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.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.

Except you can't, really, because 40k isn't balanced. In a balanced game, then yes all of those would be viable choices. But they aren't. If you take mostly CC guys, you will get wiped out because CC is inferior to shooting. If you take a lot of vehicles you can get run roughshod by particular forces, if you go no vehicles then the same happens. 40k gives the illusion of variety; it's like a used car lot where you have a choice of 5 cars - 2 are nice Honda Civics that run adequately enough, one looks like a Ferrari but is actually a Ford Pinto, one has sawdust in the engine and the last has four flat tires.

I love the fluff and back story of the 40k universe. I love the games among the local crowd who have created their house rules to fix parts we agree were in need of remedy.

I love Warmahordes because I know exactly what I am getting with my list before I go into the game. I don't have to worry about my warlord forgetting his trait and getting something useless or my psyker not rolling for a single ability I want.

My friend actually runs that army you're talking about. It's terrifying to see a wall of genestealers and brood lords set up 18" in front of your face. It regularly stomped on me throughout 4th and 5th when you could assault from outflank, but now in 6th I've been able to contain it and win pretty well. That said, I build my list knowing to expect a setup like that. The guy who plays it has won several local tournaments just by playing to the scenario and by shear dark horse potential (plus he is a very good player on his own merits, he just doesn't take the game too seriously).

To actually say something on topic: There is always the issue of netlists in any game. 40k and warmachine both have this take place. The difference is that Warmachine has less "bad" units. There's still some pretty horrible ones, but the scale from best to worst is a lot narrower. Most warmachine net lists actually come from high level tournament players doing exactly what you said you enjoy doing, tossing random stuff into a list to see what works together. It's not "this unit is what we need to add or else you can't win". Most of the time. Must takes exist but many lists were the result of very off the wall brainstorming. it just looks standardized because that's what evreybody uses now.

I like 40k more because it still has the most in depth background. I love reading Black Library novels and focusing more on having fun than winning games. GW's prices are hard to stomach , but that's what my FLGS is for.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Yes you can. Any game bigger than 75 points has a dual warcaster option.

They don;t seem to be normal games - arn't they 25-50pts? or less -

Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over here.

 Mr Morden wrote:

No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).

funny the other WMH player here said:

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that

so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?

Its not, the game developers have stated it several times in interviews, in the official forums and in podcasts. Its a deliberate mechanic built into the game. Besides, if it wasn't then the same rules that are already present to check a unit's command range would also apply to the warlocks control range. It wouldn't be particularly hard to implement it.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Caster kill is always one of the win conditions,

bnut why is it always a win condiiton?

If you kill your US Marine captain you don't normally auto loose the game regardless of what you were actually trying to achieve in the scenario?

You are free to play the game without that win condition. The rules state specifically what happens in case the warlock or warcaster gets killed but the game doesn't end so its just left to the players to decide if they choose to use those rules or not. We've played it like that some times, but found that the only change is that it increases the length of the game for no apparent purpose and gave infantry heavy armies a big advantage over battlegroup heavy armies, though that could be alleviated with the use of Jack marshals in WM which presented its own set of tactical issues. In the end, it was just a different way to play not better or worse than the "official", but the longer games I think was what killed it over here.

40k is just so customisable and open-ended, probably more than any game ive looked it, i think that's the real beauty

fluff+open+customisation and really good models is what really makes it

Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her

Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?

We were working from just the rules and lno prior knowledge of the system - so again small numbes of models. No one was showing us the tricks etc of the game but we did figure pretty quickly that the Command Raidus was a workaround the "no pre-measruing rule". I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.

Premeasuring /Control range - right so its officially stated as a game mechanic to allow players to get round the premeasuring restriction (sounds daft to me but ok) - odd how several warmahordes players said they wer uncomfortable with it being used in this way if its a normal and accepted part fo the game? Why is not stated as such in the rules?

 Mr Morden wrote:

I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.

