From being a warhammer and 40k player for some time, some of my friends have branched into warmachine claiming it is a more tactical game.
I still play 40k with a separate group of friends but have become intrigued.
I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part. Both forces seemed to face off against each other and rolled dice on a barren battlefield.
I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?
Terrain is a really big deal in Warmachine. It's probably too big a deal, and different factions/lists have very strongly differing ability to handle terrain - some lists in some factions can practically ignore most terrain, while others are crippled by it. That leads to Warmachine players being a bit timid about putting terrain on the board. The placement rules for tournament play are also a bit restrictive, and people usually play by those even casually.
Movement plays a huge part. I'm not sure what you mean by movement not playing a huge part - the range models can travel is immensely important because getting the first hit is extremely powerful, especially with your warjacks and warbeasts.
Warmachine's biggest strengths are its relatively well-written ruleset, its evocative model rules and its strong tournament support. Warmachine's biggest weaknesses are probably its poor terrain rules, its piece trading - the prevalence of models, even big ones, getting killed in one turn with no chance to retaliate - and the burden of knowledge required to play effectively. Or maybe its plastic models, some of which have hilariously stupid issues like mould lines going in a curve through the centre of the model's face. It's also not a particularly cheap game to play, with Privateer Press seemingly taking their pricing cues from Games Workshop, though it's still significantly cheaper than 40k.
The battlefield may seem barren relative to 40k, but that's because any terrain that is there has a massive impact on the game.
Unless you have a special rule called Pathfinder(or Flight) then any rough terrain you pay double movement, and can't charge over walls. And some factions have little access to Pathfinder, or only on certain models.
Movement is actually very important. Even the slightest mm of positioning can be the difference between winning and losing.
People should be playing the game with 5-6 pieces of terrain on the board, and that is plenty.
If you want to learn more about warmachine I would look up the Chain-attack podcast(they also have lots of youtube battlereports) as they have a new players series that helps with learning the game from professional players. But nothing can replace in person learning. They also have more representative terrain than some channels, some people are lazy with terrain.
I think you'd have to try it to understand it. Simple movements can mean the difference between victory and horrible defeat.
There's a lot of resource management, timing and positioning all going on at once.
It's hard to see it, but if you're playing it you'll get it!
These are some of the reasons why WMH is more tactical than 40k:
- Lower ranges on weapons, spells and movement mean that movement and placement are critical in the game, a game of WMH can be won or lost because of a model being a single inch out of position.
- WMH has much less random elements, ensuring that the resolution of a tactical ploy depends almost entirely on the player's choices. Adding to this, the boosting mechanic (amongst others), will further ensure that if he so wishes, a player can even manipulate the odds of whatever dice rolls he is required to make.
- A typical WMH game will have 3 or 4 possible victory goals simultaneously, from simple caster assassination, to a scenario victory, or an attrition victory or even a time victory. This leads to several possible tactical and strategic options being available to the players and allows for a very dynamic game that most times will only be decided at the very end. A player that built his army to win on attrition, can still decide that he is better positioned to try for a scenario victory if the attrition game isn't going his way, or if his opponent gives him an opening, he can try for a desperate caster assassination, for example.
- Better internal and external balance (while by no means perfect), allows for games where the players decisions on the battlefield, more than the individual choice or armies, is the deciding factor on the games outcome.
- Terrain is hugely influential on this game, that is why people use so little of it. A single forest or wall can swing the balance of the game one way or the other in a dramatic fashion... This leads to most people pushing terrain to the edges of the board, where it will have very little influence. People need to learn to follow the terrain rules in SR, but that is an ongoing struggle for everyone.
- Adding to all of this, you have WMH synergistic nature combined with the resource / risk management in the Focus and Fury mechanics and even its activation order rules to add even more layers of tactical complexity to the game.
You can't really compare the two games when it comes to tactical depth.
Hey drago elf, welcome to the pp boards. Grab yourself a juggernaut plushie. I genuinely hope you find something in wArmachine- it's a great game and well worth having a look at. For what it's worth, it's the fame that made me fall in love with the hobby again.
I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part.
With respect, the Bolded part is key.
You'd actually be surprised, movement, terrain and positioning are vital in this game. The need to score zones, open up/block charge lanes is quite crucial. You can't simply hang back in your deployment zone and castle/gunline. You have to seize territory, and hold it. You need to secure positionalvadvantage that lets you control the alpha striking and attritional game and Defensive positions and features such as walls, trenches, and elevation offer huge defensive bonuses. Areas of terrain that grant concealment like forests etc both hinder movement, block line of sight and bollock accuracy. Areas of terrain like water effects again offer huge problems for armies. Impassible features create bottlenecks that can severely restrict movement. I've lost games in the past through losing the manoeuvre game, and having my army get in its own way.
It's not something you see from watching crap on YouTube. Especiall with a limited knowledge of the rules. Just like a boxing back is two guys hitting each other to someone without a clue, it's so much more to someone who understands the techniques and strategies.
I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?
Honestly, it's a different game to 40k and I'd rather sell it on its own strengths that bashing another game. Warmachine has a lot going for it though. It's worth getting into though, even if it's just your bit on the side.
It's got a very tight rules set. No ambiguities. The rules just work, with very little baggage.bthose grey areas tfg thrives on? Yeah, thry don't exist here. For me, It's ame mechanics feellike its lean mean and fighting fit and just lacks the bloat and fat that can drag a game down and I find it an absolute joy to play.
It's got excellent balance, both internally and externally. No, it's not perfect. There are some duds and there are some choices that are s bit too obvious. Thst said, pretty much everything can be built into a game winning strategy. It's not like 40k where the game boils down to a handful of builds from a handful of codices - all the factions can compete at a similar level. You are never out of the game, and with multiple win conditions, there are a whole variety of styles you can explore.
Pp offers great community support, via its pressgangers, leagues and organised play. This is probsbly one of the best things - the community feels well organised.
Page 5. Don't whine, bring your A-game and give it your all, always seek to improve yourself as a player (ie don't noobstalk), be creative, don't simply rely on the same old strategy all the time, win graciously, lose valiantly, and most importantly, page 5 is never an excuse to be a knob to your fellow gamers. Page 5 is refreshing.
Now I'll warn you - it's not all sunshine and rainbows. The models take a bit of getting used to (but like a tumour, they grow on you), converting your models is tricky and thoigh the fluff is a real hidden gem (and quite excellent for what ifs worth) the lack of a 'create your own warcaster' is something a lot of people find a bit hard to get used to, especially when they come over from 40k. I find it's more of a style difference though than a genuine issue though.
Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.
Interesting views about terrain as well!
So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.
dragonelf wrote: Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.
Interesting views about terrain as well!
So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.
They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity
dragonelf wrote: Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.
Interesting views about terrain as well!
So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.
They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity
They're all pretty balanced, but most people would advise to avoid Minions, Convergence and Retribution, along, maybe, with Mercenaries. They have a steep learning curve, and a lack of options compared to the other factions, which can make it somewhat harder.
Circle has a somewhat steep learning curve, but I wouldn't tell someone that that should stop them from playing the faction they want. I say, "What's your play style?" And go from there.
I tend to be less subtle and tricksy and prefer a more fist to face style. So, I started with Khador. But once I got them down a bit, I started Convergence and learned a more subtle style, though sometimes I can still do my fist to face way of fighting.
MWHistorian wrote: Circle has a somewhat steep learning curve, but I wouldn't tell someone that that should stop them from playing the faction they want. I say, "What's your play style?" And go from there.
I tend to be less subtle and tricksy and prefer a more fist to face style. So, I started with Khador. But once I got them down a bit, I started Convergence and learned a more subtle style, though sometimes I can still do my fist to face way of fighting.
Fair enough, and all the factions have a steep learning curve. It's just the problem is compounded by their relative lack of options. Just trying to avoid unpleasant beginnings.
dragonelf wrote: Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.
Interesting views about terrain as well!
So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.
They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity
They're all pretty balanced, but most people would advise to avoid Minions, Convergence and Retribution, along, maybe, with Mercenaries. They have a steep learning curve, and a lack of options compared to the other factions, which can make it somewhat harder.
Have fun!
I can really say, don't start with mercs honestly. I did, and it's kind of a pain because there really isn't an easy way to start them up. If you want to play mercs, start with another faction, and pick up merc units as you go, eventually you'll have what you need to start mercs soon enough, but if you want to, go for it! It's a fun faction, and it has a ton of options, but that might be overwhelming to some people.
I feel like one of the biggest differences with 40k are two things: 1) instant wins and 2) resource management. 1) Even if you're down by a lot, you can still win by killing their warcaster, something harder to do in 40k. 2) 40k really doesn't have resources. It's pretty much line up and fire away. It'd be cool if guys had ammo limits or had to reload, but in 40k, it's just line up and shoot the enemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: A bit of a wod of warning, Battle Boxes typically are not how a faction plays. Like Trolls and Khador like Infantry alot.
Eh, I've heard the Cygnar and Khador boxes are at least decent, same with the Cryx warcaster. Besides, even if they aren't how the faction plays, they are a good start into WarmaHordes. Sidenote: the War Room app comes free with the cards for each unit in the faction's battlegroup.
That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?
I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?
dragonelf wrote: That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?
I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?
You have many examples of mechanics like the Tau marker light in WMH. Many factions in this game rely heavily in synergies between different units like that, some examples:
- Cygnar has a Rangers unit that marks enemy units making shooting them easier for the other units in the army;
- Cyriss has floating robots that shoot flares that accomplish the same thing;
- Cryx has a character solo that Curses enemy models making them easier to hit in melee;
and that is a very limited number of examples, you have many, many more like those in almost all the factions.
dragonelf wrote: That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?
I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?
WarMachine and Horders have different rule books, the rules are the same except for the fury/focus mechanic, and they have the faction basics for that system. I would recommend picking a faction before buying the BRB so you know which one to get.
Something that has surprisingly not been mentioned yet is that swapping out casters will totally change how your army plays. It's pretty neat that just changing one model will totally change the play style of the models/units that you already have.
