You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

Well, I've finally gotten a chance to make a comparison. A few months ago, my FLGS had a big sale, and the WMH battle boxes were on sale for the same price as one power armored space marine clampack. I wish I was kidding. Both were 30 bucks.

So I cracked it open and was pleasantly surprised enough to have the unit cards and a mini-rulebook explaining the rules as well as a solid quarter (plus a commander, who is free in WMH points) of a full army, that I've been building and playing them as a side project, and I've really gotten a feel for both games and what the realities behind all the hype and arguments are.

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

Assessment: True, but to a limited extent. Why?

Warmachine does army variation very differently to 40k. Each commander you choose drastically affects the overall synergy of your list, and often the "pyrovores" of warmachine are only good with one particular army combo, with a commander who specifically buffs them up.

It's also worth noting that the scale of power in WMH is much more tightly controlled. There's no titans here, the biggest baddest collossals are only on the scale of maybe a 500-point model in 40k. No fliers, almost no vehicles, and much smaller scale battles as well as more tightly balanced mission objectives make WMHs balance an easier target to hit. Which some might say is great, and it certainly makes for less fringe cases of extreme frustration, but it does slightly decrease the variety overall.

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

Assessment: totally. In terms of gameplay at least. In terms of modeling, 40k wins.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game. Once you wrap your head around the rule set it all runs like a well oiled machine. There is zero doubt in my eyes that anyone looking for a competitive experience would be massively better served with WMH but fun is very subjective and to me, both are very different kinds of fun. WMH is the fun of matching wits, the quiet fun of assembling and adapting a battle plan and watching it play out while 40k is the cinematic energetic fun of not knowing what will happen next. I love both. Id strongly advise anyone who's holding out on one because "grr that's the other game we don't like they're not one of us" to give it a go and suck up your pride-the experience of being new and bad at something and not knowing what was gonna come at me was almost worth the experience in and of itself.

40k and WMH are two very different beasts, to be sure. Both have their ups and downs, and both have their personalities, but there's no reason to hate one because you love the other. If you've got active communities, I definitely advocate you to try both, and I hope you have a great time with it.

You know, I agree with practically everything you say.

You allude to this, but because of their release cycle, WMH is harder to love as a collectible for modelling (and f course, all single pose with no bits), but the lack of any big box sales hurts too. Other than two mediocre starter boxes, you can't get a whole bunch of miniatures to model in the $75-$150 range, which is kind of the sewer spot for a 15-30 model bundles (adjusted for any large models included). I just bought 4 $150 deathstorm boxes, 95% of which ill be for modeling (mind you, I got them for $105). I wish such an offer were available from PP -- I would love to give them a big product buy.

On the other hand WMH is much easier to model to play. Not only are there a lot fewer molds to assemble for a force, but each model takes way less time, and you never have to think, Grav Gun or Melta -- or magnetize or buy multiple boxes.

I prefer WMH for any quick pickup game. The length of game is shorter, and the models to transport and set up are an order of magnitude simpler. But, it cuts both was: there is no awesome battle feeling, and unit variety suffers as you say. There are also few large, interesting models to collect, if that is your thing.

I also wish there were WMH themed terrain.

I am more a modeller/painter than a gamer at this stage of my life, but I likeb both games and worlds, and will support (buy) stuff from both companies!

I would agree that this is a fair assessment. Different people will like different games. For me, WMH scratches all my itches in a way that 40k can't. (tactical and fair gameplay.)
PP's metals are outstanding and their plastics are getting better but for now, yes, their plastics aren't as good as GW's.

Nobody has ever gotten angry at someone for saying that they prefer 40k, it's been when people try to argue that 40k is somehow a superior *game* because it's not balanced or similar ridiculousness.

WMH is not for everyone. Even as someone who plays it, I constantly think of playing 40k again because I like the background/aesthetics a lot better, just the terrible rules and high prices keep me from wanting to bother. Same with 40k. It's different tastes, but I've only seen the "everything else is crap" argument coming from the pro-40k side, never those against.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Nobody has ever gotten angry at someone for saying that they prefer 40k, it's been when people try to argue that 40k is somehow a superior *game* because it's not balanced or similar ridiculousness.

WMH is not for everyone. Even as someone who plays it, I constantly think of playing 40k again because I like the background/aesthetics a lot better, just the terrible rules and high prices keep me from wanting to bother. Same with 40k. It's different tastes, but I've only seen the "everything else is crap" argument coming from the pro-40k side, never those against.

This. They're very different games, and they attract people with different tastes. I love the game side of WMH and the background/models of 40k, so I play both. But I've never seen a WMH player react the way everyone says they do about 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I would agree that this is a fair assessment. Different people will like different games. For me, WMH scratches all my itches in a way that 40k can't. (tactical and fair gameplay.)
PP's metals are outstanding and their plastics are getting better but for now, yes, their plastics aren't as good as GW's.

As an example of the plastics -- I am 100% sure I will buy the new Troll Scattergunners from PP. I mean, they're cool

Obviously, I don't know the quality yet, as it's not released for a couple more days. However, because it's single pose, with no equipment options, there is little chance that I'll buy a second box. It's not particularly cheap at $60 for 10 plastics, either.

To compare, I'll also, guaranteed, buy the Blood Angels tacticals, at $43 (also 10 plastics). In fact, I'll pick them up at the same time as the trollbloods -- both this Friday The difference is, there is a high likelihood I will buy a second BA tactical box, maybe even at release. I wish PP gave me a reason to buy a second Scattergunner box.

Now, from a gaming perspective, the Scattergunners are a WAY better value than the Tacticals. Excluding the usefulness of the tacticals (which we don't know until the new codex anyways), the Scattergunners will comprise a much larger proportion of the battleforce.

I'll the same thing here that I said in the other thread, I wish 40k had better rules and I wish WMH had better models. PP models are as bad as GW rules. If it wasn't for that they would be putting GW out of business. Whenever I try to get people into WMH, they pick up a battle box or starter set and are immediately put off by the quality of the models, missing pieces and the aesthetics. They'll play 15-35 point games with me once in awhile but still play 40k most of the time. PP needs to step it up if they want to take more GW customers. I was prepared to sell my entire 40k army and buy heavily into WMH but after building/painting their models and looking at every faction trying to find one I can really get into, I just can't. WMH is a good side game but I have to like the aesthetics and enjoy building/painting the models to make it my go to game and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it.

Toofast wrote:
I'll the same thing here that I said in the other thread, I wish 40k had better rules and I wish WMH had better models. PP models are as bad as GW rules. If it wasn't for that they would be putting GW out of business. Whenever I try to get people into WMH, they pick up a battle box or starter set and are immediately put off by the quality of the models, missing pieces and the aesthetics. They'll play 15-35 point games with me once in awhile but still play 40k most of the time. PP needs to step it up if they want to take more GW customers. I was prepared to sell my entire 40k army and buy heavily into WMH but after building/painting their models and looking at every faction trying to find one I can really get into, I just can't. WMH is a good side game but I have to like the aesthetics and enjoy building/painting the models to make it my go to game and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it.

Solution: play WMH with Citadel models? Warmahammer Hordes 40,000!

I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

Problem is I'm a gamer who likes GW models, but hate basically everything else about them. If I could only pick one game but I'd be able to get whatever I wanted for free, I'd probably pick GW, and I say that as someone who was just accepted to be a Press Ganger for PP. However, if 40k had good rules and didn't feel like I was being ripped off, I would have never played WMH so I would have lost out on that opportunity.

When I take everything together, it's no comparison. WMH is the superior game and offers me more of what I want. I don't care about conversions (hate them, in fact) but I want a solid tactical game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I kind of wish PP would stick to metal until they got better at plastic. I mean, I'm not big on being a customer during the learning curve. At the moment, their plastics are a bit underwhelming (it feels like the worst of both worlds, being mediocre casts, near-metal prices, and no customizability.

Also, I wish PP would ditch resin. Their resin is just as much a pain as Failcast. I hate working with it, I hate the big chunks of extra material, and PP resin doesn't even have the excuse that it has fine detail. I pretty much hate 95% of GW resin too, so I'm pretty equal opportunity there

Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I kind of wish PP would stick to metal until they got better at plastic. I mean, I'm not big on being a customer during the learning curve. At the moment, their plastics are a bit underwhelming (it feels like the worst of both worlds, being mediocre casts, near-metal prices, and no customizability.

Also, I wish PP would ditch resin. Their resin is just as much a pain as Failcast. I hate working with it, I hate the big chunks of extra material, and PP resin doesn't even have the excuse that it has fine detail. I pretty much hate 95% of GW resin too, so I'm pretty equal opportunity there

I don't have a huge issue with their plastics (although it's nowhere near GW quality I admit), but their metals constantly make me wonder WTF they were thinking with how some things are split up. Having say an arm go onto the torso, then a hand go onto the arm is flat out stupid and leads to annoying models like the Nyss Hunters that are a royal PITA to put together since they're flimsy.

I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done, because there´s a thread made about it literally almost every day.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

You know, I actually agree with you. It's not a direct comparison, but most of the vitriol comes from the 40k crowd that I've seen who tend to get hostile faster. They are two different games, that appeal to two different types of people. For me, I find the rules of the game outweigh everything else, but I also don't hate the aesthetic of the models. For you or someone else, you might not care that much about the rules but really like how the GW figures look.

There isn't a clear "winner" in this regard.

I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

For me gaming is equally important to modeling personally, but I´m fine with 40K´s rules. They could be more balanced and better, but I´ve always managed and I enjoy some aspects others dont. I enjoy effective list building, I find some of the ridicilous rules fun. I don´t agree with the "40K for miniatures, WM for rules" -sentiment, as I find both games have rules that make the game fun to play, for me. Certainly WM/H has better rules in the way of balance and coherency. I still have a blast playing both just the same. They are so very different as games.

Isengard wrote:
I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

I would urge you to try "Into the Storm" a PP novel written by award winning author Larry Correia. It's really quite good and will give you a good feel for how in depth the fluff actually is.

That's why I play WMH and won't play 40K. However, I do have a 2000 PT traitor guard with allied evil inquisitor just for the modelling and conversions.

WayneTheGame wrote:


I don't have a huge issue with their plastics (although it's nowhere near GW quality I admit), but their metals constantly make me wonder WTF they were thinking with how some things are split up. Having say an arm go onto the torso, then a hand go onto the arm is flat out stupid and leads to annoying models like the Nyss Hunters that are a royal PITA to put together since they're flimsy.

Lol... Having to pin a hand to an arm is annoying. I will definitely say that I pin way, way more 28mm base units' arms than should be needs. I often wish the hand with the gun/staff had some kind of fitting, like a dovetail.

OTOH, pp metals usually clean up pretty quickly, shifting the time from modeling to painting (or playing), which is just a question of what you prefer spending your time on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done, because there´s a thread made about it literally almost every day.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

I really don't know why some people feel the need to constantly bash one game. On the other hand, I don't mind comparing the two games/worlds, because they appeal to the same players and are sold in the same type of stores. I think both companies do some things better than the other.

It would be really nice if all WMH vs 40k posts stayed in one thread, and inflammatory, non- constructive posts were just deleted.

the_scotsman wrote:Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

Assessment: True, but to a limited extent. Why?

Warmachine does army variation very differently to 40k. Each commander you choose drastically affects the overall synergy of your list, and often the "pyrovores" of warmachine are only good with one particular army combo, with a commander who specifically buffs them up.

And I've found a lot of this reflects the attitude of the players. There are a lot of 40k players (on dakka at least) who believe that they should be able to use any unit in any way on the table, and if they don't win, it's because the game is broken. WMH players seem much more likely to approach the game as one of tactical choices where some things must be taken in certain combinations and played in certain ways.

Being a strategy game seems to be a strength of WMH while being a vile toxin in 40k.

No reason to think about how to use a unit effectively, better to just label it trash, confuse "I can't do it" with "it can't be done" and move on...

the_scotsman wrote:It's also worth noting that the scale of power in WMH is much more tightly controlled.

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

Assessment: totally. In terms of gameplay at least. In terms of modeling, 40k wins.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

This is something that I often see people get confused.

If you take a 10 model vs. 10 model game of both 40k and WMH, both of them cost roughly the same. Often times people think 40k is a more expensive game because they don't consider it a "real" game unless they're fielding 200-model-per-person fight-for-the-whole-planet's-survival megapocalypse games.

Until recently, the two starter boxes were the same price, and when you compare things equally, they're about the same price to run.

I would seriously disagree that 40k doesn't do skirmishes well, though. Especially if you do a tiny bit of minor tweaking like 6th ed's battleforce recon rules set.

the_scotsman wrote:WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game.

I would definitely agree with this, though. 40k used to be more this way as well, with abstract wound allocation, abstract line of sight and terrain rules, abstract, by-unit movement rules, etc. etc. People who like WMH would probably like 4th edition of 40k a lot more than what we have now.

40k has definitely taken a huge step away from being a bad attempt at chess towards one of storytelling-D&D-esque with a bunch of minis. For people who don't like that, then of course they won't like it. Why they stop playing and then spend the next several years of their life trying to convince other people to stop having fun and start validating their angst is beyond me, though...

The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Isengard wrote:
I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

*highlighted bit for emphasis*

le sigh. GW isnt the only game with a large catalogue of lore isengard. With respect to 40ks lore, let's be clear, it's got great stuff. I love the imperial armours and otherforgeworld material. Great reading, and well worth it. Then on the other hand, you've got Kaldor Draigo, codex comedy robots, and any amount of silly rubbish throughout the books. Holding that up a standard no one else can ever match is a disservice. I think a lot of 40k fans have the assumption that 40ks lore is some kind of gold standard, that this is indisputable, needs no defense or explanation, and simply shoulda simply be taken for granted that this is the case and is gospel. but that crucially, because it is seen to be so self evident, and matter-of-'fact'ly, it is also, without thinking or analysis, assumed and considered impossible for any other company's lore to match this 'undisputed' standard of greatness. Because of 'reasons' and 'assumptions' that don't 'need' to be backed up, (and so they're not). It's a 'fact' that is not questioned. Like the bible. And I honestly dont think it's the case. Som of 40ks lore is indisputably great. A lot of it though? What isn't plagiarised and rehashed, or the same old themes dressed up with a different hat? Not so much. being cynical, I could boil down the ia vraks campaign to 'yeah, well, the imperials won becaus they threw in more bodies than the defenders has bullets'. And I say that as a huge fan... Similarly, you can boil down a lot if the rest to 'heroic last stand' or 'defenders held out against overwhelming odds until the cavalry came'. Now it may not be deep, but it's certainly evocative and stirring to a degree. But reading some if my beloved second ed fluff, a lot of it hasn't aged well as I've grown older either...

Regarding the comment about pp being 'Johnny come late',, It's got less to do with being 'stuck in your ways' and more likely though I guess, Its maybe not knowing where to look, or more importantly whether it was worth looking for? . All I can say is that yes, pp's world are well worth delving into. Warmachine, for example, has a fantastic setting, and it has been developing for quite a long time now. It's a smaller setting than 40k, but a lot more intimate for it. It's characterful, dark, deep, gritty and evocative, with thousands of years of history, heroes, villains, murders, mysteries and secrets. It's names, cultures, custom and mores, towns and cities are discussed in incredible detail in the various books. It's a world you can almost hear the clanking and grinding of gears, the hiss of steam engines and the smell of oil and burning coal. Did you know it originally started off as a D20 RPG setting using the DnD 3.5 OSL rules? this was back when the Witchfire Trilogy was their first outing. And that was well over ten years ago now, and the fluff has been constantly developed. Gw get a lot of praise for having decades of lore. Well, pp are well into their second decade as well now.

