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.

Casper wrote:
You don't need any of the books if you don't want them.

Not necessarily true. You need the books for non-standard units(Cavalry, Battle Engines, etc.) if you use them as they have some pretty complicated rules not printed on the cards.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:

Overall I like the system, but I don't compare it to GW as far as type of game. It's closer to playing MTG (magic). Don't believe the hype, the factions are not balanced. They're far closer than in GW games though. The game mechanics as published in the core rules only function well for skirmish style games. I think as points go up, it can be a non-linear increase in playing time.

Oh, and don't believe this more "strategic" bs. Neither gamesets are really "strategic". They each embody different ways of looking at tactics. GW games are primarily based around applying force. Movement, deployment, first turn, etc are primary because they exert control over how you apply force. PP games also deal with the application of force, but a significant component of many lists is force modifiers. So it becomes about applying proper force and leveraging the appropriate modifiers. This makes list construction even more vital than it is in GW games. There are no hard counters per se, but they can be functionally achieved in a good list vs bad list scenario.

For your first point, the free Unbound rules now help mitigate any problems that may occur in game of 150+ points.

For your second point, people have a tough time differentiating between 'strategic' and 'tactical'. Strategic planning is broad, and covers the whole army - think logistics, synergies. Tactical thinking occurs during the game - is is the actual movement and actions made.

Warhammer games are 'strategic' in thinking - often, the game is won in the list-building phase (if we're talking competitive gaming. Gaming for fun isn't a factor here, since that's just for the good times). When playing the game, you take as much force as you can get and apply it to the enemy's force, and hope that you'll prevail.

Warmachine/Hordes are both 'strategic' and 'tactical' games. List building is a major aspect, since both games rely on synergies between the war-blanks, their beasts/'jacks, solos and units. But then you get to the actual game itself. Since a model/unit does its activations all at once, tactics are required to successfully pull of maneuvers. For example, Stryker gives his Ironclad a point of focus in the Maintenance phase. The Ironclad then activates, runs toward the unit in front of it, and uses it's Quake Hammer to knock down the infantry. The supporting unit of Long Gunners then activates, and wipes out the infantry unit since their Defense has been lowered from the Ironclad. This then opens up the enemy Warcaster, which some other unit (let's say, Storm Lances with Major Katherine Laddermore) charge in to attack. This example demonstrates both the strategic (list synergy between different units) and tactical (knowing when to activate different models, and what actions to take during their activations) aspects of PP games.

I don't think he meant the rulebook but the Forces of X books.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:Overall I like the system, but I don't compare it to GW as far as type of game. It's closer to playing MTG (magic). Don't believe the hype, the factions are not balanced. They're far closer than in GW games though. The game mechanics as published in the core rules only function well for skirmish style games. I think as points go up, it can be a non-linear increase in playing time.

Many people have made the comparison between WM/H and MTG so it seems valid. I don't see why the time investment at higher point levels would be non-linear, though. I actually see time:model decrease as individual models are simply less investment in the overall force.

The individual model activation/action certainly would need to be streamlined for significantly larger battles, however, that I do agree with. Feats also do not scale up well, at all, bouncing between 'useless' and 'overpowered'.

Oh, and don't believe this more "strategic" bs. Neither gamesets are really "strategic". They each embody different ways of looking at tactics. GW games are primarily based around applying force. Movement, deployment, first turn, etc are primary because they exert control over how you apply force. PP games also deal with the application of force, but a significant component of many lists is force modifiers. So it becomes about applying proper force and leveraging the appropriate modifiers. This makes list construction even more vital than it is in GW games. There are no hard counters per se, but they can be functionally achieved in a good list vs bad list scenario.

As you said, neither game is really 'strategic' but WM/H is far, far more tactical. [edit: damn ninjaed by infinite_array]

Look at your own dichotomy between the two: GW games rely on list-building, movement, deployment, and first turn for 'application of force'. WM/H rely on all the same things, plus unit:unit interactions, plus activation order, plus limited resource allocation pools (focus, spells) and risk management (fury), plus knowing all of the same stuff in your opponent's list, because they're doing all the same things, plus the constant avoidance of any situation that endangers your warcaster/warlock with the potential of ending the game!

