Well been playing warmachine for about a year. Took a break for a few months to start playing 40k again. Love 7th edition by the way, I have had nothing but good times with it so far. I was having fun with warmachine also but after come back to it today for a few games at the FLGS I find it very frustrating to play and not really any fun at all? Im really unsure on why this is?!?!
I had a few 35 point games, I run khador. I used to have tons of fun with it and now like I said was very frustrating and not fun in the slightest? Whats going on haha, im so confused as to why ive lost interest so fast??? Is it just the few differences in 40k (rolling tons f dice, lots more models, more terrain?)???
Thoughts? Id just hate to give up on WM as im already into it for hundreds of dollars!
BETTER DESCRIPTION POSTED BELOW AND IN LOWER COMMENTS
Ya the big thing was I was out of 40k for a few years and picked up warmachine for something different. Was fantastic, I played a slow grow journeymen league. It was fantastic up to 35 points. Played a few 50 and such but 35 I just found the best for me as you could play a few games instead of one larger on on a busy night. Now being out of 40k for a while this is the only tabletop game I was playing and had nothing to compare it too.
Then a few months ago my FLGS started a Slow grow 40k league. Heard about it on a warmahorde night. I hadn't played forever and thought, well ive got tons of models let pick this game back up! I started playing and immediately found it extremely fun. Tons of models, lots of dice rolling and the overall environment/gameplay seems a lot more relaxed compared to warmachine. I continued playing this league, and still am (we are at 1500 points right now). I also love the amount of terrain you can place, as in warmachine terrain really made things difficult for charging and all that fun stuff.
Them just yesterday I thought well its warmachine night and I haven't played for months, lets dust off the old khador and give it a try just to mix things up! Halfway through my first game I just found it very slow and kinda boring? Of course I lost haha but no big deal. Also seemed that it was always going to be a very one sided game, either you seemed to do very well or you did very bad, there was nothing in between. I found this very frustrating when you just get walked all over and can do nothing about it. I even stayed and watched 2 of the more better playing in the group have a game and same thing. One guy just got wrecked while the other just seemed to walk all over him (50 points by the way). Most, if not all the 40k games ive had lately in 7th edition have been fairly even games and tons of fun with the new tactical objectives. Like I said above warmachine seems to be just a competitive game overall compared to 40k, even just for casual games :(
THOUGHTS? Hope that helped describe my situation a little better
Ya im still loving 40k, just warmachine today was terrible haha. Been a few months since I played. Kind of a weird post haha, was just saying what was on my mind haha!
Apples and oranges... 40K does it for me, it's the entire thing, the game, the books, the great new rules, tanks, flyers, terrain, infantry, xenos, awesome models which are fun for me to build, and paint. I've seen the 40K universe animated in a movie, some video games. Just good stuff!
I have some of the warmachine models, I played the game a few times with someone else's models, I still haven't open the stuff from the boxes I have... I just can't do it. I'm hoping I can trade them in at a local store since the plastic is still on the boxes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, it's also the awesome folks I've met through playing 40K.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you don't like your WM stuff sit on it for a bit, then when you are sure trade it for 40K stuff, or sell it.
I don't blame you. The small scale games just don't do it for me. Unless I'm playing 1,500+ points it doesn't feel like a war game, it feels like I'm controlling a bar fight. Lots of people complain about standard 40k being like apoc now but I couldn't be happier about fielding tons of models and giant LOW, etc. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Don`t worry you`re not being a weirdo, believe it or not but it`s actually possible to still prefer 40K over Warmachine after getting acquainted with both. They`re very different games with their own strengths, it probably just comes down to the fact that you prefer GW`s particular flavour of tabletop gaming and there`s nothing wrong with that.
I can only take a game or two of Warmachine in a day before my brain gets fuzzy, but I can sit there and play long complicated process games like Battletech for 10 hours straight.
I don't get why Warmachine seems to complicated to people.
It is complex. Not complicated. It is very easy to learn and veeeery hard to master. Some things seem "random" at first, but the ruleset is so tight, you'll only get surprised once.
But: If you don't like a game, don't worry, nobody is forcing you into it.
Some people find certain complexities hard to get used to.
I get like that even with Infinity. I can play a huge game of 40k, with constant re-checking rules and such, and do it all day. I get through a couple of smaller games of Infinity and I feel mentally exhausted.
I don't dislike it. I find it takes a ton of brain power to play intelligently. It's actually mentally challenging to actually figure out the best move to make from the current board position. Sure, you can play it in a story driven do whatever mindset and it'll be fun, but I tend to play against people who go to Masters type events and travel to go to events like Templecon and Gencon and whatnot.
Timed turns + high level players = brain drain for me. I'm not in their league and it takes all my concentration just to keep the game going against them. I occasionally get lucky and win.
About half of my opponents are the travelling tournament player types. I get my casual games in against the other half, but I find even a single game that's pre-tournament practice sets the tone of the whole evening. With Gencon coming up the locals who are heading to Indy for the big events there have been wanting a lot of tournament type games as practice, so lately I've been playing them more often than the casual players.
Warmachine supports both casual and competitive play. I just happen to be among competitive players and it's right before a big convention worth of tournaments they want practice for.
I also prefer 35 points and they all want 50, so that's an extra level of brain power to manage more models, more threats, more synergies, more everything. All while the death clock ticks away.
Yeah, I don't like 50 points either. It's playable at that point value, but it's on the edge of being too much.
I've always argued that if warmachine wants to expand into bigger games they need an entirely new fast playing rules set, not this half effort book filter that was unbound.
I don't think they need to expand into larger games. 35 to 50, depending on the points values of each model, is roughly the model count that 40k was when it grew from being a house game made by the UK importer of D&D to being the internationally played miniature game.
People may say they want the big battles of 40k with 100+ models per side, but the game size that sells well across the board and made 40k the big deal it was at it's height is a lot closer to 35-50 points of warmachine than not.
I play 40k mostly as a visual experience, I like how impressive a painted 40k army looks on tabletop. 40k provides kind of a 'kinematic' experience, unfortunately GW ruined that word when they began to use it as a corporate buzzword.
This is why Warmachine doesn't do it for me, much less skirmish game. I don't even play Kill team, I don't like it at all. Same reason why I like BFG more than X-wing.
I'd like to start WHFB, but cost of building an army is just hugely daunting, there is no way I could afford it, plus I'm not big on painting craptons of identical miniatures.
40KNobz11 wrote: Well been playing warmachine for about a year. Took a break for a few months to start playing 40k again. Love 7th edition by the way, I have had nothing but good times with it so far. I was having fun with warmachine also but after come back to it today for a few games at the FLGS I find it very frustrating to play and not really any fun at all? Im really unsure on why this is?!?!
I had a few 35 point games, I run khador. I used to have tons of fun with it and now like I said was very frustrating and not fun in the slightest? Whats going on haha, im so confused as to why ive lost interest so fast??? Is it just the few differences in 40k (rolling tons f dice, lots more models, more terrain?)???
Thoughts? Id just hate to give up on WM as im already into it for hundreds of dollars!
Unless you can explain more, I'm not really sure how anyone is going to be able to guess why you're feeling the way you do? Do you feel like you're not rolling enough dice? Or not enough models? Or the fact that activation sequences are extremely important?
frozenwastes wrote: I don't think they need to expand into larger games. 35 to 50, depending on the points values of each model, is roughly the model count that 40k was when it grew from being a house game made by the UK importer of D&D to being the internationally played miniature game.
People may say they want the big battles of 40k with 100+ models per side, but the game size that sells well across the board and made 40k the big deal it was at it's height is a lot closer to 35-50 points of warmachine than not.
Thing is, when people build up their collections, they naturally want to use them on tabletop. When I began 40k, a 1000 point game felt big. Nowadays, I don't feel like getting out of bed under 1500, and more would be better. Unfortunately, for a newcomer, big armies are intimidating in many ways (playing time, painting, cost). This is a conundrum for tabletop games. It is well known that WHFB suffers from being such a dinosaur, 40k armies have got bigger over time (though 6th edition briefly reversed the trend) and WM players too have kinda began to complain how big the games are getting.
Toofast wrote: I don't blame you. The small scale games just don't do it for me. Unless I'm playing 1,500+ points it doesn't feel like a war game, it feels like I'm controlling a bar fight. Lots of people complain about standard 40k being like apoc now but I couldn't be happier about fielding tons of models and giant LOW, etc. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I play Napoleonics. 40K is a bar fight when compared to that.
I don't play anything but collect 40k but I agree with most posters it's how you pick up the complexity of each thing. Some things are easier learned than others but it's the individual who discovers which is picked up best.
Ya the big thing was I was out of 40k for a few years and picked up warmachine for something different. Was fantastic, I played a slow grow journeymen league. It was fantastic up to 35 points. Played a few 50 and such but 35 I just found the best for me as you could play a few games instead of one larger on on a busy night. Now being out of 40k for a while this is the only tabletop game I was playing and had nothing to compare it too.
Then a few months ago my FLGS started a Slow grow 40k league. Heard about it on a warmahorde night. I hadn't played forever and thought, well ive got tons of models let pick this game back up! I started playing and immediately found it extremely fun. Tons of models, lots of dice rolling and the overall environment/gameplay seems a lot more relaxed compared to warmachine. I continued playing this league, and still am (we are at 1500 points right now). I also love the amount of terrain you can place, as in warmachine terrain really made things difficult for charging and all that fun stuff.
Them just yesterday I thought well its warmachine night and I haven't played for months, lets dust off the old khador and give it a try just to mix things up! Halfway through my first game I just found it very slow and kinda boring? Of course I lost haha but no big deal. Also seemed that it was always going to be a very one sided game, either you seemed to do very well or you did very bad, there was nothing in between. I found this very frustrating when you just get walked all over and can do nothing about it. I even stayed and watched 2 of the more better playing in the group have a game and same thing. One guy just got wrecked while the other just seemed to walk all over him (50 points by the way). Most, if not all the 40k games ive had lately in 7th edition have been fairly even games and tons of fun with the new tactical objectives. Like I said above warmachine seems to be just a competitive game overall compared to 40k, even just for casual games :(
THOUGHTS? Hope that helped describe my situation a little better
I'm the opposite. I like the mental challenge. I was getting bored with 40k because of its lack of strategy and when I played WM I knew I found the game that could give me the intense tactical experience I wanted. I've since sold off all my 40k stuff.
I have tried warmachine and I think it is a fantastic game. That said it is nor for me.
One of my biggest problems was that there was too much diversity in stats model to model.
;
Even if just getting introduced to a unit in 40k I can just look at the stats and have a solid idea of the numbers involved. There is a fixed list of abilities that I need to know for the most part in the main rulebook, and its not individual to each unit. Could I learn them all? Sure, but it was daunting to someone trying to get into it.
Also pg.5 being a license to be an donkey-cave kinda killed it for me. As people took it literally.
Leth wrote: I have tried warmachine and I think it is a fantastic game. That said it is nor for me.
One of my biggest problems was that there was too much diversity in stats model to model.
;
Even if just getting introduced to a unit in 40k I can just look at the stats and have a solid idea of the numbers involved. There is a fixed list of abilities that I need to know for the most part in the main rulebook, and its not individual to each unit. Could I learn them all? Sure, but it was daunting to someone trying to get into it.
Also pg.5 being a license to be an donkey-cave kinda killed it for me. As people took it literally.
You mean the "Page 5" that says:
"Most importantly- and let's state this loud and clear for the record - Page 5 is not permission to be a 'donkey cave' in the name of competition. It's not a shield to hide behind when you're playing like a sissified cheesball running down the clock, gaming in scenario, or rules lawyering your hapless opponent to death. Page 5 doesn't discriminate between genders. And Page 5 is never, ever, EVER an liscence to diminish another player so you can inflate your own vertically challenged self esteem. Remember, we all come here to battle out of common love. Respect Page 5. Respect each other."
You mean, that Page 5? That gives you liscence to be a donkey cave?
MWHistorian wrote: I'm the opposite. I like the mental challenge. I was getting bored with 40k because of its lack of strategy and when I played WM I knew I found the game that could give me the intense tactical experience I wanted. I've since sold off all my 40k stuff.
I never got that from WM. One of the biggest complaints the "WM Evangelists" at the local club had about 40K was that in the modern game there are so many models on the table at typical point values that there's no real room to maneuver or play tactically, yet whenever I see WM played by those same tournament-loving types or they tried to get me into the game, every game seemed to follow a pretty similar pattern; deploy almost all your stuff in a block in the part of your deployment closest to the objectives, both blocks advance towards each other and either A; slug it out over the objective until attrition decides a winner, or B; one player chains together a specific set of abilities to dump vast damage numbers on the enemy leader for an insta-win.
Now, don't get me wrong, the rules are unquestionably tighter and better written than 40K, but when it comes down to models on the table, I've not seen or experienced anything in playing Warmachine that I couldn't get from just playing 40K at a lower points value except the ability to end the fun prematurely by assassinating the enemy leader.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm the opposite. I like the mental challenge. I was getting bored with 40k because of its lack of strategy and when I played WM I knew I found the game that could give me the intense tactical experience I wanted. I've since sold off all my 40k stuff.
I never got that from WM. One of the biggest complaints the "WM Evangelists" at the local club had about 40K was that in the modern game there are so many models on the table at typical point values that there's no real room to maneuver or play tactically, yet whenever I see WM played by those same tournament-loving types or they tried to get me into the game, every game seemed to follow a pretty similar pattern; deploy almost all your stuff in a block in the part of your deployment closest to the objectives, both blocks advance towards each other and either A; slug it out over the objective until attrition decides a winner, or B; one player chains together a specific set of abilities to dump vast damage numbers on the enemy leader for an insta-win.
Now, don't get me wrong, the rules are unquestionably tighter and better written than 40K, but when it comes down to models on the table, I've not seen or experienced anything in playing Warmachine that I couldn't get from just playing 40K at a lower points value except the ability to end the fun prematurely by assassinating the enemy leader.
I'm not a tournament guy, I just like actual strategy in strategy games. You're simplifying the game to a ridiculous degree. There's a lot more to the game than blocks crashing against each other. I'm still new but none of my games have been like that. I also like how strategy is left to the player and not random cards or spells. That's kinda nice too.
To be fair, I wasn't happy with 40k in 6th, but I've really been enjoying those new objective based games.
I think I have ve played four now and I really enjoyed them all. That random element adds a lot of fun to the game, and I have never been totally steamrolled, even against competitive Necron and Eldar builds.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm the opposite. I like the mental challenge. I was getting bored with 40k because of its lack of strategy and when I played WM I knew I found the game that could give me the intense tactical experience I wanted. I've since sold off all my 40k stuff.
I never got that from WM. One of the biggest complaints the "WM Evangelists" at the local club had about 40K was that in the modern game there are so many models on the table at typical point values that there's no real room to maneuver or play tactically, yet whenever I see WM played by those same tournament-loving types or they tried to get me into the game, every game seemed to follow a pretty similar pattern; deploy almost all your stuff in a block in the part of your deployment closest to the objectives, both blocks advance towards each other and either A; slug it out over the objective until attrition decides a winner, or B; one player chains together a specific set of abilities to dump vast damage numbers on the enemy leader for an insta-win.
Now, don't get me wrong, the rules are unquestionably tighter and better written than 40K, but when it comes down to models on the table, I've not seen or experienced anything in playing Warmachine that I couldn't get from just playing 40K at a lower points value except the ability to end the fun prematurely by assassinating the enemy leader.
I'm not a tournament guy, I just like actual strategy in strategy games. You're simplifying the game to a ridiculous degree. There's a lot more to the game than blocks crashing against each other. I'm still new but none of my games have been like that. I also like how strategy is left to the player and not random cards or spells. That's kinda nice too.
I have to say his experience was largely my own as well. I actually found there was LESS room to maneuver in Warmachine than in 40K because of the reasons he mentioned: almost every game I ever played turned into a brawl in the middle of the board, and you can't break out of it because free strikes are so incredibly punitive that once you get stuck in you basically don't move until attrition settles the matter. I gotta say I don't take issue with his simplification of the game because, in my experience, the game really did feel that way. This wasn't just me dabbling in the game for a month either, I played for over a year, collected some 200 pts of Cygnar, and tried out a handful of different warcasters and even dabbled in Skorne.
Leth wrote: I have tried warmachine and I think it is a fantastic game. That said it is nor for me.
One of my biggest problems was that there was too much diversity in stats model to model.
;
Even if just getting introduced to a unit in 40k I can just look at the stats and have a solid idea of the numbers involved. There is a fixed list of abilities that I need to know for the most part in the main rulebook, and its not individual to each unit. Could I learn them all? Sure, but it was daunting to someone trying to get into it.
Also pg.5 being a license to be an donkey-cave kinda killed it for me. As people took it literally.
You mean the "Page 5" that says:
"Most importantly- and let's state this loud and clear for the record - Page 5 is not permission to be a 'donkey cave' in the name of competition. It's not a shield to hide behind when you're playing like a sissified cheesball running down the clock, gaming in scenario, or rules lawyering your hapless opponent to death. Page 5 doesn't discriminate between genders. And Page 5 is never, ever, EVER an liscence to diminish another player so you can inflate your own vertically challenged self esteem. Remember, we all come here to battle out of common love. Respect Page 5. Respect each other."
You mean, that Page 5? That gives you liscence to be a donkey cave?
Whatever the page was, People used it as a shield regardless of what it said. I just was not having fun and someone said something about page 5.
Also sorry for stating my opinion and experiences. Everytime I think about getting back into (thanks article on 3++) I see Warmachine players attacking people for liking 40k, or indirectly insulting them and I remember why I got out of it.
I only played a few games of WM when I worked for Privateer, on their "First Friday" thing, it was OK.
I had fun but I'm not much of a "gamer", I prefer to paint models. Even some of the staff described Warmahordes as "Magic the Gathering with miniatures" but the games I did play were fun.
That being said, I'm getting really sick and tired of spending so much time cleaning up PP models, and the amount of green stuff I have to use to fill gaps is absurd.
Their metals are hit and miss, most of them are OK (except the Rhinodon, Ugh) but their plastic kits and resin kits are just awful.
Leth wrote: I have tried warmachine and I think it is a fantastic game. That said it is nor for me.
One of my biggest problems was that there was too much diversity in stats model to model.
;
Even if just getting introduced to a unit in 40k I can just look at the stats and have a solid idea of the numbers involved. There is a fixed list of abilities that I need to know for the most part in the main rulebook, and its not individual to each unit. Could I learn them all? Sure, but it was daunting to someone trying to get into it.
Also pg.5 being a license to be an donkey-cave kinda killed it for me. As people took it literally.
You mean the "Page 5" that says:
"Most importantly- and let's state this loud and clear for the record - Page 5 is not permission to be a 'donkey cave' in the name of competition. It's not a shield to hide behind when you're playing like a sissified cheesball running down the clock, gaming in scenario, or rules lawyering your hapless opponent to death. Page 5 doesn't discriminate between genders. And Page 5 is never, ever, EVER an liscence to diminish another player so you can inflate your own vertically challenged self esteem. Remember, we all come here to battle out of common love. Respect Page 5. Respect each other."
You mean, that Page 5? That gives you liscence to be a donkey cave?
To be fair, if the poster had tried in MKI that pg 5 WAS different and certainly encouraged donkey cave behavior.
That being said, I didn't like MKI, but I do enjoy MKII.
I've been playing Warmhordes a bit more often lately. It's fun, but it certainly has a different feel than 40k, with much more emphasis on ability combos and precise positional play (since models block movement and LOS, they act sort of like terrain). It's definitely not a "replacement". I like the larger scope and emphasis on equipment customization 40k has.
Leth wrote: Whatever the page was, People used it as a shield regardless of what it said. I just was not having fun and someone said something about page 5.
Also sorry for stating my opinion and experiences. Everytime I think about getting back into (thanks article on 3++) I see Warmachine players attacking people for liking 40k, or indirectly insulting them and I remember why I got out of it.
Its like the prius owners of the minature world.
I'm a pretty big WM fanboy, and yeah, the evangelists make me wince as well.
There are elitists or negative people for everything.
From the sheer size of the 40k fanbase, there's more in the 40k base, or ex-40k base. In fact, the worst people I know that play WM came over from 40k after people stopped playing against them.
In the WM community, eventually people stop playing with those people too.
My biggest problem with Warmachine right now is that players use even less terrain in the game than 40k or WHFB. This is due to all the rules being too extreme in effect, that terrain rules either extremely punish you, or they extremely help you or your opponent because you happen to have a rule that ignores it.
Even 7th edition for 40k seems to have some rules that make terrain more usable without being detrimental.
I still love WM, and I loved 40K's space fantasy setting. Now, it's hard for me to get motivated to play either game.
Vertrucio wrote: There are elitists or negative people for everything.
From the sheer size of the 40k fanbase, there's more in the 40k base, or ex-40k base. In fact, the worst people I know that play WM came over from 40k after people stopped playing against them.
In the WM community, eventually people stop playing with those people too.
My biggest problem with Warmachine right now is that players use even less terrain in the game than 40k or WHFB. This is due to all the rules being too extreme in effect, that terrain rules either extremely punish you, or they extremely help you or your opponent because you happen to have a rule that ignores it.
Even 7th edition for 40k seems to have some rules that make terrain more usable without being detrimental.
I still love WM, and I loved 40K's space fantasy setting. Now, it's hard for me to get motivated to play either game.
This! I have a circle force but it's never been used as the terrain and look of a game is something really enjoy! It just appears from the outside that terrain is an irritation for many.
The whole page 5 thing was the final nail in the coffin of me ever trying out warmachine. Any company that would brazenly publish such a sexist and homophobic piece of writing should not be tolerated in wargaming. I don't care if it was "tongue in cheek" or toned down in MKII, in a culture that struggles to attract participants other than straight white males we can't afford to attack gamers for being "sissies" and not having balls.
You're seeing sexism where there isn't any. The president of the company is Sherry Yeary and their HQ is in one of the most forward thinking places in the US, and from what I can tell, they fit right in.
frozenwastes wrote: You're seeing sexism where there isn't any. The president of the company is Sherry Yeary and their HQ is in one of the most forward thinking places in the US, and from what I can tell, they fit right in.
I'm curious to know where the supposed homophobia is too.
Nothing of any sort on page 5....
No mention of "sissies". It says WUSSIES.
OP, Warmachine can be hard to roll back into suddenly. Because of the nature of my work, I sometimes find a don't get games in for months at a time. As such, my skills get less sharp, and I forget how to counter certain things or run certain units to their max ability. With a game that has such tactical flexibility, it can really be a detriment to one's enjoyment sometimes.
I find throwing out some of the crazy scenarios from the leagues or the ones folks create online can be a great way to get your mind back into shape. Keeps it fresh, less just caster kill etc.
Also, if you played WM cause you weren't enjoying 40k, remember what you enjoyed about it. If you are currently enjoying 40k, ask yourself what is making this better than WM currently.
Jumping back and forth as you tire of one is a great way to keep both fresh and fun.
