Switch Theme:

Warmachine and 40k....  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Been Around the Block




From being a warhammer and 40k player for some time, some of my friends have branched into warmachine claiming it is a more tactical game.

I still play 40k with a separate group of friends but have become intrigued.

I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part. Both forces seemed to face off against each other and rolled dice on a barren battlefield.

I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







Terrain is a really big deal in Warmachine. It's probably too big a deal, and different factions/lists have very strongly differing ability to handle terrain - some lists in some factions can practically ignore most terrain, while others are crippled by it. That leads to Warmachine players being a bit timid about putting terrain on the board. The placement rules for tournament play are also a bit restrictive, and people usually play by those even casually.

Movement plays a huge part. I'm not sure what you mean by movement not playing a huge part - the range models can travel is immensely important because getting the first hit is extremely powerful, especially with your warjacks and warbeasts.

Warmachine's biggest strengths are its relatively well-written ruleset, its evocative model rules and its strong tournament support. Warmachine's biggest weaknesses are probably its poor terrain rules, its piece trading - the prevalence of models, even big ones, getting killed in one turn with no chance to retaliate - and the burden of knowledge required to play effectively. Or maybe its plastic models, some of which have hilariously stupid issues like mould lines going in a curve through the centre of the model's face. It's also not a particularly cheap game to play, with Privateer Press seemingly taking their pricing cues from Games Workshop, though it's still significantly cheaper than 40k.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The battlefield may seem barren relative to 40k, but that's because any terrain that is there has a massive impact on the game.

Unless you have a special rule called Pathfinder(or Flight) then any rough terrain you pay double movement, and can't charge over walls. And some factions have little access to Pathfinder, or only on certain models.

Movement is actually very important. Even the slightest mm of positioning can be the difference between winning and losing.

People should be playing the game with 5-6 pieces of terrain on the board, and that is plenty.

If you want to learn more about warmachine I would look up the Chain-attack podcast(they also have lots of youtube battlereports) as they have a new players series that helps with learning the game from professional players. But nothing can replace in person learning. They also have more representative terrain than some channels, some people are lazy with terrain.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





I think you'd have to try it to understand it. Simple movements can mean the difference between victory and horrible defeat.
There's a lot of resource management, timing and positioning all going on at once.
It's hard to see it, but if you're playing it you'll get it!



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

I recommend getting some of your friends to show you a beginner game. Or just try watching some games.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in pt
Tea-Kettle of Blood




These are some of the reasons why WMH is more tactical than 40k:

- Lower ranges on weapons, spells and movement mean that movement and placement are critical in the game, a game of WMH can be won or lost because of a model being a single inch out of position.

- WMH has much less random elements, ensuring that the resolution of a tactical ploy depends almost entirely on the player's choices. Adding to this, the boosting mechanic (amongst others), will further ensure that if he so wishes, a player can even manipulate the odds of whatever dice rolls he is required to make.

- A typical WMH game will have 3 or 4 possible victory goals simultaneously, from simple caster assassination, to a scenario victory, or an attrition victory or even a time victory. This leads to several possible tactical and strategic options being available to the players and allows for a very dynamic game that most times will only be decided at the very end. A player that built his army to win on attrition, can still decide that he is better positioned to try for a scenario victory if the attrition game isn't going his way, or if his opponent gives him an opening, he can try for a desperate caster assassination, for example.

- Better internal and external balance (while by no means perfect), allows for games where the players decisions on the battlefield, more than the individual choice or armies, is the deciding factor on the games outcome.

- Terrain is hugely influential on this game, that is why people use so little of it. A single forest or wall can swing the balance of the game one way or the other in a dramatic fashion... This leads to most people pushing terrain to the edges of the board, where it will have very little influence. People need to learn to follow the terrain rules in SR, but that is an ongoing struggle for everyone.

- Adding to all of this, you have WMH synergistic nature combined with the resource / risk management in the Focus and Fury mechanics and even its activation order rules to add even more layers of tactical complexity to the game.

You can't really compare the two games when it comes to tactical depth.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/14 16:32:01


 
   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Rust belt

Find your local Pressgangers at the shop and ask him/her for a demo game. They will be more then happy to show you.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Hey drago elf, welcome to the pp boards. Grab yourself a juggernaut plushie. I genuinely hope you find something in wArmachine- it's a great game and well worth having a look at. For what it's worth, it's the fame that made me fall in love with the hobby again.


dragonelf wrote:

Both forces seemed to face off against each other and rolled dice on a barren battlefield.


