I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.


Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

Of course, I’m sure it is more of a blending of each of these hypotheses. Rarely is one theory always right and the others always wrong. Neither style is inherently wrong or better. However, I’m interested in seeing what your thoughts are on this topic?

I play a lot of Hail Caesar (also written by Rick P) & completely agree with your comment that the rules promote war games as being a collaborative event. The game can be just as competitive, but the result is more about the decisions made in the game rather than how to apply the rules to the game.

 Easy E wrote:

Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

Yeah, I don't see this. The problem is that you're comparing not Historical and Fantasy rulesets, but Priestly's writing style (very relaxed, with an emphasis on 'gentleman agreements') with that of Warmachine/Hordes which is meant to be a highly competitive and tightly-knit ruleset.

I know of historical rulesets that are meant for tournament/competitive play - Flames of War, Clash of Empires, Field of Glory - and we all know of GW's current design philosophy that is apparently steering away from competitive gaming which is evident in the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy, and will most likely be even more prevalent in Warhammer 9th.

 Easy E wrote:

Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

I also disagree with this. You may want to actually dive a little further into Warmachine/Hordes list building, as their 'Tier Lists' literally reward you for taking themed, 'fluffy' lists.

So you have to have fluff forced on you by a game mechanic?

Graphite wrote:
So you have to have fluff forced on you by a game mechanic?

I assume you're responding to me, so...

No, you don't. The lists are optional, and are most of the time lest-then-optimal in their model selection. They offset this by allowing exceptions - allowing you to begin with spells already cast, extra allowances when choosing units, price breaks on certain miniatures, etc., etc.

Anyway, that's getting off the point. I've never played Warmachine, but I have looked at a number of "non Rick Priestly" rules, like Stargrunt, which are highly "uncompetitive".

I think the issue may be partly to do with the UK/USA thing. In the USA, you seem to play almost entirely in stores, for pick up games. Hence a balanced points based game is useful. Clubs and homes seem to be more prevalant over here.

I think originally the Warmachine rules sets were designed to be tight and competitive, to appeal to people who liked to be able to play a competitive game - especially in tournaments and whatnot - without having to rely on dice rolls to determin rules.

However, the thing about a tight rule set is that while it's great for competitve play, you're still able to play a nice and casual game or fluffy game with them if you choose (and indeed certain fun warmachine event types encourage this), whereas the opposite is not true (thus why you got various rules packs like the INAT FAQ were necessary before GW started writing better FAQs to try an tighten it's own rules).

Competition wargaming has deep roots in historicals, such as the WRG Ancients series started in 1969. These kind of games have always aimed at a points balanced, fair competition, using tight rules, but they have never been written with a "Play like you have big balls" attitude. OTOH they don't have screeds about good sportmanship and so on -- it is simply assumed.

Competitive playing is of course collaborative in the sense that an opponent can simply walk away from the table if he gets angry enough. Presumably we actually want to play a game, however much we may want to win, as there is no glory in winning by default.

My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

If it is an American thing, which I'm not convinced, it probably has something to do with the higher level of individuality of Americans, and playing in shops etc rather than clubs, as has been mentioned above.

Judging from the title, I was expecting to learn something about mechanical concepts that RP might like to build into rule systems and how that differs from design in PP's rule sets. Big disappointment!

You basically have ONE single observation, and that is that Mr. Priestley likes to emphasize Fair Play & Fun over Rules rule. Well, hidey-hidey-ho!

I know Black Powder, and that one has fairly tight rules, so Mr. RP might say whatever he wants to say (and I agree with his statements), it does not negate the fact that every tabletop game, including BP, is competitive. AND Fun. Tabletop games are GAMES played with TOYS. It's always for FUN. And there is no distinction between gentlemen and gamers. They are all gamers. Some know how to behave and know exactly why they are doing this, some people don't.

All in all, a pretty uninteresting post, you have defintely not spent much thought on your points, yourself, and so I will neither.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

Seriously, are you implying that warmachine players are all hormonal teenagers? Seriously? No. In my experience, warmachine players are generally older veteran gamers, who like the tighter rules set. Teenage gamers tend to be 40k gamers, which is the market that GW is angling for (not that there isn't a wide age range for people actually playing the game).

No, of course I'm not, but the style of writing is IMO aimed at that kind of player as a deliberate style choice.

I can't imagine why a sensible middle-aged chap would be excited and impressed to be exhorted to "Play like he had a pair". It's not very mature, is it?

That said, the writing style doesn't control the people who play it or the way they play, so anyone can play the rules if they like them.

There are plenty of "tight" rulesets which are not written like that. It isn't a requirement, it's intended to appeal to a particular audience.

treslibras wrote:
Judging from the title, I was expecting to learn something about mechanical concepts that RP might like to build into rule systems and how that differs from design in PP's rule sets. Big disappointment!

You basically have ONE single observation, and that is that Mr. Priestley likes to emphasize Fair Play & Fun over Rules rule. Well, hidey-hidey-ho!

All in all, a pretty uninteresting post, you have defintely not spent much thought on your points, yourself, and so I will neither.

Please educate me.

This is about a difference in rules philospohy, the overlying concepts and design ethos that a game uses to help dictate its design mechancis. Some would say that a design philosophy is more importantt than any one mechanic as the philosophy will dictate your design choices. The other part of the post is pure speculation on why someone might choose one design philosophy over another.

Note, this post does not say one design philospohy is better than another, but they are obviously different.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

Yeah, I don't see this. The problem is that you're comparing not Historical and Fantasy rulesets, but Priestly's writing style (very relaxed, with an emphasis on 'gentleman agreements') with that of Warmachine/Hordes which is meant to be a highly competitive and tightly-knit ruleset.

I know of historical rulesets that are meant for tournament/competitive play - Flames of War, Clash of Empires, Field of Glory - and we all know of GW's current design philosophy that is apparently steering away from competitive gaming which is evident in the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy, and will most likely be even more prevalent in Warhammer 9th.