I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.
I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.
In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.
What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.
Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play. You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.
I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.
40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.
You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.
Both games are fun and you should definitely play it. The game great to learn at the same time as other people.
I like being able to go back and forth between them, what ever system you play you burn out after a while. I don't play as much Warmachine these days. After 10 years the games have sort of blurred together.
In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.
What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.
In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.
Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.
No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.
You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.
That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.
I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.
This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.
40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.
That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.
You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.
If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.
One of my favorite things about PP is they are open about their releases. You know months in advance what's coming out in the market unlike GW where the anoucments are super secret.
obsidianaura wrote: I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.
I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.
Then you don't know what the word "tactical" means.
Cheers for that one
Maybe one of us is misunderstanding tactics vs strategy. To me "Tactics" is more about outmanoeuvring your opponent, with Warmachine that's difficult to do, If we played, especially if more than once, you'll know what I'm going to do. "Strategy" on the other hand (at least as I see it) is about the planning what you're going to do to minimise losses and inflict more casualties. Warmachine is loaded with strategy lots more than 40k but there's not much you can do to outsmart or surprise a veteran wouldn't you say?
In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.
What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.
In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.
I know how the game works, I've played it for a while . If you're not going after the objectives straight away, I think I can probably beat you in by the 3rd turn, unless its assassination, that's probably where you'll need to be most tactical in the game
Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.
No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.
I'm not talking about just one synergy, you could have loads, the army still plays the same way on reuse against the same opponent, even with terrain changes it create much opportunity for getting one over on your opponent. The missions in Warmachine actually decrease the effectiveness of terrain quite often in changing the game
You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.
That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.
I agree it happens in every game no doubt, but the problem is particularly pronounced in WM. I know when I see my friend get out his Cygnar where he'll go, what he'll boost for, what he's avoiding. Maybe it's just me I don't know it's quite samey
I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.
This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.
Sorry I'm not talking absolutes (I'm no Sith) I don't mean you can predict who will win, although with asymmetric games like WM and 40k you sometimes can. But you can look at a game and know how it will move quite easily.
40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.
That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.
I strongly disagree with this. If Warmachine had objectives worth random point values it would be a far more TACTCIAL game. You get to an objective and find its not worth much, that's when your plans need to change, that's when your STRATEGY has failed and you switch TACTICS. The buckets of dice make no difference really.
You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.
If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.
[color=red]If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. You cant be tactical if you both know what you're going to be doing. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K. It's a nicely balanced well written precise game with little wriggle room
When results are less assured its harder to be tactical.
40k and Warmachine I quite different, more and more so the closer you look
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chute82 wrote: One of my favorite things about PP is they are open about their releases. You know months in advance what's coming out in the market unlike GW where the anoucments are super secret.
Definitely, and that they're constantly moving the fluff on.
obsidianaura wrote: I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.
I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.
In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.
What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.
Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play. You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.
I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.
40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.
You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.
Both games are fun and you should definitely play it. The game great to learn at the same time as other people.
I like being able to go back and forth between them, what ever system you play you burn out after a while. I don't play as much Warmachine these days. After 10 years the games have sort of blurred together.
Absolutely disagree with every point you made. (But somebody ninja'd me.)
It's like you have this odd, tunnel vision view of WMH.
And yes, if you think random = tactical, then you don't know what tactical means.
obsidianaura wrote: I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.
I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.
Then you don't know what the word "tactical" means.
Cheers for that one
Maybe one of us is misunderstanding tactics vs strategy. To me "Tactics" is more about outmanoeuvring your opponent, with Warmachine that's difficult to do, If we played, especially if more than once, you'll know what I'm going to do. "Strategy" on the other hand (at least as I see it) is about the planning what you're going to do to minimise losses and inflict more casualties. Warmachine is loaded with strategy lots more than 40k but there's not much you can do to outsmart or surprise a veteran wouldn't you say?
In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.
What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.
In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.
I know how the game works, I've played it for a while . If you're not going after the objectives straight away, I think I can probably beat you in by the 3rd turn, unless its assassination, that's probably where you'll need to be most tactical in the game
Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.
No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.
I'm not talking about just one synergy, you could have loads, the army still plays the same way on reuse against the same opponent, even with terrain changes it create much opportunity for getting one over on your opponent. The missions in Warmachine actually decrease the effectiveness of terrain quite often in changing the game
You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.
That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.
I agree it happens in every game no doubt, but the problem is particularly pronounced in WM. I know when I see my friend get out his Cygnar where he'll go, what he'll boost for, what he's avoiding. Maybe it's just me I don't know it's quite samey
I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.
This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.
Sorry I'm not talking absolutes (I'm no Sith) I don't mean you can predict who will win, although with asymmetric games like WM and 40k you sometimes can. But you can look at a game and know how it will move quite easily.
40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.
That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.
I strongly disagree with this. If Warmachine had objectives worth random point values it would be a far more TACTCIAL game. You get to an objective and find its not worth much, that's when your plans need to change, that's when your STRATEGY has failed and you switch TACTICS. The buckets of dice make no difference really.
You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.
If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.
[color=red]If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. You cant be tactical if you both know what you're going to be doing. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K. It's a nicely balanced well written precise game with little wriggle room
When results are less assured its harder to be tactical.
40k and Warmachine I quite different, more and more so the closer you look
As I thought, you are mistaking the concepts of tactics and strategy when applied to a table top wargame. Tactics don't have anything to do with out-manoeuvring or surprising anyone (those are the results of the tactical choices that a player has made).
In a tabletop miniature game, tactics are all the options available to a player so that he can accomplish his goals. The more different and viable options a player has (and the more care a player needs to take on the execution of his game), the more tactical depth the game has. And when random elements eliminate or diminish those options, then tactical depth also diminishes.
Strategy, when applied to a miniature wargame, is usually confined to the list building phase. It is the broad strokes of how your army is going to operate and how you initially plan to win the game regardless of opponent. 40K is usually considered a more strategic game than WMH, specifically because the list building phase is so crucial in winning the game in 40K.
If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K.
I would argue that whatever freedom you think you have in 40k is only an illusion, because the game will ultimately be decided not by your actions, but by how well you roll the dice. If the game is so random to the point that all the knowledge that you gained from your opponent and how he will react doesn't help you winning the game, then what is the point in playing?
At that point you aren't matching wits and knowledge, you're just flipping a coin.
dragonelf wrote: From being a warhammer and 40k player for some time, some of my friends have branched into warmachine claiming it is a more tactical game.
I still play 40k with a separate group of friends but have become intrigued.
I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part. Both forces seemed to face off against each other and rolled dice on a barren battlefield.
I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?
I think you must be confusing warmachine and 40k. Terrain and movement is everything in warmachine. Terrain and movement are virtually meaningless in 40k by comparison. Terrain in Warmachine limits your LOS (for example 3" through forests), slows your movement (half speed through that same forest), and provides defensive buffs to your opponent (+2 DEF, which is huge) to a target in the forest. Some terrain, such as hills, provide just a +2 DEF bonus to a model on top of it when being fired at from a lower elevation. Some terrain, such as water features, provide movement penalties, and if your warjack happens to get knocked down in it then it becomes inert (unless it has the 'amphibious' rule, which is rare). Some terrain, like walls, provide a +4 DEF bonus to a model taking cover behind it (which is more than huge). Movement also means a hell of a lot. Ranged weapons, more often than not, don't shoot much farther than your targets melee threat range, meaning your movement and positioning is beyond important if you want to keep your dudesmen alive. Moving a bit too close to your opponent can easily mean losing the model to your opponents countercharge. Moving not quite far enough to engage at range can mean losing the unit to melee engagement by your opponents run instead. Beyond that, facing is extremely important, if your opponent manages to get into your back arc then you're taking a DEF debuff as a result.
In regards to Tactics/Strategy, Warmachine is far more tactical than 40k. My individual decisions during the course of a game of Warmachine have far greater impact on an individual game than an individual decision in 40k, owing to the increased complexity of Warmachine, as well as the smaller forces, and the increased importance of maneuver, as well as the 2d6 mechanic more reliably generating a statistically 'average' result, and the tendency for the standard 4x4 table to be 'too large' for the game being played. In 40k the only real decision I make is what unit to target with what unit, and even that isn't that complex a decision as some units simiply cannot harm others. My movement and positioning in 40k is far less important, and in fact made less important by the fact that the standard 4x6 table is much 'too small' for the average game being played (I am of the opinion that games 1500 pts and over really should be played on a 4x8 instead of a 4x6). Beyond that, the larger forces of 40k, with their increased redundancy, means that the loss of any single model (and indeed the loss of entire units in many cases) is virtually meaningless in the grand scheme of things (unlike in Warmachine where a single model can, and often will, decide the outcome of a game). 40k is arguably a more strategic game than Warmachine however, if you look at listbuilding an element of strategy. I find that most games of 40k are won or lost in the listbuilding phase rather than during an actual game itself. Some could make the same argument for Warmachine, as some lists provide fairly hard counters to others, but in competitive play this is circumvented via the multi-list format (and even then, I've defeated 'hard counter' lists before, its more of a challenge, but its not like some of the nigh-undefeatable 'netlists' of 40k.
I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.
Chute82 wrote: I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.
Chute82 wrote: I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.
Chute82 wrote: I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.
Indeed. The mechanics are totally different, so really beyond using miniatures, tape measures, and 6 sided dice, the games have almost nothing in common.
Thanks guys, really helpful stuff. Interesting that people suggest picking a faction and then picking the rulebook that corresponds. As a player I enjoy the preparation side of the battle, theorising about the best units and tactics and the skill of army design. To do that I thought I would need to understand the rules of the game properly.
As a player I prefer an army that isn't one dimensional, has different options so that I can play a different army from one game to the next, and rewards good tactics. I don't particularly want a plod forward or sit back sort of army if that makes sense. Something that is flexible and interesting basically!
dragonelf wrote: Haha! As a newbie means little to me! I guess I'm going to have to research the different casters as well as the different factions! Sounds easy.....!
