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 get that people say there is a lack of customization, and it seems to be half and half what they mean. If you mean lack of unit option customization, can't help you there. Some of us like that, and don't ming saving weapon options for skirmish level games. But if you mean that there is a lack of physical customization, you are wrong, there is plenty if you want there to be. Privateer Press has the best in house bits service I have found in the industry. And you can get around the mixing of materials with a little effort if it bugs you. As an example, here is the Beast-09 conversion I finished last night. It isn't a huge one, but Ruin's legs make Beast look much better, and I didn't have to turn to plastic parts to do it to avoid mixing materials.

A lot of stuff doesn't need any conversions or customization, it is clear cut what it is for a reason. But the possibilities are more than out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, PP might not have an obscene amount of fine detail plastered on the outside of their models, but how many people actually take the time to make those details actually look good. How many of us are good enough painters to really take advantage of that detail? I know more than one person that enjoy painting PP models over GW'S because we aren't full time figure painters, and the larger open areas and deeper larger details are easier for us to work with.

But I also see a lot of GW guys showing me their super sweet ultra detailed models, but they are bare plastic because they are afraid to paint it and take some of the tiny details away or not be able to do the model justice. But, for those that are really good painters, I can see that Warmachine can seem to be a bit dull to paint.

But hey, that's what I love about gaming, there is a system and army that is perfect for whatever you are looking for in a game.

Yeah, their PVC for their prices were a large contributor to my lessened interest.

And GW models do tend to be completely overwrought and cluttered with detail, but their average (even with that junk) is still way higher than PP in my book.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, their PVC for their prices were a large contributor to my lessened interest.

And GW models do tend to be completely overwrought and cluttered with detail, but their average (even with that junk) is still way higher than PP in my book.

Fair enough, I will concede that a lot of their PVC's leave a lot to be desired. I don't use any of their plastics though, all my stuff is metal. But I could say something similar about when I played 40k, I refused to use anything Finecast.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:Personally, what I hate about WarmaHordes is the mix of material they use for their mini (metal, plastic and resin) and the lack of customization. Rule wise, it seems far better than 40K, especially the balance of the game. Still, I haven't bought a single model, even though some of their mini's are stunning and the game looks better done, because it lacks the modeling aspects that I so enjoy with 40K (unless you're an expert converter who can sculpt green stuff and such). Plus, their quality level is quite behind GW, even though they charge about the same price per mini.

I so fully agree with this. I am putting together my Lord of Change and the quality of this kit shames Privateer Press. Hardly any mold lines. They are well hidden unlike Privateer Press mold lines going straight down the face of some minis. Shameful. Yes I am paying more, but the less aggravation I get is so worth it now.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:What sort of customization are you looking for? There's no rule that you can't add details to the models. The only thing that you are not allowed to change is the type of weapon(s) and shields(s). Even then you are allowed to use different forms of the same weapon (so you can change one sword for another).

And that is another reason I don't care for Warmahordes. "You can't do that". Says who? GW encourages "counts as" (of course as long as it's with Citadel miniatures being used ) but still the freedom GW allows you just makes it more better. It's a big turn off that "counts as" is frowned apon in Warmahordes from what I see.

Davor, those rules are really only for tournaments and conversions or swaps you do are up to the TO to approve. In a friendly game you can model your army however you want. The same can be said about conversions when you go to a 40k tournament, the TO can say no to your conversion there as well, the difference is that PP has very clear guidelines to go off of.

Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.

But that's one thing I like, the models don't NEED to be converted to be able to use them, and there are tons of conversions based off of PP models. Not everybody wants to do a lot with modelling, and a lot of people would rather have slightly less opportunities for conversions to have a rule set they like more. I found these pictures in less than five minutes with a Google search, there are many many more out there. I just liked these ones.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.

Not sure. I had a lot of fun building Extreme!Behemoth.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.

But that's one thing I like, the models don't NEED to be converted to be able to use them, and there are tons of conversions based off of PP models. Not everybody wants to do a lot with modelling, and a lot of people would rather have slightly less opportunities for conversions to have a rule set they like more. I found these pictures in less than five minutes with a Google search, there are many many more out there. I just liked these ones.

That Leman Russ Khador wagon-thing is pretty neat. Same with blimp.

Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.

