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.

It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Personally I like 5th edition rules better than 4th edition rules, and they are not broken.
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition is nice for non-competitive play, but magic maybe too erratic and strong for competitive play. But narrative games got a boost, which is fine for me.

Personally, at WarmaHorde I don't like the lack of terrain effects and the spellmaster-kill-rule (whatever the army, just kill one person and win the game). And there is no fraction I really like (although I use several miniatures for 40k and Warhammer).

My guess is that your friends are more interested in competitive tournament gaming and want a customisable chess. GW is less for competitive games now but has other things to offer.

Watched a game of Warmachine on Miniwargaming.com( check them out , they do awesome batreps for alot of games) involving Khador and some sort of beast army, it looked really fun, but also like a skirmish game, which quite frankly doesn't suit my tastes

Personally I like big battlefield type games, where you get a sense your really throwing a army at someone
Plus I didn't like the use of cards to represent wounds, seems like a really annoying system

Plus what exactly would motivate me to play it other than a decent rule system? Is there any background thats as full of rich history and interesting stories such as Warhammer?

I'm not much of a gamer, so I need that sort of motivation to make me do it

Besides that your friends are flatout wrong on Dark Eldar models being cartoony

I think they may be looking through biased eyes if they honestly think that

Asuron wrote:
Plus what exactly would motivate me to play it other than a decent rule system? Is there any background thats as full of rich history and interesting stories such as Warhammer?

Yes, actually. The Iron Kingdoms(IK role playing, Warmachine, Hordes) has a great story if you're willing to spend the time to read it. The problem is that a lot of it is OOP(the IKRPG books, older issues of the magazine, and older WM/H books). Plus, unlike 40K, the story actually advances with each release. The fluff is just as rich and filled out as GW's, despite GW's 15-20 year "head start" of retcons.

They also have better editors(meaning, y'know, that they HAVE them).

That said, to keep up with the entire story, you NEED to buy every book.

Platuan4th wrote:

Yes, actually. The Iron Kingdoms(IK role playing, Warmachine, Hordes) has a great story if you're willing to spend the time to read it. The problem is that a lot of it is OOP(the IKRPG books, older issues of the magazine, and older WM/H books). Plus, unlike 40K, the story actually advances with each release. The fluff is just as rich and filled out as GW's, despite GW's 15-20 year "head start" of retcons.
.

I'm not completely convinced of that to be honest, I think the background is OK but not a patch on the depth that GW (having already plundered some fine ideas from other sources) as managed to create in 40k. In fact, I don't think there is any other popular sci-fi franchise that even comes close.

Plus I'm not entirely convinced many WarmaHordes players even read the background, which is a shame as it is quite readable. Certainly a lot of the players I have come up against in the past have had nothing more than a cursory understanding of why the people and warjacks are running around killing each other.

It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Definitely +1 on that one.

Pacific wrote:I'm not completely convinced of that to be honest, I think the background is OK but not a patch on the depth that GW (having already plundered some fine ideas from other sources) as managed to create in 40k. In fact, I don't think there is any other popular sci-fi franchise that even comes close.

While it's definitely your opinion to think that, I think you'd change it if you read the IKRPG books. They're extraordinarily in depth, to a point that I've rarely seen in a GW fluff source(only the FW stuff is more so, IME). We're talking about that they've made it a point to not only detail all the religions and political systems of each nation, they've detailed the entire solar system for no reason but to do it.

The fluff on the 12 or so varieties of human living in the Iron Kingdoms was almost unnecessary.

I will agree, though, that it seems like not many of them read it, but as I've pointed out in other threads, I've run into just as many 40K players that don't read the fluff, too. Going onto the PP boards, it seems that most of them do, because there's plenty of fluff discussion there.

I honestly have to say that I think both 40K and Warmachine fluff is very cool. I love Sci-Fi, its my favorite genre so 40K has everything I could ever want. I'm also a huge Dune fan so the Grimdark setting really sent me over the edge in terms of wanting to play the game really bad.

Warmachine is great because, aside from Sci-Fi, I love Fantasy too, but even more than Fantasy I love steampunk.

