An honest comparison of 40k and Warmahordes

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.

**Tamwulf**

Mmmm. Strawberries.

Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.

Strawberries!

**MWHistorian**

PhantomViper wrote:
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.

A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.

**BoardroomHero**

MWHistorian wrote:

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

A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.

**Talys**

MWHistorian wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
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.

A. "WMH doesn't have flying units."
B. "They do. Here they are."
A. "Well...they don't do them like 40k does, so it doesn't count."
B. "You're right, their rules for flying are actually fun."
The "concept of aerial units versus ground units" in 40k is one of my least favorite aspects of the core rules. The fact that WMH puts flying things in seamlessly shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. WMH seems to understand that certain things don't belong in the scale of battle they're playing with. For example, in the fluff there are war dirigibles, but they would fit on the game table, much like jet fighters shouldn't fit on a 40k table.

It isn't a question of whether dirigibles would be good in WMH or not. It's a question of variety of types of units you can deploy. Some people find it cool that a Descent of Angels formation is helicopters swooping in with marines jumping out of them.

You can think that it is unbalanced or not, but you can't deny that this exists as a playable option, whereas something similar doesn't exist in WMH. To some people some of these options are part of the 40k draw, and to others it is a hindrance to their enjoyment, but like it or not, it is core rules.

By the way, sticking wings on units don't make them flying units. Having special rules that give a class of units that fly special disadvantages and advantages makes fthat a unit class (rather than a game aesthetic). There are wings on ravenwing bikes, formexample, but they work like regular bikes, as opposed to Eldar jet bikes, which actually fly. There are demons with wings to look scary, and others that can fly.

Nobody 'wins'. I'm just stating the existence and option to select a type of unit in the game.

**Mr Morden**

Just got my first Dust Tactics stuff from kickstarter so keen to see how this works as it seems quite 40k like in scale.

I think we have determined that 40K and WM/H are different games but little else?

Many people argue (and few disagree) that WMH is better playtested and better supported by its parent compnay, however both games have their good points and bad and I still mostly enjoy 40K whilst I didn't WMH.

**Talys**

Mr Morden wrote:
Just got my first Dust Tactics stuff from kickstarter so keen to see how this works as it seems quite 40k like in scale.

I think we have determined that 40K and WM/H are different games but little else?

Many people argue (and few disagree) that WMH is better playtested and better supported by its parent compnay, however both games have their good points and bad and I still mostly enjoy 40K whilst I didn't WMH.

You have hit the nail on the head

.

**welshhoppo**

Tamwulf wrote:
Mmmm. Strawberries.

Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.

Strawberries!

Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.

**Talys**

welshhoppo wrote:
Tamwulf wrote:
Mmmm. Strawberries.

Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.

Strawberries!

Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.

<3 Raspberries

**Wayniac**

Talys wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
Tamwulf wrote:
Mmmm. Strawberries.

Please, continue the ranting and raving! It's fun seeing the same arguments repeated over and over as one stubborn group tries to convince the very stubborn other group. I can't believe this topic has reached 10 pages! And to make it clear, yes, this post does nothing to contribute or attempt to sway anyone's opinion. I made my stance known way back on page 6.

Strawberries!

Try eating Raspberries, they have much more variety.

<3 Raspberries

Raspberries are unbalanced and you can't eat the seeds so they are worthless, and the company that makes Raspberries sells them 5 for $20 and most people eat 10.

Am I doing this right?

**Talys**

WayneTheGame wrote:

Raspberries are unbalanced and you can't eat the seeds so they are worthless, and the company that makes Raspberries sells them 5 for $20 and most people eat 10.

Am I doing this right?

Not quite. The company that makes Raspberries sells them in 7's but people eat them in 10's... so if you don't want any waste, you have to buy 70!

**ClassicCarraway**

BoardroomHero wrote:

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.

Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like you are still selling 40K variety short but over-emphasising the differences between similar units in WMH. You say that I shouldn't use a Bloodthirster vs Lord of Change comparison because one is a psyker and the other is a beatstick....well how is that any different from your own WMH comparisons? A BT and LoC both fill the exact same battlefield role as defined by the game (HQ and FMC) but function completely different based on each model's rules. One model uses overwhelming assault while the other model uses mastery of the warp. Same goes for the Landraider and Predator comparison, both are heavy support and tanks, one has added durability and both transport and assault capabilities but at a steep cost, while the other is more of a dedicated gun platform but is far less expensive.

