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.

Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

That's too bad, but it's understandable. Hopefully that kind of thing dies down over time, and you might be able to try the game while feeling better about it.

As an aside, I really do like the fact that both games exist. I'm primarily a WMH player, but I fully understand that not everyone wants an intense tactical workout every time they sit down, where half-inches can mean the game. It's a very specific kind of fun, and I certainly don't find it relaxing. Wouldn't trade it for anything else, but...

I think Malifaux and WMH are a better comparison?

Enjoying the former alot and the latter not so much..............

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

I've encountered this as well, it's really quite sad.

 Las wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I can intellectually concede that WMH is good/superior to 40K, in some aspects, but I've seen enough trolling on forums and in RL that I'm uninterested in that community.

BTW, I'm sure it happens in reverse (40k trolls darkening WMH's door), and PP fans are way more positive than GW fans, but rotten apples have already spoiled that barrel.

I truly do harbor no ill will to my local WMH players... I just find their worse elements off putting, and I do police my own to make sure we rise above it and don't return favors in kind.

I've encountered this as well, it's really quite sad.

I far too often find the opposite: 40k players who bash everything else and praise how great 40k and GW is. But I agree either of these types of people are bad.

Just to chime in : WMH is not a skirmish game. At least by the standart definition , where one unit=one model. For me Warmachine is a battle game, just smaller than 40K. Actually 40K is pretty much unique amongst its peers and the only games comparable are the historicasl and those that use smaller models like FoW ,Dystopian Wars and DZC.

 TychoTerziev wrote:
Just to chime in : WMH is not a skirmish game. At least by the standart definition , where one unit=one model. For me Warmachine is a battle game, just smaller than 40K. Actually 40K is pretty much unique amongst its peers and the only games comparable are the historicasl and those that use smaller models like FoW ,Dystopian Wars and DZC.

Warmachine doesn't quite fall into any category. It's roughly like 2nd edition 40k, which was considered a skirmish game but was really larger than that (Necromunda being the skirmish game). I guess it could technically be considered company level, but I think it's a bit less than that.

You're right though, 40k is unique for the size it wants to do because virtually every other game has smaller scale and/or offers bulk figures at reasonable prices for the sole reason that they know you need a lot of it.

The closest comparison to 40k right now is Bolt Action, which is slightly smaller for average play (exactly company/platoon level) and priced accordingly to the size. A typical BA game has a few squads, a light vehicle maybe, one tank (all you are allowed without multiple detachments, unless you're playing the Tank Wars version), and some larger sized bases for weapons like howitzers and mortars. And, IMHO, that should also be the appropriate size for 40k.

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

List building is a force multiplier in any game, the only reason WMH suffers less from it is because it has a lot less variety and thus a lot less variability in power levels.

Not that it's a bad thing for a game, simpler games are always more balanced.

I would say that on that front, not having played WMH, 40K is fairly balanced for a game so diverse.

There are literally dozens of very different mechanics for the simple action of shooting at something, and it doesn't break the game, that's quite a feat.

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

40K is WAY cheaper. Not only do you get a vast collection of the highest quality miniatures, you get them for cheaper.

Players make 40K expensive, because old players gradually moved from 500 points to 2000 points and more as they collected more and more miniatures.

The game by itself is *very* affordable, you can start playing at 500 points for less than $100 (Dark Vengeance), and make it a balanced game by removing a few loyalists or adding a few chaos.

When WMH will be as old and vast as 40K, then maybe there will be a useful comparison.

Right now it's a young and simple game versus an old and complex one, pointless.

the_scotsman wrote:

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y.

I think that's just wrong. Outplaying and outwitting in 40K is a reality, even if the diversity implies a much improved strategical aspect (list building).



I can see why people would prefer games with simpler (and thus better) rules, with less variation (and thus better balance) and a younger ecosystem (and thus less points standard).

I just don't think it's worth pretending that one game is "better" than the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
Good post, OP.

I must say, for those who said otherwise, I do encounter WMH players that want to venture over and take cheap shots during a game of 40k. That, more than anything else, has turned me off to the game.

I've also read/ heard a lot of "WMH is just better" and stuff.

I can see how it's another compromise that might be more interesting to some people, no point in trying to convince me the game I like "has the most horrible rules ever".

