of lengthy discussion several years ago on DakkaDakka without a bunch of "Nu-Uh, 40k all da' way!" Seems like times are a-changin'.
Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun
A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?
TheKbob wrote:A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?
Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.
Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.
Like I said, just rename the factions and convince your 40k friends that it's a super awesome fan game that's taking the world by storm!
TheKbob wrote:A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?
Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.
There's a fan edit of kill team on the net somewhere that has a real growing popularity at my FLGS. Not even within my own gaming group. I bet if you asked some people you'd find more people are open to kill team (in all it's variations) than you'd think.
Also, as far as I know the official KT rules are free.
There's a fan edit of kill team on the net somewhere that has a real growing popularity at my FLGS. Not even within my own gaming group. I bet if you asked some people you'd find more people are open to kill team (in all it's variations) than you'd think.
Also, as far as I know the official KT rules are free.
I've played the fan edit. It's still better to convert Infinity. It's just a flat out better game. The d6 system doesn't work that well in a skirmish level unless you move to a weighted d6 system a la Warmahordes.
Las wrote: Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.
On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?
For One rough terrain halves your movement in Warmachine/hordes, In 40k your roll random dices to see how far you get. Generaly 40ks random interaction with terrain, takes away my ablility to predict and control my army, and that is bad in so many ways it is not even funny..
Terrain in Warmachine/hordes is simple.. If you are on a hill you get +2 def from ranged attacks. If you are in a forest you get +2 defence(concelment) from ranged attack.. If you are behind a wall you get +4 Defence from ranged attacks and if someone is trying to strick you in Melee over the wall you get +2 Defence in melee also.. That is the basic..
If you are behind a forest(outside it) the terrain block line of sight, and you cant target what is behind it..
Now comes the intresting special rules... Concelment bonuses can be taken away by special skills that miniatures have.. Rough terrain that halves your movement can be negated by "pathfinder"... Spray attacks ignore walls and cover... This means that the only defence that your opponent cant take away from you is elevation +2... Eyless sight and hunter makes you see through forests. This means Terrain has less effect in Warmachine/hordes then in most other games, because you as a player can plan for it and ignore most of it... That is the Good thing about Warmachine/hordes I as a player can build my army to be able to handle things.. I can ignore terrain that might get in the way and I can build my army to counter what my opponent is putting on the table... Not so In 40k where I can put some Random hero with 2+ invulnarable save at the front of my troops and my opponent has to shoot at him first (GAY).. also I do not have to become a victim of random dice rolls, for charges and moving through rough terrain..
Warmachine/hordes is FAR superior when it comes to the rules (the Miniatures BLOWs donkey balls), but I will pick Rules over miniatures 9 times out of 10... GW do not do market reserch so they do not understand that most of the people that collect miniatures are GAMERS first and collectors second.. I hope they soon come to realisation that their customers are gamers, because if they keep this " we are a miniatures company not a game company" up they will go under in the next decade... This worked when there was no competion on the market but in 2014 this dosent fly anymore SORRY....
They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.
As an aside, it's interesting that this thread grows. I could not imagine this sort of lengthy discussion several years ago on DakkaDakka without a bunch of "Nu-Uh, 40k all da' way!" Seems like times are a-changin'.
Yes Times are A-changing, opinions have slowly changed for the better over the last few years.. And I personaly try to be honest when I talk about warmachine/hordes... The Rules are ROCK solid.. But I am less of a fan of the miniatures personaly hehe...
I think we need a healthy debate about things.. And me leaving 40k back in 2010 has shown me that you need to be critical of games and not "white Knight", see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil... because this is just a silly way of thinking hehe. The fact that Privateer press actually Listen to their player base and change things has also made a huge impact on me, that it is OK to be critical.. And you should not make youself look stupid defending something that is just "dumb"... I just wish that the people playing 40k could come around to this way of thinking, instead of defending stuff that is broken and bad... But I guess it might be hard to face reality sometimes? hehe
The local 40k players here don't defend the game-- they agree about the problems and house rule them away. The problem though is that they end up with different ideas as to what fixes the problem. So people show up at events, accept that the organizers are house ruling things, and then bitch and moan behind their backs about how the organizers don't know what they are doing.
All the while the type of people who organize things and are a driving force in the community are slowly dropping out of GW games, so the major tournaments and leagues are dropping away and everyone is starting to just play with 2 or 3 like minded buddies in their basements. The local stores have cancelled their weekly GW games times and replaced them with Magic cards, X-Wing and Netrunner events.
Which basically means that playing 40k is like playing any number of barely played smaller game where you might find a couple people to play with you the way you want. When the rules were solid back in late 3rd edition, there were 5 different places I could go on a Saturday and find 10+ people playing 40k there reliably. That's all gone now.
What I've never found in person though, is the type of evangelical true believer defense of 40k that you see online. In person, they admit to the problems and then can't agree about how to solve them and then passive aggressively attend and criticize eachother's events.
Zlayer77, so terrain is better in wmh because you can remove it as a game influence through list building? Sounds fun.
