Warmachine and WH 40K

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.

**xxvaderxx**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
In my experience, terrain is both more interactive and more impacting in Warmahordes than 40k. That being said, someone could make a 24" long LOS blocking piece of terrain in 40k and play scenarios with it--whereas Warmahordes Steamroller is fairly specific in terrain placement in scenarios. I guess the reason I mention that, is that someone can trot out an ad absurdum piece of 40k terrain and state it is more game impacting---and while that may be true, we should look at it in terms of realistic terrain that is placed on a table in a competitive environment.

And in that case, I would reassert that Warmahordes has more interactive/impacting terrain. Slamming models into obstructions, two hand throwing models over walls, slamming models into shallow water, concealment, etc etc.--all of those things can (and often do) have a large effect on game play--and in general, a +2, +4 is a pretty big deal when effecting the probability curve on 2d6.

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

**slowthar**

So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

**Grimtuff**

slowthar wrote:
So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

Can't wait for the answer to this one.

**Wayniac**

xxvaderxx wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:
In my experience, terrain is both more interactive and more impacting in Warmahordes than 40k. That being said, someone could make a 24" long LOS blocking piece of terrain in 40k and play scenarios with it--whereas Warmahordes Steamroller is fairly specific in terrain placement in scenarios. I guess the reason I mention that, is that someone can trot out an ad absurdum piece of 40k terrain and state it is more game impacting---and while that may be true, we should look at it in terms of realistic terrain that is placed on a table in a competitive environment.

And in that case, I would reassert that Warmahordes has more interactive/impacting terrain. Slamming models into obstructions, two hand throwing models over walls, slamming models into shallow water, concealment, etc etc.--all of those things can (and often do) have a large effect on game play--and in general, a +2, +4 is a pretty big deal when effecting the probability curve on 2d6.

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.

In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.

Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?

**xxvaderxx**

slowthar wrote:
So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.

Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?

Certainly, this facts all help to it.

1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.

WayneTheGame wrote:

And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.

So you are telling me that at equal lvls of skill the better list has better chances at winning, how on gods green earth is this a bad thing?.

There is cornflakes composition and there is all comers composition, if you cant tell the difference or if you think they should be on equal footing, you are missing the point of "strategy".

**Backfire**

WayneTheGame wrote:

And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.

40k has plenty of strategy and tactics, what 40k lacks is maneuvering. In 40k units usually either move forward, or backwards and you try to optimize your position to either assaulting the enemy, or repulsing the assault, or to maximize your shooting. Flanking has little meaning, except sometimes against vehicles.

Objective based games are less sensitive to codex imbalance, this was particularly true in 5th edition, maybe slightly less true now when even book missions have secondaries.

**xxvaderxx**

Backfire wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:

And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.

40k has plenty of strategy and tactics, what 40k lacks is maneuvering. In 40k units usually either move forward, or backwards and you try to optimize your position to either assaulting the enemy, or repulsing the assault, or to maximize your shooting. Flanking has little meaning, except sometimes against vehicles.

Objective based games are less sensitive to codex imbalance, this was particularly true in 5th edition, maybe slightly less true now when even book missions have secondaries.

Actually, the maneuvering comes in the form of terrain, 30 guardsman in the open will not last the same as the same in cover, regardless what you are shooting.

Flanking in 40k does not give you more damage on your target but usually better cover and positioning.

**Stevefamine**

Graphite wrote:
I've never played Warmachine or Hordes, therefore all the Warmahordes players will tell me that the entirety of the following post is completely wrong. :-D

However, from what I've read on here (and looking at the quick start rules) it appears that Warmahordes is a warGAME, i.e. it's a game first with conflict as its setting. If the designers so wished they could change the setting to running a restaurant or playing dodgeball or something and the game itself would lose nothing by it, other than aesthetics. The interaction of pieces and their abilities is king, and the pieces as individuals are worth far, FAR less than the sum of their parts. In this context, terrain is also a piece, since from the discussion above it appears that one individual piece of terrain can have an extreme impact on a game.

