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.

 slowthar wrote:
In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:

35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions

In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:

5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions

To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.

Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.

We basically agree

I don't play Warmachne or Hodors, but I liked that page 5! Thanks for posting it.

This thread also reminded me why my ignore list is longer than my friends list! My grandmother used harsher language when she cooked for us.

I play both W40k and Warmachine/Horde.

About players, it is true those from Warmachine/Horde are often seen as "hardcore merciless bastards", who play at the letter of the rule and crush you without a pause. This is mainly because the rules are so precise and the games are meant to be fast and furious - but also because they were taught the "hard way" how to play. Players at Warmachine/Horde are used to rules with no loopholes and strict wording, they expect people in front of them to play the same. When you come from 40k, it's quite a whole different world ('cause you're forced in 40k to "have a point of view" with the rules) and it can be difficult to adapt.

40k is also full of randomness, while Warmachine/Horde gives more strategy to the players. Of course, there are dices as well in Warmachine/Horde - but randomness can be more easily controlled than in 40k. In V7, you practically throw dices for everything, even for objectives -'cause, you know, "throwing plenty of dices is fun!". It's just the ways game designers see their games are very different.

40k, however, is more free; you can do whatever you want however you want. It is also very easy to design your own character. So, the "Forge your narrative" takes all its sense in that way; you don't have to take a named character to play a game, like in Warmachine/Horde; you can make your own story with you own heroes. And indeed, with 40k, it's much more suited.

But of course, you can make your own characters/units in Warmachine/Horde. Rulesets aren't that difficult, after all. It's just that you're so used to characters with their own background and balanced powers that you don't always think about it first.

For tournaments, I would rather recommand Warmachine/Horde, however. The game is pretty much made for that kind of things. And you lose much less time fighting about rules than actually playing the game. Doesn't mean it's less brain draining, though; but at least, it's not because of a headache about the interpretation on which way Kairos's frontview is!

Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.

Plus with warmachine you can use what you like, there are no people who tell you what you cannot use. Frankly the game has a zing to it that 40k just does not have at all.

Plus you can usually tell where you made a mistake, not get hard-countered by your list etc.

Butcher 3 hurts when applied to a player who did not know what he could do, axe-to-face indeed

That is a very good point; one thing that currently is messing me up with such a large 40k background is that 40k requires rules interpretation, Warmachine a rule means what it means with very little or no ambiguity; you don't have to infer anything from the rule, it does what it says.

 Art_of_war wrote:
Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.

While I appreciate your perspective, perhaps we should avoid broad brush strokes in general (as seen in bold). Personal experiences aside, it's a good way to get peoples hackles up. And we've been doing good thus far.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. Though you'll eventually find fething fethers in any game/sport/hobby/life.

 slowthar wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:
This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.

40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.

Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.

In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:

35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions

In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:

5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions

To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.

Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.

Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.

Well, your list building is indeed important in Warmachine/Horde, but since the opponent can always have a "Sudden Death" victory by a smart move on the board, it is more about how you put your models and play them good while wondering about what your opponent will do with his own.

40k is more about throwing plenty of dices. Of course, playing smart is also important...there is just much more randomness than control in the hands of players while playing on the board. For example, difficult terrain are handled quite differently; in 40k, you throw dices - in Warmachine/Horde, you divide your movement by 2.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

Barfolomew wrote:
This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.

40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.

Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.

In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:

35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions

In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:

5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions

To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.

Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.

Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.

Not really. In a game "all about combos and unit interactions" the army list is surprisingly very little. Sure, there are some units that are better than others, but there's no unit that is actively so bad that taking it hurts your chances of winning (see 40k), and while there are netlists, you can't just go and pull up a list that won a tournament and expect to win.

So not that biased at all. List building isn't a big portion of Warmachine. You can almost only buy units and warjacks that you like the look of, and make a viable army. Try doing that in 40k. You'll almost never see "Unit X sucks, take Unit Y instead" in Warmachine like you will in 40k. Instead you'll see how to make the most of Unit X.

 Sarouan wrote:
40k is more about throwing plenty of dices.

I hate being that guy and I have a feeling English isn't your primary language, but I feel the need to inform you that the word "dice" is already plural and doesn't require an "s" to be added to it.

Sorry.

xxvaderxx wrote:


Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.

