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.

malfred wrote:Devilsquid, I've been trying to track down the source of that quote. It's usually
attributed to German game designer Reiner Knizia.

The original speaker of that quote? No clue, but I think Not Dice is the one who's used it a lot on the PP forums.

I called the notion absurd because I've never heard anyone call WM CCG-like just for the fact it uses cards, there's always been something else brought up whenever that accusation has been made. And heck, almost all non-GW games use cards these days: Hell Dorado, Malifaux, Confrontation (rip), etc.

Sanctjud wrote:How is 40K different?

It's not very different, GW has gotten to the point where its army lists include significant synergy between their components. Go back four, five years into 4E days and it was a lot less so. I don't know if their improved design can be attributed to looking at the success of Privateer's, but certainly if you go back the timeline, then 40k armies definitely used to be just "a collection of units wandering around".

In the end, it's all a matter of perceptions. Like how some WM players perceive 40k players as little babies who can barely add up double digits, and some 40k players perceive WM players as neckbearded elitists who don't even want new players to come in and "pollute" their metagame. I've seen a few people call it a war between American and British wargaming ideologies, which is an interesting way of looking at it.

Theres no place for war in wargamming Aga Cant we just do it for the fun instead?

Sanctjud wrote:How is 40K different?

Vulkan + Bikers combo, whoa...
Hellions + Hemmy first turn, move hemmy away, pain token on hellions combo, whoa...
Logan Grimnar + Long Fangs combo, whoa...
Combos are in both.

Optimization... that exist in any game system when one plays competitively.

40k does have model combos, but they're passive in nature; Logan gives LF relentless/tank hunter just by being there. Vulkan twin-links meltas and flamers just by being there. I can activate Vulkan in his Land Raider or the Land Speeder with melta or vice versa and there's no impact, at all.

If Makeda leashes Molik Karn, feats, casts Road to War, charges 9", Molik Karn advances 3" immediately with Leash, Gladiator casts animus on Karn and pushes him an additional inch, and then Karn charges up the table a total of 16" from where he began the turn standing, that's a combo. If I try to interrupt that order of operations, it's no longer a combo.

So I agree with you that combos exist in both games, but in 40k the combo is a function of your list. In WM/H the combo is not only a function of list, but also of tabletop execution. You just don't have that in 40k.

Similarly, in 40k, there's no opportunity for Vulkan to charge Lysander with a flying headbutt, knock him down, and let a Land Raider slam Lysander 6" into a Predator, killing both. The equivalent happens in WM/H all the time.

I do like that Warmachine and Hordes seems to try to concentrate on books that have something for every faction whenever possible. I heard they went against this for the MkII stuff, but that's supposed to be the exception, not the rule.

Balance wrote:I do like that Warmachine and Hordes seems to try to concentrate on books that have something for every faction whenever possible. I heard they went against this for the MkII stuff, but that's supposed to be the exception, not the rule.

Just to clarify: For MKII, the released the Army Books just to have everything previously released available in one area. So, for example, I buy the Khador Army Book, and I have everything Khador with current rules up to this point. Next year, when Warmachine: Wrath is released, it will have something for all 6 Warmachine factions (caster, character jack, unit, etc). The Army books were just a way to get everything updated in one place.

They did a book a month this year. 12 books in a year (with Retribution last year). Gah!

Agamemnon2 wrote:In the end, it's all a matter of perceptions. Like how some WM players perceive 40k players as little babies who can barely add up double digits, and some 40k players perceive WM players as neckbearded elitists who don't even want new players to come in and "pollute" their metagame. I've seen a few people call it a war between American and British wargaming ideologies, which is an interesting way of looking at it.

Two good points:

1) People are possesive of their choices. If I spend a large sum of money and time on a hobby (or even an aspect of a hobby, like WM vs 40K, vs RPG, etc), then I would inherently be opposed to agreeing that something else may be better than what I chose. This is where I feel that players of the respective games become vehement in their opposition of each other games, because if your game is 'better' than mine, then I made a bad choice.

2) Americain vs British is a very good way to sum it up. Americains play games for competition, while the Brits play it for recreation. (this is also true of my british friends who play Warmachine. Their approach to it is much different than mine).

Agamemnon2 wrote:It's not very different, GW has gotten to the point where its army lists include significant synergy between their components.

As someone who has played both, I really have to say that they are completely different. In scope, execution, and play style, they are completely different.

I would honestly like to see you break down the similarities to me in more than just a superficial way. 40k is a large scale skirmish game with streamlined and distinctive phases and linear progression. WM/H is a small scale skirmish game with amorphous phases and dynamic progression. It honestly doesn't similar at all to me except that both games have models and dice.