I won't go into which game system is better or worse, but from a pure gameplay perspective, by god there's a lot more things to juggle in WM/H, even with only 1/3 of the models on the tabletop.

The comparison between Warmachine and Magic is due to how you can synergies powers between different units. While i do not agree with the comparison, i do understand where it is coming from. when building your list you will look at each unit and look to see what it brings to the table, and add other units whose ability's support it. The fact that the units all come with cards that have their rules, makes this process feel like deck building( Personal I really enjoy this process)

Regarding Warmachine inferior Models, I do not believe that this its a true statement. I am the first to admit that GW puts out fantastic models, and their plastic kits are amazing, but I believe that Privateer Press Metal sculpts are on par with GW.

I will admit that I do have a Bias, I like Warmachine better than Warhammer. However if you were to go into my garage you will find that I have probably 5X more GW minis than PP minis.

on a side note I would much rather have a official forum that will answer any of my questions than a FAQ that only answers a couple dozen. Though I do agree with CurrentlyUnknown that PP should probably put one out.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:

For perhaps a slightly less biased perspective...

Cons:
-the models are generally far behind GW - particularly true in plastics, but also metals, female models are notable examples...this is improving though

I'm calling bs on both statements made above.

1. We are biased. Admit it. Get over it.
2. I've worked extensively with both GW and PP models. There are bad female sculpts especially during the early runs (Sorscha and both PHaley's come to mind) but if you've seen Kara Sloan, the Mage Hunters, Sorscha 2010, Ordic Pistoleer, Skarre 2010, Epic Skarre...I could go on... You really would not be saying this.

GW has a head start in models and plastics. Thats all. The PP plastics have been getting a bad rap for some reason but a lot of those folks have never seen the PP plastics primed. The detail may look dull out of the box (trust me, I was a detractor) but after I worked on a few warjacks and the trollblood fennblades I saw the detail was a lot better after the model was primed. It may be the shinier and lighter colored plastic that PP uses but the plastics are good, bad eggs notwithstanding

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:-wood elves, bretonnians, dark elves, dark eldar.

-that's why I said "if you're into having books for stuff"

-errata does not equal faq.

In general, I've found that "FAQs" aren't all that necessary if:

1. You have a forum where you can get an answer fairly quickly, either from a mod or by searching past threads.

2. Your rules set is clear-cut enough that ambiguities are minimized.

themocaw wrote:

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:-wood elves, bretonnians, dark elves, dark eldar.

-that's why I said "if you're into having books for stuff"

-errata does not equal faq.

In general, I've found that "FAQs" aren't all that necessary if:

1. You have a forum where you can get an answer fairly quickly, either from a mod or by searching past threads.

2. Your rules set is clear-cut enough that ambiguities are minimized.

Agree with points 1 and 2. The PP forums are a great place to answer rules questions because either a mod or a past thread will simply answer a question - and the question is usually answered by someone saying it's page X in the rulebook.

And the mk II rulebook. The rules are near-airtight. And anything that might be confusing is cleared up by the errata. That's why PP doesn't need to release FAQs for their rules systems and every faction.

Agree with regards to PP's FAQ/Errata.

First, the GW FAQ process is a travesty. It's born from horrible editing and ambiguous rules at the start, and often GW FAQ's miss the boat completely on what rules players need clarification for (Deffrollas... we only argued over how they work for how many years once 5e came about?) unless they pull 'whole clothe' from some independent FAQ source, as with GWAR!'s Space Wolf FAQ (without crediting him, mind).

PP rules are written at the level of a technical manual, or very near to it, with defined, consistent game terms and commonality of terminology. The things which create true ambiguity or 'infinite loops' that break the rules (like the Iron Fang Pikemen Unit Attachment mini-feat) are errataed and/or displayed clearly in a relevant forum.

