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:

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.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

xxvaderxx wrote:


To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

you still seem to be taking the approach that casterkill is the optimized approach. i thought i'd just demonstrated while viable, the game doesnt revolve around it.

oprimisation is good, but the thing i like about WM is with the sheer amount of combos and builds, both to play with and to play against. there is no "best" optimisation. there is no one way to play Khador, for example.

personally though, i like casterkill as a win condition, (and timed turns!) as it always keeps you on your toes. you always have plan B. I've seen too many games of 40k that were one horse races for the same reason there was no scope for a different win condition.

as you say though, to each their own.

 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 is entirely true for me, however by eliminating 40k from my personal "repertoire" of games played, I suddenly find that I have a lot more money the many other games that I play. Which is ultimately what this thread is about, the money for your personal hobby, and which company you send that money too.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

From your argument there is basically no reason I should ever not be optimizing air based ranged alpha strike shooting. You acted like both games didn't have imbalancing over-optimized builds. My argument was that both games have that problem and that its under 20 dollars to fix those imbalances in warmachine, it's easily 200+ to fix it for 40k. The tournament and army building formats in warmachine also make it very cheap to have several different army builds that play very differently. If you want that in 40k you'll be in for upwards of a thousand dollars.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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.

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

I've lost games of 40k before they even started given sheer imbalance within the ruleset and codexes and a lack of sideboard or army shift systems to make up for it. That burnt me out of 40k entirely. Playing an assault marine blood angels force against six or seven flying demon princes with breath of chaos is a game that might as well not even be played. A skilled player can end a game of warmachine in two turns (though it's rare), but the benefit of that is that you can play several games in a row with dramatically different results depending on player choices. If I bring my BA army against that flyer force there will only ever be one result, no matter what tactics I use and it'll be hundreds of dollars in order for me to create an army that can compete. A 16 dollar switch in warcaster could let me compete in warmachine against a bad matcup.

If you don't think optimization is a part of 40k you've never reviewed why the same three codexes win everything and include very few assault elements.

Ofourse it is i quite honestly dont get your point. So he had an optimized list and you didnt, you lost, your point is?.

From your argument there is basically no reason I should ever not be optimizing air based ranged alpha strike shooting. You acted like both games didn't have imbalancing over-optimized builds. My argument was that both games have that problem and that its under 20 dollars to fix it in warmachine, it's easily 200+ to fix it for 40k.

1- I never compared one game to the other(never said one was better than the other, they are different which is not the same thing as better), i said what i did not like about WH period, no need to go on the defensive.
2- I said WM/H was in fact cheaper than 40k.
3- If you want me to compare, bad rolling aside, 40k has 2 victory conditions for every game, tabling, and objectives, objectives have primary and secondary. Overall it is much harder to table an opponent to win a match (not as the result of it) than it is in WH to simply assassinate your opponent, which is the overriding wining condition. While tabbing happens, you hardly if ever make it a tactic to win the game(you dont build around it), not the same can be said about assassinating, and as i said before, i rather get tabled and loose on turn 5 after i played basically an entire game, than assassinated out of the blue turn 3, is too anticlimactic for my taste, that is more suited for CCGs than wargaming in my opinion. But as i said on my first post, to each his own.
4- Since flyers come in from reserve, dont arrive until at least turn 2, you can not alfa strike with them, establishing air superiority is a different thing.

1- I never compared one game to the other(never said one was better than the other, they are different which is not the same thing as better), i said what i did not like about WH period, no need to go on the defensive.

You were comparing your experiences in both games and spoke negatively of one without pointing out similar flaws in the other. That is an indirect form of praise.

2- I said WM/H was in fact cheaper than 40k.

But you said you disliked a type of gameplay that is easily rectified and defended against by certain army builds. Warmachine is a lot like magic, it has good and bad matchups which are made more even with multiple army selections and sideboards. I was noting that those systems are totally absent from 40k and that the only base option for dealing with bad matchups is to spend an awful lot of money.

3- If you want me to compare, bad rolling aside, 40k has 2 victory conditions for every game, tabling, and objectives, objectives have primary and secondary. Overall it is much harder to table an opponent to win a match (not as the result of it) than it is in WH to simply assassinate your opponent, which is the overriding wining condition. While tabbing happens, you hardly if ever make it a tactic to win the game(you dont build around it), not the same can be said about assassinating, and as i said before, i rather get tabled and loose on turn 5 after i played basically an entire game, than assassinated out of the blue turn 3, is too anticlimactic for my taste, that is more suited for CCGs than wargaming in my opinion. But as i said on my first post, to each his own.

