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.

JWhex wrote:
The games are different enough that I think you can throw a lot of the previous posts in this thread out the window. Huge amount of bias here, totally predictable of course.

A fairly majority of the people here have actively played both games, and this is the experiences they developed

So its not unfounded bias that should be completely disregarded

 Talamare wrote:

JWhex wrote:
The games are different enough that I think you can throw a lot of the previous posts in this thread out the window. Huge amount of bias here, totally predictable of course.

A fairly majority of the people here have actively played both games, and this is the experiences they developed

So its not unfounded bias that should be completely disregarded

The games are different, but they are both table top games where you have models and roll dice. The two companies are very much in direct competition for tabletop gamers. Comparing the two games is like comparing cars. Different cars have different options, but they are all cars.

And I am ones of those that has played both 40k and WM. I have played 40k for about 16 years and WM for 3.

And most of the comparisons (other than maybe better/worse models and better/worse fluff) are not opinions, but generally fact. WM is cheaper to play. WM does have tighter rules. And I think the great majority of people agree the factions are pretty well balanced, especially if compared to 40k. Even model balance is pretty darn good.

I recently switched from WH40k to Warmahordes and the biggest difference is that in Warmahordes, pretty much every model does something unique, and the playstyle isn't mandated by what army you take but by what warcaster you take.

I used to play Dark Eldar and Black Templars, and with the DE no matter what list I was running it was basically the same army. Tactics varied very little, you have models that you take like massed blasterborn in a venom vs massed splinter fire in a raider, but that doesn't change the fact that you're basically running fire superiority in a paper boat. So an army designed with high armor and long range weapons could easily destroy a DE army.

In Warmachine I could run a Phaley list that's very defensive list that shoots up the enemy army as they get closer, deny their charge with temporal barrier, and then attack what ever is left sitting at my door step and win the attrition battle. Then the very next game using basically the same list only with Sloan or Seige as my caster, I could run a very aggressive army that removes the enemies support before getting off an assassination on the feat turn. Even something as small as whether you're running Squire or Reinholdt attached to your caster can change the way your army plays.


TLDR: WH40k is checkers, Warmahordes is chess.

Thats a very bad comparison.

Its more like Warmahordes is Chess and 40k is Rome: Total War.

Warmahordes is more about how your use the pieces you have, 40k is more about what pieces you have.

You have chariots, I have Hoplites. I win.

22cthulu wrote:
Even something as small as whether you're running Squire or Reinholdt attached to your caster can change the way your army plays.

Just a quick point, Reinholdt isn't an attachment so you can have both him and the squire

 motyak wrote:

22cthulu wrote:
Even something as small as whether you're running Squire or Reinholdt attached to your caster can change the way your army plays.

Just a quick point, Reinholdt isn't an attachment so you can have both him and the squire

Which eCaine often does.../shudder

 malfred wrote:

 motyak wrote:

22cthulu wrote:
Even something as small as whether you're running Squire or Reinholdt attached to your caster can change the way your army plays.

Just a quick point, Reinholdt isn't an attachment so you can have both him and the squire

Which eCaine often does.../shudder

To be fair so do Siege and Sloan

Yeah, well, since everyone here has been fanboying about the good things of Warmahordes , I'd like to point out a couple of issues that were not mentioned, just to keep a more balanced perspective here.

Fact is, Warmachine is by far the most gamey of all the wargames I play(6 at this point). By gamey, I mean it seems that WAAC mentality is encouraged, and rather expected from the game itself. It's a ruleset written for tournament players. This has the effect that a lot of the game is all about abusing RAW. Examples of this are having models charge their own faction in the back, because that way they can run a little further, or spacing out your squshy little infantry guys just so the big warjack cannot fit it's base past them to hit your backline, even though it CAN trample through your models. These are not rare examples of TFG play, like doing really broken spam lists in 40k, these are core concepts of the game play, that you need to use to compete in a FLAG.

