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.

WH40k has false variety, not all the options you can pick from are choices you can actually take.


I think it is a little like this, in both WM/H and 40K you can bring power lists. But you might win the game in 40K because the list is powerful, but in WM/H you're more like to win because you can use your own list properly.

If I tailor my CSM to fight Eldar will I win 10/10? Probably not, because an Eldar TAC list can probably take mine out easily.

If I tailor my list against a WM/H player, there is a good chance I will win provided I know what I'm doing.

Basically, I think that is a sign of balance. Balance is when you can tailor directly to an opposing army and win. Yet you'll lose to something else. WH/M is more balanced because if you know your list well you can potentially beat anyone. That isn't the case in 40k.

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You can't have a balanced game against a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player.
That's the problem.

Have you tried unbound ?
Or 1000 points ?

Maybe you mean that you can't have a balanced game between a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player at 1850 points, with single CAD + allied on a table where 3% of the terrain blocks line of sight ?

Haven't tried unbound but at 1000 points unbound seems...pointless? Orks don't have awful troops anyway.

At 1000 points 3 wave serpents pretty much face rolls anything orks can field though. Yes I've tried it.

No, I don't mean your last paragraph at all. Most games are 1500-2000, with allies being fine. Knights are the only thing we don't use, though no one plays unbound since nearly everyone has played since 5th, most since 3rd. Most of our tables where designed by someone for city games, so huge portions of the board are blocked off and area terrain is common. Area terrain hurts orks quite a bit by slowing them down though. Los blocking doesn't matter since eldar are crazy fast compared to orks, and skimmers on top of that.

Orks just lose to eldar. Better shooting, psykers, cc, range, everything really.

At least you've moved up to saying maybe instead of flat out accusing someone of something. Now if only you'd address some of my points in any of the threads you are in ;-;

WH40k has a limited selection of units compared to WMH for most factions.

Lets see, for wolves you get what,
2 Combat HQ's
Priest
Rune Priest
Iron Priest

Generally everyone takes 1-2 optimal builds with each. There are also Special characters
In WMH I can get
pHexy
eHexy
pXexeris
e Xexeris
Mordikaar
Nastheth
Rastheth
p/e/3Makeda (3 choices)
Morgoul, p and e as well.

That's not exactly comparing like for like - each HQ selection in 40K can be equipped in different ways to make them entirely different characters and way to play - you need to say something like:

Wolf Lord
Thuderwolf Wolf Lord
Terminator Wolf Lord
Ragnar Blackmane
Harald DeathWolf
Canis Wolfborn
Rune Priest
Terminator Rune Priest
Njal Stormcaller
Wolf Priest
Terminator Wolf Priest
Ulrik the Slayer
Wolf Guard Battle Leader
Terminator WG Battle Leader
Bjorn the Fell-Handed

bit different?

Now that's not to say that WM/H does not have variety - it does, but its not a game that allows custom building units but then others don't either.........................Malifaux doesn't really.

 Mr Morden wrote:

WH40k has a limited selection of units compared to WMH for most factions.

Lets see, for wolves you get what,
2 Combat HQ's
Priest
Rune Priest
Iron Priest

Generally everyone takes 1-2 optimal builds with each. There are also Special characters
In WMH I can get
pHexy
eHexy
pXexeris
e Xexeris
Mordikaar
Nastheth
Rastheth
p/e/3Makeda (3 choices)
Morgoul, p and e as well.

That's not exactly comparing like for like - each HQ selection in 40K can be equipped in different ways to make them entirely different characters and way to play - you need to say something like:

Wolf Lord
Thuderwolf Wolf Lord
Terminator Wolf Lord
Ragnar Blackmane
Harald DeathWolf
Canis Wolfborn
Rune Priest
Terminator Rune Priest
Njal Stormcaller
Wolf Priest
Terminator Wolf Priest
Ulrik the Slayer
Wolf Guard Battle Leader
Terminator WG Battle Leader
Bjorn the Fell-Handed

bit different?

Now that's not to say that WM/H does not have variety - it does, but its not a game that allows custom building units but then others don't either.........................Malifaux doesn't really.

Slightly different, though I did mention special characters and 2 builds per choice.
Which...you did....so...not different at all?

Also, many choices are bad. Often special characters are overpriced, nobody takes a cheaper combat lord (battle leader) and termie armor is rare. It's bikes or gtfo.

