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.

I'm sure this has probably been asked before, but is there anything that makes Warmahordes better than 40k or vice versa? Thanks in advance.

In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

In 40k it's 90% what models you have 10% how you play your models.

If you prefer having the biggest shiniest newest models 40k is better. If you prefer the tactical aspect of the game Warmachine is better.

This is kind of a loaded question, but in short; the rules, balance, and release schedule are the largest and most universal factors that make wm/h more desirable. In this day and age I think it is much more likely to find eclectic gamers who play both than those that find it necessary to pit them against one another and chose only one.

There are several other factors that are all subjective including: background and continuing story, startup costs, army costs, game size, company public relations, and competitive play. Some people also have better communities for one game or the other but that tends to be very localized.

Thank you. I play both games, but my friends who play warhammer simply refuse to even play a demo game of warmachine. I for one think that you are right. I tend to drift a little bit more towards warmachine. Frankly, I just like privateer press much more. They are much less profit hungry, much less uptight about their products, and they are also much better at customer service and answering questions.

Having played and owned both (and now own only Warmachine), I prefer the tactical elements in the gameplay of Warmachine as to when I played 40k and got the feeling of 'who could bring the most guns to the table'. The rules are also a lot clearer in Warmachine and I prefer PP as a company

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:

Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine

You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.


However I'll generally echo the sentiments that main good points of the game are:

-Good Balance
-Most models are useful in some context.
-Clearer rules.

I'll also add that I like that the rules are more dynamic & varied, and the engine can handle actions more complex than "Shoot. With varying damage & AP ratings".

Chongara wrote:

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:

Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine

You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.

This makes me wonder.
You state that 2 players of equal skill facing off against each other make list building a huge factor and then go on to build a, seemingly, random list of models. Then you presume the other player makes more deliberate choices and so will win. If both players are equally skilled then either they will both be taking subpar choices/armies or they will both be picking more rational lists. You can't say equal skill in play but not in model selection and then say that model selection makes the difference.
Obviously if one player is better than the other in one important aspect of the game and equal to the other in all other fields then that's what makes the difference. It's not the game, at that point, it's the players.

Alright then lets start over

Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models

In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly


Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...

Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

I understand the spirit of this statement, but I think it's a bit overreaching. Let's face it, if you bring this to the table:

Koldun Kommander Aleksandra Zerkova
-Decimator
-Decimator
Assault Kommandos (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Kossite Woodsmen (Leader and 9 Grunts)
Rorsh & Brine

You're definitely missing out on more than 10% of your "Game" assuming your opponent is bringing a build that's been thought out better, even if it isn't list they could top tournaments with.

This makes me wonder.
You state that 2 players of equal skill facing off against each other make list building a huge factor and then go on to build a, seemingly, random list of models. Then you presume the other player makes more deliberate choices and so will win. If both players are equally skilled then either they will both be taking subpar choices/armies or they will both be picking more rational lists. You can't say equal skill in play but not in model selection and then say that model selection makes the difference.
Obviously if one player is better than the other in one important aspect of the game and equal to the other in all other fields then that's what makes the difference. It's not the game, at that point, it's the players.

This is mostly true. Once you get above a certain skill threshold, I think it's fair to include list building ability as a "Player" factor. The reason I take issue with the statements about "skill vs models" is mostly for new players. You can have two new players entering the game, both obviously at the same general skill level who have been told things like the post I quoted.

One player either by chance or by asking on the forums has put together a better list than the other, even if they're roughly at the same level in terms of understanding the rules, positional awareness and tactics. The player with the better list is going to win. Consistently. When the player on the losing end finds out it was his list after reading things like "It's 90% the player" or "You don't have to take certain models to win", or "It's all about your skill" they're going to surprised and probably (rightfully) feeling a bit mislead.

Similarly if a new player has whatever list and does well for a while but starts losing, despite the fact he runs into opponents that don't seem all that better at judging distances, or do anything more complex than him they just sort of win on their effective stat-lines he'll be frustrated.

I think it is fair to say ultimately that list building is on the player, but it's intellectually dishonest imo to say "Over here, this is player skill that's 90% of the game", "Over here, this is what models you take, that's 10% of the game". Taking the right models is very much a part of player skill in this case, you can't separate them. To that end you can't just take models you like, or think look cool, or have fluff that resonates with you and expect to do well. You have to take models that form a coherent list.

Maybe you get lucky and something like Exemplar spam resonates with you and you can run eKreoss' tier list and have the best of both worlds.
Maybe you get unlucky and something like Khador 'Jacks resonate with you and you can't run the models you want, because the models you take is a huge part of the game.

