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.

Jackal wrote:Has anyone ever actually brought a LR in via DS here?
Not that good due to its size and scattering and all that.
Also, who runs LR's in BA?

Didn't do it with BA, but had it done to me with GK. Took forever for my melta vets and vanquisher to kill it, since they kept using the Summoning to jerk the thing out of melta range.

im2randomghgh wrote:With GW, most of their disproportion-ification is to make things look tougher. They make the Guard wider than they should be, which makes them look buff. They make SM SP huge, but if you have read the novels, this is so that they can protect themselves by turning their shoulders. It all makes sense, unlink WarmaHorde models.

I dunno, Warmahordes models probably have their out of whack proportions intentionally too. Most miniatures are out of proportion to emphasize key features like weapons and faces - this isn't just a GW or PP thing. Old Glory, Copplestone Castings, or just about any other company makes models like this. I don't care for the aesthetics of Warmahorde models, but I'm going to guess most of their proportional wackiness is intentional.

sourclams wrote:I would challenge you to find me several WM/H models that look that bad.

You misconstrued my argument. I never said they looked bad, my contention is that they look too much like toys. Its as if Hero Clix met yu-gi-oh. The physical presentation of many of the warmachine characters looks too illogical to be feasible.

Ya know, if peep's dont like 40k anymore stop playing it and stop complaining about it! You are like those uptight people who watch 2 hrs of a 'disgusting' tv show just so they can complain about it! The averedge number of channels is around 100, so change it!. If you dont like the game rules or the mini's, try Necromunda or Inquisitor. Or even BattleFleet Gothic....
I myself will be trying 'Infinty' this week for the first time, looking forward to the change from 40k, but will still be playing a 500pt mini tourney this weekend....Remember, a change is as good as a rest! Peace..........

My local gaming club has seen two big shifts. One is that a lot of us have picked up Warmachine and Hordes. I didn't, simply because I never liked steampunk too much, and the look of the models just never really appealed to me. Not to mention, I like the epic feeling of lining up a hundred Guardsmen, a dozen tanks, and then begining to move them forward. I look over at the Warmachine table and it just looks...too small scale. I want my battles to feel like their epic and world shaking, and I just don't get that feeling with Warmachine.

However, what I did, and a lot of other 40k players did is move into Battlefleet Gothic. We really like the rule set, the models are gorgeous, and it's a much more tactical game than Warhammer 40k. We've been enjoying it a lot, and we've even been considering running some joint 40k-BFG campaigns in the near future.

However, we all kept our hands on our 40k models. We all love the 40k lore, and every single one of us has a 40k army. However, we tend to reserve them nowadays for big Apoc games, or maybe fun games overall. The one person who has never considered moving game systems is our local tournament player.

Overall, I don't think 40k is down the toilet. However, I do think that a lot of people are looking at some of the new codexes, and then taking a glance around at the other gaming systems out there, both GW and non-GW. I think that 40k is still a fun system, and I still love my disproportiantely shaped Guardsmen and tanks....but I'm having fun trying out a new system of game play. I'll never ditch 40k, but it will become a secondary game system for a while.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Ya know, if peep's dont like 40k anymore stop playing it and stop complaining about it! You are like those uptight people who watch 2 hrs of a 'disgusting' tv show just so they can complain about it! The averedge number of channels is around 100, so change it!. If you dont like the game rules or the mini's, try Necromunda or Inquisitor. Or even BattleFleet Gothic....
I myself will be trying 'Infinty' this week for the first time, looking forward to the change from 40k, but will still be playing a 500pt mini tourney this weekend....Remember, a change is as good as a rest! Peace..........

I play BFG and it is pretty awesome.

LOL Locally we actually abandoned 40k in favor of BFG.

BaronIveagh wrote:LOL Locally we actually abandoned 40k in favor of BFG.

IKR. Railguns are EVEN BETTER on Star-Ships HERO CLASS!

BaronIveagh Wrote:

On the other side, my FLGS no longer does 40k at all. They stopped carrying it. Bizarrely, we do, still have Battlefleet Gothic...

Seen this pattern as well at other FLGS.

