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.

 Talamare wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Makumba wrote:


That is a completely separate balance issue that people ALSO complain about in ADDITION to the rules being poorly written

Now am no expert at table top game design , but to me making a codex based around bikers and forcing people to play bike armies , one codex after you make the helldrake seems like bad rules writing .

Once more and as you said yourself making codex that force you to play certain style is not what we mean by bad rules

Bad rules is literally the core of what you are allowed to do, and what you are not allowed to this. Regardless of what is good or bad, what is intended for an army or what is not


I'm having a bit of trouble explaining this to you properly, When we say 40k has bad rules. we literally mean we do not understand what we should do to legally play the game, what is allowed and what is not allowed. It means as two different people read a rule, they end up with different outcomes on what the rules allow to do and what it does not allow you to do.


What you are saying is Bad Balance and Bad Game Design. A game could be completely unbalanced with armies that are horribly designed, but could still have clear and concise rules on how the game should be played.

I believe you mean clarity of rules Talamare. 40k has had a long historical problem with clarity in it's published works and with it's FAQ's. What's worse is it's rulings have not been uniformly addressed where two instances of very similar rules were clarified in opposite manner ie spore pods vs drop pods. Warmachine has had none of this.

What you are referring to Makumba is more of a balance and game design issue. The armor save/AP design of 40k causes a multitude of scaling problems in the game. AP 3 flame template with the stupid 12" range highlights several problems with the game mechanics and balance. Mechanics routinely ignoring other mechanics causes a LOT of problems for balance.

 Talamare wrote:
I think WM is pretty close to an army based game as 40k is


but a Space Marine 1500 point Army will probably have roughly the same model count as an Infantry based WM list

As epic as a 1500 point WM army would be, I don't think it would have the same amount as a SM army, or any 40k army for that matter, at all.... the points costs for units in WM are generally so much lower, that there would be be no way... If i remember right from the WM rule book, like 200 pts is considered the equivilant of an "Apoc" game of 40k....

The unbound rules (warmachine's version of apocalypse) start at 150 points. Typically any game with ore than one warcaster is considered very large.
There aren't even enough warcasters to go beyond 800 points -and that's for the faction with the most mercenaries!

That aside, a 100-150 point wm list is about the same size as a typical large 40k army. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make.

It's a bit deceptive. In Warmachine you take your big, scary, tank-kinda units with your very first points and then start adding infantry, whereas with 40k it's more the other way around. At 35 points you're like, well, this looks a bit more skirmishy than 40k. Then you see 50 and 75 points (and potentially even 100) still just have one warcaster so all of those extra points are in infantry and suddenly you're like whoa where did all these dudes come from

 caledoneus wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I think WM is pretty close to an army based game as 40k is


but a Space Marine 1500 point Army will probably have roughly the same model count as an Infantry based WM list

As epic as a 1500 point WM army would be, I don't think it would have the same amount as a SM army, or any 40k army for that matter, at all.... the points costs for units in WM are generally so much lower, that there would be be no way... If i remember right from the WM rule book, like 200 pts is considered the equivilant of an "Apoc" game of 40k....

I meant, 1500 pt 40k Space Marine Standard Army will give you roughly same model count as a 35~50 point WM Infantry based list

But as I said as well, if you go Infantry/Spam based in 40k, it will easily blow the model count number out of the water

This is a difficult one.

In short:

40k = look, cinema
WM/H = precision, MUCH better company

About the listbuilding issue: I do play 40k on a competetive level, and I am starting WM/H and try to achieve a competitive level.
The thing is, they play totally different. What I love about WM/H is the precision in the rules, 40k is much more greyish there. I also love the creativity it supports.
However taking on random units against with a maxed out list at an equal player skill will surely not result in a draw.

So its not 10% models, 90% player. I dare say, it is about equal to 40k if you take competitive builds into account (40k has a wide range of nonsense unfortunately).
40k certainly isn't 90% models, 10% player either. Those who say can't play competitively I guess.

What is true, is, that Warmachine might have a wider range of possible builds and 40k tends to support the newest released units/books. But that doesnt mean that just by taking them you will win any game.

They just have completely different game mechanics.

There are two things I must disagree:

1. WM/H being harder to master: Nope, it isn't. It is different, thats the point. 40k demands operational skills, WM/H demands tactical skills. Forethought, knowledge of your force and the enemies are necessary in both systems (although WM/H is harder on the latter I agree). But after a few games I think I do get a grip of what I need and start to realize how the game works.

