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.

You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

Well, I've finally gotten a chance to make a comparison. A few months ago, my FLGS had a big sale, and the WMH battle boxes were on sale for the same price as one power armored space marine clampack. I wish I was kidding. Both were 30 bucks.

So I cracked it open and was pleasantly surprised enough to have the unit cards and a mini-rulebook explaining the rules as well as a solid quarter (plus a commander, who is free in WMH points) of a full army, that I've been building and playing them as a side project, and I've really gotten a feel for both games and what the realities behind all the hype and arguments are.

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

Assessment: True, but to a limited extent. Why?

Warmachine does army variation very differently to 40k. Each commander you choose drastically affects the overall synergy of your list, and often the "pyrovores" of warmachine are only good with one particular army combo, with a commander who specifically buffs them up.

It's also worth noting that the scale of power in WMH is much more tightly controlled. There's no titans here, the biggest baddest collossals are only on the scale of maybe a 500-point model in 40k. No fliers, almost no vehicles, and much smaller scale battles as well as more tightly balanced mission objectives make WMHs balance an easier target to hit. Which some might say is great, and it certainly makes for less fringe cases of extreme frustration, but it does slightly decrease the variety overall.

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

Assessment: totally. In terms of gameplay at least. In terms of modeling, 40k wins.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game. Once you wrap your head around the rule set it all runs like a well oiled machine. There is zero doubt in my eyes that anyone looking for a competitive experience would be massively better served with WMH but fun is very subjective and to me, both are very different kinds of fun. WMH is the fun of matching wits, the quiet fun of assembling and adapting a battle plan and watching it play out while 40k is the cinematic energetic fun of not knowing what will happen next. I love both. Id strongly advise anyone who's holding out on one because "grr that's the other game we don't like they're not one of us" to give it a go and suck up your pride-the experience of being new and bad at something and not knowing what was gonna come at me was almost worth the experience in and of itself.

40k and WMH are two very different beasts, to be sure. Both have their ups and downs, and both have their personalities, but there's no reason to hate one because you love the other. If you've got active communities, I definitely advocate you to try both, and I hope you have a great time with it.

You know, I agree with practically everything you say.

You allude to this, but because of their release cycle, WMH is harder to love as a collectible for modelling (and f course, all single pose with no bits), but the lack of any big box sales hurts too. Other than two mediocre starter boxes, you can't get a whole bunch of miniatures to model in the $75-$150 range, which is kind of the sewer spot for a 15-30 model bundles (adjusted for any large models included). I just bought 4 $150 deathstorm boxes, 95% of which ill be for modeling (mind you, I got them for $105). I wish such an offer were available from PP -- I would love to give them a big product buy.

On the other hand WMH is much easier to model to play. Not only are there a lot fewer molds to assemble for a force, but each model takes way less time, and you never have to think, Grav Gun or Melta -- or magnetize or buy multiple boxes.

I prefer WMH for any quick pickup game. The length of game is shorter, and the models to transport and set up are an order of magnitude simpler. But, it cuts both was: there is no awesome battle feeling, and unit variety suffers as you say. There are also few large, interesting models to collect, if that is your thing.

I also wish there were WMH themed terrain.

I am more a modeller/painter than a gamer at this stage of my life, but I likeb both games and worlds, and will support (buy) stuff from both companies!

I would agree that this is a fair assessment. Different people will like different games. For me, WMH scratches all my itches in a way that 40k can't. (tactical and fair gameplay.)
PP's metals are outstanding and their plastics are getting better but for now, yes, their plastics aren't as good as GW's.

Nobody has ever gotten angry at someone for saying that they prefer 40k, it's been when people try to argue that 40k is somehow a superior *game* because it's not balanced or similar ridiculousness.

WMH is not for everyone. Even as someone who plays it, I constantly think of playing 40k again because I like the background/aesthetics a lot better, just the terrible rules and high prices keep me from wanting to bother. Same with 40k. It's different tastes, but I've only seen the "everything else is crap" argument coming from the pro-40k side, never those against.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Nobody has ever gotten angry at someone for saying that they prefer 40k, it's been when people try to argue that 40k is somehow a superior *game* because it's not balanced or similar ridiculousness.

