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.

Spyder68 wrote:I find this amusing, as you can play WM/H as casual..

Respectfully, I disagree. It's more a hawk-dove argument than anything about player intent; you need both players to agree to play casually, or dovishly, in order to have a truly casual game. If one player plays hawkishly and another dovishly, it's not a casual game.

40k for example. You can have one player play 'as hard as possible'. Your other player can simply be finding joy in moving his models around the table and making pew-pew noises. The second player is probably going to lose, but still gets at least 5 turns of moving his models around and finding joy, as long as he still has 1 model on the table at the beginning of any turn.

WM, by contrast, generally requires only 1 critical mistake to be made for a more hawkish player to take a win, and this often can occur early game. The simple fact that turn 2 assassinations can and do often occur in WM/H means that the 'threshhold of joy' for a dovish player can be... not necessarily always... much lower than in other game systems.

That's the sole point I'm trying to make there, and it's more relevant for new players or 'weaker' tacticians than it is for two 1337/hardcore/hawkish gamers who are simply having a laid back game.

Im not sure about you, but i dont find it fun being resticted to 1/2 to 1/4 of the units in a book because the rest are terrible. Ive shot players off the table in 1 turn with IG, the next 4-5 turns were... boring. Play a deepstrike army and 1 bad role and you lose 200+ points,

This I fully agree with. Although there are some definite stinker units like Kossite Woodsmen or Trenchers, I enjoy using the majority of the book. Even stuff that the internet generally reviles, like T4 pHoarluk in Trolls or Dominar Rasheth in Skorne can be made terrifying by a good commander.

I see more scenario wins then i do caster kills as we learn the game how to use the caster.. without getting them smacked down.

I often find that in situations where I'm about to win via scenario, I can clinch an earlier win by going for assassination. Finding the balance between which method you want to win by is all up to you, but I almost always go with the 'safer' win. That's an assessment based totally on my personal experience.

Turn 2 assassinations are generally the result of very aggressive gameplay - simply put, they generally don't happen expect in the most extreme cases if you are playing even a little conservatively. And the lists that can launch a successful turn 2 assassination run are not ones that can hide the fact that they're set up to do such a thing. Molik Missile lists and Ravyn Mage Hunter Strike Force swarms are pretty obvious things, when push comes to shove.

If you want to play a longer, attrition based game, there's a ton of casters you can take who let you do such a thing. Quite frankly, what you're saying isn't 'casual vs. competitive' - what you're saying is 'bad vs. semi-competent'. Building a list that will give you 3 or 4 turns of play isn't very difficult - take a caster with a big control range, run a bunch of troops or jacks, make sure you have a shield guard and a good blocking unit to deny line of sight, and don't stick your neck out. You'll find your chances of getting assassinated drop dramatically in a very short period of time.

And if you let your opponent know that you're new, then generally you're not going to get run over unless the person you're playing is a complete jerk - and if that is the case, then you know that this is someone that you'd probably not want to associate with in the future.

On the same note, you can win a Warhammer 40k game turn 1 and then just have to hash out another 5 or 6 turns that have no chance of turning the game around at all - sure there might be people who play for the joy of pushing their models around on the table, but I've not seen any in my hobby shop. This is a hobby where you have a modest level of competitive spirit, or at least the desire to see your models stick around on the table as opposed to looking good from the big pile off to the side where all your dead bodies go.

T2 assassinations are generally due to Player B doing the wrong things (making a mistake) versus Player A doing the right things. And almost any list is capable of a T2 assassination in such a scenario;

Any Cygnar list with a Charger
eCaine
eLylyth
Ravyn/MHSF
eMak/MK
eHoarluk
Zaal
Sorscha
Karchev
Strakhov
Kaya
Baldur
pKreoss
eSkarre
Morty

To avoid the 'single mistake' that allows any of these lists to go forth and win, you need to be better than 'semi-competent', and that's what skews it more towards 'you have to agree to play casually' between two players with unequal skill versus 'casual players can have fun too' between two players with unequal skill.

Sorry sour..

but its easy to tell whos going to win a game of 40k by end of the 2nd turn and it just drags out.

Even playing casually, i dont find it fun to move models and throw dice when i already know the outcome.

Its been rare that i had a game of 40k that was close as the power level of the books are so far off its sad.

The only time it has been close.. its because oh.. i rolled a dice and the game ended at end of turn 5 after they/or i recklessly ran models to contest as if the game was over and there was no tomorrow... 1 more turn and they or i would have been tabled.


