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.

Deadnight wrote:


What i find is that every gaming group that i've went to up here in the UK is different. my main hub is evenly divided between warmahordes, and flames of war. another place is evenly divided amongst 40k/fantasy, warmahordes and bloodbowl. theres a few guys that play dystopian wars too. pretty good atmosphere amongst them all. We all like to see our hobby grow.I've got no problem saying which games i prefer (clearly, warmahordes, and infinity, and dropzone commander is tempting me sorely) but saying "i like/prefer X" is not the same as saying "I hate Y". SImilarly, (and im not going into it here), explaining why i dislike the GW games (or another company) and moved on is not the same as me bashing them, the community, or the company. Im as happy to lay down my criticisms of Corvus Beli and Privateer press as well. I get the impression some people assume ojective comments and reasons are the same as flames. i guess some folks just take this whole hobby too damned seriously. i'll leave those that play GW games to it. quite happily. im quite happy buying GW bitz for conversion purposes, and PP options are quite limited.

For what its worth though, your experiences with the PP community sadden me. We're not all like that. Over here, its all fun and banter. if anything, id argue the rapid growth of the community since Mk2 hit is proof enough that, on the whole, the community is quite welcoming. Its just a shame your experiences differ.

One thing people may not realize is that the my game vs your game is much more of a problem in the states than other parts of the world.

vhwolf wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


What i find is that every gaming group that i've went to up here in the UK is different. my main hub is evenly divided between warmahordes, and flames of war. another place is evenly divided amongst 40k/fantasy, warmahordes and bloodbowl. theres a few guys that play dystopian wars too. pretty good atmosphere amongst them all. We all like to see our hobby grow.I've got no problem saying which games i prefer (clearly, warmahordes, and infinity, and dropzone commander is tempting me sorely) but saying "i like/prefer X" is not the same as saying "I hate Y". SImilarly, (and im not going into it here), explaining why i dislike the GW games (or another company) and moved on is not the same as me bashing them, the community, or the company. Im as happy to lay down my criticisms of Corvus Beli and Privateer press as well. I get the impression some people assume ojective comments and reasons are the same as flames. i guess some folks just take this whole hobby too damned seriously. i'll leave those that play GW games to it. quite happily. im quite happy buying GW bitz for conversion purposes, and PP options are quite limited.

For what its worth though, your experiences with the PP community sadden me. We're not all like that. Over here, its all fun and banter. if anything, id argue the rapid growth of the community since Mk2 hit is proof enough that, on the whole, the community is quite welcoming. Its just a shame your experiences differ.

One thing people may not realize is that the my game vs your game is much more of a problem in the states than other parts of the world.

Indeed, arrogance is part of our cultural charm, or as those more positive about it might call it, our 'competitive nature'.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor;

Not even the same rules as 40k, and not common. I'm glad you've found a use for the models, but this isn't very helpful for a new 40k player.

Wait, and Warmachine IS the same rules as 40K? I thought you were arguing that players would be picking up Warmachine because GW is ludicrously expensive by comparison and, to a new player, that extra cost would matter more than the system?

a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs;

Except not, since you don't have all the various upgrades. In fact Necromunda is especially bad for this because you get random weapons and need to have available models sitting around gathering dust in case you need that option. It's a game for experienced players who like converting, not a newbie game.

See, that's odd, because the gangs that GW sell, and have sold since the inception of the game, don't have "all the various upgrades", yet people still played and play it with those minis. Weapon changes can easily be tracked on paper rather than on the models, indeed that's how the group I played the game with when I was a kid who could barely paint did things.

an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

Not 40k. Don't care.

More epic goalpost shifting. What happened to new players just buying the cheaper option regardless of system?

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

Except:

1) They aren't 40k. If you're a new player and want to play 40k it doesn't really help to say "hey go play BFG it's cheap". Nor does it help to say "go play a game of poorly equipped gangs scavenging to survive in the hive city" when they want to play a game of "heroic gods of combat fighting to the death to purge the galaxy of the xenos and the heretic".

and

2) Nobody plays them. I don't care if you're lucky enough to have a friend who likes to play the niche games, if you go into your FLGS on 40k night nobody is going to be playing Necromunda/BFG/whatever. You either bring a 1000-2000 point 40k army or you don't even bother showing up.

