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.

the reason i say that Warmachine/Hordes requires more skill is that, the higher the skill level of the players, the harder the game gets.
mainly because some warcasters are so ridiculously powerful, that if you make even one mistake, your caster is dead on the 2nd turn. and thats game over.
seen it happen so many times. (have been told by a far superior player that our gaming group has extreme skill level yaay lol)

whereas in 40k i think the game is more luck based. with 1d6, instead of the 2d6 in warmachine. as everything always has a chance to hit and wound, excluding tanks. so you take your unit of hormagaunts vs a unit of terminators. the gaunts hit on 4s wound on 4s(if upgraded). and then 2+ save so yeah. but they put out so many attacks that you can luck your way into a few kills.
but in warmachine you get a unit of flameguard vs a unit of MoW shocktroopers in shield wall. then even with double 6 they do a single damage. MoW pretty much have 8 wounds each, so yeah. lol but you can CMA or have a UA, cast ignite, etc. to help you win

but this is a very bad example :( as you cant really compare.
someone with game knowledge of both systems might understand what im trying to say but i apologize anyway.

but the one thing 40k/fantasy has over WM/Hordes is that you can easily convert models and theres such much you can do with them, even if you have a very basic modelling skill like myself. put some rending claws on my spare red terror and Bam, got myself an extra ravener! i was happy. and when you pay silly amounts of money for this stuff, you should have the right to make them look cooler

but the warmachine models cant really modify them unless your pretty good at it, but they very detailed as they come normally.

Look, it's nice to pat yourselves on the back, but as I've said, I've played both systems, and WM isn't anything special in that regard. If you're positioning your WC for the enemy to score a 2nd turn kill, that's your fault, especially given that WM basically defaults to "kill the WC" - IMO, compared with 40k objectives, this is even simpler and less mentally taxing.

Out of all the games out there, 40k has the absolute *least* amount of luck in it. You generally roll enough dice that you have good chances for any given result conforming to a statistical expectation. 40k is not nearly as "swingy" as WFB or WM. 40k also has good mobility so that players can easily control layered outcomes with a little planning. Unlike WFB or WM, in 40k it is very rare that you will have a single bad die roll ruin your game.

The Gaunts v Termies is a good example of statistics at work. In 40k, I can pretty easily predict that a small number of Gaunts will fail against Termies Sv2+, but a large enough number will score a few wounds. Rending & PWs make the numbers even easier to calculate. 40k has fairly high predictability, which is very pleasing to math / engineering / science types such as myself. Being able to predict is pretty much the exact opposite of luck.

WM is a much smaller skirmish game, and it's easier to be screwed on dice when you don't roll as many. Hence the bonus "focus" dice to change the odds. Different stats apply, but the smaller number of dice does make it easier for a bad result to pop up.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Out of all the games out there, 40k has the absolute *least* amount of luck in it. You generally roll enough dice that you have good chances for any given result conforming to a statistical expectation. 40k is not nearly as "swingy" as WFB or WM. 40k also has good mobility so that players can easily control layered outcomes with a little planning. Unlike WFB or WM, in 40k it is very rare that you will have a single bad die roll ruin your game.

I don't understand your logic. A D6 system has a flat distribution. Using a 2D6 system provides a normal distribution. Anyone with a middle school level of mathematics should be able to determine which values offer a comfortable chance of positive outcome. I know you have a simmering hatred for the WM/H system, but I don't see how one system is statistically more predictable than the other - they are both equally predictable - just that one system has a higher number of outcomes and requires a bit more calculation.

As for mobility, IMO one of the 40k's biggest problems is the rigid mobility system where everyone is constrained to fixed movement bands. Guys that are slower or faster than normal, running or crossing difficult terrain move at a random speed. Considering that being able to position your troops is half the battle, I don't see how having a random movement system contributes to 40k needing less luck either. Outflank, deepstrike and reserves are also very die roll dependent where the outcome on any of these could drastically swing the flow of the game - what is worse is that these rolls usually can not be modified.

40k in my mind is more of a "hobbyists game", in that the background and models are superb. The game mechanics are streamlined, easy to learn and scales reasonably as games get larger. WM/H on the other hand, is more of a "gamer's game" in that it offers lots of tactical options, with much less on modeling and storyline. The game itself is less streamlined, has a steeper learning curve and is geared more towards players looking for more freedom in how units interact - due to the complexities of unit interactions, this game does not scale as well into massive games.

