Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
So the take home message from this should be that you learned the first golden rule of 'keep your caster safe'. You lost, essentially because you played badly. It happens. You'll know for next time, and you won't ever let anyone get you with a cheeky move like thst again.You can read your cards, and you can read the other persons cards. It's an open information game. Everything is available to you. Here's the thing. WMH is a game where you learn by being beaten over the head with things. Especially when you start. It's the ultimate school of hard knocks. That's how you earn your wings. WMH is a game with a very high learning curve, and that is one of the best features of it, if you ask me. It means when you are new, and when there are a lot of things to learn, and lots of moving parts, you will lose to more experienced players. Often, you will never see it coming. But as you play, and as you get used to it, and gain experience yourself, things will start to click, and you will see the angles and vectors and combos and plays almost by instinct, and not just yours, but of your opponents. Your knowledge of the game, and your ability to apply it and put knowledge into practice are crucial. Know yourself well and know your enemy better. when you win at WMH, you will have earned it. And trust me, those first wins are hugely rewarding. .

I think this post sums up what "turns people off" of WMH fairly nicely.

"You lost, essentially because you played badly" is a no gak, Sherlock statement to make to a guy who got curb stomped on his first game. Of course he played "badly" because he had never played before. The fact that this was a learning league intended to draw in new players makes the situation worse, because it had the opposite effect of what the organizer intended - it turned a player off from WMH.


"Know yourself well and know your enemy better" is a great slogan but becomes a bitch when you are living it as your hobby. I dropped out of WMH for various reasons, but one of them was the exhaustion I experienced keeping up with the game. After a while I didn't want to have to bring my A-game every single time I played. Blame it on a particular meta, sure, but I've played with various groups at various stores (all different metas) and the experience was roughly the same among all of them: people played for blood and the game stopped being fun.

Everything that you are citing in your post is true, the more you play the more the game opens up and begins to make sense. But why would someone invest that energy into the game in the first place? What incentive is there, especially when the first impression is a negative one? Not everyone wants an uphill climb, with lumps taken, in order to have fun. WMH is supposed to be a game, but it is often treated like enrollment into a boot camp with dice.

"It's the ultimate school of hard knocks." Woo! Sign me up! That sounds like a great way to kill a few hours a week when I am trying to relax and not think about the real-world issues plaguing my life. Nope, that isn't exactly a great selling point for a newbie.

I just want to clarify that this wasn't my first game ever, it was my first competitive game and it wasn't my last. My last game ever was a the mission where you have two controls zones. I had controlled one for a turn or two and though I was about to win because i had just killed alot of my opponents army and gotten unit into the zone for denial. however, my opponent proceeds to push my jack back 4" and win the game all in one turn. To touch on what Deadknight said, i know that you lose alot when you try a new game, that is true of almost any new game you play even video games, but it is nice to have the feeling that you might have a chance someday. Also the point about "keep you caster safe", the game had killbox so i actually couldn't keep my caster at a safe distance. I talked the game over with alot of veterans in an effort to gain something of value from the experience and we did the math on charge ranges and things like that and determined that there was basically nothing i could do to avoid what happened aside from playing perfectly. i know its not impossible to play perfectly but that is kind of alot to ask of a new player. You can see why Dark says that it "turns people off".

I can't say a whole lot in terms of your last game since I don't know the details but it could be that you just had a bad match up and, in that case, anyone would have to play a perfect/near perfect game to win. That you came close to winning speaks a lot toward your learning the game.

I guess the more important question is-Did you enjoy the game even though you lost and did you enjoy playing with the people who were there?

If you did enjoy it then I say that you should go back and enjoy some more games. Sooner or later you will be on the giving end of a beating.

If you didn't enjoy the game then you're probably right in not continuing. Life is too short to waste time on things you don't like doing.

Best of luck either way.