 Easy E wrote:

Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

I also disagree with this. You may want to actually dive a little further into Warmachine/Hordes list building, as their 'Tier Lists' literally reward you for taking themed, 'fluffy' lists.

I appreciate this perspectives and thank you for sharing them. As i said, the theories may or may not hold water. I want to find out what others think. I freely admit that Ihave a lot more homework to do on Warmachine as I have only a cursury introduction to the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

How can you have that opinion when GW itself says that their target is the teenage churn & burn market?

How can you have that opinion when according to the apparent majority of Dakkaites every official GW store is akin to a kindergarten filled to the brim with screaming kids and teenagers?

Take a look at the various videos reporting WMH tournaments, you won't find a single person under 18 in them.

Take a listen to the various pod casts covering WMH, you won't find a single person under 18 in them.

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

Please educate me.

Rock Priestley is a lousy rules writer that tries to cover his inability to write a tight and cohesive rules set with all the "gentleman agreement" nonsense that he likes to throw around so much.

He is VERY good at coming up with general game mechanics and ideas, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty work of making sure that there aren't any loopholes and that everything is properly balanced he just fails hard.

What does GW have to do with how PP target their products or this thread for that matter. Only those that are immature are worried about how old they are perceived to be (and women of course /jk).

The comparison was PP and Rick Preistly. I don't think you can dismiss his as a terrible rules writer, his CV is pretty top notch.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

If that's the case, then, it'd be best to judge Warmachine/Hordes by its current mindset, and not by its past iterations. Yes, there was a lot of that testosterone-fueled mindset in mkI, but that has been cooled-down in mkII. A lot of people cite the 'page 5 mentality' when it seems that they haven't bothered to read the text there, or only read halfway through.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

 infinite_array wrote:
.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

That is a good point. Rules systems change as they expand their demographics or move away from the cultural assumptions that helped create them.

I should go back a re-read my Rogue Trader rulebook and compare it to Rick's more "modern" works. I'm sure that would be good for a laugh as the first edition of RT is a mess.

As others have said, the whole "play like you got a pair" marketing slogan is 10 years old, and not really a factor anymore.

I personally prefer my rules tightly written and balanced, rather than the designer sloughing that duty off on the players by just encouraging them to play nice. You can not be a tool in a game with decently written rules as well.

From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

As compared to Warhammer etc, which seem to have evolved out of a more "old grognards want to play something a bit silly for a change" aesthetic.

Who actually plays the games is a different kettle of fish, as is how "tightly" the rules are written. If PP ditched the "play like you've got a pair" attitude for a historical game and kept the rules, I wonder how many takers they would get.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

And that 40K players bit isn't anecdotal?

GW vs PP, gotta love it. Even when the original post isn't really about GW.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

If that's the case, then, it'd be best to judge Warmachine/Hordes by its current mindset, and not by its past iterations. Yes, there was a lot of that testosterone-fueled mindset in mkI, but that has been cooled-down in mkII. A lot of people cite the 'page 5 mentality' when it seems that they haven't bothered to read the text there, or only read halfway through.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

I'm not judging, I am merely trying to present some ideas on why different rulesets are written in different ways.

If modern Warmachine has become less testosterone-fuelled, I would call it a good thing, though that of course is merely my personal view. At the same time, that does not preclude us from discussion of why earlier editions were written in the style they were.

I think the key point is that rulesets can be tight without it being associated with a balls to the wall mentality.

Warmaster Ancients is a reasonably tight ruleset though I would say not to the standards of WRG Ancients or Field of Glory, however it was also a first edition and was not widely used for competitions before GW dumped it. WRG went through 7 editions in its lifetime as a major competitive ruleset.

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

Then you do know very little. That's on the same level as me complaining that my King in chess doesn't have any personality whatsoever, and assuming that certain people on this forum won't play anything that doesn't have a Games Workshop label on it.

Which I would deserve a hard slap on the back of the head for.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

And that 40K players bit isn't anecdotal?

GW vs PP, gotta love it. Even when the original post isn't really about GW.

I never said it wasn't. I would've thought it was implied in the rest of the post, seeing as I was also talking about anecdotal evidence of the player's ages of their chosen games....

Also, whether you like it or not, this has been about GW v. PP from the get-go. Rick Priestley is most well known for his work with WHFB (esp. on this forum) thus people will associate his rules with GW.

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

You're out of your element Donny...

It may be a cultural thing or a generational thing.

I get the impression (which may be entirely wrong) that the designers within PP are closer to the Playstation generation than Rick P. with the consequent exposure to the very definite outcomes that come with such games.

Rick P I'm pretty sure cites the H.G. Wells Table Wars rules as one of his influences and this is very much the epitome of gentleman's rules. So much in fact that top hats, pipes and port would be considered as important as having the toy soldiers.

Edit:
No top hat, but this would be summer and outdoors so a boater is the proper attire.

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine
.

Ah, I see, you're ignorant of Warmahordes, which explains your attitude towards it. Try it out sometime, meet the wider Warmahordes community, and you'll discover why your attitude towards and assumptions about it's players are so misguided.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the key point is that rulesets can be tight without it being associated with a balls to the wall mentality.

While that is semantically correct to state, rulesets that are designed to be 'tight' (i.e. few loopholes, known interactions, etc) tend to appeal to a competitive gamer. Knowing the interactions before you plan your actions on the table are important if you're approaching the 'wargame' as a 'war' instead of a 'game'. Violations of those conventions - like finding out that you're suddenly horribly exposed because the rules are ambiguous on a point - are antithetical because they provide more chaos than you have prepared for.