Gnawer wrote:
Tactical flexibility is also not great.

That's what I would say about 40k. Tactical flexibility should be their priority and with 100+ pages of rules, possibilities should be plenty and a game should be a tacitian wet dream. It's not, it's mediocore ruleset especialy looking at prices.

40k is also going downhill imo, as highlighted by cheesy necrons and It seems to be leaving grimdark for fantasy/ herohammer and caters to kids more than ever, GW seems unaware of the fact that it's gritty, grimdark that is the greatest feat of their game. Rules of 6th are not exactly promising either, if the trends continue, I'm out just am waiting to see if maybe they change direction. For the moment I'm only buying used stuff, some of their paints, bought a starter lately but that's it, it will take a few good codices or faqs to make me buy from them again.

Btw there was dark age of comic books mentioned, yes exactly dark is better and the new tone of those stories was catering to adults where the previous ones were purely for kids. Blood, slaughter, hopelessness, facism, coruption, fanatism, untold billions dying, terror, all great and makes 40k stand above the rest for me. Mixing that with awesome things stolen from everywhere around, through blatant IP theft and OTT grimdark treatment GW created something great, imo. That instead of going further in that direction they ruin it is another topic, for me it's still acceptable but their fear of bleeding some money for the sake of awesome is going to bury the game sooner or later.

That said, as much as I hate GW, for me it's 40k or nothing. It's exactly what I want, fluff, scale or game type wise. If Gw pisses me off too much, I'll be done with wargaming and just stick to PC games. Or maybe I'll just write my own rules for home play, or settle with a set of rules codieces and organise a game from time to time.

As for Warmachine, the models, fluff and the mood instantly put me off. I'm not competing for player base or some other crap, this is purely my impression. The artwork has those American style curves, that nice roundness and happy colors that I can't stand, also it looks like a bad parody of 40k imo. Some of my friends like that "modern American comic book" look but I hate it, I can't look at Starcraft artwork for example without seeing that cheap "coolness" or sth, I don't even know how to call it. The final straw is the lack of grimdark. My opinion and my taste obviously, I have nothing against the players or the game, if 40k runs out of players that will be GW fault not people playing other games or switching because they can't put up with the crap anymore.

TLDR: Grimdark FTW

 -Loki- wrote:
When I fleet/run my Tyranids, I always inform my opponent I'm doing it in my movement phase. Moving multiple 20+ model strong units once per phase is enough. Moving them twice is terrible. So I simply tell them I'm rolling for my fleet/run during movement, and move them 6" + what I rolled. I have never, ever, ever had an opponent complain about what I was doing. They actually seemed grateful.

So yeah, that's a pretty poor reason to sell an awesome army.

Moving that many models once while my opponent waits is a great reason to sell the army. And I've had way more fun with a lower model count game since.

The fact that your opponents are grateful when you do anything at all that reduces their wait time might be an indicator that they're being polite about just how boring and annoying it is to wait for a giant horde army to be moved in 40k, fleet or not.

I've sampled both and I don't think I'll play a GW or PP game again for a variety of reasons.

I enjoy the FFG line of 40k based RPGs, and similarly I enjoyed the Witchfire Trilogy although the new Iron Kingdoms RPG leaves a lot to be desired. I enjoy the grand, grimdark sweeping history that comes with GW, and I also enjoy the more heroic, character foccused exploits of PP fluff.

I still paint models from both companies from time to time, and like every range they both have their hits and their misses.

I wouldn't say that Warmachine/Hordes is a skirmish game anymore, as you usually have a few units and some stompies/gribblies. It's a smaller, more intimate scale at a lot of point levels, but at 50 points plus and the advent of Colossals/Titans it's clear that PP are looking at the bigger picture (pun intended/not intended based on how chucle worthy it was). GW has some reasonably priced multi-part plastic model kits, they just expect you to buy a lot of them to get the most out of their game. I don't think one is better than the other at the price point scale. I feel that GW expect a bigger initial outlay for an army that potentially has more playstyles and then want you to expand with smaller add ons, whereas PP expect you to build a tightly focused force and then expand with more tactical options that drastically alter the playstyle whilst still retaining the same art style or theme of a faction. Feels like six and half a dozen.