Las wrote: The whole page 5 thing was the final nail in the coffin of me ever trying out warmachine. Any company that would brazenly publish such a sexist and homophobic piece of writing should not be tolerated in wargaming. I don't care if it was "tongue in cheek" or toned down in MKII, in a culture that struggles to attract participants other than straight white males we can't afford to attack gamers for being "sissies" and not having balls.
It's neither sexist, nor homophobic. 'Having a pair' means standing up for yourself. Frankly, everything in page 5 is a positive, assertive and empowering message that everyone (whether male, female, gay or straight, or whatever else) can stand behind and be proud of. It means giving the best, holding nothing back, always seeking to push on and take on the big dogs, rather than noobstalking, and essentially, being as good as you can be. It means NOT being an asshat about things. It's very, very specific. Page 5 is not ever about being a knob to your opponent. It's about seeing them as an equal, and treating them with that level of mutual respect. In fact, I've never seen any of my opponents display any sexist or homophobic behaviours or attitudes.
And funnily enough, I've seen a lot more girls play and enjoy warmachine/hordes than I've ever seen involved in 40k. If anything, that's a lot more telling.
frozenwastes wrote: You're seeing sexism where there isn't any. The president of the company is Sherry Yeary and their HQ is in one of the most forward thinking places in the US, and from what I can tell, they fit right in.
Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you.
If you cry when you lose, get lost -- you're going to lose. If it hurts your fragile sensibilities to see your favorite character get pounded unmercifully by a rapid succession of no-holds-barred iron fury, you'd better look the other way. If you've ever whined the words, "That's too powerful," then put the book down slowly and walk away before making eye contact with anyone or they'll realize your voice hasn't changed yet.
This game is about aggression. This is the game of metal-on-metal combat. This is fuel-injected power hopped up on steroids. This is WARMACHINE -- the battles game that kicks so much ass we have to use all capital letters.
We didn't set out to reinvent the wheel with this game -- we just armor plated it, covered it in spikes, and rolled it over your grandma's house.
WARMACHINE is simple. It's easy to learn, has no reference charts, no heavy arithmetic, and doesn't require constant trips to the rulebook. At the same time, WARMACHINE possesses deep strategy. The ability to unlock combinations of abilities and spells and maneuvers is practically limitless. For every perfect strategy, there is a foil. For every immovable object, there is an unstoppable force. Just when you think you've got it all worked out, you'll be blindsided by something you never saw before. The more you dig, the more you'll find.
WARMACHINE favors the aggressor. You've got to throw the first punch if you want to land on top! Too many games set players up to be timid. Games drag out with little action because the game favors defensive strategies. Players park their soldiers behind walls like old ladies hiding from a loud noise.
Not in WARMACHINE! If you want your opponent to come to you, you're going to get steamrolled. You've got to have balls to play this game! You've got to charge your opponent and hang it all out there! You've got to break his formations. You've got to be relentless with your onslaught. You have to go for the jugular and latch on like a rabid dog that hasn't eaten in days. Anything less and you'll be hamburger.
You're playing with power now. Don't be afraid! Few things are more satisfying than slamming your opponent's warjack into a unit of soldiers and watching them fall like bowling pins! (We call this jack bowling.) Try picking up an enemy warcaster (with a warjack, of course) and throwing it across the battlefield! It's almost more fun than you should be allowed to have with miniatures game.
The miniatures of WARMACHINE deliver on every level that the game does. These warjacks radiate power! We're pouring so much metal into these things that at our current rate, we'll deplete the world of pewter by 2006. And these things were made for modeling. The incredible detail and expert sculpting will create one of the most enjoyable painting experiences you've ever had.
This is a new era in tabletop miniatures wargaming. This is a game made for you, by people like you. It's not a load of sterilized mass market drek designed by a room of corporate meatplow. This is raw. This is brutal. This is WARMACHINE.
So play like you've got a pair, or put down the metal and go find something made of plastic.
Las wrote: "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"
Except for you know... she's actually a woman herself and runs the business.
One thing I have learned though is that when people get on a moral high horse and start crusading, facts cease to matter. So do your thing and we'll all keep your self righteousness in mind while you do.
Las wrote: "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"
Except for you know... she's actually a woman herself and runs the business.
One thing I have learned though is that when people get on a moral high horse and start crusading, facts cease to matter. So do your thing and we'll all keep your self righteousness in mind while you do.
Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being able to propagate sexism. Look at the MKI page 5 text and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.
Las wrote: Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being able to propagate sexism. Look at the MKI page 5 text and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
What I find wrong is that you failed to provide a reference for your source. Including the year of publication. You're trying to pass off the old page five as if its the current page five.
Las wrote: Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being able to propagate sexism. Look at the MKI page 5 text and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
What I find wrong is that you failed to provide a reference for your source. Including the year of publication. You're trying to pass off the old page five as if its the current page five.
Las wrote: Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being able to propagate sexism. Look at the MKI page 5 text and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
What I find wrong is that you failed to provide a reference for your source. Including the year of publication. You're trying to pass off the old page five as if its the current page five.
Very dishonest.
No I'm not. I stated that it was the MKI page 5.
Actually you didn't. You implied it in your first post but failed to clarify anywhere or in subsequent posts.
Las wrote: The whole page 5 thing was the final nail in the coffin of me ever trying out warmachine. Any company that would brazenly publish such a sexist and homophobic piece of writing should not be tolerated in wargaming. I don't care if it was "tongue in cheek" or toned down in MKII, in a culture that struggles to attract participants other than straight white males we can't afford to attack gamers for being "sissies" and not having balls.
I had to dig into my MK1 book to see exactly what you were on about (and even then I missed it as it's not exactly obvious) as nothing of the sort exists in the MK2 copy.
I must be reading a different post. Las just quotes it and go "really".
Do I think the old page 5 is silly? Yeah. It's clearly going after a juvenile teen age boy market. They tightened things up when they did the remix book. And Las not caring that it was tongue in cheek? That just shows he's predisposed to interpreting it in the wrong way. It is tongue in cheek, so any consideration of the text that ignores that is factually incorrect at its basis. Like if you interpret a poem as a technical document or as history. Ignoring the nature of the literature pretty much garauntees misinterpretation.
Do I find it sexist or homophobic? Not really.
Do I find 40k's token usage of cultures (these space marines are norse and these ones are mongols!) to be racist? Not really.
I'm not very good at being a crusader who sees injustice in every game product though.
Las wrote: "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"
Except for you know... she's actually a woman herself and runs the business.
One thing I have learned though is that when people get on a moral high horse and start crusading, facts cease to matter. So do your thing and we'll all keep your self righteousness in mind while you do.
Being a woman doesn't exempt you from being able to propagate sexism. Look at the MKI page 5 text and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
Notice that this post has not been edited and that you both have quoted it.
frozenwastes wrote: I must be reading a different post. You just quote it and go "really".
Do I think the old page 5 is silly? Yeah. It's clearly going after a juvenile teen age boy market. They tightened things up when they did the remix book. And Les not caring that it was tongue in cheek? That just shows he's predisposed to interpreting it in the wrong way. It is tongue in cheek, so any consideration of the text that ignores that is factually incorrect.
Do I find it sexist or homophobic? Not really.
Do I find 40k's token usage of cultures (these space marines are norse and these ones are mongols!) to be racist? Not really.
I'm not very good at being a crusader who sees injustice in every game product though.
I know that its tongue in cheek, its obviously tongue in cheek but I don't think that excuses it. If you want to play the game published by a company that would approach its customers like this, then fine. I merely stated that it was one of the reasons why I decided to give warmachine a wide berth, and my thinking behind that decision.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.
I can do this too.
What, quotemine to use a person's words to mean exactly the opposite of what they were actually talking about? The quote refers to an attempt to pass a law that could have resulted in the criminalisation of people making fun of religion or criticising their doctrines or beliefs publically, and I have to say it takes a serious amount of sack to use a quote from a gay man made in reference to his worry that homophobes in the church would use a new law to browbeat gay and atheistic comedians and thinkers to try and cast someone pointing out homophobia as a whiner.
If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.
frozenwastes wrote: I get that you want to downplay the distance in time. And future revisions You've said that you don't care that it's been changed. Think about that.
You have a criticism. It's been addressed and the new versions are different.
In my opinion, any company that would think that this kind of thing is appropriate in wargaming at any point does not deserve my money. That is why it doesn't matter to me that they've been forced to tone it down. In addition, I still find the current page 5 blurb juvenile and dumb but that's beside the point.
frozenwastes wrote: Yet you don't care. You want to hold up an out of print text, not allow it to be interpreted as humour, not care that it's been revised and for what?
So you can make this charge of sexism and homophobia.
Interpret it as humour all you want. It is humour. It's not good humour in my opinion, but it is clearly an attempt.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.
I can do this too.
If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.
I see you missed the intent of said post of randomly placing a quote with no context behind it.
"I'm not racist, I have black friends!" also adds nothing to any argument.
But I guess you were just too offended or something.
Here's the text from the Hordes Primal MK2 book, digital edition, 2013. It's the newest "page 5" i could find:
2013 Page 5 wrote:The Five Rules of Page 5—mK ii In keeping with a tradition as controversial as it is revered, Page 5 continues as a manifesto of our disposition, the philosophy with which we have created HORDES. Contained in these paragraphs is the doctrine of our players and the common ground upon which we do battle. Whether a grizzled vet or fresh meat, here are a few things you need to know if you’re going to survive in the unforgiving arena of monstrous miniatures combat.
1) Thou shalt not whine
This game is not suitable for wussies. If you cry when you lose, push off—’cause you’re going to lose. If it hurts your fragile sensibilities to see your favorite character get pounded unmercifully by a rapid succession of no-holds-barred fury, you’d better look the other way. If you’ve ever whined the words, “That’s too powerful,” then put downthe book and slowly walk away. Now.
This is a game about aggression. This is fierce and visceral combat. This is adrenaline-fueled rage hopped up on steroids. This is HORDES.
2) Come heavy, or don’t Come at all
In every dark alley is a ruthless bastard waiting to carve another notch in his bat with your face. And across every table, in his unassuming faded black T-shirt, is a cold-hearted killer mentally tearing you limb from limb.
HORDES favors the aggressor. You’ve got to throw the first punch if you want to land on top. If you wait for your opponent to come to you, you’re going to get steamrolled. You’ve got to have big [metaphorical] balls to play this game. You’ve got to charge your opponent and hang it all out there! You’ve got to break his formations. You’ve got to be relentless with your onslaught. You’ve got to go for the jugular and latch on like a rabid dog that hasn’t eaten in days.
Anything less, and you’ll be hamburger.
3) Give as Good as you Get
The proof is in the punishing—the one you give and the one you take. There’s no honor in clobbering the smallest kid in the yard, and there’s no pride to be won by blazing a path to the well for your fail-safe formula. The real bragging rights come from taking down the big dog with a move that jams his pizza hole open like a he just had a Titan in a tube sock applied vigorously to the back of his skull. Damn the status quo. Defy convention! Tempt defeat, then wipe that food-trapping snaggletoothed grin off its face with a wrecking ball.
If the fight is easy, you’re not challenging up the ladder.
4) win Graciously and lose valiantly
Page 5 is about honesty. It’s a self-awareness of what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and who we’re doing it for. It’s about the kind of people we are and the kind of people we want to face across the table. Page 5 is a cultivated attitude designed to get the most out of the gaming experience. It’s about showing up, playing your hardest to win, feeling satisfaction in a game well lost, and respecting your opponent for the accomplished competitor he or she is, no matter what the outcome.
5) Page 5 is not an excuse
Most importantly—and let’s state this loud and clear for the record—Page 5 is not permission to be a jackass in the name of competition. It’s not a shield to hide behind when you’re playing like a sissified cheeseball, running down the clock, gaming a scenario, or rules lawyering your hapless opponent to death. Page 5 doesn’t discriminate between genders. And Page 5 is never, ever, EVER a license to diminish another player so you can inflate your own vertically challenged self-esteem.
Remember, we all come here to battle out of a common love. Respect Page 5. Respect each other.
And now that we’re all on the same page . . .
Play like you’ve Got a Pair .
I'll pre-nit pick it for you:
Spoiler:
Oh no! They used "sissified cheeseball" still!
Those heinous sexist, homophobic bigots! How dare they! I'm so offended. It's so wrong! I'm so much better than that! How dare they!?!
Remember that promotional poster they ran with that named female character (because everything is named) clad in a low cut top standing in front of two monsters from hordes or whatever with the text "who needs a jack when youve got a pair of these?"
Las wrote: Remember that promotional poster they ran with that named female character (because everything is named) clad in a low cut top standing in front of two monsters from hordes or whatever with the text "who needs a jack when youve got a pair of these?"
So radical, so sick, bro.
[citation needed]
Also, brace yourselves, cheesecake arguments are inbound!
Can I have a link to a picture, because I've never seen that? I failed to find it with image searches as well.
I think if I were to be the type of person who analyzes fantasy rules and art to see where I should be offended, I think I'd be less offended by finding it in general approach pages like page 5 or on promotional posters than in 40k where cultural caricatures are baked into the fiction/world directly. Where each primarch and their chapter is a caricature of real world cultures.
But I get that that's a trope of the genre, so I don't get worked up about it. And if someone did, I'd be like "you're working really hard at being offended".
Seriously though, document that poster with a link, I want to see it.
Fantasy has in the past had entire races that propagated themselves only through rape.
Sisters of Battle are used as victims in numerous pieces of terrible background writing.
The armies of the 41st millennium have barely any women who aren't:
-Submissive fetish bait
-Space Nuns
-Dom fetish bait
-Actually androgynous lust-demons
I reckon GW's relationship with females and especially with female sexuality has quite a long way to go before it's anything approaching healthy.
But sure, get offended at PP. Page 5 is pretty stupid and they should drop it.
One of the realities of our society is that there's an expectation of political correctness with every move any public person or organization does. One of the advantages a smaller company like Privateer Press has is they're less beholden to that because they're less visible, so they can be a little less PC in order to catch people's attention as part of their marketing.
Personally, as someone who's been part of nerd culture and all sorts of gaming for the past 25 or so years, I find the theme of Page 5 to be a refreshing dose of calling out would-be TFGs to be a little more self aware, rather than the typical brushing off of this type of behavior.
Then again, I've also found in life that if I choose to get offended by every little thing that could possible offend me, I'd be wasting way too much time.
If you want to use Page 5, in any of its forms, as an excuse to be offended and not play Warmahordes, go ahead. Just realize your self-righteousness is probably closing more doors for you than it is opening other people's eyes, and if you go through life that way you're going to burn way too much energy on gak that just doesn't matter.
Da Boss wrote: Fantasy has in the past had entire races that propagated themselves only through rape.
Sisters of Battle are used as victims in numerous pieces of terrible background writing.
The armies of the 41st millennium have barely any women who aren't:
-Submissive fetish bait
-Space Nuns
-Dom fetish bait
-Actually androgynous lust-demons
I reckon GW's relationship with females and especially with female sexuality has quite a long way to go before it's anything approaching healthy.
But sure, get offended at PP. Page 5 is pretty stupid and they should drop it.
I agree with you assessment completely. However I do not take these issues as giving PP a free pass.
slowthar wrote: One of the realities of our society is that there's an expectation of political correctness with every move any public person or organization does. One of the advantages a smaller company like Privateer Press has is they're less beholden to that because they're less visible, so they can be a little less PC in order to catch people's attention as part of their marketing.
Personally, as someone who's been part of nerd culture and all sorts of gaming for the past 25 or so years, I find the theme of Page 5 to be a refreshing dose of calling out would-be TFGs to be a little more self aware, rather than the typical brushing off of this type of behavior.
Then again, I've also found in life that if I choose to get offended by every little thing that could possible offend me, I'd be wasting way too much time.
If you want to use Page 5, in any of its forms, as an excuse to be offended and not play Warmahordes, go ahead. Just realize your self-righteousness is probably closing more doors for you than it is opening other people's eyes, and if you go through life that way you're going to burn way too much energy on gak that just doesn't matter.
Nerd culture has a lot to deal with in terms of gender and sexuality. The hobby should be inclusive. I'm not 'choosing to be offended.' I am choosing to spend my money on companies that more suit my interests. There's plenty of things I dislike about warmahordes other than page 5. That was just the thing that finally allowed me to realize that the company and game just wasn't for me and I stated as much in this thread.
There is no game today that doesn't include some form of blatant sexism.
Even privateer realized this and changed a little in mk2.
If you want to get all huffy puffy about it, then you'd have to leave the scene entirely. Or you could just make sure to promote positive change and positive attitudes toward the right way.
Internet arguments do very little.
Or do like me and try making a game purposely trying to minimize that. I hired an artist specifically to create female infantry that wasn't in sexist.
Vertrucio wrote: There is no game today that doesn't include some form of blatant sexism.
Even privateer realized this and changed a little in mk2.
If you want to get all huffy puffy about it, then you'd have to leave the scene entirely. Or you could just make sure to promote positive change and positive attitudes toward the right way.
Internet arguments do very little.
Or do like me and try making a game purposely trying to minimize that. I hired an artist specifically to create female infantry that wasn't in sexist.
I really don't understand your position. The text I bolded is completely correct. Its pervasive and it needs to change. Why then is the stock response to valid criticism "youre choosing to be offended" or "move along, its fine. It's not MEANT to be taken like that"?
This is an endemic part of gaming culture and its BS. It damages the hobby and slogans like "play like you've got a pair" help propagate the idea that wargaming is for men first and women second, that warmachine is a game that rewards masculinity. No, it isn't "girls don't play this game!" but it's part of the problem.
I do understand that games with free movement like most miniatures games are, require a kind of 'gentleman's agreement' to be playable, thus there is a place for things like "Most Important Rule" or "Page 5". PP's original Page 5 is IMO offensive in its silliness rather than sexism-ness. I can see how it could become a problem with certain type of people, tho.
It actually reminds me of attitude I encountered back in my MtG days. Anecdote: I was playing in a local booster draft, and knowing that most people would likely ignore blue and white in such an environment, concentrated on those colours and build myself a strong defensive deck. Halfway through the tournament, one of the local top players and event organizers stops by my table, and looks at the situation where I have fortified myself behind Walls, defensive enchanchments, creatures and artifacts, with my opponent having almost no chance to hurt me. "What the hell are you doing" he noted in disgust. "This game is not meant to be played like this. Attack! Take risks! Don't be such a wuss." I shrugged, I was winning the match comfortably, and I did. However, gradually it became obvious to me that some people thought I was playing the game "wrong", so I left the scene so they could keep playing in well and proper way, without heretics like me messing things around.
I do note the irony how original Page 5's message of anti-political correctness, bad-assery and playing with metal models have been pretty much completely neutered in later iterations
I do note the irony how original Page 5's message of anti-political correctness, bad-assery and playing with metal models have been pretty much completely neutered in later iterations
Yes, it has changed. These changes are reflected in the MKII page five above. It's still not what I would call PC, but ymmv.
Back on topic:
OP, have you tried taking a step all the way back to battlebox (15-25 pts) just to go the mojo going again?
Las wrote: Okay great, cool, it's settled. No one will ever discuss sexism in nerd culture if they play a sci-fi/fantasy game.
Look, when everyone is telling you your argument is full of holes, eventually you have to realize you're holding a block of Swiss cheese (metaphorically speaking). You have an opinion. Fine. It's narrow minded, closed off, and poor, but it's still your opinion and you're entitled to it. But don't think you'll change a single mind here. Accept that you have a radically narrow viewpoint and that most people will roll their eyes at it. Then just agree to disagree. It's either that or get totally offended, leave, and never come back. The Internet is exactly like the page 5 you described: "post like you got a pair". If you can't handle criticism and multiple people telling you that you're wrong, perhaps the Internet is not for you either.
gunslingerpro wrote: OP, have you tried taking a step all the way back to battlebox (15-25 pts) just to go the mojo going again?
Now that gencon practice is winding down and my local competitive types are going to be out of town, we're going back to battle box then 15 then 25. I've always wanted to play Circle with lots of werewolves, so a buddy and I are going to split the two player hordes starter.
It'll be a nice change from 50 point eHexie tournament practice games.
Gruntz15mm is a set of rules for SciFi skirmish gaming that uses a very warmachine approach, but without a warcaster analogue or synergy chasing approach. Not free, but good.
WarOne wrote: I wonder if it is possible to try and integrate rulesets and play a Warmachine vs 40k game....
I bet you could use Warmahorde rule sets to represent 40k Skirmish pretty well. Just change the names of the magic abilities to make lore sense and there you go.
You really couldn't integrate tanks into it so would have to keep it squad/dreadnought based. Probably have to play non-space marine/Necromunda style as well.......with psychic gangs being your armies, automated machines fueled by psychic power as your warjacks, etc.
You could also do the same with Demons/cults, as a Hordes representative.
I bet you could use Warmahorde rule sets to represent 40k Skirmish pretty well. Just change the names of the magic abilities to make lore sense and there you go.
You really couldn't integrate tanks into it so would have to keep it squad/dreadnought based. Probably have to play non-space marine/Necromunda style as well.......with psychic gangs being your armies, automated machines fueled by psychic power as your warjacks, etc.
You could also do the same with Demons/cults, as a Hordes representative.
Actually, that sounds pretty damn cool.
I loathe the PP fluff and adore the 40k IP. As a result I have already done much of this work. It actually works surprisingly well barring a few things like fliers and transports (yes, a terrible shortcoming). We've playtested it a little here and while it certainly needs more balancing it is far more mechanically sound than current 40k. For my money it also feels far more like 40K, at least as I remember it. This was my solution to wanting to play 40K but not being able to stand the rules.
I have to ask you about this: what is it about the fluff you don't like? The rpg material is fantastic, for example. Some of the novels are pretty excellent as well.
I'm much more offended by GW upper management sitting in a court of law, under oath and telling the world that our "favorite hobby activity; buying things from Games Workshop."
Belittling me to the point of being a walking wallet. Sure, we all know that companies want to make money but most have the good taste to not come out and say it, or call me a "nerd" or say that I'll "goober all over" their products (still not sure what that means).
Deadnight wrote: I have to ask you about this: what is it about the fluff you don't like? The rpg material is fantastic, for example. Some of the novels are pretty excellent as well.
It's not that it's badly written, I just find it difficult to work within, especially the technological aspects. Cygnar in particular annoys me. I know part of it is game balance (and I do love the game) but for crying out loud, you have Trenchers with bayonets. Is it so much to ask that you weld a sharp piece of steel to the underside of a Hunter's gun?
I know, I know, it's the setting. But warjacks are stupid in fluff terms. Dreadnoughts at least have the whole life support angle.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the Hunter has a great big axe (well, for a Cygnar light it's a great big axe), why does it need a bayonet on a weapon that is probably quite well zeroed and what not (hence the RAT 7).
The usual issue that I see people having with the fluff is either that they aren't a big fan of steampunk-ish stuff, or they don't like how it's an evolving storyline that never really sees the death of a playable character, which in their mind takes away from the evolution aspect (ignoring the Voyle rules from NQ, or the Sturgis cross-over, since he's still playable after death).
Wargames are like anything else in life. It's all about what you like to play. If 40k makes you happy do that, If WM makes you happy do that. If neither is doing it for you find another game.
That being said. I can see where a person that likes to personalize things and make their own fluff (within a setting). Custom make characters etc would find WM very limiting. Totally get it. Nothing wrong with it.