(This also makes the game, to my mind, quite tricky to learn for someone who only manages to get in 2-3 games of anything a year, and would rather that those games weren't spent being annihilated due to unfamiliarity with rules interactions. But that's not Warmachine's problem, it's mine.)

40k, on the other hand, is a WARgame, in that the objective is to simulate an abstract version of war and the game is the mechanism by which this is achieved. Other (better) WARgames exist. I'd say that a characteristic of most of them is that they don't totally depend on unit-to-unit interaction, with one unit causing another to work in a different way. Most units can do most things, though not necessarily with the same ability. And quite often, Things Go Wrong in a way that's at least partially out of your control.

Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order. I'm thinking specifically of Stargrunt, Necromunda and Epic Armageddon for these things, but they appear to be present in Bolt Action, Flames of War, Warmaster and it's derivatives, Tomorrows War, etc. etc. It's in Warhammer, too, especially if you play Orcs. An element of control is taken out of the player's hands, and they player then has to deal with the consequences. I like this, I can understand that many people don't. It strikes me as part of the "simulating war" thing.

40k USED to be better at this, but they've been essentially removing Morale and Pinning for years which is a bit of a shame.

Individual terrain elements don't have a great deal of effect, but if you've got a lot of it the battle changes and it tends to be vital to force manoeuvre. Playing Stargrunt on an empty table is an exercise in both sides being pinned for an entire game.

(As a side note, as I'm aware that the individual abilities of troops won't tend to make an enormous difference and I don't have a bunch of interactions to learn I'm much less hesitant about giving this type of game a go - the principals of concentration of force etc. will generally work whichever set of rules mechanics you throw it at).

So, in summary, I think if you've decided not to play Warmachine for a while, or whatever, it may be worth it to try a different style of game rather than due to some inherent flaw or virtue in the rules of Warmachine or 40k. Try some of the wargames I mentioned above, as well as 40k! Stargrunt is free! GO GET IT.

As a 40k/WM player, I logged in to say I fully agree with this post.

**AgeOfEgos**

xxvaderxx wrote:

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).

I'm not sure what your experiences are in Warmahordes, however as someone that's attended Warmachine Weekend, Adepticon, Kill-N-Grill and several (several) local tournaments over the past 2 years--I've honestly never had a game where terrain was not used nor impacting on the game. You can usually tell terrain has a significant effect on a game when you see opponents electing to go 2nd so they may choose table side--and this is not uncommon in Warmahordes. If you've had a negative experience with terrain in Warmahordes, lightly suggest to your group that they increase the amount of terrain and reference the Steamroller packet in terms of placement--it will likely increase your enjoyment of the game.

RE: the MTG reference, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If you're saying it's all about card combos in Warmahordes, I would disagree. Model placement is paramount in Warmahordes, which increases piece trades in your favor, which usually requires seeing a turn ahead (or two). That requires execution and strategy.

**Daedleh**

I love seeing players try to say that Warmachine has little strategy or tactics but 40k does. Kindof like saying that Chess has little strategy or tactics but Yahtzee does. And Yahtzee where certain dice colours are loaded.

**xxvaderxx**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).

Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.

**TheKbob**

Execution is not tactics?

What are you executing, if not tactics? Your argument seems completely void of a complete process.

Strategy is list building, tactics, and their execution, is what wargames are all about. Warmahordes is a warGame. Bolt action is still more a warGame. Many more historical leaning titles are WARgames. Or whatever this metaphor is supposed to be. Warhammer 40k, in either instance, is bad. It's tone of "force the narrative" with an ever changing, never advancing narrative makes it suggest it's a sandbox. However, playing it as a sand box requires either the same motivations of players to be identical and/or a large amount of house rules.

Warhammer 40k is a substandard product with a very high cost. Warmachine is a solid to excellent product with a very high cost. That's about the difference; the quality. Ones a good game with descent fluff, the other is a poor game and fluff that's been drug through the mud or retconned to add "the model of the week".

**Stevefamine**

xxvaderxx wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).

Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.