You keep citing all the various rules differences between WMH units proves it has greater variety, but completely ignore the same thing for 40K units. Why are the various special rule and power differences between casters in WMH so much different from the various special rule and abilities of the many HQ options in a single 40K army? Are you saying a Chapter Master feels and plays the same as a Librarian? What about a generic SM Captain versus Pedro Cantor or Lysander? Abbadon the Despoiler is no different from Ahriman or a warpsmith? These 40K HQ models have unique special rules that impact how they interact with the army and with your opponent, just like the various WMH casters.

Now I will readily admit that the WMH caster variety is more impactful, but that is largely due to the way WMH is set up as the caster is the focal point of the army, and as the caster goes, so goes the rest of the army. However, this very feature is one of the things that kind of turned me off to WMH.

**BoardroomHero**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something but I feel like you are still selling 40K variety short but over-emphasising the differences between similar units in WMH. You say that I shouldn't use a Bloodthirster vs Lord of Change comparison because one is a psyker and the other is a beatstick....well how is that any different from your own WMH comparisons? A BT and LoC both fill the exact same battlefield role as defined by the game (HQ and FMC) but function completely different based on each model's rules. One model uses overwhelming assault while the other model uses mastery of the warp. Same goes for the Landraider and Predator comparison, both are heavy support and tanks, one has added durability and both transport and assault capabilities but at a steep cost, while the other is more of a dedicated gun platform but is far less expensive.

You keep citing all the various rules differences between WMH units proves it has greater variety, but completely ignore the same thing for 40K units. Why are the various special rule and power differences between casters in WMH so much different from the various special rule and abilities of the many HQ options in a single 40K army? Are you saying a Chapter Master feels and plays the same as a Librarian? What about a generic SM Captain versus Pedro Cantor or Lysander? Abbadon the Despoiler is no different from Ahriman or a warpsmith? These 40K HQ models have unique special rules that impact how they interact with the army and with your opponent, just like the various WMH casters.

Now I will readily admit that the WMH caster variety is more impactful, but that is largely due to the way WMH is set up as the caster is the focal point of the army, and as the caster goes, so goes the rest of the army. However, this very feature is one of the things that kind of turned me off to WMH.

I suppose it's something like this: typically, in 40k, the differences in things come from how they deal damage, with the exception of a few support-type models and some psyker abilities. A Bloodthirster does a lot of damage in melee, but that's in- in that way, it's very comparable to most things that do a lot of damage in melee. It's better at it for a variety of reasons, but these are mostly quantitative differences (faster, hardier, does more damage, etc). The LoC has many more options available to it, and as such it can act in a more supporting role, this is why I feel that they're not great things to compare directly like that- they serve different purposes in the game.

The variety that I'm talking about it the variety in how a unit serves its purpose. In 40k, this is defined typically by number of attacks, threat range, 'power' of the attack, and whether or not it's melee or not. It is relatively rare that an offense ability doesn't simply change those values. Similarly, defensive options are typically relatively limited: cover/not, strength of save, inv save.

In WM, there are many, many things that influence combat beyond strictly damage parameters, things that have an outsized influence on the game. You have not only AoEs like spray templates and blast templates, you also have things like chain lightning, which forces you to be careful in how you position your exact units, and has a strong influence on target selection based on how your opponent positions their units. There are abilities that slow models down, generate rough terrain, put down damaging cloud templates, etc etc. Many of these things do exist in 40k, but in WM, these things are very common. This means that you often don't look at a model and say 'how much damage does this put downfield,' but you say 'how does this model put damage downfield? What additional parameters are there?'

The same goes for defensive abilities. There are units that change the way wound allocation works in WM, allowing the defending player to remove targets of his choice. If you have debuffs that decrease armor, you need to make sure your models can deal with defense, and the reverse. You have large-scale abilities that greatly change the parameters of your units. Again, 40k has these things as well, but they're relatively rare. Warcasters are like psykers that each have their own unique discipline, and get all the abilities each game.