Also, WMH hq dramatically changes the entire army
Builds dont, though choices do to a degree.

[spoiler]

Akiasura wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

WH40k has a limited selection of units compared to WMH for most factions.

Lets see, for wolves you get what,
2 Combat HQ's
Priest
Rune Priest
Iron Priest

Generally everyone takes 1-2 optimal builds with each. There are also Special characters
In WMH I can get
pHexy
eHexy
pXexeris
e Xexeris
Mordikaar
Nastheth
Rastheth
p/e/3Makeda (3 choices)
Morgoul, p and e as well.

That's not exactly comparing like for like - each HQ selection in 40K can be equipped in different ways to make them entirely different characters and way to play - you need to say something like:

Wolf Lord
Thuderwolf Wolf Lord
Terminator Wolf Lord
Ragnar Blackmane
Harald DeathWolf
Canis Wolfborn
Rune Priest
Terminator Rune Priest
Njal Stormcaller
Wolf Priest
Terminator Wolf Priest
Ulrik the Slayer
Wolf Guard Battle Leader
Terminator WG Battle Leader
Bjorn the Fell-Handed

bit different?

Now that's not to say that WM/H does not have variety - it does, but its not a game that allows custom building units but then others don't either.........................Malifaux doesn't really.

Slightly different, though I did mention special characters and 2 builds per choice.
Which...you did....so...not different at all?

Also, many choices are bad. Often special characters are overpriced, nobody takes a cheaper combat lord (battle leader) and termie armor is rare. It's bikes or gtfo.

Also, WMH hq dramatically changes the entire army
Builds dont, though choices do to a degree.

[spoiler]
But how different are those 40k HQ's? They might have different saves, different guns and different stats, but for the most part, they function the same.
In WMH, the HQ's make a huge difference. Example. I can use the same list for my Convergence army, composed mostly of jacks with a few solos running around. I use mother and my army plays a certain way, let mother deal with infantry while the jacks go after the big things in a surgical way.
I switch casters to Syntherion, same list. Now I have to send some of my jacks against infantry to stall them while Syntherion buffs up my heavy jacks to charge in and hope to win with attrition.
Cryx has a great variety as well. Take the Witch Coven and your army is all about sneaky movements and tricks. Taken Motenbra and you can run jack heavy and focus on repairing to keep those jacks in the fight.

(I tried to do the spoiler thing, but it doesn't work because of reasons.)

You're missing the '/' in front of the second spoiler tag. Should look like [/spoiler].

Get it together MWH.

I'm going to have to fail you on forum usage and sentence you to remedial posting at 0600 for the next week.

 Blacksails wrote:
You're missing the '/' in front of the second spoiler tag. Should look like [/spoiler].

Get it together MWH.

I'm going to have to fail you on forum usage and sentence you to remedial posting at 0600 for the next week.

Dang, I just pressed the "spoiler" button.
Oh well.

Personally I'm glad both systems exist.

It's like anything really you get tired of one flavour of gaming so it's nice to have both systems.

I pendulum back and forth between them, and occasionally xwing.

They seem to scratch different itches for me. Warmachine is very clear in terms of rules and gives you room to more to play something more complex. It scales up poorly though IMO. There is no codex creep which is nice. I play with models that have been around for nearly 10 years and do well.

40K models are higher quality and cheaper too really. I paid £30 for 5 models which were not the best quality (mould lines everywhere and another £24 for a Warcaster!)

40K is also a simpler game as people say. You don't get taken surprise so much by something's rules as you do in Warmachine at least starting out.

40K is a game of straight lines and WM is that has room for more lateral thinking.


One of my favourite games I ever played with my friend was when we played WM together.

I had 3 Helljacks bearing down on his warcaster Nemo. He stumped me by casting a spell on my middle Helljack that locked it in place and meant that my other jacks could now only advance straight towards my afflicted jack so seemingly couldn't get his caster before he scored enough points to win.

After some consideration I had a brainwave.

I activated my left jack, grabbed the middle jack in a
double handed throw (you can target your own models in WM) and then threw it at the enemy warcaster. That knocked the caster down but didn't damage him.

The other jack was then able to charge the caster and kill him.

My friend shook my hand and said how awesome that move was, wasn't sorry to have lost.

That's what I like about WM. 40K is fun too but I've not had a moment yet as cool as that.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The thing is that the idea that WMH has less variety than 40k because "reasons" always gets trotted out and is always proven wrong, and then someone else comes around and says the same thing.

