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.

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.

to be fair, WMH is a fantasy game. surely comparing it to fantasy is a better, and more appropriate comparison?

regarding your list though. to be fair, i do regard some categories as a bit artificial or redundant. walkers and MCs could be the same thing. skimmers and flyers - ditto. transports and vehicles? super heavies are just a subset of regular vehicles etc. But to look at your list:
infantry. done.
characters. done. its a character-centric game.
walkers. jacks count, im sure?
skimmers? fantasy game. some vehicles make sense, but not really flying ones. unless you count the throne of everblight.
flyers? these exist. archangels, and various other flying dragonspawn.
monstrous creatures? warbeasts.
lords of war. colossals, and gargantuans. and Butcher. he's a lord of war. to be fair though, i see lords of war as a bit of an artificial category.
artillery. yup. mortars, chainguns, cannons etc.
transports? got me there. to be fair though: fantasy game. anything beyond a horse has no place.
vehicles. Some exist.
super heavies. colossals and gargantuans.
heavy support and fast attack? artificial constructs. there are options though that broadly conform to the 'heavy support' options and 'fast attack' tropes though.
Drop pods? fantasy game. but does teleportation count?
bikes and jet bikes. fantasy game.and i'd argue WMHs cavalry is an appropriate comparison.
jump units. yeah, i can think of some analogues. arguably covered under 'flyers' as well. they even have a "jump" special rule for some leapy types.

AnomanderRake wrote: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.

to be fair: nothing is stopping you converting stuff in WMH. there are some truly brilliant conversions out there. metal is a more unforgiving medium, and GW definately have better bitz options, but if you are smart, you can go a long way converting stuff in WMH.

HMS griffon gun carriage to airship conversion:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion

Legion of Mechablight:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?198539-And-now-for-something-completely-different

General customised figures:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?144918-Show-me-your-most-heavily-customized-figures!

I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Akiasura wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Because of the setting? They're both fantasy settings. 40k is obviously more futuristic sci fi setting (okay, it's "science fantasy" as it's a fantasy setting that just happens to be in the future in space; but I digress) and will have different appeals to people. The reasons I see people comparing WMH to 40k is because either they both use round bases and/or 40k is the most popular game in town so everything will be compared to it.
Both WMH and WHFB are pretty much the same setting, just with different quirks done on them. WMH is not, despite what some people may think, streampunk. It's your prototypical D+D setting that is in the midst of an industrial revolution. Hardly surprising as the Iron Kingdoms RPG was first based on the D20 system. WHFB has all your typical fantasy tropes, sometimes with their own unique spin on them too. There's a little crossover as well with Empire being about the closest analog to a Warmachine faction IMO.

I wouldn't say either is a good comparison. WHFB's gameplay, whilst far better than 40k's (probably because GW have yet to "tinker" with it like they've done to 40k) is not a like for like comparison due to the whole regiments setup vs. WMH's round bases. Same goes for modern 40k. You're best analog for WMH is 2nd ed. 40k if you're talking about gameplay, but that's where the comparison ends.

I do think WHFB to WMH is a slightly better comparison simply due to the settings. What if your thing is Space Marines? There's no Space Marine analog in the Iron Kingdoms (at a stretch if you take the whole monastic knights tropes SM's are filled with you can see someone seeing the appeal of a Kreoss2 Knight Exemplar army for example, but that's pushing it a bit whens there far easier comparisons to make to races in WHFB) Same goes for Tyranids.

Neither is an ideal comparison to one another, but I can see where ClassicCarraway is coming from.

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. Warmachine has no qualms about abandoning "realism" for the sake of gameplay. Ranged weapons become imbalanced with too much range, so even the strongest rifles rarely break 16" of range. This in general means things make less "sense" in WMH but work better in the context of the game.

I dunno what anyone else has said over the last five pages, but I find the hints and statements that 40K is a 'realistic' 'simulation' that 'makes sense' to be hilarious and tragic at the same time.

Deadnight wrote:

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.

That's unlikely.

You can deal with anything in 40K too by the way, and at 500 points there are no screamerstar, centurionstar or really anything big.

And maybe the only reason you don't have screamerstars and the like in WMH is because there is just less variability in unit combinations.

Deadnight wrote:

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

With respect, I don't believe your understanding of WH40K is sufficient and unbiased enough to compare it to WMH, which is why I try to complete what you say with what I know.

