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.

 zlayer77 wrote:

All the things you wrote still dosen't win you the game on list selection...

Having the list building literally have to win you the game is a stupid standard to go with. Do you need the list to roll all the dice for you too for a game to count as "win the game on list selection."

The only thing I can give you is that the closer you are to your opponent in skill the more the list will effect the game.. But will a better list Autowin on selection "NO" it will not...

The point I was making is that this hype about skill over lists goes too far. It goes to absurd lengths. Lists matter. They aren't as big a factor as player skill except when the list disparity is so high that it becomes that much of a problem. Unlike 40k, that usually only happens when someone makes something intentionally bad. Like in those for fun events where you design the list and bring the miniatures and the opponent has to play it. 40k's big list building problem is that you can very easily accidentally make a crap army or an overpowered armour. In Warmachine if you just give it a little thought like "this guy has lots of spells that work with units, maybe I should take one" then you won't fall into a pit trap.

leads me to belive that "player skill in the GAME" plays in alot more then what list he is using...

Don't have any argument with that at all. I just disagree with making it an absolute. And denying that selecting what goes into your army matters in the game. If you have no disagreement with that, then we don't disagree about anything.

The only thing that needs to stop is this false advertising that list building never matters. If you're not saying that, we don't have an disagreement.

 frozenwastes wrote:
The point I was making is that this hype about skill over lists goes too far. It goes to absurd lengths. Lists matter.

Agreed. I really wish people would stop saying otherwise.

 Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
The point I was making is that this hype about skill over lists goes too far. It goes to absurd lengths. Lists matter.

Agreed. I really wish people would stop saying otherwise.

It is a game so OFCs what miniatures you are using will effect the way you play... But I think the main reason that "list dosent matter argument" is used, comes in comparison with 40k/WHFB were you could win a game at list picking.. You picked DARK ELFS with the right stuff In WHFB for example and now you will win 9 times out of 10 before the miniatures are even on the table.. In warmachine I can pick whatever I want and still stand a higher chans of scoring a win against a really cheazy/optimal list... That is the point people are trying to make when they say list dont matter "AS much" in Warmahordes...

Then there are some hardcounters in Warmachine, for example if your list is dependent on upkeep spells and your oppnent have a way to take those away he can basicly shut down your whole gameplan.. Will he auto win? NO, but he will have an advantage.. But the point is he will not Auto Win 9 times out of 10.. even with a hardcounter..

But another thing that I think is more important when talking about Warmachine/hordes is that if your opponent is better then you he will win consistently against you everytime and this can become just as frustrating as winning on list selection. It can be hard to accept you are not as skilled a player as you think you where...

For example we had one duded who got beaten most every game in Warmachine in our local gaming group, he dident get better so in the end he gave up, and whent back to playing more random games.. Because he dident have any fun playing and he understood he would need to work alot harder if he was going to keep up with the rest of us..

Warmachine/hordes is a hardcore game and it is not a game for people who have a low skill cap... The same goes for many other Hardcore games like Chess and poker etc.. Some people will never have skill enough to be successful in those games and they do not play them.. Chess stands out because it has no Luck factor but even Poker has shown that the best players DO win consistently.. Same can be said for living card games like Magic the gathering etc..

The reason that more Luck or random games(like 40k) is still popular is just because the mayority of players are not as good as they think they are. and it can be very hard to come to the realization that you suck...

Played a game last night. Custom scenario. I had one of my Convergence priesteses in the middle of a ruined town and Cryx was coming in to capture her. My Iron mother lead an elite team (35pts) to rescue the priestess. ( Control small area around objective.)
It was a fantastic game and was everything a wargame should be. We formed a story as we went, when we had a rule question, a quick glance in the book told us everything we needed to know, the game wasn't decided until the last move of the last game. All the Cryx caster had to do was land a hit and do a little damage she would have killed what I had on the objective. She hit, but then rolled double 1's for damage. The game was down to ONE friggin' move and I won. Scarr ran off before Iron Mother could blast her into atoms.
I love this game.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Played a game last night. Custom scenario. I had one of my Convergence priesteses in the middle of a ruined town and Cryx was coming in to capture her. My Iron mother lead an elite team (35pts) to rescue the priestess. ( Control small area around objective.)
It was a fantastic game and was everything a wargame should be. We formed a story as we went, when we had a rule question, a quick glance in the book told us everything we needed to know, the game wasn't decided until the last move of the last game. All the Cryx caster had to do was land a hit and do a little damage she would have killed what I had on the objective. She hit, but then rolled double 1's for damage. The game was down to ONE friggin' move and I won. Scarr ran off before Iron Mother could blast her into atoms.
I love this game.

