Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Talys wrote:


If only this were so, the game would be very east to balance, and nobody would complain about complex rules. You wouldn't see people complain about serpent shields, invisible centurions, drop pods, flyer rules, et cetra.

Actually, believe it or not, the opposite is probably more true. The simpler the game, the harder to balance.

The easiest example would be chess. Every 'model' is exactly the same as every other. It has perfect 'balance' in that regard, but now the /only/ change that it does have, that white goes before black, means that the game has an imbalance- white has a very real advantage.

A simpler game means that a difference, even if slight, has a much larger impact. In a more complex game, a given difference can be more /situationally/ impactful, and therefore avoided. I very strongly feel that this is one of the reasons why 40k is so difficult to balance.

And for the last time, variety in models does not equal variety in game. You keep saying how 40k has more variety in models- no one will disagree. However, this does /not/ mean that 40k has more variety for purpose of /balancing/. Balance is purely a function of the rules. Now, if you're going to say that the rules in 40k have more variety, say that. However, you keep switching between variety in the types of models, and what an outside observer who doesn't know the rules would think. If the outside observer doesn't know the rules, then his opinion has absolutely no bearing on how difficult/easy balance is/is not. You could replace every single model in 40k with blank bases, remove the words 'bike' and 'walker' from the models and simply incorporate those rules onto the model itself, and the balance and gameplay complexity wouldn't change a single iota.

@BoardroomHero -- I have never once said that 40k models are good for balance. In fact, I've said quite the opposite -- the variety models are HORRIBLE for balance, and have the potential to absolutely wreck the game. Especially fortifications.

I think in 40k it is possible, in the context of 1,850 points to have totally disproportionately balanced lists. And this is ok with me.

I only said that 40k has a large variety of playable unit types, which greatly appeals to me. I do not really enjoy a game with a small variety of playable unit types (little guy, medium guy, big guy), regardless of how much you can do with different sized units. My preference is for a game to have a selection to choose from that includes infantry, ground vehicles, aerial units, transport units and fortifications, each of which serve a different game purpose.

My preference is also for a large model count game, and I prefer to play against people who have put a significant effort in building a really nice army. Because, in the alternative, I would prefer a computer game.

I make no assertion that any of these units are balanced, or that any rules are well-written. But I do assert that for my play group, they are really fun, even if some of the units feel overpowered or just way too good are fun.

To me, balance does NOT equal variety. Variety can disrupt balance, and that is ok, especially in a game like 40k, where there can be complex scenarios where you offset balance by situational factors.

Case in point: Thermopylae. The Spartans did very well against overwhelming odds. If you were to give the Spartans and Persians both points, the 7,000 Spartans are not point equivalent to 100,000 Persians (or, in an arena, 1 Spartan cannot generally kill 20 Persians -- unless of course it's Leonidas!). However, in the context of that battle, the Spartans decimated the Persians, arguably winning the objective, though eventually losing Thermopylae. In other words, points and point balance and unit balance isn't all there is to keeping it interesting.

Talys wrote:
@BoardroomHero -- I have never once said that 40k models are good for balance. In fact, I've said quite the opposite -- the variety models are HORRIBLE for balance, and have the potential to absolutely wreck the game. Especially fortifications.

I think in 40k it is possible, in the context of 1,850 points to have totally disproportionately balanced lists. And this is ok with me.

I only said that 40k has a large variety of playable unit types, which greatly appeals to me. I do not really enjoy a game with a small variety of playable unit types (little guy, medium guy, big guy), regardless of how much you can do with different sized units. My preference is for a game to have a selection to choose from that includes infantry, ground vehicles, aerial units, transport units and fortifications, each of which serve a different game purpose.

My preference is also for a large model count game, and I prefer to play against people who have put a significant effort in building a really nice army. Because, in the alternative, I would prefer a computer game.

I make no assertion that any of these units are balanced, or that any rules are well-written. But I do assert that for my play group, they are really fun, even if some of the units feel overpowered or just way too good are fun.

To me, balance does NOT equal variety. Variety can disrupt balance, and that is ok, especially in a game like 40k, where there can be complex scenarios where you offset balance by situational factors.

I don't think that you're understanding what I'm getting at. This may be a problem with my argument approach, I admit.

To start with, I have no opinion on which game is 'more fun.' Everyone is trying to get a slightly different thing out of any given game, so there's no 'better' one to play. So I want to set that as a foundation/ground rule before we start.

What I am saying is this: Variety, the way you are describing it, has nothing to do with balance. They are completely tangential. One can not really affect the other. You have described 'variety' as something even an outside observer with no knowledge of the game can observe. That's fine- certainly in that regard, 40k has more variety. However, by definition, that doesn't take into account any of the rules in the game itself. If it does not take into account the rules, it absolutely can not have any bearing on balance. That's what I'm trying to say.