I’ll be honest. I’’m always that bit disappointed and annoyed when people post that other games dont have well developed backgrounds. . Such as what you have said. I understand you are probably saying it more from lack of familiarity as much as anything else, but nonetheless you are perpetuating a falsehood, and it really does grind my gears that people continue to do it. the fluff? its there. its simply not true to suggest what you are suggesting. And I can back my statements up.

first up: complete chronological list of fiction.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?195787-The-Complete-Chronological-Iron-Kingdoms-Fiction
check out the forums as well - often the lead writer of the fiction - doug Seacat will step in and elaborate on any and all points of the fiction that raise questions. Heck, he once personally explained to me why they don't have orcs in their ip.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?77295-Doug-Seacat-on. A collection of seacat's posts expanding on and explaining in (sometime exhausting) details the nature of certain aspects of their world.

the first place for fluff, as you can guess is the rulebook and army books for both warmachine and hordes. they have the ongoing fiction, as well as character back stories, unit descriptions and the FOW books often describe some of the logistics, and actual nuts and bolts of army organisation, and history. they're good solid reads (i love the retribution book in particular, itsbackground material is phenomenol!) but generally, act as a great intro. If you are interested, the fluff goes all the way back to Mk1 and the original books from over 10 years ago. if you get the PP reader app, you can download all the old books for a song. its well worth it, IMO. the hordes expansions (mutagenesis and evolution iirc) have some really excellent story material.

the second place is PPs magazine. No Quarter. it is an excellent read. pick it up at your FLGS, and if you want the older copies, check out the PP reader app, where you can get all the old issues for a few pence. there are short stories throughout the magazine. they also run very popular and very well written fluff articles in the magazine. For example, you have the Gavyn Kyle files, which elaborates on, explores and deepends the fiction behind a lot of the "names" in the game. Not just casters. But other famous individuals too. Sometimes its units (there was one exploring the history and culture of the kayazy). Another great one is the Guts n Gears files, which are like the GK files, but are less about individuals, and more about the fluff behind unit types and warjack chassis (where they were made, how long they were in service for, development history etc). the NQ magazine is well worth a read - it has some excellent content and is well worth its price tag. i think they're re-releasing some of the fiction via skull island as well (see below). there is also regular fiction which includes both once off short stories, and stories that continue on the arc from those in books - for example, what happened to Kallus at the end of Domination is explained in one.

the third place (and my personal favourite) is the RPG material. Warmachine originated as a D20 RPG using the DnD open source licence. their very first adventure was called "the witchfire trilogy" and is a great read, with some interesting little nuggets. the "old" D20 material comprised the character guides (which ahave a lot of the basic information, cosmology, history etc) 2 monsternomicons (with huge bits of info on infernals, and skorne culture/history, although its generally about the monsters that inhabit immoren), a small exansion on the port of Five FIngers, and the excellent world guide. I cannot recommend these enough; the World GUide in particular. its epic. you can literally smell the smoke when you read it. they're very, very engrossing, and do a fantastic job of bringing the world to life - not just the history, but crime&punishment, trades and learning, entertainment, finance, language, cosmology, and lots of information on locations, towns, cities, forts, and the big names in all of them. Now, the old material is still online (if you know where to look; winkwinknudgenudge) but they're also all being updated by PP into a new RPG series using a proprietary rules system based off of the wargame. So far they have the IKRPG core rules, five fingers and the excellent Kings Nations and Gods books. again, all well worth the read. upcoming is a new monsternomicon and the iron kingdoms: unleashed "complimentary" RPG which focuses on adventures in the wilds, and expands on the races to include tharn, farrow etc. Im quite looking forward to that one! i think thw RPG material on its own is stellar, and really does a fantastic job of bringing the world to life - far more than youd expect from a regular wargame.

the fourth place is PPs publishing wing. skull island expeditions.https://skullislandx.com/
they dont yet have the volume or the library of titles of the black library, but whats there is very solid. i will particularly recommend the warcaster chronicle series (caine, butcher and shae so far), warlock chronicles (makeda and thagrosh), extraordinary zoology (brilliant little read!) and top of the pile is Into the Storm by larry correia (award winning author). the iron kingdoms excursions series is a series of short stories that are quite fun to read too.

So please isengard. Before you say things like other games can't scratch the surface of gw's lore, please think again.

My thoughts exactly, only said better.
The RPG material is very in depth. I bought the source book that goes into each city town and province of the major kingdoms. The amount of detail is staggering.
Also, I really like how people's motivations are multi-faceted and complex.
Steve Diamond, a fantastic writer, has a new short story out and again, I must say that "Into the Storm" is an awesome novel.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I think this is why I was so pumped about the 40IK mashup game that was floating around here. I don't play WMH anymore, and I think it's because I'm not really a "gamer", in that power level and points cost is never a factor for me buying a model but "oooooOOOooooo pretty" almost always is. I own quite a few PP models that are just fantastic and go well with most RPGs or other games I play. I think it was Kayazy Assassins that cemented this in my head. UGLY models that rip it up on the table. I was torn....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP hit it on the head. Does this mean the other thread is done?

I have almost started Warmachine/Hordes 3 times but every time i have just not taken that final step.

Have to be honest im sure i have just be unlucky with local players or those i have asked online but what has often put me off on was the playerbase, as i would like to play both not instead of GW games, yet when i vocalise that i still enjoy the GW games, i have received a hostile reaction normally including a long list of reasons GW sucks from the former players of GW games.

Shame as i really like many of the models PP produce and could get into the narrative of the game world im sure.

May not be the game for me though as i have no interest in serious competitive wargaming, i get that serious level of competition from other hobbies like 5 a side football(soccer) and it seems like competitive play is the market they target, which makes sense since GW never really have.

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

.. unless you play Sisters, in which case your Troops box is 10 20 year old sculpts that runs $80.

Talys wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Deadnight wrote:

Talys wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Deadnight wrote:

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Oh, for sure. For the same reason, I don't like dwarves in WHFB (or the dwarf in Dragon Age 2 with the gun that he talks to). It's a totally personal thing, and it's not a criticism of the game world -- just an explanation of why I'm a little less in love with the WMH models. And yeah, thankfully, Iron Kingdoms is just steampunk-ish, rather than full-on steampunk

I also prefer the 40k game world to the WHFB game world, although I have spent an obscene amount of money on WHFB models. I just love some of their units, like the phoenix, forest dragon, treeman ancient, nagash... the list is almost endless.

Edit: the steampunk elements of the aesthetic I'm not into are the flared weapons, flintlock-look, and big rivets, mostly. Although, as you say, it's very fluff-appropriate.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with pulp. A pulp novel may well never find itself amongst the classics, but it can still be a damn fine read.

Deadnight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with pulp. A pulp novel may well never find itself amongst the classics, but it can still be a damn fine read.

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

 heartserenade wrote:
I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

Well that's no better than former 40k players who walk around FLGS trying to convince people looking at 40k models that are overpriced and that it's a dumb game. I mean, it's just disrespectful either way.

Personally, I think they are both cool games. I'm happy for competition, too -- keeps everyone honest!

How is dumb? if it is true. a w40k army cost more then a Warmachine one. The books alone cost almost as much as a new army for WM. Plus entry point is a huge difference. One can play with one 35 pts list and have fun and play normal games. If someone brings 750pts of w40k, he may get one or two games and then everyone will expect him to bring a normal legal army of 1500 or more.

And before someone says am pro PP. I would like to point out that PP in general may make a nice game, but they droped the ball on selling it here hard.

Makumba wrote:
How is dumb? if it is true. a w40k army cost more then a Warmachine one. The books alone cost almost as much as a new army for WM. Plus entry point is a huge difference. One can play with one 35 pts list and have fun and play normal games. If someone brings 750pts of w40k, he may get one or two games and then everyone will expect him to bring a normal legal army of 1500 or more.

And before someone says am pro PP. I would like to point out that PP in general may make a nice game, but they droped the ball on selling it here hard.

This is like trying to compare tennis to skiing. You need a lot less gear, you can play for much shorter times, the risk of injury is lower, and competitively, it has rules much less prone to subjective interpretation... So it must be better, right? Or, that salads are superior to steaks, nutritionally, pricewise, for your blood pressure and long term health, and so on.

At the end of the day, it's interesting to compare them, but they are such different games that it's better to either enjoy both, or give both a long hard look and pick one.

WayneTheGame wrote:

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

Let me start off by saying that I am part of the 40K crowd. I don't play WMH, but I did try out WM when it first came out, and it just wasn't for me. I even read the Iron Kingdoms RPG, and just couldn't get into it. Steampunk is not one of my favorite genres though, so its no big surprise. And while I like Joe Mad's comic art style, I did not like how the Giant Upper Body / Tiny Lower Body style translated to the table top. However, I've never understood the need for gamers in general (this applies to various types of games, including video games) to just completely go off the rails in their attempts to bash a game they don't play. Look at any Call of Duty forum, and its littered with Battlefield fans trolling. Same goes for Dakka, and pretty much any other table top game site. Heck, even RPG forums have trolling! Its crazy!

As a member of the pro-40K crowd, I take issue with the statement in bold above. Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion, its just that we are sick and tired of being preached to about how our game sucks, WMH is the one true game, and we are absolute morons for not selling our 40K armies, and immediately purchasing WMH armies. After seeing so many good discussions get completely derailed because some pro-WMH trolls just won't accept that not everybody loves PP's game and that yes, some of us have no interest in playing another table top game for whatever reason (time, money, lack of interest, etc), is it any wonder that even the non-trolling WMH fans catch so much grief when they post on a 40K discussion? Anymore, at the first mention of WMH or PP, the 40Kers have to circle the wagons to try and run off the interlopers just so we can continue our discussion

I am curious though, do the WMH forums on Dakka get a lot of 40Kers posting negatively about PP? I am not trying to be contrary, I'm genuinely curious if its a two-way street and that's why this war persists.

Don't agree with pretty much the entire OP.

Not about lists? If you aren't prepared for certain casters you will lose before you start. If you aren't familiar with meta shifts you're screwed.

Leads onto point 2. Starting out is cheap in WMH, but you eventually need to branch out to the point where it costs just as much as 40k.

Also the models are a decade behind GW, at least.

^ This. Starting WMH is cheaper, buying 2 50 point lists is not cheaper.

For me it comes down to what I want out of a sci fi/fantasy game, and that's good modeling and fluff. Game wise there are historicals I can play that put wmh to sleep any day, so when I'm trying to immerse myself in a fictional world I'll choose depth of fluff, aesthetics, model quality and customization over a rulesets (within reason) any day.

WMH just doesn't deliver on those fronts for me. And though the game might be mechanically tighter, just does not appeal to my tastes when it comes to sci fi, where I want dramatic large scale battles fought by armies that I can truly call my own.

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

ClassicCarraway wrote:Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion

In a way, we are, though.

In the same way that a 40k battle report or a WHFB thread, or a Swap shop bid doesn't have it's place in 40k general, neither do endless expositions about WMH. 40k general is about 40k, not about other games with the only thin thread of congruity being "oh, and 40k sucks". If I kept on starting threads or posting comments about tic-tac-toe in 40k forums, I'd be ignored and dismissed as well, especially if the whole point to my thread/comment is about how you should play tic-tac-toe instead of 40k.

We come together in this part of the forum to talk about a game we like and how to enrich the experience. Yet another "how dare you be happy, do my non-40k thing instead" is just as off-topic to the entire point of the forum as the first time such a thing was said. I mean, I'd ignore someone if they said "don't play 40k, driving sports cars is way more fun", and I'd add them to my ignore list if that's the one thing they kept pushing over and over again. They're not actually contributing anything relevant, so why not dismiss them?

Of course, in a thread that's comparing two games, it would make sense to throw down opinions comparing two games. In every other case, it's more or less just trolling. As is complaining about people complaining about you. As is trying to "win" a discussion by proving that an unrelated opinion somehow makes the holder a better person in any way.

the_scotsman wrote:
You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

I might get it wrong but most hate comes from the former 40k players.

 koooaei wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

I might get it wrong but most hate comes from the former 40k players.

What's your point?

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

In any case I was talking aesthetics. In the background, in WMH good shots can hit their targets with rifles at four to six hundred metres. Gunnbjorn knocked the helmet of a trencher with a round from this range in one piece of nq fluff. But for gameplay (ie not wanting two gunlines not moving out of their deployment zone) and balance (ie give melee a role to play) the ranges have been shortened.

Interestingly, in the ikrpg, you can shoot beyond that 12" range cap. Often to a max range of a few dozen 'inches'. It's just at a -5penalty to your roll. With aiming, a tripod and a scope, you can negate it. It's a lot of work/investment for a long range shot, but it kind of makes sense.

Talys wrote:

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

Can't stand that movie.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

As a member of the pro-40K crowd, I take issue with the statement in bold above. Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion, its just that we are sick and tired of being preached to about how our game sucks, WMH is the one true game, and we are absolute morons for not selling our 40K armies, and immediately purchasing WMH armies. After seeing so many good discussions get completely derailed because some pro-WMH trolls just won't accept that not everybody loves PP's game and that yes, some of us have no interest in playing another table top game for whatever reason (time, money, lack of interest, etc), is it any wonder that even the non-trolling WMH fans catch so much grief when they post on a 40K discussion? Anymore, at the first mention of WMH or PP, the 40Kers have to circle the wagons to try and run off the interlopers just so we can continue our discussion

To be fair, I don't think he was referring to the whole community, there are some 40k players who are proper trolls too, and some constantly preach untruths about other games too (imbalance being good for variety, gw make the best rules(from a guy who never played other ttgs too), another one from earlier was other games fluff being terrible (and seemingly said without any familiarity)and not on a par with gw etc).

You can be objective about discussing the faults of the game you play. Gw games have plenty. The rules do 'suck' when you examine how clunky and unwieldy they really are. You can acknowledge this and still enjoy your games with your mates. You can discuss these things objectively without needing to circle any wagons. It's not a personal attack.
WMH is the one true game? Nope. And to be fair, I've not seen many say this. It's a great, tight, exciting and well designed game. It's got its issues and it's not all things for all folks. It doesn't so whist infinity or dzc do. If you ask me to list my criticisms of pp games for completeness, I will. To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me to find most pp gamers had their 'bit' on the side as well.
You're a moron for not selling your armies bad buying into pp? Source please. And fwiw, I still have my tau and don't part with them.

If you've come to an honest appraisal that something is not for you -then fair play. I'll say the same about malifaux. It's the other things that grind my gears-none of which you or many other non-pp players have done. *tips hat and leaves an internet beer*

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

In any case I was talking aesthetics. In the background, in WMH good shots can hit their targets with rifles at four to six hundred metres. Gunnbjorn knocked the helmet of a trencher with a round from this range in one piece of nq fluff. But for gameplay (ie not wanting two gunlines not moving out of their deployment zone) and balance (ie give melee a role to play) the ranges have been shortened.

Interestingly, in the ikrpg, you can shoot beyond that 12" range cap. Often to a max range of a few dozen 'inches'. It's just at a -5penalty to your roll. With aiming, a tripod and a scope, you can negate it. It's a lot of work/investment for a long range shot, but it kind of makes sense.

Talys wrote:

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

Can't stand that movie.

lol. if you want to pick at realism, Oribital is a pretty darn good attack (S10 large blast, infinite range), so why not just nuke the other side with 100 orbitals before you send in the infantry? It's a game, man. Having unlimited range on every weapon would not be fun.

I'm glad that you like WMH game mechanics. I think 40k game mechanics and its unit variety makes the game board infinitely more interesting, and it's more interesting for me to play large scale rather than small scale games. I'm not really a skirmish game guy; I want to drool at my opponent's awesomely modelled army that he's proud of assembling, and then relish in the epic battle between two great forces.

Pulp Fiction -- see, this is an hugely successful movie that you don't like. Not everyone has the same taste. Just like some people prefer 40k, or "can't stand WMH".

Talys wrote:

lol. if you want to pick at realism, Oribital is a pretty darn good attack (S10 large blast, infinite range), so why not just nuke the other side with 100 orbitals before you send in the infantry? It's a game, man. Having unlimited range on every weapon would not be fun.
.

p

Not picking on anything mate, just making a point. Both are games, not accuracy simulations. I just find it odd that someone has a go at WMH for having unrealistic weapon ranges when 40k has this too, and so much more besides.

Talys wrote:

I'm glad that you like WMH game mechanics. I think 40k game mechanics and its unit variety makes the game board infinitely more interesting, and it's more interesting for me to play large scale rather than small scale games. I'm not really a skirmish game guy; I want to drool at my opponent's awesomely modelled army that he's proud of assembling, and then relish in the epic battle between two great forces.
".

If that's what you want,then hats off to you sir. IMO flames of war or epic gives me a better sense of a large scale battle though than 40k.

And one wee point: you can still drool at your opponents awesomely modelled army that he is proud of assembling in other games as well. 40k doesn't have a monopoly there - I've seen some truly stunning WMH and infinity armies, as well as 40k and fantasy ones in my time. Makes you ashamed to put your stuff up against them!

Talys wrote:

Pulp Fiction -- see, this is an hugely successful movie that you don't like. Not everyone has the same taste. Just like some people prefer 40k, or "can't stand WMH".

Question: why are you addressing this to me? I already appreciate, and understand all this talys. Different strokes etc. some if my best mates can't stand WMH.

But for what it's worth, I think this is a fairer point. My favourite movie of all time is funnily enough, transformers:the movie. Not mr.bay's recent offerings, I mean the 1986 cartoon. You know, the one with plot holes so large you could drive a nascar through them. And yet, I still love it. Here's the thing. My love for this movie is in spite of its flaws. They're not unknown to me. I see them. I acknowledge it's faults. I don't pretend they don't exist. But it's still my favourite movie despite this.