WMH is not for everyone. Even as someone who plays it, I constantly think of playing 40k again because I like the background/aesthetics a lot better, just the terrible rules and high prices keep me from wanting to bother. Same with 40k. It's different tastes, but I've only seen the "everything else is crap" argument coming from the pro-40k side, never those against.

This. They're very different games, and they attract people with different tastes. I love the game side of WMH and the background/models of 40k, so I play both. But I've never seen a WMH player react the way everyone says they do about 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I would agree that this is a fair assessment. Different people will like different games. For me, WMH scratches all my itches in a way that 40k can't. (tactical and fair gameplay.)
PP's metals are outstanding and their plastics are getting better but for now, yes, their plastics aren't as good as GW's.

As an example of the plastics -- I am 100% sure I will buy the new Troll Scattergunners from PP. I mean, they're cool

Obviously, I don't know the quality yet, as it's not released for a couple more days. However, because it's single pose, with no equipment options, there is little chance that I'll buy a second box. It's not particularly cheap at $60 for 10 plastics, either.

To compare, I'll also, guaranteed, buy the Blood Angels tacticals, at $43 (also 10 plastics). In fact, I'll pick them up at the same time as the trollbloods -- both this Friday The difference is, there is a high likelihood I will buy a second BA tactical box, maybe even at release. I wish PP gave me a reason to buy a second Scattergunner box.

Now, from a gaming perspective, the Scattergunners are a WAY better value than the Tacticals. Excluding the usefulness of the tacticals (which we don't know until the new codex anyways), the Scattergunners will comprise a much larger proportion of the battleforce.

I'll the same thing here that I said in the other thread, I wish 40k had better rules and I wish WMH had better models. PP models are as bad as GW rules. If it wasn't for that they would be putting GW out of business. Whenever I try to get people into WMH, they pick up a battle box or starter set and are immediately put off by the quality of the models, missing pieces and the aesthetics. They'll play 15-35 point games with me once in awhile but still play 40k most of the time. PP needs to step it up if they want to take more GW customers. I was prepared to sell my entire 40k army and buy heavily into WMH but after building/painting their models and looking at every faction trying to find one I can really get into, I just can't. WMH is a good side game but I have to like the aesthetics and enjoy building/painting the models to make it my go to game and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it.

Toofast wrote:
I'll the same thing here that I said in the other thread, I wish 40k had better rules and I wish WMH had better models. PP models are as bad as GW rules. If it wasn't for that they would be putting GW out of business. Whenever I try to get people into WMH, they pick up a battle box or starter set and are immediately put off by the quality of the models, missing pieces and the aesthetics. They'll play 15-35 point games with me once in awhile but still play 40k most of the time. PP needs to step it up if they want to take more GW customers. I was prepared to sell my entire 40k army and buy heavily into WMH but after building/painting their models and looking at every faction trying to find one I can really get into, I just can't. WMH is a good side game but I have to like the aesthetics and enjoy building/painting the models to make it my go to game and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it.

Solution: play WMH with Citadel models? Warmahammer Hordes 40,000!

I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

Problem is I'm a gamer who likes GW models, but hate basically everything else about them. If I could only pick one game but I'd be able to get whatever I wanted for free, I'd probably pick GW, and I say that as someone who was just accepted to be a Press Ganger for PP. However, if 40k had good rules and didn't feel like I was being ripped off, I would have never played WMH so I would have lost out on that opportunity.

When I take everything together, it's no comparison. WMH is the superior game and offers me more of what I want. I don't care about conversions (hate them, in fact) but I want a solid tactical game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I kind of wish PP would stick to metal until they got better at plastic. I mean, I'm not big on being a customer during the learning curve. At the moment, their plastics are a bit underwhelming (it feels like the worst of both worlds, being mediocre casts, near-metal prices, and no customizability.

Also, I wish PP would ditch resin. Their resin is just as much a pain as Failcast. I hate working with it, I hate the big chunks of extra material, and PP resin doesn't even have the excuse that it has fine detail. I pretty much hate 95% of GW resin too, so I'm pretty equal opportunity there

Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I kind of wish PP would stick to metal until they got better at plastic. I mean, I'm not big on being a customer during the learning curve. At the moment, their plastics are a bit underwhelming (it feels like the worst of both worlds, being mediocre casts, near-metal prices, and no customizability.