TLDR: You mention that WMH caster variety is more impactful, and that's sorta' my point. The caster variety is more impactful than HQ variety in 40k, and in that exact way the unit variety in WMH is more impactful than it is in 40k. Sure, the difference between HQs might be more impactful than between units in WMH (which I don't agree with, but it's certainly closer), but that's not the right comparison.

And yes, that can totally be something that someone might not like about the game, and that's an incredibly valid criticism. But 'lack of variety,' I feel, is not.

**Toofast**

Has anyone else noticed that the people defending 40k, lauding its balance and bad mouthing WMH have never even played WMH? Also, they're quick to label people with valid, well thought out criticisms as "haters". I guess straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are all the ammo you have when you're wholly ignorant of one side of the debate.

40k has slightly more variety if you consider all the options. However, when you consider 75% of the options in a given codex are useless, that variety argument doesn't hold up. WMH has slightly less choices, but almost every option in a given army can be a good choice with the right synergy. 40k doesn't have that, some units just flat out suck no matter what else is in your army.

With each option having a point value, it isn't that hard to balance things out, especially after all this time. If people are only using 1 special weapon option out of 6 for their squads, raise the price of that and/or lower the prices of the other choices. If people are only using 1 or 2 tanks out of 10 options, raise the points on those 1-2 and lower the points on the rest of them. It isn't rocket science and with every codex being on its 3rd or 4th edition, some even more, they should be more balanced by now. The problem is GW keeps lowering the points on almost everything to make people buy more models without really changing the price of unit upgrades. If they cared about balance, they would focus more on refining things than changing for the sake of change and to sell more models. GW has said point blank "we make rules to sell models". WMH makes rules to have a fun and balanced game. This is the problem and all the straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks and white knighting in the world aren't going to change that fact or convince anyone that 40k is a balanced game when even the rules writers admit that it isn't and that was never their intention.

**Wayniac**

Toofast wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the people defending 40k, lauding its balance and bad mouthing WMH have never even played WMH? Also, they're quick to label people with valid, well thought out criticisms as "haters". I guess straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are all the ammo you have when you're wholly ignorant of one side of the debate.

40k has slightly more variety if you consider all the options. However, when you consider 75% of the options in a given codex are useless, that variety argument doesn't hold up. WMH has slightly less choices, but almost every option in a given army can be a good choice with the right synergy. 40k doesn't have that, some units just flat out suck no matter what else is in your army.

With each option having a point value, it isn't that hard to balance things out, especially after all this time. If people are only using 1 special weapon option out of 6 for their squads, raise the price of that and/or lower the prices of the other choices. If people are only using 1 or 2 tanks out of 10 options, raise the points on those 1-2 and lower the points on the rest of them. It isn't rocket science and with every codex being on its 3rd or 4th edition, some even more, they should be more balanced by now. The problem is GW keeps lowering the points on almost everything to make people buy more models without really changing the price of unit upgrades. If they cared about balance, they would focus more on refining things than changing for the sake of change and to sell more models. GW has said point blank "we make rules to sell models". WMH makes rules to have a fun and balanced game. This is the problem and all the straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks and white knighting in the world aren't going to change that fact or convince anyone that 40k is a balanced game when even the rules writers admit that it isn't and that was never their intention.

Some yes, but come on don't paint everyone who dislikes WMH and praises 40k like that, it just helps to reinforce the divide. I've seen bad arguments on both sides... yes, it's more frequently the pro-40k people who are dismissive, but some of them do make valid points that even if I don't 100% agree with, I understand where they're coming from.

**Toofast**

I play both and have admitted that both have their strengths. However, saying 40k is balanced or that it can't be balanced due to the amount of options is ridiculous. Saying WMH lacks variety is equally ridiculous.

**Talys**

@Toofast -- Actually, I see very few 40k players make a claim that 40k has great internal or external balance; quite to the contrary, most bemoan how Eldar and Tsu need to be nerfed. I rarely see 40k players bad-mouth WMH.