I've seen a few people call it a war between American and British wargaming ideologies, which is an interesting way of looking at it.

I have no idea how to begin breaking down gaming ideologies. Both can be played for fun. Both can be played competitively. WM/H is easier to play competitively. Players at the furthest end of the spectrum can ruin it for anyone closer in.

Devilsquid wrote:

Just to clarify: For MKII, the released the Army Books just to have everything previously released available in one area. So, for example, I buy the Khador Army Book, and I have everything Khador with current rules up to this point. Next year, when Warmachine: Wrath is released, it will have something for all 6 Warmachine factions (caster, character jack, unit, etc). The Army books were just a way to get everything updated in one place.

And for additional clarity, unlike a codex you don't even need the army book to play. It's a nice reference for your faction, but each model you buy comes with it's own stat/rule card. The army book is great for fluff, art and to have all the stats in one place, but it's an entirely optional purchase.

One of the things that I don't like about Warmachine/Hordes is that you really, really, MUST be very knowledgeable about every model your opponent is bringing to the table.

To me, that is the one thing that reminds me of CCGs about these PP games. Not being aware of one combination or synergy set in your opponent's army will cost you the game. This requires someone who wants to be even a moderately successful player to spend a lot of time not just reading every book, but studying every book.

While the need to know something about your opponent's force is true in every game, Warmachine has a tremendous ability to completely dominate a game with the right combination of abilities, if one player is unaware of that combination.

Other than that, I actually like the game.

I don't believe that you NEED to know everything about all the factions. It is helpful though.
I got smoked in 2nd turn in 2 separate games at Adepticon because I hadn't played Vs Hordes.
I saw both the Molik Karn speed train, and the Typhon charge+spray.

But if you know your own force backwards and forewards, you are in a good position to deal with most situations.

If you are playing a friendly game at a buddy's house and he wins in a turn with something you haven't seen, you set up and play again.
Also, being your friend, he is more likely to give a heads-up before-hand.

I think WM/H is a game where experience counts much more than in 40k.
There are so many more in-game decisions.
Do I Charge, Trample, Slam, or Throw?, Do I use spell A, B, C, or charge and use the focus for more attacks?

You can play a mirror match, and have two players use thier armies in drastically different ways.

Saldiven wrote:One of the things that I don't like about Warmachine/Hordes is that you really, really, MUST be very knowledgeable about every model your opponent is bringing to the table.

This is true, but it's also true for any game. If you don't know what Nids can do, or Eldar, or Blood Angels, you're going to get snookered. But the counter for that in Warmachine is that it's 100% open knowledge. Just ask to see the card of whichever unit/model you have a question about, and all their rules are right there on hand.

I'd say it's much more true for WM/H than most other games... especially WM/H in relation to 40k.

If you're IG playing Marines, no matter those are CSM, BA, SW, or SM, you're going to try to shoot them before they get close.

If you're Cygnar fighting Legion led by Lylith+Ravagores, you are going to be forced to play completely differently than Legion led by Thagrosh+Carniveans.

Or at least, if you don't play those games significantly differently, you're probably going to lose.

I used to buy quite a lot of their stuff for a while, and I have to say Privateer's management really has a great attitude towards their customers.

However at a certain point the quality of the sculpts, among other things, started to take a dive, their prices started to become higher and generally less attractive compared to for example GW's product, I got tired of all the metal models, their game started to lean towards troop heavy while that was exactly what I did not want, and I am convinced some of the armies get favored over others rules-wise because they happen to be the favorite of certain staff members, causing things to be unbalanced (*cough* Legion *cough*). On top of that all three of the local non-GW gamestores dropped their product range because it hardly sold.

When the new edition also came and I had to buy all of the army books all over again, and I didn't really like the actual game in the first place, I decided it wasn't worth it, and now I only occasionally buy a miniature for it's sculpt.

Another thing, while Privateer's interaction with their fans is a positive, it also causes a way too large % of their fans on their forum to be sheepish cheerleaders who seem to be in a "sucking up to the staff" competition, from statements like "OMG WOWZERZ I'm gonna buy so many of those just because I absolutely LUV U so much thank you Privateer!!!!" all the way up to grown-up neckbearded fatguys getting into heated debate about who baked Matt Wilson the best cookies at the latest tournament. While this is amusing it is also kind of sad.

Yeah, you lost me past the first sentence.

Sooooo, what I got out of the last page is that people are quoting damn near the same things at each other, that combos are significant to both games.

Can we look at something else now?

If that's all you come away with you've missed all of the finer points.

Go learn both systems if you really want to see the difference.

I wish someone would bake me some cookies at a tournament

grizgrin wrote:Sooooo, what I got out of the last page is that people are quoting damn near the same things at each other, that combos are significant to both games.