I'm getting into WM because it really to me is a better system all around. I still play 40K and I really like the new Tomb kings codex. The problem is that GW for several years has been pushing too damned hard on "higher points games". I also hate GW terrain, their paint has declined in quality as they try to nickle and dime you to death on supplies.

It is not one problem, it is a majority of problems and greed that is getting people to change over to something else.

There's definitely a feeling of decline in some ways, in other ways its business as usual. The rules are getting wackier and more outlandish, much more 2nd edition in nature, however we are stuck with a core ruleset designed by a guy who left immediately afterwards, who was hired because he was seen as being good at tournaments, whose big credo was all about making stuff simple and vanilla, and army books primarily written by authors (aside from DE and SW) that have never written anything before this edition and a primary author who really writes as if he were an overimaginative 12 year old.


There's a huge disconnect there.


The big thing for most people I know is the background. That's what makes this game and what sustains GW, and has of late been subject to savage assault under and unrelenting storm of what amounts to tweeny internet fanction quality material. It's not the rules, or the models that seems to be irking many players, it's the background.

Um, I love 40K and Warmachine. Why does it have to be one over the other? Both systems are good and serve a different purpose. Both have flaws. I just don't understand why one has to be better than the other.
Are you having fun playing?
Are you having fun hobbying?
Be glad you can spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on a FRIGGIN GAME! We should all be supporting anyone who is into miniature gaming. Its best for us all to have variety and competition.
So, I have
Necrons,
Daemons,
Tau,
Cryx.
I love em all.
Stop being donkey-caves.

I quit playing 40k for Warmahordes back in 4th edition do to that crap-fest.

I then Quit Playing Warmahordes with the advent of MarkII.

I am now back to just 40k because, while my warmachine army may not have changed(Khador) everyone esle that I know had their army completely changed. Also I had just spent over $200 on books, and bought 2 separate main rulebooks already(Prime, and remix), only to have to buy 3 new core books(MarkII, The Khador book, and now wrath, just so i can keep up) and another set of cards just to be able to play my army, and I now have to go try and Find out-of-print blisters to fill out a few of my squads because I didn't field them in full squads before. That means just to play my army I need to spend $96.95 more(not including wrath).

I used to Love PP; now I Loathe them.

Adam LongWalker wrote:BaronIveagh Wrote:

On the other side, my FLGS no longer does 40k at all. They stopped carrying it. Bizarrely, we do, still have Battlefleet Gothic...

Seen this pattern as well at other FLGS.

I'm getting into WM because it really to me is a better system all around. I still play 40K and I really like the new Tomb kings codex. The problem is that GW for several years has been pushing too damned hard on "higher points games". I also hate GW terrain, their paint has declined in quality as they try to nickle and dime you to death on supplies.

It is not one problem, it is a majority of problems and greed that is getting people to change over to something else.

Their paints are actually one of their redeeming qualities in my eyes. They dry nigh-instantly, paint perfectly over each other, have just the right amount of pigment, have a type for every painting stage etc...Love the washes, I hate the inks, so they helped me a lot.

The large games are being promoted because before the large game system was completely awful not all that long ago. Many people want to fight large battles, myself included, to better fit with the scale of Wh40K. What do you think better fits in the grimdark universe of the far future: 400pts, or 4000 pts?

I’ve been following 40k for about 11 years now. I started out in third edition, took a hiatus during 4th and started again during 5th. My post is based on comparing my experience with 40k in third edition and in 5th.

My issue with GW is not so much the paints or the models (which have improved greatly IMO) but with the codices. I’d have to say the codex quality has definitely gone a little down hill versus my experiences with the codices released during third edition. Part of the problem is codex creep. If one were to compare Matt Ward’s Vanilla Marine Codex with his BA/GW codices, it’s as if they were written by different people. His earlier conservative style of writing seems to have been ditched in favour of a more zany approach. We’d probably see less Ward hate if the BA/GK codices were written in his earlier style of codex writing. Given that Matt Ward now appears to be the main codex writer for MEQ, I can see why this can be off putting for some people.