However, games like that are rarer in Warmachine because of the competitive mentality. Custom scenarios are rare to have because often you are preparing for a Steamroller tournament in some capacity so you often play those scenarios with two lists and death clock or timed turned to prepare for the real thing. Everything else I agree with you on, but often the story in Warmachine is lost in favor of straight up competition.

I've said this before but Warmachine feels like a tabletop version of Magic. Magic has a story too, but how many people actually care about the story? I'm sure there are some out there who add some RP elements to their Magic games that reference the lore, but they are few and far between compared to those who just care about the stats on the card.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Played a game last night. Custom scenario. I had one of my Convergence priesteses in the middle of a ruined town and Cryx was coming in to capture her. My Iron mother lead an elite team (35pts) to rescue the priestess. ( Control small area around objective.)
It was a fantastic game and was everything a wargame should be. We formed a story as we went, when we had a rule question, a quick glance in the book told us everything we needed to know, the game wasn't decided until the last move of the last game. All the Cryx caster had to do was land a hit and do a little damage she would have killed what I had on the objective. She hit, but then rolled double 1's for damage. The game was down to ONE friggin' move and I won. Scarr ran off before Iron Mother could blast her into atoms.
I love this game.

However, games like that are rarer in Warmachine because of the competitive mentality. Custom scenarios are rare to have because often you are preparing for a Steamroller tournament in some capacity so you often play those scenarios with two lists and death clock or timed turned to prepare for the real thing. Everything else I agree with you on, but often the story in Warmachine is lost in favor of straight up competition.

I've said this before but Warmachine feels like a tabletop version of Magic. Magic has a story too, but how many people actually care about the story? I'm sure there are some out there who add some RP elements to their Magic games that reference the lore, but they are few and far between compared to those who just care about the stats on the card.

This is the downside of Warmachine/hordes as I also pointed out a few post back.. That it is just a competetive game and very few people actually care about the story...

Story is not really the focus of a competetive game.. It is about winning and outsmarting the opponent..

 zlayer77 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Played a game last night. Custom scenario. I had one of my Convergence priesteses in the middle of a ruined town and Cryx was coming in to capture her. My Iron mother lead an elite team (35pts) to rescue the priestess. ( Control small area around objective.)
It was a fantastic game and was everything a wargame should be. We formed a story as we went, when we had a rule question, a quick glance in the book told us everything we needed to know, the game wasn't decided until the last move of the last game. All the Cryx caster had to do was land a hit and do a little damage she would have killed what I had on the objective. She hit, but then rolled double 1's for damage. The game was down to ONE friggin' move and I won. Scarr ran off before Iron Mother could blast her into atoms.
I love this game.

However, games like that are rarer in Warmachine because of the competitive mentality. Custom scenarios are rare to have because often you are preparing for a Steamroller tournament in some capacity so you often play those scenarios with two lists and death clock or timed turned to prepare for the real thing. Everything else I agree with you on, but often the story in Warmachine is lost in favor of straight up competition.

I've said this before but Warmachine feels like a tabletop version of Magic. Magic has a story too, but how many people actually care about the story? I'm sure there are some out there who add some RP elements to their Magic games that reference the lore, but they are few and far between compared to those who just care about the stats on the card.

This is the downside of Warmachine/hordes as I also pointed out a few post back.. That it is just a competetive game and very few people actually care about the story...

Story is not really the focus of a competetive game.. It is about winning and outsmarting the opponent..