Deadnight wrote:

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?

The warjacks are not vehicles, they're walkers / dreadnaughts. No tanks no transports no skimmers no nothing there.
I don't know about the details, but I would be very surprised if WMH's flying stuff was anything like 40K's flying stuff, i.e. a very different breed of unit.
I'm guessing it's more like jetbikes than flyers.

Deadnight wrote:

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.

Weren't we talking about simplicity ?

Deadnight wrote:

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.

Do you mean to say that GW has forced you to play with higher pointed armies ? man those people sure are evil.

How many WMH tournaments have 256 players ?

How many army lists do you generally have for one single WMH game ?

How many WMH games are played in the equivalent of 1850 point 40K count and diversity of models, options and combos ?



I'm willing to bet that if WMH had as much competition, single army lists, and enough points to increase the number of dirty tricks available, it would only be better than 40K by way of limiting variance - and thus diversity.


- which would still be a perfectly fine way to have a more balanced game.

Wait... WALKERS AREN'T VEHICLES?!?!? GW has been lying to me all this time?!?

@Morgoth: The equivalent in Warmachine to 1850 points of 40k is 50 points, and there is a TON of variety in lists, to the point where if you have a look at tournament lists, it's rare to see two lists that are identical (and the ones that are end up usually being skewed Theme lists where you don't get a lot of variety to begin with due to the theme, e.g. Butcher2 Doom Reaver spam. Hard to have variety when you only get one type of unit...). You might see similar caster pairings, but usually there are some differentiation between lists that have a larger impact (Unit A instead of Unit B is a far greater difference in WMH than say choosing between a Scout squad and a Tactical squad in 40k).

That's why the game is so well suited for competitive play and, as a result, better suited for casual play (balance and variety). 40k isn't suited to anything. It's not suited to competitive play because of gross imbalances between codexes and units within a codex (and poor/vague rules left up to interpretation). It's not suited for narrative play because, again, there is a huge imbalance between units in the same codex and this screws over the guy who thinks that Warp Talons and Mutilators are awesome looking over the powergamer who takes Plague Marines because they're better or even the guy who is in love with the Death Guard and fields Plague Marines for that reason without even trying to min/max.

Are some units better than others in WMH? Sure, but it's nowhere near the magnatude of difference you find in 40k. You take virtually any combination in WMH and with the right synergy from your Warcaster and/or other units, make it work enough to win; in fact it's a common thing to see top tier players take a list with "bad" choices and end up winning the entire thing, which then gets the whole community talking about if that can be made a viable thing for others. When was the last time someone won a 40k tournament with an unorthodox list? When was the last time you saw someone even bother with a "bad" unit in a 40k tournament?

I wouldn't bother arguing with morgoth. He's already stated he's never played WMH so clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I have often wondered why WMH gets compared to 40k instead of WFB. I guess because WMH uses the round skirmish style bases instead of regimental bases. Other than that, it truly does have far more in common with fantasy.

I would be very interested to hear you prove that, as I find it to be grossly incorrect.

Possibly the biggest differences between fantasy and 40k are how squads/units work. Warmachine resembles 40k in this respect, not fantasy.

Because of the setting? They're both fantasy settings. 40k is obviously more futuristic sci fi setting (okay, it's "science fantasy" as it's a fantasy setting that just happens to be in the future in space; but I digress) and will have different appeals to people. The reasons I see people comparing WMH to 40k is because either they both use round bases and/or 40k is the most popular game in town so everything will be compared to it.
Both WMH and WHFB are pretty much the same setting, just with different quirks done on them. WMH is not, despite what some people may think, streampunk. It's your prototypical D+D setting that is in the midst of an industrial revolution. Hardly surprising as the Iron Kingdoms RPG was first based on the D20 system. WHFB has all your typical fantasy tropes, sometimes with their own unique spin on them too. There's a little crossover as well with Empire being about the closest analog to a Warmachine faction IMO.

I wouldn't say either is a good comparison. WHFB's gameplay, whilst far better than 40k's (probably because GW have yet to "tinker" with it like they've done to 40k) is not a like for like comparison due to the whole regiments setup vs. WMH's round bases. Same goes for modern 40k. You're best analog for WMH is 2nd ed. 40k if you're talking about gameplay, but that's where the comparison ends.