Personally, the biggest deal breaker for me is the lack of supplementary rules/errata for older rule sets. Errata were a big thing in third edition and its kind if sad to see it go. Currently BT and DA are the only 2 forces to have gotten some kind of rules update without getting a new codex. It would be great if this approach was applied across the board.

At the end of the day, whilst we can acknowledge that there are issues with 40k currently, I don’t think it will stop fans from finding some way of enjoying 40k.

BlackMath said:

Um, I love 40K and Warmachine. Why does it have to be one over the other?

Normally I'd agree with you, but a lot of people only have time and money to support one wargame. I know quite a lot of people who want to play 40k and haven't, or have only recently collected a small army they can play socially with but won't start collecting beyond that, simply because mortgage/kids/etc they can't afford it and can't find the time to sink into it.

GW proportions make them look cute, and you need a little cute to offset the boring/brown.

Everyone at my FLGS, save for a select few devoted 40K players, has started playing WarmaHordes. Some of our most devoted 40K players have switched over to WarmaHordes. This is annoying me since I have been a devoted 40K player for going on 8 years now. Even one of our best 40K players refuses to play 40K and only wants to play WarmaHordes now.

I say fools - warmahordes is magic the gathering with minatures. They are just as expensive and while it’s a ‘better’ game (in terms of design and rules clarity etc) it will never beat 40k for massed battle and conflict. It is also comparatively just as expensive.

This is seriously bothering me, especially as a serious 40K player, and because of all the money I spent on 40K. I'm not a big WarmaHordes fan either. I have an army but I find the game much less fun than 40K. Well, I was curious so I asked them what they didn't like about 40K. Their response? They believe that both 40K, and Fantasy, have gone down the proverbial toilet. They think that 8th edition Fantasy rules are pretty bad (I agree with them on this point I'm quitting Fantasy until 9th Edition comes out...or Bretonnians get a new codex). They believe that 40K's problem is the models.

8th edition fantasy is tripe, I agree. Fantasy was the superior game up until 6th, 7th was so so but 8th is ‘extracting the urine’ (ie taking the p**s) However 5th edition 40k is actually a good game. I say this as a person who reluctantly played 3rd and 4th.

They think that 40K's models are ugly and they say that WarmaHordes models are so much better. They think that 40K has become too cartoony. They referenced some of the new Dark Eldar and Grey Knight models and said that they think the models and sculpting have gone down hill. I disagree with them on this. While I think the new Grey Knight models are not as good as the old metal ones, I think they are still very nicely crafted models and sprues. I also think that Dark Eldar have some of the nicest models to come out yet.

Ok your friends need to get their eyes checked. GK are a bit ‘what we expected’ but DE were ZOMGWTFBBQ-ingly awesome. In addition how do you differentiate between the 16 different units of the SAME TYPE in warmahordes? If you have 3 deathrippers they all have to be armed and look the same more or less….

They also mentioned how 5th edition 40K is broken. I don't wholly disagree on this, I think Mech Guard, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and Spacewolves are incredibly broken. I also think some of the new models are rediculous. Stormraven, Vendetta, Voidraven Bombers, all of these models you would never see in 4th Edition. I personally think 4th Edition was the best. So anyway, I don't think 40K has gone down quite as far as they say it has and I am still very partial to Warhammer 40K and will continue to play it for many years to come. It just bothered me what they said, and their comments are still lingering in my head.

It’s escalating that’s for sure. But there’s only so much that people can take. Warmahordes beats 40k on a few points – rules clarity, speed, tournament-ability. However it isn’t actually fun. Luck is minimised by focus so its more about lists and crunching numbers. Despite several people/blogs best attempt at it that doesn’t happen in 40k as you cannot control how far your men wade through terrain, or run or leadership or anything like that. You can skew the odds but unlike warmahordes it doesn’t practically eliminate it (like hitting 12 on 4d6… that’s a bit too easy!)

Brother SRM:

5th ed 40k isn't broken. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Grey Knights aren't broken either. They have effective builds but they die the same as any other Marines. Mechanized Guard happen to be very good at what the recent metagame is all about: mobility and meltaguns. Even so, they're dead in killpoints games and a bunch of AV12 vehicles and T3 dudes inside aren't hard to kill. They're effective, but I wouldn't say they're broken by any stretch of the imagination.

