Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 02:17:10
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
ShumaGorath wrote:Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.
What does that even mean?
I'm not sure exactly but every other model (actually maybe almost all of them) in the entire PP line looks like something out of WoW to me.
Don't get me wrong, GW has it's share of bad sculpts but most of them are old or just plain bad whereas most the PP line seems too.. silly I suppose is the right word, for my taste.
|
Fafnir wrote:Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 06:50:48
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Soul Token
West Yorkshire, England
|
Thinking about it, I suppose the big difference is that I feel PP is on my side. I want to have fun games, and they want me to have fun games too. The rules are reasonably well-balanced, with a few notorious outliers. Models such as Colossals could have been utter game-breakers, to the point where you'd need to get one of your own or be unable to fight them, but they're surprisingly well balanced. Regardless of what army you pick, you'll have a steady stream of new stuff to play with, but very little of that new stuff feels like it's been intentionally powered up to get you to buy the model.
I don't feel that GW is on my side. I feel that they're on a mission to get as much money out of me as possible, and the games are just a means to that end. Balance seems to have been thrown to the wind, the number of minis required has climbed and climbed between editions, and there's a rather obnoxious trend of different models fluctuating in terms of usefulness between editions, which feels like a ploy to make more money. I think what unsold me on 40K was a thread here with someone talking about how they'd have to convert 120 Orks to make them useful in the new rules. The same goes for stuff like "Buy our AA units (or allies with AA units) because we've just made the flying units really powerful.". And then you have stuff like the codex cycle where the low-selling armies dwell in limbo for years on end while there's a big flurry of releases for the new Space Marines.
|
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 09:40:37
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience
On an Express Elevator to Hell!!
|
Well, that is how GW used to be at one time. You got the feeling that it was run by hobbyists who had the same desires that you did. It's been many years now though since that has been the case, and sadly it seems to be an impossible to prevent change that happens within companies (not just within the wargaming industry, but generally) when they reach a certain size - they need people with management/money handling skills, and quite often those people have no interest at all in the subject material beyond the bottom line on a balance sheet. That effect is compounded by the switch to a public company, and I remember at the time that GW took that route a lot of the more dedicated fans covered their faces with their hands and groaned, because they knew what it would ultimately mean for the company.
For the time being I think PP is better in that regard - whether that continues though it remains to be seen, especially if they continue to grow. Or, heaven forbid, they become a publically owned company as well. And of course even smaller companies, and privately owned ones, can make gaffs at times and do things that are unpopular with the customer base.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 12:54:51
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
Missouri
|
Pacific wrote:For the time being I think PP is better in that regard - whether that continues though it remains to be seen, especially if they continue to grow. Or, heaven forbid, they become a publically owned company as well. And of course even smaller companies, and privately owned ones, can make gaffs at times and do things that are unpopular with the customer base.
Yeah, I got a feeling that PP might end up going the way GW have one day. Depending on who you ask they're already well on their way, so try to enjoy it now while you still can I guess.
At least they know how to make a good dragon.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/12 12:56:47
Desubot wrote:Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:35:09
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dominar
|
ShumaGorath wrote:Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.
What does that even mean?
Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.
Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:42:26
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
|
sourclams wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.
What does that even mean?
Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.
Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.
I haven't played Warmachine in several years; do the models still have the propensity for ridiculously out of scale shoulder adornment? I remember that Kador warcaster who had shoulderpads so big that an elephant could sneak up on either flank, and he'd not even know it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:45:05
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dominar
|
Vlad still has the Shoulders of Hugeitude. Hyperion has also got such enormous pauldrons that it looks hunched over.
I can honestly understand the WoW comparisons looking at a few of the most egregiously shouldered models, but those are definitely the exception to the norm.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:45:09
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Old Sourpuss
|
Yes, many of them still do, though to be fair that is not an "American aesthetic" as I believe the Japanese have the copyright on giant shoulderpads... I could be wrong on that front though
|
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:50:03
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dominar
|
The majority of PP models don't even have shoulder armor. There's almost no shoulder armor in the entire Trollblood, Circle, Legion (Kallus might be the only model), or Cygnaran factions. There's a single warcaster in Khador who is an egregious offender, and a faction of gothic-plated knights.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:52:32
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Battlefield Professional
|
Plumbumbarum wrote: sourclams wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Even if I spent 1/10 of the money on PP that I spent on 40k, that money would be wasted because I have yet to see a single PP model that appeals to me aestheticaly. Simple.
Then you simply hate every model that isn't a Space Marine.
???
I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.
Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork
I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.