When an IG gunline kills half of my army turn one i have been beaten. Sure, I could grab the objectives, but I won't. It's an unrealistic assessment to think I have anything to do with the outcome of the end of the game two hours later. I will lose that game because of the fundamentally unbalancing gameplay that is 40ks turn based ranged game. When, if ever, have you been tabled and felt like you played a game? I never have. In Warmachine dedicated assassination lists are actually not particularly good or powerful. There is all of one high level tournament caster based on optimizing for that out of something like 80 warcasters/warlocks. In my own personal view it's much less aggravating to lose quickly than to lose quickly but still have to play for two more hours knowing that nothing I can do will change anything.

4- Since flyers come in from reserve, dont arrive until at least turn 2, you can not alfa strike with them, establishing air superiority is a different thing.

The player to strike first and hardest is alpha striking. It's easy to alpha strike with a flying demon army by just hiding your army or landing outside of the enemies range. Alpha strikes don't have to happen turn one.

xxvaderxx wrote:

To each his own, this are dice games, your are going to win eventually even if you dont optimize, statistically thou, optimizing is best, and personally dislike this mechanic, since it is such a huge factor in the game i keeps me away. You do have the tabbling win condition in 40k, but realistically speaking, they dont happen, and when they do its a process its the result of the game, more than making a couple smart moves and combos and winning 1 turn regardless of the rest of the game. But granted its personal preference, i dont like it.

Your fundamental assumption that assassination is always the optimal strategy in WM/H is flawed, however. A major case in point: Terminus. Between his feat, the ability to camp at 24 ARM, and Sacrificial Pawn (which prevents you from getting rid of his focus with one shot from Eiryss), Terminus is extremely difficult to kill with most conventional assassination methods. If you try the typical death or glory assassination run he will roll over you and laugh.

Terminus really isn't the only example, though. Assassination seems really strong when you're a newer player because everyone has yet to catch on about how quickly even most casters/locks can be taken off the table, and so a lot of games end quickly because people get greedy or don't realize the vulnerable situations they put their casters in. As people play more though, you tend to find that people get much better about protecting their casters, and your "optimal" strategy of assassination becomes riskier and riskier to the point where playing to the scenario/objective is often a better way to force your opponent's hand. In the case of Irusk (both versions), he's a backline support caster with a 14-inch control radius, so the "only" thing between you and him is usually his entire army: you generally aren't going to kill him without getting through a substantial swath of his army first. This is where objectives/scenarios come in: if your army can use the objectives to force trades in your favor, you eventually win because Irusk has few options if his army is heavily wounded or dead. Against good opponents this is generally going to be the safer/more reliable play than going for the Hail Mary assassination run.

This isn't to say that assassination is never the better choice in some situations, but if your current view of WM/H strategy is "caster kill every time, all the time", you have clearly never tried to pin down Caine or Gaspy.

Has anyone wondered why GW plc call it 'The GW hobby.'

Becuse quite simply most people can not afford to play anything else when they have 'fully invested' on 40k/WHFB.
And GW plc depend on this to sustain sales.

Other companies ,(including PP,) rely on engaging game play to retain customers.Who if are 'average gamers' ,(not asshats.) Will promote and grow the customer base by positive word of mouth.

Something GW plc has to spend over £60M every year to do with thier B&M stores.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:
Your point only makes sense because you've introduced an artificial choice between battle games and skirmish games (or cars and trucks).

Ah... but there are players who don't like skirmish games. I'm one. So I don't care how great a skirmish game is, how neat the models are, how cheap the game is to get into, how many players there are, or how wonderful the manufacturer treats its customers, a skirmish game brings me no joy so it is a VERY bad value for my money. I'd rather go home and watch TV than play a skrimish game. In my opinion, 40K is a skrimish game... just on a bigger scale.

I want to maneuver blocks of troops. I want facing to mean something. I want tactics to mean something. And skirmish games generally don't cater to that desire of mine. (Neither does WFB anymore, but that's a whole different subject.)

Does this mean that all skirmish games are bad? Heck no! All it means is that I, personally, don't care to play them, that's all. So the example of trucks vs. cars is an entirely valid one, from my point of view.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'

6th Ed rule set increased the time on playing this game. One of the reasons why I'm trying WM. 1500 point 40K games where I play at now take 2 hours on the average because of the amount of models that are needed to play competitive. Then toss the shoddy rule set and wind up with a time sink. Don't get me started about the 2000+ crowd. I do not have all day play one game when I can get 2 or 3 with WM.

Finally it is clear that in my region that 40K is dying. Reasons are can be found in the hundreds of postings and topics that can be found here on this site. There is no 40K games in one of my LFGS but there is plenty of WM/H games. The rest of the LFGS are scaling back as well, primarily to the recent policy changes GW has imposed on them.