When I first played WarmaHordes (back when it was Warmachine) I liked the old first edition rules when it came out. I used to be quite good at it too, I won best Protectorate player in a tournament once. When the new rules came out I lost interest because, like I said before, it became more of a Magic meets Fantasy type of thing. It was like who can pull out the best combos and win. I used my army just the other day against a "used to be 40K player" at my FLGS. He was playing Circle of Oroboros and he used these druids against me and totally just blew me away, I literally killed nothing because his Druid things pulled my army around. I'm Protectorate, my army is so darn slow!

I feel like with Warmachine each and every character is a special character. It would be like in 40K if the codex's were nothing but individual units with 5 different special rules. It makes the game too much of a "oh I use unit b with unit a and combine powers of unit c and I win". I don't like that system. I like 40K where each unit is individual but also the same as every other unit so that each unit has a specific role that can be done alone or with another unit. Some units are best used on their own, like Long Fangs and Tactical Squads, others are best used in a combination, like Lightning Claw Terminators and Chaplains, or Sanguinary Priests and Assault Squads.

The other thing that bothers me about Warmachine is how sacraficing units is a part of playing the game. I like playing a game thats more like real life where you don't send your own men into a meat grinder. In 40K there is really only two armies that do that on purpose, those two being Imperial Guard and Tyranids.

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I agree with all of what you guys say and the Heroic Scaling is not a terrible thing with 40K. Your right WarmaHordes does it too. I think GW as a whole needs to start rethinking their writing strategies so as to stop this Codex one uping. I'm fearful as to what the Necron Codex is gonna be like or even the Sisters of Battle Codex. I'm not gonna hate on GW though. I play the game and that means I like 40K which means I like GW. I just don't like some things that they do and I think some of the writers are quite poor in my opinion. I'm not, however, opening up the Matt Ward can of worms, lets keep him out of this.

Keep the comments coming I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say, and please keep it civil!

I don't even know anyone who plays warmachine. I see it always fully stocked at the store but no one buys it lol

*looks at Grey Knight Codex*


*looks at the 40K RPG products FFG is making*


Yeah... there's a reason I've not played 40K in nearly a year, yet spent a solid 24-hours playing Deathwatch over Friday/Saturday.

H.B.M.C. wrote:*looks at Grey Knight Codex*


*looks at the 40K RPG products FFG is making*


Yeah... there's a reason I've not played 40K in nearly a year, yet spent a solid 24-hours playing Deathwatch over Friday/Saturday.

Yeah, while FFG will goof a little occasionally, particularly with editing, but also occasionally with fluff and/or logic, it takes GW to truly Ward a book.

Red Comet wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:It must be wonderful to live in a fabulous country where only your opinion can possibly be right. If you can't stand the complaining, get out of the internet.

No need to bash the guy when all he is merely getting at is if you hate the game so much why do you keep playing it? Seriously, if I hated 40k why would I play it? It seems like some people on here play simply to hate on it more.

Because my friends play it, and I enjoy spending time with my friends. I feel Warmachine/Hordes is an objectively better game in every single respect, but since I can't get them to play it, I go with the majority and play because I value spending time with them.

I love the lore of 40K. I just think the game system is almost completely terrible, the models are mediocre and GW as a company is absolutely horrendous.

No is my short answer.

I keep reading about all the anti-GW, pro 'Warmahordes' views and it's getting really old as well as being, largely, unsconstructive. I think the sheer amount of complaints/rants/arguments and negativity surrounding 40k at the moment seems to be influencing far too many people, far too easily IMO.

GW's models have only been getting better. Yes they release the odd 'mare of a pose, but their quality is great and they are easy to work on/convert. I find the arguments for proportional realism of a fictional representation for an abstract game to be slightly lol worthy. If anyone here had played 2nd Ed they'd know the true meaning of 'static'. Warmachine is anything but proportional &, by and large, I don't think the models are any better/worse than GW's (I like Infinity's models better), but the argument that GW is too 'comic book' like is a little silly considering the immensity of the fictional background. Yes, I'd love all the models to look like the artwork, but that'll never happen. I like big, chunky surfaces to paint on - the universe is larger than life, so why should the models be any different?