The variety that most people here are talking about, when they say WM has more variety, is more variety in the way the models play on the table. If you were to replace every single model with a paper disk of the right size, and then played the game like that, which game would have more variety. Rules /only/. If looked at in /that/ particular context, WM has more variety.

Now, if you disagree with /that/, I'll be curious to hear your argument. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because it seems as if you're mixing model variety and rule variety.

 BoardroomHero wrote:
What I am saying is this: Variety, the way you are describing it, has nothing to do with balance. They are completely tangential. One can not really affect the other. You have described 'variety' as something even an outside observer with no knowledge of the game can observe. That's fine- certainly in that regard, 40k has more variety. However, by definition, that doesn't take into account any of the rules in the game itself. If it does not take into account the rules, it absolutely can not have any bearing on balance. That's what I'm trying to say.

The variety that most people here are talking about, when they say WM has more variety, is more variety in the way the models play on the table. If you were to replace every single model with a paper disk of the right size, and then played the game like that, which game would have more variety. Rules /only/. If looked at in /that/ particular context, WM has more variety.

Now, if you disagree with /that/, I'll be curious to hear your argument. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because it seems as if you're mixing model variety and rule variety.

Okay, first of all, let's be clear: I've been talking about variety differently than you, so let's get that over with.

If you want to define variety as what choices a unit can make once you put it on the table, er... sure. Since WMH is built for a smaller number of units, those units must have more freedom and possibility to do different things, in order to make it a game. It's a different game, sure.


If you define variety as what choices of units you can select (not in terms of aesthetic, but functionality), then 40k has more variety. Replace them all with paper counters, as you say, and you still are able to take unit A, and enter building B, firing the weapon C housed inside building B. You can load 5 units and a commander into a vehicle, fly it across the board, and shoot a weapon in the vehicle at something. You can teleport across the board using a psychic power, and make your unit invisible. You can repair a unit, which can then leave the board, and drop back in somewhere totally different.

I will agree with you that once you pick a unit, the things you can do with that unit are narrowly defined. But, you have a lot more units, each of which may have different unusual abilities. Both games have plenty of special abilities in the game pool, so it's not like there's a lack of these in either. If you want to argue that in WMH, there is more likelihood of a different strategy using the same units, I get it.

I am not saying the 40k way of "more units with different abilities" is better than "fewer units each more versatile" is better. I'm just saying, it's different.

I would also like to say that this whole silly thing came about because Peregrine and I argued that Warhammer 40,000 has a larger variety of unit types. In that context, I can't imagine a variety of unit types meaning a variety of rules, but rather, a variety of models from which you can choose to fulfill different functions. As a commander in a real army would need to choose proportions of infantry, armor, and air rather than picking super-soldier teams that can be deployed and can do a variety of things once deployed.

TLDR: Can we at least just agree to say -- model unit type variety, by which we mean, ability of models to provide different functionality. And model rules variety, by which we mean, ability of a model to do different things, once on the board. Would that be accurate?

 BoardroomHero wrote:
I don't think that you're understanding what I'm getting at. This may be a problem with my argument approach, I admit.

To start with, I have no opinion on which game is 'more fun.' Everyone is trying to get a slightly different thing out of any given game, so there's no 'better' one to play. So I want to set that as a foundation/ground rule before we start.

What I am saying is this: Variety, the way you are describing it, has nothing to do with balance. They are completely tangential. One can not really affect the other. You have described 'variety' as something even an outside observer with no knowledge of the game can observe. That's fine- certainly in that regard, 40k has more variety. However, by definition, that doesn't take into account any of the rules in the game itself. If it does not take into account the rules, it absolutely can not have any bearing on balance. That's what I'm trying to say.

The variety that most people here are talking about, when they say WM has more variety, is more variety in the way the models play on the table. If you were to replace every single model with a paper disk of the right size, and then played the game like that, which game would have more variety. Rules /only/. If looked at in /that/ particular context, WM has more variety.

Now, if you disagree with /that/, I'll be curious to hear your argument. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because it seems as if you're mixing model variety and rule variety.

I don't think anybody would disagree that model appearance variety does no equal rules variety. I do, however, feel that too many of the pro-WMH crowd are dismissing 40K unit rule variety as "they all move/shoot/die" but then providing a very abstract interpretation of WMH unit variety (unit X just "feels" different, unit Y just "plays" different, etc).

