WM vs. 40K ?

[gormaster94]

What does WM offer that 40K does not? I play mostly WH but dabble in 40K and am thinking about getting into WM. I would appreciate someone that plays 40K and WM comparing the two games to help me decide if I should sink some money into WM. Thanks.

[Jacaran]

I've played both. 40k more then Warmachine though.

I have a small Khador army. Its been a while since I've battled. I don't have much to say, but I don't love 40k, nor do I love Warmachine. I'm neutral when it comes to the issue. EDIT: Once I look over it all, I myself prefer 40k.

To me, in my honest opinion, there is a lot more thinking and balance in Warmachine. I was always thinking more about my actions. It was much more tactical then all my 40k games. That and it always seemed balance. There is only one unit I can think of that I would say is overpowered. Nothing seemed terribly out of balance. The gameplay, I'd say was more fun at times. I wish to expand on this. Tactics meant way more then lists. I just bought units based on models I liked. I did fine in the few battles I fought.

Only, it also felt like I was playing Magic the Gathering. Your always using named people, there are less minis, so its not like armies facing. More like heroes with bands of warriors besides them. With all the abilities, it really did seem like a miniature version of Magic. To me it wasn't like a wargame. Which is ultimatly why I havn't got into it.

I like 40k because its armies battling. There seems to be a better personalization thing of your army. It seemed no one I ran into personalized their armies in anyway to say that it is MY army in Warmachine. In 40k it seems much easier to personalize things as your army.

Its also all metal, which I really disliked.

Also for the fluff of the machines themselves I thought was kind of random. I just couldn't picture any of this as near practical. Yes 40k and Fantasy are games of fiction. Only it seems more real.

I'd overall say the gaming is better in Warmachine. Only it comes at a cost of metal models, it seems your not fighting a war with your own army, and the fluff.

Then again, it only came at a cost for me. If you...

Prefer metal models or are indifferent to the issue
Like the fluff and factions
Prefer it to be more like a card game

then it is probably the game for you.

Now I'm not expert either. I didn't get too many games in. I hadn't had a love for it, and due to some unfortunate events the community of Warmachine died. So I never fully explored it. Maybe there are vast hordes of very personalized armies. Only even the personlizing I do, I can't imagine in Warmachine. I print out pictures of geese, ducks and pigeons. I then put them on every banner, vehicle and anything else.

One thing I did like about the fluff of the game, was Khador. I really liked Khador. Because its like Soviet Russia. Theirs the whole fun and humor of playing a Soviet army. I love playing Russian like armies in games. Only I could get the Soviet-fun out of most 40k army, by theming it Soviet, having a Russian accent, and adding hammer and sickles. Only nothing beats the fluffy hats and the models of Warmachine. So in that situation, 40k can give what Warmachine has.

I disliked that tactics meant more. I love spending time writing up lists and spending time pre battle to plan out what my army will do on the field. To me, it took entertainment at home out of it all.

The game seem faster and smaller. Easier to set up because of less models.

I also disliked that too. I like long several hour battles.

All because I like the feeling I get out of 40k more so then anything else. I feel like a general conquering worlds and crazy stuff like that. You might get that out of Warmachine. Yet I didn't. You may not even want that in a game.

Thats what I have to say. Only it depends for you. Because I'm guessing your not some clone of myself.

Good luck in your decision.

Jacaran.

[gormaster94]

Thank you for a well thought out response. It sounds as though WM lacks the depth of 40K. I like the idea of using an army and not just a small band of fighters. Tactics are another thing I like to think about. That is why I am foremost a WHFB player. Tactics start with the selection of your army and go from there.
Balance is another thing alltogether. GW is falling down in that area right now.
I guess I need to play a game of two to get a feel for it, then decide.

[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?

To say that either game is more tactical is a simplification as it purely depends on how you play the game. 40k's tactics rely more on how you build your lists rather on how you perform on the field, while WM focuses more on how you use your models on the field. Listgaming exists to an extent, of course, but not as much as in Warhammer where one can easily judge who will win based on the list.

I like both armies and more skirmish-like games so the fact that you play with smaller patrols in WM does not bother me at all. Both kind of games are fun IMO.
Neither does the metal models bother me. All my 40k armies have almost been all metal.

