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.

I'm not sure why it's impossible to form an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. I'm not the one on a crusade here. I play 40k weekly and have spent about $1,500 on GW products this year. I plan to start a new 40k army as soon as I'm done with this large commission for a local store. The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH. You can call me mentally deficient or a liar all you want, GW rules are still bad or there wouldn't be contradictions, day 1 FAQs, people quitting the game daily citing poor rules and YMDC threads going for pages and pages without any real resolution.

 Toofast wrote:
The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH.

Again, plenty of people in this thread have argued 40K to be their personal preference, despite thorough knowledge of WMH.

You keep sidestepping things by claiming that any pro-40K argument must be grounded in ignorance, when that is demonstrably not the case. Why do you keep repeating and perpetuating this lie, when people came forth time and again and time and again and time and again saying they do in fact know WMH, quite well often.

You're entitled to your opinion, sure, but if people kept claiming (repeatedly, over and over and over again) that your opinion is delusional and "wrong", because you have "zero knowledge" about 40K, you'd rightly point to your extensive knowledge of 40K.

Why is the inverse so hard to grasp for you?

 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.

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.

If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.

Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.

There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:

40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.

I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.

By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.

Talys 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.

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.

If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.

Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.

There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:

40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.

I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.

By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.

I think maybe that's because a lot of the WMH players on here used to play 40k? No evidence for this, it's just a hypothesis, but maybe they used to play 40k so still read the 40k boards to kinda keep up with the game. Or they play both and so they read both for obvious reasons haha. People who just play 40k don't really have a reason to go on the WMH board. Just an idea, and it doesn't excuse any ridiculousness but it might explain why there's less pro-40k stuff on the WMH boards. I don't think WMH players go out of their way to hate on 40k like some people seem to think they do.

And that conversation is silly but it's just as silly as
40k: Warmachine doesn't have transports or flyers
WM: they don't really fit in the game
40k WM has less variety!
WM: it has as much variety, just less unit types
40k: no flyers = less variety!

Neither games need to have things the other games have. People prefer different things about each game. They have equal variety, just in different ways. They have different things for different people (or different things for the same people in our case). I agree that a lot of this thread is pointless, but the pointlessness comes from both sides, not just the pro WMH side.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
The people on a crusade are the ones defending GW rules and proclaiming them to be superior to WMH despite having zero knowledge about WMH.

Again, plenty of people in this thread have argued 40K to be their personal preference, despite thorough knowledge of WMH.

You keep sidestepping things by claiming that any pro-40K argument must be grounded in ignorance, when that is demonstrably not the case. Why do you keep repeating and perpetuating this lie, when people came forth time and again and time and again and time and again saying they do in fact know WMH, quite well often.

You're entitled to your opinion, sure, but if people kept claiming (repeatedly, over and over and over again) that your opinion is delusional and "wrong", because you have "zero knowledge" about 40K, you'd rightly point to your extensive knowledge of 40K.

Why is the inverse so hard to grasp for you?

I'm not calling anyone out or referring to any specific individual, but there ARE people who are on a crusade to 'prove' that 40k is a bad game, and are astonished that any rational human could play such a bad game or support such a horrible company as GW.

I'm certainly not a WMH superfan, but I do own two complete armies (Menoth, Trollblods), and at least a couple thousand dollars of models and books, and I play here and there. I am not a great player and do not really strive to be, because the game doesn't really pull me in. I don't even find it 'competitive' for me, any more than backgammon or bridge -- it's socially entertaining but I could really care less if I win or lose. I actually try much harder to win at 40k, which is both my preferred hobby and tabletop wargame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:


Neither games need to have things the other games have. People prefer different things about each game. They have equal variety, just in different ways. They have different things for different people (or different things for the same people in our case). I agree that a lot of this thread is pointless, but the pointlessness comes from both sides, not just the pro WMH side.

On this, we can most certainly agree!

Talys 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.

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.

If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.

Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.

There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:

40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models
This is not what was said, at least by me. You are using a straw man here. I said that the WMH has just as many unit types as 40k does. I then listed them, and they easily matched the number in 40k. You then said they didn't count, because reasons.
40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better
If you like collecting for collecting's sake, this doesn't matter. For playing a game, it does, or if your budget is limited. It's a legitimate point, and still concedes that 40k has the cooler and wider model range.
40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine
WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.
They both use IGYG, and nobody is claiming 40k is ancient in rules. In case you've forgotten, 40k is currently the newer rules set. 7th just released, MKII has been out for quite some time. The rules are worse in terms of balance, but if you like a simpler game then 40k is fine....if you work hard before the game setting up, or have a great meta
40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.
Again, not what was said to refute this point. 40k has more models on the board, but in general, a unit of ten guys delivers 3 special weapons and the other 7 models are ablative wounds. In WMH, every model is important since LoS and charge lanes are a huge deal. Things get worse if we go into armies like orks. It is a bigger game, for the most part. WMH tends to top out at about 40 guys per side, if you like large battles because you like the way they look (and it is impressive) or play (which is a bit of a mess, Apoc is pretty devastating after the first turn), then yeah, 40k wins.

I mean, do you see how stupid that conversation is? It's literally what this whole thread is about. Things like X is better than Y is just preference. When someone differs with you, just respect their opinion -- at leas, I do. If I say, I like flying units and I want a game with flying units, telling me that the flying riles in 40k suck and therefore I should play WMH is simply not helpful, and just serves to antagonize.
These conversations are stupid because, apparently, you are not reading what others are saying, waiting for them to be done talking, and just repeating your own point and strawmanning like crazy. Archidon is a flying unit. In 40k, flyers have 6's to hit and movement rules. in WMH, flyers are not allowed to take certain special actions and have movement rules. It's equivalent. Remember, you ALSO claimed WMH did not have GIANT ROBOTS, GIANT BEASTS, and artillery for quite some time, despite being told otherwise. I even included a picture, which you hand waved away because it takes 10 of them to make a titan (which...what? I don't even understand what you were getting at)
By the way, I DO think flying rules suck. But I wouldn't remove the units from 40k, because my enjoyment of them far outweighs the quirky rules.