I find i can play games alot more casual with warmahordes..

i screw up and lose in 3-4 turns.. i dont care i spent 30min getting to that point of oh gak. good game, lets go again, and play another or another opponet.

scew up in 1-2 turns of 40k, prepare for another 1 hour at least borefest already knowing who is going to win.

I have not had a rules argument that lasted more then 5 min in 4-5 months now since we quit 40k.

40k..

Prepare for horribly written rules that you have to guess the intent of.. It got old going to other locations to play.. and everyone played at least 4-5 rules completly different then others.

Scenario's that end on a die role, or who killed the most of the opponets cheap easy to kill units, and who got that last unit in time before the game ended.



Also your turn 2 assasinations.. are situational if your opponet knows what they are doing and how the assasination works.

Every caster is not good against every other caster. Thats why you have 2-3 lists, see your opponets 2-3 lists then you each choose a caster.

with that this is off topic so im done here

btw im not saying warmahordes is perfect.. when a turn 2 assasination happens it can suck :p but tis no different then 40k win scenarios at the end of a 2 hour game.

A truly 'casual' player doesn't see the imminent T4 loss based on what they did wrong on turn 1.

You're looking at it as a competitive player (in terms of ability as well as mindset) that can 'ramp down' the competitive level to play a more laid back game.

They don't ?

After playing for 9-10 years im not supposed to see that my actions on turn 1 will effect the game later on ?

That makes me only competetive ?

sourclams wrote:A truly 'casual' player doesn't see the imminent T4 loss based on what they did wrong on turn 1.

40K and WHFB are no better or worse. A player not placing his tanks correctly in 40K can find himself in a position where he will lose the game. In fantasy simply marching a unit too far ahead can spell disaster. Or placing unit A at a wrong angle relative to unit B. A casual player may not see this immediately, but an experienced player will see it and take advantage of it.

In almost all games an early mistake will be immediately taken advantage of by a competitive player. I can't imagine much (other than popping your feat on T1) that would affect a game three turns out in WM.

Competitive vs. non-competitive is no better or worse in 40k than it is in WM.

I’m going to throw in my two cents and say that WM was cheaper for me than my 40k army. It was also a lot easier to start out for me than 40k.

I think the main reason why it was cheaper for me was because I didn’t have to buy so many transports and supplements (like meltaguns from bits stores). The cost of transports and supplements can easily blow out the cost of the of a 40k army, especially in today’s mech environment (especially when one has to purchase a transport and additional meltaguns for each unit they buy). The cool thing about PP was that I could buy a box of troops or a jack and I didn’t need to purchase anything else to make it viable on the table.

Also a contributing factor for me personally was that I found that prices of PP products shifted dramatically depending on the store (whereas GW tends to stay at roughly RRP no matter where you shop). I was able to get some pretty awesome deals without shopping at ebay.

That being said, I can see why WM can be the same if not more than a 40k army in certain cases but this largely depends on the style on the army. For example Bane Thralls are a fairly pricey unit (god knows why) and someone wanting to build a Bane Thrall Spam army (using pGoreshade, BLT and as many banes as can fit) is in for financial pain.

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:A truly 'casual' player doesn't see the imminent T4 loss based on what they did wrong on turn 1.

40K and WHFB are no better or worse. A player not placing his tanks correctly in 40K can find himself in a position where he will lose the game. In fantasy simply marching a unit too far ahead can spell disaster. Or placing unit A at a wrong angle relative to unit B. A casual player may not see this immediately, but an experienced player will see it and take advantage of it.

In almost all games an early mistake will be immediately taken advantage of by a competitive player. I can't imagine much (other than popping your feat on T1) that would affect a game three turns out in WM.

Competitive vs. non-competitive is no better or worse in 40k than it is in WM.

As true as this may be to an extent, this is not necessarily always the case. Being relatively new to Warmahordes, I've played games where literally I put down my pieces and 10 minutes later I was picking them up. There was no time to enjoy the game. While its true that a competitive player will usually beat out the casual player (in not just Table-Top Gaming, but in fact all gaming), it does not change the fact that Warmachine/Hordes are a faster paced game and the game has no set limit. Its rather frustrating as a new player to be stomped simply because you placed your warcaster one inch too far.

Its so frustrating that I haven't played a game of Warmachine in months now because the learning curve is not in your favor. 40k is a much easier game to pick up and just play at any time and you know that at the very least you are guaranteed some time to play. Warmachine just seems like a waste of money if everyone you play against gets you turn 2 or turn 3. What enjoyment is there to be had when it feels like the game literally just started?

malfred wrote:Um, it'll be cheaper to start playing full games of WM, but if you
get into it you'll end up spending as much as 40k, if not more.