I admit that despite Warmachine having an interesting story, and actually advancing the plot (unlike GW until End Times for WHFB and likely never for 40k), I can't get into the story during a game. I don't care about the fluff behind a battle. That's one thing I can say I always liked about 40k - I always enjoyed making my own army background, naming my characters/squad leaders/army, coming up with a reason for them to fight a particular engagement even if it wasn't part of a campaign.

I don't get that in Warmachine, and I think that's a big reason why I still want to play 40k even if ultimately I never do because of the cost (mainly) and the imbalance.

That was my main beef with WM/H. I wanted more than just "my dudes fight your dudes", and the objective-based games didn't add anything to it. It takes a lot of work for people to ease up on the competitive aspect of the game in order to just have fun.

The same goes for 40k for me to some degree. Everyone I know locally plays in tournaments, and so they always bring their "weaker" lists when playing casual games. I have the exact same line from plenty of WM players: "ahh, they're new, so i went easy on 'em".... blugh

Still, for pure ruleset and external balance, my vote is for Warmahordes. There's no "wolf speed" (I'm totally stealing this term now).

Yeep it is a bit sad that you just can't get into the story of Warmachine/hordes :(.. And I do agree that in 40k you get the "feeling" of epicness hehe..

But I think this is the effect when you make a game competetive, the main focus goes away from the "fluff and story" and becomes more of a mathematical exercise hehe..

The Bad thing with 40k though is the cheasy stuff that breaks the game in favor of some Factions...

I do really belive that if GW keept the randomness and dropped all the cheasy combos that 40k might still be a fun game to play...

The bottom line is that in Warmachine/hordes i can cheasy stuff as much as I want and so can my opponent.. But as soon as you start tweaking your lists in 40k for optimazation (you start breaking the game)... That is why many people are saying that 40k is not a game to go play pick up games with... because it then becomes ultra broken in favor of the dude who is using the latest broken setup..

But if you play in a club, and you play more for the "story and fluff" you can controll the situation so that things dont get out of hand... But I personaly think that GW should take enough care of their rules so that people dont have to play with "house rules", and have to construct their own game rules to have fun with the game...

Jlav wrote:
The only thing that would rescue WM/H for me is the release of an asymetrical campaign book. I played intensely for 3 years. The game undoubtably has appeal in its characters, models and speed of play, while maintaining the uniqueness of each model.

However, no matter how hard people try to deny it, having the wrong model on the table means instant disaster for 2 evenly matched players, and in some cases you may as well just shake hands if you don't have the right model. Even worse, is when the terrain on the table becomes terribly broken. ie. eLilyth with a forest in the middle of the table... just slap yourself in the face for an hour, it's more fun.

You mean like having a Warcaster whose Feat doesn't do literally anything against the opponents army, do you think that qualifies as not having the right model?

And what does having a forest in the middle of the table does for eLylyth? Her entire battlegroup is already stealth and the middle of the table is where the objectives are so both players will have to gravitate towards it anyway. Not to mention that a forest in WMH should be about 5" wide, meaning that even an average speed model should be able to cross it in a single turn.

Jlav wrote:

It can be a great game when both players take responsibility for balancing the game experience, but I have never seen a game of WM that was intrinsically balanced by the point system.

If the game was as you claim it to be, then you wouldn't have the spread of factions wining tournaments that you have, you would have things like 40k where 2 or 3 viable factions / lists would climb to the top of the tournament scene and hang on there.

This would be even more apparent because WMH doesn't share the same release scheme as 40k does so it doesn't really "revisit" power pieces or power factions, meaning that any unbalanced models / factions released with mark 2 would still be dominating today.

PhantomViper wrote:

Jlav wrote:
The only thing that would rescue WM/H for me is the release of an asymetrical campaign book. I played intensely for 3 years. The game undoubtably has appeal in its characters, models and speed of play, while maintaining the uniqueness of each model.

However, no matter how hard people try to deny it, having the wrong model on the table means instant disaster for 2 evenly matched players, and in some cases you may as well just shake hands if you don't have the right model. Even worse, is when the terrain on the table becomes terribly broken. ie. eLilyth with a forest in the middle of the table... just slap yourself in the face for an hour, it's more fun.

