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.

 Vermis wrote:
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...

Hah! I largely agree with you, Vermis.

I have been playing 40k since the late 80's, with Rogue Trader. I have played a massive number of tabletop games (my garage is filled with board games and wargames), though most of this was in my misspent youth

Now, I don't actually *play* much anymore. I model a lot (and all this forum posting is seriously taking away from my modelling time... lol) -- usually 3-5 hours a day, more on weekends. I used to game many times every week, but now, it's about twice a month, I get together with a group of relatively close friends, usually in my basement, where I have a decent gaming man-cave set up, one 6x4, and two 4x4 tables, XB1/PS4, sofas, fridge and food I sometimes go look at tournaments, but I can't even remember the last time I played at one. Mostly, this is because I'm too lazy to transport my models. The first tabletop miniature game I owned was Chainmail by Gary Gygax -- which I still have

I also enjoy RPGs a lot, and until the last few years, played them quite often. I also am an on-again-off-again crazy computer gamer (I just need to find a game to obsess over, and then eventually it burns out).

I agree that GW is not a good corporate citizen, and that they make some shoddy rules. However, I think they make great miniatures, and it's pretty easy to have fun playing them, even given the shoddy rules.

Most of the time, I feel like the shoddy rules aren't because of malice (like "GW Doesn't Care") -- I think GW just kind of writes them on the back of a dinner napkin, plays it once on a table, and goes, ok, that sounds good! But again, I have fun playing their games, and part of the enjoyment is really the high model count and the epic looking setup.

I do like small model count games for quick games. I think WMH is a much better skirmish game, than say, 40k Kill Team. The rules are just better for it. But, I just prefer the epic megapocalypse type battles. Maybe it's just that I don't get to play that much anymore, so I want to make it count!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
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.

I would like to see someone play the new Smaug model for LoTR. Now THAT is an epic sized dragon! I dunno if it's to scale, but it would be pretty awesome hahaha.

Oh well, it was fun chatting with everyone, if not the way I wanted to spend Monday late night, lol. I have to stop doing this Good night all, and safe journeys!

Talys wrote:

 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.

Well there's the Archangel which is basically a dragon that breathes fire on people. And I'm not arguing that there's not more unit types in 40k. I'm arguing that there's not more variety in 40k.

It's not even you I'm really arguing with Talys, we actually agree on most things I think and I apologise if I've been aggressive or anything, it's just certain people claiming they know everything, and throwing around ridiculous claims like they're facts about a game they haven't even played, kinda gets a bit annoying. Especially when it's always the same person...

 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.

That's the whole thing.

If you have more categories, with very distinct capabilities (which is not the case with the WMH categories by the way), the game will be more diverse.

When you have more things in less categories, the game will be flatter and thus more balanced.

There will always be way more options in 40K, the sheer number of books and options available for each selection pretty much guarantees that and GW keeps on producing more.

Even without the digital only, 40K has way more possible army lists at a comparable points level.

And because those are more varied, some are more obviously useless or extremely strong.

I like how people who don't play the game tell people who play the game the aspects of the game they're playing as if they know the game better than the people playing the game.

 heartserenade wrote:
I like how people who don't play the game tell people who play the game the aspects of the game they're playing as if they know the game better than the people playing the game.

Exactly. You reading this morgoth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 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.

That's the whole thing.

If you have more categories, with very distinct capabilities (which is not the case with the WMH categories by the way), the game will be more diverse.

When you have more things in less categories, the game will be flatter and thus more balanced.

There will always be way more options in 40K, the sheer number of books and options available for each selection pretty much guarantees that and GW keeps on producing more.

Even without the digital only, 40K has way more possible army lists at a comparable points level.

And because those are more varied, some are more obviously useless or extremely strong.

It's not flatter though. The units in the categories in WMH each do completely different things. Not like in 40k. 40k has false variety. The stat lines rarely differ much at all in each army. Half the armies are Space Marines. Units don't do anything except offer extra wounds for the guy with the big gun. Not only that, but WMH units/models are capable of so much more on the table, the options there are staggering, especially with interactions with your own models (which is basically non existent in 40k). Not only that, but you very very rarely see half the units in 40k at anything over a completely casual game!