I concur with this statement. I've spent a thousand or more in each system already.

djphranq wrote:

malfred wrote:Um, it'll be cheaper to start playing full games of WM, but if you
get into it you'll end up spending as much as 40k, if not more.

I concur with this statement. I've spent a thousand or more in each system already.

I refuse to put a dollar value on my collection.

malfred wrote:

djphranq wrote:

malfred wrote:Um, it'll be cheaper to start playing full games of WM, but if you
get into it you'll end up spending as much as 40k, if not more.

I concur with this statement. I've spent a thousand or more in each system already.

I refuse to put a dollar value on my collection.

I concur with the spirit of Kuya Malfred's statement.

According to Dakka, we are the same age.

I'm not so against it. I have been playing since about 2006, so for five years. My army retails about $1500. This is actually a bit more than I paid, with things like store offers, prizes in touranments, web purchases, and my initial lot, but also probably counts the books, the bags, and the other randomness to it. This is with repeats in units (two Warpwolves, two Woldwardens, a second min. unit of Ravagers, and three War Wolves) and a general "buy everything" mindset.

This seems like a lot, but then if I pull out iBodger, I will note that for 50pt. lists, I have something like 13 50pt. lists which I own models for, and I can add in or take out any number of other models to make more. I could also easily do without a few of them, such as the Reeves, Argi and such, but again, saved money getting those in th elong run.

Treating each warlock, for instnace, as a different armym, that's about on average $150 for each 50pt. army. Adding in each Themed Force, alternate list, and the like lowers it per army, and you can get a lot of overlaps between them.

Now to the extent this is compared to 40K, I am not going to tell you as I don't honestly know (I don't play it or have a hold on it's economic system). But I think that you can do WM/H fairly cheap, especially if you focus on things you use in a lot of differnt lists, which saves you a bit there for the swappability, whcih I am to understand, is not as there even within 40K armies.

And stuff.

malfred wrote:According to Dakka, we are the same age.

But I bow down to your Pokeminis thread... You clearly are the greater.

The one thing that I really like about Warmachine over 40K is that it seems like they price more on what it costs to produce a model than how effective it is on the board. Sure, bane knights are expensive, but they have a lot of metal.

djphranq wrote:

malfred wrote:According to Dakka, we are the same age.

But I bow down to your Pokeminis thread... You clearly are the greater.

That's a quantity thing.

Red Comet wrote:

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:A truly 'casual' player doesn't see the imminent T4 loss based on what they did wrong on turn 1.

40K and WHFB are no better or worse. A player not placing his tanks correctly in 40K can find himself in a position where he will lose the game. In fantasy simply marching a unit too far ahead can spell disaster. Or placing unit A at a wrong angle relative to unit B. A casual player may not see this immediately, but an experienced player will see it and take advantage of it.

In almost all games an early mistake will be immediately taken advantage of by a competitive player. I can't imagine much (other than popping your feat on T1) that would affect a game three turns out in WM.

Competitive vs. non-competitive is no better or worse in 40k than it is in WM.

As true as this may be to an extent, this is not necessarily always the case. Being relatively new to Warmahordes, I've played games where literally I put down my pieces and 10 minutes later I was picking them up. There was no time to enjoy the game. While its true that a competitive player will usually beat out the casual player (in not just Table-Top Gaming, but in fact all gaming), it does not change the fact that Warmachine/Hordes are a faster paced game and the game has no set limit. Its rather frustrating as a new player to be stomped simply because you placed your warcaster one inch too far.

Its so frustrating that I haven't played a game of Warmachine in months now because the learning curve is not in your favor. 40k is a much easier game to pick up and just play at any time and you know that at the very least you are guaranteed some time to play. Warmachine just seems like a waste of money if everyone you play against gets you turn 2 or turn 3. What enjoyment is there to be had when it feels like the game literally just started?

Sounds like you have some donkey-caves in your local playgroup. Its one thing to play competitive, its another to take advantage of a new player.
My first 10 or so games were vs the same experienced player. All our games went to at least 3 turns, because he wasn't an donkey-cave.
We always discussed the game after, and he would point out to me the situations where he didn't press for the kill early.
This led me to learn a lot about my models even though I still didn't win for about 20 games.

Armandloft wrote:The one thing that I really like about Warmachine over 40K is that it seems like they price more on what it costs to produce a model than how effective it is on the board. Sure, bane knights are expensive, but they have a lot of metal.

That's what folks were telling me when I started getting into miniatures. I didn't think much of the price until I started playing GW games after PP stuff.

malfred wrote:

djphranq wrote:

malfred wrote:According to Dakka, we are the same age.

But I bow down to your Pokeminis thread... You clearly are the greater.

