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.

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out and I ruthlessly smashed my oppontents. Not by a little, by alot. Then, Dark Eldar and Grey knights came out. I got sucked back, and I must say, 5th ed is much better then 4th. But, the Warmahordes rules are still clearer in my opinion, but it plays too much like a card game..

5ed better? You don't understand how stressful these cover saves are for Tau!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Sourclams:
WM/H is more of a thinking game. It's simply not possible to dump out a big pile of models and push them around slops-style and "have fun" for 6 turns because when your warcaster dies the game ends. For some people that's a minus, but in my area we enjoy having tactical play rewarded.

The learning curve is far steeper than in 40k because you have to understand what every one of your opponent's models can do and how they interact, so playing WM/H can be somewhat fatiguing from a tactical play standpoint and also a memorizing-every-army-in-the-store standpoint. This does also lead to a continuously shifting metagame which can incent people to buy ever more models, but that's really no different than 40k.

What you mean is ‘its magic the gathering, but with toy soliders and a pseudo element of luck, (just like drawing cards in magic the gathering’

No, actually I mean that it's more of a thinking game. WM/H rewards in-depth knowledge of army lists, abilities, game rules, and planning and execution. To use videogaming terminology, once you've got your lists picked 40k can be won by simple buttonmashing unless there is a massive disparity in player skill. There is almost no opportunity for non-linear, and therefore less predictable, gameplay in 40k as there is in WM/H.

Between Magic, WM/H, and 40k, 40k is clearly the least competitive game system out of the bunch with murky rules interactions and an aloof and unreachable development team that has historically been slow to update FAQs and whose armies are left to lament for years without meaningful updates or balance tweaks. These are objective facts, and while GW has gotten better in recent months, Tau and Necron players are still waiting for their armies to 'get good', implying that the update curve determines power level.

Concrete and clear rules and in-game "resources" like focus and fury management and 1-use feats make WM/H more of a thinking game than 40k. This doesn't mean that 40k is a bad game. I do, however, have a MUCH easier time playing 40k, especially after having played WM/H MkII extensively, precisely because once lists are set 40k is a LOT simpler to play. If you don't see WM/H as more of a thinking game than 40k, then either you are an ultra genius to whom everything becomes obvious and sophomoric, or you have never tried to play either as a thinking game.

I think it's unfair to compare how much of a role tactics play between the games considering that it depends on size. A 400pt vs 400pt wh40k battle is just the two sides beating each other over the head, whoever has the biggest weapon wins, whereas apoc battles are tactical in the extreme. Apoc battles generally take a weekend to complete-mine take two, as I spend inconceivable amounts of time planning out my moves.

P.S. if it's tactical gameplay you're after, try BFG. The most tactical game I have played in a looooooong time.

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

Unless you're using the exact same army as your opponent, the number of squads in apoc is obviously not likely to be the same. You have to allocate squads A to fire a volley at opponent squad Z then move A over to assaullt opponent squad Y while getting firing support from tank A etc.

Plan around what your opponent does, but adapt and account for the dice.

Especially from my hit-and-run Tau, my battlesuits are jumping all over the place, and rarely fire upon the same units twice.

Phototoxin wrote:
Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

In fairness to GW, Apoc is hardly shoved down the players' throat, though. MtG's original designers were sorta idealistic and didn't envision the game as competive, hence lots of stuff was funky and rules were sometimes horribly muddy (anyone remember the "fast effect chart" published in Duellist?). But it was a fun game. It was during 5th Edition when MtG was cynically transformed to ruthless money grab. I feel GW (unlike WotC) has attempted to maintain some of the 'friendly game' ideology in Warhammer, unfortunately sometimes these efforts are misguided, and often difficult to distinguish from sheer laziness & complacency of their dominant position.

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Pen≥Sword wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Holy gak, that just looks plain wierd 0.o

Edit: I'm also kinda wondering how it stays upright.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Pen≥Sword wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I find it ironic that people who play Warmachine think 40k models are ugly and cartoony.