You mean like having a Warcaster whose Feat doesn't do literally anything against the opponents army, do you think that qualifies as not having the right model?

And what does having a forest in the middle of the table does for eLylyth? Her entire battlegroup is already stealth and the middle of the table is where the objectives are so both players will have to gravitate towards it anyway. Not to mention that a forest in WMH should be about 5" wide, meaning that even an average speed model should be able to cross it in a single turn.

Jlav wrote:

It can be a great game when both players take responsibility for balancing the game experience, but I have never seen a game of WM that was intrinsically balanced by the point system.

If the game was as you claim it to be, then you wouldn't have the spread of factions wining tournaments that you have, you would have things like 40k where 2 or 3 viable factions / lists would climb to the top of the tournament scene and hang on there.

This would be even more apparent because WMH doesn't share the same release scheme as 40k does so it doesn't really "revisit" power pieces or power factions, meaning that any unbalanced models / factions released with mark 2 would still be dominating today.

Well pDenny is still strong lol

But I agree. There is a vast spread and while there are common lists, every so often you'll see an unorthodox list with "bad" units win a tournament or place high and then people start talking.

I have played Wargames of various types for decaeds.

I have yet to find the "perfect" wargame that has no weakness or "hack"-ability.

There is only what you prefer and are willing to tolerate.

 Easy E wrote:
I have played Wargames of various types for decades.
I have yet to find the "perfect" wargame that has no weakness or "hack"-ability.
There is only what you prefer and are willing to tolerate.

Some you seem to have to work a wee bit harder to achieve it though!
Some comment way back on the first page I agree with of being able to play a game like Battletech all day with no issues and feeling a bit fuzzy in the head playing 40k or Warmachines too long.
Yes, spend enough time trying to build the ultimate custom mech can find some broken legal configurations like with any game and their army lists.
It really boils down to two opposing lists having an even shot at a win: opponents would not care if their armies were switched.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Played a game last night. Custom scenario. I had one of my Convergence priesteses in the middle of a ruined town and Cryx was coming in to capture her. My Iron mother lead an elite team (35pts) to rescue the priestess. ( Control small area around objective.)
It was a fantastic game and was everything a wargame should be. We formed a story as we went, when we had a rule question, a quick glance in the book told us everything we needed to know, the game wasn't decided until the last move of the last game. All the Cryx caster had to do was land a hit and do a little damage she would have killed what I had on the objective. She hit, but then rolled double 1's for damage. The game was down to ONE friggin' move and I won. Scarr ran off before Iron Mother could blast her into atoms.
I love this game.

However, games like that are rarer in Warmachine because of the competitive mentality. Custom scenarios are rare to have because often you are preparing for a Steamroller tournament in some capacity so you often play those scenarios with two lists and death clock or timed turned to prepare for the real thing. Everything else I agree with you on, but often the story in Warmachine is lost in favor of straight up competition.

I've said this before but Warmachine feels like a tabletop version of Magic. Magic has a story too, but how many people actually care about the story? I'm sure there are some out there who add some RP elements to their Magic games that reference the lore, but they are few and far between compared to those who just care about the stats on the card.

I don't think that's the game's fault, more the fault of an overall WMH culture with the more competitive people coming in from 40k first. I'm working to steer everyone to more story-ish gaming style. There's nothing inherintly better about narrative gaming in 40k than WMH, just the mindset. Be the change you want to be.

In WMH, competitive lists often contain powerful solos like Gorman or Eiryss.
From the 40k point of view this is pretty strange.

Lol the fact that this is 48-52 this being a mostly WH40k forum is really telling about the state of the game.

WayneTheGame wrote:
However, games like that are rarer in Warmachine because of the competitive mentality. Custom scenarios are rare to have because often you are preparing for a Steamroller tournament in some capacity so you often play those scenarios with two lists and death clock or timed turned to prepare for the real thing. Everything else I agree with you on, but often the story in Warmachine is lost in favor of straight up competition.

