In the midst of the recent arguments for-and-against 40k, I would like to put my experiences and conclusions out there for judgement and comment. The games I will be comparing 40k directly to are all the games I own/play still. These are: Warmachine/Hordes, Field of Glory, and Flames of War.
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1, where jumping from tall buildings to one's death is a good way to destroy enemy war-engines, et cetera, is not a universe I can place myself into. I do play the game, but I simply cannot get as 'into' it as I do into 40k. I'm sure it's just me, but it's true. As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important. Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience, there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake. It makes it hard to play a Khadoran 'tank company' (as it were), because the rules are not balanced for it.
2) 40k vs Field of Glory: This is less important to me, as the games are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I want a competitive, tournament-ready ruleset with every possible interaction already hammered out during development, I'd play Field of Glory. If I want a fun game that has much more diversity, I play 40k. My army in Field of Glory are 490BC Spartans, classed as "Armored, Offensive Spear, Heavy Foot, Superior Quality." To compare with, for example, Swiss Pike blocks from two millennia later - "Protected, Pike, Heavy Foot, Superior Quality." This means that they're not so different - in 40k, such similarity is rarely found between codexes, which makes the interactions of the game VERY difficult to predict ahead of time, unlike Field of Glory, where literally every interaction can be calculated in one's head ahead of time, making positioning on the field the most decisive matter in a battle, and the dice-rolling is merely a formality in most cases. This is, for me, the epitome of a tournament ruleset.
3) 40k vs Flames of War: These two I consider most similar - both have significant balance problems, both are more 'movie-like' and less grounded in reality than they could be, and both are loads of fun for me. I basically play Flames of War when I'm on a WWII history kick, or when I'm looking to paint and play 15mm tanks instead of 28mm tanks. But they're comparatively quite similar, with Flames of War perhaps having a diversity advantage simply due to the sheer number of options.
Fluff for me. While I think the other games have a good depth to their fluff, I just love the feel of 40k's fluff the most. Seeing as how it sometimes tends to contradict itself can sometimes lead to ways to create headcannon or alternate interpretations. If not that, it's for it's sort of half-fantasy half-science fiction feel that's combined with how over-the-top and diverse the setting is.
This is just my opinion of course.
SkavenLord wrote: Fluff for me. While I think the other games have a good depth to their fluff, I just love the feel of 40k's fluff the most. Seeing as how it sometimes tends to contradict itself can sometimes lead to ways to create headcannon or alternate interpretations. If not that, it's for it's sort of half-fantasy half-science fiction feel that's combined with how over-the-top and diverse the setting is. This is just my opinion of course.
It's this, and the models, for me too. Without the imagery and style and feel of the setting, 40k would be far blander. When it comes to other games, Deadzone I like because of the aesthetic and rules, Malifaux the same, and LOTR because... well, it's LOTR. But 40k is the only one I've played where basically, if you can think of it, you can do it.
As for the games I don't get into, even if they're objectively good:
Infinity: rules look great, but on the whole, I hate the anime aesthetic. Warmahordes: hate the aesthetic. X-wing: the models are pre-paints and tragically small, I just can't see value for money in it. Historicals of any kind: I probably would, but I can't see any of my regular opponents taking the historical plunge with me, they're all sci-fi guys.
I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
You guys sound more and more like desperate car salesman with each thread like this that you open, guess the diminishing number of 40k players seems to really be affecting some people...
I don't remember whatever thread that was, but alright. If you think an all-jack army in Khador is possible, more power to you, but the players around here seem to think it's folly to try that.
Ironically I agree almost 100% with 40k vs. WM/H. Now, I currently play WM/H and have not touched 40k since 2001, but I feel the same way. WM/H, while a great game from a strictly rules perspective, feels completely artificial. I know there's fluff, I've read some (the Butcher of Khardov novella was great) but it just doesn't "click" with me for some reason. I don't mind their aesthetics (although their PVC plastic sucks IMO), but just something about it doesn't feel right, and I haven't been able to put my finger on it. I don't get the same feeling looking through the books or thinking up armies that I got so long ago with 40k, although rules-wise it plays a lot clearer although again, it feels very mechanical.
I can't speak to Field of Glory or Flames of War as I've never played either (looked at FoW though). I did play some Bolt Action though and that really appealed to me, and still felt very 40k-like.
Honestly, Infinity is my new love miniature game wise, but nobody actually seems to play it, so that's not an option.
Warmachine is better from a rules and balance standpoint if you ask me, but I prefer 40k because of the fluff and campaign aspect. A lot of Warmachine players I've talked to don't really know or care about the fluff. I think some of this comes from the model rule cards that come with the kits. It's great for convenience, but it means you don't have to buy the faction book, so you never end up reading any fluff or backstory for your army. Plus about the only way I have ever seen warmachine played is 50 point Masters scenerio tournament style battles. There are rules in the main rulebook for connecting a series of games and your models gaining experience (through the form of warjack bonds). The vast majority of players didn't even know that section existed since nobody uses it. Warmachine just feels way too limited in format and, well, like a game designed to be competitive, rather than the actual representation of a world that can change and grow (which is really ironic when you realize PP actually does have an advancing storyline. It's just that most people don't care about it). Plus the fact there's no "generic warcaster" means you can't really grow out any space for your own unique army. Some people approve of that, for me it sucks all the fun out of what would otherwise be a great system in an interesting world. This said from somebody who really tried to get into warmachine and thought it was better than 40k for a while after I learned the rules for the first time.
I play 40k because it's popular, I have friends who play it, I like the fluff (mostly), and I think the Tau models look good.
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
You guys sound more and more like desperate car salesman with each thread like this that you open, guess the diminishing number of 40k players seems to really be affecting some people...
I don't remember whatever thread that was, but alright. If you think an all-jack army in Khador is possible, more power to you, but the players around here seem to think it's folly to try that.
This one. Only a few threads down on the same page. That you created.
Warmachine to me is just a couple of landships fighting it out. I also tried it in its first edition and some of the model could not be built. But the requirement to enter the box to fight makes it like a boxing match to me.
Fields of Glory I like but only when playing against historical opponents just the feel.
I love most horse and musket games and since I own the figures for both sides in ACW, AWI, ECW and F&I makes it easy to set up a game to play. (I stay away from Europe battles as you mis paint a chevron and it sends the crowd crying).
tiger g wrote: But the requirement to enter the box to fight makes it like a boxing match to me.
Que?
Yeah I have no idea what he means by that, unless it was something from MkI that was changed in MkII. Unless he means like some scenarios; I played one last week where we had to have units in this circle in the middle to win (barring a kill). So maybe he means it feels like a boxing match where you need to be in the "ring", although most tournament/steamroller missions Victory Points are just there, and it's still mostly a caster kill that wins.
I've looked though the warmachine rules and am probably going to start an army. I do like the models (not the initial races) but probably only Convergence of Cyriss. And they have fluff as well, in terms of their Tier army system. And the story in the Cyriss army book is great as well, although I would say not as epic. Other than tht, not having played a game, I cannot comment bout actual mechanics.
So until I actually get a game in, 40k still has more appeal. And also, it is much easier to find a player for 40k. I've yet to get a contact from the volunteer Press Ganger for my city though. Quite a pity. But I will still be getting myself the models. I hope the quality would be equal to what I have experienced I. 40k. There were some reports of poor quality Cyriss being produced. I hope they have taken the initial poor ones off the shelves.
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
I'll start off by saying that I really, really enjoy WM/Hordes, and I think it's the best system around.
I don't think the OP is wrong. Even if they're both in heroic scale, WM has more of a comic-book style in their models, and not everyone will be up for that (I actually tend to prefer the 40k/fantasy stuff, though there are certainly some PP sculpts that I think are absolutely fantastic).
I can understand some pushback against some of the rules, though I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that those are some odd lines to draw. As 'game-y' as combined ranged/melee attacks may feel, I personally find the whole pile-in melee of 40k and the inability to shoot into melee at all a much bigger offender. But that's pure opinion, and I can certainly understand why you'd prefer one over the other.
Honestly, balance is much better in WM though. I think you're confusing specific army lists with overall balance. 'Balance' means that most choices are good choices, or serve some sort of a role, and that each army has good odds of winning against another army, independent of other considerations. The comparison you made is a comparison of lists, which is something very different. Indeed, that example is exactly why you're allowed 2-3 different lists in WM/Hordes tournaments, so that there's much less of a chance of that kind of rock-paper-scissors.
But all-in-all, it really seemed like reasonable criticism. Not all games can be for all people.
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen.
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen.
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
But I believe we cannot claim someone to be hypocrite just because he does not know as much, for instance. Perhaps he is not the guru of Warmahines? Does that mean he intentionally lied and misled others?
PhantomViper wrote: I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen.
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
But I believe we cannot claim someone to be hypocrite just because he does not know as much, for instance. Perhaps he is not the guru of Warmahines? Does that mean he intentionally lied and misled others?
No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.
The "artificial" feeling of WM/H could be what's kept me away from it even though it's taken off well around here. Dreadball, Deadzone and X-Wing thankfully do not suffer from that, but are still much better balanced than 40k from what I've seen and played.
Though 40k is highly flawed, it wouldn't take much to get myself anf others enjoying it again - and what we want (balance, price, listening to feedback etc) would make the game better for everybody.
Yonan wrote: Though 40k is highly flawed, it wouldn't take much to get myself anf others enjoying it again - and what we want (balance, price, listening to feedback etc) would make the game better for everybody.
Exactly this. It's not that I don't necessarily want to play 40k, just I look at the insane pricing, I look at the shoddy rules and lack of balance, and I ask myself why I want to spend money and put in hours (to say nothing of the actual time playing) for a game like that?
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1, .
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.
regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "gamey", 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.
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 do play the game, but I simply cannot get as 'into' it as I do into 40k. I'm sure it's just me, but it's true. .
have you explored the fluff? genuinely curious about this one. i used to be the same as you, then i got serious about the fluff (novels, RPG material etc) and it really brought the world to life. If anything, i have an easier time now immersing myself in the iron kingdoms than the sillyness that the 40kiverse has become (kaldor fracking draigo, codex:comedy robots, and necrons emailing inquisitors and collecting battles. pffft!)
As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important. .
this amuses me no end. Im in agreement though - they're in the wrong. for what its worth though, PP isnt just a steamroller focus. Although i would like to see more non-linear scenarios (some attacker/defender missions would be fun) etc. However, check out their NQ magazine, and some of their older books - superiority for one. they've had huge swathes of ink devoted to campaigns, and one off scenarios, both big and small. heck, they've got the historical battles lately too as well as other once-off games. there might be some useful little nuggets to mine. Big issue is getting other folks on board, but thats your local playerbase, not the game - the game supports more themed games too.
I'll agree with you - fluff is important. But IMO, in warmachine the divide between "fluffy" lists and "power" lists - well, really, there isnt.... What you field on the table top is what appears in the fluff. end of. there is no divide. Now if you want to play "theme lists", then there are specific formats for them too. I field epic butcher's mad dogs of war theme list. i've done quite well with him, and 48 doom reavers And for what its worth - the fluff is there. what you read in the warmachine books might be the "arcade" version, but some of the novels (the butcher, warcaster/warlock chronicles, into the storm, extraordinary zoology) are cracking good reads, and i would heartily recommend the RPG books for really bringing the world to life. i know quite a few people who play the wargame as a game, but explore the world via the RPG.
Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience, there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake. It makes it hard to play a Khadoran 'tank company' (as it were), because the rules are not balanced for it.
ns.
seems like you're playing wrong more than anything. All jack is a relatively poor choice, thematically as much as anything, especially in khador. war jacks are war machines, but they're not WARMACHINE. Infantry has always been a part of the game. the khadoran widowmaker is as iconic a unit as the juggernaut.
Hows about putting iron fangs against those warbeasts, and watch them beasties die. i think you're being a bit dishonest in your appraisal. Warmachine isnt balanced around every thing being equally good against everything else, all the time. Nor is it balanced around being about warjacks. Warmachine is balanced on the macro level. Warmachine is balanced on synnergies, and combos. balance in warmachine means everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. those jacks are concentrated force. but just like "real" tanks in the real world, they need infantry support. they're not great at infantry clearing - they dont do lots of "nickel and dimes". they put out a handful of "big hits". those big hits overkill a grunt, and his buddy, and leave the other twenty mooks enraged. but they also kill the fifteen foot tall warpwolf or dragonspawn stone dead. So it becomes a game of tactics. you use your warjack as "concentrated force" where it is most needed, and you use your infantry to take out the other infantry, and back it up where needed. In 40k, i lose because i play blood angels. In 40k, i lose because i play tyranids.Some builds are just so far behind. In warmachine, i dont lose because i play khador. i lose because i play poorly. similarly with jacks. all jack might be a limited build, but there is always room for a one, or two-jack build.
by the way, please dont bring in the focus v fury debate. they're balanced. regardless, all-jack for khador is a bad call. its extremely unfluffy. khador are quite limited in the numbers of warjacks. Irusks 4th assault battallion for example has 80 warjacks, and over 12,000 infantry. Jack heavy can be done but its a very niche build in khador- just like assault themed tau. all-jack is ludicrous. thanklfully, things are improving with malakov. if you want the best results out of multiple jacks, may i recommend menoth, or convergence? but khador "tank kompanies" really arent a thing in the fluff im afraid. the problem is, all jack is a skew. it will have favourable match ups, and poor ones. khador's main strength is its sons and daughters of the motherland. always has been.
Also, regarding super powerful combos - can you give examples? So far, i've never seen any one thing dominate exclusively. Iast big tournament that had all the stats analysed on the PP boards - khadoran players for example fielded something lime 80% of their warcaster options. I've seen all factions do well when played well.
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1,
CRA and its melee equivalent CMA aren't supposed to represent 10 AKs firing at a tank. We are talking about a quasi-medieval setting where a rifle (STR10) can already penetrate and damage all but the strongest armor (of the top of my head, only 3 warjacks in the game have ARM above 21). In that kind setting, it doesn't take a big leap of the imagination to assume that repeated blows or shots to areas of the armor that have already been stricken before will do progressively more damage. That are instances of this type of "tactic" splattered over all types of both fiction and historical literature from medieval to sci-fi.
