WayneTheGame wrote:

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

 BoardroomHero wrote:
I don't think that you're understanding what I'm getting at. This may be a problem with my argument approach, I admit.

To start with, I have no opinion on which game is 'more fun.' Everyone is trying to get a slightly different thing out of any given game, so there's no 'better' one to play. So I want to set that as a foundation/ground rule before we start.

What I am saying is this: Variety, the way you are describing it, has nothing to do with balance. They are completely tangential. One can not really affect the other. You have described 'variety' as something even an outside observer with no knowledge of the game can observe. That's fine- certainly in that regard, 40k has more variety. However, by definition, that doesn't take into account any of the rules in the game itself. If it does not take into account the rules, it absolutely can not have any bearing on balance. That's what I'm trying to say.

The variety that most people here are talking about, when they say WM has more variety, is more variety in the way the models play on the table. If you were to replace every single model with a paper disk of the right size, and then played the game like that, which game would have more variety. Rules /only/. If looked at in /that/ particular context, WM has more variety.

Now, if you disagree with /that/, I'll be curious to hear your argument. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because it seems as if you're mixing model variety and rule variety.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't think anybody would disagree that model appearance variety does no equal rules variety. I do, however, feel that too many of the pro-WMH crowd are dismissing 40K unit rule variety as "they all move/shoot/die" but then providing a very abstract interpretation of WMH unit variety (unit X just "feels" different, unit Y just "plays" different, etc).

40K unit types ARE different from each other, bikes play differently than infantry or beasts, MC play differently than walkers, Flyers play differently from Skimmers, which play differently from Tanks. Even amongst same unit types, individual units/models play differently from each other. Would you truly argue that a Bloodthirster plays the same as a Lord of Change? A Land Raider plays the same as a Predator? Sure, they might share similar rules and use the same kind of stat lines, but how is that any different from WMH units? They all use a stat line that is defined by the rules, they all interact with the game using rules established by the main rule books. Why discount one as some sort of false variety and praise the other?

Now, a few of the 40K unit type rules may not appear to be that different on the surface, but often times, the differences only come to light when the units interact with the terrain on the battlefield. Sure, bikes, beasts, and cavalry all have the same 12" move and infantry style statline. They also all three interact with other units in the same way (ie, shooting, assaulting). Beyond that however, how they interact with the battlefield terrain and deployments really makes a difference. Beasts interact with difficult terrain differently than cavalry and bikes, bikes have turbo boost to forego shooting for added manuverability.

Well, Talys /was/ talking about model variety earlier, so I wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same page.

If you would like some concrete examples of the differences, though, I'd be more than happy to give a few.

Many of the differences you listed above don't feel 'right,' because they are mixed in terms of role. A Lord of Change is a psyker, whereas a Bloodthirster walks in and beats things to death. A Land Raider is a transport, where a Pred is a gun platform. If we compared a Land Raider to a Rhino, and a Pred to a Russ, we might be more in the right frame.

And those differences you listed above are certainly real, but as you admit yourself, the difference is pretty subtle. It's a bit of change in regards to mobility. WM recapitulates that to some degree with things like 'pathfinder' and 'flying.'

When I speak of 'variety' in WM, I'm talking about the fact that units aren't often very easy to compare with eachother- there are huge qualitative differences. Shifting Stones, for example, can teleport a friendly model that exists within the triangle formed by the set of 3 stones. Stormblades get stronger if they are all within some distance of the unit leader, which makes their positioning interesting to deal with on the table. Mannikins can suicide themselves to put down 3" forest templates for a turn, which then can block line of sight to models behind them. The Prime Axiom has tow cables that can pull models that it hits 11" toward it, providing a sort of 'ranged' anti-armor capacity (in WM, it's very hard to 'shoot' something off the table, so being able to project that kind of threat at those distances is pretty crazy).

There are models that leave behind clouds that cause damage, models that allow you to choose where damage is allocated to warjacks (to rip off arms and such), models that project fields to slow down enemy troops, models that give huge fields that provide more armor. There are models that get stronger as they're wounded, models that are immune to blast damage, models that can see through clouds and forests. Some models can ignore magical buff/debuffs, some act as 'relay stations' that allow you to cast spells at a distance.

On top of all this are warcasters, who often not only have a bunch of significant special abilities, but also have a suite of abilities (much like psykers) that is different from warcaster to warcaster, as if each one of them had their very own personal discipline. The spells they have access to often have outsized effects on a wide swath that changes how the game works /qualitatively/, as opposed to mostly doing damage. Making enemies move more slowly, making your warjacks make an additional ranged attack, causing all models in your army to lose some speed in exchange for armor. etc etc.

All of these things combine to make the majority of units feel /unique/, not just between factions but within them. The fact that 40k has the concept of the 'MEQ' is probably the biggest thing I can point to as an example.