Not sure if anybody mention it but battle college should give you a little idea on each faction
dragonelf wrote: Haha! As a newbie means little to me! I guess I'm going to have to research the different casters as well as the different factions! Sounds easy.....!
People are suggesting you choose a faction because in general each faction is pretty flexible. So you should choose a faction that appeals to you in other ways, you like the models, fluff, or other reasons.
Is there a particular playstyle you like? We can give recommendations based on that.
Really. What sort of info do you need to know? I am not an all out aggressive player, I prefer to pick an opponent's weaknesses, counterattack, pull him out of position etc. I like fast manoevrable army and I don't like to be predictable.
dragonelf wrote: Really. What sort of info do you need to know? I am not an all out aggressive player, I prefer to pick an opponent's weaknesses, counterattack, pull him out of position etc. I like fast manoevrable army and I don't like to be predictable.
Counter attack is part of the game. It's a part of dealing with alphastrikes, and beatastriking. Generic tactics, not faction specific. In other words, all factions can counter attack. Some. Such as trolls, protectorate and khador may lean slightly more towards it than other factions
Various spells and feats can accomplish this. Generally the realm of 'control casters' and they're not faction specific. Most factions can play this game to some degree.
Most factions can be built this way, both through unit choice (eg cavalry) and through specific casters (eg strakhov, vlad, borka) generally though, cryx and circle would be regarded as fast manoeuvre able armies (circle particularly so!) but to an extent, most factions can play fast and manoeuvrable to some extent.
Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?
dragonelf wrote: Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?
Models and fluff is definitely a thing.
While we say most factions have a variety of plays, don't mistake that for meaning that factions are interchangeable. Some have preference for one style,vor more limited options in others (circle, for example is a very complete faction, but lacks long ranged ranged options) Think of it in terms of 'questions' and 'answers'. Questions are the problems your army poses for your opponent, or else tactical 'hurdles' you need to overcome (hoe do I deal with x, y, z etc) and answers being how you address the 'questions' your opponent asks you. Thing is, different factions might ask the same question in different ways, and they will all answer those same questions differently as well.
If you said, for example you like ranged combat, I'd say cygnar and ret are kings of small arms - rifles, machine guns, and general infantry firepower. Khador also plays an excellent ranged game with its snipers, heavy weapons and artillery (crude and inaccurate - but they lay big holes in the ground! Thry have mortars, flamethrowers and other sprays and the excellent winter guard rifle korps). Menoth plays an excellent ranged game in that while their infantry doesn't have much bar the occasional crossbow, their jacks make excellent mobile artillery pieces,vand with vassals, the choir, and other support elements are extremely accurate and powerful. Even cryx can do ranged with mercenary support and exploding bile thralls.
See what I mean? The same 'question', but answered different ways by the main factions.
I play khador, and circle. Khador is generally infantry centric and attrition based, with a focus on applying damage. But I can do blitzkrieg, control, ranged, melee, assassination attrition, And all with specific builds. With circle, I have better options ofr assassination, Control, but suffer a bit in ranged and attrition. That said, blood trackers, woldstalkers and Nyss mercenaries offer great shooting options, and skinwalkers especially when teamed up with morvahna offer a brilliant attrition ability. Both migbt have a preference for certain things, but still offer a varied playbook.
dragonelf wrote: Haha, well it seems that whatever tactical approach I like, any faction can accommodate it! What is essentially the difference between them then? They can all be manoevrable, aggressive, counterattack, and basically employ any strategy. So does it boil down to fluff and model preference?
Every faction can at the very least use every playstyle. Not every faction is good at every playstyle and they each have some specialties.
You have to be aggressive in this game as others have said, relative to 40k anyway.
Like Darefsky said, you might like circle. Although they don't perfectly fit your chosen style(no faction is all of those things)
Circle is a faction of non-linear threats. They will teleport their heavy beasts into combat, or charge your infantry, kill a bunch, and then run away. Their infantry are fast, hard to hit, but squishy. They have a lot of movement shenanigans.
They're very aggressive and usually get the alpha strike, but they rely on it succeeding as they can't take the counter punch.
One exception are Wolds. They have 2 basic varieties of beasts. Living and Construct. The living beasts are faster, hit harder, and are very fragile. The Wolds, which are animated constructs, are slow, rather pillowfisted, and are insanely durable. Only a couple of their casters can really run Wolds effectively as they're a little more niche.
If you'd like to start Circle, I would pick up the following,
Warlock of your choice. I would pick either version of Kaya, Kromac, or either version of Kreuger.
2 Warpwolf heavy kits. These can be magnetized to give you whichever version you'd like to run at the time.
Gorax. This guy is an all around workhorse. He is Fury4, which is way above average for a light beast, and he hits pretty hard. but he's taken for his animus which lets you have one of your heavies kill something you need dead. There isn't much a Primal'd Stalker can't kill.
1 Shifting Stone unit and their Unit Attachment. This unit exists to teleport your beasts around, but it can also serve as a late game contester. The stones can also help manage your Fury and healing too. Later you'll get a second unit(but no 2nd UA as you can only have 1 of those)
Now you'll want some units. The two mainstays of Circle are Tharn Bloodtrackers and Warpborn Skinwalkers.
Bloodtrackers are a fast hit and run style unit. They have short ranged, but rather powerful, throwing spears. They have really high defense, and Stealth, but have bad armor.
Skinwalkers, with their UA, are a sturdy melee unit. They're fast for heavy infantry and they have good offensive output. You can get the unit really cheap on e-bay because it comes in the 2 player boxed set.
After that, you should be able to make your own choices beyond this level once you've had some play experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dragonelf wrote: Yep I get what you mean now. But how is someone who hasn't played the game or owns any of the army lists to know the differences that you describe.
In other words how can I tell the way that each faction answers questions as you put it.
Well, there is asking questions on forums. Which is free.
Alternately, the app Warroom is a useful reference tool. You can purchase the miniature rules for each faction on the app for $8 each, or you can buy them all for a discount. The app also has list building and damage tracking and general rules reference features. The damage tracking part really only works well on a tablet due to screen size, but as for reference its good on any device, and you get 3 devices per account.
In other words how can I tell the way that each faction answers questions as you put it.
Ask questions yourself?
It's not hard!
'Wow, I really like the look of khador models. Thst butcher guy is a beast (awesome model!) and those pikemen dudes are really cool. How does khador generally play, and what kind of things are in their toolbox? '
Interestingly, I like the hordes imagery a bit better than warmachine but probably prefer the warmachine mechanic slightly better. The armies that I like the models of are Skorne in hordes and Cygnar in Warmachine. I do like Circle and Khador models as well. But my favourite is probably Skorne.
dragonelf wrote: Interestingly, I like the hordes imagery a bit better than warmachine but probably prefer the warmachine mechanic slightly better. The armies that I like the models of are Skorne in hordes and Cygnar in Warmachine. I do like Circle and Khador models as well. But my favourite is probably Skorne.
Skorne are a very brutal army. Their beasts hit like trucks and their infantry is brutal and tough. Thryre excellent At running 'meat mountain' type lists - ie super heavy infantry.
It's interesting that you say you prefer warmachine mechanics - I find the hordes mechanics far more 'interesting' in game terms due to hoe warbeasts and warlocks interact. There are far more interesting tricks possible between a warlock and a warbeast than a warcaster and a warjack. every piece relies on every other piece.
dragonelf wrote: As a player I prefer an army that isn't one dimensional, has different options so that I can play a different army from one game to the next, and rewards good tactics. I don't particularly want a plod forward or sit back sort of army if that makes sense. Something that is flexible and interesting basically!
Neither a plodding forward or a sit back army will really work in this game. Flexible can be useful. As others said, you are giving out pretty general type of things. Maybe since you have played 40K you can let us know what you liked there and we can advise something similar (or different if you choose).
Ret and Cygnar both tend to be combined arms types of armies. You often get a little bit of everything, though you can certainly skew towards other things. Cygnar also has the largest access to mercenaries which can alter their playstyle even more.
Khador tends to be infantry heavy. They can both shoot and melee well. They are not really all that slow.
Cryx is fast, aggressive glass canons. Another faction full of great infantry. However, they have much fewer legitimate shooting options. Their ranged game tends to be spell slinging warcasters.
Menoth gives you the best options for running multiple warjacks. Also some great infantry. They also can be ranged, though their range tends to be inaccurate balls of fire rather than sniper bullets. Still effective, just different.
Circle is similar to Cryx, but can be a bit more hit and run or teleport around. They also have more options for a good ranged game. One big difference is the fury model instead of the focus model. So you will be bringing more warbeasts.
Legion tends to be very shooty from my experience, though they have some powerful melee as well.
Those are the factions I have the most experience/knowledge of. I either play them or play against them a lot. Battlecollege can give you a run down on things, but some of the info (including faction info) can be very out of date. IMO you are best off picking a faction and/or warcaster that you think you will enjoy then come here and get feedback on the idea. Again, the more specifics you can provide about what you are looking for the better feedback we can provide.
I play skorne, I love skorne. As a skorne player, I'm going to punch you in the face, hard, repeatedly, until you die.
We don't really have fancy tricks or finesse tactics besides "See this thing? Do you see it? It hits like a truck. I'm going to make it hit HARDER and FASTER"
Sure zaal and mordikarr can get tricky, but even then it's still very much punch you in the face. Our units do exactly what you think they will do and they're quite good at it.
Skorne can run extremely beast heavy but do best in a combined arms style. Usually swordsmen / berserkers backed up by Incindiarii and a bronzeback.
Did I mention hitting like a truck? A bronzeback can kill a COLOSSAL/GARGANTUAN in one round & still not be full on fury. Of which we torture it's babies & use the agonized wails as a weapon.
So yea if you like roman legion style, samurai honour disciplined, torturous, god-killing (Seriously we killed our gods) dark elves/dark eldar, we're your ticket.
Chain attack podcast just did a episode on skorne. It's a what to expect when playing skorne episode. If you do a search of the chain attack feed you can find the other faction in WMH.