1. WMH is not a simple game and the unit interactions are quite complex with many special rules for each unit.
2. Age of the game has nothing to do with it. 40k has gotten bloated and incoherent because of lazy rules writing, not age. And 40k is not as balanced as it could be and with some actually simple measures could be far more balanced. It's just that the rules writers are too rushed, lazy or just don't care. (As evidenced by how easy many of the fixes are. example: discarding cards you can't use in mealstrom or fixing the Wave Serpent's shield.)
3. Players didn't make 40k more expensive, GW did. With each codex they continue to lower points so you can fit more and more units into 1500 points. I watched from RT as the game got bigger and bigger. "Wow! With my new dex I can fit in a whole new Predator!" Fast forward five editions and the army has nearly doubled in size.

You're partially right about neither game is 'better.' I would say that WMH has tighter, better written rules, has more tactical depth and is more affordable to more people, but that's not to say someone will enjoy it more. Different strokes for different folks. (Too 'intense' for some, asthetics and fluff might not be for everyone...but really the fluff is fantastic and there's more of it and its far better than many realize.) But I would highly suggest learning more about the game and maybe trying a few demos of it. That way you could make more accurate comparisons.

WMH has always been largely irrelevant for me because I don't like the models. The game could be awesome but I just can't pay money to buy models I don't like.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
WMH has always been largely irrelevant for me because I don't like the models. The game could be awesome but I just can't pay money to buy models I don't like.

Understandable. I'm the same way with Deadzone.

@Morgoth: WMH has 300+ units. I wouldn't call this '' lot less variety''.

If you're seriously going to try and claim that 40k is cheaper because you can play at 500 points, then WMH is still cheaper because you can play at Battlebox level - $50 gets you that, so less than Dark Vengeance (not to mention that you have more variety instead of being limited to 2 factions) and you don't need to buy another $50 book when you want to expand. Or if you want one of the two factions in the 2-player box, that runs about the same as Dark Vengeance and gives more than the minimum to start, without it being totally lopsided in favor of one faction.

Sorry but no. The standard minimum sized game for 40k has mostly been 1,000 points since almost forever (sometimes 750). Just because you can play Kill Team doesn't mean that should factor in as an average game, since Kill Team isn't an average way of playing the game. WMH is cheaper to start, and evens out over time (or even goes over depending). 40k starts out expensive and never really changes.

I think Dark Vengeance IS 40K and acceptably cheap.

The lack of balance of the box can easily be fixed, and the quality of the models makes up for the difference in my opinion.

40K is cheaper because you get better miniatures for less.

Dark vengeance is only 2 factions, which happen to be the 2 weakest factions in power level, with push fit models that severely limit any kind of conversion potential and no codexes. Yes, the models are better than WMH battle boxes in every way possible. It's still pretty crappy to say the only affordable way to play 40k is with dark vengeance. If someone could only afford dark vengeance I would recommend WMH to them as I sure as hell wouldn't want to build some push fit models to have a 750 point army from the weakest faction in 40k and no codex. If someone has $500-700 to spend, can't get into WMH aesthetics and has a regular local player group that has already house ruled the game sufficiently to make it playable and balanced in their meta I would recommend 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw at 750 I can take
spiritseer (70)
5 dire avengers (200)
Wave serpent, scatter lasers, holo fields
5 dire avengers (200)
Wave serpent, scatter lasers, holo fields
wraithknight, suncannon and scattershield (280)
Total - 750

Bring your dark vengeance list against that and tell me how much fun it is getting tabled on turn 2 without taking a wound or HP from anything in my army.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 1: "list building is everything in 40k, in WMH no unit is underpowered or overpowered!"

List building is a force multiplier in any game, the only reason WMH suffers less from it is because it has a lot less variety and thus a lot less variability in power levels.

Not that it's a bad thing for a game, simpler games are always more balanced.

I would say that on that front, not having played WMH, 40K is fairly balanced for a game so diverse.

There are literally dozens of very different mechanics for the simple action of shooting at something, and it doesn't break the game, that's quite a feat.

The argument that WMH is a “simpler” game with less variety is flawed on a number of levels. At the last count, there were over 860 special rules and abilities in the game. Regarding the comment about variety - again, its there. 10 main factions, with six or seven sub factions on the side as well. All with different war casters, jacks, beasts, units and solos. You’ve easily got a few hundred choices there. how they each interact with each other leads to a further staggering number of interactions and variety. I would also argue with regard to that comment on variety - 40k doesn’t offer variety, it offers the illusion of variety. Sure, you’ve got hundreds of options, but how many of them, really, are any good? How many are viable? And how many are wasted ink on a page? I’d argue that,practically speaking, ten, or twenty ‘real’ options offers far more variety than a hundred ‘paper’ options where only one or two are ever worth fielding. What hits the table top reflects the balance in the writing. Whilst you have less choice in terms of artificial ‘numbers’, you have more choice in practical terms, when it comes to stuff that is actually useful on the table top.

