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.

Hello forum! So, I have been into 40k for about two years now. One of my friends wants to get into table-top war gaming and I suggested that maybe we can try a non-40k game because I am honestly a little tired of 40k and GW. Warmachines is a strong consideration for this.

My question is this (even though this is probably asked a lot): What are the similarities and differences to 40k? I am talking everything from price to rules to company support. Any advice is appreciated!

Pricing: starts cheaper, the more in to it you get, the closer the price gets, due to competition relying on variation. Cheaper than large scale games, way more expensive than traditional small scale games. I'd argue that this middle size is partially responsible for PP's success, due to a relative vacuum at that size.

which leads to...

Armies: much smaller, with only outliers getting to similar sizes. However, your commander vastly alters the army's playstyle in many cases, so you're more likely to need to rotate more pieces if you're interested in competitive environments or more active friendly ones. PP, like GW's apocalypse some time back, has been making bigger (and more expensive) pieces and rules for playing bigger games. Unlike apocalypse, the big pieces are legal in small games. The merit of this choice is debated.

again, leading to...

Variety: you don't get options like in 40k-- essentially everything operates like special characters, with set wargear etc. This was originally limiting, but I quickly got used to it. This does notably make army changes tend to cost more, as you're more likely swapping out a squad than a weapon.

Rules: the strongest part of the game. While it's not my favorite rules set, it's one of the best written, and pretty well balanced. At this point, I'd argue they're less flavorful than 40k (though they didn't used to be) but are clearer.

Objectives: almost every game I've seen or played will at some point devolve into trying to kill the enemy commander. Some like this, I find it got pretty repetitive in the long run. If you like narrative or involved objectives, this game isn't for you.

Setting: if you like 40k's vast setting, prepare for disappointment. There isn't room for your homebrew character, and, to riff a certain tagline, "The universe is a kinda' small place, and, whatever happens, your special character will be missed." However, your special character has more plot armor than Super Man, so don't expect them to die, and don't expect them to give you suspense. There are also 8 billion other character models, so you may not get much for yours unless you're lucky. (Yes, I'm bitter. WM has one of my favorite settings, but the overall narrative, through writing being compromised for marketability, and general writing blunders, has, in my opinion, been thoroughly ruined.)

 Weeheee wrote:
Hello forum! So, I have been into 40k for about two years now. One of my friends wants to get into table-top war gaming and I suggested that maybe we can try a non-40k game because I am honestly a little tired of 40k and GW. Warmachines is a strong consideration for this.

My question is this (even though this is probably asked a lot): What are the similarities and differences to 40k? I am talking everything from price to rules to company support. Any advice is appreciated!

Price:

Warmachine is cheaper. Much cheaper. It's not outside the realm of "Nerd Hobby Expensive" by any stretch. However for some factions (mainly those who feature in the two player stater sets) you can get a functional list at 35 points for under $100 USD*. Where 35 points is moderate sized game, and one of the two frequently played at events. 35 and 50 point games are the most common, with 75 points tending to be the upper end of what is played seriously.

You can expect to price point of about $5-9 per point on most types of models if you're buying at decent prices. You can exptrapolate the price to play from the points ranges above. Granted this rule isn't universal some models do cost much more per point, if they're big models that don't provide as many points. You can also expect to pay more if you're buying from your LGS, and this doesn't cover rulebooks. However those tend to be mostly optional if you have someone to teach you the game. The two-player starter comes with a miniature version of the core rulebook with all the same rules content as the big one.

Rules:

They're written in a far clearer and coherent manner. There are also a lot more of them. Just about every model in Warmachine has a least one special rule if not more. Very often these rules are unique to them or at least not widespread enough to be in the core book. This means interactions can get complex. This doesn't mean there are a whole lot of ambiguous hard to resolve rules, just the opposite as generally speaking there is going to be a specific correct way to do it. It's just that there are a lot of the cases to know and they can be a bit opaque to a newbie.

Think Magic: The Gathering if you've ever played that. Simple basics but a lot of edge cases. You'll never really get into discussion about "RAW vs RAI" in warmachine it just doesn't exist.