Yeah I'd put it at 20% at the most. You can't download the latest tournament winning list and do anything except lose horribly. You need to learn how to use your list appropriately and can't rely on it being "better" than your opponents. It might swing the game if two equal players meet, one with an optimal list and one without, but having a better list will hardly ever make it easy for you to win.

It's hilarious when people take the latest big tournament winning list and try to play it without figuring out that they have to actually pilot it intelligently.

I think 20% is high, but if you do accidentally put in some anti-synergy, it can make things not work. But you'd have to play against type to do that. Like taking a Kara Sloan and then no jacks with guns in her battle group. Even then though, the list may have strength I'm not considering. Like when people take Rahn and no other spell casters to buff with his feat and then people find out that him just buffing his own spell casting is good enough and they lose to the "bad list".

Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.

Isn't understanding your chosen faction, and how the models in that faction work together, part of list building? I am not understanding the emphasis placed on in-game decisions over list building when what you place on the game table impacts the game experience so drastically.

When I played WM in MK 1 I think I'd have given list building and in-game choices an almost even ranking in terms of importance with army selection a very minor consideration. Call it 40%, 50% and 10% respectively. Before a game I would spend quite a while working on lists, devising combinations that I wanted to see on the game table (or use against a known opponent) and generally running the future game through numerous contingencies in my head until I had a list I was confident could help me win. Of course all that planning is meaningless when the dice hit the table, so of course in-game decisions are extremely important, but I feel like I am missing why so little credit is given to lists in this discussion.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.

You can think whatever you want as I'll respect your right to be wrong.

Cheerie bye!

xxvaderxx wrote:
Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.

Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.

Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.

What is the 40k parallel?

Interestingly I think that in the new Iron Gauntlet, list building does come a bit higher into the % (I'm not willing to place a number on it yet though).

You are bringing 3x 50pt lists and if you make it to the final 4 in the tournament you have to create a 75pt list based only on what you have already in the 3 lists..... (and seeing which caster you and your opponent are going to be playing)

Not really a fan of 75pt games but its an interesting concept and does put more emphasis on the list building both tactically (at the 50pt level) and strategically (if I make it to the final 4 can i make something synergistic at 75).

 Kojiro wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.

Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.

Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.

What is the 40k parallel?

The post you linked to is a good one, it's a great way of illuminating the decision making process to non warmahords players (though much of the terminology is lost on us, but that's fair). I think it also does a great job of illuminating the differences is game mechanics between the two systems.

Warmahords seems to be much more about unit ability activation and resource management. I believe that this offers a range of tactical choices that are as significant as they are different than their counter parts in 40k and defines the divide between the two player bases views of each other. Warmahords players think 40k is about throwing dice and taking models off of the table, 40k players think warmahordes is about fiddling with tokens and running straight at the enemy.

In 40k, the tactics are much more visually and physically dynamic than warmachine. It comes down to one of the most important facets of the game which is (in my opinion) vastly under recognized by the online community, that being terrain and its relationship with TLOS. Shooting is king in 40k. It is a system where things are meant to die. A lot. That is why people advocate redundancy in lists, because you have to expect that gak is going to die and you need to be prepared for that.

Which brings us to terrain. Contrary to people's perception about random terrain being the 'official' way of playing; 40k should be played with lots of terrain.Because things will die a player that can utilize terrain to their advantage will gain the upper hand and that is where the tactics take on a more visually dynamic nature than warmachine in my opinion. In 40k you need to catch units out in the open, you need to hide your fragile units in cover in order to see them survive, you have to swing units around corners to hit the soft rear armour of vehicles, you have to force your enemy to be distracted and waste time killing what you want because something else is completely out of LOS until the firing lane is clear. With this comes target selection, weighing odds, thinking about maneuvering one or two turns in advance and whether or not you can afford to delay. You need to force your opponent to play by your rules.Terrain is also your best bet for getting those 'useless' assault units into the enemy, which can totally ruin their day. These things facilitate the importance outflanking and reserves which in turn forces players to think ahead. On the table top this kind of game looks very different than warmahordes.

This is also why the game is played with objectives. You guys mention that the caster kill is there to ensure that losing players still have a chance to win games. The same thing can be said about 40k. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen 40k games go the 'losing' player because they skillfully played the objective game, grabbing an important one at the last minute or by feinting the enemy into leaving one open across the board.