Congratulations.vyouve just described a table top wargame.

dragonelf wrote:


I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part.


With respect, the Bolded part is key.

You'd actually be surprised, movement, terrain and positioning are vital in this game. The need to score zones, open up/block charge lanes is quite crucial. You can't simply hang back in your deployment zone and castle/gunline. You have to seize territory, and hold it. You need to secure positionalvadvantage that lets you control the alpha striking and attritional game and Defensive positions and features such as walls, trenches, and elevation offer huge defensive bonuses. Areas of terrain that grant concealment like forests etc both hinder movement, block line of sight and bollock accuracy. Areas of terrain like water effects again offer huge problems for armies. Impassible features create bottlenecks that can severely restrict movement. I've lost games in the past through losing the manoeuvre game, and having my army get in its own way.

It's not something you see from watching crap on YouTube. Especiall with a limited knowledge of the rules. Just like a boxing back is two guys hitting each other to someone without a clue, it's so much more to someone who understands the techniques and strategies.

dragonelf wrote:

I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?


Honestly, it's a different game to 40k and I'd rather sell it on its own strengths that bashing another game. Warmachine has a lot going for it though. It's worth getting into though, even if it's just your bit on the side.

It's got a very tight rules set. No ambiguities. The rules just work, with very little baggage.bthose grey areas tfg thrives on? Yeah, thry don't exist here. For me, It's ame mechanics feellike its lean mean and fighting fit and just lacks the bloat and fat that can drag a game down and I find it an absolute joy to play.

It's got excellent balance, both internally and externally. No, it's not perfect. There are some duds and there are some choices that are s bit too obvious. Thst said, pretty much everything can be built into a game winning strategy. It's not like 40k where the game boils down to a handful of builds from a handful of codices - all the factions can compete at a similar level. You are never out of the game, and with multiple win conditions, there are a whole variety of styles you can explore.

Pp offers great community support, via its pressgangers, leagues and organised play. This is probsbly one of the best things - the community feels well organised.

Page 5. Don't whine, bring your A-game and give it your all, always seek to improve yourself as a player (ie don't noobstalk), be creative, don't simply rely on the same old strategy all the time, win graciously, lose valiantly, and most importantly, page 5 is never an excuse to be a knob to your fellow gamers. Page 5 is refreshing.

Now I'll warn you - it's not all sunshine and rainbows. The models take a bit of getting used to (but like a tumour, they grow on you), converting your models is tricky and thoigh the fluff is a real hidden gem (and quite excellent for what ifs worth) the lack of a 'create your own warcaster' is something a lot of people find a bit hard to get used to, especially when they come over from 40k. I find it's more of a style difference though than a genuine issue though.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/14 21:44:47


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





And don't forget the fluff. It's surprisingly good.
Check out "Into the Storm" by Larry Correia.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.

Interesting views about terrain as well!

So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.
   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Rust belt

dragonelf wrote:
Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.

Interesting views about terrain as well!

So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.


They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity
   
Made in au
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge






 Chute82 wrote:
dragonelf wrote:
Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.

Interesting views about terrain as well!

So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.


They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity


They're all pretty balanced, but most people would advise to avoid Minions, Convergence and Retribution, along, maybe, with Mercenaries. They have a steep learning curve, and a lack of options compared to the other factions, which can make it somewhat harder.

Have fun!

My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





Circle has a somewhat steep learning curve, but I wouldn't tell someone that that should stop them from playing the faction they want. I say, "What's your play style?" And go from there.
I tend to be less subtle and tricksy and prefer a more fist to face style. So, I started with Khador. But once I got them down a bit, I started Convergence and learned a more subtle style, though sometimes I can still do my fist to face way of fighting.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in au
Thinking of Joining a Davinite Loge






 MWHistorian wrote:
Circle has a somewhat steep learning curve, but I wouldn't tell someone that that should stop them from playing the faction they want. I say, "What's your play style?" And go from there.
I tend to be less subtle and tricksy and prefer a more fist to face style. So, I started with Khador. But once I got them down a bit, I started Convergence and learned a more subtle style, though sometimes I can still do my fist to face way of fighting.


