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.

A couple points,

"WM/Hordes is the anti-Warhammer

Not really. It's been defined as such, but both are nominally skirmish, moderately large-scale, squad-based games. Infinity and Malifaux are far further away, due to scale and rules, in my opinion.

mark two rules are wonderfully designed and, in my own opinion, two of the best rules documents ever written for tabletop gaming

Despite my complaining, I agree entirely here.

Regarding community--

4 communities I've encountered:
-FLGS 1: moderately competitive, some jerks. One early game, I won against a vet. I said "good game," and was ready to shake hands. He responded, "no, it wasn't." 'nuff said.
-FLGS 2: friendly but highly competitive
-FLGS 3: non-competitive, low-key
-PP website: used to be a great and vibrant place, but then PP decided that saying non-positive things was bad, and the mods now rule with an iron fist. In a game where you play with a pair, you aren't allowed to write as if you or anyone else has one. Basically just rumor mongering and tactics now.

eh.. You cant really rate communities of games that much.


One group at this one shop are dicks that play so and so game, but the group that plays the other so and so game are nice.

but at this other location its the other way.

People suck, thats all there is to it, not matter what game you play. there is the bad ones and good ones.

Agreed.

Giving Unbound as an example of Privateer Press trying to push larger games onto players is like saying the same with Apocalypse and 40k. It's official rules for playing large game, that's about it. I don't think the standard sizes as adopted by the players and also accepted by the company at their event (Lock and Load) for tournaments will be changing.

I think push is the wrong term. Though WM/H has skirmish roots, it's nice to have rules for larger games.

Though, to be fair, it would be wrong to say that companies don't release rules for larger games without the intention of selling models. Colossals and GW Superheavies (Stompas, Baneblades, etc.) are created primarily to entice players to play larger games.

The only standard SR2012 event being run at higher than 50pts. is Gencon Masters. This actually caused some uproar as well, specifically on severe logistics issues it seems to cause for players in it. Whether it becomes standard or not is to be seen, but I know that until the forseeable future, for instnace, Warmachine Weekend is sticking to 50pts for the Last Chance Qualifier and Invitational. I see this kind of staying that way.

Tournament play, as I said upthread, affects a lot of what's actually played I think. And if things stick to 50pts being the most common "top" I don't see that changing and it isnt' in PP's goals it seems to shift that.

Now that said, making big-ass things, which was a complaint is a more valid one. They seem to live big-ass models and I am if anything getting annoyed with the logistics headache it is to move these damned things around sometimes.

And stuff.

The one thing that surprised me the most about the Colossals was the timing.

When the Battle Engines came out, the concept seemed rather similar. It seems like the Colossals overshadow the Battle Engines in concept.

I also agree that Privateer needs to stop re-hashing ideas. Bane Cavalry is just dumb, IMHO.

Negator80 wrote:I've found the opposite; that 40k's loose, gray area rules (relative to WM/H's tight ruleset) are a breeding ground for jerks to impose their jerky wills.

Exactly. You just cannot argue most of the rules of WM/H. In 40K, you can argue all day, and people abuse that a lot.

When you go to play a game expecting your opponent to really do his best to kill all your models and completely bash you, and if you intend to do the same to him, there can be no hard feelings about the game (except if he cheats or is just socially incompetent or similar crap, but that's a completely different level of TFG). Whereas in 40K, I have very often seen people expect their opponents to 'play nice' and not use the hardest options available to them. But why would anyone handicap himself? If GK razor spam is the currently most effective build, why wouldn't you use it? Sure, I wouldn't want to, for several reasons,* but that's exactly why 40K is gak in my world. In WM/H, there is no most effective build, nor a most effective faction. You can bring any number of effective combos. Some combos are hard counters for specific other builds, but that's why you bring two lists to tourneys and why you build lists after rolling scenario for league games.

* I don't like the look&feel nor the fluff of GK, I don't like spamming units, I don't like buying a completely new army every year to stay competitive.


40K has awesome fluff. But it is frustrating to lovingly collect an army that you really like the fluff and the miniatures of, just to be unable to compete even on the friendly match level with them. I collected Tau for several years. I still enjoy the models, really I do, but gaming with them was completely annoying. It was always an uphill battle, and while I enjoy tactical challenges, I do not enjoy them if I start at a constant disadvantage.