Child, as frozenwastes just mentioned, GWs faults aren't invisible to their fans. Many of is just like the game and models, it's not white knighting. Despite the fact that you find it "dumb" and "gay."
Las wrote: Zlayer77, so terrain is better in wmh because you can remove it as a game influence through list building? Sounds fun.
Child, as frozenwastes just mentioned, GWs faults aren't invisible to their fans. Many of is just like the game and models, it's not white knighting. Despite the fact that you find it "dumb" and "gay."
The big diffrence in Warmachine/Hordes Vs 40k is the competitiveness. If you play competitive you want to "STAY IN CONTROL" as mush as possible. You want to control the battlefield and you dont really want anything left to chans if it can be avoided.. I love Chess because it has no dice for this reason.. Now Warmachine/Hordes rules are made so that you can minimize chans/risk. Many ablilities negate negatives or close the gap on the dice rolls making most things you do not dependent on chans... For example if a charge a Unit I have MAT 6 and they have Def 12 I need a 6 on two dices to hit.. Now I use an ablility and I get +2 on my MAT.. Now I need a 4 and I might also get +2 when I charge.. THE only way I can miss now on the charge attack is if I roll Snake Eyes( dubble 1s are always miss in Warmachine/hordes/... I have taken away all chans and Randomness I will most probably hit with my first attack..
This is the main diffrence.. Warmachine/hordes is not Random.. 40k is full of random invulnerable saves and random charges, random moving and this = BAD, you as a player are no longer in control what happens the DICE are... I personaly hate the feeling that the game is playing itself and I have no way of effecting the outcome with me own skills... So I prefer warmachine/hordes where I stay in control of my army, I Decide what it is good and bad at not Random Dice rolls...
I've said this before, but WMH also has the problem that because a single piece of terrain is so much of a difference, they start to make too little a difference in application. People start using less and less terrain, coming up with the same boring two hills, two forests, mirrored table. Or playing in such a way that any terrain on the table is a instant death radiation field that must be avoided.
You know, I don't really see games as either-or situations.
I didn't get rid of all of my 40k minis when I started playing Warmachine, and I didn't get rid of my Warmachine stuff just because I have some Malifaux, Space Hulk, Super Dungeon Blood Bowl or Relic Knights.
And I still play Chess from time to time, you know?
Warmachine is a different animal from 40k- and it has a lot of advantages. All together, I felt like I was making more decisions each turn that made the difference between victory and defeat. And I could turn around a game where I was losing.
Sometimes, I don't want to think as hard as I do with Warmachine, but sometimes I definitely do.
I wouldn't get rid of your Warmachine stuff. Even if you're currently in a spot where you want to play a little more relaxed, you may find that you crave the more competitive and tactical nature of Warmachine later.
WayneTheGame wrote: You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because games are not balanced with equal points and some fairly basic assumptions (e.g. Both players are making an attempt at building a force capable of winning). An all Terminator army vs an all Jetbikes army is going to be lopsided in virtually all situations.
You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because you need to agree on what rules to use with your opponent. Even if it doesn't really turn into a "U.N. debate" the fact you can't just agree on a points value and sit down to play indicates there is some flaw with the rules. By the same token, when you have to interpret the rules rather than having an actual answer, it means the rules are vague.
These are not opinions, these can be facts, regardless of whether they impact one's enjoyment. For someone like Las they clearly don't, but for people like MWH, Azreal and myself they certainly do.
Don't completely agree with your example, in any wargame if you take units that are ineffective against the enemy then there is something wrong with the army make up, taking only infantry against a tank army is doomed to fail (if the infantry doesn't have anti-tank weapons). The thing i noticed is that i played the same kind of list for years (simple marine army) getting ok results (i'm not the best tactician) in the past, but the last few years i need to take special stuff just to cope with all the AP2 killing stuff. That and the randomness with charging, random VP points etecetera.
Vertrucio wrote: I've said this before, but WMH also has the problem that because a single piece of terrain is so much of a difference, they start to make too little a difference in application. People start using less and less terrain, coming up with the same boring two hills, two forests, mirrored table. Or playing in such a way that any terrain on the table is a instant death radiation field that must be avoided.
That's not a problem exclusive to WMH. You can see it in any game regardless of the terrain options available to the players.
Vertrucio wrote: I've said this before, but WMH also has the problem that because a single piece of terrain is so much of a difference, they start to make too little a difference in application. People start using less and less terrain, coming up with the same boring two hills, two forests, mirrored table. Or playing in such a way that any terrain on the table is a instant death radiation field that must be avoided.
Well, I guess that it is a good thing that the SR also has rules for setting up terrain then, all that the players have to do is abide by them.
Vertrucio wrote: I've said this before, but WMH also has the problem that because a single piece of terrain is so much of a difference, they start to make too little a difference in application. People start using less and less terrain, coming up with the same boring two hills, two forests, mirrored table. Or playing in such a way that any terrain on the table is a instant death radiation field that must be avoided.
Well, I guess that it is a good thing that the SR also has rules for setting up terrain then, all that the players have to do is abide by them.