Look through this thread: At most pro-40k folks say, they've looked at WMH or given it a go, but either because of aesthetics, gameplay, unit count, or whatever, it wasn't really for them.

On the contrary, it's mostly pro WMH folks (as opposed to pro-DUST or pro Mailfaux) who feel a need to bash 40k, and exaggerate strengths of WMH and weaknesses of 40k. I find this the case in stores as well: WMH players are very aggressive about evangelizing their product, while 40k players mostly couldn't give a hoot. I don't know why players can't understand why some people have different preferences -- hockey is neither better nor worse than alpine skiing.

In addition, your assertion about pro-40k players not giving WMH a chance cuts both ways: How many pro-WMH players own a competitive 40k army, or play scenarios with a proper army at a gaming club, store, or league?

I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.

Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.

**Toofast**

Far more WMH players I know have played 40k with competitive armies than the other way around. Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH. As I said before, 40k is great for modeling, painting, getting into the fluff, etc. They both have their place which is why I collect and play both.

**Talys**

Toofast wrote:
Far more WMH players I know have played 40k with competitive armies than the other way around. Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH. As I said before, 40k is great for modeling, painting, getting into the fluff, etc. They both have their place which is why I collect and play both.

Well, if someone thinks the game they play is great, why not just be happy for them, instead of insisting they give a different game a fair shot? I mean, there is a cadre of WMH players (for sure, not all) who give a hard time to anyone who defends 40k; I rarely see the reverse.

There are more former 40k players that play WMH than vice versa because 40k is older, and at one time owned most of the pie. However, a lot of disaffected 40k players (especially newer ones) really never played 40k in the right context or with terrible expectations. I find many disaffected 40k players to be people who thought they could buy a couple of books, a few hundred dollars of models, and then kick ass in a competitive or semicompetitive scene. When they show up at their first tournament or play against a streak of competitive or cheesy lists, they hate the game. Or, they just never get around to assembling and painting everything you need to play a full list.

Really, I'm sincerely glad that they've found a game that suits them better.

For other people, all those cool new models, endless new dataslates and formations and campaigns with supplements is a plus, not a minus. All that new stuff is exciting, and even if Imperial Knights or titans turn everything upside down, they'd rather have new cool stuff than not, and don't mind long stretches of possible wonky rules for those new toys.

**Akiasura**

You saw the reverse in this very thread from morgoth

**karandras15**

I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...

Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight

**MWHistorian**

karandras15 wrote:
I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...

Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight

more fun for pick up games? What?

**koooaei**

WH40k universe is a rediculous pile of grimdark mess. I mean just look at servitors, pentitent engines or basically anything CSM or Ork! Exterminating the whole planets to prevent EVEN worse results than deaths of billions. Danger everywhere. Before you finish with one foe, another arises and before you've done with them both, you're informed the 3-d is coming your way. Mutations and augmentations that make your life a constant agony. Dying mutilated heroes installed into walking kicking sarcofaguses. That's what WH40k is all about. Grotesque brutal bloody rediculous heap of grimdarkness. That's why i love it!

**BoardroomHero**

Talys wrote:
I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.

Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.

Eh, they're sticking up for their game for the same reason that you're sticking up for yours. The better question, I feel, is why they're doing it here with such aggressive language. A comparison between the two games should at least try to be neutral. Luckily, I'd say that most of the people in the discussion here have been pretty good about it.

**ImAGeek**

Talys wrote:
@Toofast -- Actually, I see very few 40k players make a claim that 40k has great internal or external balance; quite to the contrary, most bemoan how Eldar and Tsu need to be nerfed. I rarely see 40k players bad-mouth WMH.

Look through this thread: At most pro-40k folks say, they've looked at WMH or given it a go, but either because of aesthetics, gameplay, unit count, or whatever, it wasn't really for them.

On the contrary, it's mostly pro WMH folks (as opposed to pro-DUST or pro Mailfaux) who feel a need to bash 40k, and exaggerate strengths of WMH and weaknesses of 40k. I find this the case in stores as well: WMH players are very aggressive about evangelizing their product, while 40k players mostly couldn't give a hoot. I don't know why players can't understand why some people have different preferences -- hockey is neither better nor worse than alpine skiing.

