Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ooooh yeah, plastic clamjack chassis. Devastator, Demolisher, Spriggan.

Gimmegimmegimme!

MagicJuggler wrote:
Still chugging around. I found battlecollege mostly useless, and the PP forums to a fair extent.

I'm actually a little shocked by this comment. Battlecollege has some great write-ups for nearly every unit entry in Warmahordes. 90% of all 'casters even have a small section describing lists and units that couple well with them. The PP forums are saturated with modeling, list building, and rules information and the community there is highly responsive to questions about just about everything. With a shotgun comment like yours, try and say exactly what you don't like about them.

I would like to also say that I'm actually glad PP at least maintains (unlike some other companies) an official forum that is actually frequented by company members.

I've found the PP boards useful but there is a bit of Groupthink going on and sometimes people will state things that are not backed by anything resembling facts.

Just got to take from it what wisdom you find and make your own decisions. Don't take someone's word on it, try it yourself and see how it plays out.

Well that's pretty much any forum/website detailing what models do what and how. Battlecollege is nice but it has a bit of an issue making everything seem equally awesome. Well, except for the absolutely terrible things, in which case BC makes them seem mediocre. It is nice for when you're not entirely sure what X models does, or why someone referenced it to you. The same applies to general information on the forums. For instance, why take a Stalker with pSkarre? Oh, because from 24" away it gets +5 STR/ARM on feat turn. That's not necessarily a combination I would've thought of right off the bat upon reading pSkarre's card, but it will show up in my next pSkarre game for sure.

But definitely after getting a grasp of the game really look at what models do and form your own opinion. The only thing is don't post a list somewhere and refuse any and all constructive criticism without explaining your battle plans.

More directly, if you want to know who works for who, there's a table on BattleCollege ripe for the picking, and you'd have to read the whole faction book anyway if you're looking for a specific ability. That's true for any game.

If you want to narrow down what mercs will work for your faction then just use one of the lisdt building tools such as Ibodger or Forward Kommander. It'll only show the mercs that will work for what ever faction your building a list. That way you can narrow down who to look at for what ever it is your looking for. Then use battle college to look at the different models abilities. You don't have to read the opinion parts on BC if you don't want to but it usually is pretty accurate on what the abilities are that the models have.

Gonna try to organize my thoughts here between the modeling aspect, gaming (this is rules and gameplay and all that) community and the business.

Also, I'm gonna preface this by saying that my favorite game is WHFB. So both of these are kinda "second choices" for me. Deal.


40k

For the modeling and painting aspect, I think 40k has a small edge. It is a game system that is conversion friendly. Both physically with the actual models and in the rules. I see a lot of creativity flowing out of the modelling community from 40k. This may be something that changes in time, but that is something that is yet to be seen.

Gaming, I feel the game has a more mid-game tactical feel. It is impossible to say which is better in this aspect, because it is all apples and oranges. I do enjoy that 40k games are rarely (weird cheesy alpha strikes nonwithstanding) completely over in one decisive turn. A bad start can be turned around with strong mid-game play. Balance-wise, yeah there are some issues, but on the whole, 40k is reasonably balanced (obviously there are exceptions).

Community wise, it is a very mixed bag. Are there young, annoying players? Absolutely. But that can be due to store, and even if they annoy me, I do like the idea of bringing young players in and growing the playerbase. However, a lot of community really hinges on choice of where one plays. I can't say anything broad about 40k as a whole's playerbase because of that.

GW as a business definitely has its pros and cons. On the positive side, I never have to worry about about finding a model or kit. If it isn't in the store, the tools for getting it are right at my hands. Also, some GW store folks are among the best people I've met. They hire (generally) well, and from watching their interview things (forgot the name) for new employees, they know what to look for. That said, on a broader sense, price hikes and some of their policies for operating their stores irk me greatly. I generally can live with price hikes, mostly because I tend to buy small amounts over a long time, but their store policies make things difficult.

Warmahordes

Modelling/painting wise, they are awesome models. However, they are a lot less friendly to conversions. In my experience of WM/H play (roughly 5 months) I can't remember seeing significant conversions apart from my own conversions I had for Ravyn, and magnetizing some of my 'jacks. It is kind of sad, because some models (warcasters in particular) have very static, boring poses in my mind. On the one hand, consistency is nice, it is a very nice thing to look at a unit and know exactly what it is, but on the other hand, you never see spectacular conversions in my experience. I hope this is something that has the potential to change.

HOWEVER, WM/H has a huge edge over GW in the realm of in-book artwork. That stuff is gold. And makes me want to convert stuff to it. So the inspiration is there, just not the mechanics.

