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.

WayneTheGame wrote:

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.

Ironically, I model 40k miniatures more than WMH because the cost per model is a lot lower (despite that the cost to play is much higher). I do like 40k because there are a lot of models, and they keep coming out with new stuff. In fairness, this is also why I like PP; they come out with enough neat new stuff to satiate my thirst for new models (well, not quite, but it isn't bad).

Speaking on the game itself, you gotta be crazy to say there are no issues with it. There are many more issues with 40k than WMH, but I accept that as a part of a more complex game (which isn't for everyone). I understand the desire of players who wish GW would fix existing stuff before introducing new stuff (like LoW) -- on the other hand, it has never stopped me from having fun.

Talys wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

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.

Ironically, I model 40k miniatures more than WMH because the cost per model is a lot lower (despite that the cost to play is much higher). I do like 40k because there are a lot of models, and they keep coming out with new stuff. In fairness, this is also why I like PP; they come out with enough neat new stuff to satiate my thirst for new models (well, not quite, but it isn't bad).

Speaking on the game itself, you gotta be crazy to say there are no issues with it. There are many more issues with 40k than WMH, but I accept that as a part of a more complex game (which isn't for everyone). I understand the desire of players who wish GW would fix existing stuff before introducing new stuff (like LoW) -- on the other hand, it has never stopped me from having fun.

I would say there are a lot less issues in WMH. Some units are worse than others (People from Khador know about them Man-o-wars) and often the way factions are advertised is not the way they play. And then there is circle Christmas which gets annoying at times.

But I play skorne, and I can go up against anyone with any list and not get shut down. There are few units (tbh, 1, the karax) I don't ever run. If a UA was released for them that gave them something interesting, I'd take them. This is the case with most factions in the game. And someone did win a major tournament with a Man-o-War army.

40k has some very beautiful models, but as a game it's bad. There is a discussion right now on how many relics a SW commander can take, and there is no clear answer. It will not get a FAQ or anything else for at least a year. Some models/armies are just useless, like genestealers, which is a shame for long time players who like certain lists. I should WANT to buy new models, not be forced to in order to keep playing, which I have had to do for every army I own every time they update the codex.

I love the way my skorne look, though I think Trollbloods are hideous and I'm not a fan of jacks in general, but at least the game works. I don't feel I need to purchase the new models that came out, but I will because
A) They look awesome. Those beetles are the sweetest of all things
B) I really want to kill me some legion, and those things out shoot legion beasts which makes me giggle something wonderful

The only thing I've done is point out the inconsistencies in the OP's framing of WMH > 40K.

If the point he was trying to make had been "WMH is just another game with another compromise on balance and diversity and models and whatnot", I wouldn't have bothered.

But the point was that somehow WMH was just as diverse yet more balanced, just as vast despite lacking a ton of the unit types of 40K - and options, etc.


The point was that somehow WMH is more balanced, even though it doesn't even have a quarter of the already small competitive 40K scene, even though clearly most WMH events allow for three lists which means TAC and thus the reductor meta of 40K is not at play, etc.



The reason I even discuss is that all the people arguing that somehow WMH does something better than 40K seem to be convinced that it's all a factor of PP being better at writing games.




The only way you can have better balance is to either forgo asymetric balance or limit the number of parameters.

And WMH limits that number of parameters, as well as tones down asymetric balance.

morgoth wrote:
The only thing I've done is point out the inconsistencies in the OP's framing of WMH > 40K.

If the point he was trying to make had been "WMH is just another game with another compromise on balance and diversity and models and whatnot", I wouldn't have bothered.

But the point was that somehow WMH was just as diverse yet more balanced, just as vast despite lacking a ton of the unit types of 40K - and options, etc.

