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.

 agustin wrote:
It makes loads of sense. Go with 40k if modeling and painting is more important to you than gaming,

Modelling and painting is more important to me... thats why I love to paint and collect the chunky metals from PP and use GW for the converting fix... Don't see why you assume PP is less hobby orientated just because its not packed with thousands of extra bitz... I mean the goal is to paint a mini and field it and PP metals do that as good if not better than GW. ( detail wise there is no comparison the PP metals with the GW plastics)

I think he means that with GW plastics, there are loads of parts and interchangable kits that result in nearly endless possibilities with just the plastics and glue but with PP it's a bit harder.

I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

Can 40k be just as serious as Warmachine without squabbling over rules? Because when I see 40k get to be srs bzns, it usually means there is a rule dispute happening. Now will the top competitor's play seriously and play to win and know the rules well enough to avoid most of those issues? Yes, now about if we open that up to a wider player base? Do we have more or less rules arguments and people getting into heated arguments of words printed on a page? In my experience, it's more with 40k. Are there rules arguments in Warmachine? Absolutely, but the rules are clear enough that generally it's never more than, "check the wording on x in the rulebook" (if you can't find it on the card).

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I think he means that with GW plastics, there are loads of parts and interchangable kits that result in nearly endless possibilities with just the plastics and glue but with PP it's a bit harder.

I still struggle to see why extra bitz on their kits makes the experience better for the painter... as for the hardcore modeler both companies have different appeals but one does have a bits service that you can buy individual bits ( guess who?).

In short both companies offer a very good experience for the painter/modeler in you.
I could never say to any hobby orientated fella that if he likes the painting side of things he should go to GW rather than PP... even the paints are good quality in both companies.

Oh boy! I can buy extra bits!!! Goody gumdrops! How nice of them!!!!

I prefer that than GW's "Here's a gakload of bits you have to pay for whether you want them or not!" Of course, if GW did barebones kits and sold the bits extra then they'd probably price the bits in such a way that it ends up being more expensive than it is now, so perhaps one should be careful what one wishes for. I know they used to do seperate bitz (and still do to a very limited extent), but I don't recall how they were priced.

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh boy! I can buy extra bits!!! Goody gumdrops! How nice of them!!!!

Try harder.

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh boy! I can buy extra bits!!! Goody gumdrops! How nice of them!!!!

Hmm.. I see your point.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh boy! I can buy extra bits!!! Goody gumdrops! How nice of them!!!!

Try harder.

At what? It's a ridiculous point to make, especially when every GW kit comes with extra pieces.

Am I supposed to pretend PP is so benevolent because they "let" us buy bitz? Gimmeabreak.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

Can 40k be just as serious as Warmachine without squabbling over rules? Because when I see 40k get to be srs bzns, it usually means there is a rule dispute happening. Now will the top competitor's play seriously and play to win and know the rules well enough to avoid most of those issues? Yes, now about if we open that up to a wider player base? Do we have more or less rules arguments and people getting into heated arguments of words printed on a page? In my experience, it's more with 40k. Are there rules arguments in Warmachine? Absolutely, but the rules are clear enough that generally it's never more than, "check the wording on x in the rulebook" (if you can't find it on the card).

In my experience? Yes. My friends and I rarely have issues over rules. I have one friend that gets into arguments, but that's over him deliberately misinterperating rules to bend the game in his favour. Or I hopeit's deliberate, considering he's a qualified teacher now. Everyone else quite happily plays 40k with the released rules and no house ruling, no squabbling.

Do I think the rules could be written better? Absolutely. Do I think rules squabbles are generally from pedants with too much time on their hands to analyse them? Definitely.

 cincydooley wrote:
So... If I'm a working adult and my money is more valuable to me then the logical conclusion is that I'd avoid 40k?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

I don't think I need to point out (again) that as a big person, man dollies isn't the number 1 priority in my life. Car payments, rent, food, fuel, utilities, medical aid, pension, insurance and a savings of some sort for when you hit a razor blade in the candy floss of life take preference. So, I've started playing Dust:Warfare last year. Today I picked up a Axis transport($39.95) and Recon Grenadier squad($14.95). This is a whopping 20.6% of my total army(300AP standard size local). To equate it to 40K, 5 Chaos Marines($25.00) and a Rhino($37.25) is a massive 7% of a 1850pt army. For $7.80 less, I got a fully legal and fully armed infantry squad and a Transport that's bigger than a Rhino. That requires no assembly to play with, so I've got more time to spend on painting that sucker up between work, studies and family commitments.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Yes. I have a full allies army myself. What's your point? Just because its cheaper doesn't mean it's more logical for me to buy it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. I have a full allies army myself. What's your point? Just because its cheaper doesn't mean it's more logical for me to buy it.

He's basically trying to point out that a person who is a wargamer SHOULD be a relatively responsible adult and take care of their life needs before their gaming wants.