Just because something has more variety anyway (not that 40k does but just to humour you for a second) that's no excuse for such horrible balance between units.

 ImAGeek wrote:

It's not flatter though. The units in the categories in WMH each do completely different things. Not like in 40k. 40k has false variety. The stat lines rarely differ much at all in each army.

That's precisely where the variety comes from.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Half the armies are Space Marines.

There's so much variety that there are even different flavors of Space Marines. But the other armies are *very* different.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Units don't do anything except offer extra wounds for the guy with the big gun.

lol. Most armies don't even have a guy with a big gun. Do you even play 40K ?

 ImAGeek wrote:
Not only that, but WMH units/models are capable of so much more on the table, the options there are staggering, especially with interactions with your own models (which is basically non existent in 40k).

And that's awesome, I'm sure it makes it a much better skirmish game.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Not only that, but you very very rarely see half the units in 40k at anything over a completely casual game!

Which means that the variance between units in WMH is low enough to prevent some of them from being "utter trash".
And also means that the meta of 40K you've been living in was too competitive for you.

 ImAGeek wrote:


Just because something has more variety anyway (not that 40k does but just to humour you for a second) that's no excuse for such horrible balance between units.

It's not about excuses but about consequences.

Variety implies imbalance.
And 40K appears to have excellent external balance if you look at competition.
And outside of competition nobody knows because there are no statistics.

Internal balance ? not so much.

But that's a result of variety. You can't have ten truly different units that are on the same power level, especially not when combos come in play.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because you don't even play both so you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes I play 40k. Maybe my meta is too competitive, what do you suggest I do, move? If it was a balanced game, the 'meta' wouldn't matter, because I could play whatever and still have a chance at a good game. You can make a balanced game without limiting the variety. It's a bit more difficult, but no where near as impossible as you make it out to be.

Talys wrote:
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.

No, I do not have to do that. WMH has special rules AND unit types.

Special rules include things like
poison, corrosive, burning, frost, inaccurate, snipe, burst fire, reach, beserk, a whole slew of minifeats, side step, and way way more than 40k has.

Unit types are things like
Undead, Living, Construct, WarBeast, WarJack, Jack Marshal, Warlock, Warcaster

Unit types, in 40k, Fantasy, and WMH are just a group of special rules that get passed around quite commonly so are predefined.
Infantry move 6" and can run. They may shoot and assault.
Bikes can turbo boost.
Beasts charge in special ways.
MC can fire two guns and such.

How is that any different then: Undead are immune to poison, certain spells, only effected by certain spells/feats? Etheral can only be harmed by magical weapons, may pass through friendly/enemy (list of UNIT TYPES here)?
How is it different than: Warbeasts have a fury stat. They may take a number of special actions, each one generating a fury point up to this max. If they have fury at the start of the next turn when activated, roll for threshold. They may not trample Medium based infantry (Unit type again?!)

It's the same thing, from a functional standpoint.

Guns have Assault, heavy, rapid fire, and such as 'unit types' for weapons.
Trust me, if I went through my book you'd see there are way more special rules in WMH then there are in 40k. It's commonly known that in WMH, mostly everyone loses their first 10 games at least due to the fact you do not know all the rules and combos list can achieve.

WH40k has a limited selection of units compared to WMH for most factions.

Lets see, for wolves you get what,
2 Combat HQ's
Priest
Rune Priest
Iron Priest

Generally everyone takes 1-2 optimal builds with each. There are also Special characters
In WMH I can get
pHexy
eHexy
pXexeris
e Xexeris
Mordikaar
Nastheth
Rastheth
p/e/3Makeda (3 choices)
Morgoul, p and e as well.