A similar tourney mentality goes with the models. Warmachine players do not generally allow proxies or extensive conversions, since they can't identify things at a glance otherwise. And ofcourse, people are far more expected to use the most powerful units and combinations they can find, instead of fluff lists. The only reason you dont see massive spam lists is because the system discourages them.

And that is really the main decision you must make before migrating to WM. Are you mainly a hobbist, or a gamer? Warmachine has a fantastic ruleset for competition, but it does not do much else. 40k, as GW keeps insisting, is more about having and pimping out models, and then having fun pitting them against each other.

DrDuckman wrote:
an interesting post, but since I'm not sure which exact bit I'm responding to I'm just writing this

I think a lot of that depends on your area. My area really does have two different mindsets. If you go on a Thursday you can either play people's hard lists or the lists they are playing for fun, fluff or to try out their new shiny. If you go to an organised tournament, you can expect them to bring the pain. And that's fine, it's what you'd expect. But it's not like they are some kind of incredibly gamey breed, at least in my area, they are normal gamers who enjoy having fun, converting models, stuff like that, and are willing to either play for fun or for competition.

I agree that some areas may have gamey players of warmachine, but you will get other areas with gamey 40k players. I don't think it's fair to tar a whole lot of players with a brush for any reason. That's like saying Infinity players are just in it for the cheesecake.

 motyak wrote:

DrDuckman wrote:
an interesting post, but since I'm not sure which exact bit I'm responding to I'm just writing this

I think a lot of that depends on your area. My area really does have two different mindsets. If you go on a Thursday you can either play people's hard lists or the lists they are playing for fun, fluff or to try out their new shiny. If you go to an organised tournament, you can expect them to bring the pain. And that's fine, it's what you'd expect. But it's not like they are some kind of incredibly gamey breed, at least in my area, they are normal gamers who enjoy having fun, converting models, stuff like that, and are willing to either play for fun or for competition.

I agree that some areas may have gamey players of warmachine, but you will get other areas with gamey 40k players. I don't think it's fair to tar a whole lot of players with a brush for any reason. That's like saying Infinity players are just in it for the cheesecake.

I feel the same way about my FLGS as well. Then again, they are kind around newer people to the game and gives you hints and tips on how to use what units you have the best you can, but it is mostly breaks down to the fact that people want to play a good game and have fun with it, whether playing the game itself or hobbying and that.

 motyak wrote:

DrDuckman wrote:
an interesting post, but since I'm not sure which exact bit I'm responding to I'm just writing this

I think a lot of that depends on your area. My area really does have two different mindsets. If you go on a Thursday you can either play people's hard lists or the lists they are playing for fun, fluff or to try out their new shiny. If you go to an organised tournament, you can expect them to bring the pain. And that's fine, it's what you'd expect. But it's not like they are some kind of incredibly gamey breed, at least in my area, they are normal gamers who enjoy having fun, converting models, stuff like that, and are willing to either play for fun or for competition.

I agree that some areas may have gamey players of warmachine, but you will get other areas with gamey 40k players. I don't think it's fair to tar a whole lot of players with a brush for any reason. That's like saying Infinity players are just in it for the cheesecake.

I don't know that you're quite addressing what he's saying, though.

His examples of 'gamey-ness' were things like spacing out your infantry line to deny charges, and charging friendly models to gain additional movement. I have a ton of fun, friendly games at the store, but I'm still going to be careful on troop spacing and the like, and I'd expect that it's the same when you play. I think that was the point he was trying to get across, and it's a very fair one. I actually see it as a feature, not a bug, but that's one of the reasons I play WM.

DrDuckman wrote:

And that is really the main decision you must make before migrating to WM. Are you mainly a hobbist, or a gamer? Warmachine has a fantastic ruleset for competition, but it does not do much else. 40k, as GW keeps insisting, is more about having and pimping out models, and then having fun pitting them against each other.

The 40k pimping out models thing is slowly being phased out, and they are starting to stress wysiwyg harder and harder

Ill throw out my opinion coming from a long time in 40k and a brief stint with warmachine.