It'd probably help the discussion if you tried reading what people wrote and responding to that. I know strawmanning is easier, but it gets old.

I take it back. There's a somewhat large thread on the PP General Discussion forums about how in the next book, Man o War should get a buff what with them being an iconic unit that's also included in the 2 player starter box. A lot of back and forth about how things can be balanced at the casual level but not competitive, and how PP has never actually stated that something should be good in both environments, so that it shouldn't be, along with the "They're fine you're just using it wrong" approach and everything in between.

The more I think about it, there are more similarities between the games than it appears. I still dislike GW's general price gouging strategy while giving you less, but really it's different flavors of the same thing when you boil down to it. There's a guy on Warseer who keeps saying how in his group people use subpar 40k units and do well (he specifically mentions Warp Talons and Mutilators), and speaking from experience I can attest to the fact that using a good list in WMH guarantees you nothing because if you use it wrong, you'll get crushed by someone running suboptimal choices.

I really really hate to say it, but this does put 40k in a better light for me, although I'm still unlikely to play it because of the price and GW's general attitude towards the game. But the next time I start to think about it (probably in a week or two lol) it will be a harder fought battle before the 40k idea gets shelved again.

Wayne,
Is this guy on warseer Ssimilth?

Akiasura wrote:
Wayne,
Is this guy on warseer Ssimilth?

No. HelloKitty. Although I actually agree with him/her/it. 40k is great when played in a club environment where everything is laid back, poor rules be damned. It's just when you try to play it in pickup game format that it especially breaks down.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Wayne,
Is this guy on warseer Ssimilth?

No. HelloKitty. Although I actually agree with him/her/it. 40k is great when played in a club environment where everything is laid back, poor rules be damned. It's just when you try to play it in pickup game format that it especially breaks down.

Oh, it's a him.
Yeah, I actually like a lot of what he has to say usually. He's a very good, logical poster that I enjoy following on the site. I can't handle a lot of warseer (Ssimilth, IcedCrow, Yabbadabba are just...oh dear god are they idiotic. They just fuel my vendetta against graphic designers) but there are a couple of very good ones.

Nothing like portnet back in the day though. They had this one guy, Iruga or something, he had an evangelion avatar, and what he would write was just amazing. Completely blew me away. I wish I could hire him in my department, he'd go far as a scientist.

@Akiasura -- I was giving a flavor of this and other threads, not pointing you out, so please don't take it personally.

Anyways: I have clarified that artillery in WMH is not remotely comparable to artillery in 40 in terms of size, scale, purpose, or any other measurable metric.

An Aquilla Strongpoint (it any other of many fortifications with giant guns) can table an entire WMH size force in one gak. It is a massive model on which you can place many other models to operate it, and to provide protection. I mean, it us a $130 model.

There are nit GIANT size units in WMH asi I clarified and distinguished. In both games there are infantry, medium size (warjack/dreadnought) and large size (imperial knight/colossal) models. ON TOP OF THAT there are playable models significantly larger in 40k. There is nothing close to the size of a Revenant Titan (twice the height of an Imperial Knight or Colossal) or with anywhere close to the bulk of s Baneblade.

So no, I don't retract anything, including my contention that troop carriers, aerial units and fortifications (with and without artillery) are s critical part of a war game on the scale if 40k, for which WMH does not have equivalents.

I am nit saying that 40k is a superior game, or that what pro-WMH people say have no merit. I'm saying that if the things above are what you like, WMH will not satisfy your needs.

In addition I have repeatedly said that if you are a model collector and like to play those models, 40k is a better environment, because there are a vastly larger number of playable models, and they are configurable to boot. WMH would do nothing to satisfy my modeling aspect of the hobby because I already own virtually every WMH model that I want to own, and have no reason to buy multiples of the same unit, unlike 40k where neither is true. If you add 50 or more models to your collection a month (I buy 50-100 and paint 20 or so), you run out if stuff in WMH very quickly. Plus, I have a desire to play more than less than 1% of my collection per game.

I have also said over and over that computer games fill my desire fir fast competitive games with total strangers better, because they intrinsically remove unfairness in unit availability and provide matchmaking so that I'm not playing games against someone I will always win or lose against, neither of which is fun.

I do not mean to push 40k onto anyone, but merely to point out factual differences and mg personal play preferences. WMH dies not need as much variety as 40k in terms of physics, buyable and configurable units to be s good game. However, it may not be as good a game for some people, whether ir not they are competitive.

Talys wrote:
@Akiasura -- I was giving a flavor of this and other threads, not pointing you out, so please don't take it personally.
It seems like you were strawmanning, since the 40k guy comes off very reasonable and the WMH guy comes off as a dick, and not a single person has mentioned some of the things you claimed (keep in mind, you have morgoth on your side) but fine. I didn't take it personally, I was responding to your points directly.
Anyways: I have clarified that artillery in WMH is not remotely comparable to artillery in 40 in terms of size, scale, purpose, or any other measurable metric.
Both provide similar purpose/function. 40k is a sci fi game, so I would expect things to get bigger, but to claim no measurable metric is just blatantly false.
An Aquilla Strongpoint (it any other of many fortifications with giant guns) can table an entire WMH size force in one gak. It is a massive model on which you can place many other models to operate it, and to provide protection. I mean, it us a $130 model.
True, if you like terrain than 40k is really the only game for you. WMH tables tend to be a little barren, and although they have cool scenarios (like a game where the map floods) they tend not to use forts and such. I think this has to do with the settings being different, but a fact is a fact.
There are nit GIANT size units in WMH asi I clarified and distinguished. In both games there are infantry, medium size (warjack/dreadnought) and large size (imperial knight/colossal) models. ON TOP OF THAT there are playable models significantly larger in 40k. There is nothing close to the size of a Revenant Titan (twice the height of an Imperial Knight or Colossal) or with anywhere close to the bulk of s Baneblade.
I would argue about the term playable, since in standard games titans seem to be a dirty word on this forum and many others, while colossals are not. Your original example didn't include height requirements for giant, but if you want to move the goal posts that is fine.
So no, I don't retract anything, including my contention that troop carriers, aerial units and fortifications (with and without artillery) are s critical part of a war game on the scale if 40k, for which WMH does not have equivalents.
So fantasy is a terrible game? It doesn't have any of those things (it has flyers that work remarkably like WMH) but it is on the scale of 40k. My ogre army is not, but my dwarf army is larger than anything outside of the largest hordes. I would argue skaven outnumbers anything you can possibly field in either game, and manages to avoid having any of the things you mentioned.
I am nit saying that 40k is a superior game, or that what pro-WMH people say have no merit. I'm saying that if the things above are what you like, WMH will not satisfy your needs.
No one is arguing that 40k has some advantages, my argument is that some of the things you claim are flat out wrong. You are free to disagree. I do not intend to drive to your house, hold your wife captive with a loaded revolver, and demand you destroy anything GW and only buy PP models. I own a massive collection of GW compared to PP myself, but some things you claim are factually incorrect, and I enjoy a good argument while waiting for students to complain about their grades.