I have to ask, what 40k armies do you play, and do you want something that has the same play style or something that is completely different? I will freely admit that I have 40k Tau and WM Cygnar, which have complimentary tactics on the table top.
When my flgs branched out into PP, it was because you could viably play smaller games with the WM & Hordes rulesets (something that I should have taken with a grain of salt as they immediately went to 50 and 100 point games), and you can get much enjoyment from 10-25 pt games as well.
Play like you got a pair can be misleading. If your warcaster is injured and you can disengage you can reliably heal them by camping focus for a turn or two. Every game doesn't have to devolve into a scrum for you to play like you got a pair.
Something that irks me about some of what was said above is the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy is determining what you are going to bring to the table. Tactics is what you do with those models on the table.
And yes, swapping up your caster in your list can entirely change how you play. for instance, I have (and enjoy using) Kara Sloan/ she is fun, but she rarely wins many games. I like to play her with a trio of Hunters, a Squire, Reinhardt and a max unit of Tempest Blazers. If I decide to switch it up and use Kraye instead, I can totally change how I play the game by changing only one model.
carldooley wrote: I have to ask, what 40k armies do you play, and do you want something that has the same play style or something that is completely different? I will freely admit that I have 40k Tau and WM Cygnar, which have complimentary tactics on the table top.
When my flgs branched out into PP, it was because you could viably play smaller games with the WM & Hordes rulesets (something that I should have taken with a grain of salt as they immediately went to 50 and 100 point games), and you can get much enjoyment from 10-25 pt games as well.
Play like you got a pair can be misleading. If your warcaster is injured and you can disengage you can reliably heal them by camping focus for a turn or two. Every game doesn't have to devolve into a scrum for you to play like you got a pair.
Something that irks me about some of what was said above is the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy is determining what you are going to bring to the table. Tactics is what you do with those models on the table.
And yes, swapping up your caster in your list can entirely change how you play. for instance, I have (and enjoy using) Kara Sloan/ she is fun, but she rarely wins many games. I like to play her with a trio of Hunters, a Squire, Reinhardt and a max unit of Tempest Blazers. If I decide to switch it up and use Kraye instead, I can totally change how I play the game by changing only one model.
100 point games? I wouldn't do that unless we had teams of two. I would find the game too unwieldly at that size. My flgs plays 35 to 50. I think I may prefer 35.
And the "play like you got a pair" doesn't mean charge in recklessly. Of course you can camp and heal. What it's saying is that you have to play to win. If winning means camping and healing, then do it, but WM does favor aggressive tactics, not mindless tactics.
At the shop we mostly play 35 pt games or less. Most people at the shop try to get in as many games as possible that night. 100 pt games is a little big for my choice I prefer quick games then ones that take a couple of hours to play.
I played Orks when I played 40k gave up 40k back in 6th edition, did not like the direction the game was going. Plus I relied on PUG and it was a total nightmare for me. I find PUG a lot easier in warmhordes and I have never had as much fun gaming until now. My 40k Orks don't have much in common with my Menoth and Legion armies.
The first time you are getting hammered and losing miserably and pull off a long-shot assassination because of good positioning and maybe a touch of luck, you will understand why people switch to WMH.
If you are losing horribly in 40k, there usually isn't much to change that. In WMH, a game isn't over until it is over.
I like 40k in narrative/casual for-fun games that aren't serious. I enjoy WMH when I want to play hard and have my opponent bring his or her "A" game.
Just understand what you want from a game and go play ;-)
Thanks again guys, to answer the earlier question, I like playing in various ways with my 40k/fantasy armies.
I don't have one playstyle because I would get bored doing that so my armies reflect a mix of playstyles.
My 40k armies are: tau, dark eldar/harlequins and space wolves
My fantasy armies are: skaven, high elves, lizardmen and tomb kings. Although I haven't played fantasy for some years now.
I have been playing these games on and off for 15 years!
My 40k armies are: tau, dark eldar/harlequins and space wolves
A close equivalent to Dark Eldar would be Retribution of Scyrah, they're angry elves who want to kill all human magic users. Each faction can have different playstyles depending on Casters but I think Ret strikes a nice balance between shooty gunline(Ravyn, Ossyan), magic shenanigans(Rahn, Kahlyssa), and Warjack spam(Vyros 1 for double Hyperion, Vyros2 for 8x light jacks and a heavy). Though their not the most powerful/popular faction, and they have a bit higher learning curve than other factions they can be extremely good. If you think of the armies like weapons some like Skorne and trolls massive hammers, Cygnar is like a pistol(eHaley is a Cassull .454), Retribution is like a rapier, difficult to master, but against an unarmored opponent(in this case any Warmachine Warcaster), it's the deadliest weapon in one on one melee combat.
I don't have one playstyle because I would get bored doing that so my armies reflect a mix of playstyles.
I'd suggest staying away from Menoth, Convergence of Cyriss, Minions, Legion of Everblight and to a lesser extent Cygnar. Those factions tend to have the least diversity between their lists. Don't get me wrong, each of those armies have a broad range of models and lists within their faction, but they've tended to homogenize to and extent where you rarely see anything revolutionary in those armies. I play Menoth and I am currently getting out of Legion and with the exception of a few minor variations, like in Legion swapping out Zuriel or the Sacral Vault for another heavy, 98% of lists are identical to where they were a few years back. Hell the most popular Legion of Everblight army list has basically remained unchanged since 2011 when it was first introduced.
Menoth: List creation is sort of stagnating because we haven't gotten many new releases of major note in Mk2. Most of our newer releases have been decidedly meh or just been a different variation of the same theme. Kreoss3 was an excellent new warcaster, but he didn't bring anything new to the table. He was another buff caster who had some decent offensive output. Which describes basically every Menoth caster.
Convergence are limited because they are new and just don't have a huge model variety yet. Only 5 warcasters, compared to the usual 15-16 for a faction, leads to a lack of variety. Minions have the same problem, just 10 times worse.
Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.
So its not that the factions lack variety, its just that they've not had much new stuff released for a good amount of time that the faction has sort of been figured out by everyone. There isn't much unexplored area for the factions at the moment. Every combination has more or less been discovered and analyzed. That isn't to say they can't be fun, but you won't be breaking new ground.
I'm playing around with different Menoth ideas right now but nothing has panned out, variations on the Kreoss gunline, feora2/judicator or (X Caster) zealots, errants and all th solos just isn't doing it for me any more. I love the faction, but I like many other Menoth players I've talked to are just being mopey right now.
The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.
jeratoll wrote: I'm playing around with different Menoth ideas right now but nothing has panned out, variations on the Kreoss gunline, feora2/judicator or (X Caster) zealots, errants and all th solos just isn't doing it for me any more. I love the faction, but I like many other Menoth players I've talked to are just being mopey right now.
The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.
Hopefully the new Paladin caster will shake things up a little for Menoth.
Grey Templar wrote: Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.
I completely disagree. I think if the Stormwall is the only "notable" release in your mind then you are being very jaded.
All the factions, including Cygnar, gotten alot of new things and many of them quite useful. For the most part most of the factions haven't gotten game changing models and, IMO, that is good for game balance. The Stormwall is actually one of, if not the, biggest game changers since Mk2 was released. It changed entire metas, the tourney scene and list design.
Otherwise, other than maybe CoC (which we still don't fully realize how much PP is going to add) all the factions have been getting new models and new toys to play with. Even minions has been getting some love lately.
jeratoll wrote:The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.
I think that was more in reference to where they are on the power curve rather than freshness. The issue Menoth players seem to have is more to do with new interesting stuff rather than issues with competitiveness.
Grey Templar wrote: Cygnar likewise hasn't had many notable releases in Mk2, except for the Stormwall.
This is completely incorrect, Tempest Blazers show up in almost every two list Cygnar pairing and are one of the best cavalry units in the game. The Minuteman is a great light warjack, Dynamo is one of the best shooting jacks in the game and characters like Murdoch and Runewood see plenty of use. The main complaint Cygnar players have is usually that their casters released in Mk2 haven't done much for the faction - there is an element of truth to this as Nemo3, Stryker3 and Blaize are fairly niche casters, but its also partly because Cygnar players use Haley2 as a benchmark (and its unlikely that any faction in the game will ever see a caster as game changing as Haley2 ever again).
jeratoll wrote:The thing that hit me hard was when PP said that they're happy with where Menoth is at, and don't have any plans to shake up the faction on trot podcast two months ago.
I think that was more in reference to where they are on the power curve rather than freshness. The issue Menoth players seem to have is more to do with new interesting stuff rather than issues with competitiveness.
I'm happy where the faction is competively. When playing locally, I feel like I've q good game against most lists; the traditional problem match ups are there like ret and trolls, and bradigus is theoretically a bugbear that should be scared of if I ever played against him. So I've got at least a 50% chance of winning most of my games, even when my opponent picks who they want to play ahainst. Maybe I'm a bit stagnant in faction, I've basically played nothing but kreoss1 and freora2 as my Menoth casters for the last year, with a bit of Sevvy1 and kreoss3 sprinkled in randomly.
The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.
Grey Templar wrote: The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.
Grey Templar wrote: The Protectorate is definitely not in a bad spot competitively. Its just, a little stale. It seems like every other faction is getting cool toys that have major relevance and also shake up their playstyle. While the Protectorate just gets boring and same old same old, because we have Choir and Reckoners. That's the justification for not giving us nice things, and instead giving us crappy or sub-par things.
welcome to Cryx! The faction of moar banez.
Or the faction of Body and Soul, Gorshade3, Bane cav, and who are getting a new shield guard heavy with reach that will likely become the go to non-character heavy jacks, and make Mortenebra even more popular.
Compared to Reznik2, Flamebringers, and the indictor which is so meh o can't even rember what it does. The only model I've picked up for Menoth that's been released in the last year was Tristan and whilst useful he does nothing new, he just more focus for the pKreoss gunline.