As for the gaming side I always enjoy my games, which is the main point. Yes, I find some rules silly but know I can develop house rules more to my liking. If I play in a store then I have no problem with the rules as they are & find most of my opponents to be rather sensible people. If you just like the fluff then buy the books/play the computer games, no one is forcing anyone to play 40k.

Obviously GW could improve their public relations to the gaming community, but people will always find something to complain about & can you imagine the sheer amount of mail/email/hate letters they'd recieve if they asked how we would all choose to write a particular book? I believe that as customers/gamers/hobbyists we can have the power to change things, even if but a little - should we choose to. There's nothing stopping any single one/group of us to re-write rules as a project and 'take the power back' if we chose to. GW is a very large company - which means it has sacrificed a more personal approach to its customers. I can't blame them after all the rants/rules I see on the interent for not asking all of us to help contribute to their rules sytem like they did in the past.

The competitive nature of many on the internet, it seems to me, is never, and has never been, the main motive behind GW games. I ALWAYS expect issues in GW games, having played them for nearly 18 years - yet I have never played a game that wasn't fun, not once. The plethora of Tournament-like mentality and focus on the 'meta-game' dominating the net at the moment is as equally to blame as GW. GW games have never had a tournament theme as their focus, and their rules have to cater for kids and adults alike - which is a tricky balance to maintain (though I'd like to see more advanced rules as an option). You can't blame GW for the character of some of the people playing their games, but rather the society/parents of said individuals.

GW haven't abandoned their Specialist Games, but Gamer's have. If we all started demanding stores to supply Blood Bowl Teams, Necromunds Gangs etc & started to demand dedicated playing time for such games, low and behold even getting the kids involved, then perhaps things will start to change. There Specialist Games rules are FREE - yet I've never heard anyone praise GW in providing them as such.

40k isn't going down the toilet. Codex escaltion is, I agree, an issue (perhaps THE issue) but a lot still rides on how you play/what the dice gods bring - even if a unit of mine gets slaughtered that had no real mathematical right too, I don't complain about it, and neither should anyone else. Not one of us is perfect, not any country, government, religion or law is perfect, or even balanced - so why should any set of abstract rules be expected to be?

I love 40k - so I'll continue to play it because I enjoy it.

Let me tell you a story, about 2 years ago I went to my FLGS after a bit of a hiatus from 40k.

Nobody played Warhammer 40,000 anymore! They didn't even stock it. They were all playing some game called AT-49 or AT-69 and they thought it was the shiznat and WH40k was dead.

A year later, all the store does is focus on WH40k and WHFB again.

Do not let it bug you, they will get tired of Warmachine and go back to their beloved 40k armies.

40k is still a better game.

But i suggest to you.. try warmachine/hordes.

Its a decent game, but nothing worth quitting 40k over.

I really dont like the rules or models (Warmahorde models are sub par to most around)

I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

but its still amusing now and then.

Spyder68 wrote:40k is still a better game.


I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

Could you source this? Because I can go to my FLGS and buy a "starter" set which comes with a warcaster and 3 warjacks (all metal, about the size of dreadnoughts) for the cost of 1 GW plastic Dread.

Spyder68 wrote:40k is still a better game.

It's really not. It's a different game. What has generally gotten people in my area hooked on WM/H versus 40k is the tightness of the rules, the ease of navigation of the rulebook, and the incredible ease of referability (a big book index that... y'know... works, and the use of cards), and a far lower cost of entry.

WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

Really, they're not substitutes for each other (okay, they are, but they cater to completely different gameplay preferences). WM/H is small scale skirmish and will probably stay that way to a large extent. WM/H rewards unit synergies and combos to a greater extent than 40k does, and this can result in both more flexibility from similar units or more cookie cutter style listbuilding. WM/H is about finding the proper balance between resource allocation and risk management within a game system that gives you a lot of leeway with both.