And if you come to me and say the same thing about 40k, that despite its flaws it's still your game, that you and you buddies work around those issues, and house rule them, then fair play. No one should ever hold it against you. But this is not the same as saying 40k is a better game because of its flaws.

As someone relatively unfamiliar with WMH, this was a good read.

I'm not a fan of steampunk, so WMH doesn't appeal to me so much, but I am a fan of having a market with choices, so I'm glad to hear PP is doing a good job with their rule set and offering up some decent competition.

Deadnight wrote:
\
Not picking on anything mate, just making a point. Both are games, not accuracy simulations. I just find it odd that someone has a go at WMH for having unrealistic weapon ranges when 40k has this too, and so much more besides.

I think I just missed part of the conversation Yeah, neither game gets distance or scale (in the sense of size of unit versus size of objects) right, but these are compromises necessary to keep the games fun and the models affordable.

Deadnight wrote:
If that's what you want,then hats off to you sir. IMO flames of war or epic gives me a better sense of a large scale battle though than 40k.

And one wee point: you can still drool at your opponents awesomely modelled army that he is proud of assembling in other games as well. 40k doesn't have a monopoly there - I've seen some truly stunning WMH and infinity armies, as well as 40k and fantasy ones in my time. Makes you ashamed to put your stuff up against them!

I wish I enjoyed historicals :( I just can't get into something without power weapons or magic. FoW looks like a blast, watching other people play. My reference to the large armies is really the number of troops on a table. For whatever reason, I don't get very excited when I see 30 models on each end.

Deadnight wrote:
Question: why are you addressing this to me? I already appreciate, and understand all this talys. Different strokes etc. some if my best mates can't stand WMH.

But for what it's worth, I think this is a fairer point. My favourite movie of all time is funnily enough, transformers:the movie. Not mr.bay's recent offerings, I mean the 1986 cartoon. You know, the one with plot holes so large you could drive a nascar through them. And yet, I still love it. Here's the thing. My love for this movie is in spite of its flaws. They're not unknown to me. I see them. I acknowledge it's faults. I don't pretend they don't exist. But it's still my favourite movie despite this.

And if you come to me and say the same thing about 40k, that despite its flaws it's still your game, that you and you buddies work around those issues, and house rule them, then fair play. No one should ever hold it against you. But this is not the same as saying 40k is a better game because of its flaws.

Did I misquote? I'm sorry if I did. I thought it was you who said you didn't get Pulp Fiction, and I was simply using that to illustrate how a film that some people love, other people just think is weird or terrible. It's just so subjective.

Your point with transformers is well taken. To give a similar parallel, I like the last Star Trek movie even though it had plot holes the size of Jupiter in it (why didn't they take blood from one of Khan's compatriots... they had a cargo bay full of 'em!). In the case of 40k, I think the flaws are just so dramatically overstated. By the way, I also have a fond memory of the transformers cartoon movie, even if it isn't at the top of my list

I would concede that 40k is easier to break than many other games, but with the caveat that I probably wouldn't play with the people who try to do that anyhow, so what would it matter?

 Toofast wrote:
^ This. Starting WMH is cheaper, buying 2 50 point lists is not cheaper.

Actually I kept track of that. Currently I've got and am playing around with a 35 point list, I've bought so far:

2 clampack solos (15$)
2 clampack minis (10$)
2 different heavy vectors (35$)
1 light vector (25$)
And my starter kit (sale 30$, regularly 50$)

And that's a balanced list about equivalent to a 1500 point 40k list. I'm planning on expanding up to 50 with a box of heavy infantry and...I dunno something that gets me 6 points. Maybe another light vector and a second directrix. Either way, I'm pretty solidly in for 175$ and though I'm not a master of the game by any stretch I have managed to win a game against a list with a bunch of (is it incorporeal?) units which were the stated Big Weakness of my army. (For those that don't know WMH there are some ghosty type units that have equivalent of the Invisibility power in 40k and to get through it you need magical weapons-and my army only has a single unit that can grant others Magical Weapon)

So why is it you need two full 50pt lists? I've heard that thrown around a couple places is it for tournaments and the like? Do they need to be 1 Warmachine 1 Hordes? Because I'm pretty happy at present with my little force, it seems pretty flexible and cost me only a bit more than just the requisite books needed to get into a 40k army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'd like to clarify here: I love both 40k and WMH, for different reasons. Just like a lot of people have voiced in this thread, I had a huge problem getting into WMH initially because A) the giant anthropomorphic robots didn't appeal to me and B) the factions seemed more like "pick a color!" (And I'm not so much a fantasy guy so I didn't really consider hordes initially)

That changed a bit when I saw Cyriss. This is the one faction that has a real honest to god Sci Fi feel in the Steampunk of warmachine. Alien scuttling omnidirectional tripod robots supporting hulking monstrosities scuttling forward on spider limbs and packing under slung heavy weaponry. Even my commander is a stately, floating pillar with an expressionless face carved into the top, his weaponry a pair of wicked Swiss Army knife style tool arrays. They hit a vibe with me I haven't gotten since my Necrons got retconned into space Egyptians, and their gameplay is an oh so sweet ticking clockwork machine as the robots can advance, attack, and transfer off power to one of their fellows, allowing you to power up a whole wave of your Vectors with careful planning ahead where any other faction would only be capable of powering one.

So that's what finally did it for me at least, though I fell more instantly and violently in love with the Orks when I first started 40k in middle school

RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

I used to think GW special characters were occasionally ridicilously prized, but seeing that Butcher3 costs 51 euros that´s... more than a beginner battlegroup box, and more than one players army from the 2-player set that includes one or two additional units.

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

Not just possible, but in some cases competitive. The Warcaster would be Absylonia. ( Incase you meant a beast -heavy list with very little infantry/solos. )

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

WayneTheGame wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

Yeah I was less of a fan of the Godzilla looking ones like the Carnivean and Ravagore just in terms of aesthetics, but I was loving the Angelius, Seraph, and Typhon just looks amazing, but if ravagore a are auto includes I could get them too. I dunno, I was just scoping out legion as my second list, initially I was turned off it because of the weird Godzilla dragons and the seemingly unavoidable Pansy Elf Tax.

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

Yeah I was less of a fan of the Godzilla looking ones like the Carnivean and Ravagore just in terms of aesthetics, but I was loving the Angelius, Seraph, and Typhon just looks amazing, but if ravagore a are auto includes I could get them too. I dunno, I was just scoping out legion as my second list, initially I was turned off it because of the weird Godzilla dragons and the seemingly unavoidable Pansy Elf Tax.

Most Legion lists are beast heavy, there are a few ways to play with lots of "Pansy Elf" infantry but not usually beyond solos (Shepherd) or things like the "Pot & Lunch Ladies" (Spawning Vessel & attendants)

Right, beast heavy would be optimal. I was considering pairing typhus up with the seraph to swoop the big boy across the field and have him gobble up something important but every list I'm seeing is Angelius+Ravagore or Angelius+Scythean and I'm not a fan of either ravagore or Scythean particularly... Just because they look like every other heavy warbeastie in the game but with a dragon head instead of a troll head or wolf head or elephant head.

@Runic Yeah, but Butcher3 comes with 2 war beasts. He's almost a battlegroup aside from it being the wrong game (hordes vs. machine).

Warmahordes is cheaper, and while it is true that you will buy over time, it's also true of 40K, and you will often buy multiples.

Internal balance is much, MUCH better in warmahordes, and the rules are much tighter. Indeed, nothing is 'useless', or even 'strictly worse'. Ie, Ghost Sniper vs Heavy Rifle Team(crippled by Light Artillery rules). The sniper is more mobile and more accurate, yet there are cases you would take HRT, often in theme lists, for its advantages if Tiers, and Unit over Solo.

Warmahordes relies much more on you comprehending exactly what your models are capable of, but there's enough give-and-take that you're never truly helpless, and you're never really out of the running. Another case of Warmahordes being superior to Warhammer.

Warhammer does have much superior models, in material at least, and I will at least give that the field often looks much more visually impressive. People are drawn to the model count of Hammer vs Machine, I've found.

Personally, I play Warmahordes when I'm looking to tie my mind in knots trying to plan 30-odd steps ahead, and Warhammer when I'm looking for something that, while still tactical, is less mentally intensive.

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

They wouldn't play it if it wasn't fun.

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

WayneTheGame wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

This is why the existence of both games is a good thing.

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

I've noticed the 40k crowd tends to be louder either way. Either they're laughing and joking or sulking and raging

Having the right player base makes any game enjoyable. There is more room to have fun in a 40k game than there is in a Warmachine game, simply due to the flexibility of your army contents. There is a much smaller percentage of stuff in 40k that would be un-fun to play against than in Warmachine.

40k has some big problems right now that could easily be fixed by a decent FAQ and some streamlining for tournament usage. However, Warmachine has bigger problems, most stemming from the fact that Warmachine players believe their game is the best thing since sliced bread. Regardless, I don't like warmachine because it's all combos. The tactics come from combos. If I want combos, I'll play another game that doesn't cost GW level prices for less models.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Ive tried warmachine and 40k Ive played 40k for 8-10 years and warmachine about 6 months or so. I recently dropped warmachine as its just not that enjoyable compared to 40k.

Now im into it for the fun factor. I love having huge armies on either side and tons of terrain, rolling tons of dice and such. It just makes it so much for fun. I know games are longer than WMH, but who cares.... If you enjoy it!!

Warmachine I find that its very slow passed and that everyone never looks like they are having fun compared to all the guys I see playing 40k.

I've seen the opposite, the 40k people looked tired and like they just wanted it to be over with, the Warmachine players look like they enjoy the tactical depth. I watched a few 6th edition games at a local store earlier this year when I was looking at playing 40k again and nobody seemed to be having any fun at all or joking around.

This is why the existence of both games is a good thing.

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

 Las wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

Depends 100% on what you're playing. A Legion army might be less than 10, but most on 50mm bases. An infantry heavy army could have 30 or more, but also remember that WMH has a lot of solos that are "units" of a single character which 40k really doesn't have an equivalent to anymore other than HQ units. 40k also has vehicles for most squads which up the model count and the visual "largeness" of the game.

 Las wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.

How many models in a 50pt game?

From what I've seen, the norm is usually 2 big heavy dreadnought sized models, maybe 3 lighter terminator sized (all moving individually), 20 infantry models (maybe 3 units) and 3-4 solo supports and a commander. 30 models average, with infantry heavy lists being 50-60 and jack heavy lists being around 20.

My last 40k game was 1500 points, roughly 45 model SM army vs my 40 model Necron force.

So WMH runs about half the model count, but has the same number of units that act individually.

Also yes, I am comparing the two groups that play at my flgs.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

Exactly there are dicks and great people who play one or the other or shock horror both. Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well..........

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

Sure, but nobody plays with just 15 independent characters. What I mean is, if the price of GW models were about the same as the price of PP models for a separate, 40k-themed skirmish game, would that be appealing -- if they wrote a great skirmish game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I hope you are talking about a small local group of people that you´ve seen, because saying "40K players are usually like this and WM/H players that" is over the top gross generalization and doesn´t hold any bearing to anything really, seeing how many wargamers there are around the globe.

Exactly there are dicks and great people who play one or the other or shock horror both. Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well..........

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Warmachine isn't quite a skirmish like Inifnity, it has more (and larger) figures than that. It's closer in size to 2nd edition 40k, where like 2-3 squads and a couple extras was the norm in a 1,500 or 2,000 point game. That's a little larger than skirmish, just about (or a bit lower than) company level.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its possibly correct to say the style of the game may appeal to a particular mind-set / way of playing but that's a bit of a generalisation as well....

Yeah. It´s actually a huge generalisation asfar as my personal experiences go. Knowing the mindset/playing habits of even 100 wargamers accounts to pretty much nothing in the end. Just a drop in the ocean.

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Talys wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Warmachine isn't quite a skirmish like Inifnity, it has more (and larger) figures than that. It's closer in size to 2nd edition 40k, where like 2-3 squads and a couple extras was the norm in a 1,500 or 2,000 point game. That's a little larger than skirmish, just about (or a bit lower than) company level.

Even in Rogue Trader, there were many people who liked to play 40k with 50+ models on the table, and back then, it was mostly all infantry. I still have my first Imperial Guard army (and SM and Ork...), that I faithfully played every week, and was something like 50-60 models.

Talys wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

tbh is there much point in comparing a skirmish game with a battle game - be better to compare and contrast Warmachine with Infinity, Necromunda, Malifaux, Dredd etc? Not sure what to compare 40k with - the Old Starship Troopers game maybe - is there any other large scale sci-fi 28mm games?

Thank you-- this is what I keep saying. There are no other large scale sci-fi games that I am aware of, and nothing of any scale with infantry, medium (tank) sized units and giant sized units.

I don't know why people keep comparing WMH to 40k, as it's as useful as comparing tennis to ice hockey. You take some models and put them on a table to play, but the similarity ends there.

If the market demands skirmish games, then it's reasonable to say, skirmish games sell better and more people like them. It's not reasonable to say, skirmish games are better than large scale wargames. I'm not making this assertion (either way); I'm just stating what would be a reasonable position. It's also absurd to say that a game that is meant to have more models on the table should cost the same to participate in as a game that is meant to lave less models on the table. Although, the comparison of codex and book prices is not unreasonable.

Honestly it's been the book prices that got me the most into it. I was expecting a 40k-esque rules buy in but for the price of the inconvenience of looking up a few rules online that aren't included in the QuickStart book and using the included unit cards, I got all the rules for WMH free. I assembled the vast majority of my army for the price I would've paid for the books to get into 40k.

 ImAGeek wrote:


Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

Yeah, no argument in the assessment, but I think the solution is for GW to create a set of official rules for a smaller model count game (like Kill Team, which is a cheap buy on black library), since significantly lowering the cost of models is just not going to happen, from either GW or its competitors.

I think the price of $50 / book and the sheer number you need to be "competitive" is unjustified. Or, there should be a cheap softcover version.

And/But: this hobby sucks to try to do on the cheap. :( I wish it were more accessible.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


Well, the cost based complaints seem to be to do with the buy in cost. You can start WMH for £30. In 40k, £30 buys you a codex. Model per model count the costs are basically the same and WMH is still an expensive game, it's just a lot cheaper to start, which makes it much more attractive. The buy in cost for 40k should be a lot lower.

Yeah, no argument in the assessment, but I think the solution is for GW to create a set of official rules for a smaller model count game (like Kill Team, which is a cheap buy on black library), since significantly lowering the cost of models is just not going to happen, from either GW or its competitors.

And/But: this hobby sucks to try to do on the cheap. :( I wish it were more accessible.

IMHO the solution is to give better value for what you buy. I don't have a problem buying a $60 unit for Warmachine, but I balk as the idea of buying two identical squads (or a squad + vehicle) for 40k because I know I need to buy so much more. Their starter sets are good but not for what you get in them, as you barely get a playable army. Look at Deathstorm for example. The amount of figures you get for $125 is good, but it plummets down to poor value when you look at what that gives you comparable to what you actually need to buy to play real games and not just demo type games. That's where the cost rises exponentially and you start to say "WTF" when you start to price it out.

Of course, if they had balanced rules they could easily have a Kill Team like version of the game that was balanced and allowed for smaller games, and scaled up to large Apocalypse style games without impacting the balance.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

By the way, would anyone be happy if GW wrote good rules for a 15 model game, but charged $10-$30 per model for that game? This sounds very unappealing to me.

They're not far off with 18 quid SM characters.

Sure, but nobody plays with just 15 independent characters. What I mean is, if the price of GW models were about the same as the price of PP models for a separate, 40k-themed skirmish game, would that be appealing -- if they wrote a great skirmish game.

It was appealing and I played both of them for years. Then GW drop them becouse they didn't make enough money. Thank to having to look at of company trying to find models I like to play them, I found better systems. Now I have a great skrimish game (good for me) and GW gets no money (bad for them).

WayneTheGame wrote:

IMHO the solution is to give better value for what you buy. I don't have a problem buying a $60 unit for Warmachine, but I balk as the idea of buying two identical squads (or a squad + vehicle) for 40k because I know I need to buy so much more. Their starter sets are good but not for what you get in them, as you barely get a playable army. Look at Deathstorm for example. The amount of figures you get for $125 is good, but it plummets down to poor value when you look at what that gives you comparable to what you actually need to buy to play real games and not just demo type games. That's where the cost rises exponentially and you start to say "WTF" when you start to price it out.

Of course, if they had balanced rules they could easily have a Kill Team like version of the game that was balanced and allowed for smaller games, and scaled up to large Apocalypse style games without impacting the balance.