Same can be said for folks that want to play a really tight game and couldn't care less about the fluff. 40k is not for them.
Both are valid view points. We don't need to brow beat or try to convince everyone else that they should like what we do and if they don't then they are just stupid.....That is silliness.
Las wrote: Okay great, cool, it's settled. No one will ever discuss sexism in nerd culture if they play a sci-fi/fantasy game.
Look, when everyone is telling you your argument is full of holes, eventually you have to realize you're holding a block of Swiss cheese (metaphorically speaking). You have an opinion. Fine. It's narrow minded, closed off, and poor, but it's still your opinion and you're entitled to it. But don't think you'll change a single mind here. Accept that you have a radically narrow viewpoint and that most people will roll their eyes at it. Then just agree to disagree. It's either that or get totally offended, leave, and never come back. The Internet is exactly like the page 5 you described: "post like you got a pair". If you can't handle criticism and multiple people telling you that you're wrong, perhaps the Internet is not for you either.
The only counter that anyone has brought up is throwing around stock buzzwords like "PC" and "social justice warrior." I think the people who can't handle criticism here are the ones that are shying from engaging the discussion and instead choose to deflect or dismiss lest some criticism be leveled on their favourite game.
Also as other people have stated the game has a boring aesthetic and lore.
I wasn't into the aesthetic initially, but as I've started painting the models it's really grown on me. The only thing I still don't like about it is how the warjacks have stick legs, like lousy bodybuilders. It's very cartoony. I'm expecting they'll probably grow out of it a bit like GW has over the years.
Las wrote: Okay great, cool, it's settled. No one will ever discuss sexism in nerd culture if they play a sci-fi/fantasy game.
Look, when everyone is telling you your argument is full of holes, eventually you have to realize you're holding a block of Swiss cheese (metaphorically speaking). You have an opinion. Fine. It's narrow minded, closed off, and poor, but it's still your opinion and you're entitled to it. But don't think you'll change a single mind here. Accept that you have a radically narrow viewpoint and that most people will roll their eyes at it. Then just agree to disagree. It's either that or get totally offended, leave, and never come back. The Internet is exactly like the page 5 you described: "post like you got a pair". If you can't handle criticism and multiple people telling you that you're wrong, perhaps the Internet is not for you either.
The only counter that anyone has brought up is throwing around stock buzzwords like "PC" and "social justice warrior." I think the people who can't handle criticism here are the ones that are shying from engaging the discussion and instead choose to deflect or dismiss lest some criticism be leveled on their favourite game.
Also as other people have stated the game has a boring aesthetic and lore.
People are dismissing your "argument" because they don't see it as valid. It also comes across as silly as someone screaming racism when a caucasian gets promoted over a person of a different color. Even though the facts don't warrant it (in the case of my example not in any particular real life instance).
It's like being offended over something that you see on TV. Dude just change the channel.
Please remember you do not have a RIGHT[i] to not be offended. You do have the right to not look at something or buy something you think offends you.
Also as other people have stated the game has a boring aesthetic and lore.
I want to be quite clear here. There is a distinct difference between saying 'I don't like it' and 'It is boring'. The former sounds like an opinion while the later come if as a declaration of fact. Facts should be avoided when altering about the the subjective.
The WM fluff doesn't do it for me. That's OK though because while I don't own a single forces book it doesn't at all impact my ability to play.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
Um...Huh?
I am merely attempting to get you to see how you are coming across to people.
You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.
I would invite you too actually look at the game where the most powerful warcasters/warlocks are predominantly female characters. See eLylith, pHaley, eHaley, pDenegra, eDenegra, eMorvana etc.....
I personally find your umbridge at all this quite silly and an enormous waste of energy but hey, what ever floats your proverbial boat.
I'll leave you with this. When you are a hammer all you tend to see are nails.......
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.
I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.
The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.
It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.
I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.
The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.
It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.
1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. 2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis" 3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store? 4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much? 5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.
I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.
I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.
The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.
It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.
1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis"
3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store?
4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much?
5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.
I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.
If trolling then bravo good sir, bravo.
1: that was what I wanted to address, so i quoted it.
2: Yeah, that movie is great. Lags in the second half, though. Except for Joe Flaherty as the soviet soldier.
3: Well, if the game doesn't interest me after looking through the models, flipping through the rules, etc. Why would I force myself to play it or do anything other than curiously watch until I am no longer curious?
4: It certainly reads like a manifesto.
5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.
As for your last remark, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't done anything but deflect to the false idea that I've been gravely and emotionally offended by something instead of having taken a conscious, thinking decision. Cause I was "looking" for it. To be honest I'm not surprised. I've seen people on these boards soberly surmise that that the reason there are more men than women in wargaming is because the male brain is more inclined toward 'analytical thinking.' Any time this issue comes up, its you guys that act like ostriches. It's much easier than actually facing the issue.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.
I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.
The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.
It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.
1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis"
3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store?
4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much?
5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.
I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.
If trolling then bravo good sir, bravo.
1: that was what I wanted to address, so i quoted it.
2: Yeah, that movie is great. Lags in the second half, though. Except for Eugine Levy as the soviet soldier.
3: Well, if the game doesn't interest me after looking through the models, flipping through the rules, etc. Why would I force myself to play it or do anything other than curiously watch until I am no longer curious?
4: It certainly reads like a manifesto.
5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.
As for your last remark, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't done anything but deflect to the false idea that I've been gravely and emotionally offended by something instead of having taken a conscious, thinking decision. Cause I was "looking" for it. To be honest I'm not surprised. I've seen people on these boards soberly surmise that that the reason there are more men than women in wargaming is because the male brain is more inclined toward 'analytical thinking.'
Ok one more time (it's feeling like I'm banging my head against the wall here).
I have not defended the MK1 page 5. I have pointed out that it has been changed (as have others). I have also pointed out that in the WM/H game the most powerful (minus one or two) of the warcasters / warlocks are FEMALE. Others have pointed out that the gosh dang CEO is a WOMAN. They also have female employees in quite a few prominent and public roles. Go look at the PP website and look at the daily insiders.
I am trying to get you to see the fallacy of your argument, because it holds no water at this time.
As to you not liking the game based on the rules or models, I have even said in another post that it is a perfectly reasonable thing and more power to you.
I am arguing the lunacy/fallacy (take your pick) you are preaching about misogyny in the game/ company making the game that just is not there.
5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.
They also said not only did they reinvent the wheel they went and covered in spikes and used it to murder your grandmother and destroy the property she lives in.
They also said they'd deplete the world of pewter by 2006.
Seeing a pattern here?
A poor one in your opinion but it was not meant to be taken too seriously. It's poking fun at stereotypes within the industry. It is made of steel, It's big and industrial. All "manly" things. You're meant to imagine it being read by the "overly manly man" meme or Ron Swanson. WARMACHINE (see even there, it is so bombastic they had to put it all in caps) is a man's mans game. It's a man's man's mans game. They're not literally saying "Sorry to play this game you need to have a penis and shag women all day long" but is playing up to a time tested advertising method.
See ad's for brands like McCoys, described as "man crisps" (complete with baritone voiceover). There's no law that say if you've got a vagina you can't eat McCoys. Just like there isn't one that says ladies cannot play Warmachine.
This stuff is everywhere. Check out the ad's for Hobgoblin ale. "Lagerboy" seems dangerously close to "Nancyboy" in this context (IMO). Showing how Hobgoblin has made lager into a "girly" drink.
It's people like you that got ad like the Yorkie bar ones pulled as some people are offended by anything.
Currently having this same problem with both 40k and Warmachine after getting back into Magic The Gathering again. When compared to a game that takes 45 minutes for a three round match like MTG, with very fast gameplay, going into an hour and half to two hour miniature game just feels like a slow grind. I also find competitive play heavily supported, and a lot more relaxed when compared to GW games and WM, which I do love.
Dunno if anyone else has experienced this but I tend to phase in and out of games. I much prefer the painting side of the hobby, anyway. If only there was a happy medium...
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.
I can do this too.
If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.
I see you missed the intent of said post of randomly placing a quote with no context behind it.
"I'm not racist, I have black friends!" also adds nothing to any argument.
But I guess you were just too offended or something.
Aye right pal, pull the other one it has got bells on.
For one, the fact you're still pushing the "anyone who disagrees with me is an offended moral-crusader" shtick rather undermines the idea that you just posted the original quote to somehow show how super clever you were by using it out of context, given that you just happened to choose a quote that when used out of its context appears to convey exactly that argument.
For two, even in the hilariously unlikely event you were just trying to point out that the "I'm not racist..." comment was in your view a red herring, you're wrong. That remark was made in response to someone claiming that the MK1 statement couldn't possibly be sexist or homophobic, because PP is run by a woman. That's a total non-sequitur, the one has no bearing on the other; the woman could be homophobic and sexist(there are plenty of female anti-feminists afterall); she could be choosing not to assert her opinion that the screed was sexist and/or homophobic because there was a generally pro-statement atmosphere among the other senior figures at the company; or she could simply have sublimated her own opinion in pursuit of profits if the marketing department told her a sexist and/or homophobic intro statement would make the company more money. Given that it is a non-sequitur, using the "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" quote is an entirely proper use of the form, as it uses a non-sequitur to illustrate the fallacious nature of the comment being addressed. ie it does exactly what you're claiming you were trying to do, except it did it right.
I've almost never, to my knowledge, had any issue with sexism in the local Warmachine community and the rare occasion has been, I believe, driven by obliviousness rather than hostility.
The modern page 5 is a good sentiment wrapped up in some unfortunate verbiage. That said, everyone complains about overpowered and underpowered stuff as much as just about any other community anyway, so it doesn't matter.
What does this have to do with the OP, though?
I have to say, I certainly don't see most games end in stomps one way or the other. In many instances they come right down to the wire. The fact that you lose the game if your caster dies is something I initially thought would be a negative, but in practice often when someone's had a really amazing turn it's also left them exposed to a counterattack that can allow the other player to recover or take the game.
I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the OP's experience, though!
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
xxvaderxx wrote: Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.
xxvaderxx wrote: Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
Wow, really? That's the complete opposite experience of what my friends and I had. We played Warmahordes for the first time and thought, "wow, compared to 40k, I feel like I actually had an influence on the outcome of the game."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Las wrote: Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?
Las wrote: Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?
Explain?
Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.
Warmachine lack of tactics? Are you serious? I.. I can't even fathom that statement because Warmachine seems to have more tactics than 40k could ever hope to do, unless you count list building to be tactics.
The "Quidditch" mechanic as you put it is there for a reason: So there's always a chance at victory. Unlike 40k where you can get tabled on Turn 2 and have nothing that can win, there's typically always a chance in Warmachine to pull out a victory, in fact the majority of games I've seen and played have literally been down to the wire where both players have barely anything left, and someone nets a caster kill.
Also, Page 5 is to emphasize the aggressive nature of the game, which is also why some scenarios use the Kill Box (can't have your caster within 14" of a board edge), to prevent people hiding their caster the entire game. Personally Page 5 is one of the things I love about Warmachine; it comes right out and says that it's not a game you play if your goal is to steamroll everybody you fight or if you only care about winning, and to play aggressive. I will admit that Warmachine feels very metagame-y. I was actually listening to a podcast the other day that was talking about that, how in Warmachine you have to understand how the game rules work, and use it to your advantage e.g. if you have weak unit in combat with an enemy Warjack, and you have a ranged unit that could kill the Warjack, it's okay (even if typically unrealistic) to move your unit in combat out of combat and take the free strikes, because you just allowed for your own unit to kill it or to open up a charge lane or whatever.
Warmachine doesn't play "narrative", Warmachine plays like Battle Chess.
xxvaderxx wrote: Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.
xxvaderxx wrote: Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.
Ill take a look, but from everything i have seen and everything i have heard from the designer team and philosophy i stand by what i said.
The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.
The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.
Indeed.
The amount of times I've realised too late and gone "Crap, should have activated that unit first!" or forgot to put focus on a jack (yes, really) as I got too excited and caught up in the game. The times when I've had to think on my feet due to the dice betraying me (seriously, how does Butcher3 miss a Warpwolf 3 times in a row?) and having to have emergency use of my feat.
To give a specific example from last week- Butcher3 vs. Grayle. I had to think long and hard about how to use Butcher3's focus and how to activate stuff. Butcher3 was in melee with a Warpwolf Alpha who was more or less dead. I didn't want to activate Butcher as I could sneak in an assassination run if something else offed the WWA. But, alas my dice betrayed me again and I was forced to activate B3. He kills it easily and now I had to properly ponder how to use his focus.
He had his full compliment of 6 and this is where I learn that I REALLY should have cast silence of death earlier as it was an upkeep and I needed 7 focus to get the assassination run off successfully. Energizer for 1, Impending Doom for 2, Silence of Death for 2 then a flashing blade. Sadly I was out by 1 inch for catching Grayle in Impending Doom (I would have had the extra focus to get the extra inch out of Energizer had I cast SoD a turn earlier...).
Show how much you have to plan sometimes turns in advance.
xxvaderxx wrote: Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.
Plenty tactics bud.
Think less 'soccer pitch' and more 'boxing ring'.
Also, ' take the king' is a good feature. Whilst it's the main win condition when you start, as you expand your knowledge and play more, gaming for caster kill is quite cumbersome when compared to gaming for scenario. Saying the game is about this, and revolves around this is a short sighted and incorrect statement. Good players simply don't often leave casters vulnerable. It's not something you can rely on. But the fact that it's there is a good thing - it means you're always in the game. You always have a chance. It means never give up, and never be complacent. In any case, it offers pp an extra amount of design space fir when they design new casters etc.
Personally, whilst I would genuinely love to see some non-linear and attacker/defender scenarios, I find the steamroller scenarios perfect for tournaments.
The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.
Indeed.
The amount of times I've realised too late and gone "Crap, should have activated that unit first!" or forgot to put focus on a jack (yes, really) as I got too excited and caught up in the game. The times when I've had to think on my feet due to the dice betraying me (seriously, how does Butcher3 miss a Warpwolf 3 times in a row?) and having to have emergency use of my feat.
To give a specific example from last week- Butcher3 vs. Grayle. I had to think long and hard about how to use Butcher3's focus and how to activate stuff. Butcher3 was in melee with a Warpwolf Alpha who was more or less dead. I didn't want to activate Butcher as I could sneak in an assassination run if something else offed the WWA. But, alas my dice betrayed me again and I was forced to activate B3. He kills it easily and now I had to properly ponder how to use his focus.
He had his full compliment of 6 and this is where I learn that I REALLY should have cast silence of death earlier as it was an upkeep and I needed 7 focus to get the assassination run off successfully. Energizer for 1, Impending Doom for 2, Silence of Death for 2 then a flashing blade. Sadly I was out by 1 inch for catching Grayle in Impending Doom (I would have had the extra focus to get the extra inch out of Energizer had I cast SoD a turn earlier...).
Show how much you have to plan sometimes turns in advance.
All this is true in 40k, but you are not restricted in lets say the game flow. Meaning the fact that you have to pile in the center takes directly away from tactics. There is no setting an ambush, there is no hiding units, there is no controlling important areas that are not objectives them selves. Tactics is in the Movement part of the game, sure you can miss a necessary combo activation or what ever have you, but those are things you should have seen if you had run the math behind it, risk management is very limited tactically wise.
To be more crude about it, all armies in WM/WH do the same, they go in an dish it out, they go about it differently, but that is it, you have to get stuck in. While in 40k getting stuck in is just 1 tactic. Also kill the king mechanic is annoying to no end.
Warmachine is a game where you can usually accurately predict the odds of your actions, combined with how important activation order and combining abilities is and I find the game has an incredible depth and is very tactically demanding. I totally understand that it can be mentally straining to play a lot of WM/H. Still I love the battle of wits that it leads to and I actually feel like I won or lost on my own decisions.
40k I do actually enjoy still, because of the large amount of dice and randomness it's hard to accurately predict odds beyond 'probably and maybe' when you're in the middle of a game. Because of this a lot of hilarious situations can end up happening which is where I get most of my fun in 40k. (Tau battlesuits beating Orc Boyz in combat, a tank full of Incubi deepstriking, crashing and exploding, a single blaster shot destroying a battlewagon and killing a unit of boyz etc.) Unfortunately I always kind of feel like I am watching a game of 40k instead of playing it, even though one of my armies is on the table.
Zatsuku wrote: Warmachine is a game where you can usually accurately predict the odds of your actions, combined with how important activation order and combining abilities is and I find the game has an incredible depth and is very tactically demanding. I totally understand that it can be mentally straining to play a lot of WM/H. Still I love the battle of wits that it leads to and I actually feel like I won or lost on my own decisions.
40k I do actually enjoy still, because of the large amount of dice and randomness it's hard to accurately predict odds beyond 'probably and maybe' when you're in the middle of a game. Because of this a lot of hilarious situations can end up happening which is where I get most of my fun in 40k. (Tau battlesuits beating Orc Boyz in combat, a tank full of Incubi deepstriking, crashing and exploding, a single blaster shot destroying a battlewagon and killing a unit of boyz etc.) Unfortunately I always kind of feel like I am watching a game of 40k instead of playing it, even though one of my armies is on the table.
Still both are fun in different ways.
While some statistically improbable events do certainly happen, i dont think you dont quite fully understand how statistics work, because what you wrote is self contradictory.
While some statistically improbable events do certainly happen, i dont think you dont quite fully understand how statistics work, because what you wrote is self contradictory.
It's more about the fact that since I can easily predict what is going to happen in Warmachine I don't often take the kind of risks that lead to those kinds of events that I described in 40k.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.
I can do this too.
If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.
I see you missed the intent of said post of randomly placing a quote with no context behind it.
"I'm not racist, I have black friends!" also adds nothing to any argument.
But I guess you were just too offended or something.
Aye right pal, pull the other one it has got bells on.
For one, the fact you're still pushing the "anyone who disagrees with me is an offended moral-crusader" shtick rather undermines the idea that you just posted the original quote to somehow show how super clever you were by using it out of context, given that you just happened to choose a quote that when used out of its context appears to convey exactly that argument.
For two, even in the hilariously unlikely event you were just trying to point out that the "I'm not racist..." comment was in your view a red herring, you're wrong. That remark was made in response to someone claiming that the MK1 statement couldn't possibly be sexist or homophobic, because PP is run by a woman. That's a total non-sequitur, the one has no bearing on the other; the woman could be homophobic and sexist(there are plenty of female anti-feminists afterall); she could be choosing not to assert her opinion that the screed was sexist and/or homophobic because there was a generally pro-statement atmosphere among the other senior figures at the company; or she could simply have sublimated her own opinion in pursuit of profits if the marketing department told her a sexist and/or homophobic intro statement would make the company more money. Given that it is a non-sequitur, using the "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" quote is an entirely proper use of the form, as it uses a non-sequitur to illustrate the fallacious nature of the comment being addressed. ie it does exactly what you're claiming you were trying to do, except it did it right.
Must be said to be the only one who didn't get why he posted it. But, there is no need to try defend yourself, that just makes it sad instaed of a easy mistake that could of happened to anyone.
All this is true in 40k, but you are not restricted in lets say the game flow. Meaning the fact that you have to pile in the center takes directly away from tactics.
40k has random objectives. meaning often times there is no point even coming to the table with a coherent plan in the first place.
Plus - the centre pile in isnt devoid of tactics. boxing ring, not soccer pitch. it might seem like small movements and shuffles, but its still tense and engaging. those movements still matter. In any case- how do you get to the centre? is your first wave the big hitter? Or the expendable soakage. is your second wave support, or concentrated force? are you seeking the alpha strike, or beta strike? or will you hold the centre and flank with cavalry? where will you pivot? what happens when the left, or right flag disappears? Or are you just running forward as far and as fast as you can go, or do you have a plan? its a lot more than just "piling into the centre".
there is hiding. you cant see beyond 3" into terrain. there is also other LOS blocking effects. then there is stealth which "hides" you from ranged attacks. then there are various spells and abilities that prevent targetting effects etc.
there is no controlling important areas that are not objectives them selves.
when the tau do this its a good thing! ground is irrelevant in itself, its only relevant as a position from which to make a kill. makes sense to me. and if a hill, or a centrally placed piece of terrain offers an advantage, expect a scrap over it.
Tactics is in the Movement part of the game, sure you can miss a necessary combo activation or what ever have you, but those are things you should have seen if you had run the math behind it.
considering movement is the one phase which really allows "positioning", aside from the effects in the control phase, it kinda makes sense that movement and tactics would be interlinked. but to be fair, tactics plays roles elswhere. spell casting, for example. when, where, how? feats. the same. look at attacks. do you punch them or seek to double hand throw that warbeast out of position? do you go with a mass of attacks, or go all in on one big combined attack? trust me - tactics flows through every aspect of the game, not just movement.
To be more crude about it, all armies in WM/WH do the same, they go in an dish it out, they go about it differently, but that is it, you have to get stuck in. While in 40k getting stuck in is just 1 tactic.
so thats why gunlines worked so well in 6th ed 40k!
and PP wanted to push an aggressive "in your face" game. getting stuck in is an aspect of that. they simply didnt want games where people lines up in their deployment zones and shot at each other with no more thought than "how do i set up".
Now, to be fair - Id like to see more non-linear and abstracted scenarios - i'd love to see more attacker/defender missions. PP focus on steamroller formats for their organised play, but there is no reason you couldnt tweak any of their older campaign maps, or campaign scenarios for the current game. there is no reason you couldnt import mission types from other games amongst your local group. you'll only get out of the game what you're willing to put in.
xxvaderxx wrote: . Also kill the king mechanic is annoying to no end.
feature. not bug. caster kill as a mechanic offers
(a) design space for PP. they have variety in how they can design new units.
(b) vital plan b alternative for a losing player. it means if he goes behind, he's still in the game. its not over until its over. I've heard of plenty guys playing 7th ed 40k where one guy wins just by picking random mission cards and he goes ahead by a load of points just by finishing his turn. player 2 has no options. frankly, having a plan be to keep you in the game is a good thing.
(c0 vital consideration for a winning player. dont get cocky. dont get complacent. you can be ahead on scenario points. guess what? you can still mess up and lose.
(D) your commander on the field actually matters. It always bothered me how, in 40k, your commander dies and no one really cares - thry just carry on as normal...
This "you have to pile in the center" notion represents a real shallow level of thinking when it comes to the game. At the moment a very powerful archetype is the purification gunline.
It's a warcaster with a apell that removes upkeep spells (usually buffs and debuffs) and then a lot of shooting stuff.
If you face such an army and just pile into the middle, your opponent will remove the protective spells you had on your stuff and chew you up with gunfire. If you are running the purification gunline army then you need to walk the fine line between being able to contest the objectives and getting your ranged stuff engaged.
You end up with a very tense situation where people are maximizing the terrain, thinking about threat ranges, and trying to assess the other person's force and plan. For example, the enemy might be have really good non-upkeep defenses against your guns. Or they might actually out shoot you. Or they might give everyone of your units the wrong target and you'll have to reposition as an additional tactical consideration.
