Librarium Online Forums banner
4K views 36 replies 18 participants last post by  rawhead 
#1 ·
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.
 
#2 · (Edited)
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.
 
#3 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#5 ·
In so far as Warmachine (and Hordes) and 40k (and WHFB) 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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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????
 
#9 ·
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.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Hmm...

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. ^_^
 
#12 ·
One more thing

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.
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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. ;)
 
#17 ·
That's a part of it

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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
Counter-counter-strike



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.
 
#22 ·
Kinda sorta

Changing your warcaster is indeed significant, at least more significant than any individual unit in 40k (except perhaps the monolith), but calling that 'changing your army as a whole' is a stretch.

Ultimately, the rest of your units stay the same. This wouldn't matter if your army focused completely around your warcaster, but in most cases your jacks/beasts are just as important, and if you keep using the same ones, only with different warcasters, your army isn't going to be that much different. Ultimately, your overall strategy will most likely be exactly same, the only difference being the specific abilities you use, and how you position your troops.

Think of it this way: take Magic the Gathering. Imagine if all cards besides land were uncommon. In other words, imagine if every magic card cost about a dollar. It wouldn't make it any less a complex or deep game, but your options would be far more limited, because when you settled on a specific deck, you would be more or less stuck with it.

To stretch the analogy further, does anyone remember 'Weatherlight'? Did I just show my age? *Sigh* Anyway, there was an expansion for Magic the Gathering that included 'characters' to go with each deck. Each character had a different starting hand size, health, and special power.

That's what Warmachine reminds me of. You get more or less a single magic deck, and the characters change some of your abilities and rules. Ultimately, it's the same deck though, and expanding is expensive. It doesn't mean it's a bad game, in fact it's a very fun game, but it's inherently more limited that 40k, at least in regards to changing and customizing your army.

It more than makes up for it, however, with options during the game. In 40k, all you can really do is move, shoot, assault, and perhaps use a power, but those are rare. Again, it comes down to what you prefer.
 
#23 ·
Warmachine/Hordes is easier to learn, and harder to master, than 40k. The WM/Hordes games expect that you are creative in your unit choices and application. 40k is attrition with marginal amounts of tactics by comparison. I will concede that the list building strategies of 40k go beyond that of WM/Hordes. Another very relevant factor to war games in general; their dice and how they treat us. In WM/Hordes you work with dice results as cumulative, in 40k dice are individual results. I roll dice poorly. It's been the downfall of countless tournament games, neither system is more forgiving for me. I still expect that most players prefer the weight of 2 or 3 dice towards expectations of average over single a dice. In game depth is hard to really compare other than to say 40k is a game of attrition, WM/Hordes plays out like you want it to.

just my 2 cents
 
#24 · (Edited)
To a certain extent, I agree with Purple40k (whose name should now be PurpleWM or PurpleHDs.)

As for the customizability factor in WH40k. Bull. Have you guys read the Ork, Chaos, Deamons, Eldar, and previewed the new Space Marine Codexs. To get the most out of your armies to practically are obligated to take named characters. Want to play a Crimson Fist army with fluffy rules and something to distinguish them from oddly painted ultramarines, better take their captain. Give it a year and Gameworkshop will make it less customizable than WM (this was the point that first got me to try WM.)

Plus, Space Marine characters are losing options with each chapter codex (look at HQs in Blood Angels and Dark Angels.)

As for the cards, I love them. Now I don't have to deal with army lists and token markers for effects and damage. I just bring the cards I need and mark them (in protective sleeves of course) as neccessary. Anybody wants to see your army list, hand them the deck and have them add it up if they doubt your math.
 
#25 ·
Honestly, to me, Warmachine/Hordes are basically a 3D trading card game (TCG), kinda similar to the WoW TCG. You make your deck (or if you like to call it an army) base on the hero you choose (or you could call it Warcaster/Warlock), then you add in the cards that will compliment the theme of your deck. Instead of having to draw cards and lay down resources every turn, you get a certain amount of focus to act as mana/resources. I can see alot of people who plays Privateer Press games would also enjoy TCGs.
 
#27 ·
TCG is all about combo-ling with different cards, that's why they take certain cards for their deck.

Warmachine? Almost every unit has a feature that boosts the ability of another certain unit. I play Menoth so I can only recall the names of the units in this army -- Choirs, what would they do in armies without Warjacks? etc. etc., I could name you a whole bunch more.

TCG has max limit on each cards taken -- ex. 4 cards max of the same card in MTG and WoW.

Warmachine? Most unit has a max allowence of 2.. if not just single.

TCG is about resource control.

Warmachine? Focus points, and the assigning Focus phase before anything else. You need that Focus to move a Warjack and it isnt anything different than tapping a land in magic.

"some" TCG is about Heroes, ex. World of Warcraft TCG. Hero dies, game over.

Warmachine? Warcaster, if he/she dies, the game is pretty much over unless you dont use Warjacks.

Now if Warhammer is supplied with Reference Cards, would it turn into a TCG? I think not, because it doesnt have any of the above key TCG playstyle. Surely, Warmachine is a game that utilise dice and some luck in rolling them, but that still doesnt deviat from the fact that it is evolved from a 2D card game into a 3D miniature TCG. I think your argument of turning Warhammer into a TCG by mere publishing of a Ref. Cards is indeed a moot point. :dance:
 
#28 ·
Neko, you have a very interesting version of TCG.

I think you fail to remember one of most basic aspects of a card game in the vein of WoW-TCG/MTG/Lot5R; the random factor in collect ability which is for many one of the greatest draws to that sort of system.

In TCGs when a new player, that is terrible, is handed an excellent deck he/she will win. This is very much the case in Warhammer 40k, in WM/HDs seldom is this the case.

The nature of a TCG combo is very linear; once A takes effect B takes effect and C..... It's like counting. The simplest of special actions, charging in any table top game requires a player to guess/approximate distance as well as use tertiary player created settings to achieve desired results. TCG combos require a number of cards and understanding of game rules. So yes, to your description of 3D card combos if it seems to still apply.

I do not understand how a game where your resources are limited to what you have drawn from the top of your deck(s) is comparable to a game in which you set miniatures on a table.

A card has an effect, be it a lasting one (for example; warrior, equipment, domain, land etc) or short lived one(spell, instant, interrupt) the card does not allow for itself to operate outside of it's script. A model for example, may move less than it's relevant movement score. The difference is not in rules but, it is in player aptitude/choice.

I would say that if you still believe WM/HORDES is a 3D TCG you should have very little left in way of argument against also calling Warhammer 40k a 3D TCG, aside from the reference cards=).

Menoths gimmick is the knot, weaving units and models together to form a tight group of supportive army elements. So, maybe you are coming from a Menite perspective there Neko?

Pretty durn positive I'm done with the TCGs, and sure that calling PP wargames 3d card games aint right.
 
#29 ·
Neko, you have a very interesting version of TCG.

I think you fail to remember one of most basic aspects of a card game in the vein of WoW-TCG/MTG/Lot5R; the random factor in collect ability which is for many one of the greatest draws to that sort of system.
I do not know how deep were you into the TCGs, but any experienced players would tell you their decks have minimized risk of drawing unwanted cards. Any experienced Warmachine players will also ensure each of their dice roll outcome to be close to their expectation by using more focus points -- more dice = more chance of success, samething with more of the same cards = more chance of drawing the card. I do not see how drawing cards from a deck is the "greatest" attraction to that sort of system, as to rolling dices for table top games would be the "greatest" attraction of the game.

In TCGs when a new player, that is terrible, is handed an excellent deck he/she will win. This is very much the case in Warhammer 40k, in WM/HDs seldom is this the case.
I also have to disagree your point of a new player will win with a handed-down good deck. Deck of cards are designed by players with their own strategy in mind, and thus a new player wouldnt know of the original thoughts that were put into making the deck... unless the guy is a psychic or he's simply lying that he's new to the game.

The nature of a TCG combo is very linear; once A takes effect B takes effect and C..... It's like counting. The simplest of special actions, charging in any table top game requires a player to guess/approximate distance as well as use tertiary player created settings to achieve desired results. TCG combos require a number of cards and understanding of game rules. So yes, to your description of 3D card combos if it seems to still apply.
Of course it still applies. The involvement of having actual models on the table instead of just cards plays the big role of the game. The movement of the model dictates how your "3D card combos" will go off, and this shifts an actual TCG from just pure paper to paper and miniatures, it surely added alot more depth from just paper TCGs.

I do not understand how a game where your resources are limited to what you have drawn from the top of your deck(s) is comparable to a game in which you set miniatures on a table.
What do you call a TCG game by the turn when both players have drawn out enough resources and a couple creatures cards on the table? So they automatically turns into Warmachine because they now have ready resources and creature to begin the next turn? They might as well as put a miniature on top of each creature cards that's on the table, and put poker chips on top of the resource card and call them focus points. Oh! It's my turn. I use 3 resources (Focus) and activate this card's (Warjack) special attack on your hero (Warcaster). 15 Damages, your hero died, good game. This whole argument isnt a Sphere-Square argument, it's more of a Square-Rectangle argument -- surely, both objects have the exact same amount of sides, but one is longer and the other is shorter. The concept behind both games are still the same.

A card has an effect, be it a lasting one (for example; warrior, equipment, domain, land etc) or short lived one(spell, instant, interrupt) the card does not allow for itself to operate outside of it's script. A model for example, may move less than it's relevant movement score. The difference is not in rules but, it is in player aptitude/choice.
Sure, you may move or act less than a model's own ability boundary, but so can a card player chooses to use a different ability on a card if it has more than one.. or even, the card player may choose not to use the card at all. The choice and your so-called aptitude is still there, what is the difference? So you say each card must perform the way it is written, but can you change the text in your model's reference card? I think not, comparing choices in both game is a moot point.

I would say that if you still believe WM/HORDES is a 3D TCG you should have very little left in way of argument against also calling Warhammer 40k a 3D TCG, aside from the reference cards=).
Please do point out where Warhammer games are similar to a TCG? All TCGs *MUST* have a resource system; All TCGs *MUST* have some sort of cards that only works with another card (with the text telling you which exact card it would be) which makes up part of the TCG combo system. Perhaps your game of Warhammer uses some kind of resource system that I am not awared of.. or maybe your lascannon will not shoot if there isnt a battery model next to it. :sinister:

Menoths gimmick is the knot, weaving units and models together to form a tight group of supportive army elements. So, maybe you are coming from a Menite perspective there Neko?

Pretty durn positive I'm done with the TCGs, and sure that calling PP wargames 3d card games aint right.
I am not calling PP wargames bad, or else I would not have been playing it for years... in fact, it's a great game when me and friends are seeking a break from Warhammer, MTG & WoW TCGs. This is my own personal opinion and I am only pointing it out on the opportunity of the topic. I will now stop posting in this thread as I see I may have upset a few PP wargame fanboys.

My Apology! :dance:
 
#33 ·
CCG's and non-CCG's are not a hobby? ^^
Well i don't see a problem with the comparison. I play and played a lot of cardgames most of my life. There is nothing bad with the comparison. Cardgames have remarkable strategic and tactical flexibility, customization etc.

As for this thread... i don't see how anything good or conclusive will ever come from it. On every board it usually turns out in a mutual bashing contest.
 
#31 ·
Many things led me to choose Menoth over Tau, but the biggest was interactibility between models.

In your Tau army, the most interactions two models have with each other is troops getting on a transport, and maybe IC's joining squads. Whoop-de-doo.

In Warmaching, I can focus my entire army into buffing up one model for uber-killing awesomeness.
Its like, don't you wish tech-marines were good and viable? In warmachine, their equivalents are.

Don't you wish that dreadnought could use his hand to grab the chaos dreadnoughts gun and use him as a shield? In warmachine, such things are possible.
I have a model that, when he kills enemies, he actually strings them up on torture devices. What does 40K have that can competete with that? I mean, if I get a single gun drone into combat with your squad terminators, they can't do anything until they kill that gun drone, despite the fact that the drone can't actually hurt them, and it would take only one terminator to squash the drone. In warmachine, the rules reflect such realities, and aren't ridiculous. Also, rules-lawerying is kept to a minimum, and the storyline actually continues and evolves.

Overall, Warmachine is in almost every way superior to any Games Workshop product.
Period.
 
#32 ·
First of all, the term fanboy is not an insult by any means, or at least it wasnt my intention.

webster.com - fanboy: a boy who is an enthusiastic devotee (as of comics or movies)

wikipedia.com - Fanboy (sometimes spelled fanboi) is a term used to describe an individual who is devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession.

I think you are over-reacting on the word Fanboy, but if you insist on thinking it was a purposeful insult then I will apologize to you now. SORRRYYYYY~~~!! Here, I'll call myself a fanboy to many things, including japanese anime, comic, alot of video games and etc. etc., if that'll make you feel better.

Back to the topic. What I have said previously are what I think, and it was my contribution to this thread. Isnt what this thread is about? Someone asking other's for the opinion on Warmachine vs Warhammer, and I gave them my honest opinion. If you dont agree, then you dont agree, there isnt much I can do about that.. I never expect the whole world to suddenly turn in my direction because of a couple words I said.

So... if you think Warmachine is a better game, then by your opinion it is a better game. If someone thinks Warhammer is a better game, then it leaves no further discussion. Or if someone thinks World of Warcraft is better than Warhammer Online, then hey! so far I agree to that until they fix those annoying bugs in the beta. :dance:
 
#34 ·
First of all, the term fanboy is not an insult by any means, or at least it wasnt my intention.

webster.com - fanboy: a boy who is an enthusiastic devotee (as of comics or movies)

wikipedia.com - Fanboy (sometimes spelled fanboi) is a term used to describe an individual who is devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession.
The negative connotation of the term comes from the fact that it is often used to imply someone else's opinion is invalid because they are biased by a fanatical devotion to the topic of discussion.

I think WarMachine offers a good meeting in the middle between the heavily abstracted fast play game of 40K and an intensely time consuming specialist historic war simulation game. Sometimes it's just fun to have huge war machines that crash together and actually do battle for several turns, advantage swinging back and forth, a large selection of different abilities employed, etc. I mean, compare a duel between two heavy warjacks to a fight between a marine dreadnought and a wraithlord. What 40K has is the much larger battlefield scale and a much richer selection of unit types and armies. Most WM games are essentially a duel between two characters and their body guards.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top