The 'balls to the wall' mentality was marketing - which was targeted help Warmachine's appeal to the competitive gamers in the US 40k circuits. Smaller model counts (initially), well defined rules, openly competitive attitude - it was pretty much a perfect storm of marketing and rather shrewd on PP's part. Now that they are another gorilla in the wargaming room they have toned that down somewhat, but the game is still very much a 'war' instead of a 'story'.

My personal opinion is that yes, the differences are very much cultural, and there's nothing wrong with that. Americans have a very competitive culture and that reflects in the kinds of wargames that are gaining traction (strict rule definitions, competitive atmosphere, balanced composition) and those that are losing traction (historical simulations, looser systems, etc).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience

You where the one that started talking about marketing so I gave you examples of marketing. Your entire opinion of PP rules "style" seems to come from a marketing page written 10 years ago.

If you wan't to talk about style of rules writing then you have to compare Mr. Priestley's sloppy style with more modern rule sets like Malifaux and Infinity (to a lesser extent) and not just to PP. All of these modern rule sets approach a much more mechanical way of rules writing with standardized terminology that IMO, really help the players interpret the meaning of the writers and also make it easier to balance the game mechanics.

I don't know how to explain it any better, but if you read a Malifaux or WMH rulebook it almost seems like you are reading a mathematical book with specific ways to solve each problem that the game poses.

If you read one of Mr. Priestley's rulesets its like reading more of a story with allot of "if you aren't sure about how this is supposed to work, just roll a 4+ about it".

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

As compared to Warhammer etc, which seem to have evolved out of a more "old grognards want to play something a bit silly for a change" aesthetic.

Who actually plays the games is a different kettle of fish, as is how "tightly" the rules are written. If PP ditched the "play like you've got a pair" attitude for a historical game and kept the rules, I wonder how many takers they would get.

Ah yes, sweeping generalizations from the uninitiated. How droll.

On Topic, I will state that WM/H appears to play to those who enjoy games with definitive rules (Chess, Stratego, etc) as opposed to 'cinematic' rulesets. I see the value in both, though it is easier to play a game and have the rules be the same everytime you play, no matter who you play with.

I was going to try and write out something long and draw out that addressed things point for point, but I don't really see getting enough value out of that in this particular context. Instead I'll just try to throw some general bullet points I find to be true as Warmachine player.


-Competitiveness and "Fun" are hardly opposing forces: Getting together an playing a competitive game with clear rules can be very fun. No different than playing Monopoly, 1-on-1 Basketball, Chess, a Video Game, Arm Wrestling or anything else of that nature. It's the same kind of fun that drives those activities, just with miniatures instead of fake money, an orange ball or a controller. People wouldn't do any of those things if they weren't fun, the competitiveness is a vehicle by which the fun is delivered. Same for warmachine.

-Competitiveness and "Sportsmanship" are hardly opposing forces: Sportsmanship is important in Warmachine: Play by the rules, be polite to your opponent, respect their miniatures and the space your playing in. You have to do all these things in Warmachine. It doesn't reward being a jerk, or being a bad winner or sore loser. Every/anything your childhood Baseball or Football coach told you about sportsmanship applies in Warmachine, just as much as it would in any game.

I think the core thing that's being missed here is that often in other games an element of sportsmanship is something along the lines of "Don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules" or "Don't try to interpret things in your favor". This is not an element of Sportsmanship in Warmachine. The rules are clear and lack major holes and don't allow much room for interpret . You don't need any gentleman's agreements on how to resolve things, any more than you need a gentleman's agreement to know when a goal has been scored in football. It's fundamentally inarguable. Granted it's a fairly complex game so there are often times where people won't know the rulings, but you can usually find them fairly quickly.


-"Hyperactive Caffeinated Teens" or Page 5: First off this is a rather rude and dismissive way to frame a discussion with somebody about their hobby, even on the internet. Even if you believe something roughly along these lines, there are far more polite ways to say it, even on the internet. At any rate the whole "Play like you've got a pair thing" is pretty much strictly confined to all of one page in one book: Page 5 of prime. To me it reads more to me like it was intended a tongue-in-cheek-humor way of saying "Be a good sport and find a way to beat your opponent, rather than complaining that game is broken", than it was any serious indicator of the attitude players should assume. I'd likely agree it tends to give the wrong impression, but it's still all of one page and hardly a good way to judge an entire product.

At any rate that sort of writing doesn't carry through at all the rest of the books, which are simply either fairly dry rules presentations or fluff.

I definitely think that part of it is cultural. To an outsider there appears to be a much greater emphasis in US culture as a whole on 'winning' in whatever aspect of life - making more money, dating the hottest cheerleader or being better at toy soldiers. There's a slightly perverse element of 'britishness' which rebels against this - we prefer a graceful loser who tries hard, to a winner who dominates their opposition. We take a strange sort of pride in losing at stuff, and always favour the underdog. Winning is somehow seen as slightly vulgar.

There's also some elements of game design philosophy which seem appropriate to this discussion. There's a principle in RPGs called the GNS triangle (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist).

Gamist - It's a game first, all about rules & mechanics. May be quite abstract. The emphasis is on the procedures and the outcomes. In-game rules are more important than outside logic, or background.

Narrativist - The story and characters are the most important - the mechanics are merely tools to tell a good story and fuel the imagination.

Simulationist - It's all about attempting to model reality (either real in historical games or the fictional reality of sci-fi and fantasy as accurately as possible). Stuff should behave in the game as closely as possible to how it would behave in 'real' life.

These 3 elements form the points of a triangle, and any game can be described as falling somewhere within it. Some will be more towards one of the points, while others will attempt to be balanced between the 3.

Warmachine is very much on the gamist side of this spectrum - the emphasis is on the letter of the rules, even in situations where this might defy 'common sense'. I suspect Rick is much more interested in the Simulationist and Narrative aspects, and so his games naturally emphasise these.

Koppo wrote:
It may be a cultural thing or a generational thing.

