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.

 Toofast wrote:
Having the biggest player base is kind of meaningless when that player base is shrinking by the day and other games are experiencing record growth. Look at the icv2 industry numbers, WFB used to be in the top 5 every year. Now it has fallen out and Warmachine and Hordes are both in the top 5. For some reason they separate the sales numbers for those two. At this rate, it won't be very long before 40k loses the top spot.

As someone else said, the amount of people playing is not a measure of quality. Lots of people eat McDonald's, far less eat Hyde Park, Ruth Chris, or Eddie Merlots, that doesn't mean McDonald's has better food.

And lots of people listen to Justin Beiber.... Yeah, popularity =/= quality.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

 Las wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
So what? If multiple people are having issues with 40k and people are choosing other options because of rules issues, then subjective vs objective is irrelevant. It does not matter if it's opinion or subjective or whatever, because the actual result is that there is a declining 40k player base and those who do play often play house ruled variants. 40k's comparative advantage of reliably local opponents has faded away for many people. If a given person makes a 40k army they won't know whether or not they're going to be able to find opponents willing to play against their army. Will unbound be okay? What about certain types of detachments? Forgeworld okay? Defensive structures? Will the people who play even want to use the rules as written or will there be fixes? Who decided which fixes?

Those who have a cohesive and functioning 40k community are the lucky ones. It's an objective fact though, that you don't need to worry about any of these things for WM/H.

As I said, I understand the utility of minimizing people's issues by claiming they are subjective, opinion or idiosyncratic to something about them, but in this case, doing so would be irrelevant.

---

Look, the reason I made that post was because I find this topic interesting, but often instead of discussing the highlights and shortcomings of each game it devolves into either side making wild statements as if they are fact. I could say wmh has bland rules and is mtg with bad minis, then someone will mention how it is actually more dynamic than 40k. Niether are so.

As for the above, I have a hard time believing that this scenario is the rule rather than the exception for most 40k players. I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game. Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference

I apologize if this is not the case, but it seems a lot of the time that your main defense of 40K basically boils down to, "It has more players than any other game", as if that somehow is more important than anything else. Now, to me at least, it's not. It's not that hard to convince people to try out WM/H or another, similar game, because they have relatively low entry points. I've gotten several people to start playing locally because the buy in to learn if they would like the game or now was $50, lower if you're smart.

Even if the number of players was a huge decision maker, the fact that "you can get a game of 40K anywhere" seems to be less and less true as time goes on.

No harm done. That isn't what I'm getting at, though I can see how you might have drawn that conclusions. The reason I bring up the playerbase is that I just don't see the whole "40k is a clusterfeth and everyone has to negotiate like the UN to get a game" argument as valid on a macro scale considering my experiences with people who play the game.

 Las wrote:
I could say wmh [...] is mtg with bad minis

Here's the thing. That's not just a subjective claim. We can actually identify the salient characteristics of Magic: the Gathering and then see if Warmachine/Hordes has the same characteristics. And given your lack of knowledge about either, I'll let you know now that they have some characteristics in common, but none of the ones that make up the core of the game experience.

I have never found such a convaluted mess of an environment, nor do I think those issues would be the monumental detractors you make them out to be. However you are correct that wmh doesn't deal with them by way of being a much smaller, younger game.

No. It doesn't have them because it's specifically designed not to. It's designed, from the ground up, to have the rules be understandable and clear and have an actual correct answer when things are not clear. To the point where Privateer even has dedicated rules personal who talk to the designers and find out what the actual answer is and provide it on the forum. Similarly, MTG has a judge program and an amazing comprehensive rules document and every single rules question has an actual real right answer. And MTG isn't some younger game. It has way, way more rules text and rules interacts than any miniature game ever will when you combine a 207 page rules document (with no diagrams) with over 10,000 cards with differing degrees of text on them.

Age did not turn 40k into a mess. Lazy design and bad product development and support did. And the fact that the rules are basically an idea used to sell models rather than an actual game to be played in its own rights. According to Jervis, even back in 2009 most of GW's customers never actually played their rules and were just interested in the modeling and painting side of the things and the idea of maybe playing a game someday (Games Day UK 2009 Q&A).