I've already asked this of the OP, but I'll ask again. Maybe this time he'll be able to answer me: How come you find CRA / CMA to be immersion breaking rules, but are apparently fine with jets hovering on a battlefield that has the length of a football field, pistols that cant fire more than the length of a tank, shots that all miraculously only hit the closest member of the target squad, etc? Those rules don't seem equally mechanic to you?
As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important.
I won't comment on this since this exclusively a matter of personal preference and due to the composition of your group.
Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience,
This isn't how balance works, you don't get to purposely choose an entire army made of pawns, play against an army made of queens and then loose and cry that the game isn't balanced. Balance exists in warmachine because no matter what faction you choose or what unit you wan't to play, you'll be able to do so and get a reasonable expectation of winning the game if you are more skilled than your opponent. There are some combinations that will not work, but you will have to work at finding them and those that you've listed aren't one of them btw. You can play an almost all jack Khadoran army and you will have a much bigger chance of winning the game against Legion or Circle than with a all-tank IG army against Daemons. Your lack of knowledge in the game even shines through on your choice of matchups, that Khador force would have a much tougher time facing of against Cryx or Skorne then Legion or Circle...
there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake.
And this is the part that is blatantly false. In practically ever single major tournament you'll get players winning with factions or units that everyone had previously dismissed as being less competitive. It has reached such a point that you'll find that general forum opinion is changing to the Infinity motto of : its not the list, its the player. And we all know how easy it is to change general forum opinions...
DontEatRawHagis wrote: I find 40k in my meta to be filled with really fluff friendly people.
Warmachine when I got the demo from my store was introduced more about the statistics and list building. Mostly a sign of that meta around here.
I don't understand your criticism. You showed up for a demonstration of the game and you didn't like that they showed you how to play? If I went to a demo for a game and all I got was background fluff I can read myself I would be upset. A good story can enhance a game's experience, but it can't redeem bad rules.
I really really like the 40k universe and I mostly enjoy 40k in its present form - having been here form the beginning :0
I am disheartened by the inernal balance in and between the various codexes - Eldar is a prime example - ranges for the absoluetly dire Banshees to the totally broken and OP Wave Serpents - the new Ok Codex is the same - lets reduce the cost of Lootas FFS but not sort out other issues or make more choices - why does the Flash Gitz Kaptain not have any choices - why does Mad Dok have Cybork body - or if so why does it do nothing.
On the other hand I have played a handful of games of Warmachine and whilst I have large collection of the models - we did not enjoy the games we played that much due to:
The "no pre-measuring" but here is a method to get round it written into the very rules.....just get with it and put premeasuring in.
The Take the King insta win regardless of scenarios seemed way too prevalent and too easy to acheive
Lack of customisable options
Some Feats seemed massively powerful and game winning
Like the fluff, like lots of the models, didn't like the game
Star Wars - I ike the true 3 films of Star Wars - there are only three to me. The game was just meh - prefered Wings of War or even Tactica Aeronautica - especially found the if you touch another mini rule loose all your dice bloody annoying.
On the other hand I have played a handful of games of Warmachine and whilst I have large collection of the models - we did not enjoy the games we played that much due to:
The "no pre-measuring" but here is a method to get round it written into the very rules.....just get with it and put premeasuring in.
40k has only had premeasuring since 6th. For the longest time this is not the norm. What's your point?
The Take the King insta win regardless of scenarios seemed way too prevalent and too easy to acheive
It's really not. Not to sound too arrogant but your group is obviously not playing very well and exploring all the tactical options if caster kill is that easy
Lack of customisable options
Not really. For example, there's 4 variants of the Juggernaut chassis for Khador. Think of them simply as the weapon variants available to say, a Dreadnought spread across 4 entries.
Some Feats seemed massively powerful and game winning
That's kinda the point. That's why they're one use only.
Everyone who had played Infinity recommends it to me but I have way a lot invested into to 40k and am not getting into another game.
I bet Infinity is a good system b/c I have never seen anyone knock it. It just doesn't have the number of players 40k does.
So b/c of number of players and what I have invested into 40k I am staying 40k.
I tried Warmachine and 40k when I was 1st deciding which game to get into and i didn't like how useless some of the Jack Controllers were and some were just OP. I didn't like the damage system on Jacks either.
My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.
Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.
Options
Can you play more than one warcaster / Warlock in an army in a normal game - sadly nope. Not even the cool twin sisters in my Legion,
Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope
Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........
Its not really a debate - either you like a game or you don't...............
Mr Morden wrote: My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....
WMH would not work with premeasuring (maybe that's your problem. Putting your caster all the way up front to try and get some supposed bonus from premeasuring). 40k's (and WHFB's) premeasuring only works due to their stupid-ass random charge distances. WMH charge distances are always the same and not randomly determined. To be able to premeasure this aspect would break the game.
Mr Morden wrote: My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....
WMH would not work with premeasuring (maybe that's your problem. Putting your caster all the way up front to try and get some supposed bonus from premeasuring). 40k's (and WHFB's) premeasuring only works due to their stupid-ass random charge distances. WMH charge distances are always the same and not randomly determined. To be able to premeasure this aspect would break the game.
Control Area is about 14-18" correct? so why would the Caster need to be in the front line?
Random charge is no more stupid than "we always charge exactly the same distance whatever and if I nudge my model to .000001 outside this mesurement I am completely immune to being charged" as 40k and WFB used to be and that was bloody stupid
or WMH's cover only works if you are within set distance and not if its between you and the enemy....thats stupid
There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."
Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.
Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.
EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.
azreal13 wrote: There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."
Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.
Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.
EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.
Lets agree to disagree - I like random charge and have had many fun moments in recent games - either not quite making it or slamming home after makiing an informed choice based on risk factor which is hardly hard to figure out. On the other hand had lots of dull moments in previous edition games or people nudging units forward just out of the magic charge range that they "estimated" in various ways and called skill.
So for me Playbility = random charge. Fixed charge = dull and finicky
Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.
....
depends on the caster, but even with my own personal assassination happy casters - butcher3 and kromac - i always keep an eye on the scenario. I've lost games by focusing on the killy instead of the zones.
In general, i'd argue my khador army is more geared for scenario contesting than out and out assassination. first rule you learn in the game is "protect your caster!", and when they can hide in the back field, and going for them often times isnt easy, especially against experienced players who know their positioning, it often comes down to scenario. for the most part "the game is all about assassination" tends to be spoken by those who are new to the game.
that said, assassination offers a plan b. no matter how you are losing, you always have that little chance to pull it off - you're never out of the game with this. plus, gearing for the assassination allows for an extra bit of design space both in missions and character design. it allows variety.
Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope
Some do. you've got, for example, multiple breeds of men o war, exemplar bastions, tharn ravagers, iron fangs, winter guard, banes etc. think of them as a basic chassis with different loadout options. Individually, you have Unit attachments (officer types) and weapon attachments (special weapon holders). So yes, you do. Kinda.
Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........
.
which is where tactics come in. use your movement, positioning and attacking power to destroy the elements of his army with which his feat will benefit. pressure him to feat early, or in a disadvantageous position. counter-feat. Have spells or denial elements in place to allow for control, or soakage. Feats are rightly brutal affairs, but once you get involved in the game, they become just one more thing to deal with.
Mr Morden wrote: My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.
No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).
Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.
Caster kill is always one of the win conditions, but if your group is finding that a majority of its games are ending because of caster kill before a significant part of either army was destroyed, then that is a signal of player inexperience. As you get more experienced you'll be able both to identify the biggest treats to your warcaster as well as all the different ways that you have to keep them safer.
Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope
Why should this be important? A Captain doesn't get to choose if his American Marines will be armed with AK47's or AR-15's so why should I choose what my units should be armed with?
Also, since WMH is a skirmish game, most units will have special rules attached to how they fight with the weapons that they have, if a player could change those weapons then those rules wouldn't make any sense and would have to be removed.
Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........
Again, I'm sorry but this is just another sign of player inexperience. More experienced players will find ways to mitigate the effect that feats have in the game.
Yes you can. Any game bigger than 75 points has a dual warcaster option.
They don;t seem to be normal games - arn't they 25-50pts? or less -
No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).
funny the other WMH player here said:
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that
so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?
Also, since WMH is a skirmish game, most units will have special rules attached to how they fight with the weapons that they have, if a player could change those weapons then those rules wouldn't make any sense and would have to be removed.
Which is inbuilt limitation of the game - for good or bad - I remember it being the same with Confrontation.
Caster kill is always one of the win conditions,
bnut why is it always a win condiiton?
If you kill your US Marine captain you don't normally auto loose the game regardless of what you were actually trying to achieve in the scenario?
Because the caster is the one controlling the jacks. If the caster goes down, so do the jacks. And if all you have is infantry, they'd probably run away. US Marines are a unique thing and not at all like medieval warfare.
MWHistorian wrote: Because the caster is the one controlling the jacks. If the caster goes down, so do the jacks. And if all you have is infantry, they'd probably run away. US Marines are a unique thing and not at all like medieval warfare.
I wasn't the one who brought in real world comparisons to a game about magic and steam robots
I get that - but again if a scenario is about achieving a specific objective and you can still achieve it (or at least try) why should the game end with the death of a specfic individual - however important they are in the fluff or army?
It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.
But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )
Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.
Apple fox wrote: It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.
But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )
Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.
Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?
There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?
re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?
Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.
Mr Morden wrote: I get that - but again if a scenario is about achieving a specific objective and you can still achieve it (or at least try) why should the game end with the death of a specfic individual - however important they are in the fluff or army?
Can't you make the same argument for 40K, though? You always win by tabling your opponent, even if they have achieved more victory conditions than you have.
The thing with the Warcaster is that it means that your force's leader matters. Take a Chapter Master in your Marine force - he has no real huge impact on how your force functions or is structured, and your army will by and large by completely oblivious when he dies.
In Warmahordes, your choice of caster has a large effect on how your force functions... take two otherwise identical forces with different casters, and you get two very different games. And you have to balance off utilising the tactical effectiveness of your caster against keeping them alive... because they can be brutally effective if used right, but if they die, it matters.
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that
so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?
Please quote the whole thing. Way to make your own context there...
The bit you left out was
...and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....
Bit of a significant difference there.
The important bit was th bit where you said IF you use it for "anything other than measuring their control area" - as the other thing is outside the rules entirely wheras you can mesure your command distance at any time?
So is it a premeasuring mechanism or not? are you just using it to check "your command distance or other things"? Is it intended to do this or just used this way?
Can't you make the same argument for 40K, though? You always win by tabling your opponent, even if they have achieved more victory conditions than you have.
True and thats wrong as well at least in my opinion...........
WayneTheGame wrote: Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.
Which incidentally I why I seldom use it. I've seen people sweeping their tape measures around waaaayyyyyy beyond their control areas which is just blatant cheating. The only time I have really used it recently is for checking if models are within range for Dash with Vlad3, especially after his feat and stuff gets a little separated after sprinting.
WayneTheGame wrote: Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.
Which incidentally I why I seldom use it. I've seen people sweeping their tape measures around waaaayyyyyy beyond their control areas which is just blatant cheating. The only time I have really used it recently is for checking if models are within range for Dash with Vlad3, especially after his feat and stuff gets a little separated after sprinting.
but the other player says:
easuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).
Seems a very differnt way of looking at it?
Measuring outside the Control Area - is simply cheating outright is it not?
The bit I read in the rulebook talked about it being used as certain spells / feats that require you to know if you are in range - but that seems to be allowing massive liberties?
Apple fox wrote: It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.
But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )
Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.
Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?
There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?
re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?
Everblight considers evrything expendable, but he doesn't throw them away. Killing a warlock is still a blow to everblight and his plans and takes time to recover.
I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate.
In 6th I never found a need to pre measure, and I have never met a player that found a need ether. I have never been short for something that could have been avoided by the premesureing. So in 40k it doesn't realy bother me other than it sometimes takes newer players a little longer to learn.
Anyone actually cheating is cheating, regardless of the rules of the game. This goes for 40k also
azreal13 wrote: There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."
Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.
Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.
EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.
Lets agree to disagree - I like random charge and have had many fun moments in recent games - either not quite making it or slamming home after makiing an informed choice based on risk factor which is hardly hard to figure out. On the other hand had lots of dull moments in previous edition games or people nudging units forward just out of the magic charge range that they "estimated" in various ways and called skill.
So for me Playbility = random charge. Fixed charge = dull and finicky
It's more
Random charge = more fun for Mr Morden, fixed charge = probably better for the game as a whole.
But I will concede that random charge is something I don't take huge issue with, it is more a symptom of random everything taking player choice more and more out of the game, and being used as a crutch for poor game design (how much more broken would things be if you could pick the exact powers, warlord traits, daemonic gifts etc you wanted each game?)
Apple fox wrote: It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.
But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )
Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.
Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?
There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?
re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?
Everblight considers evrything expendable, but he doesn't throw them away. Killing a warlock is still a blow to everblight and his plans and takes time to recover.
I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate.
In 6th I never found a need to pre measure, and I have never met a player that found a need ether. I have never been short for something that could have been avoided by the premesureing. So in 40k it doesn't realy bother me other than it sometimes takes newer players a little longer to learn.
As players of very many games for decades our club finds premeasuring helps elimate arguments and speeds up play, especially for newer players.............your expereince may be different............
He pretty much threw away Lylth on a recon mission to find out about the Dragon under the Castle of Keys and recently to see what would happen if he took on a Dragon with his minions, There are very very many examples in the fluff of characters so very very nearly dying and last minute rescues are pretty much a given
Random charge = more fun for Mr Morden, fixed charge = probably better for the game as a whole.
And my entire club............lets not forget them and many other players I talk to..............
You still have player choice - you just work out the odds and decide if its worth it.................
I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate
I don;t get this - if the rule is there to achieve a specific aim and you use it for another - how is that right?
And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.
I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.
Apple fox wrote: And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.
I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.
I didn;t say that and I am fine with the idea of some games being "kill the King" but if there is scenario win coniditons this should not be the be and end all - perhaps an element at most to represent those "suicide missions" that the main characters always surive (which is good and pulpy )
Would you tell a new player about the Command Radius method of premeasuring?