I get the impression (which may be entirely wrong) that the designers within PP are closer to the Playstation generation than Rick P. with the consequent exposure to the very definite outcomes that come with such games.

Rick P I'm pretty sure cites the H.G. Wells Table Wars rules as one of his influences and this is very much the epitome of gentleman's rules. So much in fact that top hats, pipes and port would be considered as important as having the toy soldiers.

Edit:
No top hat, but this would be summer and outdoors so a boater is the proper attire.

Great point. I should amend this to my initial post, but who is reading the original post at this point?

Just rip out page 5, it's stupid. When you cut out the silly wording of it, it basically amounts to "be a good sport." I'm not sure why they decided that being a good sport is a masculine quality, but whatever. Just tear it out of the book and forget it exists, because it doesn't have any impact on anything else in the game.

In my experience, if you translate it as "be hyperaggressive" and try to execute that, you'll just lose. It's not a game of hyperaggression, it's a game of precise positioning and strategy. The mechanics punish recklessness severely.

Anyway, the nice thing about well-written rules is you can play them casually as well. I've had many games of Warmachine where I've peered at the board with my opponent and we've discussed the possible actions whoever was behind could take to either get back in or win the game. At the end of the day, even a "friendly" game is, well, a game. It helps to know the rules to be able to play it. If I just wanted to chuck dice around I could do that without spending hundreds of dollars on rulebooks.

 Easy E wrote:


Great point. I should amend this to my initial post, but who is reading the original post at this point?

What can I say; you're the one that has inadvertently kicked the hornet's nest that is PP v. GW. We'll get another 10 pages of the usual arguments trotted out in no time!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience

You where the one that started talking about marketing so I gave you examples of marketing. Your entire opinion of PP rules "style" seems to come from a marketing page written 10 years ago.

If you wan't to talk about style of rules writing then you have to compare Mr. Priestley's sloppy style with more modern rule sets like Malifaux and Infinity (to a lesser extent) and not just to PP. All of these modern rule sets approach a much more mechanical way of rules writing with standardized terminology that IMO, really help the players interpret the meaning of the writers and also make it easier to balance the game mechanics.

I don't know how to explain it any better, but if you read a Malifaux or WMH rulebook it almost seems like you are reading a mathematical book with specific ways to solve each problem that the game poses.

If you read one of Mr. Priestley's rulesets its like reading more of a story with allot of "if you aren't sure about how this is supposed to work, just roll a 4+ about it".

We are supposed to be discussing rules, not marketing.

It's not actually possible to discuss the text of a rulebook by reference to marketing photos, however the role of marketing in setting a tone of voice for the text is clearly a legitimate line of enquiry.

If you read any WRG wargame set from 1969 onwards it almost seems like you are reading a mathematical book with specific ways to solve each problem that the game poses. Further, games such as Empire and Stars 'n' Bars even contain flow charts to guide the player through sequences of actions.

Both Rick Priestly and Warmachine can be compared with that large body of work.

Easy E wrote:I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

I have to agree here. GW games in general seem to be a "play with your opponent", whilst more competitively minded games are "playing against your opponent". Gw favour the narrative, almost RPG-esque nature of the games in order to tell a story. with warmachine, its far less of a "kick-about", and far more of a sport. give it your all, and go for the gold. just dont be a douche along the way.

Easy E wrote:
Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

again. see above. GW style is beer and pretzels. have the tv on, have some beer and pizza, have an excuse to have some mates over at your gaff, and roll some dice for the evening. laid back and relaxed. which is fine.

Warmachine is more professional than casual. have your mates around and have your beer and snacks, but this is gaming on hard mode.

Easy E wrote:

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

Warmachine has Page5. Give it your all, dont bitch and moan, when you win be magnanimous, when you lose, dont sulk, and dont treat an aggressive game as an excuse to be an arse. warmachine also implies fair play, good conduct, and overall decency between players. we all know why we're here.

Easy E wrote:
Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

brits are as competitive as anyone else. they've also fought wars, and occassionally won them. Its got nothing to do with a national culture. its far more a case of "do you want to kick a ball around in the park, with the dog running around the place as well", or "get a team together, train, enter a league, and do your best to place as well as you can"? both approaches are valid.

Easy E wrote:
Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

depends on the game. some games, and gamers enjoy "what if" scenarios, like mid war romanians v early war finns. there are competitive historical games, just like there are narrative fantasy ones.

Easy E wrote:
Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

i think this is very much a creation of a GWcentric design approach - one where you can either go for the win, or go for background. warmachine ignores the question entirely, and says play what you want to play. the story will take care of itself.

Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.
.

One great comment i heard with regard to warmachine was "so thats where 40k players go when they grow up". With respect i think your opinion, in this case is an ill-informed opinion that does not match up in reality. Its not really aimed at a teenager audience, but is definately more aimed at the slightly older veterans of this hobby. most folks i've come across playing it have been in their 20s or 30s.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, of course I'm not, but the style of writing is IMO aimed at that kind of player as a deliberate style choice.

I can't imagine why a sensible middle-aged chap would be excited and impressed to be exhorted to "Play like he had a pair". It's not very mature, is it?

That said, the writing style doesn't control the people who play it or the way they play, so anyone can play the rules if they like them.

There are plenty of "tight" rulesets which are not written like that. It isn't a requirement, it's intended to appeal to a particular audience.

i could. because its cheeky, its tongue in cheek, and its funny. its called trash talking. like wrestlers or boxers do before a match. or fans at a football game. but this is warmachine - its a game where everything is turned up to 11. makes sense that the intro shares the same boisterous over the top style. and thats all it is. most folks enjoy it.

In general, I feel well-written, unambiguous rules do a lot more to encourage good sportsmanship and creative games than page content spent trying to encourage it. If the rules are clear and fun, I'll play more, and be more inclined to tinker.