For unit types let's see...solos I get
Lone Wolves

In WMH I can get
Eryiss 1, 2, 3
Snapjaw
Tycom Commander
Blood Runner Master
Extoller
My Puppet strings guy (forget his name)

It's going to be like this no matter what we compare. WMH has many units, each with various special abilities and uses.
Just my swordsman have
Sidestep, 2 attacks, minifeat where they deal a minimum of 1 damage regardless of damage rolls, and a whole slew of unique stats (including movement!) that can vary between 1-20

Compare to marines
ATSKNF (Every marine gets that, not every guy in my army has the same rule), Chapter Tactics (Per army, so again, not a lot of diversity), whatever special weapons you give them (A plasma gun is a plasma gun, across all of the IoM).

Granted, Xenos armies have way more diversity and would do a better job.
But since you're demanding jet fighters in a fantasy game (Which, btw WHFB does have guns. Dwarves, Humans, Ogres are a thing) as a reason one is better than the other....I don't feel bad comparing a reasonably bland army. And I did pick hordes, which is newer and has less variety. If we compare to Khador or Menoth oh man.
Just the Choir alone does more for an army than anything in 40k.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because you don't even play both so you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes I play 40k. Maybe my meta is too competitive, what do you suggest I do, move? If it was a balanced game, the 'meta' wouldn't matter, because I could play whatever and still have a chance at a good game. You can make a balanced game without limiting the variety. It's a bit more difficult, but no where near as impossible as you make it out to be.

1. Warmahorde competitive is nowhere as mature as 40K competitive, meaning you have no way to know whether the game is more balanced. It appears somewhat balanced at the moment, that's all we know for sure.

2. If you think attaining balance in an asymmetric balance game with 7+ radically different factions is "a bit more difficult", you clearly don't know what it takes to balance a game.


Just so you get an idea, most RTSs have two or three attack types, at most fifty units and fifty buildings, and most of them have never reached a level of balance like 40K (56% win rate top dog, 50-52% within top 5).

I don't know the details of warmahorde, but I know the outline and I know a lot more about balance than you do, and that's why I take the time to explain to you that your childish exclamation of "40K's balance sucks durrr" ignores most of the challenges balancing games actually pose.


And guess what, there's yet another reason you prefer warmahorde that you keep on talking about without really mentioning it: the community. Those are always more friendly and constructive when they're new. Every community everywhere in the world. The freshest, the less rotten apples. The more likely that people actually try and make things work (like that multiple source tournament idea to prevent the shrinking of the meta that happened in 40K). And that's a good thing.

And that's also why you don't feel the pressure of the netlisting and the arguably sad meta that you've witnessed with 40K.


There are many great things about Warmahordes, you don't need bs arguments like "more variety" or "more balanced" to convince anyone of the really good reasons that game is worth playing.

Instead, focus on the fun combos, the great community, the more open competitive approach that openly fights the evil of TAC - and stuff.

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

If it IS in the rules, it is not "abuse" period, abuse is a term that gets thrown around incorrectly constantly is these post, and way to much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse

- 40k rules are complex; if you want a simple or cheap game, don't play 40k.
.
Exactly, why 40k and GW stock are both in the toilet, attitudes like that do not help.

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

What is a Strom Bolter and a Combi-Bolter, do they have different rules? Now multiply that by all the different looking weapons with the exact same rules, etc.
Look, confusion; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627149.page
.
- Most 40k models come with most of the equipment options. There are a few notable exceptions, but not many. WMH have no options at all.

"Most, is not ALL, and there are multiple kits that do not even come with "most" the brand new redesigned SM tactical squad come with what heavy weaponS?

- What the heck is a governing body to enforce wysiwig? Someone that will come into your house and say, "NO, YOU MUST PAINT THAT BLOOD ANGEL RED!!!!". In a tournament, the T.O. will have its rules. In a private game, use whatever you want, paper counters, proxies, or $10,000 of painted models.
.
Firstly, painting is covered in the rules that you can paint any colors you choose and is not part of wysiwyg. Secondly, WMH covers wysiwyg, as each and every rule released has a "specific" wysiwyg model, thus a governing body, PP, sets wysiwyg. Thirdly Yes, pew-pew (in private) you can do whatever you want, even with WMH, line up the figures and shoot them with a BB-gun, but RULES wise, PP and WMH covers wysiwyg, GW does not.