Its hard to base an assumption of a model range off of 1 factions models
btw, check Page 8 of the thread below then tell me you dont like any of the Legion models.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/453008.page
|
-Warmahordes-
Mercenaries
Menoth |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 13:53:10
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Old Sourpuss
|
sourclams wrote: The majority of PP models don't even have shoulder armor. There's almost no shoulder armor in the entire Trollblood, Circle, Legion (Kallus might be the only model), or Cygnaran factions. There's a single warcaster in Khador who is an egregious offender, and a faction of gothic-plated knights. Sorry, I have not stared at my WM collection in a while. I meant the offending models have not gotten better, and still have giant shoulder pads. The large shoulders don't affect me at all, and there is some shoulder armor in the Trollbloods... my Champs, and Madraks have shoulder armor, but they don't have giant shoulderpads...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/12 13:53:37
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 14:14:34
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
Saldiven wrote: sourclams wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.
What does that even mean?
Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.
Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.
I haven't played Warmachine in several years; do the models still have the propensity for ridiculously out of scale shoulder adornment? I remember that Kador warcaster who had shoulderpads so big that an elephant could sneak up on either flank, and he'd not even know it.
Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 17:22:26
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Banelord Titan Princeps of Khorne
|
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".
Aren't eVlad's shoulder pads separate pieces? IE, if you could assemble him without them and he looks much better?
Example:
From this fellow's thread:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?108679-Khador-Black-Dragon-theme
Anyway, I always run into a case where I like some models from a faction, but none of the other ones. It's tough for me to find a faction that has all decent looking models that also performs decent on the table top.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 18:21:10
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Plumbumbarum wrote:
I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.
Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork
I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.
I would like to comment on your post Plumbumbarum. And dont worry, im not having a go.
Essentially you dislike the aesthetics. Fair enough. each to their own. I find that when someone says they dont play PP games, one of the most common reasons is they dont like "the look". And i wonder about that. A good mate of mine made the point to me once, and its something that has been reinforced the more i talk to more gamers - how much of a dislike of the "look" of PP games (or other companies, by the way) comes from an overexposure to, and an exclusive overexposure to GW games? My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella. And we've both done it. we've both invested in alternative companies (mantic, wyrd, corvus beli, privateer press, anima tactics, bushido etc), alternative worlds and visions and to me, the GW "look" is no better, or worse than the PP one. actually, i find the GW look to be a bit "cartoony" these days too, but then i hold Corvus Beli minis to be the best in the industry.
Plumumbarum, i would ask you one thing. Where do you come from with regard to wargaming? Up until now, have you been as above - an exclusive GW customer. Or do you play other games? Im genuinely curious, and im not trying to bait, trap or trip you up. Also, regardless of the dislike of the models - go play the game.i would heartily recommend it. Also, strangely enough, the PP "look" grows on you. PP are infamous for lousy quality photographs. I'll give you 2 examples - epic krueger and epic kaya. look online and the models look boring and blase. look at them in the flesh and they feel a lot nicer, feel more dynamic and leap out at you more.
ALso, i would comment on grimdark. A bit is good, but recently (in the last few years) GW have been ramping up the skull count on literally everything. grimdark can be taken overboard. Also, i feel its nice to have an alternative "world view". please dont hold the iron kingdoms universe to be one of happy coloured artwork. it is quite a grim place. I'd recommend reading up on it - check to see if you can find the Iron Kingdom RPG pdf's online. they really bring the wrodl to life, in all its gritty realism. gritty is as good an alternative as grimdark, if you ask me. just like you can play strategy games and FPSs.
also, regarding the shoulderpads, the top heavy design makes sense when you realise these troops are designed to fight warjacks, which generally fight using overhanded blows. just like mantic dwarves have most of their armour on their heads and shoulders, the same principle applies to vlad and his iron fangs. and who needs peripheral vision! khador only goes forward!
___________________________________________________________________
On PP v GW, i think both companies take a different attitude. GW sell "the hobby". their attitude towards the game is its a social event, and its about 2 guys playing games in a basement. the rules are a bonus. dont like them? do your own. GW games are ones, which ultimately require a lot of self policing to regulate. PP focus is on the game. clear, consise, precisely worded and well balanced mechanics that dont punish you for fielding a certain type of army. Again, different people appreciate both companies for different reasons. neither is right nor wrong. As for me, as a fairly competitively minded individual, what PP offers, simply put, is what i want. other people have their own stance on it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 18:34:53
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
Regarding the post above mine - when I started looking into the models about 2 years ago I didn't see a model that really appealed to me. All I knew about wargaming at that point was GW. I stumbled across the game when in my local game shop and looked it up. Needless to say I wasn't interested - the models looked like gak and who would I play it with? My friends played LOTR or 40k and the gaming club at school only did 40k.
