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've been a little.. annoyed with 40k lately, and a buddy of mine is trying to convince me that what really should / want to do is pick up warmachine. I said I'd give it a look.

I flipped around the website a bit, which was less helpful than it perhaps could have been, and then I figured that I'd drop a line here. I've got a few questions, if anyone could help me out.

1) If there's anyone here who has played both games, in what ways do you see warmachine and 40k as being similar? what are the major differences, particularly in style of play? Do you see things in one that the other lacks, and vice versa? How well balanced is the game? Is it a game where one can more or less run anything they want and have a good shot, or is it like 40k in which list-building is 60% of the battle (and army winds up with just a couple "optimal" units that you always wind up playing)

2) What do I actually need to get started playing? Assume I'm not using the two-player starter box..because:

3) I looked at the factions, and being a pirate at heart, I'm drawn towards some of the mercenaries, I think. but they don't appear to have a starter box. So what do I actually need to buy in order to have a playable list of people?

4) Are the mercenaries themselves currently a "viable" faction, in terms of balance and playability? What should I expect from them as a faction in terms of play-style?

5) How complex are the actual battle scenarios? Are they mostly "kill the other guy" games, or are they more about objective-holding, etc?

That's all for now. Thanks for indulging me.

1) They are very different games, but not so much that you'll find the transition impossible. You will need to abandon how you have always approached a game.

Warmachine is a true skirmish game unlike 40k. You rarely have more than two units on the table, the rest of the models will be operating independently.

The turn structure is very different also. A unit or model will activate and do everything it's going to do for the turn and then you move on to the next model or unit. there aren't separate phases for movement, shooting, etc... All happen at the same time for a particular unit. This means that order of activation is very important. You will need to remember to activate X to put Y buff on unit Z before unit Z activates.

The game is very balanced, but it can appear odd at first. For one, its incredibly skill based. This means that when playing against players with greater experience you will most certainly lose. Expect to lose your first 50 or so games, the learning curve is quite steep.

every unit or model can be competitive, in the right list in the hands of the right player. Some units are poorer than others, but that really just means its harder to use them properly. Think of a poor performing unit as being for experienced players only. List building is also key here. The game is all about synergy and if you just toss stuff around willy-nilly into a list it won't perform as well as it could in a list designed with internal support in mind. An example would be not to run 2 units that have purposes that are at odds with each other, the term for this is Skorne-ergy. Basically anti-synergy. It got the name because Skorne has a lot of internal synergy, but they also have a lot of competing synergy. Like Skorne Immortals needing Ancestral Guardians around to buff them but Ancestral Guardians want living infantry around to collect souls from to buff themselves up. And suddenly you've spent half your points in a vicious support cycle.

So you should keep in mind that while both X and Y might be competitive, the combination of the two might have some issues. That said, experience is the deciding factor and list building only matters when players are of equal skill.


2-3) All you need to get started is a warcaster and a few Jacks. 15 points is a typical starting value and you'll quickly get up to 25.

To start Pirates, I'd pick up Captain Shae and a couple Jacks. Freebooter, Mule, Nomad, and maybe a Buccaneer. That will get you learning the game.

But Pirates really aren't about the Jacks, its about the infantry and >9000 solos. A unit of Sea Dogs, a unit of Press Gangers(to turn your opponent's infantry into more Sea Dogs), Lord Rockbottom, Doc Killingsworth, First Mate Hawk, and Bosun Grogspar.


4) Very viable, but they are a little limited. The main problem being all the good solos are Characters. In tournaments, you almost always play with 2 lists and you can't duplicate characters. This means you are usually forced to have 2 different list styles if playing Mercs. On with Talion Charter(Pirates) and the other being 4 Star(generic mercs), Searforge(dwarves), or one of the other tier lists that doesn't compete for the same characters as the other list.

Mercs are rather confusing if playing as their own faction, not what I would recommend for a newbie.


5) Its not really all that complex. There are 3 types of "objectives". Flags, objectives, and Zones. Flags are a medium based marker than you can move through at will but you can't stand on it. Objectives are large based models, often destructible. Usually you get points for either destroying and/or controlling your opponents objective, you must only defend your own. Zones are just that, zones on the table. Some are rectangles others are circles.

You can either Control or Dominate the particular objectives/flags/zones as outlined in the specific mission rules. Control means one of your models or units is near an objective and its not being contested. Domination is what happens when its your Warcaster/Warlock controlling the objective(this is almost always worth more points)

A mission will usually have 2 of the 3 types of objective. A zone and a flag, 2 zones and 2 objectives, 3 flags, 2 objectives and a zone, etc...

Capturing an objective or flag or zone on the opponents side of the board is almost always worth more points.

All missions are the first to 5 wins, or assassination.

Its really not that hard to play scenarios, and the game is designed for competitive play. If you don't use scenarios the game balance is thrown off in favor of assassination casters and away from control casters.