In addition, your assertion about pro-40k players not giving WMH a chance cuts both ways: How many pro-WMH players own a competitive 40k army, or play scenarios with a proper army at a gaming club, store, or league?

I say over and over again that the two games are different, coexist just fine, cater to different types, and so forth. I really don't get why WMH players need to feel their game is 'better', which is such a subjective term anyhow.

Posting on threads like this is a total waste of time, I realize, bit sometimes, I guess I just have to stick up for a game I like.

It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.

You say you feel the need to stick up for your game a little, that's what the WMH players were doing in the first place. It's all well and good liking one game over another but if you go round saying stuff that isn't true don't you think the other side should be allowed to correct that?

And contrary to popular belief, in my experience (again, I play both, I'm happy both exist, im happy you're happy with your game), the WMH community is much more civil. I don't even know where this idea that they 'take every opportunity they can to bash 40k' comes from because generally what I've seen is that it is the 40k side who are more antagonistic, make ridiculous arguments, personal attacks, straw man, white knight, etc.

All the WMH players have done in this thread is correct some false statements made about the game.

**Toofast**

MWHistorian wrote:
karandras15 wrote:
I find the game pieces similar actually...what sets the game apart are victory conditions and set tournament play rules (which makes WMHs hypercompetitive)...that very fact makes 40k more fun for pickup games...

Doomreaver=bloodthirster
Ravagore=tyrannofex w/rupture cannon
Avatar of Menoth=Wraithknight
more fun for pick up games? What?

Some people must live in an alternate reality. 40k is universally bashed for being the worst game in the history of games to just show up for a random pickup game. Tell me how much fun you have showing up for a pickup game in my meta when you bring your fluffy 1st company terminators and game 1 you face farsight bomb with trip tides, game 2 you run into AV13 crons with a c'tan, game 3 is adamantine lance, game 4 is 5 wave serpents and 2 wraithknights, and your final game of the day is drop pod melta with tigurius and grav cents. You'll have a great time removing models for 2-3 turns and conceding because you have 20% of your army left and the opponent has 80% and already got first blood/warlord.

**Wonderwolf**

ImAGeek wrote:

It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.

Not really.

What happened is that people shared a comparison of 40K and WMH, many (but not all) of them stating that they - for various reasons (including balance, though that may be subjective) - preferred 40K over WMH.

In return, a few stubborn WMH-defenders keep coming back with ridiculous claims like

1. " Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. "
2. "Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH.

Both of the above, 1. and 2., are wrong as a generalisation. This very thread is proof of that.

Plenty of people know a lot about WMH (and other games like Infinity, X-Wing, Malifaux, whathaveyou) and still feel, that 40K is superiour to many, if not all of them.

Plenty of people gave WMH a good, long try and found that WMH rules, in the words of the quote above "suck" compared to 40K.

In the spirit of politeness you claim, it would be perfectly fine to disagree, if your own opinion/experience is the inverse.

But to continually claim that people who prefer 40K over WMH are somehow less informed, less grounded in evidence and experience, as they form their opinion, etc.. is just blatantly trolling out flamebait and the very opposite of the civil discussion you claim to seek.

**Toofast**

"Most people I know" is aneanecdotal evidence. Saying that it's wrong is basically calling me a liar. As far as the second one, you're really going to dispute that a large amount of WMH players played 40k first and switched primarily because of rules? A look at the PP forums and WMH/40k discussion forums on this site would quickly confirm that is the case, along with all the WMH facebook groups I'm a member of. I lost track of how many people I've seen saying "what WMH army should I start? I got tired of 40k (usually because of the rules)." It's easily over 100. There's about 15 or 20 just at my local FLGS.

This is just my opinion, but anyone who has meaningful experience with multiple other systems and thinks 40k has better rules is delusional. Better for massive battles? Yes. Better for fluff and modeling? I think so. Better rules writing? Most definitely not.

You should probably go back and read some of Morgoth's posts if you want to see what I'm talking about. They basically amount to "I know nothing about WMH but I know it sucks compared to the infallible awesomeness that is 40k". People like him are far more common than people who know both systems and prefer 40k IN MY EXPERIENCE.