Both PP and GW offer a variety of advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day they want your money. This hobby, like any other, is expensive but you'll get more enjoyment buying something you like than constantly trying to find a game system that offers you the cheapest deal.

But collosals/gargantuans reduce your model count, not increase it. they're also amazing at killing infantry which is going to slowly shift many local metas away from infantry and towards jacks.

And even in the giant sized games of 75 or a 100, we're still talking less models and total cost than an average 40k army. 50 points is a big game, but it's still around 20-40 models. Much, much less if you go with a colossal.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Pardon me but 1) That's a third time you've tried to pull this, and it's still not going unnoticed. If the new player is desperate to play 40k and only 40k, they will play 40k regardless of the cost, and if they're choosing to base their decision on cost of entry rather than system, then I fail to see how saying "Hey go play Warmachine it's cheap" is any different from offering them BFG, Necromunda, Inquisitor, or GorkaMorka, excepting of course that those games are all set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play, as opposed to an entirely different one, and that several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play, meaning they could expand their force later if they found themselves with some spare cash rather than having to start from scratch and having a bunch of models from another company they can't or don't want to use.

And 2) Nobody at your FLGS plays them. Four guys at my local GW store have multiple Necromunda gangs, three of my old Uni friends regularly run Inquisitor28 campaigns, and I can get a game of anything from BFG to Dystopian Wars at my town's main gaming club just by sticking a note up on the board, except for Warmachine which is actually rather rare around here. Personal experience is not universal, but then I don't have the sheer hubris to try and assert that my own local scene is somehow an objective standard.

You said there were no 40K skirmish games, which is patently false, when this is pointed out to you, suddenly your argument changes from "newbies will pick whichever system is cheapest" to "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener". Either defend your stated position or concede the point, don't try tacking on endless additional conditions, some of which directly contradict your initial argument.

I'm honestly not sure if this is an argument for the sake of argument, or you actually believe these things. The notion of claiming "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener" would stretch the definition of "published" to the breaking point.

Gorkamorka?

Inquisitor, the "large scale narrative skirmish game using beautifully crafted 54mm models, and set in the dark world of the Imperium's most covert and mysterious agents"?

Necromunda and... BFG?

So when you say "several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play", you mean... I dunno, Necromunda? If GM does, heck if I know, but if GW can't be bothered to even list it on their own website, I hesitate to imagine it's a good jumping off point. Why in the world would you recommend Inquisitor or BFG, two game systems that use radically different miniatures then 40k, as a means of getting into 40k?

Heck, if the only criteria is "set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play", why not recommend Fantasy Flights' line of RPGs?

It's simply foolish. If we were to apply this logic, we wouldn't be comparing WM/Hordes against whatever moribund GW product is still feverishly played in kreplachistan, but the Iron Kingdoms RPG versus the FFG RPGs, or BFG versus Grind. Which is just silly.

If people are getting into 40k, they start playing 40k, they don't learn a new set of rules based solely on fact that a reasonable person will be shell-shocked by the price of actually playing 40k. Now, those are arguments for playing games made by GW other then 40k/fantasy (oddly, a position GW seems to have totally abandoned), but they scarcely convince that 40k/fantasy has a plethora of inexpensive options. Simply being set in the same universe is... cute? Heck, might as well claim the Black Library books are a good way for someone to get into 40k... think of the savings in miniatures!

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The argument is PP needs less overall models so it becomes 'cheaper' because of the perceived value of needing 25 10$ figures opposed to 120 10$ figures..

Which is a weird basis for comparison. It's like arguing that a Mini is cheaper than a Kenworth semi... Sure, it's technically true, but not particularly useful if you want a truck.

Just about any skirmish game is going to wind up cheaper than an army-based game in the same scale.

It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game. If you want to play a game in the 40k universe using the normal 40k models you have to invest a lot more more money up front. And it gets even worse because it's hard to find games below 1000-1500 points even if the rules allow you to play it at a smaller scale. As a new player trying to get started the PP games are significantly cheaper than starting 40k/fantasy, especially since PP starter sets are (apparently) useful, while GW starter sets are garbage.

Total nonsense. The Company Command Squad I'm building for my IG-counts as-AdMech army does model-for-model double duty as a full warband for 28mm Inquisitor; a single squad of my planned Tallarn Imperial Guard could easily substitute for one of several different Necromunda gangs; an Ork player's basic 1 HQ + 2 Troops army which would barely function in 40K provides enough models to run a four-player GorkaMorka campaign.