Things are moving in all sorts of directions which to some people is a more interesting form of tactics than the more technical ability driven system of warmachine where, yes, under the surface there's a lot more going on than two armies running into a giant scrum, but that is how most warmahordes games look.

40k has ability driven mechanics (the psychic phase, deciding which weapon to use in CC and when etc) but it isn't what is really important, just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.

Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.

This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.

Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.

The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.

And Lars, no one will take your opinion seriously until you can muster the same nerd rage over the sexism of 40k that you were spouting off about warmachine. Otherwise, is just more noise that you blether for pointless rage against a game that you simply prefer not to play. If you refuse to give warmachine the benefit of the doubt over that, then you should have rage quit 40k a long time ago.

Listbuilding in WMH is very different to list building in 40k. I think PP did it better, but its hard to say how important one is vs the other.

In 40k the ability to spam units creates very different list building. You create a list and check off the requirements: Do I have anti-tank? anti-flyer? Anti-MC? Scoring units? tick tick tick. It is relatively simple to find the best units in your codex at particular jobs (and often they will be the best at multiple jobs) and just take as many of that unit as possible. There are some types of units that simply don't work - eg, footslogging combat troops - and you avoid them for units that are better in every single way - eg, jump pack combat troops.
There is very little inter-unit synergy in 40k lists - the only example of a truly support unit is markerlights - so it only really matters that you tick off the boxes rather than how those things interact with each other. Many independent characters give a bonus to the unit that they join, but that is still limited to a single unit.
One big thing is there there are very very few units where you would say 'X unit is good, but not in the same list as Y unit.' A unit is either good and worth taking, or not good and should be left at home, with very little middle ground.
Then when you arrive at the table, 75% of game strategy is using your Rock to take down their Scissors before it takes down your Paper.


In WMH the list building structure often actively discourages spamming multiples of the same unit (especially Warbeasts). The huge variance in caster spells and feats, the existence of support units/solos and lingering effects, means that not only do you need to make sure you include anti-X units, but that units can fulfil different roles depending on what other units you have with you. Your MAT5 troopers could be a tarpit in one list, or MAT8 weaponmaster equivalents in another list with the right feat and upkeeps. I'd say that listbuilding in WMH takes more effort than building in 40k because you need to keep track of unit synergies.
But then when you get out to the table, WMH requires a lot more strategy than 40k. The importance of activation order alone to ensure that your synergies actually work makes it a far more complicated game than 40k. Most WMH 'netlists' require a lot more finesse to play than an equivalent 40k netlist.

So, TLR. While list building in WMH is more involved than list building in 40k, the actual game is also significantly more involved to the point that, as a 'percentage of the game', list-building is lesser percent of WMH than it is of 40k.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.

This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.

Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.

The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.

And Lars, no one will take your opinion seriously until you can muster the same nerd rage over the sexism of 40k that you were spouting off about warmachine. Otherwise, is just more noise that you blether for pointless rage against a game that you simply prefer not to play. If you refuse to give warmachine the benefit of the doubt over that, then you should have rage quit 40k a long time ago.

I don't know who Lars is, but I assume you're referring to me. That horse has been beaten to death. I maintain my position but don't feel like butting heads with people on the issue. I won't say anymore because rage. Obviously rage, so much. I can't sleep at night because of this rage and I fear I may break my keyboard soon. I've locked myself away and the walls are coated with cut out MKI page 5s. It's all connected. You're on there too.

But if you wanna talk about my latest post then I'd be happy to discuss it.

 Platuan4th wrote:


I hate being that guy and I have a feeling English isn't your primary language, but I feel the need to inform you that the word "dice" is already plural and doesn't require an "s" to be added to it.

Sorry for my bad english, I try not to make too many mistakes but I'm sure it looks quite clumsy for native speakers.


About the games, yes, both of them have their advantages and disadvantages. Still, one of the reasons people like Warmachine/Horde rules is mainly because the designers were particularly careful about the wording. People at Privateer Press believe a good game is a game when you don't have to wonder about how the rule is meant to be played - so that you don't have to argue in the middle of a scenario and spend more time actually playing.

You can feel about GW rules that they aren't really...optimal in the wording, even in english (I will spare you the horrible translation errors in french, even more now that GW France has disappeared). You know they need quite a lof of FAQ to "mend the holes" - when you see the size of the FAQ from Privateer Press games since the MKII's release, it's quite small compared to 40k. It is just about the way they work and handle the rules of their games.