Since I like to model, the price of the actual models makes a big difference to me. Each year, I probably add a thousand models to my collection, and paint about 250 -300 (I output about 20-30 models that a month that are 5-15 hour hobbies... With the occasional display quality model). So, to me, the cost per model is pretty important. If they doubled the price of models, I would buy half as many models, or fewer. My total spend would actually go down if the price went up, as I buy a lot of stuff when there are either great deals, or exceptional models.

Deathstorm is a modellers dream, a boon for a campaign player, and just a good deal for straight gamers (since the dc dread, carnifex, and rulebook exceed the price of the box).

I'm pretty sure that there were costing threads, where people established that a competitive force for 40k, not including books was $600-$1000 -- that's if you know exactly what you're buying, and have no variability. Add in some options (assuming you either don't want to play the same stuff every single game, and new releases, plus a small number of books, and you're at at least $1,500 per army, not including forgeworld. Plus, you have a mountain of stuff to paint.

Does this make it better or worse? Neither, in my opinion. It is what it is, and will appeal to some people and not others. I do think a skirmish rule set would be nice to get people into 40k with fewer barriers, plus have a lower total spend, and to appeal to people who simply prefer skirmish games.

I play both. Wmh was the game that once again got me hooked on wargaming after 4 years.

The first thing I liked was that except for a basic rulebook every new model came with their rules,no need to buy codexes etc, and that even say a caster and 3-4 jacks a side can provide a quite challenging game with lot of tactical decisions and you have to try to think a turn ahead.

40k on the other hand feels like its a lot about the list you are bringing, is not near as challenging to play, but models and the extensive story and background cannot be matched!

As the time I can spend on the hobby is limited, most of my time goes into painting, converting and modelling. I enjoy the game as well of course, with the eight opponents/friends. Thats why 40k now occupies all that time, bit if I had to choose just one game to play in the future it would Wmh.

tompaj wrote:
I play both. Wmh was the game that once again got me hooked on wargaming after 4 years.

The first thing I liked was that except for a basic rulebook every new model came with their rules,no need to buy codexes etc, and that even say a caster and 3-4 jacks a side can provide a quite challenging game with lot of tactical decisions and you have to try to think a turn ahead.

40k on the other hand feels like its a lot about the list you are bringing, is not near as challenging to play, but models and the extensive story and background cannot be matched!

As the time I can spend on the hobby is limited, most of my time goes into painting, converting and modelling. I enjoy the game as well of course, with the eight opponents/friends. Thats why 40k now occupies all that time, bit if I had to choose just one game to play in the future it would Wmh.

I really like the cards with each unit too. However, I don't know anyone who plays the game regularly that doesn't own the book for their faction. This is less an issue in WMH, as the rulebooks are half the price as 40k.

Also, there is a lot of stuff in codices that wouldn't fit in a card format, like formations, special abilities, and faction specific wargear. In 40k, some units have many options, too, which requires at least some sort of summary sheet.

As a player of both, I am starting to enjoy the faster game time of Warmahordes, both in the pre game conversation and the length of time for the game (and that is strictly my personal situation, quick game means I can get in a couple of games on limited play time.)

WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

40K pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Lords of war Y/N?" "Forge World?"
What suppliment is that from?" "Did that get errataed?" "You said yes to LoW, but not my (X)?" "Friendly game or competitive?" "Well what did you think I ment by competitive?" "Unbound or regular?" "Is that the latest version of the the rules on X?" and so forth." Now that we have that done, lets roll for missions, objectives, psychic powers, deamonic gifts, warlord traits....

Now granted it is a bit of an exageration, but I found that starting a game of Warmahordes to be much easier and fluid. I also realize that some of the aboves are positives for people, and the sign of a huge amount of variety, just increacingly a headache.

I think 40k is for people who want to sit back, have a good time and not really focus so heavily on what's going on. It's relaxing and light hearted.
WMH is far more tactical and requires a lot more focus as every little move is important.

It's two different games with two different mindsets.
I still think 40k has a lot of problems an I don't find it enjoyable. But for some it's that sweet spot of fun.
I play video games to relax. Instead of difficult stress inducing games that are very popular, I prefer the more free games where I don't care if I die over and over again. (Skyrim, Saints Row) For some, that's 40k. On the table though, I'm the opposite. I play wargames for rich tactical and strategic gameplay that I can't get anywhere else. That's why I play WMH.

 Psienesis wrote:

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

.. unless you play Sisters, in which case your Troops box is 10 20 year old sculpts that runs $80.

In which case you already plays Warmachine or some other alternative game rather than 40k, at least until some new models are released. Or, if not, you should .

Uncle Fester wrote:
WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

People play book missions? Really? The most exotic we did was missions from those League that Privateer sometime puts out.

I started WMH first (I had been playing a 3.5 ed d&d Iron Kingdoms campaign, so running across another game in the same world caught my interest). No other wargames experience (although I had played the Dawn of War RTS).

At least in my meta, WMH was more like a fun intramural league, where everyone was trying to win matches and perfect their game. 40k was more like a bunch of people kicking a ball around a field. There may be rules, but they (and winning) was clearly secondary.

My first kit (SM Commander) was amazing. In WMH, you could do some minor conversions, but each kit came with pieces that fit together exactly as needed. No alternate bits or warhead choices.

Opening the SM Captain kit was an amazing feeling. I wasn't assembling PP's Stryker or Caine (both great characters). I was assembling Captain Andicar, of Wings of Dawn 7th company! A character of my own, in GW's setting. With so many options for wargear and other bits, he was truly my Andicar, as opposed to my copy of PP's Nemo. Very different feeling.

After I got a small force, I found that I rarely chose to play WMH. 40k was simply a better fit for me. More abstract rules, less careful movements, more random let's-see-what-happens. Less about beating your opponent with skill, and more about having fun with the other player. Less like a league, more like kicking the ball around a field.

WMH does have a much cleaner rule system. And better balance. Another player had a long history of 40k, but picked up WMH to try it, and it just fit what he wants so much better.

Different strokes for different folks.

Uncle Fester wrote:
As a player of both, I am starting to enjoy the faster game time of Warmahordes, both in the pre game conversation and the length of time for the game (and that is strictly my personal situation, quick game means I can get in a couple of games on limited play time.)

WarmaHordes pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Steamroller missions or book?"

40K pre game conversation: "Care for a game?" "How many points?" "Lords of war Y/N?" "Forge World?"
What suppliment is that from?" "Did that get errataed?" "You said yes to LoW, but not my (X)?" "Friendly game or competitive?" "Well what did you think I ment by competitive?" "Unbound or regular?" "Is that the latest version of the the rules on X?" and so forth." Now that we have that done, lets roll for missions, objectives, psychic powers, deamonic gifts, warlord traits....

Now granted it is a bit of an exageration, but I found that starting a game of Warmahordes to be much easier and fluid. I also realize that some of the aboves are positives for people, and the sign of a huge amount of variety, just increacingly a headache.

Hahaha.

Most WMH games are just "How many points" for me.

For the vast majority of 40k games, I can answer most of those questions just by looking at the other person's models. If you see $900 FW titans, and don't want to play them, the guy is probably not your ideal opponent

My situation is the opposite -- I only set aside a day or two a month to play, but I set aside the entire afternoon/evening, and I'd like about 2 games in a 7-10 hour session, so 40k works well for me. If I were doing quick pickup games at a FLGS, for sure, a skirmish game is a way friendlier format.

You also missed the part where taking 100 models out of cases and setting them up takes a while. But watching those is part of the 40k experience

Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

That's too bad, but it's understandable. Hopefully that kind of thing dies down over time, and you might be able to try the game while feeling better about it.

As an aside, I really do like the fact that both games exist. I'm primarily a WMH player, but I fully understand that not everyone wants an intense tactical workout every time they sit down, where half-inches can mean the game. It's a very specific kind of fun, and I certainly don't find it relaxing. Wouldn't trade it for anything else, but...

I think Malifaux and WMH are a better comparison?

Enjoying the former alot and the latter not so much..............

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

I've encountered this as well, it's really quite sad.

 Las wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

I've encountered this as well, it's really quite sad.

I far too often find the opposite: 40k players who bash everything else and praise how great 40k and GW is. But I agree either of these types of people are bad.

Just to chime in : WMH is not a skirmish game. At least by the standart definition , where one unit=one model. For me Warmachine is a battle game, just smaller than 40K. Actually 40K is pretty much unique amongst its peers and the only games comparable are the historicasl and those that use smaller models like FoW ,Dystopian Wars and DZC.

 TychoTerziev wrote:
Just to chime in : WMH is not a skirmish game. At least by the standart definition , where one unit=one model. For me Warmachine is a battle game, just smaller than 40K. Actually 40K is pretty much unique amongst its peers and the only games comparable are the historicasl and those that use smaller models like FoW ,Dystopian Wars and DZC.

Warmachine doesn't quite fall into any category. It's roughly like 2nd edition 40k, which was considered a skirmish game but was really larger than that (Necromunda being the skirmish game). I guess it could technically be considered company level, but I think it's a bit less than that.

You're right though, 40k is unique for the size it wants to do because virtually every other game has smaller scale and/or offers bulk figures at reasonable prices for the sole reason that they know you need a lot of it.

The closest comparison to 40k right now is Bolt Action, which is slightly smaller for average play (exactly company/platoon level) and priced accordingly to the size. A typical BA game has a few squads, a light vehicle maybe, one tank (all you are allowed without multiple detachments, unless you're playing the Tank Wars version), and some larger sized bases for weapons like howitzers and mortars. And, IMHO, that should also be the appropriate size for 40k.

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

List building is a force multiplier in any game, the only reason WMH suffers less from it is because it has a lot less variety and thus a lot less variability in power levels.

Not that it's a bad thing for a game, simpler games are always more balanced.

I would say that on that front, not having played WMH, 40K is fairly balanced for a game so diverse.

There are literally dozens of very different mechanics for the simple action of shooting at something, and it doesn't break the game, that's quite a feat.

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

40K is WAY cheaper. Not only do you get a vast collection of the highest quality miniatures, you get them for cheaper.

Players make 40K expensive, because old players gradually moved from 500 points to 2000 points and more as they collected more and more miniatures.

The game by itself is *very* affordable, you can start playing at 500 points for less than $100 (Dark Vengeance), and make it a balanced game by removing a few loyalists or adding a few chaos.

When WMH will be as old and vast as 40K, then maybe there will be a useful comparison.

Right now it's a young and simple game versus an old and complex one, pointless.

the_scotsman wrote:

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y.

I think that's just wrong. Outplaying and outwitting in 40K is a reality, even if the diversity implies a much improved strategical aspect (list building).



I can see why people would prefer games with simpler (and thus better) rules, with less variation (and thus better balance) and a younger ecosystem (and thus less points standard).

I just don't think it's worth pretending that one game is "better" than the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I've also read/ heard a lot of "WMH is just better" and stuff.

I can see how it's another compromise that might be more interesting to some people, no point in trying to convince me the game I like "has the most horrible rules ever".

1. WMH is not a simple game and the unit interactions are quite complex with many special rules for each unit.
2. Age of the game has nothing to do with it. 40k has gotten bloated and incoherent because of lazy rules writing, not age. And 40k is not as balanced as it could be and with some actually simple measures could be far more balanced. It's just that the rules writers are too rushed, lazy or just don't care. (As evidenced by how easy many of the fixes are. example: discarding cards you can't use in mealstrom or fixing the Wave Serpent's shield.)
3. Players didn't make 40k more expensive, GW did. With each codex they continue to lower points so you can fit more and more units into 1500 points. I watched from RT as the game got bigger and bigger. "Wow! With my new dex I can fit in a whole new Predator!" Fast forward five editions and the army has nearly doubled in size.

You're partially right about neither game is 'better.' I would say that WMH has tighter, better written rules, has more tactical depth and is more affordable to more people, but that's not to say someone will enjoy it more. Different strokes for different folks. (Too 'intense' for some, asthetics and fluff might not be for everyone...but really the fluff is fantastic and there's more of it and its far better than many realize.) But I would highly suggest learning more about the game and maybe trying a few demos of it. That way you could make more accurate comparisons.

WMH has always been largely irrelevant for me because I don't like the models. The game could be awesome but I just can't pay money to buy models I don't like.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
WMH has always been largely irrelevant for me because I don't like the models. The game could be awesome but I just can't pay money to buy models I don't like.

Understandable. I'm the same way with Deadzone.

@Morgoth: WMH has 300+ units. I wouldn't call this '' lot less variety''.

If you're seriously going to try and claim that 40k is cheaper because you can play at 500 points, then WMH is still cheaper because you can play at Battlebox level - $50 gets you that, so less than Dark Vengeance (not to mention that you have more variety instead of being limited to 2 factions) and you don't need to buy another $50 book when you want to expand. Or if you want one of the two factions in the 2-player box, that runs about the same as Dark Vengeance and gives more than the minimum to start, without it being totally lopsided in favor of one faction.

Sorry but no. The standard minimum sized game for 40k has mostly been 1,000 points since almost forever (sometimes 750). Just because you can play Kill Team doesn't mean that should factor in as an average game, since Kill Team isn't an average way of playing the game. WMH is cheaper to start, and evens out over time (or even goes over depending). 40k starts out expensive and never really changes.

I think Dark Vengeance IS 40K and acceptably cheap.

The lack of balance of the box can easily be fixed, and the quality of the models makes up for the difference in my opinion.

40K is cheaper because you get better miniatures for less.

Dark vengeance is only 2 factions, which happen to be the 2 weakest factions in power level, with push fit models that severely limit any kind of conversion potential and no codexes. Yes, the models are better than WMH battle boxes in every way possible. It's still pretty crappy to say the only affordable way to play 40k is with dark vengeance. If someone could only afford dark vengeance I would recommend WMH to them as I sure as hell wouldn't want to build some push fit models to have a 750 point army from the weakest faction in 40k and no codex. If someone has $500-700 to spend, can't get into WMH aesthetics and has a regular local player group that has already house ruled the game sufficiently to make it playable and balanced in their meta I would recommend 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw at 750 I can take
spiritseer (70)
5 dire avengers (200)
Wave serpent, scatter lasers, holo fields
5 dire avengers (200)
Wave serpent, scatter lasers, holo fields
wraithknight, suncannon and scattershield (280)
Total - 750

Bring your dark vengeance list against that and tell me how much fun it is getting tabled on turn 2 without taking a wound or HP from anything in my army.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

List building is a force multiplier in any game, the only reason WMH suffers less from it is because it has a lot less variety and thus a lot less variability in power levels.

Not that it's a bad thing for a game, simpler games are always more balanced.

I would say that on that front, not having played WMH, 40K is fairly balanced for a game so diverse.

There are literally dozens of very different mechanics for the simple action of shooting at something, and it doesn't break the game, that's quite a feat.

The argument that WMH is a “simpler” game with less variety is flawed on a number of levels. At the last count, there were over 860 special rules and abilities in the game. Regarding the comment about variety - again, its there. 10 main factions, with six or seven sub factions on the side as well. All with different war casters, jacks, beasts, units and solos. You’ve easily got a few hundred choices there. how they each interact with each other leads to a further staggering number of interactions and variety. I would also argue with regard to that comment on variety - 40k doesn’t offer variety, it offers the illusion of variety. Sure, you’ve got hundreds of options, but how many of them, really, are any good? How many are viable? And how many are wasted ink on a page? I’d argue that,practically speaking, ten, or twenty ‘real’ options offers far more variety than a hundred ‘paper’ options where only one or two are ever worth fielding. What hits the table top reflects the balance in the writing. Whilst you have less choice in terms of artificial ‘numbers’, you have more choice in practical terms, when it comes to stuff that is actually useful on the table top.

Second point: you’ve not played WMH. How then can you compare? 40k is not a fairly balanced game for one that is so ‘diverse’. in terms of its content, a huge amount of it boils down to different varieties of the same thing (ie power armour with different bling) with the same 44441418 3+ statline, or slight variation thereof. A lot of its ranges of stats are quite small - with a huge range of interactions boiled down to 'doing something on a roll of a 3-5', stats profiles hovering around the 3-5 and armour values ranging from 10-14. Remember, being a 'bloated' game is not the same as being a 'diverse' game.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

40K is WAY cheaper. Not only do you get a vast collection of the highest quality miniatures, you get them for cheaper.

Players make 40K expensive, because old players gradually moved from 500 points to 2000 points and more as they collected more and more miniatures.

The game by itself is *very* affordable, you can start playing at 500 points for less than $100 (Dark Vengeance), and make it a balanced game by removing a few loyalists or adding a few chaos.

When WMH will be as old and vast as 40K, then maybe there will be a useful comparison.