And that's just talking about a couple of the issues involved with one archetype. And the archetype s can be fake outs where you think they're trying to win one way and instead they go for another. When you can change one model and the entire focus of the army changes, it's pretty easy to have a non obvious real plan.
Anyone who thinks WM/H is about just charging up the middle and fighting it out until you get a caster kill is not even aware of the real factors needed to assess the game. I have met some WM/H players who themselves never get past such shallow thinking. They'll still get a game with some very chess like thinking, but they're missing out on what's really there inside the game.
Las wrote: Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?
Explain?
Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.
You don't win by catching the snitch(that's a side effect more often than not from the 50 points it awards), you end the game. They make a point in at least 2 books that you can catch the snitch and still lose. In fact, they point out that NOT catching it and preventing the other team from doing likewise is a valid tactic to prolong the game so you can close the gap points wise and Harry himself catches it in one game precisely to just end it because they're losing by so much.
So, the Golden Snitch, while decent, isn't the best analogy for a Caster/Lock.
Las wrote: Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?
Explain?
Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.
You don't win by catching the snitch(that's a side effect more often than not from the 50 points it awards), you end the game. They make a point in at least 2 books that you can catch the snitch and still lose. In fact, they point out that NOT catching it and preventing the other team from doing likewise is a valid tactic to prolong the game so you can close the gap points wise and Harry himself catches it in one game precisely to just end it because they're losing by so much.
So, the Golden Snitch, while decent, isn't the best analogy for a Caster/Lock.
I was going purely from memory there. I think I need to brush up on my Harry Potter knowledge.
so thats why gunlines worked so well in 6th ed 40k!
Gunlines in fact worked very well in 6th, still do in 7th. They are mobile and its not just who and what shots but from where as well that matters. Kind of difficult to explain in WM terms, when the only direction that matters is forward.
Now, to be fair - Id like to see more non-linear and abstracted scenarios - i'd love to see more attacker/defender missions. PP focus on steamroller formats for their organised play, but there is no reason you couldnt tweak any of their older campaign maps, or campaign scenarios for the current game. there is no reason you couldnt import mission types from other games amongst your local group. you'll only get out of the game what you're willing to put in.
Warmahordes is all about model placement and taking board space by threat extension or guns---while trying to prevent scenario loss. After you play awhile, this evolves into piece trading and spending resources (Namely your Warnoun's Focus/Fury pool) to satisfy my first sentence. I think it's the most tactically rewarding tabletop game I've played to date. I played 40k for years (and years and years...) and usually it boiled down to army lists and target priority. There was some piece trading involved but due to the very long ranges present in the game, it seemed like it boiled down to either deathstars that could weather shooting or target priority...which didn't feel very rewarding to me..but that's me I suppose. I can't speak directly to modern day 40k as I no longer play it but from games I've watched at the LGS (before it died out completely), it seemed like a lot of rolling on charts and target priority shooting. Which, if that's player's cup of tea, really doesn't bother my knickers any--just not for me anymore.
xxvaderxx wrote: Gunlines in fact worked very well in 6th, still do in 7th. They are mobile and its not just who and what shots but from where as well that matters. Kind of difficult to explain in WM terms, when the only direction that matters is forward.
When I choose to fire my Redeemer (part of my version of the above mentioned Purification Gunline list- incidentally also a model from the very first WM book) I have several considerations. Yes, I must choose the target but even before that I've already made a choice- to do the Redeemer's activation at this point relative to the rest of my army. Positioning still matters for the unactivated portions of my army, who can exploit any gaps or damage I may do. But wait up, before even select the Redeemer I've got to remember to have activated the Chior for the Hymn of Battle bonus (which of course has issue of having a Chior member within 3" and Battle being the preferred Hymn to use on not just the Redeemer but my other jacks, since the benefit is the same for all). Ah but of course before even *that* I'll have to plan out my focus allocation in the Control Phase, powering the Redeemer up for the turn to come. Hope I've remembered to give it enough Focus to do the job. Ah ok so now, after all that- and any other unit activating, like say a Flare from the Reckoner for the +2 to hit that offsets the Redeemers innate -4, I can activate my Redeemer. Shall I move it or would I prefer the +2 Aiming bonus from forfeiting my movement? Sure would help hit stuff. Wait, this is a Purification list, do I want to Purify- activate my caster- first?
At this point I am now at the 'pick a target' step. Now I can consider the targets DEF (defense) rating, if they're in cover or concealment, whether they've been badly placed or turned their back to me when they charged last turn. Anyone knocked down? Engaged in combat? And of course range but that's not usually a problem for a Redeemer. There's a few other things to consider, like Vengeance, Hyper Aggressive and Force Barrier but that's just something a good player stays on top of. So after all that I've picked my target. Now I just have to determine how I want to spend my focus points between more attacks, more accuracy or more damage.
And you know what? This process is exactly the same- replace the Aiming bonus with Charge bonus- for melee. It's within all those mechanics and choices, all that timing and awareness that the exact same models on the exact same table allow a good player to get more out of them than an average player. It's been repeated over and over by WM players- how you use the models matters. It's so much more than 'run forward, throw attacks' because if that's your strategy a) you're in for a rude surprise when it's a dual zone scenario b) you're going to get infinitely frustrated by spells like Freezing Grip, Breathstealer, Rebuke, Time Bomb, Rift, Burning Ash, Caustic Mist, Crippling Grasp or Temporal Barrier (or I'm sure others I've forgotten) that are going to slow your front line to a crawl and/or utterly destroy their ability to charge. Now there may well be times when bricking up *is* the way to go but to pretend it's some sort of default is absurd. Like every other choice you should do it when it's the best strategy available to you. Often it is not.
Steamroller is a particular tournament rules set, not a 'style' of play. A very well balanced one at that, available for free if you click that link. When I have a game of WM all I need to do is ask my opponent for a points value then roll on the table for scenario. Game on.
Another archetypes I think we'll see at the big Gencon tournaments are beast or jack heavy "no reprisals" type forces where you can attack and then largely avoid the counter attack (or be counter attacked in such a way you end up ahead on the piece trade). Legion is really good at it, Cyriss does it well with jacks with some casters. Circle does it well also.
I think we'll also see more solo heavy "oceans X" style armies. They're growing in popularity and are a natural match for casters that can super-solo. Cygnar players who don't take eHaley will often merc solo spam with someone like eCaine. Retribution is actually silly good with high numbers of activations. They can probably be the most punishing to middling skill players who try to be too aggressive and just push the middle. I've seen a lot of Terminus players lose to Rahn, a magister and two mage hunter assassins on the bottom of turn 2.
It took forever for the American competitive meta to see the potential in a Xerxes medium base meat army, but it's finally showing up more. Father Lucant's fat robot recycling will also be a thing to watch out for.
I think part of the thing that has allowed for this level of tactical depth is that the rules work and the point system is roughly okay as well. You can take some anti-synergistic choices and your points of models will do less than other options, but as a whole, you can't build this kind of tactical depth at the highest level of play if the foundation is made up of mushy rules and bad balance.
xxvaderxx wrote: Gunlines in fact worked very well in 6th, still do in 7th. They are mobile and its not just who and what shots but from where as well that matters. Kind of difficult to explain in WM terms, when the only direction that matters is forward.
When I choose to fire my Redeemer (part of my version of the above mentioned Purification Gunline list- incidentally also a model from the very first WM book) I have several considerations. Yes, I must choose the target but even before that I've already made a choice- to do the Redeemer's activation at this point relative to the rest of my army. Positioning still matters for the unactivated portions of my army, who can exploit any gaps or damage I may do. But wait up, before even select the Redeemer I've got to remember to have activated the Chior for the Hymn of Battle bonus (which of course has issue of having a Chior member within 3" and Battle being the preferred Hymn to use on not just the Redeemer but my other jacks, since the benefit is the same for all). Ah but of course before even *that* I'll have to plan out my focus allocation in the Control Phase, powering the Redeemer up for the turn to come. Hope I've remembered to give it enough Focus to do the job. Ah ok so now, after all that- and any other unit activating, like say a Flare from the Reckoner for the +2 to hit that offsets the Redeemers innate -4, I can activate my Redeemer. Shall I move it or would I prefer the +2 Aiming bonus from forfeiting my movement? Sure would help hit stuff. Wait, this is a Purification list, do I want to Purify- activate my caster- first?
At this point I am now at the 'pick a target' step. Now I can consider the targets DEF (defense) rating, if they're in cover or concealment, whether they've been badly placed or turned their back to me when they charged last turn. Anyone knocked down? Engaged in combat? And of course range but that's not usually a problem for a Redeemer. There's a few other things to consider, like Vengeance, Hyper Aggressive and Force Barrier but that's just something a good player stays on top of. So after all that I've picked my target. Now I just have to determine how I want to spend my focus points between more attacks, more accuracy or more damage.
And you know what? This process is exactly the same- replace the Aiming bonus with Charge bonus- for melee. It's within all those mechanics and choices, all that timing and awareness that the exact same models on the exact same table allow a good player to get more out of them than an average player. It's been repeated over and over by WM players- how you use the models matters. It's so much more than 'run forward, throw attacks' because if that's your strategy a) you're in for a rude surprise when it's a dual zone scenario b) you're going to get infinitely frustrated by spells like Freezing Grip, Breathstealer, Rebuke, Time Bomb, Rift, Burning Ash, Caustic Mist, Crippling Grasp or Temporal Barrier (or I'm sure others I've forgotten) that are going to slow your front line to a crawl and/or utterly destroy their ability to charge. Now there may well be times when bricking up *is* the way to go but to pretend it's some sort of default is absurd. Like every other choice you should do it when it's the best strategy available to you. Often it is not.
Steamroller is a particular tournament rules set, not a 'style' of play. A very well balanced one at that, available for free if you click that link. When I have a game of WM all I need to do is ask my opponent for a points value then roll on the table for scenario. Game on.
Also please keep in mind what this fine young internet poster didn't add are more things that need to be thought about...
There are so very many more and these are just off the top of my head as I was reading the quoted post.
Am I going to feat this turn? Did my opponent feat or is he/she likely to? If I shoot that unit over there is it going to free up a lane for something to charge my jack / unit, or my caster? So many many choice and action/reactions that go on in WM.
Another thing that adds tactical depth is that models attack models. So rather than having a whole unit attack a whole unit as a single decision point, you can have individual models splitting their fire any way you want.
frozenwastes wrote: Another thing that adds tactical depth is that models attack models. So rather than having a whole unit attack a whole unit as a single decision point, you can have individual models splitting their fire any way you want.
Or having only a few models charge and the others run somewhere else (like onto the objective...etc).
And when you get things like combined melee or combined range going you have to make decisions about multiple attacks at lower strength, or less attacks at higher accuracy and strength.
While Gun Mages get all the chicks, it's still a thing of beauty to see a pHaley feat turn temporal barrier Long Gunner waterfall, zeroing in on the right targets with the right amounts of volley fire and then realizing they over concentrated because there's a priority target with a shield guard model near by. So then they do the last couple shots individually and hope to get enough successful damaging hits to compensate for the once per round shield guard move. All the while the opponent is sitting there and assessing which model they need to protect from which shot.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't think they need to expand into larger games. 35 to 50, depending on the points values of each model, is roughly the model count that 40k was when it grew from being a house game made by the UK importer of D&D to being the internationally played miniature game.
People may say they want the big battles of 40k with 100+ models per side, but the game size that sells well across the board and made 40k the big deal it was at it's height is a lot closer to 35-50 points of warmachine than not.
Thing is, when people build up their collections, they naturally want to use them on tabletop. When I began 40k, a 1000 point game felt big. Nowadays, I don't feel like getting out of bed under 1500, and more would be better. Unfortunately, for a newcomer, big armies are intimidating in many ways (playing time, painting, cost). This is a conundrum for tabletop games. It is well known that WHFB suffers from being such a dinosaur, 40k armies have got bigger over time (though 6th edition briefly reversed the trend) and WM players too have kinda began to complain how big the games are getting.
The norm around here for casual 40k is like 3000+ point games.... its absolutely stupid, a 6x4 table is already too small for you to play a proper game of 40k at 1500 points, at 3000 you might as wrll be refighting the bloody napoleonic wars, no room to maneuver, wimply line up and roll dice until something happens as you slog one another (which is a bit unfair as the napoleonic wars were actually very maneuver intensive, but anyway)
Then my local store hosted a torunament, just shy of 30 players, many of them from outside the immediate area... everyone brought a 2000 pt list, built using the San Francisco Bay Area Open rules (which are inte ded to balance things out and prevent stupidity from ensuing). Every list was virtually identical, minimum troops and as many flyers/monstrous creatures/tanks as possible. Turns out a 2000pt 40k tourny list has a smaller model count than my average 35 pt WMHDs list.
so thats why gunlines worked so well in 6th ed 40k!
Gunlines in fact worked very well in 6th, still do in 7th. They are mobile and its not just who and what shots but from where as well that matters. Kind of difficult to explain in WM terms, when the only direction that matters is forward.
Indeed. They worked. Which was my point. And thry also worked at the expense of a lot of other styles of play. Assault armies, for one.
Remember - your point was all warmachine armies play the same, and 40k armies don't. And yet I've seen every 40k edition since third boil down to a handful of builds playing the same way.
Now, to be fair - Id like to see more non-linear and abstracted scenarios - i'd love to see more attacker/defender missions. PP focus on steamroller formats for their organised play, but there is no reason you couldnt tweak any of their older campaign maps, or campaign scenarios for the current game. there is no reason you couldnt import mission types from other games amongst your local group. you'll only get out of the game what you're willing to put in.
Nice to see you agree with me.
Steamroller isn't everything bud. That was the point.
And the thing is- which some people seem determined to miss- that Page 5 comes up about as much at WM events as the Foreword/Designer's Notes in a 40K book does at 40K events.
Can you imagine someone saying 'Well I read the Foreword to the rules... I'll discount the 40K based on that!' yet that's precisely what some do with WM. Not part of the fluff, not part of the aesthetic, not part of the rules but a Foreword. To me that seems like looking for a reason to criticise and grasping the longest straw you can find.
The people take the piss out of 'Forge the Narrative' is because it's used as an excuse for bad rules writing, whereas Page 5 is used as an excuse to accuse someone of being a dick.
And the thing is- which some people seem determined to miss- that Page 5 comes up about as much at WM events as the Foreword/Designer's Notes in a 40K book does at 40K events.
Can you imagine someone saying 'Well I read the Foreword to the rules... I'll discount the 40K based on that!' yet that's precisely what some do with WM. Not part of the fluff, not part of the aesthetic, not part of the rules but a Foreword. To me that seems like looking for a reason to criticise and grasping the longest straw you can find.
I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.
Las wrote: I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person. If someone accuses me of killing kittens then I'm going to get defensive, but that shouldn't add any weight to the case that I'm a kitten-murderer. Yes, you can say "Oh, I mean unconscious or culturally rooted sexism / racism, I'm not accusing you directly.", as also comes up in these arguments, but that always feels like a dodge to me, a way to provide plausible deniability that you're not actually attacking someone.
While I'm not saying they're never warranted, such accusations are imbalanced by nature. If I accuse you, or something you like, of being sexist or racist, even if the accusation is obviously (to you) unwarranted, you might notice it's extremely hard to defend against it while coming across as not being wilfully insensitive. In part, that's a good thing--it indicates that there is a strong taboo attached to being bigoted, and that we don't want to be regarded as such a person. But the problem with something becoming a sensitive & taboo topic is that the standard of proof is lowered, and this makes it a prime target for people who want to win an argument without the bother of actually having an argument. This isn't unique to accusations of bigotry, it's the root reason behind every tiresome rhetorical trick we see on these and other forums. If an argument or accusation can agitate people simply by being made, then it will be abused on the internet.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that while there is still a very real problem with sexism in general and in this hobby, that doesn't mean that every accusation of such is automatically merited, or that the only reasons someone would deny it in a specific case is wilful blindness.
I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.
I think we've all met that jackass who makes us wince, the one who'll make unfunny and misogynistic jokes, and then claim he was just kidding and why so serious? Nobody with a glimmer of self-awareness wants to be that guy.
But then we come to the question of if sexually discriminating language and stereotypes get a pass if they're being used in a clearly ironic and exaggerated way, or if they're quoting long-established phrases and usages--"Do X like you've got a pair." is much more striking and catchy than "Do X like you have qualities of courage and brashness that are traditionally associated with exemplifying masculinity.". Few of us would claim that saying "Wow, that took balls." implies that a woman would not be capable of a similar act of audacious bravery.
The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:
A: "Heh, that's pretty funny. I understand that give the context, it was meant as a comical exaggeration, and I don't think they're having a go at me personally."
or
B: "Well, looks like they're writing towards macho males, and this isn't for me."
It comes down to if you consider A or B to be the more common reaction. Personally, speaking for nobody but myself and given the context, I'm inclined to go with A and regard it as intentionally over the top, clearly enough that I consider that A will be the more common reaction.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person.
Literally all of us hold racist and sexist views. They're part of our culture and we're steeped in them. It doesn't make you a bad person. Nothing makes you a bad person. Actions are bad, people aren't.
Elemental wrote: The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:
Reactions aren't binary. Stuff like that is offputting by some amount. How much people care and what impact it has in the end will depend on the person and their circumstance.
On long-established phrases and usages, I'm just going to link Douglas Hofstadter because it's in my browser at the moment and it's pretty spectacular and everyone should read it.
But like I said, I haven't found the Warmachine community to be particularly unusual due to page 5. People don't really pay any attention to it at all.
Las wrote: Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.
It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.
That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person.
Literally all of us hold racist and sexist views. They're part of our culture and we're steeped in them. It doesn't make you a bad person. Nothing makes you a bad person. Actions are bad, people aren't.
If that wasn't what some people wished to imply with such accusations, I wouldn't see "Check your privilege" and the like being used so often as a glib dismissal. Again, the social theory is one thing, but the way that it is often made cruder and deployed scattershot on the Internet to win arguments is massively different.
Elemental wrote: The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:
Reactions aren't binary. Stuff like that is offputting by some amount. How much people care and what impact it has in the end will depend on the person and their circumstance.
Claiming that it is always offputting is also a simplification.
I was having this discussion, about different games bring different things to the table with my old gaming group while I was up visiting family yesterday.
War machine has the tightest rules around. But unless you are into a more tourment mind, games like the OP happen. My old group is into mailifax, which is fun in a more beer and pretzels way similar to mordiem.
However, since I moved away, and no long in a group, I have less interest in war machine or mailifax. But with the new ork release, I've a renewed interest in 40k at least modeling/conversion wise, something hard to do in warmachine.
Depends on what you're looking for. Any game opponents can get crushed in.......
This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.
40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.
Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.
I know when I was looking for a new game when MKI was out, I read page 5. I took the page's advise. I put the book down and walked away. It was very clear that Warmachine was not the game for me. That's okay and I appreciated not having to waste my time or money on it.
It is not the type of gaming I promote or care for. I personally would rather that it wasn't so popular based solely on what I read there. However I also realize I'm not the arbiter of fun for everyone else.
I like that 40K is focusing on forging the narrative, but I think the way they go about it is not good. I prefer games that focus on telling a story, have scenario play, and require a bit of work/thought by the players to put together something that is fun and interesting to play. I prefer collaboration and see the act of playing a game as a covenant between two players to have fun and entertain each other; not a competition.
That said, play what you want to play. I actually envy people who can get enjoyment from all types of games. I am not one of those people.
"Forging the narrative" is also completely backwards. Humans are narrative machines. You simply have them experience a series of results and they will naturally cobble together a narrative. This idea that you can have the results themselves matter less because you actively need to forge the narrative is nonsense. If you really want to "forge the narrative" then just have good rules that are balanced well so people have the opportunity to naturally cobble together the events of a game into a story.
Barfolomew wrote: This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.
40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.
Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.
In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:
35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions
In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:
5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions
To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.
Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.
40K almost got me out of wargaming to be completely honest. It was boring because
-codex vs codex imbalance
-horrible codex release schedule
-internal codex imbalance
-random objectives reduced strategy
-random terrain reduced strategy
-d6 s reduced consistant results
-despite playing huge games, you have a very simple rock paper scissors mechanic
- y rules writing
-AP system made some matches horrible and some matches extremely easy
-Felt like playing on a congested highway, when I was trying to run a mobile list
-Close combat is clunky
-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.
-Takes 3 hours to play a game
-Wound mechanic+instakill mechanic clunky.
-Shooting is based on 1 stat
-Game is often decided on turn 1, leaving losing player bored
Now in contrast, warmachine is amazing because:
-All agressive actions take both models stats into account
-Synergy between models makes the game more complex while reducing gameplay time
-Armor+box mechanic is much smoother and balanced against all types of damage
-Takes 45 minutes to an hour and a half to play
-Faction vs Faction is balanced
-While internal faction balance is not perfect, every single unit in the game can be used without killing competitive play
-Due to scenario+caster kill as ways of winning, the game is almost never over.
-Due to scenario+caster kill as ways of winning, balance between agressive action and defensive action make for an insteresting game
-2D6 and 3D6 make getting results more consistent, allowing for more tactical play
-Scenarios are tightly designed
-Tight rules set
-Piece count allows for manuevering
-Game scales well
Easy E wrote: I know when I was looking for a new game when MKI was out, I read page 5. I took the page's advise. I put the book down and walked away. It was very clear that Warmachine was not the game for me. That's okay and I appreciated not having to waste my time or money on it.
It is not the type of gaming I promote or care for. I personally would rather that it wasn't so popular based solely on what I read there. However I also realize I'm not the arbiter of fun for everyone else.
I like that 40K is focusing on forging the narrative, but I think the way they go about it is not good. I prefer games that focus on telling a story, have scenario play, and require a bit of work/thought by the players to put together something that is fun and interesting to play. I prefer collaboration and see the act of playing a game as a covenant between two players to have fun and entertain each other; not a competition.
Original pg.5 was a big turnoff for me as well, I often like to play defensive game where I build myself an unassilable position. It mirrored with some negative experiences I had in MtG.
I love 40k's "cinematicism", but I agree that in some ways they are trying to force it upon the players. Currently, 40k is pretty much like they have written The Simpsons in last 10+ seasons: "Hmm, I'm out of ideas, what next? -Well lets roll the dice and consult The Simpsons Plot Progression Chart! Ok, the results are...'Homer...hits himself...in the face...with pie'. OMG that is so hilarious! A pie! This is comedy gold! Our viewers will love it!"
I almost never play with random terrain or objectives. I mean, I get it, that sort of thing has its place, but it's not everywhere.
Now in contrast, warmachine is amazing because:
-All agressive actions take both models stats into account
Just to nitpick- for I do love the PP system- this has always bugged me. You have a melee attack stat and a ranged attack stat, which I'm fine with, but then only a single defense stat. This always seemed off to me. A skilled swordsman should be exceedingly difficult to hit in melee but not significantly more difficult than any other man sized thing with a gun. Conversely a trooper who is fine shooting from a crouching or prone position should be harder to hit at range than the knight who has little choice but to run towards you.