There are quite a few bits of 40k i would change but I enjoy it more
Apple fox wrote: And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.
I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.
I didn;t say that and I am fine with the idea of some games being "kill the King" but if there is scenario win coniditons this should not be the be and end all - perhaps an element at most to represent those "suicide missions" that the main characters always surive (which is good and pulpy )
Would you tell a new player about the Command Radius method of premeasuring?
There are quite a few bits of 40k i would change but I enjoy it more
I would tell a new player about it, but you can find out a lot of info just checking most importent things to do with the controll area.
That information is part of the game since there is no way around giving it away. It's accounted for in play.
The kill the king as said is removed in some scenarios, we have even play without Warcasters and warlocks in games.
But it's asumed as part of the basic game.
As for 40k I enjoy it with the players I play with, I enjoy enough of the lore to be enthusiastic about it. Even the base rules them selves I wouldn't see issue with that much. But at this point I won't pay for them.
No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.
I believe your use of the word refute to be unfounded. Refute means to prove something wrong, as in absolutely. Very rarely does such a thing occur on an internet forum.
I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.
I also love the fact that, while there are some "if you want to win, you play this way" theories, I can attempt all manner of craziness, and if I expend enough energy to refine it, I can make it work. I am putting together an all-infiltration, all-melee 'nid army as we speak. Will it work? Who knows, but I will find a way to win some games, then I will dismantle it and move on to some other looney effort.
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Lynkon_Lawg wrote: I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.
Lynkon_Lawg wrote: I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.
Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.
I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.
No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.
I believe your use of the word refute to be unfounded. Refute means to prove something wrong, as in absolutely. Very rarely does such a thing occur on an internet forum.
Lynkon_Lawg wrote: I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.
Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.
I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.
You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.
If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)
Lynkon_Lawg wrote: I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.
Except you can't, really, because 40k isn't balanced. In a balanced game, then yes all of those would be viable choices. But they aren't. If you take mostly CC guys, you will get wiped out because CC is inferior to shooting. If you take a lot of vehicles you can get run roughshod by particular forces, if you go no vehicles then the same happens. 40k gives the illusion of variety; it's like a used car lot where you have a choice of 5 cars - 2 are nice Honda Civics that run adequately enough, one looks like a Ferrari but is actually a Ford Pinto, one has sawdust in the engine and the last has four flat tires.
I love the fluff and back story of the 40k universe. I love the games among the local crowd who have created their house rules to fix parts we agree were in need of remedy.
I love Warmahordes because I know exactly what I am getting with my list before I go into the game. I don't have to worry about my warlord forgetting his trait and getting something useless or my psyker not rolling for a single ability I want.
My friend actually runs that army you're talking about. It's terrifying to see a wall of genestealers and brood lords set up 18" in front of your face. It regularly stomped on me throughout 4th and 5th when you could assault from outflank, but now in 6th I've been able to contain it and win pretty well. That said, I build my list knowing to expect a setup like that. The guy who plays it has won several local tournaments just by playing to the scenario and by shear dark horse potential (plus he is a very good player on his own merits, he just doesn't take the game too seriously).
To actually say something on topic: There is always the issue of netlists in any game. 40k and warmachine both have this take place. The difference is that Warmachine has less "bad" units. There's still some pretty horrible ones, but the scale from best to worst is a lot narrower. Most warmachine net lists actually come from high level tournament players doing exactly what you said you enjoy doing, tossing random stuff into a list to see what works together. It's not "this unit is what we need to add or else you can't win". Most of the time. Must takes exist but many lists were the result of very off the wall brainstorming. it just looks standardized because that's what evreybody uses now.
I like 40k more because it still has the most in depth background. I love reading Black Library novels and focusing more on having fun than winning games. GW's prices are hard to stomach , but that's what my FLGS is for.
Yes you can. Any game bigger than 75 points has a dual warcaster option.
They don;t seem to be normal games - arn't they 25-50pts? or less -
Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over here.
No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).
funny the other WMH player here said:
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that
so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?
Its not, the game developers have stated it several times in interviews, in the official forums and in podcasts. Its a deliberate mechanic built into the game. Besides, if it wasn't then the same rules that are already present to check a unit's command range would also apply to the warlocks control range. It wouldn't be particularly hard to implement it.
If you kill your US Marine captain you don't normally auto loose the game regardless of what you were actually trying to achieve in the scenario?
You are free to play the game without that win condition. The rules state specifically what happens in case the warlock or warcaster gets killed but the game doesn't end so its just left to the players to decide if they choose to use those rules or not. We've played it like that some times, but found that the only change is that it increases the length of the game for no apparent purpose and gave infantry heavy armies a big advantage over battlegroup heavy armies, though that could be alleviated with the use of Jack marshals in WM which presented its own set of tactical issues. In the end, it was just a different way to play not better or worse than the "official", but the longer games I think was what killed it over here.
Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her
Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?
We were working from just the rules and lno prior knowledge of the system - so again small numbes of models. No one was showing us the tricks etc of the game but we did figure pretty quickly that the Command Raidus was a workaround the "no pre-measruing rule". I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.
Premeasuring /Control range - right so its officially stated as a game mechanic to allow players to get round the premeasuring restriction (sounds daft to me but ok) - odd how several warmahordes players said they wer uncomfortable with it being used in this way if its a normal and accepted part fo the game? Why is not stated as such in the rules?
I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.
Go on, play a whole game with premeasuring. All things like charge distances, which you currently have to eyeball can be done with 100% accuracy. This is the key thing that would be utterly (for lack of a better term) game changing.
40k allows premeasuring as the charge distance is random. With that in mind, why would you ever take anything without reach? Reach is currently an extremely powerful asset. Premeasuring would just exacerbate it to a point where certain units are useless.
This one little change would have a massive snowball effect on the game. It's really not that hard to understand.
To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.
Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her
Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?
A "standard" game is 35 points (roughly 1,500 in 40k). Tournaments tend to be 50 (1,850) with some new provision for the World Championship that has the final round be 75 points built with your other lists (most tournaments require 2, and sometimes 3, lists with some restrictions like you can't have the same character model in more than one). However, the general minimum points level is 15, or a little less if you're just using a Battlegroup box in a league or just starting out (most Battlegroup boxes run about 11 points, I think Cryx has 13), then typically 25, and then 35 (this is the progression of the WM/H Escalation league format: Battlegroup, 15, 25, 35 over six weeks). Most people don't play higher than 50 points that I've seen, so while there are rules for getting to 40k-scale battles with lots of guys (100+) it's very rare to have that actually happen for regular games.
RE: Caster kills: The "basic" game has no scenario and is just fight until one caster is killed. It's intended for when you're just learning and/or don't want to deal with a scenario. Most of the time though you want to play a scenario, and the caster kill mechanic is there as an alternative so you always have a chance to win, even if you're losing on the scenario, and vice versa you can win on scenario if you aren't able to kill the caster (and many tournament games have the "Kill Box" where your caster must be a certain number of inches away from any board edge or your opponent gets points; it's designed to push your caster into the thick of things not hiding behind a tree somewhere).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.
I have to disagree with this. It's pretty much INTENDED to be a way to circumvent the "no premeasuring" rule, hence why you can do it at any time, even during your opponent's phase, and you don't have to announce that you're doing it. I was watching the Iron Gauntlet (World Championship) finals and one of the guys was doing it all the time. If you measure *past* your control range that's cheating, but if you constantly measure up to your control range and happen to notice the distance an enemy unit is from yours, well... that's in the rules.
I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.
Go on, play a whole game with premeasuring. All things like charge distances, which you currently have to eyeball can be done with 100% accuracy. This is the key thing that would be utterly (for lack of a better term) game changing.
40k allows premeasuring as the charge distance is random. With that in mind, why would you ever take anything without reach? Reach is currently an extremely powerful asset. Premeasuring would just exacerbate it to a point where certain units are useless.
This one little change would have a massive snowball effect on the game. It's really not that hard to understand.
To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.
I play lots of games with premeasuring - from skirmish games like Judge Dredd to Spaceship games and lots of other ones in between.- and it simply does not make the game any slower. It might be a problem for WMH - but as we have established its in the game already which is my point - pretending its not is a bit misleading and your orignal statement was using it for this OR outside the area of control was cheating - the second half everyone agrees on
Here is your full statment ? Emphasis mine in bold
If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....
Grimtuff wrote: To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.
I have to disagree with this. It's pretty much INTENDED to be a way to circumvent the "no premeasuring" rule, hence why you can do it at any time, even during your opponent's phase. I was watching the Iron Gauntlet (World Championship) finals and one of the guys was doing it all the time. If you measure *past* your control range that's cheating, but if you constantly measure up to your control range and happen to notice the distance an enemy unit is from yours, well... that's in the rules.
That's why I said "beyond".... I've seen a certain TFG doing it here.
Allowing normal units to premeasure distances would mess with the game far more than it's worth IMO. As I already said, why would you ever take non-reach stuff when you can premeasure? It's such a valuable asset right now for that extra 2" of threat range, but those ranges are approximate. You currently have to eyeball them, with reach you're far more confident of said distances and getting a charge off. As you've said yourself, the game at times can feel somewhat mechanical and "gamey". If you allowed premeasuring this would not help this feeling one bit.
40k allows it due to charge distances being random. If you don't know how far a unit can charge then a premeasuring aspect had to be added to the game. It was never there in the past. There were hints of it in previous editions such as with the removal of literally guessing ranges for weapons from 4th into 5th (had a temple board at my old GW made from 50mm monster bases. t'was a good times for guess ranges. They did not think that one through! ).
As shown above even the alternatives have rules that some people have a dispute about. Half this thread is not why you like 40k but an argument on pre measuring and warjacks in Warmachines. It is nice for once to see that 40k is the only game where a thread can be jacked on an argument on a rule.
tiger g wrote: As shown above even the alternatives have rules that some people have a dispute about. Half this thread is not why you like 40k but an argument on pre measuring and warjacks in Warmachines. It is nice for once to see that 40k is the only game where a thread can be jacked on an argument on a rule.
I do really like the background and in theory at least the ability to create a themed force. One of my favorite things to do when creating armies, even if I wasn't actually playing, was to make it "My" force; I'd typically pick something that wasn't already established (e.g. my own SM Chapter, or Craftworld) or at the very least something that could allow for my own touch (e.g. a specific company of the Ultramarines that isn't fleshed out). I'd come up with a name for my commander, often names for units, and flesh out just who they were to make it not just another generic army.
That's something that I have yet to find in other games, and is one of the areas where 40k really shines - if you play it with like-minded people the campaigns and stories you can tell would be amazing.
Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her
Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?
It is not a house rule because you aren't changing any rule to begin with, its just changing the victory conditions of any given mission or the amount of points that you will use. You aren't changing anything in the rules since the rules themselves already have provisions both for playing the game when the warcaster die and also how to use two warcasters in the same army. You just have to decide if you wan't to use those rules or not.
We were working from just the rules and lno prior knowledge of the system - so again small numbes of models. No one was showing us the tricks etc of the game but we did figure pretty quickly that the Command Raidus was a workaround the "no pre-measruing rule". I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.
Premeasuring /Control range - right so its officially stated as a game mechanic to allow players to get round the premeasuring restriction (sounds daft to me but ok) - odd how several warmahordes players said they wer uncomfortable with it being used in this way if its a normal and accepted part fo the game? Why is not stated as such in the rules?
A "long way away" is usually 12" or 14" since those are the most common control areas of warcasters and like I said, its designed this way because it gives the players another tactical choice. If the player wants to make extra sure of a range he will give his opponent the information of how far away his warcaster his, making the warcaster, the model that if he looses will cause him to loose the game, that much more vulnerable (not to mention that you'll probably have to move your warcaster from dominating an objective so that he is in range to measure what you wan't so that is yet another choice). Is it worth it? Sometimes yes, other times: no. Tadam! Instant additional choice for the players to make and corresponding tactical depth added to the game.
And I don't understand how you cannot say that this is not explicitly stated in the rules:
Measuring Control Areas You can measure the control area of your models at any time
for any reason. Specifically, you can measure the distance
from the model with the control area to any point within
that control area at any time.
For me, it's quite a few things: really deep back story, nice models, large community, and importantly, I like to collect armies that look like armies, and not small war bands.
For me it is the model/unit count, the tactical diversity something that is essentially not existent in WH/WM where kill their "king">everything else, and unit customization. If another scify game comes up with this im jumping ship.
Lynkon_Lawg wrote: I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.
Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.
I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.
You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.
If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)
Whoa, hold on. I just have to comment on this. "Tight rules" "Balance" do not equal "Homogenized and boring." Each army in Warmachine has a different style and different styles within that style. You might have light fast Cyrx against a heavy slow Menoth list. Completely different armies that play very differently, but are equal in ability to win. I'm serious, go try a game or two and see how it works. My Convergence army may have the same jacks, but plays completely different depending on what caster I chose. Lots of variety.
Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her
Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?
It is not a house rule because you aren't changing any rule to begin with, its just changing the victory conditions of any given mission or the amount of points that you will use. You aren't changing anything in the rules since the rules themselves already have provisions both for playing the game when the warcaster die and also how to use two warcasters in the same army. You just have to decide if you wan't to use those rules or not.
We were working from just the rules and lno prior knowledge of the system - so again small numbes of models. No one was showing us the tricks etc of the game but we did figure pretty quickly that the Command Raidus was a workaround the "no pre-measruing rule". I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.
Premeasuring /Control range - right so its officially stated as a game mechanic to allow players to get round the premeasuring restriction (sounds daft to me but ok) - odd how several warmahordes players said they wer uncomfortable with it being used in this way if its a normal and accepted part fo the game? Why is not stated as such in the rules?
A "long way away" is usually 12" or 14" since those are the most common control areas of warcasters and like I said, its designed this way because it gives the players another tactical choice. If the player wants to make extra sure of a range he will give his opponent the information of how far away his warcaster his, making the warcaster, the model that if he looses will cause him to loose the game, that much more vulnerable (not to mention that you'll probably have to move your warcaster from dominating an objective so that he is in range to measure what you wan't so that is yet another choice). Is it worth it? Sometimes yes, other times: no. Tadam! Instant additional choice for the players to make and corresponding tactical depth added to the game.