Also, by virtue of 40ks huge player base, there must be benefits to the game that outweigh these shortcomings as is no doubt also true of wmh. Which brings us back to personal taste and preference

40k has it's player base as the result of it's past success. It was a solid game that people enjoyed for the game experience until relatively recently. And GW has (again-- until recently) great success with direct sales and word of mouth marketing to recruit new gamers. 40k is popular because GW does everything they can to maintain a segmented customer base that is ignorant of other options. How else are you supposed to sell them glue at $10 for a tiny, tiny bottle? It requires customer ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:

No harm done. That isn't what I'm getting at, though I can see how you might have drawn that conclusions. The reason I bring up the playerbase is that I just don't see the whole "40k is a clusterfeth and everyone has to negotiate like the UN to get a game" argument as valid on a macro scale considering my experiences with people who play the game.

I think you are one of the lucky ones who has found a cohesive local community.

Right now a local tournament organizer is having to defend his decision to not allow unbound, defensive structures or special detachments and having everyone use the normal force org chart. At another event, they decided certain detachments were okay, but banned forge world models. And in a league some people run in the next city over, you can take whatever you want, but if you go unbound, forge world or use a non-standard detachment, your results worth 1 less point (normally it's 3-2-1 for wins-draws-losses, but instead it'll be 2-1-0) and has a rule that you can't create new units during the game (wonder why they had to do that?).

---

You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because games are not balanced with equal points and some fairly basic assumptions (e.g. Both players are making an attempt at building a force capable of winning). An all Terminator army vs an all Jetbikes army is going to be lopsided in virtually all situations.

You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because you need to agree on what rules to use with your opponent. Even if it doesn't really turn into a "U.N. debate" the fact you can't just agree on a points value and sit down to play indicates there is some flaw with the rules. By the same token, when you have to interpret the rules rather than having an actual answer, it means the rules are vague.

These are not opinions, these can be facts, regardless of whether they impact one's enjoyment. For someone like Las they clearly don't, but for people like MWH, Azreal and myself they certainly do.

Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.

This is the exact kind of response I was talking about.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because games are not balanced with equal points and some fairly basic assumptions (e.g. Both players are making an attempt at building a force capable of winning). An all Terminator army vs an all Jetbikes army is going to be lopsided in virtually all situations.

You can definitively state 40k has poor rules because you need to agree on what rules to use with your opponent. Even if it doesn't really turn into a "U.N. debate" the fact you can't just agree on a points value and sit down to play indicates there is some flaw with the rules. By the same token, when you have to interpret the rules rather than having an actual answer, it means the rules are vague.

These are not opinions, these can be facts, regardless of whether they impact one's enjoyment. For someone like Las they clearly don't, but for people like MWH, Azreal and myself they certainly do.

They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.

See, were just screaming at walls here. "X game sucks" "no it doesn't" is a poor way to have a discussion.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.

Ok but does it specificaly impact balance between armies/ playstyles as much as in 40k? Because I can make 6th into assault edition just by dropping hills at the board.

 Las wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.

This is the exact kind of response I was talking about.

Huh? I was just clarifying because he didn't know something about WMH.

Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I didn't mean anything beyond a simple clarification.

It's not a very contributive statement if you're just blurting it out with no explanation. I really doubt it clarified much

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re people saying 40k is as tactical as checkers - it's not true. The game is very dependable on terrain you use. If you look at PC series Close Combat which is very tactical with ambushes, morale, pinning, stamina etc and is based on advanced squad leader, even there if you made a scenario with plain field or an equivalent of typical 40k board ie 2 houses and 2 tiny forests, the game would devolve into who brought a better list contest as well (so Germans heh), a tenis match with AT rounds. Wasn't 3rd edition 40k a modified version of Rick Priestley's WW2 ruleset btw?

Terrain also obviously impacts balance, 40k is ofc bad in that department but when we played using 5th edition rulebook terrain reccomendations so 1 or 2 big LoS blocking pieces, the game was much more balanced vs what was cried op then ie gunlines or vehicle spam etc. When we used the same tables for 6th edition games, assault wasnt dead. Imo GW should show a default table they balance for and give explanations on how terrain impacts armies, playstyles, maybe provide basic guidelines on how to mitigate it. Also I dont know WM/H but if terrain there is less important, it might be much easier to balance.

I think 40k is not tactical enough because it lacks a proper interrupt mechanism and movement ranges are on average too short for game lenght but on proper table, it surely is not checkers. Just saying btw, I dont play it anymore, lost heart for it with 7th edition and write my own rules for home use.

Terrain in WMH makes a much larger impact in the game. A single wall can make a huge difference.

Ok but does it specificaly impact balance between armies/ playstyles as much as in 40k? Because I can make 6th into assault edition just by dropping hills at the board.