Here's my list:

1. I like Warmachine Hordes better than 40k.

Ta-da!

Warmachine Pros:

-Tighter Rules
-Steady-Stream updates (all factions get a few toys a year; no 10-year-long waits)
-factions balanced (I'd say relative balance >0.9)
-Good internal balance (Very few completely junk choices. Most things have at least some situation in which they can be useful)
-Small start-up cost. Can get a reasonable sized force for about half that of a 40k army.
-Variable lists. Due to low start-up cost, is very cheap to change up lists in-faction, especially if you start with some of the more versatile in-faction units, and just change casters and dressing.

40k pros:
-Lots of models?
-Lots of pieces to make conversions with.

I agree with Chongara regarding list building...

I think the reason people say that 40k revolves around list building, is that in most armies, there are some very bad models and some very good models. And the secret to building a good 40k list is taking as many as you can of the good models and avoid the bad models completely.
There is also the common 40k idiom that some weapons are completely terrible for taking out certain kinds of enemy: lasguns vs tanks, lascannons vs guardsmen. In WMH, nearly everything can damage nearly everything else - I've seen colossals fall to Kriel Warriors under the right circumstances.

Warmachine I think is even more about list building than 40k. You generally don't have room in a list for much redundancy, and you need to focus on synergy to a much higher extent than in 40k where you can just build your army off a checklist (1. Do I have enough anti-flyer? If no, add anti-flyer. If yes, add infantry. Goto 1).
In 40k you can just throw together good models until you reach your points limit. WMH, nearly all models are decent. but some really don't work well together. Heavy infantry with Mulg? Not gonna work; but I can't think of a 40k army where I think 'oh wow, you took X hero with Y unit? bad decision'. It's generally, 'you took X hero? bad decision' completely independent of what other units are in the army.


So to what I like about WMH?
The rules are much tighter. There is a distinction between moving and advancing. There is a distinction between active and non-active. There is a distinction between 'after' and 'immediately after', and a defined order to resolve things which occur simultaneously.
All of that sounds quite peripheral, but it leads on to my next point:
The rules are more creative. There are abilities in WMH that would be utterly impossible to have in 40k, because the rules are tight enough to allow for them. Something like Overtake, quite common in Hordes but there would be so many flaws with its implementation in 40k that you just wouldn't want to see it.

Each army can change completely depending on the caster, to a much greater extent than a 40k army can change. You're never going to build a competitive shooty tyranids army, but you can run pretty much any hordes caster with at least one build competitively.

For me it depends on what type of style I want to play, for example if I want to play a casual time then I play 40k as I know the game is designed to be more of a beer and pretzel game and meant to re-create a story every time you play.

If I wanted to play a more competitive game however I will play warmachine, just to play a more tactical game to challenge my tactical skill and hopefully make me a better general on the table.

The only problem I have with Warmahordes is that some of the choices you want to play with are not the best units, for example I want to use stormblades but people at my FLGS tell me that I should get Forge Guard instead as they are better for Cygnar competitively. my only problem is that I started with Cygnar because I liked the Cygnar units, if I wanted Forge guard I would have started Mercs, I mean sure I can see a merc solos like Eyriss in my army but not my army getting replaced but Merc units (so here hoping that Synergy with a Stormclad will make them more tactically good ) .

But apart from that I do enjoy Warmahoredes, I like the army I play and I like the speed of the game as well as having clear rules for once .

Chongara wrote:

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?

If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.

Both games have their merits. Focusing on the positives:

Warmachine~
-less time to play a game across equivalent point values
-lower model count, easy to transport
-almost quarterly releases, so everyone has access to new toys
-financially less to play... but not by much. as a tournment faction collection, usually includes multiple casters, units, kits, and models, thus the cost is deceptive.
-the game is built for competitive play, thus the rules are very clear, and a tournment usage is built in IF you are looking for that.

Warhammer 40,000
-can be more of a casual game, which is more enjoyable to some
-less strict rules and less clearly defined rules
-door is wide open for conversions and personalization of your army
-mostly dominated by shooting phase
-ability to field a more diverse army with the allies option. yes WMHD has Merc's... however the current 40k system leaves armies a lot more options
-ability to feel you are playing a grand epic scale game especially with the push for larger models

The games are really very different I think it is a do you like oranges or bananas question. I like both personally.

