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.

 Breotan wrote:

PP is running into an issue that GW has had to deal with for the past two decades. In order to continue as a company, they need to sell more figures. With the player base expanding slowly (for both) they need a way to get veteran players to buy more stuff. PP is now following the GW strategy of super large units and I suppose this will help a little, but it is not a permanent solution. Sooner or later PP will have to find a way to expand the player base dramatically or expand existing armies (50-75 points or greater) or risk premature market saturation. It's just the nature of the market they do business in.

While I am no marketing person, I suspect that this is almost a universal truth across nearly any commodity item offered anywhere. To bring up a term used in "Dermaphoria", people today want More. Once they have More, they see someone else's version of More, and they want that More too, and so on and so forth. Every company needs to continue to progress, and offer More to its customers.

Even GWs solutions to getting More from us, and giving More to us is not permanent, and they are always doing something to get it.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Second, is there a publicly available resource that can be used to demonstrate this information? You, Sourclams and nkelsch seem to be in a protracted argument about the scale of what people play.

Yeah, talk to a press ganger, ask if they'll let you look at the kit information they get. For the GW side you have to look at a more distributed info base like forums, store owners, and major tournaments. If you have access to it (you probably won't) you can also just look at peoples individual purchasing trends through the end marketers system.

Personally, my presumption is that GW games are designed to be played with a far larger number of models (say, 1500-2500 points scale for 40k/WHFB), while PP games are designed more towards the low end (25-50 points for WM/Hordes), but I don't have an actual resource I can point to and say "See paragraph 6, sub-paragraph A".

Both games have their numbers that they're best played at, for warmachine its 35-50. Below that the meta is too extreme and build diversity suffers and above that the focus/fury mechanics break down and the games take way too long. 40k is more flexible at it's top end, but 40k itself at sub 1000 is barely playable as a game at all. Most players tend to fall into the range that is most fun to play and generally those point values are the designed test/design level of the games themselves.

So, to put this another way, there is no disagreement between you and Brother Gyoken/Sourclams with regards to the average game size, and that all three of you stand in opposition to nkletsch's point about small scale games and their ubiquity, would that be correct?

Since this entire exchange appears to be semantic, would it be too much to ask that it simply be stipulated that the average and intended game size for WM/Hordes is 35-50 points, and for 40k/WHFB 1500-2500?

Brother Gyoken wrote:
Holy crap we are talking about average game sizes. Why would you claim Dakka isn't a representation of that and further go on to claim that I am "militantly lazy" by not going on a campaign to poll hundreds of store owners, reading newsletters (am I allowed to say that? You said it first) and distributors to clarify a point that everyone in this damn thread knows I am right about, YOURSELF INCLUDED. Yes, if stating a basic truth about the games without spending hundreds/thousands of hours doing market research and polls makes me "militantly lazy" then call me Colonel Homer Simpson.

I said the average wargamer doesn't use internet forums relating to their hobby. They don't. The majority representation of wargamers do not use them, the participation rate doesn't sync up to the actual numbers of customers these companies have. You ran with that gak to mean that "dakka can not be used to represent a portion of the community". That's the lazy part. You aren't bothering to consider anything to be anything other than for or against your rather simplistic idea of what constitutions the population of these hobbies, I'm also subbing in lazy for other terms that would probably get me chastised by the boards moderators. Lazy still works though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Second, is there a publicly available resource that can be used to demonstrate this information? You, Sourclams and nkelsch seem to be in a protracted argument about the scale of what people play.

Yeah, talk to a press ganger, ask if they'll let you look at the kit information they get. For the GW side you have to look at a more distributed info base like forums, store owners, and major tournaments. If you have access to it (you probably won't) you can also just look at peoples individual purchasing trends through the end marketers system.

Personally, my presumption is that GW games are designed to be played with a far larger number of models (say, 1500-2500 points scale for 40k/WHFB), while PP games are designed more towards the low end (25-50 points for WM/Hordes), but I don't have an actual resource I can point to and say "See paragraph 6, sub-paragraph A".

Both games have their numbers that they're best played at, for warmachine its 35-50. Below that the meta is too extreme and build diversity suffers and above that the focus/fury mechanics break down and the games take way too long. 40k is more flexible at it's top end, but 40k itself at sub 1000 is barely playable as a game at all. Most players tend to fall into the range that is most fun to play and generally those point values are the designed test/design level of the games themselves.