And I don't understand how you cannot say that this is not explicitly stated in the rules:
Measuring Control Areas You can measure the control area of your models at any time
for any reason. Specifically, you can measure the distance
from the model with the control area to any point within
that control area at any time.
How could they be any more clear than that?!
They asked us nicely not to debate premeasuring in Warmachine - let respect that, if you like we can discuss my response via PMs
Spoiler:
My point is that the rule books IIRC say "absolutely no pre-measuring" then go and give a mechanism to do it in a nudge /wink sort of way - several people state that pre-measuring will break the game but part of the game includes it - with a potential risk element......at least one WMH player has said it feels a bit like cheating..............
Its like GW saying - guess range weapons (fun idea - terrible in practice) - you have to "guess" how far it is but hey did you know that we sell boards in 2ft squares, well then bobs your uncle and you can get round it, but we didn't say that.
Lastly if you are changing the victory conditions then you are house ruling - that's fine and we often do that - but not usually for our first few games - now we know the game needs adjusting we can look at it.
I had this discussion with a friend a few years back. I play WM/H and he plays 40K. Ultimately it boiled down to a few things that made him stick with 40K:
1) fluff - there's almost 30 years of back store (even though it's constantly changing)
2) already model invested - he'd been playing for years so he had about 6 armies. He was too invested to change gears. The funny thing was that I never asked him to drop 40K, I just asked him to play a game of WM/H with me, and he was resistant.
3) customization - There is no customization in WM/H, just list building. He liked the idea of designing his own captains/generals and making back story. I don’t read fluff, I just throw dice, so this wasn’t as important to me. Now as for model customization, unless you play at tournaments you CAN customize your WM/H models. I have a Khador Battle Carrage that I made out of a leman russ tank. Looks like a old WW1 tank (which would fit the theme and era).
4) design asthetics - he didn't like the steam punk setting. I have to be honest the seeting isn’t high on my list either, but you get use to it.
5) his gaming group only plays 40K - this is the big one. You can like a game all you want, but if you can't get anyone else to play it's all wasted effort
Now since I play both games here's my two cents on the strengths of WM/H:
1) Dynamic game play - I've played games where gunlines are set up, on both sides and no one moves the entire games. That is so BORING. Gunlines are rare in WM/H because the ranges are generally MUCH shorter. this forces players to move models around the board. Plus there are movement mechanics that can trigger additional movement shenanigans.
2) You play through every shot fired, every punch thrown... no short cuts – besides CRA & CMA, you really play through every attack in the game. No picking up loads of dice and rolling. For me this gives a more up close and personal feel to the game play.
3) Movie vs Anime - For me 40K is like watching a war movie. Special effects, explosions, bodies falling down as they run to face the enemy, etc. Because of the gameplay mechanics mentioned above WM/H is like watching an anime, like Dragonball Z, Bleach, etc. Powers are over the top, everyone is moving fast, the action is centered around a few characters.
4) Killing the King is actually pretty damn cool - I have walked away from a few games of 40K with good memories. Most of them associated with something epically going wrong, but succeeding anyway. But I have a lot of truly epic caster kill memories (both kills I made, and kills others have scored against me). And since you play through ever punch, shot, spell you can visualize the action as it’s playing out in your head.
5) perfect list vs Rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock – in 40K you tend to gravitate towards building a perfect list. Meaning you pick through your codex, find the models that work well, and get them for you list. You make have a few variations, but ultimate you have one list that’s your go to list. In WM/H whatever your goto list is, every army has an answer for it. So having multiple list’s with completely different units is common. This opens up a lot of variety of game play.
In the end I don’t want to say one game is better than the other, because that’s situational.
I love both, but 40K usually wins out. The models/armies, the background, and the narrative campaigns are just so much fun... that said, I've not really enjoyed too many of my numerous 40K 'tournament' experiences - but at home or the club nothing beats it.
Infinity also has some beautiful minis (though insanely difficult to assemble grrrr!) and it is also a very fun game to play when you are short on time or space.
I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.
WayneTheGame wrote: I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.
I know right, if only there was a thread about the other alternative games people 'even bother trying'...
WayneTheGame wrote: I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.
I think part of that problem is due to the level of investment many 40K players have in their armies: they don't WANT to play another game because they have so much money, time, blood, sweat, and tears poured into their army (or armies). As a result, they don't want to introduce a new game to their gaming groups for fear that the group will then want to switch whole-hog to the new system, and will typically oppose any attempts to do so. Years ago, when Warmachine first came out, a friend in our group tried to get us to build armies for it. We all gave it a shot and played a couple of games (he had bought enough minis for 3 armies), but it didn't stick, partly (but certainly not entirely) because we all had the mindset of not wanting to have to build and paint another army, learn another set of rules, etc.
Another problem that I experience is, my friends and I only have time for one wargame at best, as work and family tends to leave very little free time available, and I'm sure our gaming group is not that different from thousands of others across the globe in that respect. Since we only have time for one game, it might as well be the game we've all invested in and familiar with.
ClassicCarraway wrote: I think part of that problem is due to the level of investment many 40K players have in their armies: they don't WANT to play another game because they have so much money, time, blood, sweat, and tears poured into their army (or armies). As a result, they don't want to introduce a new game to their gaming groups for fear that the group will then want to switch whole-hog to the new system, and will typically oppose any attempts to do so. Years ago, when Warmachine first came out, a friend in our group tried to get us to build armies for it. We all gave it a shot and played a couple of games (he had bought enough minis for 3 armies), but it didn't stick, partly (but certainly not entirely) because we all had the mindset of not wanting to have to build and paint another army, learn another set of rules, etc.
Another problem that I experience is, my friends and I only have time for one wargame at best, as work and family tends to leave very little free time available, and I'm sure our gaming group is not that different from thousands of others across the globe in that respect. Since we only have time for one game, it might as well be the game we've all invested in and familiar with.
I think you're right; the large investment means that people don't want to feel like they "wasted" that money. Which is kind of funny because as I said I actually do want to play 40k again, but the rules and price point keep me away. I might think otherwise if I had a group that played in a scenario-driven manner, but there's always TFG who has to win the game. Even though 40k has a lot of quality in the figures, it's still not worth the price for me and scouring eBay all the time just feels really lame.
In the midst of the recent arguments for-and-against 40k, I would like to put my experiences and conclusions out there for judgement and comment. The games I will be comparing 40k directly to are all the games I own/play still. These are: Warmachine/Hordes, Field of Glory, and Flames of War.
1) 40k vs Warmachine:
2) 40k vs Field of Glory:
3) 40k vs Flames of War: .
I find that comparisons make people unhappy. So why even entertain the thought? The thing to note in all cases is that if its fun, its fun. Who gives a rip if its MORE fun. If you want to hang out with buddy's and they like Flames of War, play it. If other buddies have more 40K, play that. Really thats it. A game doesn't have to be "better" than another one in order to shut up and throw dice. Just my opinion. I play a lot of games and its not because I like learning a lot of systems...its because if i do, I'll always have friends to play with.
Lynkon_Lawg wrote:I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.
I also love the fact that, while there are some "if you want to win, you play this way" theories, I can attempt all manner of craziness, and if I expend enough energy to refine it, I can make it work. I am putting together an all-infiltration, all-melee 'nid army as we speak. Will it work? Who knows, but I will find a way to win some games, then I will dismantle it and move on to some other looney effort.
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.
I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".
Ok...ramble off
With respect, I disagree. You’re liking 40k for features that all games already possess. its like saying “McDonalds is the best restaurant, because they serve food.” And leaving it at that.
All those varieties of Space Marine are not equal. you wont be equally effective with them. close combat marines in particular pop to mind as an army type that has been severely hurt by the nerf bat. Now, think beyond power armour. How about my tyranids? Or my mates Chaos marines? Are they equally effective? Quite a number of codices are limited to a bare handful of effective builds. No sir, what you have isn’t “sheer variety”. What you have is the “illusion of variety”.
And for what its worth, variety itself isn’t something soley possessed by GW games. I look at my warmachine stuff. I can run heavy cavalry. My faction: khador – with them I can run all cavalry. I can run super heavy infantry. I can run heavy infantry. I’ve got conscript infantry. guerrilla regulars, guerrilla irregulars. I’ve got horse drawn tanks. I can go range heavy, melee heavy, control/denial, play movement shenanigans, slow tarpit, rapid blitzgkrieg etc. Look at menoth. I can run crusader knight heacvy. with ranged elements, skirmisher knights and super heavy knights along with heavy cavalry. Or I can lean towards the armed and fanatical militia elements. bomb throwers, rocket crews, spear armed temple guardians. then I’ve got the converted/impressed native scouts.Simply by changing the warcaster that leads my army gives otherwise identical rosters completely different playstyles.
Similarly – crazy builds exists in places other than 40k. And for what its worth, tight rules, competitive, balanced rules is not anathema to freedom. they are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they are bedfellows. balanced means that you can use those niche off the wall builds without fear of them being pointless. balanced means the game isn’t “solved”, that everything can be viable.
Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.
If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)
With respect, you’re getting things backwards. Stating that everything being equally capable and therefore homogenised and boring is a falsehood that can be very easily demonstrated. Balanced does not mean “the same”. Can we be clear on that please? Nor does it mean “boring”. Or a “single solution”. balanced means there are multiple viable strategies – there is no one build.
mrfantastical wrote: I had this discussion with a friend a few years back. I play WM/H and he plays 40K. Ultimately it boiled down to a few things that made him stick with 40K:
1) fluff - there's almost 30 years of back store (even though it's constantly changing)
2) already model invested - he'd been playing for years so he had about 6 armies. He was too invested to change gears. The funny thing was that I never asked him to drop 40K, I just asked him to play a game of WM/H with me, and he was resistant.
3) customization - There is no customization in WM/H, just list building. He liked the idea of designing his own captains/generals and making back story. I don’t read fluff, I just throw dice, so this wasn’t as important to me. Now as for model customization, unless you play at tournaments you CAN customize your WM/H models. I have a Khador Battle Carrage that I made out of a leman russ tank. Looks like a old WW1 tank (which would fit the theme and era).
4) design asthetics - he didn't like the steam punk setting. I have to be honest the seeting isn’t high on my list either, but you get use to it.
(1) to be fair, a lot of the older stuff is great, but that was what? 20 years ago? THe latest additions to the 40k lore include such standout moments as Kaldor fracking Draigo, codex: comedy robots, necron lords emailing inquisitors and collecting battles. having 30 years of fluff is one thing, recycling it or cannibalising is is another matter.
(3) there is customisation in warmachine. what you are saying is a falsehood. Fine, you cant create your generals, but you are free to design everything else behind your regiment.
Regarding model customisation - again, incorrect. you can customise your models - EVEN IN TOURNAMENTS. rules might be stricter, but its still doable. Case in point - see below. HMS gryphon.
And yes, that "airship" is a 100% approved tournament legal conversion of a khador gun carriage.
there are other famous examples. google " stormhammer:assault on Sul", "RECO stormwall" amongst others.
So please, none of this nonsense that conversions and customisations are illegal in warmachine or that the player base doesnt do them. at the end of the day, the rules might be stricter for conversions (50% of the base model, like for like etc), but conversions happen all the time, and are actively encouraged.
I should have been more clear on the customization taking point. I was referring to unit upgrade customization at first (I.e. Taking melta guns as oppose to flamers ), than switched to model customization. As a mentioned I. The last sentence of point 3) I made a customized Khador Battle Carriage also that looks like a WW1 tank. So I agree model customization is something that can be done in WM/H.
Well with the new unbounded I can play any of my figures without an argument.
All of the other games restrict and you must have certain types of figures. Even if you house rule it certain do not allow certain scenarios as the rules are built around these units.
Before unbound you could always play unbound just needed to make a scenario that made sense.
WayneTheGame wrote: I'm not sure if I would consider it a benefit to be able to basically grab anything you have and throw it on the field.
Because?
This is how we played in the beginning. Only fully painted figures and each week you were allowed to add one new units. Multi player games and each week something new was added. It was great fun on both sides. Mixed up alliances always trying to get the better. Scenarios were written each week that would sometimes limit wheeled movement to roads, warp storms limited psykers, etc.
Never knowing what was going to happen each weekend.
Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Klerych wrote: Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Oh, the greener grass, where to seek you..?
Perfect no, but the differences aren't NEARLY so great. You don't get Penitent Engines and Tripdies level of brokeness at all. It's at a FAR more acceptable level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tiger g wrote: Well with the new unbounded I can play any of my figures without an argument.
All of the other games restrict and you must have certain types of figures. Even if you house rule it certain do not allow certain scenarios as the rules are built around these units.
Before unbound you could always play unbound just needed to make a scenario that made sense.
Warmachine and Infinity have no restrictions like that.
Well I love flames of war and any history game I have played. I hold them to be superior for the most part.
But to me, the worst shows movies I have ever had to watch where anime shows etc. Unfortunately I had to grow up in the 90s when these where popular and I hated it. As a result, I cant stand most of the models for infinity etc. Even the unit names just make me cringe, along with the look etc etc. To me these are more important than rules.
But the reason I like 40k, is that I can take any 28mm humanoid, put him on the right base and use them in my army and people will know what they are. I can get any 28mm vehicle and with some work make them easily usable in my games. In war machine etc I can almost guarantee all the guys at my club will have an issue with me being a non model purist. It seems to just attract those kinds of people. So that has put me off the game forever.
Whereas in 40k I get credit for imagination and creativity, instead of "just use the models and stick to the book".
I like that almost every 40k player I have ever played, will be fine with making a custom scenario, or see my army and not have to constantly ask questions about what things are because I dont use that companies models. Of course this is subject to the people in your area, but so far in my experience the 2 games attract the types of players mentioned above.
So what keeps me in 40k, is simply the fact that I grew up playing it when conversions and homebrew were encouraged and still keep to that today. I have yet to see a Warmachine army that uses anything outside the box or any other model.
So my issues with alternate games can be summed up with, the people in my area ruined most non historic alternatives for me. Plus as games come and go, GW is usually the one thats a constant.
Klerych wrote: Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Oh, the greener grass, where to seek you..?