I don't. Yes, the weapons and shoulder pads are huge, but the proportions are massively better than GW's figure. No hydrocephalic heads with hamfists in the Iron Kingdoms.

No skeletal horses with bone tails being ridden by skeletal systems that wouldn't fit inside the average human, either.

Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

Holy gak, that just looks plain wierd 0.o

Edit: I'm also kinda wondering how it stays upright.

Well I have seen convos where the balance looked MUCH trickier. Has anyone seen the Tau XV8 convos on the GW site? The one kicking the UM in the face? WOW! It's nice!

I have armies for Fantasy, 40K, Warmachine and Hordes. I play them all extensively. All the games have their own appeal. In respect to competitive play and clarity of rules, Warmachine/Hordes are by far the better option. Also, this being a skirmish game, each individual model can be capable of quite a few things, so you always have to keep the various synergies and angles of approach in mind. Add the resource/risk management of focus and fury, and I feel Warmachine/Hordes requires more quick thinking and situational awareness than the GW offerings. This is especially true when playing in a timed Hardcore format.

Fantasy is my "beer & pretzel" game (although I dislike pretzels and am very picky about my beer), as all sorts of wacky things can happen and you get to push giant monsters and blocks of models around. It is probably the most "pure fun" of the games I play. That said, there is a relatively deep tactical game underneath all the crazy magic and big beasties. Mastering maneuvering within the constraints of formations is an experience very akin to chess. The only thing that keeps Fantasy being as competition-worthy as Warmachine/Hordes is GW's awful muddy rules, sluggish clarification pipeline, and the sometimes enormous imbalances between armies stemming from their irregular release schedule and lack of collaboration between armybook authors.

40K... I don't know what to say about 40K, I'm a tad burned out on it right now. Tactically, even at its best it is probably the least robust of the game systems, and at the moment I don't even find it particularly fun. I'm just so sick of blowing up razorbacks.

withershadow wrote:I have armies for Fantasy, 40K, Warmachine and Hordes. I play them all extensively. All the games have their own appeal. In respect to competitive play and clarity of rules, Warmachine/Hordes are by far the better option. Also, this being a skirmish game, each individual model can be capable of quite a few things, so you always have to keep the various synergies and angles of approach in mind. Add the resource/risk management of focus and fury, and I feel Warmachine/Hordes requires more quick thinking and situational awareness than the GW offerings. This is especially true when playing in a timed Hardcore format.

Fantasy is my "beer & pretzel" game (although I dislike pretzels and am very picky about my beer), as all sorts of wacky things can happen and you get to push giant monsters and blocks of models around. It is probably the most "pure fun" of the games I play. That said, there is a relatively deep tactical game underneath all the crazy magic and big beasties. Mastering maneuvering within the constraints of formations is an experience very akin to chess. The only thing that keeps Fantasy being as competition-worthy as Warmachine/Hordes is GW's awful muddy rules, sluggish clarification pipeline, and the sometimes enormous imbalances between armies stemming from their irregular release schedule and lack of collaboration between armybook authors.

40K... I don't know what to say about 40K, I'm a tad burned out on it right now. Tactically, even at its best it is probably the least robust of the game systems, and at the moment I don't even find it particularly fun. I'm just so sick of blowing up razorbacks.

I partially agree. 40K is my favourite wargame, but all those SM players make it less fun. If everyone played xenos or daemons and the IoM were a minority, I think it would be WAAAAAY more fun.

The thing is, if the IoM was a minority, everyone would be griping about how all the different Eldar codexs get all the fun stuff! I mean they have 2! and in the past had 3!

The end result would be the same with only a different army being on everyones list. Remember from the hey deys of 4th when it took something like 36 lascannon shots to down a Falcon? They were bloody everywhere.






Edited because I didn't realise the b word was not autocorrected.

Ratbarf wrote:The thing is, if the IoM was a minority, everyone would be griping about how all the different Eldar codexs get all the fun stuff! I mean they have 2! and in the past had 3!

The end result would be the same with only a different army being on everyones list. Remember from the hey deys of 4th when it took something like 36 lascannon shots to down a Falcon? They were bloody everywhere.