In addition I have repeatedly said that if you are a model collector and like to play those models, 40k is a better environment, because there are a vastly larger number of playable models, and they are configurable to boot. WMH would do nothing to satisfy my modeling aspect of the hobby because I already own virtually every WMH model that I want to own, and have no reason to buy multiples of the same unit, unlike 40k where neither is true. If you add 50 or more models to your collection a month (I buy 50-100 and paint 20 or so), you run out if stuff in WMH very quickly. Plus, I have a desire to play more than less than 1% of my collection per game.
I would say I play less than 10% of my GW models for any faction given how new codexes invalidate old units and most of the units in a dex are pretty terrible. I use all of my WMH collection in at least one list, and own a lot of minions guys as well. If your goal is to spend money and collect huge amounts of models, than yes, 40k is for you. Buying 50-100 models a month is 250-500 a month it seems, which seems...excessive....even at my pay grade, but if that is where you are at GW is for you. It's practically in their mission statement.

I have also said over and over that computer games fill my desire fir fast competitive games with total strangers better, because they intrinsically remove unfairness in unit availability and provide matchmaking so that I'm not playing games against someone I will always win or lose against, neither of which is fun.
What you like to do doesn't invalidate the concept that WMH is overall a better game (GW has better models though). I don't enjoy RTS games because they are click fests, and games like civilization take days and are horribly imbalanced. I used to do competitive fighting games and I was sponsored as an FPS player at one point when I was younger, but table top remains my favorite.
I do not mean to push 40k onto anyone, but merely to point out factual differences and mg personal play preferences. WMH dies not need as much variety as 40k in terms of physics, buyable and configurable units to be s good game. However, it may not be as good a game for some people, whether ir not they are competitive.
When people in this thread say WMH is a better game, they mean in terms of being a workable set of rules and models. They don't mean that the models are better, or anything else in that area. I can argue your differences are not factual (what is the factual definition of giant in a wargame? Why don't flyers count as flyers? Why does the bigger amount of special rules and unit types in WMH not count?) but your personal play preferences are your own. I do play both remember. I play WMH when I want a good game between strangers and to make new friends at a comic book store (or to crush a student). I play 40k with friends I've had for a long time because we all own huge collections and I love trash talking, but it's a much simpler, and worse, game. But damn does that table look nice.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I take it back. There's a somewhat large thread on the PP General Discussion forums about how in the next book, Man o War should get a buff what with them being an iconic unit that's also included in the 2 player starter box. A lot of back and forth about how things can be balanced at the casual level but not competitive, and how PP has never actually stated that something should be good in both environments, so that it shouldn't be, along with the "They're fine you're just using it wrong" approach and everything in between.

The more I think about it, there are more similarities between the games than it appears. I still dislike GW's general price gouging strategy while giving you less, but really it's different flavors of the same thing when you boil down to it. There's a guy on Warseer who keeps saying how in his group people use subpar 40k units and do well (he specifically mentions Warp Talons and Mutilators), and speaking from experience I can attest to the fact that using a good list in WMH guarantees you nothing because if you use it wrong, you'll get crushed by someone running suboptimal choices.

I really really hate to say it, but this does put 40k in a better light for me, although I'm still unlikely to play it because of the price and GW's general attitude towards the game. But the next time I start to think about it (probably in a week or two lol) it will be a harder fought battle before the 40k idea gets shelved again.

There are lots of threads that crop up here and there making a parallel between the direction that PP has taken and the direction that GW took in its seemingly distant past, and some of those parallels are definitely true. I still contend that if PP wants to grow, it will have to find a way to sell more models and more books to people. As someone pointed out, this could be new IP, but it has to be in a way where someone doesn't choose between WMH and NewGame; since there is a finite pool of players, and diminishing returns to horizontal growth (ie spending resources to win players), at some point, they have to try to sell more stuff to their playerbase.

For GW that meant unit size creep (in RT days, it was mostly infantry and a few bikes and small tanks... look at it now). Who knows what it means for PP. But model size creep, unit power creep, and unit count creep are, at the end of the day, what turns straightforward rules (3e WH40k for example) into a complicated encyclopedia (6e 40k for example). At some point, the company has to try to fix it (7e), and it may take a while to achieve a new equilibrium, if that's even possible.

I have no illusions that GW's first priority is their pocketbook. I don't think they are good corporate citizens. But then again, I buy stuff made by Proctor & Gamble and Monsanto too, when there are clearly alternatives by better corporate citizens. I don't particularly reward good corporate citizens or companies that I like by buying their product. I spend my money on companies that make things I like whether I like their vision or practices or not.

