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.

Me and the wife currently play WFB and are looking to branch out into a skirmish game. Sell me on the premise or gameplay of warmachine or hordes if you will.

Pros and cons, what you love or hate about either one.

Warmachine:

1) Steampunkish.

2) It's character driven, story centric.

3) YOUR JACKS CAN FREAKIN PICK PEOPLE UP AND THROW THEM WITH BOTH HANDS!

Aerethan wrote:Me and the wife currently play WFB and are looking to branch out into a skirmish game. Sell me on the premise or gameplay of warmachine or hordes if you will.

Pros and cons, what you love or hate about either one.

Pro:

Warmachine and Hordes are actually the same game with different factions
and a different game mechanic for each.

Con:

Balance perceptions about the two games. They certainly play different. And
specific abilities are keyed to Warmachine while others are definitely anti-
Hordes. If you bring a model with Anti-Hordes abilities, it might not be as
useful against a Warmachine army.

Pro:

Rolling release schedule. Models are released for every faction whenever
they release an expansion book. If they release an expansion book for
Warmachine, all Warmachine factions get new rules. If they release an
expansion book for Hordes, all Hordes factions get new rules.

Con:

You're always getting new stuff and they're always designing ways to
encourage to bring stuff you might have overlooked before. It feels like
you're constantly trying to keep up to date on both your rules and the
rules of others.

Pro:

A Checkmate win condition. Eliminating the enemy leader ends the game
most of the time, so no matter how badly you're being rolled it's not a
six turn slow death. If they leave themselves open, you can snatch
victory from the jaws of defeat.

Con:

This kind of play encourages some linear thinking that some players have
a hard time getting over. Some don't see the value of anything that
doesn't directly lend itself to assassinating the enemy general.


There's more. Maybe I'll respond later.

Keep in mind I'll mostly be playing against my wife, so we can avoid the liner thinking of "kill target x".

Interesting that they are interchangeable.

I’ll mention the 4 things that I think offer the most merit about PP.

1. Privateer Press actually give a damn about the customers. Future releases are not a secret with PP. The team frequently post on the PP forums. The RRP for PP product prices do not vary between different countries.

2. PP maintains actual balance with their rules. The rules are frequently updated via online errata and their No Quarter magazine. PP is not faction biased either and thus when PP releases an expansion like Wrath, all factions get new models and rules.

3. The Wm/H storyline is not static and continuously expanded. Story updated are done via expansions like Wrath and their No Quarter magazine. PP is not faction biased when it comes to the storyline and all factions get equal writer attention and character development.

4. The rules for Wm/H are fairly neat and tidy. Low amount of models required to start up with and the rules are flexible enough in that they give the player a lot of options (whilst not overburdening the player with excess rules).

speaking personally, the models are what got me into warmahordes. This is personal, arbitrary, and impossible to express to another person, because you either like the models or you don't.

What got me to STAY, however, is the tightness and bottom-up construction of the rule-set. There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation, and you can tell by reading the rulebook that PP wanted the rules to be airtight. Whenever a certain term is used, it always has exactly one very specific meaning. For example, the requirement for a model to be "within" a certain distance or area *always* means having any part, no matter how small a sliver, of it's base in said distance/area. "completely within", on the other hand, *always* refers to having the entirety of a model's base in an area.

Similar to Defenestrator:

Pro:

Models in a faction vary along many different lines. I was
immediately drawn to the Protectorate of Menoth because it
had Spear Shield Temple Guardians, Knights with two handed
swords, and Zealots wielding Holy Hand Grenades.

Con:

It's not always easy to build armies that stick to a single
thematic model or unit. The different model types can be
overwhelming to a newcomer.

I just finished my first 25 point cryx army, and by swapping out my warcaster and one jack it now plays like a totally different army (although its still very cryxian in character if that makes any sense).

Something I've discovered with the models is that they seem to actually be designed with a painter in mind, and to be viewed from above on the gaming table besides. Just something I never got from the WH models.

Just one example in my limited experience-The glowing green necrotite furnaces on my jacks are located towards the top of the models so the contrast between the bright green and the dark metals is easily visible from above for example. Additionally the surfaces of said furnaces have the little metal ribs between the flat areas of the surface that make washing the areas to smooth out your gradients really easy, and cool looking.

