WM vs. 40K ?

[Jacaran]

Originally Posted by Da Mighty Camel

I have played 40k for 4 years and WM for about 14 months. And I disagree with about everything Jacaran feels of the game.

Card game? Wait what? Not sure where you are coming from there... Sure, you use cards for quick reference unit's abilities and stats but a card game?

I can see a disagreement with everyone else. Because it is just an opinion.

Now the card game comment shocks me. Many at my store agreed with that idea. Its not that you use cards, but all of the magical abilities and little combos you do to give things boosts.
It all seems like little magical abilities done to boost things.

Like D-something (cant think of her name, Cryx character) special ability was a -2 modifier if my memory is correct. That seems like a card straight out of magic the gathering. In fact I can think of a specific card that did the exact same thing in Magic, it came in the Torment block of cards.

They don't seem like spell casters in Fantasy. The best thing they remind me of is cards in Magic.

Just a personal feel of the game. Yet the cards isn't totally a bad thing. I enjoy Magic the Gathering, its just I don't want similar things in a miniatures game.

I really agree with mynameisgrax, its more like a game then a wargame, or simulation of war. If your looking for a more tactical game, Warmachine is it. If you want to feel like a general, it may not be the best game.

I'm off its storming. I may comment later.

[mynameisgrax]

One last thing I forgot. A big difference between Warmachine/Hordes and 40k/WHFB is that in Warmachine/Hordes friendly units affect each other far more. Which units you take with each Warcaster is a very important decision. In 40k/WHFB it matters far less, and in most cases the units work completely independently of each other, to the point that half the army can come on during later turns of the game, and it affects things very little. In Warmachine/Hordes, it would affect everything.

Oddly enough, this aspect of Warmachine/Hordes is actually far more realistic than 40k/WHFB. In real war, not only are individuals not too important, but individual units aren't that important either. What's important is how the units together, to form a complete strategy. Of course, Warmachine/Hordes does this through magic powers and steampunk mechs, so the realism ends there.

If you want a genuinely realistic war experience with 40k, play Imperial Guard versus Imperial Guard. That's about as realistic as it gets, at least among these games.

[LittleBlueMan]

As a recent convert to WARMACHINE, I can safely say that I've never looked back. Why? Well, the whole focus manipulation thing with warjacks allows you to greatly influence the game in unprecedented ways. It is more flexible. Let me explain.

Space marine squad A (10 marines, bolters) and space marine squad B (10 marines, bolters) advance and shoot at seperate units of Firewarriors in the open.

Each squad will statistically do the same thing. And if you have a single ripper attack either squad, well there goes 150 points for a turn.

Now in Warmachine, you can change which units do what depending on what spells you gave them, or how much FOCUS (think markerlight tokens, but better) you allotted the warjacks. These greatly improve your units or debuff your opponents. If a certain enemy squad has to be dead, use your spells (which change RADICALLY between casters) and focus to ensure its death. Beware, though, you can not tie up an enemy with just a single weak unit, they can walk away (but suffer free strikes). This just sums up the greater sense of flexibility in Warmachine.

You have much less weak fall backs like (2 grots touche back most space marine trooper, laugh) and much more thought goes into the killing process. And that line about the lack of customizability in WM is kinda bull. It is slightly true for units of Infantry, but they do have unit attachments, weapon attachments, spells, minifeats, characters, support units, etc.) The Warjacks operate like Predator tanks. There is one with auto-cannons, one with lascannons, etc, and they cost a different amount of points.



Anyway, with that, i say WARMACHINE is infinitely better than 40K, slightly better than WHFB, and i slink back into obscurity.

[Da Mighty Camel]

You! LittleBlueMan! You are not supposed to be here!

Welcome back.

As I said earlier, it is all a matter of personal opinion. No forum debate can tell you which game is the best, you have to experience that for yourself.

[Rambunctious Rabbi]

I have been playing both games for quite some time now and I've gotta say I like 40k more. But then again, to me, everything has got to make sense as to why its there & the 40k storyline is much better than WM's.

[Quick]

To be fair, the 40k storyline is older than the Warmachine storyline by decades.

Additionally, the Privateer people are actually advancing their storyline, while the GW people have the luxury of not having a storyline so much as they have a 'setting'. Each piece of backstory they come up with doesn't advance the story, it just makes their setting more detailed.

Good to see another Raider fan on the board.

[mynameisgrax]

The 'ongoing storyline' aspect of Warmachine actually gives it more of a 'Magic: the Gathering' feel, in my opinion.

With 40k, you're left to not only customize your army's look, but also their history, and specific weapons and upgrades. It's easy and encouraged to play ongoing campaigns, and it actually has far more in common with a traditional roleplaying game, like Dungeons and Dragons, than it does a board game. In fact, it's even released like D&D, with new editions and sourcebooks, but with each new sourcebook it often isn't an 'add on', but a complete revision, but it isn't a problem because the revisions only come once a decade or so (at least until D&D 4th edition, but that's another rant ^_^).

With Warmachine, everything's already basically done for you. Each character/unit has set abilities, a set history, and the only real option is whether you want them in the army or not. There's very little setup time, and everything revolves around actual play. Overall, Warmachine has a lot more in common with a CCG or boardgame than 40k, at least in spirit.

