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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with pulp. A pulp novel may well never find itself amongst the classics, but it can still be a damn fine read.

Deadnight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Nothing wrong with pulp. Some of what we consider classics were the pulp of their days. Stephan King is considered pulp by many and he'll be remembered long after the elite literatti are gone.

Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with pulp. A pulp novel may well never find itself amongst the classics, but it can still be a damn fine read.

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

 heartserenade wrote:
I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
I wish I can love Warmahordes, I really do. I mean, I like balanced and tight rules, I love fantasy AND steampunk. Giant steampunk robots fighting alongside magic casters? Sign me up!

But the models don't really do it for me. They... really don't.

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

Well that's no better than former 40k players who walk around FLGS trying to convince people looking at 40k models that are overpriced and that it's a dumb game. I mean, it's just disrespectful either way.

Personally, I think they are both cool games. I'm happy for competition, too -- keeps everyone honest!

How is dumb? if it is true. a w40k army cost more then a Warmachine one. The books alone cost almost as much as a new army for WM. Plus entry point is a huge difference. One can play with one 35 pts list and have fun and play normal games. If someone brings 750pts of w40k, he may get one or two games and then everyone will expect him to bring a normal legal army of 1500 or more.

And before someone says am pro PP. I would like to point out that PP in general may make a nice game, but they droped the ball on selling it here hard.

Makumba wrote:
How is dumb? if it is true. a w40k army cost more then a Warmachine one. The books alone cost almost as much as a new army for WM. Plus entry point is a huge difference. One can play with one 35 pts list and have fun and play normal games. If someone brings 750pts of w40k, he may get one or two games and then everyone will expect him to bring a normal legal army of 1500 or more.

And before someone says am pro PP. I would like to point out that PP in general may make a nice game, but they droped the ball on selling it here hard.

This is like trying to compare tennis to skiing. You need a lot less gear, you can play for much shorter times, the risk of injury is lower, and competitively, it has rules much less prone to subjective interpretation... So it must be better, right? Or, that salads are superior to steaks, nutritionally, pricewise, for your blood pressure and long term health, and so on.

At the end of the day, it's interesting to compare them, but they are such different games that it's better to either enjoy both, or give both a long hard look and pick one.

WayneTheGame wrote:

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Same like there's nothing wrong about not being able to get into WMH. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad game. The issue is that usually the pro-40k crowd will dismiss anything that isn't 40k for various reasons, some of which are completely nonsensical and come off as trying to find anything to justify their game choice.

Let me start off by saying that I am part of the 40K crowd. I don't play WMH, but I did try out WM when it first came out, and it just wasn't for me. I even read the Iron Kingdoms RPG, and just couldn't get into it. Steampunk is not one of my favorite genres though, so its no big surprise. And while I like Joe Mad's comic art style, I did not like how the Giant Upper Body / Tiny Lower Body style translated to the table top. However, I've never understood the need for gamers in general (this applies to various types of games, including video games) to just completely go off the rails in their attempts to bash a game they don't play. Look at any Call of Duty forum, and its littered with Battlefield fans trolling. Same goes for Dakka, and pretty much any other table top game site. Heck, even RPG forums have trolling! Its crazy!

As a member of the pro-40K crowd, I take issue with the statement in bold above. Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion, its just that we are sick and tired of being preached to about how our game sucks, WMH is the one true game, and we are absolute morons for not selling our 40K armies, and immediately purchasing WMH armies. After seeing so many good discussions get completely derailed because some pro-WMH trolls just won't accept that not everybody loves PP's game and that yes, some of us have no interest in playing another table top game for whatever reason (time, money, lack of interest, etc), is it any wonder that even the non-trolling WMH fans catch so much grief when they post on a 40K discussion? Anymore, at the first mention of WMH or PP, the 40Kers have to circle the wagons to try and run off the interlopers just so we can continue our discussion

I am curious though, do the WMH forums on Dakka get a lot of 40Kers posting negatively about PP? I am not trying to be contrary, I'm genuinely curious if its a two-way street and that's why this war persists.