I do think WHFB to WMH is a slightly better comparison simply due to the settings. What if your thing is Space Marines? There's no Space Marine analog in the Iron Kingdoms (at a stretch if you take the whole monastic knights tropes SM's are filled with you can see someone seeing the appeal of a Kreoss2 Knight Exemplar army for example, but that's pushing it a bit whens there far easier comparisons to make to races in WHFB) Same goes for Tyranids.

Neither is an ideal comparison to one another, but I can see where ClassicCarraway is coming from.

You have a point about the fluff, but most of the comparisons between 40k and WMH have been in regards to gameplay, not fluff.
In regards to gameplay, it's hard to think of a game outside of historicals that are less alike than WHFB and WMH. The way units work, the magic system, the effect leadership has, magic items and their possible impact, the effect Standard bearers/UA have on units....40k is a much better way to look at things since it is closer to how WMH plays.

As for comparing settings, that seems...useless? If you really have a thing for spacemarines, sure, WMH doesn't have a lot to offer you. But that's not entirely useful. What if my thing is Jedi? Or Krogan? Neither setting has anything to offer me in that regard.

If you think the reason that people compare them is because of the bases...I don't even know what to say to that. It's been pretty clear the gameplay is the main point, with maybe the diversity or depth in the fluff being a secondary point.
Most popular game in town, sure. Okay. That's a good point.
Fluff? Who is even arguing they have similar fluff?

Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

This is a very good set of points. I disagree with Necromunda (I have never played ANY game that is like Necromunda except GorkaMorka or Mordenheim), but they do look to achieve different things.

Generally that is what the threads break down to, usually because very few people have experience with both systems. I am unable to argue with Grim about WHFB being balanced, because my experience with that system is old. When I played, it was grossly unbalanced, worse system I have ever played in my life. It could be that I played ogres, but having a cheap mage fly up, IF Purple Sun (which many armies could guarantee getting), and killing 1200+ out of my army, was terrible. Often this happened turn 1 at least, so I could still play Necromunda after.

We can argue how the companies treat their customers though, because this should be similar regardless of the rules. FAQs taking forever, for example, is terrible.
We could argue the start up costs and how much variety you get from purchases. We could argue model quality....ish. I like GW models more in appearance, but I wish the boxes came with all the weapons I needed. I always find myself hunting for extra plasma or meltas. When I used SW rules, finding all those ML's was a challenge, same for Havoks and autocannons.

I don't think we can argue quality of gameplay. WMH has much better gameplay, I don't think you can argue against that. Just look at the forums dedicated to the games and you'll see very few, if any, ZOMG GAME IS BROKEN in PP forums while here it's a constant thing.

I will not respond to morgoth, as anyone who doesn't see that WS are one of the best units in the game isn't capable of logical thought and discussion. It's like saying gravity is just a theory, so if I don't believe in it I can fly.

Both games are aimed at different players, the problem comes when one type wants to play the wrong game for them.

I would like to get into Warmachine/Hordes sometime, as i like new things and i like many of the models but it does get tiring being told that 40k fails as a game when to put it simply it does not "always", as my gaming group is getting more and more dominated by it with new players since 7th, we are having a blast, might not be perfect but it provides us with exactly what we want.

Play what brings you enjoyment, let others do the same, the great thing right now is we all have so many options in terms of games on the market, no need to change another one to be more to your liking when plenty of players are enjoying it still.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its still a valid point - why compare a skirmish game to mass battle game?

Wm/H is a skirmish game bigger than most, 40k is a mass battle game - as said before be better to compare WMh/H to Kill Team or Necromunda in terms of GW games or on te many (and IMO Better) skirmish games than WM/H.

Its easier to compare the quality of rules writting, but equally important (and very veruy difficult) to compare the fun element of the systems but this is all personel preference and experience but not sure these threads achieve anything more than one person asaying they like this game (for reasons) and the other saying no this game is better (for reasons)?

40k isn't really mass battle though, outside of the horde armies, just vehicles/walkers/etc. inflate the size. An infantry heavy WMH army isn't all that much smaller than a typical non-horde 40k army, minus the vehicles. It's not like 40k is a real mass battle game (that was Epic).