Fair enough, and all the factions have a steep learning curve. It's just the problem is compounded by their relative lack of options. Just trying to avoid unpleasant beginnings.

My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






A bit of a wod of warning, Battle Boxes typically are not how a faction plays.
Like Trolls and Khador like Infantry alot.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Fake Englandland

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
 Chute82 wrote:
dragonelf wrote:
Wow! Thanks so much for all the responses. I totally accept my ignorance about the game so I expected to be totally wrong about it and I am really pleased to hear for the most part what people are finding.

Interesting views about terrain as well!

So which is a good starting army or are they all pretty much balanced? I'd like an army I can learn and will be strong if I play them right.


They are all pretty much balanced pick the army that attracts you the most would be my advice. This game has a high learning curve don't expect to win many games at first. It's not like 40k where a net list is going to win you games automaticity


They're all pretty balanced, but most people would advise to avoid Minions, Convergence and Retribution, along, maybe, with Mercenaries. They have a steep learning curve, and a lack of options compared to the other factions, which can make it somewhat harder.

Have fun!

I can really say, don't start with mercs honestly. I did, and it's kind of a pain because there really isn't an easy way to start them up. If you want to play mercs, start with another faction, and pick up merc units as you go, eventually you'll have what you need to start mercs soon enough, but if you want to, go for it! It's a fun faction, and it has a ton of options, but that might be overwhelming to some people.

Shadowrun is the best game ever. It's the only thing I have ever played in which I have jumped out of a shot out van with a chainsaw to cut a flying drone in half before leveling a building with ANFO assisted by a troll, a dwarf, an elf, and a wizard. 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






I feel like one of the biggest differences with 40k are two things: 1) instant wins and 2) resource management. 1) Even if you're down by a lot, you can still win by killing their warcaster, something harder to do in 40k. 2) 40k really doesn't have resources. It's pretty much line up and fire away. It'd be cool if guys had ammo limits or had to reload, but in 40k, it's just line up and shoot the enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
A bit of a wod of warning, Battle Boxes typically are not how a faction plays.
Like Trolls and Khador like Infantry alot.


Eh, I've heard the Cygnar and Khador boxes are at least decent, same with the Cryx warcaster. Besides, even if they aren't how the faction plays, they are a good start into WarmaHordes. Sidenote: the War Room app comes free with the cards for each unit in the faction's battlegroup.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/15 03:24:55


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?

I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?
   
Made in pt
Tea-Kettle of Blood




dragonelf wrote:
That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?

I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?


You have many examples of mechanics like the Tau marker light in WMH. Many factions in this game rely heavily in synergies between different units like that, some examples:
- Cygnar has a Rangers unit that marks enemy units making shooting them easier for the other units in the army;
- Cyriss has floating robots that shoot flares that accomplish the same thing;
- Cryx has a character solo that Curses enemy models making them easier to hit in melee;

and that is a very limited number of examples, you have many, many more like those in almost all the factions.
   
Made in us
Drakhun





Eaton Rapids, MI

dragonelf wrote:
That's good advice thanks. My only step into the war machine world is to download and read the quick rules and to look at the info on the website. I presume the best next step is the main rulebook? Is that the best place to get info on the factions as well?

I like the idea of a game that has a secondary mechanic. For example one of my 40k armies is tau. I enjoy the markerlight dynamic which allows you to buff units if used correctly. I know its a crude example but are there similarities there?


WarMachine and Horders have different rule books, the rules are the same except for the fury/focus mechanic, and they have the faction basics for that system. I would recommend picking a faction before buying the BRB so you know which one to get.

Something that has surprisingly not been mentioned yet is that swapping out casters will totally change how your army plays. It's pretty neat that just changing one model will totally change the play style of the models/units that you already have.

Now with 100% more blog....

CLICK THE LINK to my painting blog... You know you wanna. Do it, Just do it, like right now.
http://fltmedicpaints.blogspot.com

 
   
Made in gb
Infiltrating Broodlord




The Faye

I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.

I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.

In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.

What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.

Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play. You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.

I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.

40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.

You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.

Both games are fun and you should definitely play it. The game great to learn at the same time as other people.

I like being able to go back and forth between them, what ever system you play you burn out after a while. I don't play as much Warmachine these days. After 10 years the games have sort of blurred together.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 14:16:48


We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.

Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress 
   
Made in pt
Tea-Kettle of Blood




 obsidianaura wrote:
I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.