Also, I wish PP would ditch resin. Their resin is just as much a pain as Failcast. I hate working with it, I hate the big chunks of extra material, and PP resin doesn't even have the excuse that it has fine detail. I pretty much hate 95% of GW resin too, so I'm pretty equal opportunity there

I don't have a huge issue with their plastics (although it's nowhere near GW quality I admit), but their metals constantly make me wonder WTF they were thinking with how some things are split up. Having say an arm go onto the torso, then a hand go onto the arm is flat out stupid and leads to annoying models like the Nyss Hunters that are a royal PITA to put together since they're flimsy.

I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done, because there´s a thread made about it literally almost every day.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

You know, I actually agree with you. It's not a direct comparison, but most of the vitriol comes from the 40k crowd that I've seen who tend to get hostile faster. They are two different games, that appeal to two different types of people. For me, I find the rules of the game outweigh everything else, but I also don't hate the aesthetic of the models. For you or someone else, you might not care that much about the rules but really like how the GW figures look.

There isn't a clear "winner" in this regard.

I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

For me gaming is equally important to modeling personally, but I´m fine with 40K´s rules. They could be more balanced and better, but I´ve always managed and I enjoy some aspects others dont. I enjoy effective list building, I find some of the ridicilous rules fun. I don´t agree with the "40K for miniatures, WM for rules" -sentiment, as I find both games have rules that make the game fun to play, for me. Certainly WM/H has better rules in the way of balance and coherency. I still have a blast playing both just the same. They are so very different as games.

Isengard wrote:
I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

I would urge you to try "Into the Storm" a PP novel written by award winning author Larry Correia. It's really quite good and will give you a good feel for how in depth the fluff actually is.

That's why I play WMH and won't play 40K. However, I do have a 2000 PT traitor guard with allied evil inquisitor just for the modelling and conversions.

WayneTheGame wrote:


I don't have a huge issue with their plastics (although it's nowhere near GW quality I admit), but their metals constantly make me wonder WTF they were thinking with how some things are split up. Having say an arm go onto the torso, then a hand go onto the arm is flat out stupid and leads to annoying models like the Nyss Hunters that are a royal PITA to put together since they're flimsy.

Lol... Having to pin a hand to an arm is annoying. I will definitely say that I pin way, way more 28mm base units' arms than should be needs. I often wish the hand with the gun/staff had some kind of fitting, like a dovetail.

OTOH, pp metals usually clean up pretty quickly, shifting the time from modeling to painting (or playing), which is just a question of what you prefer spending your time on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I can´t fathom why dakka has this plague of constant WM/H vs. WH40K arguments and threads. It´s getting quite old really, I´ve started putting the few select individuals mostly responsible on ignore which I rarely do, because everyone should be able to say what´s on their mind. However it´s making the experience of using the forums annoying unless done, because there´s a thread made about it literally almost every day.

I like both games, and I have fun playing either with vaurious people on an active basis. They both factually have good and bad things going for them.

I really don't know why some people feel the need to constantly bash one game. On the other hand, I don't mind comparing the two games/worlds, because they appeal to the same players and are sold in the same type of stores. I think both companies do some things better than the other.

It would be really nice if all WMH vs 40k posts stayed in one thread, and inflammatory, non- constructive posts were just deleted.

the_scotsman wrote:Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

Assessment: True, but to a limited extent. Why?

Warmachine does army variation very differently to 40k. Each commander you choose drastically affects the overall synergy of your list, and often the "pyrovores" of warmachine are only good with one particular army combo, with a commander who specifically buffs them up.

And I've found a lot of this reflects the attitude of the players. There are a lot of 40k players (on dakka at least) who believe that they should be able to use any unit in any way on the table, and if they don't win, it's because the game is broken. WMH players seem much more likely to approach the game as one of tactical choices where some things must be taken in certain combinations and played in certain ways.

Being a strategy game seems to be a strength of WMH while being a vile toxin in 40k.

No reason to think about how to use a unit effectively, better to just label it trash, confuse "I can't do it" with "it can't be done" and move on...

the_scotsman wrote:It's also worth noting that the scale of power in WMH is much more tightly controlled.

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

Assessment: totally. In terms of gameplay at least. In terms of modeling, 40k wins.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

This is something that I often see people get confused.