Company Support:

I'm not much into the tournament scene but I hear PP is pretty good about this. They provide all sorts of official badges and trophies (at a cost), to TOs. There are large events and leagues with special models. They seem really invested.

On the customer support end, I've had good luck. I get my parts replaced no questions asked when needed, though delivery isn't the speediest in the world.

Models

The plastics aren't as good as GW, the details seem much fuzzier to me.The metals are the same quality. The Asethic is a matter of taste and i it didn't really like it to begin with, but it's really grown on me.

Don't expect poseability to any real extent, and there is zero customization in the game.all models have set equipment loadouts that can't be changed. There isn't any real conversion scene to speak of, people do it but it just isn't a big "Thing" the way it is for 40k.


Releases

It's a different model than GW. For both Hordes & Warmachine, models are introduced as groups in expansions. Each expansion has multiple models for each faction in that game, and the collections are expanded evenly. You don't really have "Codex: Cygnar" the way you do in 40k. There is a Forces of Cygnar book, but that is just a collection of the models released up to that point with a healthy helping of fluff and painting guides. Since all models come with their stat cards you don't really have to buy any of the books, even the expansions.

They also release some stuff through No Quarter magazine, though not as much.

Gameplay

The model counts and boards are smaller (4'x4' is standard). Scenarios at least some of the newer ones are more complicated, and may involve totally unique rules or models. Board states can change dramatically in a single move, and the game can move quickly because of this. It can also grind to halt if people aren't as well versed in the rules.

Models all take actions, attacks, etc... individually and you have a bit more freedom in the formations of your units (cohesion is within CMD inches of your leader, rather than requiring any distance between grunts). Almost everything works off 2d6+STAT for determine results, against a static enemy stat of some sort. Though there are various ways to add dice to rolls for more effect (getting 4d6 on damage rolls is not uncommon). There are of course exceptions, but those don't really need to be covered in an overview.

EDIT: The big thing

Warlocks/Warcasters: These are the guys at the heart of the game. You need one in every list without exception and they have huge sweeping abilities that can change the way an army is played. They have spells and single use abilities called "Feats" that can dramatically change the performance of your (or your enemies models). Two identical lists with different Warcasters at the helm can play very differently. This can even mean an list that is awesome with one caster, is near garbage with another - it might just have models that they can't support or can't support them.

They are also a single point of failure as no matter what the scenario if your caster goes down you lose the game.






*Granted you buy from online vendors and split the starter set with someone.

One thing I think that got overlooked was codex creep is almost non-existent and continuous equal releases. Neither Wrath, Domination, nor Colossals have overshadowed previous releases in any significant way. Battle engines had a relatively small impact in gameplay in terms of countering them as they essentially fit the role of an alternative warjack. Colossals have had a bigger impact, but are still easily countered by dog piling equal points or less of heavies on them. And as I mentioned before, PP tries to keep all armies on the same page in terms of releases. Scyrah has been getting more lately because it was released after everything else and needs some catching up. Other than that I think the previous two posts cover everything.

 Surtur wrote:
One thing I think that got overlooked was codex creep is almost non-existent and continuous equal releases. Neither Wrath, Domination, nor Colossals have overshadowed previous releases in any significant way. Battle engines had a relatively small impact in gameplay in terms of countering them as they essentially fit the role of an alternative warjack. Colossals have had a bigger impact, but are still easily countered by dog piling equal points or less of heavies on them. And as I mentioned before, PP tries to keep all armies on the same page in terms of releases. Scyrah has been getting more lately because it was released after everything else and needs some catching up. Other than that I think the previous two posts cover everything.

I would pretty strongly disagree with this. While the raw power of some earlier pieces keeps them usable, new options provide a lot of flexibility and power, and many unit attachments are considered essential to their units. The difference is that the power creep is much more subtle, and that it doesn't have the problem of the most current army being the top dog.