Right now it's a young and simple game versus an old and complex one, pointless.
.

How do you get them for cheaper? price per model is the same, or more, and a greater up-front buy in is required to get up to the standard game sizes.

40k is affordable if you play ‘budget hammer’ - sure. But when building an average sized army, it’ll cost you quite a bit. And DV isn’t the ‘full’ game.

Regarding the point about WMH not being as old and vast as 40k - its something a lot of people don’t seem to realise - PP is getting there. PP have been around for almost 15 years, and WMH is coming on to 11 or twelve years old. If you were to compare the state of balance of WMH now to 40k then, you would still find 40k to be an absolute mess of a game in terms of balance.

And again, a “simple” game? No sir, not by a long shot. It is far more complex and deep game than 40k im afraid. And it is far from ‘pointless’ to compare them. Considering they are the ‘main games’ in a lot of places, valid comparisons are valid.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y.

I think that's just wrong. Outplaying and outwitting in 40K is a reality, even if the diversity implies a much improved strategical aspect (list building).

I can see why people would prefer games with simpler (and thus better) rules, with less variation (and thus better balance) and a younger ecosystem (and thus less points standard).

I just don't think it's worth pretending that one game is "better" than the other.

Outplaying and outwitting is a reality? Really. That certainly wasn’t the case when iron warriors dominated fourth edition. It wasn’t the case for a lot of armies when they’d go up against grey knights, space wolves or IG leaf blower in fifth. All the tactical plays in the world would fall short against taudar, or the various 2++ rerollable deathstars in sixth when you played tyranids. Seventh? Par for the course really. 40k is a very shallow game in terms of its tactical depth (and this can be both good, and bad-I don’t always want the white knuckle ride that is a game of WMH)

Regarding the comments about preferring ’simpler’ games - you’re incorrect. WMH isn’t a ’simpler’ game. There is a huge amount going on, and a lot to take track of. Regarding ’less variation’ in practical terms, no, not really. Regarding a younger eco system - no, its just privateer press don’t hold ’lazy game design’ as a badge of honour.

Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Try playing a few games or even reading the rules and get to actually know what you're talking about and then come back. WMH is very complex, probably more so than 40k but it's also more intuitive and flows better due to better written rules.

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Try playing a few games or even reading the rules and get to actually know what you're talking about and then come back. WMH is very complex, probably more so than 40k but it's also more intuitive and flows better due to better written rules.

Perhaps, its certainly alot more finicky, but its also (IMO) less intuative and less flowing than Malifaux (having played a few games of both) ..................and which also seems ot have good well written rules and as a skirmish game remains a better comparison with 20- 30 figure (or less) games (wmh/H) versus 50-100 (40K).

wow, so much misinformation and ridiculous comparing;
.
example; Apples to Bananas, wrong, one is a Fruit and one is an Herb, so Gala Apples to Gala Apples would be a fair comparison.
.
Just know I play 40k, I have a Khador army for WMH, but am not fond of the game, now on to the comparison;
.
40k is not supported by GW.
(out of date FaQs buried/hidden on a different website does not count)
40K has no outriders at local FLGS to help players/customers.
(none)
40K has no sponsored tournaments.
(none, one games-day in the UK does not count)
40k does not take the communities input into account when it comes to game rules and balance.
(never has)
40K is completely unbalanced at any points level, a quick Google of what tournaments are doing or what players are saying will show that.
(three Knights list anyone?, Super-heavy? how many demon princes at 500 points? etc.)
40K is confusing.
(how many books, e-books, supplements, rules, data-slates, FW, and etc. are there? good luck keeping track)
40K modeling is confusing.
(how many different size and different looking models are there for the same weapon, looking at you Las Cannon, not to mention all the different configurations a model or unit can have, which once glued are impossible to change, and forget magnets, since when does the burden lie on the customer?)
40k models do not come with all the options available to said model or unit
(War-walkers only come with one of each weapon, when the model can have two of each, and GW has no way for a customer to buy missing weapons)
40k has no governing body to enforce wysiwyg. WMH the model IS what the model IS, and comes with it in the box.
40K is much more expensive, much more.
(Just purchasing ALL the publications, not to mention an Army, would break most banks $1000+. note; DV is DV, a beginner game, not wh40k)
etc.
Additionally note; 40k has only one Battle Bunker in the U.S. and tiny uninviting retail stores, none of which provide any answers, neither does GW Customer service.

My opinion of WMH;
WMH is a card game, with a figure representing the card, players could fold the card in half into a "tent" and use the card instead, no really.
If you like to build paint and "model" then WMH is very limited, as are historical games. That is one of the main draws of 40k, modeling and rule-of-cool.
But WMH is fast, easy to learn, a challenge to master, and a starter army can hold its own.
.
Insist on painted wysiwyg models, and the gimmick factor will slow in any miniatures game.

@rexscarlet

- You can abuse the rules if you want to, but the two sides can also play balanced games, if you want to, whether they are high-powered armies, or not. 3 IK can be taken down very easily with the right list.

- 40k rules are complex; if you want a simple or cheap game, don't play 40k.

- I don't know how 40k modelling is confusing >.<

- Most 40k models come with most of the equipment options. There are a few notable exceptions, but not many. WMH have no options at all.

- What the heck is a governing body to enforce wysiwig? Someone that will come into your house and say, "NO, YOU MUST PAINT THAT BLOOD ANGEL RED!!!!". In a tournament, the T.O. will have its rules. In a private game, use whatever you want, paper counters, proxies, or $10,000 of painted models.

- DV comes with exactly the same rulebook as hardcover BRB, so I don't understand how you can say it's a beginner game rather than 40k.

- WMH has some really beautiful models too.

- If you take the starter box army (the $100 comparable to DV), and you try to play against competitive players who have access to every unit within a point limit, you will lose most, if not all, of your games.

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

Hah! Touche. I guess "nobody" is too strong Yeah, there is the odd thread claming this, but personally, I think that's an indefensible position, unless you're highly restricting your game play to Kill Team or very low point games.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

Hah! Touche. I guess "nobody" is too strong Yeah, there is the odd thread claming this, but personally, I think that's an indefensible position, unless you're highly restricting your game play to Kill Team or very low point games.

I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

 ImAGeek wrote:
I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

Well, Kill Team gets rid of half of more than half of the models in the GW universe, haha

I think it's a great thing that both games exist, and I mostly agree with what you say. Keep in mind, the tighter rules are possible because of a much smaller number of unit types (which could be equally an argument for fewer unit types). I own *tons* of WMH models, but I find myself less inclined to work on them, because you can't put any uniqueness to the model itself, and also, I like their weaponry less. I like the staves and swords, but not so much the guns.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

Well, Kill Team gets rid of half of more than half of the models in the GW universe, haha

I think it's a great thing that both games exist, and I mostly agree with what you say. Keep in mind, the tighter rules are possible because of a much smaller number of unit types (which could be equally an argument for fewer unit types). I own *tons* of WMH models, but I find myself less inclined to work on them, because you can't put any uniqueness to the model itself, and also, I like their weaponry less. I like the staves and swords, but not so much the guns.

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?
).

it has popular builds-sure, but that is not the same thing. Bradigus and his Wold War theme list, for example is getting a lot of attention at the moment. Its a brutal list. It really is a nasty piece of work. but you know what? you can deal with it.

ultimately, everything can be built into a game winning strategy, and everything has its counter. nothing dominates.

morgoth wrote:

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

model count is not proportional to complexity. Or can you push, pull, head butt, slam, or throw things in 40k? Do you have the huge amount of combos and interactions between spells, feats and abilities? smaller games are not necessarily simpler. you do 'more' with each model in WMH than you do in 40k - in general with 40k, most models are ablative wounds for the guy with the meltagun.

With respect, it would help if you actually tried the game. Trying to make points from an uninformed position can be tricky.

morgoth wrote:

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?
.

vehicles? Oh, you mean like the warjacks?
monstrous creatures? you mean warbeasts?
flyers? yup, WMH also has flying stuff. various legion dragonspawn and other things besides.
Super heavies? er... colossals? gargantuans?

morgoth wrote:


40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.
.

the difference between a game of DV and a small 25pointer in WMH is still staggering. there is so much going on in the latter.

morgoth wrote:

The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Nope. the competitive meta has everything to do with 40k the game when the game is so poorly designed that competitive play is so wonky and lopsided. regarding high points armies - GW have been pushing bigger games since second ed. its a fact. nothing to do with a local scene.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

By unit types, I mean infantry, characters, walkers, skimmers, flyers, monstrous creatures, lords of war, artillery, transports, vehicles, super-heavies, heavy support, fast attack, and that kind of thing. Plus, special types like drop pods, bikes, jet bikes, jump, etc.

More generally, in giant units, flying units, vehicle, transportation, and artillery each of which have very specific and different rules.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

By unit types, I mean infantry, characters, walkers, skimmers, flyers, monstrous creatures, lords of war, artillery, transports, vehicles, super-heavies, heavy support, fast attack, and that kind of thing. Plus, special types like drop pods, bikes, jet bikes, jump, etc.

More generally, in giant units, flying units, vehicle, transportation, and artillery each of which have very specific and different rules.

Ah yeah then 40k does have more, but I think there's a lot of unnecessary ones. Walkers and MCs could probably be condensed for example (the lines are blurred enough as it is).

They're better at different things. WMH has much better gameplay; it's infinitely better balanced, it's much more of a skill game and much less about having cooler toys than the other guy. Warhammer is a much better creative tool, the models are better, game encourages conversions, and it's better at the narrative aspect. WMH is easier to get a good random pick-up game walking into a strange game store with, Warhammer needs a consistent play group who are invested in staying friends after the game to work well.

Warmachine is a better game, Warhammer is a better hobby.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

By unit types, I mean infantry, characters, walkers, skimmers, flyers, monstrous creatures, lords of war, artillery, transports, vehicles, super-heavies, heavy support, fast attack, and that kind of thing. Plus, special types like drop pods, bikes, jet bikes, jump, etc.

More generally, in giant units, flying units, vehicle, transportation, and artillery each of which have very specific and different rules.

to be fair, WMH is a fantasy game. surely comparing it to fantasy is a better, and more appropriate comparison?

regarding your list though. to be fair, i do regard some categories as a bit artificial or redundant. walkers and MCs could be the same thing. skimmers and flyers - ditto. transports and vehicles? super heavies are just a subset of regular vehicles etc. But to look at your list:
infantry. done.
characters. done. its a character-centric game.
walkers. jacks count, im sure?
skimmers? fantasy game. some vehicles make sense, but not really flying ones. unless you count the throne of everblight.
flyers? these exist. archangels, and various other flying dragonspawn.
monstrous creatures? warbeasts.
lords of war. colossals, and gargantuans. and Butcher. he's a lord of war. to be fair though, i see lords of war as a bit of an artificial category.
artillery. yup. mortars, chainguns, cannons etc.
transports? got me there. to be fair though: fantasy game. anything beyond a horse has no place.
vehicles. Some exist.
super heavies. colossals and gargantuans.
heavy support and fast attack? artificial constructs. there are options though that broadly conform to the 'heavy support' options and 'fast attack' tropes though.
Drop pods? fantasy game. but does teleportation count?
bikes and jet bikes. fantasy game.and i'd argue WMHs cavalry is an appropriate comparison.
jump units. yeah, i can think of some analogues. arguably covered under 'flyers' as well. they even have a "jump" special rule for some leapy types.

AnomanderRake wrote:They're better at different things. WMH has much better gameplay; it's infinitely better balanced, it's much more of a skill game and much less about having cooler toys than the other guy. Warhammer is a much better creative tool, the models are better, game encourages conversions, and it's better at the narrative aspect. WMH is easier to get a good random pick-up game walking into a strange game store with, Warhammer needs a consistent play group who are invested in staying friends after the game to work well.

Warmachine is a better game, Warhammer is a better hobby.

to be fair: nothing is stopping you converting stuff in WMH. there are some truly brilliant conversions out there. metal is a more unforgiving medium, and GW definately have better bitz options, but if you are smart, you can go a long way converting stuff in WMH.

HMS griffon gun carriage to airship conversion:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion

Legion of Mechablight:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?198539-And-now-for-something-completely-different

General customised figures:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?144918-Show-me-your-most-heavily-customized-figures!

I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Akiasura wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Because of the setting? They're both fantasy settings. 40k is obviously more futuristic sci fi setting (okay, it's "science fantasy" as it's a fantasy setting that just happens to be in the future in space; but I digress) and will have different appeals to people. The reasons I see people comparing WMH to 40k is because either they both use round bases and/or 40k is the most popular game in town so everything will be compared to it.
Both WMH and WHFB are pretty much the same setting, just with different quirks done on them. WMH is not, despite what some people may think, streampunk. It's your prototypical D+D setting that is in the midst of an industrial revolution. Hardly surprising as the Iron Kingdoms RPG was first based on the D20 system. WHFB has all your typical fantasy tropes, sometimes with their own unique spin on them too. There's a little crossover as well with Empire being about the closest analog to a Warmachine faction IMO.

I wouldn't say either is a good comparison. WHFB's gameplay, whilst far better than 40k's (probably because GW have yet to "tinker" with it like they've done to 40k) is not a like for like comparison due to the whole regiments setup vs. WMH's round bases. Same goes for modern 40k. You're best analog for WMH is 2nd ed. 40k if you're talking about gameplay, but that's where the comparison ends.

I do think WHFB to WMH is a slightly better comparison simply due to the settings. What if your thing is Space Marines? There's no Space Marine analog in the Iron Kingdoms (at a stretch if you take the whole monastic knights tropes SM's are filled with you can see someone seeing the appeal of a Kreoss2 Knight Exemplar army for example, but that's pushing it a bit whens there far easier comparisons to make to races in WHFB) Same goes for Tyranids.

Neither is an ideal comparison to one another, but I can see where ClassicCarraway is coming from.

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game.

I dunno what anyone else has said over the last five pages, but I find the hints and statements that 40K is a 'realistic' 'simulation' that 'makes sense' to be hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Deadnight wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?
).

it has popular builds-sure, but that is not the same thing. Bradigus and his Wold War theme list, for example is getting a lot of attention at the moment. Its a brutal list. It really is a nasty piece of work. but you know what? you can deal with it.

ultimately, everything can be built into a game winning strategy, and everything has its counter. nothing dominates.

That's unlikely.

You can deal with anything in 40K too by the way, and at 500 points there are no screamerstar, centurionstar or really anything big.

And maybe the only reason you don't have screamerstars and the like in WMH is because there is just less variability in unit combinations.

Deadnight wrote:

With respect, it would help if you actually tried the game. Trying to make points from an uninformed position can be tricky.

With respect, I don't believe your understanding of WH40K is sufficient and unbiased enough to compare it to WMH, which is why I try to complete what you say with what I know.

Deadnight wrote:

morgoth wrote:

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?
.

vehicles? Oh, you mean like the warjacks?
monstrous creatures? you mean warbeasts?
flyers? yup, WMH also has flying stuff. various legion dragonspawn and other things besides.
Super heavies? er... colossals? gargantuans?

The warjacks are not vehicles, they're walkers / dreadnaughts. No tanks no transports no skimmers no nothing there.
I don't know about the details, but I would be very surprised if WMH's flying stuff was anything like 40K's flying stuff, i.e. a very different breed of unit.
I'm guessing it's more like jetbikes than flyers.

Deadnight wrote:

morgoth wrote:

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.
.

the difference between a game of DV and a small 25pointer in WMH is still staggering. there is so much going on in the latter.

Weren't we talking about simplicity ?

Deadnight wrote:

morgoth wrote:

The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Nope. the competitive meta has everything to do with 40k the game when the game is so poorly designed that competitive play is so wonky and lopsided. regarding high points armies - GW have been pushing bigger games since second ed. its a fact. nothing to do with a local scene.

Do you mean to say that GW has forced you to play with higher pointed armies ? man those people sure are evil.

How many WMH tournaments have 256 players ?

How many army lists do you generally have for one single WMH game ?

How many WMH games are played in the equivalent of 1850 point 40K count and diversity of models, options and combos ?



I'm willing to bet that if WMH had as much competition, single army lists, and enough points to increase the number of dirty tricks available, it would only be better than 40K by way of limiting variance - and thus diversity.


- which would still be a perfectly fine way to have a more balanced game.

Wait... WALKERS AREN'T VEHICLES?!?!? GW has been lying to me all this time?!?

@Morgoth: The equivalent in Warmachine to 1850 points of 40k is 50 points, and there is a TON of variety in lists, to the point where if you have a look at tournament lists, it's rare to see two lists that are identical (and the ones that are end up usually being skewed Theme lists where you don't get a lot of variety to begin with due to the theme, e.g. Butcher2 Doom Reaver spam. Hard to have variety when you only get one type of unit...). You might see similar caster pairings, but usually there are some differentiation between lists that have a larger impact (Unit A instead of Unit B is a far greater difference in WMH than say choosing between a Scout squad and a Tactical squad in 40k).