My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

My personal observations are that WM/H gamers tend to be vet wargamers that have tried many systems and like a tight ruleset and the various ways of impacting probability that WM/H offers through adding/subtracting dice, buffs, and finding synergies.

Simply by looking at the game and rule systems, I have no idea how one can come to the conclusion that WM/H is somehow a game for 'immature' gamers. The amount of basic and special rules interaction, the numerous maneuvers available to any single model (especially the battlegroups), and the resource management system of the Warnoun with the Protect-Your-Warnoun-Or-Game-Over mechanic all speak to a high level of gaming sophistication.

In my experience, hormonal asocial smelly kids are almost always playing GW games because they're easier. The game mechanics are easier to grasp, the gameplay is much more forgiving (imagine if the game ended any time your Daemon Prince died), and the ability to download an 'UEBER' netdeck list gives the FOTM crowd something very close to pay2win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
In general, I feel well-written, unambiguous rules do a lot more to encourage good sportsmanship and creative games than page content spent trying to encourage it. If the rules are clear and fun, I'll play more, and be more inclined to tinker.

And, ultimately, a tighter rules set harms no one while generally providing an obvious benefit. A casual play group is free to play casual games with casual lists. A competitive play group never has to create a 17 page YMDC thread.

Anecdotal as well, but my experience with WM/H is the same...95% of the players I know are over 18.

I think the focus here between RP and WM/H is fairly narrow.

This topic has come up in my play group before and one of the things we sort of centered in on was the fact that level of detail spent on a rules system seemed to be directly tied to how wedded the company was to its own miniatures production.

On one end you have GW, which has made it fairly well known that they are a miniatures company first and foremost and I think most people would agree it shows in the rules systems. The bills are paid at GW based on how many minis sold this week.

Privateer started initially as game company that supported its own with its own miniatures. Initially, the rules were tight, but as more and more minis and their individual rules were integrated into the larger system, the rules became more a case of "damage per second" rather than "I like these, so I will play these as they aren't any worse than anything else."

Admittedly, we are just getting into Infinity and it definately has that starting feel good rules, enough complexity to keep it interesting, and play with whatever unit you want, they are pretty much all the same. Not sure if that opinion will hold as my experience develops, but it seems that way right now.

You can see the same on the historical side. There are many sold rules sets out there, but it certainly seems that those companies that have a huge foot in the minis market (looking at you battlefront) worry less about having their rules fit al situations than those companies that have their own rules and rely on others to supply people with T-34s and Shermans.

That is an inteesting observation.

Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

If your argument is the one I outlined above, I think I will have to disagree with you. Warlord games does nto have an extensive line of figures for Black Powder, Pike and Shotte, Hail Ceasar, etc; but they have the distinctly "loosey-goosey" style of a Rick Priestley rules design. The minis came a bit later. Warmachine is much tighter and supports their own minins. Therefore, both of the systems in question tend to refute your arguments.

However, that doesn't meanit wasn't an intersting observation. I can really see this impacting the Historical side more than the Fantasy side; but again I maybe wrong.

I'm also starting to wonder where a "generic" game like Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War fits into this discussion.

Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

 Easy E wrote:
Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

GW's most significant resource is their space-opera IP. Space Marines are cool, and their universe appeals to many gamers. As a result they've got video games, books, models, comics. Their universe is SO good that it's actually not a surprise we gamers have been willing to accept how bad their rules systems and Designer-Gamer interactions have historically been. YMDC forums do not generally exist with the other 'big' game systems, they simply have a rules forum where you go ask 'hey, how does this work?' and somebody important comes along and says 'hey, this is how it works'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

The Bible's Page5 is basically the 10 commandments. The bible itself is more like the rulebook.

'Thou shalt not kill'

What if thee is a huge D-bag and wishes harm upon thy?

'Ifst thee is a huge D-bag and follows not thine Commandments, as was Zeb son of Zob of Zubedee, then ... '

 sourclams wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

GW's most significant resource is their space-opera IP. Space Marines are cool, and their universe appeals to many gamers. As a result they've got video games, books, models, comics. Their universe is SO good that it's actually not a surprise we gamers have been willing to accept how bad their rules systems and Designer-Gamer interactions have historically been. YMDC forums do not generally exist with the other 'big' game systems, they simply have a rules forum where you go ask 'hey, how does this work?' and somebody important comes along and says 'hey, this is how it works'.

Okay, so extrapolate this out to other systems for me. For example, BlackPowder or other Warlord game lines. I think I get your basic point, but I'm not usr ehow it applies to Rick's more recent works vs. the warmachine model.

 sourclams wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

The Bible's Page5 is basically the 10 commandments. The bible itself is more like the rulebook.

'Thou shalt not kill'

What if thee is a huge D-bag and wishes harm upon thy?

'Ifst thee is a huge D-bag and follows not thine Commandments, as was Zeb son of Zob of Zubedee, then ... '

Nice. I think I need the FAQ, why won't God just go ahead and print the FAQ! it is obvious that the Romans were Pharisees were Nerfed!

Essentially there are two game design school of thought.

One champions the viewpoint that a wargame is a collaborative effort between two or more players the rules are laid out in such a way that narrative can happen.

This school of thought may or may not have watertight rules, but definitely its rules are open ended to allow players to incorporate their twists and essentially depend on the players to balance the game.

Rick Priestly is indeed a designer of that school and his rules show that, as is his preference on fluff over rules, its not a bad approach by any means, but even with point costs the games need the players to be aware that they must actively be involved and at least tweak things.

The other is a Philosophy believes that it must give to the players a self contained system, balanced and watertight, it may not be the best for narrative since units and profiles are not really customisable and custom scenarios may need quite some work to function properly, but the players have a game that they can play anywhere against anybody.

Now how well these philosophies are applied is up to the game designer and the company that hires them.

It's definitely different philosophies. One is an actual game, where there is a winner and by definitions not-winners (aka losers), and it is obviously possible to do better or worse.