So if you really want to insist that we judge this on how cheap it is to get into the company's products based purely on how many models it takes; 7 beats 25 at the same cost per model.

If you can't find players in your area who will play any of the three available 40K skirmish games, or the 40K space game which also has a similar investment to Warmachine, that's a real shame, but stop pretending that they don't exist in order to justify your personal choice to switch systems and the apparent need that generates in some of you lot to belittle anyone who didn't make the same choice.

Sorry, but this response is total bull. Gorka Morka? Inquisitor? Most people don't play these anymore in comparison to regular 40k. Congrats if you are lucky enough to have a group that still plays all GW offshoot games, most people don't have these options in their gaming circles. Just because you're lucky enough to have them doesn't mean everyone else is, and you shouldn't look down on the 85% or so of us who don't. I chose a random, high percentage. I don't have actual info on who plays what, it would be impossible to determine. But there is a reason regular 40k still sells and GM does not.

 swampyturtle wrote:
Peregrine stirkes me as such. PP like GW is a company. They dont care about you, Only your money and how they can come up with the next best thing to seperate you from it. If you are gonna spend it, spend it well on something you like.

Yeah, way to miss the point there. I play 40k, and I have absolutely zero interest in anything PP produces. However, that doesn't change the fact that GW does a poor job of making their game accessible to new players, while PP does a very good job of getting new players started for a reasonable cost.

nkelsch wrote:
1) Games that use the stock 40k models are closer to 40k than games which use totally different models. 28mm =I=munda and Kill team are lumped in with 40k as you can play it without all new models in most circumstances.

Except they don't use the stock 40k models. Necromunda uses completely different stuff unless you play a certain variety of IG, kill team doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, Inquisitor is not a 28mm game, and GorkaMorka uses only orks. None of these games allow you to just buy the start of a 40k army and start playing them.

Also, Inquisiumunda is not a GW game.

Just because where *YOU* play the battlelines have been drawn that GW players are playing massive games or go home and PP players are playing tiny little games doesn't mean it is reality.

1000 points is not a "massive game" for 40k. The game is designed to be played between 1000-2000 points, so 1500 is about average, 1000 is small, and 2000 is just above average. Don't bring up this weird strawman where everyone just plays Apocalypse every week.

All the semantic acrobatics is not going to convince me that one 10$ model is cheaper than another 10$ model which is the only thing that matters.

You can say that all you want but YOUR comparison is the fanboy one. Fanboys argue all day about which company is more overpriced. People who actually want to play the game worry about how much the TOTAL cost of playing the game is.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wait, and Warmachine IS the same rules as 40K? I thought you were arguing that players would be picking up Warmachine because GW is ludicrously expensive by comparison and, to a new player, that extra cost would matter more than the system?

No, I'm arguing that bringing up non-40k games published by GW is stupid as a counter-argument to the fact that 40k is expensive. Necromunda might be a fun game but it isn't 40k, so it doesn't matter how cheap Necromunda is.

See, that's odd, because the gangs that GW sell, and have sold since the inception of the game, don't have "all the various upgrades", yet people still played and play it with those minis. Weapon changes can easily be tracked on paper rather than on the models, indeed that's how the group I played the game with when I was a kid who could barely paint did things.

And guess what: those aren't 40k models. The argument was that you could just use your first 40k purchases to play the alternate games as a way of starting 40k, which is entirely different from GW producing separate Necromunda models which happen to be a decent deal.

excepting of course that those games are all set in the same fictional universe as the game they actually wanted to play, as opposed to an entirely different one, and that several of them use the same models in the same scale as the game they wanted to play, meaning they could expand their force later if they found themselves with some spare cash rather than having to start from scratch and having a bunch of models from another company they can't or don't want to use.

Really? So if I want to buy a Tau army I can use my battlesuits in Necromunda?

And 2) Nobody at your FLGS plays them. Four guys at my local GW store have multiple Necromunda gangs, three of my old Uni friends regularly run Inquisitor28 campaigns, and I can get a game of anything from BFG to Dystopian Wars at my town's main gaming club just by sticking a note up on the board, except for Warmachine which is actually rather rare around here. Personal experience is not universal, but then I don't have the sheer hubris to try and assert that my own local scene is somehow an objective standard.