Don't agree with pretty much the entire OP.

Not about lists? If you aren't prepared for certain casters you will lose before you start. If you aren't familiar with meta shifts you're screwed.

Leads onto point 2. Starting out is cheap in WMH, but you eventually need to branch out to the point where it costs just as much as 40k.

Also the models are a decade behind GW, at least.

^ This. Starting WMH is cheaper, buying 2 50 point lists is not cheaper.

For me it comes down to what I want out of a sci fi/fantasy game, and that's good modeling and fluff. Game wise there are historicals I can play that put wmh to sleep any day, so when I'm trying to immerse myself in a fictional world I'll choose depth of fluff, aesthetics, model quality and customization over a rulesets (within reason) any day.

WMH just doesn't deliver on those fronts for me. And though the game might be mechanically tighter, just does not appeal to my tastes when it comes to sci fi, where I want dramatic large scale battles fought by armies that I can truly call my own.

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

ClassicCarraway wrote:Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion

In a way, we are, though.

In the same way that a 40k battle report or a WHFB thread, or a Swap shop bid doesn't have it's place in 40k general, neither do endless expositions about WMH. 40k general is about 40k, not about other games with the only thin thread of congruity being "oh, and 40k sucks". If I kept on starting threads or posting comments about tic-tac-toe in 40k forums, I'd be ignored and dismissed as well, especially if the whole point to my thread/comment is about how you should play tic-tac-toe instead of 40k.

We come together in this part of the forum to talk about a game we like and how to enrich the experience. Yet another "how dare you be happy, do my non-40k thing instead" is just as off-topic to the entire point of the forum as the first time such a thing was said. I mean, I'd ignore someone if they said "don't play 40k, driving sports cars is way more fun", and I'd add them to my ignore list if that's the one thing they kept pushing over and over again. They're not actually contributing anything relevant, so why not dismiss them?

Of course, in a thread that's comparing two games, it would make sense to throw down opinions comparing two games. In every other case, it's more or less just trolling. As is complaining about people complaining about you. As is trying to "win" a discussion by proving that an unrelated opinion somehow makes the holder a better person in any way.

the_scotsman wrote:
You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

I might get it wrong but most hate comes from the former 40k players.

 koooaei wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
You generally can't go a day on one of these forums without hearing "oh WMH is better in every way" and god forbid you ever mention you enjoy 40k to a WMH player, it's honestly really infuriating to listen to.

I might get it wrong but most hate comes from the former 40k players.

What's your point?

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

In any case I was talking aesthetics. In the background, in WMH good shots can hit their targets with rifles at four to six hundred metres. Gunnbjorn knocked the helmet of a trencher with a round from this range in one piece of nq fluff. But for gameplay (ie not wanting two gunlines not moving out of their deployment zone) and balance (ie give melee a role to play) the ranges have been shortened.

Interestingly, in the ikrpg, you can shoot beyond that 12" range cap. Often to a max range of a few dozen 'inches'. It's just at a -5penalty to your roll. With aiming, a tripod and a scope, you can negate it. It's a lot of work/investment for a long range shot, but it kind of makes sense.

Talys wrote:

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

Can't stand that movie.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

As a member of the pro-40K crowd, I take issue with the statement in bold above. Its not that the pro-40K crowd dismisses any other opinion, its just that we are sick and tired of being preached to about how our game sucks, WMH is the one true game, and we are absolute morons for not selling our 40K armies, and immediately purchasing WMH armies. After seeing so many good discussions get completely derailed because some pro-WMH trolls just won't accept that not everybody loves PP's game and that yes, some of us have no interest in playing another table top game for whatever reason (time, money, lack of interest, etc), is it any wonder that even the non-trolling WMH fans catch so much grief when they post on a 40K discussion? Anymore, at the first mention of WMH or PP, the 40Kers have to circle the wagons to try and run off the interlopers just so we can continue our discussion

To be fair, I don't think he was referring to the whole community, there are some 40k players who are proper trolls too, and some constantly preach untruths about other games too (imbalance being good for variety, gw make the best rules(from a guy who never played other ttgs too), another one from earlier was other games fluff being terrible (and seemingly said without any familiarity)and not on a par with gw etc).