Ranged - 40k is king. Warmachine has shooting, and it can change tides of the game, but its gonna be in support of an attack or be within a much more confined ranges. Tau, space marines, eldar (and dark) can all just finish a game without even seeing combat. Thats not the norm for WM

Individual units - WM has such diversity in abilities and rules within units that everyone plays a special part. 40k confines that to alot fewer units with alot of basic line units just acting as grunts. Even your grunts in WM will have some special rules that will drastically impact the game.

Playstyle - 40k is big, with big units and big ranges. Plays on a big board. WM is a skirmish game for the most part. Small board, units dont usually exceed 10 models and ranges dont exceed 20" (99% of the time).

Hobby - 40k wins out on the hobby aspect. There are individual models I like more in both games, but the overall quality of the models and the modifications that are possible generally favor 40k. Plenty of people collect 40k and dont actually play. Not usually the case with WM

Competition - From everything ive experienced WM is designed to be a competitive game. Its meant to be played in tourney settings and the balance and diversity reflects that. 40k can, and does do tournaments but the game doesnt have the balance it used to and it caters more to the hobby guy and the collecter than WM does.

I think the main difference is the tight ruleset, as many have already posted. A ruleset where there is no argument over RAW and RAI, was just too refreshing. Makes life as a Press Ganger easy as well. I have run many tournaments now, and no big issue has come up. Because the rules are clear for the game and the rules are clear for the tournament.

Being able to get quick games in, was also a big factor to my jump. WM/HDs can be played in as little as a lunch hour. As a Husband and Father WM/HDs lets me get my game on without causing stress with the missus with a 4-6 hour long game.

Lastly, I like options. Not so much modeling options, but strategy and tactics options. I never understood the whole can't shoot into melee rules. People would chime in "well that would be evil, or bad." Of course it would, and why couldn't my Dark Eldar, Necrons, or Orks do it? In WM/HDs I can shoot into melee at a hefty negative. If I miss then I have to roll against the other models in melee with the same penalty meaning my own guys.
Here's another one: Wraithlord or Carnifex not being able to throw, trample, or slam. I like that in WM/HDs I can have these options. Model in the way throw it, slam it, trample over it. It's just funny I can slow down a STR10 Carnifex with 5 grots and the Monstrous Creature that the Carnifex is has to kill each and every little grot to be able to move again.

@DrDuckman a wargame being gamey? Isn't that a contradiction? It will happen to anything that is a game. Of course you will arrange your army in a way to prevent you from losing. Of course you will bump or charge a model to get extra movement. it's an option available to both you and your opponent. Limiting yourself is your choice. I will admit that in the beginning the people that embraced Page 5 used it as an excuse to to be a jackwagon. Which PP addressed with an updated Page 5 seen here: http://necronycustard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/imag0644.jpg.
As far as customization of models go, I like not having to keep track of a phantom powerfist that seems to move around the play field every turn. I like looking at my opponents model and knowing what it can or cannot do. You can still convert them If you'd like. There are clear and concise rules on what you can and/or cannot do.

Model Conversions From Steamroller 2013: wrote:

Players must be unambiguous about model representation.
The following rules must be adhered to when using
converted models in organized play. These rules are meant
not to limit a player’s modeling options but rather to allow
creativity without generating an environment that could
become confusing during game play. At his discretion,
an event organizer can make exceptions to these rules to
approve any reasonable conversion.

TL:;DR: Clear, quick, and efficient game with more tactical and strategic options.

 UsdiThunder wrote:


@DrDuckman a wargame being gamey? Isn't that a contradiction? It will happen to anything that is a game. Of course you will arrange your army in a way to prevent you from losing. Of course you will bump or charge a model to get extra movement. it's an option available to both you and your opponent. Limiting yourself is your choice. I will admit that in the beginning the people that embraced Page 5 used it as an excuse to to be a jackwagon. Which PP addressed with an updated Page 5 seen here: http://necronycustard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/imag0644.jpg.