Second point: you’ve not played WMH. How then can you compare? 40k is not a fairly balanced game for one that is so ‘diverse’. in terms of its content, a huge amount of it boils down to different varieties of the same thing (ie power armour with different bling) with the same 44441418 3+ statline, or slight variation thereof. A lot of its ranges of stats are quite small - with a huge range of interactions boiled down to 'doing something on a roll of a 3-5', stats profiles hovering around the 3-5 and armour values ranging from 10-14. Remember, being a 'bloated' game is not the same as being a 'diverse' game.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Argument 2: "Warhammer 40k is WAY more expensive"

40K is WAY cheaper. Not only do you get a vast collection of the highest quality miniatures, you get them for cheaper.

Players make 40K expensive, because old players gradually moved from 500 points to 2000 points and more as they collected more and more miniatures.

The game by itself is *very* affordable, you can start playing at 500 points for less than $100 (Dark Vengeance), and make it a balanced game by removing a few loyalists or adding a few chaos.

When WMH will be as old and vast as 40K, then maybe there will be a useful comparison.

Right now it's a young and simple game versus an old and complex one, pointless.
.

How do you get them for cheaper? price per model is the same, or more, and a greater up-front buy in is required to get up to the standard game sizes.

40k is affordable if you play ‘budget hammer’ - sure. But when building an average sized army, it’ll cost you quite a bit. And DV isn’t the ‘full’ game.

Regarding the point about WMH not being as old and vast as 40k - its something a lot of people don’t seem to realise - PP is getting there. PP have been around for almost 15 years, and WMH is coming on to 11 or twelve years old. If you were to compare the state of balance of WMH now to 40k then, you would still find 40k to be an absolute mess of a game in terms of balance.

And again, a “simple” game? No sir, not by a long shot. It is far more complex and deep game than 40k im afraid. And it is far from ‘pointless’ to compare them. Considering they are the ‘main games’ in a lot of places, valid comparisons are valid.

morgoth wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

But what's the major difference?

WMH is a tactical miniatures game. 40k is more like a "simulator" or a war game like Flames of War. There's a distinct difference between one where you try to outplay and outwit your opponent with varying tactics and abilities and resources at your disposal and the other where you want a representation of what would happen if X fought Y.

I think that's just wrong. Outplaying and outwitting in 40K is a reality, even if the diversity implies a much improved strategical aspect (list building).

I can see why people would prefer games with simpler (and thus better) rules, with less variation (and thus better balance) and a younger ecosystem (and thus less points standard).

I just don't think it's worth pretending that one game is "better" than the other.

Outplaying and outwitting is a reality? Really. That certainly wasn’t the case when iron warriors dominated fourth edition. It wasn’t the case for a lot of armies when they’d go up against grey knights, space wolves or IG leaf blower in fifth. All the tactical plays in the world would fall short against taudar, or the various 2++ rerollable deathstars in sixth when you played tyranids. Seventh? Par for the course really. 40k is a very shallow game in terms of its tactical depth (and this can be both good, and bad-I don’t always want the white knuckle ride that is a game of WMH)

Regarding the comments about preferring ’simpler’ games - you’re incorrect. WMH isn’t a ’simpler’ game. There is a huge amount going on, and a lot to take track of. Regarding ’less variation’ in practical terms, no, not really. Regarding a younger eco system - no, its just privateer press don’t hold ’lazy game design’ as a badge of honour.

Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Try playing a few games or even reading the rules and get to actually know what you're talking about and then come back. WMH is very complex, probably more so than 40k but it's also more intuitive and flows better due to better written rules.

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?

40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.


The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Try playing a few games or even reading the rules and get to actually know what you're talking about and then come back. WMH is very complex, probably more so than 40k but it's also more intuitive and flows better due to better written rules.