After thinking about it some more, I've decided that when I play games, I want to be able to take a complete game to many places, and play against many different people. In this respect, Warmachine isn't as good as 40k. Despite its smaller size, it still requires each player to shell out a large amount for an army, and requires a good amount of terrain. Again, this is similar to a CCG, where there's a significant monetary investment, even though there isn't necessarily a large investment in time. Warmachine is a very good game, but it fails to be a 'casual' game, despite its lower cost.

40k takes money and time, but to me, there's more of a payoff, as you have a complete, well painted army to show for your effort. In a sense, 40k (as well as fantasy) is two hobbies in one. There's the modeling aspect, and the actual play. As for being able to play against more people, this isn't the fault of Warmachine, but due to the fact that 40k is so well established. No matter where you go, you're certain to find 40k players somewhere. If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't have gotten into it as much as I have.

So again, I'm going to have to give the vote to 40k. Not only do I prefer plastic models, but there's more people to play against, and more opportunity to customize your army.

As a side note 40k also beats out WHFB. There's far too much emphasis on beginning placement for WHFB to appeal to me that much.

[washout]

As a counterargument to unit customization there are 5x more units per faction in WM vs. 40k. If you want a certain look or weapon type, chances are that there is a unit that will fill your needs. So instead of having to custom build a veteran squad you can just select the unit you want and then buy it.

If you build a complete wysiwyg army in 40k there is practically a guarantee that when the next release or codex comes out you are going to have to shelve a bunch of stuff, and then buy and convert a bunch of other stuff before you can be wysiwyg again.

That has happened to me often enough now that I'm glad to be playing a game that is wysiwyg by nature. Every conversion I have done, or custom unit I have built, and some "stock" units have eventually been invalidated in 40k. Kinda takes the wind out of my sails when it comes to conversions with that kind of history.

On the other hand if I do want to make conversions and change the look of certain units in WM I'm free to do so. The converting and modeling opportunities are just as prevalent, unless you are a fan of tanks.

[washout]

Originally Posted by Jacaran

Now the card game comment shocks me. Many at my store agreed with that idea. Its not that you use cards, but all of the magical abilities and little combos you do to give things boosts.
It all seems like little magical abilities done to boost things.

They don't seem like spell casters in Fantasy. The best thing they remind me of is cards in Magic.

Just a personal feel of the game. Yet the cards isn't totally a bad thing. I enjoy Magic the Gathering, its just I don't want similar things in a miniatures game.

I really agree with mynameisgrax, its more like a game then a wargame, or simulation of war. If your looking for a more tactical game, Warmachine is it. If you want to feel like a general, it may not be the best game.

It's like by printing the stats on cards instead of leaving them all printed in books WM shot itself in the foot. The Magic+Miniatures comparison to WM is pretty bad. A much better comparison is to say that WM is a more elaborate expanded game of chess. The cards are there to make things more convenient, and so they can release new stuff without having to release new books. The late game has exactly the same feel as chess, when you both have few pieces left and are maneuvering to finally take the king.

For some reason I actually feel offended every time someone makes the Magic = WM comparison. It feels like trying to marginalize the amount of work that goes into prepping and painting your force, and the very tactical nature of the game. I tend to think it's an especially bad comparison when you see our game stores player base because there are only 2 or 3 players that don't have fully painted forces, whereas the 40k players do much less painting.

I don't feel that 40k ever makes me feel like a general either. 40k and WM use almost the exact same unit cohesion rules and have similar charge mechanics. Shooting is significantly different and can't really be compared. But WM has a much better more highly refined rule set overall, that is managed much better by the designers. Both 40k and WM are terrible simulations of a real battle field, but very fun games.

[mynameisgrax]

Originally Posted by washout

As a counterargument to unit customization there are 5x more units per faction in WM vs. 40k. If you want a certain look or weapon type, chances are that there is a unit that will fill your needs. So instead of having to custom build a veteran squad you can just select the unit you want and then buy it.

If you build a complete wysiwyg army in 40k there is practically a guarantee that when the next release or codex comes out you are going to have to shelve a bunch of stuff, and then buy and convert a bunch of other stuff before you can be wysiwyg again.

That has happened to me often enough now that I'm glad to be playing a game that is wysiwyg by nature. Every conversion I have done, or custom unit I have built, and some "stock" units have eventually been invalidated in 40k. Kinda takes the wind out of my sails when it comes to conversions with that kind of history.

On the other hand if I do want to make conversions and change the look of certain units in WM I'm free to do so. The converting and modeling opportunities are just as prevalent, unless you are a fan of tanks.

As a counter-counter argument ^_^ converting metal figures is very difficult, and highly prone to breakage, or unrealistic gaps. Greenstuff helps with this, but that's another step. Also, Warmachine doesn't come with extra parts, so the only way to convert is to either craft from basic materials, or to buy twice as many models for parts.

Also, when I said there wasn't much customization, I mean with the troops themselves. Yes, with Warmachine there are more troops to work with, but using them necessitates buying the models. With 40k, it's possible to customize the equipment and statistics of the individual units themselves. In 40k, you change your army by re-writing a line on a piece of paper. In Warmachine, you change your army by spending $50-100.

Warmachine does have far more opportunities for combinations of troops, as having all the choices split between four armies is far less limiting than the baker's dozen or so 40k armies that everything's split between, and I'll even add that in Warmachine the units themselves are far more distinct, especially in regards to their abilities.

The problem is, once you settle on a list with Warmachine, you're pretty much stuck with it, as there isn't any way to change what the troops are once you've bought them. You could always spend $300-500 dollars to buy a large number of troops to choose between, but at that point, there really isn't a difference between them and 40k.