I agree that there's not the endless possibilities of the 40k fluff in WM, but that is understandable. Compare it to Warhammer Fantasy. Because it is limited to one world you cannot come up with whatever crazy idea you want. IMO, the Iron Kingdoms fluff is really cool and feels unique. Also, I love steampunk.

To become good in Warmachine you need to know what your army can and cannot do and how you will utilise this on the field, just like in Warhammer. You need to know how you must use all your units abilities to set up devastating combos that will win you the game and how to adapt when you face somethign unexpected, just like in "real war". Since I really dislike the fact that lists can pretty much decide who wins before the battle have started in WH, I prefer WM in this aspect. It should count more on how you perform on the battlefield rather how good a list you ahve managed to build.

I feel that Jacaran's opinions are, well, his opinions, which is fine, but IMO you don't have a "correct" view of how the game works.

For me every game is full of depth as we fight our factions' war and try to outsmart our opponents. The game is very different to Warhammer, which I like since it offers a new experience.

I think you should give it a try and see for yourself what you think of it because ultimatly we should not and cannot shape your opinions, gormaster. You need to find out for yourself what you think of it by reading the fluff and playing some games.

[Quick]

In so far as Warmachine (and Hordes) and 40k (and WHF are tabletop war games, this really is an apples v. oranges comparison.

I've had this conversation a few times and the game I like better always seems to be the one I just played.

Warmachine has its smaller game scale, greater emphasis on tactics and unit ability combos. Therefore, it loses out on the 'Epic' feel that even a medium-sized game of 40k or WHFB gives you.

40k simplifies everything for the sake of overall strategy, but sometimes at a cost of feeling a little dumbed-down. (Hopefully 5th ed. will change that) 40k also puts a much, much greater emphasis on list composition.

Modelling-wise, the PP models are gorgeous, but offer little in terms of customization, whereas the GW range of models is specifically made to encourage the playerbase to create their own figures.

Basically, I like 'em both and I hate 'em both. Direct comparisons are kind of moot, though.

[Toloran]

I'm new to warmachine but I've been playing 40k for quite a while and the main differences I"ve noticed so far are:

- There are fewer "filler" units in Warmachine. Just about every 40k codex has at least two filler units that don't do anything interesting and don't serve any function that another unit doesn't do better. The only reason they are generally fielded is because of the force organization chart. Since warmachine doesn't have a force org chart (the closest thing is the limitation on (and requirement there of) warcasters, you don't have to bring as many units you don't particularly like just to make a legal list.

- Pregame strategy vs Game strategy. As others have said, 40k emphisizes the former and WM the latter. With most 40k armies, your strategy is largely deturmined by what you bring. If you brought the wrong units/strategy, you lose. In warmachine, the strategy you bring isn't as important as the ability to adapt said strategy to the situation (and make new ones if it doesn't work). Both elements exist in either game but each has a different emphasis.

- The forementioned Skirmish vs War difference. WM deals with skirmishes between armies and 40k deals with massive battles. Neither is better then the other in that respect, just different.

- Better written rules. WM generally has better written rules then 40k. It's not an issue of complexity, its an issue of organization and readability. The 4th edition 40k rulebook has rules scattered throughout the book and they aren't well labeled. A good example of this is the torrent of fire rule which can make or break games but most players don't know it exists because it is hidden in the middle of a paragraph in the wrong part of the chapter.

- Gameist vs Simulationist. All games fall on this spectrum somewhere. A simulationist game is a game that strives to be realistic as possible. Fluff and rules are distinctly intertwined. In otherwords, the rules support the fluff. A gameist game is a game that strives for playability rather then realism. In otherwords, the fluff supports the rules when able. 40k seems to strive for a more simulationist game where as WM seems to strive to be more gameist game.

[washout]

I have been playing Warhammer and 40k since the very beginning. Over the years I quit playing certain editions because Games Workshop would change the essence of the game so completely that it basically was a new game. The compounded insult of making my carefully converted WYSIWYG models illegal from time to time have finally made me decide that I am never going to support games workshop again. I'm planning on selling off the majority of my stuff and I'll keep my chaos and necrons, just so I can play with my best friend. But I'm not buying any more product.