You can be objective about discussing the faults of the game you play. Gw games have plenty. The rules do 'suck' when you examine how clunky and unwieldy they really are. You can acknowledge this and still enjoy your games with your mates. You can discuss these things objectively without needing to circle any wagons. It's not a personal attack.
WMH is the one true game? Nope. And to be fair, I've not seen many say this. It's a great, tight, exciting and well designed game. It's got its issues and it's not all things for all folks. It doesn't so whist infinity or dzc do. If you ask me to list my criticisms of pp games for completeness, I will. To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me to find most pp gamers had their 'bit' on the side as well.
You're a moron for not selling your armies bad buying into pp? Source please. And fwiw, I still have my tau and don't part with them.

If you've come to an honest appraisal that something is not for you -then fair play. I'll say the same about malifaux. It's the other things that grind my gears-none of which you or many other non-pp players have done. *tips hat and leaves an internet beer*

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

In any case I was talking aesthetics. In the background, in WMH good shots can hit their targets with rifles at four to six hundred metres. Gunnbjorn knocked the helmet of a trencher with a round from this range in one piece of nq fluff. But for gameplay (ie not wanting two gunlines not moving out of their deployment zone) and balance (ie give melee a role to play) the ranges have been shortened.

Interestingly, in the ikrpg, you can shoot beyond that 12" range cap. Often to a max range of a few dozen 'inches'. It's just at a -5penalty to your roll. With aiming, a tripod and a scope, you can negate it. It's a lot of work/investment for a long range shot, but it kind of makes sense.

Talys wrote:

Pulp fiction is good! (pun intended)

Can't stand that movie.

lol. if you want to pick at realism, Oribital is a pretty darn good attack (S10 large blast, infinite range), so why not just nuke the other side with 100 orbitals before you send in the infantry? It's a game, man. Having unlimited range on every weapon would not be fun.

I'm glad that you like WMH game mechanics. I think 40k game mechanics and its unit variety makes the game board infinitely more interesting, and it's more interesting for me to play large scale rather than small scale games. I'm not really a skirmish game guy; I want to drool at my opponent's awesomely modelled army that he's proud of assembling, and then relish in the epic battle between two great forces.

Pulp Fiction -- see, this is an hugely successful movie that you don't like. Not everyone has the same taste. Just like some people prefer 40k, or "can't stand WMH".

Talys wrote:

lol. if you want to pick at realism, Oribital is a pretty darn good attack (S10 large blast, infinite range), so why not just nuke the other side with 100 orbitals before you send in the infantry? It's a game, man. Having unlimited range on every weapon would not be fun.
.

p

Not picking on anything mate, just making a point. Both are games, not accuracy simulations. I just find it odd that someone has a go at WMH for having unrealistic weapon ranges when 40k has this too, and so much more besides.

Talys wrote:

I'm glad that you like WMH game mechanics. I think 40k game mechanics and its unit variety makes the game board infinitely more interesting, and it's more interesting for me to play large scale rather than small scale games. I'm not really a skirmish game guy; I want to drool at my opponent's awesomely modelled army that he's proud of assembling, and then relish in the epic battle between two great forces.
".

If that's what you want,then hats off to you sir. IMO flames of war or epic gives me a better sense of a large scale battle though than 40k.

And one wee point: you can still drool at your opponents awesomely modelled army that he is proud of assembling in other games as well. 40k doesn't have a monopoly there - I've seen some truly stunning WMH and infinity armies, as well as 40k and fantasy ones in my time. Makes you ashamed to put your stuff up against them!

Talys wrote:

Pulp Fiction -- see, this is an hugely successful movie that you don't like. Not everyone has the same taste. Just like some people prefer 40k, or "can't stand WMH".

Question: why are you addressing this to me? I already appreciate, and understand all this talys. Different strokes etc. some if my best mates can't stand WMH.