Perfect no, but the differences aren't NEARLY so great. You don't get Penitent Engines and Tripdies level of brokeness at all. It's at a FAR more acceptable level.
Yeah, I said that it's better in Warmachine, but some people tend to use the game as some kind of perfect holy grail of the balanced games pretending that there's perfect internal and external balance. Funnily enough it's just because the Warmachine community is too small yet to try to field any combination of anything and then find out that some stuff just doesn't work well no matter how hard you try. Some things can get just 'okayish' even after trying to build the list to support them. And then we have the other side such as a Stormwall(best colossal in the game, ridiculous value for the points), Butcher and Doom Reavers and Cryx.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
Klerych wrote: Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Oh, the greener grass, where to seek you..?
Perfect no, but the differences aren't NEARLY so great. You don't get Penitent Engines and Tripdies level of brokeness at all. It's at a FAR more acceptable level.
Yeah, I said that it's better in Warmachine, but some people tend to use the game as some kind of perfect holy grail of the balanced games pretending that there's perfect internal and external balance. Funnily enough it's just because the Warmachine community is too small yet to try to field any combination of anything and then find out that some stuff just doesn't work well no matter how hard you try. Some things can get just 'okayish' even after trying to build the list to support them. And then we have the other side such as a Stormwall(best colossal in the game, ridiculous value for the points), Butcher and Doom Reavers and Cryx.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
I didnt even know you could use guns in that game. All the games i watch are people beating each other up in combat... After a few games I just assumed they where for show or gave combat bonuses.
Klerych wrote: Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Oh, the greener grass, where to seek you..?
Perfect no, but the differences aren't NEARLY so great. You don't get Penitent Engines and Tripdies level of brokeness at all. It's at a FAR more acceptable level.
Yeah, I said that it's better in Warmachine, but some people tend to use the game as some kind of perfect holy grail of the balanced games pretending that there's perfect internal and external balance. Funnily enough it's just because the Warmachine community is too small yet to try to field any combination of anything and then find out that some stuff just doesn't work well no matter how hard you try. Some things can get just 'okayish' even after trying to build the list to support them. And then we have the other side such as a Stormwall(best colossal in the game, ridiculous value for the points), Butcher and Doom Reavers and Cryx.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
I didnt even know you could use guns in that game. All the games i watch are people beating each other up in combat... After a few games I just assumed they where for show or gave combat bonuses.
Well, there's always the Cygnaran Arcane Tempest Gun Mages and Khadoran Widowmakers that can be often seen pretending to shoot before they get tenderized like a slab of meat in melee!
3) 40k vs Flames of War: These two I consider most similar - both have significant balance problems, both are more 'movie-like' and less grounded in reality
I disagree as hard as possible. FoW is infinitely better balanced than 40k. I don't think it's too cinematic either, but I'd be interested in hearing why you'd think so.
Personally, I still play 40k because of Necrons. Still like their fluff (TruCron) and play it just for that. Rules are utter garbage and models lost quite a bit of quality.
Yeah, I said that it's better in Warmachine, but some people tend to use the game as some kind of perfect holy grail of the balanced games pretending that there's perfect internal and external balance. Funnily enough it's just because the Warmachine community is too small yet to try to field any combination of anything and then find out that some stuff just doesn't work well no matter how hard you try. Some things can get just 'okayish' even after trying to build the list to support them. And then we have the other side such as a Stormwall(best colossal in the game, ridiculous value for the points), Butcher and Doom Reavers and Cryx.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
Too small? Disagree. The warmachine community is sizeable. And enough people have been playing the game for long enough that if the game could be so easily solved, it would have been, in any case, in the last year I've seen players win national masters with units regarded as crap. Jamie p took one with kossites, another chap took kommandos etc.
Stormwalls are solid, but can be dealt with. I've one-rounded one with a single stalker. Too powerful? No.
Butcher? He's reignited khador like nothing before, but he is far from game breaking. One shot from eiryss and he's buggered. Anything that messes with spells (like say, all of menoth) for example makes him cry.
Doom reavers? Def13 arm14. I love them, I field 48 of them in a mad dogs of war theme list. But they are the very definition of glass cannon. Drop difficult terrain on them. Or shoot them. They're paper thin.
Cryx? Pfft. Cryx are no more dangerous than any other faction. They're hasty to noobs, that's it.
All melee? All melee can work, but has some severe match up issues. Shooting is simply too useful to ignore entirely. I never leave home without widow makers or riflemen for example. Combined arms is where it's at.
Mythra wrote: Everyone who had played Infinity recommends it to me but I have way a lot invested into to 40k and am not getting into another game.
I bet Infinity is a good system b/c I have never seen anyone knock it. It just doesn't have the number of players 40k does.
So b/c of number of players and what I have invested into 40k I am staying 40k.
I tried Warmachine and 40k when I was 1st deciding which game to get into and i didn't like how useless some of the Jack Controllers were and some were just OP. I didn't like the damage system on Jacks either.
You haven't seen the number of 40 k players dropping? There isn't one person left in my area. My guess that you will have to switch games if you hope to get a table top game in. GW will suck and continue to suck so long as Jervis Jhonson is head of the rules department.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klerych wrote: Meh. Warmachine's internal balance, while better than in 40k, is not perfect either. There are lots of choices that need whole list to be tailored to support them to be "okayish SLASH meh, might work" and every serious WarmaHordes player will tell you that some of the available units are a huge waste of time and a noobish mistake to take them.
Oh, the greener grass, where to seek you..?
Such a GW apologist. You are missing the point. Warmahordes has the elements of a STRATEGY game. 40k does not. Flip a card, you win, that is 40 k. Strategy and tactics carry the day that's Warmahordes. That is the point.
Deadnight wrote: All melee? All melee can work, but has some severe match up issues. Shooting is simply too useful to ignore entirely. I never leave home without widow makers or riflemen for example. Combined arms is where it's at.
Yeah, but with 75% being melee and 25% in shooting. x) In most extreme cases of Cygnar it can be 60:40 ratio, but only if your melee units also can put out a shot or two before the melee begins like Stormblade infantry, Stormclad and.. well, I guess anything with "Storm" in it's name. But yeah, you have to admit that shooting, while handy, is a -very- minor thing in Warmachine and the system is almost all about clashing iron behemoths and infantry with ridiculously designed melee weapons*. ,)
Deadnight wrote: All melee? All melee can work, but has some severe match up issues. Shooting is simply too useful to ignore entirely. I never leave home without widow makers or riflemen for example. Combined arms is where it's at.
Yeah, but with 75% being melee and 25% in shooting. x) In most extreme cases of Cygnar it can be 60:40 ratio, but only if your melee units also can put out a shot or two before the melee begins like Stormblade infantry, Stormclad and.. well, I guess anything with "Storm" in it's name. But yeah, you have to admit that shooting, while handy, is a -very- minor thing in Warmachine and the system is almost all about clashing iron behemoths and infantry with ridiculously designed melee weapons*. ,)
The most used champ in the game, Eyris (3 versions of her), is all about shooting.
Yeah, but with 75% being melee and 25% in shooting. x) In most extreme cases of Cygnar it can be 60:40 ratio, but only if your melee units also can put out a shot or two before the melee begins like Stormblade infantry, Stormclad and.. well, I guess anything with "Storm" in it's name. But yeah, you have to admit that shooting, while handy, is a -very- minor thing in Warmachine and the system is almost all about clashing iron behemoths and infantry with ridiculously designed melee weapons*. ,)
Not in the slightest. 6pts for widowmakers and the wm solo, and 10pts for the winter guard riflemen with joe. They're putting out a hell of a lot of control. With the behemoth in tow, that's 29pts of my list that has a solid ranged game. Not even mentioning eiryss. And this is with khador - a brutal melee focused powerhouse! Those shots are extremely accurate, and capable of shredding most infantry in the game at very long ranges. They're my alpha strikers of choice and are often the reason why I get the drop on my opponent as they shred out all his lead elements before my iron fangs move to contest the zones. Nyss hunters are a favourite unit of mine, hunter, decent range and cra means you have no place to hide. As a 'very minor' thing you are certainly incorrect. It's a vital strategic asset. You can't use it for massive damage output, but those pow10s get the grunts well enough to pay for their keep. Then again, Ive had blood trackers open up warbeasts with their weapon master spears. I've even had a caster kill to a rifleman! Plus they're engaging in the game, and actively killing stuff a turn earlier than melee infantry. That ups their worth.
In any case, when you factor in things like difficult terrain, or other spells/feats that bugger movement (epic Denny for example) - melee is pointless. She roots you in place. Can't move, can't move up to hit stuff. Shooting is still an option however. I've lost games for the precise reason that I brought no ranged elements to back up my melee units.
I often take the behemoth, or black Ivan and use them as primarily range support units rather than beat sticks. That only comes in late game.
And of course - Caine and eiryss. or rayvn and her snipe feat go trick. or the retribution Mage hunter strike force. tell them they're only a minor part of the game!
'All ranged' is heavily discouraged by steamroller. Plus gunlines are bloody boring, and pp wanted to encourage a more aggresive game. But all melee is certainly not the Game winning supernova you claim it to be all on its one. It's as limited in its own way.
The only reason I've stuck with 40K for so long is that it is still the only game that lets you field vehicles in the scale that they currently are. 1/32 - 1/64 The kid in my still likes pushing them around the table going verum veroom and pew pew.
However, that is the only point where I feel that 40K has any edge over pretty much every other game.
Jayden63 wrote: The only reason I've stuck with 40K for so long is that it is still the only game that lets you field vehicles in the scale that they currently are. 1/32 - 1/64 The kid in my still likes pushing them around the table going verum veroom and pew pew.
However, that is the only point where I feel that 40K has any edge over pretty much every other game.
Jayden63 wrote: The only reason I've stuck with 40K for so long is that it is still the only game that lets you field vehicles in the scale that they currently are. 1/32 - 1/64 The kid in my still likes pushing them around the table going verum veroom and pew pew.
However, that is the only point where I feel that 40K has any edge over pretty much every other game.
Don't need an edge. Just needs to be awesome.
Exhaled because I fully agree with this point of view.
Yeah, but with 75% being melee and 25% in shooting. x) In most extreme cases of Cygnar it can be 60:40 ratio, but only if your melee units also can put out a shot or two before the melee begins like Stormblade infantry, Stormclad and.. well, I guess anything with "Storm" in it's name. But yeah, you have to admit that shooting, while handy, is a -very- minor thing in Warmachine and the system is almost all about clashing iron behemoths and infantry with ridiculously designed melee weapons*. ,)
Not in the slightest. 6pts for widowmakers and the wm solo, and 10pts for the winter guard riflemen with joe. They're putting out a hell of a lot of control. With the behemoth in tow, that's 29pts of my list that has a solid ranged game. Not even mentioning eiryss. And this is with khador - a brutal melee focused powerhouse! Those shots are extremely accurate, and capable of shredding most infantry in the game at very long ranges. They're my alpha strikers of choice and are often the reason why I get the drop on my opponent as they shred out all his lead elements before my iron fangs move to contest the zones. Nyss hunters are a favourite unit of mine, hunter, decent range and cra means you have no place to hide. As a 'very minor' thing you are certainly incorrect. It's a vital strategic asset. You can't use it for massive damage output, but those pow10s get the grunts well enough to pay for their keep. Then again, Ive had blood trackers open up warbeasts with their weapon master spears. I've even had a caster kill to a rifleman! Plus they're engaging in the game, and actively killing stuff a turn earlier than melee infantry. That ups their worth.
In any case, when you factor in things like difficult terrain, or other spells/feats that bugger movement (epic Denny for example) - melee is pointless. She roots you in place. Can't move, can't move up to hit stuff. Shooting is still an option however. I've lost games for the precise reason that I brought no ranged elements to back up my melee units.
I often take the behemoth, or black Ivan and use them as primarily range support units rather than beat sticks. That only comes in late game.
And of course - Caine and eiryss. or rayvn and her snipe feat go trick. or the retribution Mage hunter strike force. tell them they're only a minor part of the game!
'All ranged' is heavily discouraged by steamroller. Plus gunlines are bloody boring, and pp wanted to encourage a more aggresive game. But all melee is certainly not the Game winning supernova you claim it to be all on its one. It's as limited in its own way.
Sure you will see skew lists now and then and some of them will do exceedingly well but most of the time you will see balance. I often run a unit of Widowmakers and Widow Solo for specialist removal which with snipe they do extremely well. You then have more generic line infantry like Winterguard who are mediocre but fill many intermediate rolls like attrition and tar pit.
Many games are more of a combined arms strategy where shooty guys soften and spot remove while getting in position with melee and jacks to plug holes and get into spots where they need to survive.
I find I rarely get any of this in 40. Most of the games are gun lines and vehicle spam onto objectives and anchor.
The latest grand tournament for Warmachine, Convergence of Cyriss came in second and they're a new faction with great versatility. It's my faction and it has a lot of shooting. A lot.
Jayden63 wrote: The only reason I've stuck with 40K for so long is that it is still the only game that lets you field vehicles in the scale that they currently are. 1/32 - 1/64 The kid in my still likes pushing them around the table going verum veroom and pew pew.
However, that is the only point where I feel that 40K has any edge over pretty much every other game.
Don't need an edge. Just needs to be awesome.
Exhaled because I fully agree with this point of view.
Btw Jancoran, like your blog too. Great stuff!
Well thank you sir. Join up. There's more where that came from!
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
Cygnar just won the Iron Gauntlet world finals with a list composed entirely by ranged units... You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
Cygnar just won the Iron Gauntlet world finals with a list composed entirely by ranged units... You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
To be fair, he had Boomies. While I agree with your points about how shooting is important, it's a bit disingenuous calling them a ranged unit. Yeah, they have a ranged weapon, but it isn't why you take them in the least.