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.
The point was that somehow WMH is more balanced, even though it doesn't even have a quarter of the already small competitive 40K scene, even though clearly most WMH events allow for three lists which means TAC and thus the reductor meta of 40K is not at play, etc.
Perhaps this was true 10 years ago, but it is not true today. When was the last time a 40k tournament had 100+ members? WMH sells out at 128 quickly, while 40k is dying as a competitive game. As for the 3 list (it can be 2, and most tournaments are infact 2, not 3), that is like saying that the rules of the game make WMH more balanced, since the tournament format is a part of the game. PP sets how tournaments are played, they decided on two lists, so I don't see your point(s).


The reason I even discuss is that all the people arguing that somehow WMH does something better than 40K seem to be convinced that it's all a factor of PP being better at writing games.
What other factor would it be? You haven't provided any


The only way you can have better balance is to either forgo asymetric balance or limit the number of parameters.

And WMH limits that number of parameters, as well as tones down asymetric balance.
WMH has more parameters (pick a faction of 40k, and I'll pick a faction from WMH and we can compare if you don't believe me) so apparently you can have better balance without limiting options. It's easier, but still doable.

@Akiasura -- that's funny... Trollbloods and Menotb are my favorite WMH models I love the new borka, and there is a box of the rereleased scattergunners waiting for me.

Re: Unit variety -- One might argue that there are more playable, competitive options in WMH, and certainly more variety without spending time and money to get playable models.

However, if you remove the constraint of "every unit must be optimal for its slot" and instead either formulate a scenario or a thematic army, 40k has far more possibilities. It just has fear possibilities if you want 2 people to sit across each other, given only point values, for a fair fight.

I do not believe it is possible to argue that WMH has more types of units (from large to small, artillery, flying units, et cetera -- units that are vastly different). On the other hand I also don't believe it's possible to argue that these unit varieties have the potential to hopelessly unbalance the game.

TLDR -- WMH is my preference for a quick game of just point values, but I prefer to play more epic battles that might not just be an exercise in army slot/point optimization.

 Hubris wrote:
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.

Honestly man, I think that you're misinterpreting things a bit.

The Pro-WM people on this thread don't seem to be saying that WM is simply better than 40k. That's really an impossible claim, and I think everyone recognizes it. What they are saying is that the rules are better written (certainly in terms of consistency and balance), and therefore better as a 'game.'

It seems aggressive simply because they're talking to Morgoth, who has never played the game but is still fond of telling people that WM is simpler and not as well balanced as is claimed. When people are confronted with poorly-designed opinions, they get frustrated and perhaps more forceful than they might otherwise be. And then, when /you/ read replies that are focused more at people like Morgoth, you take offense to that because they're so aggressive. It's understandable, and I think it's one of the major reasons why this discussion can be so volatile.

And, as an aside, WM has way, way more variety than 40k in terms of units and such. Number of options is not the same as variety- the difference between a SW marine and a UM marine is not terribly large. Models in WM/Hordes are typically very different from eachother in how they work on the field, and a difference of a quarter inch for a couple models can /easily/ win or lose the game. The burden of knowledge on both players is absolutely massive, which is strongly indicative of complexity. Now, one can argue whether or not that's a good or a bad thing in terms of game design, because it does greatly increase the learning curve, but calling it 'simple' is absolutely incorrect. WM is by no means perfect, but at least criticize it for flaws that it actually has (model quality, tone of the fluff, too many named characters, too much obsession over distances, ability to instantly lose the game, burden of knowledge, etc etc).

My post was a metaphor for any game really. It wasn't just about a 40K vs. WM/H thing. Re-reading it, I can tell why someone would think that I was trying to imply that I was leading a 40K Gamer to a waterhole, implying that WM/H was some kind of great thing and that the 40K player was just ignoring it for whatever reason.

Superficially, at best, that's what I was implying. The typical 40K player has never really played any other game, and hence, doesn't even know they are thirsty, and when confronted with the 'water' of another game system, they refuse, because they are not thirsty, or that's not the kind of water they want, or whatever.

It's getting deep in here, might want to save your watches...