- DV comes with exactly the same rulebook as hardcover BRB, so I don't understand how you can say it's a beginner game rather than 40k.
No Codices, no FW, no e-books, and etc. which are rules for the entire game of 40k, DV is DV, as it only comes with a beginner game army-list insert.

- WMH has some really beautiful models too.
Yes, it does, and?

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

Explain where your vast knowledge of balance comes from then. I don't think anything I've said has been childish. And ive actually played both games so ya know, there's that.

More balanced is not a bs argument. You can argue the variety point, there is parts of that I can see, but WMH is definitely a more balanced game, however you cut it.

morgoth wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because you don't even play both so you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes I play 40k. Maybe my meta is too competitive, what do you suggest I do, move? If it was a balanced game, the 'meta' wouldn't matter, because I could play whatever and still have a chance at a good game. You can make a balanced game without limiting the variety. It's a bit more difficult, but no where near as impossible as you make it out to be.

1. Warmahorde competitive is nowhere as mature as 40K competitive, meaning you have no way to know whether the game is more balanced. It appears somewhat balanced at the moment, that's all we know for sure.
We are going to need you to back this up with facts or some sort of example rather than your own opinion. After hearing your thoughts on waveserpents, your opinion is worth less than piss in a rainstorm
2. If you think attaining balance in an asymmetric balance game with 7+ radically different factions is "a bit more difficult", you clearly don't know what it takes to balance a game.
WMH manages to do it just fine. Each army has more units, and the two games play radically differently. CoC is practically another game unto itself.

Just so you get an idea, most RTSs have two or three attack types, at most fifty units and fifty buildings, and most of them have never reached a level of balance like 40K (56% win rate top dog, 50-52% within top 5).
Last time I checked torrent of fire, results were 3 months old, the top armies were at 70% and the bottom were at 30%. WMH has those numbers though, if you look up their tournament results per faction.
I don't know the details of warmahorde, but I know the outline and I know a lot more about balance than you do, and that's why I take the time to explain to you that your childish exclamation of "40K's balance sucks durrr" ignores most of the challenges balancing games actually pose.
First off, you don't know the details so how can you know the balance of the game? Second, you're widely regarded as....well...not an expert on balance around these parts. That is not an acceptable claim, and it is an appeal to authority followed by a personal attack. Try to respond with points instead, it may get you somewhere?

And guess what, there's yet another reason you prefer warmahorde that you keep on talking about without really mentioning it: the community. Those are always more friendly and constructive when they're new. Every community everywhere in the world. The freshest, the less rotten apples. The more likely that people actually try and make things work (like that multiple source tournament idea to prevent the shrinking of the meta that happened in 40K). And that's a good thing.
The game isn't a few years old, which is what I am getting from your tone here. It's over 10 years, and people didn't like MKI very much
And that's also why you don't feel the pressure of the netlisting and the arguably sad meta that you've witnessed with 40K.
Netlisting does happen, but it's nowhere near as prevalent in that game because every unit is viable (with maybe 1-2 exceptions per faction). Warcasters change playstyle heavily as well, and some people like to think outside the box, like the guy who plays jack heavy Cryx like some sort of pyscho.

There are many great things about Warmahordes, you don't need bs arguments like "more variety" or "more balanced" to convince anyone of the really good reasons that game is worth playing.
Try addressing my arguments rather than calling them bs. I took the time to post them after all. And, like I said, your opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight with anyone here
Instead, focus on the fun combos, the great community, the more open competitive approach that openly fights the evil of TAC - and stuff.

Edit, Talys, you realize you are on morgoth's side in a debate right?
That's a hint it's the wrong side

morgoth wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because you don't even play both so you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Yes I play 40k. Maybe my meta is too competitive, what do you suggest I do, move? If it was a balanced game, the 'meta' wouldn't matter, because I could play whatever and still have a chance at a good game. You can make a balanced game without limiting the variety. It's a bit more difficult, but no where near as impossible as you make it out to be.

1. Warmahorde competitive is nowhere as mature as 40K competitive, meaning you have no way to know whether the game is more balanced. It appears somewhat balanced at the moment, that's all we know for sure.

