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.

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:Owning 'every model in the book' is akin to owning four or five distinct armies because unit spam and multiplication isn't really rewarded in the PP gamesets. Owning every unit in a 40k codex generally just gives you one really crappy army.

That's the other nice thing about PP. There really aren't any units that are complete crap. Everything is useful in an army. Because of the small scale and number of special rules, there's very little duplication of units (the difference between, for example, Devastators and Tactical Marines is quite small).

That's not to say though that PP doesn't encourage purchasing multiples of units. The tiered lists are evidence of that.

sourclams wrote:Yeah, but in terms of scale, you've got the 40k equivalent of 4,000 pts of PP models; i.e. more than you'd ever need in one game. You can probably build 4-5 distinctly different army lists with those models.

sourclams wrote:Owning 'every model in the book' is akin to owning four or five distinct armies because unit spam and multiplication isn't really rewarded in the PP gamesets. Owning every unit in a 40k codex generally just gives you one really crappy army.

I think this is right on on both counts. I actually did buy one of every unit for trollbloods with the exception of several of the ranged options. And just a few duplicates for one of the tier lists that looked interesting.

In hindsight, some of the tier lists look like money grabs by PP, but others are just crazy and sweet. It's a nice idea... no one around here seems to really run tier-only events so this is all theoretical in my mind for now.

The cost-to-what-you-get in terms of model is interesting, and I'm not sure what I think about it. PP is certainly high. But since you need less models to play, you can build a force for less. But if you want all the options, it's going to run up to about the same cost as an army for warhammer.

In hindsight, this isn't really necessary, as just taking a different caster for a warmachine/hordes army seems to make it behave so much differently, and each takes a while to learn. But that's how I am, what can I say


Edit: One other thought is that, while it's awesome that there are no really "bad" units in most armies for PP, there are many that work best with another unit, or a certain caster, etc. So if you decide to switch casters, suddenly you'll have a very suboptimal list. This was part of my motivation behind getting all the options- you can then feel out what you like. One caster I thought I would love (eMadrak) I really have disliked playing so far... while another I thought I would hate (Borka) is looking really appealing. But I'm mostly sticking with the easiest to use (imho) for now... eDoomy!

For me personally its one of the best alternatives around.

I will try to explain why in topics:

- Price wise you are going to spend something around 300 or so for a full warband... instead of double that on GW armies...
- Your faction gets updates several times a year ( instead of one time each 3 years)
- Models are mostly metals and a joy for the painters.
- Since your forces are small warbands and not that expensive to complete you can collect several small warbands from several different races instead of being stuck with one WFB army race
- Skirmish is cooler than massive blocks of minis
- You don't have to buy the same models over and over again to fill one regiment ( hell one of my night gobbos regiments has more models than full warbands of Hordes)
- Models are a lot more dynamic than warhammer rank and file stuff
- Model quality is par with GW ones although the details you get on metals you do not get on plastics.
- Artwork and rulebooks are many many many many years ahead of anything GW.
- PP publicity and engagement with fan base is enjoyable and the opposite of the GW secrecy and conflicts with fans.

In short you have a very nice option if you want something with good quality at good starting prices and with engaging activities to keep you entertained.
But they have room for improvement I believe that the quality of the sculpts is very inconsistent and the model design sometimes a pain to assemble...

But there's more good alternatives on the market and once you start collecting them you get further and further away from GW perspective
I mean you have a huge wfb army and to just update it to the new edition and book you would have to invest in lots of new models and bulk up stuff... in PP you change one character or one blister for a unit and your done.

Does PP cost less then GW? NO. Not at the tournment level.

Why: because everyone plays 2 factions at a tournment basis. Players easily forget that. Everyone I have ever med who is competitive at the Steam Roller Level has 2-3 armies they can play when they want. So for WFB or 40K you drop $800 building a GT calibre list. You spent time building and painting and goto your GT's and are happy. You PP counter part probably build 3 armies, each costing them around $200-250, but didn't have to paint unless they wanted to. So they probably saved $50 which is meaningless.

What is cheaper is entry fee's for tournments.
Steam roller $5 or $10
Grand Tournment $30 to 50

Schnitzel wrote:That's not to say though that PP doesn't encourage purchasing multiples of units. The tiered lists are evidence of that.

Not sure what the tiered lists are.

But at one point I did own 10 deathrippers, 8 defilers, and 4 nightwretches. I also used to run 2 zealot units (and have 2 monolith bearers just in case).

Also, I think I have a full compliment of TFG and whatever the guys with flamethrowers are called.

njpc wrote:Does PP cost less then GW? NO. Not at the tournment level.