2. WM/H having more reliable dice. Yes, in a small scale maybe (2d6 tend to have more average rolls than 1d6 which has no average at all). But the sheer weight of dice rolled in 40k evens out a lot more than one tends to think. But both games aren't about dice rolls, so that is somehow irrelevant.

However the support from PP for competitive gameplay is absolutely fantastic. And the way the rules are written is also a joy to read compared to 40k.

But in 40k there are specific FAQs that replace the good rule writing to a certain extent.

What I like about 40k is that every game used to look just gorgeous with so many painted models in action. It is just cineastic. Also the tables tend to look better. Warmachine always has a certain cold analytic uninspired look which is somehow sad, but inherent to the game system. (Obj zone markers and cloud effect/forest/whatever-templates and empty tables with mathematical symmetry ruin the look a lot)

But I need about a year or so to judge it better, so it is just my opinion.

I do like WM/H and I still like 40k. Both have competitive potential, the point is: GW is about to ruin everything. But I can play 40k without GW as well so thats not my problem.

My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.

My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.

I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.

My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.

I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.

Actually thats one of the main things i DO like about WMH - one model kill = win. It makes me think of this game as a fancy chess board. Placement of your "king" is ungodly crucial as a single piece can checkmate you if you arent paying attention. Warlocks are usually so crazy strong that it makes sense if you take them out you should win...even if the game didnt end suddenly your army just took a HUGE hit and probably cant fight now anyway. For hordes (dont know Warmachine rules that well) all of our Warbeasts immediately frenzy and we lose them. They become "wild" unless another warlock claims them. I'd just call it if i lost my warlock because i'd have what 1-2 solos and half an infantry left that i can even use at best?

What you are referring to Makumba is more of a balance and game design issue. The armor save/AP design of 40k causes a multitude of scaling problems in the game. AP 3 flame template with the stupid 12" range highlights several problems with the game mechanics and balance. Mechanics routinely ignoring other mechanics causes a LOT of problems for balance.

This is one of my biggest issues with 40k. Set basic rules, then subrules to override those basic rules. Some rules are almost worded exactly the same, but are FAQ'd to be diverse as hell and confusing.
To go with your Hellchicken complaint, it also breaks the rules for aiming from a vehicle and this was given to it by a FAQ for no reason. Normally, you aim from the vehicle's gun being fired (i.e. the head in this case). They FAQ'd it to say the torrent is measured from the base now. Not only does that give it better rear-access since it doesnt have that 3-4 inches of model to get past, but it gives it better range in general because now it doesnt have the 3D aiming issue that all fliers have.

GW's idea of balancing things that need help is to give it a special rule to ignore other rules, even in cases where it makes 0 sense to break it. For instance, Ork Flash Gitz were given Ignores Cover for no reason and it makes no sense for it to have it...it was just a bad attempt to make the unit useful (which it didnt). WMH lacks this. My WMH experience is very low but so far i have seen ONE rule that straight up jacks with the basic rules, but its commonly used and very straight forward - Free Strikes. Plain and simple, any push/pull or directly stating no free strikes, then no free strikes happen. What other rule on a model's card goes against the basic rules so fiercely in this game? Mind you, fiercly being an exaggerated term.

The fact that one model killed can mean game over is actually one of the coolest parts of WM in my mind, just b/c you have to think very hard about any opening you might be leaving as you play. You can't just haphazardly move up a unit and leave a gap to shoot/charg/cast through. You really have to pay a good bit of attention to what you are doing with each model in order to protect your caster (at least most casters... darn butcher ) It honestly in a way reminds me of MTG as a miniatures game, b/c you have your caster who is the ultimate goal... to be protected at all times and then their minions who go out to kill the opposing caster... and I love me some MTG, so ....

In the League I ran earlier this year, there was a long time 40K player, a really strong and competitive 40K player, who started to play Hordes. Oh, he did his research. He got online, and downloaded the "best" list he could find for his Skorne army. I told him he should start small, and learn the game, then step up to 35-50+ points. He ignored me, and jumped right in at 50 points.

For the next six weeks, he lost EVERY SINGLE GAME he played. 80% of the time it was to Warcaster/Warlock assassination. He would ALWAYS just run his entire army straight ahead the first turn of the game, and not watch where he would place his Warlock. I got to listen to him complain incessantly about how bad the assassination rule was. He would always say how he just saw this great list online and just knew it would win him the game.