Skylifter wrote:If GK razor spam is the currently most effective build, why wouldn't you use it? .

If Deathjack with eSkarre is the most effective Cryx build, why wouldn't you use it? If Nightmare is better than a basic slayer, why wouldn't you use it?

GW has obvious, glaring rules issues. But GW doesn't claim to have a competitive, well balanced game. Because the rules aren't airtight doesn't make the game horrible, and if you've been to any of the major 40k tournaments you'll find that you can have a game where both players do their best to completely bash their opponents while having a great time. Just last year I was at the Socal Smackdown and two WM players got into a major argument over whether or not an opponent got the back strike bonus. The issue was resolved, but I guarantee you both of them had hard feelings.

While there is a huge degree of balance in WM/H, even here there are most effective builds/factions. Ask around, Cryx and Legion do better than most. Additionally, there are less useful options within every faction. Cephylax, Drudge Slaves, and Bloat Thralls are just examples in Cryx of units that constitute "least effective builds". That's not to mention the worst 'casters/locks, like Dominic Darius of Cygnar.

I enjoy both games very much, but what a lot of people seem to miss is that both games aren't perfect, or that one game is the anti-other. Casual Warmachine and Competitive 40k/Fantasy can exist without tearing the galaxy in half.

Okay, so I just wrote a long post replying to several items en détail, then my browser messed up and it was lost. So let me just give a summary:

Warmachine isn't the anti-GW and it isn't the one-and-only-perfect game. But since most gamers come from a GW perspective, GW games are the obvious comparison. I was very frustrated with GW games half a year ago and went looking for something new. I found Warmachine, and I am very, very happy with it, because it gives me a much more complete hobby experience.

GW games have awesome fluff. Warmachine fluff is good, but not as complex or developed yet. GW produces awesome models, PP's models are good, but there are some bad sculpts in there. However, for a GW army I have to paint a lot of very similar models. Even my characters tend to look very similar to my troopers. Warmachine armies consist of vastly different models, and rarely will I have to paint more than 10 very similar ones. Therefore, I enjoy my painting more, because I don't have to do the (boring) extreme highlights on the 25th space marine. Playing GW games is certainly fun, but finding new effective ways to fully subjugate my enemy isn't as much fun, because I must disregard so many fluffwise interesting units from the get-go and when I finally have my cool new and effective build, I must expect my opponent's to hate me for it. In Warmachine, my opponents expect me to do my worst.

TL;DR: Both companies make enjoyable games, but I like Warmachine better because it doesn't frustrate me as GW does and it covers every aspect of the hobby to an equal degree, which I like.

Skylifter wrote:Okay, so I just wrote a long post replying to several items en détail, then my browser messed up and it was lost. So let me just give a summary:

Warmachine isn't the anti-GW and it isn't the one-and-only-perfect game. But since most gamers come from a GW perspective, GW games are the obvious comparison. I was very frustrated with GW games half a year ago and went looking for something new. I found Warmachine, and I am very, very happy with it, because it gives me a much more complete hobby experience.

GW games have awesome fluff. Warmachine fluff is good, but not as complex or developed yet. GW produces awesome models, PP's models are good, but there are some bad sculpts in there. However, for a GW army I have to paint a lot of very similar models. Even my characters tend to look very similar to my troopers. Warmachine armies consist of vastly different models, and rarely will I have to paint more than 10 very similar ones. Therefore, I enjoy my painting more, because I don't have to do the (boring) extreme highlights on the 25th space marine. Playing GW games is certainly fun, but finding new effective ways to fully subjugate my enemy isn't as much fun, because I must disregard so many fluffwise interesting units from the get-go and when I finally have my cool new and effective build, I must expect my opponent's to hate me for it. In Warmachine, my opponents expect me to do my worst.

TL;DR: Both companies make enjoyable games, but I like Warmachine better because it doesn't frustrate me as GW does and it covers every aspect of the hobby to an equal degree, which I like.

I can dig this.