Siege - A shooting caster who makes other people's damage more powerful (usually used to shoot someone to death) Stormwall - Colossal with crazy good ranged capabilities for it's points. It's no slouch in melee, but especially with Siege it brings the ranged pain Squire - Allows extra focus, doesn't attack, so not really relevant Reinholdt - Has 3 abilities, but really is used for 1 more than the others in 90%+ of the lists hes taken in. That ability is give an extra shot. Journeyman - Usually described as 'Arcane Shield on a stick, with a boostable hand cannon if he needs to get dirty'. Never mentions his sword, showing that this unit usually sees combat from range Eiryss 2 - As mentioned, snipey solo Stormsmith - Not technically a ranged attack, but he throws lightning around, so basically ranged Arcane Tempest Gun Mages & UA - Magical pistoleers Black 13th - More magical pistoleers Rangers - Sneaky guys with rifles who make everyone else shoot better Boomhowlers - Trolls who, while they technically have guns, are more often used as a tarpit to slow the enemy down, so you can shoot them more!
So yeah, as Phantom said, it was a veeeery ranged heavy list that took it.
Not to mention that any even remote idea of a shooty army is going to be laughed at while a 100% melee list(like reavers) is -very viable-. Warmachine discourages shooting more than 40k discourages melee in my opinion.
Cygnar just won the Iron Gauntlet world finals with a list composed entirely by ranged units... You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
I thought he had Boomies? I must be misremembering, my bad. If I'm not, it's a bit disingenuous calling them a ranged unit. Yeah, they have a ranged weapon, but it isn't why you take them in the least.
Boomies in his list filled the dual role of meat shield and ranged attack. He was using them with Jonas Murdoch making them faction and giving them the ranger bonus because of it. In that situation, their ranged attacks have a much larger impact than they would normally have.
Moving on, if it wasn't for the price point I think I'd actually still play 40k; I really do want to try out Tau finally (I've been meaning to try them since they first came out!). I do wish GW would focus on releasing campaigns or whatever, actually show us *how* to forge the narrative in our games, because I don't think random charts do it.
You still can start tau without paying gw. Of the combined 4000 points of 40k I have, I bought only 20 models of them from gw. The rest were from the 2nd hand market at a much cheaper price.
WayneTheGame wrote: Moving on, if it wasn't for the price point I think I'd actually still play 40k; I really do want to try out Tau finally (I've been meaning to try them since they first came out!). I do wish GW would focus on releasing campaigns or whatever, actually show us *how* to forge the narrative in our games, because I don't think random charts do it.
Aye I think GW have become wedded to the idea that every single rules publication needs to actively sell models. There's nothing wrong with those that do, but really there's no reason we couldn't get mission/campaign rulebooks. Hell it'd be the easiest thing in the world to do a campaign rulebook - your warlord gains 5xp per battle (with options/strategies for generating more), here is a list of equipment he can buy with XP. It would take bugger all of the designers' time.
Even if it didn't have XP, just something to actually make a "narrative" out of games. Like, my FLGS only has pickup games and the occasional tournament, maybe a league once in a blue moon. But it's still all random games, there's no point other than having a game. Which I guess is on the players but coming up with a campaign setting is hard, so having some official guidance would work wonders.
Glad to be proven otherwise, but it really looks like his case is one of the rather few and melee is still vastly dominant, although I'm really happy to hear that because I play Siege and was always looking for a nice ranged list.
But yeah, let's not talk about Warmachine here. I think 40k is still very solid in it's own niche as no other game plays like it, no other game has such fluff and no other game has such models. It's just that the outbreak of other games steals some players as they seem to find mechanics/fluff/ideas that they enjoy the most and of course the biggest one is going to lose the most players due to it's community's size.
tiger g wrote: So can you play WMH without a caster or jack
You cannot play without a caster since that's your "King" and your caster GIVES you free points to be spent on a Warjack. But you don't have to take Warjack, but it's a waste of free points.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
For me it's the background. Someone can argue that Warmachine or Infinity are better games until they're blue in the face, but I like 40K because I like the background. It has to be something I like in order to get me to play something else. BattleTech does that by being completely different to 40K, and the only other one in recent memory that piqued my interest was AT-43, but that died before it got going.
tiger g wrote: So can you play WMH without a caster or jack
You cannot play without a caster since that's your "King" and your caster GIVES you free points to be spent on a Warjack. But you don't have to take Warjack, but it's a waste of free points.
You actually have to take at least a warjack since you can't play with less than 2 points below the agreed points limit and every warcaster gives you at least 3 free points.
But since you can't play 40k without a HQ and troops or WHFB without a general and core troops, or Infinity without a lieutenant, or Malifaux without a master, or FoW without a HQ and Combat platoons, etc, etc, I fail to see the relevance of this question when distinguishing between games...
I see 40k as less of a game and more of a marketing tool. It doesn't really have to truly work reliably as a game because GW just really needs it to be an idea they can use to sell people an army worth of miniatures. Maybe they'll play, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll discover girls and beer and quit, but all GW cares about is whether or not they got the money first. And as much of it as possible before a given person quits.
It's also a game for 14 year olds rather than adults. Take a look at what they've done with the fiction and then compare that to fiction from when the game started. Or to FFG's RPG books. 40k is like a 14 year old boy's power fantasy. Some people are age regressed, I guess.
frozenwastes wrote: It's also a game for 14 year olds rather than adults. Take a look at what they've done with the fiction and then compare that to fiction from when the game started. Or to FFG's RPG books. 40k is like a 14 year old boy's power fantasy. Some people are age regressed, I guess.
Just saying: "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
The Forge World books do have campaign scenarios in them. It's not really a linked campaign system as much as it's a series of key battles you can re-enact though. The earlier edition rulebooks all had campaign systems in them. 3rd through 5th all did anyway. That really is something that GW have fallen flat on lately in my opinion. The funny part is the 3rd edition book actually had a pretty complicated system where you would track experience points per unit, and they steadily got less and less complicated over time. I bet you can get your hands on previous edition rulebooks for not much money if you want some advise for 40k campaigns. I think the 4th edition rulebook might be the best one in that regard since it provides a nice overview of different kinds of campaign you can run. map campaigns, node campaigns, node map campaigns, GMd campaigns...
frozenwastes wrote: It's also a game for 14 year olds rather than adults. Take a look at what they've done with the fiction and then compare that to fiction from when the game started. Or to FFG's RPG books. 40k is like a 14 year old boy's power fantasy. Some people are age regressed, I guess.
Just saying: "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
Oh, I'm not talking about fearing being seen as being childish. Or even fear of childishness. I'm talking about the content being fundamentally different. It's okay to like things made for 14 year old boys. I just happen to think that there's more to a book store than it's young adult section. 40k is like the young adult section in the book store if it pretended there were no other sections. A lot of what people don't like about it stems from the fact that they've lost site of the target demographic and haven't realized that they are not GW's target. So there's a mismatch of expectations. For many though, they can get right into the underdeveloped mind set and enjoy it uncritically. Even defend it as being actually good game design. I think we know though, that it's a marketing tool to sell 14 year olds as many miniatures as possible.
Oh, I'm not talking about fearing being seen as being childish. Or even fear of childishness. I'm talking about the content being fundamentally different. It's okay to like things made for 14 year old boys. I just happen to think that there's more to a book store than it's young adult section. 40k is like the young adult section in the book store if it pretended there were no other sections. A lot of what people don't like about it stems from the fact that they've lost site of the target demographic and haven't realized that they are not GW's target. So there's a mismatch of expectations. For many though, they can get right into the underdeveloped mind set and enjoy it uncritically. Even defend it as being actually good game design. I think we know though, that it's a marketing tool to sell 14 year olds as many miniatures as possible.
Pretty much this.
There is an interview out there somewhere with the original designers where they explained 'why' they designed the game of 40k the way they did. And yes, it's to appeal to the mindset of young adults and teenagers. Quite an interesting read, actually.
(It was on warseer - seems to have gone now! Anyone here have the link?)
It's true for the lore too. I don't like a lot of the current fiction. I think it's silly. Is it? Well, yes and no. Even going back to the hallowed fluff of second ed "when the fluff was good" didn't convince me (yes, I have the fluff bible). And I thought it was great then. Not so much now! And certainly, fifteen year old deadnight thought it was great.Fifteen year old deadnight would probably quite enjoy the current fluff. Late-twenties deadnight? Yeah, sorry. He's older. He likes different things. He has different expectations. He wants things that 40k as a setting doesn't offer. So yeah, I go to things that interest me now.
Then again, when you look at the stuff you loved as a kid, youll realise a lot of it sucks. I used to love the tintin cartoons. Watched them in a fig of nostalgia after the recent movie. Boy, was I disappointed - it did not age well!
Planetary Empires, to my continued surprise, is still actually available from the website.
A couple of lads at my local club are getting their heads together about employing it to allow all the random weekly games that occur to have some sort of narrative context.
That's something which definitely helps bring a story to your gaming.
azreal13 wrote: Planetary Empires, to my continued surprise, is still actually available from the website.
A couple of lads at my local club are getting their heads together about employing it to allow all the random weekly games that occur to have some sort of narrative context.
That's something which definitely helps bring a story to your gaming.
This is the kind of thing I'd like, but from what I recall of PE it was too much like the old 5th/6th edition WHFB map campaign, where you increase your force by capturing things but they gave tiny points values. Could be wrong though.
In any event, that's the kind of product I want to see GW make. I could get behind various campaigns that allowed for all armies (instead of something like Damocles that's Imperium vs. Tau or Badab War that's Marine v. Marine) with some outlines of how to make it work, without requiring a GM or third party arbiter. That was part of my issue with Crusade of Fire - it basically came out and said it needed a GM, and had nonsense like like that battle with daemons randomly appearing. Take that out, remove dependencies on terrain (e.g. no Zone Mortalis) and have something that is flexible enough to serve as a baseline campaign!
They're not playing it straight out of the box, So anything like that will likely be altered.
TBH, it doesn't really matter about stuff like that with a product like this anyway, as, unlike the core game, if you're using it, you're already demonstrating a desire and willingness. To alter the game to better suit yourself, so if PE isn't perfect, it is decidedly less of a big deal than some of the gaping issues in the core game.
Planetary Empires is in itself a good fun product as a 3D terrain hex map. As a narrative campaign system it is a small pile of poop.
What the rules amount to is both players have some matchsticks. You play a battle and the winner gets a die roll to take one of the loser's matchsticks. Then play another battle. Keep playing battles until someone has all the matchsticks. (There are a couple of matchstick grabbing die roll modifiers.)
It could have been so much more, with a deep involving narrative campaign system, but that would have taken a designer a morning to write out.
Kilkrazy wrote: Planetary Empires is in itself a good fun product as a 3D terrain hex map. As a narrative campaign system it is a small pile of poop.
What the rules amount to is both players have some matchsticks. You play a battle and the winner gets a die roll to take one of the loser's matchsticks. Then play another battle. Keep playing battles until someone has all the matchsticks. (There are a couple of matchstick grabbing die roll modifiers.)
It could have been so much more, with a deep involving narrative campaign system, but that would have taken a designer a morning to write out.
Would be nice, but I think that if they turned it into narrative campaign that can work with all the armies, it'd be too boring. Today I got the newsletter mail with that Astra Militarum vs Orks narrative campaign book and it's cool, but only because it has fluff behind both sides. You can't really play it using another army and have the same quality of narrative and making a campaign that has ALL the available factions in it.. that'd be either a horrible mess or something very shallow that wouldn't satisfy anyone. So.. a sandbox frame such as Planetary Empires or a series of two to four faction small narrative campaigns such as the Sanctus Reach, either way people are going to whine, unfortunately.
When I say a campaign system, I mean a set of rules to cover operational movement and supply, reinforcements and so on. Thus giving meaning to the map. In the Planetary Empires rules, the map is literally nothing except a nice looking pin board to record how many flags your side has planted.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I say a campaign system, I mean a set of rules to cover operational movement and supply, reinforcements and so on. Thus giving meaning to the map. In the Planetary Empires rules, the map is literally nothing except a nice looking pin board to record how many flags your side has planted.
I like what they're doing with the different campaign books, just not that they tend to be for two armies only. Also it smells of an ulterior motive, that they somehow expect people to buy the campaign book and then buy the two armies at a substantial points to fight the campaign. Although to be fair that's nothing new, I remember the old WHFB campaign packs (Grudge of Drong, Tears of Isha, Circle of Blood) that were the same thing (albeit much cheaper).
I like 40k for it's background and models. I would love random charges if it was "roll a d6 and add that to your move", so you at least be guaranteed more than 6" on the charge. My main problem with 40k is trying to figure out where all the rules are. I'm constantly flipping around, and everyone else seems to have it all memorized.
As far as WM/H: the models are RELATIVELY BALANCED by point cost. If you are good at the game, you can take the worst list and still beat the netlists (let's say all greylords vs double stormwall). The ickiness comes from people online constantly going "don't take that, noob" instead of letting people learn their own way. I've never been "tabled" in WM/H, but I certainly lose every time in 40k (cuz I don't have it down yet).
I really like this thread, and I'm sorry for pulling it a bit OT again, but I think it's important to mention what I really do love about 40k: my LGS plays it, and I like gaming. Throw tons of dice and move plastic mans around on a table of alien ruins. Bad A.
WMH is more mechanical. The game is much more structured and rigid than 40k.
WMH is great for those who want to test/prove their mettle against other people. And those who want to spend who-knows-how-long studying the game and making each choice optimal. Kind of like the people who would play competitive chess.
40k is a lost more free-form. Many more options, and less effort is put into making them all have a place and time where they're optimal. Far more freedom to use alternate models or mod the 'official' ones. Most models even come with extra options in-box that don't even effect the game. Pointless to many who view tabletop wargaming as purely an intellectual challenge, but they make the hobby for other gamers. Kind of like the people who would get together and throw around a frizbee with no league or goal, just to have fun.
40k is much maligned for seeing itself as a beer & pretzels game, but I think that is one of it's strongest points, for me. However, others do prefer less of that in their game. Fortunately, not everyone need prefer the same game. And most metas can support at least 2 games.
No one opinion is "right" here. Tabletop gaming is healthiest when there is a wide array of options. I think WMH being an option makes 40k better, personally. It builds the hobby, even if I don't play it.