Agreed, but also realize that in 40k, even though you roll WS vs. WS, even if you're like 4 points lower you still always hit on a 4+. I hate that! Why can this f*%$ing guardsman have a 50/50 shot of hitting my hive tyrant?!
slowthar wrote: Agreed, but also realize that in 40k, even though you roll WS vs. WS, even if you're like 4 points lower you still always hit on a 4+. I hate that! Why can this f*%$ing guardsman have a 50/50 shot of hitting my hive tyrant?!
Balance? TBH I'd find it more ridiculous if they had zero way of hitting it.
Personally I find Warmachine to be refreshing tactics-wise, although I will agree that the game really feels mechanical and very meta-like due to rules that exist by virtue of it being a game. I don't personally mind that, as I'd rather have a game than a simulation, but it does feel like you're playing a tabletop CCG when you get into all the counters/tokens, or AOE rings or whatnot on the field.
slowthar wrote: In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:
35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions
In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:
5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions
To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.
Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.
About players, it is true those from Warmachine/Horde are often seen as "hardcore merciless bastards", who play at the letter of the rule and crush you without a pause. This is mainly because the rules are so precise and the games are meant to be fast and furious - but also because they were taught the "hard way" how to play. Players at Warmachine/Horde are used to rules with no loopholes and strict wording, they expect people in front of them to play the same. When you come from 40k, it's quite a whole different world ('cause you're forced in 40k to "have a point of view" with the rules) and it can be difficult to adapt.
40k is also full of randomness, while Warmachine/Horde gives more strategy to the players. Of course, there are dices as well in Warmachine/Horde - but randomness can be more easily controlled than in 40k. In V7, you practically throw dices for everything, even for objectives -'cause, you know, "throwing plenty of dices is fun!". It's just the ways game designers see their games are very different.
40k, however, is more free; you can do whatever you want however you want. It is also very easy to design your own character. So, the "Forge your narrative" takes all its sense in that way; you don't have to take a named character to play a game, like in Warmachine/Horde; you can make your own story with you own heroes. And indeed, with 40k, it's much more suited.
But of course, you can make your own characters/units in Warmachine/Horde. Rulesets aren't that difficult, after all. It's just that you're so used to characters with their own background and balanced powers that you don't always think about it first.
For tournaments, I would rather recommand Warmachine/Horde, however. The game is pretty much made for that kind of things. And you lose much less time fighting about rules than actually playing the game. Doesn't mean it's less brain draining, though; but at least, it's not because of a headache about the interpretation on which way Kairos's frontview is!
Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.
Plus with warmachine you can use what you like, there are no people who tell you what you cannot use. Frankly the game has a zing to it that 40k just does not have at all.
Plus you can usually tell where you made a mistake, not get hard-countered by your list etc.
Butcher 3 hurts when applied to a player who did not know what he could do, axe-to-face indeed
That is a very good point; one thing that currently is messing me up with such a large 40k background is that 40k requires rules interpretation, Warmachine a rule means what it means with very little or no ambiguity; you don't have to infer anything from the rule, it does what it says.
Art_of_war wrote: Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.
While I appreciate your perspective, perhaps we should avoid broad brush strokes in general (as seen in bold). Personal experiences aside, it's a good way to get peoples hackles up. And we've been doing good thus far.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. Though you'll eventually find fething fethers in any game/sport/hobby/life.
Barfolomew wrote: This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.
40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.
Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.
In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:
35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions
In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:
5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions
To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.
Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.
Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.
Well, your list building is indeed important in Warmachine/Horde, but since the opponent can always have a "Sudden Death" victory by a smart move on the board, it is more about how you put your models and play them good while wondering about what your opponent will do with his own.
40k is more about throwing plenty of dices. Of course, playing smart is also important...there is just much more randomness than control in the hands of players while playing on the board. For example, difficult terrain are handled quite differently; in 40k, you throw dices - in Warmachine/Horde, you divide your movement by 2.
Barfolomew wrote: This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.
40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.
Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.
In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:
35% codex selection 50% list selection 15% in-game decisions
In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:
5% army selection 20% list selection 75% in-game decisions
To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.
Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.
Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.
Not really. In a game "all about combos and unit interactions" the army list is surprisingly very little. Sure, there are some units that are better than others, but there's no unit that is actively so bad that taking it hurts your chances of winning (see 40k), and while there are netlists, you can't just go and pull up a list that won a tournament and expect to win.
So not that biased at all. List building isn't a big portion of Warmachine. You can almost only buy units and warjacks that you like the look of, and make a viable army. Try doing that in 40k. You'll almost never see "Unit X sucks, take Unit Y instead" in Warmachine like you will in 40k. Instead you'll see how to make the most of Unit X.
Sarouan wrote: 40k is more about throwing plenty of dices.
I hate being that guy and I have a feeling English isn't your primary language, but I feel the need to inform you that the word "dice" is already plural and doesn't require an "s" to be added to it.
Lol 20% list selection? really? in a game that is all about combos and unit interaction army list is 20% of it... Biased much?.
Yeah I'd put it at 20% at the most. You can't download the latest tournament winning list and do anything except lose horribly. You need to learn how to use your list appropriately and can't rely on it being "better" than your opponents. It might swing the game if two equal players meet, one with an optimal list and one without, but having a better list will hardly ever make it easy for you to win.
It's hilarious when people take the latest big tournament winning list and try to play it without figuring out that they have to actually pilot it intelligently.
I think 20% is high, but if you do accidentally put in some anti-synergy, it can make things not work. But you'd have to play against type to do that. Like taking a Kara Sloan and then no jacks with guns in her battle group. Even then though, the list may have strength I'm not considering. Like when people take Rahn and no other spell casters to buff with his feat and then people find out that him just buffing his own spell casting is good enough and they lose to the "bad list".
Isn't understanding your chosen faction, and how the models in that faction work together, part of list building? I am not understanding the emphasis placed on in-game decisions over list building when what you place on the game table impacts the game experience so drastically.
When I played WM in MK 1 I think I'd have given list building and in-game choices an almost even ranking in terms of importance with army selection a very minor consideration. Call it 40%, 50% and 10% respectively. Before a game I would spend quite a while working on lists, devising combinations that I wanted to see on the game table (or use against a known opponent) and generally running the future game through numerous contingencies in my head until I had a list I was confident could help me win. Of course all that planning is meaningless when the dice hit the table, so of course in-game decisions are extremely important, but I feel like I am missing why so little credit is given to lists in this discussion.
xxvaderxx wrote: Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.
Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.
Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.
Interestingly I think that in the new Iron Gauntlet, list building does come a bit higher into the % (I'm not willing to place a number on it yet though).
You are bringing 3x 50pt lists and if you make it to the final 4 in the tournament you have to create a 75pt list based only on what you have already in the 3 lists..... (and seeing which caster you and your opponent are going to be playing)
Not really a fan of 75pt games but its an interesting concept and does put more emphasis on the list building both tactically (at the 50pt level) and strategically (if I make it to the final 4 can i make something synergistic at 75).
xxvaderxx wrote: Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.
Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.
Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.
What is the 40k parallel?
The post you linked to is a good one, it's a great way of illuminating the decision making process to non warmahords players (though much of the terminology is lost on us, but that's fair). I think it also does a great job of illuminating the differences is game mechanics between the two systems.
Warmahords seems to be much more about unit ability activation and resource management. I believe that this offers a range of tactical choices that are as significant as they are different than their counter parts in 40k and defines the divide between the two player bases views of each other. Warmahords players think 40k is about throwing dice and taking models off of the table, 40k players think warmahordes is about fiddling with tokens and running straight at the enemy.
In 40k, the tactics are much more visually and physically dynamic than warmachine. It comes down to one of the most important facets of the game which is (in my opinion) vastly under recognized by the online community, that being terrain and its relationship with TLOS. Shooting is king in 40k. It is a system where things are meant to die. A lot. That is why people advocate redundancy in lists, because you have to expect that gak is going to die and you need to be prepared for that.
Which brings us to terrain. Contrary to people's perception about random terrain being the 'official' way of playing; 40k should be played with lots of terrain.Because things will die a player that can utilize terrain to their advantage will gain the upper hand and that is where the tactics take on a more visually dynamic nature than warmachine in my opinion. In 40k you need to catch units out in the open, you need to hide your fragile units in cover in order to see them survive, you have to swing units around corners to hit the soft rear armour of vehicles, you have to force your enemy to be distracted and waste time killing what you want because something else is completely out of LOS until the firing lane is clear. With this comes target selection, weighing odds, thinking about maneuvering one or two turns in advance and whether or not you can afford to delay. You need to force your opponent to play by your rules.Terrain is also your best bet for getting those 'useless' assault units into the enemy, which can totally ruin their day. These things facilitate the importance outflanking and reserves which in turn forces players to think ahead. On the table top this kind of game looks very different than warmahordes.
This is also why the game is played with objectives. You guys mention that the caster kill is there to ensure that losing players still have a chance to win games. The same thing can be said about 40k. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen 40k games go the 'losing' player because they skillfully played the objective game, grabbing an important one at the last minute or by feinting the enemy into leaving one open across the board.
Things are moving in all sorts of directions which to some people is a more interesting form of tactics than the more technical ability driven system of warmachine where, yes, under the surface there's a lot more going on than two armies running into a giant scrum, but that is how most warmahordes games look.
40k has ability driven mechanics (the psychic phase, deciding which weapon to use in CC and when etc) but it isn't what is really important, just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.
Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.
This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.
Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.
The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.
And Lars, no one will take your opinion seriously until you can muster the same nerd rage over the sexism of 40k that you were spouting off about warmachine. Otherwise, is just more noise that you blether for pointless rage against a game that you simply prefer not to play. If you refuse to give warmachine the benefit of the doubt over that, then you should have rage quit 40k a long time ago.
Listbuilding in WMH is very different to list building in 40k. I think PP did it better, but its hard to say how important one is vs the other.
In 40k the ability to spam units creates very different list building. You create a list and check off the requirements: Do I have anti-tank? anti-flyer? Anti-MC? Scoring units? tick tick tick. It is relatively simple to find the best units in your codex at particular jobs (and often they will be the best at multiple jobs) and just take as many of that unit as possible. There are some types of units that simply don't work - eg, footslogging combat troops - and you avoid them for units that are better in every single way - eg, jump pack combat troops.
There is very little inter-unit synergy in 40k lists - the only example of a truly support unit is markerlights - so it only really matters that you tick off the boxes rather than how those things interact with each other. Many independent characters give a bonus to the unit that they join, but that is still limited to a single unit.
One big thing is there there are very very few units where you would say 'X unit is good, but not in the same list as Y unit.' A unit is either good and worth taking, or not good and should be left at home, with very little middle ground.
Then when you arrive at the table, 75% of game strategy is using your Rock to take down their Scissors before it takes down your Paper.
In WMH the list building structure often actively discourages spamming multiples of the same unit (especially Warbeasts). The huge variance in caster spells and feats, the existence of support units/solos and lingering effects, means that not only do you need to make sure you include anti-X units, but that units can fulfil different roles depending on what other units you have with you. Your MAT5 troopers could be a tarpit in one list, or MAT8 weaponmaster equivalents in another list with the right feat and upkeeps. I'd say that listbuilding in WMH takes more effort than building in 40k because you need to keep track of unit synergies.
But then when you get out to the table, WMH requires a lot more strategy than 40k. The importance of activation order alone to ensure that your synergies actually work makes it a far more complicated game than 40k. Most WMH 'netlists' require a lot more finesse to play than an equivalent 40k netlist.
So, TLR. While list building in WMH is more involved than list building in 40k, the actual game is also significantly more involved to the point that, as a 'percentage of the game', list-building is lesser percent of WMH than it is of 40k.
Vertrucio wrote: Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.
This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.
Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.
The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.
And Lars, no one will take your opinion seriously until you can muster the same nerd rage over the sexism of 40k that you were spouting off about warmachine. Otherwise, is just more noise that you blether for pointless rage against a game that you simply prefer not to play. If you refuse to give warmachine the benefit of the doubt over that, then you should have rage quit 40k a long time ago.
I don't know who Lars is, but I assume you're referring to me. That horse has been beaten to death. I maintain my position but don't feel like butting heads with people on the issue. I won't say anymore because rage. Obviously rage, so much. I can't sleep at night because of this rage and I fear I may break my keyboard soon. I've locked myself away and the walls are coated with cut out MKI page 5s. It's all connected. You're on there too.
But if you wanna talk about my latest post then I'd be happy to discuss it.
I hate being that guy and I have a feeling English isn't your primary language, but I feel the need to inform you that the word "dice" is already plural and doesn't require an "s" to be added to it.
Sorry for my bad english, I try not to make too many mistakes but I'm sure it looks quite clumsy for native speakers.
About the games, yes, both of them have their advantages and disadvantages. Still, one of the reasons people like Warmachine/Horde rules is mainly because the designers were particularly careful about the wording. People at Privateer Press believe a good game is a game when you don't have to wonder about how the rule is meant to be played - so that you don't have to argue in the middle of a scenario and spend more time actually playing.
You can feel about GW rules that they aren't really...optimal in the wording, even in english (I will spare you the horrible translation errors in french, even more now that GW France has disappeared). You know they need quite a lof of FAQ to "mend the holes" - when you see the size of the FAQ from Privateer Press games since the MKII's release, it's quite small compared to 40k. It is just about the way they work and handle the rules of their games.
That, also, counts a lot for some players. For those who feel badly written rules aren't important, well indeed, 40k can be just fine. And there is nothing wrong in that as well; it's just how you like to play, that's all.
Las wrote: , just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.
It is, I believe, almost the opposite. Terrain has a heavier impact on WM/H games, and placement is extremely important due to the more individual nature of targeting - scalpeling out key models can determine the outcome of a game (or end it, in the case of the warcaster/warlock). This is probably why WM/H tournament tables are quite terrain-light compared to 40k tournament tables: the density of terrain impacts the gameplay heavily. Even a single 4" long wall, a small 5" by 4" forest, or a 2"x2" obstruction placed at the right spot, interacting with army playstyle and scenario, can change the entire dynamic of a game.
xxvaderxx wrote: Lol you are fooling your selves if you think 40k is any different.
Did you not read this post? Give me an example in 40K where the use of single model has nearly so much to it. And bear in mind that's a 6pt model on a 40mm base- not a Colossal, a caster or Character. It's sole 'special rule' is that it's gun has the Inaccurate trait (-4 to hit) and it has no abilities.
Every one of those decisions and options- and the order they're done in- separates the grades of player. But it's not a matter of learning the order but being able to decide the order based on what's going on.
What is the 40k parallel?
The post you linked to is a good one, it's a great way of illuminating the decision making process to non warmahords players (though much of the terminology is lost on us, but that's fair). I think it also does a great job of illuminating the differences is game mechanics between the two systems.
Warmahords seems to be much more about unit ability activation and resource management. I believe that this offers a range of tactical choices that are as significant as they are different than their counter parts in 40k and defines the divide between the two player bases views of each other. Warmahords players think 40k is about throwing dice and taking models off of the table, 40k players think warmahordes is about fiddling with tokens and running straight at the enemy.
In 40k, the tactics are much more visually and physically dynamic than warmachine. It comes down to one of the most important facets of the game which is (in my opinion) vastly under recognized by the online community, that being terrain and its relationship with TLOS. Shooting is king in 40k. It is a system where things are meant to die. A lot. That is why people advocate redundancy in lists, because you have to expect that gak is going to die and you need to be prepared for that.
Which brings us to terrain. Contrary to people's perception about random terrain being the 'official' way of playing; 40k should be played with lots of terrain.Because things will die a player that can utilize terrain to their advantage will gain the upper hand and that is where the tactics take on a more visually dynamic nature than warmachine in my opinion. In 40k you need to catch units out in the open, you need to hide your fragile units in cover in order to see them survive, you have to swing units around corners to hit the soft rear armour of vehicles, you have to force your enemy to be distracted and waste time killing what you want because something else is completely out of LOS until the firing lane is clear. With this comes target selection, weighing odds, thinking about maneuvering one or two turns in advance and whether or not you can afford to delay. You need to force your opponent to play by your rules.Terrain is also your best bet for getting those 'useless' assault units into the enemy, which can totally ruin their day. These things facilitate the importance outflanking and reserves which in turn forces players to think ahead. On the table top this kind of game looks very different than warmahordes.
This is also why the game is played with objectives. You guys mention that the caster kill is there to ensure that losing players still have a chance to win games. The same thing can be said about 40k. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen 40k games go the 'losing' player because they skillfully played the objective game, grabbing an important one at the last minute or by feinting the enemy into leaving one open across the board.
Things are moving in all sorts of directions which to some people is a more interesting form of tactics than the more technical ability driven system of warmachine where, yes, under the surface there's a lot more going on than two armies running into a giant scrum, but that is how most warmahordes games look.
40k has ability driven mechanics (the psychic phase, deciding which weapon to use in CC and when etc) but it isn't what is really important, just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.
I'm not sure what sort of Warmachine games you're seeing, really. Positioning and terrain are supremely important in Warmachine.
There might be a bit less of, oh, this unit's going to go into this ruin and then stay there forever, because it can be hard for a unit to do that and stay relevant since 40k's middling unit range is around 24" and a sniper rifle in Warmachine is around 14", but units absolutely use terrain, spread around the table, etc. The distance a model can threaten around it is very important. Covering objectives is very important. Often a lot of models will end up fighting in melee because melee is really important in nearly all Warmachine armies. When that happens the units are often quite close together!
Warmachine's units tend to have more to them than 40k, with relevant special rules on pretty much everything, but that doesn't mean the other things are somehow lesser. It just has more detail. (And that has both good sides and bad sides.)
One interesting thing I found surprising about Warmachine after all the "forge the narrative" business relates to my game design word of the year: "evocative." In Warmachine, many of the game elements aren't realistic in the sense that they simulate how a character would behave, but they are evocative in that they provide a great sense of what the model is about. For example, warjacks slamming and throwing things around the table, or the parry rule allowing slippery characters to get around free strikes, or set defense providing a bonus against charges, or whatever else - the rules of the models evoke their character in a way that 40k usually utterly fails to do. That is part of what I find so fascinating about the comparison between them and the talk about narratives.
Las wrote: just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.
The average range of a gun in WMH is about 12", the average charge range is about 9", this alone should tell you that manoeuvring and placement is critical in WMH. In 40k the average ranged gun fires at 24" and you have guns that can reach virtually any point in the table, this makes manoeuvring almost meaningless and its the reason why gun lines are so prevalent in that game.
Also another reason why maneuver mechanics don't seem so important to you in WMH is because they are allot more subtle and usually go unnoticed to someone that never played the game and as such has no frame of reference to what he is seeing.
Correctly placing the individual models in a given unit, for example, can mean the difference between absorbing the enemy attack with minimal losses and counter-attacking with the remaining members or having the unit wiped out by said attack. If you bunch up your models, you'll leave them extremely vulnerable to area effects and to models that have multiple attacks, but if you split them up too much, you'll risk leaving gaps in your front line that can be exploited to attack your back lines and you'll suffer a larger than needed amount of casualties because of it as well. Put your leading elements too far from the rest of the unit and they will be killed by hit and run attacks without you having any chance to retaliate, etc... And this is just placement of the models in a single unit (and I didn't even cover all variables for it)!
To this you have to add the placement of your Warcaster: advance him too much and he becomes vulnerable and you can loose the game because of it, leave him too far from the engagement and he won't be able to effectively influence the battle, use your feat, check for distances and so you loose your most powerful piece, or your warjacks won't be able to attack because they are out of his control, leave him too far from an objective and you won't be able to exploit it if your enemy leaves it exposed. Then you have placement of your support pieces and your combat solos, etc...
Frankly the possible variables that might influence the placement of each model are so many that it makes it hard to explain this without a game in progress to help illustrate all these points.
As for terrain, you have it all backwards as well, the reason why terrain is so prevalent in 40k is because its influence is minimal (other than for blocking LoS), so you might as well flood the table with it because it looks good! In WMH terrain is hugely influential, hence why it should be kept at manageable levels otherwise it could greatly hinder a player and favour the other, this is because some armies have the ability to completely ignore the detrimental effects of most terrain, while others can ignore it with some models, while others yet will have to suffer through it all. Place a forest in the table and now your ranged elements can hide inside it receiving a bonus to their defence and lowering the melee threat of anyone that wants to attack them. Place a hill and you'll get a commanding view that allows you to ignore most targeting restrictions that people rely on to protect their most important models. Place a single wall and your warcaster becomes almost invincible standing behind it! Place any type of water feature and a huge area around it just became a very dangerous zone for warjacks to venture into (any warjack that falls into water will have its boiler put out and will be removed from the game), etc...
That is why any piece of terrain in WMH shouldn't be more than 4" across and there shouldn't be more than 6 pieces of terrain in the table, total.
I know that I'm going to offend people when I say this, but its just the truth: 40k is a game designed for kids, as such it has a very low level of tactical complexity that mostly boils down to target prioritization... All other choices that could be made to enrich the tactical experience of the players have been relegated to random chance mechanics: movement... roll dice. Objectives? Draw a card. Spells that you could build tactics for your army around? Roll on a random table... Etc. Its like comparing chess with shoots and ladders, both can be fun, but you don't play shoots and ladders if you want a rich tactical experience.
Las wrote: just as I'm sure Warmahordes has terrain and maneuver mechanics, but they just don't seem to be as important - or else perhaps there would be more terrain on the table. However, if you disagree then by all means explain, I just don't know.
The average range of a gun in WMH is about 12", the average charge range is about 9", this alone should tell you that manoeuvring and placement is critical in WMH. In 40k the average ranged gun fires at 24" and you have guns that can reach virtually any point in the table, this makes manoeuvring almost meaningless and its the reason why gun lines are so prevalent in that game.
Also another reason why maneuver mechanics don't seem so important to you in WMH is because they are allot more subtle and usually go unnoticed to someone that never played the game and as such has no frame of reference to what he is seeing.
Correctly placing the individual models in a given unit, for example, can mean the difference between absorbing the enemy attack with minimal losses and counter-attacking with the remaining members or having the unit wiped out by said attack. If you bunch up your models, you'll leave them extremely vulnerable to area effects and to models that have multiple attacks, but if you split them up too much, you'll risk leaving gaps in your front line that can be exploited to attack your back lines and you'll suffer a larger than needed amount of casualties because of it as well. Put your leading elements too far from the rest of the unit and they will be killed by hit and run attacks without you having any chance to retaliate, etc... And this is just placement of the models in a single unit (and I didn't even cover all variables for it)!
To this you have to add the placement of your Warcaster: advance him too much and he becomes vulnerable and you can loose the game because of it, leave him too far from the engagement and he won't be able to effectively influence the battle, use your feat, check for distances and so you loose your most powerful piece, or your warjacks won't be able to attack because they are out of his control, leave him too far from an objective and you won't be able to exploit it if your enemy leaves it exposed. Then you have placement of your support pieces and your combat solos, etc...
Frankly the possible variables that might influence the placement of each model are so many that it makes it hard to explain this without a game in progress to help illustrate all these points.