So, to put this another way, there is no disagreement between you and Brother Gyoken/Sourclams with regards to the average game size, and that all three of you stand in opposition to nkletsch's point about small scale games and their ubiquity, would that be correct?

Since this entire exchange appears to be semantic, would it be too much to ask that it simply be stipulated that the average and intended game size for WM/Hordes is 35-50 points, and for 40k/WHFB 1500-2500?

I'm not sure Matt Ward was/is competent enough to be aware of the effects of point value on gameplay when writing the 6th edition rulebook. I'm also not sure he can go through a day without swallowing his own tongue, though, so expecting him to understand resource restrictions might be a bit much. I'm not confident any GW designer has been aware of things like divergent metas, optimal usage scenarios, the restrictiveness of freedom, or simple "balance" ever. PP knowingly designs it's games for a 35-50 point skew, though they are now engaging in policies and putting out products in an attempt to expand that number (presumably to sell more stuff).

I think sixth is ideally played at 1500-2000 and without using imperial guard or grey knights, and without having two thirds of your army value in flying models. I suspect that was the "intended" form of play.

nkelsch wrote:

Lanrak wrote:


Where as PP apears to be more focused on actual game play, with it being primarily games company.

I feel like PP also knows their appeal to collectors... they make amazing models and price them at the middle to high end of the model spectrum just like GW... partially because they know they make good sculpts for the most part and they know what the market can bear.

Other companies may way cheaper models, but they don't look hardly as good.

Your brush, it is broad.

 -Loki- wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Lanrak wrote:


Where as PP apears to be more focused on actual game play, with it being primarily games company.

I feel like PP also knows their appeal to collectors... they make amazing models and price them at the middle to high end of the model spectrum just like GW... partially because they know they make good sculpts for the most part and they know what the market can bear.

Other companies may way cheaper models, but they don't look hardly as good.

Your brush, it is broad.

Isn't infinity identical to PP or GW for individual model prices..? About the only company that I think stands on quality with generally lower prices is spartan, and only with their newer lines once the dude learned Zbrush. Those are incomparables though, as the valuation for detail and quality between a tiny man and a tiny boat are wholly different things.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Isn't infinity identical to PP or GW for individual model prices..? About the only company that I think stands on quality with generally lower prices is spartan, and only with their newer lines once the dude learned Zbrush. Those are incomparables though, as the valuation for detail and quality between a tiny man and a tiny boat are wholly different things.

I think Wyrd Miniatures is up there as well. their starter sets are all around 30 USD (well, 30-40USD per), and per model they run from 9.50-15 USD on the factory website (so no discounts)

It's all down to aesthetics, and what each person likes. The price thing, I agree that for the standard PUG army, Warmahordes is the cheaper option, when using only GW as the other option. We all know that there are games like Infinity, Malifaux and others that are characteristically cheaper than both PP and GW.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not sure Matt Ward was/is competent enough to be aware of the effects of point value on gameplay when writing the 6th edition rulebook. I'm also not sure he can go through a day without swallowing his own tongue, though, so expecting him to understand resource restrictions might be a bit much. I'm not confident any GW designer has been aware of things like divergent metas, optimal usage scenarios, the restrictiveness of freedom, or simple "balance" ever. PP knowingly designs it's games for a 35-50 point skew, though they are now engaging in policies and putting out products in an attempt to expand that number (presumably to sell more stuff).

You're missing the point with GW. It isn't about making a balanced "wonderful" game. If that's all that anyone cared about, we'd all still be playing BattleTech. No, GW's strategy is and always has been about selling miniatures to an already saturated market. This is why each rules edition has made new stuff better and old stuff obsolete. As has been previously stated, in 3rd/4th you needed to buy more infantry. In 5th you needed to buy the new vehicles coming out. In 6th, you need to buy fliers and terrain. The object of the game (from a design standpoint) has always been to service the sales of the models.