Why: because everyone plays 2 factions at a tournment basis. Players easily forget that. Everyone I have ever med who is competitive at the Steam Roller Level has 2-3 armies they can play when they want. So for WFB or 40K you drop $800 building a GT calibre list. You spent time building and painting and goto your GT's and are happy. You PP counter part probably build 3 armies, each costing them around $200-250, but didn't have to paint unless they wanted to. So they probably saved $50 which is meaningless.

What is cheaper is entry fee's for tournments.
Steam roller $5 or $10
Grand Tournment $30 to 50

Correction: Two armies, not two factions. Usually, I tend to field most of the same models, just switching out the warcaster and a jack or two. Right now, I field Strakov and eSorscha for most Steamroller format tourneys, with 100% model commonality (barring the caster).

ph34r wrote:Model for model it is the same or more. Check out the pricing for yourself.

$35 or more for one metal model is not my style. Warmachine has a less developed storyline, less support/players, less outreach (video games, movies, etc), and less high quality models (in my opinion), as well as more flexible/pose-able/customizable models in my opinion.

It's "cheaper" in that you need less models to play. The models themselves, more expensive and worse imo.

The storyline is on par with Warhammer 40k( If the man on the golden toilet throne is quality reading to you, you should head to your local chapters and pick up a few titles ) But not quite there with Fantasy ( Far better storyline IMHO ). The model quality recently is on par with GW. The number of players is growing at a wonderful rate. No quarter magazine rivals white dwarf. As far as video games that would be the one area you are correct however try to remember you are comparing a 6 year old company with GW who has been around for ages.

Biased opinions are worthless, try to remember that.

Laziness rules most of the two tournament lists I've seen.

People include modells that work with most 'casters in their lists.

Things get expensive with Divide and Conquer events, but the
results are worth it. Basically you write multiple lists and you can
only use a list once. Makes for some great variety of games. Even
if you draw double same faction, you can expect to face different
styles of armies.

as someone who was ready to play 40k and accidentally stumbling on Warmachine:

I bought the book one day, and bought a battlebox the following week. I was playing the very next week (i had to paint them first)

right now i probably spent as much on Hordes that you would on a GW army

but i was playing far earlier than I would have if i chose 40k

I should have clarified: most players I know can field 2-3 army options at a steam rollers. Most guys I know can field multiple casters out of the same faction.

It is very easy to advance to another army based on the perception of initial low cost investiment. I have watched many guys start with a Warmachine Faction, then try a Hordes faction, start mixing in Mercs / Minions, they try moving onto a themed based contract / army with Merc's / Minions, then rotate to something else.

Oooh, that sounds cool, malfred. Will have to suggest we try that kind of event around here sometime.

njpc- I know, it's tempting to move on to another faction. My hope is that by having all the options (almost) for one, I can progress through the various casters and in the end possibly spend less, than starting and trying new factions and having to invest in things that can't be used for the others.

Also means that for events that require 2 lists, I can bring 2 very different lists to match up better with different opponents.

sourclams wrote:I've already stated my opinion on this but I think you're wrong in most cases.

Owning 'every model in the book' is akin to owning four or five distinct armies because unit spam and multiplication isn't really rewarded in the PP gamesets. Owning every unit in a 40k codex generally just gives you one really crappy army.

I think we're arguing the same point, just coming at it from two different directions. I'm trying to state taking both into consideration on a price-per-model basis, WM/H and WFB/40k are similar in price. The main difference appears to be the scale of the games, as well as the fact that PP has done a better job of creating an entry point into their armies. I also wanted to gripe that GW appears to be exacerbating the situation by increasing the price on their "starter" boxes even more, as seems to be the case with the new Tomb Kings battalion box, as well as the somewhat alarming retail cost of the recent Beastmen list I had been looking to put together this morning.

I think it's arguable that PP has wisely avoided some of the pratfalls that GW has fallen into...specifically I'm thinking of the previously mentioned ease and affordable entry points into the game, as well as the "Press Ganger" volunteer system that appears to be a significantly watered down version of GW's proprietary storefronts but at considerable cost savings.

EDIT -- Ugh, thought of one more...I think PP is smarter than GW in that they create buzz about their upcoming releases by actually talking about them and even revealing some of the details prior to their release. I have to believe the guerilla marketing they do via their website and forum, which in some cases simply constitutes a glorified blog, drives quite a bit of sales and costs them next to nothing.

happydude wrote:.......................No quarter magazine rivals white dwarf. ................................

Thats not a good thing.

happydude wrote:Biased opinions are worthless, try to remember that.

Oh sorry.