That's why the game is so well suited for competitive play and, as a result, better suited for casual play (balance and variety). 40k isn't suited to anything. It's not suited to competitive play because of gross imbalances between codexes and units within a codex (and poor/vague rules left up to interpretation). It's not suited for narrative play because, again, there is a huge imbalance between units in the same codex and this screws over the guy who thinks that Warp Talons and Mutilators are awesome looking over the powergamer who takes Plague Marines because they're better or even the guy who is in love with the Death Guard and fields Plague Marines for that reason without even trying to min/max.

Are some units better than others in WMH? Sure, but it's nowhere near the magnatude of difference you find in 40k. You take virtually any combination in WMH and with the right synergy from your Warcaster and/or other units, make it work enough to win; in fact it's a common thing to see top tier players take a list with "bad" choices and end up winning the entire thing, which then gets the whole community talking about if that can be made a viable thing for others. When was the last time someone won a 40k tournament with an unorthodox list? When was the last time you saw someone even bother with a "bad" unit in a 40k tournament?

I wouldn't bother arguing with morgoth. He's already stated he's never played WMH so clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Because of the setting? They're both fantasy settings. 40k is obviously more futuristic sci fi setting (okay, it's "science fantasy" as it's a fantasy setting that just happens to be in the future in space; but I digress) and will have different appeals to people. The reasons I see people comparing WMH to 40k is because either they both use round bases and/or 40k is the most popular game in town so everything will be compared to it.
Both WMH and WHFB are pretty much the same setting, just with different quirks done on them. WMH is not, despite what some people may think, streampunk. It's your prototypical D+D setting that is in the midst of an industrial revolution. Hardly surprising as the Iron Kingdoms RPG was first based on the D20 system. WHFB has all your typical fantasy tropes, sometimes with their own unique spin on them too. There's a little crossover as well with Empire being about the closest analog to a Warmachine faction IMO.

I wouldn't say either is a good comparison. WHFB's gameplay, whilst far better than 40k's (probably because GW have yet to "tinker" with it like they've done to 40k) is not a like for like comparison due to the whole regiments setup vs. WMH's round bases. Same goes for modern 40k. You're best analog for WMH is 2nd ed. 40k if you're talking about gameplay, but that's where the comparison ends.

I do think WHFB to WMH is a slightly better comparison simply due to the settings. What if your thing is Space Marines? There's no Space Marine analog in the Iron Kingdoms (at a stretch if you take the whole monastic knights tropes SM's are filled with you can see someone seeing the appeal of a Kreoss2 Knight Exemplar army for example, but that's pushing it a bit whens there far easier comparisons to make to races in WHFB) Same goes for Tyranids.

Neither is an ideal comparison to one another, but I can see where ClassicCarraway is coming from.

You have a point about the fluff, but most of the comparisons between 40k and WMH have been in regards to gameplay, not fluff.
In regards to gameplay, it's hard to think of a game outside of historicals that are less alike than WHFB and WMH. The way units work, the magic system, the effect leadership has, magic items and their possible impact, the effect Standard bearers/UA have on units....40k is a much better way to look at things since it is closer to how WMH plays.

As for comparing settings, that seems...useless? If you really have a thing for spacemarines, sure, WMH doesn't have a lot to offer you. But that's not entirely useful. What if my thing is Jedi? Or Krogan? Neither setting has anything to offer me in that regard.

If you think the reason that people compare them is because of the bases...I don't even know what to say to that. It's been pretty clear the gameplay is the main point, with maybe the diversity or depth in the fluff being a secondary point.
Most popular game in town, sure. Okay. That's a good point.
Fluff? Who is even arguing they have similar fluff?

Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

This is a very good set of points. I disagree with Necromunda (I have never played ANY game that is like Necromunda except GorkaMorka or Mordenheim), but they do look to achieve different things.

Generally that is what the threads break down to, usually because very few people have experience with both systems. I am unable to argue with Grim about WHFB being balanced, because my experience with that system is old. When I played, it was grossly unbalanced, worse system I have ever played in my life. It could be that I played ogres, but having a cheap mage fly up, IF Purple Sun (which many armies could guarantee getting), and killing 1200+ out of my army, was terrible. Often this happened turn 1 at least, so I could still play Necromunda after.

We can argue how the companies treat their customers though, because this should be similar regardless of the rules. FAQs taking forever, for example, is terrible.
We could argue the start up costs and how much variety you get from purchases. We could argue model quality....ish. I like GW models more in appearance, but I wish the boxes came with all the weapons I needed. I always find myself hunting for extra plasma or meltas. When I used SW rules, finding all those ML's was a challenge, same for Havoks and autocannons.

I don't think we can argue quality of gameplay. WMH has much better gameplay, I don't think you can argue against that. Just look at the forums dedicated to the games and you'll see very few, if any, ZOMG GAME IS BROKEN in PP forums while here it's a constant thing.

I will not respond to morgoth, as anyone who doesn't see that WS are one of the best units in the game isn't capable of logical thought and discussion. It's like saying gravity is just a theory, so if I don't believe in it I can fly.

Both games are aimed at different players, the problem comes when one type wants to play the wrong game for them.

I would like to get into Warmachine/Hordes sometime, as i like new things and i like many of the models but it does get tiring being told that 40k fails as a game when to put it simply it does not "always", as my gaming group is getting more and more dominated by it with new players since 7th, we are having a blast, might not be perfect but it provides us with exactly what we want.

Play what brings you enjoyment, let others do the same, the great thing right now is we all have so many options in terms of games on the market, no need to change another one to be more to your liking when plenty of players are enjoying it still.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

40k isn't really mass battle though, outside of the horde armies, just vehicles/walkers/etc. inflate the size. An infantry heavy WMH army isn't all that much smaller than a typical non-horde 40k army, minus the vehicles. It's not like 40k is a real mass battle game (that was Epic).

The big thing is that a unit in 40k is basically wound counters for the Sergeant/Heavy/Special weapon, they operate as one thing. WMH each unit is really like a group of individual models that need to be within a certain range of the leader. They act independently. This allows for a ton of tactical application e.g. shooting a guy in front with one trooper, so another can shoot the guy behind him or open up a charge lane for another unit. It's not just roll a bucket of dice for the whole group like in 40k.

My biggest issue with 40k, and the reason I can't play it again, is that it hurts someone like me who cares about the narrative/fluff. I can't do what I want in the context of the game (despite GW claiming I can) because of the poor rules and overall lack of balance which would cause me to lose games just because of what I field, regardless of how I use it. That difference alone is enough for myself, and many others, to prefer the balance and tactical choices in WMH to 40k. Pretty models are one thing, but even the most die-hard collector would get frustrated at losing every single game because they collected a poor army in game that works well in the fluff or fits a concept.

morgoth wrote:


That's unlikely.

How so? Please explain, from your extensive experience of WMH. Tell me of this list that dominates every tournament?

morgoth wrote:

You can deal with anything in 40K too by the way, and at 500 points there are no screamerstar, centurionstar or really anything big.

To be fair, not always. 40k is historically like this. There are various tiers of effectiveness. Back in fifth, grey knights were the thing that were a really lopsided match up. Especially for daemons. Fourth was iron warriors. Sixth and seventh is no different. Or were tyranid players making it all up?

Now, at 500points, you don’t have the points for screamerstar, but its just as prone to other forms of imbalance – that’s simply the nature of 40k. And lets be fair here – 1500-1850 is the default ‘standard’ size game.

morgoth wrote:

And maybe the only reason you don't have screamerstars and the like in WMH is because there is just less variability in unit combinations.

No, it's because pp do their damnedest to design a balanced game.

And trust me, there is plenty variety in unit combinations. Now, whilst you cant swap a meltagun for a flamer, or some other paper option, most factions have about 70 – 80 core units, including unit attachments and weapon attachments (your special weapon equivelants), as well as 40-60 other mercenary options (not counting mercenary jacks or warcasters) available. Now, with each of the dozens of different casters, each with different spell sets and feats, and the various affinities, abilities, elide cadres, special abilities etc you simply cannot say there is ‘less variability’. Swapping out a single model in your army can drastically affect how it plays. To the extent that, for example, two warcastes with the exact same army list will play completely different games with totally different tactics. In 40k, your devastators really don’t care too much if the force is led by a chaplain or a captain-they do the same job regardless.

And like I said, everything can be built into a list. At the recent world team championships for example, something like 80 or 90% of the khador roster was represented on the table top. And khador came out with one of the best overall performance rates in terms of win/loss rates. Can 40k claim this?

morgoth wrote:

With respect, I don't believe your understanding of WH40K is sufficient and unbiased enough to compare it to WMH, which is why I try to complete what you say with what I know.

Believe what you want buddy. I’ve played, and followed this game since third edition. I’ve made my bones. Calling my viewpoint ‘unbiased’ is also flawed. And arguably, since I play both games, I have the better perspective.

morgoth wrote:

The warjacks are not vehicles, they're walkers / dreadnaughts. No tanks no transports no skimmers no nothing there.

Dreadnoughts aren’t vehicles now? Since when? And to be fair, we have vehicles. Look at Khador’s gun carriage, protectorates vessel of judgement and the various other ‘battle engines’ etc.

Besides, it’s a fantasy setting. Anything bigger than a horse and carriage for general transportation makes very little sense. Well, they have trains, but they serve no purpose on a 4 by 4.

morgoth wrote:

I don't know about the details, but I would be very surprised if WMH's flying stuff was anything like 40K's flying stuff, i.e. a very different breed of unit.
I'm guessing it's more like jetbikes than flyers.

Accurate observation. Regardless, there is a category of ‘stuff that flies’. Flyers in 40k are a fairly recent addition, and if I’m being honest, in my view don’t belong – they belong in a game/scale like Epic 40k. gunships etc are a different story, and used to be represented by skimmers.

morgoth wrote:

Weren't we talking about simplicity ?

You were. You were saying WMH is a ‘simple’ game because its smaller. You compared it to a gutted game of 40k (without vehicles, MCs, flyers and SHs). And yet, WMH has all of those things anyway. Even at a smale scale. The difference in ‘what you can do’ is staggering. A warjack or warbeast has more ‘presence’ and in-game functionality than a dreadnought or MC. Its not the simple game you pretend, or insist it is.

morgoth wrote:

Do you mean to say that GW has forced you to play with higher pointed armies ? man those people sure are evil.

Well, they did play their role in pushing for a ‘standard’ size, and they’ve compounded the issue by continually reducing unit costs. What was a 1500pt army a few years ago comes up 50 or a hundred points short now. Same game size, buy more.

To be fair, I don’t blame them for wanting to sell stuff. I think their strategy is cynical, short sighted and misguided.

morgoth wrote:

How many WMH tournaments have 256 players ?

Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. 40k has the bigger player base. It would stand to reason it would have more places in tournaments.

But to be fair: how many 256 player 40k tourneys are there? Sorry. Still there. Ten years ago? Loads. Nowadays? They’re a minority.

Regarding WMH, Im sure some of the biggest ones could go that high. I know the national masters and other big events typically sell out with about 128. Not bad going for a game which has a smaller player base.

morgoth wrote:

How many army lists do you generally have for one single WMH game ?

One. Tournaments are a three list format, but steamroller doesn’t define every aspect of the game.

morgoth wrote:

How many WMH games are played in the equivalent of 1850 point 40K count and diversity of models, options and combos ?

50pt games are the 1500-1850pt equivelant. Remember, more bodies =/= more complexity. And Unbound for huge games.

And all of them to the second.

Regarding diversity of models, how can you say that with regard to 40k, when half the bloody factions are basically the same damned power armour, just with slightly different bling? Look at my Khador force. I can field everything from power armour, heavy infantry, conscript infantry, guerrilla infantry, guerrilla irregulars, light and heavy cavalry, mages, shock troops, horse drawn tanks, and various flavours of warjacks ranging from clamjacks to super heavies. Not to mention the mercenary options. That’s one faction. How about my Circle army. Werewolves, stone golems constructs, grizzly sized goats, cannibal beastmen, wolf riders, druids, tribal militia and so on. Plus mercenaries.

Options and combo wise – 40k propably wins in terms of page count and ‘paper options’, but when the game boils down to a top tier list comprising handful of codices running a handful of builds (and 40k has always been this way) you can’t talk about ‘diversity of models, options and combos’. Like I said, at the recent world team championship, 80 -90% of khadors roster got fielded.

morgoth wrote:

I'm willing to bet that if WMH had as much competition, single army lists, and enough points to increase the number of dirty tricks available, it would only be better than 40K by way of limiting variance - and thus diversity.

You should go play the game, and inform yourself.

I’d argue the multi-list format helps promote variety. A lot of stuff gets a peak in. It gives you the chance to skew and counter. Its part of the balancing of the game. And by the way, say hi to cryx and circle – two factions that defined “dirty tricks” and sneaky, dirty, underhanded shenanigans.

At the recent 40k escalation league, the response was so poor that it was cancelled.
At the recent WHFB escalation league, 12 people signed up.
At the recent Warmahordes escalation league, the response was over thirty players. This is from an area where no one knew about Warmahordes three years ago, it has literally exploded onto the scene.


What do you mean it has a lack of variety? My faction, Khador has 15 different warcaster, that is 15 different play styles because they all bring something different. Playing pButcher like Zerkova will get you no where.

But warmachine is a game, where it is really is a case of tactical advantage over fire power. 40K is a shooting game, where most battles are won in the shooting phase, going second against a powerful Eldar army can cost you the game in turn one.


Going second against a Cygnar gunline, can you still lose the game turn one? Absolutely if you act like an idiot during deployment, but you can mitigate the damage by thinking about deployment. In some games of 40k, there might as well be no terrain, because it won't save you against overwhelming firepower.

And at a 50 point level, which is roughly the same as a 1850-2000 point battle, you can play the same army 15 times, and have to face 15 different lists.


But the biggest reason I generally prefer Warmahordes over 40k at the moment? Is because one is a primarily a war game with models, and the other is a bunch of models which also have rules.

I like the fact that if there is a complicated rule, PP will go out and fix it.

For example, Khador has two warjacks called the Devastator and the Demolisher. We call these clamjacks, because they have massive shields on their arms. These boost their ARM up to a crazy 25. However, when they attack, they have to open up, exposing their soft and creamy centre.

But, what if a Devastator head butted a model? Or Trampled through a unit and slammed another jack. People were not entirely certain what would happen to the 'jacks ARM value. So someone asked the guys on the forum and they responded that they could, and FAQ'd it. I don't see GW doing that with any of the many special rules that could do with proper FAQing.

The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

There is a HUGE variety in WMH compared to 40k, but it's not in the same vein. 40k's variety is "Should I take 2x plasma guns or 2x grav guns", while WMH's variety is "Should I take unit X and caster A along with solo H, or caster B, Units Y and Z and Warjack L"

Imagine the difference between a regular SM captain and a bike captain, and that's a small (but not quite) idea of what picking a different caster does in WMH; it changes the way you pick/play your army entirely. The difference is that you can run the same list with 2+ casters, and they change (sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways) how that army plays.

The comparison is like the difference between picking if a car should have a spoiler (40k), or if it should have a different kind of engine entirely (WMH).

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Actually, with enough duct tape and a high enough pressured hose, I am reasonably certain I could make a horse drink just fine!
Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Akiasura wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Actually, with enough duct tape and a high enough pressured hose, I am reasonably certain I could make a horse drink just fine!
Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Then use Dorothy Parker's version-much harder to gimmick that one into working.

Warhammer doesn't hold a candle to Warmahordes in terms of gameplay. But there is definitely an appeal to Warhammer that keep people playing it.
However, we aren't able to force people to 'realise' that Warmahordes is a better game, because it doesn't appeal to some people, and that's fine. They are at liberty to form their own opinions. We see the same thing in everyday life. It would be nice if everyone used facts, and admitted opinions are opinions, but we're all guilty of not doing this on occasion.

It was someone (probably Peregrine, but not sure) who keeps stating this and I find it to be 100% true: In 40k you have fun in spite of the rules, not because of them.

In WMH you have fun because the rules are well written and balanced.

I was in the middle of a long post, decided not worth it, i just say again, nothing wrong with different companies catering to different types of players, lets just accept each others preferences, let players play what they like without being told why they play the "terrible", "broken" or "wrong" game.