The meaning I was shooting for was the idea that some people are so entrenched in their ideas, philosophies, attitudes, and emotional tie-ins, that when confronted with something that challenges their notions of what a good game is, they automatically reject it out of hand on an emotional level without using any kind of sound logic or reasoning. It could be because of they way someone treated them in the past ("You play 40K? What an idiot! All the kewl kids play WM/H!"), it could be something they read in a periodical, blog, magazine, whatever. It could be because they fear change, and playing WM/H is a HUGE change from 40K. There are a lot of reasons why someone might not want to play Game X over Game Y. They reflexively defend their choice. No one likes being told they are wrong, or what they are doing is stupid, and sometimes that exactly how these threads come across. In this scenario, they defend their choice with sometimes questionable logic that makes perfect sense on an emotional level, but on a unemotional level, fails the Scientific Method.

There can never be an "Honest Comparison" between the two games, because the games are so vastly different and appeal to the different types of gamers. It's like apples and oranges. Some people like apples, some like oranges, some like 'em both, some won't eat either one preferring strawberries instead.

Mmmm. Strawberries....

True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

 Hubris wrote:
True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

The plot moves forward quite often.
My tyrant just got paralyzed in a duel and strapped to a rhino because xerxis doesn't go epic.
Epic goes xerxis

 BoardroomHero wrote:

And, as an aside, WM has way, way more variety than 40k in terms of units and such. Number of options is not the same as variety- the difference between a SW marine and a UM marine is not terribly large. Models in WM/Hordes are typically very different from eachother in how they work on the field, and a difference of a quarter inch for a couple models can /easily/ win or lose the game. The burden of knowledge on both players is absolutely massive, which is strongly indicative of complexity. Now, one can argue whether or not that's a good or a bad thing in terms of game design, because it does greatly increase the learning curve, but calling it 'simple' is absolutely incorrect. WM is by no means perfect, but at least criticize it for flaws that it actually has (model quality, tone of the fluff, too many named characters, too much obsession over distances, ability to instantly lose the game, burden of knowledge, etc etc).

I have no idea how people can make this claim. I would love to be enlightened. Let me give you a few examples of models for which there are no equivalents in WMH:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wall-of-Martyrs-Aquila-Strongpoint
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/The-Fury-of-Fenris (drop pods)
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Necron-Obelisk
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Voidraven-Bomber
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Dark-Eldar-Venom
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Dark-Eldar-Raider
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Imperial-Guard-Baneblade
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Chaos-Space-Marines-Khorne-Lord-of-Skulls

This is a very, very tiny fraction of the types of units that are not available in WMH. But to give you an idea of what I mean: fortifications and artillery, drop pods, aerial fighter units, aerial bombardment units, jetbikes and ground bikes, skimmers, tanks, troop transports (of any variety), giant robots, giant monsters. Basic infantry types are also far more highly subtyped in W40k (scouts, assault, fast, heavy, command, character, etc.). There are also no truly huge models in WMH, like the Revenant Titan or Lord of Skulls, unless you include the gigantic (collectible) Victoria Haley which is not playable

Now, I'm perfectly willing to hear the argument that all of these unit types complicate 40k and make it less balanced. In some cases, I agree. However, going back to the GW mission statement -- they make cool models that make sense in a game universe -- like a Lord of Skulls -- and then create some rules to insert them in into the game. So yeah, I will most certainly concede that there is not a good way to balance a gigantic demonic prince with a bunch of infantry guys, on the basis of points alone. But I'm not willing to concede that there is less variety of units that can be fielded.

In addition, from a purely aesthetic point of view, there is a massive number of visually different units that can be fielded in 40k. Most factions are extremely different and distinctive in the way they look (Orks, Tau, Necron, Eldar, etc.), and GW done pretty good job of making the factions have a unifying look. Game wise, one can argue that this doesn't matter, and that, again, it just overly complicates things. If that's the case for you, no problem. But you can't say there is aesthetically less variety in 40k.