Perhaps, its certainly alot more finicky, but its also (IMO) less intuative and less flowing than Malifaux (having played a few games of both) ..................and which also seems ot have good well written rules and as a skirmish game remains a better comparison with 20- 30 figure (or less) games (wmh/H) versus 50-100 (40K).

wow, so much misinformation and ridiculous comparing;
.
example; Apples to Bananas, wrong, one is a Fruit and one is an Herb, so Gala Apples to Gala Apples would be a fair comparison.
.
Just know I play 40k, I have a Khador army for WMH, but am not fond of the game, now on to the comparison;
.
40k is not supported by GW.
(out of date FaQs buried/hidden on a different website does not count)
40K has no outriders at local FLGS to help players/customers.
(none)
40K has no sponsored tournaments.
(none, one games-day in the UK does not count)
40k does not take the communities input into account when it comes to game rules and balance.
(never has)
40K is completely unbalanced at any points level, a quick Google of what tournaments are doing or what players are saying will show that.
(three Knights list anyone?, Super-heavy? how many demon princes at 500 points? etc.)
40K is confusing.
(how many books, e-books, supplements, rules, data-slates, FW, and etc. are there? good luck keeping track)
40K modeling is confusing.
(how many different size and different looking models are there for the same weapon, looking at you Las Cannon, not to mention all the different configurations a model or unit can have, which once glued are impossible to change, and forget magnets, since when does the burden lie on the customer?)
40k models do not come with all the options available to said model or unit
(War-walkers only come with one of each weapon, when the model can have two of each, and GW has no way for a customer to buy missing weapons)
40k has no governing body to enforce wysiwyg. WMH the model IS what the model IS, and comes with it in the box.
40K is much more expensive, much more.
(Just purchasing ALL the publications, not to mention an Army, would break most banks $1000+. note; DV is DV, a beginner game, not wh40k)
etc.
Additionally note; 40k has only one Battle Bunker in the U.S. and tiny uninviting retail stores, none of which provide any answers, neither does GW Customer service.

My opinion of WMH;
WMH is a card game, with a figure representing the card, players could fold the card in half into a "tent" and use the card instead, no really.
If you like to build paint and "model" then WMH is very limited, as are historical games. That is one of the main draws of 40k, modeling and rule-of-cool.
But WMH is fast, easy to learn, a challenge to master, and a starter army can hold its own.
.
Insist on painted wysiwyg models, and the gimmick factor will slow in any miniatures game.

@rexscarlet

- You can abuse the rules if you want to, but the two sides can also play balanced games, if you want to, whether they are high-powered armies, or not. 3 IK can be taken down very easily with the right list.

- 40k rules are complex; if you want a simple or cheap game, don't play 40k.

- I don't know how 40k modelling is confusing >.<

- Most 40k models come with most of the equipment options. There are a few notable exceptions, but not many. WMH have no options at all.

- What the heck is a governing body to enforce wysiwig? Someone that will come into your house and say, "NO, YOU MUST PAINT THAT BLOOD ANGEL RED!!!!". In a tournament, the T.O. will have its rules. In a private game, use whatever you want, paper counters, proxies, or $10,000 of painted models.

- DV comes with exactly the same rulebook as hardcover BRB, so I don't understand how you can say it's a beginner game rather than 40k.

- WMH has some really beautiful models too.

- If you take the starter box army (the $100 comparable to DV), and you try to play against competitive players who have access to every unit within a point limit, you will lose most, if not all, of your games.

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

Hah! Touche. I guess "nobody" is too strong Yeah, there is the odd thread claming this, but personally, I think that's an indefensible position, unless you're highly restricting your game play to Kill Team or very low point games.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Talys wrote:

Nobody has ever said that Warhammer 40k is cheaper a hobby than WMH. If you don't want to invest hundreds to start and thousands over years, 40k is probably a poor choice as a game.

Well morgoth did say like 5 posts up that 40k is WAY cheaper...

Hah! Touche. I guess "nobody" is too strong Yeah, there is the odd thread claming this, but personally, I think that's an indefensible position, unless you're highly restricting your game play to Kill Team or very low point games.

I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

 ImAGeek wrote:
I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

Well, Kill Team gets rid of half of more than half of the models in the GW universe, haha

I think it's a great thing that both games exist, and I mostly agree with what you say. Keep in mind, the tighter rules are possible because of a much smaller number of unit types (which could be equally an argument for fewer unit types). I own *tons* of WMH models, but I find myself less inclined to work on them, because you can't put any uniqueness to the model itself, and also, I like their weaponry less. I like the staves and swords, but not so much the guns.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I agree completely and even then. Kill Team is hardly a standard points level and you can play WMH at lower points too.