The big thing is that a unit in 40k is basically wound counters for the Sergeant/Heavy/Special weapon, they operate as one thing. WMH each unit is really like a group of individual models that need to be within a certain range of the leader. They act independently. This allows for a ton of tactical application e.g. shooting a guy in front with one trooper, so another can shoot the guy behind him or open up a charge lane for another unit. It's not just roll a bucket of dice for the whole group like in 40k.

My biggest issue with 40k, and the reason I can't play it again, is that it hurts someone like me who cares about the narrative/fluff. I can't do what I want in the context of the game (despite GW claiming I can) because of the poor rules and overall lack of balance which would cause me to lose games just because of what I field, regardless of how I use it. That difference alone is enough for myself, and many others, to prefer the balance and tactical choices in WMH to 40k. Pretty models are one thing, but even the most die-hard collector would get frustrated at losing every single game because they collected a poor army in game that works well in the fluff or fits a concept.

morgoth wrote:


That's unlikely.

How so? Please explain, from your extensive experience of WMH. Tell me of this list that dominates every tournament?

morgoth wrote:

You can deal with anything in 40K too by the way, and at 500 points there are no screamerstar, centurionstar or really anything big.

To be fair, not always. 40k is historically like this. There are various tiers of effectiveness. Back in fifth, grey knights were the thing that were a really lopsided match up. Especially for daemons. Fourth was iron warriors. Sixth and seventh is no different. Or were tyranid players making it all up?

Now, at 500points, you don’t have the points for screamerstar, but its just as prone to other forms of imbalance – that’s simply the nature of 40k. And lets be fair here – 1500-1850 is the default ‘standard’ size game.

morgoth wrote:

And maybe the only reason you don't have screamerstars and the like in WMH is because there is just less variability in unit combinations.

No, it's because pp do their damnedest to design a balanced game.

And trust me, there is plenty variety in unit combinations. Now, whilst you cant swap a meltagun for a flamer, or some other paper option, most factions have about 70 – 80 core units, including unit attachments and weapon attachments (your special weapon equivelants), as well as 40-60 other mercenary options (not counting mercenary jacks or warcasters) available. Now, with each of the dozens of different casters, each with different spell sets and feats, and the various affinities, abilities, elide cadres, special abilities etc you simply cannot say there is ‘less variability’. Swapping out a single model in your army can drastically affect how it plays. To the extent that, for example, two warcastes with the exact same army list will play completely different games with totally different tactics. In 40k, your devastators really don’t care too much if the force is led by a chaplain or a captain-they do the same job regardless.

And like I said, everything can be built into a list. At the recent world team championships for example, something like 80 or 90% of the khador roster was represented on the table top. And khador came out with one of the best overall performance rates in terms of win/loss rates. Can 40k claim this?

morgoth wrote:

With respect, I don't believe your understanding of WH40K is sufficient and unbiased enough to compare it to WMH, which is why I try to complete what you say with what I know.

Believe what you want buddy. I’ve played, and followed this game since third edition. I’ve made my bones. Calling my viewpoint ‘unbiased’ is also flawed. And arguably, since I play both games, I have the better perspective.

morgoth wrote:

The warjacks are not vehicles, they're walkers / dreadnaughts. No tanks no transports no skimmers no nothing there.

Dreadnoughts aren’t vehicles now? Since when? And to be fair, we have vehicles. Look at Khador’s gun carriage, protectorates vessel of judgement and the various other ‘battle engines’ etc.

Besides, it’s a fantasy setting. Anything bigger than a horse and carriage for general transportation makes very little sense. Well, they have trains, but they serve no purpose on a 4 by 4.

morgoth wrote:

I don't know about the details, but I would be very surprised if WMH's flying stuff was anything like 40K's flying stuff, i.e. a very different breed of unit.
I'm guessing it's more like jetbikes than flyers.

Accurate observation. Regardless, there is a category of ‘stuff that flies’. Flyers in 40k are a fairly recent addition, and if I’m being honest, in my view don’t belong – they belong in a game/scale like Epic 40k. gunships etc are a different story, and used to be represented by skimmers.

morgoth wrote:

Weren't we talking about simplicity ?

