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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

ComTrav wrote:
Hey,

I've been playing WFHB and 40k for about 2 years, and I'm thinking of getting into Warmahordes. I've been reading about it and watching some batreps, and I was wondering how big the hobby side of the game is. In the batreps I've seen, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of diversity in paint schemes. Is this just a coincidence, or would it be really frowned upon if I painted a bunch of Skorne in Scottish tartan or something?

Conversion rules are a bit more strict due to the nature of the game, so if you plan on participating in tournaments know that the TO could disqualify parts of your army if they don't meet the requirements.

That is the one thing I still dont understand about the game, From what i have read very few units can change weapon if at all, So why does it matter if the Warpwolf stalker has an Axe and not a sword, you just have to show them it is a stalker, should it not be fine?

Mostly because with WM/H tournaments a lot of the time you play death clock (like a chess clock that counts down your time and when it runs out you loose) or timed turns, Speed is important and recognition of things becomes extremely important. (do you want to waste 1-2 min of a 7 min turn asking what something is or does again?)

PP has set it up for things to be reasonable easy to recognize. Things with axes generally have reach (a few exceptions like the Khador Juggernaught exist).

Now you can still do a great amount of conversion work and it can be done really well. Check on the PP boards and you will find of bunch of stuff and it looks fantastic.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

ComTrav wrote:
Hey,

I've been playing WFHB and 40k for about 2 years, and I'm thinking of getting into Warmahordes. I've been reading about it and watching some batreps, and I was wondering how big the hobby side of the game is. In the batreps I've seen, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of diversity in paint schemes. Is this just a coincidence, or would it be really frowned upon if I painted a bunch of Skorne in Scottish tartan or something?

Conversion rules are a bit more strict due to the nature of the game, so if you plan on participating in tournaments know that the TO could disqualify parts of your army if they don't meet the requirements.

That is the one thing I still dont understand about the game, From what i have read very few units can change weapon if at all, So why does it matter if the Warpwolf stalker has an Axe and not a sword, you just have to show them it is a stalker, should it not be fine?

The weapons often matter quite a bit is the thing. The difference between a Warpwolf Stalker, a feral warpwolf and Ghetorix is simply the weaponry and heads. There's also a few weapons where their look makes some indication of what they can do, such as chain weapons ignoring shield bonuses.

Where something is very obvious and different from anything else, it's easier to get away with more extreme conversions and even alternate models, but when something is only slightly different from another unit, you have to preserve those differences. An Allegient of the Order of the Fist is a pretty generic monk, and you can make a lot of changes to him (as long as he still looks like a monk) before people will confuse him. Meanwhile, the difference between pEyriss and eEyriss is a few subtle details, her pose and her base. If you want to change things, you have to preserve enough difference that you can still easily tell which is which, making conversions more restricted.

Extending this, you'll usually find that because most of the bodies/chassis are reused in several different beasts/jacks, so preserving the most obvious differences, generally the weapon types/configuration, becomes a bit important.

This is, of course, only referring to Tournament conversions, casually you can get away with a lot more, of course. Also, there's always the exemption that any TO can approve "Any reasonable conversion", so if something's cool, it'll often go though anyway.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

ComTrav wrote:
Hey,

I've been playing WFHB and 40k for about 2 years, and I'm thinking of getting into Warmahordes. I've been reading about it and watching some batreps, and I was wondering how big the hobby side of the game is. In the batreps I've seen, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of diversity in paint schemes. Is this just a coincidence, or would it be really frowned upon if I painted a bunch of Skorne in Scottish tartan or something?

Conversion rules are a bit more strict due to the nature of the game, so if you plan on participating in tournaments know that the TO could disqualify parts of your army if they don't meet the requirements.

That is the one thing I still dont understand about the game, From what i have read very few units can change weapon if at all, So why does it matter if the Warpwolf stalker has an Axe and not a sword, you just have to show them it is a stalker, should it not be fine?