Edited because I didn't realise the b word was not autocorrected.

Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

That's the thing that wouldn't happen though, as even if you had equal codex distribution, you would have imbalances among player numbers due to codex hopping. One of the reasons why you see so many marines is simply because of codex hopping, and the fact that the last 3 books of theirs have been sticky gooey goodness.

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Daba wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Yes they are. Add to that, that simply picking another faction in a PC game (that comes with all factions as default) is just a matter of clicking a button, rather than investing hundreds of bucks and many hours of free time, you quickly see differences amplified.

Rather than from a random forum poll with a sample size of 39, these statistics here show they are rather close (though these are those who submit replays):

http://www.sc2replayed.com/statistics?cookieTest=1

with currently Protoss leading the pack.

Blizzard say:

http://m.kotaku.com/5661592/the-zerg-are-starcraft-iis-least-popular-race

Protoss are played 38.5% of the time.

Terran are played 38.0% of the time.

Zerg are played 23.5% of the time.

Backfire wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:
Well this is it – GW thinking ‘no one takes 16 monoliths its too cheesy’, now comes to ‘PLEASE BUY 16 MONOLITHS FOR APOC!’ to sell minis. A bit sad really. In mtg a top deck is about 80% rare or mythic.

In fairness to GW, Apoc is hardly shoved down the players' throat, though. MtG's original designers were sorta idealistic and didn't envision the game as competive, hence lots of stuff was funky and rules were sometimes horribly muddy (anyone remember the "fast effect chart" published in Duellist?). But it was a fun game. It was during 5th Edition when MtG was cynically transformed to ruthless money grab. I feel GW (unlike WotC) has attempted to maintain some of the 'friendly game' ideology in Warhammer, unfortunately sometimes these efforts are misguided, and often difficult to distinguish from sheer laziness & complacency of their dominant position.

I agree with Backfire. Apocalypse fits more into the "game for fun" side than the moneygrab side. Also agree completely about Money the Gathering. Playing old decks with friends is fun, but anywhere else I'd rather just play "who can lay the biggest pile of cash on the table" because at least I'd still have it afterwards.

40k doesn't feel like it's going that way yet. I would appreciate it if GW would slow down on pumping out new codexes/editions nonstop but nothing new to say there. Also, unless you're a tourney player there's nothing keeping you from using the older (more fun IMO) chaos codex for example. If GW does go the route of MtG I guarantee you I won't stop playing it, but I also guarantee you I won't be using the latest rules set

Daba wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Terran aren't always the most popular in Starcraft.

Don't meantion THAT GAME in a wh40k forum. It is too blatantly a knock-off to be played by wargamers. Also, video games are the bane of a wargamer, as they consume A LOT of time that you need to spend painting. Not to say I don't play a littl, of course.

Brother SRM wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
Yes, but I was picturing an evenly-dispersed-amongst-the-xenos 40k.

Nobody would care. People want a frame of reference with a human race, and will gravitate towards humans (or superhumans) whenever possible. Not everyone, mind you, but the majority of players.

Brets and Empire aren't the most popular Fantasy armies. Even if you include WOC as humans (and I wouldn't), the combination wouldn't dominate over any other group of 3 armies in the same way that Space Marines dominate in 40k.

Skaven and Elves tend to be the most popular, in my experience.

People play Space Marines because they're intentionally made to be the best armies, they get the most support, and they're the 40k poster child.

Holy_doctrine wrote:I quit 40k for Khador back in 4th edition when the 5th ed guard codex came out

The absurdity of this statement really can't be quoted enough.

My way of getting round all these problems (I only recently reached this conclusion) is to regard models, fluff and rules as entirely separate entities which only cross over superficially.

Personally I've not played a lot of 40k in the past year. This is not due to 40k as a whole, but I find fantasy to be totally well done and kinda balanced There are some nasty biulds, but if you play an All comers list like I have for my HE and DOC.