Some missions are in favor of assassination casters(typically with a mission that is very hard for either player to win so it falls to assassination) so are in favor of control or denial casters(deny the opponent's ability to score while slowly going after low value objectives to accumulate points)

This is why tournaments are always played at least 2 lists. Its so you can have options.

 kazian wrote:
I've been a little.. annoyed with 40k lately, and a buddy of mine is trying to convince me that what really should / want to do is pick up warmachine. I said I'd give it a look.

I flipped around the website a bit, which was less helpful than it perhaps could have been, and then I figured that I'd drop a line here. I've got a few questions, if anyone could help me out.

1) If there's anyone here who has played both games, in what ways do you see warmachine and 40k as being similar? what are the major differences, particularly in style of play? Do you see things in one that the other lacks, and vice versa? How well balanced is the game? Is it a game where one can more or less run anything they want and have a good shot, or is it like 40k in which list-building is 60% of the battle (and army winds up with just a couple "optimal" units that you always wind up playing)

2) What do I actually need to get started playing? Assume I'm not using the two-player starter box..because:

3) I looked at the factions, and being a pirate at heart, I'm drawn towards some of the mercenaries, I think. but they don't appear to have a starter box. So what do I actually need to buy in order to have a playable list of people?

4) Are the mercenaries themselves currently a "viable" faction, in terms of balance and playability? What should I expect from them as a faction in terms of play-style?

5) How complex are the actual battle scenarios? Are they mostly "kill the other guy" games, or are they more about objective-holding, etc?

That's all for now. Thanks for indulging me.

I played 40k for about 15 years. All the issues I had with 40k I felt were addressed in Warmachine. You have balanced armies where player skill is much more important than what is in your list. Much more tactical gameplay other than just rolling massive amounts of dice. You have a real nice, tight, well written ruleset that leaves very little open to interpretation. And the game is much cheaper to get started with. I'm not trying to trash 40k. I understand others like it. But I much prefer Warmachine and have given up 40K altogether.

I also find the game much more tactical. You have to think about how things are playing out instead of just relying on buckets of dice. A lot of people for friendly games will often just play caster kill games. It makes for fast, easy games. But the scenarios are much better. PP has Steamroller rules for their tournies which are updated each year. But even if you do not play tournies they make for some great scenarios. When my friends and I play we invariably use those rules.

Now in regards to list building, it is *very* important. But not because you have to take certain units. Almost all units are viable. And the balance isn't perfect. But it is much better than 40k. Now the main reason why listbuilding is perhaps even more important than 40k is because of the synergy. If you have ever played Magic building a warmachine list is much like building a deck full of combos. Certain units don't work well together. Whereas other units played together make both much more powerful.

To get started I would choose a caster and then build a list around them. You are probably interested in the talion charter for mercenaries. http://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/mkiiMercenaries
So you have 3 casters to choose from. Each one will change your playstyle and army composition. I'd probably work on a 15 point list with a warjack or two and play "battlebox" games. then slowly expand to 15, 25 and 35 points as you get comfortable.

As far as viability Mercs don't get as many updates as main factions. You will note you have 3 options of pirate casters. But mercs are far from unplayable.

If you are into pirates and want to add some other themes like ghosts or undead you might want to check out Cryx. You can do a strong undead pirate theme with them as well. And much easier to expand your armies as you get more and more into the game.

Good news is, you can usually get a decent 35 point army for $200ish, especially if you search the Cyber Monday deals and watch the online stores. I've seen some things on Amazon for 60%+ off MSRP. Most other sites usually have 20% off MSRP as standard.

I hope that helps!

Today the 25 point Cyber Monday sales go into effect, and as someone who hasn't kept up with Warmachine since it launched, I am curious as to what 25 points translates into, model wise. Are the current starter boxes 25 points? Or is it Starter + more?

Most starters range from 10-12 I think. Cygnar 11, Khador 11, can't remember the models in the others, but that is the general gist of them, and most tournaments are at 50 points. If that helps give you some perspective? So it is starter plus plus, but not plus plus plus.

 kazian wrote:
I've been a little.. annoyed with 40k lately, and a buddy of mine is trying to convince me that what really should / want to do is pick up warmachine. I said I'd give it a look.

I flipped around the website a bit, which was less helpful than it perhaps could have been, and then I figured that I'd drop a line here. I've got a few questions, if anyone could help me out.

1) If there's anyone here who has played both games, in what ways do you see warmachine and 40k as being similar? what are the major differences, particularly in style of play? Do you see things in one that the other lacks, and vice versa? How well balanced is the game? Is it a game where one can more or less run anything they want and have a good shot, or is it like 40k in which list-building is 60% of the battle (and army winds up with just a couple "optimal" units that you always wind up playing)...

I just want to address 1) real quick.