I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd. I got into miniature war gaming through 40k. I expanded to Hordes, and later to Infinity (which I've yet to play a game of). They're different enough to not be the same - which is good! I don't want to play Hordes so I can play 40k while I don't play 40k, I want to play Hordes so I can play Hordes. However, they're all still miniature wargames with degrees of similarity - you roll for hits and wounds and all that jazz. So what? It's called being the same media. You can't complain that Exalted and D&D are polar opposites and thus one is good and the other bad when they're both the same media - tabletop RPGs. It's an illogical and nonsensical argument!

Similarly, with all the "b'aww PP are forcing me to play big games! They're literally coming to my house and putting a gun to my head, making me play big games and buy millions of models I don't want!"? Baseless argument. Some people say that 2000pt 40k is the only way to go. Others say that 1500pts is the minimum, or 1000pt, or whatever. Personally, I like to play a 600pt game every now and then. These are arbitrary values that are totally up to you and your opponent in a casual setting, or up to a tourney organiser or what-have-you. They also release solos every now and then. What, they're forcing us to play smaller games, because solos are small? The only thing that Unbound does is enable those people who enjoy large games to play large games more effectively, just like Apocalypse in 40k.

We must also not think of Colossi/Gargantua as 40k's Titans. They're super-jacks. They're better, but they're more expensive as a result. If you field a big unit it means you have fewer smaller units. Once it is gone, your army has lost its spine, so to speak. As a Tyranid player, I know this very well. It's not "Oh, you've killed my one 'jack" any more. It's "Oh, crap, you broke all those eggs in that one basket I put them in".

Some people like quality over quantity. Large, powerful units and few of them. That's what the big guys are - all that means is that more of their army is concentrated into a single unit. They're not army-destroyingly powerful, but they're better than regular 'jacks. As a Legion player, if I don't take as many Carnivean as I can, am I screwed? No! I can take other things. That is the point of lists, after all. Similarly, if I don't take a pseudo-Titan, am I screwed? No.

As for being forced to change your list - well, not really. That's not much to complain about, though. Rules change, and you should change with them. Plasma guns are crap in this edition because a unit came out which might possibly maybe negate them? Take something else or continue to use them, it's your call.

Honestly, I'll probably only get a big guy because they look awesome, and for no other reason. I probably will never field it.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd. I got into miniature war gaming through 40k. I expanded to Hordes, and later to Infinity (which I've yet to play a game of). They're different enough to not be the same - which is good! I don't want to play Hordes so I can play 40k while I don't play 40k, I want to play Hordes so I can play Hordes. However, they're all still miniature wargames with degrees of similarity - you roll for hits and wounds and all that jazz. So what? It's called being the same media. You can't complain that Exalted and D&D are polar opposites and thus one is good and the other bad when they're both the same media - tabletop RPGs. It's an illogical and nonsensical argument!

Similarly, with all the "b'aww PP are forcing me to play big games! They're literally coming to my house and putting a gun to my head, making me play big games and buy millions of models I don't want!"? Baseless argument. Some people say that 2000pt 40k is the only way to go. Others say that 1500pts is the minimum, or 1000pt, or whatever. Personally, I like to play a 600pt game every now and then. These are arbitrary values that are totally up to you and your opponent in a casual setting, or up to a tourney organiser or what-have-you. They also release solos every now and then. What, they're forcing us to play smaller games, because solos are small? The only thing that Unbound does is enable those people who enjoy large games to play large games more effectively, just like Apocalypse in 40k.

We must also not think of Colossi/Gargantua as 40k's Titans. They're super-jacks. They're better, but they're more expensive as a result. If you field a big unit it means you have fewer smaller units. Once it is gone, your army has lost its spine, so to speak. As a Tyranid player, I know this very well. It's not "Oh, you've killed my one 'jack" any more. It's "Oh, crap, you broke all those eggs in that one basket I put them in".

Some people like quality over quantity. Large, powerful units and few of them. That's what the big guys are - all that means is that more of their army is concentrated into a single unit. They're not army-destroyingly powerful, but they're better than regular 'jacks. As a Legion player, if I don't take as many Carnivean as I can, am I screwed? No! I can take other things. That is the point of lists, after all. Similarly, if I don't take a pseudo-Titan, am I screwed? No.

As for being forced to change your list - well, not really. That's not much to complain about, though. Rules change, and you should change with them. Plasma guns are crap in this edition because a unit came out which might possibly maybe negate them? Take something else or continue to use them, it's your call.