I might suggest to OP, and when I say this I am not a great player, nor is my knowledge of WMH super deep, IE I couldn't tell you what a bunch of different casters can do from every faction, I'm trying to really learn the game more, but if you're looking for a faction with variety, there is always Mercs, which I do have slightly more knowledge , and a bias which I am trying to be as open about, over then the other factions since I really enjoy them. The different contracts have variety, 4 star and Highborn really don't aside from a few casters and units IE 4 star gets the kayazy and Magnus1/2, and Highborn can choose between Long Gunners or Gunmages and get Constance Blaze who can get Sword Knights. 4 star is supposed to be the evil mercs, and the Highborn is the good guy mercs. Other then that though, there is the Seaforge Comission which is all about the Rhulic models and casters and Jacks, which are pretty decent. There is the Puppet Masters, which is all about Domination over models. Basically, mindslavers, however they have only one caster but they are an interesting group. The last one is the Talon Charter, which is a theme of PIRATES! So you get all the pirate casters, units, solos, it's fun.
Well as a new player myself I seriously have to question the validity of statements that claim WM is written better. Consider this line from the section dealing with movement and models contacting one another. Page 46.
One model contacts another when it changes from not being base to base with it to being base to base with it.
Okay. Who wrote that? What the hell kind of convoluted sentence is that? Let's try this instead...
One model contacts another model when their bases are touching each other.
Seems a bit less wordy and understandable no?
Plenty of things people hate about the 40k rules are present in WM too. For example, trying to figure out what a Jack Marshall does requires a flip to page x where it says briefly that Jack Marshalls have different rules as outlined on page y.
While 40k has the laughable Narrative Boxes and the much loved rules roll off, Warmachine has page 5. Just gonna throw it out there, but if your number one rule is don't be a bitch, you maybe have a problem of your own?
darkcloak wrote: Well as a new player myself I seriously have to question the validity of statements that claim WM is written better. Consider this line from the section dealing with movement and models contacting one another. Page 46.
One model contacts another when it changes from not being base to base with it to being base to base with it.
Okay. Who wrote that? What the hell kind of convoluted sentence is that? Let's try this instead...
One model contacts another model when their bases are touching each other.
Seems a bit less wordy and understandable no?
Plenty of things people hate about the 40k rules are present in WM too. For example, trying to figure out what a Jack Marshall does requires a flip to page x where it says briefly that Jack Marshalls have different rules as outlined on page y.
While 40k has the laughable Narrative Boxes and the much loved rules roll off, Warmachine has page 5. Just gonna throw it out there, but if your number one rule is don't be a bitch, you maybe have a problem of your own?
Your statement and the original mean two different things.
Things in WMH are worded very deliberately and something small like that can make a huge difference.
Also, page 5 says don't be a jerk. 40k could use something like that.
Yeah, seems like this whole area of the board is kinda dead. Probably because all the WM fans are over on their official forum! Hint hint GWs...
As for page 5... Well like I said if you gotta tell people not to be a jerk then maybe you need to toughen up a bit? Especially if you're whole gimmick is being super cool and tough.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed my first foray into WM. I got smoked hard, like the newb I am, but I almost won that game too. I am really enjoying mk2, the writing is great and the art is prime, and that is something that GW is lacking right now.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.
I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.
Well that's a relief!
At first I was like... Page 5? That's not so bad... Wait a tick here... My opponent is a genius by default because we are playing Warmachine? What!? I have to wear an unassuming black shirt? Hell no!
Also, I am sorry for the threadromancy but I guess I assumed page 1 was mostly still legit. Most of the current threads are from new players/ interested parties. This one caught my eye as I am a WFB/40k fan, but not so much a GW fan.
And yes, the rules are written in a very concise manner, which is a far cry from Mat Wards chummy descriptions. Yet the almost clinical quality of some things leaves a lot to be desired. And again, the structure of some areas is a little spotty. For example as a new player, I read through the book and started trying to figure out what stuff can do. Okay, I read a unit box and wonder what power attacks I can make with 2 open fists. Thus begins the page flipping which some so venomously criticise GW for.
My point is that you can't really compare the two games in any meaningful way to begin with. But some will insist anyways. I'd just like to point out that even though one company actively flounces its own balance, while the other does God knows what, the two are susceptible to the same problems that plague miniature wargames everywhere. Rules will always have loopholes or vague and ambiguous meanings, models will always make LOS management difficult, and dice will never not be random.
Boosting damage, or min maxing screamers, 1s are always 1s. Whether it's beer n pretzels or duel of the Mensa students, we are still dudes who play with dollies and dice. That will never not be awesome and diverse. So sit back, paint a mini and enjoy your hobby.
darkcloak wrote: And again, the structure of some areas is a little spotty. For example as a new player, I read through the book and started trying to figure out what stuff can do. Okay, I read a unit box and wonder what power attacks I can make with 2 open fists. Thus begins the page flipping which some so venomously criticise GW for.
Nobody complains about having to look up rules sometimes. And being new, you're guaranteed to have to do it more. The difference is, Trollbloods don't get one set of rules for two handed throws that are separate and different from the ones in the core rule book. No new dataslate will arrive that changes the way Skorne charges work. That is what people are talking about.
Hmmm... Must not spend much time on those boards then hey? Lol.. Before use 40kers had formations to worry about we did actually used to bitch about stuff like that. Thankfully GWs fixed all that by making sure entire codices were written so badly that a bit of page flipping was quickly dismissed. Now instead we worry that our flyers will turn into princes or something to that effect.
Warmachine is not magically exempt from stupidity either. Everyone jumps up and down about WM being future proof, but how long is that going to last? Is that an actual thing anyways? How are my toys future proof if I don't buy the new cards or download the app?
Already the books are obsolete. Why buy mk2 or an army book when all I need are cards? And why should PP keeps selling cards once they perfect their apps?
Again, don't get me wrong, I enjoy the game, both of them, but only one company strikes me as pompous idiots who don't have a clue, and just want to be the cool kids. The other company reminds me of a farty old man who has some cool stories.
And about terrain... Look at all these WM players who cite terrain as game changing. Well duh! That's why we put it on the table! But then notice how much "better" the balance is in WM. Yeah we use minimal terrain because it gives some armies too much of a boost and it inhibits some too much! Only d3+1 terrains please! Wait, what?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Long story short there is nothing better or worse about either game in comparison to one another. They are different games entirely, using very different mechanics to represent the exact same thing. Toy soldiers going pewpew.
Any attempt to dress either bride up in fancy linens is blatant fanboy-ism.
I'm not sure what you mean... The only times I have ever seen someone actually something like "Page 5 man" is as an excuse.
I don't know what "getting out more" will do to change that. Usually when someone loses hard the people I play with will walk them through their mistakes like "You were out of position here, you took the bait there,and you completely forgot about counter-charge. Also try either adding a UA or switching skinwalkers for Gatormen posse." rather than just "Page 5 go hard or go home".
I'd much rather play with people who will point out your mistakes so you can get better than someone who says "Page 5 step-up". Page 5 even states its not an excuse for being a knob, but the only people I have seen who have ever explicitly quoted it have sed it as an excuse for TFG behaviour.
darkcloak wrote:Already the books are obsolete. Why buy mk2 or an army book when all I need are cards? And why should PP keeps selling cards once they perfect their apps?
Armybooks, for fluff & in case you want to proxy & test a new model / caster in a friendly game.
Cards - Because it is MUCH faster to use physical cards than flip between screens on an electronic device. Remember tournaments are timed and the extra 5-10 seconds to pick up the device, click the card you want, swipe to the back, go back to the army screen, click on the other card, swipe to the back to see how it's animus interacts with the first model then go back to the fight screen will really eat up your time. With physical cards I can pick both up and read them side by side in less than 1/2 the time.
darkcloak wrote:Look at all these WM players who cite terrain as game changing. Well duh! That's why we put it on the table! But then notice how much "better" the balance is in WM. Yeah we use minimal terrain because it gives some armies too much of a boost and it inhibits some too much! Only d3+1 terrains please! Wait, what?
It is better balanced but it is not perfect. The closest to perfect balance is chess. Chess is almost perfectly balanced the only changer being who goes first. My group tends to play with 4-6 pieces. A forest, severe terrain, an LoS blocker such as a tower and 2 obstacles such as hedges or fences. The reason too much terrain imbalances things is due to a faction like legion, where every beast has eyeless sight / pathfinder. They are balanced by being comparatively frail. So yes they can hide in terrain no problem, but if the entire board is terrain it gives them an unfair advantage. Also remember WM/H is primarily a melee game. Think of it more like fantasy than 40k. Yes you can shoot but eventually it will come down to melee & because of how melee works terrain can really inhibit gameplay.
Terrain should be used as a tactical piece, if you have too much there is no tactics around avoiding it. With out 4-6 I can just avoid that forest that I know circle players love, but at the same time it means giving up the flank. I can hide behind the tower which protects me but also hinders my ability to deal dmg, but if my opponent has something like leash I may be in trouble.
Think of diminishing returns. An open board is bad, adding terrain up to (IMO) 4-6 pieces makes gameplay better anything after that and it starts to hinder because you can't use the terrain when it is everywhere.
Well that is no different from 40k then. Too much terrain and Ork players can't move their army, not enough and Tau autowin.
What the OP described was players using very minimal terrain or not using it at all.
So now instead of having a pre-game talk about lists, we are discussing how much terrain to use so that someone doesn't have an "unfair" advantage.
How is this any different than 40k? The subject matter is different but we are still using our own brains to even out a potential wrinkle in the game.
Plus there is still the air of obvious superiority that makes WM stink just a little. When GW claims it, we laugh because its silly to think that they are the "best". But along comes everyone else claiming to be better than! Better than what? Drunk Englishmen? That was a milestone hey?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And future proof.
How is it future proof if PP keeps releasing cards?
Just buy the cards? Well then GW is future proof too, the cards are just way bigger! And more expensive!
Already power creep is present in WM and shows no sign of abating. Tier levels are just another way of saying it without calling it power creep. Sure PP might be an involved and seemingly compassionate company, but that is historically proven to be the idealistic dreams of any homegrown company. How long before PP says feth it and starts jacking the prices and lowering quality? They are obviously doing well enough now, but the funny thing about money is that once you have a bunch of it you want more and more.
darkcloak wrote: Well that is no different from 40k then. Too much terrain and Ork players can't move their army, not enough and Tau autowin.