No, you won't be able to run more-or-less anything you want. You are going to want an army that can deal with infantry, that can deal with high armor, that can deal with high defense, etc etc. You will not be able to pick out your favorite unit, load up your army with it, and do well, at least not nine times out of ten. Building a good list /is/ an integral portion of the game.

Now, that being said, the majority of the options available are good. There are very few models/units that are vastly above others, there are very few below. By and large the balance is good. However, balance doesn't mean that you can take anything you want. I just want to make sure that that's out there, as I didn't see it addressed yet.

 kazian wrote:
I've been a little.. annoyed with 40k lately, and a buddy of mine is trying to convince me that what really should / want to do is pick up warmachine. I said I'd give it a look.


I flipped around the website a bit, which was less helpful than it perhaps could have been, and then I figured that I'd drop a line here. I've got a few questions, if anyone could help me out.

It's a good game. I'll do my best with your questions.

1) If there's anyone here who has played both games, in what ways do you see warmachine and 40k as being similar? what are the major differences, particularly in style of play? Do you see things in one that the other lacks, and vice versa? How well balanced is the game? Is it a game where one can more or less run anything they want and have a good shot, or is it like 40k in which list-building is 60% of the battle (and army winds up with just a couple "optimal" units that you always wind up playing)

This is a tricky question. List building is just as important if not more so than in warmachine than it is is in 40k. However that statement doesn't really convey anything meaningful. This is because list building in 40k & in Warmachine are entirely different beasts. We're not just talking Apples to Oranges here, we're talking like Hotdogs vs Soufflé.


In 40k list building pretty much starts and stops at first order optimal strategies. You take whatever provides the most efficient firepower/point max that out, and then move on to the next most efficient thing until you've used your point allotments. It's extremely narrow and only the few things in the #1, #2, and #3 power slots see play.

Warmachine list buildings tends to be about interactions and coverage. Not only do different models have different roles, but they require different conditions to be effective. A prime example of this is the Exemplar Errants in Protectorate of Menoth. It's one of the factions premier front-line units used to capture areas of the board and keep enemy models out of specific places, while providing moderate hitting power.

Except the thing about Errants is that their baseline defensive stats are very poor and in a vacuum, they can't accomplish much. However because different warcasters provide different buffs, they can go from mediocre to top-tier under the right conditions. The buff "Defender's Ward" (found on 3 Protectorate casters) puts them just above two important break-points for defensive stats to make them hard to kill, while the Harbinger of Menoth has a special ability to deny an enemy kills, which compounds with one of their own native abilities to allow the controlling player to be very selective about which models his opponent can actually remove.

On the other hand, casters which lack any abilities along these lines may not make good use out of them.

This is true of most things in the game. It's true that the game has some real duds that have few uses, and some insanely good options that almost always see play. However these tend to be the exception rather than the rule and there are more of the latter than the former.

There are a few models that perhaps reach the point of degeneracy in terms of their power (lookin' at you Reckoner) but this is not a crippling blow to the game.

In general if you like some specific unit or 'Jack you'll be able to find a list in which it shines, even if you to "Build Around" it. Even much maligned units like Khador's "Assault Kommandos" have seen in top tournament-winning lists. Sometimes just as tool to address something very narrow or specific in just that one meta environment, but the point stands.

2) What do I actually need to get started playing? Assume I'm not using the two-player starter box..because:

You need the a copy of the main rules, a warcaster and at least 1 Warjack. That's the bare minimum. You'll probably want a caster and maybe 2-3 'Jacks just to get a feel for the mechanics and having 11-14 points will put you on par with the other starters. It isn't super reflective of a "Real game" but is a great way to get the engine down.

3) I looked at the factions, and being a pirate at heart, I'm drawn towards some of the mercenaries, I think. but they don't appear to have a starter box. So what do I actually need to buy in order to have a playable list of people?

See point #2. Cryx also has a bit of pirate sub-theme going in it, just FYI.

4) Are the mercenaries themselves currently a "viable" faction, in terms of balance and playability? What should I expect from them as a faction in terms of play-style?

Mercs are a viable faction for sure. They're pretty diverse, not much can be said about their play style in concrete terms. Except that they tend to be more infantry-centric than not. Pirates tend to focus on layered buffs from special solos on their core grunts more powerful.

5) How complex are the actual battle scenarios? Are they mostly "kill the other guy" games, or are they more about objective-holding, etc?

There is a great deal involving holding territory. Powers that prevent or cause movement are some of the strongest in the game precisely because of this. While the exact things you need to do "Get dudes in this 12" circle" are generally very simple doing so while keeping a good relative position against the enemy is very complex and well beyond the scope of a post like this.

NOTE: The "Scenarios" in the rulebook are not the ones that are widely used in play. PP releases a packet called "Steamroller" every year that has revised scenarios, and is the standard for tournament play and is widely adopted in casual play.