40K unit types ARE different from each other, bikes play differently than infantry or beasts, MC play differently than walkers, Flyers play differently from Skimmers, which play differently from Tanks. Even amongst same unit types, individual units/models play differently from each other. Would you truly argue that a Bloodthirster plays the same as a Lord of Change? A Land Raider plays the same as a Predator? Sure, they might share similar rules and use the same kind of stat lines, but how is that any different from WMH units? They all use a stat line that is defined by the rules, they all interact with the game using rules established by the main rule books. Why discount one as some sort of false variety and praise the other?

Now, a few of the 40K unit type rules may not appear to be that different on the surface, but often times, the differences only come to light when the units interact with the terrain on the battlefield. Sure, bikes, beasts, and cavalry all have the same 12" move and infantry style statline. They also all three interact with other units in the same way (ie, shooting, assaulting). Beyond that however, how they interact with the battlefield terrain and deployments really makes a difference. Beasts interact with difficult terrain differently than cavalry and bikes, bikes have turbo boost to forego shooting for added manuverability.

Talys wrote:

Okay, first of all, let's be clear: I've been talking about variety differently than you, so let's get that over with.

If you want to define variety as what choices a unit can make once you put it on the table, er... sure. Since WMH is built for a smaller number of units, those units must have more freedom and possibility to do different things, in order to make it a game. It's a different game, sure.


If you define variety as what choices of units you can select (not in terms of aesthetic, but functionality), then 40k has more variety. Replace them all with paper counters, as you say, and you still are able to take unit A, and enter building B, firing the weapon C housed inside building B. You can load 5 units and a commander into a vehicle, fly it across the board, and shoot a weapon in the vehicle at something. You can teleport across the board using a psychic power, and make your unit invisible. You can repair a unit, which can then leave the board, and drop back in somewhere totally different.

I will agree with you that once you pick a unit, the things you can do with that unit are narrowly defined. But, you have a lot more units, each of which may have different unusual abilities. Both games have plenty of special abilities in the game pool, so it's not like there's a lack of these in either. If you want to argue that in WMH, there is more likelihood of a different strategy using the same units, I get it.

I am not saying the 40k way of "more units with different abilities" is better than "fewer units each more versatile" is better. I'm just saying, it's different.


TLDR: Can we at least just agree to say -- model unit type variety, by which we mean, ability of models to provide different functionality. And model rules variety, by which we mean, ability of a model to do different things, once on the board. Would that be accurate?

This is all great. I never accused you of saying one was better than the other (I'm sure a few have though), so don't worry; I don't think that of you.

I also really like your division of the two types of variety: it makes your opinion easy to understand. That being said, I don't know that I entirely agree with what you're saying.

In the end, I feel you can break 40k unit types into a couple different categories: troops, ICs, ground vehicles, ground transports, flying vehicles, flying transports. These, in turn, can be broken up into two larger sections, vehicles and not-vehicles. WM has rough equivalents for troops, ICs, and ground vehicles. It certainly doesn't do transports, and it doesn't really do flying /anything/.

I have skipped things like skimmers, walkers, jetbikes, bikes, etc, because they more-or-less follow the rules of one of the major subtypes above, with a few additional rules added on. In much the same way, there are things in WM that follow that paradigm (cavalry are basically the same as normal troop units, with a couple additional rules). They are relatively small differences.

So, the question that I ask myself when trying to think about model unit type variety, is 'what strategic roles do each choice give me in a given army?' In both games, you get a lot of this. In 40k, you have things like tac squads that can give you the ability do deal with armor, bikes which give good strategic movement, armor that gives some resilience to small arms, etc etc. WM gives things in nearly all these categories as well, with, as noted above, the difference of fliers and transports.

However, 'model rules variety' bleeds into 'model unit type variety.' The difference between bikes and troops, when it comes down to it, is some mobility and durability. These sorts of differences are easily recapitulated in the model rules of WM. However, because of the large model rules variety in WM, you also generate a lot of 'model unit type variety' that 40k doesn't quite have. The ability to deny area by creating terrain, for example, is something you don't really see in 40k. Board control in general is pretty rare in 40k, but common in WM. Having to have units that can hit high defense/low armor, things that hit high armor/low defense- these are all things that are differences in 'type variety' as well as differences in 'rule variety,' at least the way I see it.

So in the end, I would say that 40k and WM have similar 'model unit type variety,' with some advantage to 40k. However, I feel that the 'model rules variety' is very solidly in WMs favor. As such, I think that calling WM 'simple' is a bit of a misnomer, as it feels suggestive that there isn't much depth in tactical or strategic choice. Indeed, I would say on the table you typically have much more choice, and due to the fact that far more units/choice are 'viable' in WM, you often have more strategic choice as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't think anybody would disagree that model appearance variety does no equal rules variety. I do, however, feel that too many of the pro-WMH crowd are dismissing 40K unit rule variety as "they all move/shoot/die" but then providing a very abstract interpretation of WMH unit variety (unit X just "feels" different, unit Y just "plays" different, etc).