The other is a re-enactment or a staging moreso than a game, and that's where the commonallity between Historicals can really be seen. One does not necessarily get into a recreation of El Alamein to PWN the British, or equip an AK-47 along with your confederate greys to show the Yankees how OP modern automatics are compared to their blackpowder muskets.

The reason for the difference in philosophies may be partly due to the different generations of Priestley and the Warmachine writers. Priestley grew up in a time of lead soldiers and A5 black-and-white rulebookss. The writers of Warmachine grew up in a time with RPG-style rulebooks for wargames, the beginning of plastic miniatures and the like. For Priestley, there probably weren't that many tournaments for Napoleonics or whatever he played. For Matt Wilson, he'd probably already seen tournaments for the games that he played (one of them probably being Warhammer). As a result of this, you may have had Priestley less inclined to playing tournaments since they weren't around when he was a whippersnapper and Wilson was around.

That may be one reason.

 Easy E wrote:
That is an inteesting observation.

Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

If your argument is the one I outlined above, I think I will have to disagree with you. Warlord games does nto have an extensive line of figures for Black Powder, Pike and Shotte, Hail Ceasar, etc; but they have the distinctly "loosey-goosey" style of a Rick Priestley rules design. The minis came a bit later. Warmachine is much tighter and supports their own minins. Therefore, both of the systems in question tend to refute your arguments.

However, that doesn't meanit wasn't an intersting observation. I can really see this impacting the Historical side more than the Fantasy side; but again I maybe wrong.

I'm also starting to wonder where a "generic" game like Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War fits into this discussion.

I will admit, Warlord is a unique outlyer on my psuedo-hypothesis. Admittedly, most people in my circle lump it into a similar situation as Warhammer Ancients was. Lots of options but everything done half heartedly to the point that no one is very much interested.

Privateer press early on was a company focused on the rules that supplied its own minis. It has since moved on the continum (nothing wrong with that) as it has discovered that by increasing its commitment to its miniatures it can increase its sales volume without effort into improving its rules. They started with 4.5 armies. Went to 5 with pirates, 6 with Ret. and now 7.

Rick, in my opinion, is morphed into the Billy Mays of gaming. His name is on -so- much stuff that he seems to have no commitment to any of it. "You didn't like "X"? But wait! There's more!" Individually maybe something will be stellar, but all of it in aggregrate has the "well if you don't like this, then fix it with your mates."

I have to admit, I am personaly more a fan of a tight rules set. Tight rules typically means I can pick up and play with anyone across the country and both of us know the rules. If you have a club you can typically come to an agreement on how your group will handle gentlemen's disagreements with a RP type game, but there is no gaurentee that will be the case.

@ ExNoctemNacimur
I desperately tried to avoid, old VS new comment, while my wargames rules library is extensive (I do collect them) I am not sure there were not "old" games with tight rules system and balanced forces.

Deadnight wrote:

Easy E wrote:I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

I have to agree here. GW games in general seem to be a "play with your opponent", whilst more competitively minded games are "playing against your opponent". Gw favour the narrative, almost RPG-esque nature of the games in order to tell a story. with warmachine, its far less of a "kick-about", and far more of a sport. give it your all, and go for the gold. just dont be a douche along the way.

And to me, 40k just feels like yet more fistfulls of dice compared to more dramatic abilities in Warmachine or Malifaux. /shrug

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The reason for the difference in philosophies may be partly due to the different generations of Priestley and the Warmachine writers. Priestley grew up in a time of lead soldiers and A5 black-and-white rulebookss. The writers of Warmachine grew up in a time with RPG-style rulebooks for wargames, the beginning of plastic miniatures and the like. For Priestley, there probably weren't that many tournaments for Napoleonics or whatever he played. For Matt Wilson, he'd probably already seen tournaments for the games that he played (one of them probably being Warhammer). As a result of this, you may have had Priestley less inclined to playing tournaments since they weren't around when he was a whippersnapper and Wilson was around.

That may be one reason.

The time of those A5 B&W books was also the time of WRG Ancients. There were loads of tournaments for several periods including Ancients, Renaissance and Moderns. (In the UK, at least.)

The Warmachine guys are much more likely to have cut their tournament teeth on 40K, a ruleset definitely not designed for tournament play. If Warmachine is a reaction, it reacts against the GW style rather than the old school style, I should think.

I do not think it as a reaction, although I can see what you mean, 40k was pushed as a tournament game and has set up many tournament scenes globally, a game that as you said is simply not designed for that and no attempt has been made for that, I view it as only logical when demand for a tight, balanced tournament friendly game system is so high that several will evolve to fill the demand.

My point is that the background of wargame tournament play shows a consistent history of serious (but fun) competition based on tight mathematical rulesets from the 60s until the present day, but mainly in historical periods.

Younger gamers are often not aware of the long tradition of tournament play in historicals. They are likely to have been brought to tabletop games and tournaments through an encounter with Warhammer and 40K, since that was a heavily popularised by GW tournament scene for much of the 90s and 00s.

Realistically, people were born in the late 70s and grew up through teen years in the era when GW was really starting to boom, in the late 80s, and that could easily be the main influence on them. This is particularly the case in the USA, where while there have been clubs as long as the UK, a lot of gaming among the younger, 40K oriented set, is clearly based on shop venues rather than clubs.

That pattern or experience would also account for the setting of Warmachine being a kind of cross-over steampunk/fantasy scenario, likely to appeal to people who are already familiar with the somewhat similar GW game settings.

I don't know, but have the designers of Warmachine written any articles about their influences and design ideas?

 sourclams wrote:

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

The demand driver is the pageantry of the miniatures, within the context of that game. The game helps the minis drive demand, but isn't a demand driver per se.

