Originally Posted by
relasine
Fair enough, there is some play between warjacks, but remember that each faction has at least three "chassis" that they run their 'jacks on, and even comparing one warjack on the same chassis to the next you do see some variation in the statline (Hunter, Grenadier). However, are you going to argue that Dreadnought has more in-game options or mechanical complexity than a warjack? Dreadnoughts do three things: move, fire, and assault, and they limited access to some in-game buffs. Warjacks and warbeasts can do that and trample, slam, throw, headbutt, push, benefit from the game's resource management system, use a more elegant damage tracking system, and interact in very complicated ways with spells and effects.
I'll also concede that GW has gotten markedly better with their internet presence.
That's your argument? That because they'll have to "answer questions about availability"? And how is it slightly different for me to want to Epic at a GW from wanting to Malifaux? GW makes Epic. I believe that you can still special order at one of their brick and mortar stores. Why can't I play it in the store again?
Thanks for the link. I'll check them out, but I think I listened to them already. Aren't they the ones that released back in 2008 when the 5th Ed. rulebook came out?
If your experience with Warmachine is lacking, why are you making claims about its level of complexity? If that's the case, you probably shouldn't make any claims about it at all. You still haven't addressed any of my specific arguments. All I see is "X+Y+Z=complicated" v. a game that you admittedly have limited experience with.
To address yours, Warmachine has all of things you've listed, save army-specific USRs (which they sort of do have on a limited basis i.e. Tough/Regeneration, Eyeless Sight, access to exclusive things like the Choir of Menoth, etc) and varying equipment options. This may seem like a lower level of complexity, but when you factor in that Privateer uses a more robust design space, a more complicated targeting system (i.e. individual models decide their target), a more complicated dice mechanic, and, chief among them, constant in-game, sweeping interaction with other models on the board (i.e. support solos, warcasters, etc.), you can easily tell which is more complex. Wargear may change a unit's role, but it changes little else about them. Compare Cygnar's non-character ranged units for a moment (Trencher Infantry, Trencher Commandos, Long Gunners, Gun Mages, Rangers). Not only do they all have different roles, but they all have different stat blocks and vastly different special rules. Hell, the nature of their roles is even more complex. 40k roles are mostly relegated to a few specific categories (i.e. forward/rear elements, anti-tank/anti-infantry, anti-elite/anti-horde). Warmachine roles are more involved, not only consisting of the categories above, but with more options. (i.e. forward disrupting, flanking/skirmishing, back-line suppression, mid-line trouble-shooting, front-line buffing).
I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this point. Like I stated, 40k has to be less complicated due to its model count. It simply has to be for people to be able to finish a 1500-to-2000-point game in less than five hours. The fact that you can't admit that suggests to me that you're either trolling, in denial, or just don't know.
My original point here was that GW's system of updating their armies is antiquated and way too slow. You're seriously going to defend them on that when Necrons haven't seen a codex update in over eight years? Really? With all the resources they have at their disposal, that's complete and utter garbage.