No Quarter magazine, last I picked one up, was considerably better value for dollar from a gaming basis. It had cool gaming articles, scenarios, and terrain tutorials, as well as prereleases of model rules from upcoming rulebooks. Not just battle reports, photographs, and advertisements, as WD does. WD has nice, pretty pictures, but is not much of a magazine.

RiTides wrote:Oooh, that sounds cool, malfred. Will have to suggest we try that kind of event around here sometime.

njpc- I know, it's tempting to move on to another faction. My hope is that by having all the options (almost) for one, I can progress through the various casters and in the end possibly spend less, than starting and trying new factions and having to invest in things that can't be used for the others.

Also means that for events that require 2 lists, I can bring 2 very different lists to match up better with different opponents.

You should try it. Divide and Conquer is the official "Masters Format" for
Warmachine and Hordes. Last year I played (I shouldn't say compete)
at a midnight Divide and Conquer Event, and I got to run three different
lists (I think I ran eKreoss, Vindictus, eSeverius). However, as the time
rolled into the daylight hours I used my eSeverius list for the fourth round
(you can repeat after you've used your lists at least once) because it
had the fewest models.

Endgame ran the event. It was a good time.

Mannahnin wrote:No Quarter magazine, last I picked one up, was considerably better value for dollar from a gaming basis. It had cool gaming articles, scenarios, and terrain tutorials, as well as prereleases of model rules from upcoming rulebooks. Not just battle reports, photographs, and advertisements, as WD does. WD has nice, pretty pictures, but is not much of a magazine.

Don't forget the painting tutorials. The quality on those is excellent, and you can usually count on at least two wildly different ones per issue. You also get great tutorials online like this one, which is of similar quality to their magazine articles (especially that motorized bridge they did a while ago).

I like No Quarter - it has a good mix of articles ranging over terrain and painting to articles on tactics and army building progression. It's also only out every other month, which means that the $7.50 price tag doesn't hit the wallet quite as hard.

As for the price difference between Games Workshop and Privateer Press, I think they're both about equally expensive. We have a hobby that tends to have high costs over time, and that's part and parcel of being a wargamer. It's true that getting into Warmachine or Hordes is cheaper than getting into Warhammer 40K or Warhammer Fantasy, but in the end you'll probably spend the same amount of cash on your armies.

The tier lists that have come out thanks to Mk2 are a good way, I believe, to dabble in a new army or faction without spending too much, since the tier lists restrict your army composition choices anyways. Epic Butcher's tier list, for example, restricts you to using only Doomreavers as your infantry units. A high-level epic Butcher tier list means you'll have tons of potentially deadly Doomreavers on the board, and you also don't need to worry too much about collecting the rest of the Khador army's infantry. Many people these days are starting secondary or even tertiary armies based solely on tier lists, because it's easy to find a tier list that you like the look of and build a small army based on those composition choices alone.

I have just over 100 points of Khador, and 60 points of Circle Orboros, and once thing about the game system that I like is that I don't necessarily need 4 units of Winterguard or Tharn Ravagers to make my army effective. Even now, I don't own any doubles of my units.

Overall, if you're playing miniature games you'll be spending a lot of money, regardless of the system. Why not simply enjoy the game? Some gamers drop $400 to get the full army immediately, others budget $50/month over a year to get their dream army. Nobody is twisting your arm to spend money - it's a personal choice. In the end, I don't think it comes down to who spent more money… it's down to the simple question "Are you having fun?"

To the OP.

Yes, model for model, pricing is about the same.
Yes, the game requires fewer models and as such less cash outlay.
Yes, there alot of opinions for and against WM here on Dakka.

However, don't choose WM because of cost or because of what you hear here. Investigate for yourself. It's an investment like any other game. What Warmachine does have is a pretty dedicated team of folks who run demos. Find a demo or a group of players in your area and check the game out. My experience is that WM players are really eager to show off their game so it shouldn't be hard. The game it'self is very different from 40k, and the way it encourages you to stack and combine powers and units has alot of similarities with CCG's. Not a good or bad thing, just an honest observation. In the end though it's up to you whether it's your flavor. There's no point saving a few bucks if you're not into the game.

Most importantly, IMHO, take a look at the figures and see if there's a faction that appeals to you. I'm not a WM player, but I have to say that the WM figs I've seen recently are as good as anything from GW. Real sharp detailng with very dymanic poses. On the continum of miniature asthetics, proportionally and stylewise they're not really that different from GW. That said, there isn't a faction that appeals to me enough to make me want to get into the game for the figures alone. Not a judgment about the quality, just my opinion.

Best of luck as you search for the game that's right for you.

