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.

Do many of the 40k fanatics on here play warmachine? I live in the land of Privateer Press here in Redmond WA so it is really hard to get a game of 40k. In the two years since I have lived here I have only managed to pick up about a dozen games. So I am considering playing Warmachine which is played daily at every hobby store in the area. When I look at the game it just looks boring. It appears that they just line up facing each other and start rolling dice until someone wins. There does not appear to be any strategy in how you move your guys or in finding cover. There does not seem to be any fluff behind the game to make it the rich experience 40k is. And lastly it does not appear that there is any customization in the modeling. These are all things I love about 40k that I see missing which is why I have not picked it up. Am I off base? Is Warmachine a good substitute for 40k? I don't want the opinion of a warmachine fanboy, I want to know what other 40k players think that is why I posted in the 40k section.

I've payed both games and prefer Warmachine. I think that there is enough strategy and maneuvering , even more than 40K. Placing in WM is extremely important and even the smallest mistake can lead to your downfall. There are no customization options when it comes to the minis, and except for the metal characters, they are not that good. There is well-developed and vast fluff behind the game, but for the most people it is not that important. It is there if you want it though.

I believe that Warmachine is the better game out of the too. It is quite intense, I am constantly one the edge of my proverbial seat when I play, it requires great amount of skill and it is much better balanced. That said, I believe that 40K is more fun. I don't think that I will play it again because of it major flaws, but with the right people it is a blast.

You should find a Press Ganger in your area to run you through a demo of the game. Smaller point games aren't very representative of Warmachine, but they can give you a good feel of the game.

I play both and find Warmachine a much more tactical game (frustratingly so sometimes. I can see why they use chess clocks as I can agonize over what to do and in what order for quite some time)

A couple things I really like about their system is that your to hit rolls are opposed (Ie. your skill versus their defense) and the fact defensive buffs including cover add to your defense. I find this much better than 40k's cover system where a Terminator might as well be in the open against AP3 or worse weapons.

Model placement is incredibly crucial where a tiny mistake can lead to a chain of events which ends with your Warcaster face down in the dirt and a loss to learn from.

I agree with you about there being a lack of customization options in comparison to 40k but as their models improve (and more importantly the materials they are made of improve) I expect that to change going forward.

Having said all that I don't see it as a one or the other situation. I find 40k scratches a different itch (and the fact I can still competently play while inebriated is a nice perk) and my knowledge of the background makes it more immersive and easier to create narrative gameplay. Though the gap here is narrowing as I read more and more about the Iron Kingdoms.

You should have a look through this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/629829.page

They get a little too hung up on pre-measuring but there is a lot of useful info there detailing the differences.

WMH hordes is 174628x more tactical than 40k. I've seen games won and lost by a model being 1/8" outside of charge range. Cover actually does something in WMH, it always gives you a Def bonus. In 40k, if you have marines in a ruin and they get hit with high S, no AP weapons, they might as well be standing in the middle of a field, it's asinine. Also, there is FAR less randomness for the sake of being random that adds nothing to the game like 40k has. A run is double speed, a charge is speed +3". In 40k I've seen my grey hunters run 6" and then my TWC run 1". There is nothing "narrative" about your bulky power armored dudes on foot outpacing some of the fastest units in the game based on a random dice roll. I have far less rules arguments in WMH, and when they do come up they easily resolved. When a model or ability is broken, they fix it quickly rather than waiting 2-4 years for the next codex to fix it (if they even bother to fix it in the next codex). 40k has an advantage in the models, that's about it. WMH is the far better game by every measure I can think of.

I play Warmachine in addition to 40k (Khador!!!). It definitely has differences:

1) You're right about the model customization, there's not much you can do without getting creative
2) You're not quite right about the fluff. There's definitely not as much as in 40k, but there is a pretty good amount.
3) You roll a lot less dice. The most you'd be rolling at a time 4, MAYBE 5 in some cases. On average, you're rolling 2 or 3.
4) Warmachine, in my opinion, is more tactical than 40k. Part of the rules is that you have a Warlock/Warcaster, who's the equivalent of an HQ in 40k. If he dies in the course of the game, you automatically lose. So it's important to protect that one unit.

