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.

Key word: IMO

If you can point out a specific example that relies on something other than your "modest" opinion I'd be happy to consider that.

Otherwise? Your argument relies purely on your own preference.

Why can't people like both games, equally or unequally?

You see this drive for the spot of top dog has absolutely nothing to do with the game, or the company that makes the game. Do you think the guys at PP sit there and plot out how to steal the vaunted throne of nerdalia from it's current ruler?

No, they probably have plenty enough on their plate as is. Take a long hard look at Mantic and tell me that you really think they are dethroning anyone from anything. That's not a shot at Mantic either, just a poke at their ridiculous Next-GW attitude.

So what fuels this argument? Judging from the attitude presented in the rule book I'd say Warmachine players have small sex organ syndrome, maybe not all of them. Just the ones clamouring about how much better their game is. What are they really saying? They are saying that they, by inference, are better than you. Warmachine is a better game, it's more ruthless, you have to HAVE A PAIR to play! This can be translated directly into "I'm better than you because I play a smarter game".


Hammer. Nail. Pow.

IMO is how many editions assault has sucked. 40k assault IS crap there is no denying it. It is intrinsically weaker than shooting AND the only phase where your opponent can kill you on your turn.

MAT+Dice vs DEF is much better than the slowed WS system.

In addition, at least melee powerhouses in wm/h actually feel like melee powerhouses. Half the time in 40k, you can barely hit your opponent, despite one person being a thousand years old demi god, and the other bring a slightly overweight grot.

Cover actually functioning across the range of units fairly equally (Eyeless Sight etc not withstanding) is another strong point. A Terminator gaining no assistance from the wall covering 90% of his body always aggravated me.

 Eldarain wrote:
MAT+Dice vs DEF is much better than the slowed WS system.

That I will again argue is a preference call. Mind you, having a very large and inept predecessor does give one the advantage of knowing what makes gamers angry. Perhaps after the dust has settled and GW AoS's itself to death we will all be bemoaning PP and praising the next new thing?


Also, the point isn't so much the rules themselves but how the companies handle them. Has GW ever replied to a request for a rules change or improvement?

Lets pretend for a second that GW is as attentive to the rules (player community actually) as PP is. We call em up and say the to-hit chart is lame, it's 20 years old and we want a melee mechanic that is more in-line with the expectations of the players. GW says okay! And fixes the rules. Now who is the lethargic dinosaur?

What I'm trying to get at isn't that we all have substandard sex lives, but rather that the real difference between the games is not the games themselves but the people who make them.

I certainly don't begrudge anyone for having a preference one way or the other, that would simply be... prejudiced? Lol, but I do have to question the reasoning behind this alleged rivalry.

I honestly don't see why wargamers can't just get along.

...
...
...

That was a joke...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Cover actually functioning across the range of units fairly equally (Eyeless Sight etc not withstanding) is another strong point. A Terminator gaining no assistance from the wall covering 90% of his body always aggravated me.

But how does that work? The termie is in cover, he gets a cover save. A useless as bork cover save, but he gets it still. Here the issue isn't really the terminator or the cover mechanic but the fact that GW has painted both these things into obsolescence with new rules.

Also, I'm gonna go out and say it here and now. GW cannot write its way out of a paper bag. 7th ed codices are total garbage. No argument. When I defend GW I'm not doing so because I agree with the current trends, or because I think they are better in any form. The GW I speak up for is the GW-ing that happens in my house, the GW that I am still dying to enjoy with Elds here. I'm not saying that Craftworld Eldar is fair or balanced. GW is kind of throwing the whole game right out the window at the moment, 40k and FB! Yet I suspect that 7th ed cheesehammer isn't what most of us are playing right now so I think it hardly matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Elds

We disagree! It's a match made in heaven!

I don't think either game is better or worse than the other, they just lend themselves better to different things.

WMH is really good for people who just want to play a game without worrying about someone dropping their tournament winning Tau list and destroying your poor fluffy Tyranid list with almost no hope of you winning. It's also easier on the wallet. It's a great system for competitive and tactical players.