Honestly, I'll probably only get a big guy because they look awesome, and for no other reason. I probably will never field it.

Quoted for so much truth I could barely handle it.

Colossals are cool, yo.

Nobody's arguing which game is better, just stating the fact that WM/H has better written rules, and better written rules mean less opportunities to abuse them or cause problems.

For me the appeal is that it is cheaper to start, the models are really nice, the background is great and the rules are much more balanced and in depth than in 40k.

Castiel wrote:For me the appeal is that it is cheaper to start, the models are really nice, the background is great and the rules are much more balanced and in depth than in 40k.

I would suggest cheaper initially to start when you factor a battlebox plus a download of the quick start rules and you can walk into a battle box event for $5. Your not going to get that in GW land. However I will say, PP games are not cheaper in the long run. They are easier to collect as an example, where 1 box typically gets you a full unit to play with. Where as often in GW land your dropping case for 2 boxes to build a "competitive unit" ie terminators, orks, necrons, most space marine elite units.

Where WMDH shines, is the cross army method which 40K 6E has now adopted. Being a Mercenary player is wonderful, because you can easily branch into a 2nd or 3rd faction without killing yourself financially, and still play at a competitive level. You cannot do this is 40K where you need a entire new army which allies may change slightly but likely not at the tournment level.

I returned to M2 with Searforge (i played Mk1 but sold my cygnar as meta game was all cryx and I was bored, Mk2 changed that and I returned). Mercs can easily branch into Cygnar, Khador, Menoth, and still use some of your loved models. If your going to paint your army, just have a unified basing scheme, and your likely good to go!

Play what you like in the end, just play, because the world needs more dice chucking wargamers.

How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

The cost comparison really depends on how you want to play the game. WM/H is frequently competitive, though it doesn't have to be. Steamrollers often require multiple (2-3) lists at 50 points each and sometimes reserve units are needed too. You may have some unit overlap between the lists, but maybe not. In my experience, even competitive army building is cheaper in WM/H but it is not a huge difference.

Even 2 50 pt lists would still come out less then a single 2000 pt list (barring the most extreme cases)

I agree that it is probably cheaper, but not by a huge margin.

Negator80 wrote:How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

who ever plays "one list" with warmachine? Yup - you are correct but only to an extent. it is cheaper to buy in to warmachine. absolutely. i did my starter 25pt circle army (and a reasonably competitve one - kromac, 2 argus, feral, lord of the feast, totem hunter gorax, war wolf) based on the battle box and a few bits extra, and it cost me shy of £80. quite reasonable. if thats all i played.
like i said though, who ever plays only one list? take my khador faction - my primary force.. i have all the warcasters. all the jacks. and multiples of some of them. i have 8 squads of doom reavers (eButcher theme list), at least 1 squad of most other infantry types (bar men o war demo korps and bombadiers - for the moment, and kossites). i have most of the options avilable to me. I also have all the books from mk1 onwards. tell me how this is cheap! i am awaiting my Conquest with bated breath too. then factor in all the extra beasts and units i've picked up for circle in the meantime.

Its not cheap in the long run.

haendas wrote:The cost comparison really depends on how you want to play the game. WM/H is frequently competitive, though it doesn't have to be. Steamrollers often require multiple (2-3) lists at 50 points each and sometimes reserve units are needed too. You may have some unit overlap between the lists, but maybe not. In my experience, even competitive army building is cheaper in WM/H but it is not a huge difference.

This is why its cheaper, but in the long term your savings probably are minimal, but something.
With the jump to 50 points, most of the tournments in the Philadelphia area request you have to 3 lists, many of them have made a push to Tier 2 or higher. That's the part that catches you, fleshing out 3 different lists, with 3 different casters to make Tier 2 requirements.

The nice part, you basically end up with about 3 playable armies from the same faction at 50 pts, with some reusing of jacks. You end up with a nice collection, with less models then 40K, which often fit in 1 figure case. My guess, to competitively play at the Hardcore events, your probably looking $400-500 at the end including your case, you save money yes, but its kind of a slow creep to case. Then you end up starting a 2nd faction...