But for what it's worth, I think this is a fairer point. My favourite movie of all time is funnily enough, transformers:the movie. Not mr.bay's recent offerings, I mean the 1986 cartoon. You know, the one with plot holes so large you could drive a nascar through them. And yet, I still love it. Here's the thing. My love for this movie is in spite of its flaws. They're not unknown to me. I see them. I acknowledge it's faults. I don't pretend they don't exist. But it's still my favourite movie despite this.

And if you come to me and say the same thing about 40k, that despite its flaws it's still your game, that you and you buddies work around those issues, and house rule them, then fair play. No one should ever hold it against you. But this is not the same as saying 40k is a better game because of its flaws.

As someone relatively unfamiliar with WMH, this was a good read.

I'm not a fan of steampunk, so WMH doesn't appeal to me so much, but I am a fan of having a market with choices, so I'm glad to hear PP is doing a good job with their rule set and offering up some decent competition.

Deadnight wrote:
\
Not picking on anything mate, just making a point. Both are games, not accuracy simulations. I just find it odd that someone has a go at WMH for having unrealistic weapon ranges when 40k has this too, and so much more besides.

I think I just missed part of the conversation Yeah, neither game gets distance or scale (in the sense of size of unit versus size of objects) right, but these are compromises necessary to keep the games fun and the models affordable.

Deadnight wrote:
If that's what you want,then hats off to you sir. IMO flames of war or epic gives me a better sense of a large scale battle though than 40k.

And one wee point: you can still drool at your opponents awesomely modelled army that he is proud of assembling in other games as well. 40k doesn't have a monopoly there - I've seen some truly stunning WMH and infinity armies, as well as 40k and fantasy ones in my time. Makes you ashamed to put your stuff up against them!

I wish I enjoyed historicals :( I just can't get into something without power weapons or magic. FoW looks like a blast, watching other people play. My reference to the large armies is really the number of troops on a table. For whatever reason, I don't get very excited when I see 30 models on each end.

Deadnight wrote:
Question: why are you addressing this to me? I already appreciate, and understand all this talys. Different strokes etc. some if my best mates can't stand WMH.

But for what it's worth, I think this is a fairer point. My favourite movie of all time is funnily enough, transformers:the movie. Not mr.bay's recent offerings, I mean the 1986 cartoon. You know, the one with plot holes so large you could drive a nascar through them. And yet, I still love it. Here's the thing. My love for this movie is in spite of its flaws. They're not unknown to me. I see them. I acknowledge it's faults. I don't pretend they don't exist. But it's still my favourite movie despite this.

And if you come to me and say the same thing about 40k, that despite its flaws it's still your game, that you and you buddies work around those issues, and house rule them, then fair play. No one should ever hold it against you. But this is not the same as saying 40k is a better game because of its flaws.

Did I misquote? I'm sorry if I did. I thought it was you who said you didn't get Pulp Fiction, and I was simply using that to illustrate how a film that some people love, other people just think is weird or terrible. It's just so subjective.

Your point with transformers is well taken. To give a similar parallel, I like the last Star Trek movie even though it had plot holes the size of Jupiter in it (why didn't they take blood from one of Khan's compatriots... they had a cargo bay full of 'em!). In the case of 40k, I think the flaws are just so dramatically overstated. By the way, I also have a fond memory of the transformers cartoon movie, even if it isn't at the top of my list

I would concede that 40k is easier to break than many other games, but with the caveat that I probably wouldn't play with the people who try to do that anyhow, so what would it matter?

 Toofast wrote:
^ This. Starting WMH is cheaper, buying 2 50 point lists is not cheaper.