40k is a system with huge amounts of customisability. It's great for people who want to spend 10-20 minutes before the game talking about what sort of cool, fluffy scenario you want to play and what sort of lists fit the theme of the game. After that you can just relax and roll some dice to see what happens, hanging out and chatting with friends.

 darkcloak wrote:
Yeah, okay citing 40k YMDC is a terrible idea. People don't even know how to read in there, so... no wonder debates rage on and on.

So...you're saying WMH players are more literate? Dang, that's harsh to your own kind.

And I'm sorry, but the rules in WM are not "better", they are different.

Nah, they're better, objectively. They are clear, concise and fit the fluff, unlike 40k rules.
40k, elite, bestest warrior in the galaxy, the space marine = expensive cannon fodder. It doesn't feel like you're in the books at all. "Oh, by giant raging chaos monster died without doing anything...again.
Take a unit in WMH like the Withershadow combine. It's a unique unit where the rules match the fluff. Or the entire army of Convergence where the playstyle itself is like the machines they worship.
Also, check out the newest example of quality rules in 40k, the Dark Angels detachment that can't actually work. Awesome!

How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k?

Because it actually accomplishes things. There's different methods to melee (as opposed to just hitting stuff) Throws, knockdowns, headbutts, tramples. Lots of dynamic choices.

I will say however, that one company certainly handles their rules in a more professional way, and THIS main difference is why people think one is superior to the other.

They do a lot of things more professionally than geedubs.

Ultimately the differences between the two games are negligible and anyone who hasn't an axe to grind is going to see this.

Demonstrably untrue. There are a lot of differences. They both use minis and dice. If you are unable to see the differences, then I say it's because you haven't played one or the other.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Then get out more.

I'm not sure what you mean... The only times I have ever seen someone actually something like "Page 5 man" is as an excuse.

I don't know what "getting out more" will do to change that. Usually when someone loses hard the people I play with will walk them through their mistakes like "You were out of position here, you took the bait there,and you completely forgot about counter-charge. Also try either adding a UA or switching skinwalkers for Gatormen posse." rather than just "Page 5 go hard or go home".

I'd much rather play with people who will point out your mistakes so you can get better than someone who says "Page 5 step-up". Page 5 even states its not an excuse for being a knob, but the only people I have seen who have ever explicitly quoted it have sed it as an excuse for TFG behaviour.

.

Page 5 is more than just 'page 5 harder noob' is the point i mean.

It's about not whining and moaning.its about giving your all in a game, always seeking to better yourself, being gracious in victory and defeat and being a swell guy, and not using a competitive game as an excuse to belittle people or act like a bell end.

Chances are you are all about page 5 without realising it. The 'page 5' you talk about isn't what it's about and is an unfair representation.

Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.

But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.

But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?

When you tar everyone with the same brush and state everyone who uses page 5 is Waac and is trying to curb stomp noobs or nitpicking details without a 'in my experience' , or an 'I've seen people misuse it', then don't be surprised when you get picked up as being hostile as well.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Page 5 is *mostly* an excuse used by WAAC players to justify nitpicking the tiniest detail or for curbstomping new players.

I have never honestly seen a player cite page 5 except as an excuse.

Hence 'get out more'. Plenty people including myself and most people I know use page5 as a positive and an assertive message of self- empowerment and self improvement.

see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.

But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?

"I just called all you guys WAAC douchebags, but it's you that needs to explain yourself."
Right. You clearly don't have enough experience with the game or its players to making such statements.
Hence:
Get out more.

It really grinds my gears when people bring over the 40k attitude to Warmachine.

There is not really a "stay true to the fluff" way of playing this game. The rules are tight and its a battle between two forces. There is no auto-win button. Sorry there isn't,

There is no WAAC in this game because the better player will more times than not, win. Look at what Will Pagani did at Temple Con. He took Khador with what most people would consider a crap unit (assault kommandos) and won Masters.

Will Pagani is a world class player, he plays an insane amount of games every week. He understands the synergies involved and can make his models work for him (not against him), he also knows what his opponents army can do. Is that WAAC? I'd say no. It's being a student of the game and devoting the time it takes to be the best. Is that something most of us can do? No not even close.

The point of my rambling is that people need to leave the 40k mentality at the door. This isn't that game, nor god willing will it ever be. It is different and requires different thinking.

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
It really grinds my gears when people bring over the 40k attitude to Warmachine.