As for terrain, you have it all backwards as well, the reason why terrain is so prevalent in 40k is because its influence is minimal (other than for blocking LoS), so you might as well flood the table with it because it looks good! In WMH terrain is hugely influential, hence why it should be kept at manageable levels otherwise it could greatly hinder a player and favour the other, this is because some armies have the ability to completely ignore the detrimental effects of most terrain, while others can ignore it with some models, while others yet will have to suffer through it all. Place a forest in the table and now your ranged elements can hide inside it receiving a bonus to their defence and lowering the melee threat of anyone that wants to attack them. Place a hill and you'll get a commanding view that allows you to ignore most targeting restrictions that people rely on to protect their most important models. Place a single wall and your warcaster becomes almost invincible standing behind it! Place any type of water feature and a huge area around it just became a very dangerous zone for warjacks to venture into (any warjack that falls into water will have its boiler put out and will be removed from the game), etc...
That is why any piece of terrain in WMH shouldn't be more than 4" across and there shouldn't be more than 6 pieces of terrain in the table, total.
I know that I'm going to offend people when I say this, but its just the truth: 40k is a game designed for kids, as such it has a very low level of tactical complexity that mostly boils down to target prioritization... All other choices that could be made to enrich the tactical experience of the players have been relegated to random chance mechanics: movement... roll dice. Objectives? Draw a card. Spells that you could build tactics for your army around? Roll on a random table... Etc. Its like comparing chess with shoots and ladders, both can be fun, but you don't play shoots and ladders if you want a rich tactical experience.
I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).
I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).
But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.
I think it would be better to say the 40K rules have been (or attempted to be) simplified to appeal to a younger audience. When I worked at GW and AP came in, that's exactly what we were told.
I strongly recommend anyone who still loves the 40K IP and the PP system give conversion a go.
I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).
But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.
Art_of_war wrote: Strange to relate i've never met warmachine players who are utter dicks. Sure i've bumped into the odd one or two who do rub you up somewhat, but they are all good people and not hypocrites like some of the 40k lot are.
While I appreciate your perspective, perhaps we should avoid broad brush strokes in general (as seen in bold). Personal experiences aside, it's a good way to get peoples hackles up. And we've been doing good thus far.
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post. Though you'll eventually find fething fethers in any game/sport/hobby/life.
Indeed i'll admit i did get the whitewash brush out and painted a wall . However it does not excuse the hypocrisy i've encountered recently, but that is as far as i'm going, needless to say those few who i see as the hypocrites have double standards in a few areas that from a warmahordes view is laughably silly.
Back on topic...
Terrain in warmahordes is far more of a hindrance than in 40k to an extent, as it boxes things in, blocks charge lanes etc. Its why Cryx for example are a bit filthy as they have spells and units that ignore its effects so things are not as safe as they seem. Its "buffs" are also handy, its why Khador widowmakers are always seen lurking behind walls
That is not to degenerate 40k, in any way its just "works" far more smoothly. Moreover when things ignore cover etc in WM/H people just accept it, whereas in 40k people "complain" (see Tau markerlights...).
On the radically different gameplay, sure its apples and oranges. List building is important in WM/H however the translation from paper to tabletop is different due to the frankly vast variety of casters and units that are there, and the fact you have to get the activation sequence right to pull it off properly. I suppose its why i rather like the steamroller 2 list format, it poses all sorts of challenges and opportunities. Do you go for a hard-counter job or a shooting/CC list?
However all this can fall apart if you make a mistake/misjudgement, at a steamroller the other week i bagged a well earned win when my opponent went for broke and nearly bagged it. However he misjudged the distance and Mr pVlad cast blood of kings and finished the job in one hit.
Well, it's all about the dices and the importance given to them by the game designers.
For GW Design Studio, the dice is very important and randomness is everywhere in all their games from the very beginning. They always loved random tables and in the V7 of 40k, you can see they are going back to their roots in that view. That's quite an "old school" view in game systems: randomness is fun in itself.
Privateer Press isn't like this; they acknowledge randomness can play its role but for them, it's not fun in itself to throw dices; it's just a tool to decide if the results of your actions is a success. It's not an end in itself. That's why many of their rules are quite rigid and precise; because they want their players to have the most control on their actions on the board - not just using a barrel of dices and cover the models with them just for the "pleasure" of doing it. Terrain is handled differently in Warmachine/Horde 'cause it's not just a stupid dice deciding if your troopers are slowed down or not; it is a parameter you know from the beginning and you can precisely take it into account in your own strategy, rather than "if I have a good result on my dices, then I can do that - if not, well too bad for me".
Of course, you have that random factor in Warmachine/Horde as well...but the most important for us players is that you can more easily control it. In 40k, especially in V7, the designers made it clear that randomness has actually increased, as if it was THE balanced factor of their games (which can never be, obviously). What's fun about not knowing if you have that Warlord Trait or psychic power? Is your warlord dumb enough to go into battle and say "well, this time, I think I will be more deadly in challenges, it looks fun" or your psyker going like "this battle, I will take this power, it sounds cool". For some people, there is no fun in that (and no logic as well, but that's another debate).
I've never played Warmachine or Hordes, therefore all the Warmahordes players will tell me that the entirety of the following post is completely wrong. :-D
However, from what I've read on here (and looking at the quick start rules) it appears that Warmahordes is a warGAME, i.e. it's a game first with conflict as its setting. If the designers so wished they could change the setting to running a restaurant or playing dodgeball or something and the game itself would lose nothing by it, other than aesthetics. The interaction of pieces and their abilities is king, and the pieces as individuals are worth far, FAR less than the sum of their parts. In this context, terrain is also a piece, since from the discussion above it appears that one individual piece of terrain can have an extreme impact on a game.
(This also makes the game, to my mind, quite tricky to learn for someone who only manages to get in 2-3 games of anything a year, and would rather that those games weren't spent being annihilated due to unfamiliarity with rules interactions. But that's not Warmachine's problem, it's mine.)
40k, on the other hand, is a WARgame, in that the objective is to simulate an abstract version of war and the game is the mechanism by which this is achieved. Other (better) WARgames exist. I'd say that a characteristic of most of them is that they don't totally depend on unit-to-unit interaction, with one unit causing another to work in a different way. Most units can do most things, though not necessarily with the same ability. And quite often, Things Go Wrong in a way that's at least partially out of your control.
Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order. I'm thinking specifically of Stargrunt, Necromunda and Epic Armageddon for these things, but they appear to be present in Bolt Action, Flames of War, Warmaster and it's derivatives, Tomorrows War, etc. etc. It's in Warhammer, too, especially if you play Orcs. An element of control is taken out of the player's hands, and they player then has to deal with the consequences. I like this, I can understand that many people don't. It strikes me as part of the "simulating war" thing.
40k USED to be better at this, but they've been essentially removing Morale and Pinning for years which is a bit of a shame.
Individual terrain elements don't have a great deal of effect, but if you've got a lot of it the battle changes and it tends to be vital to force manoeuvre. Playing Stargrunt on an empty table is an exercise in both sides being pinned for an entire game.
(As a side note, as I'm aware that the individual abilities of troops won't tend to make an enormous difference and I don't have a bunch of interactions to learn I'm much less hesitant about giving this type of game a go - the principals of concentration of force etc. will generally work whichever set of rules mechanics you throw it at).
So, in summary, I think if you've decided not to play Warmachine for a while, or whatever, it may be worth it to try a different style of game rather than due to some inherent flaw or virtue in the rules of Warmachine or 40k. Try some of the wargames I mentioned above, as well as 40k! Stargrunt is free! GO GET IT.
Warmachine/Horde is a skirmish game. Warhammer 40k...was that at the beginning (and still is a "big skirmish game", imho). It was never meant to be a true wargame, since the size of the models is way too big to have actual mass battles. That's why big battles in 40k take an insane amount of space and time to be played.
Epic Armaggedon or Warmaster, those are (were) a better suited wargame. Hell, even War of the Ring was made to be a true wargame...too bad they sucked at the marketing and that the rules weren't exactly the best.
Graphite wrote: I've never played Warmachine or Hordes, therefore all the Warmahordes players will tell me that the entirety of the following post is completely wrong. :-D
However, from what I've read on here (and looking at the quick start rules) it appears that Warmahordes is a warGAME, i.e. it's a game first with conflict as its setting. If the designers so wished they could change the setting to running a restaurant or playing dodgeball or something and the game itself would lose nothing by it, other than aesthetics. The interaction of pieces and their abilities is king, and the pieces as individuals are worth far, FAR less than the sum of their parts. In this context, terrain is also a piece, since from the discussion above it appears that one individual piece of terrain can have an extreme impact on a game.
(This also makes the game, to my mind, quite tricky to learn for someone who only manages to get in 2-3 games of anything a year, and would rather that those games weren't spent being annihilated due to unfamiliarity with rules interactions. But that's not Warmachine's problem, it's mine.)
True. One of the main complaints that I see (and some that I have from time to time) is the emphasis on the game part. There is a story, and it's a good story, but it's kind of suspended for game purposes. Also all the use of counters, markers, etc. (see the tournament streams where there's a big piece of... I'm not sure, it looks like a round mousepad with the WM/H logos in the middle of the board to represent the control zone for the scenario) really jarr the feeling that you're doing anything other than playing a game. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's there.
40k, on the other hand, is a WARgame, in that the objective is to simulate an abstract version of war and the game is the mechanism by which this is achieved. Other (better) WARgames exist. I'd say that a characteristic of most of them is that they don't totally depend on unit-to-unit interaction, with one unit causing another to work in a different way. Most units can do most things, though not necessarily with the same ability. And quite often, Things Go Wrong in a way that's at least partially out of your control.
Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order. I'm thinking specifically of Stargrunt, Necromunda and Epic Armageddon for these things, but they appear to be present in Bolt Action, Flames of War, Warmaster and it's derivatives, Tomorrows War, etc. etc. It's in Warhammer, too, especially if you play Orcs. An element of control is taken out of the player's hands, and they player then has to deal with the consequences. I like this, I can understand that many people don't. It strikes me as part of the "simulating war" thing.
40k USED to be better at this, but they've been essentially removing Morale and Pinning for years which is a bit of a shame.
To a point. 40k is more on the "simulation" aspect than the "game" aspect (whether it does a good job or not is another story, and for another thread). It definitely feels more immersive than Warmachine. You CAN come up with lore reasons in Warmachine, but outside of the leagues nobody does this, while in 40k it's a really fun thing to do
Really I liken Warmachine to MtG: There is lore in MtG and a backstory, but how many people who play really care that they're supposed to be duelling wizards who can summon monsters to fight for them? You'd rarely, if ever, see a MtG game with a narrative behind it, even though there's room for that narrative, because the game part is the emphasis. Warmachine is nearly the same way in tabletop format, while 40k encourages the story more.
Warmachine is nearly the same way in tabletop format, while 40k encourages the story more.
Sure, but then, why buying the rules of 40k? If you can make your own stories, you don't have to use generic and character-less V7 codici while most of their rules are "copy and paste" from the last edition...
In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Graphite wrote: Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order.
You also have morale rules in WMH. Units can flee because they have suffered too many casualties, or are facing a terrifying enemy, etc, and individual troopers may not obey the order that the rest of the unit is doing because they are outside their command range.
Graphite wrote: Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order.
You also have morale rules in WMH. Units can flee because they have suffered too many casualties, or are facing a terrifying enemy, etc, and individual troopers may not obey the order that the rest of the unit is doing because they are outside their command range.
Fair enough - as I said, not familiar with the Warmachine rules. How often do these things happen? Similar to current 40k where being "out of coherency" is an accident and fleeing generally only happens when a unit isn't combat effective any more?
Graphite wrote: Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order.
You also have morale rules in WMH. Units can flee because they have suffered too many casualties, or are facing a terrifying enemy, etc, and individual troopers may not obey the order that the rest of the unit is doing because they are outside their command range.
Fair enough - as I said, not familiar with the Warmachine rules. How often do these things happen? Similar to current 40k where being "out of coherency" is an accident and fleeing generally only happens when a unit isn't combat effective any more?
The out of command part is much more common than in 40k, because in WMH models charge on a per model base rather than as a single unit, so a unit often times gets spread out over a large front fighting against different enemies. Not only that but, since models are targeted individually, your opponent can target and kill the unit leader possibly causing a part of your unit to be left out of the command range of the new promoted leader (that is another example of why tactical positioning of individual models is a pivotal thing in WMH).
Morale checks for units happen when a unit suffers 50% casualties in a single turn (counted from the number of models remaining at the beginning of the turn), when they are engaged with a model that causes Terror or within 5" of a model with the Abomination rule (and some spells also cause morale checks).
Note that since WMH is a skirmish game, there is no such thing as a combat ineffective unit (with some rare exceptions). Even when a unit only has a single model remaining, that models still has the potential to win the game and cannot be discounted out of hand. Also units range in number from as little as 2 models up to 15, so their resilience to morale checks due to casualties varies a great deal as well.
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
I have. Apart from artillery firing bombardments, most other weapons in FoW have a sub-24" range, combined with infantry's ability to create their own cover and the existence of ranged modifiers to hit, this makes the game allot less deadly at range than 40k is.
The only other game where the phenomenon "I can see you, I go first, I've won" can even be compared to 40k is Infinity.
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
I have. Apart from artillery firing bombardments, most other weapons in FoW have a sub-24" range, combined with infantry's ability to create their own cover and the existence of ranged modifiers to hit, this makes the game allot less deadly at range than 40k is.
The only other game where the phenomenon "I can see you, I go first, I've won" can even be compared to 40k is Infinity.
That's true, and part of the reason why FoW is my go to for a more tactically deep wargame. You can't say that the game is very playable without terrain. FoW units are resilient and meant to be bull dogged to death, the same is just not true for 40k. Everything is soft, which is why terrain is more important.
It's part of the reason why the game is a much more visually appealing game than warmahordes for many. This also adds to the level of immersion.
Warmachine is nearly the same way in tabletop format, while 40k encourages the story more.
Sure, but then, why buying the rules of 40k? If you can make your own stories, you don't have to use generic and character-less V7 codici while most of their rules are "copy and paste" from the last edition...
People seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY need to throw more terrain on their 40k boards. Big, solid, LoS blocking things. Get a couple of cereal boxes and paint 'em grey, something, ANYTHING. Otherwise you're trying to have a machinegun fight on a tennis court.
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
I have. Apart from artillery firing bombardments, most other weapons in FoW have a sub-24" range, combined with infantry's ability to create their own cover and the existence of ranged modifiers to hit, this makes the game allot less deadly at range than 40k is.
The only other game where the phenomenon "I can see you, I go first, I've won" can even be compared to 40k is Infinity.
That's true, and part of the reason why FoW is my go to for a more tactically deep wargame. You can't say that the game is very playable without terrain. FoW units are resilient and meant to be bull dogged to death, the same is just not true for 40k. Everything is soft, which is why terrain is more important.
It's part of the reason why the game is a much more visually appealing game than warmahordes for many.
In that we are 100% in agreement. I just disagree with the "which is why terrain is more important." part because apart from blocking LoS and being outright impassable, terrain isn't very important in 40k from a tactical point of view. It generally doesn't give you better saves than what you have already, it doesn't prevent or favours any CC since charge distance is already dice dependent, etc...
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
I have. Apart from artillery firing bombardments, most other weapons in FoW have a sub-24" range, combined with infantry's ability to create their own cover and the existence of ranged modifiers to hit, this makes the game allot less deadly at range than 40k is.
The only other game where the phenomenon "I can see you, I go first, I've won" can even be compared to 40k is Infinity.
That's true, and part of the reason why FoW is my go to for a more tactically deep wargame. You can't say that the game is very playable without terrain. FoW units are resilient and meant to be bull dogged to death, the same is just not true for 40k. Everything is soft, which is why terrain is more important.
It's part of the reason why the game is a much more visually appealing game than warmahordes for many.
In that we are 100% in agreement. I just disagree with the "which is why terrain is more important." part because apart from blocking LoS and being outright impassable, terrain isn't very important in 40k from a tactical point of view. It generally doesn't give you better saves than what you have already, it doesn't prevent or favours any CC since charge distance is already dice dependent, etc...
I disagree. Choosing to go into difficult terrain to receive a save against low AP weapons while risking being bogged down by a bad difficult terrain roll is a tactical choice. Forcing the enemy to lose 2'' to his charge distance by being in terrain is a tactical choice and advantage. Skimmers upping their jink save or camo netted vehicles upping their cover save by being in terrain but risking an immobilized roll is a tactical choice.
In my experience, terrain is both more interactive and more impacting in Warmahordes than 40k. That being said, someone could make a 24" long LOS blocking piece of terrain in 40k and play scenarios with it--whereas Warmahordes Steamroller is fairly specific in terrain placement in scenarios. I guess the reason I mention that, is that someone can trot out an ad absurdum piece of 40k terrain and state it is more game impacting---and while that may be true, we should look at it in terms of realistic terrain that is placed on a table in a competitive environment.
And in that case, I would reassert that Warmahordes has more interactive/impacting terrain. Slamming models into obstructions, two hand throwing models over walls, slamming models into shallow water, concealment, etc etc.--all of those things can (and often do) have a large effect on game play--and in general, a +2, +4 is a pretty big deal when effecting the probability curve on 2d6.
@PhantomViper Just a few nitpicks if I may . Abomination is 3", not 5"---and terror causing enemies actually cause morale checks on anyone that passes through their melee range (You can advance past a non-reach unit for example with a terror causing reach model for example, not end in melee with them--but since you passed through melee they still are forced to check). An example of this is a Void Spirit running through a model/unit. I think you are spot on for your general unit analysis.
@PhantomViper
Just a few nitpicks if I may . Abomination is 3", not 5"---and terror causing enemies actually cause morale checks on anyone that passes through their melee range (You can advance past a non-reach unit for example with a terror causing reach model for example, not end in melee with them--but since you passed through melee they still are forced to check). An example of this is a Void Spirit running through a model/unit. I think you are spot on for your general unit analysis.
I had forgotten about the 3" for the Abomination, as for the Terror, I know, I was just simplifying because quoting the whole rule was unnecessary.
Warmachine is nearly the same way in tabletop format, while 40k encourages the story more.
Sure, but then, why buying the rules of 40k? If you can make your own stories, you don't have to use generic and character-less V7 codici while most of their rules are "copy and paste" from the last edition...
Are you being serious right now?
I am dead serious. The fact is changes from V6 to V7 are quite minimal. When you see the Codex for Astra Militarum or Orks (even Space Wolves very soon), there are of course fixes and added/removed things here and there...but this is nothing any experienced player can't do by himself just by using the previous books he has.
Anyone making a "fan-dex" while playing in a club is enough, since GW Design Studio is just a band of buddies playing together and having fun rolling plenty of dices (yeah, "playtesting" they say they do - as much as any regular club playtest their fan-made units/scenarios, I believe). After all, Space Marines stats are the same since quite a lot of editions. It's not that hard once you are used for so many years with the same old game system.
It's just they want you to think that what they do is "outstanding change so much that you have to buy ", while it is not. Truth is...I can play the old codex for my previous "Imperial Guard" just fine with very minor adaptations to the V7 "spirit".
Anyway, when GW designers make new rules, they still manage to screw it up. Just see the wonderful wording about a "psyker unit" in the psychic phase. I'm sure they don't even understand the matter with their own definition of what is a "unit" in their game system (funny it can be two different things at the same time). That's what happens when you're not serious about the wording of your rules when making games...and that's why some people got tired of this and turn to another game more precise in this field.
The terrain rules are definitely a weakness of Warmachine, at the very least in terms of making a beautiful battlefield. It's just not that people are like, "oh, we Warmachine players are way too cool to use terrain, we want to just have a mindless scrum in the middle. Let us have a mostly blank board (except for an irrelevant bit around the edges that we put there to pretend we're not playing on a wholly empty table) and charge mindlessly towards each other!" It's that terrain is so powerful in its effect (and, to some extent, that different armies have differing ability to ignore it) that it has to be used carefully and sparingly.
I think you'd find a lot of Warmachine players would like to see the terrain rules improved so that we could have some more beautiful tables!
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
I have. Apart from artillery firing bombardments, most other weapons in FoW have a sub-24" range, combined with infantry's ability to create their own cover and the existence of ranged modifiers to hit, this makes the game allot less deadly at range than 40k is.
The only other game where the phenomenon "I can see you, I go first, I've won" can even be compared to 40k is Infinity.
In Infinity that is only true if you set up badly, after a few games only the simple minded still have this issue. Like in real life you don't want to be shot, don't let any of your model show.
About terrain, in fact it is like it used to be in Warhammer Battle, when forests were deadly traps for units that weren't skirmishers. GW changed it so that terrains were a lot like in 40k and the result was...well, terrain being just totally useless and games in Warhammer Battle not using that many of them since it didn't matter that much anymore (Battle plays quite differently from 40k, since moves aren't so free and firepower isn't as "easy" in the future where there is only war).
I have seen wonderful tables for Warmachine/Horde, though. It's purely a question of people; since Wamarchine/Horde is quite known for being a "competitive/tournament game", you usually see battle reports that are more "technical" than just "awesome looking".
But if you put enough time and work into it, you can still do a lot of beautiful things with the tables.
I think you'd find a lot of Warmachine players would like to see the terrain rules improved so that we could have some more beautiful tables!
You'll find a lot of amazing terrain heavy tables at conventions and during casual games. TempleCon for example has over a dozen scenario tables with varying levels of terrain and special rules. It's just that for tournaments, it's very hard to balance anything beyond a basic set up.
Sarouan wrote:
I have seen wonderful tables for Warmachine/Horde, though. It's purely a question of people; since Wamarchine/Horde is quite known for being a "competitive/tournament game", you usually see battle reports that are more "technical" than just "awesome looking".
But if you put enough time and work into it, you can still do a lot of beautiful things with the tables.
I've seen some impressive Warmachine terrain. Here's Larry Correia, author of "Into the Storm" and "Monster Hunter International" playing Warmachine with Jordan Sanderson. (Author of Mistborn) That's one heck of a board.
Well, as an example of the rules not handling creative terrain very well, distance between models is measured from base to base in 3D. Vertical distance is only ignored when the vertical distance between the two models is less than an inch. This means that, for example, your colossal cannot hit an enemy if that enemy is on a ledge 2.1" high, even though the colossal's volume is defined as a 5" tall cylinder. Your poor non-reach heavies can't even hit someone standing on a 1"-high ledge.
That board would also get frustrating very fast if you were playing against e.g. Retribution and they could just fire directly through all the houses.
You can work around these problems by house ruling, but that sort of underscores that the default rules don't handle them all that well, I think.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Well, as an example of the rules not handling creative terrain very well, distance between models is measured from base to base in 3D. Vertical distance is only ignored when the vertical distance between the two models is less than an inch. This means that, for example, your colossal cannot hit an enemy if that enemy is on a ledge 2.1" high, even though the colossal's volume is defined as a 5" tall cylinder. Your poor non-reach heavies can't even hit someone standing on a 1"-high ledge.
That board would also get frustrating very fast if you were playing against e.g. Retribution and they could just fire directly through all the houses.
You can work around these problems by house ruling, but that sort of underscores that the default rules don't handle them all that well, I think.
Wait, what? You can fire through LOS blocking terrain?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Well, as an example of the rules not handling creative terrain very well, distance between models is measured from base to base in 3D. Vertical distance is only ignored when the vertical distance between the two models is less than an inch. This means that, for example, your colossal cannot hit an enemy if that enemy is on a ledge 2.1" high, even though the colossal's volume is defined as a 5" tall cylinder. Your poor non-reach heavies can't even hit someone standing on a 1"-high ledge.