I find 'gamey' to be a term used to describe things in games that doesn't feel realistic
Things you need to do to get an advantage using the rules that doesn't make sense in reality

Ironically, you listed several ways which 40k is truly "gamey", I especially like how a 1 foot tall grot can completely stop a 20 foot tall rampaging carnifax, and theres nothing the carnifax can do about it
While if the same scenario played out in WM/H, that grot would literally be stepped on after a trample

meneroth2 wrote:
Ill throw out my opinion coming from a long time in 40k and a brief stint with warmachine.

Ranged - 40k is king. Warmachine has shooting, and it can change tides of the game, but its gonna be in support of an attack or be within a much more confined ranges. Tau, space marines, eldar (and dark) can all just finish a game without even seeing combat. Thats not the norm for WM

That's generally a good thing. 40k is so poor when it comes to melee vs ranged balance it ridiculous. 6th ed over watch and random charge distances and all the other weird things they threw in make it quite hard to determine whether melee is actually worth it or not. The proliferation of cover makes squishy armies tough at ranged which then encourages melee. In Warmachine many shooting units have something to bring to the melee game so that it doesn't feel like you're throwing spoons at a carnifex come melee time or your melee isn't so overwhelmed by shooting that you don't feel you're leading a charge into a meat grinder of made of guns.

Individual units - WM has such diversity in abilities and rules within units that everyone plays a special part. 40k confines that to alot fewer units with alot of basic line units just acting as grunts. Even your grunts in WM will have some special rules that will drastically impact the game.

40k is riddled with special rules. The most basic guardsman is affected by orders, grenades and rapid fire. A Space Marine: Know No Fear, rapid fire, grenades and combat tactics at minimum.

Playstyle - 40k is big, with big units and big ranges. Plays on a big board. WM is a skirmish game for the most part. Small board, units dont usually exceed 10 models and ranges dont exceed 20" (99% of the time).

40k's tactics and strategy suffer as a result. It's like bringing a bag of hammers and axes. You throw hammers at what is weak to hammers and axes at what is weak to axes. Facing has little meaning beyond a vehicle. Charge distance, run distance and difficult terrain are randomized. True line of sight and cover mechanics are odd bedfellows when a carnifex with it's toe in area terrain suddenly gains full benefit. Long ranges reduce need for tactical movements, just find a good spot and sit.

Hobby - 40k wins out on the hobby aspect. There are individual models I like more in both games, but the overall quality of the models and the modifications that are possible generally favor 40k. Plenty of people collect 40k and dont actually play. Not usually the case with WM

This comes up time and again, but it's a poor argument. A hobbyist will do what they please regardless of a game. Majority of all players do not do extensive conversions and very few do even minor conversions. There is nothing inherent to GW products that make them superior to a hobbyist. Most pure hobbyists I can think of would probably prefer neither GW nor Warmachine.

Competition - From everything ive experienced WM is designed to be a competitive game. Its meant to be played in tourney settings and the balance and diversity reflects that. 40k can, and does do tournaments but the game doesnt have the balance it used to and it caters more to the hobby guy and the collecter than WM does.

The difference is Warmachine is designed. 40k resembles a mish mash of game ideas. It's part of the reason balance swings so hard every time a codex is released. No two of their designers are acting with a core concept in mind and choose rules concepts that they believe work best without considering the design of other armies. Phill Kelly tends to put remove from play mechanics in his books. Matt Ward tends to make expensive melee bruisers in his books. Cruddance tends to roll his face across his number pad to determine the points cost of units. They all see 40k game mechanics differently.

DrDuckman wrote:
Fact is, Warmachine is by far the most gamey of all the wargames I play(6 at this point). By gamey, I mean it seems that WAAC mentality is encouraged, and rather expected from the game itself. It's a ruleset written for tournament players. This has the effect that a lot of the game is all about abusing RAW. Examples of this are having models charge their own faction in the back, because that way they can run a little further, or spacing out your squshy little infantry guys just so the big warjack cannot fit it's base past them to hit your backline, even though it CAN trample through your models. These are not rare examples of TFG play, like doing really broken spam lists in 40k, these are core concepts of the game play, that you need to use to compete in a FLAG.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by abusing RAW. The fact is Wmachine has very clear rules. The units do what the rules say they do. If by abusing RAW you mean pointing out that 'this works this way as written in the rulebook' instead of going 'no, I feel that thematically, this makes more sense' then you're absolutely correct. But then consider which one is worse, being able to point to a rulebook and saying clearly 'this is how this works' or arguing with an opponent over how each of you THINKS the rules should work.