I like Warmachine for the more tactical edge of things, 40k is better for fluff and customization.

It's never interested me, aside from looking at a few of their models and thinking "Damn, that dragon would make a nice Heldrake".

It apparently has a tighter ruleset and is closer to a balanced wargame, but 40k keeps me amused enough in the hobby/gaming department anyway. Warmachine remains that strange game that gets played on the other tables.

Oh, and their beeping chess clocks used to be really annoying if you were in the same room as them at a tournament.

The fluff is actually quite engrossing and deep. You should take a look. Read "Into the Storm" by Larry Correia for a good intro into the world.

Warmachine is much more tactical than 40k and better yet, the rules match the fluff. The fluff and rules both support and enhance each other in a way 40k hasn't been able to do in a long time.
(look at the rules for the Withershadow Combine for Cryx for an example of what I'm talking about.)

I'll admit I've never taken much of a look at Warmachine (for reasons that should become apparent), so feel free to take this as somewhat uninformed opiion, but here's my look on WM, not as a 40k player alone but as a hobbyist in general.

- The big thing is the models. I'm a fan of steampunk as much as the next guy (look up any number of my posts praising the brilliance of Malifaux minis), but I cannot stand to look at PP stuff. Everything is so cartoonish, almost video-gamey, and just looks bland to me. Some of their very big kits do well in the 'impressive' stakes, particularly as the comically oversized stlye isn`t as noticable at that size, but that's about it. I'd still rather have a GW Knight or Dreamforge Leviathan that most of the WM Colossals. The lack of customisability would also be a huge put-off for me, the more I can do 'outside the box' with minis the better!

- Going to be honest, I don't like the fact it seems to be a game with a background attached, rather than a background that envelops a game. The idea of the gaming side being the primary focus at the expense of fluff/painting/conversion is again not something that appeals to me; if I wanted a simple game of strategy above all else I'd get out a chess set. Not saying that there isn't fluff or that it's bad, but whereas with 40k or LotR I feel like I'm using a set of rules to recreate a setting, I get the impression WM would be just the same whether you touched a page of fluff or not.

Neither of these things necessarily make it a bad game, just not something I'd touch personally. Given the purported quality of the rules, I would be interested in seeing a 40k-port for the WM ruleset just as something a little different, but I don't know how well that would work.

One other thing I'd add is that I find it a little odd that 40k and WM are so often compared: the former is a grimdark sci-fi, the other is steampunk fantasy, a whole other animal. I get that it's the largest competitor to GW player/money-wise, but I've never quite understood why the two are so often compared side-by-side.

I used to play warmahordes, the reason I stopped playing is that as the game progressed, each army became more and more similar in terms of gameplay and games became more and more repetitive.
40k isn't perfect, by a long shot. But, it's the lack of balance and the amount of random chance that keeps it fun for me.

One other thing I'd add is that I find it a little odd that 40k and WM are so often compared: the former is a grimdark sci-fi, the other is steampunk fantasy, a whole other animal. I get that it's the largest competitor to GW player/money-wise, but I've never quite understood why the two are so often compared side-by-side.

They're both tactical skirmish games - on a similar scale of model count and $$$ expenditure.

40k does indeed have far better models than WMH, but WMH is far more tactical (and less forgiving of errors) and more balanced. I remember one recent game of WMH where I was tired after a long day at work and I lamented that I couldn't just mindlessly push models forwards and roll dice, like I used to in 40k.
Make a single stupid error and you can lose by turn 2. But that's much like fool's mate in chess. It doesn't happen that often. It's also a great piece of game design as it means that it keeps the game interesting for both players until its over. In 40k if you get a good turn and wipe out half the opposing army you've almost got the game in the bag. In WMH the opponent just has to kill one model, your caster, and he's won the game.

each army became more and more similar in terms of gameplay and games became more and more repetitive.

A fair point I think. 12 factions, each with 20-80 different options is quite hard to keep distinctive.
Unlike the amazing variety in 40k of grey Space Marines, red space marines, blue space marines, spiky space marines, ad nauseum...