This Depends entirely on the player group though, to be fair. Not everything, or even every player group revolves around steamroller or tournaments. Saying they do is appallingly dismissive of a lot of the casual players, casual games and innovative home brews that exist with WMH. Pp say the same thing. If you, and your mates 'only' play these games And want something different, then do something different. Be the change you want to see. Try some of the awesome home brews out there like thunderdome (http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/197560691) etc.

Similarly, the story is quite important to a lot of folks. It comes first for me, for example. Mwhistorian too, from what I gather from his posts. See below.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I admit that despite Warmachine having an interesting story, and actually advancing the plot (unlike GW until End Times for WHFB and likely never for 40k), I can't get into the story during a game. I don't care about the fluff behind a battle. That's one thing I can say I always liked about 40k - I always enjoyed making my own army background, naming my characters/squad leaders/army, coming up with a reason for them to fight a particular engagement even if it wasn't part of a campaign.

I don't get that in Warmachine, and I think that's a big reason why I still want to play 40k even if ultimately I never do because of the cost (mainly) and the imbalance.

With respect, and I ask this out of genuine curiosity, Why not? Why don't you care about The fluff behind a battle? The way I see it, If you want to be creative, then be creative. There's nothing stopping you. What's stopping you naming your characters, squad leaders or army, and giving them a reason to fight a particular engagement? What's stopping you embracing the fluff? There's no reason you can't name your own batallion, write it's own history and background, tell it's story of its officers and Heroes, and aye, even the famous warcasters it's associated with. Or write your don, and build them on any of the current crop. Gw say do to same with their special characters... See Kormac below as an example. You will only ever only get out what you're willing to put in, and frankly, There's plenty materiel there to dive into, build on, embrace and there is no reason you can't be a part of its world, with the sourcebooks, rpg material and skull island expedition books that exist.

Case in point: I'm currently converting a kromac. Love tharn. Love kromac's rules, hate the model and the pose. Noticed the skinwalker alpha body is the same size as kromac's beast mode. And so, it made me think, and inspired me towards the basis of a conversion. Kromac (man mode) from a wolf or Orboros. Kromac (beast mode) from a skinwalker. Dusk and dawn converted from 40k bits (beastmen axe heads, kroot rifle barrels). New 'character'. Kormac the peckish. Kormac whitemane, champion and leader of the wolves of Orboros.etc. I've had nothing but compliments when I've shown him. Along with my female fenris, vlad3, Winston my war dog, pin up sorscha, converted great bears, female doom reaver(ettes), Manhunters, warpwolves, steelheads etc. (even had them fielded at the Scottish masters)

Privateer press see narrative players as one of the core groups that play their game.
http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-9-03-2014

The fiction and the setting of the Iron Kingdoms are the perfect vessel for you and your friends to tell some great stories. The rules can be tweaked or bent as needed to fit your epic saga, and perhaps you’ll even homebrew a few of your own. You don’t care how “good” or “bad” a new release is, what’s important is how it adds to your campaign. You’re here to tell tall tales in the Iron Kingdoms with like-minded companions and to have a great time doing it. don't think for a second that you are not welcome. You are. There is a place for you, and the type of game you want to play.

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?210868-Warmachine-Hordes-and-quot-Forging-the-Narrative-quot

There are warmachine players that embrace and enjoy the fluff. What's stopping you joining in, and building such a community, if it's what you and your mates want?

I agree that PP want/love us fluff bunnies, but within the context of group gamers, this type of attitude ends up being very unfun very fast.

I'm really hoping the video game pulls people into the Iron Kingdoms more and let's them get their rocks off competitively so that maybe the tabletop aspect of the game will ease up a bit........ probably won't happen, but I think that's just my area's meta.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
ALSO! I wish they were a little more lenient on conversions, but that's really just tournaments anyway.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

ALSO! I wish they were a little more lenient on conversions, but that's really just tournaments anyway.

You just need to be smart about it.