Having flyers, superheavies, tanks, bombers, etc. etc. etc. is not variety, nor is it really viable choices because not all of those things are equal. The Dark Angels flyer for example (I forget its name) is pretty bad, the Necron Night Scythe or even the regular Stormtalon (I think that's the equivalent, it could be the other one) is better.

WMH has more variety because there are more ways to use different things in tandem. Even a simple thing like changing a Warcaster can change how an army plays. I could field the same army with pButcher as eSorscha or pIrusk or pVlad and they would operate differently even if some of the overall tactics were the same. There's no comparison in 40k to that.

That's real variety, not giving umpteen different options of which half are bad, half are really good and half are just there for the few people who might still have them and want to use them sometime.

Please stop trying to point out that since WMH doesn't have flyers, bombers or vehicles that it somehow has less variety and depth than 40k, because it's not true.

You and I just have different ideas of the word "Variety" Wayne. You consider variety different things that you can do with one unit. I consider variety, things that look, feel, and act totally different.

If someone knows *nothing* of 40k and WMH and walks into a room, and looks at a 1850-3000 pt game of 40k, and a WMH game of whatever side, which game would they say, has more variety? To me, the variety of models and that which they represent is more important than what they can do within a turn.

To me, three warcasters that are wildly different on the board are no different than 3 commanders that are wildly different on the board. However, a land raider or stormtalon in which the commander can embark and move more quickly to the other side of the board is "variety".

Talys wrote:

If someone knows *nothing* of 40k and WMH and walks into a room, and looks at a 1850-3000 pt game of 40k, and a WMH game of whatever side, which game would they say, has more variety? To me, the variety of models and that which they represent is more important than what they can do within a turn.

In practical terms, Considering most editions, and codices of 40k boil down to a handful of builds.... And most armies on the table top appear to be marines...

 MWHistorian wrote:
But how different are those 40k HQ's? They might have different saves, different guns and different stats, but for the most part, they function the same.
In WMH, the HQ's make a huge difference. Example. I can use the same list for my Convergence army, composed mostly of jacks with a few solos running around. I use mother and my army plays a certain way, let mother deal with infantry while the jacks go after the big things in a surgical way.
I switch casters to Syntherion, same list. Now I have to send some of my jacks against infantry to stall them while Syntherion buffs up my heavy jacks to charge in and hope to win with attrition.
Cryx has a great variety as well. Take the Witch Coven and your army is all about sneaky movements and tricks. Taken Motenbra and you can run jack heavy and focus on repairing to keep those jacks in the fight.

(I tried to do the spoiler thing, but it doesn't work because of reasons.)

I'm sorry, but in both games, characters in both games make a huge difference. Anyone who tries to sell you that 40k HQ's are just big or small numbers just have never read a codex. Tigurius, Dante, and Karlaen are not interchangeable within an army!

A character might be used to buff a unit with a non-diceroll affecting way (for instance, give it invisibility), teleport units (eg Gate of Infinity), be used directly because he is a powerful warrior, or because of purely tactical advantages. A good example is the new Blood Angels commander, who allows all reserve rolls to be rerolled, whether successful or not. There are obviously psykers, whose abilities vary, techmarines (and equivalents) who can mess with other units, and medics and support characters whose primary job it is to buff/repair (or debuff) other models.

The scenarios that you describe are not that different than 40k. What perhaps makes some people jaded about 40k is that if you take two, well-known and popular tournament netlists, the tricks that both sides will use are predictable. You could say the same thing about WMH, though. If you take the same two armies and played 100 games against each other, it's not like the two sides are going to try 100 different strategies.

I'm not arguing that WMH isn't better balanced, because I think that it's fundamentally a simpler game, and it is better balanced. I'm just saying that characters in 40k are not just "pick a gun or axe, move forward and shoot or hit, RAWR".

Deadnight wrote:

Talys wrote:

If someone knows *nothing* of 40k and WMH and walks into a room, and looks at a 1850-3000 pt game of 40k, and a WMH game of whatever side, which game would they say, has more variety? To me, the variety of models and that which they represent is more important than what they can do within a turn.

In practical terms, Considering most editions, and codices of 40k boil down to a handful of builds.... And most armies on the table top appear to be marines...

And most builds tend to be unit spam...