Privateer is actually not some paragon of virtue and GW is not the citadel of evil like many claim, both companies want your money and charge what they think they can get away with for their products.

njpc wrote:
Both games have their merits. Focusing on the positives:
-less strict rules and less clearly defined rules

How is this positive?!

njpc wrote:

-door is wide open for conversions and personalization of your army

Exactly the same as in WMH. There isn't anything preventing you from using conversions or personalizations in casual play and if you wan't to talk about WMH conversion rules for tournaments, then 40k has almost just as many restrictions for those.

njpc wrote:

-ability to field a more diverse army with the allies option. yes WMHD has Merc's... however the current 40k system leaves armies a lot more options

Not really, since the inherently unbalanced rules cut those options right back down to very few viable choices for allies.

PhantomViper wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?

If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.

How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.

Chongara wrote:

How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.

You don't run every model you own in every list, just swapping a caster can dramatically effect how your game plays, it's not 40k where you run infantry spam guard, tank spam guard, air guard, ect, all requiring hundreds or thousands in investment

Chongara wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 22cthulu wrote:
In Warmachine it's 90% how you play your models 10% what models you have.

This is so not true. With two players of roughly equal skill list construction/matchup is a huge factor deciding the victor. It's not like 40k in that there is only a very narrow band of models in each faction that can win and only a narrow band of factions that are competitive, but what models you take still matters.

You realize that you've just proved cthulu's point for him don't you?

If both players are of roughly equal skill then we can assume that they will play their models roughly equally. If that is true, then what will be left to separate them will be the general strength of their list and the vagaries of the dice gods.

How is the "Strength of your list" not "What models you have"? These things would seem to be one and the same to me.

They are.

What I'm trying to say is that if the game is, like cthulu says, 90% player skill and 10% list building, if you take away player skill by saying that both players are of the same skill level, then list building becomes the only important thing.

But if I'm a worse player than you, then it doesn't matter if I lift Keith's eGaspy list from Iron Gauntlet, model for model, I would still loose more often than not.

PhantomViper wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if the game is, like cthulu says, 90% player skill and 10% list building, if you take away player skill by saying that both players are of the same skill level, then list building becomes the only important thing.

But if I'm a worse player than you, then it doesn't matter if I lift Keith's eGaspy list from Iron Gauntlet, model for model, I would still loose more often than not.

Here is the thing if the game was "90% Player Skill" and "10% List Building", in an even skill match the games should be roughly even or at least have a chance coming out either way no matter what the lists are. That is if list building is such a small factor, it should be able to at best "Nudge" the results one way or another, not result in one player getting ground to dust. The effect of list & matchup can be so overwhelming, it can hardly be called "10%" of the battle. Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.

Chongara wrote:
Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.

Matchups are not list building, bethayne is a good caster, but reznik tier will generally stomp her into dust if you spam hex hunters like some people want to, even a /bad/ reznik tier list is largely immune to her tricks unless you want to trigger witch hunt over and over.

This doesn't mean that bethayne's list is /bad/ it means that if you are playing tourney rules (which are what the game is designed for) and bring 2 lists, and see one of your opponents lists is friggen rezniks death brigade which will take a dump on one of yours, /you don't take that list/

I'm confident that JVM would stomp me into dust no matter what he ran (largely) doing horrifically bad things like not spamming jacks with an inafntry caster I don't count as list building, I count them as common sense, you dont blame list building if someone brings an all fenrisian wolf space wolf army. What he is trying to imply is that tuning and squeezing every last poing out of your list is not nearly as important in WM as 40k.

 Talamare wrote:
Alright then lets start over

Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models

In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly


Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...

Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe

O_O Holy Crap you just describd my life... *hiccup*

 Aix'Nyre wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Alright then lets start over

Both games what you bring matters
The difference is that in 40k there are only a few models that work, and they also tend to be the most expensive models money wise (and often times unsurprisingly the cheapest points for their effectiveness). This is a GW business practice designed to sell models

In WM/H on the other hand, with few exception every single model in every single army can perform extremely well if used properly


Another thing is, if your friend isn't even willing to try out a FREE DEMO of another game, that is because he is afraid he will like the other game better. Once that is acknowledge he will also have to acknowledge the fact that he spent thousands on 40k when he could have been spending a fraction of that money on WM/H for a much better game. This realization will lead him to question all aspects of his life, including his job, his kids, his wife. All of it! Obviously he won't be able to handle the fact that everything in his life is wrong, that everything could have been better and he will turn to drugs. Only alcohol at first but that won't be enough as he realizes that going for the first choice was what lead him down this path in the first place... no he needs the good stuff, the stuff that the government says you can't have...

Long story short! If he isn't even willing to demo it once, don't waste your time and breathe

O_O Holy Crap you just describd my life... *hiccup*

 Grundz wrote:

Chongara wrote:
Heck some matchups are so lopsided, even between "Good" lists it's nearly unwinnable for one side no matter how big the skill gap is.