And seriously, everything you described? It isn't even abusing RAW or TFG play. It's just called tactical play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:

 UsdiThunder wrote:

I find 'gamey' to be a term used to describe things in games that doesn't feel realistic
Things you need to do to get an advantage using the rules that doesn't make sense in reality

Ironically, you listed several ways which 40k is truly "gamey", I especially like how a 1 foot tall grot can completely stop a 20 foot tall rampaging carnifax, and theres nothing the carnifax can do about it
While if the same scenario played out in WM/H, that grot would literally be stepped on after a trample

Well, it's a wargame. It's never going to be completely realistic. It reminds me of several funny conversations I've had with people who use the whole 'this isn't realistic' argument to argue why things shouldn't work they do. No.1 being why artillery in WMH should be able to aim anywhere on the table and hit at full power all the time because that's more realistic, ranging down to the way how in dragon's maze, there's this little elf lady card that's stronger than most giants. -_-

DrDuckman wrote:
Yeah, well, since everyone here has been fanboying about the good things of Warmahordes , I'd like to point out a couple of issues that were not mentioned, just to keep a more balanced perspective here.

Saying out opinions on the strength of the system is hardly being a fanboy though. To be fair, i found a lot of your post quite offensive. its fine to point out the flaws in warmachine (and aye, there are a few) but youve been quite rude, and quite wrong in what you say.

DrDuckman wrote:

Fact is, Warmachine is by far the most gamey of all the wargames I play(6 at this point). By gamey, I mean it seems that WAAC mentality is encouraged, and rather expected from the game itself. It's a ruleset written for tournament players. This has the effect that a lot of the game is all about abusing RAW. Examples of this are having models charge their own faction in the back, because that way they can run a little further, or spacing out your squshy little infantry guys just so the big warjack cannot fit it's base past them to hit your backline, even though it CAN trample through your models. These are not rare examples of TFG play, like doing really broken spam lists in 40k, these are core concepts of the game play, that you need to use to compete in a FLAG.

This is flat out wrong. A rules set designed for tight, competitive play is not by definition WAAC. the Win at all costs mentality is certainly not pushed and expected. its written right there in Page 5. Dont use it as an excuse to be a douche. its a very aggressive game, but its grown up about it. its quite assertive. you are quite empowered in your ability to do stuff on the table-top. but you are certainly not encouraged to be WAAC. that kind of behaviour is flat out offensive, and it is as frowned on, and disliked within the WMH community as anywhere else.

Also, this notion that its about "abusing" RAW. the rules are what they are. crystal clear and tight. no ambiguities, no grey areas, no room for manoevre. you can or you cant. that simple. personally, i only find it a good thing to have an approach as they do. You mention charging and positioning effects. thats just standard play, and is as useable, depending on the rules, in any other game too. im sure you spread your models out to the max 2" coherency in 40k to minimise blast damage, right? ever try and block the exit hatches to a transport so they could disembark? again, 40k allows this. perfectly legal, documented and wielded by players. Ultimately, it ends up being the same difference really....
What bothers me most is the fact that you refer to these as broken TFG play. Im sorry, but how am i being a TFG by following clear, presise rules? How am i being a TFG by being smart with my positioning? Please, save the "TFG" terminology for someone who has earned it, like folks that noobstalk, or cheaters, not people playing the game.