And the Steamroller tourney rules are all variants of Take & Hold at the end of the day. Would be nice if there was some variety in the scenarios. Malifaux has some really quirky scenarios, but no idea how fair they are for 12 different factions with different emphasis on speed, hittiness, tankiness, etc.

I don't want the opinion of a warmachine fanboy

Oops. Well, I did play 40k for 11 or so years, from start of 3rd ed to the final day of 5th ed, so I think I've given a fair view of WMH.

Is Warmachine a good substitute for 40k?

It was awesome for me, but I'm a gamer first and foremost. If you're into models then WMH doesn't do it as well as 40k. I like the WMH fluff personally, but it obviously doesn't have the scope of trillions of people locked in eternal war across the galaxy.


Gaz

40k hasn't been tactical or a skirmish game since 2nd. It's a mass battle game with a ton of random added because they can't figure out how to balance things so they put them on D6 tables. They're also not similar on model count or $. You can get a 50 point WMH army and MKII rulebook for $350. An 1850 point 40k army, rulebook and codex is $700+ (or twice as expensive).

I play the odd game of WMH. In my opinion, the reasons to like it or not like it are pretty much the same:

The reasons to like it are that it's low model count, relatively simple rules, faster games, model simplicity (no customization), and low barrier to entry.

The reasons not to like it are low model count, the rules are kind of simple, the games go too fast, you can't configure models, and the tables are small and sparse.

I think that it can be plenty strategic; I don't think it's perfectly "internally balanced" like some people seem to think -- you can't just buy models you think look cool, add up points, and expect to win. There are fewer models that are truly useless, but there are still cases where there aren't many reasons to use a unit other than that you like the model. It is certainly less egregious than 40k, where there are many models that seem totally pointless from a game perspective, if effectiveness is your thing (bundle more Terminators in those box sets, please GW).

At the end of the day, for me, the biggest detractor of WMH for me is that I'm simply less interested in a tabletop wargame that doesn't make me say, "S*** WOW" when I look at it. Stormravens, Baneblades, Thunderhawks, Fire Prisms, lines of tanks, infantry, hordes of Orks, infiltrating assassins, drop pods, big buildings, massive fortifications to breach -- that's all what makes me excited.

Moar dakka!

I play 40k cause i enjoy the races and enjoy the story I looked into warmachine and could never find myself really "interested" Just looking at there characters and units they look cool and some look very unique (personally I want to buy some of those robots and convert em for orks )... But I just really don't want to spend my efforts to invest into a new hobby with pretty much the same price as 40k with less players then 40k (In my area) I actually don't know/seen anyone play it mostly 40k at my local hobby shop...

You can get a 50 point WMH army and MKII rulebook for $350. An 1850 point 40k army, rulebook and codex is $700+ (or twice as expensive).

That's a fair point, but in my case I play Skorne and it's such a well balanced faction that I've ended up buying far more than 50 points as I try out new models and units. As opposed to 40k, where I could read a new codex, work out the 3-4 uber units to spam and just buy those, which was me sorted for a few years (Like my comedy 2 tyrant, 6 'fex list of 4th ed, which of course the 5th ed Nids codex utterly reamed with the nerf bat).

But, this is a good time to start in WMH. PP are releasing some very competitively priced starter box deals, such as the ones linked here:

http://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/starter-products/all-in-one-army-boxes

http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/starter-products/all-in-one-army-boxes

35 points is about 1500 pts of 40k. Can then buy a few figs to get to 50 pts, which is standard tourney size. I believe also includes rulebook.


But, IMo, best bet is to try a few games. If you hate it you hate it. No point spending money if you're never going to play it.

40k hasn't been tactical or a skirmish game since 2nd

Target selection is a tactical choice. Not much of one, but that is still an option you get in 40k, even though WMH is about 100x more tactical overall.


Gaz

 Toofast wrote:
40k hasn't been tactical or a skirmish game since 2nd. It's a mass battle game with a ton of random added because they can't figure out how to balance things so they put them on D6 tables. They're also not similar on model count or $. You can get a 50 point WMH army and MKII rulebook for $350. An 1850 point 40k army, rulebook and codex is $700+ (or twice as expensive).

A 50 point WMH army has way, way less than half the models of 1850 point 40k army, though (using $350 and $700).