I think it's a better system, but gaming systems are inherently built around power creep, to a degree: a certain amount of power in new pieces keeps players buying the next shiny model.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
One thing I think that got overlooked was codex creep is almost non-existent and continuous equal releases. Neither Wrath, Domination, nor Colossals have overshadowed previous releases in any significant way. Battle engines had a relatively small impact in gameplay in terms of countering them as they essentially fit the role of an alternative warjack. Colossals have had a bigger impact, but are still easily countered by dog piling equal points or less of heavies on them. And as I mentioned before, PP tries to keep all armies on the same page in terms of releases. Scyrah has been getting more lately because it was released after everything else and needs some catching up. Other than that I think the previous two posts cover everything.

I would pretty strongly disagree with this. While the raw power of some earlier pieces keeps them usable, new options provide a lot of flexibility and power, and many unit attachments are considered essential to their units. The difference is that the power creep is much more subtle, and that it doesn't have the problem of the most current army being the top dog.

I think it's a better system, but gaming systems are inherently built around power creep, to a degree: a certain amount of power in new pieces keeps players buying the next shiny model.

I think "Power Creep" tends to mean "Newer is Better" and this isn't the case in Warmachine & Hordes. Certainly new and powerful things do come out, but that doesn't mean you're going to be missing out if you don't have the releases. In fact you can still build lists for each faction that are perfectly viable just with models from the original prime release. For example, Menoth:

The thing is, Warmachine actually has a fair amount of design space to play with. Later releases tend to be pretty good at not stepping on the toes of previous models too badly, they can just do something different. I'll grant you I've only been playing since MkII (i just wasn't lucky enough to be introduced to the game before that), but thumbing through the game's release history there is plenty of old models (Flameguard without UA) that stand up just fine in the face of new hotness (Errants with UA).

It seems more to me like UAs and the like have been used more as Patches to things that didn't work originally than as straight up enchantments, or as nice little side options.

It's not like I'm going to be putting the Avatar on the Shelf to make way for the Scourge of Heresy. The Sanctifier is nice but it'll make into less lists than the Reckoner. The Judicator is cool, but I only see a couple of casters I'd really want to bring it with. My favorite caster is pSeverius who has been with the game from the start.

I don't want to get in to this debate again... suffice to say that I believe that all games based around expansions suffer from (or gain from, depending on your perspective) power creep, and that Warmachine is no glowing exception to the rule.

Comparing 40k to warmachine is something that. as frequently as it is asked, is very difficult to do. Both games use miniatures, tape measures, and D6s. Both games have each player play out his entire turn before the opponent gets his own turn. From there the similarities dwindle.

Warmachine has smaller forces with shorter ranges jockeying for position near the middle of the play area and very few attacks can reach the enemy deployment. The longest ranged weapons in the game are 20" artillery and 14" is regarded as long ranged while 9" charges are average. The game is also built with offense as an inherently stronger tactic than defense -that isn't to say there are no defensive pieces, only that the average model will not survive a charge from it's contemporary. Specialized defensive models have their places and are desirable in scenario play, but getting charged is still very bad.
The game tempo can swing wildly from a slow attrition game with a distinct advantage for player A to swift and brutal comeback from player B. The typical back and forth gameplay is a very enjoyable feature of the game. This is also important since the game gets more exciting as it reaches the climax of the battle rather than less. Openings appear as battle lines are worn away and you devise a plan to go in for the killstroke.
Army composition is vastly different with spam usually being a very bad idea and even owning more than two of any one thing is often very redundant. You will typically see one to three jacks, one to three solos, and one to three infantry units in any given list with other things like cavalry and battle engines finding their niches as well. Usually what your warcaster is good at determines your build but the system is so free-form you won't find any cookie-cutter lists lifted from the internet -even if you do chances are the player won't have the expertise to field it the way a tournament pro would. On that note, it should be mentioned that personal preference and play experience go a very long way in this game. It may be surprising to some people to find that every warmachine and hordes faction short of Retribution and Minions, the two newest factions, have a model range deeper than any 40k army. They may not have variable wargear but most factions are 100+ entrees deep.
Neither the models nor the rules support customization. There is no wargear to buy and no extra parts provided other than those found for alternative warjacks. You will typically own two of anything at the most so vast arrays of interchangeable parts to personalize them become far less important. I do wish there were more conversions, but as more spare parts begin circulating from plastic heavy warjack kits they are starting to show up a little more frequently. Again, the models do not come with any decorative extras so this hampers the ability to build up a "bitz box" of any significance. This all sounds much worse than it really is, most of the time you'll only have one of any given model and won't need to embellish anything.
As for the community, well that varies from place to place. I've heard a few horror stories of really bad warmachine communities, but most of the time it is the same people that play 40k and fantasy enjoying their other game. The game is built to weed out the wiggle room in the rules and rules lawyers are generally replaced entirely by highstrung jerks (yea, sorry to say but every game has it's own style of jerks.)