As a secondary issue, all forces in WMH are led by a Named character. I'm not fielding "my warcaster", I'm fielding 'Kraye'. In 40k, there are special characters, but most armies are led by "your leader". My forces are led by my Captain Andicar of Wings of Dawn 7th company (not entirely codex-compliant - compannies 2-8 are battle companies). I can completely make up engagements and charecters. In WMH, Kraye is doing something specific, fighting a specific enemy in a specific place. Captain Andicar was last seen on Kromir VII, avenging his fallen brethren from the failed Kantilus IV campaign. Because he's mine, I can make that stuff up, and it can lead to significant investment. Lots of fun for me, but not necessarily you.
I do see WMH more balanced than 40k. But balance isn't everything. And in a good meta that can be taken into account (either by knowing who you're facing, and list-building with that in mind, or by doing 2v2s or FFAs). But at the end of the day, that's not what I'm looking for in a tabletop.
D&D4 was more balanced than 3.5. But many people (not all) prefered 3.5 (and moved on to Pathfinder, or still play 3.5). More balanced doesn't always mean a better game for everybody. It is absolutely key for some, yes, but not everybody wants the same thing out of this hobby.
Oh, and as for the WMH Melee vs Ranged argument, I always felt like Cygnar was always paying for the mistake of bringing guns to a knife fight. I do miss Kraye though. I might need to play another game or two of WMH just to field him...
We played an awesome game of 40k - Appocalypse lite yesterday which had everything I liked about 40k based vaguley on the last stand scenario from the Raid on Kastrol Imperial Armour book
fun background, loads of destruction - often in slightly mad ways - Lifta Droppa wagon - people getting into their roles as commanders:
We had an Elysian Drop troop commander who was all into fire zone and cotnrol and working stuff out - myself and the other Ork Boss figured he was like one of our Gretchin Runt telling the Marine boyz what was clever but needing a slap to keep him in line.
The marine commander wanted to get stuck in and take heads until extracted, the Guard - to survive.
The Orks wanted to get to grips with the Humiez but keeping a wary eye on the other Orks to make sure they did come into out patch (we attacked from opposite ends of the table)
Many in game desciions on both sides were based on what was fun or what we figured the commanders would do - so the lifta droppa gunner was way too busy flinging rhinos about to concetrate on the loads of points in one vanguard/Captain squad.
Trying for 12" charges - cos thats where the 'ard boyz were and the Boss wanted to get stuck in.....
Marines slaightered though various mobs in h-t-h
Otherwise I agree completely with this:
WMH is more mechanical. The game is much more structured and rigid than 40k.
WMH is great for those who want to test/prove their mettle against other people. And those who want to spend who-knows-how-long studying the game and making each choice optimal. Kind of like the people who would play competitive chess.
tiger g wrote: So can you play WMH without a caster or jack
You cannot play without a caster since that's your "King" and your caster GIVES you free points to be spent on a Warjack. But you don't have to take Warjack, but it's a waste of free points.
You actually have to take at least a warjack since you can't play with less than 2 points below the agreed points limit and every warcaster gives you at least 3 free points.
But since you can't play 40k without a HQ and troops or WHFB without a general and core troops, or Infinity without a lieutenant, or Malifaux without a master, or FoW without a HQ and Combat platoons, etc, etc, I fail to see the relevance of this question when distinguishing between games...
The relavence is in 40 k you can play without hq. (unbound) and the rules work without them. All the other games you need a special name character. In 40 k I can use a grot as my leader, not the most effective but you can play it. No war jack rules do not work in WMH .
tiger g wrote: So can you play WMH without a caster or jack
You cannot play without a caster since that's your "King" and your caster GIVES you free points to be spent on a Warjack. But you don't have to take Warjack, but it's a waste of free points.
You actually have to take at least a warjack since you can't play with less than 2 points below the agreed points limit and every warcaster gives you at least 3 free points.
But since you can't play 40k without a HQ and troops or WHFB without a general and core troops, or Infinity without a lieutenant, or Malifaux without a master, or FoW without a HQ and Combat platoons, etc, etc, I fail to see the relevance of this question when distinguishing between games...
The relavence is in 40 k you can play without hq. (unbound) and the rules work without them. All the other games you need a special name character. In 40 k I can use a grot as my leader, not the most effective but you can play it. No war jack rules do not work in WMH .
And Unbound is a new thing, and wasn't relevant until a month or two ago, and isn't that realistic anyways. So I don't think that comparison is really viable. Besides, WMH is built around warcasters fighting each other, and warcasters use warjacks, so it wouldn't make sense not to take any since if you didn't have warjacks, you wouldn't need a warcaster in the first place; there's actually a lot of conflicts in the WMH fluff that don't involve warcasters, just the game doesn't focus on that.
To address an earlier point, one thing that keeps me wanting to dabble in 40k again is the fact that it doesn't feel as metagamey; I mean, I know that list building and the like is a thing, but it doesn't seem anywhere near on the level that other games (specifically WMH) is. Plus, games feel overall less mechanical and more, for lack of a better word, fun. When I play WMH I agonize over choices like I'm playing chess, trying to outwit my opponent and second guess their moves. When I played 40k it was a lot more spontaneous and "Eh this might not work, but it feels like the right thing to do" which is something I would never, ever, ever do in WMH because it's so dangerous.
tiger g wrote: So can you play WMH without a caster or jack
You cannot play without a caster since that's your "King" and your caster GIVES you free points to be spent on a Warjack. But you don't have to take Warjack, but it's a waste of free points.
You actually have to take at least a warjack since you can't play with less than 2 points below the agreed points limit and every warcaster gives you at least 3 free points.
But since you can't play 40k without a HQ and troops or WHFB without a general and core troops, or Infinity without a lieutenant, or Malifaux without a master, or FoW without a HQ and Combat platoons, etc, etc, I fail to see the relevance of this question when distinguishing between games...
The relavence is in 40 k you can play without hq. (unbound) and the rules work without them. All the other games you need a special name character. In 40 k I can use a grot as my leader, not the most effective but you can play it.
If I wan't to ignore the rules (which is basically what unbound does in 40k), then I can also play perfectly well without a warcaster in WMH, or without any sort of leader in any of those other games that I mentioned.
Saying that you can ignore the rules isn't really a good selling point when you are trying to praise those same rules.
I don't even know what you mean with this?! Are you claiming that you can't play WMH without Warjacks? Or that you can't use Warjacks without Warcasters? Because you would be wrong on both accounts...
PhantomViper wrote: I don't even know what you mean with this?! Are you claiming that you can't play WMH without Warjacks? Or that you can't use Warjacks without Warcasters? Because you would be wrong on both accounts...
I think they mean that you need to take at least 1 Warjack for a Warcaster (at least I'm pretty sure you do) since they need to have a Battlegroup.
PhantomViper wrote: I don't even know what you mean with this?! Are you claiming that you can't play WMH without Warjacks? Or that you can't use Warjacks without Warcasters? Because you would be wrong on both accounts...
I think they mean that you need to take at least 1 Warjack for a Warcaster (at least I'm pretty sure you do) since they need to have a Battlegroup.
after checking the rulebook: you don't have to take one at all, but having one does help.
On topic:
This thread is a good one as it makes us all think as to our motivations behind the games we play so i'll chuck my hat into the ring.
The good old 40k:
+ The models still have the rule of cool about them despite the *ahem* prices
+ The background is still the best of any game no matter what you look at you can always find some cheeky way they've nicked things from real life/history.
In this instance 40k is still streets ahead, but the "cuckoo" way GW are doing things means it gets the apathy vote. The rules could actually be quite competent provided they were given a good clean up to try and avoid those nasty loopholes/grey areas that tend to result in "wtf" moments. The unbound thing was crazy, nobody i know actually wanted it and its been defacto banned by mutual agreement, a few experiments are planned i think...
The much talked about competition warmahordes:
+ games run darn smoothly every time, no hitches other than player mistakes/errors (beware that can cost you games...)
+ The caster/warlock & focus/fury mechanics. Very innovative and refeshing plus at it simplest you only need to buy a new caster and you have a different way of playing your army.
+ many different factions to choose from. They are all very different from each other.
+ The page 5 declaration: creates a general level playing field of what to expect from the game, it cuts out many of the 40k "waac" of "fluff bunny" issues.
+ The overall "balance" feels much better: sure you can take the cheese, filth or whatever you call it, however it does not mean that all the armies you see look the same far from it. Oddball builds can screw things up big time when they are not expected.
Now for a few cons as it were:
- The game is all about combs/sequencing things correctly to get the best out of them. Due to that fact each unit activates does its actions then you move on, can result in much fustration at first. That is until you figure out how to do it yourself then things get messy.
- Hardcounters do exist, they are there if you bother to look and are a nasty suprise but again things can be turned on their heads...
- The learning curve is darn steep, if you take the plunge be prepeared to be battered badly. The game does not go into easy mode.
- the game runs best at 50pts any lower and in my opinion some forces are hit hard due to the fact thay cannot take the units they "need" to make things work properly
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Infinity:i like the game system but no one plays near me. I would play this in addition to 40k/fantasy but it could not be my sole game due to the smaller scale. (just a squad of guys)
FoW - looks ok but I don't know anyone who plays. again could never be a replacement but i wouldn't mind putting together an army. but there are plenty of WW2 board games I could play for cheaper.
That's all I can list as I have never seen anyone else play anything else.
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Have to make one correction here.
Model price per model price: WM/H is cheaper than GW outside if a few exceptions.
Box unit per box unit price: WM/H is greatly cheaper then GW (I.e. Winter guard infantry $50, space marine tactical squad $45, but you will need multiple tactical squads where you only need 1 maybe 2 winter guard units).
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Have to make one correction here.
Model price per model price: WM/H is cheaper than GW outside if a few exceptions.
Box unit per box unit price: WM/H is greatly cheaper then GW (I.e. Winter guard infantry $50, space marine tactical squad $45, but you will need multiple tactical squads where you only need 1 maybe 2 winter guard units).
Looking on the site I see boxes listed at $50 for 4-5 guys. So that's $10 per model. Definitely close enough to GW prices to me.
The Winter Guard Infantry box you listed is $5 more - so it is more expensive. The only costs savings is you don't need as many models. If I played smaller scale 40K games I could get the same effect.
I've read the rules for Warmachine and Flames of war. The downers which were barriers for me to start were
Warmachine: 40k has allies and flyers which makes the game scenery varied. I believe Hordes may have flyers? Haven't seen it yet or if there is, it's rare. Cyriss has skimmer types more than anything. Even the Clockwork Angels. I'm referring to the 40k idea of air support.
Flames of War: I can play any army versus any army in 40k, as any back story can be used. The much talked about Forge the narrative? But for FoW, I have to limit myself to the time period that the gaming group of the local scene plays. If there are few players, the choice of what army I can start, is somewhat restricted.
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Have to make one correction here.
Model price per model price: WM/H is cheaper than GW outside if a few exceptions.
Box unit per box unit price: WM/H is greatly cheaper then GW (I.e. Winter guard infantry $50, space marine tactical squad $45, but you will need multiple tactical squads where you only need 1 maybe 2 winter guard units).
Looking on the site I see boxes listed at $50 for 4-5 guys. So that's $10 per model. Definitely close enough to GW prices to me.
The Winter Guard Infantry box you listed is $5 more - so it is more expensive. The only costs savings is you don't need as many models. If I played smaller scale 40K games I could get the same effect.
I could go over model by model and compare prices which would be silly, or I can just point to this.... It's far cheaper to get going in warmachine.
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Have to make one correction here.
Model price per model price: WM/H is cheaper than GW outside if a few exceptions.
Box unit per box unit price: WM/H is greatly cheaper then GW (I.e. Winter guard infantry $50, space marine tactical squad $45, but you will need multiple tactical squads where you only need 1 maybe 2 winter guard units).
Looking on the site I see boxes listed at $50 for 4-5 guys. So that's $10 per model. Definitely close enough to GW prices to me.
The Winter Guard Infantry box you listed is $5 more - so it is more expensive. The only costs savings is you don't need as many models. If I played smaller scale 40K games I could get the same effect.
I could go over model by model and compare prices which would be silly, or I can just point to this.... It's far cheaper to get going in warmachine.
And this was 3 years ago, and GW prices have gone up since this article while Privateer Press price have remained flat.
From that link it appears its cheaper to get armies for warmachine not individual models which would make sense as WMH armies are much smaller than 40k?WFB - but does anyone really just collect the basic army you need to play? I get the concept but tis the opposite to the way I collect
Some do. But if you're collecting models you like then I don't think a price argument is relevant. Since you will buy the models on an individual basis, not necessarily to make a playable army.
Warmachine: 40k has allies and flyers which makes the game scenery varied. I believe Hordes may have flyers? Haven't seen it yet or if there is, it's rare. Cyriss has skimmer types more than anything. Even the Clockwork Angels. I'm referring to the 40k idea of air support.
WM/H has rules for flying things, but they just don't get a terrible ruleset to make the super special. Also, most factions can take Mercenary or Minion units.
Saying that, the variation in lists comes from your general. Each warcaster interacts and changes the way your army preforms. You can take the same unit for two different casters and that casters spells and abilities will change what that unit can do.
Looking on the site I see boxes listed at $50 for 4-5 guys. So that's $10 per model. Definitely close enough to GW prices to me.
Is it cherry picking season already? My how time flies.
Warmachine: 40k has allies and flyers which makes the game scenery varied. I believe Hordes may have flyers? Haven't seen it yet or if there is, it's rare. Cyriss has skimmer types more than anything. Even the Clockwork Angels. I'm referring to the 40k idea of air support.
WM/H has rules for flying things, but they just don't get a terrible ruleset to make the super special. Also, most factions can take Mercenary or Minion units.
Saying that, the variation in lists comes from your general. Each warcaster interacts and changes the way your army preforms. You can take the same unit for two different casters and that casters spells and abilities will change what that unit can do. .
I couldn't find the rules for flyers in Warmachine MKII rulebook. Could you provide a reference? Would like to see how they differ.
And unfortunately, only Cyriss appeals to me as an army, so no Mercs for me.
I couldn't find the rules for flyers in Warmachine MKII rulebook. Could you provide a reference? Would like to see how they differ.
.
It's a Special rule, not a unit type.
Amusingly, it's called 'flight'.
But flying stuff does exist. Lots of legion beasties (archangel, for example) and circle beasties have it some jacks too.