2. If you think attaining balance in an asymmetric balance game with 7+ radically different factions is "a bit more difficult", you clearly don't know what it takes to balance a game.


Just so you get an idea, most RTSs have two or three attack types, at most fifty units and fifty buildings, and most of them have never reached a level of balance like 40K (56% win rate top dog, 50-52% within top 5).

I don't know the details of warmahorde, but I know the outline and I know a lot more about balance than you do, and that's why I take the time to explain to you that your childish exclamation of "40K's balance sucks durrr" ignores most of the challenges balancing games actually pose.


And guess what, there's yet another reason you prefer warmahorde that you keep on talking about without really mentioning it: the community. Those are always more friendly and constructive when they're new. Every community everywhere in the world. The freshest, the less rotten apples. The more likely that people actually try and make things work (like that multiple source tournament idea to prevent the shrinking of the meta that happened in 40K). And that's a good thing.

And that's also why you don't feel the pressure of the netlisting and the arguably sad meta that you've witnessed with 40K.


There are many great things about Warmahordes, you don't need bs arguments like "more variety" or "more balanced" to convince anyone of the really good reasons that game is worth playing.

Instead, focus on the fun combos, the great community, the more open competitive approach that openly fights the evil of TAC - and stuff.

So you took a break from the forums and played Starcraft for while, and all of the sudden you're an expert on balancing RTS games, games that has nothing to do with miniature wargaming? Tell me Morgoth, didn't you also happen to claim that you had extensive knowledge on casting, pricing and manufacturing of miniatures models and claimed that you were qualified to estimate the production cost of a Titan Class miniature? Didn't you also claim that you had deep inside information on car manufacturing and even claimed that a forum user (who had over 20 years of experience in car factories) was wrong, knew nothing of car production in practice? You even went as far as to claim that the factory he had worked in (for 10+ years, mind you) didn't exist.
How is it that you're so blessed with all this expert knowledge on so many subjects, that you humble us mere peasants with your grace, quickly to invalidate all our proletarian opinions based on our non-existing expertise?

Hooboy. It's like someone who never left the USA telling me how life is in the Philippines while me, a native Filipino who has lived in the Philippines my whole life, is wrong and this theoretical American is right.

I've never played a game of WMH so I don't assume I know the game better than those who play it. Most (if not all) of the players who played it swear that it's balanced, or at least more balanced than 40k. Therefore I, with no experience with the game, would tend to agree with them. Just like how I would trust people who went to Antartica when they say that Antartica is cold as feth.

 heartserenade wrote:
Hooboy. It's like someone who never left the USA telling me how life is in the Philippines while me, a native Filipino who has lived in the Philippines my whole life, is wrong and this theoretical American is right.

I've never played a game of WMH so I don't assume I know the game better than those who play it. Most (if not all) of the players who played it swear that it's balanced, or at least more balanced than 40k. Therefore I, with no experience with the game, would tend to agree with them. Just like how I would trust people who went to Antartica when they say that Antartica is cold as feth.

.
EXACTLY THIS.

I've played and play 40k, fantasy and Warmahorde. They each scratch a different itch for me and I couldn't honestly do a fair comparison between the two.

40k/Fantasy I enjoy playing just because I want to play a wargame and that I enjoy the models. Warmahorde I play when I want something quicker. Interestingly though I find I like far fewer of the Warmahorde factions model/lore wise than 40k to the point I'm only playing Legion but have multiple armies in 40k and fantasy.

To me they are different games that can't be really compared. Aesthetics are different, playstyle very different and theme very different. They are what they are and people will like one more than the other.

Again I'm in a peculiar place as I play WMH and enjoy it about 65%, want to play 40k again but GW's prices and more importantly the lack of clear rules and balance keeps me away. I'd rather spend time and money on WMH where I feel I can get a balanced game over 40k where I want to play something fluffy that will lose because of poor balance.

If you're worried about fluff and balance in 40K, try playing with points handicaps.

I've seen that you can have very close and fun battles with competitive list against softer lists as long as you take +30% points.

If you have opponents you enjoy playing with, give it a few tries, it might renew your interest in the game

morgoth wrote:
If you're worried about fluff and balance in 40K, try playing with points handicaps.