That is something I see done wrong regularly. SR calls for you to not have huge "dead" spaces, and even limits size to... I think 5-7". I often see mirrored tables (they should not be) with enormous forests or hills. Game balance depends on following all the rules, after all.
I play both games, and find the animosity between the two odd. As neither company prevents you from playing the other. That said to the OP even the best games will burn you out if you play them too long and if getting back into them doesn't give you the same feel may be time to try a new game, tons of games in the scale of both games.
For me, its more for what i'm in the mood for (and who's available). I'm lucky in that in my area there is a mix of both. I believe another post said it best (couldn't find, so can't quote) but its a difference between chess and yahtzee. If i'm looking for a laid back game of just goofing off and not caring about what happens and enjoying some jokes its yahtzee(40k) as i found if you go competitive you are fighting an up hill battle with rules that are a framework and not the whole building. Its about seeing a random event and changing what you have to do, throwing down massive # of models and dice, creating theme lists, or just converting Popsicle sticks into a deadly battlewagon.
If i want to test my skills its chess(WH/M) because its never a question about rules, both sides know what they have in store. Its not always a balance match ( some casters are stronger than others) but its not an imbalance to the point of unfun (having a 300pt HQ die to a random chart). I know that i'm getting a pretty decent game in no matter what, knowing there is less flavor of the month, quicker games, fun leagues and a company listening to its players.
I play both for those reasons, i don't think about price since i'm addicted to my plastic crack, sometimes i want that sci-fi model that has cool tentacles from a horror film(40k), and sometimes i want that versatile unit that can do X,Y,Z for my competitive lists in WM/H.
I try not to focus on the negatives to both games, that just seems silly. I saw this the other day at my LGS where a gentleman came in with his kids and was asking about games (40k and WM/H were being played) and it got into a fighting match over which his kids should start. Yep grown men fighting over why their plastic models were better to the point of insulting the others...
Look for whats fun in the game and you will see both games rock!!!
After collecting Cyriss, I started a Cryx army recently.
Lots of metal miniatures. Some very crappy.
GW has so much better miniatures.
Hardly believable.
I would definitely rather have old MK1 metals like the mechanithralls and metal banes over anything made of finecast or whatever GW calls their stuff now. That said, I'd rather have something made of GW's plastic over everything Privateer makes in that terrible PVC crap. I'm definitely looking forward to that new hard plastic kit Privateer is coming out with.
If GW makes something that works well for a unit I'm considering for a Warmachine army, I'll use it. For example, the 40k Dark Eldar wyches make great Nyss Hunters that will primarily be used for a Cryx army. Dark looking elfy fellows and I haven't yet met anyone who takes issues with their pistols not being bows and their various melee weapons not being "nyss claymores" or whatever.
Finecrap < PP's older plastic, and I HATE that stuff. Actually, I feel both companies are excellent at giving refunds when they screw up.
I do something similar, frozenwastes, but the other way. I have a huge collection of Elfy things, and I try to make them as system ambiguous as possible so I can use them for whatever. Lately I've been repainting my Warmachine elves to be more Eldar-y.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think this part comes down to group attitudes, but how likely are people to get static over using "the wrong equipment" on a model in either game? Which one is generally more WYSIWYG?
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: I do something similar, frozenwastes, but the other way. I have a huge collection of Elfy things, and I try to make them as system ambiguous as possible so I can use them for whatever. Lately I've been repainting my Warmachine elves to be more Eldar-y.
In a world of steampowered dwarves, steampowered russians, steampowered french, steampowered zombies and so on, I'm so glad they opted not to go for steampowered elves as well.
Someone complained that PP doesn't offer package deals on full armies. Well, complain no more. This year they're releasing Khador and Skorne, and others will follow.
Personally, it's not how I like to collect armies, but for some it's the bee's knees.
Just to show the other box:
They come out in February and cost $135 retail for a viable 35 point army. In March there will be Legion of Everblight and Protectorate of Menoth boxes as well, and this trend of two a month should continue for the rest of the year. These boxes are one of the best gaming deals I've seen and I can't wait to grab some new factions.
I was just thinking that. Yeah it has 2 jacks and thats a bit of a downer, but really its a good Sorscha box. Even has the lady and the master, who you'll find a use for everywhere
Those are some seriously good armies in terms of playability. That's quite different from the 40k bundles where they are usually either not legal armies at all or are terrible on their own.
frozenwastes wrote:Those are some seriously good armies in terms of playability. That's quite different from the 40k bundles where they are usually either not legal armies at all or are terrible on their own.
Yeah, they are honestly great boxes, the Khador one is an EXACT army that I have played against (and nearly lost to) before.
durecellrabbit wrote:A Legion of Everblight one might be interesting if it has lots of their coolest monsters in it.
Saeryn, Omen of Everblight
Scythean
Neraph
Angelius
Nephilim Bloodseer
Striders Rangers
Strider Deathstalker
2 Blighted Nyss Shepherds
And the Protectorate one if anyone was wondering:
Grand Scrutator Severius
Reckoner
Vanquisher
Redeemer
Heirophant
Exemplar Errants
Choir of Menoth
Exemplar Errant Seneschal
Vassal of Menoth
Rhupert Carvolo, Piper of Ord
Note: All of the warbeasts and warjacks are the multi kits if available.