Go on, play a whole game with premeasuring. All things like charge distances, which you currently have to eyeball can be done with 100% accuracy. This is the key thing that would be utterly (for lack of a better term) game changing.
40k allows premeasuring as the charge distance is random. With that in mind, why would you ever take anything without reach? Reach is currently an extremely powerful asset. Premeasuring would just exacerbate it to a point where certain units are useless.

This one little change would have a massive snowball effect on the game. It's really not that hard to understand.

To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her

Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?

A "standard" game is 35 points (roughly 1,500 in 40k). Tournaments tend to be 50 (1,850) with some new provision for the World Championship that has the final round be 75 points built with your other lists (most tournaments require 2, and sometimes 3, lists with some restrictions like you can't have the same character model in more than one). However, the general minimum points level is 15, or a little less if you're just using a Battlegroup box in a league or just starting out (most Battlegroup boxes run about 11 points, I think Cryx has 13), then typically 25, and then 35 (this is the progression of the WM/H Escalation league format: Battlegroup, 15, 25, 35 over six weeks). Most people don't play higher than 50 points that I've seen, so while there are rules for getting to 40k-scale battles with lots of guys (100+) it's very rare to have that actually happen for regular games.

RE: Caster kills: The "basic" game has no scenario and is just fight until one caster is killed. It's intended for when you're just learning and/or don't want to deal with a scenario. Most of the time though you want to play a scenario, and the caster kill mechanic is there as an alternative so you always have a chance to win, even if you're losing on the scenario, and vice versa you can win on scenario if you aren't able to kill the caster (and many tournament games have the "Kill Box" where your caster must be a certain number of inches away from any board edge or your opponent gets points; it's designed to push your caster into the thick of things not hiding behind a tree somewhere).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.

I have to disagree with this. It's pretty much INTENDED to be a way to circumvent the "no premeasuring" rule, hence why you can do it at any time, even during your opponent's phase, and you don't have to announce that you're doing it. I was watching the Iron Gauntlet (World Championship) finals and one of the guys was doing it all the time. If you measure *past* your control range that's cheating, but if you constantly measure up to your control range and happen to notice the distance an enemy unit is from yours, well... that's in the rules.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.

Go on, play a whole game with premeasuring. All things like charge distances, which you currently have to eyeball can be done with 100% accuracy. This is the key thing that would be utterly (for lack of a better term) game changing.
40k allows premeasuring as the charge distance is random. With that in mind, why would you ever take anything without reach? Reach is currently an extremely powerful asset. Premeasuring would just exacerbate it to a point where certain units are useless.

This one little change would have a massive snowball effect on the game. It's really not that hard to understand.

To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.

I play lots of games with premeasuring - from skirmish games like Judge Dredd to Spaceship games and lots of other ones in between.- and it simply does not make the game any slower. It might be a problem for WMH - but as we have established its in the game already which is my point - pretending its not is a bit misleading and your orignal statement was using it for this OR outside the area of control was cheating - the second half everyone agrees on

Here is your full statment ? Emphasis mine in bold

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....

WayneTheGame wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
To reiterate. Measuring your control area is NOT cheating. Using it as a backdoor to premeasuring by using it for other purposes by going BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AREA is cheating. It's really not that hard to understand.

I have to disagree with this. It's pretty much INTENDED to be a way to circumvent the "no premeasuring" rule, hence why you can do it at any time, even during your opponent's phase. I was watching the Iron Gauntlet (World Championship) finals and one of the guys was doing it all the time. If you measure *past* your control range that's cheating, but if you constantly measure up to your control range and happen to notice the distance an enemy unit is from yours, well... that's in the rules.

That's why I said "beyond".... I've seen a certain TFG doing it here.

Allowing normal units to premeasure distances would mess with the game far more than it's worth IMO. As I already said, why would you ever take non-reach stuff when you can premeasure? It's such a valuable asset right now for that extra 2" of threat range, but those ranges are approximate. You currently have to eyeball them, with reach you're far more confident of said distances and getting a charge off. As you've said yourself, the game at times can feel somewhat mechanical and "gamey". If you allowed premeasuring this would not help this feeling one bit.