Warmachine models are WYSIWYG by nature. If you like the look of something then you are not going to have to worry about converting a new unit with weapon options that you can't even buy, but have to somehow scrounge the bits for your unit. If you like the way a unit looks and plays you just buy it and paint and play it, if you want to have fun converting something then you can go ahead and do it, you are not forced to. Customization of your units is just as easy to do in warmachine as warhammer, in fact even easier because the warmachine bits store is awesome.

The play of Warmachine is also far superior to Warhammer. It makes easy logical sense. What you read on the card is how it works on the table, almost no ambiguity. If there are questions you can ask the designers for an official ruling on the forums and the response is fully tournament legal and binding. None of the bullshit where there is a crap rules misunderstanding left to rot for months or years. Any ambiguity by new players is usually because of personal rules misunderstandings rather than any actual problems, but the forums just as readily answer those questions in an official capacity.

When playing a game your tactics and planning feel more like a chess game, and the smaller model count allows for better maneuvering. When I play 40k I'm constricted to a smaller play area per unit, whereas placement and maneuvering are far more effective in warmachine. Each unit, it's attacks and losses it take have a much more drastic impact as well.

When you win you really feel as if you have outsmarted your opponent rather than building a better list, and when you loose you can always easily think back to a certain few moves that would have drastically changed the entire tempo of the game.

As far as fluff is concerned games workshop is pretty amazing. but they don't follow the fluff through onto the tabletop very readily. And as the years have gone by the fluff has actually gotten steadily worse, I'm not at all impressed by the content of the codexes these days. The novels are another matter, but the majority of them are by horrific writers.

Overall Privateer Press does a better job with expansions releases, rules updates, and customer support. I think Games Workshop falls flat on it's face in those areas. Because of the superior game design Privateer Press is also free to release new models whenever they decide to, and they decide to frequently.

[gormaster94]

Seems as though they both have strengths and weaknesses. The release of 5th ed. 40K muddies things up a bit but I like the idea of balanced armies and some of the WM models rock. I`m not going to throw out my Tau but will definately give WM a try. The question then becomes one of choosing an army. Anyone want to loan me some money????

[CBrate]

Originally Posted by gormaster94

I`m not going to throw out my Tau but will definately give WM a try. The question then becomes one of choosing an army. Anyone want to loan me some money????

On the topic of money that's another beauty of WM. It doesn't cost much to get a formidable sized game going. Just get the battlebox to get started. Learn the basics and expand your force.
I much prefer the simplicity of rules too.

40k seems to be all about who can field the most badass units.

WHFB trumps them both though.

[mynameisgrax]

Although I've just started with Warmachine (Khador), I also play 40k and fantasy, and the differences between the three come down to strategy versus tactics. Strategy is a plan you have before the game even begins, not only in regards to how you'll advance your troops, but how they work together. Tactics are the adjustments you make to fit your opponent, and deal with the situation.

WHFB is almost completely strategy. A friend of mine once said 'show me how everyone placed their troops before turn 1, and I'll tell you who's going to win', and he has a point. Almost everything comes down to initial board placement, but for ancient battles with lines of troops, this makes sense.

Warmachine is almost completely tactics. Initial placement means very little, and although you can come up with combinations and strategies, those plans will almost definitely change depending on what warcaster you're facing. There is no perfect strategy. It all comes down to the situation, and how you play.

40k is a blend of the two. Strategy, mostly in the form of list design, is incredibly important, but the way you move them around the board, and use them against your opponent, is just as important.

WHFB and 40k are simulations of real war. Warmachine is closer to a normal game, such as a videogame, or chess. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but it's a very different type of game. I agree with Toloran, Warmachine is a lot of fun, but it's far from a simulation of battle. It's just a very fun game. In reality, unfortunately, individuals don't make that much difference on the battlefield. In reality it's unit vs unit, weapon vs weapon, and placement vs placement. Despite all the sci-fi elements, 40k is actually the most realistic of the three games.

Which is better? It depends on what you're looking for. 40k gets my vote, for one simple reason: I hate working with metal models. ^_^