Actually I kept track of that. Currently I've got and am playing around with a 35 point list, I've bought so far:

2 clampack solos (15$)
2 clampack minis (10$)
2 different heavy vectors (35$)
1 light vector (25$)
And my starter kit (sale 30$, regularly 50$)

And that's a balanced list about equivalent to a 1500 point 40k list. I'm planning on expanding up to 50 with a box of heavy infantry and...I dunno something that gets me 6 points. Maybe another light vector and a second directrix. Either way, I'm pretty solidly in for 175$ and though I'm not a master of the game by any stretch I have managed to win a game against a list with a bunch of (is it incorporeal?) units which were the stated Big Weakness of my army. (For those that don't know WMH there are some ghosty type units that have equivalent of the Invisibility power in 40k and to get through it you need magical weapons-and my army only has a single unit that can grant others Magical Weapon)

So why is it you need two full 50pt lists? I've heard that thrown around a couple places is it for tournaments and the like? Do they need to be 1 Warmachine 1 Hordes? Because I'm pretty happy at present with my little force, it seems pretty flexible and cost me only a bit more than just the requisite books needed to get into a 40k army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'd like to clarify here: I love both 40k and WMH, for different reasons. Just like a lot of people have voiced in this thread, I had a huge problem getting into WMH initially because A) the giant anthropomorphic robots didn't appeal to me and B) the factions seemed more like "pick a color!" (And I'm not so much a fantasy guy so I didn't really consider hordes initially)

That changed a bit when I saw Cyriss. This is the one faction that has a real honest to god Sci Fi feel in the Steampunk of warmachine. Alien scuttling omnidirectional tripod robots supporting hulking monstrosities scuttling forward on spider limbs and packing under slung heavy weaponry. Even my commander is a stately, floating pillar with an expressionless face carved into the top, his weaponry a pair of wicked Swiss Army knife style tool arrays. They hit a vibe with me I haven't gotten since my Necrons got retconned into space Egyptians, and their gameplay is an oh so sweet ticking clockwork machine as the robots can advance, attack, and transfer off power to one of their fellows, allowing you to power up a whole wave of your Vectors with careful planning ahead where any other faction would only be capable of powering one.

So that's what finally did it for me at least, though I fell more instantly and violently in love with the Orks when I first started 40k in middle school

RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

I used to think GW special characters were occasionally ridicilously prized, but seeing that Butcher3 costs 51 euros that´s... more than a beginner battlegroup box, and more than one players army from the 2-player set that includes one or two additional units.

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

Not just possible, but in some cases competitive. The Warcaster would be Absylonia. ( Incase you meant a beast -heavy list with very little infantry/solos. )

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

WayneTheGame wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

Yeah I was less of a fan of the Godzilla looking ones like the Carnivean and Ravagore just in terms of aesthetics, but I was loving the Angelius, Seraph, and Typhon just looks amazing, but if ravagore a are auto includes I could get them too. I dunno, I was just scoping out legion as my second list, initially I was turned off it because of the weird Godzilla dragons and the seemingly unavoidable Pansy Elf Tax.

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
RE: 50 lists, it depends on what you get. Two 50 point Legion beast-heavy lists will cost you less than a 1,000 point 40k army. Two 50 point Circle lists that are beast + construct is going to run you a lot (but still around the same as a normal 40k army) because there is very little overlap between the two.

In most cases though, I've found that I can get two lists for WMH for the price of a single 40k list, that also gives me tons more variety in what I can field and how it plays because changing the Warcaster can change an entire army without touching a single other model.

I'm in sort of a weird place because I want to like 40k again, I love the models and the fluff and fondly reminisce every time I pick up one of the old White Dwarfs that I have lying around. I just can't with the current state of it. The crazy high prices, the poor rules, the lack of balance, just all of those things together make me not want to bother when I can spend that money on WMH instead and have models that I like (although not as good quality-wise) and a balanced game with a company behind it that cares. Even though I know there is a 40k community near me, it's not worth getting into with how the game is right now. So I became a Press Ganger instead and now extol the virtues of WMH.

So, just out of curiosity....say a guy really liked the looks of the Legion winged dragon and hydra beasts, would it be possible to create a good list out of them and which caster would you go for? Just for future reference.

That's basically how most competitive Legion goes. Vayl2, Saeryn, Aby2 etc all use a lot of those. Most Legion lists use 1+ Angelius (six winged dragon) and 2x Ravagores (dragon spitting fire) or Scytheans (dragon with scythe claws). Lylyth2, Saeryn, Vayl, Absylonia, etc are all good with that type of list.