Well, WMH is sometimes a one-trick pony. If you can pull it off, your opponent either sees it coming or loses in a second. Not a good prospect for an entertaining game.
But PP is trying to learn from such situations. Not sure if this concerns Cygnar, their favorite faction. In Circle, they nerfed Wurmwood & Cassius in the errata. The feat works for the cmd area now (and no longer for the control area). But after two or three years of playtesting they should have been well aware of the feat. Strange.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, WMH is sometimes a one-trick pony. If you can pull it off, your opponent either sees it coming or loses in a second. Not a good prospect for an entertaining game.

I guess that explains why chess has failed to catch on after all these years.

I really liked the look of WM until I played it for a few months. I burned out on it fast. I know in the 40k section of these boards I'm against a certain level of casual play because I like to play for a win, whether there's a narrative or not, that's how I have fun. I lose as much as I win in my gaming group with that mentality, so I kind of assume I'm not WAAC because I'll take the same list time and time again and win some, lose some and be fine with it as long as I did my best and my friends and I had fun.

WM seems like a different beast altogether to me. I thought I'd like it because it's intentionally a super-competitive system. But then I realized that it's got a similar metagame mechanic to MtG - that if you want to win regularly, you're going to need to have specific models and lists. In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?) and find a way to win with them. If you bring subpar synergy, your army is doing subpar things and you're gonna have a bad time. Bad thing is I showed the models to my friends at one point and they've all decided we're going to play it, although if we as a group play it like we play 40k, it will be a lot better to me, I think.

I play Malifaux now, and that seems well balanced on top of being competitive, and while there are optimizations, there are so many different objectives you might be playing to achieve in a given game that if you just take the same power list every time, there's a good chance you won't always have the tools for the job at hand, and you really have to play to the objectives. I lose more than I win, but I like this system a lot.

Jacksmiles wrote:
In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)

I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.

 -Loki- wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)

I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.

Yeah, this is the case for me as well.

I don't like to sound too harsh, but I find it strange that at least one person is complaining they can 'lose' the game by Turn 2, but then act as if 40k isn't as bad for this anyway? Especially in the age of super heavies. Not to sound like a hardcore basher, but 40k's internal-army balance is pretty much non-existent. At least in WMH, you can generally bring along a few poorer units and whilst you might not succeed at the highest levels of tournament play with few (hello Skorne) exceptions that unit can still be very much viable, it just isn't at peak performance. In 40k on the other hand, we're in a meta where entire swathes of armies - Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, mostly - have most of their codex's downright unplayable even at a casual level. Good luck going against Eldar or Tau.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)

I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.

Yeah, this is the case for me as well.

I don't like to sound too harsh, but I find it strange that at least one person is complaining they can 'lose' the game by Turn 2, but then act as if 40k isn't as bad for this anyway? Especially in the age of super heavies. Not to sound like a hardcore basher, but 40k's internal-army balance is pretty much non-existent. At least in WMH, you can generally bring along a few poorer units and whilst you might not succeed at the highest levels of tournament play with few (hello Skorne) exceptions that unit can still be very much viable, it just isn't at peak performance. In 40k on the other hand, we're in a meta where entire swathes of armies - Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, mostly - have most of their codex's downright unplayable even at a casual level. Good luck going against Eldar or Tau.

Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.

I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.

I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.

 Forcast wrote:


Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.

I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.

I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).

It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.

But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.

I think keeping assassination as a game ending tool is good.

If you're down on scenario, or just lost too many key pieces, it gives you a shot at winning, and conversely, always something to look at for when you're ahead.

Removing it would also open up some casters to be really abusive: the Butcher3s and Kromac2s who want to mix it up and don't always want to support their army can just run in and cripple the enemy army and 'die' safely.

Forcast wrote:
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.

'Kill the king and win the game' works fine for chess though...

Forcast wrote:
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.

Personally I don't find playing out a foregone conclusion for a few turns to be anything resembling satisfying.

Forcast wrote:
I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.