Now, I totally get that people get fed up with the arguments and start with more vitriol than they would if they were just being Vulcan However, two wrongs don't make a right either. Just because someone else has said something untrue (maybe by accident) doesn't really make it right to say something else that's an untrue generalization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hubris wrote:
True i may have misunderstood from a scan reading of the thread, i actually like a lot of what Warmachine/Hordes can offer, one major thing is i like the miniatures as im a steampunk fan, i also like assuming this is true what i have been told, that they move the game world background material forward on a not un-regular basis?

Im just not gonna pretend i don't still love my montly game of 40k too and im sure we can all understand the annoyance when you feel someone is telling you your wrong for what you enjoy, even if they are not meaning to.

I will give PP games a go sometime in the future for sure, just right now too busy with End Times Fantasy army projects, my local BloodBowl league and starting Dystopian Wars & Bolt Action.

So many fun games, so little time with my weekly gaming being a few hours on a Thursday night.

The first two assertions are absolutely true. The game world moves forward, and the miniatures are definitely steam-punk-ish.

Warmachines and Hordes are fun games. They have a low cost of entry, the games are short and tactical, and you can't botch an army as badly as you can in 40k. However, there are most certainly better lists and inferior lists, and a person with a great list will win a lot more often, even if the two players are of similar experience. The big difference is, it won't cost you much to come to parity, whereas in 40k, buying the wrong units will not only cost you money, but perhaps weeks to model and paint.

I should add that things happen in the 40k universe, too. Just the time line doesn't go past the 40th millennium, LOL. Yet...

They are just really different games than 40k, and I wish people would stop comparing them in the context of, "This one is better, so that one should die."

You are incorrectly equating variety with unit types. That's why.

Talys wrote:



This is a very, very tiny fraction of the types of units that are not available in WMH. But to give you an idea of what I mean: fortifications and artillery, drop pods, aerial fighter units, aerial bombardment units, jetbikes and ground bikes, skimmers, tanks, troop transports (of any variety), giant robots, giant monsters. Basic infantry types are also far more highly subtyped in W40k (scouts, assault, fast, heavy, command, character, etc.). There are also no truly huge models in WMH, like the Revenant Titan or Lord of Skulls, unless you include the gigantic (collectible) Victoria Haley which is not playable

What?

That aside, saying WMH has less unit types is a bit of a red herring. The game doesn't pigeonhole units into types in most cases. You have Jacks, Beasts, infantry, medium base.

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

Well, no, then you have to compare specials list with the never ending 40k list (shred, jump, rend.....). I mean actual *types* like tanks versus people versus planes versus planes.

I am aware of colossals (which are comparable with imperial knights). The Revenant Titan is 12" tall -- that's 10 of the little guy -- but that is neither here nor there. I don't compare a little model with special abilities as a different unit type as I do a harpy to a jet fighter to a unit which can carry other units.

I have not read every page of this thread. Here is my thoughts on WM/H. I have played 40K for about ten years now. In addition, I do play Malifaux, Batman mini game, and X-wing.

So, here is my main problem with what WM/H is. The game looks like this game where you will play awesome looking robots and beasts that beat up each other. However, every game boils down to massive infantry lists and most likely a caster kill.

In 40k there is some ways to win, but I do understand you have to kill off the other players forces, as in any game. WM/H just seems to lack depth in what the game is. This is just my observation.

Martin, in 40k, you can often lose the battles, but win the game by scoring more points. I think the tactical objectives are well done in 7e.

With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Talys wrote:
With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Every unit except air superiority fighters, bombers, artillery above light mortar size, recon/electronic warfare/intelligence/etc, combat engineers, and probably a few others. And the units that are included often aren't a very good representation of the real thing. For example, infantry completely lack the suppressing fire concepts that define modern infantry combat, tanks don't work like real tanks at all, aircraft fly at ridiculously slow speeds and low altitudes, etc. And many of 40k's units are redundant. Vehicles are MCs with extra rules bloat, bikes/cavalry/beasts/jump infantry are just four different ways of saying "you can move an extra 6 inches per turn", and LoW are just the same conventional units with bigger numbers. Finally, 40k's unit types do add a lot of rules complexity, but they add very little strategic complexity. Most unit types have little depth beyond "point this at the enemy and roll to see how much you kill", and what type a unit is often does little more than change what dice are rolled. Tanks and infantry don't have completely different roles like real tanks and infantry, they just have different stat lines.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
With regards to the unit types, again, in 40k there are representations of every conventional unit type in modern (2k) warfare, except naval, and land mines (both of which would be difficult in the tabletop paradigm). We can argue that helicopters are unbalancing, but we can't argue that they are significant and very different than tanks or infantry.

