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.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

Devastator wrote:i once tried to play warmachine
was boring as hell
and models dont look interesting to me

Don't mean to be a jerk-wad, but could you possibly try typing intelligently? Oh, and those 16 words really don't communicate WHY you don't like the game, or WHY you don't like the models. Try elaborating on your point.

Please try and post intelligently, people, otherwise you are wasting bandwidth.

_Tim?

Maybe English is not his first language, Dakka is worldwide.

kinghammer wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Boring games

False. Very much a nail biting and tactically challenging game with lots of carnage and battling of player wits.

False. There is nothing like an opponent punching you repeatedly in the face while you do nothing(boring). Cuz thats what I would allow someone do to me. "Its cool bro punch me a couple more times, then I will punch you." It's a boring game of Rochambeau. What so tactical about that?

Cheers

The tactical part comes from getting to the kill, not the kill itself.

this thread is temporarily closed while it is reviewed for reports of flaming.

Reopened with private warnings given. Lets keep it polite people.

Necros wrote:One thing I wish PP would do though is just combine warmachine and hordes into 1 game. I mean, I know they work together and it's the same rules and all.. and I understand the difference between warlocks and warcasters.. but I'd rather see it just as one big game in 1 big rulebook. All they gotta do is say... "warcasters control jacks and work like this" and then, "Warlocks control monsters and work like that".

Game wise I cant say much but appeal/ concept wise for me Hordes is quite diferent since its more fantasy and less steampunkish, for me it made all the diference in the world. If they made everything inside the steampunk vibe I would probably not be on board right now.
Big warkjacks and steam machines dont really get my attention anymore and are a bit limited if you intend to use other fantasy settings and games with your PP minis, as for Hordes its pure fantasy specially if you cut down one steam leg or steam weapon

Dont know how to explain it but its like a totally diferent setting for me.

I watched a Warmachine Demo (did not play) once and investigated the game. I decided not to get into it.

1)Tactics/strategh: The "Plays like a CCG" seemed farily apt. There seems to be alot of "combo" making to the rules, in a somewhat more pronounced way than GW games. It felt like a list-building game. I've already got a list building game (40k) so this didn't appeal to me. Gameplay strategy is different than 40k, but 40k'ers speaking poorly of the tactical content of the game is a bit of pot-calling-kettle-black, IMHO.

2) General gameplay. Fewer miniatures on the table, but didn't seem significantly faster play than 40k. Seemed to be alot of counters and tokens involved.

3) Minis: I liked the style of the figs, reminded me of elements of warzone and 40k, and the Warjacks are a pretty cool hook.

4) Investment. Not much less expensive than 40k. "Another use-our-miniatures-and-they-aint-cheap" game.

5) Background: seems pretty rich, especially for a game that's not that terribly old. Though not as expansive, the quality of the fluff and art seems on par with GW stuff.

In the end, the CCG qualities really turned me off, and the other aspects of the game didn't seem different enough to make me want to invest in this game. Now I should point out that I don't want to be into more than one big-investment game, so my previous involvement in 40k worked against Warmachine.

Were I looking for another big-name game, or just starting, I'd definitely take the time to play a few demo games of both 40k and Warmachine before picking one. The Warmachine game community isn't as large as 40k, but there's enough demo'ers that there's no excuse for not at least trying the game out if you're even remotely interested.

Give it a shot, maybe you'll love it.

I hate the arrogant Page 5 crud. Enough already. Oh and the hypocrasy of their metal miniatures hype followed by a swap to plastic. Metal, plastic, I couldnt care, but when they make an issue about it and talk tough they just come across as annoying ----pots.

There are one or two points costs brainfarts, but by and large the game is good. My only lasting problem with the rules is the use of 2d6, which prevents the bucket of dice approach to gaming and slows down the turns. CRA offsets this to some extent, but it takes all day to resolve a unit of Zealots, and many players who take them take twenty or thirty.

Franlly I wish it was d10 based and slightly tweaked to account for that.

Zatsuku wrote:I'd like to mention that you can get the quick start rules for warmachine here: http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/the-game and for Hordes here: http://privateerpress.com/hordes/the-game

For free of course! If you don't have someone in the area that plays take the quickstart rules and try out some games with your friends, that's how I got into the game about two years ago. I have to say I am so glad I decided to step outside Warhammer and see what was waiting in the outside world.