If you really like modelling, the model value of WMH is limited, because the models individually are expensive (other than starter box, there's nothing, not even basic infantry, in the $3-$4 range) and contain no configuration options or bits that can be repurposed. Captain Victoria Haley is a beautiful model, but every Captain Victoria Haley looks identical (other than the paintjob).

Part of the fun of 40k is picking out on the grav guns vs melta guns vs plasma; or mounting an assault cannon versus a lascanon. Obviously, if that's not your thing, 40k blows chunks, because it means either buying a whole bunch of models or magetizing or possibly being unhappy with your configuration down the road.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gazzor wrote:

But, IMo, best bet is to try a few games. If you hate it you hate it. No point spending money if you're never going to play it.
Gaz

As you say, though, the starter boxes are cheap, and good enough to get a taste of the game. And the models are good enough that they're still fun to paint up, if you enjoy modelling

That's why I initially picked up Warmachines (and infinity.. and malifaux... and...).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gazzor wrote:
35 points is about 1500 pts of 40k. Can then buy a few figs to get to 50 pts, which is standard tourney size. I believe also includes rulebook.

By the way, the WMH rulebook that comes in the starter boxes contains all the rules to play the game, but it's not a miniaturized version of the MKII Prime rulebook. It's missing a lot of stuff, like all the fluff, the makeup of each faction, the commanders, and all that kind of thing. There is also a Forces: book for each faction, which is the WMH version of the 40k Codex.

In contrast, the 40k mini rule book included in a few box sets is *exactly* the same as the hardcover BRB, other than the cover art and format (size). All the page numbers, columns, pictures, etc. are identical -- just smaller and on thinner paper.

Not that I'm advocating for/against either. I love both the softcovers as take-alongs.

I haven't played Warmachines at all so my opinion comes with that caveat.

What I have done though is keep watching episodes of Warmachine league play that miniwargaming puts out on youtube. I've noticed a few specific occurrences in most of the games and I actually wonder if being an uninformed viewer actually makes what I'm seeing more apparent.

Specifically most games seem to degenerate quite quickly into a midfield melee, with the casters at the back and maybe some shooters to the sides. That's not all matches mind, but most I've watched seem to have the same overall feel to them.

The other thing I've noticed is quickly rolling for individual models rather than groups. I can't be sure if that's normal or just the way they do it there on their channel, but that seems needlessly mind bogglingly slow in comparison with firing or meleeing as full squads. I think that might be emblematic of skirmish style games though.

Lastly, as one poster above said, he had seen a game lost by an eight of an inch. I've witnessed alot of things in those shows that seem like extremely nitpicky rules. Again, as an uninformed viewer, I cannot be certain of exactly what I'm witnessing ruleswise, but if it looks nitpicky too me outside of the game, then more than likely it actually is.

In my eyes, even if your rules set is great and even and easy to understand, I don't like games that emphasize being a rules nazi. I'm not saying GW couldn't use some better, updated, more specifically streamlined rules either, just that over emphasis on being picky isn't how I wanna play a game.

I can't comment much on tactics. The games I've watched always seem sorta "samey."

Just my unasked for $.02. As again, I am an uninformed viewer, thats what I seem to see though. I could stand to learn a bit more so I knew what I was looking at.

I simply dont play games where the models look ugly. So for me I dont like it for subjective reasons.

No doubt the rules are good, but I find most games have decent rules now days (except GW 40k and fantasy).

So if you can get past their odd appearance then im sure you will have fun. Just dont limit yourself to one or or the other. Better to play more games.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I simply dont play games where the models look ugly. So for me I dont like it for subjective reasons.

No doubt the rules are good, but I find most games have decent rules now days (except GW 40k and fantasy).

So if you can get past their odd appearance then im sure you will have fun. Just dont limit yourself to one or or the other. Better to play more games.

this 100% for me. Lore is boring and models are ugly generally

 Rippy wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I simply dont play games where the models look ugly. So for me I dont like it for subjective reasons.

No doubt the rules are good, but I find most games have decent rules now days (except GW 40k and fantasy).