Imagine you are playing a dread-spam blood angel army, except converted.
the ones with blood talons now have halbards
the librarians with halbards now have axes
the ones with axes, are now dreadknights with teleporters
now imagine they all have dramatically different capabilities, it's not just a weapon choice thats different, its a spell, speed, game-breaking abilities, ect.
ect.
Now imagine you're playing 7-10 minute turn timed tourney, where at any moment you may forget what the models actually represent and your caster might get insta-gibbed, automatically losing the game.

To note: you likely won't have these problems at a local tourney/game level, but as you go up, the conversion allowances get more and more strict. If you have pipe dreams of not knowing what you're doing and playing in an extreme tourney at the next L&L, I would suggest against bringing your heavily converted army.

First Halberd do actually count as axes.
But it is just something i cant wrap my head around, it isnt like 40k where units can change gear, All units have gear that is static and unchangeable. Just tell you opponents beforehand "This stalker has and axe, not a sword cause it looks cooler, it doesnt change what it does"
Im not insulting WM/H i just dont get why it is so strict.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
First Halberd do actually count as axes.
But it is just something i cant wrap my head around, it isnt like 40k where units can change gear, All units have gear that is static and unchangeable. Just tell you opponents beforehand "This stalker has and axe, not a sword cause it looks cooler, it doesnt change what it does"
Im not insulting WM/H i just dont get why it is so strict.

In the case you're describing, there are stalkers with axes already, that have dramatically different rules than the ones with the swords, so this is just like saying "well my grey knights with swords actually all have X jump packs and such I just like swords better and WYSIWYG can kiss my butt, oh yeah, and my whole army are grey knights so try and not forget the ones mixed in that can suddenly murder you that look just like other models you are used to seeing)
Which won't fly at some tourneys, same as Warmachine, the idea of the conversion rules are, at the higher levels of play, they are on paper and you were told beforehand, when you are playing death clock you don't have time to screw around asking what things are or reading cards, that is why it is so strict, If you still do not get why they are strict play a game against an extremely varied and poorly proxied (bloodletters are daemonets, nurglings are chaos hounds, ect. ect.) chaos undivided army, with 7-10 minute turns, without doing anything wrong (which one or two mismoved models or supprise animi since you thought it was a different model, will cost you the game in WM)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
First Halberd do actually count as axes.
But it is just something i cant wrap my head around, it isnt like 40k where units can change gear, All units have gear that is static and unchangeable. Just tell you opponents beforehand "This stalker has and axe, not a sword cause it looks cooler, it doesnt change what it does"
Im not insulting WM/H i just dont get why it is so strict.

Because a stalker with an axe is Ghetorix. The goal is to make it so that your opponent doesn't have to tell you what something is beforehand- you need to be able to tell just by looking at it. That way there can never be any confusion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
First Halberd do actually count as axes.
But it is just something i cant wrap my head around, it isnt like 40k where units can change gear, All units have gear that is static and unchangeable. Just tell you opponents beforehand "This stalker has and axe, not a sword cause it looks cooler, it doesnt change what it does"
Im not insulting WM/H i just dont get why it is so strict.

Again, because a Warpwolf Stalker with an axe instead of a sword is commonly known as Ghetorix, and has completely different stats than a Warpwolf Stalker. Changing out weapons to a different type will often lead to the model looking like a completely different model, and causing confusion due to that. In casual games, this isn't a problem, in the same vein that using a Whirlwind as a Land Raider Crusader isn't a problem in casual games of 40K. In tournaments, you're probably going to want to bring the actual model.

Ok, so an axe with a warpstalker is Ghetorix, but what about other things where the are no alternatives. Sometimes it seems WM/H doest lend itself much to customizing

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, so an axe with a warpstalker is Ghetorix, but what about other things where the are no alternatives. Sometimes it seems WM/H doest lend itself much to customizing

The question you have to ask yourself is 'Will my opponent, with no prompting, be able to tell what this is?' If the answer is 'no,' then you probably shouldn't do it.