DrDuckman wrote:

A similar tourney mentality goes with the models. Warmachine players do not generally allow proxies or extensive conversions, since they can't identify things at a glance otherwise. And ofcourse, people are far more expected to use the most powerful units and combinations they can find, instead of fluff lists. The only reason you dont see massive spam lists is because the system discourages them.

nice to tar us all with a generic brush, and make us out to be idiots too.

obviously ymmv, but most players i know are quite open to proxies (within reason - my doom reavers are converted to wield axes, and i've never had an issue in tournaments or in casual games-ultimately, conversions are encouraged, and TOs have the final say, and are generally quite accomodating) and quite encouraging of conversions. We most certainly can identify things at a glance, but we generally prefer to stick to the official line when it comes to games. Less hassle.

Also, this notion that people are expected to use powerful combos/units at the expense of fluff lists? again, i have to take issue with this. 40k players, as a general rule seem to see games in terms of either power units or fluff units. why cant they be both? some of the most powerful units/combos are amongst the most fluffy. you'll have to give me examples of how powerful lists are pushed at the expense of fluff lists. last time i checked, khador's winter guard, for example were not only the backbone of the army in terms of fluff, but are also extremely potent on the table top as well. So how am i doing it wrong by rolling this way?

as to spam lists - generally, spam isnt encouraged, but quite a lot of lists see 2 squads of something. kromac and 2X Woldstalkers is one. most circle lists see a lot of twin warpwolf stalkers. A lot of khador lists atm are seeing twin IFP/black dragon IFP lists with the news of the new IFP kovnik. Heck, you should see my tier 4 mad dogs of war list. 50points. 8 squads of doom reavers. and its a blast to play too.

DrDuckman wrote:

And that is really the main decision you must make before migrating to WM. Are you mainly a hobbist, or a gamer? Warmachine has a fantastic ruleset for competition, but it does not do much else. 40k, as GW keeps insisting, is more about having and pimping out models, and then having fun pitting them against each other.

you can be a hobbyist or a gamer? Not both?

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?98-Stormhammer-the-Assault-on-Sul
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?39264-Warjack-and-Warbeast-Conversion-Showcase
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?159088-The-Gestalt-Mammoth&highlight=mammoth

oh really?

Hmm, i guess me, and a large percentage of other WMH players have been doing it wrong all this time by both playing our game in tournaments, and being creative with our painting, modelling, and converting.

Hobbyists will always create. warmachine models are slightlyharder to customise (metal models), but certainly far from impossible, especially when used with third party bits. the hobby is only what you make of it. PP do a really good job of encouraging creative dioramas, creative scenery making, painting competitions and conversions through their NQ magazine, with relatively frequent themes and challenges for these.

Just getting into warmahordes myself, the way it was described to me is everything is broken, everything can do really cool awesome stuff and it is balanced because your opponent can do the same thing. As a WHFB player this is great since I end up leaving the cool dragon or giant at home because it cannot break steadfast and is likely to take a cannon ball to the head and die before it can do anything. I also like the idea of fewer models as a beastmen/ork player I gotta paint a lot of models. Also the games are quicker, no 2-3 hour games where my mind wants to blow up after.

Hargus56 wrote:
leaving the cool dragon ... at home

Oh hi Archangel I'm kidding, the one fella who runs it at my store has some horrific luck

Warmachine focuses a lot on a single models movement as opposed to 40K which is more squad based. Additionally in Warmachine there is an emphasis on model interaction (E.G model A grants X to model B). We see some of this in 40K but Warmachine is all about the interactions and the combos. As stated before the Warmachine rules are fairly solid and those that are not clear are FAQ or answered on their rules forum.
In regards to DrDuckmans Comments. Warmachine, at least in my area, does emphasize the bring your best attitude, I know I will. The key point here is that all the factions have a good chance of winning, albeit there are always some bad matchups. This is construed as WAAC by some, but really isn’t, its bring you’re A game and ill bring mine. Now does this mean that I am always bringing the same list? No, it just implies that I am going to play to the best of my abilities and I expect the same from you (Mutual Respect). As for the Abusing RAW, hell yes! If the rules say I can charge my own models, than I’m going to do it when it suits my plans. If I have to trample through my own dudes to reach the objective that wins the game…… Well you can’t make an omelet without breaking a couple eggs 

Saying a system encourages tfg behavior is a foolish statement. Just because a book tells me to give it my all doesn't mean I won't remind someone they forgot to activate something, or let them restart a units activation because they confused a rule. The flip side is true to. If I was a dbag, and the system explicitly stated dont be a dbag, you really think that would stop me from only playing opponents of low skill or cheating?