I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.


Then you don't know what the word "tactical" means.

 obsidianaura wrote:

In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.

What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.


In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.

 obsidianaura wrote:

Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.


No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.

 obsidianaura wrote:

You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.


That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.

 obsidianaura wrote:

I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.


This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.

 obsidianaura wrote:

40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.


That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.

 obsidianaura wrote:

You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.


If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 14:59:17


 
   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Rust belt

One of my favorite things about PP is they are open about their releases. You know months in advance what's coming out in the market unlike GW where the anoucments are super secret.
   
Made in gb
Infiltrating Broodlord




The Faye

PhantomViper wrote:
 obsidianaura wrote:
I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.

I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.


Then you don't know what the word "tactical" means.

Cheers for that one

Maybe one of us is misunderstanding tactics vs strategy. To me "Tactics" is more about outmanoeuvring your opponent, with Warmachine that's difficult to do, If we played, especially if more than once, you'll know what I'm going to do. "Strategy" on the other hand (at least as I see it) is about the planning what you're going to do to minimise losses and inflict more casualties. Warmachine is loaded with strategy lots more than 40k but there's not much you can do to outsmart or surprise a veteran wouldn't you say?


 obsidianaura wrote:

In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.

What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.


In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.

I know how the game works, I've played it for a while . If you're not going after the objectives straight away, I think I can probably beat you in by the 3rd turn, unless its assassination, that's probably where you'll need to be most tactical in the game


 obsidianaura wrote:

Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.


No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.

I'm not talking about just one synergy, you could have loads, the army still plays the same way on reuse against the same opponent, even with terrain changes it create much opportunity for getting one over on your opponent. The missions in Warmachine actually decrease the effectiveness of terrain quite often in changing the game

 obsidianaura wrote:

You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.


That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.

I agree it happens in every game no doubt, but the problem is particularly pronounced in WM. I know when I see my friend get out his Cygnar where he'll go, what he'll boost for, what he's avoiding. Maybe it's just me I don't know it's quite samey


 obsidianaura wrote:

I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.


This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.

Sorry I'm not talking absolutes (I'm no Sith) I don't mean you can predict who will win, although with asymmetric games like WM and 40k you sometimes can. But you can look at a game and know how it will move quite easily.

 obsidianaura wrote:

40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.


That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.

I strongly disagree with this. If Warmachine had objectives worth random point values it would be a far more TACTCIAL game. You get to an objective and find its not worth much, that's when your plans need to change, that's when your STRATEGY has failed and you switch TACTICS. The buckets of dice make no difference really.

 obsidianaura wrote:

You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.


If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.


[color=red]If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. You cant be tactical if you both know what you're going to be doing. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K. It's a nicely balanced well written precise game with little wriggle room

When results are less assured its harder to be tactical.

40k and Warmachine I quite different, more and more so the closer you look






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Chute82 wrote:
One of my favorite things about PP is they are open about their releases. You know months in advance what's coming out in the market unlike GW where the anoucments are super secret.


Definitely, and that they're constantly moving the fluff on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 16:15:45


We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.

Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 obsidianaura wrote:
I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.

I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.

In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.

What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.

Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play. You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.

I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.

40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.

You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.

Both games are fun and you should definitely play it. The game great to learn at the same time as other people.

I like being able to go back and forth between them, what ever system you play you burn out after a while. I don't play as much Warmachine these days. After 10 years the games have sort of blurred together.

Absolutely disagree with every point you made. (But somebody ninja'd me.)
It's like you have this odd, tunnel vision view of WMH.
And yes, if you think random = tactical, then you don't know what tactical means.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in pt
Tea-Kettle of Blood




 obsidianaura wrote:
Spoiler:
PhantomViper wrote:
 obsidianaura wrote:
I've played both games a lot, I like both systems but Warmachine is quite different to 40K for better or worse.

I agree that both games are tactical but I would no longer say that Warmachine is more tactical than 40k.


Then you don't know what the word "tactical" means.

Cheers for that one

Maybe one of us is misunderstanding tactics vs strategy. To me "Tactics" is more about outmanoeuvring your opponent, with Warmachine that's difficult to do, If we played, especially if more than once, you'll know what I'm going to do. "Strategy" on the other hand (at least as I see it) is about the planning what you're going to do to minimise losses and inflict more casualties. Warmachine is loaded with strategy lots more than 40k but there's not much you can do to outsmart or surprise a veteran wouldn't you say?


 obsidianaura wrote:

In practice Warmachine is in some ways a more restrictive game to play.