I play Khador at the tier 2 events. I start Khador to play before many of the events when Tier 2, so I never really wanted a huge collection. I had been running Karchev and Epic Butcher non tier. I fleshed my lists out to Tiers for 50 pts. Figure those units of Man O Wars were about $40, there had to be 2, and the requirement to have 3 units of Doom Reavers at $40, the unit of Greylords, my wardog (obligatory Khador model, it should just be included in the butcher pack for an extra $10)

JUST in infantry my list has about $220 of models
Jacks: Beserker, Beserker, Spriggan, Jugger, Destroyer: about $200
Casters: Karchev (ouch), Butcher: $70
Solos: Wardog, Drakhun, Kovnik about 80
Total for 2 lists ~ around 600

Deadnight wrote:

Negator80 wrote:How are they not cheaper in the long run? A 35 pt army will cost you $200 from thewarstore (170 for the circle army i currently play) and that's not including a battlebox. Compare that to a 1500 or 1750 pt 40k army....

Link to dakkaites that priced their armies from GW (so account for 10-20ish% off from the warstore).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/454189.page

Absolute minimum is double the price for 1500 pt armies.

who ever plays "one list" with warmachine? Yup - you are correct but only to an extent. it is cheaper to buy in to warmachine. absolutely. i did my starter 25pt circle army (and a reasonably competitve one - kromac, 2 argus, feral, lord of the feast, totem hunter gorax, war wolf) based on the battle box and a few bits extra, and it cost me shy of £80. quite reasonable. if thats all i played.
like i said though, who ever plays only one list? take my khador faction - my primary force.. i have all the warcasters. all the jacks. and multiples of some of them. i have 8 squads of doom reavers (eButcher theme list), at least 1 squad of most other infantry types (bar men o war demo korps and bombadiers - for the moment, and kossites). i have most of the options avilable to me. I also have all the books from mk1 onwards. tell me how this is cheap! i am awaiting my Conquest with bated breath too. then factor in all the extra beasts and units i've picked up for circle in the meantime.

Its not cheap in the long run.

You cant punish the company for making miniatures you like to buy. Saying what you just said is like saying 'starting 40k is cheap until you start buying terrain and novels and other armies'. You are ignoring the point here.

It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h.

It IS alot cheaper then playing 40k.

This is how.

For example local shop plays 1850 40k games..

To start a new army, to play in that meta, i have to shell out $500-800 to start playing, or for a new army.

Lets say on the high end here. Warmachine plays at 50pts (Its a mix of 35 and 50)

I can spend $200-$250(usually on high end of that price )on a 50pt army and play, then expand it later and keep playing.

I can get 2x 50pt lists that share some units, then im able to play in tourneys and go start a different faction if i wanted.

Now with that, i own Menoth and some Legion. When im done, i will have over 75% of the menoth faction if not more, that doesnt even include duplicate units.

Why ? I like the faction, i could of had 3 different 50pt armies if i wanted, but i wouldnt have had Everything i wanted for all of them.
----

Another appeal to the game is...

You get new stuff every year, there is no.. Hey! you got a new Codex.. now you get nothing new for your army for 5-10 years. Have fun.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd.

One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

CT GAMER wrote:

Frozen Ocean wrote:I enjoyed Sonic Generations. I also enjoy(ed) the Halo series. The two are about as far removed as possible for such games.

But omg! You can't like them both, that's absurd! You can't watch 24 and also The Walking Dead! You can't enjoy one book and also another! That's crazy talk. Clearly, 24 is the anti-The Walking Dead.

I find this whole concept utterly absurd.

One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

seems to happen on all forums about other games

At least its not as bad as MMo forums..

Negator80 wrote:

You cant punish the company for making miniatures you like to buy. Saying what you just said is like saying 'starting 40k is cheap until you start buying terrain and novels and other armies'. You are ignoring the point here.

It is cheap in the long run. fact. Stop lying to the posters interested in wm/h.

firstly, you can do 40k on the cheap too. frankly, it is relatively possible. especially for me, as i bought all my stuff when it was cheaper, and frankly, i dont need to invest much else at the current ridiculous prices. fullily enough, i tend to only buy 40k stuff these days as conversion bits for my WM pieces.