You were. You were saying WMH is a ‘simple’ game because its smaller. You compared it to a gutted game of 40k (without vehicles, MCs, flyers and SHs). And yet, WMH has all of those things anyway. Even at a smale scale. The difference in ‘what you can do’ is staggering. A warjack or warbeast has more ‘presence’ and in-game functionality than a dreadnought or MC. Its not the simple game you pretend, or insist it is.

morgoth wrote:

Do you mean to say that GW has forced you to play with higher pointed armies ? man those people sure are evil.

Well, they did play their role in pushing for a ‘standard’ size, and they’ve compounded the issue by continually reducing unit costs. What was a 1500pt army a few years ago comes up 50 or a hundred points short now. Same game size, buy more.

To be fair, I don’t blame them for wanting to sell stuff. I think their strategy is cynical, short sighted and misguided.

morgoth wrote:

How many WMH tournaments have 256 players ?

Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. 40k has the bigger player base. It would stand to reason it would have more places in tournaments.

But to be fair: how many 256 player 40k tourneys are there? Sorry. Still there. Ten years ago? Loads. Nowadays? They’re a minority.

Regarding WMH, Im sure some of the biggest ones could go that high. I know the national masters and other big events typically sell out with about 128. Not bad going for a game which has a smaller player base.

morgoth wrote:

How many army lists do you generally have for one single WMH game ?

One. Tournaments are a three list format, but steamroller doesn’t define every aspect of the game.

morgoth wrote:

How many WMH games are played in the equivalent of 1850 point 40K count and diversity of models, options and combos ?

50pt games are the 1500-1850pt equivelant. Remember, more bodies =/= more complexity. And Unbound for huge games.

And all of them to the second.

Regarding diversity of models, how can you say that with regard to 40k, when half the bloody factions are basically the same damned power armour, just with slightly different bling? Look at my Khador force. I can field everything from power armour, heavy infantry, conscript infantry, guerrilla infantry, guerrilla irregulars, light and heavy cavalry, mages, shock troops, horse drawn tanks, and various flavours of warjacks ranging from clamjacks to super heavies. Not to mention the mercenary options. That’s one faction. How about my Circle army. Werewolves, stone golems constructs, grizzly sized goats, cannibal beastmen, wolf riders, druids, tribal militia and so on. Plus mercenaries.

Options and combo wise – 40k propably wins in terms of page count and ‘paper options’, but when the game boils down to a top tier list comprising handful of codices running a handful of builds (and 40k has always been this way) you can’t talk about ‘diversity of models, options and combos’. Like I said, at the recent world team championship, 80 -90% of khadors roster got fielded.

morgoth wrote:

I'm willing to bet that if WMH had as much competition, single army lists, and enough points to increase the number of dirty tricks available, it would only be better than 40K by way of limiting variance - and thus diversity.

You should go play the game, and inform yourself.

I’d argue the multi-list format helps promote variety. A lot of stuff gets a peak in. It gives you the chance to skew and counter. Its part of the balancing of the game. And by the way, say hi to cryx and circle – two factions that defined “dirty tricks” and sneaky, dirty, underhanded shenanigans.

At the recent 40k escalation league, the response was so poor that it was cancelled.
At the recent WHFB escalation league, 12 people signed up.
At the recent Warmahordes escalation league, the response was over thirty players. This is from an area where no one knew about Warmahordes three years ago, it has literally exploded onto the scene.


What do you mean it has a lack of variety? My faction, Khador has 15 different warcaster, that is 15 different play styles because they all bring something different. Playing pButcher like Zerkova will get you no where.

But warmachine is a game, where it is really is a case of tactical advantage over fire power. 40K is a shooting game, where most battles are won in the shooting phase, going second against a powerful Eldar army can cost you the game in turn one.


Going second against a Cygnar gunline, can you still lose the game turn one? Absolutely if you act like an idiot during deployment, but you can mitigate the damage by thinking about deployment. In some games of 40k, there might as well be no terrain, because it won't save you against overwhelming firepower.

And at a 50 point level, which is roughly the same as a 1850-2000 point battle, you can play the same army 15 times, and have to face 15 different lists.


But the biggest reason I generally prefer Warmahordes over 40k at the moment? Is because one is a primarily a war game with models, and the other is a bunch of models which also have rules.

I like the fact that if there is a complicated rule, PP will go out and fix it.

For example, Khador has two warjacks called the Devastator and the Demolisher. We call these clamjacks, because they have massive shields on their arms. These boost their ARM up to a crazy 25. However, when they attack, they have to open up, exposing their soft and creamy centre.