I think part of the issue is popularity and the ‘meta’game. When a game comes down to a metagame it’s not really a good game anymore… that’s why GW should balance things and we as players shouldn’t buy into a metagame…

Stella

the rules keep getting worse, each codex being more shiny than the last to make more sales with no thought as to game balance or playtesting more than once at best

the players are getting far worse, the bunch of jerks into 40k and GW in general is far higher now than it ever use to be, its no longer about playing with toys, its all about who can be the bigger jerk.

I agree that this seems to have been the trend with the internet, BOLS, YTTT and tournament mentality in genral

I think dakka must represent an unusually large percentage of the masochist community; seriously how many people are out there being made to continue playing this game at gunpoint and post incessantly about how painful it is? Does it just hurt so good to hate your hobby this much?

We love the hobby but hate the Hobby

Goddard:
You hate 8th Edition Fantasy?
What the hell?

Hmm I need THIRTY models to make one horde to have a chance, not that it matters as he has more ranks so doesn’t run away even when I mangle him.. oh wait now my block of dudes is axed by some OP-ed spell.. and every army needs to have a £30+ monster in it…

DevianID
Warmahordes 'Play like you got a pair' had to get changed right? 'Play like you got a pair but stop acting like jerks and using this sentence to try and validate your poor sportsmanship you morons' is how it reads now in the new rulebook right?

+1

I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I agree with all of what you guys say and the Heroic Scaling is not a terrible thing with 40K. Your right WarmaHordes does it too. I think GW as a whole needs to start rethinking their writing strategies so as to stop this Codex one uping. I'm fearful as to what the Necron Codex is gonna be like or even the Sisters of Battle Codex. I'm not gonna hate on GW though. I play the game and that means I like 40K which means I like GW. I just don't like some things that they do and I think some of the writers are quite poor in my opinion. I'm not, however, opening up the Matt Ward can of worms, lets keep him out of this.

Necrons will suck because they aren’t spaze mharines.
Sisters will suck as only old skool people will buy any and GW wants to attract 12 year olds with rich parents… oh and sisters are also not spaze mharines. The models will be awesome and that's all that matters to a 'minatures' company.. (the 'games' in gamesworkshop is misleading)

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I used to play Blood Bowl & Space Hulk when I was a Kid by the age of 14 I lost interest (I couldn't paint, the nearest store was in London not many of my friends played). So 17 years later I picked up a few of the heresy novels enjoyed them and was inspired to create a 40k army.
I think the hobbys great it's gone from strength to strength since I left more stores bigger premises yes the sales assistants can be buy this buy that please buy something but there all nice people with a real interest in the hobby when I was younger their was a bit of an elitest attitude to the shop assistants.
The paints have improved massively I can actually produce something a bit respectable.
And lastly the rules are fine If people want to produce boring lists like 5 man assault squads all in razerbacks with 3 Baal preds and 3 Preds let them you don't have to play them personally I like to play them give them a tough game and they'll rethink using their all conquering Internet list.

sourclams wrote:

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks.

Um.... Actually, Magic was like that for YEARS. (Let us recall Rukh Egg...) And have you SEEN the full rulebook for MtG? It's a phonebook.

It was only when WotC realized that the Internet Existed that they made card FAQs easy to access. GW continues ot deny that the internet is real, or understand how to actually utilize it to have meaningful contact with their fanbase.

I love the GW models. I have to say I find all of them extremely pleasing to the eye with a few exceptions. Anyone claiming that as a reason is probably just hiding their true reasons for it.

BaronIveagh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks.

Um.... Actually, Magic was like that for YEARS. (Let us recall Rukh Egg...) And have you SEEN the full rulebook for MtG? It's a phonebook.