Deadnight wrote:

Talys wrote:

If someone knows *nothing* of 40k and WMH and walks into a room, and looks at a 1850-3000 pt game of 40k, and a WMH game of whatever side, which game would they say, has more variety? To me, the variety of models and that which they represent is more important than what they can do within a turn.

In practical terms, Considering most editions, and codices of 40k boil down to a handful of builds.... And most armies on the table top appear to be marines...

If the goal is to say, "1850 points each -- FIGHT!" and you just want to win, then yes, you're right, there are a handful of builds (though tournament winners often have something a little different) for each faction that are most optimal, because it's been analyzed to death. There are also very popular lists in WMH, too. One may argue that in WMH, you can do more things with that same list. Part of that is simply that there are less units, and more space, with each unit having more functionality relative to the game outcome; however, again, there are popular tactics and cheesy tricks. You also see TFG in WMH.

However, there are many other, more interesting ways to play 40k.

Most long-time 40k players at some point own some space marines. However, there are *plenty* of xenos players out there, and space marines and equivalents are definitely middle-of-the-pack. See: people are playing space marines, even though they know they are not competitively "top dog". I see tons of Tyranid, Necron, and Eldar players.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:


And most builds tend to be unit spam...

Yes, 40k allows for more unit spam (although, in fairness, it also allows for more units, too). But just because you *can* doesn't mean you have to, nor does it mean it's the most fun way to play!

Talys wrote:
If someone knows *nothing* of 40k and WMH and walks into a room, and looks at a 1850-3000 pt game of 40k, and a WMH game of whatever side, which game would they say, has more variety? To me, the variety of models and that which they represent is more important than what they can do within a turn.

Talys, this argument is completely incompatible with previous 'variety' arguments.

I just read a few pages back that a lot of WM/H balance comes from its 'simplicity.' Balance is purely a function of the rules. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'variety of models and that which they represent.'

No one will argue that there is a greater variety of 'things' in 40k. What people are arguing is that there is a far greater variety of 'choices' within Warmachine. Each model, as a function of its rules, is far more strongly differentiated from other models than in 40k. Oftentimes, a model in 40k is distinguished by its stat line more than most other parameters: they are quantitative differences. In WM/H, the differences are often qualitative. Weapons might generate rough terrain, or they might be able to teleport another model somewhere else. You might be able to give another model the ability to move/shoot/move, or be immune to spells. This is the kind of variety that people are talking about when they're talking about WM/H.

Again, there is more variety in terms of the sort of 'artistic design' in 40k. Artistic design has always been a 40k strength (for many. I find the grimdark a little too ridiculous at times, but to each their own). However, when it comes to /rules/ variety and play on the table, I think it would be an incredibly difficult argument to say 40k is stronger than WM.

You made an example consisting of what people are likely to see if they walked into a game store and looked at two tables.

Over at the 40k side, they are likely to see a few marine armies battling a few xenos armies, people arguing over the rules, similar builds and unit spam within the same lists, but some beautiful conversions.

The WMH side with have zero arguments, dramatically different lists with little to no unit spam, games going quicker and more combos being used, and no conversions.


I feel that's accurate. 40k attracts modelers and people who like the lore. Wmh attracts gamers.

The last I played Warmachine in the same room as a 40k player, I had to go over and help a rule dispute.

Was quite funny really.

Akiasura wrote:
You made an example consisting of what people are likely to see if they walked into a game store and looked at two tables.

Over at the 40k side, they are likely to see a few marine armies battling a few xenos armies, people arguing over the rules, similar builds and unit spam within the same lists, but some beautiful conversions.

The WMH side with have zero arguments, dramatically different lists with little to no unit spam, games going quicker and more combos being used, and no conversions.

I feel that's accurate. 40k attracts modelers and people who like the lore. Wmh attracts gamers.

Frankly, I think the rules arguments are overblown. I don't think it's nearly as serious an issue as some people on Dakka make it out to be. If you go and look at fifty 40k tables, you will not see 50x the same looking table if you know nothing of the game. Some tables might not even look like the same game, because a Kill Team game and a 2500 point Sector Imperialis game look like they belong in different universes.

The same can't be said of WMH. The games pretty much look and feel the same, and the size and scope have little variation.

HOWEVER: once again, I am not disagreeing that WMH is a superior skirmish game. If two people who don't know each other want to blindly fight knowing only each other's point values, bring just a box of miniatures into a remote location, and want to play relatively quick game, it's just better in most ways that matter.