Gameplay, WM/H is much more of a turn-by-turn game, with an exceptionally slim margin for error. It is definitely a game that punishes the hell out of a player for a poor turn. However, it also punishes a player for a bad rolling turn. And honestly, I find this frustrating, though it may be a result of inexperience. I am not a fan of games that I know will end in a loss for me after, for example, my feat turn fails to have the damage I hoped thanks to bad rolling (coughcough, 7 Ravyn-feated Stormfalls doing 4 damage to Thagrosh >.> ). But I am not going to let my bad experiences dictate the overall opinion, because when things are rolling, WM/H is an excellent tactical game, and requires a lot more in-depth, chess-style thinking. So the nasty learning curve is both a blessing and curse.

Community-wise, I have pretty much the same thing to say about WM/H as I have for 40k. But WM/H has one addition. I actually find the community a little more hostile over many stores and forums. Not necessarily to new players, but frankly, I think the WM/H community has a bit of a smug attitude that I find distasteful. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I always have the sensation that WM/H communities actively look down on other games. Now preferring ones' game is all well and good, but when I am looked down on actively in a LGS for 'ugh, you play GW?' followed by cursing, it quickly erodes my enjoyment of the game.

PP's business, like GW, has its pros and cons. In its advantage, a smaller game means that they can react very quickly to balance issues, and are not shackled to a schedule of updating codices. And I've talked to some of their people on a professional level, I've applied to jobs with them and they are AMAZINGLY polite and kind. I still want to work for them, and would jump at the first opportunity to do so. They are awesome. But they do have the disadvantage of a very sporadic distribution system, going out looking for models in LGS is a crapshoot at best. Also, I like to buy from the manufacturer, but man...the PP ordering website (as far as I can tell if it is that) is awful and unfriendly.

Anyway, this ran on way too long. Take it as you will.

You know, one of the things you consistantly see in this sort of discussion is that GW is always available or just a short period of non-availability. And from a personal experience I find this misleading.
I play Sisters and can't find a single model at my FLGS. In fact they haven't been able to get anything for almost a year. It's the same with all the online stores that I know of as well. So saying that GW is easier to get is a bit misleading.

curran12 wrote: In my experience of WM/H play (roughly 5 months) I can't remember seeing significant conversions apart from my own conversions I had for Ravyn, and magnetizing some of my 'jacks.

You need to read the PP boards more often, then:

Cryx-nar, a Cygnar army made up of heavily converted models combining Cryx and Cygnar models

Stormhammer, a heavily converted Khadoran army designed to look like a Cygnar force. It even has its own fluff to justify it.





There's plenty of converting in the PP community. It tends to be in the same ratio as 40K armies, 40K just seems to have more because of the larger player numbers.

That and the painting + conversions section of PP ( and the people who frequent it ) are squirreled away hermits.

PP doesn't really support conversion in their mainstream competitive scene so it gets brushed under the rug. Most of the news is about new models/gameplay with painting on the side - that's painting not necessarily converting.


Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

correlation2 wrote:
Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

So that is about 1 article more on each than WD ever does?

correlation2 wrote:Still... I think every NQ issue features at least one featured conversion and a full terrain article. It's not entirely abandoned.

Plus the conversion contest every issue.

40K

Pros:
Awesome Mulit-part Plastic kits
Large Player Base
Good Product Availability

Cons:
Bad Rules writing/support
Codex Imbalance
Bad competitive support

Warmachine/Hordes

Pros:
Great Rule Books & Support
Great Competitive Support
Great league Support
Generally balance Factions
Lower Initial Startup cost

Cons:
Lack of sweet Plastic kits
Model Availability


I think what it really comes down too when you compare the two is what is your primary goal of miniature war games. If you are primarily a modeler, that 40K is amazing, I love the multi-part plastic kits they are coming out with the are amazing and are there is really no one on the market as advanced as them at this time. 40K suffers greatly in the rules and balance department though, from vaguely written rules to their general lack of rules support. This is where PP shines, their rules are tight and their factions are generally balanced. Additionally PP League Support and tournament support is top notch.

I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

On a side note I was a hard core 40K player, and loved the game. My friends convinced me in MK1 to give Warmachine a try and I was sold after my first tournament. After playing 40K and having to House rule some many small items it was refreshing to see how PP approaches game design.

You will find that most Warmachine players are old school 40K players.

BryanC wrote:
I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

Model:Model costs are similar, if Warmachine isn't just a bit more expensive due primarily to metal figs.

But Playability to Dollar Spent, Warmachine goes a lot further than I ever got in 40k with similar funds. The reason is you are almost never using duplicate warjacks/units/models, so the 'endpoint' of a collection (owning an entire faction with almost all its options) comes out to be far cheaper than the equivalent in 40k/WHFB, owning multiples of the exact same unit/model until you max out your Force Org chart.

People repeatedly gloss over the Playability to Dollar investment and I don't know why. It's a real issue, especially in times like these when people are generally trying to find ways to get more for their money.

infinite_array wrote:^Perhaps, instead of a new release of the decks, why not a 'booster pack' for the new updates and what isn't in the decks?