Every unit except air superiority fighters, bombers, artillery above light mortar size, recon/electronic warfare/intelligence/etc, combat engineers, and probably a few others. And the units that are included often aren't a very good representation of the real thing. For example, infantry completely lack the suppressing fire concepts that define modern infantry combat, tanks don't work like real tanks at all, aircraft fly at ridiculously slow speeds and low altitudes, etc. And many of 40k's units are redundant. Vehicles are MCs with extra rules bloat, bikes/cavalry/beasts/jump infantry are just four different ways of saying "you can move an extra 6 inches per turn", and LoW are just the same conventional units with bigger numbers. Finally, 40k's unit types do add a lot of rules complexity, but they add very little strategic complexity. Most unit types have little depth beyond "point this at the enemy and roll to see how much you kill", and what type a unit is often does little more than change what dice are rolled. Tanks and infantry don't have completely different roles like real tanks and infantry, they just have different stat lines.

Let me point out a few units:

- Air Superiority & Bombers: Razorwing Jetfighter and Ravenwing Bomber
- Heavy Artillery: Aquila Strongpoint fires a Macro Canon with Enormous radius blast; or 7 vortex missiles with infinite range
- Recon/Electronic Warfare/Intelligence: well, fog of war would be kind of pointless. But, you do have Techmarines for electronic warfare (Mindlock) and Markerlight that serves the same purpose as recon in some cases (like painting a target).
- Combat Engineers: If you mean, to take down fortifications, that's kind of pointless, since the weapons of the 41st millennium just make them go kaboom anyhow.

Now, you can argue that some of the rules for some of the units are unrealistic or unbalancing, or that the units kinda suck. But, lots of things with every tabletop game are unrealistic. I mean, even the scale isn't realistic. You can't put a to-scale office building in an urban map, because it would take up the whole table. I mean, how do you represent a 500,000 sq ft office building? You can't have a 41st millennium jetfighter zoom across at Mach 20 because, what would be the point? And why not just call down 20 orbital before the game starts, and wipe out the other side? This is a game that tries to be fun by inserting elements of units we're familiar with into a futuristic setting. If it isn't real enough or fun for you, I guess, don't play it.

However, an argument can't be made that there are a huge variety of units available -- including anti-air, heavy artillery, electronic warfare, and so on -- even if a lot of those units are very uncommon to see, because in the context of the 40k game as a "my 1850 points versus your 1850 points -- GO!" a lot of them are either suboptimal or game-breaking (fortifications especially). All of these weird, special units, however, are very exciting to play in scenarios and campaigns, both published, and on a tabletop.

This summer, on an 8x8 table, we had a full Wall of Martyrs set in the middle (well, more than full.. like, $2000 of terrain), Imperium units in the fort, and 3 other players assaulting the center (which had 2 players). One tactical objective in the center, and they had to hold it to win, within 8 hours of play (no turn limit). There were.... at least 15 titan models on the table, and so many infantry, vehicles, and air that I lost count. We didn't really even tally up points, except in a very approximate way (it was more, what model do you own, and can you transport it?).

And guess what? It was a boatload of fun. Xenos finally won, by the way, about 7 hours in. Yeah, the turns took freaking forever. Yes, there were many house rules to make it playable. But it was *epic* and probably one of the most enjoyable 40k sessions I've ever had.

Akiasura wrote:

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.

Let me guess.

Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, WMH's elves *can* have 2+ armor and power fists ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, the inquisition is not expecting you because feth it we needed another unique ability so we picked the wrong one after writing fifty that did not unbalance the game ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

really ?