**PhantomViper**

Talys wrote:

By the way, sticking wings on units don't make them flying units. Having special rules that give a class of units that fly special disadvantages and advantages makes fthat a unit class (rather than a game aesthetic). There are wings on ravenwing bikes, formexample, but they work like regular bikes, as opposed to Eldar jet bikes, which actually fly. There are demons with wings to look scary, and others that can fly.

You do realize that WMH does have special rules for units with flight and that is not just an aesthetic choice for the miniature?

**Wonderwolf**

Toofast wrote:
"Most people I know" is aneanecdotal evidence. Saying that it's wrong is basically calling me a liar.

Toofast wrote:

This is just my opinion, but anyone who has meaningful experience with multiple other systems and thinks 40k has better rules is delusional.

So you admit that it is anecdotal, subjective evidence, but still draw the general conclusion from it to proclaim that people who see 40K rules as superior are, in general, delusional?

Anecdotal evidence and general conclusions don't go together. That's the one main drawback of anecdotal evidence, actually.

So ... um .. sorry. You either fail to see the contradiction in here, in which case you'd be arguably be lacking the mental skills to make evidence-based comparisons in the first place, no matter the topic, or you do see the contradiction in this and choose to deliberately ignore it for the sake of your little crusade, in which case you would indeed be a liar.

**ImAGeek**

Wonderwolf wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:

It's not like that though. What happens in threads like this the majority of the time, is both 40k and WMH players are civil, and understand why the other group play what they do and don't play the other game. Then someone comes along saying how '40k is more balanced' or '40k is so much better' blah blah blah (often without having played both, morgoth...) and then WMH players are explaining how that's wrong. I mean that's literally what happened in this thread.

Not really.

What happened is that people shared a comparison of 40K and WMH, many (but not all) of them stating that they - for various reasons (including balance, though that may be subjective) - preferred 40K over WMH.

In return, a few stubborn WMH-defenders keep coming back with ridiculous claims like

1. " Most 40k people I know are just 40k people. They don't know much about WMH but it doesn't stop them from proclaiming 40k to be the greatest thing ever. "
2. "Most WMH players came from 40k. They know both sides. They say 40k sucks because once you learn the system, 40k rules do suck compared to WMH.

Both of the above, 1. and 2., are wrong as a generalisation. This very thread is proof of that.

Plenty of people know a lot about WMH (and other games like Infinity, X-Wing, Malifaux, whathaveyou) and still feel, that 40K is superiour to many, if not all of them.

Plenty of people gave WMH a good, long try and found that WMH rules, in the words of the quote above "suck" compared to 40K.

In the spirit of politeness you claim, it would be perfectly fine to disagree, if your own opinion/experience is the inverse.

But to continually claim that people who prefer 40K over WMH are somehow less informed, less grounded in evidence and experience, as they form their opinion, etc.. is just blatantly trolling out flamebait and the very opposite of the civil discussion you claim to seek.

Well first of all, I personally never said people who prefer 40k are less informed. I've said many times, they're different games and different people will like them and that's fine. I play both as I've said.

I don't think balance is a subjective point, and I think WMH is objectively more balanced. You might not care about how balanced a game is or see lack of balance as an issue, that is subjective, but objectively WMH is more balanced, pretty much every unit in the game can be used well, unlike in 40k. There's equally ridiculous posts from the 40k side too, such as the classic '40k is much cheaper'.

I have said, it's fine to disagree. It's fine to like one over the other for whatever reason. But at least know the full story to both sides, and don't go around saying stuff that isn't true about a game you haven't even played in some cases.

As you can probably tell, one person in particular is pretty much the source of my ire, and I was probably more defensive in some posts as I would be normally because of that. I don't have anything against 40k players, I understand why people prefer 40k because often the reasons they do often echo the reasons why I still play it, so I apologise if I've seemed too defensive about WMH. It's just annoying when someone is basically telling lies about a game they haven't even played, and then acting like they're an expert on absolutely everything when called out on it.

There are equally stubborn people on both sides but in my experience (and I hate to use this term) 'the 40k players generally start it'.