Now remember, if you only plan on playing in your FLGS, then this probably doesn't matter too much. Outside of there, however...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, so an axe with a warpstalker is Ghetorix, but what about other things where the are no alternatives. Sometimes it seems WM/H doest lend itself much to customizing

Warmachine does lend itself to customization, but Warmachine as a whole puts gameplay first. The general rule is that when doing weapons swaps, as long as A) the weapon is similar to the weapon used on the model. and B) the weapon swap doesn't make it look like another unit. You are golden. The Stalker w. Axe thing is rare since the sword-axe swap is one of the key features which defines the Ghetorix model (although to be fair many tournaments will accept a sword-to-axe swap as long as it is clear to your average player by looking at the model that it is not Ghetorix). Basically, as long as a conversion is A) sensible, B) clear, and C) good, it is acceptable, but the moment a conversion introduces legitimate concerns about what a model actually is, it is out.

What is out there that there's no model of? The only things I
can think of is stuff that's not released yet, but those things do
get released eventually, so I don't see a problem.

What about different caster models? ("This is really thee prime version but im using the epic model because i like it better.")

ComTrav wrote:
What about different caster models? ("This is really thee prime version but im using the epic model because i like it better.")

Not sure how that'd go at a tournament, but I've played against it before and found it somewhat confusing. It's easy to be thinking over a move, glance at their caster and make a judgment and then after you've made the move based on it realise, oh, duh, that's meant to be the other version.

Okay this thread has highlighted the stricter side of conversion guidelines quite well: do nothing that would add undue confusion.

Well-planned conversions can work and can be striking.
This is my stormwall. It has legs from his faction's battle engine, lowered main guns, and a backward tilted torso to give a more imposing posture. None of these things interfere with the rules at all. in fact, the four legs represent his knockdown immunity better than the stock model.


Let's blur the lines more. This is my Ol'Rowdy model. I made it from a stock plastic ironclad even though the official model is all metal. This model breaks one of the primary rules of the conversion policy but it is still acceptable by any reasonable standards since I took the care to add the details that characterize Rowdy. I doubt any good TO would even allow me to play it as a standard ironclad any more despite technically being that with a few additions that represent no rules.


Pushing the conversion rules even farther out of bounds, this is one of my nyss hunters. These guys are made from an everblight unit with the spikes trimmed off and bows added. They don't even look much like the unit they are based on. (not so far removed they are a poor fit as stand-ins mind you) They are not legal by the word or intent of the conversion policy but I've never had problems playing them because they have enough commonalities with the unit they are intended to replace and no other unit from any faction that uses them looks like this one.



In the same vein, this is my stormclad. This guy is an extensive conversion from a thunderhead character jack with lots of scratchbuilt parts. It looks nothing like either the original model and it's intended stand-in. It still sees plenty of play since the weapon loadout is clearly representative of the stormclad and the electric coils are congruous with the background of the jack. I would certainly have to ask a tournament organizer to approve this model but it is hardly conflicted with the rules or confusing with other existing models.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, so an axe with a warpstalker is Ghetorix, but what about other things where the are no alternatives. Sometimes it seems WM/H doest lend itself much to customizing

The thing to remember is that the people running tournaments and other organized events are people. Some people are really sticklers for the rules while others are not. I've played in tournaments where my entire army was made up of non-Privateer Press models and had no issue. At another tournament, I ended up borrowing stuff from my friend as I wasn't allowed to use my alternative models, but I was informed well in advance and it wasn't sprung on me or anything.

Outside of these events, go crazy. The rules base things on base edges and a vertical cylinder of volume, so there's no such thing as modelling for advantage. It's good when things don't confuse your opponents and it's even better when things also look awesome.

WM/H definitely lags behind in terms of painting and modelling compared to 40K and WFB. While there are obviously some truly great painters in the WM/H player base, it reminds me of where things were with 40k and WFB around the year 2000. Good, but not as well developed of a culture of conversion and painting as there is today.

hotsauceman1 wrote:First Halberd do actually count as axes.
But it is just something i cant wrap my head around, it isnt like 40k where units can change gear, All units have gear that is static and unchangeable. Just tell you opponents beforehand "This stalker has and axe, not a sword cause it looks cooler, it doesnt change what it does"
Im not insulting WM/H i just dont get why it is so strict.

its strict because thats the company's attitude to things. clear, consise, no ambiguities, and to the point. thats how they do their rules, and thats how they approach their modelling.