 Breotan wrote:
PP is running into an issue that GW has had to deal with for the past two decades. In order to continue as a company, they need to sell more figures. With the player base expanding slowly (for both) they need a way to get veteran players to buy more stuff. PP is now following the GW strategy of super large units and I suppose this will help a little, but it is not a permanent solution. Sooner or later PP will have to find a way to expand the player base dramatically or expand existing armies (50-75 points or greater) or risk premature market saturation. It's just the nature of the market they do business in.

They're also expanding their board game selection, and developing new IP like Level 7.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

 Breotan wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm not sure Matt Ward was/is competent enough to be aware of the effects of point value on gameplay when writing the 6th edition rulebook. I'm also not sure he can go through a day without swallowing his own tongue, though, so expecting him to understand resource restrictions might be a bit much. I'm not confident any GW designer has been aware of things like divergent metas, optimal usage scenarios, the restrictiveness of freedom, or simple "balance" ever. PP knowingly designs it's games for a 35-50 point skew, though they are now engaging in policies and putting out products in an attempt to expand that number (presumably to sell more stuff).

You're missing the point with GW. It isn't about making a balanced "wonderful" game. If that's all that anyone cared about, we'd all still be playing BattleTech. No, GW's strategy is and always has been about selling miniatures to an already saturated market. This is why each rules edition has made new stuff better and old stuff obsolete. As has been previously stated, in 3rd/4th you needed to buy more infantry. In 5th you needed to buy the new vehicles coming out. In 6th, you need to buy fliers and terrain. The object of the game (from a design standpoint) has always been to service the sales of the models.

That's the kneejerk reaction, but it's not really evidenced. What were the best units in fifth?

vendetta (new model!)
Thunderwolves (no box until long after they were made/converted)
Palladins (equal cost to terminators with most players simply using terminators as both)
IG Vets (existed for as long as the army has, no new models to speak of)
Psyfledreads (no model, forced conversion)
las/plaserbacks (forced conversion)
Manticore (no model for the longest time)
Nob bikers (no model)
tervigons (no model)
long fangs (no new models)
Death cults assassins (no new model or even way to buy them en masse)

Lets look at some of the worst units!

Leman Russ Punisher/vanquisher (new model!)
Pyrovore (new model!)
Chaos spawn (new model!)
Tankbustas (new model!)
Jokearo (new model!)
Skyray (new when the codex came out)
Vespid (new when the codex came out)
Archons court (a bunch of new models!)

I think GW is just a company of idiots with no fething idea what they're doing, even from a business perspective. To assume that they maliciously overpower or underpower things assumes they have even the slightest idea what those terms mean in the first place. Given how badly their books balance against themselves let alone eachother, i doubt they do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

silent25 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

PP does this for in game reasons, not just to sell models. Unit profiles and knowing exactly what is what on the table at any given time is incredibly important in warmachine. Not knowing the threat ranges on an enemy model can cause you to loose the game right then and there. With 40k there's a hell of a lot more elasticity in there, you can basically assume that lizard with the missile launcher is a space wolf long fang because he's the one with a missile launcher. There's a lot of standardization.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

PP does this for in game reasons, not just to sell models. Unit profiles and knowing exactly what is what on the table at any given time is incredibly important in warmachine. Not knowing the threat ranges on an enemy model can cause you to loose the game right then and there. With 40k there's a hell of a lot more elasticity in there, you can basically assume that lizard with the missile launcher is a space wolf long fang because he's the one with a missile launcher. There's a lot of standardization.

Sorry, that is a weak excuse. To say you need the exact fig to identify everything can be solved with one question when the opponent puts down a fig, "What model is that suppose to be?" Especially with unit cards being available for all models.

The rule strikes me as purely a means to sell figures. Nothing else. Even when GW ran more events, you saw far more conversions and creativity that helped foster and inspire other players. Just this week on GW's page they showed off a great conversion heavy Nurgle army. It is armies like that which inspire people to do new armies and experiment. PP's restrictions stifles creativity and limits the imagination of their players. When new figs come out for other games, I know a lot of GW game players who look at them and think, that will make a great "X".

They have built in 3rd party manufacturer protection. It's impressive the hoops leapt through by needlessly zealous exponents to make this "for gaming purposes". Especially in a game that doesn't have "wargear" in a meaningful way.
One of the reasons I couldn't maintain my interest in wm/h was the dearth of interesting personalized armies out there, which this rule is at least partially responsible for.