That board would also get frustrating very fast if you were playing against e.g. Retribution and they could just fire directly through all the houses.
You can work around these problems by house ruling, but that sort of underscores that the default rules don't handle them all that well, I think.
Wait, what? You can fire through LOS blocking terrain?
There's an ability that allows you to ignore LoS for shooting.
It's pretty rare to be able to fire through a house in Warmachine. Being able to fire through forests or clouds - which normally block LoS - is much more common, as are abilities that allow models to ignore the concealment and cover bonuses that terrain grants, which can be a really big deal.
The other common issue is that rough terrain halves your movement speed as long as any part of your base is in it, and that makes it very hard to actually go anywhere relevant. Different armies have different levels of ability for dealing with this - some lists can completely ignore the rough terrain penalty where others may have limited or no ways of dealing with it. Some armies can also walk through houses. Models without Reach weapons (generally long weapons like pikes) also can't attack over walls, and models without a rule to ignore them can't charge over walls.
Basically there is a lot of variability in how well armies deal with terrain of varying types and that's a primary source of friction in how tables are set up. Warmachine players tend to hate water. Circle players love forests. Legion players often love forests, too, because they slow other people down while they just ignore them. And so on.
People will usually put stuff in their lists to help mitigate terrain issues, but they only go so far and it often causes very conservative terrain placement with an effort to have enough terrain for fairness without having too much terrain for fairness.
Eldarain wrote: Aren't there several units in 40k with a similar rule? Hive Guard, Purgation squads... others?
Though they did have the issue of the rules not allowing them to actually wound anything IIRC. 7th might have fixed that though.
There's indirect fire. Things like mortars, artillery, orbital bombardments etc. but they receive penalties to their accuracy.
Both units(Hive Guard, Purgation Squads) he mentioned do/did completely ignore LoS without being indirect fire weapons. So, yes, it does exist in 40K as well.
MWHistorian wrote: I've seen some impressive Warmachine terrain. Here's Larry Correia, author of "Into the Storm" and "Monster Hunter International" playing Warmachine with Jordan Sanderson. (Author of Mistborn) That's one heck of a board.
Jordan Sanderson is the name of the demigod that was created when the Mistborn dude sucked the soul out of the ailing author of the Wheel of Time books.
I like the bit about WARgame vs warGAME. WM/H is all about the gameplay. I see a lot of bare metal at Gen Con, whereas nearly every 40k player I know has their stuff at least primed and painted a color. I think it's all because of the simulated war experience, instead of a game of tactics and placement.
MWHistorian wrote: I've seen some impressive Warmachine terrain. Here's Larry Correia, author of "Into the Storm" and "Monster Hunter International" playing Warmachine with Jordan Sanderson. (Author of Mistborn) That's one heck of a board.
Spoiler:
Jordan Sanderson is the name of the demigod that was created when the Mistborn dude sucked the soul out of the ailing author of the Wheel of Time books.
I like the bit about WARgame vs warGAME. WM/H is all about the gameplay. I see a lot of bare metal at Gen Con, whereas nearly every 40k player I know has their stuff at least primed and painted a color. I think it's all because of the simulated war experience, instead of a game of tactics and placement.
Or there are so many new players that have switched over.
Or there are so many new players that have switched over.
At least locally many of the people who have started the game are MTG players (I can see how the rules would appeal there) So the painting modeling are all really new concepts.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
No one has ever said any of these things. Stop being a big baby over the fact that people disagree with you.
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
Yes, but it is a way that 40k (and FoW, and Bolt Action and a bunch of other games) are different than Warmachine/Hordes.
frozenwastes wrote: In 40k terrain is important in that if you don't have enough line of sight blocking terrain, whoever can shooter better will just win if they happen to go first. So it's very important in 40k, not as some great tactical consideration, but in making the game function at all.
Uhm, this is true of ANY shooting heavy wargame with long range weapons. Ever played FoW on a flat board?
Yes, but it is a way that 40k (and FoW, and Bolt Action and a bunch of other games) are different than Warmachine/Hordes.
Exactly, which defines the importance of terrain based tactics. That's what my original post was about.
I like the bit about WARgame vs warGAME. WM/H is all about the gameplay. I see a lot of bare metal at Gen Con, whereas nearly every 40k player I know has their stuff at least primed and painted a color. I think it's all because of the simulated war experience, instead of a game of tactics and placement.
Due to the GW involvement in tournaments years ago, every army had to be three colors minimum to play at an event. This tradition has just continued on. Warmachine doesn't have the same requirement (PP realizes that a model sold, painted or not, is still a model sold). I'd much rather now paint my Warmachine armies knowing my biggest spam horde ever is pushing maybe 60 models with Cryx? If I wanted to run beast heavy legion, I'd be well under 30? And this is all for 50pts. The only way I could compete in 40k would be to run bikers (still $$$), Draigowing, or Centurionstar armies.
I like the bit about WARgame vs warGAME. WM/H is all about the gameplay. I see a lot of bare metal at Gen Con, whereas nearly every 40k player I know has their stuff at least primed and painted a color. I think it's all because of the simulated war experience, instead of a game of tactics and placement.
Due to the GW involvement in tournaments years ago, every army had to be three colors minimum to play at an event. This tradition has just continued on. Warmachine doesn't have the same requirement (PP realizes that a model sold, painted or not, is still a model sold). I'd much rather now paint my Warmachine armies knowing my biggest spam horde ever is pushing maybe 60 models with Cryx? If I wanted to run beast heavy legion, I'd be well under 30? And this is all for 50pts. The only way I could compete in 40k would be to run bikers (still $$$), Draigowing, or Centurionstar armies.
In a bit of fairness we do need to point out the Iron Gauntlet does require painted armies (and this is the one that PP is pushing for Live Streaming and all that), but Masters does not.
At least at the chrono-anomaly that is my LGS, people play everything painted. I think they do tournaments, but when I ask them about painting, nearly everyone will say that it's half the hobby for them.
Also for painting in warmachine the leagues all have have a hobby portion where you get pts towards for who wins the leagues from painting full models/units of things.
My limited experience at tournaments is most/all of the of armies tend to be painted, rather well too. Also hardcore formats require full painting much like Iron Gauntlet.
Not sure on the new/current version(if any difference), but the previous Hive Guard version was 24" S8 AP4 Assault 2.
For Purgation Squads, it's a psychic power that lets them do it with whatever they're aren't with.
You also have Tau with Smart Missile Systems (TL-S5AP5 Heavy 4) ignoring line of sight AND cover.
Not to mention barrage weapons, which in 40k are significantly better at sniping enemy commanders than actual sniper rifles are due to wound allocation rules.
I think the big thing about terrain in 40k is the newfound prevalence of 'Ignores Cover' weapons. 40k's cover system with TLOS means that having a foot obscured by a rock gives you the same cover save as if only your foot was visible, and seeing even a tiny portion of the enemy is nearly always a possibility. Then add in buckets of 'ignores cover' weapons (whether innately, barrage, or buffed with psychic powers), and a large amount of terrain may as well not exist in the first place.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
No one has ever said any of these things. Stop being a big baby over the fact that people disagree with you.
Ya right. $50 for a real good warmachine list haha!!!! I have a unit of Iron fang pikemen at $90 a box.... A battlebox is $50 just to get you started, a decent 50 point list would run you in the 300-400 range CAD.
And yes I actually happen to be loving 40k in 7th edition, its a fantastic game! I played warmachine a few times now again since this post and for some reason still feel the same...
People really love throwing around that iron Fang pikemen thing don't they?
From where I am sitting (Australia) $85 for 10, metal models on 30mm bases sounds pretty good.
GW are selling only 5 plastic terminators on 40mm bases (admittedly a little bigger, I haven't seen the models side by side though) for $74.
Down here that means iron fangs are metal, maybe a tad smaller but only $8.5 a model.
PLASTIC terminators are almost $15 a model.
One of those is a ridiculous price, and its not the iron fangs.
And actually those $50 battle boxes are great for small games. Especially when learning how to play. Only add one or two more units and you got a great time. I was playing Warmachine with $100 investment.
jonolikespie wrote: People really love throwing around that iron Fang pikemen thing don't they?
It's like Creationists bringing up a hundred year old fraud to discredit evolution. They just don't have any substantial attacks to make on the game or Privateer Press so they focus on an outlier. It's not like you couldn't just mention the Alexia boxed set of 22 models and rules for $65.
I get why people like the 40K models (and are willing to pay the prices), I get why they love the setting, I just can't wrap my head around why they like the rules so much.
To me these are far more interesting- and it's not like you can't make half a dozen different attachments (plus special weapon WAs!) to customise units- than the real tactical marines.
no one who actually wargames finds 40k to be more fun, or fun at all, then warmahordes...
also how did you spend 100's of dollars on WMHs? everyone knows its like, 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists.
No one has ever said any of these things. Stop being a big baby over the fact that people disagree with you.
Ya right. $50 for a real good warmachine list haha!!!! I have a unit of Iron fang pikemen at $90 a box.... A battlebox is $50 just to get you started, a decent 50 point list would run you in the 300-400 range CAD.
And yes I actually happen to be loving 40k in 7th edition, its a fantastic game! I played warmachine a few times now again since this post and for some reason still feel the same...
Except no one who plays and likes Warmachine has said " 50$ at most for a complete army of random units that will compete with even the most cheesiest of cheese WMH lists". What people who play Warmachine say is $50 gets you a solid starter set for a game that remains relatively deep and balanced at low points levels. Easysauce is just super-angry that there are people who value different aspects of this hobby than he does.
And yep, a decent 50pt Warmachine list is around 300-400 CAD.
How much is a decent 2000 point 40K list? My calculations have it at somewhere around $500+ USD.
I've actually done some math in the past and written several 35 point Warmachine (local average game size) and 1500 point 40K lists (actually smaller than local average game size, but IIRC the points level recommended by the BRB). The Warmachine lists averaged $230. The 40K lists averaged somewhere around $430.
I've always said that if your idea of value is "how many models do I get per box?" then 40K is generally the better value. If your idea is "How much will I have to spend to start playing and how much will I have to spend to get a single army at the standard 'recommended' points level?" well....
Me? I love miniatures, and I enjoy collecting them, but I want to play games with them. That's the most important thing for me. I also prefer a relatively balanced and clear rule-set that requires no house-ruling over Warhammer 40K and its bizarre obsession with randomizing almost everything.
With all that said, if you like 40K more, and think it's worth the money, great! Have fun! (and I mean that with absolutely no sarcasm).
EDIT: Hey, Kojiro, is there a complete set of those cards? I might actually have a use for my current Space Marine collection if there are!
AgeOfEgos wrote: In my experience, terrain is both more interactive and more impacting in Warmahordes than 40k. That being said, someone could make a 24" long LOS blocking piece of terrain in 40k and play scenarios with it--whereas Warmahordes Steamroller is fairly specific in terrain placement in scenarios. I guess the reason I mention that, is that someone can trot out an ad absurdum piece of 40k terrain and state it is more game impacting---and while that may be true, we should look at it in terms of realistic terrain that is placed on a table in a competitive environment.
And in that case, I would reassert that Warmahordes has more interactive/impacting terrain. Slamming models into obstructions, two hand throwing models over walls, slamming models into shallow water, concealment, etc etc.--all of those things can (and often do) have a large effect on game play--and in general, a +2, +4 is a pretty big deal when effecting the probability curve on 2d6.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
AgeOfEgos wrote: In my experience, terrain is both more interactive and more impacting in Warmahordes than 40k. That being said, someone could make a 24" long LOS blocking piece of terrain in 40k and play scenarios with it--whereas Warmahordes Steamroller is fairly specific in terrain placement in scenarios. I guess the reason I mention that, is that someone can trot out an ad absurdum piece of 40k terrain and state it is more game impacting---and while that may be true, we should look at it in terms of realistic terrain that is placed on a table in a competitive environment.
And in that case, I would reassert that Warmahordes has more interactive/impacting terrain. Slamming models into obstructions, two hand throwing models over walls, slamming models into shallow water, concealment, etc etc.--all of those things can (and often do) have a large effect on game play--and in general, a +2, +4 is a pretty big deal when effecting the probability curve on 2d6.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.
In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.
Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?
slowthar wrote: So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?
Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.
In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.
Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?
Certainly, this facts all help to it.
1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.
And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.
So you are telling me that at equal lvls of skill the better list has better chances at winning, how on gods green earth is this a bad thing?.
There is cornflakes composition and there is all comers composition, if you cant tell the difference or if you think they should be on equal footing, you are missing the point of "strategy".
And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.
40k has plenty of strategy and tactics, what 40k lacks is maneuvering. In 40k units usually either move forward, or backwards and you try to optimize your position to either assaulting the enemy, or repulsing the assault, or to maximize your shooting. Flanking has little meaning, except sometimes against vehicles.
Objective based games are less sensitive to codex imbalance, this was particularly true in 5th edition, maybe slightly less true now when even book missions have secondaries.
And 40k has neither strategy nor tactics; if you bring the better list, you win. Period.
40k has plenty of strategy and tactics, what 40k lacks is maneuvering. In 40k units usually either move forward, or backwards and you try to optimize your position to either assaulting the enemy, or repulsing the assault, or to maximize your shooting. Flanking has little meaning, except sometimes against vehicles.
Objective based games are less sensitive to codex imbalance, this was particularly true in 5th edition, maybe slightly less true now when even book missions have secondaries.
Actually, the maneuvering comes in the form of terrain, 30 guardsman in the open will not last the same as the same in cover, regardless what you are shooting.
Flanking in 40k does not give you more damage on your target but usually better cover and positioning.
Graphite wrote: I've never played Warmachine or Hordes, therefore all the Warmahordes players will tell me that the entirety of the following post is completely wrong. :-D
However, from what I've read on here (and looking at the quick start rules) it appears that Warmahordes is a warGAME, i.e. it's a game first with conflict as its setting. If the designers so wished they could change the setting to running a restaurant or playing dodgeball or something and the game itself would lose nothing by it, other than aesthetics. The interaction of pieces and their abilities is king, and the pieces as individuals are worth far, FAR less than the sum of their parts. In this context, terrain is also a piece, since from the discussion above it appears that one individual piece of terrain can have an extreme impact on a game.
(This also makes the game, to my mind, quite tricky to learn for someone who only manages to get in 2-3 games of anything a year, and would rather that those games weren't spent being annihilated due to unfamiliarity with rules interactions. But that's not Warmachine's problem, it's mine.)
40k, on the other hand, is a WARgame, in that the objective is to simulate an abstract version of war and the game is the mechanism by which this is achieved. Other (better) WARgames exist. I'd say that a characteristic of most of them is that they don't totally depend on unit-to-unit interaction, with one unit causing another to work in a different way. Most units can do most things, though not necessarily with the same ability. And quite often, Things Go Wrong in a way that's at least partially out of your control.
Frequently, as in those other, better games this take the form of your troops not doing what they're told because they're suppressed/running away/pinned/didn't receive the order. I'm thinking specifically of Stargrunt, Necromunda and Epic Armageddon for these things, but they appear to be present in Bolt Action, Flames of War, Warmaster and it's derivatives, Tomorrows War, etc. etc. It's in Warhammer, too, especially if you play Orcs. An element of control is taken out of the player's hands, and they player then has to deal with the consequences. I like this, I can understand that many people don't. It strikes me as part of the "simulating war" thing.
40k USED to be better at this, but they've been essentially removing Morale and Pinning for years which is a bit of a shame.
Individual terrain elements don't have a great deal of effect, but if you've got a lot of it the battle changes and it tends to be vital to force manoeuvre. Playing Stargrunt on an empty table is an exercise in both sides being pinned for an entire game.
(As a side note, as I'm aware that the individual abilities of troops won't tend to make an enormous difference and I don't have a bunch of interactions to learn I'm much less hesitant about giving this type of game a go - the principals of concentration of force etc. will generally work whichever set of rules mechanics you throw it at).
So, in summary, I think if you've decided not to play Warmachine for a while, or whatever, it may be worth it to try a different style of game rather than due to some inherent flaw or virtue in the rules of Warmachine or 40k. Try some of the wargames I mentioned above, as well as 40k! Stargrunt is free! GO GET IT.
As a 40k/WM player, I logged in to say I fully agree with this post.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).
I'm not sure what your experiences are in Warmahordes, however as someone that's attended Warmachine Weekend, Adepticon, Kill-N-Grill and several (several) local tournaments over the past 2 years--I've honestly never had a game where terrain was not used nor impacting on the game. You can usually tell terrain has a significant effect on a game when you see opponents electing to go 2nd so they may choose table side--and this is not uncommon in Warmahordes. If you've had a negative experience with terrain in Warmahordes, lightly suggest to your group that they increase the amount of terrain and reference the Steamroller packet in terms of placement--it will likely increase your enjoyment of the game.
RE: the MTG reference, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If you're saying it's all about card combos in Warmahordes, I would disagree. Model placement is paramount in Warmahordes, which increases piece trades in your favor, which usually requires seeing a turn ahead (or two). That requires execution and strategy.
I love seeing players try to say that Warmachine has little strategy or tactics but 40k does. Kindof like saying that Chess has little strategy or tactics but Yahtzee does. And Yahtzee where certain dice colours are loaded.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).
Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.
What are you executing, if not tactics? Your argument seems completely void of a complete process.
Strategy is list building, tactics, and their execution, is what wargames are all about. Warmahordes is a warGame. Bolt action is still more a warGame. Many more historical leaning titles are WARgames. Or whatever this metaphor is supposed to be. Warhammer 40k, in either instance, is bad. It's tone of "force the narrative" with an ever changing, never advancing narrative makes it suggest it's a sandbox. However, playing it as a sand box requires either the same motivations of players to be identical and/or a large amount of house rules.
Warhammer 40k is a substandard product with a very high cost. Warmachine is a solid to excellent product with a very high cost. That's about the difference; the quality. Ones a good game with descent fluff, the other is a poor game and fluff that's been drug through the mud or retconned to add "the model of the week".
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).
Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.
A great thread - that you seem to be trolling in. Please post several battle reports of you playing at your FLGS of 40k terrain and WM. The local WM tables are fairly heavy on terrain in my area. I lost quite a few games at steamrollers becuase a large obstruction was near a zone I needed/made charges weird when I was using a Wold Wrath/larger models. Terrain on the table for my faction in WM plays a huge part in the game (Circle).
And for the poster who compared MtG to WM, please provide pictures/lists/breps/proof of your past few games of WM.
slowthar wrote: So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?
Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'
Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?
slowthar wrote: So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?
Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'
Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?
Very much so, ever heard of the random objective cards?.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).
Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.
Well, it is an impression that I think the thread is getting based on the style of posts exhibited. For example, calling other's 'buddy' on an online thread is usually viewed as passive aggressive and won't typically move the conversation forward.
If you do play Warmahordes and feel like terrain is lacking in your area, I would suggest bringing it up with your Press Ganger. I've never met a Press Ganger yet that wasn't open to helping improve their local area Warmahorde games--so you might give that a shot--as it would likely increase your enjoyment of the game.
slowthar wrote: So, to be clear, you're saying there's no strategy to MTG, but there is to 40k?
Only as far as list building, the rest is execution specially the higher up the ladder you move, things become increasingly more predictable, been there done that.
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I *think* what you're saying is that in MTG the only strategy is list building, and after that, it's just about executing the combos in your deck? (And that Warmachine is the same way) But in 40k there's more strategy during the game than there is MTG and WM?'
Assuming that's correct, I think what you're saying that you believe MTG decks and WM armies are both built to just push a button and execute a strategy that either works or doesn't, but 40k is more about adjusting during the game. Is that correct?
Very much so, ever heard of the random objective cards?.
Okay, just making sure.
A few things:
1. Do you think random objective cards force you to make more tactical decisions than your opponent's deck in MTG or your opponent's army in WM?
2. Do you think that the list building in 40k is more strategically more or less important than in the other two? (assume deck building in MTG = list building)
3. If I tell you I'm bringing faction X to the table and you have to play faction Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in WM?
4. If I tell you I'm bringing color X to the table and you have to play color Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in MTG?
5. If I tell you I'm bringing codex X to the table and you have to play codex Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in 40k?
To follow onto that, I'm proposing that something like any reasonable Eldar army vs. any reasonable SoB army is virtually unwinnable in 40k, but in MTG and WM, there is no scenario where simply selecting your faction/color is an almost completely determinant factor in who wins the game.
And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.
Terrain is not impacting if you dont use it buddy, no matter how you spin it.
Own it already, warmachine is magic the gathering with miniatures, execution is not the same as strategy or tactics. Otherwise Olympic diving would be a strategy game.
You seem emotionally vested in this conversation, there's no real reason to be so (Unless you truly feel I'm your buddy, then hi friend).
Lol, why would i be, i manufacture neither and play both. Just calling it like i see it. I could post several bat reps and so on, with void or symbolic terrain boards, but whats the point everybody knows it is like that.
Really you play both? After your views on playing other games from other threads, I find that hard to belive. I really doubt you play both games, I might belive you played A game of Warmachine, but have a hard time seeing you giving any other game then GW games a chance. So if you did pick up another company's game what changed.
1. Do you think random objective cards force you to make more tactical decisions than your opponent's deck in MTG or your opponent's army in WM?
2. Do you think that the list building in 40k is more strategically more or less important than in the other two? (assume deck building in MTG = list building)
3. If I tell you I'm bringing faction X to the table and you have to play faction Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in WM?
4. If I tell you I'm bringing color X to the table and you have to play color Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in MTG?
5. If I tell you I'm bringing codex X to the table and you have to play codex Y, do you think there's an unbeatable scenario for you in 40k?
To follow onto that, I'm proposing that something like any reasonable Eldar army vs. any reasonable SoB army is virtually unwinnable in 40k, but in MTG and WM, there is no scenario where simply selecting your faction/color is an almost completely determinant factor in who wins the game.
And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.
1- Yes they do, because they alter "partial" victory conditions. The whole point of deck building in MTG and WM is to define and optimize your chosen victory condition.
2- Compared to the other 2, less so.
3- Nope. As many have said, you always have the kill the king crutch.
4- MTG does not revolve about colors it revolves around deck archetypes, having said that, save statistically acceptable bad draws and so on, the scales are certainly tipped in one or the other decks favor, case in point 6 of the top 8 decks being pod, jund before that.
5- Depends, reasonably close toghether armies (as in from the same edition) they should be broadly evenly matched.
Even so, questions 3 to 5 have to do with with balance, which is not the same as tactical depth.
And therefore, I contend that the notion of strategy being more important in 40k games is a load of bu*^$%1t. The game is decided by at least 75% of what faction you and your opponent play and what army you and your opponent bring, before a single model (or piece of terrain) is put on the table.
If you are bad at list building, yes that is certainly the case, dont have a problem with that either, list building is part of the strategy you employ. Cornflakes and All comers are not the same, nor should they be equally successful, the same applies to WM and MTG for that matter. The only difference is that in 40k you dont have your kill the king crutch.