I look forward to playing 40k, when I get ready for a break with my fantasty, but that may be summer when I get ready for ard boyz.

biccat wrote:
People play Space Marines because they're intentionally made to be the best armies, they get the most support, and they're the 40k poster child.

Though, it is good to remember that just few years ago the situation was reverse - one SM codex was more or less competive, all other Imperial books were weak.

I don't think 40k has gone down the toilet. It is a constantly evolving game with a solvent company that continuously puts out new figures.

Now, I don't always agree with their sales, rules and codex policies, I still can't find a game and game universe that comes close to 40k.

My one wish, as good as some of the new figures are, is that they try and move to a more 'realistic' (for humans) and less campy esthetic. Heck, why not make a few 'true-scale' guys as an option?

Mentat wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...

The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

Quote Pyramid wrote:Unnecessary Clutter

Say what?
So your idea of tactics is rolling a fethton of dice then removing an equal amount of models? As this is what Apocalypse has been in my experience, no true tactics at all...

Whereas with Warmahordes it is somewhat stressful to play, as it is a proper noodle scratcher. In fact, it was quite refreshing to play 40k after an extensive stint of playing WM. It entirely depends what i'm in the mood for.

You can't really dismiss that Warhammer has no tactics because it rolls a lot of dice. There's a lot of important stuff, like unit placement, predicting your opponent, leading a enemy into a trap (or away from an important unit), and a lot of the same tactics you find in a pure tactical game like chess. If anything, rolling a lot of dice produces an average, preventing a game being won and lost on a lucky die.

I was referring to Apocalypse. Not standard 40k. Normal 40k is incredibly tactical, just in a different way to WM. APOC OTOH is just "lets see how many dice I can roll and watch me place this dinner plate sized template on your army"

Scott-S6 wrote:
The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

I didn't say GWs miniatures are realistically proportioned. Google 'human proportions", the miniature on the left's torso is too many heads in length (by about 1). Thats why it looks weird. Ironically, I looked at some other miniatures from that brand and they looked more in proportion than your example.

Love the game my self

What really makes me stop playing people outside my group is the lose rules and with special characters.
Also GW making the old models that i have sux so I have to by the nes siney ones

ie: a trygon is way better for the same points as a carnifex

ie: eldrad, fortuning vechile cover saves :(

Scott-S6 wrote:

Mentat wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

hmmm, so add some green stuff to the Cadian to extend his torso freakishly long and he will look better? Sorry but the miniature on the left looks freakish. Its true, GW and many other miniatures companies make their miniatures out of proportion, but they do it (now) mostly because they look better on the table. Realistically proportioned weapons look too tiny on the table for example. I would rather have something look decent on the table than be realistic by the exact measurements, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying GW stuff isn't crazily oversized, exspecially the weapons...

The mini on the left is proportioned like a real person. (real people's torsos are not wider than they are long)

The point I was making is that while the distorted proportion is done deliberately for appearance on the tabletop, to say that GW minis are well proportioned is simply not true.

If you think the trooper on the left is proportioned like a real person, you have some SERIOUS issues, go see a doctor.

His torso is thinner than each of his thighs.

Also, the waist, also known as the thinnest part of the torso, is not the thinnest part of HIS torso.

He looks more like a Tau air caste pilot.

On a side note, GW FW are fairly well proportioned, though it is hard to say with xenos, I just assume they are well proportioned since they are humanoid, and their minis proportions are human, except for areas where their anatomy is different.

Pen≥Sword wrote:Nope. Nothing cartoony or out of proportion here.

I'm glad you know what the proper real life proportions of a Warp Wolf are.

Can you now inform the rest of the class as to what they are?

I don't think the comment is based on proportions of the "warp wolf" I think it's just confirming that it looks like it came from thundercats.

Also that's a wolf? I thought it was a blue lion with rocky tail stuff or whatever you wanna call that. Are you sure it's not a cat related creature. Maybe a wisp of smoke?

I honestly think that 40k is looking to become better, especially if the guys at GW can balance the codeices a litttle better...

Also, while some 'dexes may be better than others, FAq's are a way to try and fix this- and I hope they work.