40k allows it due to charge distances being random. If you don't know how far a unit can charge then a premeasuring aspect had to be added to the game. It was never there in the past. There were hints of it in previous editions such as with the removal of literally guessing ranges for weapons from 4th into 5th (had a temple board at my old GW made from 50mm monster bases. t'was a good times for guess ranges. They did not think that one through! ).

Most wargames allow pre-measuring. 40K was an unusual exception when it didn't.

This thread is supposed to be about the good things in 40K so let's not go off topic to discuss other games.

As shown above even the alternatives have rules that some people have a dispute about. Half this thread is not why you like 40k but an argument on pre measuring and warjacks in Warmachines. It is nice for once to see that 40k is the only game where a thread can be jacked on an argument on a rule.

tiger g wrote:
As shown above even the alternatives have rules that some people have a dispute about. Half this thread is not why you like 40k but an argument on pre measuring and warjacks in Warmachines. It is nice for once to see that 40k is the only game where a thread can be jacked on an argument on a rule.

That is not what is being argued at all.

Steering this back on topic...

I do really like the background and in theory at least the ability to create a themed force. One of my favorite things to do when creating armies, even if I wasn't actually playing, was to make it "My" force; I'd typically pick something that wasn't already established (e.g. my own SM Chapter, or Craftworld) or at the very least something that could allow for my own touch (e.g. a specific company of the Ultramarines that isn't fleshed out). I'd come up with a name for my commander, often names for units, and flesh out just who they were to make it not just another generic army.

That's something that I have yet to find in other games, and is one of the areas where 40k really shines - if you play it with like-minded people the campaigns and stories you can tell would be amazing.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Why aren't they normal games? And why do you need permission from anyone to play like you wan't in the first place? The rules clearly have provisions to use more than one caster in a single army so at what points you choose to use that option is entirely up to the players, we've even had 30pt tournaments using two casters over her

Well because for the first few games we looked at the suggested points levels to get too grips with the fundmentals. The rules were pretty clear about suggested points levels and "take the King" wins - we wanted to see how the rules actually worked before making wholesale changes? Of course you can houserule it - I have made up plenty of stuff for plenty of systems. You can do this for any system but its not really an argument as to why the rulkes are x or Y?

It is not a house rule because you aren't changing any rule to begin with, its just changing the victory conditions of any given mission or the amount of points that you will use. You aren't changing anything in the rules since the rules themselves already have provisions both for playing the game when the warcaster die and also how to use two warcasters in the same army. You just have to decide if you wan't to use those rules or not.

 Mr Morden wrote:

We were working from just the rules and lno prior knowledge of the system - so again small numbes of models. No one was showing us the tricks etc of the game but we did figure pretty quickly that the Command Raidus was a workaround the "no pre-measruing rule". I also don;t understand the "pre-measuring would break the game" but there is a way of doing it form a long distance away.

Premeasuring /Control range - right so its officially stated as a game mechanic to allow players to get round the premeasuring restriction (sounds daft to me but ok) - odd how several warmahordes players said they wer uncomfortable with it being used in this way if its a normal and accepted part fo the game? Why is not stated as such in the rules?

A "long way away" is usually 12" or 14" since those are the most common control areas of warcasters and like I said, its designed this way because it gives the players another tactical choice. If the player wants to make extra sure of a range he will give his opponent the information of how far away his warcaster his, making the warcaster, the model that if he looses will cause him to loose the game, that much more vulnerable (not to mention that you'll probably have to move your warcaster from dominating an objective so that he is in range to measure what you wan't so that is yet another choice). Is it worth it? Sometimes yes, other times: no. Tadam! Instant additional choice for the players to make and corresponding tactical depth added to the game.

And I don't understand how you cannot say that this is not explicitly stated in the rules:

Measuring Control Areas
You can measure the control area of your models at any time
for any reason. Specifically, you can measure the distance
from the model with the control area to any point within
that control area at any time.

How could they be any more clear than that?!

For me, it's quite a few things: really deep back story, nice models, large community, and importantly, I like to collect armies that look like armies, and not small war bands.