So if you can get past their odd appearance then im sure you will have fun. Just dont limit yourself to one or or the other. Better to play more games.

this 100% for me. Lore is boring and models are ugly generally

For me the Lore is the reason I chose the game. They've been writing lore about this world since before warmachine existed.
Check out the Iron Kingdoms role playing game for some really fascinating and in depth stuff.
And PP has some really great looking models. Most is subjective of course.

I tried to get into warmachine, but some of the rules were unintuitive, and their "balance at all costs!" mentality kind of bored me.

Also, it turns out it wasn't even that balanced. There are still crunch armies and fluff theme (I forgot the fluff was less forgiving than 40k's with DIY stuff) armies, and while the gap between them isn't so bad, it's still a divide, and a big one.

I bought a crap ton of Warmachine because I liked the Warjacks. Then I discovered competitive play relied mostly on infantry. Between that, not liking the no model/unit option nature of the game, and the lack of model customization my enthusiam died quickly.

Didn't mind the game play

 adamsouza wrote:
I bought a crap ton of Warmachine because I liked the Warjacks. Then I discovered competitive play relied mostly on infantry. Between that, not liking the no model/unit option nature of the game, and the lack of model customization my enthusiam died quickly.

Didn't mind the game play

This is kind of what I was referring to - for a game called "Warmachine" the machines are actually quite lacklustre compared to the fleshy bits.

I love the idea of Warmachine being out there as a game, and the Convergence of Cyriss is actually a faction I collect a little bit of (think Adeputs Mechanicus if they got their gak together). Their aesthetics are completely different from most of the game and I personally enjoy them.

The fluff is surprisingly good, it was an RPG setting before it was a war-game so there's a lot of background material to dig through it you're interested, although it saddens me that a lot of Warmachine players don't know or care about it. I think the real thing that stops Warmachine from being my main interest is that it is just so much primarily a competitive tournament game, and that is all a lot of players care about. There are other aspects to it (modeling and converting, narrative campaigns, etc) and I will say PP does their bit supporting them, at least a little, but the average player just doesn't care and wants to play another tournament scenario.

Another thing I can see as a benefit, but I don't particularly like, is the amazingly strict reliance on to-the-millimeter positioning. It makes sense because so much of the game is about threat ranges and spacing, but it pretty much makes any kind of terrain or scenery other than colored squares of felt not allow the game to be played as designed, since you can't put the models in the exact right place (and in many cases you have to use a "proxy base" for exact model positioning when things are too close together)... it just makes me wonder why you bother to have a modeling aspect at all if you try what seems to be your hardest to make it impractical in the rules.

It can be a really fun game but it just...takes itself too seriously? I guess that's how I'd best describe it.

Eh, never really seen enough to get me interested in it. Some of the Cryx models look good, but that's about it. 40k just seems like a much more expansive universe and model set. Even if 40k has worse rules, the setting is more appealing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Eh, never really seen enough to get me interested in it. Some of the Cryx models look good, but that's about it. 40k just seems like a much more expansive universe and model set. Even if 40k has worse rules, the setting is more appealing.

I can't argue that, the problem is I spend a lot more time playing the game than I do modeling, painting and reading fluff. I play at least a couple games a week but usually 8-10. I might paint for 2-3 hours and spend an hour reading fluff. To me, it doesn't matter how amazing the models and background are when the rules are as terrible as GWs.

- To a Warmachine player, 40k looks like you just put models down in the deployment zone and don't move them until they're dead or you've won.
Warmachine tactics are a bit like chess. Someone with no skill at chess will look at a board and have no idea whats going on ; they'll say white is winning because they have more pieces left. A chess master will look at a board and see that a knight is controlling a corner preventing the opponents rook from moving in to an offensive position, and the pawn on E5 is the most crucial piece in the game. (Not a chess person). The uninitiated will look at warmachine and see a bunch of models butting heads, but the skilled player will see that the Whelp model is blocking a crucial charge lane and if Mulg was turned 20 degrees to the right the game would be in a completely different state. It is exacerbated a bit compared to 40k because models typically have very short movement distances (average move if you attack at all is around 9") and short ranged weapons (topping out at 15"?) compared to 40k where models can sit on the back line and still decimate the enemy, and also move 12" a turn for many models.