40k is 40k. It's largescale, it generally rewards more dice over better dice, and your tactical options are generally much more limited than in WM/H (in the quantitative sense. Assault Terminators can move, run, embark, disembark, and assault. Warjacks can move, run, charge, slam, trample, attack, boost, head/weapon lock, throw, headbutt, special attack/move where applicable, and push). In short, it's easier to play 40k. This isn't to say that playing 40k is morons (chess is also easier to play than WM/H), it's just that relative to WM/H, there are generally fewer options and fewer restrictions to keep track of.

warspawned wrote:Words

Quoted-for-mega-awesome-super-duper-truth

GW isn't dead, 40k/Fantasy aren't dying, and, to be honest, all those "super-pro" douchemahordes people need to stop ripping on GW all the time.

I love Warmachine/Hordes, it's a great game that rewards tactical thinking and risk. However, it's a different game than 40k/Fantasy. I personally love Fantasy, the background, the minis, and will continue to play regardless of whether it's actually dead or not. They're different games, as sourclams said, and they're both great.

As to the OP, they'll probably get bored and come back. It happens. I had a friend go from loving Fantasy, to Warmahordes, to quitting, to just getting back into Fantasy again. People's taste changes. And you may like WM/H, so it may be a good idea to learn the rules at least, or maybe even pick up a small side army.

Spyder68 wrote:I was sucked in telling me it was cheaper, but model per model.. it sadly costs more then 40k.

Totally depends on what you're comparing what to. WM/H has both a lower model count (so less $$ with comparable per-model cost) and more flexibility of play for the models you already own via different warcasters or unit attachments.

I can build a Warjack-centric list for Karchev at 50 pts for roughly $250 (Karchev, Beast-09, 7 Berzerkers). It's not a great list, but it's far from uncompetitive. In general, WM/H will probably run you $300-$400 for two warcasters with 50 pt lists. Some could be more, but others will be less.

Building a 2k 40k army that is 'far from uncompetitive' is, by and large, fairly difficult to do for under $300 without a ton of AoBR kitbashing. For some armies, like MechIG, it's hard to do for under $750.

Bottom line, there's less variability in the cost to accumulate WM/H armies given a similar scope to 40k. Yes, you can spend $5,000 on WM/H. In practical terms, this will give you the equivalent to about 20,000 pts of 40k--i.e. more than you'd ever need for a single, normal game. You also won't get stuck with a 'faction fee' to build the competitive list out of a specific army book in WM/H like you can in 40k. 2,000 pts of Deathwing Terminators ($300 or so) has a very different pricetag than 2,000 pts of now-OOP Sisters of Battle, especially if you're forced to buy the correct individual special weapon models (50+ Sisters, 9 immolators/rhinos/exorcists)...

I'm in the waiting for the next edition camp. There are many aspects of 5th ed. 40K that I just dislike. I'd much rather return to 4th ed, even with its problems.

I've also disliked the unsetteling trend that has shown up in the last few codexs that have come out where everything just seems faster and is able to shrink the battlefield to where tactical shooting is becoming non-existant and its all just one great melee. (which in 5th ed terms is a perfect way to win).

I still love the 40K models, I love the tanks, but I've just not been able to bring myself to actually play a game. Its just not fun for me anymore.

Maybe 6th ed. will fix that.

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony. Also, anyone who thinks the Dark Eldar models are bad is objectively wrong.

I'm guessing these players just want to try a different game. It doesn't have as much to do with 40k as a system as it has to do with being tired of game X and wanting to try something new.

5th ed 40k isn't broken. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights aren't broken either. They have effective builds but they die the same as any other Marines. Mechanized Guard happen to be very good at what the recent metagame is all about: mobility and meltaguns. Even so, they're dead in killpoints games and a bunch of AV12 vehicles and T3 dudes inside aren't hard to kill. They're effective, but I wouldn't say they're broken by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, a lot of this is probably them getting tired of a game they've been playing for years on end. They just want a change for a while.

Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:It's a matter of taste whether you find 40k miniatures ugly or not.
But they were cartoony from the start (heroic scale, Orks), and Dark Eldar are the closest to non-heroic scale. So this statement is unjustified.