Not sure why people feel the need to crusade for the players to change, that i often see online and at other gaming clubs in my past, when others players are happy with what already brings them fun in their night a week of gaming, as my club currently does.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It was someone (probably Peregrine, but not sure) who keeps stating this and I find it to be 100% true: In 40k you have fun in spite of the rules, not because of them.

In WMH you have fun because the rules are well written and balanced.

That does sound like Peregrine haha. I completely agree, the rules aren't the selling point to 40k.

I would say the games cater to two different styles, but WMH is more successful in accomplishing what its trying to do.

You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

Bharring wrote:
You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

Now that I 100% agree with, and is one of the few things I miss about 40k - being able to make your own character and tell your own story. But at the same time, the lack of good balanced rules mean that Captain Achilles of the 1st Company will get wiped out every game because Terminators suck in the rules, even though he's a veteran of over 100 years of conflict and second only to the chapter master in rank.

It goes both ways. 40k lets you create your own character for a story, but rarely does it let you play it out the same way on the tabletop. You can do that in PP's games too, only it's called the Iron Kingdoms RPG and is a better medium for creating and telling your own stories.

Bharring wrote:
You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

If the warlord table was fixed instead of random, I would agree with you a bit. As it is, Captain Andicar might prefer measured tactics, but he could roll a warlord trait that effects challenges for some reason. Captain Notherus, meanwhile, can outflank this game despite his love for all things firepower related.
I don't mind, in necromunda, having random powers during leveling up. Probably because I only roll randomly each time they level up, and not every game. If I had to randomly generate unique features every single game for every single model, I'd drop it in a flash. Nothing breaks immersion like knowing that Aki'el Asura, Captain of Cell 242 of the Alpha Legion, forgot how to outflank today, but is suddenly very skilled at face punching.

That being said, I don't play WMH for the fluff. I usually like the nicknames for the warcasters and refer to my heroes as those guys. Often I come up with names for all my guys that tend to do well. Molik is called KKKHHHAAAANNNN, Hexy is called SexyHexy, and my bronzeback is called Sir Crunch-a-lot. It adds some levity to the game that I don't get from 40k when I roll warlord traits and decide who is leading the army today.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

Talys wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

Because a lot of people who do like 40k like it out of ignorance/stubbornness. Not all (you don't seem like that type, for example) but the general attitude is that the Pro-40k crowd see it as the bestest thing evar because it has lots of pretty figures that they don't mind paying lots for, and they don't care that it's unbalanced and GW is really a successful company that's just misunderstood and trying to stop thieves like CHS and the Spots author from stealing their names and works and the internet is just a big scary place full of whiners who can't accept these facts.

It's that kind of attitude, which generally comes from the 40k crowd, that cause such hostility on both sides. There are a few WMH players that evangelize and push their agenda and will insinuate that anyone who likes 40k is some kid of moron, but I find them few and far between versus the "White Knight" type who will defend 40k perhaps because they don't want to admit that they've invested hundreds (if not thousands) on a gakky game with gakky rules and pretty models.

Talys wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

To be fair I there's been very little (if any) of the last bit. Most of the discussion has been about the pros and cons of the games rather than aimed at the players. It's only really when certain people who haven't played both games start heavy handedly throwing around 'facts' (cough morgoth cough) that it turns to that and even then no one called him stupid or anything. It's just annoying when people act like they know everything when they haven't even played.

I play both so, I don't have anything against 40k players for liking the game. For pretending there's nothing wrong with 40k and it's far superior to any other game they haven't even tried however, is just ignorant.

Edit; and what WayneTheGamer said above (someone always gets there first and says it better -.-).

WayneTheGame wrote:

Because a lot of people who do like 40k like it out of ignorance/stubbornness. Not all (you don't seem like that type, for example) but the general attitude is that the Pro-40k crowd see it as the bestest thing evar because it has lots of pretty figures that they don't mind paying lots for, and they don't care that it's unbalanced and GW is really a successful company that's just misunderstood and trying to stop thieves like CHS and the Spots author from stealing their names and works and the internet is just a big scary place full of whiners who can't accept these facts.

It's that kind of attitude, which generally comes from the 40k crowd, that cause such hostility on both sides. There are a few WMH players that evangelize and push their agenda and will insinuate that anyone who likes 40k is some kid of moron, but I find them few and far between versus the "White Knight" type who will defend 40k perhaps because they don't want to admit that they've invested hundreds (if not thousands) on a gakky game with gakky rules and pretty models.

Ironically, I model 40k miniatures more than WMH because the cost per model is a lot lower (despite that the cost to play is much higher). I do like 40k because there are a lot of models, and they keep coming out with new stuff. In fairness, this is also why I like PP; they come out with enough neat new stuff to satiate my thirst for new models (well, not quite, but it isn't bad).

Speaking on the game itself, you gotta be crazy to say there are no issues with it. There are many more issues with 40k than WMH, but I accept that as a part of a more complex game (which isn't for everyone). I understand the desire of players who wish GW would fix existing stuff before introducing new stuff (like LoW) -- on the other hand, it has never stopped me from having fun.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Because a lot of people who do like 40k like it out of ignorance/stubbornness. Not all (you don't seem like that type, for example) but the general attitude is that the Pro-40k crowd see it as the bestest thing evar because it has lots of pretty figures that they don't mind paying lots for, and they don't care that it's unbalanced and GW is really a successful company that's just misunderstood and trying to stop thieves like CHS and the Spots author from stealing their names and works and the internet is just a big scary place full of whiners who can't accept these facts.

It's that kind of attitude, which generally comes from the 40k crowd, that cause such hostility on both sides. There are a few WMH players that evangelize and push their agenda and will insinuate that anyone who likes 40k is some kid of moron, but I find them few and far between versus the "White Knight" type who will defend 40k perhaps because they don't want to admit that they've invested hundreds (if not thousands) on a gakky game with gakky rules and pretty models.

Ironically, I model 40k miniatures more than WMH because the cost per model is a lot lower (despite that the cost to play is much higher). I do like 40k because there are a lot of models, and they keep coming out with new stuff. In fairness, this is also why I like PP; they come out with enough neat new stuff to satiate my thirst for new models (well, not quite, but it isn't bad).

Speaking on the game itself, you gotta be crazy to say there are no issues with it. There are many more issues with 40k than WMH, but I accept that as a part of a more complex game (which isn't for everyone). I understand the desire of players who wish GW would fix existing stuff before introducing new stuff (like LoW) -- on the other hand, it has never stopped me from having fun.

I would say there are a lot less issues in WMH. Some units are worse than others (People from Khador know about them Man-o-wars) and often the way factions are advertised is not the way they play. And then there is circle Christmas which gets annoying at times.

But I play skorne, and I can go up against anyone with any list and not get shut down. There are few units (tbh, 1, the karax) I don't ever run. If a UA was released for them that gave them something interesting, I'd take them. This is the case with most factions in the game. And someone did win a major tournament with a Man-o-War army.

40k has some very beautiful models, but as a game it's bad. There is a discussion right now on how many relics a SW commander can take, and there is no clear answer. It will not get a FAQ or anything else for at least a year. Some models/armies are just useless, like genestealers, which is a shame for long time players who like certain lists. I should WANT to buy new models, not be forced to in order to keep playing, which I have had to do for every army I own every time they update the codex.

I love the way my skorne look, though I think Trollbloods are hideous and I'm not a fan of jacks in general, but at least the game works. I don't feel I need to purchase the new models that came out, but I will because
A) They look awesome. Those beetles are the sweetest of all things
B) I really want to kill me some legion, and those things out shoot legion beasts which makes me giggle something wonderful

The only thing I've done is point out the inconsistencies in the OP's framing of WMH > 40K.

If the point he was trying to make had been "WMH is just another game with another compromise on balance and diversity and models and whatnot", I wouldn't have bothered.

But the point was that somehow WMH was just as diverse yet more balanced, just as vast despite lacking a ton of the unit types of 40K - and options, etc.


The point was that somehow WMH is more balanced, even though it doesn't even have a quarter of the already small competitive 40K scene, even though clearly most WMH events allow for three lists which means TAC and thus the reductor meta of 40K is not at play, etc.



The reason I even discuss is that all the people arguing that somehow WMH does something better than 40K seem to be convinced that it's all a factor of PP being better at writing games.




The only way you can have better balance is to either forgo asymetric balance or limit the number of parameters.

And WMH limits that number of parameters, as well as tones down asymetric balance.

morgoth wrote:
The only thing I've done is point out the inconsistencies in the OP's framing of WMH > 40K.

If the point he was trying to make had been "WMH is just another game with another compromise on balance and diversity and models and whatnot", I wouldn't have bothered.

But the point was that somehow WMH was just as diverse yet more balanced, just as vast despite lacking a ton of the unit types of 40K - and options, etc.

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.
The point was that somehow WMH is more balanced, even though it doesn't even have a quarter of the already small competitive 40K scene, even though clearly most WMH events allow for three lists which means TAC and thus the reductor meta of 40K is not at play, etc.
Perhaps this was true 10 years ago, but it is not true today. When was the last time a 40k tournament had 100+ members? WMH sells out at 128 quickly, while 40k is dying as a competitive game. As for the 3 list (it can be 2, and most tournaments are infact 2, not 3), that is like saying that the rules of the game make WMH more balanced, since the tournament format is a part of the game. PP sets how tournaments are played, they decided on two lists, so I don't see your point(s).


The reason I even discuss is that all the people arguing that somehow WMH does something better than 40K seem to be convinced that it's all a factor of PP being better at writing games.
What other factor would it be? You haven't provided any


The only way you can have better balance is to either forgo asymetric balance or limit the number of parameters.

And WMH limits that number of parameters, as well as tones down asymetric balance.
WMH has more parameters (pick a faction of 40k, and I'll pick a faction from WMH and we can compare if you don't believe me) so apparently you can have better balance without limiting options. It's easier, but still doable.

@Akiasura -- that's funny... Trollbloods and Menotb are my favorite WMH models I love the new borka, and there is a box of the rereleased scattergunners waiting for me.

Re: Unit variety -- One might argue that there are more playable, competitive options in WMH, and certainly more variety without spending time and money to get playable models.

However, if you remove the constraint of "every unit must be optimal for its slot" and instead either formulate a scenario or a thematic army, 40k has far more possibilities. It just has fear possibilities if you want 2 people to sit across each other, given only point values, for a fair fight.

I do not believe it is possible to argue that WMH has more types of units (from large to small, artillery, flying units, et cetera -- units that are vastly different). On the other hand I also don't believe it's possible to argue that these unit varieties have the potential to hopelessly unbalance the game.

TLDR -- WMH is my preference for a quick game of just point values, but I prefer to play more epic battles that might not just be an exercise in army slot/point optimization.

 Hubris wrote:
I was in the middle of a long post, decided not worth it, i just say again, nothing wrong with different companies catering to different types of players, lets just accept each others preferences, let players play what they like without being told why they play the "terrible", "broken" or "wrong" game.

Not sure why people feel the need to crusade for the players to change, that i often see online and at other gaming clubs in my past, when others players are happy with what already brings them fun in their night a week of gaming, as my club currently does.

Honestly man, I think that you're misinterpreting things a bit.

The Pro-WM people on this thread don't seem to be saying that WM is simply better than 40k. That's really an impossible claim, and I think everyone recognizes it. What they are saying is that the rules are better written (certainly in terms of consistency and balance), and therefore better as a 'game.'

It seems aggressive simply because they're talking to Morgoth, who has never played the game but is still fond of telling people that WM is simpler and not as well balanced as is claimed. When people are confronted with poorly-designed opinions, they get frustrated and perhaps more forceful than they might otherwise be. And then, when /you/ read replies that are focused more at people like Morgoth, you take offense to that because they're so aggressive. It's understandable, and I think it's one of the major reasons why this discussion can be so volatile.

And, as an aside, WM has way, way more variety than 40k in terms of units and such. Number of options is not the same as variety- the difference between a SW marine and a UM marine is not terribly large. Models in WM/Hordes are typically very different from eachother in how they work on the field, and a difference of a quarter inch for a couple models can /easily/ win or lose the game. The burden of knowledge on both players is absolutely massive, which is strongly indicative of complexity. Now, one can argue whether or not that's a good or a bad thing in terms of game design, because it does greatly increase the learning curve, but calling it 'simple' is absolutely incorrect. WM is by no means perfect, but at least criticize it for flaws that it actually has (model quality, tone of the fluff, too many named characters, too much obsession over distances, ability to instantly lose the game, burden of knowledge, etc etc).

My post was a metaphor for any game really. It wasn't just about a 40K vs. WM/H thing. Re-reading it, I can tell why someone would think that I was trying to imply that I was leading a 40K Gamer to a waterhole, implying that WM/H was some kind of great thing and that the 40K player was just ignoring it for whatever reason.

Superficially, at best, that's what I was implying. The typical 40K player has never really played any other game, and hence, doesn't even know they are thirsty, and when confronted with the 'water' of another game system, they refuse, because they are not thirsty, or that's not the kind of water they want, or whatever.

It's getting deep in here, might want to save your watches...

The meaning I was shooting for was the idea that some people are so entrenched in their ideas, philosophies, attitudes, and emotional tie-ins, that when confronted with something that challenges their notions of what a good game is, they automatically reject it out of hand on an emotional level without using any kind of sound logic or reasoning. It could be because of they way someone treated them in the past ("You play 40K? What an idiot! All the kewl kids play WM/H!"), it could be something they read in a periodical, blog, magazine, whatever. It could be because they fear change, and playing WM/H is a HUGE change from 40K. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not want to play Game X over Game Y. They reflexively defend their choice. No one likes being told they are wrong, or what they are doing is stupid, and sometimes that exactly how these threads come across. In this scenario, they defend their choice with sometimes questionable logic that makes perfect sense on an emotional level, but on a unemotional level, fails the Scientific Method.

There can never be an "Honest Comparison" between the two games, because the games are so vastly different and appeal to the different types of gamers. It's like apples and oranges. Some people like apples, some like oranges, some like 'em both, some won't eat either one preferring strawberries instead.

Mmmm. Strawberries....

True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

 Hubris wrote:
True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

The plot moves forward quite often.
My tyrant just got paralyzed in a duel and strapped to a rhino because xerxis doesn't go epic.
Epic goes xerxis

 BoardroomHero wrote:

And, as an aside, WM has way, way more variety than 40k in terms of units and such. Number of options is not the same as variety- the difference between a SW marine and a UM marine is not terribly large. Models in WM/Hordes are typically very different from eachother in how they work on the field, and a difference of a quarter inch for a couple models can /easily/ win or lose the game. The burden of knowledge on both players is absolutely massive, which is strongly indicative of complexity. Now, one can argue whether or not that's a good or a bad thing in terms of game design, because it does greatly increase the learning curve, but calling it 'simple' is absolutely incorrect. WM is by no means perfect, but at least criticize it for flaws that it actually has (model quality, tone of the fluff, too many named characters, too much obsession over distances, ability to instantly lose the game, burden of knowledge, etc etc).

I have no idea how people can make this claim. I would love to be enlightened. Let me give you a few examples of models for which there are no equivalents in WMH:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wall-of-Martyrs-Aquila-Strongpoint
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/The-Fury-of-Fenris (drop pods)
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Necron-Obelisk
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Voidraven-Bomber
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Dark-Eldar-Venom
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Dark-Eldar-Raider
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Imperial-Guard-Baneblade
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Chaos-Space-Marines-Khorne-Lord-of-Skulls

This is a very, very tiny fraction of the types of units that are not available in WMH. But to give you an idea of what I mean: fortifications and artillery, drop pods, aerial fighter units, aerial bombardment units, jetbikes and ground bikes, skimmers, tanks, troop transports (of any variety), giant robots, giant monsters. Basic infantry types are also far more highly subtyped in W40k (scouts, assault, fast, heavy, command, character, etc.). There are also no truly huge models in WMH, like the Revenant Titan or Lord of Skulls, unless you include the gigantic (collectible) Victoria Haley which is not playable

Now, I'm perfectly willing to hear the argument that all of these unit types complicate 40k and make it less balanced. In some cases, I agree. However, going back to the GW mission statement -- they make cool models that make sense in a game universe -- like a Lord of Skulls -- and then create some rules to insert them in into the game. So yeah, I will most certainly concede that there is not a good way to balance a gigantic demonic prince with a bunch of infantry guys, on the basis of points alone. But I'm not willing to concede that there is less variety of units that can be fielded.

In addition, from a purely aesthetic point of view, there is a massive number of visually different units that can be fielded in 40k. Most factions are extremely different and distinctive in the way they look (Orks, Tau, Necron, Eldar, etc.), and GW done pretty good job of making the factions have a unifying look. Game wise, one can argue that this doesn't matter, and that, again, it just overly complicates things. If that's the case for you, no problem. But you can't say there is aesthetically less variety in 40k.