Agreed - there is a place for both. More and more, I'm coming to realise 40k sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to WMH. Not necessarily 'casual', but maybe 'post-competitive'. At a certain point in your life, you grow out of needing to push yourself to the max and prove yourself all the time, and come to realise the value in a more laid back approach. 40k might be a poorly constructed gam, and while, in my opinion, it 'needs' a light touch and a bit of co-op game building to function we'll, I don't need necessarily see either of these as bad things in and of themselves.

Plus I've got battle at calth that I'm painting up right now as imperial fists, I'd love to get some small scale squabbles (can't call them skirmishes, lol) going!

I do not think WMH is hard to break into. It has a steep learning curve but that is not necessarily bad either. Not everyone wants to have their hand held or wear kid gloves or be bubblewrapped when they play against someone else. It just takes a different perspective, and coming from 40k it can be hard (40k often has that skewed mentality where doing your best is frowned upon), but once you embrace the attitude behind pp games (page 5) and see it for what it is and accept it on its own merits rather than basing it on ported merits and perceptions from the other game, you can see it's not a monster to be afraid of. Often people find themselves surprised to be enjoying themselves in a game, thst, unlike 40k is based on personal empowerment, and where, yes, it doesn't all come down to you. And it's a pretty damned good feeling when you climb thst mountain and see the full view.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).

It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.

But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.

Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!

Deadnight wrote:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).

It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.

But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.

Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!

If I wanted to play chess I'd play chess.

Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).

That's definitely a complaint in Cryx: right now being undead just means lower cmd values and more bunched up units.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

If I wanted to play chess I'd play chess.

And yet you should because ,despite this, there is still nothing wrong with 'kill the king and win the game'. I mean, if it works for a game that has been there for centuries and has been played and enjoyed by millions, there must be some merit at least to the mechanism.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).

Cryx in mk2 was a faction with a low skill ceiling and a lot of entitlement amongst its players. You 'levelled up' faster playing with cryx. You could go a lot further with less ability playing cryx and fewer consequences than other factions. This is not to disparage cryx players - there are amazing players out there who play cryx. Despite the levelling up faster aspect, that ceiling did not necessarily 'cap out' with good skills you could go as far as anyone's else with them too in the long game.

However, a lot of cryx players were used to them being the 'easy button' faction with a lot of obvious solutions with very few 'prices' or sacrifices that had to be made. Cryx dido many things almost too well, without consequences or cost, and while for the most part they weren't necessarily broken (there were exceptions) they were the faction that was out in front and shaped the meta for most of mk2. 'Just apply banes' was a meme of a reason. As was 'but how does x play into cryx'. Cryx weren't broken, but they skewed the meta in an unhealthy direction.

At the top tables, cryx won and lost about as much as everyone else, but on the lower and middle tables, where the effects of 'levelling up faster' was more obvious and was where the problems were really felt by a lot of people.

Thst said, a lot of things thst cryx players took for granted and fed into their success, such as recursion, immunity to command checks, crucially, some frankly ballbustingly amazing infantry choices in a meta where infantry was king, and some ridiculously 'out there' casters and got slapped hard (and in my mind, justifiably so..) by the nerf bat, and the switch to the more jack focused meta of mk3(wth th resulting loss in value and status of infantry from its overly dominant position- and this is true for all factions btw- infantry was over represented), a shift In terms of more infantry punishment, and more effective gunline options and this turned a lot of cryx players sour. Because change. And no more obviousness. And previous click and delete play. Essentially, they complain For some right reasons, and a lot of wrong ones. Each of those changes pp made could be justified individually. Combined, there is an argument that there was maybe too much. Thst maybe cryx has had what amounts To a slap in the face and when they were down, a kick in the family jewels for added insult.

There was a lot of salt from a lot of people during the transition, and being frank with you dt, my opinion of the WMH community dropped by quite a few notches during the transition. I wasn't impressed with s huge amount of the 'sky is falling' whining and moaning. Because people,will always complain about changes.