I was just thinking that. Yeah it has 2 jacks and thats a bit of a downer, but really its a good Sorscha box. Even has the lady and the master, who you'll find a use for everywhere
The Devastator doesn't even need focus. Its job is to bulldoze and "rain of death" everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: errrr uhm is that the Decimator? who cares!
Yeah, the boxed armies are great. Not 100% uber netlist competitive, but solid lists that you could easily use in local tournaments and probably do well. They don't seem aimed at beginners though, but veterans who want to get a solid core quickly.
The Khador box is a Spriggan and Demolisher, which is the same kit as the Spriggan and Devastator. So if you magnetize it you can have 2x Spriggans/Devastators/Demolishers, which also lets you do shenanigans with Butcher3 (double Clamjack) or even Harkevich if you want to try him (double Demolishers aren't terrible under Broadside).
I personally would not field two jacks with Sorscha, but there's nothing wrong with that approach (and a Clamjack is pretty focus efficient and good to hold a zone). That's a solid army, and if you can get it for like $100 at places like Discount Games or Miniature Market, that's even better. I'm seriously tempted by the Skorne one... and the Menoth one... and eagerly looking forward to the other ones. At $100 for a complete 35-point army, there's little or no reason not to buy it just to have it in the event I decide to start that faction down the road. My usual Warmachine budget is around $150 a month give or take.
Zatsuku wrote: Saeryn, Omen of Everblight
Scythean
Neraph
Angelius
Nephilim Bloodseer
Striders Rangers
Strider Deathstalker
2 Blighted Nyss Shepherds
Never played the game so I don't know anything about the list's quality. I like 3 of the monsters but the Bloodseer loses a lot of coolness points for wearing armour and using a weapon. Pity it doesn't have any of the little compsognathus dudes, they're cute.
I was just thinking that. Yeah it has 2 jacks and thats a bit of a downer, but really its a good Sorscha box. Even has the lady and the master, who you'll find a use for everywhere
The Devastator doesn't even need focus. Its job is to bulldoze and "rain of death" everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post: errrr uhm is that the Decimator? who cares!
Zatsuku wrote: Saeryn, Omen of Everblight
Scythean
Neraph
Angelius
Nephilim Bloodseer
Striders Rangers
Strider Deathstalker
2 Blighted Nyss Shepherds
Never played the game so I don't know anything about the list's quality. I like 3 of the monsters but the Bloodseer loses a lot of coolness points for wearing armour and using a weapon. Pity it doesn't have any of the little compsognathus dudes, they're cute.
Saeryn is one of Legion's top warlocks for running big beasties and she does it very well. Plus Striders are our premier infantry clearing unit which the list would struggle with otherwise. It could easily be a competitive list, it's definitely better than a 40k battleforce or most other starters I've used in other games.
If this has been mentioned before, I apologize, but why is it always WMH vs 40k, and not Infinity vs 40k? Does Infinity just not have as big a base of players, or is it something else? They're both SciFi games, and I would assume those compare better.
It's more because Warmachine is closer in model count to 40K than Infinity is; a Warmachine army will usually have something in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 models in 50 point game, though sometimes it could be quite a bit lower, as opposed to 40K's... I honestly don't even remember at this point, it's been so long. I think my 1500 point Space Marine army had 40 Models in it? Though obviously Tyranid or Ork or IG armies could have quite a lot more.
Point is, an Infinity game with more than 10 models per side would be considered pretty darn big, from what I understand.
Also Warmachine/Hordes is the second-most popular game system out there (around here I think it's actually more popular than 40K).
It's less to do with fluff, more to do with "crunch", so to speak.
Well, I did say "closer" in model count. 40 models is on the larger side for WMH army, whereas the same number is average for a lot of 40K armies and super small for others. My 50 point Cygnar list is 29 models. Also that's at 50 points, which a lot of people usually compare to 2000 points of 40K, and 35 points of Warmachine (the other very commonly played size) is contrasted with 1500pts.
I basically compared the largest commonly played points value for Warmachine with the second-largest most commonly played points value for 40K. At least, last time I played 40K, that was the second-largest commonly played 40K points value. Most people locally tended to play 2000 point games. Other peoples' experiences may vary.
EDIT: My local 40KGT is and has been, for most its history apparently, 1850.
I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.
Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).
So, I still play 40k.
Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.
I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.
Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).
.
Nothing stopping you building an all jack army in wmh. Convergence and protectorate do it quite well. You tried it with khador iirc. Just like wanting to do all melee samurai tau, it's a bad idea. A bit of research, and reading th fluff would back this up and would point you in the right direction.
No different to 'I want to play 40k and I want to play x type of army '. Chances are you'll gravitate to armies that wield x best; rather than pointlessly going for army y that doesn't, and complain about it.