Good call Zatsuku. Between that and the way they figure model size for LOS purposes (each piece rules wise is such and such diameter, such and such hieght), proxying up a game should be most easy. Suprised no one thought of linking this before, good work.

Sanctjud wrote:

I am also no huge fan of the combos. The whole problem with them is that in order to be truly competitive, you have to know all the different combos your opponent might throw at you, so that you can plan to be able to shut them down. Which is all right and fine, I just don't have the interest to go reading up that much.

How is that different from 40K?
The only thing I can see where it's 'easier' to deal with in 40K would be to throw dice at it until it's dead...which isn't exactly a selling point and not too different.

I mean, when you see Molik Karn on the other side of the table, you know something is up regardless.
There is a reason PP has a card system. It's easy to hand over and allow the opponent to read through it...(just a little easier than a whole codex).

In addition, you have the 2 list system for tourneys were you can play the meta.
You can go with a list you are comfortable with against certain opponents and then go with a list that focuses on denial vs. casters you are unfamiliar with, etc.

In addition, Warmahordes is as transparent as 40K in regards to rules and special abilities.

Oh, it's not that it is different, really. It's that it's additional. I study all the time. I teach myself a lot of things, play with some computer languages, learn different languages, and for my job I am constantly having to stay on top of the latest literature, new tools that come out, etc... I have to study a lot. It's merely that I am already about as familiar with 40k as I feel I need to be, and just dont have the motivation to obtain a similar level of familiarity with HordesMachine. Weeeeell, I DO find that the synergy is a bit more important in HordesMachine than in 40k, and that aspect IS less attractive to me, but the big thing is that if I were to pick up an additional system it would need to be somethign I could pick up and put down for quick, fun games with a minimal of overhead in time. Basically, I just have too much else going on to really stretch out to dedicate the time. Maybe if 40k had pissed me off to that point, but it hasnt yet. Again, what it comes down to is personal preference. I really, really recommend you follow Zatsuku's advice and DL the rules, proxy some cool stuff up, and see how it rolls for you on the table top. That's your tactical nuke from orbit in this case; it's the only way to be sure.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:I hate the arrogant Page 5 crud. Enough already. Oh and the hypocrasy of their metal miniatures hype followed by a swap to plastic. Metal, plastic, I couldnt care, but when they make an issue about it and talk tough they just come across as annoying ----pots.

Yyyyyyeah, have to agree here. I am not 13. I dont need someone to try and hype me all up. Between the cartoony artwork and the whole childish "Play like you gotta pair" bs, it's really unappealing. But, I realize that I am not their target demographic. Indeed, my children are just about into their target demographic. So I realize that if I wanna play my little toy soldiers and monster games, I will have to wade into, what is for someone as old as me, a bit of the shallow end of the marketing pool, if not the warm shallowness of the kiddie pool altogether. If you wanna play, you have to live with the whole community. It's a package deal, and given the quality of players in my area, it makes it a bit easier to tolerate. So, I dont bitch, because my friends who play are good folks, and we have a good time with it. That is what's important to me.

Eilif wrote:1)Tactics/strategh: The "Plays like a CCG" seemed farily apt. There seems to be alot of "combo" making to the rules, in a somewhat more pronounced way than GW games. It felt like a list-building game. I've already got a list building game (40k) so this didn't appeal to me. Gameplay strategy is different than 40k, but 40k'ers speaking poorly of the tactical content of the game is a bit of pot-calling-kettle-black, IMHO.

Personally, I hate the CCG annalogy that people make with WM/H. It seems to stem from the fact that you have cards on the table, but it's never really made sense to me. Of course it's a list building game. All wargames are list building games, but the thing that I like about Warmachine/Hordes is that it's more what you do with what you bring, as opposed to just what you bring. The game is better designed to let you use the tools you bring, as opposed to punishing you for not bringing certain choices.

Orlanth wrote:I hate the arrogant Page 5 crud. Enough already. Oh and the hypocrasy of their metal miniatures hype followed by a swap to plastic. Metal, plastic, I couldnt care, but when they make an issue about it and talk tough they just come across as annoying ----pots.

You do realize that Page 5 is completely tounge in cheek? It's not intended to be seriously taken at all? It all boils down to: "This is a game, someone is going to win, someone is going to lose, have fun with it, and don't be an ass." Anyone who takes it for anything more than that is looking for depth where it doesn't exist.

As for the change to plastic, they did that for the customers (and themselves, of course), because of the fluxuating prices of metals, etc, etc. Of course, there were people who complained that PP sucked because there were no plastics, and now that there's plastic, people complain that they're not all metal. Can't please all the people all the time.