If you take a 10 model vs. 10 model game of both 40k and WMH, both of them cost roughly the same. Often times people think 40k is a more expensive game because they don't consider it a "real" game unless they're fielding 200-model-per-person fight-for-the-whole-planet's-survival megapocalypse games.

Until recently, the two starter boxes were the same price, and when you compare things equally, they're about the same price to run.

I would seriously disagree that 40k doesn't do skirmishes well, though. Especially if you do a tiny bit of minor tweaking like 6th ed's battleforce recon rules set.

the_scotsman wrote:WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game.

I would definitely agree with this, though. 40k used to be more this way as well, with abstract wound allocation, abstract line of sight and terrain rules, abstract, by-unit movement rules, etc. etc. People who like WMH would probably like 4th edition of 40k a lot more than what we have now.

40k has definitely taken a huge step away from being a bad attempt at chess towards one of storytelling-D&D-esque with a bunch of minis. For people who don't like that, then of course they won't like it. Why they stop playing and then spend the next several years of their life trying to convince other people to stop having fun and start validating their angst is beyond me, though...

The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Isengard wrote:
I've never played WMH and I never will. I've seen some games played and I don't like the figures, don't like the scale (as in tiny skirmishes). I also don't think there's any background that could even scratch the surface of 40K's fluff. I don't care about the rules so much, they work albeit they are over-complex and in places make little sense. My games are more fun run-outs not serious battles.

This is because I play and collect for the fluff and to be able to play big battles. Mainly for the fluff, modelling and painting. I'm old and stuck in my ways so PP look to me like Johnny-come-lately coat-tail riders for my money.

Having said that I have no issue with the game or its players. They can play whatever they like, I'll not criticise them it's entirely their choice.

*highlighted bit for emphasis*

le sigh. GW isnt the only game with a large catalogue of lore isengard. With respect to 40ks lore, let's be clear, it's got great stuff. I love the imperial armours and otherforgeworld material. Great reading, and well worth it. Then on the other hand, you've got Kaldor Draigo, codex comedy robots, and any amount of silly rubbish throughout the books. Holding that up a standard no one else can ever match is a disservice. I think a lot of 40k fans have the assumption that 40ks lore is some kind of gold standard, that this is indisputable, needs no defense or explanation, and simply shoulda simply be taken for granted that this is the case and is gospel. but that crucially, because it is seen to be so self evident, and matter-of-'fact'ly, it is also, without thinking or analysis, assumed and considered impossible for any other company's lore to match this 'undisputed' standard of greatness. Because of 'reasons' and 'assumptions' that don't 'need' to be backed up, (and so they're not). It's a 'fact' that is not questioned. Like the bible. And I honestly dont think it's the case. Som of 40ks lore is indisputably great. A lot of it though? What isn't plagiarised and rehashed, or the same old themes dressed up with a different hat? Not so much. being cynical, I could boil down the ia vraks campaign to 'yeah, well, the imperials won becaus they threw in more bodies than the defenders has bullets'. And I say that as a huge fan... Similarly, you can boil down a lot if the rest to 'heroic last stand' or 'defenders held out against overwhelming odds until the cavalry came'. Now it may not be deep, but it's certainly evocative and stirring to a degree. But reading some if my beloved second ed fluff, a lot of it hasn't aged well as I've grown older either...

Regarding the comment about pp being 'Johnny come late',, It's got less to do with being 'stuck in your ways' and more likely though I guess, Its maybe not knowing where to look, or more importantly whether it was worth looking for? . All I can say is that yes, pp's world are well worth delving into. Warmachine, for example, has a fantastic setting, and it has been developing for quite a long time now. It's a smaller setting than 40k, but a lot more intimate for it. It's characterful, dark, deep, gritty and evocative, with thousands of years of history, heroes, villains, murders, mysteries and secrets. It's names, cultures, custom and mores, towns and cities are discussed in incredible detail in the various books. It's a world you can almost hear the clanking and grinding of gears, the hiss of steam engines and the smell of oil and burning coal. Did you know it originally started off as a D20 RPG setting using the DnD 3.5 OSL rules? this was back when the Witchfire Trilogy was their first outing. And that was well over ten years ago now, and the fluff has been constantly developed. Gw get a lot of praise for having decades of lore. Well, pp are well into their second decade as well now.