40K unit types ARE different from each other, bikes play differently than infantry or beasts, MC play differently than walkers, Flyers play differently from Skimmers, which play differently from Tanks. Even amongst same unit types, individual units/models play differently from each other. Would you truly argue that a Bloodthirster plays the same as a Lord of Change? A Land Raider plays the same as a Predator? Sure, they might share similar rules and use the same kind of stat lines, but how is that any different from WMH units? They all use a stat line that is defined by the rules, they all interact with the game using rules established by the main rule books. Why discount one as some sort of false variety and praise the other?

Now, a few of the 40K unit type rules may not appear to be that different on the surface, but often times, the differences only come to light when the units interact with the terrain on the battlefield. Sure, bikes, beasts, and cavalry all have the same 12" move and infantry style statline. They also all three interact with other units in the same way (ie, shooting, assaulting). Beyond that however, how they interact with the battlefield terrain and deployments really makes a difference. Beasts interact with difficult terrain differently than cavalry and bikes, bikes have turbo boost to forego shooting for added manuverability.

Well, Talys /was/ talking about model variety earlier, so I wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same page.

If you would like some concrete examples of the differences, though, I'd be more than happy to give a few.

Many of the differences you listed above don't feel 'right,' because they are mixed in terms of role. A Lord of Change is a psyker, whereas a Bloodthirster walks in and beats things to death. A Land Raider is a transport, where a Pred is a gun platform. If we compared a Land Raider to a Rhino, and a Pred to a Russ, we might be more in the right frame.

And those differences you listed above are certainly real, but as you admit yourself, the difference is pretty subtle. It's a bit of change in regards to mobility. WM recapitulates that to some degree with things like 'pathfinder' and 'flying.'

When I speak of 'variety' in WM, I'm talking about the fact that units aren't often very easy to compare with eachother- there are huge qualitative differences. Shifting Stones, for example, can teleport a friendly model that exists within the triangle formed by the set of 3 stones. Stormblades get stronger if they are all within some distance of the unit leader, which makes their positioning interesting to deal with on the table. Mannikins can suicide themselves to put down 3" forest templates for a turn, which then can block line of sight to models behind them. The Prime Axiom has tow cables that can pull models that it hits 11" toward it, providing a sort of 'ranged' anti-armor capacity (in WM, it's very hard to 'shoot' something off the table, so being able to project that kind of threat at those distances is pretty crazy).

There are models that leave behind clouds that cause damage, models that allow you to choose where damage is allocated to warjacks (to rip off arms and such), models that project fields to slow down enemy troops, models that give huge fields that provide more armor. There are models that get stronger as they're wounded, models that are immune to blast damage, models that can see through clouds and forests. Some models can ignore magical buff/debuffs, some act as 'relay stations' that allow you to cast spells at a distance.

On top of all this are warcasters, who often not only have a bunch of significant special abilities, but also have a suite of abilities (much like psykers) that is different from warcaster to warcaster, as if each one of them had their very own personal discipline. The spells they have access to often have outsized effects on a wide swath that changes how the game works /qualitatively/, as opposed to mostly doing damage. Making enemies move more slowly, making your warjacks make an additional ranged attack, causing all models in your army to lose some speed in exchange for armor. etc etc.

All of these things combine to make the majority of units feel /unique/, not just between factions but within them. The fact that 40k has the concept of the 'MEQ' is probably the biggest thing I can point to as an example.

Sure, Boardroomhero, I can roughly agree with what you're saying.

WMH offers units that have an ability to do more interesting things on the board, hence there is more "model rules variety".

I would add two categories to your list of broad 40k unit types.

Fortifications (remember, you can pick fortifications as a part of your detachment), which can have a very impactful difference in the game. For instance, you can play a Skyshield or Aegis, which to which is there is no equivalent in the WMH game.

Also, Lords of War (aka superheavies) are in a class all by themselves. They are way bigger than the imperial knight/colossal class of unit, and more importantly, they are insanely powerful, so much so that an unprepared opponent can blow most of his army trying to take down one superheavy. At some level, you're right: it's just a numbers game (lots of armor, lots of damage, unlikely to miss saving throws, etc.), but there are things like being able to squish your opponents, causing your opponents to flee in fear, and being "almost unkillable" by virtue of field repairs (that can restore a unit back to full health, before the opponent gets another turn), for instance.

I find the model unit type variety in 40k appealing to me. I totally get it that having more flexible units appeals to other people, and for sure, I have fun with WMH too. I am glad both exist.