So when I moved countries, a guy I knew started Warmachine and told me to get it. The models do take some getting used to. But after a while, you begin to really really like them, which is how I've wound up with Circle Orboros. I find that GW's models are more based on fantasy archetypes whilst PP base theirs more on historical ones. It's clear to me that Eldar are elves, Orks are Orcs, Space Wolves are barbarians etc. With Privateer Press, it's clear that Khador are Russian, Cygnar American and Circle Celtic/Brythonic (if you don't like the term Celtic).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 18:35:30
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella.
My general assumption is that old PP models were pretty bad. The first run of warjacks are terrible compared to the new sculpts, especially the first run of the first set. I find that players who dislike the visual style of Warmachine tend to be remembering the first run models which were objectively worse than GWs competition. Privateer has gotten demonstrably better in every area, from sculpting, to artistic design, to manufacturing. When you side by side the old and new models there is no comparison.
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 18:57:17
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Using Object Source Lighting
|
Artwork what?! PP Artwork is bloody great and consistently PROFESSIONAL! While GW's goes from brillant to cr@p.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 19:32:03
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Plastictrees
|
ShumaGorath wrote:My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella.
My general assumption is that old PP models were pretty bad. The first run of warjacks are terrible compared to the new sculpts, especially the first run of the first set. I find that players who dislike the visual style of Warmachine tend to be remembering the first run models which were objectively worse than GWs competition. Privateer has gotten demonstrably better in every area, from sculpting, to artistic design, to manufacturing. When you side by side the old and new models there is no comparison.
They've improved the sculpts of most of the early infantry certainly. I don't agree that the warjacks have improved in any meaningful way, although my only direct exposure is to Cygnar. Cygnar's light jacks in plastic are enormous now for no good reason and with no appreciable improvement in detail. Now my plastic Lancer is as big as my metal Ironclad, which is weak.
As far as the overall look of any line of models goes, while the craft of sculpting has objective qualities, there is no objectively good style of miniatures. "You don't dislike the models, your just a brainwashed fanboi" is not a constructive line of discussion, and really just feeds in to the condescension that tends to permeate these GW vs X threads.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 19:54:19
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
Cygnar's light jacks in plastic are enormous now for no good reason and with no appreciable improvement in detail. Now my plastic Lancer is as big as my metal Ironclad, which is weak.
The ironclad also got a lot bigger in the transition to plastic. The scale of the game moved up a bit overall. I have to disagree with you on the detail bit, the plastic kits are dramatically more detailed than the first run metals.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/12 19:56:13
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 19:57:51
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Widowmaker
|
This mini started me playing warmachine. A powerful female character that's not blown out of proportion. Awesome and realistic armor. I didn't even know that she had a robotic arm until much later, because it was so subtly done. GW doesn't and has never produced a female mini as nice as this.
|
2012- stopped caring
Nova Open 2011- Orks 8th Seed---(I see a trend)
Adepticon 2011- Mike H. Orks 8th Seed (This was the WTF list of the Final 16)
Adepticon 2011- Combat Patrol Best General |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 21:13:44
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dominar
|
That's actually a pretty sound point. PP is very generous to the female depictions (in terms of power, not proportions).
Many of the most competitive, and therefore hated, warcasters/warlocks in the setting are female.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 21:43:46
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Posts with Authority
I'm from the future. The future of space
|
Yeah, I play pDeneghra regularly and she's really, really hated. I've taken to playing her with no arc nodes and going for melee assassination with Dene herself. As well as the normal caster's you'd expect her to take down, I've bagged myself an eSkarre, Kromac, Vyros a couple of times, Xerxes and even eButcher once. People rarely ever saw it coming until I started getting a reputation for doing it.
Since then I've started playing eDeneghra as well as she's just mean. So very mean. And both Skarres. They're just hilarious.
Female warcasters = awesome. Even Zerkova now that she has an attachment worth taking.
|
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 21:53:17
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Big Fat Gospel of Menoth
The other side of the internet
|
whitedragon wrote: ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that dude still looks awful. In general they've rescuplted almost everything from mark 1, and the shoulder pads have shrunk while the legs have grown. Vlads shoulders can't be removed though, they're "iconic".
Aren't eVlad's shoulder pads separate pieces? IE, if you could assemble him without them and he looks much better?