Matchups are not list building, bethayne is a good caster, but reznik tier will generally stomp her into dust if you spam hex hunters like some people want to, even a /bad/ reznik tier list is largely immune to her tricks unless you want to trigger witch hunt over and over.

This doesn't mean that bethayne's list is /bad/ it means that if you are playing tourney rules (which are what the game is designed for) and bring 2 lists, and see one of your opponents lists is friggen rezniks death brigade which will take a dump on one of yours, /you don't take that list/

I'm confident that JVM would stomp me into dust no matter what he ran (largely) doing horrifically bad things like not spamming jacks with an inafntry caster I don't count as list building, I count them as common sense, you dont blame list building if someone brings an all fenrisian wolf space wolf army. What he is trying to imply is that tuning and squeezing every last poing out of your list is not nearly as important in WM as 40k.

These are sensible points, what I'm trying to say here is that we should be careful about how we frame these things. Like I said originally I agree with the spirit of the statement, I just think it gives a very misleading picture of the game to the inexperienced reader. I took issue with the post I was quoting because it was just too broad.

I've seen some very disheartened players feel very frustrated after hearing things like this and finding out it was their favorite models that have been holding them back. Khador 'Jacks seem to be particularly bad in this regard.

The WM/H community isn't as egregious with their downplaying the role the models you put down play as say.. the Infinity community is but it still bothers me.

Chongara wrote:

I've seen some very disheartened players feel very frustrated after hearing things like this and finding out it was their favorite models that have been holding them back. Khador 'Jacks seem to be particularly bad in this regard.

Khador jacks are /NOT/ bad, it's just that the faction does not have much jack support meaning that they dont run lots of jacks very well and the one or two casters that do are difficult to play and have some bad machups.

The thing, and i may say brilliance about WM, is you start the game saying "well I want lots of jacks!" or "Lots of infantry" or "I like slamming stuff!" but eventually, you'll try more and more casters, your play style will adjust and you'll probably end up with a wide variety of armies you can play with the same models, On the other side of the coin you dont say "well this is my air cav IG army" and slowly expand and expand and expand on it forever and get that sense of accomplishment, it's more "this is my menoth!" and you have one or two of everything, just like most other long-playing players, because WM is comparatively cheap and awesome..
even if you change armies the 2ndary market for WM is pretty great and I know two or three players locally that have gotten dollar-for-dollar trades with other WM players to try out new armies.

The big selling point for me, is PP's way of doing buisness in general, the books for each army came out several years ago, every year or so they release an expansion which gives /all/ the factions stuff, and the game /STAYS BALANCED AND FUN/ They even release test rules occassionally and let you know whats coming up in NQ, complete with rules so you can try out the models rules before you buy them, its everything that GW used to do when I first started a million years ago, but better.

Thank you all for the great responses. And I have one thing to say to Talamare... That escalated quickly.

Better is a subjective word. What is better for me is not necessarily better for you. With that being said, WM/HD is better for me for:

1. Clear rules
2. lower cost
3. tactical options

The rules are clear and concise, granted some are quirky, but there is no question on how a rule reads.

Lower cost will always be debated by most die-hards. The math for me is that when you buy a $35 model that represents 10 points of you army, in a 35 point army that model represents slightly under 1/3 of your army. In 40k the $40 squad of marines equates to about 1/15-1/10 of your army points in a 2000pt game.

The tactical options in WMHD outpace the ones in 40k. Throw, slam, trample, etc... Monstrous Creatures in 40k wish they had these abilities.

I brought the same list as Jason Flanzer to 2012 Lock and Load.

He knew how to play it. Now all my friends call it "Flanzer's list."

:(

IMO 40k has to many rules variations or interpretations someone perceives one way, but someone else reads it another. Both players end up playing different. Units can contain 20 different war gear options making each time you see the unit a surprise. The armies tend to be flavor of the month / what codex just came out, Spam this unit and build a list around it because x unit is cheese. Your guys die when you assault/charge and they always charge/assault a different distance every time. Crap load of dice.

Hordes/warmachine - pretty clear rules, units war gear is always the same so you know what a model has when you see it without having to check. No petty rules like initive steps, defense grenades, force weapons, physic test deny the witch look out sir mess... Few dice needed, facing of model matters, any army is a viable army, One model does everything then you move to the next model... Whew - and there's more.

IMO warmachine/hordes is superior in almost every way. I enjoy Warhammer 40k less and less each time I play.