Obviously, we should buy into the game that gives us the most enjoyment. For Evil_Toast, apparently Dust gives him the enjoyment that GW doesnt give as much of, so for him it is more cost effective and logical to get into that game than a GW one.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Yes. I have a full allies army myself. What's your point? Just because its cheaper doesn't mean it's more logical for me to buy it.

He's basically trying to point out that a person who is a wargamer SHOULD be a relatively responsible adult and take care of their life needs before their gaming wants.

Well clearly. But after that, how does a logical conclusion that you shouldn't buy GW follow?

Obviously, we should buy into the game that gives us the most enjoyment. For Evil_Toast, apparently Dust gives him the enjoyment that GW doesnt give as much of, so for him it is more cost effective and logical to get into that game than a GW one.

Right, but to make the blanket statement that its illogical to buy GW is foolish.

 cincydooley wrote:


Obviously, we should buy into the game that gives us the most enjoyment. For Evil_Toast, apparently Dust gives him the enjoyment that GW doesnt give as much of, so for him it is more cost effective and logical to get into that game than a GW one.

Right, but to make the blanket statement that its illogical to buy GW is foolish.

Exactly. When Necrons came out, I was dying to buy and army of them (being my first army I played, then stupidly sold.). After looking at local costs , for example I would be paying $8.77 more than you for 10 Necron warriors at local prices, seeing as we can't order from those apparently parasitic online retailers anymore. I have 4 40k armies, and that's where it's going to stay. And now I have to pay $73.84 for a new style codex too.

Unless I missed the point of this thread, I can't seem to see the post that stated "Why you all need to use cincydooley as the yardstick to measure your TTWG expenditure and enjoyment against."
Probably because it's not here. For you, your obviously happy with GW. But for everyone here whose is not you, we have our own financial limits and circumstances. So bear that in mind next time you post something snarky and argumentative, like this:

 cincydooley wrote:


So if I "value my money" I should pick the one I like more. Wow. Mind blowing stuff there.

But if im a "serious and mature" gamer I shouldn't buy GW. Ahh. Got it.

And

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh boy! I can buy extra bits!!! Goody gumdrops! How nice of them!!!!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

This statement interests me. Would you mind outlining what you think makes Warmachine healthy tournament/competitive game, and what 40k does the same or differently that also makes it a healthy tournament/competitive platform? The more specific you could be, particularly if you can provide concrete examples drawn from the mechanics of the respective game engines the better.

Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

This statement interests me. Would you mind outlining what you think makes Warmachine healthy tournament/competitive game, and what 40k does the same or differently that also makes it a healthy tournament/competitive platform? The more specific you could be, particularly if you can provide concrete examples drawn from the mechanics of the respective game engines the better.

I'd simply quote the sum 2000 player that will be competing in 6 weeks at adepticon In various tournaments. Seems to work okay there and has for 10 years. I'm probably wrong though.

 cincydooley wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

This statement interests me. Would you mind outlining what you think makes Warmachine healthy tournament/competitive game, and what 40k does the same or differently that also makes it a healthy tournament/competitive platform? The more specific you could be, particularly if you can provide concrete examples drawn from the mechanics of the respective game engines the better.

I'd simply quote the sum 2000 player that will be competing in 6 weeks at adepticon In various tournaments. Seems to work okay there and has for 10 years. I'm probably wrong though.

It works because of a the independently developed many paged FAQ and
the independently run volunteers. Basically, it works because people want it
to work and not because the game itself makes it so.

To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm.
Life will find a way.
Just because YOU think 40k cant be competitive, doesnt mean others do not.

martin74 wrote:I have noticed a trend at the local game store where I live. WHFB and 40K were te big guns three/four years ago. When you saw someone playing WM/H or only thing else you gave them that crazy look. Now, you still see games every night being played, but te range of game systems is rather large. WHFB, 40K, Wm, Hordes, Malifaux, and even Dystopian wars is common to see being played.

There are those purist out there tat will only play GW. They need to losen up.

Why exactly? What gives you the right to dictate to someone what they should or should not play? I will never play Warmahordes or whatever it is because I have zero interest in the setting or the fluff. I also don't care if you swear by it and refuse to ever play a GW game. Suggesting that someone "needs to loosen up" is insulting to their opinion. I think warjacks and many of the other models in WM/H are incredibly ugly and poorly designed. I would never want to play with them or paint them. Some people love them. Different strokes.

hotsauceman1 wrote:To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm.
Life will find a way.
Just because YOU think 40k cant be competitive, doesnt mean others do not.

That is a stupid handwavium quote.

cincydooley wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

This statement interests me. Would you mind outlining what you think makes Warmachine healthy tournament/competitive game, and what 40k does the same or differently that also makes it a healthy tournament/competitive platform? The more specific you could be, particularly if you can provide concrete examples drawn from the mechanics of the respective game engines the better.

I'd simply quote the sum 2000 player that will be competing in 6 weeks at adepticon In various tournaments. Seems to work okay there and has for 10 years. I'm probably wrong though.