The rule strikes me as purely a means to sell figures. Nothing else. Even when GW ran more events, you saw far more conversions and creativity that helped foster and inspire other players. Just this week on GW's page they showed off a great conversion heavy Nurgle army. It is armies like that which inspire people to do new armies and experiment. PP's restrictions stifles creativity and limits the imagination of their players. When new figs come out for other games, I know a lot of GW game players who look at them and think, that will make a great "X".

 Dais wrote:
Proxies and counts-as models are innocent enough in casual play, but in a tournament with timed turns you cannot waste time on asking what the opposing models are.

Unless you have memory like a seive, spending 30 second at the start of the game asking what a model is meant to be wastes, well, 30 seconds, especially considering Warmachine very rarely has duplicates of units (or so I'm told). Once they've told you once at the start, that a certain converted fig uses whatever card its tied to, it's not like you'll need to ask every turn after that.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Dais wrote:
Proxies and counts-as models are innocent enough in casual play, but in a tournament with timed turns you cannot waste time on asking what the opposing models are.

Unless you have memory like a seive, spending 30 second at the start of the game asking what a model is meant to be wastes, well, 30 seconds, especially considering Warmachine very rarely has duplicates of units (or so I'm told). Once they've told you once at the start, that a certain converted fig uses whatever card its tied to, it's not like you'll need to ask every turn after that.

Hey now, insulting people is uncalled for. When you are trying to formulate and enact a plan fast with all kinds of numbers swirling in your head with the pressure of the clock ticking down an unfamiliar army can be very easy to forget. It is true you only need to ask once to be told, but you only need to forget once to screw your turn over.

It is a game meant to have fun and themed and converted armies can be a blast to play against but they must have some thought and effort put into the models or it becomes an unpleasant mess.

The rule strikes me as purely a means to sell figures. Nothing else. Even when GW ran more events, you saw far more conversions and creativity that helped foster and inspire other players. Just this week on GW's page they showed off a great conversion heavy Nurgle army. It is armies like that which inspire people to do new armies and experiment. PP's restrictions stifles creativity and limits the imagination of their players. When new figs come out for other games, I know a lot of GW game players who look at them and think, that will make a great "X".

At one time I would agree with you but now I do not. From 2008 to present the cost for conversions has almost doubled. The reason for this is the closure of the GW bits department and its restructuring. This is what the market will presently bare because of those actions as well as the price increases along the way. Cost is the key element in playing this game. Conversions and scratch builds at one time was a way to cuts costs. Not the case anymore. Costs is a main reason why people are leaving one game system to another or unfortunately, leaving the hobby all together.

Under $100 dollars, with rule book is what got me to play WM. In my area there is growth in this product. The buy in is cheap as I have stated before.
They must be doing something right to promote growth at this level. I still play 40k and still TO as well, but because of the corporate policies being in-acted on how new people are being promoted into the hobby, I'm slowly leaving 40K all together or at least shelving the game for the moment to explore other options. Money is no option for me. I'm one of those people GW should be trying to keep. But I'm an old man and seen the changes to this hobby for the past 25 years and I don't like what I'm seeing.

So I vote with my wallet and the wads of cash within and have been exploring other options (besides getting into RC ship combat) and been looking at WM as well as Infinity and Dust Warfare.

Very hard to quit my gaming-crack habit though

 Dais wrote:
Hey now, insulting people is uncalled for. When you are trying to formulate and enact a plan fast with all kinds of numbers swirling in your head with the pressure of the clock ticking down an unfamiliar army can be very easy to forget. It is true you only need to ask once to be told, but you only need to forget once to screw your turn over.

I wasn't trying to be insulting. You said it yourself - with an unfamiliar army. I doubt everyone knows every unit exactly. I'd assume asking to see a units card at the start of a game to be quite common. Remembering what rule card a conversion uses is no different to remembering what rule card a model you've never encountered uses.

silent25 wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

silent25 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

PP does this for in game reasons, not just to sell models. Unit profiles and knowing exactly what is what on the table at any given time is incredibly important in warmachine. Not knowing the threat ranges on an enemy model can cause you to loose the game right then and there. With 40k there's a hell of a lot more elasticity in there, you can basically assume that lizard with the missile launcher is a space wolf long fang because he's the one with a missile launcher. There's a lot of standardization.