That's a quantity thing.

The stuff looks pretty good nonetheless.

skrulnik wrote:

Red Comet wrote:

biccat wrote:

sourclams wrote:A truly 'casual' player doesn't see the imminent T4 loss based on what they did wrong on turn 1.

40K and WHFB are no better or worse. A player not placing his tanks correctly in 40K can find himself in a position where he will lose the game. In fantasy simply marching a unit too far ahead can spell disaster. Or placing unit A at a wrong angle relative to unit B. A casual player may not see this immediately, but an experienced player will see it and take advantage of it.

In almost all games an early mistake will be immediately taken advantage of by a competitive player. I can't imagine much (other than popping your feat on T1) that would affect a game three turns out in WM.

Competitive vs. non-competitive is no better or worse in 40k than it is in WM.

As true as this may be to an extent, this is not necessarily always the case. Being relatively new to Warmahordes, I've played games where literally I put down my pieces and 10 minutes later I was picking them up. There was no time to enjoy the game. While its true that a competitive player will usually beat out the casual player (in not just Table-Top Gaming, but in fact all gaming), it does not change the fact that Warmachine/Hordes are a faster paced game and the game has no set limit. Its rather frustrating as a new player to be stomped simply because you placed your warcaster one inch too far.

Its so frustrating that I haven't played a game of Warmachine in months now because the learning curve is not in your favor. 40k is a much easier game to pick up and just play at any time and you know that at the very least you are guaranteed some time to play. Warmachine just seems like a waste of money if everyone you play against gets you turn 2 or turn 3. What enjoyment is there to be had when it feels like the game literally just started?

Sounds like you have some donkey-caves in your local playgroup. Its one thing to play competitive, its another to take advantage of a new player.
My first 10 or so games were vs the same experienced player. All our games went to at least 3 turns, because he wasn't an donkey-cave.
We always discussed the game after, and he would point out to me the situations where he didn't press for the kill early.
This led me to learn a lot about my models even though I still didn't win for about 20 games.

Nope no donkeys. In fact my group is all my friends and we all started around the same time.
I'm just not picking up the game as fast as they are for whatever reason. Its ridiculous having to learn what every unit does in order to do good.

Khornate25 wrote:Which do you consider should be the hobby of someone low on cash ?

None of the above. Dystopian Wars cost me about 1/3 as much to start up as either 40K or WM. If you're just looking for a fun to play, cheap to get into game - Dystopian Wars is my recommendation. It's got balance issues inherent in the game, though, so if you're looking for something a bit more competitive and a bit less 'beer and pretzels' spend a little extra and play something else.

Red Comet wrote:As true as this may be to an extent, this is not necessarily always the case. Being relatively new to Warmahordes, I've played games where literally I put down my pieces and 10 minutes later I was picking them up.

Personally, if I made a mistake in the first turn and I knew the game was over, I'd rather have a 10-minute WarMachine game than a hour-and-a-half game of 40k.

Turn 1: IG player blows up all my tanks. I walk.
Turn 2: IG player blows up a lot of my guys. I walk.
Turn 3: IG player blows up some more of my guys. I walk, fire some bolters.
Turn 4: IG player blows up some more, I walk forward, charge my 8 remaining marines into his 400+ guardsmen.
Turn 5: GG.

I'd rather have 3-4 games of WM than 1 game of 40k.

Like others have said, WM is a skirmish-level game and you shouldn't expect games to last as long as games of 40k, both in terms of setup and actual gameplay.

Plus I think WM is a much more tactical game than 40k. It isn't as much of a rock-paper-scissors game as 40k.

But to answer the question posed in the thread, WarMachine/Hordes is the cheaper game to get into. A battlebox game is probably comparable to a minimum (500 point) game of 40k, but you're not going to get as much out of 40k at 500 points as you will a WarMachine battlebox.

biccat wrote:
Competitive vs. non-competitive is no better or worse in 40k than it is in WM.

The difference is in 40k you still get to push your toys around the table for 5 turns, regardless how futile the effort may ultimately be.

In WM/H you unpack your things, deploy all your things, then pick up all your things.

This seems to be a surprisngly 'big deal' for new/casual players.

Now to the extent this is compared to 40K, I am not going to tell you as I don't honestly know (I don't play it or have a hold on it's economic system). But I think that you can do WM/H fairly cheap, especially if you focus on things you use in a lot of differnt lists, which saves you a bit there for the swappability, whcih I am to understand, is not as there even within 40K armies.