A reason this won't happen is in part what the goal of the decks themselves are, I think.

Rather than be a way for players to proxy, the intent of the decks was more of a way to easily upgrade models. Models pretty much always come with their respective card. However, in the MkI -> MkII change-over, a lot of people had collections of models who's cards suddenly were outdated. And there was still stock of models out there which had the MkI card in them still.

The decks updated these models. The only models in the decks were those that were originally available in MkI. Any new models have MkII cards in them by default (as they only exist in MkII rules). PP gets nothing for selling boosters of these models, since the assumption is that you will get the card with any new model you purchase. It's a way to save them time, and hastle, really.

Now that said, PP may at some point do an updated deck. They did thise twic ein MkI. The first was to update all the cards from B&W to color, and introduce a new card format (warcasters use to be on a single card, for instance.) They did this again in late MkI, again updating the layout, as well as incorperating any new errata that had happened since the previous deck. EVen then, it only had what needed to be updated in it. Any later models were not in the deck.

Now this said, with the two-books-a-year format, we'll maybe seen another deck sometime in the future. But remember that the point of the decks is different then what boosters and such imply your intent for them is.

And stuff.

sourclams wrote:

BryanC wrote:
I have not included general cost as part of this comparison, because on a model by model basis the two are really on par with each other. Sure Warmachine has a lower start-up Cost, but I can guarantee that you will end up buying more models over time. The truth is we will all spend when we are willing to spend on this hobby regardless of system.

Model:Model costs are similar, if Warmachine isn't just a bit more expensive due primarily to metal figs.

But Playability to Dollar Spent, Warmachine goes a lot further than I ever got in 40k with similar funds. The reason is you are almost never using duplicate warjacks/units/models, so the 'endpoint' of a collection (owning an entire faction with almost all its options) comes out to be far cheaper than the equivalent in 40k/WHFB, owning multiples of the exact same unit/model until you max out your Force Org chart.

People repeatedly gloss over the Playability to Dollar investment and I don't know why. It's a real issue, especially in times like these when people are generally trying to find ways to get more for their money.

Especially when on the board, WM/H models just plain DO more then 40k stuff. In 40k, units do ONE thing well, and under the limitations of the boring movement system of 40k. WM/H has so many options that what may constitute a single army can play multiple ways.

Simply put: If you are a "fun" gamer then warhammer is better: more customisation, not as competitively based, big fights massive models etcetc.

If you are a competitive player (like myself) then you will find that warmachine wins without a doubt: the rules are much cleaner, it is much more geared towards being competitive and everything is balanced creating a real fun tournament scene.

I am a "fun" gamer but I don't enjoy the arguments that come with almost every 40K game. I also don't enjoy the fact that once my troops enter HtH combat they're stuck until everyone on one side or the other dies.

I'm definitely in the same category as Leo, I'm a "fun" gamer, and while I love the customization of warhammer models, the lack of rules arguments I receive in warmachine makes for a more enjoyable game. When I have to stop, pull out my codex, and show someone a rule they've been using incorrectly, and I waste 10 minutes trying to get a rules interpretation, no amount of customization in the world could make that enjoyable. I also prefer the speed at which the game flows. While I often forget that there are no phases in warmachine, the hassle of moving all my models at once sucks. 40k is still my first war game, but warmachine is providing a lot more fun for me right now.

Edit: I would also like to add that as a casual gamer, my tournament experience has been much better in warmachine

As others have said, I found arguing over Deff Rollas, God of War, and all of the other BS rules 'grey areas' for two years each to be quite a bit less than 'fun'.

If 'fun' is giant blobs of miniatures and throwing buckets of dice at each other until the other guy rolls more '1's, and I realize for some people this is how they define it, then WH edges out WM/H.

sourclams wrote:As others have said, I found arguing over Deff Rollas, God of War, and all of the other BS rules 'grey areas' for two years each to be quite a bit less than 'fun'.

If 'fun' is giant blobs of miniatures and throwing buckets of dice at each other until the other guy rolls more '1's, and I realize for some people this is how they define it, then WH edges out WM/H.

I play 40k and Fantasy with a friend or two, someone who I can be reasonable with when rules become difficult, and GW hasn't made any official indication of what their, sometimes, poorly written rules are supposed to mean. The guy who I played 40k/Fantasy with the most, moved a few states over, and I haven't touched either game since.

I play Warmachine/Hordes as much as I am able, because I have more fun. Any rules questions are made relatively quickly and official. I enjoy my local community and the people. IMHO it is definitely a more tactical and less forgiving game (if you make a mistake, it will bite you in the behind much faster than in 40k/Fantasy).

If I want to throw some dice with buddies and drink some beer and joke around, I want play 40k/Fantasy. If I want to have a game that engages my thought process, beyond creating the army list, I play Warmachine/Hordes.