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.

Akiasura wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
In said scenario does killing the caster still result in instant victory?

Yes?
In maelstorm missions, does tabling your opponent result in victory?

I don't see your point here.

Indeed it does, the point is that it's a Hell of alot easier to kill a single model than the table an entire army. Now, if you were able to kill my warlord in a game and instantly win, that would be different. Scenarios are moot in a game that only requires you to take out a single model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

I don't think I'm being vitriolic in the least. The first comment from Chosen atleast in the past few pages is a direct attack on me. And I'm vitriolic in responding to it? Get off me.

Actually, my post was in response to the thread at large, you just made the assumption I was speaking directly to you. The only thing I said that made mention to you was that you had managed to come up with a smartass reply to nearly every post on said page.

Uh, yeah, that's what I was talking about. You called me out by name. You can't then say it's not for me. Stop being ridiculous.

I called you out specifically for your smartass remarks to every post made on a page. To that, yes I was speaking solely to you. The rest is very generalized, perhaps you should go read it again? Everything I've seen thus far puts you being rather ridiculous as well.

Why not ban any army that has any sort of cheese? I've personally played and lost to many army's set up to defeat my Ulthwe Eldar, or my Ultramarines , I've also faced and beaten them. I didn't throw my toys out of the pram and start crying not fair, I found a way to beat what had beaten me. Oddly exactly what an army has to do I real life, eg Col. Colin Mitchell or Lt Gen Harold G Moore.

Akiasura wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
When people enter warmachine, we tell them it'll take 40-50 games before they start winning against anyone but a completely new player.

Yeah, because Warmachine has varying Objectives besides Caster Kill...

They do, it is called scenario

So much fail there.

The difference being that winning by Caster Kill is a lot easier than actually playing the scenario and its objectives, whereas 40k only gives a VP for killing the General. And tabling is not that easy - if WMH changed Caster Kill win to tabling, then it would be comparable.

If WMH is at a point whereby at least 80% of all tournament games are won on scenario objectives in lieu of caster kill, I'd accept WMH as something of a strategic game. Otherwise, it's just a glorified, yet mindless "kill Foozle".

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
In said scenario does killing the caster still result in instant victory?

Yes?
In maelstorm missions, does tabling your opponent result in victory?

I don't see your point here.

Indeed it does, the point is that it's a Hell of alot easier to kill a single model than the table an entire army. Now, if you were able to kill my warlord in a game and instantly win, that would be different. Scenarios are moot in a game that only requires you to take out a single model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

I don't think I'm being vitriolic in the least. The first comment from Chosen atleast in the past few pages is a direct attack on me. And I'm vitriolic in responding to it? Get off me.

Actually, my post was in response to the thread at large, you just made the assumption I was speaking directly to you. The only thing I said that made mention to you was that you had managed to come up with a smartass reply to nearly every post on said page.

Uh, yeah, that's what I was talking about. You called me out by name. You can't then say it's not for me. Stop being ridiculous.

I called you out specifically for your smartass remarks to every post made on a page. To that, yes I was speaking solely to you. The rest is very generalized, perhaps you should go read it again? Everything I've seen thus far puts you being rather ridiculous as well.

I'm guessing you don't play warmachine.
Edenny and Haley 2 are regarded as the strongest casters in the game because they win on objectives, not caster kills.
You may want to learn the game before you make sweeping generalizations that even a glance at the competitive armies in that game would show is false.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
In said scenario does killing the caster still result in instant victory?

Yes?
In maelstorm missions, does tabling your opponent result in victory?

I don't see your point here.

Indeed it does, the point is that it's a Hell of alot easier to kill a single model than the table an entire army. Now, if you were able to kill my warlord in a game and instantly win, that would be different. Scenarios are moot in a game that only requires you to take out a single model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

I don't think I'm being vitriolic in the least. The first comment from Chosen atleast in the past few pages is a direct attack on me. And I'm vitriolic in responding to it? Get off me.

Actually, my post was in response to the thread at large, you just made the assumption I was speaking directly to you. The only thing I said that made mention to you was that you had managed to come up with a smartass reply to nearly every post on said page.