Recently, I have been busy with school, two jobs and that so I find it hard to get a game in in recent days (which I hope does not persist after my seasonal job is done). After I sold my 40k stuff to get more for Warmachine after a while, I was thinking of getting a small force just to have a game or so, but look around for cheap. After I saw 7th edition drop, the price, and the rules and game direction it was going from what I saw (from some battle reports and some of the rules from leaks, it just seemed like edition 6.5 to me), I could not justify getting into it again. Even with 6th, pick-up games were meh without some negotiation and talking what rules mean before we had an argument during the game since the rules in my opinion . This I do not like if I want to get a game in on my free time as just a pick-up game, which felt time was wasted.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish. Again, my thought on it, ymmv everyone. Even though skill and getting used to the list does become an hinderance, I'll take that for better rules and balance over 40k, especially since the Chicagoland area has a decent following for Warmahordes.
However, to the OP, as a few suggested, try smaller point games and Journeyman leagues. As well, you can still play both 40k and Warmachine (also Korijo's 40IK ruleset). If both bore you, I say try another game that might interest you. If you do enjoy 40k, then you are free to play that then.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.
There were Minor Psychic Powers in 4th, and those had carried over into 5th to an extent (at least, until the codices which had them built in cycled out).
In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.
Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?
Certainly, this facts all help to it.
1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.
1 - Chess has no terrain at all.
2 - Chess is very heavily combo based
3 - Chess has a I WIN button
4/5 - Objectives? What are objectives?
Thus 40k is more tactical than chess. Yeeeeaaaah... Right.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.
I can't actually think of a time I had to roll on a table to determine something in 5th ed. I know orks did but they are orks, off the top of my head the only thing was deployment and mission types. No warlord traits, no powers, no charges, no mysterious terrain and no random objectives. Once models where on the table that was it for the random rolls.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
Edit: I just remembered that Orks (and I believe a few other codices in 5th) had you roll for your powers.
I can't actually think of a time I had to roll on a table to determine something in 5th ed. I know orks did but they are orks, off the top of my head the only thing was deployment and mission types. No warlord traits, no powers, no charges, no mysterious terrain and no random objectives. Once models where on the table that was it for the random rolls.
Ork rolls were fun and random but they were the outlayer. DE had there roles at the start of the game for Witches I think but that was really about it.
What made me throw in the dice (see what I did there?) besides the price increase that hit right before 6th Ed (and hey look at that it was fliers and other "Good" units that got the biggest increase) was the randomness. The silliness that somebody like Eldrad would have to roll to see what power he got. Charges being random..... I mean come on thats just plain stupid right there......
I lost my last game in Warmachine because the Cryx caster had a high def and was up on a hill, giving her a higher defense. It was down to the wire and I had to kill her that turn or he'd kill my caster with a charging Slayer jack. I shot everything I had at the caster but just couldn't hit her because of that stupid hill.
Yes, Warmachine uses scenery and they do it better than 40k because the scenery actually matters and isn't there for just decoration.
Vertrucio wrote: Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.
This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.
Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.
The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.
Vertrucio wrote: Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.
This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.
Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.
The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.
In Warmachine, there's always a chance at winning. You could only have your Warcaster alive, and make an assassination run on your enemy and clinch the game. How units interact is more important than what units you bring, as it should be.
Care to explain exactly how Warmachine *doesn't* have tactics, but 40k somehow does?
Certainly, this facts all help to it.
1- There actually is terrain on the board and we play with it.
2- It is not combo based.
3- There is no i win button (kill their king).
4- Objectives are not reliant on the killiness of the unit, in fact the better objective grabbers tends to be the less killy units with in a codex.
5- There is more than 1/2 objectives in a bigger board.
1 - Chess has no terrain at all.
2 - Chess is very heavily combo based
3 - Chess has a I WIN button
4/5 - Objectives? What are objectives?
Thus 40k is more tactical than chess. Yeeeeaaaah... Right.
Plus, Chess is all about just pushing a button and activating your gambits.
Vertrucio wrote: Guys. You're throwing out blatantly one sided, blind, opinionated arguments on both sides.
This is just a case of personal preference, plain and simple.
Both games have positive and negatives. Both have reasons to play. They're two drastically different games that players can enjoy, regardless of how someone might enjoy the other game.
The only reason why the two games are considered competitors are that they happen to be miniature games, when the reality is they're incredibly different.
I want to like WM/Hordes, but Im not a fan of the artstyle at all.
I have tried to look past that, but then I see every game is played with no terrain, on a flat table. Thats a bit boring looking to me.
I generally like the rules, but the artstyle is just too unappealing for me to get into the game. Every time I start looking through the armies, prepared to take the plunge, I see these fugly minis and just cant pull the trigger.
Crimson Devil wrote:I think he must have trouble protecting his caster, since he seems to have a lot of contempt for that victory condition.
Yep. It's really common for people to blame their own failings on the situation.
Unnecessary caster risk is probably the most important factor in preventing a victory from being transformed into a defeat, but if a given person doesn't see it as a risk they have to manage and instead see it as a flaw in the rules, they will never, ever learn.
Unnecessary caster risk is probably the most important factor in preventing a victory from being transformed into a defeat, but if a given person doesn't see it as a risk they have to manage and instead see it as a flaw in the rules, they will never, ever learn.
A lot of people don't initially understand the depth of a caster kill. All they see is a bunch of movement, buffing, boosts and attacks that leaves their caster dead and their game a loss. All they internalise is 'My opponent did X and I lost'. They don't think back and realise 'Hey I should have cast Blur. I could have done the same thing from there which would have granted me cover. I shouldn't have allocated so much to my jack. I should have used that solo to engage.' Or a million other things, and that's before you even bring in 'oh I forgot they had True Sight...' or 'They have CMA? Really?' People don't see that their turn was the time to take defensive measures and the balance between offence and defence is one of the more challenging things to master.
Yeah, it's super complex. I just know I've seen my share of people try the game out, lose to an easy caster kill and get all snooty about it. As if winning that way is cheap or shouldn't count or something. Some quickly grow past it, but if someone's not willing to admit that it was something they did and instead blames the rules, the chance of them figuring it out before they quit, is very, very low.
My favorite way to win is to assassination trap against aggressive casters. Rahn is particularly good at it. The opponent thinks they're the one going for the caster kill but their setup turn before their run is my chance to assassinate. And with Rahn, he gets to be a million miles away and still go for it.
I had a laugh today at the FLGS when I noticed the Warmachine game being played had a good amount of terrain (GF9's 2 hills and 4-5 tree stands) on the board and the WHFB game next to it had nothing on the table. Completely empty. There was plenty of terrain on the shelves to use but they didn't want to.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.
Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.
Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.
In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.
sand.zzz wrote: I want to like WM/Hordes, but Im not a fan of the artstyle at all.
I have tried to look past that, but then I see every game is played with no terrain, on a flat table. Thats a bit boring looking to me.
I generally like the rules, but the artstyle is just too unappealing for me to get into the game. Every time I start looking through the armies, prepared to take the plunge, I see these fugly minis and just cant pull the trigger.
I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......
Now I am not saying its a bad game - Just not a game I want to play - enjoying more: 40K Dropship Commander, Uncharted Seas, Dredd and others at the moment..............
I would agree that terrain in WFB is often ignored and 40K tables seldom have enough on them - especially at tournaments where they seem to like helping gunline armies..............
Mr Morden wrote: I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......
wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?
Mr Morden wrote: I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......
wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?
nah we just set it up like one of our normal skirmish games - so several walls, few piles of large rocks and large expanse of trees
Mr Morden wrote: I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......
wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?
Is that how people around you play it? Because they're doing it very, very wrong.
EDIT: Do I detect some goalpost-shifting? Because first it was "Terrain doesn't matter in Warmahordes", and now it's "No one uses terrain in Warmahordes."
I agree with everything up to the point where you say 40k is written for kids. Now I kicked the 40k habit right at the start of 6th Ed. It's a game that has its rules, and yes they are really, really bad IMHO but that doesn't mean we should belittle them (hence belittling the people that play them and probably like them).
But its the truth: GW have stated several times that their target audience are teenagers and the progressive removal of tactical options from the players hands to replace them with random occurrences that we've seen since the release of 6th edition, is just the targeting of the rules to this specific age demographic. I'm not trying to intentionally belittle anyone.
Regardless of who GW think they're aiming at, doesn't the fact that the overwealming majority of gamers are adults mean that 40k is not for kids? Wasn't there a survey recently showing that the average gamer has been playing for 30 years or something?
I think looking at the aesthetics and pricing of 40k it's very difficult to say that it's aimed at children.
Thinking about the Terrain argument that's going on in here. I think it might be a bit more than that...
I have a feeling that people that are complaining about it never really got past a few battle box games, or just played Caster Kill a few times and never played Scenario for which the game was actually designed.
WM/H does get really boring quick of all you are doing is lining up two armies on the table with no objectives and no terrain, but pick a scenario from the steamroller packet and through down some forests, a hill or two, walls and a house. and blam funzzies as far as the eye can see.
Regardless of who GW think they're aiming at, doesn't the fact that the overwealming majority of gamers are adults mean that 40k is not for kids? Wasn't there a survey recently showing that the average gamer has been playing for 30 years or something?
I think looking at the aesthetics and pricing of 40k it's very difficult to say that it's aimed at children.
That poll was overwhelmingly directed towards historical wargames, which tend to attract an older crowd.
I would hazard a guess and say that most adult 40k players started in earlier editions, the earliest of which were targeted towards an older crowd.
GW's current strategy is to get a Birthday and Christmas buy for teenagers either with their own disposable income, or parents willing to buy their kids GW products.
5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.
Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.
Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.
In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.
But random tables that are many times pointless are what people tend to complain about though. If 7th ed had removed random charge distances and replaced it with every HQ doesn't get to pick their gear but the player randomly rolls on a set of tables to determine what the quatermaster handed them before the battle. You would get weird combinations like SM captains in scout armor, with a storm shield and a bolt pistol or something stupid. People would probably complain a lot about how they are no longer in control over what gear their HQ gets, and focus very little on the change to charge ranges. People don't generally like randomization with stupid charts and when the game randomizes what stuff they get to use like what psychic powers they get.
Warmachine on the other hand, the rules are more streamlined and easier to follow for the most part, meaning that the rules are universally understood from one place to another. The other is that I feel my choices make an impact on the game, which is more of a better prospective than just randomness being part of the game for the sake of randomness which I feel takes away of what 40k is trying to set out to accomplish.
Lets clear one misconception here: there is quite a bit of randomness in 40k, however what is NOT true is that the game is getting more random by edition. 6th & 7th edition were not, as a whole, any more random than the 5th edition - probably less. However, what increased was sort of 'pointless' randomness (random objectives, psychic powers, terrain) which many players find annoying, especially as it slows down setting up a game.
6th and 7th edition introduced random charge distances, rolling for psyhic powers and Warlord traits (I am thinking 5th edition did not have random powers. Correct me if I am wrong on that), 7th edition included summoning random amount of daemons and the random objective card system. 5th did not have any of this prior, and it had much less of the randomness that bogs down the game.
However, I do agree with your 'pointless' randomness case. I would like to fully know what I have and made before getting to the table, not having something that changes every game in my lists because the dice dictate this to me.
5th edition had random charges, when you had to charge through terrain, which was most of the time.
Biggest random factor in 5th edition was vehicle damage. Cumulative damage was generally insignifant, vehicle's fate was always determined by the Vehicle Damage Table, where you either rolled well (5 or 6) or didn't. Glances usually didn't destroy vehicle unless it was open-topped. This made vehicles very frustrating to play against, because if your dice weren't hot, you'd only keep shaking and stunning them with no long-lasting effect. Unless you were lucky, in which case you blew it up on your first shot. Some enemies ignored these effects (Daemonic vehicles, Grey Knights) so you could keep shooting at enemy vehicles like nuts and end up doing nothing for your troubles. By contrast, in 6th, even a glance was guaranteed to progress the vehicles destruction regardless of your luck with the dice: this removed a huge random element from the game.
Another big chance was reserves. In 5th they were very unreliable as there were non-trivial odds that they would not be seen until 4th or even 5th turn. In 6th, Reserve rolls were made easier and they automatically came in by 4th turn.
Finally, one of the 5th edition book missions was Capture & Control, which had just 2 objectives and no secondaries. This made the mission incredibly random, and it was usually determined by the end-of-game roll. You captured or contested an objective, and hoped for game to end in 5th turn. This element is of course still extant in objective based missions, but with new objectives and addition of secondary objectives, it is much reduced.
In summary, when it came to roll of dice affecting the outcome of the battle, 5th edition was just as, if not more random than 6th and 7th. However, what chanced is that much more obvious, if less signifant, random tables were added to the game, and this created the illusion of 'more randomness'.
For the first, that was just only due to the terrain rules, unlike 6th and 7th where it is overall random. And if I remembered correctly, that was not used too much from what battle reports I saw a while back from what I remembered (and even then, I used to terrain not obstructing movement too much. Again, this is anctedotal for me). For the vehicle chart, that served as a way to see if you did any type of damage, and even on a three or four it still took out a weapon and immobized it and still hindered its effectiveness. Granted it is still a 1/3 chance that it is unaffected, but the other 2/3 can hinder its effectiveness. In 5th the rules where made, in theory, that you needed dedicated unit or weapon to take out heavy vehicles and that. Again, I am not sure how this is more random than before, save for the glancing hit doing an auto damage, which I felt was silly (but that is a different discussion). It may have mitigated the randomness, but it felt like it was not a vehicle. It was almost essentially the same chart as before.
For the reserve rules, I can say I can kind of agree with that, since it was kind of an unreliable tactic, even if it was one higher. Also, the scenario you where describing is not really random at all since it is basically two forces pushing into enemy territory while holding your own. Again, not seeing how this is anyway random.
Maybe some of the randomness was removed from 5th to 6th, but it decided to add a lot more randomness that was not even needed or even went against the 'Forge the Narrative' mindset the game touts. This to me shows that 40k became a lot more random in the long run.
I want to like Warmachine more. If think a lot off the background could be better (although I think that about every wargame). The tight gameplay appeals to me as it reminds me of card game interaction, however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot. I also wish there were more warjack viable armies across the board and better models. Also the original page 5 didn't endear me to PP.
On the other hand 40k is a horrendous mess, with the only redeeming feature being 30k rules under 6th edition or whatever Forgeworld designed them for.
As long as folks are having fun though it's good for wargaming as a whole.
Mr Morden wrote: I am the opposite - I like a lot of the background and imagery (def not the Trolls though - really dislike them) and can't get on with the rules - we played a few games and just didn't enjoy it very much - too finicky and dependant on "kill the king, sod the scenario" for our taste coupled with the dodgy lets pretend not to premeasure aspect. Terrain seemed a bit odd that you got it if within a certain distance but could happily shot over it from a distance without penalty.......
wait, you played with actual terrain? or was it like 2 trees to make a "forest" in a 4 by 4 empty table?
Is that how people around you play it? Because they're doing it very, very wrong.
EDIT: Do I detect some goalpost-shifting? Because first it was "Terrain doesn't matter in Warmahordes", and now it's "No one uses terrain in Warmahordes."
Either way, good troll A+ would read again.
Yeah, I still in the court of he never played the game or only played like once or twice. Sheep and all that jazz.
Zond wrote: ... however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot.
The last reboot wasn't that long ago. Like 4 or 5 years depending on how much of the field test you count. Part of the plan though, was to provide rules for all existing models. In the future, I think they'll approach it the same way. A reboot won't reduce the number of choices you have for your armies, so you'll have the same issues.
That said, I'm surprised how well my stuff made up from models appearing in the original mk1 Prime book works today. They seem to have figured out how to not have total powercreep. The only things that have come out in the last while that cause me concern are the huge based models and the proliferation of the spell purification (the one that removes all upkeep spells in a caster's control radius).
The colossals and gargantuans ended up being less of an issue than I first thought. I keep killing them with a heavy and some armour cracking infantry. Or two heavies. Or in some cases, a single unit charging. Or in other games, I avoid them entirely and win around them. I do have a couple opponents though, who play at the various US national level competitions who really know how to use them and protect them. Even then, I'd still rather see an archangel or a judicator than two angels or two reckoners.
The proliferation of purification just means that upkeep dependent archetypes become less reliable. Like when someone plays eVlad infantry support and meets eMorvana. Camp and cast upkeeps as needed as single turn buffs because if you actually deploy your spells, they're just wasted focus. So you play differently and you do fine, but it is a hard counter to what's cool about a particular list and you have to figure out how to use it differently.
Sometimes you just want your list to shine doing the cool thing it does. Whether it's eDeneghra denying a list's cool thing related to movement with her feat, or Purification taking away the cool thing of unkeep casters, or feats that limit the allocation or spending of focus/fury on feats, abilities or spells that deal with that, sometimes you just have hard counters to deal with. Upkeep buffs just happens to be an approach I like, so naturally I find an approach that just says "no" to be boring. I find the Withershadow Combine unbinding something and causing some damage way, way more interesting than just "all those spells go away."
frozenwastes wrote: The colossals and gargantuans ended up being less of an issue than I first thought. I keep killing them with a heavy and some armour cracking infantry. Or two heavies. Or in some cases, a single unit charging. Or in other games, I avoid them entirely and win around them. I do have a couple opponents though, who play at the various US national level competitions who really know how to use them and protect them. Even then, I'd still rather see an archangel or a judicator than two angels or two reckoners
This is something that IMO highlights a difference between the games:
In 40k if you bring a titan to the game, unless your opponent is prepared for it you're going to win no matter what, because the titan is super-powerful.
In Warmachine if you bring a Colossal/Gargantuan to the table, it's just another tactical choice in your army because the Colossal/Gargantuan is little more than two Warjacks/beasts in one.
But random tables that are many times pointless are what people tend to complain about though. If 7th ed had removed random charge distances and replaced it with every HQ doesn't get to pick their gear but the player randomly rolls on a set of tables to determine what the quatermaster handed them before the battle. You would get weird combinations like SM captains in scout armor, with a storm shield and a bolt pistol or something stupid. People would probably complain a lot about how they are no longer in control over what gear their HQ gets, and focus very little on the change to charge ranges. People don't generally like randomization with stupid charts and when the game randomizes what stuff they get to use like what psychic powers they get.
Sure thing, and if you noted, I said myself that many random tables in 6th and 7th edition gets annoying. Often they don't have that much effect on game, but they're annoying. I kinda see the point why they introduced Warlord traits - to make the HQ's matter more than just being a big melee beatstick - and I think the current system where named characters have fixed traits, and generic roll from the table, is ok. Also I don't think random charges are bad, they are sort of necessary if pre-measuring is allowed - which IMO is a good thing.
However, I don't understand the point of random psychic powers. I guess it's to stop people from spamming certain good powers. Also as said, I don't like Mysterious terrain or Objectives, they should be just optional rules.
Sure thing, and if you noted, I said myself that many random tables in 6th and 7th edition gets annoying. Often they don't have that much effect on game, but they're annoying. I kinda see the point why they introduced Warlord traits - to make the HQ's matter more than just being a big melee beatstick - and I think the current system where named characters have fixed traits, and generic roll from the table, is ok. Also I don't think random charges are bad, they are sort of necessary if pre-measuring is allowed - which IMO is a good thing.
However, I don't understand the point of random psychic powers. I guess it's to stop people from spamming certain good powers. Also as said, I don't like Mysterious terrain or Objectives, they should be just optional rules.
I am pretty sure the random powers thing game from warhammer fantasy, as did the pre-measuring and random charge distances. 8th ed WH added pre-measuring and random charge distances and had random generation for spells and was released before 6th ed 40k.
I agree on mysterious terrain/objectives people I played 6th ed with never used them, a lot of times because both players forgot.
Zond wrote: ... however I'm not convinced there can be an endless release schedule for every faction before the game becomes a complex mess, and I'm waiting for some sort of reboot.
The last reboot wasn't that long ago. Like 4 or 5 years depending on how much of the field test you count. Part of the plan though, was to provide rules for all existing models. In the future, I think they'll approach it the same way. A reboot won't reduce the number of choices you have for your armies, so you'll have the same issues.
Yeah I'm aware of Mk 2 rules update. However I honestly can't see all th factions continually getting one or two models forever before PP pull a GW and remove some units. In some ways it makes sense don't a full reboot of that nature at some point. I'm just not sure I want to be playing when PP divide the community into standard, modern and legacy.
I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.
At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.
That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.
At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.
That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.
GW has managed it for a while. There are many ways they can do it:
- release new sculpts of old models
- release plastic versions of old models
- add new factions
- alternate models
- theme force specific models
- new / more varied unit attachments
- more concrete support for large-scale games of 2+ warlocks
- gradually reduce release schedule
- add a handful of new units
- repeat
frozenwastes wrote: I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.
At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.
That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.
I quickly brisked the the latter part of this post and I laughed at the notion entertained pertaining to sexism and homophobia. I find so many more women playing Warmahordes than I do 40k. I have came across numerous people in person and on the web that play 40k treating women differently while in Warmahordes it seems to not be brought up at all.
Anyways, back to the original post, Warmahordes is not a replacement for 40k. I have come to find out as of late, that I needed a change of pace, something more competitive and contrasting to the very laid back attitude of 40k. I recently sold my GK army but I have kept my BAs only because I will have the itch to play 40k. I have shelled out thousands of dollars on 40k and I am nowhere near that for Warmahordes but I have no shame or regret in doing so if it comes to that.
40k is fun, laid back, and everybody I have played with is the same way (of course, that can be attributed to your community). While in Warmahordes, I have learned to overlook the .2 inch extra movement cry babies by simply not playing them. I am still a new player so I am almost constantly losing as everybody in my area have played since MK1, but I have no qualms.
frozenwastes wrote: I don't know what they are going to do. I know they've been reducing sku bloat by ending the box + blisters to get to a full unit and replacing them with full units. So that helps retailers, but what about the average person? The Forces of Warmachine books have five or six MK1 releases worth of stuff (plus the jack or so that each faction got when their FoW came out) and now they're on their 4th expansion for MK2 next spring.
At some point this is going to get unmanageable. They're already at the stage where you need prime + expansions for all the rules in the game. In MK1 they came out with a remix version that incorporated cavalry rules and the like into the core rules. Perhaps we'll see Warmachine MK2 REMIX that has battle engines, colossal rules and whatnot, so people don't have to buy multiple books to get all the game rules.
That still doesn't solve the problem of each army having 10 releases worth of models next year. It's a lot of stuff.
People should not fall into the fallacy that books beyond Prime are needed. Rules for each model are on the cards themselves.
The "Forces Of" books are nice for the fluff but thats about it.
If you want all the rules in an easy to read and reference place get War Room and spend the $6 on a single faction and Blam all the rules area available to you..... all the theme forces are right there. New cards are in it the day they are released, and its updated when new errata hit too. Also the latest verisions List builder is pretty solid now that they added theme forces etc.
As far as bloat in the game goes..... I know its something that looms on the horizon. I am really not sure what PP has planned. They do however plan 2-3 years in advance so who knows...I think maybe that as they do have an evolving time line in there fluff I could see them "killing" off Casters/ Locks and just not making new versions of those models.
y rules writing