Very true, but how many people honestly convert their Space Marines besides the occasional character or unit leader? And how many of all the options that a unit can take are actually viable in 40k? When I played from 3rd to the newest edition of 40k before selling all my stuff, there really seemed to be a few options worth taking except if I was making a fluffy army. Just having all those ways to kit out your guys seemed like a trap, since you knew there were better choices for the points. Unless you wanted to waste some extra guys and space in your case, why would you ever build something with the lesser option and be met with disappointment except in the few oddball instances it is the better choice instead of taking the generalist choice.

Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.

Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.

Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.


Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.

I find a more accurate statement to be that PP games aren't a good starting point for the casual modeller or conversion fan. Most of the infantry sized kits in each army for 40k are a similar size or are very similar in how they go together, making it easier to kit bash and convert. Don't get me wrong, there are people who go above and beyond with sculpting new features or details. What I like about converting PP models is that it brings a whole new set of challenges when planning out how you want to personalize your models. I have done more work with pinning and putty in my current Khador army then I have with any other game system. Plus, as I have said earlier in this thread, what other company makes it so easy to convert when in PP's web store, I have access to over 2,000 parts for just Warmachine (haven't checked to see how many are on the Hordes side of things), that I can order whenever I want? It has been a long time since GW stopped their Bitz Wagon and now you have to buy whole new kits to do your conversions and kit bashes. Your only limiting factor is your skill and imagination.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Very true, but how many people honestly convert their Space Marines besides the occasional character or unit leader? And how many of all the options that a unit can take are actually viable in 40k? When I played from 3rd to the newest edition of 40k before selling all my stuff, there really seemed to be a few options worth taking except if I was making a fluffy army. Just having all those ways to kit out your guys seemed like a trap, since you knew there were better choices for the points. Unless you wanted to waste some extra guys and space in your case, why would you ever build something with the lesser option and be met with disappointment except in the few oddball instances it is the better choice instead of taking the generalist choice.

While 40k certainly falls into the "optimum build" trap common in many games, that problem is only the case if you want to play competitively. Now, without opening the "casual vs. competitive" can of worms my point simply is that 40k is structured in a way (for better or for worse) to allow for extremely casual, non-optimized play as well as competitive play. There is room for both groups to exist within the fan base even though they often get in each others way.

In that regard some people enjoy converting models with sub-par equipment because its fluffy, or they like the look of the model. If their gaming environment allows them to field the less powerful Codex options more power to them! For a few years I was in a group of players where the rule of cool was primary, and unit abilities were secondary. That was a fun group to play with!

PP models don't allow for that versatility. There is one way to build them just like they are equipped one way. From a modeler's perspective that is limiting and possibly boring.


Ultimately I think this all centers on the player's priorities. If a player wants a tight, competitive game, PP offers great outlets for that desire. The models are secondary to the actual game, and so an emphasis on modeling is not as important as learning the strategies behind the various units/armies.

But if a player is interested in the aesthetics of modeling, in conversions, in (forgive me) "narrative" game play that gives a player freedom to model/equip their characters as they see fit within an existing rule set, then a game like 40k offers more opportunities for that player to indulge their interests. The models are primary with game play sometimes treated as a secondary concern.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.

I find a more accurate statement to be that PP games aren't a good starting point for the casual modeller or conversion fan. Most of the infantry sized kits in each army for 40k are a similar size or are very similar in how they go together, making it easier to kit bash and convert. Don't get me wrong, there are people who go above and beyond with sculpting new features or details. What I like about converting PP models is that it brings a whole new set of challenges when planning out how you want to personalize your models. I have done more work with pinning and putty in my current Khador army then I have with any other game system. Plus, as I have said earlier in this thread, what other company makes it so easy to convert when in PP's web store, I have access to over 2,000 parts for just Warmachine (haven't checked to see how many are on the Hordes side of things), that I can order whenever I want? It has been a long time since GW stopped their Bitz Wagon and now you have to buy whole new kits to do your conversions and kit bashes. Your only limiting factor is your skill and imagination.

Hehe, Back when I played, Khador was notorious for the level of work needed to get the models to look good. "The Khador Gap" they called it, when the Warjack hulls wouldn't quite go together properly and you needed to putty the gaps in order to make an intact looking hull. That used to be considered a bad thing, but I am glad you find it to be a worthwhile challenge! No snark either, I am glad you are enjoying the army.

PP conversions aren't necessary and could potentially be deemed invalid by a TO, so I stand by my statement. The game just isn't a good fit for players who are modelers first and players second.