*** Personally *** if that is what I want, my preference is for a computer game, because of matchmaking. If I want to play a competitive game with a total stranger, I would rather play it *knowing* that I'm dealing with someone of relatively equal skill, whatever that may be. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the occasional WMH game, and we often slot in WMH, Space Hulk, Malifaux or something else if we finish 40k early.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:
40k attracts modelers and people who like the lore. Wmh attracts gamers.

I concur that 40k is superior for modelling. I don't think any one disagrees, and if you look at the painting & modelling forum, the vast majority of posts are about 40k models. I believe 40k to be a far superior collectible hobby than WMH because (a) there's more stuff to collect ("variety" strictly in the sense of size, shape and aesthetic of model) and (b) there is more new stuff being pumped out.

I think WMH is superior for one type of gamer (perhaps there are a lot of them). Specifically, gamers who do not want to spend a lot of time and money modelling will prefer WMH. Gamers who just want to make a modest investment and *play* fall into this category.

I think 40k is superior for another type of gamer. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gamers (who may or may not be "competitive") who enjoy playing with their large collections of painted miniatures. There are also people who simply prefer the 40k universe over the WMH one, because, for instance, they like apocalyptic future more than industrial-era magic steampunk.

Choice is good.

WMH is *NOT* really a Skirmish game, it's a bit larger than that at the normal playstyle. It's really just shy of platoon level barring extremes (e.g. Legion beast heavy with like 10 models). But 40k tries to be everything to everyone, and can't do it properly. It tries to be a skirmish game, a company level game and a game of huge armies, but the rules really don't work for any of those things.

Akiasura wrote:

At 1000 points 3 wave serpents pretty much face rolls anything orks can field though. Yes I've tried it.

Except 9 Truks full of boyz.

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

At 1000 points 3 wave serpents pretty much face rolls anything orks can field though. Yes I've tried it.

Except 9 Truks full of boyz.

Warhammer £40k in full effect people!

 obsidianaura wrote:

40K is a game of straight lines and WM is that has room for more lateral thinking.


One of my favourite games I ever played with my friend was when we played WM together.

I had 3 Helljacks bearing down on his warcaster Nemo. He stumped me by casting a spell on my middle Helljack that locked it in place and meant that my other jacks could now only advance straight towards my afflicted jack so seemingly couldn't get his caster before he scored enough points to win.

After some consideration I had a brainwave.

I activated my left jack, grabbed the middle jack in a
double handed throw (you can target your own models in WM) and then threw it at the enemy warcaster. That knocked the caster down but didn't damage him.

The other jack was then able to charge the caster and kill him.

My friend shook my hand and said how awesome that move was, wasn't sorry to have lost.

That's what I like about WM. 40K is fun too but I've not had a moment yet as cool as that.

I'm sure I could appreciate that. Sounds really fun.

I don't see why people even argue that Warmahordes has more variety (which is clearly doubtful) when it has such fun aspects that don't exist in 40K at all.

WayneTheGame wrote:
WMH is *NOT* really a Skirmish game, it's a bit larger than that at the normal playstyle. It's really just shy of platoon level. But 40k tries to be everything to everyone, and can't do it properly. It tries to be a skirmish game, a company level game and a game of huge armies, but the rules really don't work for any of those things.

That's fair

Kill Team is pretty fun, but it's vastly inferior to the *choices* (see, I'm using that instead of variety ) available in WMH for that count of models.

However, it's not possible to play WMH as a company-level game, or a mega-apocalypse game, which is really what I enjoy playing. So, riddle me this: what game would you suggest I try, for a Science Fiction, large unit count, miniature warfare game? To put it in perspective, I mostly play 5+ hour games with 2,500+ points on the table, with some games up to double that (in both time and units). 95% of my games are with regular play partners or people who are personally vouched for.

To me 40k isn't just the "best" choice for what I want... it's pretty much the only choice.

Except it's not doubtful for reasons people repeatedly keep pointing out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
WMH is *NOT* really a Skirmish game, it's a bit larger than that at the normal playstyle. It's really just shy of platoon level. But 40k tries to be everything to everyone, and can't do it properly. It tries to be a skirmish game, a company level game and a game of huge armies, but the rules really don't work for any of those things.

That's fair

Kill Team is pretty fun, but it's vastly inferior to the *choices* (see, I'm using that instead of variety ) available in WMH for that count of models.