Personally, I don't care what the models are made of. Do I like the way they look, and do they suffice for playing the game?

grizgrin wrote:Good call Zatsuku. Between that and the way they figure model size for LOS purposes (each piece rules wise is such and such diameter, such and such hieght), proxying up a game should be most easy. Suprised no one thought of linking this before, good work.

Just wanted to clarify, LOS is all about the bases, and if you can draw a line from one to the other. The 'volume' rules for models only apply if you can't see the base due to terrain issues (behind a hill, in a ditch, etc). Aside from that, it's purely base to base LOS.


Warmachine/Hordes is not for everyone, just like 40K isn't. I played 40K for about 10 years, and now I play Warmachine. My tastes change as I grow older, and someday there may be a game that I prefer of Warmachine/Hordes.

However, the real shame is players who bash other systems, and don't know anything about it. If people don't want to try PP, for whatever reason, that's their choice, of course. Likewise, people who want more than what 40K has to offer, they're free to look elsewhere as well. Let's just try and avoid calling each others games crap out of hand.

I played 40k for 15 years, I now only play Warmahordes. It's a better ruleset and it feels to me that there is more supense and excitement.

Devilsquid wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Good call... good work.

Just wanted to clarify,... base to base LOS.

What he said. DS is far more knowledgable about it than I.

Devilsquid wrote:


Warmachine/Hordes is not for everyone, just like 40K isn't. I played 40K for about 10 years, and now I play Warmachine. My tastes change as I grow older, and someday there may be a game that I prefer of Warmachine/Hordes.

Werd.

Devilsquid wrote:

However, the real shame is players who bash other systems, and don't know anything about it. If people don't want to try PP, for whatever reason, that's their choice, of course. Likewise, people who want more than what 40K has to offer, they're free to look elsewhere as well. Let's just try and avoid calling each others games crap out of hand.

Certainly wasn't trying to call the game crap, DS. May have been a bit expressive about my personal lack of appreciation for some aspects of it, but overall I have had a lot of fun playing the games.

Nah, wasn't aimed at you personally. i've seen a lot of trash talking about each game from both sides, and that really irks me because at the end of the day, we're all moving little toy soldiers around going 'pew pew' while we roll dice.

People don't have to like the other games, but there's no point in trash talking it beyond "It's not for me."

I play both games. I play them for completely different reasons.

Apples and oranges really, neither is a substitute for the other.

Both games do however share a few things as this thread has demonstrated: fanbois and haters.

I've heard a lot of good things about WM, my personal issue is a dislike of the model range, well mainly the Jacks if I'm honest.

They are just not my style sadly otherwise I would have probably tried it by now.

The card idea would sit fine with me as well, as I've tried Confrontation, well what was Confrontation before the bad times.

Hordes has tempted me a few times mind, but other things have popped up and got in the way of me giving the system a go.

Eilif pretty much summed up my feelings in his post. I looked at the models, I read the starter rules online, I listened to a few people's reactions and... not for me. That's not to say I wouldn't like the game, at all, simply that it doesn't seem enticing enough to actually start collecting and playing. The combo/synergy aspect is definitely a turn-off, for me. These concepts aren't absent from list building in 40K, as some PP fanboys are quick to assert, they simply don't manifest in such a tangible, M:TG "deck building" sort of way. I like that I can spend months tweaking and tailoring a 40K list, or I can simply play with what I have or what looks cool and I can still have fun, either way. WM seems more like Magic in that you get punished rather severely for ignoring the combos. There doesn't seem to be a "casual mode."

CT GAMER wrote:I play both games. I play them for completely different reasons.

Apples and oranges really, neither is a substitute for the other.

Both games do however share a few things as this thread has demonstrated: fanbois and haters.

Exactly my thoughts, and while I find the irrational hate that the players of one game have for the other to be odd, it's greatly amusing and easily exploitable.

I'm not personally a fan of WarMachine (just not crazy about the models, mainly...) but it seems like it really suffers from the syndrome where a 'beginner' list vs. a pro-list is really insufferably boring and not-fun, which could make early games and demos less interesting than they could be.

Most games with a list-building aspect have this to an extent, i guess, but it seems like the discussions I see WarMachine has it worse than others due to the WarCasterspecial abilities and unit synergies.