Deadnight wrote:

Forcast wrote:
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.

'Kill the king and win the game' works fine for chess though...

Forcast wrote:
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.

Personally I don't find playing out a foregone conclusion for a few turns to be anything resembling satisfying.

Forcast wrote:
I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.

Agreed - there is a place for both. More and more, I'm coming to realise 40k sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to WMH. Not necessarily 'casual', but maybe 'post-competitive'. At a certain point in your life, you grow out of needing to push yourself to the max and prove yourself all the time, and come to realise the value in a more laid back approach. 40k might be a poorly constructed gam, and while, in my opinion, it 'needs' a light touch and a bit of co-op game building to function we'll, I don't need necessarily see either of these as bad things in and of themselves.

Plus I've got battle at calth that I'm painting up right now as imperial fists, I'd love to get some small scale squabbles (can't call them skirmishes, lol) going!

I do not think WMH is hard to break into. It has a steep learning curve but that is not necessarily bad either. Not everyone wants to have their hand held or wear kid gloves or be bubblewrapped when they play against someone else. It just takes a different perspective, and coming from 40k it can be hard (40k often has that skewed mentality where doing your best is frowned upon), but once you embrace the attitude behind pp games (page 5) and see it for what it is and accept it on its own merits rather than basing it on ported merits and perceptions from the other game, you can see it's not a monster to be afraid of. Often people find themselves surprised to be enjoying themselves in a game, thst, unlike 40k is based on personal empowerment, and where, yes, it doesn't all come down to you. And it's a pretty damned good feeling when you climb thst mountain and see the full view.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).

It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.

But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.

Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!

I don't really enjoy chess is part of the problem lol.

I agree with you on 40k for sure, and 30k is my favorite iteration of 40k right now for sure. Its more "balanced" because there are limited factions and everyone has access to the same basic tools other than a few special units.

I would agree that as a veteran playing the losing side of a forgone conclusion is not fun at all, as a new player it is a good place to learn the literal rules. Getting assassinated turn 2 doesn't teach you anything, I'm still fuzzy on how it happened to me exactly and I don't think i could duplicate the results even I wanted to because my understanding of the overall concepts in the game improved by 0.001. only thing I learned was that I really should figure out how to not have that happened again (meaning lots of research on the internet). I would rather be playing a game than researching, even if I'm losing.

I am a people person ultimately and I don't get as much joy in reaching the top of the mountain when I had to stomp on my friends to get there. But at some regional tournament I bet its a lot of fun, which seems to be where WMH sets its focus.

Deadnight wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

If I wanted to play chess I'd play chess.

And yet you should because ,despite this, there is still nothing wrong with 'kill the king and win the game'. I mean, if it works for a game that has been there for centuries and has been played and enjoyed by millions, there must be some merit at least to the mechanism.

What are you trying to argue here?

Some people don't like the assassination win condition. Your response of "LOL but chess" isn't a response. Yes, chess has that mechanic but chess is almost perfectly balanced as a game. Is WMH?

In MK I assassination was almost always used as a means to win, and what happened? Eventually scenarios and other win conditions were introduced into the game, so clearly "kill the king and win" isn't the high water mark of game mechanics. If it was, why would MKIII have other win conditions?

Deadnight wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).

Cryx in mk2 was a faction with a low skill ceiling and a lot of entitlement amongst its players.

Uh oh, red flag! You make a lot of opinionated statements that attempt to masquerade as facts, but really, they are just your opinions. And it sounds like your ego got hurt by a Cryx player or two.

From what I have read about MKII Cryx and MKIII Cryx it seems that PP over reacted to Cryx power level by implementing major debuffs to casters/troops, and in the game changes from MK II to MK III took a lot of the mechanics that had previously defined the faction (cheap infantry, lots of spells) and reduced or redacted those mechanics. Coupled with the refocus on Warjacks/Beasts, and Cryx is left in limbo with no real defining faction characteristic. Now, that might not be a nuanced summation of the situation that is merely what I have gleaned from reading threads on here and on the PP forums.