I've been a WM/H player for about two years now, and plan on starting up my first 40k army (CSM) very soon. I've had very little experience with 40k (two games at the demo level) so whatever comparisons I make, keep that in mind.

The rules for WM are very exception-based. By that I mean that there are the core mechanics and then from there pretty much every model in the game provides a means that exempt themselves from those rules in certain ways, or add to those rules. Because each model/unit has its own discreet set of abilities then combos become an important part of the game. Not to the degree of Magic: The Gathering (where you can buy all of the right cards to win every time), combos in WM are just another tool in the game. Skill, and a little bit of favor from the dice gods, will trump a one-trick combo monkey every time. 40k seems to treat models/weapons as die pool modifiers.

As far as cost goes, it's been said in this thread countless times; PP models can cost the same or more on a model per model basis than GW's. PP games do work on a different scale than GW's do, and I think that works to its benefit. Because of that each individual model is going to have a far greater impact on your list composition. And because the games are in a smaller scale you can probably field several competitive WM lists for the cost of one 40k list. This also allows for a bit more faction-hopping if you wanted to get a taste of more of the games' factions.

WM has power attacks, which are a blast. Head butts, slams, trampling, throwing your opponent's models (and even throwing them into some of your opponent's other models). Some aspects of WM/H can feel like an MMA match.

I'd never tell someone to pick up a new miniatures game on word alone. Find a local Press Ganger and have him demo the game for you. If you are looking for a change of pace you may like it. I do know people that play both WM and 40k and completely love both for what they are.

valiantjared wrote:I was looking into warmachine/hordes and everyone tells me how awesome its pricing is compared to GW

but it seems like model for model its about the same, is there something im missing?

Your are correct, the price between the games is the same. This is one of the anti-GW myths that has been going on for years about Warmachine.

Both games are roughly equal in price.

BuFFo wrote:

valiantjared wrote:I was looking into warmachine/hordes and everyone tells me how awesome its pricing is compared to GW

but it seems like model for model its about the same, is there something im missing?

Your are correct, the price between the games is the same. This is one of the anti-GW myths that has been going on for years about Warmachine.

Both games are roughly equal in price.

To a fan of a miniatures line the game is going to cost equally the same, determined by that person's willingness to spend money on that game. And model for model, the games are pretty comparable. But, as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread alone, there is more potential to keep your out of pocket costs down and stay viable in WM than there is with GW.

Laughing Man wrote:Don't forget the painting tutorials. The quality on those is excellent, and you can usually count on at least two wildly different ones per issue. You also get great tutorials online like this one, which is of similar quality to their magazine articles (especially that motorized bridge they did a while ago).

This is what sold me on NoQuarter. The first NQ issue I picked up (#34, from last january) has 4 awesome hobby articles: one on Underpainting (a technique I personally never heard of before, but I´m not that great of a painter anyway), one on battle damage on living models (cuts, bruises, bullets wounds and so on), one "How to paint" for the Retribution Myrmidons in an alternative scheme and one for building Terrain.

And while the other NQs I bought since then (#35 and back to #29) didn´t match the quantity of the articles they all head some pretty awesome articles on building and painting.

Not to mention some awesome stories, lore articles, gaming tips and so on.

Imo NoQuarter beats WD in content.

Vimes wrote:Imo NoQuarter beats WD in content.

Isn't hard.

In my experience.

Warmahordes has:

Smaller/Faster/More Strategic Games.
Actual balanced rules.
Less powerlisting.
More useful units overall.

I stated and threw 40k in the closet.

The only problem I see with either Warmachine or Hordes is that every game comes down to one mission...Warcaster or Warlock assassination.

To me, if you make the missions so that they are interesting and different, yet have the same condition for victory as every other mission, then it encourages people to play to that one victory condition and not bother with the mission objectives.

Since Assassination is that one condition in every mission, it means every list is built around assassination.

In my opinion that gets very boring very quickly.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:The only problem I see with either Warmachine or Hordes is that every game comes down to one mission...Warcaster or Warlock assassination.

To me, if you make the missions so that they are interesting and different, yet have the same condition for victory as every other mission, then it encourages people to play to that one victory condition and not bother with the mission objectives.

Since Assassination is that one condition in every mission, it means every list is built around assassination.

In my opinion that gets very boring very quickly.

But that's assuming you can get to the enemy Warcaster/Warlock. Sometimes, that's just not possible, if you have to go through the rest of their army. Sometimes, their Warcaster/Warlock is powerful enough to take on your army by himself. It's true that you can build a list for assassination runs. But if you can't do that, you're going to have you send your one-trick pony off to the glue factory.