But, what if a Devastator head butted a model? Or Trampled through a unit and slammed another jack. People were not entirely certain what would happen to the 'jacks ARM value. So someone asked the guys on the forum and they responded that they could, and FAQ'd it. I don't see GW doing that with any of the many special rules that could do with proper FAQing.

The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

There is a HUGE variety in WMH compared to 40k, but it's not in the same vein. 40k's variety is "Should I take 2x plasma guns or 2x grav guns", while WMH's variety is "Should I take unit X and caster A along with solo H, or caster B, Units Y and Z and Warjack L"

Imagine the difference between a regular SM captain and a bike captain, and that's a small (but not quite) idea of what picking a different caster does in WMH; it changes the way you pick/play your army entirely. The difference is that you can run the same list with 2+ casters, and they change (sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways) how that army plays.

The comparison is like the difference between picking if a car should have a spoiler (40k), or if it should have a different kind of engine entirely (WMH).

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Actually, with enough duct tape and a high enough pressured hose, I am reasonably certain I could make a horse drink just fine!
Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Akiasura wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Actually, with enough duct tape and a high enough pressured hose, I am reasonably certain I could make a horse drink just fine!
Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Then use Dorothy Parker's version-much harder to gimmick that one into working.

Warhammer doesn't hold a candle to Warmahordes in terms of gameplay. But there is definitely an appeal to Warhammer that keep people playing it.
However, we aren't able to force people to 'realise' that Warmahordes is a better game, because it doesn't appeal to some people, and that's fine. They are at liberty to form their own opinions. We see the same thing in everyday life. It would be nice if everyone used facts, and admitted opinions are opinions, but we're all guilty of not doing this on occasion.

It was someone (probably Peregrine, but not sure) who keeps stating this and I find it to be 100% true: In 40k you have fun in spite of the rules, not because of them.

In WMH you have fun because the rules are well written and balanced.

I was in the middle of a long post, decided not worth it, i just say again, nothing wrong with different companies catering to different types of players, lets just accept each others preferences, let players play what they like without being told why they play the "terrible", "broken" or "wrong" game.

Not sure why people feel the need to crusade for the players to change, that i often see online and at other gaming clubs in my past, when others players are happy with what already brings them fun in their night a week of gaming, as my club currently does.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It was someone (probably Peregrine, but not sure) who keeps stating this and I find it to be 100% true: In 40k you have fun in spite of the rules, not because of them.

In WMH you have fun because the rules are well written and balanced.

That does sound like Peregrine haha. I completely agree, the rules aren't the selling point to 40k.

I would say the games cater to two different styles, but WMH is more successful in accomplishing what its trying to do.

You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

Bharring wrote:
You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

Now that I 100% agree with, and is one of the few things I miss about 40k - being able to make your own character and tell your own story. But at the same time, the lack of good balanced rules mean that Captain Achilles of the 1st Company will get wiped out every game because Terminators suck in the rules, even though he's a veteran of over 100 years of conflict and second only to the chapter master in rank.

It goes both ways. 40k lets you create your own character for a story, but rarely does it let you play it out the same way on the tabletop. You can do that in PP's games too, only it's called the Iron Kingdoms RPG and is a better medium for creating and telling your own stories.

Bharring wrote:
You have access to a large number of Warcasters, yes (someone said 17 for Khador, seems right).

In WMH, I can pick Kraye or pHaley, and have two very different games. But i'm picking between two named characters. Great characters, but PP's characters.

In 40k, the choice between a Combi Melta and a Combi Plasma might not change the game significantly by itself, but the first is Captain Andicar, who prefers more measured tactics, and Captain Notherus, who will choke the enemy in firepower. Very very similar rules, but completely different tactics. Yes, they both have about the same capabilities. If you see no difference, WMH is probably for you. But to me, those fluff differences are the core of the game.

40k also has special characters if you'd rather do that. Or you could pretend instead of eHaley, you have some other super powered caster that's never mentioned. But it doesn't seem to feel right.