Now, I totally get that people get fed up with the arguments and start with more vitriol than they would if they were just being Vulcan However, two wrongs don't make a right either. Just because someone else has said something untrue (maybe by accident) doesn't really make it right to say something else that's an untrue generalization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hubris wrote:
True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

The first two assertions are absolutely true. The game world moves forward, and the miniatures are definitely steam-punk-ish.

Warmachines and Hordes are fun games. They have a low cost of entry, the games are short and tactical, and you can't botch an army as badly as you can in 40k. However, there are most certainly better lists and inferior lists, and a person with a great list will win a lot more often, even if the two players are of similar experience. The big difference is, it won't cost you much to come to parity, whereas in 40k, buying the wrong units will not only cost you money, but perhaps weeks to model and paint.

I should add that things happen in the 40k universe, too. Just the time line doesn't go past the 40th millennium, LOL. Yet...

They are just really different games than 40k, and I wish people would stop comparing them in the context of, "This one is better, so that one should die."

You are incorrectly equating variety with unit types. That's why.

Talys wrote:



This is a very, very tiny fraction of the types of units that are not available in WMH. But to give you an idea of what I mean: fortifications and artillery, drop pods, aerial fighter units, aerial bombardment units, jetbikes and ground bikes, skimmers, tanks, troop transports (of any variety), giant robots, giant monsters. Basic infantry types are also far more highly subtyped in W40k (scouts, assault, fast, heavy, command, character, etc.). There are also no truly huge models in WMH, like the Revenant Titan or Lord of Skulls, unless you include the gigantic (collectible) Victoria Haley which is not playable

What?

That aside, saying WMH has less unit types is a bit of a red herring. The game doesn't pigeonhole units into types in most cases. You have Jacks, Beasts, infantry, medium base.

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

Well, no, then you have to compare specials list with the never ending 40k list (shred, jump, rend.....). I mean actual *types* like tanks versus people versus planes versus planes.

I am aware of colossals (which are comparable with imperial knights). The Revenant Titan is 12" tall -- that's 10 of the little guy -- but that is neither here nor there. I don't compare a little model with special abilities as a different unit type as I do a harpy to a jet fighter to a unit which can carry other units.

I have not read every page of this thread. Here is my thoughts on WM/H. I have played 40K for about ten years now. In addition, I do play Malifaux, Batman mini game, and X-wing.

So, here is my main problem with what WM/H is. The game looks like this game where you will play awesome looking robots and beasts that beat up each other. However, every game boils down to massive infantry lists and most likely a caster kill.

In 40k there is some ways to win, but I do understand you have to kill off the other players forces, as in any game. WM/H just seems to lack depth in what the game is. This is just my observation.

Martin, in 40k, you can often lose the battles, but win the game by scoring more points. I think the tactical objectives are well done in 7e.

With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Talys wrote:
With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Every unit except air superiority fighters, bombers, artillery above light mortar size, recon/electronic warfare/intelligence/etc, combat engineers, and probably a few others. And the units that are included often aren't a very good representation of the real thing. For example, infantry completely lack the suppressing fire concepts that define modern infantry combat, tanks don't work like real tanks at all, aircraft fly at ridiculously slow speeds and low altitudes, etc. And many of 40k's units are redundant. Vehicles are MCs with extra rules bloat, bikes/cavalry/beasts/jump infantry are just four different ways of saying "you can move an extra 6 inches per turn", and LoW are just the same conventional units with bigger numbers. Finally, 40k's unit types do add a lot of rules complexity, but they add very little strategic complexity. Most unit types have little depth beyond "point this at the enemy and roll to see how much you kill", and what type a unit is often does little more than change what dice are rolled. Tanks and infantry don't have completely different roles like real tanks and infantry, they just have different stat lines.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Every unit except air superiority fighters, bombers, artillery above light mortar size, recon/electronic warfare/intelligence/etc, combat engineers, and probably a few others. And the units that are included often aren't a very good representation of the real thing. For example, infantry completely lack the suppressing fire concepts that define modern infantry combat, tanks don't work like real tanks at all, aircraft fly at ridiculously slow speeds and low altitudes, etc. And many of 40k's units are redundant. Vehicles are MCs with extra rules bloat, bikes/cavalry/beasts/jump infantry are just four different ways of saying "you can move an extra 6 inches per turn", and LoW are just the same conventional units with bigger numbers. Finally, 40k's unit types do add a lot of rules complexity, but they add very little strategic complexity. Most unit types have little depth beyond "point this at the enemy and roll to see how much you kill", and what type a unit is often does little more than change what dice are rolled. Tanks and infantry don't have completely different roles like real tanks and infantry, they just have different stat lines.

Let me point out a few units:

- Air Superiority & Bombers: Razorwing Jetfighter and Ravenwing Bomber
- Heavy Artillery: Aquila Strongpoint fires a Macro Canon with Enormous radius blast; or 7 vortex missiles with infinite range
- Recon/Electronic Warfare/Intelligence: well, fog of war would be kind of pointless. But, you do have Techmarines for electronic warfare (Mindlock) and Markerlight that serves the same purpose as recon in some cases (like painting a target).
- Combat Engineers: If you mean, to take down fortifications, that's kind of pointless, since the weapons of the 41st millennium just make them go kaboom anyhow.

Now, you can argue that some of the rules for some of the units are unrealistic or unbalancing, or that the units kinda suck. But, lots of things with every tabletop game are unrealistic. I mean, even the scale isn't realistic. You can't put a to-scale office building in an urban map, because it would take up the whole table. I mean, how do you represent a 500,000 sq ft office building? You can't have a 41st millennium jetfighter zoom across at Mach 20 because, what would be the point? And why not just call down 20 orbital before the game starts, and wipe out the other side? This is a game that tries to be fun by inserting elements of units we're familiar with into a futuristic setting. If it isn't real enough or fun for you, I guess, don't play it.

However, an argument can't be made that there are a huge variety of units available -- including anti-air, heavy artillery, electronic warfare, and so on -- even if a lot of those units are very uncommon to see, because in the context of the 40k game as a "my 1850 points versus your 1850 points -- GO!" a lot of them are either suboptimal or game-breaking (fortifications especially). All of these weird, special units, however, are very exciting to play in scenarios and campaigns, both published, and on a tabletop.

This summer, on an 8x8 table, we had a full Wall of Martyrs set in the middle (well, more than full.. like, $2000 of terrain), Imperium units in the fort, and 3 other players assaulting the center (which had 2 players). One tactical objective in the center, and they had to hold it to win, within 8 hours of play (no turn limit). There were.... at least 15 titan models on the table, and so many infantry, vehicles, and air that I lost count. We didn't really even tally up points, except in a very approximate way (it was more, what model do you own, and can you transport it?).

And guess what? It was a boatload of fun. Xenos finally won, by the way, about 7 hours in. Yeah, the turns took freaking forever. Yes, there were many house rules to make it playable. But it was *epic* and probably one of the most enjoyable 40k sessions I've ever had.

Akiasura wrote:

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.

Let me guess.

Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, WMH's elves *can* have 2+ armor and power fists ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, the inquisition is not expecting you because feth it we needed another unique ability so we picked the wrong one after writing fifty that did not unbalance the game ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

really ?

You do know that the actual variety of units int 40K is at least twice as long as that ?

You do know that on top of unit types - a lot of which are much more differentiated - , 40K also has a ton of special rules, which you seem to be conflating in there ?

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


I’d argue the multi-list format helps promote variety. A lot of stuff gets a peak in. It gives you the chance to skew and counter. Its part of the balancing of the game. And by the way, say hi to cryx and circle – two factions that defined “dirty tricks” and sneaky, dirty, underhanded shenanigans.

In other words, you admit that the lack of clear winning builds is simply due to the triple list format, which is itself strongly favored by the low model count.

The day WMH gets the diversity of 40K and the single list format competition with just as many players, its balance will look just as bad, without the great models.

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.

Let me guess.

Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, WMH's elves *can* have 2+ armor and power fists ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, the inquisition is not expecting you because feth it we needed another unique ability so we picked the wrong one after writing fifty that did not unbalance the game ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

really ?

You do know that the actual variety of units int 40K is at least twice as long as that ?

You do know that on top of unit types, 40K also has a ton of special rules, which you seem to be conflating in there ?

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

What the hell are you on about 'everything people like about WMH is the result of it being not competitive'? That's the main draw to the game, it has a very tight ruleset which allows for a much higher level of competitive gameplay than 40k. In WMH you win because you outplay the opponent. Not because you brought better units. But wait, you've not even played it have you? But clearly you know what you're talking about...

and as for 'Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?' you're talking about 40k there right? Y'know, where half the armies are marines?

Most tournaments are double lists, not triple. And I don't know why they would go to a single list format when the double list clearly works, I think all games should have a double list format, or be like Malifaux where you build the list after you know the mission. I don't see how having that extra bit of choice is a bad thing at all?

And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

 ImAGeek wrote:

morgoth wrote:

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

What the hell are you on about 'everything people like about WMH is the result of it being not competitive'? That's the main draw to the game, it has a very tight ruleset which allows for a much higher level of competitive gameplay than 40k. In WMH you win because you outplay the opponent. Not because you brought better units. But wait, you've not even played it have you? But clearly you know what you're talking about...

and as for 'Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?' you're talking about 40k there right? Y'know, where half the armies are marines?

Most tournaments are double lists, not triple. And I don't know why they would go to a single list format when the double list clearly works, I think all games should have a double list format, or be like Malifaux where you build the list after you know the mission. I don't see how having that extra bit of choice is a bad thing at all?

And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Double and Triple list is not conductive to competition. It's conductive to diversity, and open to Combo and Nemesis mechanics where skewed lists can be played because they're not at risk of defending against other lists.

The number of people in WMH tournaments, as well as the age of the scene, makes it less competitive (it will get there much faster than 40K though, because it does have the qualities for it as you point out).

WMH has the illusion of diversity.

What you fail to realize is that the only way to avoid chaos is to reduce entropy, and that reducing entropy amounts to reducing diversity, and that's exactly what makes WMH more balanced, a sound choice by the game designers if we listen to the WMH fans.

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

Perhaps a mistype? I think that WMH is a reasonably competitive game, when it comes to two strangers who meet with an agreed-upon points limit and just play to win. Not really my type of game, because I find that the games simply get repetitive too quickly.

My preference is scenarios that are better thought out, though of course the two players still compete within the context of the scenario.

I think what they're trying to say is that diversity doesn't mean there's a lot of unit "categories".

Sure, you can have two different people on foot, but they can play very differently from each other.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".

Some on that list are present in WMH though. Artillery (there's cannons, mortars and stuff), stunningly enormous monsters (gargantuans), motorbikes (cavalry, the fantasy equivalent), tanks (Khador battle engine), chariots (one of the Menoth casters literally is on a chariot). But anyway, there's less unit types but there's not less units. So there's more variety, it's just in less categories.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".

That's like going to a game of WHFB and asking why the grunts aren't all carrying machine guns. How many jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, motorcycles, jetbikes, tanks and chariots did you see in the 19th Century? This is a game of steam punk, not futurepunk.

As for the others.

Artillery. You have the Khador Avalanche cannon, plus mortars and field guns.
Monsters? Have you not seen the Horde Gargantuans? I would call them enormous monsters.
How about Armoured Chariots carrying massive amounts of guns? Like the battle carriages.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's like going to a game of WHFB and asking why the grunts aren't all carrying machine guns. How many jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, motorcycles, jetbikes, tanks and chariots did you see in the 19th Century? This is a game of steam punk, not futurepunk.

As for the others.

Artillery. You have the Khador Avalanche cannon, plus mortars and field guns.
Monsters? Have you not seen the Horde Gargantuans? I would call them enormous monsters.
How about Armoured Chariots carrying massive amounts of guns? Like the battle carriages.

Steampunk still has flying vehicles (for instance, dirigibles), flying monsters are possible, vehicles in general, and of course, troop transports. In WHFB, there are no guns, but there are ranged attacks that do essentially the same thing. In WMH, there are plenty of guns

Khador Avalanche cannon is a tiny little thing. I mean something like an Aquilla Strongpoint:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wall-of-Martyrs-Aquila-Strongpoint

This thing is a genuine piece of terrain (which connects to many other fortification pieces) that is much larger than even the largest models, on which you can station many, many models, and which the opponent truly fears.

Gargantuans are half the height / quarter the size of the largest 40k models (and about the size of common 40k models like Imperial Knight), but yes, I will concede that they are large in relation to other models. Chariots are not a great example (I also never mentioned it in my previous lists.. not sure why it popped into my head).

Perhaps let me rephrase. In WMH, the types of units are creatures, medium sized creatures, large sized creatures, and single creatures on mounts. There is not variety in the sense of, vehicles, flying units, transportation units, true fortifications, and that type of thing.

I think WMH would be a richer game with some of them, and I think that eventually PP will introduce some of those types.

Yes but the point is, 40k might have more unit catagories, but it doesn't have more units. If one thing has 10 categories with 2 things in each, and one has 5 categories with 5 in each, which has more options?

WMH is a fantasy world, so big artillery, flyers (helicopters, you specified in your last list), jet bikes, tanks... Don't have much place, so there's no reason for them to be there. Adding them in would just be more 'variety' for no reason. And there are flying monsters, there's vehicles (trains) in the fluff but there's no point them being in the game.

Actually one of the other reasons for not having any flyers is that the sky is full of things that might eat them, such as dragons, or lesser flying spawn. So it is far safer to use a train.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Yes but the point is, 40k might have more unit catagories, but it doesn't have more units. If one thing has 10 categories with 2 things in each, and one has 5 categories with 5 in each, which has more options?

WMH is a fantasy world, so big artillery, flyers (helicopters, you specified in your last list), jet bikes, tanks... Don't have much place, so there's no reason for them to be there. Adding them in would just be more 'variety' for no reason. And there are flying monsters, there's vehicles (trains) in the fluff but there's no point them being in the game.

Why not just compare it to WHFB, then? If there's trolls, why not harpies? Why not flying dragons that can rain fire on the hapless units below? Why not giant elephants that the troops can board and ride?

And, there is magic. So, why not magical artillery? Or a magically enhanced fortifications?

I mean, I think the answer is simply that PP hasn't gotten there yet, not that it will never get there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Actually one of the other reasons for not having any flyers is that the sky is full of things that might eat them, such as dragons, or lesser flying spawn. So it is far safer to use a train.

Indeed. They should be in the game ^.^

More importantly, they should manufacture the model, so that I may build it! And put it on a table!


By the way, to say that in a fantasy setting or in fluff, there are fewer possible unit types is not to say that there are an equal number of unit types >.<

There are still more unit types in 40k -- regardless of whether they belong or make sense in WMH, or whether they are balanced in 40k.

Talys: I see people are falling over themselves in the effort to backpedal so as to exclude you from the 'indoctrinated GWombie' pool; but personally I think you still dip a toe when I see you type stuff like '50 minis is a dinky skirmish' and '40K [with all it's excruciating clunky and crunchy rules] is great for huge battles!'

In addition, I don't rate Warmachine overly highly either. I don't think it's so far removed from 40K. I sigh to myself when I see it's fans post here - "Warmachine is more tactical because you choose units and characters instead of individual weapons to get artificial buffs!" It's all still concentrating on strategy at best, obsessing about listbuilding at worst. So, yeah, they do appeal to the same kind of gamer, too. If they didn't, PP probably wouldn't be as big as it is.
I don't know what other games you play, Talys, but I don't consider a steady diet of 40K and WM (even with a dash of Necromunda on top) to be any sort of basis or qualification to hold forth about the wide variety of gameplay style and tactical depth in wargaming. Not to say I'm so 'widely travelled' in this wee world meself, but strewth, some of you make me feel like Phileas Fogg. If you still think 40K is a great game, let alone a great mass-battle game, I still say you need to try other games, including alternate rulesets that you can use to represent the 41st millenium with your 41st millenium minis. I don't feel very much guilt or shame about saying that, and I don't think I should.

Why not? To answer one of Hubris' questions: because I honestly think 40K - with the way it's shoddy rules and GW's associated business practises are propped up by naive gamers, to the point of considering all this gak to be the norm - has become a stain on wargaming. A fairly big stain with an awful lot of people lapping it up, to be sure, but that doesn't make me feel much better about it. So I'd maybe stop short of 'crusading', but I'll take the opportunity to stick my oar in if I happen to wander past a suitable juncture. It might make some bottom lips quiver, grouchy old poopy-heads saying mean things about poor likkle 40K, but as long as a tiny chink gets through the thick GW smog...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, all this bullgak about "this is the better game because of the number of units or unit types!" is so bloody irrelevant I don't even