A great thread - that you seem to be trolling in. Please post several battle reports of you playing at your FLGS of 40k terrain and WM. The local WM tables are fairly heavy on terrain in my area. I lost quite a few games at steamrollers becuase a large obstruction was near a zone I needed/made charges weird when I was using a Wold Wrath/larger models. Terrain on the table for my faction in WM plays a huge part in the game (Circle).

And for the poster who compared MtG to WM, please provide pictures/lists/breps/proof of your past few games of WM.

**slowthar**

xxvaderxx wrote:
slowthar wrote:
So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'

Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?

**xxvaderxx**

slowthar wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
slowthar wrote:
So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'

Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?

Very much so, ever heard of the random objective cards?.

**AgeOfEgos**

xxvaderxx wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).

Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.

Well, it is an impression that I think the thread is getting based on the style of posts exhibited. For example, calling other's 'buddy' on an online thread is usually viewed as passive aggressive and won't typically move the conversation forward.

If you do play Warmahordes and feel like terrain is lacking in your area, I would suggest bringing it up with your Press Ganger. I've never met a Press Ganger yet that wasn't open to helping improve their local area Warmahorde games--so you might give that a shot--as it would likely increase your enjoyment of the game.

**slowthar**

xxvaderxx wrote:
slowthar wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:
slowthar wrote:
So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?

Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'

Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?

Very much so, ever heard of the random objective cards?.

Okay, just making sure.

A few things:

1. Do you think random objective cards force you to make more tactical decisions than your opponent's deck in MTG or your opponent's army in WM?
2. Do you think that the list building in 40k is more strategically more or less important than in the other two? (assume deck building in MTG = list building)
3. If I tell you I'm bringing faction X to the table and you have to play faction Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in WM?
4. If I tell you I'm bringing color X to the table and you have to play color Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in MTG?
5. If I tell you I'm bringing codex X to the table and you have to play codex Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in 40k?

To follow onto that, I'm proposing that something like any reasonable Eldar army vs. any reasonable SoB army is virtually unwinnable in 40k, but in MTG and WM, there is no scenario where simply selecting your faction/color is an almost completely determinant factor in who wins the game.

And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.

**Noir**

xxvaderxx wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.

Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.

You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).

Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.

Really you play both? After your views on playing other games from other threads, I find that hard to belive. I really doubt you play both games, I might belive you played A game of Warmachine, but have a hard time seeing you giving any other game then GW games a chance. So if you did pick up another company's game what changed.

**xxvaderxx**

slowthar wrote:

A few things:

1. Do you think random objective cards force you to make more tactical decisions than your opponent's deck in MTG or your opponent's army in WM?
2. Do you think that the list building in 40k is more strategically more or less important than in the other two? (assume deck building in MTG = list building)
3. If I tell you I'm bringing faction X to the table and you have to play faction Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in WM?
4. If I tell you I'm bringing color X to the table and you have to play color Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in MTG?
5. If I tell you I'm bringing codex X to the table and you have to play codex Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in 40k?

To follow onto that, I'm proposing that something like any reasonable Eldar army vs. any reasonable SoB army is virtually unwinnable in 40k, but in MTG and WM, there is no scenario where simply selecting your faction/color is an almost completely determinant factor in who wins the game.

And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.

1- Yes they do, because they alter "partial" victory conditions. The whole point of deck building in MTG and WM is to define and optimize your chosen victory condition.
2- Compared to the other 2, less so.
3- Nope. As many have said, you always have the kill the king crutch.
4- MTG does not revolve about colors it revolves around deck archetypes, having said that, save statistically acceptable bad draws and so on, the scales are certainly tipped in one or the other decks favor, case in point 6 of the top 8 decks being pod, jund before that.
5- Depends, reasonably close toghether armies (as in from the same edition) they should be broadly evenly matched.

Even so, questions 3 to 5 have to do with with balance, which is not the same as tactical depth.

slowthar wrote:

And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.

If you are bad at list building, yes that is certainly the case, dont have a problem with that either, list building is part of the strategy you employ. Cornflakes and All comers are not the same, nor should they be equally successful, the same applies to WM and MTG for that matter. The only difference is that in 40k you dont have your kill the king crutch.

**Kojiro**

xxvaderxx wrote:

3- Nope. As many have said, you always have the kill the king crutch.