I've heard a range of opinions on the Mk II rules. Seems like some like them, some can't stand them. I like that I've heard they've helped to rejigger the game so it focuses on WarJacks over infantry a bit.

I am a competitive gamer. My goal playing games is to play to win, because that is what's fun. My opponents are people who have the same mindset; we don't play to set models up on a table and make cool cinematics, we play to kill the other guy's models and win the game.

I played 40k for 3.5 years and I've got 'Ard Boyz tickets from each of those years. I've collected 7 40k armies, and I've got thousands upon thousands of points' worth of 40k models bought for thousands of real dollars.

I haven't touched them since I discovered Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are tighter. There's almost none of the ambiguity that 40k players are forced to live with, stuff like debating how Deffrollas can/can't Ram.

Games are far more tactically involved than in 40k; models/units in WM/H have more options in-game, and limited resources to do so. Planning matters a lot more, and execution of your plan is far, far more complicated with order of operations being significantly important. In 40k, I don't think I have ever changed my entire strategy for the game mid-turn as a result of a single die roll. In 40k there tends to be some sort of redundancy or forgiveness built into good lists; the same can be said for good WM/H lists but overall the structure is far less forgiving.

In general, no single unit or model is 'bad'--not nearly to the extent of internal imbalances in 40k codices. There's some standouts that hardly ever see play time relative to other models, but overall there are very few equivalents to Ogryn, or Flashgitz, or lascannon Devastator squads, or Skyclaws, or Tigurius....etc etc etc. You can buy models that you like the look or feel of and not be punished by poor list building choices in-game.

In short, WM/H is a thinking person's game. It doesn't have to be, but whereas I can make an UBBARLIST in 40k and give it to a newb with a few basic instructions and expect that newb to do relatively well (we've done this, in tournaments, and it's panned out), if I give an UBBARLIST to a newb in WM/H, then even against just an average player that newb is probably going to get his/her clock cleaned.

If you're a casual sort of gamer, 40k and WM/H are both enjoyable and will fill distinctly different gaming niches and it'll just depend on whether you want space marines or warjacks hitting the table.

If you're a competitive sort, though, I don't see how you can even compare WM/H and 40k. One is a competitive game set, one isn't. I think GW is starting to get a little bit better in its treatment of rules disputes and ambiguities, but PP is 'already there' for catering to a competitive gamer mentality whereas GW is just starting the journey.

Edit: One more thing... PP tends to be more egalitarian in its content updates. All the factions tend to get new models at roughly the same time, and no faction gets the 'Dark Eldar/Grey Knights' treatment where they languish for a million years without any content.

sourclams wrote:IIf you're a competitive sort, though, I don't see how you can even compare WM/H and 40k. One is a competitive game set, one isn't. ... PP is 'already there' for catering to a competitive gamer mentality whereas GW is just starting the journey.

I hadn't heard this spelled out quite so succinctly, but that does seem to jibe with the WM games/gamers I've seen. It's cool that PP has a product that captures that type of player so well, but this in itself would be enough to steer me away from WM/H.

Devilsquid wrote:
Personally, I hate the CCG annalogy that people make with WM/H. It seems to stem from the fact that you have cards on the table, but it's never really made sense to me.

Clearly I'm not the most qualified to make the annalogy, but it wasn't the cards that gave me the ccg vibe, it was the explainition I recieved of "this-boosts-this which makes this more powerfull" that seemed to me to be a parallel with CCG games.

Devilsquid wrote:
Of course it's a list building game. All wargames are list building games,

I most vehemently disagree, and it's this attitude that turns me off about many games/gamers.
Of course nearly every game has an "army list", but many games/gamers do not focus around the crafting of an army list. Many games/gamers focus around senario and narrative based gaming, and further, there are many games that do not even have strict points values. Games like stargrunt and battletech rely much more on the players to mutually agree on what forces to bring to the table based on senario, competetive equality, or other parameters.

WM is ok, but its a lot like mtg with toy soliders that happen to look nice while you do your ubar combo stuff. It's highly build orientated - I know the internet is obsessed with 40k builds/lists but it's not as big a factor as in Warmahordes. Minis' are nice as is the fluff. Minis a bit pricy but decent, slightly cheaper than GW. You need less. Not much dice and most of the dice based things are pointless as you spend focus to minimize luck.

Eilif wrote:

sourclams wrote:IIf you're a competitive sort, though, I don't see how you can even compare WM/H and 40k. One is a competitive game set, one isn't. ... PP is 'already there' for catering to a competitive gamer mentality whereas GW is just starting the journey.