That, also, counts a lot for some players. For those who feel badly written rules aren't important, well indeed, 40k can be just fine. And there is nothing wrong in that as well; it's just how you like to play, that's all.

 Las wrote:
, just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.

It is, I believe, almost the opposite. Terrain has a heavier impact on WM/H games, and placement is extremely important due to the more individual nature of targeting - scalpeling out key models can determine the outcome of a game (or end it, in the case of the warcaster/warlock). This is probably why WM/H tournament tables are quite terrain-light compared to 40k tournament tables: the density of terrain impacts the gameplay heavily. Even a single 4" long wall, a small 5" by 4" forest, or a 2"x2" obstruction placed at the right spot, interacting with army playstyle and scenario, can change the entire dynamic of a game.

 Las wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.

Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.

Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.

What is the 40k parallel?

The post you linked to is a good one, it's a great way of illuminating the decision making process to non warmahords players (though much of the terminology is lost on us, but that's fair). I think it also does a great job of illuminating the differences is game mechanics between the two systems.

Warmahords seems to be much more about unit ability activation and resource management. I believe that this offers a range of tactical choices that are as significant as they are different than their counter parts in 40k and defines the divide between the two player bases views of each other. Warmahords players think 40k is about throwing dice and taking models off of the table, 40k players think warmahordes is about fiddling with tokens and running straight at the enemy.

In 40k, the tactics are much more visually and physically dynamic than warmachine. It comes down to one of the most important facets of the game which is (in my opinion) vastly under recognized by the online community, that being terrain and its relationship with TLOS. Shooting is king in 40k. It is a system where things are meant to die. A lot. That is why people advocate redundancy in lists, because you have to expect that gak is going to die and you need to be prepared for that.

Which brings us to terrain. Contrary to people's perception about random terrain being the 'official' way of playing; 40k should be played with lots of terrain.Because things will die a player that can utilize terrain to their advantage will gain the upper hand and that is where the tactics take on a more visually dynamic nature than warmachine in my opinion. In 40k you need to catch units out in the open, you need to hide your fragile units in cover in order to see them survive, you have to swing units around corners to hit the soft rear armour of vehicles, you have to force your enemy to be distracted and waste time killing what you want because something else is completely out of LOS until the firing lane is clear. With this comes target selection, weighing odds, thinking about maneuvering one or two turns in advance and whether or not you can afford to delay. You need to force your opponent to play by your rules.Terrain is also your best bet for getting those 'useless' assault units into the enemy, which can totally ruin their day. These things facilitate the importance outflanking and reserves which in turn forces players to think ahead. On the table top this kind of game looks very different than warmahordes.

This is also why the game is played with objectives. You guys mention that the caster kill is there to ensure that losing players still have a chance to win games. The same thing can be said about 40k. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen 40k games go the 'losing' player because they skillfully played the objective game, grabbing an important one at the last minute or by feinting the enemy into leaving one open across the board.

Things are moving in all sorts of directions which to some people is a more interesting form of tactics than the more technical ability driven system of warmachine where, yes, under the surface there's a lot more going on than two armies running into a giant scrum, but that is how most warmahordes games look.

40k has ability driven mechanics (the psychic phase, deciding which weapon to use in CC and when etc) but it isn't what is really important, just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.

I'm not sure what sort of Warmachine games you're seeing, really. Positioning and terrain are supremely important in Warmachine.

There might be a bit less of, oh, this unit's going to go into this ruin and then stay there forever, because it can be hard for a unit to do that and stay relevant since 40k's middling unit range is around 24" and a sniper rifle in Warmachine is around 14", but units absolutely use terrain, spread around the table, etc. The distance a model can threaten around it is very important. Covering objectives is very important. Often a lot of models will end up fighting in melee because melee is really important in nearly all Warmachine armies. When that happens the units are often quite close together!

Warmachine's units tend to have more to them than 40k, with relevant special rules on pretty much everything, but that doesn't mean the other things are somehow lesser. It just has more detail. (And that has both good sides and bad sides.)

One interesting thing I found surprising about Warmachine after all the "forge the narrative" business relates to my game design word of the year: "evocative." In Warmachine, many of the game elements aren't realistic in the sense that they simulate how a character would behave, but they are evocative in that they provide a great sense of what the model is about. For example, warjacks slamming and throwing things around the table, or the parry rule allowing slippery characters to get around free strikes, or set defense providing a bonus against charges, or whatever else - the rules of the models evoke their character in a way that 40k usually utterly fails to do. That is part of what I find so fascinating about the comparison between them and the talk about narratives.