If the warlord table was fixed instead of random, I would agree with you a bit. As it is, Captain Andicar might prefer measured tactics, but he could roll a warlord trait that effects challenges for some reason. Captain Notherus, meanwhile, can outflank this game despite his love for all things firepower related.
I don't mind, in necromunda, having random powers during leveling up. Probably because I only roll randomly each time they level up, and not every game. If I had to randomly generate unique features every single game for every single model, I'd drop it in a flash. Nothing breaks immersion like knowing that Aki'el Asura, Captain of Cell 242 of the Alpha Legion, forgot how to outflank today, but is suddenly very skilled at face punching.

That being said, I don't play WMH for the fluff. I usually like the nicknames for the warcasters and refer to my heroes as those guys. Often I come up with names for all my guys that tend to do well. Molik is called KKKHHHAAAANNNN, Hexy is called SexyHexy, and my bronzeback is called Sir Crunch-a-lot. It adds some levity to the game that I don't get from 40k when I roll warlord traits and decide who is leading the army today.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

Talys wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

Because a lot of people who do like 40k like it out of ignorance/stubbornness. Not all (you don't seem like that type, for example) but the general attitude is that the Pro-40k crowd see it as the bestest thing evar because it has lots of pretty figures that they don't mind paying lots for, and they don't care that it's unbalanced and GW is really a successful company that's just misunderstood and trying to stop thieves like CHS and the Spots author from stealing their names and works and the internet is just a big scary place full of whiners who can't accept these facts.

It's that kind of attitude, which generally comes from the 40k crowd, that cause such hostility on both sides. There are a few WMH players that evangelize and push their agenda and will insinuate that anyone who likes 40k is some kid of moron, but I find them few and far between versus the "White Knight" type who will defend 40k perhaps because they don't want to admit that they've invested hundreds (if not thousands) on a gakky game with gakky rules and pretty models.

Talys wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
The problem with telling a player like morgoth to play WM/H is like leading a horse to water- if it's not thirsty, it ain't gonna drink.

Such players "love" their game, and they see no reason to play another game. That's fine. What happens is they see a thread like this as attacking "their game" and they rise to defend it.

In order for such a player to make a fair comparison between the games, they have to WANT to play WM/H. They have to approach it with an open mind, and they have to resist the "That's not the way it's done in 40K!" mentality. Otherwise, they latch on to the slightest weakness or flaw (and WM/H has it's flaws...) they perceive, and then fall back onto the "40K is better because it doesn't do that" argument.

@morgoth- sorry to pick on you bud, but your perception of WM/H seems distorted at best, and it really, really sounds like you have little to no experience in the game at all. :( You should give it a try. Look up a local Press Ganger from the PP Website. Yes, Privateer Press maintains a listing of volunteers that would be more than happy to let you borrow an army and show you how to play the game. GW used to do that too- the Red Shirt program. Just one more difference between the two companies.

Well, why not pick on me instead ^^. I play both games, and I even collect and paint PP miniatures. However, I *vastly* prefer both the Warhammer 40k game and universe.

What is a little offensive is when people say things like, "WM/H is like leading a horse to water". I mean, I do not suggest to people who prefer WMH that they should play 40k instead. Why would you want to play that dinky skirmish game with fifty miniatures on the table, funny looking guns, and steampunk-ish armor? Come over and see the immersive awesomeness that is this 40k game. Who wants to play the shootout at O.K. Corral, when you can fight the Battle of the Alamo? Why play Metroid on the Nintendo DS when you've got Halo on the XB1?

Well, the short answer is that some people prefer simpler skirmish games. Some people prefer larger scale wargames. Some people relish in campaigns, while others random fights. Other people focus on collecting, painting, and modelling. Some people prefer short games, other people prefer epic battles. Some people like quick setup, other people like long deployments. Some like that 40k has complex rules that take a very long time to master, while other people hate it. None of them are "right".

Why is there such a need for people who prefer WMH to point out that people who like 40k are somehow stupid, blind, unreasonable, or just plain crazy?

To be fair I there's been very little (if any) of the last bit. Most of the discussion has been about the pros and cons of the games rather than aimed at the players. It's only really when certain people who haven't played both games start heavy handedly throwing around 'facts' (cough morgoth cough) that it turns to that and even then no one called him stupid or anything. It's just annoying when people act like they know everything when they haven't even played.

I play both so, I don't have anything against 40k players for liking the game. For pretending there's nothing wrong with 40k and it's far superior to any other game they haven't even tried however, is just ignorant.

Edit; and what WayneTheGamer said above (someone always gets there first and says it better -.-).