Sorry, that is a weak excuse. To say you need the exact fig to identify everything can be solved with one question when the opponent puts down a fig, "What model is that suppose to be?" Especially with unit cards being available for all models.

The rule strikes me as purely a means to sell figures. Nothing else. Even when GW ran more events, you saw far more conversions and creativity that helped foster and inspire other players. Just this week on GW's page they showed off a great conversion heavy Nurgle army. It is armies like that which inspire people to do new armies and experiment. PP's restrictions stifles creativity and limits the imagination of their players. When new figs come out for other games, I know a lot of GW game players who look at them and think, that will make a great "X".

Have you ever played either of PPs games in a tournament?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Dais wrote:
Proxies and counts-as models are innocent enough in casual play, but in a tournament with timed turns you cannot waste time on asking what the opposing models are.

Unless you have memory like a seive, spending 30 second at the start of the game asking what a model is meant to be wastes, well, 30 seconds, especially considering Warmachine very rarely has duplicates of units (or so I'm told). Once they've told you once at the start, that a certain converted fig uses whatever card its tied to, it's not like you'll need to ask every turn after that.

I disagree with that. During a timed turn or deathclock format game I don't want to have to waste my time consistently reminding myself what your counts as army is. It's a waste of time in a competitive format. That's not a waste of my time, that is a waste of the tiny turn clock that is literally timing my turns. This isn't 40k. Every army isn't the same space marine with a different gun in his hand, when tournament games are lost by seconds or tenths of an inch (which happens a lot) playing a counts as army is paramount to cheating. If I mistake a one model for another that can and will cost me a game. You might as well be playing all korean foil cards in a magic tournament or have your football team wearing zebra stripes.

Conversions are allowed, they're actually fairly common. But full model replacement isn't, nor is changing the handedness of weapons on warjacks (since that has an in game effect).

 ShumaGorath wrote:
playing a counts as army is paramount to cheating.

That is an awfully harsh way of saying it, but yes, anything that can severely hamper the clarity of the state of the table is a problem. As I stated earlier I love conversions and creativity, but warmachine conversions have to be extraordinarily obvious if you want to play competitively. If you are a fair modeler your friends will know them well enough in a few games but a guy coming to a store tourney from out of town should be able to tell at a glance if you want to participate in an event.

silent25 wrote:
I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

With the proviso that a tournament organiser can okay any conversion if it's obvious what it's meant to be. For example, this is technically an illegal conversion of Ghetorix using the Extreme Warpwolf kit, but I checked with the TO beforehand and he agreed it would be okay to take: http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b289/Elemental402/Miniatures/IMG_3491.jpg

silent25 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

I can go to any IndyGT with substitute figures from another manufacturer no problem. It is only the Throne of Skulls run by GW that has a 50% or greater GW parts rule. Which is more liberal than PP's conversion rule. PP requires that the fig be made up of 50% of the original figure for the intended unit.

You can't go to most of your major IndyGTs with figs from another range. Adepticon says that your army should be constructed of models from the given game system/appropriate model range. Using models from outside the game system is acceptable, but not the norm. You do have to get such things approved by tournament organizers before hand. I know RiTides and Alpharius took their non-GW 40k armies to the team tournament this year. Both of them had to get approval because they were true scale and not of the 40k line. Both of them had to make concessions on base sizes and make sure that their models were as WYSIWYG as possible.

The NOVA Open says that your minis cannot drift far away from what the standard model would be. So if your space marine doesn't walk like a space marine, look like a space marine, or quack like a space marine, then it's not a space marine.

Even WargamesCon (not to say there is not anything wrong with them ) says that unless you have TO approval or it says in the event rules, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s). Supplementing your army with a reasonable amount of models from outside the game system is acceptable but should NOT be the norm.

That is just three major IndyGTs for 40k, and the model policies were not specific to that range, so saying that you can use any figs from any system in your 40k indy tournaments is a bit of a lie. Sure your local RTTs might allow such things, but all the major ones require you to construct your force from mostly GW figs

 -Loki- wrote:

I wasn't trying to be insulting. You said it yourself - with an unfamiliar army. I doubt everyone knows every unit exactly. I'd assume asking to see a units card at the start of a game to be quite common. Remembering what rule card a conversion uses is no different to remembering what rule card a model you've never encountered uses.