I’ll be honest. I’’m always that bit disappointed and annoyed when people post that other games dont have well developed backgrounds. . Such as what you have said. I understand you are probably saying it more from lack of familiarity as much as anything else, but nonetheless you are perpetuating a falsehood, and it really does grind my gears that people continue to do it. the fluff? its there. its simply not true to suggest what you are suggesting. And I can back my statements up.

first up: complete chronological list of fiction.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?195787-The-Complete-Chronological-Iron-Kingdoms-Fiction
check out the forums as well - often the lead writer of the fiction - doug Seacat will step in and elaborate on any and all points of the fiction that raise questions. Heck, he once personally explained to me why they don't have orcs in their ip.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?77295-Doug-Seacat-on. A collection of seacat's posts expanding on and explaining in (sometime exhausting) details the nature of certain aspects of their world.

the first place for fluff, as you can guess is the rulebook and army books for both warmachine and hordes. they have the ongoing fiction, as well as character back stories, unit descriptions and the FOW books often describe some of the logistics, and actual nuts and bolts of army organisation, and history. they're good solid reads (i love the retribution book in particular, itsbackground material is phenomenol!) but generally, act as a great intro. If you are interested, the fluff goes all the way back to Mk1 and the original books from over 10 years ago. if you get the PP reader app, you can download all the old books for a song. its well worth it, IMO. the hordes expansions (mutagenesis and evolution iirc) have some really excellent story material.

the second place is PPs magazine. No Quarter. it is an excellent read. pick it up at your FLGS, and if you want the older copies, check out the PP reader app, where you can get all the old issues for a few pence. there are short stories throughout the magazine. they also run very popular and very well written fluff articles in the magazine. For example, you have the Gavyn Kyle files, which elaborates on, explores and deepends the fiction behind a lot of the "names" in the game. Not just casters. But other famous individuals too. Sometimes its units (there was one exploring the history and culture of the kayazy). Another great one is the Guts n Gears files, which are like the GK files, but are less about individuals, and more about the fluff behind unit types and warjack chassis (where they were made, how long they were in service for, development history etc). the NQ magazine is well worth a read - it has some excellent content and is well worth its price tag. i think they're re-releasing some of the fiction via skull island as well (see below). there is also regular fiction which includes both once off short stories, and stories that continue on the arc from those in books - for example, what happened to Kallus at the end of Domination is explained in one.

the third place (and my personal favourite) is the RPG material. Warmachine originated as a D20 RPG using the DnD open source licence. their very first adventure was called "the witchfire trilogy" and is a great read, with some interesting little nuggets. the "old" D20 material comprised the character guides (which ahave a lot of the basic information, cosmology, history etc) 2 monsternomicons (with huge bits of info on infernals, and skorne culture/history, although its generally about the monsters that inhabit immoren), a small exansion on the port of Five FIngers, and the excellent world guide. I cannot recommend these enough; the World GUide in particular. its epic. you can literally smell the smoke when you read it. they're very, very engrossing, and do a fantastic job of bringing the world to life - not just the history, but crime&punishment, trades and learning, entertainment, finance, language, cosmology, and lots of information on locations, towns, cities, forts, and the big names in all of them. Now, the old material is still online (if you know where to look; winkwinknudgenudge) but they're also all being updated by PP into a new RPG series using a proprietary rules system based off of the wargame. So far they have the IKRPG core rules, five fingers and the excellent Kings Nations and Gods books. again, all well worth the read. upcoming is a new monsternomicon and the iron kingdoms: unleashed "complimentary" RPG which focuses on adventures in the wilds, and expands on the races to include tharn, farrow etc. Im quite looking forward to that one! i think thw RPG material on its own is stellar, and really does a fantastic job of bringing the world to life - far more than youd expect from a regular wargame.

the fourth place is PPs publishing wing. skull island expeditions.https://skullislandx.com/
they dont yet have the volume or the library of titles of the black library, but whats there is very solid. i will particularly recommend the warcaster chronicle series (caine, butcher and shae so far), warlock chronicles (makeda and thagrosh), extraordinary zoology (brilliant little read!) and top of the pile is Into the Storm by larry correia (award winning author). the iron kingdoms excursions series is a series of short stories that are quite fun to read too.

So please isengard. Before you say things like other games can't scratch the surface of gw's lore, please think again.