In any case saying the game was about getting off the super combo first just shows how shallow your dive into the game really was. This is simply not the case at higher levels of play. If you're any way competent, you make sure you don't give your opponent such a leg up. They're called 'tactics', and frankly, if you present your army on a plate in any game for your opponent , you have no ground to stand on to complain. He'll do the same to you. So much of it involves very complicated inter plays and tactics to throw a spanner in the works and bugger up his plans whilst simultaneously trying to accomplish what you can with your own ever diminishing resources. Like solving a Rubix cube while it is slowly dissolving your hands.
Regarding army types in 40k, how is it that you praise 40k because it lets you build an army, even if it doesn't do well (your words btw.) but you slate WMH for exactly the same thing (despite being incorrect - all jack army, which is actually possible, let me remind you). Or should we go ask all-melee armies how they 'function', for example? I'd argue there is better scope for all jack in WMH than there is for some builds in 40k. All assault comes to mind.
Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.
M1a2 tanks? Your comparison is ridiculous and stupid, erm... you do realise wmh is pretty much a pseudo19th century level of technology? (The telegraph is the latest cygnaran invention that that taking the world by storm.)Warjacks are not tanks - they never were, and never will be. They're an Industrial Age take of a traditional fantasy stone golem trope. The comparison with tanks (let alone one of the most advanced tanks of the 21st century) is both pointless, unfair and frankly, utterly invalid. War jacks are fairly crude steam engines with legs. and they've got plenty moving parts and exposed and vulnerable points on their chassis. The fact that you compare 19th. Century tech against 21st century tech and dismiss it simply displays your utter lack of interest in any kind of a fair appraisal of it or any desire to immerse yourself in the world.
regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "hilarious", fair enough. To me though, i rather put a bit of effort in. rather than a "dry" mechanic, i try to picture what its representing. Rather than disconnecting myself, and seeing it as something "gamey" i try and evoke it in my mind. I immerse myself in the game. to me its less ten guns blazing away, and more eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass a jack (hey, in a world where armies field warjacks, infantry will be trained in anti-warjack tactics and manoevres), beast or warrors. aim for eyes, pistons, vents etc. split its concentration against multiple threat vectors. make it lose focus and hesitate. Make it drop its guard a bit as a result. all the time the one other guy hanging back is waiting for that perfect killshot. Now sure - you could have twenty pages of rules to describe this. And dozens of random 'help the prime shooter' tables to roll on for effects. and all that will happen is over complication for no benefit. What you are trying to represent will get lost in the process. or as an alternative to this, you could have a simple in game mechanism that gives an accuracy and damage buff proportional to the number of dudes that are involved in it. And leave the rest to your imagination.
Forge the narrative harder, in other words.
In any case. its a game mechanic. Personally i find 40k has far more game mechanics that actively fight my immersion - for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in. or how a grot can hold up a dreadnought from moving.
I found that in WM/H, list building was more important than tactics - if you could get the super-combo built into your list off before the other guy did, it was game over. It meant that I couldn't really build the list I wanted (an all-Jack list) because there's not a whole lot of synergy there.
Fortunately, in 40k, I can build an all-tank company and have it function (perhaps not well but it isn't a disaster either).
.
Nothing stopping you building an all jack army in wmh. Convergence and protectorate do it quite well. You tried it with khador iirc. Just like wanting to do all melee samurai tau, it's a bad idea. A bit of research, and reading th fluff would back this up.
In any case saying the game was about getting off the super combo first just shows how shallow your dive into the game really was. This is simply not the case at higher levels of play. If you're any way competent, you make sure you don't give your opponent such a leg up. They're called 'tactics', and frankly, if you present your army on a plate in any game for your opponent , you have no ground to stand on to complain. He'll do the same to you. So much of it involves very complicated inter plays and tactics to throw a spanner in the works and bugger up his plans whilst simultaneously trying to accomplish what you can with your own ever diminishing resources. Like solving a Rubix cube while it is slowly dissolving your hands.
Regarding army types in 40k, how is it that you praise 40k because it lets you build an army, even if it doesn't do well (your words btw.) but you slate WMH for exactly the same thing (despite being incorrect - all jack army, which is actually possible, let me remind you). Or should we go ask all-melee armies how they 'function', for example? I'd argue there is better scope for all jack in WMH than there is for some builds in 40k. All assault comes to mind.
Addendum: It's also worth noting that the unintuitive nature of the Warmachine rules makes it hard for me to come back. Every time I hear the words "Combined Ranged Attack" or (god forbid) "Combined Melee Attack" I think of a hilarious image of riflemen volley-firing at a tank and wrecking it, or knights all timing their sword-thrusts simultaneously and wrecking an M1A2. It makes me laugh, and cringe.
tanks? erm... you do realise its a 19th century level of technology? Warjacks are not tanks - they're steam engines with legs. and they've got plenty moving parts and exposed and vulnerable points on their chassis. The fact that you compare 19th. Century tech against 21st century tech and dismiss it simply displays your utter lack of interest in any kind of a fair appraisal of it or any desire to immerse yourself in the world.
regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "hilarious", fair enough. To me though, i rather put a bit of effort in. rather than a "dry" mechanic, i try to picture what its representing. Rather than disconnecting myself, and seeing it as something "gamey" i try and evoke it in my mind. I immerse myself in the game. to me its less ten guns blazing away, and more eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass a jack (hey, in a world where armies field warjacks, infantry will be trained in anti-warjack tactics and manoevres), beast or warrors. aim for eyes, pistons, vents etc. split its concentration. make it lose focus. Make it drop its guard a bit as a result. all the time the one other guy is waiting for that perfect shot. Now sure - you could have twenty pages of rules to describe this. and it will get lost in the process. or you could have a simple in game mechanism that gives an accuracy and damage buff proportional to the number of dudes that are involved in it.