What the OP described was players using very minimal terrain or not using it at all.
So now instead of having a pre-game talk about lists, we are discussing how much terrain to use so that someone doesn't have an "unfair" advantage.
How is this any different than 40k? The subject matter is different but we are still using our own brains to even out a potential wrinkle in the game.
Plus there is still the air of obvious superiority that makes WM stink just a little. When GW claims it, we laugh because its silly to think that they are the "best". But along comes everyone else claiming to be better than! Better than what? Drunk Englishmen? That was a milestone hey?
Even in 40k you should have a pregame talk about terrain. Where I play it's usually me & the local press gangers who get there early & set up what we feel are fair tables. That way players can just sit down & play. I get the air of superiority thing. I find it's usually WM/H players saying "look how much better than GW we are" and it can stink of an ex girlfriend showing off her new bf for the sake of trying to make you jealous. I'm still a fantasy player at heart & I get it, I get sideways looks when I tell people I like fantasy better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And future proof.
How is it future proof if PP keeps releasing cards?
Just buy the cards? Well then GW is future proof too, the cards are just way bigger! And more expensive!
Already power creep is present in WM and shows no sign of abating. Tier levels are just another way of saying it without calling it power creep. Sure PP might be an involved and seemingly compassionate company, but that is historically proven to be the idealistic dreams of any homegrown company. How long before PP says feth it and starts jacking the prices and lowering quality? They are obviously doing well enough now, but the funny thing about money is that once you have a bunch of it you want more and more.
I don't agree with "future proof" NOTHING is future proof. I honestly don't see power creep in WM/H. Usually it's a power shift. Where the weak become stronger & the strong become well... less stronger. I play skorne and use primarily MkII release models. The only models I use not in the basic army book are cataphract incindiarii, and soon to be Keltarrii (Because I magnetized a swordsman kit).
Colossals are not intrinsically better than anything else. Sure they're better than a heavy but they're also around double the cost. I mean I always think I why would I take a mammoth when instead I can have TWO bronzebacks? Naresh & Grayle came out in wrath & are considered the worst casters in their faction. Tier levels are NOT power creep. Tier levels are ways of promoting a theme force, granted some are better than others. I'd almost ALWAYS take rasheth in tier however I'd likely NEVER take Xerxis I in tier because I find it too limiting.
Tier lists are a trap for new players. You need to weigh the benefit of the tier with the limitations of it. Xerxis tier II looks great until you realize how few bodies you have on the table. There are several ret tiers I LIKE but they don't allow houseguard which means I don't get my 14" ignore stealth CRA into melee awesomeness. Tiers are double edged swords and while he benefit is immediately apparent the downside is seen with experience.
Another thing to consider is cross-book interactions. A LOT of people cry that the legion colossal, while gorgeous, is not great on the table. There is a reason for that. pThagrosh's feat says "Revive a dead warbeast" Archangel IS a warbeast. So they had to make it less powerful because otherwise Thagrosh makes it disgusting when you kill it & he brings it back.
Finally you need to keep in mind minions & mercenaries. Circle Skinwalkers were a pretty good unit. Then they got a UA which lets them make 2 attacks a turn. That is a PHENOMENAL boost. Some people see that as power creep. but the reason was this: Circle could also hire Gatorment posse. Gatormen posse were a bit more expensive but a LOT better than skinwalkers. The common question was "Why take skinwalkers when I can take a GMP?" So PP gave them a UA with a great bonus. Now it's a toss up which one you want to take. Yess the unit got better but it just brought them in line with another choice circle has.
Yeah, okay citing 40kYMDC is a terrible idea. People don't even know how to read in there, so... no wonder debates rage on and on.
And I'm sorry, but the rules in WM are not "better", they are different.
How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k? How is turn sequence in 40k superior to WM?
Neither question can be answered without resorting to personal preference. I mean this isn't a matter of X unit vs Y unit, this all boils down to how you want the game to play, and this in essence is dependent on the player, not the rules.
I will say however, that one company certainly handles their rules in a more professional way, and THIS main difference is why people think one is superior to the other.
As someone said, it's like an ex gf showing off her new hunk. And again, making the comparison to GW is kind of utterly pointless. Anyone who is seriously interested in either game is going to immediately, and intelligently, discount any such claims of superiority by either side.
Ultimately the differences between the two games are negligible and anyone who hasn't an axe to grind is going to see this.
Because in 40k Melee is the only point in the game where an enemy can kill you on your own turn. Not to mention overwatch hurts. 40k melee has sucked for imo at least 3 editions.
If you can point out a specific example that relies on something other than your "modest" opinion I'd be happy to consider that.
Otherwise? Your argument relies purely on your own preference.
Why can't people like both games, equally or unequally?
You see this drive for the spot of top dog has absolutely nothing to do with the game, or the company that makes the game. Do you think the guys at PP sit there and plot out how to steal the vaunted throne of nerdalia from it's current ruler?
No, they probably have plenty enough on their plate as is. Take a long hard look at Mantic and tell me that you really think they are dethroning anyone from anything. That's not a shot at Mantic either, just a poke at their ridiculous Next-GW attitude.
So what fuels this argument? Judging from the attitude presented in the rule book I'd say Warmachine players have small sex organ syndrome, maybe not all of them. Just the ones clamouring about how much better their game is. What are they really saying? They are saying that they, by inference, are better than you. Warmachine is a better game, it's more ruthless, you have to HAVE A PAIR to play! This can be translated directly into "I'm better than you because I play a smarter game".
IMO is how many editions assault has sucked. 40k assault IS crap there is no denying it. It is intrinsically weaker than shooting AND the only phase where your opponent can kill you on your turn.
In addition, at least melee powerhouses in wm/h actually feel like melee powerhouses. Half the time in 40k, you can barely hit your opponent, despite one person being a thousand years old demi god, and the other bring a slightly overweight grot.
Cover actually functioning across the range of units fairly equally (Eyeless Sight etc not withstanding) is another strong point. A Terminator gaining no assistance from the wall covering 90% of his body always aggravated me.
Eldarain wrote: MAT+Dice vs DEF is much better than the slowed WS system.
That I will again argue is a preference call. Mind you, having a very large and inept predecessor does give one the advantage of knowing what makes gamers angry. Perhaps after the dust has settled and GWAoS's itself to death we will all be bemoaning PP and praising the next new thing?
Also, the point isn't so much the rules themselves but how the companies handle them. Has GW ever replied to a request for a rules change or improvement?
Lets pretend for a second that GW is as attentive to the rules (player community actually) as PP is. We call em up and say the to-hit chart is lame, it's 20 years old and we want a melee mechanic that is more in-line with the expectations of the players. GW says okay! And fixes the rules. Now who is the lethargic dinosaur?
What I'm trying to get at isn't that we all have substandard sex lives, but rather that the real difference between the games is not the games themselves but the people who make them.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone for having a preference one way or the other, that would simply be... prejudiced? Lol, but I do have to question the reasoning behind this alleged rivalry.
I honestly don't see why wargamers can't just get along.
...
...
...
That was a joke...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: Cover actually functioning across the range of units fairly equally (Eyeless Sight etc not withstanding) is another strong point. A Terminator gaining no assistance from the wall covering 90% of his body always aggravated me.
But how does that work? The termie is in cover, he gets a cover save. A useless as bork cover save, but he gets it still. Here the issue isn't really the terminator or the cover mechanic but the fact that GW has painted both these things into obsolescence with new rules.
Also, I'm gonna go out and say it here and now. GW cannot write its way out of a paper bag. 7th ed codices are total garbage. No argument. When I defend GW I'm not doing so because I agree with the current trends, or because I think they are better in any form. The GW I speak up for is the GW-ing that happens in my house, the GW that I am still dying to enjoy with Elds here. I'm not saying that Craftworld Eldar is fair or balanced. GW is kind of throwing the whole game right out the window at the moment, 40k and FB! Yet I suspect that 7th ed cheesehammer isn't what most of us are playing right now so I think it hardly matters.
I don't think either game is better or worse than the other, they just lend themselves better to different things.
WMH is really good for people who just want to play a game without worrying about someone dropping their tournament winning Tau list and destroying your poor fluffy Tyranid list with almost no hope of you winning. It's also easier on the wallet. It's a great system for competitive and tactical players.
40k is a system with huge amounts of customisability. It's great for people who want to spend 10-20 minutes before the game talking about what sort of cool, fluffy scenario you want to play and what sort of lists fit the theme of the game. After that you can just relax and roll some dice to see what happens, hanging out and chatting with friends.
darkcloak wrote: Yeah, okay citing 40kYMDC is a terrible idea. People don't even know how to read in there, so... no wonder debates rage on and on.
So...you're saying WMH players are more literate? Dang, that's harsh to your own kind.
And I'm sorry, but the rules in WM are not "better", they are different.
Nah, they're better, objectively. They are clear, concise and fit the fluff, unlike 40k rules.
40k, elite, bestest warrior in the galaxy, the space marine = expensive cannon fodder. It doesn't feel like you're in the books at all. "Oh, by giant raging chaos monster died without doing anything...again.
Take a unit in WMH like the Withershadow combine. It's a unique unit where the rules match the fluff. Or the entire army of Convergence where the playstyle itself is like the machines they worship.
Also, check out the newest example of quality rules in 40k, the Dark Angels detachment that can't actually work. Awesome!
How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k?
Because it actually accomplishes things. There's different methods to melee (as opposed to just hitting stuff) Throws, knockdowns, headbutts, tramples. Lots of dynamic choices.
I will say however, that one company certainly handles their rules in a more professional way, and THIS main difference is why people think one is superior to the other.
They do a lot of things more professionally than geedubs.
Ultimately the differences between the two games are negligible and anyone who hasn't an axe to grind is going to see this.
Demonstrably untrue. There are a lot of differences. They both use minis and dice. If you are unable to see the differences, then I say it's because you haven't played one or the other.