I started my minis wargaming "career" playing Warhammer.

Between the two game systems, there's only one real area of YMMV: whether you like the look of the models or not. GW plastics are amazing, but PP metals are pretty darn good.

Beyond that one area, I've found WM/H to be far superior in every single facet of gameplay and hobby. Every single one.

No spam, balanced rules, no rule ambiguity, balanced factions, rewarding of intelligent gameplay.

That said, there are some areas that don't look "as good" at first. At low point games, the warcaster/warlock is hugely leveraged. There are "more" powerful warcasters/warlocks and "less". In those small point games the ones better suited to assasssination and control/denial have an edge over the ones better suited to support. In my opinion this largely disappears once you get to 50 pt game sizes, but rarely does anyone start that big.

There is also the fact that this is a character-centric game with established rules. You can't make your 'own' Lord with characterful background reflected in equipment. Your options for playing are all pre-built, and in that sense you really can't play 'whatever you want'. Running a bunch of 'whatever you like the models for' generally won't build into the synergies and combo-abilities that make for a good army (hence many people compare WM/H to CCGs like Magic).

The rules generall mean what they say.

You can play any faction, and not have "the outdated worthless book" Every faction is viable.

Cost is alot less.


You can spend $100 and try the game and have a good start, starter boxes come with partial rules to try it.

The Defenestrator wrote:speaking personally, the models are what got me into warmahordes. This is personal, arbitrary, and impossible to express to another person, because you either like the models or you don't.

What got me to STAY, however, is the tightness and bottom-up construction of the rule-set. There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation, and you can tell by reading the rulebook that PP wanted the rules to be airtight. Whenever a certain term is used, it always has exactly one very specific meaning. For example, the requirement for a model to be "within" a certain distance or area *always* means having any part, no matter how small a sliver, of it's base in said distance/area. "completely within", on the other hand, *always* refers to having the entirety of a model's base in an area.

This. The models and story were cool, but what really kept my interest is the tight rules and relatively balanced factions.

The cost generally is less, but only becasue you do not need to buy as many books and models. One a model to model basis they can be as much or more than GW. But the WM/H models are much, much cooler. I got into the game thinking I could use my mordhiem models. But the PP stuff is so much better I don't think I have used any.

Being new to the game, I like the low $ cost and low model count (quicker assembly and easier transport). I think it is far more new player friendly that WH. I also enjoy the shorter length of the games (means more games in one night potentially) However, I don't care for the game being won or lost based on killing the caster(so far of the 9ish games I have played or watched they all were won by killing casters.) I also prefer getting some type of defense or armor roll, I know having only one person rolling speeds the game up, but I like feeling like I have a chance to affect what happens when someone attacks me, it feels a little detatched to me when your under attack, compared to WH at least.

Brazila wrote:Being new to the game, I like the low $ cost and low model count (quicker assembly and easier transport). I think it is far more new player friendly that WH. I also enjoy the shorter length of the games (means more games in one night potentially) However, I don't care for the game being won or lost based on killing the caster(so far of the 9ish games I have played or watched they all were won by killing casters.) I also prefer getting some type of defense or armor roll, I know having only one person rolling speeds the game up, but I like feeling like I have a chance to affect what happens when someone attacks me, it feels a little detatched to me when your under attack, compared to WH at least.

Have you tried to use the scenarios yet? They change up how the game is played a bit (by that i mean there is another objective/way to win instead of caster kill).

As to the defensive bit. I would say the best thing you could do would be to cast either defense or armor buffs or look into casters whos feats are more defensive in nature, pStryker comes to mind. There are also certain models with defensive abilities - defensive strike, counter charge/slam, grudge etc.

I agree with casper, adding def or arm to a model or using defensive/reactive abilities are the way to go. You can get models with tough for a 5+invulnerable equivalent, but with a lower model count it can be much more difficult to reach the expected average rolls.
As for me, the dice gods hate me, and I hate them right back. I feel much more comfortable adding measurable numbers to my chances of living than simply rolling more dice. It generally works that way for offense as well. Rather than add more attacks/rolls/rerolls you add to the base stats or add a third die to a roll that is 2d6 by default.