I don't think Games Workshop hates their own game or that they're totally incompetent (I think, the game does generally get better and richer). Excluding the management end of it, the creative side mostly just tries to sculpt new models per some type of release calendar, and then a group of people try to figure out how to work it into a game context, in a hodgepodge, relatively unplanned or unstructured way. At some point, someone goes, "oops" and tries to fix it. I have no proof of this -- it's just how it feels to me. This is different from a computer game, for example, where there are major revisions where everything gets reset every now and then (new major version), and in between, there are expansions/DLCs that are carefully planned (and not every week, lol).

If I were to describe the differences between the two games succinctly, Warmachine is a better game, 40k is a better hobby.

Warmachine has better-balanced range (internal and external, no factions are better than others and there are maybe one or two unplayable models per faction) and they don't have 40k's release schedule problem since they give everyone new toys at the same time. They write much tighter rules, you can't argue that a grey area in the Warmachine rules could be interpreted different ways, since the rules are clear and consistent enough that there is an answer in your rulebook. These make it much, much easier to play a pick-up game with someone you've never met; you don't end up playing a casual list against a munchkin list and losing before deployment, and you don't end up getting in arguments about different interpretations of the rules. Warmachine is also much more of a skill game; you can't automatically hit the other guy with all your stuff every turn, you have to manoeuvre to take advantage of your army.

Warhammer has vastly better models; multi-pose customizable models with variable equipment and decorations let you make your army your own in a way that's difficult in Warmachine. Warhammer encourages conversions; if it's the right size and has the right gun you can use pretty much anything, I've never seen proxies used in Warmachine. The lore in Warhammer is bigger, there's more to the universe and they encourage you to create your own characters where in Warmachine it's all about the preexisting characters. Warhammer is more flexible, you may not have a much wider variety of different unit types but the simplicity of the rules/model interaction makes it easier to come up with house rules and make your own scenarios.

They're both great games in their own right, but which one is better for you is dependent on how you want to play.

@Akiasura --

First, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy playing on the same table as you, whether it's 40k or WMH. I don't disagree with you on a whole bunch of stuff, and we argue over a lot of semantics. I have to get to work, so I'll keep it short.

I hope you see the difference between these two units:

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

This is what I meant between a support unit that provides heavy weapon type artillery, and heavy artillery. Originally, I only brought it up because Peregrine pointed out that 40k had nothing above light artillery -- and that's a key component of the entire Apocalypse setting, plus the two types go into different slots on a force org chart (heavy support vs fortification).

Fantasy is not a terrible game at all. I actually have a WHFB wood elves army, too (mostly because I love the models, lol). Transports are actually possible in Fantasy -- for example, a giant elephant with an armored platform, a flying carpet, a dirigible, a dragon, et cetera.

It's also not terrible that WMH doesn't have transports. I'm just saying that it doesn't (as a fact), not making a judgment on whether or not such a thing has any place in WMH or if it would encourage me to play more WMH.

I also play a tiny fraction of what I in 40k, but it's a lot more than what when I play WMH.

My monthly hobby budget is pretty high, and I admit that I unnecessarily buy things that are just cool. But if you are a big 40k fan, you buy something if you like it, because next year it will either be OOP or more expensive. Also, on boxing week and Black Friday sales, where I can get up to 40%-50% off, I go totally nuts, in the most epic of ways.

In fairness, I buy everything PP makes that I find aesthetically pleasing, too. And whatever else my FLGS brings in that is a cool SciFi or Fantasy model -- it is not at all limited to Games Workshop stuff; it's just that GW produces more models / new releases than other companies.

I would point out that I spend MUCH more annually on golf, eating out, or skiing, just to pick 3 things at random that I do that are entertainment. I mean, a good golf club costs more than hundreds of models (well, dozens at least); three days at a ski resort costs as much as I spend in three months on 40k, and in 1 dinner for two at a very mediocre restaurant costs more than a 40k battleforce (heck, a good bottle of wine at a restaurant costs more than a 40k battleforce). My wife's Christmas gift is way more than I'll spend on hobby for a year. I'm not saying that 40k is cheap; rather that I accept that all forms of luxury entertainment is expensive.

I won't argue with you at all that WMH works better in a PUG environment for many reasons. In my opinion, transportability of models and setup time is high up there. Usually, WMH players need 1-2 carrying cases; regular 40k players either have lots of boxes or have display cases at FLGS where they can store their armies, because it's impractical to move some of the big complicated models (or too much work to magnetize everything). It's nice that someone owns 6 Riptides, 6 Wave Serpents, or 6 Imperial Knights, but carrying them from place to place without breaking them is not fun.

 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.

The exact same is true of some warmachine players. Also for having no knowledge of 40k and bashing it.

Instead of attacking the person, go after the info and clarify. Both sides are guilty of needing to focus on this.

Regardless, there is currently no cost comparison between 40k and warmachine, a 2k 40k army is about the same as a 50 point warmachine army. There is also relatively the same time it takes to play each game.

Now, why did I leave warmachine? It's a mediocre game with tight rules. That's it. I'd rather play a real skirmish game like infinity and keep my wars/battles with 40k. Also warmachine is far too combo reliant.

My vision of what warmachine should be is warjacks wacking each other, possibly destroying key systems, infantry doing their thing, warcasters trying to control the favor of the battle, solos providing fire-fighting and to have the game feel like a quick brawl. Instead, it's lots of positioning and everything hinging on one turn, or you losing before the match starts due to your army composition and the opponents (max stealth vs shooting, slow melee vs fast melee, ect). Also when your warcaster dies the game is over, even of the mission isn't to kill it, because warcaster destruction shuts down warjacks and free's beasts.

Warmachine should have stayed small, instead it wants to be big like 40k and this will prove to be it's undoing.

Akiasura wrote:
But damn does that table look nice.

LOL, yeah, ain't that the truth Frankly, this is why I love terrain. It all just gets me way into the mood and into the moment!

Here's why I say WMH has better rules. We'll go with some objective things so I don't get accused of having the wrong opinion again.

Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.

Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.

Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.

Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.

Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app


These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH. You might prefer 40k for subjective reasons which I have no problem with. However, I have yet to see 1 objective way that 40k rules are superior. Most arguments boil down to they're better because you can use flyers and titans.

@Toofast --

The issues that you mention are not real problems that most people who actually play the game spend much time worrying about, much less arguing over.

That's not to say that you're wrong at all: 40k is a universe about a constant stream of new models, to which a constant stream of new rules are tacked on. If this isn't your thing, you probably won't like 40k.

The only thing that you mention that isn't quite right is the price of rules. The core rules for 40k are almost free in my gaming region, because so many people have bought so many copies of deathstorm/stormclaw. However, most people don't just buy 1 codex, they buy a lot of them. Also, be fair: most people who like WMH don't just use cards; they buy at least one faction book, if not more.

Neither game is really cheap to get into or play, but 40k is more expensive as a hobby. In either case, the cost of the rules pales in comparison to what you'll spend on models and modelling supplies.

One objective fact you didn't mention is that they are, at their core, quite different games. Sure, both games have painted models that fight each other on a table, but the dissimilarities are greater than what they have in common.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that perfectly written, perfectly balanced rules by the perfect company are unhelpful if it isn't the type of fame you want to play.

 Toofast wrote:

These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of having the wrong opinion, just a misguided one. If those are all objective reasons, then the term objective changed when I wasn't looking.

If you like warmachine, thats ok. If you don't, that's ok. Same with 40k. At least try to have concrete reasons rather than hand picking ones that help your cause. No game is perfect, that's because perfect isn't a game.

Talys wrote:

If you look on the WMH forum here on Dakka, there are proportionately far fewer 40k people that post pro-40k stuff there, or defend 40k there when someone bashes it, which does happen regularly. On the other hand, a lot of pro-WMH folks seem to come to the 40k board, not to critically comment on 40k on a fashion as to improve it, but in a way which inevitably compares it to WMH.

To be fair, there are more players who start 40k, and move on to other games like WMH, than start WMH and move on to 40k. Therefore, there is more reason for folks to still be interested in posting on a 40k board. Whatever else, for a lot of people, 40k is their first game, and there is always a sense of attachment, fondness and nostalgia. I can’t speak for anyone else (though I doubt my thoughts on the matter are unique) when I say this, but I still like to keep tabs on 40k, and know what’s going on. As an Irishman living abroad, to me it’s no different to keeping tabs on the news (both local and regional) from the old country. Remember as well, there isn’t a requirement to ‘play the game’ in order to post on the 40k boards. Some people post out of interest in the fluff, interest in the hobby, or, as in my case, a general interest in the regular goings on.

its not just “pro-WMH folks” who critically comment on 40k. I’m pretty certain a few members of the feared and infamous ‘riders of the GWpocalypse’ such as Azreal, Peregrine and others don’t even play WMH. Regardless, they still raise a lot of valid points with regard to 40k’s issues. Others such as Wayne and Toofast, whilst they play/enjoy WMH, they still seem to maintain an equal amount of interest in 40k and are actually quite vocal in their criticisms of WMH – toofast for model quality/missing pieces (and my experiences differ) and Wayne for fluff preferences and the lack of immersion he finds in WMH. Surprisingly, though my experiences difference from Toofast’s in terms of model quality/missing pieces (never had an issue) and Wayne’s in terms of fluff/immersion (I love the IKRPG’s fluff and setting), I am also quite happy to be critical of PP if/when they screw up, or if I see legitimate issues. Open up a “do you have any issues with PP” thread and I’ll have my say.

Regarding the comment about critically commenting on 40k to improve on it, surely it makes sense to compare its functions with how other companies (not just PP, but Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Hawk Wargames, the Bolt Action guys, the Flames of War guys etc) do things. And for all the issues WMH has, Privateer Press do a lot right. They are brilliant at actively supporting the community, with frequent and open communications, and very few complain about the balance they aim for in their games. They are among the movers and shakers in the industry right now for a reason.

Talys wrote:

Having played both, and being heavily invested in models in both games, I don't mind comparisons, but there are often such obvious exaggerations that it's mind-boggling (like the whole thing about how there are flyers in WMH). Also, some pro-WMH folks on this forum seem unwilling to concede that their favorite game doesn't have some things that it clearly doesn't (like troop transports), instead falling to arguments about how they aren't necessary.

I've played both too. But robots the size of cities and mobile transport bigger than a horse and cart (whilst cool) are not strictly necessary, nor entirely fitting for a fantasy setting. I made this point before - It’s an equivalent to Fantasy and it compares well there. And please don’t fall back on the ‘steampunk’ argument – aside from one faction wearing goggles and the occasional nod, WMH isn’t really a steampunk game – a lot of the steampunk tropes and features don’t really exist in WMH, and PP themselves don’t use the term, preferring ‘full metal fantasy’, which I feel does a better job at evoking a traditional fantasy setting undergoing an industrial revolution. (amusingly enough, the iron kingdoms conform a lot better to a ‘romantic fantasy’ setting/trope than steampunk)

Regardless, there was an argument earlier which went along the lines of ‘40k has more variety, because it has more categories of stuff; even its infantry can be split up into HQs, heavy support, elite, fast attack etc”.

You’ve said it. Morgoth said it. And I’m not entirely sold on ‘more categories = more variety’ as an argument. I find the ‘more categories’ can be more misleading that anything else. 40k has very basic mechanics on which the game is built, within which there is little scope for variation. Take the ‘Infantry move 6” ‘ as a constant for example. All infantry. Regardless of race. Well, fine. But then to have ‘different’ infantry move differently, you need to artificially bloat the system. Fleet for faster infantry (elder, tyranids back in the day for example). Bikes (and jetbike exceptions). Jump packs (and jet pack exceptions). Cavalry. Infantry. And exceptions/special cases. And exceptions/special cases to the exceptions/special cases. Etcetera. Bloat. And unneccessary bloat at that*. Does it ‘add to the game’ more than it ‘adds bloat to the game/rules’? And is there a better/alternative way of adding to the game, without adding bloat? PP approach this in a different way, and focus less on categories and more on statlines and special rules/feats/abilities. Rather than a new artificial category of ’infantry type’ to separate things out, and make things different, they use a Spd value of 7 or 8 and add in different special rules for flavour. Variety is still there. Or are Kayazy eliminators the same as Iron Fangs? Regardless, the end result is still functionally different units and a valid state of diversity, irrespective of artificiall constructed or defined ‘classes’ of infantrty.