My thoughts exactly, only said better.
The RPG material is very in depth. I bought the source book that goes into each city town and province of the major kingdoms. The amount of detail is staggering.
Also, I really like how people's motivations are multi-faceted and complex.
Steve Diamond, a fantastic writer, has a new short story out and again, I must say that "Into the Storm" is an awesome novel.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I really like WMH models. The metals are fantastic and the plastic needs a bit more love than GW's models, but I love the asthetics and fluff behind them.

If you're a modeler, GW is probably the way to go.
If you're a gamer, WMH is probably the way to go.

I think this is why I was so pumped about the 40IK mashup game that was floating around here. I don't play WMH anymore, and I think it's because I'm not really a "gamer", in that power level and points cost is never a factor for me buying a model but "oooooOOOooooo pretty" almost always is. I own quite a few PP models that are just fantastic and go well with most RPGs or other games I play. I think it was Kayazy Assassins that cemented this in my head. UGLY models that rip it up on the table. I was torn....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP hit it on the head. Does this mean the other thread is done?

I have almost started Warmachine/Hordes 3 times but every time i have just not taken that final step.

Have to be honest im sure i have just be unlucky with local players or those i have asked online but what has often put me off on was the playerbase, as i would like to play both not instead of GW games, yet when i vocalise that i still enjoy the GW games, i have received a hostile reaction normally including a long list of reasons GW sucks from the former players of GW games.

Shame as i really like many of the models PP produce and could get into the narrative of the game world im sure.

May not be the game for me though as i have no interest in serious competitive wargaming, i get that serious level of competition from other hobbies like 5 a side football(soccer) and it seems like competitive play is the market they target, which makes sense since GW never really have.

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

A 10 man unit pack in 40k is generally 35-45 bucks. In Warmachine, it's 50. No extra bits, no options, lower quality models, 40k definitely takes the cake there. Blisters and the Dread-sized models are pretty comparable. If you're interested in the game over just the models though, WMH has two OPTIONAL books for you to buy-rules and all the "codexes" combined, for 30 bucks each. AND the game scales down to skirmish level much better than 40k, the game is very playable at any points value ranging from battle box to full 50 points.

.. unless you play Sisters, in which case your Troops box is 10 20 year old sculpts that runs $80.

Talys wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Deadnight wrote:

Talys wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
The amount of times I have tried to start a WMH army is rediculous, but everytime I just can't get in to the storyline or fall in love with any of the factions. Maybe I will try for the 600th time.

Well, my whole problem with the aesthetic is very much personal preference -- I am not a steampunk fan (I don't get what makes it appealing), and I particularly dislike retro, flared weapons that look more like flintlocks than future tech. This just greatly limits the models I collect, although I do make exceptions

By the way, while the quality of novels vary, I don't think either is comparable to really good fiction. Since I don't seem to have a lot of reading Tim these days, I end up reading the new Lestat novel, instead of gw/pp. I do really enjoy the campaigns, that add storytelling and a role playing element to wargaming.

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Deadnight wrote:

Agreed. Most gamer fiction leans more towards 'pulp' than 'literature'.

With respect though, retro flared flintlock like weapons make sense in a fantasy world. Warmachine is a broad mishmash of sixteenth through to nineteenth century tech in a lot of places. It won't bother me seeing retro weapons there at all. M4s would be rather out if place. And I'm not huge on a lot of steampunk either. Thankfully, while the iron kingdoms has elements of steampunk, it's not really a steampunk setting. It had a lot more similarities to a fairly traditional fantasy setting with an industrial revolution, rather than a steampunk one.

Oh, for sure. For the same reason, I don't like dwarves in WHFB (or the dwarf in Dragon Age 2 with the gun that he talks to). It's a totally personal thing, and it's not a criticism of the game world -- just an explanation of why I'm a little less in love with the WMH models. And yeah, thankfully, Iron Kingdoms is just steampunk-ish, rather than full-on steampunk

I also prefer the 40k game world to the WHFB game world, although I have spent an obscene amount of money on WHFB models. I just love some of their units, like the phoenix, forest dragon, treeman ancient, nagash... the list is almost endless.

Edit: the steampunk elements of the aesthetic I'm not into are the flared weapons, flintlock-look, and big rivets, mostly. Although, as you say, it's very fluff-appropriate.