On the whole idea of "gamey" , i think that having a grot halt a big 12' raging beast is unrealistic as a huge beast could just brush past it and move on (a la le trample).

Personally i like the rules especially things like,

1. all base sizes have a uniform height , no penalising people for modelling (like this guy http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?116202-Khador-by-menace-with-quite-a-lot-of-pics)&highlight=kongquest )
2. complete each units turn sequentially, makes each unit important, not just shove your orks 12 up the board.
3. the lack of transports
4. MOst big ticket items (battle wagons - heh can't remember the name, and colossals) being not autowin buttons, in truth i think the best colossals for the factions are cygnar and (gasp) Khador , both are good and being a khador player the conquest adresses every issue that used to plague khador jacks (bar upkeep removal)

DrDuckman wrote:
Yeah, well, since everyone here has been fanboying about the good things of Warmahordes , I'd like to point out a couple of issues that were not mentioned, just to keep a more balanced perspective here.

Fact is, Warmachine is by far the most gamey of all the wargames I play(6 at this point). By gamey, I mean it seems that WAAC mentality is encouraged, and rather expected from the game itself. It's a ruleset written for tournament players. This has the effect that a lot of the game is all about abusing RAW. Examples of this are having models charge their own faction in the back, because that way they can run a little further, or spacing out your squshy little infantry guys just so the big warjack cannot fit it's base past them to hit your backline, even though it CAN trample through your models. These are not rare examples of TFG play, like doing really broken spam lists in 40k, these are core concepts of the game play, that you need to use to compete in a FLAG.

A similar tourney mentality goes with the models. Warmachine players do not generally allow proxies or extensive conversions, since they can't identify things at a glance otherwise. And ofcourse, people are far more expected to use the most powerful units and combinations they can find, instead of fluff lists. The only reason you dont see massive spam lists is because the system discourages them.

And that is really the main decision you must make before migrating to WM. Are you mainly a hobbist, or a gamer? Warmachine has a fantastic ruleset for competition, but it does not do much else. 40k, as GW keeps insisting, is more about having and pimping out models, and then having fun pitting them against each other.

Pretty much all opinion and perspective. Not really fact.

WM/H was written with those "loopholes" in mind as it was a game and rules first. Mentality is all in the eyes of the beholder. A person who is competitive at 40K will be competitive at WM. A person who likes chilled out fluffy games in 40K will play fluffy lists in WM.

I've never seen or heard of anyone being denied the use of an awesome conversion or even a reasonable proxy. I myself use a non-PP model as my squire and people see it and go "that's cool!" My brother uses an old Rackham model as his JR warcaster. Again, never an issue. You *might* have issues at a major tourney, but that would be expected to me. You are there to compete.

As for me, I am a hobbyist AND a gamer. I like a good tight ruleset and strategic game AND I like painting, converting, etc. PP stuff is a bit harder to customize than GW stuff, but if you take the time and energy to do it, it is appreciated that much more.

To kind of reiterate what some of the other posters have said, I, as a HOBBYIST and a GAMER think warmachine is definitley a good game to get into. The rules are clear and easy to understand. The minis are (for the most part) very good looking. And while you cant go super crazy with convertions and give a winter gaurd a rocket pack and expect people to let you use rules for it, conversions can still be done, and many awesome ones have. Its also nice to be able to guy a good sized, fairly competative army, including your rulebook, for a $250-300 pricetag, as opposed to GW's stuff, where that would just get you started on most of their armies... (and having 4 different WHFB armies, I can tell you that is definitly true... lol)

I played 40k for 10 Years
I have played Warmachine for 3 now I think.

I sadly wont Touch 40k again.

The Rules

There are so many rules loopholes and imbalances. It just leads to many Arguments. I go to one game store then another and they play rules completely different and so much is wrong.