Example:
From this fellow's thread:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?108679-Khador-Black-Dragon-theme
Anyway, I always run into a case where I like some models from a faction, but none of the other ones. It's tough for me to find a faction that has all decent looking models that also performs decent on the table top.
Holy... that looks almost real...
|
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 22:18:44
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I'm going to chalk this up as:
GW:
-Better miniature range/variety with more unique flavors/armies
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.
PP
-Cheaper (Can play an average-sized game for less then GW)
-Better with its consumer base and fanbase (i.e. no wars against fansites or the kind of mean spirited contempt you can get from GW)
-Less broken/random gameplay and rules
I'm going to put actual miniature quality down as equal for both, as Finecast has severe quality issues that lowers GW down. Yes, GW has fantastic mini ranges but you have to factor in the Finecast line as well.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/10/12 22:20:56
My Armies:
5,500pts
2,700pts
2,000pts
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 22:42:12
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Harriticus wrote:I'm going to chalk this up as:
GW:
-Better miniature range/variety with more unique flavors/armies
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.
PP
-Cheaper (Can play an average-sized game for less then GW)
-Better with its consumer base and fanbase (i.e. no wars against fansites or the kind of mean spirited contempt you can get from GW)
-Less broken/random gameplay and rules
I'm going to put actual miniature quality down as equal for both, as Finecast has severe quality issues that lowers GW down. Yes, GW has fantastic mini ranges but you have to factor in the Finecast line as well.
PP fluff is AMAZING. Honestly, 40k fluff completely sucks compared to the ongoing and thus involving events of the Warmachine world.
Better range is super subjective. I actually find PP has better variety because Hordes is actually pretty different from Warmachine in terms of looks.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 23:14:06
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Like others here, my first real wargame exposure was with GW. When one of my buddies started getting WM, I decided to take a look. As we were in the field with only his Rulebook, and Khador book, I didn't really see much I liked. Once I hopped online, I did see the army that was "right" for me aesthetically: Mercenaries.
I will definitely agree with others that the look of PP is something that you have to get used to, or at least I can see many people having it "grow" on them. similar to how the Tyranids grew on me when I was still in 40k.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 23:50:26
Subject: PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dominar
|
Harriticus wrote:I'm going to chalk this up as:
GW:
-Better setting/fluff for its products. You can enjoy 40k without playing the game, not really true with the PP products.
I don't think that's true with the release of the IKRPG. Doug Seacat is going totally nuts just cranking out the backstory for the IK setting.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/12 23:54:24
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Gamesworkshop has the Valkyrie, Vulture gunship and any of the Imperial Guard regiments(especially that of the Elysian Drop troops)
GW wins in model coolness
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/13 00:02:41
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
|
PresidentOfAsia wrote:Gamesworkshop has the Valkyrie, Vulture gunship and any of the Imperial Guard regiments(especially that of the Elysian Drop troops)
GW wins in model coolness
Yep, two jets that would burn their own tails off and can't turn and some dudes wearing medieval cotton armor to go in them. Truly the definition of quality.
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2012/10/13 00:39:16
Subject: Re:PP vs.GW
|
 |
Mutating Changebringer
|
Bat Manuel wrote:This mini started me playing warmachine. A powerful female character that's not blown out of proportion. Awesome and realistic armor. I didn't even know that she had a robotic arm until much later, because it was so subtly done. GW doesn't and has never produced a female mini as nice as this.
<snip>
This brings up something that is a very clear plus for PP, a frankly admirable attribute: by any standard, they have made their game as gender inclusive as possible. I don't mean to sound political, I personally have found the lack of relatable female models in many games, where there is no reason not to include them, mind-boggling.
The breadth of options in WM/Hordes is, to the best of my knowledge, unparalleled. Think, you can play everything from a young girl (Kaya of Circle), to an old crone (The Old Witch of Khador), with everything in-between. The only faction I can think of that doesn't have multiple female warcasters/warlocks to chose from would be... Skorne? I think they only have 2 versions of Makeda, and... Rhule? Which, in fairness, is a sub-faction of a faction (and only has 3 casters at all). To be doubly fair, while Skorne are almost all male casters, Legion is almost all females. To top that off there are a huge number of named female characters below the 'caster level.
Compare this to 40k and... it's like someone at GW headquarters put up a sign outside the door labeled "He-Man Woman Haters Club". The flagship armies are explicitly all male (all variations of Space Marine), with the most prominent female characters either being aliens or religious fanatics (Hmmm.... paging Dr. Freud...). This is not even to mention the occasional recent deviations into downright misogyny, about which the less said, the better.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|