Anyhow, I'm happy to have had the conversation with you Boardroomhero Done my work now, so going to head home, grab dinner, and watch the hockey game! GO CANADIENS!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't think anybody would disagree that model appearance variety does no equal rules variety. I do, however, feel that too many of the pro-WMH crowd are dismissing 40K unit rule variety as "they all move/shoot/die" but then providing a very abstract interpretation of WMH unit variety (unit X just "feels" different, unit Y just "plays" different, etc).

Yes, this!

People who play 40k as move/shoot/hack are doomed to lose an inglorious death lol Also, many WMH players dismiss extremely powerful things that special units (like ICs, but not necessarily only ICs) can do to buff or debuff.

Talys wrote:
Sure, Boardroomhero, I can roughly agree with what you're saying.

WMH offers units that have an ability to do more interesting things on the board, hence there is more "model rules variety".

I would add two categories to your list of broad 40k unit types.

Fortifications (remember, you can pick fortifications as a part of your detachment), which can have a very impactful difference in the game. For instance, you can play a Skyshield or Aegis, which to which is there is no equivalent in the WMH game.

Also, Lords of War (aka superheavies) are in a class all by themselves. They are way bigger than the imperial knight/colossal class of unit, and more importantly, they are insanely powerful, so much so that an unprepared opponent can blow most of his army trying to take down one superheavy. At some level, you're right: it's just a numbers game (lots of armor, lots of damage, unlikely to miss saving throws, etc.), but there are things like being able to squish your opponents, causing your opponents to flee in fear, and being "almost unkillable" by virtue of field repairs (that can restore a unit back to full health, before the opponent gets another turn), for instance.

I find the model unit type variety in 40k appealing to me. I totally get it that having more flexible units appeals to other people, and for sure, I have fun with WMH too. I am glad both exist.

Anyhow, I'm happy to have had the conversation with you Boardroomhero Done my work now, so going to head home, grab dinner, and watch the hockey game! GO CANADIENS!

I can agree with that! Depends on what ya' weight more heavily.

Yeah, this was enjoyable- good luck!

Regarding the WM/H army size increase, the most common army size in tournaments used to be 35 points, and it is now 50 points and occasionally larger.

WM/H newbies wouldn´t know this as it was 7-8 years ago.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Regarding the WM/H army size increase, the most common army size in tournaments used to be 35 points, and it is now 50 points and occasionally larger.

WM/H newbies wouldn´t know this as it was 7-8 years ago.

Well, the point changeover happened in 2009-2010, so I suppose you mean more the push for 750 point games waaaay back in the day.

At this point, I feel that it's probably the best balanced game-size. At that point, a lot of the force multipliers some factions can field can't affect the entire battlefield, so you have to be more careful. It also means that a single poor piece-trade doesn't lose you the game immediately.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating due to continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

If WMH stays alive for 20 years, they will have something way worse coming, and that's player hate and endless criticism.

Just like the GW hate, it will be trendy to just hate on PP.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Regarding the WM/H army size increase, the most common army size in tournaments used to be 35 points, and it is now 50 points and occasionally larger.

WM/H newbies wouldn´t know this as it was 7-8 years ago.

Well, the point changeover happened in 2009-2010, so I suppose you mean more the push for 750 point games waaaay back in the day.

At this point, I feel that it's probably the best balanced game-size. At that point, a lot of the force multipliers some factions can field can't affect the entire battlefield, so you have to be more careful. It also means that a single poor piece-trade doesn't lose you the game immediately.

Also if it was 7-8 years ago and hasn't happened since, they're hardly increasing the size of the game are they? It happened once years ago, they aren't adjusting points every release to make you buy more models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Talys wrote:
I am sure in 20 years, WMH will have more model/major unit type variety.

If WM/H stays alive for 20 years which has already been achieved by WH40K, they will have one thing coming for them next to models, and that´s rules bloat. It will come, even if the believers are gonna believe. There´s already signs of the game bloating due to continous increase in army sizes and the use of colossals, and the unhappiness stemming from that on the PP forums.

If WMH stays alive for 20 years, they will have something way worse coming, and that's player hate and endless criticism.

Just like the GW hate, it will be trendy to just hate on PP.

People don't 'hate on' GW because it's trendy. There's proper, real, valid criticisms in what you label as 'hate'.

Deadnight wrote:

And for what it's worth - I've heard the opposite regarding board games - apparently the margins are better for them than wargames. Go figure...

Only the retail margin actually, and only when compared to GW (board games are more in the 50% reseller discount range).

In fairness though, GW does most of the work of selling GW (even if that is not a lot of work), when board games are actively sold and demonstrated by the board game store people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
I'm not really sure I get the claims about 40k fluff vs WM/H fluff. Having engaged with both settings about the same way: TT Materials & Their respective RPGs, I can't really see an honest argument for 40k having more depth.