Put another way, I'm not aware of large groups of people playing Warmachine with cardboard cutouts or representations of the models; the rules are find and distinct but they aren't what draw people to wargaming. The miniatures are.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That pattern or experience would also account for the setting of Warmachine being a kind of cross-over steampunk/fantasy scenario, likely to appeal to people who are already familiar with the somewhat similar GW game settings.

I really hesitate to make this sort of broad connection/evolution. The Iron Kingdoms were created, I believe, as a pen and paper d20 RPG setting first and foremost, indicating that the likelier evolution was DnD-esque high fantasy with a touch of steampunk into the swords&alchemy setting of the IK.

The narrative of the IK also progresses and clearly evolves around a set cast of central figures (influential warcasters/warlocks) that are 'as-is', meaning that PP has already decided what their stats and abilities are and they are 'their' characters, not the players' characters. The tone is generally upbeat and there's almost nothing that speaks of overt evil or Grimdark, even in the material about an empire of undead wizards intent on turning all the living into meat puppets.

That is very clearly different from the Grimdark 40k 'develop your own chapter, choose your own adventure' where very little actually happens from a broader setting standpoint and the universe itself exists more as a sandbox for people to go create models/characters and play around in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IceRaptor wrote:
Put another way, I'm not aware of large groups of people playing Warmachine with cardboard cutouts or representations of the models; the rules are find and distinct but they aren't what draw people to wargaming. The miniatures are.

But, at the same time, almost nobody is buying their models just to paint them up and put them on the shelf. Up until their relatively new releases (which by and large are incredibly good quality), very few of their models were even that impressive relative to other mini companies of the time.

There's threads on their forums (and here, I think) that suggest PP more than doubled in size in the last few years. GW has not, Reaper has not, and both of those are companies whose minis, I think, on average, equaled/exceeded PP quality for this specific time period.

 Easy E wrote:

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

There's nothing stopping me from playing Warmachine in a chilled-out, messing-round-with-my-buds environment. Nothing in the game stops me from being friendly to my opponent--had a game against a new player earlier today where I offered advice, suggested things he could try and reminded him of useful things his models could do. Of course, tournament play is expected to be more rigid and competitive, I agree to that when I sign up. But even then, when the game ends, I more often than not shake hands with my opponent and if there's time, have a friendly chat before the next round.

 Easy E wrote:
“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

First up, Warmachine has moved onto a full second edition which pretty much rewrote the rules (and is generally considered far superior), so the Remix is a thing of the past.

My impression is that some games that are more casual and "fluffy" are that way largely by necessity. When both you and your opponent have different readings of the same rule and the text could reasonably support them both, you're essentially forced to come to a gentleman's agreement because the alternative is the game grinding to a halt. In WM, checking the rulebook or the description of an ability will resolve the problem 99% of the time.

Strip the hyperbole, and my reading of the "page 5" ideal is that you should do your best. Don't worry about your list being frowned at for being "too good", bring your best skills and game against your opponent (as they will to you), and don't be a sore loser. And those are standards that can be applied equally to competitive or friendly play.

 Easy E wrote:

Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

As a Brit, I don't think the difference is pronounced enough to be applied to individuals with any reliability, especially when you're dealing with a subset of a niche.

I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

But ideally, wouldn't rules dispute not exist when the rules are written tightly in the first place?

Hops into the way back machine.....

About 15 years ago I worked with AEG promoting Legend of the Five Rings card game which Matt WIlson was basically a co-creator for. Both He and Brian Snoddy were heavily involved in ccgs and also miniature games. Later when they sepperated themselves from the company and founded Privateer they took a large number of ex-AEG staff wirth them, this was about the time that Wizards aquired the L5R line. Anybody with talent was either moved internally into the Wizards fold or they went to Privateer. L5R was basically left as a shell and the game pretty much went stagnent for a long time as a result of their design team being diced apart.

Anybody that has played CCGs will likely realize that they are very competitive in nature and their rules sets are (ideally) designed to cover every possible qustion regarding timing , play sequence etc. The rules are very tight and defined as it promotes competitive tournamnet play often with very large sums of cash invovled as prizes. "Roll off" to determine a dispute is unheard of in the ccg communities, if a situation is unable to be answered by the rules documents or faq then it is left for the tourney judges to decide and usually those decisions are later incorperated into the offical rules. (after being reviewed by a group) NOBODY playing ccgs would stand for a match deciding conflict to be decided by dice when there might potentially be $10k or even $100k riding on that result.

Warmachine was largely influenced by ccg style play and that's primarily where the differance between Privatter's and Priestly's style come from. Also Privateer's take on story driven rules is there but its minimized into a more formal set of mechanics where often in Priestly's rules they are typically one off type rules.

While I'm not buddy buddy with Matt or Brian I do know them well enough that I can say that they are certainly supporters of games played by gentlemen and good sports, but they also see value in a tightly defined rules set due to their ccg backgrounds. If you have a properly defined system it ideally leads to less personal conflcts when there's a disagreement as it's usually covered in detail by the rules, so the anger should properly be directed at rules and not the opponent.

Now the down side is that we all live in the real world and many gamers aren't particuarly civil individuals who understand sportsmanship, in fact many gamers actively tried not to be included in sports or competitive events that teach society how to be good sports and tollerate a loss, learn to be team players etc. A lot of gamers that I see (and know) take any loss or disagreement extremely poorly. There are plenty of gamers who understand and embrace sportsmanship but unfortunately the ones that don't are the ones are also typically the most obnoxious and leave a very bad impression even though they may be a very small minority. It only takes one d-bag person to ruin an even that might have dozens or even hundreds of decent folks attending. (which as a TO who has helped run hundrreds of AEGs & WOTC events I'm painfully aware of)

Page 5 was a tongue and cheek reference to being a good sport, unfortunately there's players that see it as in print justification to be a jerk. They completely miss the joke and think it's written approval to be a full out douche. But every system has "those people" who just don't get the concept of sportsmanship and proper conduct.