A d6 gives a flat distribution with all numbers at 16.667% equally probable.

2d6 gives a TRIANGULAR distribution, rising from 1/36 at 2, linearly to a peak of 6/36 at 7, and falling linearly to 1/26 at 12. If you plot this, it looks exactly like a TRIANGLE, hence the name.

To get an proper "normal" (bell curve) distribution, you need a very large number of steps. The bell curve shape doesn't begin to appear until you have at least 3d6, and additional dice are needed to give it any smoothness.

In 40k, you don't roll a single d6. You roll a fistfull of d6s. That fistful of d6s produces a fairly normal distribution of successes. This is what makes 40k more statistically predictable.

If you want to talk about all possible outcomes, then 40k is vastly larger than WM/H. If you have 30 attacks, you would calculate odds from 1 to 30 hits, then 1 to 30 wounds, then 1 to 30 saves for a minmum of 27000 possible outcomes for a single attack, compared to the 11 (or 16) possibile outcomes from rolling 2 (or 3) d6 in WM.

40k isn't rigid about mobility, hence Jump Packs, Bikes, Fast Skimmers, etc. Different unit types move differently. Imagine that! There's no luck involved - you simply move units.

40k isn't about individual units. It's about an army. If you're halfway smart, you don't put all your eggs in one basket for the Reserve & Deep Strike. You have lots of units and don't care about arrival. If you care about arrival, you manage the odds with Guard or Eldar. If you care about scatter, you manage it with Pods.

Creating the distinction between 40k & WM is artificial. They're different, but not so much from a tactical standpoint. And certainly, WM's no game of Type 1 / 1.5 MtG.

Warmachine is about options on the tabletop and unit synergy, 40K and Fantasy are more about list synergy. Both are fun.

I personally find my enjoyment of 40K and GW stuff in general waning. The most recent heavy handed C&D activity has a little to do with it. The game balance (or lack thereof) is also a problem. Codex creep is just a thinly veiled sales tactic.

I'm very excited about Incursion and Secrets of the Third Reich as well as Incursion. Firestorm Armada is also a great game. There's lots of new gaming material out there.

In closing, it's not enough that GW has nice models (which they do). It's about customer service (listen up GW), fan support, responsiveness to player questions, listening to your fan base, and letting us know you appreciate our enthusiams, loyalty and dollars. GW isn't the only game in town any more.

40K has as much luck as any GW game. As one person I know says, 'it's a game of 4+', and that's about as deep as it goes.

I guess I find it ridiculous to compare a skirmish game to an army encompassing game.

How about comparing WM at 500pts with a 40k game at 500pts? A lot more skill to win at 500pts than at 2k points. Above 1500 you can spam units to win (dakkafexen anyone) but at 500 you have no such luxury (at least not the luxury of spamming 3 dakkafexen or 9 vendettas).

I guess that's the thing. In WM if your dice fail you and you don't get off that uber Caster/Jack or Caster/Solo combo it's game over, might as well pack up your minis and concede. In 40K if your librarian fails to get a power off or your VG squad fails to reach assault it normally won't result in a loss.

Seems to me as if WM relies more on luck than 40k does.

Fateweaver wrote:I guess I find it ridiculous to compare a skirmish game to an army encompassing game.

How about comparing WM at 500pts with a 40k game at 500pts?

Seems to me as if WM relies more on luck than 40k does.

They're minis games played for fun, so close enough.

WM at 500 pts is what? A starter and a couple extra units? Same as an AoBR game?

Didn't I say that a page ago?

The main point is that these are supposed to be games for fun. They're not especially mentally taxing nor supreme contests of skill. They're enjoyable diversions to structure time while shooting the breeze. Trying to read much more into any of these games is pretty silly.

Maybe try flames of war if you don't like gws prices thoguh they are getting better i mean look at the guard infantry boxes $2.20 per model with extra bitzs+win and also you piced some pritty espensive armys it seems i mean how much is it now for a squad liek 42 buck a little under termis. But i degress have fun with pp, heck i still have an esembled starting skorn box like the dudes not the fluff i just keep coming back to the dark future of the 41st melenia ftw.

I just find the FoW models ugly as sin. GW's epic line looks better and is smaller.

I like Warmachine / Hordes, I had a skorne army that I recently sold and I'm building a Khador army now. However, I'm building it just for modeling and painting fun because I know no one in my group plays or wants to play. maybe I'll get what 1 or 2 games in at a store some day, but I just don't have the time to be there often enough or on "warmachine night".