I've seen that you can have very close and fun battles with competitive list against softer lists as long as you take +30% points.

If you have opponents you enjoy playing with, give it a few tries, it might renew your interest in the game

Maybe, but that's a really silly IMHO way to "fix" a game. I would be going to a game store to play pickup games, so that's not always a viable option.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Maybe, but that's a really silly IMHO way to "fix" a game. I would be going to a game store to play pickup games, so that's not always a viable option.

That's the only way to fix a game.

When I played C&C Generals at the local arcade, I played 1v4. It wasn't silly and everyone had fun.

You can go to that store, have a look at the list, show yours and suggest a percentage if you think the lists are not in the same power bracket.

The options are everywhere, what's missing is the will to actually make things work.

Shouldn't have to do that to enjoy a game though. It's not our job to fix their shoddy rules.

The rules are not the problem, the people are.

What's broken is that people expect to have a balanced game between a guy who doesn't care about the efficiency of his list, and one who does.

And effectively, short of creating a mechanism that can handle this difference, as well as the difference in skill, etc. the games will always be lopsided except in the odd case - except if people only play with like minded opponents with approximately the same skill level and interest in the game. and miniatures and modelling and ... whatever you know.

morgoth wrote:
The rules are not the problem, the people are.

What's broken is that people expect to have a balanced game between a guy who doesn't care about the efficiency of his list, and one who does.

And effectively, short of creating a mechanism that can handle this difference, as well as the difference in skill, etc. the games will always be lopsided except in the odd case - except if people only play with like minded opponents with approximately the same skill level and interest in the game. and miniatures and modelling and ... whatever you know.

You can't have a balanced game against a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player.
That's the problem.

Akiasura wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The rules are not the problem, the people are.

What's broken is that people expect to have a balanced game between a guy who doesn't care about the efficiency of his list, and one who does.

And effectively, short of creating a mechanism that can handle this difference, as well as the difference in skill, etc. the games will always be lopsided except in the odd case - except if people only play with like minded opponents with approximately the same skill level and interest in the game. and miniatures and modelling and ... whatever you know.

You can't have a balanced game against a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player.
That's the problem.

Or in my case...

I would have an all Terminator army because it's cool as hell, and I'd probably lose every game because Termies suck in the rules.

When they fix that without requiring some cheesy combos or taking Deathwing or something (I wanted to do my own SM chapter), just straight combo of LRs, Terminators, Dreadnoughts etc. then I'd consider playing again.

Akiasura wrote:

You can't have a balanced game against a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player.
That's the problem.

Have you tried unbound ?
Or 1000 points ?

Maybe you mean that you can't have a balanced game between a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player at 1850 points, with single CAD + allied on a table where 3% of the terrain blocks line of sight ?

morgoth wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You can't have a balanced game against a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player.
That's the problem.

Have you tried unbound ?
Or 1000 points ?

Maybe you mean that you can't have a balanced game between a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player at 1850 points, with single CAD + allied on a table where 3% of the terrain blocks line of sight ?

No offense, but I really doubt that playing at lower points or with Unbound helps balance at all. In fact it seems to me that it's more imbalanced at 1,000 points than higher, because you have less to deal with the unbalanced things that people can still field.

morgoth wrote:
That's the only way to fix a game.
.

...oh wait, you're serious. Dang, so all those people doing narrative missions, highlander tournies, forgeworld units, team matches, blind lists, etc... here they've been having all this fun, but silly fools, that wasn't really the right way to fix the game.

morgoth wrote:
Have you tried unbound ?
Or 1000 points ?

Maybe you mean that you can't have a balanced game between a competitive eldar player and a competitive ork player at 1850 points, with single CAD + allied on a table where 3% of the terrain blocks line of sight ?

Wait, so there are other ways... Morgoth, you should know that Morgoth, our resident expert, has already decreed that spotting points is the ONLY WAY to fix a game. I will tell Morgoth, that you, Morgoth, have been contradicting him and defying his edicts.

morgoth wrote:

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.