For example:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?98-Stormhammer-the-Assault-on-Sul
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?194308-Crimson-Harvest-the-Revenge-of-the-Orgoth
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?198539-And-now-for-something-completely-different

Please note: far the last link, they're All 100% legal conversions, as per steamroller rules. The last is so bloody awesome (and par for the course for Iegion really) that it just ignores the rules anyway. And gets around any issues by bring completely clear and upfront regarding each and every conversion. Afaik, none have been refused entry into tournaments.

Point stands: you'll only get out what you're willing to put in.

PhantomViper wrote:

...
You mean like having a Warcaster whose Feat doesn't do literally anything against the opponents army, do you think that qualifies as not having the right model?

And what does having a forest in the middle of the table does for eLylyth? Her entire battlegroup is already stealth and the middle of the table is where the objectives are so both players will have to gravitate towards it anyway. Not to mention that a forest in WMH should be about 5" wide, meaning that even an average speed model should be able to cross it in a single turn.
...

If the game was as you claim it to be, then you wouldn't have the spread of factions wining tournaments that you have, you would have things like 40k where 2 or 3 viable factions / lists would climb to the top of the tournament scene and hang on there.

This would be even more apparent because WMH doesn't share the same release scheme as 40k does so it doesn't really "revisit" power pieces or power factions, meaning that any unbalanced models / factions released with mark 2 would still be dominating today.

I am bad at separating quotes, so bear with me here.
Feats can be a big part of a game, but I don't think there's any feat that is insurmountable by a smart player. What I'm referring to is when you don't have the tool in your army to overcome a flat out denial or permission. So what I mean by that is unlike most war games I've played, WM/H has the ability to outright say no that can't happen, or you cannot prevent this from happening. I mentioned eLilyth because even if you win, she can kite around the forest for the bulk of the game, without most of the warcasters or models in the game being able to even target her or her battlegroup. It was a common skew list when I was playing. It was balanced against the other factions, but without tailoring a list to deal with it, you were pretty much screwed due to facing 2-3 turns of impunity. It took a while for people to adjust their lists to solve the issue, and the casters to take to tournament in case you faced it. The points were secondary to the models.

You mentioned 5" forests - I'm not familiar with this rule. Possibly in Steamroller? But that only emphasizes that without augmenting the rules for terrain placement, most tournament organizers know that it can break the game in favor of a selection of models. The common GW tree templates used in the FLGS I was at were much larger.

As for the variety of factions winning, that doesn't mean too much for me as I think the factions are balanced against the whole of the other factions. So having the whole game balanced in light of the other factions (no dominant faction) I would agree with that. Bad matchups do exist though, and I think they show up less in competetive play, maybe even less now since colossals. This is all part of list building, obviously a list of all gunmages is not going to fare well against an army they can't see or target. Some people describe this as rock-paper-scissors. It's balanced, but you're screwed if you brought scissors against rock. Some people seem to love this about the game, and I recognize the merits.

Deadnight wrote:

Point stands: you'll only get out what you're willing to put in.

This x100. Sometimes if you ask people if they want to play a story based campaign or a historical battle, they reveal that it's what they've always wanted to play.

The competitive scene with WM/H is strong because the next leading 28mm game (40k) doesn't really do competitive or rules writing all that well. The ruleset lends itself to very concise, exactly forms of play. But that focus can be turned elsewhere, and often has. Ask around. If someone sees you playing a well established scenario or battle with painted miniatures on awesome terrain, they are going to want to get involved.

I can't get into narrative games of WMH because I don't like the models or the fluff very much. The rule set is 100x better than GW for balance and competitive play though. I just wish it didn't feel so much like a game of magic with models. The cards, tokens, etc really make you feel like you're just playing a game instead of being the general of an army fighting a battle to the death. I wish WMH had better models and fluff I could get into, I would sell my 40k stuff and never look back. As it is, I still enjoy the modeling, painting and epic battles of 40k and play WMH on the side when I want a competitive game where tactics go beyond list building and random D6 tables.

Went a played a few games at 35 points. I found it very slow compared to warhammer 40k. Not much went on the first few turns haha. A lot of running. Then a round of combat and the game was pretty much over...