Both systems can be competitive. PP just supports the gameplay/tournament aspect more than GW. A good parallel would be LoL (or GW) and WoW. WoW can be competitive in PvP, but it still has major balance issues.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm.
Life will find a way.
Just because YOU think 40k cant be competitive, doesnt mean others do not.

Statements like this are fair enough I suppose, but they don't convey much of anything substantive.

 cincydooley wrote:

Chongara wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, 40k can be just as serious as a game as Warmachine.

This statement interests me. Would you mind outlining what you think makes Warmachine healthy tournament/competitive game, and what 40k does the same or differently that also makes it a healthy tournament/competitive platform? The more specific you could be, particularly if you can provide concrete examples drawn from the mechanics of the respective game engines the better.

I'd simply quote the sum 2000 player that will be competing in 6 weeks at adepticon In various tournaments. Seems to work okay there and has for 10 years. I'm probably wrong though.

I would recheck that figure....I think the total attendance for Adepticon is around 2000 or so...unless of course they have increased attendance dramatically since the last one I went to. Of those, you only get a few hundred who actually play in the tournaments.

That said - you can compete in almost anything, however certain things are better suited for competition than others. GW had stated (can't remember if it was in one of their web videos/articles or through White Dwarf) that they are not writing their rules for tournaments...so, that sort of puts them off balance when it comes to tournament play.

Warmachine/Hordes is absolutely better suited, and for a ton of reasons. If anyone is disputing that, it's a bit silly. That's not preventing tons of people from competing in lots of 40k tournaments all over the country, from Adepticon to Feast of Blades.

 cincydooley wrote:
Warmachine/Hordes is absolutely better suited, and for a ton of reasons. If anyone is disputing that, it's a bit silly. That's not preventing tons of people from competing in lots of 40k tournaments all over the country, from Adepticon to Feast of Blades.

Well yeah, of course it isn't stopping them from having tournaments. You can make competition out of almost anything but doesn't make whatever your competing with have any depth, or have anything to do with testing skill, or even have anything to do with the more general purpose of the activity in question.

I'd wager the popularity of 40k and size of the tournaments involved in it have far more to do with the strength of the 40k IP and GW being sort of the first ones to open the market than it does anything to do with 40k as a game.

PP is the best. GW is epic fail xD

Am I cool yet?

 Chumbalaya wrote:
PP is the best. GW is epic fail xD

Am I cool yet?

No. Not really. I don't think anyone outside a few trolls are saying like that. GW certainly does have it's issues namely: Aggressive price escalation, poorly balanced & sloppily written rules, wonky release schedules and no community engagement. I also tend to think people see most of these as areas where other companies, PP included are stronger.

However it does have it's strengths: Attractive Miniatures, high-quality plastics, engaging IPs, dedicated fanbase. However these things alone don't really make for a healthy game. Honestly if GW re-vamped the game engine and was more even-handed with releases, I might want to buy back into 40k if my playgroup ever got over the bad feelings they developed for it.

I've played 40k for a decade, and still enjoy it. I've been getting into PP recently, and the games/hobbies are very different.

Neither does anything the other doesn't do at all. Meaning, you can have a fluffy, converted, Pp army, or play hardcore competitive 40k. But, in my experience the strengths of each system are pretty apparent.

Warmahordes games turn on tactics, combos, and cleverness far, far more than 40k. Small mistakes can lose games. the upside is that each model is capable of more actions, and a good player can do more to win a game than he can in 40k. (meaning, IMO, warmachine allows skill to be actively used, while 40k revolves much more on capitilizing errors.) Also, and maybe it's just because I'm new, I find myself really needing to think about what i'm going to do with every unit.

40k simply doesn't have that. Army match ups and list construction are far more crucial at all but the highest levels of play. OTOH, the depth of the world is so much higher. I can't just create a new Iron Kingdom, or even my own warcaster. I can create my own space marine chapter, give it rich fluff, and convert them extensively, all of which is dififcult to impossible with PP.

Going from 40k, where army balance is improving but still way off, and unit balance is often an afterthought, playing Warmachine has been a refreshing experience. Now, I haven't had enough Koolaid to think that warmahordes is perfectly balanced, but you can win with any faction.

So, no, it's not that I don't think 40k can be played competitively. I've done it, and it's a lot of fun. But playing a game designed to be competitive? Pretty awesome.

Oh, and one thing that I stopped whining about after playing PP? GW's prices. I've spent more on my Cygnar than I have for Orks!

I usually play at my local GW (because of better people, if you must know) which obviously means complete GW Games. I'm quite pleased as far as that's concerned, as it used to be very difficult to get anything but a 40k game there and now you can play WHFB fairly easily and LoTR/The Hobbit is actually really popular.

There is a non-GW Gaming Club down the road though but even that is mainly 40k games (same goes for shelving space). There's quite a few Malifaux players but, to be honest, that's about it.