Regarding the splitting on ‘infantry into types’ as a further argument of variety, whilst WMH doesn’t have the categories, but it does have units that conform to a lot of the tropes/niches mentioned (HQ, Elite, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, Troops etc). As mentioned, kayazy eliminators are quite different in terms of application from Iron Fangs, even if they’re both technically ‘infantry’. Variety exists.

Talys wrote:

There are also a lot of silly arguments, like:

40k player: I like a game with lots of models of different types
WMH player: But in WMH you don't need all those models

Strictly speaking though, Its not silly. It’s a valid argument that things like artillery (which should be 10 miles behind the front line) and aircraft have no place, or are very poorly implemented for the scale that they are being used for. 40k never used to have flyers, and it wasn’t a worse game for the lack of it.

Talys wrote:

40k player: I think the large range of those models to choose from are cool
WMH player: most of the models suck anyways and are unplayable, so WMH really has more models you can choose from, and more that you can do with them, and the rules are much better

'Practical variety' sold me on WMH. Different strokes, I suppose. The lack of it was one of the main reasons that ultimately drove me from actively playing 40k. And on a point of order, no one has really said 'most of the models suck'.

Arguably though, ‘Paper’ variety versus ‘real’ variety is a thing

With the caveat that all the variety you seem to like/want can be attained, but really, it requires a huge investment of time, and energy, the ‘right kind’ of people, and arguably, a lot of compromises, gentleman’s agreements, self-policing, self-restraint, and in some cases social pressure (ie bullying) in order to ‘force’ the meta. Fair play if it’s what you want, but for me, that is a massive investment for little gain – the investment/gain ratio is just too high for it to be worthwhile as a matter of course. I've never really had the environment or time/space resources available to accommodate what's needed in order to do what you do. Slightly jealous by the way!

Amusingly enough though, I would play 40k, with the ‘right kind’ of people. For what it's worth, I think you'd probably be one of them. For all our differences, you seem an enjoyable guy to play a game against.
For me though, since the rules for 40k are so clunky and unwieldy, I’d treat it as an opportunity to be creative, use my own homebrew, and pretty much ignore the points/stats and mechanics GW give/offer and instead try and design my/our own mechanics that fit better for us. But it won’t be 40k though…

Talys wrote:

40k player: what are you talking about? I like 40k rules fine

Arguably, liking the rules (or at least, tolerating, or having no issues actually ‘using’ them) and pointing out inconsistencies, loose, woolly writing, vague terminology and other issue are not mutually exclusive. I’d argue a lot of GWs rules are overly clunky and unwieldy, and better systems have evolved in the thirty years since 40k was designed.

Talys wrote:

WMH player: IGYG is so ancient. You should play something more modern.

Where was this said? Source. Being honest, Peregrine is about the only person I’ve seen who goes on about the ancient/flawed IGOUGO mechanics, so thanks for writing strawmen, putting words in my mouth, and trying to tar everyone with the same brush?

Talys wrote:

40k player: but the WMH model works really badly when there are tons of models on the board.
WMH player: that's because WMH is for gamers and 40k is for modelers.

Source for that WMH comment? You’re right though - WMH isn’t a mass battle game, and in its standard form is less than ideal for mass games. Then again, there is the unbound format that exists to wield massive armies costing hundreds of points. Would that scratch the ‘lets do something epic’ itch, I wonder? Multiple colossals stomping around, squadrons of battle engines, and phalanxes of Iron fangs? Could be fun. Not ideal. But I would say that I wouldn’t use it for that as a first thought. Neither would I use 40k. There are better mass battle games. Epic 40k comes to mind as a brilliant game. Dropzone is fun. Flames of War is great for having hundreds of models on the board. 40k is functional (as is WMH to a lesser extent), and can work, but IMO isn’t best suited for it.



*And lets be clear, PP is guilty of adding bloat too. Mark 1 was ridiculous in the end. Mark2 needed to happen, and as much as the game is lean, mean, and fighting fit, its been putting on a bit of bulk over the last four years, and I for one, along with others I am sure, feel a Mark2:remix is necessary sooner rather than later to tidy things up a bit.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.

I don't think anyone is accusing you of having the wrong opinion, just a misguided one. If those are all objective reasons, then the term objective changed when I wasn't looking.

If you like warmachine, thats ok. If you don't, that's ok. Same with 40k. At least try to have concrete reasons rather than hand picking ones that help your cause. No game is perfect, that's because perfect isn't a game.

So you're saying good balance, clarity, consistency, support from the company and affordable price are subjective? They seem pretty objective to me. I wasn't hand picking reasons, I gave a pretty wide variety of reasons and examples. How do you objectively compare rule sets if not based on those criteria? Anything else can be a matter of preference. A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points, they would rather dismiss them as subjective opinions and give the age old argument that no game is perfect. I never said WMH was perfect. Please, show me where I said that. Nobody is arguing for perfect balance, perfect rules or an overall perfect game. What we want from 40k is BETTER balance/rules/game. Not only would that not be impossible, it wouldn't even be that difficult if the company actually gave a feth about it.

Talys wrote:
@Toofast --

The issues that you mention are not real problems that most people who actually play the game spend much time worrying about, much less arguing over.
Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.
That's not to say that you're wrong at all: 40k is a universe about a constant stream of new models, to which a constant stream of new rules are tacked on. If this isn't your thing, you probably won't like 40k.