I like GW's models and that's why I play with em. I could care less about the rules, honestly. The game is still fun to play because the models are fun to build and paint and I have a great group of buddies to play with that make the game fun. i find most games with complete strangers (tourneys included) to be mostly boring, prolly cuz I just don't know my opponent well enough so I'm not as relaxed. and it's another reason I don't really like playing at stores.

As far as the costs involved... I know what the models cost and I buy what I can afford. Yeah it's an expensive hobby, but it's nothing compared to say, lionel trains. Yay, let's spend $1500 on a shiney new perfectly scaled engine to pull our box cars around in a circle! Don't go crazy with your purchases. don't buy a whole army in 1 go. plan it out, build it piece by piece and unit by unit. same goes for warmachine or any other game. it's a pricey hobby, and most hobbies are pricey... just do what you enjoy and have fun

I like GW. Haven't played PP. Some of the posts have a very "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" feel.

Both are loved and hated. Both have their good and bad traits. If you don't like one, go to the other. Except in the miniature world, there is more than one "other" company to go to to have fun.

Back to what I was saying before, as long as the person who is tried of GW is still into miniature gaming, then it's a win for all of mini wargaming folk!

This thread has been reported. I've just had to clean out a whole swag of flamebait and snarkiness. Because it's practically Christmas, and I don't want to have to ban half the forum, I'm not going to take any further action on this one if people can at least try to discuss their favorite toy soldier game without resorting to insults and childishness. If that sounds too hard, please do us all a favour and take a couple of days off.

I'm intrigued by the new plastics only for the ease of assembly for something as large as a jack but ppm is still equivalent or even higher than GW so it's not really cheaper.

In on this thread as well. Play nice.

++++++++++

More to the point of the thread:

All of the reasons folks have stated are more than acceptable. Your reasons are your own. I'm really surprised to see folks talking down ANYONE'S reasons for choosing to play their respective games.

I've personally been wanting to jump ship to a new game for some time now. The recent issues with GW have been a bit of a motivator to do just that. And hopefully in the near future you'll be seeing models for said games in my plogs ^_-.

BTW FW, your last post was 1337 >.>....

Fateweaver wrote:I just find the FoW models ugly as sin.

Honestly? So do I...

The tanks are okay, but the infantry look like blobs with guns to me.

That and I hear the rules are needlessly complex. Someone told me once that FoW even had rules for wind direction of all things. Not sure how true that is, but still...

Speaking of jumping ships, I'm working on a project currently.

When looking at a new game, what exactly do you(the potential customers) want to know before delving into a new system? How much of the background of the armies, the system's rules, etc do you want to know about before hopping in?
I ask because I'm currently in the process of brainstorming doing a review of Infinity and want to know exactly what I should hit upon.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you want to talk about all possible outcomes, then 40k is vastly larger than WM/H. If you have 30 attacks, you would calculate odds from 1 to 30 hits, then 1 to 30 wounds, then 1 to 30 saves for a minmum of 27000 possible outcomes for a single attack, compared to the 11 (or 16) possible outcomes from rolling 2 (or 3) d6 in WM.

Yep, if you compare 30 attacks to 1 attack there are more possible outcomes in 30 attacks. Staggering.

Perhaps you'd have more luck if you compared like for like. 500 (35) points of Warmachine has far more going on that 500 points of 40k There's a whole other, non dice, resource management element for a start.

You thought spamming Slayers like Wraithlords was a good idea in MKI, so in all fairness I think I'll take your Warmachine wisdom with a pinch of salt.

@George: If you want to be picky, it's a single assault action.

If you want to talk about non-die resources, perhaps consider Sisters Faith Points?

When I got into WM, there wasn't a "MK1" suffix to be found anywere, it was simply "Warmachine". Nor was there much of anything besides the models in the starter boxes, which were Jack-heavy. When PP made WM into an infantry game with Dreads, I lost interest - 40k already did that, and did it better. Now that WM is going back to Jacks, my interest is up again.

@JHDD: You can be as picky as you like it's still not like for like.

Although they are a non dice resource, Sister's faith points aren't applicable to every game of 40k, they're a niche rule, like say 'Tough' for Trolls on Warmachine. Nobody is going to suggest Warmachine has three sets of rolls as part of a typical attack, similarly we can ignore Sister's resource allocation aspect. Warmachine has this as an aspect of every turn of every game.

