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.

 BlueBlitz wrote:
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.

Fair point on the price of models. My only counter point is that you don't have to use GW models for 40k games. Yeah it may get kinda weird for your opponent if you have a bunch of ork-looking models and you run them as Space Marines, but aside from extreme examples like that, I can't see too many people complaining about you using non-GW minis. Too many times people get caught up in the price and look of minis and forget that 40k (and WarmaHordes now that I think about it) is just a rules set, and there's no rule that says you have to use GW models for a casual game. Tournaments is where this get strange, but that seems to be more of a TO choice than anything.

As for aesthetics; ultimately this is a personal taste issue. I do think some of the 40k HQ choices look infinitely better than the standard troop/grunt unit (that and if you feel like you have to individualize 300 Guardsman you may need to talk to a professional),. To be honest I think the majority of WarmaHordes models look rather cartoony and dopey, the Warjacks/beasts being the worst.

I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.

 Ponen19 wrote:

 BlueBlitz wrote:
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.

I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.

A fair point that I also at time find a virtue. With 40k I at times will become so obsessed with having a unique look that I will spend more time converting and trying to paint my models then play. With Warmahordes I know I need fewer models and I don't stress as much with my models, which allows me to buy an army and get it to the board much quicker.

 Surtur wrote:

 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.

On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.

 Ponen19 wrote:

 BlueBlitz wrote:
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.

Fair point on the price of models. My only counter point is that you don't have to use GW models for 40k games. Yeah it may get kinda weird for your opponent if you have a bunch of ork-looking models and you run them as Space Marines, but aside from extreme examples like that, I can't see too many people complaining about you using non-GW minis. Too many times people get caught up in the price and look of minis and forget that 40k (and WarmaHordes now that I think about it) is just a rules set, and there's no rule that says you have to use GW models for a casual game. Tournaments is where this get strange, but that seems to be more of a TO choice than anything.

As for aesthetics; ultimately this is a personal taste issue. I do think some of the 40k HQ choices look infinitely better than the standard troop/grunt unit (that and if you feel like you have to individualize 300 Guardsman you may need to talk to a professional),. To be honest I think the majority of WarmaHordes models look rather cartoony and dopey, the Warjacks/beasts being the worst.

I also want to echo the statement made earlier about 40k being more of a hobbyist game compared to WarmaHordes. I haven't seen too many people try to convert or change WarmaHordes model, and most paint jobs seem to be copied from the Primer books. GW games, and the communities associated with each, seem like they encourage conversions and customization more than PP games. Of course maybe I just haven't seen a good WarmaHordes conversion to change my opinion of that.

Privateer Press's forums have a few excellent conversions and alternate paint schemes detailed, including my personal favorite: http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?53190-Cryx-nar-an-epic-conversion-adventure

I'm not saying that such conversions are the norm, but they are possible. The mini-magazine that comes in two-player box sets even has a brief primer on how to do a basic conversion, so it's not as though PP doesn't endorse it. It just doesn't seem to have gained any real popularity in the community as a whole.

 Surtur wrote:

 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.

Heck, they're on par with "normal" models depending on where you live

 Necroshea wrote:


On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.

Which is every game?

They technically even fit in 15 pt games

 Talamare wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:


On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.

Which is every game?

They technically even fit in 15 pt games

And then you have the 'squadron' rules in Unbound (like running 3 of a specific jack grants some specific ability) on the other end of the spectrum, so you feel like unbound can be a different and expansive game unto itself (no to mention the activation changes).

 Talamare wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:


On top of that you can use those collossals/gargantuans in any game that can support their point cost.

Which is every game?

They technically even fit in 15 pt games

Except with Old Witch and eThagrosh (off the top of my head). Neither have enough warnoun points.