Also, you should look at the sister-game hordes if you have a hard time choosing factions. It is really little more than a second set of four more armies with slightly different internal mechanics. The two games are wholly compatible.

Takes a bit of getting used to, but I'm finding I enjoy playing wm/h more than I did 40k. Its nice that every army is different, each match is different, and there's always something new (casters, units, etc.). I also find the back and forth of the game is throughly enjoyable; very rarely do you feel overwhelmed and that there's no way to win. Heck, I've had 10 models left and my opponents squeeked a win using his last 2 models. Its not uncommon for a single bad move to lose you a game; wm/h is more about tactics and positioning than powerful models like 40k, even if you do need to bring "something for everyone"

Pro's for me.. best way to do this.

#1: You can play any Army, and not suffer from Old army Complex on if you can win games.

#2 Games take less models, less models means cheaper to make an army.

#3 You have a variety of models compared to 50 of the same.

#4 Your "leader" *Warcaster* actually matters if he dies.

#5 Games go back and forth, its rarely a stomp fest with equal skilled players.

#6 Rules are tightly Written, they say what they mean. Rules questions can be answered via PP Rules forums, by specific rules people who can contact PP. And what they say goes, no more 10 page rules debate on how the wording works with what it does.

I think my favorite part is not painting the same dudes over and over again.

You still run into that with units of 10 where only 3 of the sculpts will be different...

3 out of 10 with the same pose isn't bad.

Its still no 80+ ork boys or 40 space marines with 6-7 different poses.

 m14 wrote:
You still run into that with units of 10 where only 3 of the sculpts will be different...

I'm actually okay with that.

Warmachine is an excellent system. Its also much more tactical then GW games are.

Its not the models you have but how you use the models you have in tandem with each other.


As for the rules, the base mechanics are relativly easy. You only need 4 dice to play the game.

Another nice thing is that the models actually come with their cards so you don't need the faction book to play. But cards are pretty much mandatory.

Coming from someone who played warhammer fantasy (lizardmen) and warhammer 40K (Necrons), I think my favorite part about warmachine/hordes is that you could play the same exact list against the same exact list over and over again, and the battle would pan out completely different nearly every time. Army composition is important in that you want to build a list that works well together, but, you do not win games based on how well you build your army, you win games based on how good you are.

I had several thousands of points worth of lizardmen and necrons and I havent brushed the dust off them since starting warmachine/hordes.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I don't want to get in to this debate again... suffice to say that I believe that all games based around expansions suffer from (or gain from, depending on your perspective) power creep, and that Warmachine is no glowing exception to the rule.

You may not want to debate, but there is a fair amount of theoretical and practical evidence to support the claim of relatively low power creep. There are many battle engines I wouldn't touch or are very marginal compared to equal points of jacks or infantry. The biggest hit out of Wrath and Domination for me were many of the odds and ends like unit attachments and caster attachments. The impact of battle engines on play as far as I could tell was very minimal and it still is. Colossals have done some meta alteration mostly due to their nature of being even bigger warjacks, but they are easily handled by what is already available. We haven't seen any major game breakers like longfang spam that are creating tournament tiers and there is a fair amount of rock paper scissors to help combat that. The game isn't perfect, there are still Cryx and Legion as top contenders for most wins, but it's a lot better than what 40k offered in 5th.