That's an interesting question. Are some armies more affected by cover and terrain advantage than others? Cryx has several ways to get through walls via incorporeal and such. They're not a shooty lot so they don't care about cover as much. Cygnar and CoC will maybe be affected by cover, but each army has a lot of tools to deal with the higher DEF cover offers. But to be honest, I can't answer that question. I don't know the ins and outs of each army, but I will say that in the armies I've faced, they've all had some kind of answer weither it be flying, teleporting, high Rat, AOE blasts, etc. The question is, can they get their tools to where they're needed to make a difference.

 Las wrote:

They are not facts.

No, but they are the reality for many people, as can be demonstrated by the number of people who agree with the assertions.

There comes a point where whether something is a quantifiable "fact" or not essentially becomes a question of semantics and in terms of moving the discussion forward, the thread would probably be better served by you acknowledging that a good number of people feel differently than you do, rather than getting distracted trying to pin down some definition which serves no real purpose in the broader discussion.

Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.

On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?

Surely someone stating something that is a matter of opinion implies that it is their opinion?

I mean, we can start using IMO every other sentence, but unless someone is using something subjective as evidence to support a point, we can take it as a given?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, to add to the discussion, at time of writing there's only a 3% swing between the two, frankly, my personal opinions aside, I would have thought there's still many more 40K players than WMH, and would have expected something like a 60/40 split.

 Las wrote:
Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.

On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?

The first and largest thing is, everyone can benefit from terrain. Unless the weapon has a special rule, light concealment, aka forrests and fences, adds +2 to defense (which is bigger than it sounds) and more substantial terrain such as walls grant +4 def, which is huge.
Example, a caster with def 16 stands behind a stone wall, his def is now 20. He is now essentially unhitable unless you have a lot of AOE weapons (templates) or charge him.
There are other terrain features that do different things as well. Trenches protect against AOE weapons and deep water kills units automatically. And in a game where jacks can throw things around, deep water could be quite game changing.

So, the rules for cover benefit everyone using, unlike 40k and its more than an armor save, yet also is quite simple and easy to use.

Also difficult terrain halves moving speed, which I like better than random rolling.

That doesn't sound that different than 40k to me. Cover saves are huge in the game and the def 20 thing sounds a lot like a 2+ cover or jink save being big against everything but ignores cover. Granted there is lots of that available in game but not enough that 2+ cover isn't very substantial.

 Las wrote:
That doesn't sound that different than 40k to me. Cover saves are huge in the game and the def 20 thing sounds a lot like a 2+ cover or jink save being big against everything but ignores cover. Granted there is lots of that available in game but not enough that 2+ cover isn't very substantial.

The difference is that if someone has armor, they still benefit from cover as opposed to being an either/or thing. Example, a terminator would be even more resilient behind cover instead of the cover being wasted due to the terminator's armor which is better. Spread that out over every troop and the difference is huge. Also, a +2 in WMH is a much bigger difference than 40k due to the game mechanics and amounts of dice.

Ah, I see. Does the game then heavily favor well armoured units as they are then always super durable in any situation?

Not necessarily due to a number of factors; unsupported, heavily armored units are often slow which is a big deal in a game where positioning and maneuvering are very important, their attacks might be rather inaccurate, there are units with armor debuffs that can neutralize that particular strength, sometimes you can kill a heavily armored unit via the "death by a 1000 cuts" method, etc... In WMH, Armor isn't a binary "take no damage or take damage" system like it is in 40K; instead:

strength of attack+Xd6 (base is 2d6 but 3d6 is not uncommon and 4d6 is possible in some situations) - target's armor stat, and the final number is the amount of damage taken. In general light infantry are destroyed with one damage, heavy infantry with five or eight, and things like Warjacks are destroyed after two dozen or more damage, depending on the jack or beast in question. They also become less effective when heavily damaged.

There are ways to mitigate the slowness and inaccuracy but, in general, shoring up a weakness in your army represents a not-insignificant investment of resources.

 Las wrote:
Ah, I see. Does the game then heavily favor well armoured units as they are then always super durable in any situation?

Not really, the game is actually far more focused on offense. Even if you take the more heavily armored models/ units (stormwall with arcane shield for example) with armor buffs and everything, positioning is still incredibility important to keep those units alive. This is due the way the math works out a lots with lots of models and if heavy infantry are really a problem you can always apply a collossal to the problem who will be one shooting a dude with every swing. Also those units do tend to be slow like RatBot said.