You do know that the actual variety of units int 40K is at least twice as long as that ?

You do know that on top of unit types - a lot of which are much more differentiated - , 40K also has a ton of special rules, which you seem to be conflating in there ?

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


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.

In other words, you admit that the lack of clear winning builds is simply due to the triple list format, which is itself strongly favored by the low model count.

The day WMH gets the diversity of 40K and the single list format competition with just as many players, its balance will look just as bad, without the great models.

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

It is. Each army has over 50 different choices all told, with there being different actions many units can take. I have had games where a warbeast has slammed an enemy trooper into a enemy warcaster, knocking him down. My other warbeast then rushed forward, using the momentum of his own attacks to carry him forward, and then unleashing a torrent of blows on the enemy hero that caused me to win the game. This is 2 warbeasts, just 2. Compare this to say, honor guard in 40k, where your choices become "move, shoot, charge, fire combi weapons, challenge" and that is it forever. WMH also has a lot less dead units, and no dead factions, unlike 40k.

Let me guess.

Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, WMH's elves *can* have 2+ armor and power fists ?

Would that be because unlike 40K, the inquisition is not expecting you because feth it we needed another unique ability so we picked the wrong one after writing fifty that did not unbalance the game ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

But outside of that, if you want to go into unit types that have special rules (which is really what they are in 40k)
Undead, Etheral, Warcaster, Warlock, Cavarly, Light Cavarly, Flyer, Jumper, UA, Standard Bearer, Grunts, Warrior models (not always the same thing!), artillery, battle engine, Jr warcaster, Jr warlock (Zhaadesh works different from Junior), beast pack, mercs, minions, solos, character solos, and the list goes on and on.

So yeah, it has more unit types. These aren't even special rules like eyeless sight, magical weapons, tough, open fist, sacred, chain weapon...

really ?

You do know that the actual variety of units int 40K is at least twice as long as that ?

You do know that on top of unit types, 40K also has a ton of special rules, which you seem to be conflating in there ?

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

What the hell are you on about 'everything people like about WMH is the result of it being not competitive'? That's the main draw to the game, it has a very tight ruleset which allows for a much higher level of competitive gameplay than 40k. In WMH you win because you outplay the opponent. Not because you brought better units. But wait, you've not even played it have you? But clearly you know what you're talking about...

and as for 'Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?' you're talking about 40k there right? Y'know, where half the armies are marines?

Most tournaments are double lists, not triple. And I don't know why they would go to a single list format when the double list clearly works, I think all games should have a double list format, or be like Malifaux where you build the list after you know the mission. I don't see how having that extra bit of choice is a bad thing at all?

And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

 ImAGeek wrote:

morgoth wrote:

It's just ridiculous to argue that warmahordes has the diversity of 40K.

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

What the hell are you on about 'everything people like about WMH is the result of it being not competitive'? That's the main draw to the game, it has a very tight ruleset which allows for a much higher level of competitive gameplay than 40k. In WMH you win because you outplay the opponent. Not because you brought better units. But wait, you've not even played it have you? But clearly you know what you're talking about...

and as for 'Would that be because all of those factions have very similar choices and are thus less different from each other ?' you're talking about 40k there right? Y'know, where half the armies are marines?

Most tournaments are double lists, not triple. And I don't know why they would go to a single list format when the double list clearly works, I think all games should have a double list format, or be like Malifaux where you build the list after you know the mission. I don't see how having that extra bit of choice is a bad thing at all?

And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Double and Triple list is not conductive to competition. It's conductive to diversity, and open to Combo and Nemesis mechanics where skewed lists can be played because they're not at risk of defending against other lists.

The number of people in WMH tournaments, as well as the age of the scene, makes it less competitive (it will get there much faster than 40K though, because it does have the qualities for it as you point out).

WMH has the illusion of diversity.