Forge the narrative harder, in other words.
In any case. its a game mechanic. Personally i find 40k has far more game mechanics that actively fight my immersion - for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in. or how a grot can hold up a dreadnought from moving.
I was about to jump on it, but you fisked it much better than I could. It shows a remarkable misunderstanding of what WM/H is and how it plays. I'll just go back to my melee Tau army now.
for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in
Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?
To be honest most fof these threads turn inot a pissing contest for those who really like one system or another - its like almost every kind of comparison where there is no right answer - no one is suddenly going to shift thier view.........so its pretty pointless. Both games have their merits and people who enjoy or dislike them for what they are.....
Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?
Having the choice to do precisely that would be a nice thing though.
I dislike the fact it's the same automatic response,whether my tactical marines are engaged by a grot or a carnifex. And regardless of whatever else is happening.
As an alternative, I could decide to not drop my gun for a knife, and try to shoot the bugger (even with a firing into melee penalty, which other games like WMH and infinity have), if for example, the knife won't do any damage, or else trust to my engaged trooper (and perhaps some members of the squad) to occupy those close combat specialists while I try to use my missile launcher and take out that bloody tank which is a far bigger threat to the company's position. Or I could simply ignore them.
If you've got a squad of guys with automatic rifles and an alien thing jumps in on one of the guys on the edge of where your squad is, the correct response is to aim at it, back away and keep firing.
for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in
Not sure why that would be wierd - oh look my comrade is going to be chopped up - lets ignore that and hope he occupies those brutal looking cloase combat speclaists long enough for us to get another shot off?
To be honest most fof these threads turn inot a pissing contest for those who really like one system or another - its like almost every kind of comparison where there is no right answer - no one is suddenly going to shift thier view.........so its pretty pointless. Both games have their merits and people who enjoy or dislike them for what they are.....
Well, sometimes a person's opinion of a game is based off of incorrect ideas. Example. Some people say WM has no fluff when in reality is has a great deal of fluff and its very high quality and in depth.
In those cases there can be progress one way or another.
Chute82 wrote: Drop your rocket launcher, grab your sword and charge that tank.. Makes a lot of sense
Or its exactly as was stated perviously:
"eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass the crew of the tank , throwing grenades, aiming for eye slits, periscopes and the like whilst one other guy is jumping onto top of the beast, wrenching oen the hatch and dropping a grenade down."
and then its does not work - so you can run away - cos you can't hurt it..........
WM/H has some great art (hate the Trolls and love the Scourage, Cryx and Everblight stuff) and some cool stories - although its does seem to be alot of takles whjeer they never quite manage to kill the other named character no matter how hard they try or hard the situatiuon is..........but 40k does have this issue at times as well.................
Chute82 wrote: Drop your rocket launcher, grab your sword and charge that tank.. Makes a lot of sense
Or its exactly as was stated perviously:
"eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass the crew of the tank , throwing grenades, aiming for eye slits, periscopes and the like whilst one other guy is jumping onto top of the beast, wrenching oen the hatch and dropping a grenade down."
and then its does not work - so you can run away - cos you can't hurt it..........
WM/H has some great art (hate the Trolls and love the Scourage, Cryx and Everblight stuff) and some cool stories - although its does seem to be alot of takles whjeer they never quite manage to kill the other named character no matter how hard they try or hard the situatiuon is..........but 40k does have this issue at times as well.................
they'd have a combined melee attack rule to represent it. no doubt certain posters would find this 'hilarious' and 'unintuitive' though.
And to be fair, 'names' die in WMH all the time. It's only when the 'names' don't have a model that they stay dead though. :p but yeah, that's the nature of a character centric game. As you say, I don't to see gw offing Marneus calgar anytime soon either.
I said 40k because I have no interest in Warmachine at all. But that said, 40k is a pile of excrement at the moment, so if it were "40k and any other game I collect" then I'd have to vote for "any other game I collect".
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I said 40k because I have no interest in Warmachine at all. But that said, 40k is a pile of excrement at the moment, so if it were "40k and any other game I collect" then I'd have to vote for "any other game I collect".
Warmachine just fails to capture my imagination.
That's fair. While I still play WM/H quite regularly, in terms of my imagination, the elements of muzzleloaders, cannons and cavalry ended up being better served by historicals*. I also don't know when the last time was that I bought a new release for WM/H. I don't buy PVC miniatures and find that other than adding a solo here and there, the stuff from the earlier books is still perfectly viable. In terms of actual purchases, my vote is neither. In terms of playing WM/H as I don't play 40k at all.