- Terrain likewise is a lot less prevalent in WMH than 40k, because it has an enormous effect on the game. 40k needs a third of the table covered in substantial pieces of terrain to have any effect - much less than 25% and the board feels empty. In 40k, a low brick wall is just there for looks, anyone who is anyone is wearing 2+ armour and/or 5+ invulnerable. In Warmachine, that wall is a critical piece of the battlefield and the battle may hinge around who gets to benefit from the cover it provides. Whether you think this difference is a good thing (less terrain, cheaper, more meaningful, looks worse vs more terrain, expensive, little game effect, looks good) is up to you.

- There is definitely less customization in the models than in GW games, but that is the case with 95% of the wargames market. Mostly because most of the models are either metal or PVC, making them quite hard to convert, and there are generally few/no spare bits. Its like you don't see a huge number of converted Sisters of Battle armies. PP have just started releasing hard plastic (sprue'd) kits though, so this might be changing in the near future if everything goes well. However that is all up to you - convert and paint models however you wish.

- The background is deeper than any other fantasy wargame I've seen other than 40k, and thats probably just because it hasn't been around as long.A lot of people don't delve in to the fluff because you don't need to buy any of the source books other than the main rulebook (models come with their own rules) compared to 40k where every player must buy at least some of the army fluff with the codex.
In some aspects the WMH fluff is better than 40k because it progresses in meaningful ways that also have an impact on the tabletop, rather than being suck at 40999.99999 - a bit more like End Times is doing for fantasy, but less extreme.

 Toofast wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Eh, never really seen enough to get me interested in it. Some of the Cryx models look good, but that's about it. 40k just seems like a much more expansive universe and model set. Even if 40k has worse rules, the setting is more appealing.

I can't argue that, the problem is I spend a lot more time playing the game than I do modeling, painting and reading fluff. I play at least a couple games a week but usually 8-10. I might paint for 2-3 hours and spend an hour reading fluff. To me, it doesn't matter how amazing the models and background are when the rules are as terrible as GWs.

Don't get me wrong, I actually have some videos queued up so I can eventually learn how to play it, because it does seem fun to play, but the models just don't strike me that much. I do like the smaller squad sizes, but I've never actually had a chance to get in to it.

Meh. My impression thus far of anything warmachine is that it attempts to be different fluff wise, and supposedly brings an interesting skirmish style level of play. This is my rather superficial view/understanding of it. In the end, the miniatures and setting just don't do it for me. /shrug

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I simply dont play games where the models look ugly. So for me I dont like it for subjective reasons.

No doubt the rules are good, but I find most games have decent rules now days (except GW 40k and fantasy).

So if you can get past their odd appearance then im sure you will have fun. Just dont limit yourself to one or or the other. Better to play more games.

this 100% for me. Lore is boring and models are ugly generally

For me the Lore is the reason I chose the game. They've been writing lore about this world since before warmachine existed.
Check out the Iron Kingdoms role playing game for some really fascinating and in depth stuff.
And PP has some really great looking models. Most is subjective of course.

I do like Cryxx (sp?) I like the look of one boss and one warjack, then the troops are just meh. Even the scales of those Cryxx guys is wack. I will probably end up getting an army just purely to play with some mates in the next few years, but I cannot foresee much passion.

I'm just getting into WMH, but it scratches everything 40K misses on.

Personally, I like the lack of customization of the units. No guessing which upgrades are mandatory and which are mere point sucks.

It strikes me as more tactically deep than 40K; at the very least I haven't yet had the impression that the few games I've played were won by list choice before the first model hit the table. And I've had a couple instances already where it looked like I was going to get crushed - until I noticed the enemy warcaster was in just the right position to turn the entire game on its head, so "sure thing" is not always the case in the game. I don't like timed turns though, and I do an occasional bit of per-measuring in my home games cuz I'm not THAT skilled at judging distances.

Most of all, it rewards being aggressive. I enjoy ranged combat a little too much (Tau in 40K, Cygnar in WM), but in WMH, even with ranged stuff you've got to mix it up a bit and be ready for some close quarter combat.

Personally, I like the look of the models, especially the steamjacks. I've read a bit of the fluff, but so far, prefer playing the game without getting too deep into the storyline.