Uh, yeah, that's what I was talking about. You called me out by name. You can't then say it's not for me. Stop being ridiculous.

I called you out specifically for your smartass remarks to every post made on a page. To that, yes I was speaking solely to you. The rest is very generalized, perhaps you should go read it again? Everything I've seen thus far puts you being rather ridiculous as well.

What is your point exactly? That you only insulted me directly a little and that the other is lesser because I get to share it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
When people enter warmachine, we tell them it'll take 40-50 games before they start winning against anyone but a completely new player.

Yeah, because Warmachine has varying Objectives besides Caster Kill...

They do, it is called scenario

So much fail there.

The difference being that winning by Caster Kill is a lot easier than actually playing the scenario and its objectives, whereas 40k only gives a VP for killing the General. And tabling is not that easy - if WMH changed Caster Kill win to tabling, then it would be comparable.

If WMH is at a point whereby at least 80% of all tournament games are won on scenario objectives in lieu of caster kill, I'd accept WMH as something of a strategic game. Otherwise, it's just a glorified, yet mindless "kill Foozle".

Your ignorance of warmachine is astounding.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
When people enter warmachine, we tell them it'll take 40-50 games before they start winning against anyone but a completely new player.

Yeah, because Warmachine has varying Objectives besides Caster Kill...

They do, it is called scenario

So much fail there.

The difference being that winning by Caster Kill is a lot easier than actually playing the scenario and its objectives, whereas 40k only gives a VP for killing the General. And tabling is not that easy - if WMH changed Caster Kill win to tabling, then it would be comparable.

If WMH is at a point whereby at least 80% of all tournament games are won on scenario objectives in lieu of caster kill, I'd accept WMH as something of a strategic game. Otherwise, it's just a glorified, yet mindless "kill Foozle".

Your ignorance of warmachine is astounding.

It's not at 80%, no, but the 2 strongest casters do play that way. Many, in fact, play that way.

Considering your extremely limited knowledge of competitive 40k, I am not surprised you are unable to look at a much deeper more complicated game and see it for what it is.
40k does not give VP for killing the general btw. It's all random missions all the time now.

It's not all Maelstrom all the time - only 1/6 of the time.

My point, Purifier, is that it's not all about you, and there are other people involved in the thread.

yellowfever wrote:
The only thing I've always disliked is any army that can expand itself past the agreed point limit. Say we playing 2000 points. Daemons go first and spawn 200 extra points worth.

Now it's my turn and I got my 2000 points against your 2200 points. It may get worse or maybe I'll kill more/ you won't spawn as much. But the point is the army can break the agreed point limit. Or stick around better.

Except that army has essentially forfeited first turn advantage and invested a significant chunk of points into units that will do nothing but summon. You could instead complain that Tau going first essentially reduces your point limit by 200 so you're forced to play 1800 against 2000 points but that's not really important.

Also, is Slay the Warlord not always a secondary objective?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's not all Maelstrom all the time - only 1/6 of the time.

My mistake, you are right.

The fact remains, that the objectives for this game are determined randomly at the start of the game. The missions in maelstorm, are generated randomly. Sometimes you can not achieve the objective outlined. You can not plan for them in advance since they are unknown. You generally want fast tough units to take and hold, and them having objective secured is nice but not a requirement.

Just like saying Caster kills is all it is, is wrong. Very wrong. Without scenario someone can sit in the back and just gunline for days. This is not currently the case in WMH.
Killing a caster, unless the opponent is brand new, is very hard to do (unless it's edenny...who is one of the strongest casters in the game, but dies to a stiff breeze).

Tabling someone in 40k isn't as hard as tabling is in WMH. Some armies are attrition based, where they whittle an enemy down heavily before killing the caster.

I seriously can not believe anyone thinks 40k is a more complex game then WMH. Or harder to play. Tabling in 40k is quite common if both players are fielding good armies...the casualties are just immense since firepower is so long ranged and strong.

I wish Warmachine players would just go play Warmachine and stop continually comparing it to 40k. If Warmachine is so much better, go play it and stop complaining about 40k.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
I wish Warmachine players would just go play Warmachine and stop continually comparing it to 40k. If Warmachine is so much better, go play it and stop complaining about 40k.