Then you're lucky. Your experience does not seem to be typical. None of the FLGS I've ever been to have had any significant player base for any of those games.

You said there were no 40K skirmish games, which is patently false, when this is pointed out to you, suddenly your argument changes from "newbies will pick whichever system is cheapest" to "newbies will pick whatever system is cheapest, except if those systems are published by GW because neener neener". Either defend your stated position or concede the point, don't try tacking on endless additional conditions, some of which directly contradict your initial argument.

Nice strawman.

And yes, I said there are no 40k skirmish games. There aren't. There are skirmish scale games published by GW but they don't use the same models or rules. They are entirely separate games, and irrelevant to the question of how expensive it is to start playing 40k.

I agree with Pere up there. Most people also forget that GW has been trying to suppress the idea that they make games other than fantasy, 40k and lotr. That many of the quoted games haven't received an update in over what, almost decade now? GW isn't interested in cheap games like these and puts no emphasis towards them. The only people that keep them alive are people that know of them in the first place.

Hi folks.
GW plc and PP have different target demoghraphic.

GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong asthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

There are many companies out there producing good games and associated minature ranges.

Simply find a minature range /system that suits you, and enjoy YOUR hobby.

Happy hobby time to one and all.

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong asthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

Speak for yourself. The reason I'm still playing 40k is I enjoy the rules. The reason I'm not playing Warmachine is the demographic it has attracted in my area (to put it in the words of someone who does play in my area, it's attracted 'the very worst').

He's not speaking for himself. He is repeating the words of GW's leadership

 Peregrine wrote:
Except they don't use the stock 40k models. Necromunda uses completely different stuff unless you play a certain variety of IG, kill team doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, Inquisitor is not a 28mm game, and GorkaMorka uses only orks. None of these games allow you to just buy the start of a 40k army and start playing them.

I'm sorry, what? A 40k scenario in a 40k supplement doesn't let you use models from the core 40k game?

Sorry, but throwing Killteam in there was a dumb addition. The whole point of Killteam is a small game of 40k using 40k models. Because it's a 40k scenario. in a 40k supplement.

 -Loki- wrote:
I'm sorry, what? A 40k scenario in a 40k supplement doesn't let you use models from the core 40k game?

Sorry, but throwing Killteam in there was a dumb addition. The whole point of Killteam is a small game of 40k using 40k models. Because it's a 40k scenario. in a 40k supplement.

Read again: I said killteam doesn't allow you to use more than a small percentage of 40k's models, not killteam doesn't let you use ANY 40k models. It uses 40k models, but let's say you play marines and bought a Land Raider. You can't wait to use this awesome tank in a real game, and you're really excited about it. Oops, too bad, it's a heavy support choice. Good luck using it in killteam. Good luck using your HQ you just bought in killteam. Good luck winning a killteam game with your tactical squad you got out of the battleforce if your opponents are making dedicated killteam forces from a large pool of models.

In short: playing killteam well requires you to buy different models than starting a standard 40k army. It's not as bad as the others, but it's still far from "buy a cheap box, get started playing the real game". It's more like "buy a box, get started playing something that's kind of like 40k, but missing a lot of the things that make 40k fun".

HI Loki.
Just to clarify.
When I said no one plays 40k becuse of the rule set.
I meant that the rules are usualy well behind , the background artwork sculpt -artistic direction etc .When it comes to picking the resons why people play games of 40k.

If the rules were laid out side by side with other rule sets from other games / companies.
(Devoid of all 'background filler/theme.')
I seriously doubt anyone would pick 40k 3rd-6th ed as thier favoritre rule set.

Good rule sets ...
Everything works like this.

40k rule set.
Everything works like this...Well apart from this...And this ...And sometimes this...And this if this happens..But not if this happens before that...
Well what we mean is '' everthing works like this, apart from the things that dont, and the things that dont sometimes...''

 -Loki- wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc target 'children' and 'minature collectors'.And rely on the strong aesthetic of 40k to sell thier minatures.
(No one plays 40k because of the rule set, usualy in spite of it! )

PP are a games company and target gamers/collectors who like thier game play/ minature asthetic.