There is not really a "stay true to the fluff" way of playing this game. The rules are tight and its a battle between two forces. There is no auto-win button. Sorry there isn't,

There is no WAAC in this game because the better player will more times than not, win. Look at what Will Pagani did at Temple Con. He took Khador with what most people would consider a crap unit (assault kommandos) and won Masters.

Will Pagani is a world class player, he plays an insane amount of games every week. He understands the synergies involved and can make his models work for him (not against him), he also knows what his opponents army can do. Is that WAAC? I'd say no. It's being a student of the game and devoting the time it takes to be the best. Is that something most of us can do? No not even close.

The point of my rambling is that people need to leave the 40k mentality at the door. This isn't that game, nor god willing will it ever be. It is different and requires different thinking.

Exalted!

Play the game, have fun. Leave your attitude at the door about which game is better.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:


How is melee combat in WM better than in 40k?

Because in 40k Melee is the only point in the game where an enemy can kill you on your own turn. Not to mention overwatch hurts. 40k melee has sucked for imo at least 3 editions.

Strongly dispute that that's a bad thing - that's what 40k melee good - for me at least - its a fight rather than one side just hitting the other - one of the reasons I liked Step up in recent WFB.

Its one of the very few things I am not totally keen on in Malifaux - you can charge in and chop someone up and they can't do anything unless they survive and have an activation left. It works I guess but feels odd to me.........

You know what.

I had a sneaking suspicion that WM was EXACTLY like every other game out there and my suspicions are confirmed.

Reading Matt Wilson's pompous diatribe, the inane hilarity of page 5, coming here and trying to talk about the game intelligently...

... Why bother?

WM players, GW players, whatever... Its a stupid overpriced game of dollies.

 darkcloak wrote:
You know what.

I had a sneaking suspicion that WM was EXACTLY like every other game out there and my suspicions are confirmed.

Reading Matt Wilson's pompous diatribe, the inane hilarity of page 5, coming here and trying to talk about the game intelligently...

... Why bother?

WM players, GW players, whatever... Its a stupid overpriced game of dollies.

You didn't try to talk anything intelligent about the game, you just sprouted some ill-informed opinions that were promptly contradicted and then decided that you didn't wan't to play any more and instead came up with this little gem of a post. Priceless...

Right.

Point in case. Exactly what I'm talking about.

Ill informed? I read the fething book thanks. And I don't need to be any kind of veteran gamer to see exactly why I hate social engagement.

I was trying to find a middle ground in which I can stand so that when I'm trying to enjoy the hobby I don't have to be bombarded by elitist bs. But lo and behold! The elitism runs rampant!

But you know what, feth it! feth dollies, feth games. If this website is even remotely representative of the kind of people who play wargames, I'm out.

darkcloak- reading the rules is not the same as playing the game any more than reading a cook book is the same as actually trying to cook.
However, since you don't like social engagement then I agree whole heartedly with you. Table top games are not for you. Stick to internet gaming where you don't have to have direct intercourse with others and enjoy your life.

 darkcloak wrote:
Right.

Point in case. Exactly what I'm talking about.

Ill informed? I read the fething book thanks. And I don't need to be any kind of veteran gamer to see exactly why I hate social engagement.

Reading the books and having actual practical experience are two very distinct things.
And you hate social engagement and you go for a hobby where social engagement is an integral part? That seems weird...

 darkcloak wrote:

I was trying to find a middle ground in which I can stand so that when I'm trying to enjoy the hobby I don't have to be bombarded by elitist bs. But lo and behold! The elitism runs rampant!

Its not elitism if its the factual truth, only your pre-conceptions are causing you to confuse the two.

 darkcloak wrote:

But you know what, feth it! feth dollies, feth games. If this website is even remotely representative of the kind of people who play wargames, I'm out.

You really seem to have some anger management issues if this is the way that you react when people disagree with you.

I think somebody needs a hug..

That escalated quickly.

I know...

Hugs?!

I'm confused, what just happened?!?

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
I'm confused, what just happened?!?

Someone came in after reading one page of MKII and thought he knew everything about the game and said there was no difference between it and 40k.
People proceeded to explain in detail how and why he was wrong and he got super angry and left.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:
I'm confused, what just happened?!?