I'm seeing the usual arguments being trotted out here. 40k is a joke of a game. They've thrown all of balance out of the window to make everything random "cinematic". WMH opens your eyes to a simply better game. Although 40k's background for the most part is what keeps me giving it a look (even though I simply will not play it. 6th ed is craptastic). The IK background is fantastic too. Yes, as touched on by others in this thread, it is a little difficult to find; as it is in the RPG books, but it is there, and it is fantastic.
40k OTOH, is constantly stuck at "2 minutes to midnight", and even then they've supposedly gone back in time, as with the latest CSM codex, the 13th Black Crusade has not happened yet. WMH has an ongoing, engaging storyline that always leaves you wondering what is going to happen next.

I would definitely say 40k isn't a joke. GW is a joke with their pricing and release schedule.

Yet the rules can still work.


Oddly enough, if you ensure to use ALL the rules together the game works out fine. Both Fantasy and 40k.

People often don't use the GW terrain generation rules for Fantasy, and then wonder why Steadfast is so powerful.


If people played GW games with the correct amount of terrain the games would play a lot differently. 40k should have at LEAST 40% of the board covered, with plenty of LoS blocking terrain. Fantasy should have lots of steadfast stripping terrain, like rivers and forests, along with buildings and impassable terrain to create choke points.

the game becomes much better with proper amounts of terrain. Don't complain about the game when your limited terrain collection is what is really screwing you over.

I find the models for 40k light years ahead of PP, GW has better plastics and metals and resins, however finecast is crap. PP has cheaper models but you get what you pay for. Also the inclusion of instructions is a GOD send, i just bought the convergence BB and my god the amount of tiny dohicky's drove me insane as there was no clear indication of what went where.

Also the games play different but they both give you the illusion of tactics. What it really comes down to is dice rolls, all it ever comes down to is dice rolls. Don't get me wrong both games have their ways of stacking the odds in your favor, but it comes down to dice rolls.

So much better than PP.

Sure, you have that ugly thing. But that was done, what, 10 years ago?

Look at their more recent stuff. Like the Thundertusk. That is a triumph of plastic molding

Also the Tomb Kings NecroSphinx, the Vampire Counts Coven Throne, and the High Elf Phoenix kits. GW definitely has the better models, even if 85% of them are in the fantasy line.

Ah yes, so much better than PP.

There is a difference between model quality and a model you don't like the look of.

From a design and assembling perspective, the Dreadknight is absolutely brilliant.

You may not like the aesthetic but that is a matter of personal taste.

I completely agree, but I honestly believe that this comes from GW doing this for a longer time. Sure their business form is abysmal now. But they used to be a great company that everyone loved. Through retirement and loss of those who made it that way it has now become the dreaded company we know today. That doesn't, and should not make you reflect any differently on the models because you don't like the game or company. There are many models out there that I have bought just to paint with no idea who made them or what game they were for.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is a difference between model quality and a model you don't like the look of.

From a design and assembling perspective, the Dreadknight is absolutely brilliant.

You may not like the aesthetic but that is a matter of personal taste.

True. Although I think the Dreadknight is kind of silly looking (I mean it looks like a Baby carrier...), but then again we have a faction of Elves who are animesque in design. And Infinity is anime-based as well, so yeah different strokes.

Although I will go on the record that some of the Tau stuff that recently came out is pretty decent (I like the look of the Fireknife a lot), and the stuff for assembling Warmachine is usually relatively straighforward in assembly (at least what I experienced minus having to pin the Standard Bearers arm for the TFG UA).

Yeah, many of the PP models tend to have weak wrist syndrome.

Trying to support a large piece of metal on a very small and weak joint. Sometimes on a joint that is nearly impossible to actually pin even if you had the equipment to do it.


Overall, I'd say the Warmachine model design is at least 10 years behind GW. But that is ok because the aesthetic of warmachine can be shown with simpler modeling techniques and their well designed rule system makes you want to keep playing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, you have that ugly thing. But that was done, what, 10 years ago?

Try about 3. It came out when the last Beastmen book was released.