Speak for yourself. The reason I'm still playing 40k is I enjoy the rules. The reason I'm not playing Warmachine is the demographic it has attracted in my area (to put it in the words of someone who does play in my area, it's attracted 'the very worst').

As a Whole, My Experience with the PP crowd at my local meta was, how to put it, Lack Luster. I was there to watch the game because i wanted to see if i liked it, I did, but i dont like the players, outta the 8+ there only 2 answered my questions. and i didnt ask questions during a game, and inbetween.
But 40k can be jerks too, But i dont see it that often as i do with the warmachine crowd.
Im not saying everyone who play WM/H is a jerk and 40k are saints. We all know what 40k can do.

I dont think we should let the judgment of a company be effected by how a minority of its player base is percived.

BUT on the goals and direction of the company , and the level of support , not to mention the value for money the company gives its customer base.

Some players are asshats , no matter what system they play....

Exactly, Just giving my experiance there. I should have mentioned that they used to play 40k, and many where jerks then. Im just giving my experience in WM/H.

I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

xxvaderxx wrote:
I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

No offence but that is spoken like a person who has never played a game of Warmahordes. If you do that then you're asking for trouble, yes yo/u have to go for the throat as many of the scenarios encourage it, even going as far to punish you if you don't (Killbox) but if you rush mindlessly into your opponent then you're gonna have a bad time.

Neither 40k nor Warmahordes are "hurr durr run forwards!" but WM's tactical depth is like the laurentian abyss compared to 40k's paddling pool.

 Grimtuff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
I for one play and like warhammer better, WM is a too simplistic charge forward game for me, having said that, there truth is WM is simply cheaper to play, one being skirmish and one being bigger is not really relevant as to how much money you have to put in to make a "tournament" army.

No offence but that is spoken like a person who has never played a game of Warmahordes. If you do that then you're asking for trouble, yes yo/u have to go for the throat as many of the scenarios encourage it, even going as far to punish you if you don't (Killbox) but if you rush mindlessly into your opponent then you're gonna have a bad time.

Neither 40k nor Warmahordes are "hurr durr run forwards!" but WM's tactical depth is like the laurentian abyss compared to 40k's paddling pool.

Excuse me, what i like or not is not really relevant to the OP, which is which one is cheaper to play. Having said that, it is written all over the WM/H books that those games are designed specifically for that. Ofcourse there is some tactics to it, just like there is in checkers, but that is not what i personally like, too unidimensional for my taste, but again that is personal preference. And no, fielding the best combo is not a tactic is simply optimizing your list, and given there is one victory condition, perfectly attainable by most armies in most games that default overrides all other victory conditions, i dont really consider WM/H more tactical than 40k, they are pretty even in my opinion.


text removed. No need for language like this on Dakka. Please refrain from posting in such a manner in future.
Reds8n

xxvaderxx wrote:


Excuse me, what i like or not is not really relevant to the OP, which is which one is cheaper to play. Having said that, it is written all over the WM/H books that those games are designed specifically for that. Ofcourse there is some tactics to it, just like there is in checkers, but that is not what i personally like, too unidimensional for my taste, but again that is personal preference. And no, fielding the best combo is not a tactic is simply optimizing your list, and given there is one victory condition, perfectly attainable by most armies in most games that default overrides all other victory conditions, i dont really consider WM/H more tactical than 40k, they are pretty even in my opinion.

PP fans can get a little... defensive, cant they when it comes to standing up for their game?

for what its worth though, i will disagree with you. the tactics, combos and interplay in warmachine is deeper than what 40k offers. here is the thing though, you are very much approaching the game from a 40k POV if you're saying its about "fielding the best combo". define the best combo, please. Here's the thing. If i ask you for advice on playing guard, chances are you will point out the half a dozen builds that are seen as the "go-to" builds for imperial guard. if you try and do the same for, say the Circle or Orboros, or Cryx or Khador, you will get laighed at. there is no "best combo". everything can kill everything else, and everything has a hard counter. deneghra? Meet Kromac. Kromac? Meet Skarre. and so on.

Similarly, "optimising your list" is an inherently different proceedure in warmahordes since swapping out a single model or unit can completely, drastically and utterly change the dynamic and playstyle of your army.