I started over the summer coming from 40k and I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. PP does a fine job in supporting tournament and league play. They mix it up a lot, in fact the latest league encourages you to build cavernous terrain models can fit into, and that is the only way to earn that specific badge. Last season was to have 5 different war casters painted and played.

I also like that you have two different games with Warmachine/hordes that are interchangeable, aka, they can be used against each other rather well. Imagine being able to use a csm army vs a fantasy empire army, pretty cool in my humble opinion.

I would highly recommend it, you can get started pretty cheaply and if you and a buddy were going to start together, you could either starter set and have a pretty decent start for under 55 bucks ea.

I switched a few years ago and haven't looked back. Even 6th ed 40k I glanced at it and went, "meh".

I think one of the biggest things for me is how tight and well written the rules are. There is just no comparison. You read the PP rules forums and it is all about clarification, not how many ways can you interpret something. And if there is a rules discrenpency then PP will address it. GW rules forums...not so much.

I played 40K for about 15 years and gave GW tons of my money simply because there were not better options for games out there. For years the quality of their game and product have been going down. Finally PP has come up with something better. There are also some other gaming companies that have some really good games, too. But PP is the most popular.

Also, speaking of money, GW is in another country and PP is about 30 mins from my house. So I like to support the local team. Especially when the product they put out is simply better.

And as others have already stated, I like the models better, the more tactical/intellectual game play, etc. About the only thing I miss from GW is their plastic squads that you could really customize and have tons of bits for. But PP is starting to get more plastic kits and other ways to mix up your models. And they do have alternate sculpts of quite a few warcasters and some solos and heavies. And lately I have seen some very cool mods like the LED Stormwall and Stormstrider.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I don't want to get in to this debate again... suffice to say that I believe that all games based around expansions suffer from (or gain from, depending on your perspective) power creep, and that Warmachine is no glowing exception to the rule.

I agree with this to a point. It isn't always the case that newer is better (I can think of alot of newer units or jacks that I wasn't excited about because they didn't fit my list, the meta, or my favorite casters) but new big pieces (jacks and warbeasts) can often make the older versions obsolete (after Escalation there was never a reason to take a Slayer, for instance.) However with that, new solos, UA's and warcasters/locks can make you look at old pieces in a fresh way. If you have an older piece that remains unused because of newer models and a new solo comes out that increases its efficiency or interacts with its rules in a new way, you will start taking the old models again.

To me the game combines aspects of 40k, WHFB, and Magic the Gathering. You have squad based manuver warfare (40k) where terrain, magical resource allocation, and facing matters (WHFB) with units and rules interacting in interesting ways to pull off combinations of attacks to increase strength, defense, or first strike capabilites (MtG)

It's cheap in the short term, as less money gets you playing AND competitive, but more expensive in the long term if you are some sort of idiot completist (me) super competitive (ditto) or like multiple armies (:sigh: 3 for 3.)

On releases, WM/H releases BLISTERINGLY fast compared to 40k. Everyone gets a new release every month nearly, either for models in books not yet released or catching up on books that are already out. If a new expansion book comes out early and your favorite model releases at the end of that books release cycle, you could be waiting 6+ months to get the one thing that you wanted from it. Sure you can use the rules from the book and proxy with mates, but that model is not allowed to affect the tournament scene until it actually streets. Right now I've been waiting since July to get my grubby mitts on a new warcaster that makes my side army VERY good (at last) and it still doesn't officially release until Wednesday, even though I can't get it until friday, since no game store in 100miles gets its shipments any sooner than friday. (I had to endure this for Kreugar, the Tharn Bloodtrackers, and one or two other models as well.) This bonus is also its worst part. If you play competitively, you not only have to keep abreast of what new toys you want, but also the new combos everyone ELSE is going to be using, too! This can get exhausting when you have to do it all the time, but is just fine if you are a casual player or have a smaller, poorer, or less competitive meta.

No faction trumps any other (Except Legion V Circle. Still.) so playing for looks/playstyle will net you immense satisfaction. The tournament scene can shift often as people continue trying new tactics to get the upper hand, so adaptability is the order of the day, both in list design and preparation the change parts of your army to meet new threats.