People play both, and it's an apt comparison. So long as they're not trying to convince people to quit 40k or being aggressively antagonistic about it, I don't see the problem with comparing them.

They aren't comparing them, they exalt Warmachine and complain about 40k.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
I wish Warmachine players would just go play Warmachine and stop continually comparing it to 40k. If Warmachine is so much better, go play it and stop complaining about 40k.

So what do we get to compare 40k as a wargame to? Or do we not compare it to anything and stick our fingers in our ears while we happily throw our money at whatever GW drops on us?

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
They aren't comparing them, they exalt Warmachine and complain about 40k.

For very valid reasons.

Requizen wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
I wish Warmachine players would just go play Warmachine and stop continually comparing it to 40k. If Warmachine is so much better, go play it and stop complaining about 40k.

People play both, and it's an apt comparison. So long as they're not trying to convince people to quit 40k or being aggressively antagonistic about it, I don't see the problem with comparing them.

I think this is a pretty small group. Most people who complain about 40k here make a point of saying that they haven't been playing 40k for quite a while. You get a lot of "I quit 40k a year ago and I haven't looked back... [insert game here] is so much better." Which is fantastic for them; I'm happy they have a new game, but they can't seem to let go of GW, and feel obliged to come back and tell everyone who actually enjoys 40k how they must be mindless sheep because [insert game here] is just so much better in every way, models, company, rules and all

There are occasionally people who post saying they're quitting because they're fed up of playing against a faction, or fed up with playing against a particular sort of player. But those are a tiny percentage of posts, and if they really quit, they rarely come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
I wish Warmachine players would just go play Warmachine and stop continually comparing it to 40k. If Warmachine is so much better, go play it and stop complaining about 40k.

So what do we get to compare 40k as a wargame to? Or do we not compare it to anything and stick our fingers in our ears while we happily throw our money at whatever GW drops on us?

I don't like Warmachines because the nicest tables look like this:


and most tables look a lot more like this -- or worse:


I haven't played a 40k table that looked like that for 20+ years. I just could never do it.

This is what I want to see!!!


Even your average 40k table looks much more impressive (and my average games look way, way, way better than this):

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
They aren't comparing them, they exalt Warmachine and complain about 40k.

I still play all the GW specialist games, and own over 20k in 40k models.
I like to think owning that many models in 40k alone, never mind my 3 fantasy armies, allows me to comment in whatever way I want.
I've also been playing for 20 years.
I can say that I don't like it when people make false assumptions about warmachine when it's obvious they don't know a thing about the game. Like not knowing scenarios are a thing or how important they are.



Talys (sp?),
I'm not going to quote your post because it's massive, but I'll be the first to admit that if you love modelling and conversions 40k beats the hell out of warmachine. I also like the RPGs better in 40k then in warmachine (though 40k itself is not a rpg). FFG makes some great games that have been a pleasure to play, especially since I am not the biggest DnD fan.
I also freely admit I'm not much of a painter or converter (a friend paints most of my stuff outside of specialist games), I'm more of a gamer. So I like Warmachine. It has flaws, certain armies have hard match ups though nothing like 40k, but overall I enjoy it.

Codex 100% confirmed more pics.

Sky has been confirmed to have made contact with the ground.

Well, the issue with comparing Warmachine to any sort of wargame is that it plays more like Magic: The Gathering, than an actual wargame. It's just about comboing abilities off of each of your models. That was even stated in an earlier reply in this thread by a Warmachine player. "I ask my opponent what combos his units do before each game." I believe is how it went. My point in all this is if you have nothing but complaints about 40k, but you like Warmachine, stop playing 40k.

They're both miniature tabletop battle games. They're absolutely comparable.

Akiasura wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's not all Maelstrom all the time - only 1/6 of the time.

My mistake, you are right.

The fact remains, that the objectives for this game are determined randomly at the start of the game. The missions in maelstorm, are generated randomly. Sometimes you can not achieve the objective outlined. You can not plan for them in advance since they are unknown. You generally want fast tough units to take and hold, and them having objective secured is nice but not a requirement.