I would say that is a Pro as well -you are still playing the odds with dice, but there are more predictable probabilities and more ways to directly affect your chances of success.

Brazila wrote:Being new to the game, I like the low $ cost and low model count (quicker assembly and easier transport). I think it is far more new player friendly that WH. I also enjoy the shorter length of the games (means more games in one night potentially) However, I don't care for the game being won or lost based on killing the caster(so far of the 9ish games I have played or watched they all were won by killing casters.) I also prefer getting some type of defense or armor roll, I know having only one person rolling speeds the game up, but I like feeling like I have a chance to affect what happens when someone attacks me, it feels a little detatched to me when your under attack, compared to WH at least.

How is losing to a caster kill any different then say.. in 40k.. you can win the game on a die roll for when the game ends.. or a killpoint game when your going 2nd and you have to kill 1 rhino to be ahead... or when you get half your tanks knocked off the table before you even get to have a turn ?


Caster kill adds a very good aspect to the game.. its your main commander Like a warboss in a army of grots..

Its an extra asset to the game to me.. Objectives work great, but.. if you can kill their leader.. that works also, makes people have to play smart with their warcasters...

If caster kill did not matter in objective games.. i would just run pfeora in with engine of destruction and take my 7x PS 17 Mat 10 attacks and not worry about it. It balances the heavy hitting warcasters and the support warcasters in objectives.

The not getting an armor roll used to bother me. but then i got to thinking.. they have to hit my defense.. not just static i roll this to hit no matter what for every attack.

If you really want armor saves.. play troolbloods and you get a 5+ tough roll for almost everything.

Then again.. im used to playing IG and never get armor saves that matter anyway as almost everything ignores it.

Thanks for the thread, guys. I'm finding it interesting reading as well. (I've never played WM or Hordes).

I've found the game to be alot like a game of Magic the Gathering or chess.

The chess part is the caster kill. You are often playing to get or avoid the check-mate.

The Magic part is that your army needs to work together. You can't throw random cards in a deck and expect it to work. In WM/H your army is the same way. You need to get units that work together to create something more powerful.

I came to WM from 40k and the caster kill part was hard for me. I was used to tossing my HQ into the fight like any other unit. In Wm you can't treat them like just another unit. One thing that did help me was getting a caster who can play back. I picked up Seige and he worked well because he could play a bit farther back and shoot badguys. I still like casters who tend to play back and shoot or use arcnodes.

Pros:

The rules
The updates (are often, not a decade in between)
Fan interaction
Customer Service

Cons:

It's a pre-buit universe, you can't make custom characters




We used to play a great deal of caster kill only games--now we've moved on to scenarios. Even though caster kill still wins the game, the scenarios are great fun and really change things up. We played 40k and Fantasy for years--we've switched over and haven't picked up a 40k model yet.

Mordekiem wrote:
The Magic part is that your army needs to work together. You can't throw random cards in a deck and expect it to work.

Actually, you CAN, just not in MTG Organized play.

One of the best casual play decks my friend built was out of our group's spare cards. He grabbed anything green we had that produced counters, tossed them in with some mana and rocked face all night. This was back in early '99, though, so the game may be way different now

Platuan4th wrote:

Mordekiem wrote:
The Magic part is that your army needs to work together. You can't throw random cards in a deck and expect it to work.

Actually, you CAN, just not in MTG Organized play.

One of the best casual play decks my friend built was out of our group's spare cards. He grabbed anything green we had that produced counters, tossed them in with some mana and rocked face all night. This was back in early '99, though, so the game may be way different now

That it not a random deck. He choose a single color (with a theme) and added mana to it. It is a theme deck, not a random deck. Go grab 40 random cards out of ALL his cards and see how it works. And when I mean random I mean random. Mix the lands in with the spells and draw 40. Let me know how that one works.

Anyways, it is the same idea with WM. you need to plan how your units will work together. Some armies and units moreso than others, but rarely can you just grab 35 points of models and expect them to work well together.