Finally, he "got it", and started to not run across the table the first turn, started to watch where his Warlock was at on the table, and stopped looking at internet builds. He started to play the same list for a couple weeks and really learning how to use it. Suddenly, he started winning games with assassinations.

The point here is that both games are VERY different. You can't play them the same way. It takes a different mind set and understanding of the rules in both games to be an effective player. Some people get it, and have fun playing both games, others don't. Not a big deal. Myself, I play them both for very different reasons. One game is no better then the other for me; they satisfy different gaming needs.

40k is a beer & pretzels miniature game with loosely written rules and army imbalance. GW is a substandard company, who really doesn't care about anything but profits, because they are publicly traded and have to answer to their stock holders.

With that being said, 40k is a good game if you don't take it too seriously, because their development team sure don't.

Privateer Press, on the other hand, is a great company. They go to great lengths to insure game balance and painstakingly write and correct their rules.

Warmachine is also a fun game, but plays out much better in the tournament scene. The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.

I play both for different reasons.

Agreed on the above, they simply feel different needs. I highly disagree that WM is better in every way, and would generally argue that it largely depends on what you are looking for.

40k is a much better hobbist game. The minis are easy to convert, they generally are well made, and they have a lot of really impressive centerpieces. The game itself, while it does suffer from balance issues, tends to be a lot more cinematic and immersive than any other wargame I've played. I simply have far more crazy stories and anecdotes from 40k than any other system, and it's hardly my most played game. It also allows you do do things like pit a 100 model force against a 15 model one and possibly win. That's fun, there is no doubt about it. Finally, the obviously have the most developed fluff out there. However, it is also by far the most expensive wargame out there, and it is NOT a good game if you are extremely competitively oriented. Only few spammy lists are optimal, and they change every time a new codex comes out. I'd only suggest 40k to people who care about the models and the fluff first, and want to play to immerse themselves in the universe, NOT if you are looking for a competitive "sport".

Warmachine is a much tighter rule system, which means it's far better for competitive minded people. If you want a chess like tactical experience, it's simply a better game. Most units are useful, and the is a lot more gameplay variation. It's also a lot more focused on objectives and killing the enemy leader, which gives it a bit more of a puzzle element, instead of a more sweeping war vibe. It's also cheaper, though not as much as you'd think. The main problem I have with it is that it also feels very gamey. Things like shooting your own models to trigger AoEs, trying to miss on purpose to scatter, charging your own army in the back to move faster are common and expected in WM, which kinda ruins the immersion. In addition, WM does suffer on the mini's sides, which offers limited conversion opportunities, and does not really encourage you to personalize and make your own fluff. It's a gamers game, not a hobbist's.

Heck, I play both. I love Warmachine because I don't always have the time to play a three hour game of 40k. Also, my 40k armies are generally a whole bunch of conversions and I paint that army to the highest standard I can. I see it more as a show piece army, same as the people I play with. We don't take 40k seriously, we just love the lore and the quality of the models, as it challenges us as painters.

But, I love Warmachine because in the three hour period it takes to play a game of 40k, I can squeeze about three games in of Warmachine, and since I don't really worry about having to convert every model, it makes it a much quicker when it comes to actually finishing an army.

 Mad4Minis wrote:
My biggest dislike about Warmachine is that all you have to do is kill one model to end the game. It can be done in the second round many times.

My second complaint is the game uses far more infantry than one is lead to believe at first. Its billed as a game about warjacks...but they arent the foremost unit, infantry is. I wish PP was a little more clear about that.

I wont bother to regurgitate all the problems with 40k, everyone knows them all too well.

Infantry does a lot, to be sure. But they screen the warjacks.

Give a warjack an opening, and you're dead.

I just switched from warhammer to warmachine playing khador. Switch isn't really the best word since I will continue to play both, however I was in a position in warhammer where i needed the biggest most expensive toys for my army and just decided it wasn't worth it anymore.

So now I bought the khador half of the starter set off a friend. And then dropped another $100 dollars to get a nice 35 point army going.

If this were 40k I would be able to drop $200 all together if I wanted them first hand. And get a 500 point list. But then when I wanted to expand this army, it would cost more to get to 1000, and then even more to get to 1500. The price just goes up and up as you get bigger more expensive models.