40k is the only game with a Stompa.

And a grot oiler.

For me it is the model/unit count, the tactical diversity something that is essentially not existent in WH/WM where kill their "king">everything else, and unit customization. If another scify game comes up with this im jumping ship.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.

Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.

I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.

You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.

If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)

Whoa, hold on. I just have to comment on this. "Tight rules" "Balance" do not equal "Homogenized and boring." Each army in Warmachine has a different style and different styles within that style. You might have light fast Cyrx against a heavy slow Menoth list. Completely different armies that play very differently, but are equal in ability to win. I'm serious, go try a game or two and see how it works. My Convergence army may have the same jacks, but plays completely different depending on what caster I chose. Lots of variety.

They asked us nicely not to debate premeasuring in Warmachine - let respect that, if you like we can discuss my response via PMs

I had this discussion with a friend a few years back. I play WM/H and he plays 40K. Ultimately it boiled down to a few things that made him stick with 40K:

1) fluff - there's almost 30 years of back store (even though it's constantly changing)

2) already model invested - he'd been playing for years so he had about 6 armies. He was too invested to change gears. The funny thing was that I never asked him to drop 40K, I just asked him to play a game of WM/H with me, and he was resistant.

3) customization - There is no customization in WM/H, just list building. He liked the idea of designing his own captains/generals and making back story. I don’t read fluff, I just throw dice, so this wasn’t as important to me. Now as for model customization, unless you play at tournaments you CAN customize your WM/H models. I have a Khador Battle Carrage that I made out of a leman russ tank. Looks like a old WW1 tank (which would fit the theme and era).

4) design asthetics - he didn't like the steam punk setting. I have to be honest the seeting isn’t high on my list either, but you get use to it.

5) his gaming group only plays 40K - this is the big one. You can like a game all you want, but if you can't get anyone else to play it's all wasted effort




Now since I play both games here's my two cents on the strengths of WM/H:

1) Dynamic game play - I've played games where gunlines are set up, on both sides and no one moves the entire games. That is so BORING. Gunlines are rare in WM/H because the ranges are generally MUCH shorter. this forces players to move models around the board. Plus there are movement mechanics that can trigger additional movement shenanigans.

2) You play through every shot fired, every punch thrown... no short cuts – besides CRA & CMA, you really play through every attack in the game. No picking up loads of dice and rolling. For me this gives a more up close and personal feel to the game play.

3) Movie vs Anime - For me 40K is like watching a war movie. Special effects, explosions, bodies falling down as they run to face the enemy, etc. Because of the gameplay mechanics mentioned above WM/H is like watching an anime, like Dragonball Z, Bleach, etc. Powers are over the top, everyone is moving fast, the action is centered around a few characters.

4) Killing the King is actually pretty damn cool - I have walked away from a few games of 40K with good memories. Most of them associated with something epically going wrong, but succeeding anyway. But I have a lot of truly epic caster kill memories (both kills I made, and kills others have scored against me). And since you play through ever punch, shot, spell you can visualize the action as it’s playing out in your head.

5) perfect list vs Rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock – in 40K you tend to gravitate towards building a perfect list. Meaning you pick through your codex, find the models that work well, and get them for you list. You make have a few variations, but ultimate you have one list that’s your go to list. In WM/H whatever your goto list is, every army has an answer for it. So having multiple list’s with completely different units is common. This opens up a lot of variety of game play.

In the end I don’t want to say one game is better than the other, because that’s situational.

For me it's 40K versus Infinity...

I love both, but 40K usually wins out. The models/armies, the background, and the narrative campaigns are just so much fun... that said, I've not really enjoyed too many of my numerous 40K 'tournament' experiences - but at home or the club nothing beats it.

Infinity also has some beautiful minis (though insanely difficult to assemble grrrr!) and it is also a very fun game to play when you are short on time or space.

I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.

I know right, if only there was a thread about the other alternative games people 'even bother trying'...