I'm the one of those customers that have wads of cash in their pockets that can throw down a few grand to buy whatever I want, but I'm tired of Bloathammer. I'm tired of absolute BS coming from corporate office and the years of missteps they have done.

I want to play a game with a reasonable set of rules with a reasonable cost to play it in a reasonable amount of time. WM/H fits the bill.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Just like there's nothing stopping 40k players from going up to 500,000 points vs. 500,000 points.

Well, there is the wee little detail that beyond 2000-2500 points you start loosing the ability to play a game in a reasonable amount of time.

Sure, you CAN play 14K per side; I've done it. It will literally take ALL. DAY. and if you have any sort of distractions it will take even longer.

And at the end of the day, you think to yourself 'gee, I could have played a half-dozen smaller games in the time that took, and it was pretty apparent who was gonna win about four hour ago, why did we do this again?'

6th Ed rule set increased the time on playing this game. One of the reasons why I'm trying WM. 1500 point 40K games where I play at now take 2 hours on the average because of the amount of models that are needed to play competitive. Then toss the shoddy rule set and wind up with a time sink. Don't get me started about the 2000+ crowd. I do not have all day play one game when I can get 2 or 3 with WM.

Sure.

Finally it is clear that in my region that 40K is dying. Reasons are can be found in the hundreds of postings and topics that can be found here on this site. There is no 40K games in one of my LFGS but there is plenty of WM/H games. The rest of the LFGS are scaling back as well, primarily to the recent policy changes GW has imposed on them.

Understood.

I'm the one of those customers that have wads of cash in their pockets that can throw down a few grand to buy whatever I want, but I'm tired of Bloathammer. I'm tired of absolute BS coming from corporate office and the years of missteps they have done.

Give PP a few years, they are catching up to GW in many aspects. It's a feature of the corporate mentality, not a flaw peculiar to GW.

I want to play a game with a reasonable set of rules with a reasonable cost to play it in a reasonable amount of time. WM/H fits the bill.

For you.

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

League of Legends is free.

Is there a mini game for that? Because all I'm finding is the video game.

Video games interest me less than skirmish games.

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Mantic Games might work for you. I have 6 WFB armies collecting dust due to 8th ED fantasy rules. League of legends? I'll have to take a look at this myself.

 Vulcan wrote:
Is there a mini game for that? Because all I'm finding is the video game.

Video games interest me less than skirmish games.

There is no minis equivalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

Got any suggestions for a reasonable ruleset for someone who doesn't like skirmish games, isn't terribly fond of steampunk, and has to use WFB minis because my budget won't stand buying a whole new set?

Mantic Games might work for you. I have 6 WFB armies collecting dust due to 8th ED fantasy rules. League of legends? I'll have to take a look at this myself.

It was a joke, league of legends is a popular free to play videogame with very few analogues to warhammer fantasy beyond being vaguely magical and medieval.

Seems a pointless argument really, both companies are pretty popular, so both companies are expensive. Isnt that just how it works though?

If in 5 years time Mantic are super popular, then no doubt their prices will rocket!

Nothing really to discuss, both are popular, both are pretty expensive, such is life.

 mattyrm wrote:
Seems a pointless argument really, both companies are pretty popular, so both companies are expensive. Isnt that just how it works though?

If in 5 years time Mantic are super popular, then no doubt their prices will rocket!

Nothing really to discuss, both are popular, both are pretty expensive, such is life.

I find almost all minis games are similarly priced at this stage with a few strange outliers like spartan either falling way under or going way over the scale depending on model. The issue is that 40k requires a collection the size of most of their competitors combined to play the game. I don't mind that fact, but with comparable pricing to the other games and the upward trend of prices way beyond inflation and oil costs it's become prohibitive to me personally. Thats a bad breaking point that the competition hasn't reached.

@ vulcan try out armies of arcana. It has rules for point costing any models in your collection and has all of the fantasy equivilant army lists in the book along with a bunch of others.

I would like to second Armies Of Arcana.(Provable level of balance is great.)
Or you could try Mantics Kings of War rules for free.(On thier website.)
Both are good for alternatives to WHFB.(Most WHFB players I know have switched to one or the other post 8th ed.)

So not just a chioce of PP and GW,after all!

It seems as if the GW haters here don't know how to use discounted Warhammer stores/ebay stores(20-25% discounts). But you know what, at least GW miniatures are in plastic and thus is cheaper to build larger armies of them.

And people, if you don't like high model count games, then don't play 40k, the point of 40k is to have large scale battles with high model counts, not 10 man skirmishes with monopose metal miniatures.