As a general concept though, I'm not very sympathetic to the idea of air support in a setting that, robots with magical brains aside, broadly has an eighteenth or nineteenth century level of technology for a lot of its gubbins (you know, railroads, steam engines, the recently invented 'teleraph' etc). In sci fi? Sure. But not whet is essentially an Industrial Age fantasy setting.
I couldn't find the rules for flyers in Warmachine MKII rulebook. Could you provide a reference? Would like to see how they differ.
.
It's a Special rule, not a unit type.
Amusingly, it's called 'flight'.
But flying stuff does exist. Lots of legion beasties (archangel, for example) and circle beasties have it some jacks too.
As a general concept though, I'm not very sympathetic to the idea of air support in a setting that, robots with magical brains aside, broadly has an eighteenth or nineteenth century level of technology for a lot of its gubbins (you know, railroads, steam engines, the recently invented 'teleraph' etc). In sci fi? Sure. But not whet is essentially an Industrial Age fantasy setting.
I'm sure if people had magic, they couldn't have discovered flight much sooner.
I'm sure if people had magic, they couldn't have discovered flight much sooner.
Oh, they have flight technology. Vinter escaped the lions coup in the end in an experimental airship fir example.
On the whole though, air power don't seem to be very practical. Or very developed. And glitchy. It's actually something Matt Wilson and Doug Seacat (main fluff writer) are against as a whole, as it's generally not something they want to put into the world.
40k is much maligned for seeing itself as a beer & pretzels game, but I think that is one of it's strongest points, for me. However, others do prefer less of that in their game. Fortunately, not everyone need prefer the same game. And most metas can support at least 2 games.
I've mentioned this before, but when I think of "beer and pretzels" games, I think of something with a low buy-in to get to the "evening's game" level, something which is easy to learn and teach with a minimum of time spent scanning the rules to try and answer an ambiguous situation, and which doesn't take long to set up and pack up. With the best will in the world, that does not describe 40K.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
For me it's the background. Someone can argue that Warmachine or Infinity are better games until they're blue in the face, but I like 40K because I like the background. It has to be something I like in order to get me to play something else. BattleTech does that by being completely different to 40K, and the only other one in recent memory that piqued my interest was AT-43, but that died before it got going.
This isn't just flattery, I swear, but I've found the FFG games to be my main source for 40K background now. It feels like the wargame has "filled up" on background because it needs to focus on armies and military factions, and it feels like everything that can be said about them, has. And then you have your sillier moments (Hi, Draigo!).
Warmahordes: I don't like the steam punk or whatever that theme is. Also just about as expensive so why switch.
Have to make one correction here.
Model price per model price: WM/H is cheaper than GW outside if a few exceptions.
Box unit per box unit price: WM/H is greatly cheaper then GW (I.e. Winter guard infantry $50, space marine tactical squad $45, but you will need multiple tactical squads where you only need 1 maybe 2 winter guard units).
Looking on the site I see boxes listed at $50 for 4-5 guys. So that's $10 per model. Definitely close enough to GW prices to me.
The Winter Guard Infantry box you listed is $5 more - so it is more expensive. The only costs savings is you don't need as many models. If I played smaller scale 40K games I could get the same effect.
I could go over model by model and compare prices which would be silly, or I can just point to this.... It's far cheaper to get going in warmachine.
And this was 3 years ago, and GW prices have gone up since this article while Privateer Press price have remained flat.
From that link it appears its cheaper to get armies for warmachine not individual models which would make sense as WMH armies are much smaller than 40k?WFB - but does anyone really just collect the basic army you need to play? I get the concept but tis the opposite to the way I collect
After 15 some odd years of playing 40k. I've come to this conclusion:
"40k is a great game when it's not being played by gamers."
What I mean by that is, people who just play 40k as a side hobby and don't think about it too much away from the tabletop or painting desk, tend to have a really great time with it. These folks usually just take the rules at face value and make houserules when odd situations occur, usually following some kind of real-world logic. I know quite a few people like this, they've never visited a forum and never heard of a deathstar. They have a grand time with their CSM squads and Assault Marines.
40k is a seriously flawed game and it only gets more flawed when you take the time to really dive into the working bits of the rules. So I've scaled back taking a serious stance with the game and taken a more relaxed approach. I don't let the nitty gritty of the rules get me down. Gamers have a habit of dissecting everything and extracting the best parts, this is bad when you do it to 40k.
I'll try any game that I like the aesthetics of - had a few goes at X-Wing and got a small Infinity starter force [but no-one to play against :(
Having said that I strongly dislike the vast majority of the warmachine/hordes models, they just really don't do it for me, so no interest. GW, despite their faults, do put out some lovely miniatures. So, 40k for me, because they do such nice models.
I have played Battletech/Mechwarrior in the past, and I currently play Warhammer 40k. I loved the whole giant robots thing with Battletech and the ability to essentially build your own character and Mech and the rules were fairly simple, but the basically flat board and inconsistent model size/quality was a real turnoff (a 20 ton mech being a bigger or equal sized model to a 100 ton mech just doesn't make sense). 40k has much less customization, but much better terrain and models. Both games have their imbalances in rules, but both can be fun games. Ultimately i play 40k now and don't play any battletech due to lack of players and model support (and model customization though conversions can be easier with BT due to the boxy robots).
I wanted to bump this back up because I just came to the conclusion that, while I technically currently play Warmahordes and rules-wise it's a great game, something about it just doesn't "click" with me. I really can't explain it exactly, but a game just doesn't feel fun - it feels very mechanical, very bland. To put it in perspective, I'm involved in a small league at a local game store. I've only played one league game because every time league night comes around I don't even feel like bothering, because I'm not having fun. It's not a knock on the game or the players, just something about it doesn't feel right to me.
At the same token, I've been salivating over the Stormclaw boxed set, even though I haven't played 40k in over a decade. Something about 40k just still appeals to me.
It's definitely an issue Wayne and one I also struggle with - hence still buying 40k bundles like SMSF and SMSF Ultras this year despite not playing. Mantic is on a winner there with their close-to WHFB/40K Kings of War and Warpath/Deadzone/Dreadball settings. They're not identical but they still have that similar feel - ratmen in space, elves in space, power armoured super humans gutting mutated aliens in close combat and so on. No chainswords, no "grim dark" feel, but you get an "oppressive corporate" feel in that, while they don't purge xenos out of xenophobia, they'll do it without batting an eye for profit - they'll purge humans just as easily too.
Warmahordes hasn't clicked with me as a setting either, which is why I haven't picked it up yet despite liking the competetiveness of the rules. I do like the style of one of the armies (Menoth) but the mix of materials, lack of knowledge of the setting and so on keep me away for now whilst other games like X-Wing click quickly for obvious reasons, and DZC instantly gives you (me) that great feeling.
I think the only game outside of 40k that has really clicked with me has been FSA. The game's fluff isn't well developed, but the ability for the fan base to fill in the gaps is very exciting. I've already written one small piece of fiction for my favoured faction and I plan on doing a second one.
Planetfall will be good for providing more depth to the game's fluff.
For me it's just the fluff, lore, and customability. While 40K might not be "deep" like Dune is, as in a prized piece of literature, 40K has a massive library chock full of ideas that I would consider even superior to Star Wars' Legends canon due to the shear amount of variety generated by 40k. I'm not interested in any other Wargame because there's no meat to them, there's nothing like Chaos, Chaos Space Marines, and the variety offered by those factions.
Ironically, despite 40K robbing nearly every old Sci Fi fiction blind of its tropes and icons, 40K's ended up a fairly unique looking IP.
Wyzilla wrote: For me it's just the fluff, lore, and customability. While 40K might not be "deep" like Dune is, as in a prized piece of literature
I've been hanging out for more Dune material for a long time. There was an MMO planned 10 or so years ago where each player controlled a House and managed their house and holdings with politics, wars and so on... it had so much potential, but too great a scope for the time perhaps. Dune would work well on tabletop too I think either as a skirmish and/or larger wargame because as you say, the setting is great and deep enough due to the vivid writing and the movie putting imagery to it. I'd buy House Atreides, Fremen, Sardaukar etc. miniatures in a heartbeat.
Wyzilla wrote: For me it's just the fluff, lore, and customability. While 40K might not be "deep" like Dune is, as in a prized piece of literature
I've been hanging out for more Dune material for a long time. There was an MMO planned 10 or so years ago where each player controlled a House and managed their house and holdings with politics, wars and so on... it had so much potential, but too great a scope for the time perhaps. Dune would work well on tabletop too I think either as a skirmish and/or larger wargame because as you say, the setting is great and deep enough due to the vivid writing and the movie putting imagery to it. I'd buy House Atreides, Fremen, Sardaukar etc. miniatures in a heartbeat.
Yeah, it would be cool if they made a Wargame off Dune. I still haven't read it (it's on my list though, probably the next one to hit off), but I'd certainly place it as one of the greatest Sci Fi books ever written, simply for what it did for the genre. Many works borrow off it, including W40K and Star Wars. Hell IIRC isn't the original book the best selling Science Fiction novel of all time?
A Dune wargame would be something I would be willing to hop over to, albeit still staying attached to 40K. I just like a wargame that has MEAT behind it, something that you can chew into. The difference for me between Warmachine and other popular modern wargames is that campaigns in 40Kmean something, there's a whole universe behind the wargame where you can create your own custom force, or build off a pre-existing subfaction with a lot of literature behind it that gives it character. Other wargames without the background lore just feel flat. It's like the difference between playing Monopoly and an RPG.
Agreed wholeheartedly. 40k gives you the option to partake in a 10k year war of chaos vs imperium, or the galactic struggle for survival against the extra-galactec xenos threat of tyranids. Dune gives you the option to partake in the LANDSRAAD politics and house on house warfare, control of the spice, alliances with factions like the bene gesserit, fremen, navigators, IX and so on. Ability to create your own houses and heavily customise them as the known houses were all wildly different in feel and even the units they used and how they fought. Fighting on Arrakis, house owned planets, guild ships, other planets over resources, skirmish scale assassination forces... so much potential!
So yeah, the depth of setting is really important, and it's not unique to 40k however much we love 40k.
Blacksails wrote: I think the only game outside of 40k that has really clicked with me has been FSA. The game's fluff isn't well developed, but the ability for the fan base to fill in the gaps is very exciting. I've already written one small piece of fiction for my favoured faction and I plan on doing a second one.
Planetfall will be good for providing more depth to the game's fluff.
I think Heroclix is really the only 'war/skirmish' game that has kept my attention outside of Warhammer. I will be the first to admit I love how Warmahoarde models look, but I watch my locals play, and many of them are dicks to newcommers. Plus, its rules seem to be tricky to get ahold on. Despite 40k's issues, the basic concept of the game is pretty easy to grab. Its more finer details are written ambiguously, leaving room for too much interpretation.
I love Heroclix because...well, first off I love comics. Second, they come ready to play, even if their sculpts/paint jobs might not be the super best, they have gotten much better over the years. But the game is SUPER easy to start up. The Fast Forces/Starter sets give you ready to play figures for upwards of 600 point games or so (average game is 300 points in Heroclix). So you get a good taste. Plus, buying singles is typically DIRT CHEAP unless you want the rarest figures (Which get to be 50 bucks per at times). But the simplicity of Heroclix is what grabs me. I just wish it didn't use a grid system sometimes. I love the freemoving feel of wargames.
Specifically re Orks, have you seen the Mantic Marauders for Warpath/Deadzone Skink? They have a similar feel to 40K Orks design-wise, but are less comical and more militaristic. Not better, not worse, just different - and I love 'em too ; ) I love seeing me some 40K Orks in the Dawn of War and Space Marine games, I don't think the Marauders have been fleshed out enough stylewise to compete with them there though. But then, I think those games have done huge things for helping me visualise and get into 40k so it's possible similarly good games could do the same for the Warpath setting.
Yonan wrote: Specifically re Orks, have you seen the Mantic Marauders for Warpath/Deadzone Skink? They have a similar feel to 40K Orks design-wise, but are less comical and more militaristic. Not better, not worse, just different - and I love 'em too ; ) I love seeing me some 40K Orks in the Dawn of War and Space Marine games, I don't think the Marauders have been fleshed out enough stylewise to compete with them there though. But then, I think those games have done huge things for helping me visualise and get into 40k so it's possible similarly good games could do the same for the Warpath setting.
I bought a box of 30 of the Mantic Orx to paint up as potential Kommandos or Tankbustas, and I kinda like their 'organized' style in their universe. Having contrast is always nice, it's good to see another company take the greenskins in a different, but still effective direction.
I find warma/hordes to be more of a game for tournament play. And it has more of a small game feel than standard 40k or fantasy does.
Infinity has a similar problem to warma/hordes
I personally look at the two and they would be okay to play once and a while on weekends but I could never invest the time and effort and immerse myself in them like I could with gw games (ya know omitting lotr cause its trash)
ionusx wrote: (ya know omitting lotr cause its trash)
Lord of the Rings was amazing. War of the Ring and Hobbit suck but the core LotR game and models where awesome, you just needed people to play against :(
ionusx wrote: I find warma/hordes to be more of a game for tournament play.
This might be another reason why Warmahordes feels so "mechanical" to me. It feels closer to tabletop Magic the Gathering (which, in a way, it is). I've never played Magic (well, maybe once really long ago) but I do know that there actually is fluff for it, just nobody cares about it; like, the whole premise is that you're a wizard battling rivals for... I don't know what, but something. But nobody adds fluffy RP elements to their games (well some people might, but most people don't) to enrich themselves in the world, it's just a game, and everything is mechanics and competition. That's how Warmachine feels to me, while in 40k I'd love to go and name my HQs, name my units, hell sometimes name individual troops and come up with a backstory for the army. In Warmachine it's just a collection of units that I'm trying to win a game with and I don't care what division of the army they are, what their history is, or anything. Not to say you can't do that with Warmahordes, because you can, but the game feels like that stuff is secondary in the same was as you are highly unlikely to find a Magic player who gets "in character" while playing a game and has a backstory for their persona, because nobody really cares.
That's one thing 40k has going for it. Even in a tournament for 40k you can still do creative things; hell I remember RTTs used to give you points if your army roster had a backstory and all units and characters with names.