While I can't argue that GW's lack of a bits service is anything but lame, I will counter with their kits often come with so many additional bits that conversions can be done without requiring purchases from a bits catalog. Its not a great counter argument, but inevitably after building even a basic army, a player should have a fairly robust bits box after the project. You don't get extra parts with PP kits. At least not intentionally.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Hehe, Back when I played, Khador was notorious for the level of work needed to get the models to look good. "The Khador Gap" they called it, when the Warjack hulls wouldn't quite go together properly and you needed to putty the gaps in order to make an intact looking hull. That used to be considered a bad thing, but I am glad you find it to be a worthwhile challenge! No snark either, I am glad you are enjoying the army.

PP conversions aren't necessary and could potentially be deemed invalid by a TO, so I stand by my statement. The game just isn't a good fit for players who are modelers first and players second.

While I can't argue that GW's lack of a bits service is anything but lame, I will counter with their kits often come with so many additional bits that conversions can be done without requiring purchases from a bits catalog. Its not a great counter argument, but inevitably after building even a basic army, a player should have a fairly robust bits box after the project. You don't get extra parts with PP kits. At least not intentionally.

Hah, actually most of it has been conversions and repositioning models. Been abusing the heck out of the parts order service, already have bought about $200 in parts alone.

-Behemoth has been repositioned and has Ruin's groin armor.
-Beast-09 has Ruin's legs, and has had the arm pistons replaced with brass rod
-Metal Spriggan has Beast-09's legs that have been cut and pinned into a walking position, Beast-09's waist, shaved off the groin armor and fit the Spriggan's, Devastator knee armor, Devastator arm pistons and everything is pinned.
-Marauder is made from Beast-09 after shaving all the defining details of Beast-09, shaved off chest award, got rid of the neck armor to fit a classic Marauder head in, cut Beast's upper arms to replace the pistons with brass rod to match up to classic Marauder arms, Ruin's legs that have had all the spikes filed off the feet, and cut Beast-09's groin armor out and replaced it with Behemoth's, used some shoulder spikes from Drago on it as well.
-Man-o-War Kovnik has legs from Shocktrooper Kapitan, back of his body was replaced with a standard Shocktrooper's, filed wrist to change the angle of the axe.
-Man-o-War Drakhun dismount has parts from the mounted Drakhun model, Demo Corps legs, and I tracked down one of the older Drakhun weapon arms that holds the blade at a lower angle (since when I went to order that arm, it is apparently not being made anymore haha).
-Man-o-War UA has been made from the chest of the Shocktrooper Kapitan and dremelled out the head, standard Shocktrooper back, Shocktrooper legs, Man-o-War Kovnik shoulders after shaving one of the rank marks off, and the rest of the parts from the standard UA. Wanted it to match the scale of the rest of the Man-o-War.
-Classic Man-o-War Shocktroopers have had half of their legs replaced with Demo Corps legs to give them some variety
-Winter Guard Mortar has had their backs shaved flat so I could pin on Rifle Corps backpacks to make the two units match better.
-Winter Guard Rocketeers have been made using metal Rifle Corps and classic Rocketeer weapons and backpacks, to keep them matching my metal Rifle Corps.

There's a few more I have missed or have gotten started on yet, but I understand taking the lesser of two choices for a fluffy army quite well. My Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Guard have all been very fluffy and heavily themed armies that take lesser options to keep with the theme.

But the big difference between taking a subpar army in 40k and Warmachine is that in Warmachine anything can kill anything. And there is always a chance to win by scenario or caster kill, so you can always put up a fight with your army using clever play. The same cannot be said about 40k if you show up to a pick up game and your opponent is running a very competitive army. Over the last couple of years I have had more wins than losses with my casual fluffy pure Khador army by just using my resources better.

On your point about conversions in tournaments, under the updated conversion policies, you are far less likely to not have your models be allowed if you follow a few very clear simple rules that set a standard for your conversions. Unless they give you that in 40k, you can have some jack wagon show up with a terminator piled in bits with something that resembles a pole arm and hey look, your fighting some forms of Typhus. Plus, if your a casual player, why are you convinced with tournament regulations?

And most of those extra bits you get in your plastic squad boxes for 40k are junk, or better options for another kit. I still would rather stick with keeping just what you need in a box for newer players who might get a bit confused or overwhelmed about what junk goes on where, and why do I have six flamers when I can only use one or two based off of the squad size. Having the option to see each part with a clear picture on PP's website is much easier than having to turn to eBay parts sellers, and better for people like me who like to plan their conversions ahead of time.