I hadn't heard this spelled out quite so succinctly, but that does seem to jibe with the WM games/gamers I've seen. It's cool that PP has a product that captures that type of player so well, but this in itself would be enough to steer me away from WM/H.

You can play WM/H uncompetitively and still have fun. You probably cannot play WM/H uncompetitively against a competitive player and still have fun; in 40k you're guaranteed at least 5 turns of models blowing each other up and your army doing at least something to the enemy, no matter how badly you get your clock cleaned in the end.

In WM/H there is a distinctive combo/buffing/synergy dynamic and the game is over as soon as your 'HQ' model dies. In a tournament I played in last weekend, one of my opponents got exactly 1 turn before my combo killed his warcaster and it was time to pack up the models. I felt bad about that he really didn't have a game and it's definitely a knock to your pride to get utterly crushed in 5 minutes. That's the sort of unforgiving that you can encounter in WM/H; games can end with a single model dying (that's actually the objective in many cases).

I have to reiterate, WM/H is a great game system for fun play, and the models are for the most part fantastic with great steampunk-ey background material. The game system is overall more refined than 40k and you get the feeling that the game company as a whole is more responsive to gamer attitudes and desires.

But there is a distinctive element that caters to ultracompetitive gamers like myself, and this element appears to be much of what attracts ultracompetitive gamers to the game, at least in my area. And I imagine that if you want to involve yourself in it to any extent, you'll eventually begin to run into people like me. There is a $250 or so buy-in to build a couple army lists and if the possibility of game over on turn 2 is something that is a big deterrent to your approach to gaming, then you might want to save yourself money and frustration.

And again, great game system, absolutely love it. I fully endorse what PP has achieved with WM/H. It is absolutely possible to have gentlemanly 'funsie' games, and gentlemanly 'competitive' games. If a funsie gamer and a competitive gamer end up facing off, though, and don't understand where each other are coming from, then the game structure isn't very conducive to fun for anyone involved..

I'd like to add to Sourclam's post:

1. The fact that the creators of the game are catering to competitive players means that there are very few sub-par models in the range. Many seemingly terrible units are very competitive when given the proper support.

2. While it sucked - I am sure the player who had their HQ killed by Clams on turn 1 won't make the mistake of putting their HQ in the same predicament in future games.

I'd like to also add that while most "kill" combos are very powerful, the risks are enormous if you miscalculated and failed to finish your opponent. While I don't know what Sourclam's combo was - from my own experience, I'm pretty sure that if he whiffed it due to poor die rolls, Sourclams would have been placed in a poor position.

3. Casual gaming does exist in the Warmahordes community and is the mechanism by which most players experiment with new unit combinations, hone their timing* and practice with situational models. YMMV, however - from my experience as a 40k and Warmachine player - casual Warmachine will definitely feel more cut throat to the casual 40k player due to the common use of combos.

* Further to the above - the one unit at a time "activation" that Warmachine uses (activation = movement + action) rather than the phased system (movement phase, shooting phase, assault phase) that 40k uses is one of the biggest changes that a 40k player moving to Warmachine has to get their head around. This sequence of activations means that the order in which your units are activated is of paramount importance to how the army plays as units activating earlier can clear (or block!) charge lanes, buff/debuff or provide support. Two armies built and deployed the same, but with units activating in a different order can drastically change the outcome of a turn.

Played it when it first came out, had 3 WM/Hordes armies at one point.

Gave up and went back to 40k a little before Mk.II beta. It was just too much studying, I'd be out of the loop for half the year (school) come back and have to learn the new hot units and builds. With 40k the releases roll around about every other month so it was just easier to manage on my limited time (again school).

For me, I started 40k because I got tired of showing up at game stores and having no one to play (BFG was the only game I played at the time). I picked 40k for a couple of reasons:

1. It seemed to be the most popular nation wide, which would help ensure I would always have some one to play This is a big consideration since I'm in the military, and have moved 3 times in the last 4 years. It has certainly panned out that way; while there were tons of War Machines/Hordes players in the Seattle area and San Diego, they seem to be much harder to come by here in Northern Virginia. 40k, on the other hand, was pretty popular in all three places.

2. Background: I was already somewhat invested in the 40k background through BFG.

3. Models: Honestly, I look at the War Machine / Hordes models, and they just don't get me that excited. I like the concept of giant steam-powered war jacks being magically controlled by casters, but the looks of it all just don't get me there. I'm a tank guy, hence my IG mech army .