The only thing that you mention that isn't quite right is the price of rules. The core rules for 40k are almost free in my gaming region, because so many people have bought so many copies of deathstorm/stormclaw. However, most people don't just buy 1 codex, they buy a lot of them. Also, be fair: most people who like WMH don't just use cards; they buy at least one faction book, if not more.
It's unrealistic of us to present gaming groups. If we do, WMH is free because my store allows people to borrow models from the display case and use them in a game, and instantly wins the price battle. WMH is much cheaper than 40k in a pickup game at what is the accepted size. Even starting up, it's cheaper.
Neither game is really cheap to get into or play, but 40k is more expensive as a hobby. In either case, the cost of the rules pales in comparison to what you'll spend on models and modelling supplies.
True. Many hobbies are cheaper. You could always play necromunda for example.
One objective fact you didn't mention is that they are, at their core, quite different games. Sure, both games have painted models that fight each other on a table, but the dissimilarities are greater than what they have in common.
Eh, ish. I couldn't explain the difference easily to someone who isn't familar with the rules, but I get what you are saying here.
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that perfectly written, perfectly balanced rules by the perfect company are unhelpful if it isn't the type of fame you want to play.

@ Deadnight, I was the source for the WMH comment about it being for gamers. I don't remember where, but I did indeed say it. I stand by it.

@ juraigamer, the definition of objective hasn't changed. I am not sure you know it though.

@ Talys, I also wouldn't mind playing a game against you. I have friends who make it difficult to play 40k with, but are a lot of fun in Necromunda, Gorkamorka, WMH, and a bunch of other games. They just don't accept house rules very well, and hate self handicapping to any large extent (Necromunda requires very little to be playable, god I love that game).

@Deadnight -- dunno where you got that I directed any of that to you. The 40k/WMH banter was made as snark -- I think most outside observers would agree that the arguments are very circular. I wasn't even trying to be pro-40k.

By the way my comment about most 40k models sucking was not the physical model, but rather the game unit. In other words, many people would argue that a terminator with an assault cannon or cyclone is a model, but not with playing.

Since you obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your post, I would love to reply properly, but I can't as real life takes precedence atm

I completely agree with the sentiment that 40k is a lot easier to love with the right people to play it with. That did not come overnight though as I started playing in Rogue Trader.

Akiasura wrote:

Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.

Point of order, the Witch Coven's feat does not grant stealth (which only makes ranged attacks from over 5" auto miss) it reduces models LOS in their control area to 5". Huge difference there.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Let me assure you, the AP of a weapon will come up in my games if it's referenced. I've had rule disputes with people in WMH too, but it always is over very quickly. For example, I was playing against Witch Coven with Skorne, and they feated. Their feat grants stealth, which reduces charge range to 5" or less away. So, I walked molik kharn forward, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch, side step, killed a witch. Guy freaked and said I couldn't do that, because stealth means I can't enter melee. He was wrong, and it was easy to prove he was wrong. People argue, especially in games.

Point of order, the Witch Coven's feat does not grant stealth (which only makes ranged attacks from over 5" auto miss) it reduces models LOS in their control area to 5". Huge difference there.

Ah, thank you. I think that was the only game I've ever had versus Witch Coven...he quickly bought Gaspy2 and the games have been a lot harder ever since.

 Toofast wrote:
A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points

Well clearly you're asking for a game from the imaginations of dreamers, because such a thing will never exist.

But, to be fair, lets go ahead and refute those points:

 Toofast wrote:

Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.

Warmachine doesn't have balance, it has the perceived notion of balance. If everyone is running the best warcaster possible, with the best units, that's not the same. Warmachine has a very small pool of useful units that do not require massive synergies. You cannot argue that Warmachine has balance when you can instantly lose without playing the game, IE a shooting force vs a fast full stealth melee/shooting army. I see players win with blood angels, dark angels, sisters of battle, tyranids, and any other "bad" army. Please cite your win rate sources, as they are subject to tournament house rules which make certain armies better, such as eldar and knights.

 Toofast wrote:

Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.

If you simply open the eldar codex to page 67, it states to treat the wave serpent as a hull mounted weapon. Hull mounted weapons in the BRB have a 45 degree firing arc. Please do not cite internet arguments as a valid "objective" reason.

 Toofast wrote:

Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.

Refer to the more specific entry on the weapon page and not the reference sheet, or call GW's rules hotline for a quick fix. You can even email them.

 Toofast wrote:

Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.

Have a rules argument? Call the GW hotline or email them, or ask someone respected when it comes to the rules at your FLGS. Some people just like to argue after all. These people tend to be lawyers. Or donkey-caves. Or both.

 Toofast wrote:

Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app

$37 (I assume USD) plus the price of a smart phone for rules and a single faction? Since when was having a smart phone required for warmachine? I won't argue the prices of books are expensive, but then again they are hardback and were $33 USD for a softcover codex and $60 for the older massive BRB. Instead we should be arguing that digital books should cost less than physical ones.

 Toofast wrote:

These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.

As stated before and in this post, I hearty disagree with your opinion and request you do more research on the subject matter before returning to the podium.

edit: I can't spell it seems

1. Such a thing does exist. WMH and many other games are able to accomplish it.

2. There really isn't a best war caster or best units. I follow menoth closely and people have placed in the top 3 of large tournaments with 6 or 7 different casters, 10-12 different war jacks and every unit other than cinerators appearing in those lists.

3. I was talking about the serpent shield. In that case it would be about a 240 firing arc because it can be fired from any point on the hull which wraps 3/4 of the way around the model. There is no clear answer on this which is why if you go to 6 different tournaments, you will see 6 different diagrams of the accepted firing arc of a serpent shield. Please tell me which unit in WMH has this type of issue.

4. That was just one example. What is the strength of a power fist on a TWC? Do you apply the +1 S bonus before you double it for the power fist or after? I could list things like this for days and if you talk to 2 different people on the rules hot line you will get 2 different answers.