Yeah I was less of a fan of the Godzilla looking ones like the Carnivean and Ravagore just in terms of aesthetics, but I was loving the Angelius, Seraph, and Typhon just looks amazing, but if ravagore a are auto includes I could get them too. I dunno, I was just scoping out legion as my second list, initially I was turned off it because of the weird Godzilla dragons and the seemingly unavoidable Pansy Elf Tax.

Most Legion lists are beast heavy, there are a few ways to play with lots of "Pansy Elf" infantry but not usually beyond solos (Shepherd) or things like the "Pot & Lunch Ladies" (Spawning Vessel & attendants)

Right, beast heavy would be optimal. I was considering pairing typhus up with the seraph to swoop the big boy across the field and have him gobble up something important but every list I'm seeing is Angelius+Ravagore or Angelius+Scythean and I'm not a fan of either ravagore or Scythean particularly... Just because they look like every other heavy warbeastie in the game but with a dragon head instead of a troll head or wolf head or elephant head.

@Runic Yeah, but Butcher3 comes with 2 war beasts. He's almost a battlegroup aside from it being the wrong game (hordes vs. machine).

Warmahordes is cheaper, and while it is true that you will buy over time, it's also true of 40K, and you will often buy multiples.

Internal balance is much, MUCH better in warmahordes, and the rules are much tighter. Indeed, nothing is 'useless', or even 'strictly worse'. Ie, Ghost Sniper vs Heavy Rifle Team(crippled by Light Artillery rules). The sniper is more mobile and more accurate, yet there are cases you would take HRT, often in theme lists, for its advantages if Tiers, and Unit over Solo.

Warmahordes relies much more on you comprehending exactly what your models are capable of, but there's enough give-and-take that you're never truly helpless, and you're never really out of the running. Another case of Warmahordes being superior to Warhammer.

Warhammer does have much superior models, in material at least, and I will at least give that the field often looks much more visually impressive. People are drawn to the model count of Hammer vs Machine, I've found.

Personally, I play Warmahordes when I'm looking to tie my mind in knots trying to plan 30-odd steps ahead, and Warhammer when I'm looking for something that, while still tactical, is less mentally intensive.

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

 Las wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Las wrote:

Edit: and on the subject of wmh weaponry, that's another thing that makes no sense to me. 16" firearm projectile range does not translate to 17th-19th century tech. That's less useful than a 16th century hookgun. What you have is magic robots and black powder weaponry with worse range threat than a bow and arrow.

Neither does 24" make sense on a futuristic laser gun in 40k. Nor does two shots accurately represent the massive rof of these weapons, especially when some dood puts out a dozen attacks with a sword in melee over both players turns. No thanks.

Yeah, you're right it was a dumb thing for me to pick on.

On the topic of cost, can you really say X wmh is comparable to Y 40k list when the former has far less models in it (for the most part, let's ignore GK and other low model armies for a second) and would inherently be cheaper?

Yes? Because that's how the game is designed and how many decisions you have to make on a turn. A squad of heavy infantry in WMH is usually 5 models, a squad of heavy infantry in 40k is usually 5-15. A squad of lights in WMH is 10 models usually while a light squad in 40 k can be up to 30. They're different scale games to be sure, but it comes down to gaming vs modeling. A full sized 40k game generally has the same number of units as a full sized WMH game, but the 40k game has more, and bigger, models. So as I said in the OP, from a modeling side 40k is a clear winner but from a gaming side WMH is cheaper and more finely balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting that the upfront cost of the rulebooks and starter box for WMH is 1 starter box at 50 bucks, 2 optional 30 dollar rulebooks, or a 90 dollar 2 player starter box with the rulebook and 1 optional 30 dollar book. The starter cost for 40k is a 100 dollar starter box w/rules plus a 50 dollar codex, or a 100 dollar battle force, 70 dollar rulebook and 50 dollar codex, all mandatory.