Units can change gear - we have 4 variations of warpwolves, multiple flavours of Men o War, exemplars and most jacks are variations on a handful of basic chassis. And so on.

PPs attitude is that a unit with spears operates radically differently to a unit with axes, which is distinct from a unit with guns and swords. Mixing things up wont necessarily keep things clear, consise, and consistent.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, so an axe with a warpstalker is Ghetorix, but what about other things where the are no alternatives. Sometimes it seems WM/H doest lend itself much to customizing

it does, but you just have to be smart about it.

ComTrav wrote:What about different caster models? ("This is really thee prime version but im using the epic model because i like it better.")

it depends. id have issues with you proxying prime VLad with Vlad 3, for example, considering vlad3 is on a different base size, with a horse. Same with guys like Thagrosh, and various others who have vastly different versions. its different, in my mind with other casters, like Irusk, for example. Personally, ive swapped out epic versions of casters for prime versions (or vice versa) where appropriate, because i prefered one model over another, but always have the other model to hand if there were issues.

Other than Cygnar players, or people that know about your conversion already, I'd say that Rowdy probably wouldn't even be noticed as not the official one. It's conversions like that I really enjoy seeing, simple things that don't distract too much from the originals, and don't make me wonder what it really is. Same with the Stormclad, just seems like a souped up version.

Make it look like it's supposed to be what it's supposed to be, and by and large no one will care.

Avoid changing weapon types if it's got a specific type that is used to identify it vs other similar models (the aforementioned axe v sword on a warpwolf for example).

Use a reasonable amount of PP parts, or a core of a PP model, and people won't care about 50%. Doesn't need to be the specific model it's counting as, so long as it still looks like what it's supposed to be.

Outright proxies, again so long as they look proper for their role, are also not always looked down on. My Pistol Wraiths aren't even Cryx models and no one's ever cared, they're usually complemented. My Drudge Slaves are straight up GW figs, 0% PP parts, and 3 out of 4 different events in different states have allowed those even.

Do Not Change The Base Size. This is the MOST important rule you can follow. Just don't do it. It will NEVER be allowed.

The rules are not enforced as strictly as they are written. Follow the rule of cool, and basically make sure as I've said repeatedly that it's identifiable as what it's supposed to be and you'll have few problems.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is the one thing I still dont understand about the game, From what i have read very few units can change weapon if at all, So why does it matter if the Warpwolf stalker has an Axe and not a sword, you just have to show them it is a stalker, should it not be fine?

As long as people know what it is, it doesn't matter. But as mentioned a warpwolf with an axe is often looked at as Ghetorix, not a stalker. But it really just depends on how you do it and pull it all off. As long as people can look at it and know what it is then that is what matters. The conversion rules are strickly there for people who make confusing conversions or ones that are somehow giving them an advantage over using a standard model. If your model is neither of these you should be just fine. I have a range of conversions from very simple and basic to using completely different models from other ranges. I've had zero issues. If anything people are like "Oh wow, that's cool!"

Also remember that most of these rules are designed for high level tourney play. In which case if you are that serious you should have a back up model ready to go just in case. For playing with your friends, the LGS and even most conventions you will be fine with a cool conversion.

The fairly strict conversion rules and prevelance of named characters in the game will always keep it from being as great a game as Warhammer was for me. Warmahordes is FANTASTICALLY better at gameplay and balance than Warhammer could ever hope to be and has a lot of truly incredible models. Most of those models are easily on par with anything that has come out of GW, but there's just something special that goes on in your head whne you can make up your own armies and characters and model them how you see fit that I really feel PP falls flat on.

Modeling has often been about doing what you think looks cool, not what the designers think looks cool. For every standard Space Marine Captain you see at a tournament you have a crazy converted SM captain using pieces from 5 different kits and GS cloaks and bits of wire and some crazy backstory for why it all works. It's usually a terrible, cliche, rediculous mary-sue backstory, but the game and the setting and the models encourage a huge amount of sheer creativity in people.