WayneTheGame wrote:
I will say one thing that I notice, and continue to notice, is the reluctance of 40k players to even bother trying other games. It's one thing to like 40k better than an alternative, but frequently I see 40k people just dismissing anything other than 40k without even taking a look at it to find out if they like it or not. This seems to be exclusive to 40k.

I think part of that problem is due to the level of investment many 40K players have in their armies: they don't WANT to play another game because they have so much money, time, blood, sweat, and tears poured into their army (or armies). As a result, they don't want to introduce a new game to their gaming groups for fear that the group will then want to switch whole-hog to the new system, and will typically oppose any attempts to do so. Years ago, when Warmachine first came out, a friend in our group tried to get us to build armies for it. We all gave it a shot and played a couple of games (he had bought enough minis for 3 armies), but it didn't stick, partly (but certainly not entirely) because we all had the mindset of not wanting to have to build and paint another army, learn another set of rules, etc.

Another problem that I experience is, my friends and I only have time for one wargame at best, as work and family tends to leave very little free time available, and I'm sure our gaming group is not that different from thousands of others across the globe in that respect. Since we only have time for one game, it might as well be the game we've all invested in and familiar with.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I think part of that problem is due to the level of investment many 40K players have in their armies: they don't WANT to play another game because they have so much money, time, blood, sweat, and tears poured into their army (or armies). As a result, they don't want to introduce a new game to their gaming groups for fear that the group will then want to switch whole-hog to the new system, and will typically oppose any attempts to do so. Years ago, when Warmachine first came out, a friend in our group tried to get us to build armies for it. We all gave it a shot and played a couple of games (he had bought enough minis for 3 armies), but it didn't stick, partly (but certainly not entirely) because we all had the mindset of not wanting to have to build and paint another army, learn another set of rules, etc.

Another problem that I experience is, my friends and I only have time for one wargame at best, as work and family tends to leave very little free time available, and I'm sure our gaming group is not that different from thousands of others across the globe in that respect. Since we only have time for one game, it might as well be the game we've all invested in and familiar with.

I think you're right; the large investment means that people don't want to feel like they "wasted" that money. Which is kind of funny because as I said I actually do want to play 40k again, but the rules and price point keep me away. I might think otherwise if I had a group that played in a scenario-driven manner, but there's always TFG who has to win the game. Even though 40k has a lot of quality in the figures, it's still not worth the price for me and scouring eBay all the time just feels really lame.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hello everyone.

In the midst of the recent arguments for-and-against 40k, I would like to put my experiences and conclusions out there for judgement and comment. The games I will be comparing 40k directly to are all the games I own/play still. These are: Warmachine/Hordes, Field of Glory, and Flames of War.

1) 40k vs Warmachine:
2) 40k vs Field of Glory:
3) 40k vs Flames of War: .

I find that comparisons make people unhappy. So why even entertain the thought? The thing to note in all cases is that if its fun, its fun. Who gives a rip if its MORE fun. If you want to hang out with buddy's and they like Flames of War, play it. If other buddies have more 40K, play that. Really thats it. A game doesn't have to be "better" than another one in order to shut up and throw dice. Just my opinion. I play a lot of games and its not because I like learning a lot of systems...its because if i do, I'll always have friends to play with.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.

I also love the fact that, while there are some "if you want to win, you play this way" theories, I can attempt all manner of craziness, and if I expend enough energy to refine it, I can make it work. I am putting together an all-infiltration, all-melee 'nid army as we speak. Will it work? Who knows, but I will find a way to win some games, then I will dismantle it and move on to some other looney effort.

I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Ok...ramble off

With respect, I disagree. You’re liking 40k for features that all games already possess. its like saying “McDonalds is the best restaurant, because they serve food.” And leaving it at that.

All those varieties of Space Marine are not equal. you wont be equally effective with them. close combat marines in particular pop to mind as an army type that has been severely hurt by the nerf bat. Now, think beyond power armour. How about my tyranids? Or my mates Chaos marines? Are they equally effective? Quite a number of codices are limited to a bare handful of effective builds. No sir, what you have isn’t “sheer variety”. What you have is the “illusion of variety”.