Personally I like 5th edition rules better than 4th edition rules, and they are not broken.
Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition is nice for non-competitive play, but magic maybe too erratic and strong for competitive play. But narrative games got a boost, which is fine for me.

Personally, at WarmaHorde I don't like the lack of terrain effects and the spellmaster-kill-rule (whatever the army, just kill one person and win the game). And there is no fraction I really like (although I use several miniatures for 40k and Warhammer).

My guess is that your friends are more interested in competitive tournament gaming and want a customisable chess. GW is less for competitive games now but has other things to offer.

I take it from your name, avatar and ranking track that you're a Tau player, Tau, as in the army who was damaged the most by 5th ed? Wins have become a lot less common since the new book...

im2randomghgh wrote:

Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...

Heck with that, how about Gk's deepstrking teleporting librarian landraiders?

Sanguinis wrote:They think that 40K's models are ugly and they say that WarmaHordes models are so much better. They think that 40K has become too cartoony. They referenced some of the new Dark Eldar and Grey Knight models and said that they think the models and sculpting have gone down hill. I disagree with them on this. While I think the new Grey Knight models are not as good as the old metal ones, I think they are still very nicely crafted models and sprues. I also think that Dark Eldar have some of the nicest models to come out yet.

GW is producing some of the best sculpted miniatures you can buy right now! And if any game is percieved as cartoony it should be Warmachine. The size and proportions of some GW models is a problem, but it doesnt detract at all from the great looking line of models they offer. Warmachine seriously looks like something a 10 years old plays with.

I play Warmachine, as I said above I have a fairly large Protectorate army.

I do, however, agree with many of you that WarmaHordes is actually the same if not more expensive to play than 40K. You shouldn't be lured in by the fact that the starter kit is so cheap and gives you a playable army. The 40K starter kits are cheap too they just don't give you playable armies because GW wants you to go out and buy an HQ. For most armies that isn't a problem, most HQ's run around $10-20 but Tyranids get shafted in that their HQ is a $45 model.

I don't think WarmaHordes is a bad game in any sense of the word. It just doesn't appeal to me like 40K does. I will continue to play WarmaHordes with the guys at my store, even the ones who have quit 40K for it. I just find 40K's system to be a much less memory significant system. I feel in Warmachine you have to memorize all the units of every army to have any chance of winning. I personally don't like WarmaHordes to that extent that I want to read every book and memorize everything, I have invested to much time in 40K doing that already and it's kind of tiring.

Finally, I love Warmachine and its fluff. What did it in for me with WarmaHordes is the Hordes part. I thought combining the systems would be cool but instead I find that A. PP likes Hordes much better than Warmachine, and B. PP made Horde units (IMO) much better than Warmachine units. Hordes units are faster, stronger (a Warbeast is stastistically better than a Warjack), and gave them better rules. This frustrated me especially since I was playing Warmachine since it first came out and I love the Steampunk look and feel. I just don't like Hordes and it doesn't seem like it fits into the world. Anyway I don't want to open that can of worms because this isn't a Warmachine forum or thread.

I think 5th Edition 40k is no where near what 4th Edition was. I would be ecstatic with some sort of 4th/5th Hybrid system for 6th Edition especially one that doesn't emphasize Mech in the metagame so much. I personally think vehicles need to be nerfed the most.

Element206 wrote:Warmachine seriously looks like something a 10 years old plays with.

I would challenge you to find me several WM/H models that look that bad.

But GW plastics are, by far, the best quality the market currently offers. Aside from the PA GKs (which I dislike the aesthetic of, not the execution of) everything I've seen in the new plastics is simply gorgeous and loaded with details.

im2randomghgh wrote:Well the BA are a little broken...Deep striking Land Raiders and Flying Librarian dreadnoughts is a bit out there...

Yes, please deep strike your Land Raider so it's closer to my melta guns, I really appreciate that. Deep striking Land Raiders is objectively terrible. If you scatter you're almost guaranteed to mishap because of the size of the vehicle, and it's not like you can assault out of the thing. Flying Librarian dreads is a bit wackier and more dangerous, but whenever people bring up deep striking Land Raiders I just have to laugh. It's not broken whatsoever, it's not even a useful rule.