What I mean by that is that is you'll be forced to throw yourself after those mission objectives as fast as possible or you'll lose very quickly, your units will need to stay in your control area most of the time to be effective.


In some scenarios, yes, in others, no. And since scenario points only start counting at the end of the second player's second turn and that a player usually needs three scoring turns to win a game by scenario, no, you don't need to "throw yourself" at the mission objectives most of the times.

I know how the game works, I've played it for a while . If you're not going after the objectives straight away, I think I can probably beat you in by the 3rd turn, unless its assassination, that's probably where you'll need to be most tactical in the game


 obsidianaura wrote:

Combine that with you building your army around a mechanic/synergy and you are pretty much tied to it for as long as you use that list. The flexibility is not really there. The games work out a pretty similar way each time you play.


No, you're not tied into anything. Changing tactics mid-game is something that is very common. Not to mention that different scenarios will require different tactics to tackle and that very few actual armies are entirelly built around a single mechanic/synergy like you are saying.

I'm not talking about just one synergy, you could have loads, the army still plays the same way on reuse against the same opponent, even with terrain changes it create much opportunity for getting one over on your opponent. The missions in Warmachine actually decrease the effectiveness of terrain quite often in changing the game

 obsidianaura wrote:

You know you have to do things a certain way but your opponent knows it too, especially if they play you regularly.


That is something that happens in every miniature game ever made, if you play someone a sufficient number of times you'll be able to predict how he will play the game, again unless the game is so random that player choices won't affect the outcome... But that is far from a good thing.

I agree it happens in every game no doubt, but the problem is particularly pronounced in WM. I know when I see my friend get out his Cygnar where he'll go, what he'll boost for, what he's avoiding. Maybe it's just me I don't know it's quite samey


 obsidianaura wrote:

I would argue that WM gameplay is less tactical than it first appears. Your moves are almost predetermined before you've even deployed, an experienced player could look at two players lists and given mission and tell you pretty much how the game will be played.


This is simply not true... A master chess player won't be able to predetermine how a game will go despite chess having a "fixed" deployment and fixed "army choice" and a very restrictive number of moves for each piece, claiming that that could be true in a game that suffers none of those constraints and that has random mechanisms to influence how a piece kills another to further complicate matters, is fallacious to the extreme.

Sorry I'm not talking absolutes (I'm no Sith) I don't mean you can predict who will win, although with asymmetric games like WM and 40k you sometimes can. But you can look at a game and know how it will move quite easily.

 obsidianaura wrote:

40K is far more random yes, but that is a strength in some ways. The key to winning a game is random each time you play.


That is only a strength if you like your games to be decided by rolling buckets of dice instead of by the decisions that you made during that game... And this is the exact opposite of what "tactics" mean.

I strongly disagree with this. If Warmachine had objectives worth random point values it would be a far more TACTCIAL game. You get to an objective and find its not worth much, that's when your plans need to change, that's when your STRATEGY has failed and you switch TACTICS. The buckets of dice make no difference really.

 obsidianaura wrote:

You have far more things you can do in Warmachine but, unless you change your list, replaying the game will probably go the same way.


If you have far more things to do, then you have far more tactical options. And the game will probably go the same way unless you change the mission, or the deployment, or the terrain disposition on the table... So yes, I guess if you don't change anything at all, since the game isn't as random then the results will not vary as much.


[color=red]If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. You cant be tactical if you both know what you're going to be doing. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K. It's a nicely balanced well written precise game with little wriggle room

When results are less assured its harder to be tactical.

40k and Warmachine I quite different, more and more so the closer you look



As I thought, you are mistaking the concepts of tactics and strategy when applied to a table top wargame. Tactics don't have anything to do with out-manoeuvring or surprising anyone (those are the results of the tactical choices that a player has made).

In a tabletop miniature game, tactics are all the options available to a player so that he can accomplish his goals. The more different and viable options a player has (and the more care a player needs to take on the execution of his game), the more tactical depth the game has. And when random elements eliminate or diminish those options, then tactical depth also diminishes.