What you fail to realize is that the only way to avoid chaos is to reduce entropy, and that reducing entropy amounts to reducing diversity, and that's exactly what makes WMH more balanced, a sound choice by the game designers if we listen to the WMH fans.

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

It doesn't, it doesn't even need it, and everything people like about WMH is the result of it being less diverse - and not competitive.

Perhaps a mistype? I think that WMH is a reasonably competitive game, when it comes to two strangers who meet with an agreed-upon points limit and just play to win. Not really my type of game, because I find that the games simply get repetitive too quickly.

My preference is scenarios that are better thought out, though of course the two players still compete within the context of the scenario.

I think what they're trying to say is that diversity doesn't mean there's a lot of unit "categories".

Sure, you can have two different people on foot, but they can play very differently from each other.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".

Some on that list are present in WMH though. Artillery (there's cannons, mortars and stuff), stunningly enormous monsters (gargantuans), motorbikes (cavalry, the fantasy equivalent), tanks (Khador battle engine), chariots (one of the Menoth casters literally is on a chariot). But anyway, there's less unit types but there's not less units. So there's more variety, it's just in less categories.

Talys wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:


And WMH absolutely has the same level of diversity. It really does. Probably more than 40k because pretty much everything can be taken competitively, not like in 40k where half your codex is useless if you actually want to win.

Respectfully, everyone keeps saying this, but nobody has told me where in WMH, you can have artillery, fortifications, jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, stunningly enormous monsters, motorcycles, jetbikes, troop transports, tanks, chariots... I'm kinda tired of typing out the list, and not getting a real response

It would be nice for someone to at least acknowledge, "No, most of these varieties of models don't really exist in the WMH universe". It could even be suffixed by, "and they would probably wreck the WMH if they were introduced".

That's like going to a game of WHFB and asking why the grunts aren't all carrying machine guns. How many jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, motorcycles, jetbikes, tanks and chariots did you see in the 19th Century? This is a game of steam punk, not futurepunk.

As for the others.

Artillery. You have the Khador Avalanche cannon, plus mortars and field guns.
Monsters? Have you not seen the Horde Gargantuans? I would call them enormous monsters.
How about Armoured Chariots carrying massive amounts of guns? Like the battle carriages.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's like going to a game of WHFB and asking why the grunts aren't all carrying machine guns. How many jets, bombers, skimmers, helicopters, motorcycles, jetbikes, tanks and chariots did you see in the 19th Century? This is a game of steam punk, not futurepunk.

As for the others.

Artillery. You have the Khador Avalanche cannon, plus mortars and field guns.
Monsters? Have you not seen the Horde Gargantuans? I would call them enormous monsters.
How about Armoured Chariots carrying massive amounts of guns? Like the battle carriages.

Steampunk still has flying vehicles (for instance, dirigibles), flying monsters are possible, vehicles in general, and of course, troop transports. In WHFB, there are no guns, but there are ranged attacks that do essentially the same thing. In WMH, there are plenty of guns

Khador Avalanche cannon is a tiny little thing. I mean something like an Aquilla Strongpoint:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Wall-of-Martyrs-Aquila-Strongpoint

This thing is a genuine piece of terrain (which connects to many other fortification pieces) that is much larger than even the largest models, on which you can station many, many models, and which the opponent truly fears.

Gargantuans are half the height / quarter the size of the largest 40k models (and about the size of common 40k models like Imperial Knight), but yes, I will concede that they are large in relation to other models. Chariots are not a great example (I also never mentioned it in my previous lists.. not sure why it popped into my head).

Perhaps let me rephrase. In WMH, the types of units are creatures, medium sized creatures, large sized creatures, and single creatures on mounts. There is not variety in the sense of, vehicles, flying units, transportation units, true fortifications, and that type of thing.

I think WMH would be a richer game with some of them, and I think that eventually PP will introduce some of those types.

Yes but the point is, 40k might have more unit catagories, but it doesn't have more units. If one thing has 10 categories with 2 things in each, and one has 5 categories with 5 in each, which has more options?