Every Warcaster in Warmachine is a named character, with a set background in a set time period with a set rank and place and story and future. He/She isn't "your" character at all. Same for all the named solos and mercenaries and units and such. People still DO it, but officially it isn't allowed and because of that, it just never captures the wonder or gets the creative juices flowing like Warhammer did.

 Kalamadea wrote:
The fairly strict conversion rules and prevelance of named characters in the game will always keep it from being as great a game as Warhammer was for me. Warmahordes is FANTASTICALLY better at gameplay and balance than Warhammer could ever hope to be and has a lot of truly incredible models. Most of those models are easily on par with anything that has come out of GW, but there's just something special that goes on in your head whne you can make up your own armies and characters and model them how you see fit that I really feel PP falls flat on.

Modeling has often been about doing what you think looks cool, not what the designers think looks cool. For every standard Space Marine Captain you see at a tournament you have a crazy converted SM captain using pieces from 5 different kits and GS cloaks and bits of wire and some crazy backstory for why it all works. It's usually a terrible, cliche, rediculous mary-sue backstory, but the game and the setting and the models encourage a huge amount of sheer creativity in people.

Every Warcaster in Warmachine is a named character, with a set background in a set time period with a set rank and place and story and future. He/She isn't "your" character at all. Same for all the named solos and mercenaries and units and such. People still DO it, but officially it isn't allowed and because of that, it just never captures the wonder or gets the creative juices flowing like Warhammer did.

I guess?

I have never ever remembered someone else's custom character.

But I do remember Calgar, Gaunt, and Eisenhorn.

 Kalamadea wrote:
People still DO it, but officially it isn't allowed and because of that, it just never captures the wonder or gets the creative juices flowing like Warhammer did.

Its just as rules supported for me to call my epic Caine model Captain Kickass as it is for me to call my IG Company Commander Commander Awesome. And it has just as much effect in game and out. I remember eCaine getting pasted by Xerxis after just failing to assassinate him just as well as I remember muly company commander's plasma pistol blowing up a predator after the 4 meltaguns in his squad failed.

 malfred wrote:

 Kalamadea wrote:
Good post on customization

I guess?

I have never ever remembered someone else's custom character.

But I do remember Calgar, Gaunt, and Eisenhorn.

+1 internet cookies to you Malf.

My crimson, white, and gold Cryxian Bloodstone Marches/Sul Campaign army on desert bases feels plenty creative to me

And I'll be Honest. While I liked building some "character" models for my Warhammer armies, they rarely ever managed to get the depth of fluff and character the likes or Goreshade or Asphyxious. I love those two so damn much!

Yeah, I hate to say it, but Warmachine is the "Gamer's" game as much as 40k is the "Hobbyist's" game. It's not good or bad, but it's definitely a thing. This is simply the culture of the game, and it shows, both in the rules and in the painting schemes. You'll see a LOT fewer conversions in WM, not only because it's stricter about the subject, but because the mentality is that it's a game first. This is also shown by PP's approach to fluff, which does not really encourage making your own armies the way 40k does. After all, you HAVE to play an established fluff character. Basically, if you do paint them in really different color schemes, they are basically out of fluff, since we know for a fact that, for example, Caine looks a certain way.

Contrast this to 40k, which not only gives you fluff reason for why your army looks different(successor chaperts/Lost legions/chaos/endless IG regiments etc), but it also always gives you generic options for heroes you can use. There is a reason that a lot of 40k players tend to not like playing special characters. Similarly, 40k, with the relevance of plastic models, laxer rules about conversion, and the fluff of some armies like the Orks/Chaos, tends to cater to conversions. It's not just rules, it's just the attitude of the game. It's hobby and immersion first, game and balance second, which comes with it's pros and cons.

You can see this in the gameplay itself. 40k is full of unbalanced gameplay rules that are there because they are "cool" and feel right with the fluff, in an effort to immerse people in the game. Warmachine on the other hand is full of really gamey rules and RAW exploits that make no sense fluff wise, but are allowed because they make for a more tactical game(like charging your own units in the back to get further, or shooting people that are clearly out of range or ever trying to miss on purpose to get better AoE targets). The game is clearly balanced with that thinking in mind.