So you admit you know little to nothing about WMH but continue to say it has less variety? As others have said, 40k has more options, but that rarely matters because only a few are ever worth taking. Your argument that you can play 500 points of 40k is meaningless. No, GW doesn't force me to play 1500-2500 point battles, that's just the size game everyone wants to play. I've played 40k in 3 different cities, in 3 different states, at about 15 different stores. Guess what? Every single meta has been 1500-2500 point games unless someone is teaching a beginner. Most of us have 5000-10000 point armies. We want to use some of the toys we have spent years collecting, thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours painting and modeling. Nobody wants to play a boring 500 point game. WMH doesn't have as much competition? That statement alone tells me how little you know about the game. WMH has far more competition than 40k, where people seem to criminalize players who have the audacity to actually try to win instead of intentionally handicapping themselves.

You sound like someone arguing that McDonald's is the best food around because reasons, when you've never eaten anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and by the way
Librarian lvl2
2x min scout squads
Grav cents with missiles and omni scope

490 points

Tell me again how you can't take broken units in 500 point games. You can also fit a riptide or wraithknight into a battle forged 500 point army. That's the problem with low points, things like centurions, riptides and wraithknights become even more broken at low points. You seem to think playing a boring 500 point game is a magical fix to all the problems with 40k balance but it really just makes them worse.

The thing is that the idea that WMH has less variety than 40k because "reasons" always gets trotted out and is always proven wrong, and then someone else comes around and says the same thing.

Having flyers, superheavies, tanks, bombers, etc. etc. etc. is not variety, nor is it really viable choices because not all of those things are equal. The Dark Angels flyer for example (I forget its name) is pretty bad, the Necron Night Scythe or even the regular Stormtalon (I think that's the equivalent, it could be the other one) is better.

WMH has more variety because there are more ways to use different things in tandem. Even a simple thing like changing a Warcaster can change how an army plays. I could field the same army with pButcher as eSorscha or pIrusk or pVlad and they would operate differently even if some of the overall tactics were the same. There's no comparison in 40k to that.

That's real variety, not giving umpteen different options of which half are bad, half are really good and half are just there for the few people who might still have them and want to use them sometime.

Please stop trying to point out that since WMH doesn't have flyers, bombers or vehicles that it somehow has less variety and depth than 40k, because it's not true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and by the way
Librarian lvl2
2x min scout squads
Grav cents with missiles and omni scope

490 points

Tell me again how you can't take broken units in 500 point games. You can also fit a riptide or wraithknight into a battle forged 500 point army. That's the problem with low points, things like centurions, riptides and wraithknights become even more broken at low points. You seem to think playing a boring 500 point game is a magical fix to all the problems with 40k balance but it really just makes them worse.

It doesn't make it worse if you just tell your opponent not to field those things See, balance! It just requires you to throw out most of the rules and work out with your opponent how to play in a fun way. While there's nothing wrong with that per se, it also begs the question of why pay $85 for rules and $50 for a codex (and that's not getting into supplements and dataslates) if you have to cut large swathes of it. At that point you might as well just hash out statlines and points with your opponent beforehand.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The thing is that the idea that WMH has less variety than 40k because "reasons" always gets trotted out and is always proven wrong, and then someone else comes around and says the same thing.

Having flyers, superheavies, tanks, bombers, etc. etc. etc. is not variety, nor is it really viable choices because not all of those things are equal. The Dark Angels flyer for example (I forget its name) is pretty bad, the Necron Night Scythe or even the regular Stormtalon (I think that's the equivalent, it could be the other one) is better.

WMH has more variety because there are more ways to use different things in tandem. Even a simple thing like changing a Warcaster can change how an army plays. I could field the same army with pButcher as eSorscha or pIrusk or pVlad and they would operate differently even if some of the overall tactics were the same. There's no comparison in 40k to that.

That's real variety, not giving umpteen different options of which half are bad, half are really good and half are just there for the few people who might still have them and want to use them sometime.

Please stop trying to point out that since WMH doesn't have flyers, bombers or vehicles that it somehow has less variety and depth than 40k, because it's not true.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say, in a much more concise way.