I would love a game that blends the two ideas together. CLEARLY UNDERSTANDABLE RULES and models that aren't full of durp. Also, the dynamic background of an entire galaxy lends itself more to customization than Steampunk Eurp. Reading through both IK RPG settings, there isn't a lot of leeway. If PP could teach GW how to put together a rulebook, I'd probably settle for that.
40KNobz11 wrote: 40k has a decent set of rules in my opinion. Now I don't do tournament play, just for fun. Which is the way 40k should be played IMO
On this note, reading the 7th edition rules I don't get how 40k can actually be fun to play. I mean, I get that it is fun for people. Just comparing it to WMH the rules seem much more simple and with random stuff thrown in for no reason. For example,I was looking at the terrain rules in 40k (in part because I couldn't remember if there were any terrain rules at all) and the level of simplicity was almost mind-boggling:
In 40k if you want to move into (or start your move in) a forest/outcrop/etc. ("Difficult Terrain") you roll 2d6 and the highest number is the number of inches that all models in the unit can move, whether or not you actually enter the terrain.
In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.
WMH seems like a much more tactical option in this regard, since some models might be hiding and some might be out in the open. 40ks seems to be kind of tacked on without much thought and hand-waved away with some talk about how it's assumed the unit is moving cautiously to explain it. The 40k rules in general seem to be extremely simple and come down to "roll a ton of dice".
I've seen a lot of games with practically no terrain in WMH, and it's sad. Looking at games like Mordheim and Malifaux have reminded me just how awesome heavy terrain can be.
Terrain rules seem pretty dumb in 40k to me, but so does random charge/run distance.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: I've seen a lot of games with practically no terrain in WMH, and it's sad. Looking at games like Mordheim and Malifaux have reminded me just how awesome heavy terrain can be.
Terrain rules seem pretty dumb in 40k to me, but so does random charge/run distance.
40KNobz11 wrote: 40k has a decent set of rules in my opinion. Now I don't do tournament play, just for fun. Which is the way 40k should be played IMO
On this note, reading the 7th edition rules I don't get how 40k can actually be fun to play. I mean, I get that it is fun for people. Just comparing it to WMH the rules seem much more simple and with random stuff thrown in for no reason. For example,I was looking at the terrain rules in 40k (in part because I couldn't remember if there were any terrain rules at all) and the level of simplicity was almost mind-boggling:
In 40k if you want to move into (or start your move in) a forest/outcrop/etc. ("Difficult Terrain") you roll 2d6 and the highest number is the number of inches that all models in the unit can move, whether or not you actually enter the terrain.
In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.
WMH seems like a much more tactical option in this regard, since some models might be hiding and some might be out in the open. 40ks seems to be kind of tacked on without much thought and hand-waved away with some talk about how it's assumed the unit is moving cautiously to explain it. The 40k rules in general seem to be extremely simple and come down to "roll a ton of dice".
It depends on what you like really - and that's true of most games, I like a lot of aspects of 40k - so when we are seeing if you are in charge range and roll low or high - that can sometimes make a friendly game - can he make it, then you come up with reasons why he didn't etc - but then we often add RP elements to the game. Guess that the dreaded forge the narrative but hey we enjoy that aspect.
WM/H - love the fluff and then found the rules just frankly dry, restrictive and finicky but that's down to what I do and don't enjoy. I switched to Malifaux and found whilst some of the same elements were there it was and remains much more fun to actually play.
To me Pre-measuring helps immensely in this and whilst being able to guess a distance maybe a "skill" its simply not "tactics" - that comes with using the information at your disposal. You don't guess the distance in many many games - from Chess, Go through to Risk and they remain tactical/strategic games of skill.
In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece, you can mitigate it (with Pathfinder) or you can move around it completely if you have enough movement to do so.
You also have Move through Cover SR - so just like Pathfinder I guess?
but isn't that just as odd - why do you get a penalty when you enter a "swamp" and not when you are moving in it or trying to leave - that's just weird IMHO. You can move round terrain in 40k as well - in fact one of the issues with many 40k games is that the table is way way too open - but that's a player issue.
Also WM/H Terrain only matters if you are within a certain distance, so a stone wall between two figures does not matter unless the target is close to it? That stuck us as very odd
Spoiler:
I suspect he is talking about all the other tables apart from the gorgeous tower table in the foreground - the ones with a couple of low hills on and a tree - looks like usual tourney fare for most games sadly
Also WM/H Terrain only matters if you are within a certain distance, so a stone wall between two figures does not matter unless the target is close to it? That stuck us as very odd
Why?
Its how obstacles actually work in the real world. If you are standing close to an obstacle you are much more protected by it than if you are several meters away.
I suspect he is talking about all the other tables apart from the gorgeous tower table in the foreground - the ones with a couple of low hills on and a tree - looks like usual tourney fare for most games sadly
That is not a problem of the game, its a problem of the players (or a matter of resources, actually).