40 Codex like books and countless black library publications don't count towards depth ?

morgoth wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

And for what it's worth - I've heard the opposite regarding board games - apparently the margins are better for them than wargames. Go figure...

Only the retail margin actually, and only when compared to GW (board games are more in the 50% reseller discount range).

In fairness though, GW does most of the work of selling GW (even if that is not a lot of work), when board games are actively sold and demonstrated by the board game store people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
I'm not really sure I get the claims about 40k fluff vs WM/H fluff. Having engaged with both settings about the same way: TT Materials & Their respective RPGs, I can't really see an honest argument for 40k having more depth.

40 Codex like books and countless black library publications don't count towards depth ?

Erm, no? They count towards amount. Most of it these days isn't particulalrly well written, and definitely not deep. Just because there's more written about 40k (you'd hope so being a much older company) doesn't mean the background for WMH is any less deep. But let me guess, you've not even read any WMH fluff have you..? But I'm sure you're an expert on fluff depth.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Regarding the WM/H army size increase, the most common army size in tournaments used to be 35 points, and it is now 50 points and occasionally larger.

WM/H newbies wouldn´t know this as it was 7-8 years ago.

Well now if you're just going to make stuff up...

 Chongara wrote:
I would say that while 40k has a great deal of different looking models, models that represent different concepts, but that there isn't a ton of a variety in how they interact with the game state.

I don't know.

Obviously the WMH infantry, dreadnoughts and ICs (the three unit types barring the knight sized unit) have more tactical options.

But can that really compensate deep strike, transports, markerlights, flyers and the many things that just interact differently and offer other tactical options that don't exist in WMH ?

morgoth wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I would say that while 40k has a great deal of different looking models, models that represent different concepts, but that there isn't a ton of a variety in how they interact with the game state.

I don't know.

Obviously the WMH infantry, dreadnoughts and ICs (the three unit types barring the knight sized unit) have more tactical options.

But can that really compensate deep strike, transports, markerlights, flyers and the many things that just interact differently and offer other tactical options that don't exist in WMH ?

Again, why don't you play it. Then you'll see how much more tactically in depth it is.

Talys wrote:

On the other hand, if I'm gonna play against strangers in a crowd, I'd really rather play a computer game with matchmaking anyhow. Because I have limited time to play, I have little desire to play someone who is vastly less skilled or has fewer resources than me, or someone that I can never beat.

This matches my vision.

If I want competition and balance I'll turn on Starcraft II, I won't turn to the maximum 30 tabletop gamers within 50 clicks, most of which don't even play the same game as I do - and some of which I'd rather not play with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoardroomHero wrote:

What I am saying is this: Variety, the way you are describing it, has nothing to do with balance. They are completely tangential. One can not really affect the other. You have described 'variety' as something even an outside observer with no knowledge of the game can observe. That's fine- certainly in that regard, 40k has more variety. However, by definition, that doesn't take into account any of the rules in the game itself. If it does not take into account the rules, it absolutely can not have any bearing on balance. That's what I'm trying to say.

The variety that most people here are talking about, when they say WM has more variety, is more variety in the way the models play on the table. If you were to replace every single model with a paper disk of the right size, and then played the game like that, which game would have more variety. Rules /only/. If looked at in /that/ particular context, WM has more variety.

Now, if you disagree with /that/, I'll be curious to hear your argument. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page, because it seems as if you're mixing model variety and rule variety.

Quit with the slashes bro.

Variety, as he describes it, has everything to do with balance.

Because Vehicles and Fortifications are different, the rules that affect them are different.

Because those rules are different, not every problem can be solved by just changing one numeric value.

It is infinitely harder to balance a game that has ten really different unit types (moving 12" makes all the difference in terms of assault units for example) and ten really different weapons (bolters, serpent shields, melta, Tesla, Grav, Poison, ...) than one that has four different unit types and weapons that can be expressed in one or two ways tops.

If a game has 100 units of infantry, balance is only about matching point costs and numbers on those infantry profiles.

If a game has 50 units of infantry, 10 flyers, 10 Deep Strikers, 10 Transports, 10 Tanks and 10 Fortifications, balance is about matching point costs and numbers between infantries, including their interaction with each of the other types, and then do that again for every other type, and then recalculate everything again and again until it stabilizes.

That's why balancing 40K is a lot harder than balancing WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoardroomHero wrote:

In the end, I feel you can break 40k unit types into a couple different categories: troops, ICs, ground vehicles, ground transports, flying vehicles, flying transports. These, in turn, can be broken up into two larger sections, vehicles and not-vehicles. WM has rough equivalents for troops, ICs, and ground vehicles. It certainly doesn't do transports, and it doesn't really do flying /anything/.