With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.

That is really cool, I would have loved to see that.

NH Gunsmith wrote:Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.

Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.

Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.


Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.

Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.

How many Units have access to more than one UA? What about WA? How many units have more than one Solo directly affect them?

Heck, how many units actually HAVE access to WAs? UAs are actually starting to become a little more plentiful, but there is still a significant percentage which have no Attachments whatsoever.

hotsauceman1 wrote:With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.

To be fair, that change has been fairly recent. Previous to that, it was something 90% of the original model, not just PP parts.

That being said, I've seen some amazing conversions over the last year from a techno-organic Legion built lego-style from dozens of bits to a couple of Star Wars-inspired modifications and sea-based Skorne and Cygnar.

Those are some pretty neat modifications.

And yeah, I agree that that amount of customization is fairly exaggerated in a number of different ways. The game, community, and material aren't very conducive to conversions. I did my fair share (and they were enjoyable challenges), but they were certainly outside of the norm in my experience.

 Charistoph wrote:

NH Gunsmith wrote:Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.

Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.

Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.


Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.

Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.

How many Units have access to more than one UA? What about WA? How many units have more than one Solo directly affect them?

Heck, how many units actually HAVE access to WAs? UAs are actually starting to become a little more plentiful, but there is still a significant percentage which have no Attachments whatsoever.

hotsauceman1 wrote:With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.

To be fair, that change has been fairly recent. Previous to that, it was something 90% of the original model, not just PP parts.

That being said, I've seen some amazing conversions over the last year from a techno-organic Legion built lego-style from dozens of bits to a couple of Star Wars-inspired modifications and sea-based Skorne and Cygnar.

Why do units need access to more than one UA, WA or solo? How many options do you use in your codex for your army? And, once again, the units themselves don't need a lot of options when you have Warcasters. Once your 40k squad is assembled, did you take the time to build one of every option in case you need to use it? Probably not, each Warcaster is nothing but options for your unit and army. Between large impacts on the game (feat), and their smaller impacts on the game (field marshal abilities, supportive actions and spells), I don't need a lot of modelled options. I can change how every unit plays by using a different Warcaster. Not going to lie, the argument that because my units don't come with buckets of useless bits and tons of unit options that won't be used, that there is no customization in the game is getting old and tired. It just has different forms of unit options and customization that isn't on the physical model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since the old policy is no longer in effect, why does it matter about what the old conversion policy FOR TOURNAMENTS is? It has no effect on the current game.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Why do units need access to more than one UA, WA or solo? How many options do you use in your codex for your army? And, once again, the units themselves don't need a lot of options when you have Warcasters. Once your 40k squad is assembled, did you take the time to build one of every option in case you need to use it? Probably not, each Warcaster is nothing but options for your unit and army. Between large impacts on the game (feat), and their smaller impacts on the game (field marshal abilities, supportive actions and spells), I don't need a lot of modelled options. I can change how every unit plays by using a different Warcaster. Not going to lie, the argument that because my units don't come with buckets of useless bits and tons of unit options that won't be used, that there is no customization in the game is getting old and tired. It just has different forms of unit options and customization that isn't on the physical model.

It is not old and tired for those whom it is a concern. Part of it is developmental, and I pointed that out when I first stated my reasons. My first tabletop game was Battletech. Models didn't matter and you didn't even need to use the units FASA gave you. You could design your own and they (largely) followed the same construction rules that the official units were made of. This was the ultimate level of customization and I loved it. Now, compare that to WarmaHordes and it is like having no options whatsoever. It would be like going from 7th Edition Necrons back to 3rd edition.

As for how many Attachments and Solos are needed? As many as needed to provide options to the player being their army. One of the beauties of using Unit and Weapon Attachments is they can be sold as separate kits so you don't have extra bits lying around. Even more importantly the units are being setup so that they are multi-kits as it is.

The key word here is "options". It provides the player the ability to choose how they want to run the unit. To have or not to have is not a huge case of options.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Since the old policy is no longer in effect, why does it matter about what the old conversion policy FOR TOURNAMENTS is? It has no effect on the current game.

I have never had a problem with it. I have rarely every decided to get a model just to modify it, so that part has never bothered me. It is a problem for some, but in many of those cases, the game environment they chose to follow wouldn't have a problem with it in the first place.