40k's mass dice predictability works fine until you start taking into account stuff that ignores models attacks/dice (or the chance of success is very low) because of unusually high attributes (Wraithlords, Land Raiders, Carnifex and so on.) 40k's base mechanics handle these situations quite badly, 40k has practically a whole different game slapped onto it in the form of the vehicle rules. 40k's wound allocation system is rubbish, it's the same as Flames of War but Flames of war has fewer models/dice so just about gets away with it.

Three slayers was never kick ass, even in a Prime only mangled metal environment. I added the MkI tag because the Slayers stock is high right now in MkII (as we've discussed before), maybe you were just playing the (very) long game.

@George: If you read my user page, it's pretty obvious that my ability to predict the future isn't anywhere near as good as that. Indeed, it's so bad, it's amusing. If my foresight were good, I wouldn't have dabbled in a *lot* of stuff, which would have saved me untold wasted time and money.

The Slayers never kicked ass, but that wasn't why I bought them - I got them because I liked the models. And it's also why I never sold them - because I liked the models, and they were painted.

Anyhow, dice wise, unless you're actively needing a lot of 6s or 1s, 40k works fine from a numbers standpoint. Vehicles are always going to be a challenge, because they're all different from ordinary stuff, but 40k5 has the least troublesome version I've seen for 40k.

But I guess if we really want to get into the resource bit, we can jump the fence and talk about WFB Magic.

Needing lots of 6s, 1s (or worse) would be the situations to which I am referring. Vehicles are a 'challenge' because the basic game mechanics don't use them. We could talk about WFB, or at least you could, because I know sod all about the game. I don't like WFB because of the way whole swathes of models are reduced to a single stat increase, nothing to do with the intricacies of the game mechanics. I haven't played since about 2001.

Sidstyler wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I just find the FoW models ugly as sin.

...Someone told me once that FoW even had rules for wind direction of all things. Not sure how true that is, but still...

They sure do. FoW handles smoke differently than 40k. Wind affects a smoke screen and it will drift and dissipate. 40k abstracts smoke launchers as a cover save (IIRC). FoW designers wanted to model it differently since smoke is used to do more than make a vehicle hard to hit/damage. It's used to mask troop movements as it was during the actual war.

Da Boss wrote:Warmachine is about options on the tabletop and unit synergy, 40K and Fantasy are more about list synergy. Both are fun.

Try telling somebody like Blackmoor that 40k is all about list building synergy as opposed tabletop and unit synergy.


I like some of the minis that PP puts out and have purchased and painted a few, but the fluff for their systems doesn't interest me at all. I am really into the fluff behind 40k and as such much rather prefer to play that game.

On the topic of cost, I don't really think that the PP prices teir figures any better than GW does so I can't see where this arguement comes from. Perhaps if you are only playing small skirmish games?

There's a good amount of synergy in 40K too, but I think it's much more pronounced in Hordes and Warmachine. Agreed that GW's fluff is much better though- I'm not sure I'm a fan of the "continuing Storyline" approach to game fluff. But it doesn't stop me from enjoying the game.

PP miniatures are in many cases more expensive than similar GW miniatures. The reason the game is "cheaper" is because you need less of the to play the game. I've found however that I end up spending roughly the same amount due to wanting more units to use and work with different warcasters. Really the best thing about the game for me is the rules and rule support, and some of the big warbeast miniatures.

As long as Games Workshop's rules are written to service the sales of new model kits, and not the other way around, it will never be a good or balanced rule set.

Ever.

George Spiggott wrote:We could talk about WFB, or at least you could, because I know sod all about the game. I don't like WFB because of the way whole swathes of models are reduced to a single stat increase,

Actually, most WFB models are glorified wound markers that sometimes give an extra combat point in groups of 5. It's pretty dire.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:We could talk about WFB, or at least you could, because I know sod all about the game. I don't like WFB because of the way whole swathes of models are reduced to a single stat increase,

Actually, most WFB models are glorified wound markers that sometimes give an extra combat point in groups of 5. It's pretty dire.

I'll third that. I quit WFB years ago and haven't looked back. The models are nice for generic fantasy gaming though - the 6th edition regiment sets in particular made for good dungeon populations in combination with a Warhammer Quest set or two.

The 'glorified wound markers' thing is what really pushed me away from WHFB in the first place. It's a shame too, since many of GW's best sculpts come from that range. I'll buy some models just for painting, but I'll never play WHFB with rules like that.