No you basically nailed it in one go. Over the last 5 years, I've spent 'equivalent' amounts on both 40k and WM/H. I have about 2 different IG lists (infantry and mech), 2 or 3 different Marine lists with Chaos Marine proxies, and a Deathwing list. So of all that money spent, I can meaningfully play 5 different army types.

I started really collecting WM/H 2 years ago, and now basically own the entire Khador faction, 1/2 of Skorne, and 75% of Trollbloods. This allows me to play something like 30 or 40 distinct lists.

The playability per dollar spent in WM/H is a heckuva lot higher in PP systems than GW.

sourclams wrote:The difference is in 40k you still get to push your toys around the table for 5 turns, regardless how futile the effort may ultimately be.

In WM/H you unpack your things, deploy all your things, then pick up all your things.

This seems to be a surprisngly 'big deal' for new/casual players.

I think it's a matter of the mindset you go into the game a bit too. For me, I never played a minis game before WM/H, so it was kind of a super-steep learning curve. But I had played TCGs before playing it, so I went in with that mindset. From my gathering, PP goes with that mindset a bit (build lists, synergies and interactions to get the End Game), while WHFB and WH40K instead are more about the action of playing the game, if that makes sense.

To me, when I see a two-player game, the goal is to cause the other guy to scoop-up at some point. WM/H appeals to me for that. But as you note, this is a different mindset then what you get out of a Warhammer game. It's not necessarily a bad setup, I'm going to add. I just find it unappealing myself, as I hate being dragged out to suffer as I have seen folks kind of do in WM/H games on occassion.

sourclams wrote:[No you basically nailed it in one go. Over the last 5 years, I've spent 'equivalent' amounts on both 40k and WM/H. I have about 2 different IG lists (infantry and mech), 2 or 3 different Marine lists with Chaos Marine proxies, and a Deathwing list. So of all that money spent, I can meaningfully play 5 different army types.

I started really collecting WM/H 2 years ago, and now basically own the entire Khador faction, 1/2 of Skorne, and 75% of Trollbloods. This allows me to play something like 30 or 40 distinct lists.

The playability per dollar spent in WM/H is a heckuva lot higher in PP systems than GW.

That's I think my feel. If you stick to a faction, the more you spend seems to grow exponentiallyw hat you can use, especially when some models such as warcasters come into play in how much they utterly will change your list-building priorities or the play of units.

And stuff.

EDIT: Messed-up the Quote. I also apparently messed-up and misread the "Exalt" post as "Edit this post". Joy. No I'm not being narcissistic.

sourclams wrote:The difference is in 40k you still get to push your toys around the table for 5 turns, regardless how futile the effort may ultimately be.

So...yay?

Again, it comes down to personal preference. Would you rather play one long drawn-out game knowing you're going to ultimately lose or several short games where you have a chance in each one?

I'd generally pick the latter over the former. But I understand that the former has appeal, which is why I also play 40k and Fantasy.

biccat wrote:Again, it comes down to personal preference. Would you rather play one long drawn-out game knowing you're going to ultimately lose or several short games where you have a chance in each one?

The new/casual player doesn't know this. You need to get to the point where you've got a fair amount of experience and competency under your belt, which in WM/H takes a lot of practice. Those who quit because on turns 2-3 they lose the one most important model 10 games in a row don't get to that level.

I don't understand it myself, but yes, this sort of person seems to find far more joy pushing their toys around for a guaranteed 5 turns than they do in a 'harder' game like WM/H.

sourclams wrote:
The difference is in 40k you still get to push your toys around the table for 5 turns, regardless how futile the effort may ultimately be.

In WM/H you unpack your things, deploy all your things, then pick up all your things.

Let me preface this by saying sourclams that I have agreed with everything you have posted. One thing to keep in mind though is the difference in setup times vs. the two game systems.

I believe, in most cases, that the unpack your things.... etc. is much faster in WM/H. So much so that the, "Frap! you killed my caster in round 2" isn't such of a big deal. Again, most cases.

I think Sourclams is right on point.


When you lose turn 2 playing WM/Hordes--you know you lost. When you beat an opponent turn 2 playing WM/Hordes--they know they lost.

When many players lose turn 1 playing 40k (Or before the game depending on army lists..)---they typically don't know they lost.


This is party due to inexperience--and partly because in 40k the illusion of a possible victory 3 turns down keeps people playing. "If I get a late reserve roll, deep strike there--turbo boost a vehicle there and contest---maybe I can hide this guy on my objective..."

And you can pull off a 'moral' or 'cinematic' victory.

loldude Lysander just pwnd 10 d00dz an ur Demon lulz!

"But I have every single objective"

LOL LYSANDER LOL

I find the hard win/loss system in WM/H makes tournaments much easier to adjudicate.