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.

Please note that this is an honest question and I hope that this thread can stay way from anti-[insert game name] toxicity. Anyway.

I played 40 k for some time but my local community was mainly playing Warmachine/Hordes. So I switched, and I've enjoyed playing that game. Clear rules and tactical depth; the drawbacks are that I feel I really need to play regularly in order to not forget all synergies and abilities (particularly those of my opponent's army). Also I really prefer the GW models (so much better plastic and I like the style) and the fluff. Somehow I can't engage with the Iron Kingdoms fluff.

But I've moved to a new town and there's a thriving 40k community here. So I've considered switching back to 40k, perhaps (at least initially) playing HoR Kill Team. Modeling and painting I know I will like better (no pinning!), but: The game itself. Will it feel all meaningless and random now that I'm used to the tactical depth of WMH? Or are there ways of playing or setting up 40k/HoR Kill Team that enhances the tactical dimension? Earlier, at least, I found 40k to mainly be about list building and accumulation of enough dice, once armies are deployed there are really not that many difficult tactical decisions to make.

Anyone else that has gone from WMH to 40k and live to tell?

EDIT: Fat fingers.

Depends on which level you want to play. Casually, yeah, you'll probably be disappointed with the level of tactics. On a competitive level, the game still relies heavily on player skill. Obviously list building is still a HUGE part of the game. So it depends.

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: It really comes down to your preffered playstyle. Warmhorde has a unit activation synch system that lets you synch various models in ways much more smooth and natural than 40k. It's pretty much just guards and psycher heavy armies that have the same schtick going on in 40k. Problem is that in 40k the list matters much more then the performance untill both players are at copetative level of play. I think that the objective cards give you a bit of depth in a way warmahorde lacks but it's heavily RNG reliant. I've chosen to stick with 40k because of the models and the fluff.

Are there ways of playing 40k that brings in a more tactical dimension? I've been looking at Kill Team which looks promising. Adding large amounts of terrain could perhaps also push in that direction?

I've played WM/H around 6 years, before I took a break from 40K which I had played for around 10 years. I moved back to 40K around 3 years (?) ago.

To me switching back was easy. Sure the same issues were there as before, but just because of that it was nothing new. Like you, I like the models and the universe more even if WM is better balanced. It also has it's downsides, of which one you already mentioned. Another thing I like is that atleast in modern 40k with competitive rulesets, it's all about the scenarios. In WM/H I recall over half of games end up in a caster kill, and often quite early into the game too.

Both games have their different caveats and boons. To me, the switch itself was refreshing enough. Somehow I feel that I might not be going back to WM/H anymore however, I've just gone too deep. The 40K community is thriving and in my country also eclipses other games in numerical size, so that's a big factor. Next to that it's currently going through some exciting times.

For some tactical depth I'd recommend hybrid scenarios, which are often played in tournaments. Combine say, a Maelstrom of War mission with Emperor's Will. Maelstrom Objectives 1 & 6 act as the Emperor's Will Objectives simultaneously. It spices up the game by quite a bit.

40k is still the best beer and pretzel game. I play both games and i enjoy it.

 pinkmarine wrote:
Are there ways of playing 40k that brings in a more tactical dimension? I've been looking at Kill Team which looks promising. Adding large amounts of terrain could perhaps also push in that direction?

We played with ridiculous amount of terrain one time it was pretty cool.

Adding tons of LoS blocking terrain and cover on the table will give you a far better experience overall for 40k/apoc or Kill Team and will force player to actually occupy strategic road or building to get control of the board. Barrage become quite awesome and range unit position becomes far more important. Assault is also more viable since they can move through the board without getting shot to death during turn 1/2.

Yes it's way over priced for what it is, child level rules have little depth and no real tactics either.

It's clearly had no playtesting.

I'd strongly advise against using the HoR Kill Team rules if you're looking for tactical depth that doesn't revolve around list building for one off games.

That said, if you're doing a campaign, it's a super robust system, and an absolute blast to play.
Basically, it's a game with super hard counters to everything, so unless you have some way to curtail list tailoring, it's going to be less than satisfying.

 wuestenfux wrote:
40k is still the best beer and pretzel game.

A "Beer and Pretzel game" written by people that have no understanding what that actually means.