I'm not sure what you mean... The only times I have ever seen someone actually something like "Page 5 man" is as an excuse.
I don't know what "getting out more" will do to change that. Usually when someone loses hard the people I play with will walk them through their mistakes like "You were out of position here, you took the bait there,and you completely forgot about counter-charge. Also try either adding a UA or switching skinwalkers for Gatormen posse." rather than just "Page 5 go hard or go home".
I'd much rather play with people who will point out your mistakes so you can get better than someone who says "Page 5 step-up". Page 5 even states its not an excuse for being a knob, but the only people I have seen who have ever explicitly quoted it have sed it as an excuse for TFG behaviour.
.
Page 5 is more than just 'page 5 harder noob' is the point i mean.
It's about not whining and moaning.its about giving your all in a game, always seeking to better yourself, being gracious in victory and defeat and being a swell guy, and not using a competitive game as an excuse to belittle people or act like a bell end.
Chances are you are all about page 5 without realising it. The 'page 5' you talk about isn't what it's about and is an unfair representation.
Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.
But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?
Shas'O Dorian wrote: Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.
But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?
When you tar everyone with the same brush and state everyone who uses page 5 is Waac and is trying to curb stomp noobs or nitpicking details without a 'in my experience' , or an 'I've seen people misuse it', then don't be surprised when you get picked up as being hostile as well.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.
I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.
Hence 'get out more'. Plenty people including myself and most people I know use page5 as a positive and an assertive message of self- empowerment and self improvement.
see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?
Shas'O Dorian wrote: Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.
But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?
"I just called all you guys WAAC douchebags, but it's you that needs to explain yourself."
Right. You clearly don't have enough experience with the game or its players to making such statements.
Hence:
Get out more.
It really grinds my gears when people bring over the 40k attitude to Warmachine.
There is not really a "stay true to the fluff" way of playing this game. The rules are tight and its a battle between two forces. There is no auto-win button. Sorry there isn't,
There is no WAAC in this game because the better player will more times than not, win. Look at what Will Pagani did at Temple Con. He took Khador with what most people would consider a crap unit (assault kommandos) and won Masters.
Will Pagani is a world class player, he plays an insane amount of games every week. He understands the synergies involved and can make his models work for him (not against him), he also knows what his opponents army can do. Is that WAAC? I'd say no. It's being a student of the game and devoting the time it takes to be the best. Is that something most of us can do? No not even close.
The point of my rambling is that people need to leave the 40k mentality at the door. This isn't that game, nor god willing will it ever be. It is different and requires different thinking.
There is not really a "stay true to the fluff" way of playing this game. The rules are tight and its a battle between two forces. There is no auto-win button. Sorry there isn't,
There is no WAAC in this game because the better player will more times than not, win. Look at what Will Pagani did at Temple Con. He took Khador with what most people would consider a crap unit (assault kommandos) and won Masters.
Will Pagani is a world class player, he plays an insane amount of games every week. He understands the synergies involved and can make his models work for him (not against him), he also knows what his opponents army can do. Is that WAAC? I'd say no. It's being a student of the game and devoting the time it takes to be the best. Is that something most of us can do? No not even close.
The point of my rambling is that people need to leave the 40k mentality at the door. This isn't that game, nor god willing will it ever be. It is different and requires different thinking.
Exalted!
Play the game, have fun. Leave your attitude at the door about which game is better.
Because in 40k Melee is the only point in the game where an enemy can kill you on your own turn. Not to mention overwatch hurts. 40k melee has sucked for imo at least 3 editions.
Strongly dispute that that's a bad thing - that's what 40k melee good - for me at least - its a fight rather than one side just hitting the other - one of the reasons I liked Step up in recent WFB.
Its one of the very few things I am not totally keen on in Malifaux - you can charge in and chop someone up and they can't do anything unless they survive and have an activation left. It works I guess but feels odd to me.........
I had a sneaking suspicion that WM was EXACTLY like every other game out there and my suspicions are confirmed.
Reading Matt Wilson's pompous diatribe, the inane hilarity of page 5, coming here and trying to talk about the game intelligently...
... Why bother?
WM players, GW players, whatever... Its a stupid overpriced game of dollies.
You didn't try to talk anything intelligent about the game, you just sprouted some ill-informed opinions that were promptly contradicted and then decided that you didn't wan't to play any more and instead came up with this little gem of a post. Priceless...
Ill informed? I read the fething book thanks. And I don't need to be any kind of veteran gamer to see exactly why I hate social engagement.
I was trying to find a middle ground in which I can stand so that when I'm trying to enjoy the hobby I don't have to be bombarded by elitist bs. But lo and behold! The elitism runs rampant!
But you know what, feth it! feth dollies, feth games. If this website is even remotely representative of the kind of people who play wargames, I'm out.
darkcloak- reading the rules is not the same as playing the game any more than reading a cook book is the same as actually trying to cook.
However, since you don't like social engagement then I agree whole heartedly with you. Table top games are not for you. Stick to internet gaming where you don't have to have direct intercourse with others and enjoy your life.
Ill informed? I read the fething book thanks. And I don't need to be any kind of veteran gamer to see exactly why I hate social engagement.
Reading the books and having actual practical experience are two very distinct things.
And you hate social engagement and you go for a hobby where social engagement is an integral part? That seems weird...
I was trying to find a middle ground in which I can stand so that when I'm trying to enjoy the hobby I don't have to be bombarded by elitist bs. But lo and behold! The elitism runs rampant!
Its not elitism if its the factual truth, only your pre-conceptions are causing you to confuse the two.
But you know what, feth it! feth dollies, feth games. If this website is even remotely representative of the kind of people who play wargames, I'm out.
You really seem to have some anger management issues if this is the way that you react when people disagree with you.
Someone came in after reading one page of MKII and thought he knew everything about the game and said there was no difference between it and 40k.
People proceeded to explain in detail how and why he was wrong and he got super angry and left.
Someone came in after reading one page of MKII and thought he knew everything about the game and said there was no difference between it and 40k.
People proceeded to explain in detail how and why he was wrong and he got super angry and left.
I had a sneaking suspicion that WM was EXACTLY like every other game out there and my suspicions are confirmed.
Reading Matt Wilson's pompous diatribe, the inane hilarity of page 5, coming here and trying to talk about the game intelligently...
... Why bother?
WM players, GW players, whatever... Its a stupid overpriced game of dollies.
LOLZ.
I'm thinking this whole thing is a big long troll. It usually is when people start comparing the 2 games.
If you are for real then I am glad for both sides you left. You won't enjoy playing the game and I won't enjoy playing against you. And that is OK. TT games are not for everyone. I hope you find something that you do enjoy playing.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.
But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?
"I just called all you guys WAAC douchebags, but it's you that needs to explain yourself."
Right. You clearly don't have enough experience with the game or its players to making such statements.
Hence:
Get out more.
That's not what I did. Perhaps I am not explaining myself properly.
I have never heard anyone in person quote page 5 except as an excuse for being a knob. By being a knob I mean stomping a new player or list tailoring. "I know Johnnys been talking about his new list all week and he finally has it painted so I'm purposefully bringing the hard counter." You can quote page 5 but if a player wants to test a new list, you don't custom tailor your list to theirs. If you bring your normal tournament pairing & one is a bad matchup, it happens but this person literally custom built a list solely to play against this guys.
I am not saying don't play hard. I'm not saying be a fluff bunny, I am saying the only people who have ever (IN PERSON) quoted page 5 have done so as an excuse which is explicitly against the spirit of it.
I've been playing for 4 years across 5 states (ok 2 provinces & 5 states) & 2 countries. I've got plenty of experience, hell we just had a 40 man tournament where the winner got an invite to WM Weekend and page 5 never was brought up because it never HAD to be. My opinion is the only people who I have seen felt the NEED to bring up page 5, have done it as an excuse. I'm not saying if you follow pg 5 you're a WAAC player. I'm not saying your a knob if you follow it. I'm saying it is generally the expected level of play and the only people I (in my own personal experience) who actually pull it out to quote it, have been knobs. Behavior like running a molik missile against an opponent who has all of 2 games under his belt and stomping him top of turn 2 because "Well I don't have the battle box so I'll make a modified one." When confronted his excuse was "Go hard or go home" There is a time for go hard or go home. A players third game ever, is not that time. And yes it is against Pg 5 because pg 5 states
Pg 5 wrote:Page 5 is not permission to be a jackass in
the name of competition.
Taking Molik Karn against a player who isn't even out of the battle box because you like a "modified" battle box... Custom tailoring your list against an opponent who only has 1 army list so far (Bought All in One & hasn't had time or money to expand it).... THAT is how I have seen it quoted and THAT is not something I can get behind.
This is primarily how I have seen it used when people cite it in person. Both of these fall under rule 3 to me
rule3 wrote:There’s no honor in clobbering the smallest kid
in the yard,
People quote 1& 2 and forget 3-5. Page 5 is the EXPECTED level of play.
PrinceRaven wrote: These people who are using page 5 as an excuse to be a dill weed clearly have not read it properly.
Yes, I agree 100%. I have just never had a player actually quote page 5 at someone in person who wasn't using page 5 as an excuse to be a knob. I play by it, I enjoy it and it's a great "Here is the mindset" one pager. I think I didn't explain myself properly. My problem isn't with Page 5. it isn't with players who abide by page 5. It is with the players who feel the need to quote page 5 any time they're being a knob and cite it as an excuse, and these are the only ones I have ever seen actually quote it at someone.
If I did not communicate that properly I apologize, I should have been more clear.
Thanks WM players, I'll remember that when I'm wearing my unassuming black shirt.
First off. My vitriol is levelled not at a particular game or game makers, but rather this community. I have found literally 2 people worth talking to, one of which I've had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with in real life. I daresay that person will defend my non-waac status, and if not, well then we clearly haven't played enough games! Lol
Yes. Okay. These two games are different. Sure. The mechanics are totally different and do different things. On the surface. However the point I'm trying to make, is that both these games are, at the core of it, very similar. In fact, they are both games played with dolls and dice. No amount of RAT plus STR minus d6 charge range is going to change that.