Aesthetics is more important than Quality, mainly because people can't tell the difference between good quality and aesthetics they prefer

I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.

Sargow wrote:
I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.

I don't consider difficult of assembly as part of somethings "quality"

I disagree as Aesthetics is opinion based, I might find something great looking where someone else might consider it a turd. When i put together a model and they make it a pain to put together, i don't care how good it looks i won't play it. I play ret and every mage hunter strike force doesn't have the bow part of their cross bow because i can't be bothered to reglue that poorly designed part of that model.

I will agree a lot of elf models for PP do have problems, the nyss hunters I have been repeatably told are a royal pain to put together.

Personally the two lines are both somewhat hit and miss, it really depends what figs you are talking about for both of them. With PP I don't have to deal with finecast though, which is really nice. I do prefer metal models over finecast any day.

Well you should.

If a model is very difficult to put together that is something that can make the customer upset.


GW has had their own share of difficult to assemble models, which has led to a reduction in use. The Thunderfire cannon didn't see much play for several factors, one of which was assembly difficulty, despite being a very efficient unit for the point cost.

If a model is hard to put together it is a poor design choice on the part of the creators.

And damn are PP models hard to put together... Okay, I am new to the tabletop hobby in general and I am spoiled by GW quality but I almost threw a fit today after Vlad3 kept losing his arms... And oh boy, those gaps between the parts are HUGE... Guess i need to greenstuff it then... Well at least i get to improve my modeling skills

IDK, I prefer metal models to anything else, and assembly of just about anything was never really a problem for me.

Except the old school gnoblar scrap launcher.

Not a big fan of the whole warcraft thing in WMH, and the whole "named characters in every army" thing, and some of the unit descriptions well and truly sound like some nerd's out-of-touch-with-reality idea of combat and war.

On the other hand, theres jack-all skill element in 40k and the rules here are well and truly open to abuse. It's advertised as a "beer and pretzels" game and really shines in this regard, but feth playing it competitively.

Is it wrong to want GW (namely Fantasy) aesthetics and fluff with Warmahordes rules, scale, and company?

That said, I'm probably going to go pick up those Croc dudes or Pig dudes as a Hordes army because those are the only models I actually like.

The rules for 40k aren't that bad and competitive play is possible, it is no where near cut and dry as most rules for WM are.
Just so you know You can have both as they are minions, They can't be in the same list but you could take a list each in tourny play.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Not a big fan of the whole warcraft thing in WMH, and the whole "named characters in every army" thing, and some of the unit descriptions well and truly sound like some nerd's out-of-touch-with-reality idea of combat and war.

On the other hand, theres jack-all skill element in 40k and the rules here are well and truly open to abuse. It's advertised as a "beer and pretzels" game and really shines in this regard, but feth playing it competitively.

Is it wrong to want GW (namely Fantasy) aesthetics and fluff with Warmahordes rules, scale, and company?

That said, I'm probably going to go pick up those Croc dudes or Pig dudes as a Hordes army because those are the only models I actually like.

No, there is nothing wrong with that, although how Fantasy is suppose to be like (I.E Rank and file, units in formation), the rules Warmachine/ Hordes have would mostly complement 40k more in my honest opinion. There is Kings of War for your fantasy needs, and I have good things about the ruleset (Not played it myself, but this is from a few friend). And if you do play Blindwater Congregation or Thornfall alliance, you will not have that much of unit/ Warnoun choices to choose from compared to Main factions, just to keep in mind a bit.

Daner0023 wrote:
The fault of Warmachine in this regard is that games can be won or lost in 20 minutes, which is a downer for someone.

Im one of those people. I also dont like the fact that everything important happens within the casters control range...so the majority of the game is taking place on 18 inches or less of the table. Terrain is pointless as you cant maneuver around it without getting outside of CR.

I love the hit and damage system, some of the special rules/abilities are very cool...but a couple of the key mechanics really brings the game down for me.