The trend I see with warmachine, is that the models are much cheaper for what they are. And if not cheaper they are at least reasonably priced. Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units. I honestly think that people gravitate towards this game because of the rule set, and because of the tactical play required.

In the League I ran earlier this year, there was a long time 40K player, a really strong and competitive 40K player, who started to play Hordes. Oh, he did his research. He got online, and downloaded the "best" list he could find for his Skorne army. I told him he should start small, and learn the game, then step up to 35-50+ points. He ignored me, and jumped right in at 50 points.

For the next six weeks, he lost EVERY SINGLE GAME he played. 80% of the time it was to Warcaster/Warlock assassination. He would ALWAYS just run his entire army straight ahead the first turn of the game, and not watch where he would place his Warlock. I got to listen to him complain incessantly about how bad the assassination rule was. He would always say how he just saw this great list online and just knew it would win him the game.

Finally, he "got it", and started to not run across the table the first turn, started to watch where his Warlock was at on the table, and stopped looking at internet builds. He started to play the same list for a couple weeks and really learning how to use it. Suddenly, he started winning games with assassinations.

The point here is that both games are VERY different. You can't play them the same way. It takes a different mind set and understanding of the rules in both games to be an effective player. Some people get it, and have fun playing both games, others don't. Not a big deal. Myself, I play them both for very different reasons. One game is no better then the other for me; they satisfy different gaming needs.

I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.

But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:

40k is a beer & pretzels miniature game with loosely written rules and army imbalance. GW is a substandard company, who really doesn't care about anything but profits, because they are publicly traded and have to answer to their stock holders.

This is to a certain extent true (everything related to the company). Army imbalance though is not as big as people make it. There is no unplayable codex. Loosely written rules are clarified by TOs and players in advance so 40k in a competitive community can be a good system for tournaments.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:
This is to a certain extent true (everything related to the company). Army imbalance though is not as big as people make it. There is no unplayable codex. Loosely written rules are clarified by TOs and players in advance so 40k in a competitive community can be a good system for tournaments.

Unless you are being very generous in your definition of unplayable, I suggest you take a look at the current Sisters of Battle Codex. Not only is it unplayable without some major Ally support it isn't even readily available to most people.

 Nafarious wrote:
Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.

Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.

 -Nazdreg- wrote:


I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.

But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:

I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.

 motyak wrote:

 Nafarious wrote:
Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.

Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.

They're a 6 point speed bump.

They could be used in reinforcement events to Ambush behind enemy reinforcements
(especially if the enemy opts for a very shooty reinforcement). They can be used to
harry enemy flankers. They will die, but they are 6 points.

Also, don't forget that they have reform. So even if they miss, you have a really good
chance of repositioning to annoy even more shooters.

Bullockist wrote:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:


I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.

But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:

I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.

Have you read page 5 of war machine rule book it is pretty straight forward saying you will lose and you can't cry about it. You just have to play the game and keep learning.

 motyak wrote:

 Nafarious wrote:
Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.

Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.

Kossite Woodsman are amazing, they are an extremely rare flanking unit that harasses your opponents important solo's and supports the entire game

Then when the enemy forces resources to hunt them down, you take advantage of the fact that the enemy probably needed to use more than 6 points to take them out so their front lines are weakened

Bullockist wrote:

 -Nazdreg- wrote:


I believe that. I as a starter of Warmachine expect to lose, but I did study well at the beginning. The problem for 40k players is, that the "WTF was that?!" emotion will be predominant in every game, there are just so many things out there you just have to know in order to be prepared. In my current opinon it is basically a game of knowledge. In 40k you expect about 3 or 4 models to have WTF!-effects per faction. In warmachine every second unit/Jack has amazing special tricks you just need to know in order to create a working battle plan.

But to be honest, I expect experienced WM/H-players which never faced a 40k table to lose to me every single game against me with a netlist as well even if I play a fun list. I don't want to sound arrogant, but that's the way it is, so:

I think this hits the nail on the head about a lot of misconceptions of warmachine. Assasinations are stupid and warmachine players curbstomp noobs. I think most people who start warmachine get curbstomped, it's kinda how the game works. If you start warmachine expect to lose your first 20 games , except (maybe) if you are in a slow grow league.