I'm here to tell you that these percieved superiorities or differences matter not a damn jot. Why does there need to be a better game? Isn't the value of such things based solely on the player and their preference?
I came here to suggest that maybe a player could enjoy both platforms equally and that, in the grand scheme of things, we would all be better off by accepting that.
So go ahead and claim your thrones, I don't care. I am going to enjoy both these things on my own.
What set me off? Well gee, getting lumped in as "their kind" smacks of prejudice, and I don't really appreciate it. Perhaps "my kind" just pisses me off so bad that I can't really reconcile my love of the game with the attitudes of the people I meet online?
You know, I got into this hobby thinking it would be a great way for me to stretch my oft-forgotten social wings. Instead I quickly realized that my "friends" just wanted fresh meat to pwn. Coming to what is hailed as the premier online hobby community, I find the same thing. People are more than willing to play nice... Until you try to tell them 1 Canoptek Spyder means 1 model, or that IHCT works on vehicles... Then watch as the slavering hounds of hell are unleashed... I thought we were friends? What happened?
So you know what? I'm sorry that I flew off the handle, I'm sure not everyone is as big a douchebag as you all doubtlessly envision me to be.
And for the record anyone who stands across from me at the gaming table is in for a damn good time. Why? How? Because that's why I'm there! I'm not here to win, I'm not here to be better. I'm just a guy who wants to play some frickin war dollies. Forgive my venom. Age of Sigmar is coming...
darkcloak wrote: I was just gonna leave it lie, but what the hell.
Thanks WM players, I'll remember that when I'm wearing my unassuming black shirt.
First off. My vitriol is levelled not at a particular game or game makers, but rather this community. I have found literally 2 people worth talking to, one of which I've had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with in real life. I daresay that person will defend my non-waac status, and if not, well then we clearly haven't played enough games! Lol
Yes. Okay. These two games are different. Sure. The mechanics are totally different and do different things. On the surface. However the point I'm trying to make, is that both these games are, at the core of it, very similar. In fact, they are both games played with dolls and dice. No amount of RAT plus STR minus d6 charge range is going to change that.
I'm here to tell you that these percieved superiorities or differences matter not a damn jot. Why does there need to be a better game? Isn't the value of such things based solely on the player and their preference?
I came here to suggest that maybe a player could enjoy both platforms equally and that, in the grand scheme of things, we would all be better off by accepting that.
So go ahead and claim your thrones, I don't care. I am going to enjoy both these things on my own.
What set me off? Well gee, getting lumped in as "their kind" smacks of prejudice, and I don't really appreciate it. Perhaps "my kind" just pisses me off so bad that I can't really reconcile my love of the game with the attitudes of the people I meet online?
You know, I got into this hobby thinking it would be a great way for me to stretch my oft-forgotten social wings. Instead I quickly realized that my "friends" just wanted fresh meat to pwn. Coming to what is hailed as the premier online hobby community, I find the same thing. People are more than willing to play nice... Until you try to tell them 1 Canoptek Spyder means 1 model, or that IHCT works on vehicles... Then watch as the slavering hounds of hell are unleashed... I thought we were friends? What happened?
So you know what? I'm sorry that I flew off the handle, I'm sure not everyone is as big a douchebag as you all doubtlessly envision me to be.
And for the record anyone who stands across from me at the gaming table is in for a damn good time. Why? How? Because that's why I'm there! I'm not here to win, I'm not here to be better. I'm just a guy who wants to play some frickin war dollies. Forgive my venom. Age of Sigmar is coming...
If everyone you meet is a jerk, time to look at the common denominator.
Next time you go into a group of people, insult them and then expect them to agree with you, you might want to take a second look at your communication skills.
I'm pretty sure I came here to do exactly what I said I did. So I propose that dollies are dollies. I just gave your mom crabs hey?
I have been playing both games and still my opinion is the same. Games with toy soldiers man!
Why is it such heresy to call a spade a spade?
I came back here to amend my statement and make it clear that all I care about us playing wargames. Apparently that was a bad idea.
So go ahead, think of me what you will. It really has no impact on my life whatsoever.
Again. I'm sorry if any of you feel offended, that was not my intent. I'm not going to abandon my stance and I don't expect anyone else to either. I am willing to concede points, but jump on the bandwagon and hate GW?
I don't need Warmachine to help with that. GW and Dakka do that well enough as is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also maybe some other people could lighten up as well. What I disagree, and thus must be a pox ridden online gamer?
Right out of the gate I'm attacked for taking neither side, by both parties.
Early morning rage posts aside, I don't see what the problem is. I say both games are equally enjoyable, very similar, and probably both worth playing, and suddenly I'm the world's biggest idiot?
This is the exact reason why I love Dakka! It just brings out the best in me!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you know real life has a tendency to creep into everything one does. So my life is gak. So too apparently is my escape mechanism!
I'm sorry I took that out on a forum, but I'm not sorry for my opinion.
HoverBoy wrote: As far as the WMH community goes, i dont see any of them going to the 40k section of the forum and spewing "elitist hate".
Well, that'd probably have to be because you don't visit the 40k section much, I'd guess...
Although snide remarks happen (every group of people contains jerks), i've noticed no threads solely dedicated to it. Then again i mostly stick to YMDC there, it takes a lot of work to be the local judge.
You do have an offensive tone. You may not intend it, but it is present.
As to enjoyment, no one is saying that you can't enjoy both equally. What has been said is the Warmahordes objectively has better rules. That's not really debatable. Whether you enjoy the tighter rules is a separate issue.
First off. My vitriol is levelled not at a particular game or game makers, but rather this community. I have found literally 2 people worth talking to, one of which I've had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with in real life. I daresay that person will defend my non-waac status, and if not, well then we clearly haven't played enough games! Lol
Gamers can be rather intense and toxic, especially on the Internet. Thst said, plenty normal people game too - it's not just fat basement dwellers with no social skills or hygiene.
If two people is all you can stand,maybe you need to get out more, and meet other people, or maybe the issue is closer to home? With respect, you've been very abrasive here. It can rub people the wrong way. There is always room to look at, and improve ourselves. And yes, I've been there myself.
But vitriol? Dude, that needs to go. Life's too short.
Yes. Okay. These two games are different. Sure. The mechanics are totally different and do different things. On the surface. However the point I'm trying to make, is that both these games are, at the core of it, very similar. In fact, they are both games played with dolls and dice. No amount of RAT plus STR minus d6 charge range is going to change that.
Only in the sense that you roll dice and use toy soldiers. But saying they're 'very similar'? Only in the way that rugby, American football, soccer, basketball, cricket and baseball are 'very similar' because they use a ball... In other words, no, not really.
I'm here to tell you that these percieved superiorities or differences matter not a damn jot. Why does there need to be a better game? Isn't the value of such things based solely on the player and their preference?
You're here to tell us? Mate, you're not the gaming messiah!
Play what you want to play. Just be honest about it.
Does there need to be a better gsme? No, but if we are having a debate on which has better rules etc, then we can at least ge objective about it and compare and contrast, and lo and behold, one cones out ahead. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the other though...
I came here to suggest that maybe a player could enjoy both platforms equally and that, in the grand scheme of things, we would all be better off by accepting that.
Absolutely. I play multiple wargsmes.so do many others.
darkcloak wrote: I
What set me off? Well gee, getting lumped in as "their kind" smacks of prejudice, and I don't really appreciate it. Perhaps "my kind" just pisses me off so bad that I can't really reconcile my love of the game with the attitudes of the people I meet online?
You did a good job of setting other people off yourself, You've got a very hostile tone about you...
You know, I got into this hobby thinking it would be a great way for me to stretch my oft-forgotten social wings. Instead I quickly realized that my "friends" just wanted fresh meat to pwn. Coming to what is hailed as the premier online hobby community, I find the same thing. People are more than willing to play nice... Until you try to tell them 1 Canoptek Spyder means 1 model, or that IHCT works on vehicles... Then watch as the slavering hounds of hell are unleashed... I thought we were friends? What happened?
Playing hard doesn't necessarily mean wanting to 'pwn'. Doesn't mean you're not friends. I go into a boxing ring and punch mine in the face.
darkcloak wrote: I'm pretty sure I came here to do exactly what I said I did. So I propose that dollies are dollies. I just gave your mom crabs hey?
I have been playing both games and still my opinion is the same. Games with toy soldiers man!
Why is it such heresy to call a spade a spade?
Are you aware what a diminutive is? I'm not here to participate in the debate, but this is something I see from time to time and you just provided a perfect example. You didn't call a spade a spade, you used the hobby's most diminutive description. Unless used ironically and with good intentions, calling a hobby like this "toy soldiers" is an insult. You called a spade a spatula. Or a grown human being a child without being their nan or obviously 3 generations older.
I'd try to formulate a response but that would just get picked apart wouldn't it?
Okay, I felt like a jerk and tried to say sorry. That's not good enough so whatever. Eat my chromium plated shorts.
you reap what you sow buddy.
Apologising is cool, understanding why, and Understabding the perspective and opinions of others involved is better. Clearly you don't, and have no interest in doing so.
This should be a hobby of inclusion. What ever gaming you are playing, please remember the goal of the game is to win. The PURPOSE of the game is to have fun.
If you ever find yourself across the table from someone who you are having an issue with, just stop and talk to them. See what the deal is and try to come to an agreement of how you both can have fun.
A great example of this is the new player that has been getting stomped into dust. He/she might be getting frustrated with the game and how people are "treating" them. Maybe ask them how they want to play, do they want to be walked through desicions? Do they want to make choices and them show them what they did or could have done? Heck I have spent games jumping to the other side of the table showing them what to look for.
The point is make your meta better. Better at the game. Better and the social aspect. Make it inviting for new people and watch your game grow.
I genuinely hope you find something in wArmachine- it's a great game and well worth having a look at. For what it's worth, it's the fame that made me fall in love with the hobby again.
. If you're not going after the objectives straight away, I think I can probably beat you in by the 3rd turn, unless its assassination, that's probably where you'll need to be most tactical in the game