I see your points now, wow, Battletech seems like you could have gone really nuts with unit construction. I felt the same way you did at first about the somewhat constricting army design, until I found the beauty in the simple yet complex army construction Warmachine offers. I am more of a pick up gamer, very rarely schedule games or have a particular group I go out of my way to play with (besides X-Wing).

I really enjoy just being able to go to a store to play Warmachine, and there are very few questions asked about my opponents army construction. I sometimes miss having a large equipment lists, but it is something I would rather save for games like Necromunda or Mordheim where it seems to be better suited. If 40k had stayed on a scale back the way it was in 3rd edition, I would have still probably enjoyed it. But between scale creep of the game, primarchs, super powered named characters, formations, data slates, allies and unbound, the amount of options had become overwhelming and unnecessarily complicated and tedious to keep up with which drove a lot of my enjoyment of it away with 40k for a casual pick up game. So what you see as a problem with Warmachine, I see as one of it's greatest benefits for a casual pick up gamer.

I actually like the lack of customization for models (not convertability, which is pretty open now).

I always know what something will do, regardless of how it looks. Especially when trying new lists, or even new factions, having mutable equipment options would mean I could build my models, then either hate the loadout, or decide that's not how I want to play something and be stuck.

 novaspike wrote:
I actually like the lack of customization for models (not convertability, which is pretty open now).

I always know what something will do, regardless of how it looks. Especially when trying new lists, or even new factions, having mutable equipment options would mean I could build my models, then either hate the loadout, or decide that's not how I want to play something and be stuck.

Mutable equipment in WMH? Not sure what you mean. The models are all ''clampack'' more or less.

I think he is comparing it to 40k kits, and how he doesn't run into that issue with Warmachine.

 Charistoph wrote:


Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.
.

There's plenty customisation though. It can be viewed, as much as anything else as a presentation thing too.

With gw games, you are typically presented with a basic 'naked' or bare-boned 'frame', typically with the option to swap out or upgrade the basic loadout to other weapon/equipment options.

With warmachine, rather than follow this more modular approach, you are presented with each of the various loadout optionsas a distinctive 'unit type' and 'finished product'.

Rather than a basic man o war frame armed with shield cannon and anihalator blade for x points which can be swapped out for an ice maul for y points or a grenade cannon for z points, you are presented simply with ahocktroopers, demo korps or bombardiers. Specific loadout combinations in gw games are often given their own monikers too, let's not forget. Privateer press Loadout options are essentially more like infinity in presentation. I don't think it's better or worse than the cb or gw approach, it's just a different way of presenting options.

Looking at it this way, there are plenty units and jack chassis that can be loaded out and equipped various ways.

Great explanation Deadnight. Much better than how I have been trying to explain it haha.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I see your points now, wow, Battletech seems like you could have gone really nuts with unit construction.

Yes, and no. As I said, all the units used the same construction rules (largely, some of the earliest were... quirky). There were a lot of built in considerations when doing construction. Using an Xtra Light Engine would provide more available weight, but take up physical space for Weapons AND make the Engine easier to hit and disable, killing the Vehicle. Weapons could use little heat for good damage, but used explosive ammunition and took up a lot of space. Energy Weapons were rather light for their damage, but could heat up your 'Mech so that it was reduced in function, reduce the pilot's abilities, or even just cook off your ammunition.

The rules were also more nuanced and complicated than WarmaHordes in many areas so that it was usually no more than 4 on 4, and often less.

Still, there are a lot of things I liked about it, and the spirit of creation that allowed was one of my favorites. The other was its turn cycle. The IGOUGO system of Warhammer and WarmaHordes does drive my grognard a little nutty.

Deadnight wrote:
There's plenty customisation though. It can be viewed, as much as anything else as a presentation thing too.

With gw games, you are typically presented with a basic 'naked' or bare-boned 'frame', typically with the option to swap out or upgrade the basic loadout to other weapon/equipment options.

With warmachine, rather than follow this more modular approach, you are presented with each of the various loadout optionsas a distinctive 'unit type' and 'finished product'.

Rather than a basic man o war frame armed with shield cannon and anihalator blade for x points which can be swapped out for an ice maul for y points or a grenade cannon for z points, you are presented simply with ahocktroopers, demo korps or bombardiers. Specific loadout combinations in gw games are often given their own monikers too, let's not forget. Privateer press Loadout options are essentially more like infinity in presentation. I don't think it's better or worse than the cb or gw approach, it's just a different way of presenting options.