 Las wrote:
just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.

The average range of a gun in WMH is about 12", the average charge range is about 9", this alone should tell you that manoeuvring and placement is critical in WMH. In 40k the average ranged gun fires at 24" and you have guns that can reach virtually any point in the table, this makes manoeuvring almost meaningless and its the reason why gun lines are so prevalent in that game.

Also another reason why maneuver mechanics don't seem so important to you in WMH is because they are allot more subtle and usually go unnoticed to someone that never played the game and as such has no frame of reference to what he is seeing.

Correctly placing the individual models in a given unit, for example, can mean the difference between absorbing the enemy attack with minimal losses and counter-attacking with the remaining members or having the unit wiped out by said attack. If you bunch up your models, you'll leave them extremely vulnerable to area effects and to models that have multiple attacks, but if you split them up too much, you'll risk leaving gaps in your front line that can be exploited to attack your back lines and you'll suffer a larger than needed amount of casualties because of it as well. Put your leading elements too far from the rest of the unit and they will be killed by hit and run attacks without you having any chance to retaliate, etc... And this is just placement of the models in a single unit (and I didn't even cover all variables for it)!

To this you have to add the placement of your Warcaster: advance him too much and he becomes vulnerable and you can loose the game because of it, leave him too far from the engagement and he won't be able to effectively influence the battle, use your feat, check for distances and so you loose your most powerful piece, or your warjacks won't be able to attack because they are out of his control, leave him too far from an objective and you won't be able to exploit it if your enemy leaves it exposed. Then you have placement of your support pieces and your combat solos, etc...

Frankly the possible variables that might influence the placement of each model are so many that it makes it hard to explain this without a game in progress to help illustrate all these points.

As for terrain, you have it all backwards as well, the reason why terrain is so prevalent in 40k is because its influence is minimal (other than for blocking LoS), so you might as well flood the table with it because it looks good! In WMH terrain is hugely influential, hence why it should be kept at manageable levels otherwise it could greatly hinder a player and favour the other, this is because some armies have the ability to completely ignore the detrimental effects of most terrain, while others can ignore it with some models, while others yet will have to suffer through it all. Place a forest in the table and now your ranged elements can hide inside it receiving a bonus to their defence and lowering the melee threat of anyone that wants to attack them. Place a hill and you'll get a commanding view that allows you to ignore most targeting restrictions that people rely on to protect their most important models. Place a single wall and your warcaster becomes almost invincible standing behind it! Place any type of water feature and a huge area around it just became a very dangerous zone for warjacks to venture into (any warjack that falls into water will have its boiler put out and will be removed from the game), etc...

That is why any piece of terrain in WMH shouldn't be more than 4" across and there shouldn't be more than 6 pieces of terrain in the table, total.

I know that I'm going to offend people when I say this, but its just the truth: 40k is a game designed for kids, as such it has a very low level of tactical complexity that mostly boils down to target prioritization... All other choices that could be made to enrich the tactical experience of the players have been relegated to random chance mechanics: movement... roll dice. Objectives? Draw a card. Spells that you could build tactics for your army around? Roll on a random table... Etc. Its like comparing chess with shoots and ladders, both can be fun, but you don't play shoots and ladders if you want a rich tactical experience.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Las wrote:
just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.

The average range of a gun in WMH is about 12", the average charge range is about 9", this alone should tell you that manoeuvring and placement is critical in WMH. In 40k the average ranged gun fires at 24" and you have guns that can reach virtually any point in the table, this makes manoeuvring almost meaningless and its the reason why gun lines are so prevalent in that game.

Also another reason why maneuver mechanics don't seem so important to you in WMH is because they are allot more subtle and usually go unnoticed to someone that never played the game and as such has no frame of reference to what he is seeing.

Correctly placing the individual models in a given unit, for example, can mean the difference between absorbing the enemy attack with minimal losses and counter-attacking with the remaining members or having the unit wiped out by said attack. If you bunch up your models, you'll leave them extremely vulnerable to area effects and to models that have multiple attacks, but if you split them up too much, you'll risk leaving gaps in your front line that can be exploited to attack your back lines and you'll suffer a larger than needed amount of casualties because of it as well. Put your leading elements too far from the rest of the unit and they will be killed by hit and run attacks without you having any chance to retaliate, etc... And this is just placement of the models in a single unit (and I didn't even cover all variables for it)!