I'll use my favorite metaphore, though I'm sure it'll irk some people. The difference between combos in Warmachine and 40K is like the difference between combos in Chess and Checkers.


What it really boils down to is personal preference. Each game is not for everyone. Some folks want a fast and friendly game of rolling lots of dice, some people want a more involved game with deeper mechanics. It's your time/money, so you decide how you want to spend it.

Necros wrote:I wish someone would bake me some cookies at a tournament

There is a Press Ganger in North Carolina who brings cupcakes with the faction symbols on them.

Sorry sourclams, that post was a bit tongue in cheek. I was trying to inject some lightheartedness into a discussion that seems to have devolved into people just restating their opinions, which does nothing to push the dialogue forward.

I can also play a 35 point game of Warmachine in about an hour and get in another game or two or get in on a board game. 40k, that ain't happening at any tournament point level.

Fair 'nuff, fair 'nuff.

These games are completely different, and you just don't get an appreciation for the scope until you have immersed yourself in both. I'll leave it at that.

For me, if I wanted a skirmish, I'd go for Warmachine (which is the point).
For larger fights, I think I'm more comfortable with 40K...you know, like the Apoc. level of cool.

I'll stil invest in both though... so I think I'm in a losing position with being involved with both .

In an attempt to move things along (dugga dug, dugga dug), does anyone have questions about the mechanics of Warmachine/Hordes?

I have a question that I believe was touched on a couple times earlier, but I would like to address in a more direct fashion; paritally for my own benefit and for OP.

When I played HM, mostly in Mk I, I noticed much to my chagrin that the newer pieces seemed to be more powerful/less points cost than the older stuff. I wasnt the only one noticing this. First off, did anyone else notice this trend, and second off is this trend still in existance in this brave ne Mk II world?

This would have a LOT to do with me playing more HM, since I have pretty extensive, pretty dated collections. I dont really like the thoguht of someone sidelining my armies with the latest and greatest.

DS? Sourclams? Beuller?

Near the end of MK1, with Legends and Metamorphosis, there was some serious model creep. There were a lot of "Why would you NOT take this?", mostly with the newer things.

With MKII, it gave them an opportunity to reset the baseline of power for everything all at once. Granted, there are still choices that outperform similar choices, but usually at more of a point cost.

Now, it's a lot more balanced, and having seen the new character jack rules, while they're "better", they're not "omfg" better. They're one off unique jacks that perform diffferntly than their kin.


So yes, at the end of MKI, there was a lot of stuff going over the top. With MKII, that's been scaled back a lot (though there are some 'power combos' that once you learn, will need to keep an eye on, like the Molik Kharn bullet, the Typhon Spray and Pray, and Ravyns Snipe+Feat=Win).

One of the things I enjoy about Warmachine is learning new tricks and combos, because if you bring the same combo over and over again, people will see it coming a mile away, and it'll start to fall flat.


So, to recap: Yes, crap was starting to get broken at the end of MKI. MKII has rebalanced the playing field, but there are still strong options out there you need to watch for. EDIT: Wrath and the new Hordes book will be the true test for 'power creep'. Since everything is being revamped this year, they're all at a near common baseline. With the new books coming out next year, that's when we're going to see how things shake out.

Cool. Sounds like my Khador and Legion forces shall be getting the dust and rust blown off. Thanks.

Actually, Khador and Legion are two armies that I have, so let me expand:

Khador changed the 'least' from MK1, because as a faction of Stats, they weren't impacted as much when abilities and special rules were changed. They still have High MAT and ARM and POW. There were some tweakings to the casters (Noticibly Vlads), but they're still strong.

Legion is no longer the "Make hateful friends" faction. A lot of the crap that Legion got a (rightfully) bad rep in MKI for has been changed/moved/erased. They're still an alpha strike glass cannon army, with lots of offensive strength and movement schenanigains, and Eyeless Sight is still strong (Man, the Carni is a nasty beast), but they're no longer the "Oh, you play Legion...uh huh" faction.


Well, not as much.


The real trick to 'beating' legion is play scenarios, like from Steamroller, etc. Legion can rock the casterkill, but holding objective points is something they hurt at.

Devilsquid wrote:Yeah, you lost me past the first sentence.

You get lost quite easily then.

I don't know much about PP. I have seen their minis and I only have one suggestion for them...

USE MORE PLASTIC!

The sight of their top-heavy abominations made of metal makes me cringe...

I have a question! I have the khador starter pack, the older metal one, 1 box of widowmakers and 1 full unit of winter guard. I've never, ever played with them. Is that a decent start to an army? What would be worth adding to get it up to a common points level and be a decent and fun army to play?