Finally, for player questions, the book is not only clear, but the forum community is helpful in creating unambiguous rule responses and in truly contentious situations the development team will actually give their input online, via a designated mouthpiece. And in those situations errata often follows.

PP rules process nukes GW rules process into oblivion, from orbit.

CurrentlyUnknown wrote:


Oh, and don't believe this more "strategic" bs. Neither gamesets are really "strategic". They each embody different ways of looking at tactics. GW games are primarily based around applying force. Movement, deployment, first turn, etc are primary because they exert control over how you apply force. PP games also deal with the application of force, but a significant component of many lists is force modifiers. So it becomes about applying proper force and leveraging the appropriate modifiers. This makes list construction even more vital than it is in GW games. There are no hard counters per se, but they can be functionally achieved in a good list vs bad list scenario.

I also have to disagree. Strategy is 1. Defining an objective. 2. Generating a composite from available resources to accomplish said objective. 3. Outlining a plan, based on known factors and educated guesses, to most effectively accomplish objective.

Tactics are, as has been said a few times in this thread, the second-by-second assessment and reaction to conditions during the process of achieving the aforementioned objective.

I would also disagree with the composition being weighted more towards WM than GW. In Warmahordes, there are few if any complete mismatches of army lists. The structure of composition and point values are a good deal more balanced than GW. It is left more to the player to win or lose a game.
In GW, you have certain units that simply cannot kill other units in the game, under any circumstances. This definitely, in my view, makes the Force generation much more important in GW games.

A good point, CATACLYSM. Although there are some really, disgustingly bad matchups in WM/H, like Zaal versus Terminus (Zaal decides where soul generation goes, Terminus is reliant upon soul generation), there's still always the chance that Terminus' mechanithrall blob simply punches its way through Zaal's infantry and win a grinding attrition battle.

I think we do have to acknowledge that PP's general 2-list format can amplify the effect of list building and matchups, though. Generally people don't make two 'all comers' lists, they make one imbalanced list one way, and another list imbalanced the other way (say, super shooty or assassination oriented, and super fighty or attrition oriented) and simply try to luck out on matchups.

So even though list building should be less important with WM/H, by dint of having two opportunities to eliminate weaknesses, player willingness to 'game the system' can offset.

True. It adds that last little bit of redundancy to even the playing field beyond the stat match-ups. Your example is also a good one. But still, it is not nearly as imbalanced as 40k: 250 pts worth of space marines with boltguns can NEVER kill a land raider. Period. In Warmahordes, there are some inadvisable matches, but none that are simply no-win.
Also, Terminus with Rengrave and some friggin' Atramentous crew doesn't need the focus. He has an almost unlimited amount of HPs! That is how I would run him against Zaal.
Oh, and his undead don't provide any souls, either!
I'm a Skorne player, I have dealt with the Big Angry Lich, before...It wasn't pretty.

12thRonin wrote:I don't think he meant the rulebook but the Forces of X books.

I did.

I have to agree the 2 list format really does mitigate some of the major weaknesses list have.

Thank you for all the info guys.

i would really like to take up hordes and play it. It just seems so good from all the info im getting and from reading info.

altho the community doesnt seem so big i will have to try hard and look for other players in my town.
Living in malmö sweden.

everyone where i go plays 40k so will see if i can find someone to play with..
if i can. then im defenently picking hordes up.

You have all been helpful with your input.

cheers

Love Ogard.

sourclams wrote:PP rules process nukes GW rules process into oblivion, from orbit.

My official quote of the day! Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ogard wrote:altho the community doesnt seem so big i will have to try hard and look for other players in my town.

I seem to have that same problem. But I have a knack for being an "infectious-idea-implanter" and don't really have a problem converting folks to new games. I tell you, when you're excited about something it makes it a whole lot easier to get others to catch on....kinda like being on fire and running through a barn full of hay....

Mercy of Spades wrote:I have a knack for being an "infectious-idea-implanter" and don't really have a problem converting folks to new games.

You should seriously consider becoming a Pressganger then. PP does fantastic job when it comes to support organized gaming. Believe me, I know what I'm saying, being a PG myself