Have you played timed 10 minute turns in a competitive format with a game system that "requires" you to know your opponent's army as well as your own?

Its amusing the difference between games.

40k

you have 2.5 - 3 hours a game depending on points.

You can drag your turns out and short turns your opponets needs depending on Style of army.

When the time is up, finish the round and its game.
Ive played 3 hour games against an opponet that took so long on each turn in a tourney that we got to turn 3.... he had this planned for his benefit.


Warmahordes

2 Options

You have a timed turn, when timer stops, your turn is instantly over, didnt get to all your units ? To bad.. play faster.
(Note: there is usually 1 turn extension you can use)

Opponet cannot screw you by slow play or stalling.

other is.

Death Clock. Each player has 45 min of time to play the game, if your clock ticks 0, you lose.



Conversions are great, but when you have 45min for the game, you dont want to be going Whats that unit again ?

I can look at the entire Warmahordes range, and from looking at them, i know what they do, or a general idea of it from reading.


Most people who dont get this, have not played in a Warmachine timed turn format.

I think there are a few reasons you don't see cool customised models in PP games:
1) Less varied background. GW has gone out of their way to create armies where individuality is encouraged. The myriad of IG worlds, uncounted space marine chapters, Chaos in its very nature... PP is much more proscriptive, both in game (only using named heroes) and in background.

2) Metal Models. For most people, metal models are a pain in the ass to convert. Most PP models are metal, and thus less conversions get done. GW is mostly plastic, thus easier to convert

3) Less models, and less duplication. Many people in GW games go to extensive lengths to convert models to get some individuality when they are required to field 5, or even 50, of the same model. With PP games, large units number 10 (with generally 4-5 unique poses) and duplicating (min-maxing) choices within your army is not seen to nearly the extent it is in GW games.

4) Confusion. As other people have pointed out, PP rules are far far more tied to individual models than GW, where special rules are shared across entire armies. PP, it is far more crucial to be able to tell at a glance what type of model something is.

I just played in a tournament and got hosed by a guy that took forever on his turns...and then kept stopping me on mine...then as I was about to kill his Caster dice down was called.

I was not happy.

But my take on the argument is: Gameplay.
PP takes a much more balanced approach to building their armies.
GW - Power Gamer max. Bringing extreme douche to each army.

One might say that you can do this with any army in WM/H which is true. I do appreciate GW's variety though and plastics, and hopefully in the next few years PP catches up and starts introducing more plastic troops.

theQuanz wrote:
I just played in a tournament and got hosed by a guy that took forever on his turns...and then kept stopping me on mine...then as I was about to kill his Caster dice down was called.

I was not happy.

But my take on the argument is: Gameplay.
PP takes a much more balanced approach to building their armies.
GW - Power Gamer max. Bringing extreme douche to each army.

One might say that you can do this with any army in WM/H which is true. I do appreciate GW's variety though and plastics, and hopefully in the next few years PP catches up and starts introducing more plastic troops.

Were you in the middle of your attack when Dice Down was called?

theQuanz wrote:
I just played in a tournament and got hosed by a guy that took forever on his turns...and then kept stopping me on mine...then as I was about to kill his Caster dice down was called.

I was not happy.

But my take on the argument is: Gameplay.
PP takes a much more balanced approach to building their armies.
GW - Power Gamer max. Bringing extreme douche to each army.

One might say that you can do this with any army in WM/H which is true. I do appreciate GW's variety though and plastics, and hopefully in the next few years PP catches up and starts introducing more plastic troops.

Deathclock ? If he stops you on your turn, change the clock to his time if hes stalling/Asking questions. He will stop rather quick.

Timed turns.. Talk to the TO before you start, but you should be able to Pause the timer if hes asking tons of things/stalling on your turn.

If it was just you have so and so time to play.. they need to adopt Deathclock, or X min turns with so many turns allowed.

 Alfndrate wrote:

You can't go to most of your major IndyGTs with figs from another range. Adepticon says that your army should be constructed of models from the given game system/appropriate model range. Using models from outside the game system is acceptable, but not the norm. You do have to get such things approved by tournament organizers before hand. I know RiTides and Alpharius took their non-GW 40k armies to the team tournament this year. Both of them had to get approval because they were true scale and not of the 40k line. Both of them had to make concessions on base sizes and make sure that their models were as WYSIWYG as possible.