Someone came in after reading one page of MKII and thought he knew everything about the game and said there was no difference between it and 40k.
People proceeded to explain in detail how and why he was wrong and he got super angry and left.

Got it. Internetz happened.

 darkcloak wrote:
You know what.

I had a sneaking suspicion that WM was EXACTLY like every other game out there and my suspicions are confirmed.

Reading Matt Wilson's pompous diatribe, the inane hilarity of page 5, coming here and trying to talk about the game intelligently...

... Why bother?

WM players, GW players, whatever... Its a stupid overpriced game of dollies.

LOLZ.

I'm thinking this whole thing is a big long troll. It usually is when people start comparing the 2 games.

If you are for real then I am glad for both sides you left. You won't enjoy playing the game and I won't enjoy playing against you. And that is OK. TT games are not for everyone. I hope you find something that you do enjoy playing.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Again I'm not saying that's what it's about I'm saying that is the ONLY reason I've seen people explicitly quote it. In the 4 years I've been playing not a single player whom I'd call a good sportsman has ever mentioned Pg 5.

But see how much better things are when you explain yourself instead of trying to look cool with a quick one line jab?

"I just called all you guys WAAC douchebags, but it's you that needs to explain yourself."
Right. You clearly don't have enough experience with the game or its players to making such statements.
Hence:
Get out more.

That's not what I did. Perhaps I am not explaining myself properly.

I have never heard anyone in person quote page 5 except as an excuse for being a knob. By being a knob I mean stomping a new player or list tailoring. "I know Johnnys been talking about his new list all week and he finally has it painted so I'm purposefully bringing the hard counter." You can quote page 5 but if a player wants to test a new list, you don't custom tailor your list to theirs. If you bring your normal tournament pairing & one is a bad matchup, it happens but this person literally custom built a list solely to play against this guys.

I am not saying don't play hard. I'm not saying be a fluff bunny, I am saying the only people who have ever (IN PERSON) quoted page 5 have done so as an excuse which is explicitly against the spirit of it.

I've been playing for 4 years across 5 states (ok 2 provinces & 5 states) & 2 countries. I've got plenty of experience, hell we just had a 40 man tournament where the winner got an invite to WM Weekend and page 5 never was brought up because it never HAD to be. My opinion is the only people who I have seen felt the NEED to bring up page 5, have done it as an excuse. I'm not saying if you follow pg 5 you're a WAAC player. I'm not saying your a knob if you follow it. I'm saying it is generally the expected level of play and the only people I (in my own personal experience) who actually pull it out to quote it, have been knobs. Behavior like running a molik missile against an opponent who has all of 2 games under his belt and stomping him top of turn 2 because "Well I don't have the battle box so I'll make a modified one." When confronted his excuse was "Go hard or go home" There is a time for go hard or go home. A players third game ever, is not that time. And yes it is against Pg 5 because pg 5 states

Pg 5 wrote:Page 5 is not permission to be a jackass in
the name of competition.

Taking Molik Karn against a player who isn't even out of the battle box because you like a "modified" battle box... Custom tailoring your list against an opponent who only has 1 army list so far (Bought All in One & hasn't had time or money to expand it).... THAT is how I have seen it quoted and THAT is not something I can get behind.


This is primarily how I have seen it used when people cite it in person. Both of these fall under rule 3 to me

rule3 wrote:There’s no honor in clobbering the smallest kid
in the yard,

People quote 1& 2 and forget 3-5. Page 5 is the EXPECTED level of play.


I hope this clarifies things.

These people who are using page 5 as an excuse to be a dill weed clearly have not read it properly.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
These people who are using page 5 as an excuse to be a dill weed clearly have not read it properly.

Yes, I agree 100%. I have just never had a player actually quote page 5 at someone in person who wasn't using page 5 as an excuse to be a knob. I play by it, I enjoy it and it's a great "Here is the mindset" one pager. I think I didn't explain myself properly. My problem isn't with Page 5. it isn't with players who abide by page 5. It is with the players who feel the need to quote page 5 any time they're being a knob and cite it as an excuse, and these are the only ones I have ever seen actually quote it at someone.

If I did not communicate that properly I apologize, I should have been more clear.