You need to pick what you are looking for in a game, and go with that. You want modelling, converting, and a fluff/minature driven experience, stay GW. You want a more competitive chess like gameplay experience, go PP.

Warmachine is a fluff driven experience as well.

If you go to an event, players not only talk about game effects,
but they discuss evolution of characters, the cinematics of
a given feat (How do you play Caine and NOT imagine a
crazy gunslinger shooting everyone up and bamfing out of
range?), and the evolving storyline of the world.

You don't need to build your own character to be immersed
in a game world.

How are the 40k conversion rules that much more lax anyways? Both require the correct weapons/wysiwyg, both require a certain amount of company parts, both don't let you change the base size. The only real difference is PP wants you to base your conversion the model it's representing. Using Caine to make a Caine for example, but even then, these rules are so loosely enforced that it's a non-issue. I know the Utah meta is stupidly freakish with PGs that ban models that include GW parts, but that's strictly a them thing and not in the rules whatsoever. I see just as many conversions, just as much non-standard paint schemes in Warmachine as I do in Warhammer. Warmachine is still very much a hobby game just as much as Warhammer is.

It's not nearly as integral to the expirience though. It's hard to say the game is cinematic when one of the major strategies of the game is how to space your small base infantry in such a way that the big warjack can trample them, but cannot fit into the space between their bases.... A 10 ton warmachine that innately has the ability to trample people... but cant somehow get to you if one of those people is standing where it needed to stop. And this is not a beirdy "TFG" strategy that people decry, like surrounding a rhino so the squad inside dies, which you cant even do anymore. This is an actual core strategy. Hell, there are abilities specifically designed to counteract this effect, so it's not an oversight, it was designed that way. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that, in the context of the game, placement is important and it allows for a more tactical experience. But it is immersion breaking, as much as shooting your warjack in the back to electocute the guy right next to it.

Now granted, ofcourse you can enjoy the fluff, and make it look cool, WM fluff is actually pretty well written. But what I am saying is that the expirience is not really focused on that, and it's a dissevice to present it like that. Simularly, you dont really have nearly as much of creative freedom as in 40 to make your own thing. You can do so anyways, but the game does not really help you there.

DrDuckman wrote:
It's not nearly as integral to the expirience though. It's hard to say the game is cinematic when one of the major strategies of the game is how to space your small base infantry in such a way that the big warjack can trample them, but cannot fit into the space between their bases.... A 10 ton warmachine that innately has the ability to trample people... but cant somehow get to you if one of those people is standing where it needed to stop. And this is not a beirdy "TFG" strategy that people decry, like surrounding a rhino so the squad inside dies, which you cant even do anymore. This is an actual core strategy. Hell, there are abilities specifically designed to counteract this effect, so it's not an oversight, it was designed that way. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that, in the context of the game, placement is important and it allows for a more tactical experience. But it is immersion breaking, as much as shooting your warjack in the back to electocute the guy right next to it.

Now granted, ofcourse you can enjoy the fluff, and make it look cool, WM fluff is actually pretty well written. But what I am saying is that the expirience is not really focused on that, and it's a dissevice to present it like that. Simularly, you dont really have nearly as much of creative freedom as in 40 to make your own thing. You can do so anyways, but the game does not really help you there.

As opposed to Dreadnoughts that can't run through people at all? Terminators can't kool-aid man through walls like they're supposed to, and certainly Ork Boyz are far easier to put down than their fluff would ever suggest.

The fact is the 40k engine can't really model anything more complex or dynamic than "We line up and shoot guns" and "We run up and punch each other", which is horribly unfluffy given what the things in the setting are supposed to do. It's certainly not cinematic, no matter how you torture the meaning of the word. Even the gear loud outs are painfully similar in actual function because the engine is so limited.

When you play with Warjacks they feel like big powerful machines. They throw, they slam, they trample. Yeah the abstraction isn't perfect and makes some concessions to being a healthy game. 40k provides neither these kind of dynamic abilities dreadnoughts feel just another dude with another gun (albeit bigger), nor a healthy game. It loses on both the mechanics and fluff front here.