WMH is a fantasy world, so big artillery, flyers (helicopters, you specified in your last list), jet bikes, tanks... Don't have much place, so there's no reason for them to be there. Adding them in would just be more 'variety' for no reason. And there are flying monsters, there's vehicles (trains) in the fluff but there's no point them being in the game.

Actually one of the other reasons for not having any flyers is that the sky is full of things that might eat them, such as dragons, or lesser flying spawn. So it is far safer to use a train.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Yes but the point is, 40k might have more unit catagories, but it doesn't have more units. If one thing has 10 categories with 2 things in each, and one has 5 categories with 5 in each, which has more options?

WMH is a fantasy world, so big artillery, flyers (helicopters, you specified in your last list), jet bikes, tanks... Don't have much place, so there's no reason for them to be there. Adding them in would just be more 'variety' for no reason. And there are flying monsters, there's vehicles (trains) in the fluff but there's no point them being in the game.

Why not just compare it to WHFB, then? If there's trolls, why not harpies? Why not flying dragons that can rain fire on the hapless units below? Why not giant elephants that the troops can board and ride?

And, there is magic. So, why not magical artillery? Or a magically enhanced fortifications?

I mean, I think the answer is simply that PP hasn't gotten there yet, not that it will never get there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Actually one of the other reasons for not having any flyers is that the sky is full of things that might eat them, such as dragons, or lesser flying spawn. So it is far safer to use a train.

Indeed. They should be in the game ^.^

More importantly, they should manufacture the model, so that I may build it! And put it on a table!


By the way, to say that in a fantasy setting or in fluff, there are fewer possible unit types is not to say that there are an equal number of unit types >.<

There are still more unit types in 40k -- regardless of whether they belong or make sense in WMH, or whether they are balanced in 40k.

Talys: I see people are falling over themselves in the effort to backpedal so as to exclude you from the 'indoctrinated GWombie' pool; but personally I think you still dip a toe when I see you type stuff like '50 minis is a dinky skirmish' and '40K [with all it's excruciating clunky and crunchy rules] is great for huge battles!'

In addition, I don't rate Warmachine overly highly either. I don't think it's so far removed from 40K. I sigh to myself when I see it's fans post here - "Warmachine is more tactical because you choose units and characters instead of individual weapons to get artificial buffs!" It's all still concentrating on strategy at best, obsessing about listbuilding at worst. So, yeah, they do appeal to the same kind of gamer, too. If they didn't, PP probably wouldn't be as big as it is.
I don't know what other games you play, Talys, but I don't consider a steady diet of 40K and WM (even with a dash of Necromunda on top) to be any sort of basis or qualification to hold forth about the wide variety of gameplay style and tactical depth in wargaming. Not to say I'm so 'widely travelled' in this wee world meself, but strewth, some of you make me feel like Phileas Fogg. If you still think 40K is a great game, let alone a great mass-battle game, I still say you need to try other games, including alternate rulesets that you can use to represent the 41st millenium with your 41st millenium minis. I don't feel very much guilt or shame about saying that, and I don't think I should.

Why not? To answer one of Hubris' questions: because I honestly think 40K - with the way it's shoddy rules and GW's associated business practises are propped up by naive gamers, to the point of considering all this gak to be the norm - has become a stain on wargaming. A fairly big stain with an awful lot of people lapping it up, to be sure, but that doesn't make me feel much better about it. So I'd maybe stop short of 'crusading', but I'll take the opportunity to stick my oar in if I happen to wander past a suitable juncture. It might make some bottom lips quiver, grouchy old poopy-heads saying mean things about poor likkle 40K, but as long as a tiny chink gets through the thick GW smog...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, all this bullgak about "this is the better game because of the number of units or unit types!" is so bloody irrelevant I don't even

Except they can't Dragons in Warmachine are absolutely huge, Lord Toruk would probably cover a 4 x 4 board by himself. He once sat on a fortress, and crushed it under his weight.

I can however, tell you that the Dragon Everblight is in fact a glowing blue rock wedged in the chest of an ogre.