But, if that is close to the truth, then that sort of change would result in "sour grapes" because the game designers fundamentally changed how an army functioned and played overnight. I can't imagine any but the most die-hard of fans not being irritated by that sort of monumental shake-up of a faction. And if that shake-up results in fewer people enjoying their faction that understandably leads to anger.

This discussion on the PP boards was enlightening. In it Cryx players acknowledge that there are still some powerful lists in the faction, but those lists are reliant on a handful of models, those lists are predictable and boring to play, and they leave out the vast majority of the faction's models/options. That doesn't sound like much fun to me.

I've also noticed that Cryx's lack of range attacks (a problem since MK1, but mitigated back then by 30 point arc nodes and Skarlocks that could actually sling spells) is still a major grievance on the PP forums when everyone else seems to get guns galore. Again, doesn't sound like much fun when your tactical options are a handful of Warcasters and the same two or three troop choices to mitigate the fact that every other faction has toys that you don't.

You call it aversion to change on the Cryx player's parts, I call it PP upending an entire faction and expecting people to pick up the pieces and just deal with it.

Cryx thrived on trickiness and misdirection. You weren't supposed to know exactly where the death stroke was coming from when facing a Cryx army. If things are as "samey" as some Cryx players are claiming well, the trickiness of the faction is diminished (if not outright destroyed) and you are left with a faction that's main trick (recursion?) is able to be pulled off by other factions, while at the same time Cryx can't do what most of the factions are doing (shooting). That doesn't sound like much fun to me.


Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread and turn it into a "What is Wrong with Cryx" thread, so I'll end it here.

From my local standpoint, it was warmahordes (with a helluva assist from x-wing) that has rendered all gw games extinct except at the gw itself. I personally wont play warmahordes (sticking to malifaux, wrath of kings, and confrontation) but at least here locally you dont see alot of "forum" folks but you can go to the flgs and any night and the tables are full. the pressganger is very proactive and the journeyman league is very well run. out of all the games it is far and away the easiest to get into as a new player provided the store/pressganger has the leagues going. I don't like the game mechanics and gave the rpg a try, great setting but awful rules IMO. the models and their price are competitive. I like some of the sculpts but not others. I have not heard any complaints about mark3 yet, but I tend to avoid the whole area and just stick to my haunted cowboys

I thought that GW rendered all GW games extinct except at the GW itself. Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight were just in a good position to take advantage of the holes created by their inept handling.

My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.

My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.

I also cut my strategy teeth with Risk and Chess, but I always hated the Checkmate condition, and games with my brother usually ended up with me wiping out everything else on the board anyway. Of course, my Risk dice have come to haunt my 40K/WMH games, too. I could outnumber my dad's army 3:1, but the dice would leave me down to 1.5:1 in short order.

 Charistoph wrote:

My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.

My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.

One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.

Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.

My largest complaint with the mark3 change is that a large portion of my army is irrelevant now. It's similar to MTG power creep in that yes there are a diverse set of cards and you can play with them all while having a relatively good time. From my experiences (6+ years of warmahordes) The majority of the player base plays competitively, thus if you aren't playing with the most specialized or optimized units or gearing your lists to deal with the current tournament metas you may as well not even unpack your models. The faction I owns identity was infantry/combined arms themed but now warjacks/beasts is the name of the game so unless im fielding specialized units there are better options than say a 3rd of the models I own, nothings more fun than owning models or what have you that you might as well use for dust collectors. This is just my stance on it currently but other factions/players are obviously going to have different experiences.

Which faction do/did you play?

Trollbloods

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.

Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.

You misunderstand. The customization that is allowed in WarmaHordes is only cosmetic, nothing changes how the individual models fight or do their work. If I want the unit to do its job a little differently, I have to pick another unit.