Seems like so much more goes on with 40k.

I noticed that too. I wish there was a middle ground. In 40k a powerful alpha strike can take out half your army before you can do anything. In WMH the first 2 turns are running just to try and get in range with your guns that were apparently designed in 1776 and can only shoot something 20 feet away.

WM/H games have a tempo. Thinking about threat ranges is really key. This then ties into scoring objectives or zones or lining up a good trade or attrition plan or killing their leader. The first turn is largely the set up turn. The only things that should be attacking in the first turn are ranged units at advance deploy, or sufficiently fast melee units attack the enemy who moved up really, really far.

The first turn of maneuver actually really matters. It's the time where you can fix deployment mistakes, or think about where you want the unit to be on turns 2+.

I find the weapon ranges to be silly for both 40k and WM/H. At least WM/H has the excuse of them being old timey weapons and not futuristic ones. WM/H technology is all over the place with some fire arms being medeival while others look far more modern.

Then you have the "trencher" infantry of Cygnar fighting in a type of warfare that would never necessitate trenches like WW1. To need trenches you need things like the shell casing and smokeless powder. With how much melee still matters in the Iron Kingdom, raising up a back bone of your military that is inappropriate to what's going on is a bit silly.

Neither 40k nor WM/H really makes sense, so if that's a criteria, pick whichever one offends you the least or find a better third option.

^^^^^^

I know what you mean. Just my main point was that 40k seems to have more action going on from the get go.

40k. I've already bought into it.

In addition, I've never seen a Warmachine game where the players were enjoying themselves. They always look bored, pissed, or both. It never made me want to play.

@Jimsolo..
Do you think your fist statement has heavily influenced your second statment?

Toofast wrote:I can't get into narrative games of WMH because I don't like the models or the fluff very much. The rule set is 100x better than GW for balance and competitive play though. I just wish it didn't feel so much like a game of magic with models. The cards, tokens, etc really make you feel like you're just playing a game instead of being the general of an army fighting a battle to the death. I wish WMH had better models and fluff I could get into, I would sell my 40k stuff and never look back. As it is, I still enjoy the modeling, painting and epic battles of 40k and play WMH on the side when I want a competitive game where tactics go beyond list building and random D6 tables.

What is it about the fluff that you don't like toofast?

What is your experience of the lore?

Have you checked out the rpg's (old d20 material or new ikrpg sourcebooks), SiX, or the material in no quarter? In my experience the rpg material is absolutely stellar, and is a great tool for immersing yourself in the lore. The world really comes to life. Some of the six books (into the storm in particular is a brilliant read, but also the various warcaster chronicles and warlock chronicles novels really bring the characters to life).
Trust me. The fluff is good.,and it's well worth getting into. Pm me if you're looking for any specific stuff if you're interested.

Toofast wrote:
I noticed that too. I wish there was a middle ground. In 40k a powerful alpha strike can take out half your army before you can do anything. In WMH the first 2 turns are running just to try and get in range with your guns that were apparently designed in 1776 and can only shoot something 20 feet away.

Well, the most recent amazing scientific achievement in the iron kingdoms is the telegraph. A lot of their tech is pseudo 17th, 18th and 19th century. Gun tech that was designed c.1776 would still be considered fairly modern and up to date in a lot of places. Muzzle loaders aren't exactly out of fashion. That, 'game balance', and 'we don't want the game to devolve into two gunlines that don't advance out of their deployment zone'.

The most active bits of users on this forum are anti-GW or somewhere inbetween, I´d wager if all users voted WM/H would be left with 30% of the votes.

I like both games for different reasons, so I didn´t vote. The only thing I don´t like are the whiny GW Doom Clones.

This polls shows nicely however the fact that what is written on these forums in general is a tiny fraction of all wargamers opinions and should be perceived as such. Next to that it should be noted that haters always make more noise than people that are satisfied, the subject can be pretty much anything.

What´s that, 160 people soon? My very, very small country ( with a tiny population of ~ 5451270 ) has atleast 3100 confirmed wargamers, the real total being probably twice or thrice the amount.