The rules are very solidly written, with constant updates and support. At first things seem a little vague and offputting when you try to settle rules disputes, but it is important to remember that almost every word used on a card has a specific definition. If a card says "When disabled" and another says "when destroyed" this is not a flippant word choice. Both terms mean distinct things. So while on the surface the rules are very straight forward, the number of them makes their interactions complex, meaning that a consistant glossary was essential to success. They have handled this brilliantly, IMO. It's no "Advanced Squad Leader," but the rules are complex enough to challenge vets, easy enough to be quickly grasped by novices, and organized well enough to be checked on the fly if you can't unravel a rules interaction.

The biggest downside to me is the Character issue. There is no way to build your own commander and build up their storyline. You have to stick with the special characters provided. This did turn off a few friends who prefer making up stories as they game and hate plot armored characters. I would certainly love a suppliment that allowed us to build our own Warcaster/lock but I understand the level of complexity that this would add to the game. I'd prefer that over swapping out weapon sets for units though, surely. In this game there's no real point to having weapon or gear options.

Nagashek- may I suggest for those friends that want to customize their casters the Role playing game. Then you can use a model that closely resembles their concept and still have battles. Technically it won't be warmahordes but you could still use the figures and the basic rules with the added spice of the Iron Kingdoms roleplaying game.

I have no idea whether there is a conversion table in the RP game but if there is it's right up your friend's alley.

Legion vs Circle? Who would win?

If your talking the Battlebox, Legion has a bit of an advantage...

In general Legion is a hard counter for Circle, as it negates all of the defensive bonuses Circle relies on for survivability before they ever get there and, ironically enough, is better in forests than Circle is. >.<

Account for skill, list, etc, of course, but all things being equal? Yeah. Ouch. Luckily Circle really shines in other match ups, so it's not bottom of the barrel. It does, however, have what I consider to be the steepest learning curve in the game.

Legion has a bit of leg-ups on Circle, true. But I have noticed in a recent Journeyman League I participated in, the Circle box is actually fairly good at playing agains thte Legion one in other ways, mainly due to having superior threat-range, and damage output among its models than the Legion one does (which is concentrated mostly in the Carnivean and Lylyth, while the Argi in the Circle box can do some damage).

Kind of shows, I think, a bit of the whole thing where how one plays and out-plays their opponent is probably more important than their list most of the time.

And stuff.

 Blaque wrote:



Kind of shows, I think, a bit of the whole thing where how one plays and out-plays their opponent is probably more important than their list most of the time.

And stuff.

It's true, one of the players in our meta has an overwhelming win rate. We're talking like 20-2 or something silly like that, we've really lost count. He brings the exact same list every single game against every opponent, multiple players combined to cover most every faction in the game (save minions & legion). No one faction/list directly counters such a wide variety of opponents (especially since we know his list going into the game), it comes down the player at that point.

 Nagashek wrote:
In general Legion is a hard counter for Circle, as it negates all of the defensive bonuses Circle relies on for survivability before they ever get there and, ironically enough, is better in forests than Circle is. >.<

Account for skill, list, etc, of course, but all things being equal? Yeah. Ouch. Luckily Circle really shines in other match ups, so it's not bottom of the barrel. It does, however, have what I consider to be the steepest learning curve in the game.

i dunno. circle's strength isnt really in forests. its strength is movement shenanigans, alpha striking and obnoxious hit and run strikes (eKaya and Kromac more so than anyone else i find). i've never really had issues with legion with my circle army.

I think the best way anyone has ever explained WarmaHordes to me was as follows:

"It's like Warhammer, minus vehicles, and added with the ability to do whatever you could think of with your models. Want to toss a 6 ton behemoth into a squad of squishy bastards? Be my guest! Want a leader who can either smack down anything with his fists or their mind? Pick your poison! Every faction can be played any way, and each feels like it's their own unique style, rather than variations on a theme."

Of the many many comparisons between 40k and warmachine this is by far the most fair and honest I have yet seen.