Strategy, when applied to a miniature wargame, is usually confined to the list building phase. It is the broad strokes of how your army is going to operate and how you initially plan to win the game regardless of opponent. 40K is usually considered a more strategic game than WMH, specifically because the list building phase is so crucial in winning the game in 40K.

 obsidianaura wrote:

If you play someone over and over, changing the terrain doesn't really help. There's not as much freedom in Warmachine as there is in 40K.


I would argue that whatever freedom you think you have in 40k is only an illusion, because the game will ultimately be decided not by your actions, but by how well you roll the dice. If the game is so random to the point that all the knowledge that you gained from your opponent and how he will react doesn't help you winning the game, then what is the point in playing?

At that point you aren't matching wits and knowledge, you're just flipping a coin.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/15 17:23:40


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

dragonelf wrote:
From being a warhammer and 40k player for some time, some of my friends have branched into warmachine claiming it is a more tactical game.

I still play 40k with a separate group of friends but have become intrigued.

I watched some warmachine battles on youtube and I only have a limited knowledge of the rules but movement and terrain dont really seem to play much of a part. Both forces seemed to face off against each other and rolled dice on a barren battlefield.

I know this is almost certainly my ignorance but what makes warmachine a viable alternative to 40k? What makes it better/worse? As someone who loves the tactical side of these games, I would be interested in trying a new game. What am I missing about warmachine?


I think you must be confusing warmachine and 40k. Terrain and movement is everything in warmachine. Terrain and movement are virtually meaningless in 40k by comparison. Terrain in Warmachine limits your LOS (for example 3" through forests), slows your movement (half speed through that same forest), and provides defensive buffs to your opponent (+2 DEF, which is huge) to a target in the forest. Some terrain, such as hills, provide just a +2 DEF bonus to a model on top of it when being fired at from a lower elevation. Some terrain, such as water features, provide movement penalties, and if your warjack happens to get knocked down in it then it becomes inert (unless it has the 'amphibious' rule, which is rare). Some terrain, like walls, provide a +4 DEF bonus to a model taking cover behind it (which is more than huge). Movement also means a hell of a lot. Ranged weapons, more often than not, don't shoot much farther than your targets melee threat range, meaning your movement and positioning is beyond important if you want to keep your dudesmen alive. Moving a bit too close to your opponent can easily mean losing the model to your opponents countercharge. Moving not quite far enough to engage at range can mean losing the unit to melee engagement by your opponents run instead. Beyond that, facing is extremely important, if your opponent manages to get into your back arc then you're taking a DEF debuff as a result.

In regards to Tactics/Strategy, Warmachine is far more tactical than 40k. My individual decisions during the course of a game of Warmachine have far greater impact on an individual game than an individual decision in 40k, owing to the increased complexity of Warmachine, as well as the smaller forces, and the increased importance of maneuver, as well as the 2d6 mechanic more reliably generating a statistically 'average' result, and the tendency for the standard 4x4 table to be 'too large' for the game being played. In 40k the only real decision I make is what unit to target with what unit, and even that isn't that complex a decision as some units simiply cannot harm others. My movement and positioning in 40k is far less important, and in fact made less important by the fact that the standard 4x6 table is much 'too small' for the average game being played (I am of the opinion that games 1500 pts and over really should be played on a 4x8 instead of a 4x6). Beyond that, the larger forces of 40k, with their increased redundancy, means that the loss of any single model (and indeed the loss of entire units in many cases) is virtually meaningless in the grand scheme of things (unlike in Warmachine where a single model can, and often will, decide the outcome of a game). 40k is arguably a more strategic game than Warmachine however, if you look at listbuilding an element of strategy. I find that most games of 40k are won or lost in the listbuilding phase rather than during an actual game itself. Some could make the same argument for Warmachine, as some lists provide fairly hard counters to others, but in competitive play this is circumvented via the multi-list format (and even then, I've defeated 'hard counter' lists before, its more of a challenge, but its not like some of the nigh-undefeatable 'netlists' of 40k.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Monstrous Master Moulder




Rust belt

I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

 Chute82 wrote:
I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.


Pauldrons.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 TheCustomLime wrote:
 Chute82 wrote:
I feel that the games of 40k and warmhordes don't really have much in common besides being TT game played with miniatures and dice.
The companies are polar opposites of each other.


Pauldrons.

And dice, though not in the same quantities.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
 
Forum Index » Privateer Press Miniature Games (Warmachine & Hordes)
Go to: