Warhmachine/Hordes; opinions, thoughts?

[Meeki]

So I was thinking of either getting back into a GW game or try out Warmachine/Hordes with a friend.

Warhammer and 40k are huge money and time sinks up front, which is an issue for my friend right now, so I recommended we check out WM/H.

I want some opinions about the game rules, fun factor, models, etc...

The one problem I have with the game is that there are a lot of "named characters" in the factions, that just irks me. I don't want to play a named character, I enjoy making my own characters (such as a Warhammer general or 40k HQ). Do you have to take these named warlocks and what not?

I hear the rules are better than Warhammer and 40k, more akin to MTG with lots of synergies.

[mistformsquirrl]

It's been quite awhile so I don't know if there's been an edition change and thus maybe rules change on this front; but last time I was into it yes, you had to take a named Warcaster to lead your force.

That said, depending on who you're gaming with, nothing says you can't use the rules, convert the models and make up your own warcasters. It is a pretty neat game as I remember, though (as with Warhammer and any other nerdy hobby really) there are some people who take it waaaaaaaaay the frak to seriously.

That said, the model range is pretty nice, so even if nothing else it's worth checking out for that.

That said there are certainly people with more up-to-date knowledge than I. I largely just remember thinking it was a pretty darn cool game system a few years back.

(PS: Khador Ftw)

[Mx.Silver]

It exists, and I understand it's reasonably popular (possibly the most popular not Games Workshop wargame at the moment, although I haven't seen any stats on that). I never really felt drawn to it myself though, mostly because the model range never really appealed to me - some of the designs make 40k look positively reserved (in fact a lot of the art direction has a fairly strong '40k vibe' going on, and not in a good way).
What I've seen of the fluff is pretty firmly in the mediocre range, with not a lot of variance. There is apparently a meta-plot in the background too, but it's not all that intrusive.
Some of the attitude behind it comes across as a bit awkward, as they seem to want to avoid taking themselves too seriously but can't actually bring themselves to be self-deprecating. The upshot of which is there are times where again it feels like 40k but somehow less subtle (hello there Page 5). That's fairly minor though.

As far as it actually plays it's meant to be pretty good, primary dice mechanic being the 2d6 adds some element of stability to the rolls. On the otherhand, I have heard a lot of statements to the effect that list building has a very big impact on who wins a game, while each army has a fair few options that fall under the 'not worth the points' option. This isn't helped by the fairly substantial mercenary rules, from what I can see. These points probably aren't going to matter much in a more casual environment though.

Actually collecting an army is likely to be cheaper than for a Games Workshop game (admittedly not that hard). Some of the models are supposed to be a bit awkward to assemble though.




The one problem I have with the game is that there are a lot of "named characters" in the factions, that just irks me. I don't want to play a named character, I enjoy making my own characters (such as a Warhammer general or 40k HQ). Do you have to take these named warlocks and what not?

Yes, you have to. Having originally come from a Warhammer background myself, I can sympathise with named character aversion, but that attitude is almost unique to Games Workshop games. If you're interested in SF wargames, odds are you won't be making your own leaders and few of the ones I've seen give you the option to avoid named characters. It's something you're just going to have to get used to.

[Meeki]

Hrmm... one big draw for me is the competitive tournament play and that the factions are all modified together rather than GW's phasing approach.

Thanks for responses! I hope others comment too!

[Timberwolf]

Warmahordes is a fine game with much to recommend it. I prefer warmachine as hordes ' fury system is cohnter intuitivd for me ( how you get your magic) but theres much to be said for both.

[Cheesegear]

This post is said from someone coming from a significant Games Workshop background.


I want some opinions about the game rules, fun factor, models, etc...

Rules are fine - and completely broken if you try.
Models are great. Being entirely metal or plastic, rather than the faux-resin GW is churning out right now is a big draw.

Fun factor...Varies. See below.


Do you have to take these named warlocks and what not?

Yes. Although I don't see anything wrong with picking a Warcaster you like, and calling him or her something different.


I hear the rules are better than Warhammer and 40k, more akin to MTG with lots of synergies.

Better than WHFB, maybe. But not 40K.
Rather than syngergies, call it reliances. Unit [X] is terrible unless you have Warcaster [Y], and, if you have [Y], you'd better be taking 'Jack [Z].

While yes; There are more units and 'Casters in each book than an equivalent 40K Codex. Most of the units in WM books are bad or outright useless.

And I don't mean the 'other units in the book are just better' metality that 40K has, because 40K has a FOC limitation where if you take any Fast unit that isn't a Flier, you can't have Fliers at all. 40K is zero-sum. If you take something, then you aren't taking something else and so 40K has terms like 'auto-include' and 'Best-in-Slot'.

WM/H allows you to take whatever you want. Except that you can't. Because half of the units are garbage without the other half of units. Synergy. Reliance. Call it what you will. But whatever you call it, it's severely limiting.


Hrmm... one big draw for me is the competitive tournament play and that the factions are all modified together rather than GW's phasing approach.

What WarMachine does right; Update the entire range at once.
What WarMachine does wrong; Competitive play.

Competitive WarMachine is not fun. In a competitive scene, certain armies will have ways of killing your Warcaster in the first two turns, if not the first turn (i.e; Alistair Caine). That's it. Game over. There isn't even a sense of the game at all. "But that's WarMachine!" the pro-WM/H crowd will say paraphrasing Page 5, and the response is; Well then WM/H isn't fun.

WarMachine is fun when you aren't trying to be competitive because the game is broken at a fundamental level and no matter which book you play out of, you'll still lose. WarMachine is basically rocket-tag. Whoever gets hit first with the biggest weapon loses.

40K...Well, kind of the same boat, really. Just, different. The competitive scene is basically 4 Codecies (maybe 5 or 6). But, it is possible to beat those 4 Codecies if you do certain Mono-Builds in each Codex.
Competitive 40K is...Bringing a spoon to a knife-fight. The spoon can still win if you've sharpened it enough, but, it will be an uphill battle.