When you play with your Warcaster they feel like a powerful spellcaster. They throw around enemy models, create new terrain pieces out of nowhere, take control of enemy models, bypass targeting restrictions, put your models back on the table, let you move through enemy models like they weren't there, control the direction of enemy attacks, etc... etc.., the list goes on. They have a ton of of unique and flavorful effects. Contrast the majority of psyker powers which seem to boil down to "Basically a gun that generates it's hits slightly differently"

Troopers have vastly different capabilities that reflect the fluff. I can't think of one ability from my 40k days that has the flavor things like "Greater Destiny" (Holy Zealots UA Minifeat), Primal (Gorax Animus) or Alternative Food Source (Trollkin Whelps) do.

The 40k IP is great OTT fun and the models are nice, but the game itself has no winning features when it comes to reflecting the fluff with mechanics or having healthy gameplay.


Go ahead. Name me one ability in 40k that has even half the flavor resonance of the Harbinger's Feat . Given the scale of the characters in play, certainly somebody should feel like they can project that kind of power.

DrDuckman wrote:Yeah, I hate to say it, but Warmachine is the "Gamer's" game as much as 40k is the "Hobbyist's" game. It's not good or bad, but it's definitely a thing. This is simply the culture of the game, and it shows, both in the rules and in the painting schemes. You'll see a LOT fewer conversions in WM, not only because it's stricter about the subject, but because the mentality is that it's a game first. This is also shown by PP's approach to fluff, which does not really encourage making your own armies the way 40k does. After all, you HAVE to play an established fluff character. Basically, if you do paint them in really different color schemes, they are basically out of fluff, since we know for a fact that, for example, Caine looks a certain way.
.

I dont necessarily agree. Hobbyists will create, regardless of the game being played.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?98-Stormhammer-the-Assault-on-Sul
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?39264-Warjack-and-Warbeast-Conversion-Showcase
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?159088-The-Gestalt-Mammoth&highlight=mammoth

Ive seen plenty brilliantly converted, masterfully painted warmachine armies, and i've seen plenty lazy, unpainted, boring, and lacking 40k armies. And vice versa. fact remains, hobbyists will create.

Now, i have to strongly disagree with the assertion where PP doesnt encourage making your own armies like 40k. to be honest, nothing could be further from the truth. everything in warmachine can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. there is no one list, no one style dominant in the game. Look at 40k - how many top tier codices exist? How many viable builds exist within these? face it, there are a handful of things that work in 40k, and the game is utterly stifled by it. it breeds nothing but a dearth in creativity. Look at warmachine again - there is no one way to make an army, and pretty much anything goes in terms of "this army composition makes sense".

40k only has the illusion of choice. warmachine offers loads. frankly, most choices are garbage. How does this equate to GW encouraging a variety of armies and PP doing the opposite?

Also, characters will wear different armours. there is nothing wrong with the Butcher of Khardov wearing the green of the 5th border legion, instead of the red one. No less fluffy, no less wrong, so please, put that one to bed.

DrDuckman wrote: Contrast this to 40k, which not only gives you fluff reason for why your army looks different(successor chaperts/Lost legions/chaos/endless IG regiments etc), but it also always gives you generic options for heroes you can use. There is a reason that a lot of 40k players tend to not like playing special characters. Similarly, 40k, with the relevance of plastic models, laxer rules about conversion, and the fluff of some armies like the Orks/Chaos, tends to cater to conversions. It's not just rules, it's just the attitude of the game. It's hobby and immersion first, game and balance second, which comes with it's pros and cons.

So thats why i see so many 40k armies led by a generic captain! No, wait. thats wrong. most eldar armies i see are led by eldrad, most marine armies are led by vulkan, shrike or khan, and most tau armies have shadowsun at the helm. and so on. heck, some armies and some army styles actually require a special character to work.

and for what its worth, there are any number of reasons why difference schemes exist in warmachine as well. somehow saying 40k offers more of this is laughable.