Also with the way the game ends up working, not getting hit is a better defense than armor is most times.

What do you mean by positioning, are you talking about LOS or charge maneuvering?

Both. Clearing and blocking charge lanes is a big deal; generally you can''t charge something if something else is in the way, friend or foe. Larger models block line of sight to smaller models, but smaller models do not block larger models. This applies to both friendly and enemy models. I can't shoot a target if anyone is blocking the shot, whether the blocker is your model or mine. Putting a wall between my models and yours means neither of ours can charge unless someone can ignore terrain.

In scenario games, objectives are well outside either player's deployment zone, and when combined with the generally short range of ranged attacks, this means turtling and trying to make your enemy come to you is almost never an option. A "gunline" army is generally not going to do very well, though there are some exceptions, and you can still play a ranged-heavy army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, models only have a 180-degree LOS, and hitting a model in the back gives the attacker bonuses.

As I said on another thread - I think its much more realsitic to compare WM/H with other Skirmish games such as Malifaux, Infinity, Dredd Necromunda etc? Especially if you arre making cost comparisons

Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun

 Las wrote:
What do you mean by positioning, are you talking about LOS or charge maneuvering?

Warmachine unlike 40k does not have random charge distances. So if you know opponents spd, range on their guns, if they have reach on their melee weapons, spd buffs, etc. you can calculate how far your opponent's models can potentially reach out and attack your models. Positioning is trying to put your models into areas of the board where you can still affect the game this turn or in later turns while still staying out of range of what could hurt them. You do this by judging distances on the table when you move your models. Also in a lot of match ups certain models in one players list are going to very important and if they give them away too easily then the game can go south for that player very quickly. In those cases trying to screen your important models with cheap infantry, which every faction has, or jam your opponent all in an attempt to deny your opponent the ability to get to your important models. Also control affects and defensive spells/abilities like Inhospitable Ground or enliven help keep your pieces alive.

I have played/watched a lot of ex40k players playing warmachine that didn't pick up on this and lost of lot of games because they gave away key pieces or just ran straight at the enemy and then got alpha struck and lost way too much stuff. In 40k this is not nearly as important due to having much longer ranges on the guns and units like the seer council on bikes that in previous editions could soak almost of my entire tau army's fire power over several turns and still live. Warmachine doesn't work that way, you have to pay much closer attention to ranges and charge distances than in 40k.

Like I said not getting hit is the best defense in warmachine, you accomplish this with high defense and good positioning.

Mr Morden wrote:
As I said on another thread - I think its much more realsitic to compare WM/H with other Skirmish games such as Malifaux, Infinity, Dredd Necromunda etc? Especially if you arre making cost comparisons

Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun

Not really, Warmachine is more a mid way point between 40k and games like infinity. Most games of infinity I see have a max of 10 or so models per side sometimes 6 or less if they have one of the big powered armor suits while warmachine armies can range from 12-60 models generally.

 Las wrote:

They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.

As someone who traveled and moved for work a great deal while I played 40k, I throw the "cow feces" flag on the field. You're right if you're playing with the same group of people and you've already established the Rules of Engagement (RoE). Otherwise, no, everyplace I went, be it once or multiple times, has their own RoE, interpretations, and styles of play. Just by looking at the national meta/tournament scene, the folks most interested in having a level and equal playing field, cannot agree on interpretations of "how the game is to be played". In fact, that major exodus you see from 7E is partially due to Games Workshop doubling down harder on this very notion written within the core rules.

Inversely, Steamroller Warmahordes is Steamroller Warmahordes. The only thing that differs is local metas, which is fun and exciting. Getting snagged by local RoE that you had no clue about is a huge pet peeve of mine and one of the many that I stopped playing 40k.

As an aside, it's interesting that this thread grows. I could not imagine this sort of lengthy discussion several years ago on DakkaDakka without a bunch of "Nu-Uh, 40k all da' way!" Seems like times are a-changin'.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Starting Malifaux and finiding it much more fun than the first few games of WM/H - especially as premeasuring is def allowed (not just in a debatable manner as in WM/H) - IGUG is also fun

A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?

TheKbob wrote:A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?

Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.

Like I said, just rename the factions and convince your 40k friends that it's a super awesome fan game that's taking the world by storm!