To this you have to add the placement of your Warcaster: advance him too much and he becomes vulnerable and you can loose the game because of it, leave him too far from the engagement and he won't be able to effectively influence the battle, use your feat, check for distances and so you loose your most powerful piece, or your warjacks won't be able to attack because they are out of his control, leave him too far from an objective and you won't be able to exploit it if your enemy leaves it exposed. Then you have placement of your support pieces and your combat solos, etc...

Frankly the possible variables that might influence the placement of each model are so many that it makes it hard to explain this without a game in progress to help illustrate all these points.

As for terrain, you have it all backwards as well, the reason why terrain is so prevalent in 40k is because its influence is minimal (other than for blocking LoS), so you might as well flood the table with it because it looks good! In WMH terrain is hugely influential, hence why it should be kept at manageable levels otherwise it could greatly hinder a player and favour the other, this is because some armies have the ability to completely ignore the detrimental effects of most terrain, while others can ignore it with some models, while others yet will have to suffer through it all. Place a forest in the table and now your ranged elements can hide inside it receiving a bonus to their defence and lowering the melee threat of anyone that wants to attack them. Place a hill and you'll get a commanding view that allows you to ignore most targeting restrictions that people rely on to protect their most important models. Place a single wall and your warcaster becomes almost invincible standing behind it! Place any type of water feature and a huge area around it just became a very dangerous zone for warjacks to venture into (any warjack that falls into water will have its boiler put out and will be removed from the game), etc...

That is why any piece of terrain in WMH shouldn't be more than 4" across and there shouldn't be more than 6 pieces of terrain in the table, total.

I know that I'm going to offend people when I say this, but its just the truth: 40k is a game designed for kids, as such it has a very low level of tactical complexity that mostly boils down to target prioritization... All other choices that could be made to enrich the tactical experience of the players have been relegated to random chance mechanics: movement... roll dice. Objectives? Draw a card. Spells that you could build tactics for your army around? Roll on a random table... Etc. Its like comparing chess with shoots and ladders, both can be fun, but you don't play shoots and ladders if you want a rich tactical experience.

I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).

 darefsky wrote:

I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).

But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.

I think it would be better to say the 40K rules have been (or attempted to be) simplified to appeal to a younger audience. When I worked at GW and AP came in, that's exactly what we were told.

I strongly recommend anyone who still loves the 40K IP and the PP system give conversion a go.

PhantomViper wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).

But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.

Fair enough.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Art_of_war wrote:
Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.

While I appreciate your perspective, perhaps we should avoid broad brush strokes in general (as seen in bold). Personal experiences aside, it's a good way to get peoples hackles up. And we've been doing good thus far.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. Though you'll eventually find fething fethers in any game/sport/hobby/life.

Indeed i'll admit i did get the whitewash brush out and painted a wall . However it does not excuse the hypocrisy i've encountered recently, but that is as far as i'm going, needless to say those few who i see as the hypocrites have double standards in a few areas that from a warmahordes view is laughably silly.

Back on topic...

Terrain in warmahordes is far more of a hindrance than in 40k to an extent, as it boxes things in, blocks charge lanes etc. Its why Cryx for example are a bit filthy as they have spells and units that ignore its effects so things are not as safe as they seem. Its "buffs" are also handy, its why Khador widowmakers are always seen lurking behind walls

That is not to degenerate 40k, in any way its just "works" far more smoothly. Moreover when things ignore cover etc in WM/H people just accept it, whereas in 40k people "complain" (see Tau markerlights...).

On the radically different gameplay, sure its apples and oranges. List building is important in WM/H however the translation from paper to tabletop is different due to the frankly vast variety of casters and units that are there, and the fact you have to get the activation sequence right to pull it off properly. I suppose its why i rather like the steamroller 2 list format, it poses all sorts of challenges and opportunities. Do you go for a hard-counter job or a shooting/CC list?

However all this can fall apart if you make a mistake/misjudgement, at a steamroller the other week i bagged a well earned win when my opponent went for broke and nearly bagged it. However he misjudged the distance and Mr pVlad cast blood of kings and finished the job in one hit.

excellent fun!