PresidentOfAsia wrote:
It seems as if the GW haters here don't know how to use discounted Warhammer stores/ebay stores(20-25% discounts). But you know what, at least GW miniatures are in plastic and thus is cheaper to build larger armies of them.

There is so much flawed logic here. Discount retailers tend to be even across all games, if you can find 25% off 40k you can find 25% off wm/h. Also, the medium which a model is made of has no direct bearing on the cost of an army. only the price tag of the constituent kits affects the cost of the army directly. It is true that plastic should facilitate a lower price than metal or resin, but that isn't always true.

And people, if you don't like high model count games, then don't play 40k, the point of 40k is to have large scale battles with high model counts, not 10 man skirmishes with monopose metal miniatures.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. The scale of the game is one of the unique assets of 40k and fantasy. Mantic is trying to compete but they only really do infantry right now and can't touch GW's large plastic monsters and vehicles. If you want non-historic mass battles in 28mm scale GW is the premier choice.

I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

 Breotan wrote:
I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

Plastic beyond some very specific models, does not work for PP. Plastic works for mass production and mass usage, something they have basically designed their game against. Where 40k armies have smaller number of units you could use, pps model has several and works on adding more, the compromise they can make is something like finecast, and we all know how that worked for GW.

 Breotan wrote:
I just wish PP would make a more dramatic move away from metal toward plastic. They should know how to do Kickstarter by now.

GW has demonstrated that single models made in plastic do sell well enough to justify the cost of production.

I agree but I believe they need to bring plastic production in house to make it a viable medium for them. What they have done with their suppliers so far has been great and shown considerable improvement, but until they have full control of the process PP won't be able to utilize plastic to the same degree they use metal now.

My biggest personal grudge with Warmahordes is the fact that, if you ask me, half the models are butt ugly.

Protectrate of Menoth? Sister of Battle ripoffs with stunted legs.

Scyrah? Eldar bootlegs, also with stunted legs.

Khador? Grossly out of proportion World Eaters knockoffs.

And as for Hordes, there's the Skorne (I swear they weren't even trying with that name) and the Circle of Ouroboros, AKA Tyranid wannabes.

And on top of that a lot of them are metal, which I loathe with a passion.

Protectrate of Menoth? Sister of Battle ripoffs with stunted legs.

That doesn't even make sense. SoBs don't have a copyright on religion, and if anything they much more closely resemble any other generic catholic inspired crusader force. They don't have "nothing but distastefully designed and poorly modeled nuns in bondage gear" going on, so they hardly rip off sisters.

Khador? Grossly out of proportion World Eaters knockoffs.

I'm starting to doubt you have eyes or know what human proportions are if you think they're khorne ripoffs or that they're somehow less disproportional than world eater models.

Scyrah? Eldar bootlegs, also with stunted legs.

This i'll give you. It's hard to do futuristic elves without it looking like eldar in some respect though.

And as for Hordes, there's the Skorne (I swear they weren't even trying with that name) and the Circle of Ouroboros, AKA Tyranid wannabes.

Circle Orboros is the druids. I don't think tyranids have any giant werewolves. As for naming conventions, how're blood missiles, pyrovores, thunderwolves, or space marines any less cringe worthy?

And on top of that a lot of them are metal, which I loathe with a passion.

So is a lot of GW product..? Your complaints reek of fanboism and a lack of familiarity with either the human form or anything that isn't a GW product.

OK, the Ouroboros thing...Is it them who have the Carnivean and stuff like that?

Those are the Tyranid wannabes I'm talking about.

With the Khador, and the stunty legs on Scyrah and Menoth I'm not talking about the humans. I'm talking about those ludicrous Warjack things. They make the Dreadnought look positively realistic.

And yes, GW have metal models. But they've started to replace them with resin. At some point moreorless the whole Citadel range will be plastic or resin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait a minute...I meant Legion of Everblight, not Ouroboros. Ugh.

OK, the Ouroboros thing...Is it them who have the Carnivean and stuff like that?

No, that's legion of everblight.

Those are the Tyranid wannabes I'm talking about.

And GW owns the concept of scythe arms? Conceptually they're closer to chaos since they're all mutants and possessed. If this is as close as it takes to be a ripoff GW owes aliens a hell of a lot of money.

With the Khador, and the stunty legs on Scyrah and Menoth I'm not talking about the humans. I'm talking about those ludicrous Warjack things. They make the Dreadnought look positively realistic.

They look pretty comparable to me, with the exception of the fact that a dreadnaught could never stand up if if fell down and it doesn't have the ability to step over curbs.

nd yes, GW have metal models. But they've started to replace them with resin. At some point moreorless the whole Citadel range will be plastic or resin.

PP started doing that years ago too. Your complaint is totally invalid.