Just like saying Caster kills is all it is, is wrong. Very wrong. Without scenario someone can sit in the back and just gunline for days. This is not currently the case in WMH.
Killing a caster, unless the opponent is brand new, is very hard to do (unless it's edenny...who is one of the strongest casters in the game, but dies to a stiff breeze).

Tabling someone in 40k isn't as hard as tabling is in WMH. Some armies are attrition based, where they whittle an enemy down heavily before killing the caster.

I seriously can not believe anyone thinks 40k is a more complex game then WMH. Or harder to play. Tabling in 40k is quite common if both players are fielding good armies...the casualties are just immense since firepower is so long ranged and strong.

Maelstrom necessarily exists as a balancing counterpoint to pure Kill Points, and neither "scenario" makes for a particuarly good game. Kill Points lack dimension, while Maelstrom is overly reactive. Both can be planned for, to some extent, and represent good examples of what happens when an army overly sacrifices mobility & holding for pure combat power.

Caster Kill is always present, but should it be? Same thing with Tabling in 40k? Is that really how either game should be?

I'm not sure that either game is necessarily "better", but I do believe 40k is more complex, based on the total current volume of rules printed. IMO, 40k is now over-complicated with too much rules detail.

Funny how that one picture of a Warmachine table has GW terrain on it.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
In said scenario does killing the caster still result in instant victory?

Yes?
In maelstorm missions, does tabling your opponent result in victory?

I don't see your point here.

A better analogy would be Slay the Warlord resulting in victory.

Well back when I played WHFB if you lost your general every unit had to take a morale check or flee...

Am I doing this right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
Funny how that one picture of a Warmachine table has GW terrain on it.

What does this have to do with anything?

Also, yes the terrain has been brought up as a concern but that's also because the gameplay is more important than visuals and too much terrain reduces tactical viability. 40k terrain is basically just to block LOS due to the huge range on guns (keep in mind a standard Warmachine table is 4x4, so most guns in 40k could shoot halfway across the table and heavy weapons can shoot the entire table). The longest range in Warmachine, discounting one's movement, is IIRC 20" and that tends to be on artillery that can't move and fire (equivalent to heavy weapon in 40k)

I'm a sucker for how good 40k looks too. I was drawn to the minis when a friend first showed me a few years ago, and how great they look on the table top.

Talys, I love that diroamma. What I would do to have terrain like that!

 Talys wrote:
[

Even your average 40k table looks much more impressive (and my average games look way, way, way better than this):

]

Do they really? Can you state for a fact that that what you display is an 'average' game of 40k? As hugely impressive as it is, it doesn't match my own experiences of the game. With respect talys - you are an outlier in the hobby. By your own admissions in the past, You spend vastly more time and money and effort on the hobby than most gamers (not a criticism by the way). Your 'average' isn't everyone else's 'average'. Not everyone has the time, interest, money, space and desire to invest in a games terrain. This is as true for 40k as WMH.

Ymmv. If seen more than my share of unpainted 40k armies (you know, the grey legions), and I've seen more than my share of games if 40k taking place either on planet bowling ball, or with minimal terrain (two hills, a ruin and som walls). I've seen some fantastic customised WMH boards, especially in no quarter.

Ironically, the terrain density of the WMH board you dismiss seems quite similar to that of the last 40k board - it's just that the game of 40k is on a 12 by 6 rather than 4 by 4.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
Well, the issue with comparing Warmachine to any sort of wargame is that it plays more like Magic: The Gathering, than an actual wargame. It's just about comboing abilities off of each of your models. That was even stated in an earlier reply in this thread by a Warmachine player. "I ask my opponent what combos his units do before each game." I believe is how it went. My point in all this is if you have nothing but complaints about 40k, but you like Warmachine, stop playing 40k.

My first game was Warmachines. I got talked out of Warhammer 40,000 because I really didn't have that much time to build an army. But now that I'm playing Warhammer, I'm sure that I enjoy it a lot more. Maybe some of it has to do with just the players -- I sort of get along with the Warhammer guys better at my local store.

The two games have some things in common, and comparisons between the two aren't horrible, but they are just different games that just both have miniatures.