MtG parallel is interesting, but not for the reasons people usually cite. For Magic began as a fun game, not intended for competive play at all. Original rules had no card restrictions whatsoever. You could have a deck with nothing but Black Lotuses, Channels and Fireballs with nearly guaranteed 1st turn victory. Developers recognized those broken decks existed, but didn't care. They reasoned that "They're not fun to play, so people won't play them. Besides, Black Lotus is a Rare card, no way anyone buys enough boosters to collect several Lotuses." Clearly, the whole concept of WAAC players was alien to them. First expansions followed this suit, they were horribly unbalanced. At some point they recognized that there were too many broken cards, and expansions concentrated around fluff & themes, but with weak cards...expansions like Fallen Empires...and people HATED them. Nobody wanted to buy expansions with gakky cards. So they started "expansion creep" and began to release huge number of expansions with new, powerful cards. As MtG concentrated around competive play, I and everyone I know, bailed out. It didn't matter how good the tournament scene was, the game wasn't FUN anymore.

I still own about 3000 cards, maybe one day...

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Eh, it's just the natural ebb & flow of isolated gaming groups. I dealt with this exact situation when 40K moved from 2nd to 3rd edition. Honestly there's only two things you can do... 1. Try and revitalize the game amongst your group or... 2. Travel elsewhere for 40K games.

im2randomghgh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

Classics always fall under scrutiny. There will always be people who complain that a something isn't nearly as good as it used to be.

Do I think WH40k will die out? No. Do I think Warmachine will? No. Is there room for more than one wargaming game on the earth? Yes.

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Magic and WM/H have ridiculous power creep. Nids didn’t get much in the way of creep! Tau are lethal in 1000 point games (can max out a lot of their good stuff!)
Addiitonally WM/H is magic with minatures, 40k is a wargame - The ability to adapt to random elements is the challenge in a wargame. WM/H is about countering your oppoenents build seeing as everything is more rigidly defined.

. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

That’s a fallacy – ‘if you’re not X you’re Y ‘– you might be Z or even Q! (Or else I am an ultra genius!) as I don’t find WM/H as engaging. Heck chess is more engaging that WM/H
I find that it is too similar to magic in some ways and is too predictable in others. At least with 40k I have to think what happens if X, Y or Z doesn’t happen. I have to adapt. Think ahead in a different way.
With WM/H you can pretty much know what is going to happen. Takes the fun out of it.

MtG parallel is interesting, but not for the reasons people usually cite. For Magic began as a fun game, not intended for competive play at all. Original rules had no card restrictions whatsoever. You could have a deck with nothing but Black Lotuses, Channels and Fireballs with nearly guaranteed 1st turn victory. Developers recognized those broken decks existed, but didn't care. They reasoned that "They're not fun to play, so people won't play them. Besides, Black Lotus is a Rare card, no way anyone buys enough boosters to collect several Lotuses." Clearly, the whole concept of WAAC players was alien to them. First expansions followed this suit, they were horribly unbalanced. At some point they recognized that there were too many broken cards, and expansions concentrated around fluff & themes, but with weak cards...expansions like Fallen Empires...and people HATED them. Nobody wanted to buy expansions with gakky cards. So they started "expansion creep" and began to release huge number of expansions with new, powerful cards. As MtG concentrated around competive play, I and everyone I know, bailed out. It didn't matter how good the tournament scene was, the game wasn't FUN anymore.

Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

Grimtuff
Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

While I agree in terms of ‘noodle scratcher’ that’s just it – It’s more like a puzzle or an mtg game (where you know he has deck A and to counter it you need to pull series of moves B)
than a wargame. I find that it’s more about who know’s the rules inside out and back to front, knows the opponents rules (not hard as the rules are clear and there’s the card) and most importantly who can get their uber combo off and kill the caster first.

In 40k you have to adapt, in WM/H you just have to execute your plan, hope it goes right and that it's better than your opponents list/plan.

I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

Grimtuff wrote:

Quote Pyramid wrote:Unnecessary Clutter

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

You can't really dismiss that Warhammer has no tactics because it rolls a lot of dice. There's a lot of important stuff, like unit placement, predicting your opponent, leading a enemy into a trap (or away from an important unit), and a lot of the same tactics you find in a pure tactical game like chess. If anything, rolling a lot of dice produces an average, preventing a game being won and lost on a lucky die.

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

The Guard codex didn't come out until well into 5th ed, so I don't know what sort of timewarp you're playing in!