They're different games for different people (well, I play both..). But I do think WMH has a tighter ruleset and is much more tactically deep, while 40k is a modellers dream. WMH for the game, 40k (and fantasy) for the models/settings. Not to take away from WMH models (but they're a very different aesthetic, I find they're more a love/hate kinda thing) or the setting (I love the Iron Kingdoms but it doesn't grab me quite like the old world or the 40k universe).

Well, Kill Team gets rid of half of more than half of the models in the GW universe, haha

I think it's a great thing that both games exist, and I mostly agree with what you say. Keep in mind, the tighter rules are possible because of a much smaller number of unit types (which could be equally an argument for fewer unit types). I own *tons* of WMH models, but I find myself less inclined to work on them, because you can't put any uniqueness to the model itself, and also, I like their weaponry less. I like the staves and swords, but not so much the guns.

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

morgoth wrote:
Doesn't WMH also have top builds ?
).

it has popular builds-sure, but that is not the same thing. Bradigus and his Wold War theme list, for example is getting a lot of attention at the moment. Its a brutal list. It really is a nasty piece of work. but you know what? you can deal with it.

ultimately, everything can be built into a game winning strategy, and everything has its counter. nothing dominates.

morgoth wrote:

How can a game with a quarter of a 2000 points 40K army not be simpler ?

model count is not proportional to complexity. Or can you push, pull, head butt, slam, or throw things in 40k? Do you have the huge amount of combos and interactions between spells, feats and abilities? smaller games are not necessarily simpler. you do 'more' with each model in WMH than you do in 40k - in general with 40k, most models are ablative wounds for the guy with the meltagun.

With respect, it would help if you actually tried the game. Trying to make points from an uninformed position can be tricky.

morgoth wrote:

How can a game without vehicles, monstrous creatures, flyers and super heavies not be simpler ?
.

vehicles? Oh, you mean like the warjacks?
monstrous creatures? you mean warbeasts?
flyers? yup, WMH also has flying stuff. various legion dragonspawn and other things besides.
Super heavies? er... colossals? gargantuans?

morgoth wrote:


40K with 500 points, no vehicles, MCs, flyers and SH is a lot simpler too. In fact it's Dark Vengeance simple.
.

the difference between a game of DV and a small 25pointer in WMH is still staggering. there is so much going on in the latter.

morgoth wrote:

The main things you seem to be holding against 40K are just player facts.

The competitive meta, the high point armies .. those things have nothing to do with 40K the game and everything to do with your local scene (and arguably that's the case in many places).

Nope. the competitive meta has everything to do with 40k the game when the game is so poorly designed that competitive play is so wonky and lopsided. regarding high points armies - GW have been pushing bigger games since second ed. its a fact. nothing to do with a local scene.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

By unit types, I mean infantry, characters, walkers, skimmers, flyers, monstrous creatures, lords of war, artillery, transports, vehicles, super-heavies, heavy support, fast attack, and that kind of thing. Plus, special types like drop pods, bikes, jet bikes, jump, etc.

More generally, in giant units, flying units, vehicle, transportation, and artillery each of which have very specific and different rules.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

Eh I'm not so sure there is a much smaller number of unit types. Each faction has at least as many options as 40k ones do. Unless you mean unit types as in infantry, jump infantry, walker, MC, etc... Then yeah I guess. But like you say, maybe that's a sign that needs streamlining

I agree on the models. I love customisability in games (models, equipment load out etc) which is why I rarely use SC in 40k, and make my own, unless I love a character. I'm not so keen on the guns either. The WMH models have grown on me a lot but bar a couple, they're still a way behind the better GW models.

By unit types, I mean infantry, characters, walkers, skimmers, flyers, monstrous creatures, lords of war, artillery, transports, vehicles, super-heavies, heavy support, fast attack, and that kind of thing. Plus, special types like drop pods, bikes, jet bikes, jump, etc.

More generally, in giant units, flying units, vehicle, transportation, and artillery each of which have very specific and different rules.

Ah yeah then 40k does have more, but I think there's a lot of unnecessary ones. Walkers and MCs could probably be condensed for example (the lines are blurred enough as it is).

They're better at different things. WMH has much better gameplay; it's infinitely better balanced, it's much more of a skill game and much less about having cooler toys than the other guy. Warhammer is a much better creative tool, the models are better, game encourages conversions, and it's better at the narrative aspect. WMH is easier to get a good random pick-up game walking into a strange game store with, Warhammer needs a consistent play group who are invested in staying friends after the game to work well.

Warmachine is a better game, Warhammer is a better hobby.