And for what its worth, variety itself isn’t something soley possessed by GW games. I look at my warmachine stuff. I can run heavy cavalry. My faction: khador – with them I can run all cavalry. I can run super heavy infantry. I can run heavy infantry. I’ve got conscript infantry. guerrilla regulars, guerrilla irregulars. I’ve got horse drawn tanks. I can go range heavy, melee heavy, control/denial, play movement shenanigans, slow tarpit, rapid blitzgkrieg etc. Look at menoth. I can run crusader knight heacvy. with ranged elements, skirmisher knights and super heavy knights along with heavy cavalry. Or I can lean towards the armed and fanatical militia elements. bomb throwers, rocket crews, spear armed temple guardians. then I’ve got the converted/impressed native scouts.Simply by changing the warcaster that leads my army gives otherwise identical rosters completely different playstyles.

Similarly – crazy builds exists in places other than 40k. And for what its worth, tight rules, competitive, balanced rules is not anathema to freedom. they are not mutually exclusive. If anything, they are bedfellows. balanced means that you can use those niche off the wall builds without fear of them being pointless. balanced means the game isn’t “solved”, that everything can be viable.

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.

If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)

With respect, you’re getting things backwards. Stating that everything being equally capable and therefore homogenised and boring is a falsehood that can be very easily demonstrated. Balanced does not mean “the same”. Can we be clear on that please? Nor does it mean “boring”. Or a “single solution”. balanced means there are multiple viable strategies – there is no one build.

mrfantastical wrote:
I had this discussion with a friend a few years back. I play WM/H and he plays 40K. Ultimately it boiled down to a few things that made him stick with 40K:

1) fluff - there's almost 30 years of back store (even though it's constantly changing)

2) already model invested - he'd been playing for years so he had about 6 armies. He was too invested to change gears. The funny thing was that I never asked him to drop 40K, I just asked him to play a game of WM/H with me, and he was resistant.

3) customization - There is no customization in WM/H, just list building. He liked the idea of designing his own captains/generals and making back story. I don’t read fluff, I just throw dice, so this wasn’t as important to me. Now as for model customization, unless you play at tournaments you CAN customize your WM/H models. I have a Khador Battle Carrage that I made out of a leman russ tank. Looks like a old WW1 tank (which would fit the theme and era).

4) design asthetics - he didn't like the steam punk setting. I have to be honest the seeting isn’t high on my list either, but you get use to it.

(1) to be fair, a lot of the older stuff is great, but that was what? 20 years ago? THe latest additions to the 40k lore include such standout moments as Kaldor fracking Draigo, codex: comedy robots, necron lords emailing inquisitors and collecting battles. having 30 years of fluff is one thing, recycling it or cannibalising is is another matter.

(3) there is customisation in warmachine. what you are saying is a falsehood. Fine, you cant create your generals, but you are free to design everything else behind your regiment.
Regarding model customisation - again, incorrect. you can customise your models - EVEN IN TOURNAMENTS. rules might be stricter, but its still doable. Case in point - see below. HMS gryphon.

Here is the base model:
http://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/file/view/gun-carriage.gif/212695798/gun-carriage.gif

here is the conversion:
http://i.imgur.com/AwsKPGs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Y9yPrs3.jpg

And yes, that "airship" is a 100% approved tournament legal conversion of a khador gun carriage.

there are other famous examples. google " stormhammer:assault on Sul", "RECO stormwall" amongst others.

So please, none of this nonsense that conversions and customisations are illegal in warmachine or that the player base doesnt do them. at the end of the day, the rules might be stricter for conversions (50% of the base model, like for like etc), but conversions happen all the time, and are actively encouraged.

I should have been more clear on the customization taking point. I was referring to unit upgrade customization at first (I.e. Taking melta guns as oppose to flamers ), than switched to model customization. As a mentioned I. The last sentence of point 3) I made a customized Khador Battle Carriage also that looks like a WW1 tank. So I agree model customization is something that can be done in WM/H.