You realise it goes both ways right? They can always kill your caster.

I don't know about you but when I think 'crutch' I don't tend to think 'biggest vulnerability'.

edit@ Ratbot- there's enough to build Space Marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks and sizeable Chaos stuff. Not as pretty but there and playable.

**Tanakosyke22**

Might as well give my thoughts on this:

Recently, I have been busy with school, two jobs and that so I find it hard to get a game in in recent days (which I hope does not persist after my seasonal job is done). After I sold my 40k stuff to get more for Warmachine after a while, I was thinking of getting a small force just to have a game or so, but look around for cheap. After I saw 7th edition drop, the price, and the rules and game direction it was going from what I saw (from some battle reports and some of the rules from leaks, it just seemed like edition 6.5 to me), I could not justify getting into it again. Even with 6th, pick-up games were meh without some negotiation and talking what rules mean before we had an argument during the game since the rules in my opinion . This I do not like if I want to get a game in on my free time as just a pick-up game, which felt time was wasted.

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish. Again, my thought on it, ymmv everyone. Even though skill and getting used to the list does become an hinderance, I'll take that for better rules and balance over 40k, especially since the Chicagoland area has a decent following for Warmahordes.

However, to the OP, as a few suggested, try smaller point games and Journeyman leagues. As well, you can still play both 40k and Warmachine (also Korijo's 40IK ruleset). If both bore you, I say try another game that might interest you. If you do enjoy 40k, then you are free to play that then.

**Crimson Devil**

Kojiro wrote:
xxvaderxx wrote:

3- Nope. As many have said, you always have the kill the king crutch.

You realise it goes both ways right? They can always kill your caster.

I don't know about you but when I think 'crutch' I don't tend to think 'biggest vulnerability'.

edit@ Ratbot- there's enough to build Space Marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks and sizeable Chaos stuff. Not as pretty but there and playable.

I think he must have trouble protecting his caster, since he seems to have a lot of contempt for that victory condition.

**Backfire**

Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

**Tanakosyke22**

Backfire wrote:
Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.

**nobody**

Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.

There were Minor Psychic Powers in 4th, and those had carried over into 5th to an extent (at least, until the codices which had them built in cycled out).

**Litcheur**

xxvaderxx wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:

In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.

Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?

Certainly, this facts all help to it.

1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.

1 - Chess has no terrain at all.
2 - Chess is very heavily combo based
3 - Chess has a I WIN button
4/5 - Objectives? What are objectives?

Thus 40k is more tactical than chess. Yeeeeaaaah... Right.

**jonolikespie**

Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.

I can't actually think of a time I had to roll on a table to determine something in 5th ed. I know orks did but they are orks, off the top of my head the only thing was deployment and mission types. No warlord traits, no powers, no charges, no mysterious terrain and no random objectives. Once models where on the table that was it for the random rolls.

**darefsky (Flight Medic Paints)**

jonolikespie wrote:
Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.

Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.

6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.

However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.

Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.

I can't actually think of a time I had to roll on a table to determine something in 5th ed. I know orks did but they are orks, off the top of my head the only thing was deployment and mission types. No warlord traits, no powers, no charges, no mysterious terrain and no random objectives. Once models where on the table that was it for the random rolls.

Ork rolls were fun and random but they were the outlayer. DE had there roles at the start of the game for Witches I think but that was really about it.

What made me throw in the dice (see what I did there?) besides the price increase that hit right before 6th Ed (and hey look at that it was fliers and other "Good" units that got the biggest increase) was the randomness. The silliness that somebody like Eldrad would have to roll to see what power he got. Charges being random..... I mean come on thats just plain stupid right there......

**MWHistorian**

I lost my last game in Warmachine because the Cryx caster had a high def and was up on a hill, giving her a higher defense. It was down to the wire and I had to kill her that turn or he'd kill my caster with a charging Slayer jack. I shot everything I had at the caster but just couldn't hit her because of that stupid hill.

Yes, Warmachine uses scenery and they do it better than 40k because the scenery actually matters and isn't there for just decoration.

**Mr Morden**

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.

Best post here...............