I am still intrigued by the game, and I'm not above trying it out if someone offered me a demo, but right now 40k scratches the gaming/collecting itch for me.

Im kind of amused by the way people are looking at different games systems as a sort of black or white choice. Good or bad based solely on the system and miniatures.

In my experience, regardless of the system the fun factor comes from who you are playing with more than how many dice. Nice easy rule and cool figs do make that easier, but back in the day when some games had card stock minis still have some of my best gaming memories.

I've played 40k since 2nd ed. And WM on & off for several years. Since they revamped and balanced the system with MkII my 40k stuff has been collecting dust while I paint up my mercs GW has sorta lost me with the storyline that never changes, unless its to fit in new models.

PP has put out a good game that different than 40k, its nice to have a different option available if you're looking for a different flavor of gaming.

Aye, I play B5 Wars using card tiles now, partially because the metal figs are pretty rare and expensive, I've played other games that way as well.

That's 100% fine and I agree that games with stock models can be amazing fun.

However with WM I would be expected to play with the model range, as you would expect someone to use proper figs in 40K.
So the style of the models is an important factor in my decesion to play the game. If I really don't like the design I'll skip the game.

Thats more of a pity mind, rather than any kind of a vindication, I'm just not willing to spend serious money on models I can't stand.

It was the minis that drew me to Warmachine as I wanted something very different from my Imperial Guard army to paint up.

I've read through the rulebook and I like that it seems pretty tight and well throught through and I enjoy the way PP seems to engage with the fanbase.

My opinion, I like 'em.

kinghammer wrote:Maybe English is not his first language, Dakka is worldwide.

Ignorance is no excuse. Maybe he should've paid attention in his English classes if he wants to communicate intelligently. I will, of course, follow the forum rules with regards to conduct towards other users..

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Devilsquid wrote:Personally, I hate the CCG annalogy that people make with WM/H. It seems to stem from the fact that you have cards on the table, but it's never really made sense to me.

Don't be absurd. WM gets called CCG-like not because it uses cards but because winning gameplay is always reliant on combos and optimization. Heck, WM tournaments I've seen force you to use 2-3 different warcasters over the course of the rounds just to stop it being a cookie-cutter mirror match all over again.

Ahh, so that's it? Because the game has combos and synergies in it?

Huh. Ok.

And really..."absurd"?

Personally, i like the fact that there are combos and synergy in my armies, because then it feels more cohesive as a whole, and not just a collection of units wandering around, their idea of working together shooting the same unit.

I can see how the combo thing might turn some people off, because you will get snookered by some interaction you haven't seen before. And I like that. The game keeps me on my toes because I can't predict what's going to happen all the time.

Warmachine/Hordes does have a steeper learning curve, something that I warn new players about. You will loose the majority of your first games, as you learn what your forces can do, as well as what your opponent can do. It's one of the reasons I like the non-customizable models: I see a caster, I know what it does, period.


And if I may, a word on competativeness: WM/H has much tighter rules, and it is an agressive game. Sitting back will cause you to loose, period. But to me, this is a happy medium. It's not the "Balls to the walls, KILL KILL" that some people associate with being competative, nor is it the "Eh, whatver" some people associate with friendly games. It's both: It's a competative game that you play friendly in.

As someone posted on the PP forums: "The objective of the game is to win; the point is to have fun."

Devilsquid, I've been trying to track down the source of that quote. It's usually
attributed to German game designer Reiner Knizia.

How is 40K different?

Vulkan + Bikers combo, whoa...
Hellions + Hemmy first turn, move hemmy away, pain token on hellions combo, whoa...
Logan Grimnar + Long Fangs combo, whoa...
Combos are in both.

Optimization... that exist in any game system when one plays competitively.

WM tournaments I've seen force you to use 2-3 different warcasters over the course of the rounds just to stop it being a cookie-cutter mirror match all over again.

You could have mistaken the intent of the tourney.

WM/H tourneys LOVE to mix things up.
-Hardcore settings.
-Highlander
-Mangled Metal
-Escalation
-Iron Man
-Alternating Casters
-Etc.

Certainly, you could be correct that the Tourney wanted to mix things up with casters, but I do not see that as a 'con' when it could very well be a legitamate and 'known' type of tourney in that area.

I say it is a strength when you can have a tourney that doesn't just name a points value and press go.
I don't see it very often when tourneys vary the FoC slot for 40K...