Looking at it this way, there are plenty units and jack chassis that can be loaded out and equipped various ways.

It is still modular, but also very very limited, and that last part is what you are missing in my point. For the most part, most units are either they are there fully, half-sized, or not (and smaller units do not have the half-sized options). Many get Unit Attachments which add a little more to how they are used. A very few can add a Weapon Attachment, but again, this is still binary, yes or no, rather than which Weapon Attachment you want to add. And that is still how it is today. Back when I first was looking in to WarmaHordes, many of those "optional" builds were just starting to come out, most of the early Granted/Tactics Solos were just being tested. This is still, "take it or not".

That is why I am referring it to 3rd Edition Necrons. Sure, they had options, but they were little more than, "take this unit, does it get its one option?" In order to actually start looking at a more options in the system, I need to be able to choose between UAs and WAs. I would be fine with even that. But hey, there are a handful of percentage which even have access to 1 WA, let alone 2. Heck, Hordes has/had 2 WAs across all the armies out there.

Yes, you can change out the Warcaster/Warlock, but it isn't enough for the unit itself, especially when so many do not do anything for units at all, or one may be looking to expand Iron Company play.

I think the 'options' issue largely comes down to the size of the game, Warmahordes tends to be a lower model count than say 40k, but its still usually between 20-30 models at which point nonspeedy book-keeping and 'what model does what ?' starts to impact the flow of the game

I think Charistoph's Battletech example is good, yes the Battletech rules allow all sorts of custom hijinx but at the 'cost' of model count, I suspect you could play bigger games but then stock builds and/or duplicate units become the norm.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I think the 'options' issue largely comes down to the size of the game, Warmahordes tends to be a lower model count than say 40k, but its still usually between 20-30 models at which point nonspeedy book-keeping and 'what model does what ?' starts to impact the flow of the game

There are still opportunities for options even in low-point games, and it is something I have pointed out a couple times now. The availability of UAs would be the easiest to set up and use to influence this as they are already more plentiful than the Weapon Attachments. But I still would like to see more Weapon Attachments come out, as they are almost non-existant in Hordes and still rather rare in Hordes. The Solos help with this, but I still see them as separate units capable of being used independently.

But again, those are MY problems with WarmaHordes. This doesn't make it the game bad, just one of the things I find wrong with the game and could be improved.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
I think Charistoph's Battletech example is good, yes the Battletech rules allow all sorts of custom hijinx but at the 'cost' of model count, I suspect you could play bigger games but then stock builds and/or duplicate units become the norm.

Not exactly, There is a lot of room for exploration, especially since they have increased the options over time. And oddly enough, there is never enough room to do what you want. Even more so, when it comes to a lot of tournaments and events, it is preferred to use corporate designs. There is also the challenge involved with using these less-optimal designs that attracts a lot of the more experienced players.

Not thrilled they're removing the cards from the packages. Feels like a nickel and dime move if I have to keep buying the faction decks over and over (super excited at the prospect of having to rebuy the Skorne deck because they released something that wasn't done).

Or worse, is it all going digital?

All of the cards are going to be available online. You can pay to get them printed up like their cards on the same quality card stock etc, or you can just print it yourself. They feel this will allow them to update and tweak things that the community comes across through the community playtesting, and saving people from buying a model and having an out of date card too soon. So theoretically it's an improvement and I guess we'll see in time. I like my war room though so it doesn't really factor in to my gaming.

 motyak wrote:
All of the cards are going to be available online. You can pay to get them printed up like their cards on the same quality card stock etc, or you can just print it yourself. They feel this will allow them to update and tweak things that the community comes across through the community playtesting, and saving people from buying a model and having an out of date card too soon. So theoretically it's an improvement and I guess we'll see in time. I like my war room though so it doesn't really factor in to my gaming.

Thank you. That's what I understood as well but wanted to see if I was wrong.

I'm not a fan. If they have a problem playtesting these things, I wish they would follow Hawk Wargames model and release units new rules as a demo months ahead for people to play with and test before making them "official".

I just don't like scrolling through the several different cards on a device as I feel it slows the game down but if I can get them printed it's not so bad. Unless they are constantly changing them or I get gouged on shipping.

We'll see I guess. I can always print my own then as well.