DrDuckman wrote:
You can see this in the gameplay itself. 40k is full of unbalanced gameplay rules that are there because they are "cool" and feel right with the fluff, in an effort to immerse people in the game. Warmachine on the other hand is full of really gamey rules and RAW exploits that make no sense fluff wise, but are allowed because they make for a more tactical game(like charging your own units in the back to get further, or shooting people that are clearly out of range or ever trying to miss on purpose to get better AoE targets). The game is clearly balanced with that thinking in mind.

40k is full of unbalance gameplay because the company is simply not interested in balancing their game. and for no other reason. its not because its "cooler", or more "immersive". Frankly, any number of feats, spells, characters, background stories and other interactions are just as capable of sucking you into a game of warmachine as anything from the entire mythos of 40k. and yet these feel both right, and awesome at the same time.

Also, accusing warmachine of gamey rules. yeah, fair enough - its a game, not a simulation. but 40k is hardly innocent of WTF moments as well, is it? Somehow, one guy in the squad is engaged in melee, and the rest drop their guns and chuck in? a tyranid monstrous creature can be stopped by a grot in cc. and so on. plenty interactions here are laughable.

DrDuckman wrote:
You need to pick what you are looking for in a game, and go with that. You want modelling, converting, and a fluff/minature driven experience, stay GW. You want a more competitive chess like gameplay experience, go PP.

See above. you can have as much modelling, converting, and a fluff/miniature driven game experience with warmachine, as with anything else. its more than just a game on the board my good man.

DrDuckman wrote:It's not nearly as integral to the expirience though. It's hard to say the game is cinematic when one of the major strategies of the game is how to space your small base infantry in such a way that the big warjack can trample them, but cannot fit into the space between their bases.... A 10 ton warmachine that innately has the ability to trample people... but cant somehow get to you if one of those people is standing where it needed to stop. And this is not a beirdy "TFG" strategy that people decry, like surrounding a rhino so the squad inside dies, which you cant even do anymore. This is an actual core strategy. Hell, there are abilities specifically designed to counteract this effect, so it's not an oversight, it was designed that way. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that, in the context of the game, placement is important and it allows for a more tactical experience. But it is immersion breaking, as much as shooting your warjack in the back to electocute the guy right next to it.
.

as for cynematic, ever see epic butcher carve his way through an entire army on his own? i have, and believe me, it was something to behold!

regarding the spacing thing -thats not a "main" strategy any more than spacing out your marines to avoid too many of them being clipped by blast weapons. good positioning is hardly a "tfg" strategy. I've called you on this before, and ill do it again. Its clear, consise and well within the rules, and a perfectly legitimate tactic. save the tfg moniker for folks who cheat, instead of those using a rule that is nothing more than a consequence of game abstraction. also, how is surrounding a rhino so the guys cant get out beardy? makes sense to me. shut the hatch while the tank brews up, and trust me, the crew are goners. its as true from ww2 to the 41st millenium.

and how is it lacking immersion. frankly, the jack itself is gonna know it can only trample if there is clear space for its huge bulk to stop, and steady itself. Shooting your warjack to bounce electricty through it? Well, how is that wrong, or lacking immersion? Seems perfectly fine to be to use something hard and smashy as a conduit for further pain, especially when it is all buy immune to what youre pumping through it.

DrDuckman wrote:I

Now granted, ofcourse you can enjoy the fluff, and make it look cool, WM fluff is actually pretty well written. But what I am saying is that the expirience is not really focused on that, and it's a dissevice to present it like that. Simularly, you dont really have nearly as much of creative freedom as in 40 to make your own thing. You can do so anyways, but the game does not really help you there.

I disagree. ive had plenty warmachine discussions on the past, the present, and the future. i have all the old d20 RPG material, and believe me, the iron kingdoms are as brilliantly a realised game world as anythinng else - the sheer depth, detail and character present is nothing short of staggering. the experience is what you make of it. i wanted to explore the world, and i did that. the material existed, and i got it, immersed myself and lost myself in the iron kingdoms. if others want the same thing, its there, and just as accessible for them too. others might not want this - they might just want to play a game and fluff be damned. fair play - that course is open too. But trust me, that latter approach has nothing to do with the game being played, and has everything to do with the player involved - they'll be as guilty of ignoring the fluff in 40k to as much of an extent as they would in warmachine.