I play Warmachine and rules mean what they say.


For The Armies of Both Games.
40k, you buy an ARmy, you get nothing new for 4-8 years, your rules get outdated and there is Major Codex Creep, if you want to be competitive at all, you have to keep up with the FOTM army.

For Warmachine, I can play any faction I want and can win, I get new models every year that change how my army plays.

If you look at the major tournies for warmachine, its usually the same people winning, not 100% army based.


The Models.
I love the both, they all look good, both have their turds.


And to add in. Warmachine is not WAAC, Players are WAAC, it hits both Game systems. I play Warmachine Casually and for fun. I can have fun Losing.

DrDuckman wrote:
Fact is, Warmachine is by far the most gamey of all the wargames I play(6 at this point). By gamey, I mean it seems that WAAC mentality is encouraged, and rather expected from the game itself. It's a ruleset written for tournament players. This has the effect that a lot of the game is all about abusing RAW.

I'm sorry, but I've never really been able to understand the rationale behind these arguments.

For starters, WAAC is not a ruleset mentality, it's a player mentality. You are no less capable of doing "fluff" lists in WM than you are in 40K.

Second, I don't see how making a rule set for tournament players is a bad thing on any level. Ensuring your game is balanced and holds up at high levels of play is going to mean there's a lot of depth there for people to learn and discover for years, and that the system is balanced enough that people won't lose based on things as stupid as faction choice alone. Whether you play "for fun" or play to win every game as decisively as possible, no one has fun playing a game that they lost before the models even hit the table.

And finally, abusing RAW makes no sense to me. You either play RAW or you're not playing the actual game. Sure, if you want to discuss house rules with your gaming group that's one thing, but charging your own models to gain extra distance is no more abusing RAW than firing a lascannon at a Hive Tyrant to crack it's armour save. But the difference between 40K and WM/Hordes is that the rule set it well written and tight enough in the latter, not to mention maintained well enough when issues do arise that you won't run into nearly as many situations where two people with two different interpretations might both be just as right. As for GW's insistence that their game is about having cool models and then having fun pitting them against each other as an after thought, I always felt that was more an excuse to try and justify how sloppy their rules and codices are. They're not very good at making the game side of things so instead of improving they try and convince people it's intentional.

 Surtur wrote:
In 40k dreadnaughts are kinda lame really. They just walk up and do normal stuff.

If dreadnoughts could do power attacks in 40k I'd probably start playing again.

Personally I find that changing or adding a couple of models really changes the dynamic of games, much more than it does in 40k or fantasy. Though as an outsider I really do like the new look of WFB armies with the huge units, it's just a shame that most of the models are little more than casualty markers.

First, The game is designed around balance. a balanced game can be played just as easily casually as it can competetivly.

Inherently that means, the biggest difference is that in 40k the better ARMY will usually win, in warmachine the better PLAYER will usually win. It also means much more variety in competitive builds and casters.

Some people interpret that as the "gamier" player will usually win, but I think that is because he happens to be the one that knows the rules better. Some people can't handle losing their way through the entry curve, and that's a very easy, convenient (and sometimes true) excuse on why they don't want to play.

However, I know plenty of people who will stomp your face in without even getting iffy on the beardiness scale.

40k is very fun if you can find a like minded opponent who is willing to muddle through the grey areas of the game, warmachine isn't dependent on that.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
In 40k dreadnaughts are kinda lame really. They just walk up and do normal stuff.

If dreadnoughts could do power attacks in 40k I'd probably start playing again.

Personally I find that changing or adding a couple of models really changes the dynamic of games, much more than it does in 40k or fantasy. Though as an outsider I really do like the new look of WFB armies with the huge units, it's just a shame that most of the models are little more than casualty markers.

I know, and how to really play it (at least from what I have seen) is take the biggest unit you can to get the Hordes rule, with only of a couple small support units, and hope to god your opponent does not cast his/hers best spell to wipe out best unit. Kind of gets repetitive and boring, but that is my opinion on it.