5. I don't add the price of a smart phone because it's 2014 and you can get them for free when you sign a contract. Everyone I know spending $500-1000 on an army has a smart phone already. $37 doesn't get you rules for a single faction, it gets you the full game rules and the rules for a single faction. That's $21 less than just the 40k core rule and $13 less than a codex for a single army. Yes, the digital rules should be cheaper. That's why it's cool that PP gives you the faction rules in electronic format for $7 as opposed to $33 for the physical book. GW seems to think pixels cost as much to produce as physical rulebooks and charges the same amount no matter which format you purchase the rules in.

I don't think I need to do any more research. I've been playing 40k since 6th grade and playing both WMH and 40k weekly for about the past year. I think people need to stop moving goal posts and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in 40k.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
A well balanced game with clearly written rules, no contradictions, the support of the gaming company when you have a question and affordable prices are good for everyone. I find it interesting that nobody tries to refute these points

Well clearly you're asking for a game from the imaginations of dreamers, because such a thing will never exist.
Affordable might be debatable but the rest is not
But, to be fair, lets go ahead and refute those points:
Yes, let's.

 Toofast wrote:

Balance
40k - Eldar and IK are close to a 65% win rate. Blood/dark angels are around 35% win rate in 7E tournaments. That is a huge discrepancy.
WMH - All factions stay between 45% and 55% win rate over a given year. They're not all a perfect 50%, but stay pretty close to that considering the huge amount of variety.

Warmachine doesn't have balance, it has the perceived notion of balance. If everyone is running the best warcaster possible, with the best units, that's not the same. Warmachine has a very small pool of useful units that do not require massive synergies. You cannot argue that Warmachine has balance when you can instantly lose without playing the game, IE a shooting force vs a fast full stealth melee/shooting army. I see players win with blood angels, dark angels, sisters of battle, tyranids, and any other "bad" army. Please cite your win rate sources, as they are subject to tournament house rules which make certain armies better, such as eldar and knights.
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?212314-Crunching-some-WTC-results-numbers-and-I-had-a-question For my source. Have fun. Also, Warmachine has a wide pool of very useful units and warcasters. Go through the skorne army list and find 3 units that nobody takes ever. I'll wait. I can make a similar argument in 40k; If I don't take a single anti-tank weapon, and you take all tanks, I will lose. But let's assume each opponent has a functional frontal lobe and not use a slippery slope to win arguments, hmm?

 Toofast wrote:

Clarity
40k - What's the firing arc of a wave serpent? This simple question sparked a 3 day, 150 comment debate on the eldar facebook group and we still didn't have a real answer. The rules don't say, so we're left to figure it out amongst ourselves. For an $85 rule set, the players sure are left to figure out a lot of things amongst themselves.
WMH - Typically re reading the rule in question along with definitions for key terms in the rule and order of operations is enough to figure anything out.

If you simply open the eldar codex to page 67, it states to treat the wave serpent as a hull mounted weapon. Hull mounted weapons in the BRB have a 45 degree firing arc. Please do not cite internet arguments as a valid "objective" reason.
How many powers can a pysker use per turn? Please cite the source

 Toofast wrote:

Contradictions
40k - The space wolves codex lists the Helfrost template as AP3 in the ranged weapons section and AP2 in the reference at the back. GW took several months to FAQ this. This wasn't even the only mistake of that nature in the Space Wolves codex, I hate to think how many made it through on the other books this year.
WMH - The stats on the card are the same as the stats in the book are the same as the stats in the war room app.

Refer to the more specific entry on the weapon page and not the reference sheet, or call GW's rules hotline for a quick fix. You can even email them.
Source that this is how it works?

 Toofast wrote:

Support
40k - Have a rules argument? Dice off to see which interpretation will be played. Then spend 3 days going back and forth with people on Facebook and YMDC talking about it. You still don't have an official answer. 10 people might interpret it 10 different ways.
WMH - Have a rules argument? Call up your local press ganger. If you aren't satisfied with his answer, post on the official PP forum and you will have an answer from a representative of the company very quickly.

Have a rules argument? Call the GW hotline or email them, or ask someone respected when it comes to the rules at your FLGS. Some people just like to argue after all. These people tend to be lawyers. Or donkey-caves. Or both.
Personal attacks are so trendy. You got contradictions in answers from the GW hotline, and someone respected when it comes to rules? So, an appeal to authority?

 Toofast wrote:

Price
40k - $58 for rules, $50-60 for 1 codex, $50 for supplement
WMH - $30 for MkII, $7 for entire faction cards and tier lists on the war room app

$37 (I assume USD) plus the price of a smart phone for rules and a single faction? Since when was having a smart phone required for warmachine? I won't argue the prices of books are expensive, but then again they are hardback and were $33 USD for a softcover codex and $60 for the older massive BRB. Instead we should be arguing that digital books should cost less than physical ones.
Cards don't require an app, so $37. An additional $7 per faction. In what world is this more than $60 for core rules, $50 per army in 40k? And yes, $ usually donates USD.

 Toofast wrote:

These are all objective reasons 40k rules suck compared to WMH.

As stated before and in this post, I hearty disagree with your opinion and request you do more research on the subject matter before returning to the podium.
That kettle is so black, right Mr. Pot?
edit: I can't spell it seems

Warmachine has more balance than 40k (which arguably has none at all) so it's more balanced as a result. Is it balanced in the 50/50 sense? No, of course not, but virtually nothing is (even Chess is slightly skewed).

I find WMH plays more balanced, but as I've said and others have acknowledged I repeatedly have urges to play 40k again; I ultimately shelve them due to the combination of only being able to play pickup games, a high startup cost and the fact that many of the themed armies I want to do are underpowered due to the aforementioned no balance, but I still have slight interests in the game or else I wouldn't even give it a second thought.

Also @Akiasura could you please use the quote function properly instead of inlining your comments in a different color? It's VERY hard to read.