Besides, look at it like this - that's all chess is, isn't it? And yet plenty of people have fun playing chess. Hell, you don't even get to paint chess pieces!

Kurb wrote:In my experience.

Warmahordes has:

Smaller/Faster/More Strategic Games.
Actual balanced rules.
Less powerlisting.
More useful units overall.

I stated and threw 40k in the closet.

1) Agree.
2) Mostly don't agree. The rules are tight. The balance? Not so much.
3) Half agree, half don't. Especially at the steam roller tournament level.
4) Agree.

infinite_array wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:The only problem I see with either Warmachine or Hordes is that every game comes down to one mission...Warcaster or Warlock assassination.

To me, if you make the missions so that they are interesting and different, yet have the same condition for victory as every other mission, then it encourages people to play to that one victory condition and not bother with the mission objectives.

Since Assassination is that one condition in every mission, it means every list is built around assassination.

In my opinion that gets very boring very quickly.

But that's assuming you can get to the enemy Warcaster/Warlock. Sometimes, that's just not possible, if you have to go through the rest of their army. Sometimes, their Warcaster/Warlock is powerful enough to take on your army by himself. It's true that you can build a list for assassination runs. But if you can't do that, you're going to have you send your one-trick pony off to the glue factory.

Besides, look at it like this - that's all chess is, isn't it? And yet plenty of people have fun playing chess. Hell, you don't even get to paint chess pieces!

Which is why I don't play Chess

I've been playing Warmachine since the year it came out. In that time I've had maybe 30 or 40 games where it didn't end in assassination. Most of the time that's all it is. Now if they made it so when the Warcaster dies the game doesn't end I would love it.

Yes, I agree, sometimes their warcaster is powerful enough to take on your army by themselves...this usually leads to a loss to you because of....wait for it....caster assassination.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game. I have almost every single model they ever made for it including many of the role playing ones. I even used to work for the company as a miniatures caster (How do you think I got so many of their minis? ) but I think making assassination a condition for winning in every scenario is a big mistake. Simply because, while it may not happen every game, most games it does and a lot of people tailor their lists around simply doing this. Usually I've found this means people not using some models that would be cool to play if they were doing something other than assassination, but because of the prevalence competitive assassination lists, they don't bother taking any of the other models. If they do, they handicap themselves.

End of the day, I just find it a good outlet to prevent me from burning out on 40k (my main game).

As someone who likes gaming in general, I enjoy an entirely new ruleset that is quite well thought out. The story is not really any less rich than 40k, it is different. I really enjoy how, with every army book release, the story moves forward, whereas in 40k it is pretty static (sure we get the odd summer campaign, but it doesn't actually change anything, regardless of outcome).

I love me my 40k, but I can't play that only all year long or I would probably quit. Mixing it up is fun for me.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

infinite_array wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:The only problem I see with either Warmachine or Hordes is that every game comes down to one mission...Warcaster or Warlock assassination.

To me, if you make the missions so that they are interesting and different, yet have the same condition for victory as every other mission, then it encourages people to play to that one victory condition and not bother with the mission objectives.

Since Assassination is that one condition in every mission, it means every list is built around assassination.

In my opinion that gets very boring very quickly.

But that's assuming you can get to the enemy Warcaster/Warlock. Sometimes, that's just not possible, if you have to go through the rest of their army. Sometimes, their Warcaster/Warlock is powerful enough to take on your army by himself. It's true that you can build a list for assassination runs. But if you can't do that, you're going to have you send your one-trick pony off to the glue factory.

Besides, look at it like this - that's all chess is, isn't it? And yet plenty of people have fun playing chess. Hell, you don't even get to paint chess pieces!

Which is why I don't play Chess

I've been playing Warmachine since the year it came out. In that time I've had maybe 30 or 40 games where it didn't end in assassination. Most of the time that's all it is. Now if they made it so when the Warcaster dies the game doesn't end I would love it.

Yes, I agree, sometimes their warcaster is powerful enough to take on your army by themselves...this usually leads to a loss to you because of....wait for it....caster assassination.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game. I have almost every single model they ever made for it including many of the role playing ones. I even used to work for the company as a miniatures caster (How do you think I got so many of their minis? ) but I think making assassination a condition for winning in every scenario is a big mistake. Simply because, while it may not happen every game, most games it does and a lot of people tailor their lists around simply doing this. Usually I've found this means people not using some models that would be cool to play if they were doing something other than assassination, but because of the prevalence competitive assassination lists, they don't bother taking any of the other models. If they do, they handicap themselves.

In some scenario you can win without assassinating the other guy, in the same way 40K is about killing the other dudesmen or gaining objectives...
Same thing