I have skipped things like skimmers, walkers, jetbikes, bikes, etc, because they more-or-less follow the rules of one of the major subtypes above, with a few additional rules added on. In much the same way, there are things in WM that follow that paradigm (cavalry are basically the same as normal troop units, with a couple additional rules). They are relatively small differences.

If you're going to group into categories, 40K has infantry, dreadnoughts, vehicles, flyers and fortifications, big robots and superheavies.

Where all there is in WMH is infantry, dreadnoughts, and big robots.

So basically 40k has infantry, fortifications and machines in armour.

And WMH has infantry, cavalry and machines in armour.

 welshhoppo wrote:
So basically 40k has infantry, fortifications and machines in armour.

And WMH has infantry, cavalry and machines in armour.

Came back before I headed for zzzzz and I see this still going on. Wow

If you want to compare it like this, at least be a little more thorough. 40k would at least have to have:

Infantry, bikes/cavalry, troop carriers, armor, and flying versions of all of these. There are also jets, bombers, helicopter/gunships, skimmers, light artillery, and functional fortifications, such as buildings with firing points and armor, massive guns, shields, or buffing capabilities. There are also midsized robots/monsters (dreadnaught), large sized robots/monsters (imperial knight), and humongous size robots/monsters (revenant titan). Parentheticals are provided to give an example of unit size.

WMH has infantry, cavalry, light artillery (someone pointed this out earlier, I think it was Peregrine ), medium sized robots/monsters (warjack), and large sized robots/monsters (colossal). WMH has nothing that flies, and nothing that units can enter for the purposes of protection and/or transportation. There are no big fixed guns -- mind you, they would be stupid in a small model count game, because it would be way too unbalancing in a small unit count game (I mean, if you wipe out half the other guys' forces in turn 1 there is no game).

I suppose if you could play the gigantic Victoria Haley collectible.. that would qualify as humongous size (j/k). Sorry if I missed anyone's favorite unit.

Just to be complete in the summary of all the blah blah blah from earlier today...

In 40k, there is a large variety of unit types to choose from with various abilities, and you have the potential to choose a lot of units. However, once you choose (and/or roll) them, the capabilities of each unit is narrow and the variation in their abilities and what they can do on the board is limited. Much like a modern-day army, units have roles.

In WMH, there is a smaller variety of unit types to choose from, and generally, fewer units on the board. However, once they are played, the capabilities of these some of these units is extremely flexible, providing great variety in their function on the board. This is unlike units of a modern-day army (not to imply that this is a good or bad thing in the context of a game).

And we all like different stuff. Yay.

Ok, must sleep now. I wonder if this will still be here tomorrow...

 welshhoppo wrote:
So basically 40k has infantry, fortifications and machines in armour.

And WMH has infantry, cavalry and machines in armour.

Pretty much, slightly rounded though.

Talys wrote:
WMH has nothing that flies,

WMH has several units, monsters and even robots that fly.

PhantomViper wrote:

Talys wrote:
WMH has nothing that flies,

WMH has several units, monsters and even robots that fly.

I happen to use them sometimes too.

morgoth wrote:

It is infinitely harder to balance a game that has ten really different unit types (moving 12" makes all the difference in terms of assault units for example) and ten really different weapons (bolters, serpent shields, melta, Tesla, Grav, Poison, ...) than one that has four different unit types and weapons that can be expressed in one or two ways tops.

Where have you got this from? WMH has just as many different weapon types and unit types as 40k does...

The only difference in type of units between both games is that WMH does not have transports. Are you saying that the existence of transports makes 40k infinitely harder to balance?

And for your different weapon examples, here is an almost direct relation to similar weapon types in WMH: hand cannons, field generators, reiver weapons, electrical weapons, stall weapons, poison weapons, etc...

PhantomViper wrote:

morgoth wrote:

It is infinitely harder to balance a game that has ten really different unit types (moving 12" makes all the difference in terms of assault units for example) and ten really different weapons (bolters, serpent shields, melta, Tesla, Grav, Poison, ...) than one that has four different unit types and weapons that can be expressed in one or two ways tops.

Where have you got this from? WMH has just as many different weapon types and unit types as 40k does...

The only difference in type of units between both games is that WMH does not have transports. Are you saying that the existence of transports makes 40k infinitely harder to balance?

And for your different weapon examples, here is an almost direct relation to similar weapon types in WMH: hand cannons, field generators, reiver weapons, electrical weapons, stall weapons, poison weapons, etc...

Don't bother arguing with morgoth about balance, he knows everything about it, as he was so keen on telling me yesterday. He doesn't even need to play WMH to know all there is to know about it! He truly is an expert in all fields.