There's nothing wrong with playing more than one game, or playing different games with different groups. If you go to your FLGS to play Warmahordes on weekends but play 40k with your buddies on weekdays, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like Jervis is going to get mad at you for cheating on him with other game systems. Also, to the bunch of you who don't like 5th ed 40k - why don't you just play 4th ed? Or homebrew a few rules to make 5th ed more to your liking? I'm sure you have a friend or two who wouldn't mind playing 4th ed with you.

Brother SRM wrote:
Yes, please deep strike your Land Raider so it's closer to my melta guns, I really appreciate that. Deep striking Land Raiders is objectively terrible. If you scatter you're almost guaranteed to mishap because of the size of the vehicle, and it's not like you can assault out of the thing. Flying Librarian dreads is a bit wackier and more dangerous, but whenever people bring up deep striking Land Raiders I just have to laugh. It's not broken whatsoever, it's not even a useful rule.

Actually, it can be very useful. Deepstrike it on a flank or behind the enemy and then assault them from the front. You know, the usual way to get the most out of deep striking. Flinging them headlong into the jaws of meltas is dumb. And, in the case of GKs, remember that they are also psykers on their own. The Landraider, that is.

Warmachine suffers from a "small" feeling and lacks the feel even ~1,000 point 40k armies have in scale, while skirmish/squad vs. squad games can certainly be fun at my heart I'm a grand-scale kind of guy.

Also warmachine's not-very-developed fluff is another weak point imo, I'm into 40k primarily because of the fluff and it's a great universe. I certainly like WM's steampunk look and the warjack models look great, but it lacks the epic universe.

All that being said it still looks like a solid game imo.

Harriticus wrote:Warmachine suffers from a "small" feeling and lacks the feel even ~1,000 point 40k armies have in scale, while skirmish/squad vs. squad games can certainly be fun at my heart I'm a grand-scale kind of guy.

The new Warmachine: Unleashed rules that have been traveling the rumor circuit are going to allow for a more 40k-level scale to Warmachine battles with roughly 100 models per side. The cost of entry for that, of course, will be much higher than normal but still overall pretty similar to 40k.

Also warmachine's not-very-developed fluff is another weak point imo, I'm into 40k primarily because of the fluff and it's a great universe. I certainly like WM's steampunk look and the warjack models look great, but it lacks the epic universe.

I like both game systems but there seems to be a lot of 'wrong' info out there for WM/H. The background material is actually pretty well developed, and I would say it's a lot more coherent and structured than what you find in the 40k rulebook and codices. The other nice thing is that the backstory actually progresses, and what happens in national league play can and does impact how factions and characters respond and develop.

40k has "more" background, because the Black Library churns out a book every month (and I collect and read all of them, or at least all of the ones that I can stomach to get through because there are truly horrible BL books) but it's fragmented and rarely fits into an overarching narrative, like what the Horus Heresy follows.

Has anyone ever actually brought a LR in via DS here?
Not that good due to its size and scattering and all that.
Also, who runs LR's in BA?

I thought is was all DoA and Razorspam.


OT:

Model wise - I think its actually getting better.
Seems alot of the new kits are worth picking up and there are very few poor ones. (DK IMO isnt the best)

Rules wise - As much as i loved 4th, ive learned to get into 5th.
Only real gripe was getting used to the basics again, but thats something that needed to be done.

Armies wise - No real broken ones just yet.
Some have more competative builds than others, but thats about it.




However, im more of a painter / converter that likes to play a few games a month.
Do drop by a few tournies, but its rare.

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...


Our gaming group tends to play in cycles. I haven't played Flames of War for about a year, I think. Eventually we will get back into playing it. I've had more fun with this edition of 40k and play more often than I have with any edition from 2nd to 4th. I don't think it's going downhill any more than it was the other times I've heard this argument during every other edition.

With GW, most of their disproportion-ification is to make things look tougher. They make the Guard wider than they should be, which makes them look buff. They make SM SP huge, but if you have read the novels, this is so that they can protect themselves by turning their shoulders. It all makes sense, unlink WarmaHorde models.