The NOVA Open says that your minis cannot drift far away from what the standard model would be. So if your space marine doesn't walk like a space marine, look like a space marine, or quack like a space marine, then it's not a space marine.

Even WargamesCon (not to say there is not anything wrong with them ) says that unless you have TO approval or it says in the event rules, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s). Supplementing your army with a reasonable amount of models from outside the game system is acceptable but should NOT be the norm.

That is just three major IndyGTs for 40k, and the model policies were not specific to that range, so saying that you can use any figs from any system in your 40k indy tournaments is a bit of a lie. Sure your local RTTs might allow such things, but all the major ones require you to construct your force from mostly GW figs

And you verified my point. You have the option to bring in models from another range with GW games. The option does not exist with PP games. All that the responses to my comments have show is that WMH is a creatively desolate game that does not encourage creativity or inspire artistic originality. The game might as well be with pre-painted plastics since the defense has been the gameplay is the only thing that matters.

nkelsch wrote:bullcrap analogy

Analogies are not arguments. They are a method of communicating. The only evaluation of an analogy is whether or not it communicates what the author intended. And given your vociferous opposite to the analogy, you obviously understood it. You got the message.

So it wasn't a bull crap analogy. It worked perfectly.

Since this thread is "GW vs PP" rather than WM vs 40k, I'm going to list some things:

-- International reseller shipping embargo
-- Cease & decist orders to fan websites like talkbloodbowl.com
-- Finecast
-- Screw Australia & Screw Canada pricing
-- Delays on new releases to independent stores while local company stores always have the new stuff on release day.
-- Minimum orders and maximum quantities per order for independents while local company stores can get as much as they think they can sell.
-- Trying to trick freelance artists into signing over rights to works they did not sign over when the artwork was commissioned
-- Having independent stores take the risk developing the gaming community in an area and then opening a company store to compete with your own resellers directly once the market is developed.

In a PP vs GW comparison, whichever company does the more of the things on the list above loses. GW has done all of them. PP had some initial hiccups on their resin production (but nothing like Finecast). GW is garbage as a company. They're scumbags, so PP wins just on the ethics side of things.

silent25 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

You can't go to most of your major IndyGTs with figs from another range. Adepticon says that your army should be constructed of models from the given game system/appropriate model range. Using models from outside the game system is acceptable, but not the norm. You do have to get such things approved by tournament organizers before hand. I know RiTides and Alpharius took their non-GW 40k armies to the team tournament this year. Both of them had to get approval because they were true scale and not of the 40k line. Both of them had to make concessions on base sizes and make sure that their models were as WYSIWYG as possible.

The NOVA Open says that your minis cannot drift far away from what the standard model would be. So if your space marine doesn't walk like a space marine, look like a space marine, or quack like a space marine, then it's not a space marine.

Even WargamesCon (not to say there is not anything wrong with them ) says that unless you have TO approval or it says in the event rules, your army should be primarily constructed of models from the given game system and the appropriate model range(s). Supplementing your army with a reasonable amount of models from outside the game system is acceptable but should NOT be the norm.

That is just three major IndyGTs for 40k, and the model policies were not specific to that range, so saying that you can use any figs from any system in your 40k indy tournaments is a bit of a lie. Sure your local RTTs might allow such things, but all the major ones require you to construct your force from mostly GW figs

And you verified my point. You have the option to bring in models from another range with GW games. The option does not exist with PP games. All that the responses to my comments have show is that WMH is a creatively desolate game that does not encourage creativity or inspire artistic originality. The game might as well be with pre-painted plastics since the defense has been the gameplay is the only thing that matters.

That's sort of the problem with having a game that functions at a competitive level and doesn't have a shattered meta with four popular sub builds within three armies out of fifteen. 40k is a great creative palate and engine for narratives, but it's a gak game. If you're going to complain about a lack of creativity in tournament formatting I'll ask you why a quarter of all entrants were grey knights, and 50% were GKs, IG, and SWs in 40k tournies at the end of fifth. That seems like some pretty desolate "creativity", especially considering most of those armies were virtually identical.