I get rules wrong all the time and I lose all the time. A lot more than I win. But still, I really love Warhammer, and my Orks are just awesome... even though they seem to die to everything hahahaha.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:
[

Even your average 40k table looks much more impressive (and my average games look way, way, way better than this):

]

Do they really? Can you state for a fact that that what you display is an 'average' game of 40k? As hugely impressive as it is, it doesn't match my own experiences of the game.

Ymmv. If seen more than my share of unpainted 40k armies (you know, the grey legions), and I've seen more than my share of games if 40k taking place either on planet bowling ball, or with minimal terrain (two hills, a ruin and som walls). I've seen some fantastic customised WMH boards, especially in no quarter.

Ironically, the terrain density of the WMH board you dismiss seems quite similar to that of the last 40k board - it's just that the game of 40k is on a 12 by 6 rather than 4 by 4.

You misunderstand me: *MY* average game looks a lot better than the last photo I linked. I would post a pic of one of my tables, but I value my privacy, and doing so would share who I am and what my home looks like to the world

You actually made my point for me: the 40k game on a 12x6 just looks better than the WMH board on 4x4, even though there's nothing special about the 40k game. Why? More stuff. More models. Bigger models. It doesn't take any extra effort to make 40k look great, even for casual players.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:
Well, the issue with comparing Warmachine to any sort of wargame is that it plays more like Magic: The Gathering, than an actual wargame. It's just about comboing abilities off of each of your models. That was even stated in an earlier reply in this thread by a Warmachine player. "I ask my opponent what combos his units do before each game." I believe is how it went. My point in all this is if you have nothing but complaints about 40k, but you like Warmachine, stop playing 40k.

That's a pretty gross simplification of how it works.
In Magic, as long as I have the cards in my hand/on the field I can combo. Unless you have an interrupt it always works.

Let's take the Molik missile. It's a classic combo, and something a veteran can see coming.

First, I must activate my caster before Molik. Both Molik and my caster must not have anything blocking their walking distance, because models can't move through friendlies like in 40k without a special rule.

My caster must then cast leash, a ctrl spell, and pop her feat. Before that, she must walk forward and be in front of Molik. She must have enough fury to do so, so my beasts better not be dead or I'm cutting myself, and she had better be safe in case this fails. She must also be within a set distance from the enemy warcaster, because Molik can't use a lot of his abilities if he's too far away from her. Spacing is key in WMH when compared to 40k.

My gladiator activates, and hopefully shields my caster, while casting rush on Molik. Molik must still be free to walk at this point.

My beast handlers activate and give molik enrage. They must be within 3" of him to do so. They need to not get killed since they are critical to my army and this doesn't always work.

Molik then charges a target. The target must be within 6" of the enemy warcaster and have an exposed flank. I have probably used ranged abilities or drag to create this exposed flank.

Molik hits somebody. He side steps 2" and is ignoring freestrikes, so he dances around the model and pushes away. He has reach but must be within 2" of another model.

Molik does it again. At this point he must be within 2" of the enemy warcaster or Molik is most likely going to die. He must also be within 12" of my caster, or he is done and is now dead.

Molik then swings at the enemy, buying attacks for 1 fury. He is strength 15+3d6 with Mat 7. He has foresight, so can see die rolls before deciding to boost.
3 fury later, I must decide if I am going to commit or fatewalker out and try to save him. To save him, I move infantry in such a way that molik can walk between them (his base must fit) while still being covered by reach (I use nilhators for this most of the time).


This is vastly more complicated then anything I have done in 40k and is a relatively simple move. Compared to Goreshade 3 or Body and Soul tier for denny, it's a very simple combo. Hardly like magic at all. You should see an ecaine caster kill run, it's pretty nuts. Or a bradigus 3 teleport caster kill (which is illegal now, but wow was it complicated).
Even the guy who was talking about CoC vastly oversimplified things. CoC generates focus in a weird way. He didn't mention what his jacks Mat/Rat is, or how it changes based on the caster he brings. He didn't mention how his order of activation is critical and that screwing with it hurts that faction badly, like menoth.