I'm not sure I would call assassinations stupid, any more than one might term a checkmate stupid in chess. In much the same way, I can't see that being "curbstomped" is something that is peculiar to Warmachine. Learning any game, regardless of whether it is Warmachine, chess, or some other game altogether, will often yield severe beatings the first several games until an individual figures out the mechanics of the game and the strategies that work for him or her. When starting Warhammer 40k, I played against several experienced players and lost several of the first games I played until I realized the fundamentals of how the game was played, part of which included the realization that once you fall behind to a certain degree, there is often no way to get back in the game. When learning to play chess, I played against less experienced players and won a more or less equal number of games, a trend which continued to progress until I started playing against more experienced players, at which point I began to lose until I started picking up the tricks and techniques of more experienced players, including four move checkmates and the impasse. When I found out about these techniques and how they were accomplished, I didn't feel that they were cheats or somehow stupid, but that they were a part of the game that I needed to learn about if I wanted to get good at it.

The point I'm trying to make in the previous paragraph is that while a part of the game may seem cheap or unfair when you are learning and don't know or understand it, that doesn't somehow cheapen the game to the point of being inferior to a game that one knows well. It's just another facet of play to be learned and utilized.

 Talamare wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Nafarious wrote:
Also every model has it's place, there are no trash units.

Kossite woodsmen? I'm genuinely curious as to how that unit has a use as it is.

Kossite Woodsman are amazing, they are an extremely rare flanking unit that harasses your opponents important solo's and supports the entire game

Then when the enemy forces resources to hunt them down, you take advantage of the fact that the enemy probably needed to use more than 6 points to take them out so their front lines are weakened

I'm surprised at the reactions to my comment, maybe I've just been lucky against them

Not lucky. They die easy and don't do much, but they can
hurt things if you ignore them.

I don't think assassination should be that big a deal unless you're unfamiliar with the enemy's models. One of the biggest criticisms I'd level at Warmachine is the burden of knowledge can be immense. There are a stupid number of units in the game and all of them have their own stats and special rules, and failing to consider them can make you lose instantly.

When you play a game and on turn two your caster gets shot and dies because you didn't know a special rule, that's pretty dumb. That said, it's probably only going to happen to you once. With that particular setup. You just have to worry about all the others you haven't seen.

It's not all bad, though. You eventually pick up a feel for how certain types of units are going to behave, and you can sort of muddle through with that to guide you. One thing to keep in mind is that while you're struggling to remember all the weird units your opponent has, they're probably struggling to remember certain ones of yours that they aren't as familiar with.

Warmahordes vs 40k is like this.


40k is about 2 key things

1) Figuring out what the best models are and running them.

2) Making sure you run the best models properly and not botching up the game.



Warmahordes is about proper list building. Everything is broken and OP, but not everything is broken and OP with each other.

If you just take a random collection of models and run them, you won't win. The game is about stacking and meshing complimenting abilities together to create an unstoppable whirlwind that blows your opponents army away. You stack units whose abilities don't mesh and you will lose.

And along with that proper list building, you need to know how to play the list. Unlike 40k, you MUST know every detail about your army AND much of your opponents army. You have to consider the order of operations.

Its almost like a game where the goal is to create a mathematical equation bigger than your opponents equation. You must have your units increase each others effectiveness exponentially. If you take units that don't compliment each other you only have the sum of their parts, instead of their parts multiplied by each other.

For me it was price of entry. I was starting to collect some orks when I asked my boyfriend when we can do a small skirmish. Then he told me how many points I needed for basic game, those points add up to way more money then then starting price of warmahordes.

Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.

 BlueBlitz wrote:


Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.

Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.

 grayshadow87 wrote:

 BlueBlitz wrote:


Another was aesthetics, the 40k models seem so.. lifeless and rigid.

Agreed. So many 40k models (and indeed GW models in general) seem posed and crafted as though they are self-aware that they are supposed to be some kind of hardcore soldier, or grimdark space marine, or hulking scary beast. They just seem to lack verisimilitude (I know, I know, we're talking about games where giant robots, psychics, and metal space zombies are running around fighting, but you get the point). On the other hand, PP models tend to be in more interesting poses or at least given more interesting designs (imo), like how Madelyn Corbeau is just chilling out and smoking a cigarette, or how General Ossrum is clearly ready for combat but also not so undignified as to drop his fancy pipe.

Not to mention Warmachine colossals are cheaper than appoc models now.