He also claims the Wave Serpent is not overpowered. I think I recall seeing him say it is in fact underpowered at one point, so clearly what we are dealing with here is the true master of game balance.

PhantomViper wrote:

Talys wrote:
WMH has nothing that flies,

WMH has several units, monsters and even robots that fly.

But it has nothing like 40k's flyers/bombers/whatever so it doesn't count...

As though having those things make 40k unique.

Oufff, I just read everything and i will stay with 40k. What I don't like with Warmahordes because for me, the minis look to much like World of Warcraft (even I know I'm wrong).

If I want to start a new game on a smaller scale,/ skirmish, I will buy Dust and Tactics or Heavy Gear because they are more SF games than steampunk.

WayneTheGame wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Talys wrote:
WMH has nothing that flies,

WMH has several units, monsters and even robots that fly.

But it has nothing like 40k's flyers/bombers/whatever so it doesn't count...

As though having those things make 40k unique.

Right. There is not the concept of aerial units versus ground units, and the necessity to take anti-air (or suffer being virtually unable to hurt the enemy). I never claimed it was unique; it was just a comparison of WMH and 40k, because of the topic of this thread, and at some point we talked about the variety of units available in both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hellpato wrote:
Oufff, I just read everything and i will stay with 40k. What I don't like with Warmahordes because for me, the minis look to much like World of Warcraft (even I know I'm wrong).

If I want to start a new game on a smaller scale,/ skirmish, I will buy Dust and Tactics or Heavy Gear because they are more SF games than steampunk.

Yeah, a little bit like WoW meets Steampunk. Ironically, I'm a WoW fan, but not a steampunk fan (in terms of looks -- amazingly, I managed to resist the urge to play WoW). Dust is actually a pretty neat game.

WM 'flying' really doesn't come close to the 40k rules on that- WM flying is really just advanced terrain navigation.

morgoth wrote:
Quit with the slashes bro.

Variety, as he describes it, has everything to do with balance.

Because Vehicles and Fortifications are different, the rules that affect them are different.

Because those rules are different, not every problem can be solved by just changing one numeric value.

It is infinitely harder to balance a game that has ten really different unit types (moving 12" makes all the difference in terms of assault units for example) and ten really different weapons (bolters, serpent shields, melta, Tesla, Grav, Poison, ...) than one that has four different unit types and weapons that can be expressed in one or two ways tops.

If a game has 100 units of infantry, balance is only about matching point costs and numbers on those infantry profiles.

If a game has 50 units of infantry, 10 flyers, 10 Deep Strikers, 10 Transports, 10 Tanks and 10 Fortifications, balance is about matching point costs and numbers between infantries, including their interaction with each of the other types, and then do that again for every other type, and then recalculate everything again and again until it stabilizes.

That's why balancing 40K is a lot harder than balancing WMH.

Ah, this is probably where the confusion is coming from. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I'll mention it here so that it's easier to find.

The diversity in Warmachine is far higher, in terms of what a given model can do. You're mentioning that there are around 10 'really different weapons' in 40k. In Warmachine there would be dozens that have significantly altered properties, if not more than dozens. Furthermore, those properties often do things other than damage, where 40k abilities are typically focused on damage.

For example: There are weapons that freeze things, so that their defense is lowered. There are weapons that ignore friendlies when you put down the AoE, or weapons that ignore line-of-sight. There are weapons that lay down rough terrain, weapons that tear out souls for bonuses, and weapons that turn enemies into forests. There are weapons that knockdown, reduce speed, lay down clouds that deal damage over time, that can be combined into a single stronger attack, and weapons that get stronger as you make successful attacks.

This leaves out all the non-weapon abilities as well: board control is a huge part of the game, through modification of your opponent's movement, the lay of the terrain on the field, or increasing your own threat range. These things do exist in 40k, but they are typically quite rare.

The fact that each model has its own movements score by itself increases diversity amongst troops dramatically. That additional movement abilities can be layered on top of that only further increases it.

I really do suggest you have a good look at the game sometime. While WM might have some problems, variety and diversity in rules is probably its greatest strength. To call it a weakness is very, very strange.

Talys wrote:

Right. There is not the concept of aerial units versus ground units, and the necessity to take anti-air (or suffer being virtually unable to hurt the enemy). I never claimed it was unique; it was just a comparison of WMH and 40k, because of the topic of this thread, and at some point we talked about the variety of units available in both.

And nothing of that changes that WMH also has flying units. Your quote was literally that WMH didn't have flying units and that that was a differentiation factor because it meant that WMH had less unit types than 40k.

Flying units are available in both games. The only unit type that 40k has and WMH doesn't is transports (and if the rumors about the new Rulic battle engine are true, even that is about to change).

Also, WMH also has heavy immobile artillery, see the Commodore Cannon for an example.