However, it's not possible to play WMH as a company-level game, or a mega-apocalypse game, which is really what I enjoy playing. So, riddle me this: what game would you suggest I try, for a Science Fiction, large unit count, miniature warfare game? To put it in perspective, I mostly play 5+ hour games with 2,500+ points on the table, with some games up to double that (in both time and units). 95% of my games are with regular play partners or people who are personally vouched for.

To me 40k isn't just the "best" choice for what I want... it's pretty much the only choice.

And that's fair. But it doesn't mean 40k is more balanced, or has more variety, or is better. It's a better game for you, because it suits what you're looking for.

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

At 1000 points 3 wave serpents pretty much face rolls anything orks can field though. Yes I've tried it.

Except 9 Truks full of boyz.

Including this. It's 108 Boyz roughly, and a wave serpent can kill a truck a turn making them footslog, they will never catch the wave serpent. And that is your entire army, 3 wave serpents are not all I can field.
What was that about 40k not being unit spammed based?

Personally I think WMH offers more collection if you are a gamer. I own my entire faction minus some brand new releases and karax. I have played 40k for 20 years and I don't own any of my armies completely. Why would i? Some are terrible, like the whirlwind. I do buy some models because they look good, like my maulerfiend and swooping hawks, but I don't completely own any one faction.

I do own 5 rhinos, 6 pods, 3 preds, etc etc. Because the game is about spamming powerful units. It's not the only way to play, but it's what the rules encourage for the most part. WMH does not, and the models look different.

A marine army has marines, fancy marines, jump pack marines, heavy weapons marines, biker marines, scouts, leaders, tanks and flyers. All painted in a similar color scheme. That...doesn't look like variety when it's played in practice. Xenos come off looking better, but marines are more popular.

Compare my blood runners to my nilhators. Or swordsman. Compare molik to a bronzeback. Way bigger variety in appearance

morgoth wrote:

I don't see why people even argue that Warmahordes has more variety (which is clearly doubtful) when it has such fun aspects that don't exist in 40K at all.

This is Utter reading comprehension fail on your part.

Deadnight wrote:

morgoth wrote:

I don't see why people even argue that Warmahordes has more variety (which is clearly doubtful) when it has such fun aspects that don't exist in 40K at all.

This is Utter reading comprehension fail on your part.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that wondered what in the gakitty gak was going on in that sentence...

 ImAGeek wrote:
And that's fair. But it doesn't mean 40k is more balanced, or has more variety, or is better. It's a better game for you, because it suits what you're looking for.

Well, my point is that "better" is too subjective to say, one game is just "better" than the other, because plenty of people prefer one or the other, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, why does one game have to win, anyways?

I think that 40k has more "variety" for all the reasons that I've stated. I don't see choices of what a unit can do as variety, but rather units that I can purchase, model/configure, and play as variety. I have no problem conceding that in many respects, WMH has better balance within its units.

Talys wrote:
I don't think it's nearly as serious an issue as some people on Dakka make it out to be

This might be the greatest sentence ever written on these forums, applicable pretty much everywhere.

In the end this is exactly the same as reading the comment section of a YouTube video with ... young people... arguing which console is the greatest. Some other properties of said YouTube -conflicts are heavily present aswell.

Ah well. Carry on.

I like both games for different things myself.

Talys wrote:
I don't see choices of what a unit can do as variety, but rather units that I can purchase, model/configure, and play as variety.

But that's about models, not rules. 40k doesn't have more variety, GW's range of multi-part plastic kits has more variety. Use a different set of rules for your space marines and you'll still have that same variety. Use a different set of models with the 40k rules and you won't have much variety.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
I don't see choices of what a unit can do as variety, but rather units that I can purchase, model/configure, and play as variety.

But that's about models, not rules. 40k doesn't have more variety, GW's range of multi-part plastic kits has more variety. Use a different set of rules for your space marines and you'll still have that same variety. Use a different set of models with the 40k rules and you won't have much variety.

Like I said, to me, 10 infantry sized guys with different abilities is not variety to me, in the some way all the commanders and their different special abilities is not variety. Dante and an Ork Truck, or Borka and Mountain King -- that is variety.

Basically, my wife who plays no war games must be able to see them and say, well OF COURSE the jet fighter and motorcycle are different... do you think I'm stupid?

I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.