While this is useful for a new person building their army, it tends to make things a little stale for me.

 Charistoph wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.

Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.

You misunderstand. The customization that is allowed in WarmaHordes is only cosmetic, nothing changes how the individual models fight or do their work. If I want the unit to do its job a little differently, I have to pick another unit.

While this is useful for a new person building their army, it tends to make things a little stale for me.

Ah, fair enough. Not going to lie, after 14 years of GW games I got tired of asking people what their converted weapons and "counts as" weapons are since their kit didn't have it. I have come to like how little variation there is in a units equipment. I find it nice that when I go to the store to get in some pick-up games I don't have to constantly remind myself what something is and can just quickly glance at a unit and know what it is capable of. If I want oodles of customization or unit options, I would rather play a smaller scale skirmish game where I find it more fitting and easier to keep track of. But, I understand what you mean though, I have done my fair share of kit bashing and conversions to my 40k armies when I still played it.

@naxium- I can't really comment on trolls. My meta doesn't see them much. Have you checked them out post errata? I know that there were changes made and maybe some of them would be beneficial to you.

I like Warmahordes a lot. I really do, the fluff is engrossing and interesting to me (tad more lighthearted than 40 but it still has enough grim darkness for me). The problem comes when it hits the tabletop. The tables that most people at my store play with are so plain it's almost hilarious, just hills with a couple of plastic pieces representing "water" and "forests" makes for some dull scenery.

My other problem comes in that I'm not a particularly great tactician. Warmahordes has so many nuances that go right over my head, where I could have done 20 million different things better. I could have cast this spell which combos GREAT with this units mini feat (still don't know what those are...) and then you have the unit do THIS OTHER thing. I'm not that bright, so I don't realize 3/4 of this till it's pointed out, resulting in my getting curbstomped 9 times out of 10

 Charistoph wrote:
I thought that GW rendered all GW games extinct except at the GW itself. Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight were just in a good position to take advantage of the holes created by their inept handling.

My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.

My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.

I also cut my strategy teeth with Risk and Chess, but I always hated the Checkmate condition, and games with my brother usually ended up with me wiping out everything else on the board anyway. Of course, my Risk dice have come to haunt my 40K/WMH games, too. I could outnumber my dad's army 3:1, but the dice would leave me down to 1.5:1 in short order.

I gotta ask, have you tried the newest battletech and alpha strike? I have been a btech fan since the 80's, love that game! the new stuff is just great, customization and campaign and all the glory of old.

The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.

I do admit, Gotchas! Are really annoying, but I love how I can turn up with my army and have decent game against any opponent. You don't have that with GWs work.

 welshhoppo wrote:
The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.

It's a shame PP didn't come out with their own line of terrain. The licensed GF9 terrain was freaking awesome, but since it was faction specific it couldn't really be utilized en masse. When PP started taking back licenses and making accessories themselves I was hopeful that terrain would eventually make an appearance but that never materialized.

I honestly feel like the meta shifts were the biggest issue with MKIII. There were a lot of shifts of power when the edition hit, which seemingly soured the fanbase a little (I played Cryx initially in MKII, but moved into Cygnar). I'd argue that honestly the buffs to shooting (or, rather, shooting jacks via power up) was one of the most painful aspects, since not every faction has great native shooting defense or a lot of it gets ignored (Kara Sloan is a great example of this).

Seems like the in-faction tweaking isn't the best either. I heard Skorne had serious issues when MKIII first released, and some staple units in some factions got nerfed/changed (Black 13th and Bile Thralls, for example) which further shook up people's lists.

I honestly still really enjoy WM/H's core gameplay. It does take a while to get used to, (I used to get thrashed all the time as a beginner) and I agree in some instances without players who are willing to help engage new players in learning (such as giving advice, discussing alternate tactics, etc.) the learning curve can feel a bit more steep.