The game is perfectly playable in heavy terrain tables. The problem is that making enough tables like that to cater even to a medium sized tournament would make it prohibitively expensive.
Also WM/H Terrain only matters if you are within a certain distance, so a stone wall between two figures does not matter unless the target is close to it? That stuck us as very odd
Why?
Its how obstacles actually work in the real world. If you are standing close to an obstacle you are much more protected by it than if you are several meters away.
yes more protected but its still an obstace if its between you and the target even if you are both meteres from the obstacle? WMH says its ignored in all respects in these cricumstances - hence odd.
OK re the movement in the WMH terrain - so its not as stated in the example given
In WMH you only have a penalty while you're moving into that terrain piece
More and more similar to 40k, just set distance modifer rather than a D6 - to often on this threads its simplifying the 40K system and not giving all the elments of the WMH system,
That is not a problem of the game, its a problem of the players (or a matter of resources, actually).
Yes which is exactly what I said in my post on terrain. Edit - I was probably not clear - I should have said most game systems not Games - its often a player/organiser issue
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: Yeah, I wasn't taking a shot at the game at all. I'm just saying I personally see a lot of barren tables, and that's not an ideal setup.
Def agree I can't think of a tabletop minis game thats not better with terrain.....
40K to be played competitively takes a 23 page document (ITC rules) with another 4 pages of info in rules clarification, see LVO pages.
WarmaHordes provides 19 page document and contains everything you need to know to run the tournament and doesn't need to have any rules clarifications.
40K to be played competitively takes a 23 page document (ITC rules) with another 4 pages of info in rules clarification, see LVO pages.
WarmaHordes provides 19 page document and contains everything you need to know to run the tournament and doesn't need to have any rules clarifications.
Don;t care abut competative games for the most part - fun is what I want.............
40K to be played competitively takes a 23 page document (ITC rules) with another 4 pages of info in rules clarification, see LVO pages.
WarmaHordes provides 19 page document and contains everything you need to know to run the tournament and doesn't need to have any rules clarifications.
Don;t care abut competative games for the most part - fun is what I want.............
I find games more fun when the rules aren't sloppy because my friends and I don't have to waste time trying to correctly interpret them.
One thing I actually like about WM/H and terrain is that the game doesn't break down if your terrain collection isn't large enough yet. It handles terrain heavy and terrain light games both fine.
As someone who's been in a firefight, people a good distance away aren't really covered by low walls, dumpsters or whatever. You kind of have to be close to it.
40K to be played competitively takes a 23 page document (ITC rules) with another 4 pages of info in rules clarification, see LVO pages.
WarmaHordes provides 19 page document and contains everything you need to know to run the tournament and doesn't need to have any rules clarifications.
Don;t care abut competative games for the most part - fun is what I want.............
I find games more fun when the rules aren't sloppy because my friends and I don't have to waste time trying to correctly interpret them.
I agree with this. A competitive set of rules benefits everybody: Competitive players get a decently balanced set of clear rules, casual gamers get a decently balanced set of clear rules.
I will say that there is one flaw in WMH that I've noticed: It's a lot harder to come up with your own situations and house rules without shifting the balance of the game. In MkI for example (which was much closer to 40k) there was a campaign in one of the books that had special scenarios and bonuses like reducing the cost of a certain unit (when it was like 40k in that you bought a squad of X size and could add up to Y additional models at Z points per model). That wouldn't work anymore because there are actual models you can field for a single point, and games are not well balanced when one force has more points than the other (even when it's in the rules, see how devastating Legion of Everblight can be with Vayl2's theme force that reduces the cost of heavy warbeasts by 1 point each).
Whether that's a real flaw or not though is up for debate, but it's the one key thing I notice that's different. 40k is a lot easier to make your own custom scenarios, custom victory conditions, custom benefits for winning.
MWHistorian wrote: As someone who's been in a firefight, people a good distance away aren't really covered by low walls, dumpsters or whatever. You kind of have to be close to it.
Yes, also in a realistic ruleset, thing like prone, and upward or downward a hill would affect accuracy and even line of sight, GW rules sometimes over simplify certain situations on the battlefield.
MWHistorian wrote: As someone who's been in a firefight, people a good distance away aren't really covered by low walls, dumpsters or whatever. You kind of have to be close to it.
Yes, also in a realistic ruleset, thing like prone, and upward or downward a hill would affect accuracy and even line of sight, GW rules sometimes over simplify certain situations on the battlefield.
If GW went further and actually simplified their rules (dropping true LOS) and made for a battle game versus this skirmish hybrid with 100+ models, then I think it'd be better off.
I think I said it pages ago, but the fact that the vote is nearly tied, when I imagine two years ago it would have been nothing of the sorts, is quite telling. What will the next two years hold?
TLOS is not what's complicating 40k. For me, it's the fact that it is not a game you can demo. You can strip everything away and have a sort of "quick start rules", but you have to take away everything that people like about the game.
In the next two years, I hope the future holds something better than both of these games to be honest. Get working, ya nerds!
)
. The last 