 Blood Hawk wrote:

TheKbob wrote:A gothic sci-fi version of Malifaux with as much brooding grit as 40k would probably convert a lot of the "narrative" players. There was rumors of them doing that, but it was scrapped, sadly. Infinity is the best "Killteam" style game I have played and can easily be played if you just rename factions and use 40k models. Rules are free, so why pay for GWs busted 40k Killteam which is still horribly imbalanced?

Yea ever since I saw the killteam rules in the 4th ed 40k rulebook I have wanted to play something like that and is unfortunate that none really plays infinity locally.

There's a fan edit of kill team on the net somewhere that has a real growing popularity at my FLGS. Not even within my own gaming group. I bet if you asked some people you'd find more people are open to kill team (in all it's variations) than you'd think.

Also, as far as I know the official KT rules are free.

 Las wrote:

There's a fan edit of kill team on the net somewhere that has a real growing popularity at my FLGS. Not even within my own gaming group. I bet if you asked some people you'd find more people are open to kill team (in all it's variations) than you'd think.

Also, as far as I know the official KT rules are free.

I've played the fan edit. It's still better to convert Infinity. It's just a flat out better game. The d6 system doesn't work that well in a skirmish level unless you move to a weighted d6 system a la Warmahordes.

Official KT rules are not free:
http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Kill-Team.html

 Las wrote:
Come on, I fully recognize people think differently than me. Stating opinion like it's fact doesn't add anything to discussion. What MWH just posted about terrain is a good example of the kind of thing that does encourage real discussion.

On topic though, how does the type of terrain interaction just mentioned differ from what's found in 40k?

For One rough terrain halves your movement in Warmachine/hordes, In 40k your roll random dices to see how far you get. Generaly 40ks random interaction with terrain, takes away my ablility to predict and control my army, and that is bad in so many ways it is not even funny..

Terrain in Warmachine/hordes is simple.. If you are on a hill you get +2 def from ranged attacks. If you are in a forest you get +2 defence(concelment) from ranged attack.. If you are behind a wall you get +4 Defence from ranged attacks and if someone is trying to strick you in Melee over the wall you get +2 Defence in melee also.. That is the basic..

If you are behind a forest(outside it) the terrain block line of sight, and you cant target what is behind it..

Now comes the intresting special rules... Concelment bonuses can be taken away by special skills that miniatures have.. Rough terrain that halves your movement can be negated by "pathfinder"... Spray attacks ignore walls and cover... This means that the only defence that your opponent cant take away from you is elevation +2... Eyless sight and hunter makes you see through forests. This means Terrain has less effect in Warmachine/hordes then in most other games, because you as a player can plan for it and ignore most of it... That is the Good thing about Warmachine/hordes I as a player can build my army to be able to handle things.. I can ignore terrain that might get in the way and I can build my army to counter what my opponent is putting on the table... Not so In 40k where I can put some Random hero with 2+ invulnarable save at the front of my troops and my opponent has to shoot at him first (GAY).. also I do not have to become a victim of random dice rolls, for charges and moving through rough terrain..

Warmachine/hordes is FAR superior when it comes to the rules (the Miniatures BLOWs donkey balls), but I will pick Rules over miniatures 9 times out of 10... GW do not do market reserch so they do not understand that most of the people that collect miniatures are GAMERS first and collectors second.. I hope they soon come to realisation that their customers are gamers, because if they keep this " we are a miniatures company not a game company" up they will go under in the next decade... This worked when there was no competion on the market but in 2014 this dosent fly anymore SORRY....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Las wrote:

They are not facts. You can say it over and over again but it remains the same. For tons of people the set up for a 40k game requires no more discussion than picking a day and pts level. This is true for me and everyone I know in life who play.

As an aside, it's interesting that this thread grows. I could not imagine this sort of lengthy discussion several years ago on DakkaDakka without a bunch of "Nu-Uh, 40k all da' way!" Seems like times are a-changin'.

Yes Times are A-changing, opinions have slowly changed for the better over the last few years.. And I personaly try to be honest when I talk about warmachine/hordes... The Rules are ROCK solid.. But I am less of a fan of the miniatures personaly hehe...

I think we need a healthy debate about things.. And me leaving 40k back in 2010 has shown me that you need to be critical of games and not "white Knight", see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil... because this is just a silly way of thinking hehe. The fact that Privateer press actually Listen to their player base and change things has also made a huge impact on me, that it is OK to be critical.. And you should not make youself look stupid defending something that is just "dumb"... I just wish that the people playing 40k could come around to this way of thinking, instead of defending stuff that is broken and bad... But I guess it might be hard to face reality sometimes? hehe