What "point" am i ignoring? How am i "lying"? I spoke the truth - its a lot cheaper to buy into warmachine. starter pack. there you go. i even pointed out you can build up effective, tournament winning armies for less than £100. absolutely. but thats 1 list. buy the casters. £8-£10 each. sorschs. eSorscha. Irusk. eIrusk. Butcher. eButcher. Old Witch. Harkevich. Strakhov. Karchev. Zerkova (who still eluded me) Vlad. eVlad. lVlad. buy 1 of each of the warjacks, so you can swap things out - seriously, who wants "just" a juggernaut, and a destroyer. I dont. there's Drago, Beast, the behemoth (personal favourite), torch, spriggans, berzerkers devestators. thats pricy. if you want more than just the winter guard deathstar, and a max squad of kayazy, again, it;ll cost you if you want the great bears, iron fangs, doom reavers (ive got 8 squads f these at £18 each for my dream force - eButcher 50pts mad dogs of war list). a full squad of Uhlans will set you back £50. look at collossals. £100 each. gun carriages. then the books. if you're a completionist like me you've got all 11 forces of... books, along with Hordes Primal, Warmachine Prime, Wrath and Domination. *shrug* i dont know what to say. Im not lying, and frankly, i am quite insulted at what i feel is an extremely unjustified, and extremely short sighted comment.

and for the record, im not complaining either. Nor am i giving out. I am quite happy to save up over a month or two, make an order, and then put down £200 on warmachine stuff (in fact, i will be. again. soon. full unit of druids+UA, ghetorix, plastic warpwolf, conquest, warmachine: collossals) and that in itself puts paid to the notion that it is a cheap game.

40k is an expensive hobby. but to be fair, i've spent a lot more on warmachine than i ever have on 40k. Ultimately, its a hobby thats as expensive as you want to make it as i can testify. If all you want is "a" 35, or 50t army, it wont set you back all that much (and i've said as much - i had a top contending 25pt circle army for less than £80), but if you want options, and want to invest fully into a faction, it will cost you as much as 40k ever will. Now, to be fair, the money you spend might be equal, or more, but in 40k, you get 1 army - in warmachine you get a vastly greater amount of possible combos for an equivelant amount of cash, but its still an equiveland amount of cash! So no, its not "cheaper". you get more, relatively speaking (though not in terms of the model count!) but it still costs about the same if you go all in.

personally, im hardly "punishing" PP for the game. stop acting like a fanboy. No, im not ripping on your beloved game. Im not having a go. im a huge fan. again, im quite insulted by that comment. and since i've come on here (and you can check my posts) ive done nothing but encourage people into the warmahordes game. all im saying is while its cheaper at the start, it is as expensive in the long run, if you want to be able to properly swap your faction out.

I think where the cost of warmahordes comes into play is that it is cheaper for each list. You are talking $300 for a full-sized list, as opposed to the $600 for 40k. With PP, you can radically re-work your army for maybe $100-$200 if you use compatible models, as opposed to the $400-ish for similar amounts of change for 40k. Thus players are more willing to shell out the money to expand their collection, as it looks smaller to start with. This results in the player racking up more bills than with 40k, which kinda evens out.

CT GAMER wrote:
One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

This x1,000

Everything needs to be compared to GW, and everything GW does is inferior on the PP forums. It's not even opinion anymore, it's considered fact over there.


And yes, WM can be cheaper than 40k. WM can also be more expensive, depending on how much you spend.

And WM is expensive in the long run, if you buy more stuff. ANYthing is expensive in the long run.

Cryonicleech wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
One of the reasons that the Privateer Press message boards drove me insane. People couldnt be content loving WM, they had to tell you constantly how much they hated GW/40K.

The constant GW nerdrage was mind-numbing...

This x1,000

Everything needs to be compared to GW, and everything GW does is inferior on the PP forums. It's not even opinion anymore, it's considered fact over there.


And yes, WM can be cheaper than 40k. WM can also be more expensive, depending on how much you spend.

And WM is expensive in the long run, if you buy more stuff. ANYthing is expensive in the long run.

This isnt a wm vs 40k thing. This is good information for prospective players based on logical comparisons.

Also guys, comon, stick to the context and use your heads. Of course it 'can' be more expensive if you buy more; the point is what it takes to 'get into it'. Thats what prospective players want to know. Telling them 'Yeah its cheap until you buy more stuff' is a terribly stupid and pointless comment.