Also, there are 2 victory conditions. Win by scenario, and win by assassination. Both are perfectly viable, and both exist for that hail mary moment. i've been on both ends where i've snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a daring, and balls to the wall assassination run, where everything bar my caster was dead, and i've had it done to me. What it means is you can never count yourself out of the game, and that is a good thing. complacency is bad. complacency loses you games. You always have to keep an eye out for caster kills, but i've won more games on scenario than to losing my caster, on the whole. "protect your caster" is the first thing you learn in the game.

I personally look at 40k like a soccer match. lots of space big sweeping movements and manoevres. warmachine? More of a boxing match. far more enclosed arena, but movement, manoevre, feints, dodges, sidesteps and so on - just as important. the only thing is you cant run 60" away like a tau!

Both have their pros and cons and both have their own distinct brand of flavour when it comes to gameplay.

Deadnight wrote:


for what its worth though, i will disagree with you. the tactics, combos and interplay in warmachine is deeper than what 40k offers. here is the thing though, you are very much approaching the game from a 40k POV if you're saying its about "fielding the best combo". define the best combo, please. Here's the thing. If i ask you for advice on playing guard, chances are you will point out the half a dozen builds that are seen as the "go-to" builds for imperial guard. if you try and do the same for, say the Circle or Orboros, or Cryx or Khador, you will get laighed at. there is no "best combo". everything can kill everything else, and everything has a hard counter. deneghra? Meet Kromac. Kromac? Meet Skarre. and so on.

Hard counters are as dramatic in WM/H as they are in 40K. The PP boards are full of list advice that whittles each army down to the handful of "optimal" choices that the majority acknowledges are simply superior to every other selection available. People don't play Trencher heavy Cygnar armies because they're just as good as any other selection for Cygnar...they play them because they want to, just like people play less than optimal 40k lists because they want to.
Cross faction balance in WM/H is generally good, thanks to the variety offered by casters/locks. Internal faction balance is as "poor" as 40k IMO.

Deadnight wrote:

Also, there are 2 victory conditions. Win by scenario, and win by assassination. Both are perfectly viable, and both exist for that hail mary moment. i've been on both ends where i've snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a daring, and balls to the wall assassination run, where everything bar my caster was dead, and i've had it done to me. What it means is you can never count yourself out of the game, and that is a good thing. complacency is bad. complacency loses you games. You always have to keep an eye out for caster kills, but i've won more games on scenario than to losing my caster, on the whole. "protect your caster" is the first thing you learn in the game.

This is exactly what i dislike about WM, since scenario objective varies, but assassination stays the same, there is no reason to not optimize for assassination. This is what 40k and Fantasy are trying to break away from, if this was not there, i would probably play WH. But again that is personal preference.

Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

Because, similar to every other hobby in the world, people generally only have the time/money/etc to commit themselves to one brand/product. They need to believe that they have made the best choice, so therefore the other brand/products _have_ to be terrible.

xxvaderxx wrote:


This is exactly what i dislike about WM, since scenario objective varies, but assassination stays the same, there is no reason to not optimize for assassination. This is what 40k and Fantasy are trying to break away from, if this was not there, i would probably play WH. But again that is personal preference.

you'd be surprised. my favourite khador caster is eIrusk, and i've never lost him to an assassination. With him, i've never won via assassination either, and generally grind the other army down via attrition and take the game via scenario. Quite effective too. Whereas with Kromac (circle) i generally pull my wins via assassination (16 fury worth of attacks to the face is rather nasty!). that said though, i've had plenty games where asssassination has been out of the question, and i've had no choice but to go for scenario. druids are fun as you can use them to push the other guy off the objective. a canny player can deny LOS and charge lanes to their caster and do their utmost to remove it as a win condition. i've seen quite a few tourneys where assassinations were rare, and wins were taken with scenarios only.

With respect to you, you can't discount either approach, but to say scenarios are pointless and optimising assassination as the thing to go for is an extremely shortsighted viewpoint. YMMV, but on the whole, preparing for scenario play is a huge side of tournament gaming.

 Ugavine wrote:
Why does there have to be a THIS vs THAT ?

I play 40K. While I may not play many other wargames other I play plenty of other games. There is just no this vs that at my club. We're Gamers, we play games. Plural.

this. this times one hundred.