 Easy E wrote:
I
British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

I dont think so. GW used to be very much in favor of competition, see the 4th edition 40k rule book. Within British and US culture there is a broad spectrum of competiveness among gamers. This is very apparent from the forums. Competiveness is a feature of western civilization, you can not really say that Americans are more keen on competition than most other countries, just look at sports and how popular they are and the rabid fanaticism involved. People in Europe break out in brawls over soccer way more often than American football fans do, but then again American fans are lethargic from all the vast quantities of red meat and beer they just consumed.

Privateer has just recognized that there is a demand for tournaments and are capitalizing on it. There are many historical miniature tournaments but they are probably not as well known. They have been going on for a long time as well.

 Easy E wrote:

Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

I know quite a few gamers that play FoW and also play or have played wh40k or whfb. A lot of people are drawn to the miniatures first and the rules second. More and more you are seeing gaming conventions that feature both historical games and scifi/fantasy games. I think the distinction between "historical" gamers and "fantasy" gamers has eroded and will continue to decline.

Also, both historical and fantasy players use no holds barred scenarios and themed scenarios. The only difference is that historical themed scenarios recreate something that really happened. Fantasy themed scenarios are very popular with some people and discussed on the forums regularly.

 Easy E wrote:

Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

I think you are quite wrong here. If you go to the Privateer forums you will find that a lot of people are very much into the background or fluff of the game. Dont neglect the fact that Privateer publishes a role playing book for their fantasy world as well. While privateer is sponsoring many tournaments and develops specific rules for tournaments I am sure tournament players are only a fraction of their customers.

Sorry to be a naysayer but I think your hypotheses are fundamentally flawed by an oversimplification and false partition of the gaming community.

Part of my job is writing procedures.
Ever try to describe something and make it fool-proof?
You either have to live with absolute statements or are forced to pull out the flow-chart.
To promote the ideal of "let it go and play nice" needs to be mentioned when the instructions are not rules-lawyer approved.
Competition is a big thing, many efforts are made to create inclusive competitive video games where skill rather than hardware wins the day.
I can see a need for wargaming to have a more competitive edge. I think we are not there yet with any game system (except chess) to go all hard core.

 paulson games wrote:
Hops into the way back machine.....

About 15 years ago I worked with AEG promoting Legend of the Five Rings card game which Matt WIlson was basically a co-creator for. Both He and Brian Snoddy were heavily involved in ccgs and also miniature games. Later when they sepperated themselves from the company and founded Privateer they took a large number of ex-AEG staff wirth them, this was about the time that Wizards aquired the L5R line. Anybody with talent was either moved internally into the Wizards fold or they went to Privateer. L5R was basically left as a shell and the game pretty much went stagnent for a long time as a result of their design team being diced apart.

Anybody that has played CCGs will likely realize that they are very competitive in nature and their rules sets are (ideally) designed to cover every possible qustion regarding timing , play sequence etc. The rules are very tight and defined as it promotes competitive tournamnet play often with very large sums of cash invovled as prizes. "Roll off" to determine a dispute is unheard of in the ccg communities, if a situation is unable to be answered by the rules documents or faq then it is left for the tourney judges to decide and usually those decisions are later incorperated into the offical rules. (after being reviewed by a group) NOBODY playing ccgs would stand for a match deciding conflict to be decided by dice when there might potentially be $10k or even $100k riding on that result.

Warmachine was largely influenced by ccg style play and that's primarily where the differance between Privatter's and Priestly's style come from. Also Privateer's take on story driven rules is there but its minimized into a more formal set of mechanics where often in Priestly's rules they are typically one off type rules.

While I'm not buddy buddy with Matt or Brian I do know them well enough that I can say that they are certainly supporters of games played by gentlemen and good sports, but they also see value in a tightly defined rules set due to their ccg backgrounds. If you have a properly defined system it ideally leads to less personal conflcts when there's a disagreement as it's usually covered in detail by the rules, so the anger should properly be directed at rules and not the opponent.

Now the down side is that we all live in the real world and many gamers aren't particuarly civil individuals who understand sportsmanship, in fact many gamers actively tried not to be included in sports or competitive events that teach society how to be good sports and tollerate a loss, learn to be team players etc. A lot of gamers that I see (and know) take any loss or disagreement extremely poorly. There are plenty of gamers who understand and embrace sportsmanship but unfortunately the ones that don't are the ones are also typically the most obnoxious and leave a very bad impression even though they may be a very small minority. It only takes one d-bag person to ruin an even that might have dozens or even hundreds of decent folks attending. (which as a TO who has helped run hundrreds of AEGs & WOTC events I'm painfully aware of)

Page 5 was a tongue and cheek reference to being a good sport, unfortunately there's players that see it as in print justification to be a jerk. They completely miss the joke and think it's written approval to be a full out douche. But every system has "those people" who just don't get the concept of sportsmanship and proper conduct.

Very good post!

Hi guys, great discussion. It's an important one, because IMHO, it's KINDA like the spirit of 40k (and GW).

I read all the posts up to this, but I'll use Easy E's framework, but I want to show you just my take.

 Easy E wrote:


Collaboration vs. Competition

Social vs. Event

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”

I totally see all of that. But after thinking about it, I would describe those as follows:

ROLEPLAYING-ONLY VS. WARGAMING-ONLY

My 1st exposure to 40k (at the risk of revealing my age) was from White Dwarfs.

40k was like an experimental path at the time, GW just trying something different.

Back then, GW was quite focused on RP-like things. Fantasy RP. Heroquest.

You can see this from how much content the old White Dwarfs was focused on RP.

IIRC, usually a WD was 50% RP stuff (incl. fluff), 25% painting, 25% maybe wargaming/rants.

You also hear Priestley describing 40k as "science fantasy", like a variation on fantasy RP.

You also see the Space Marine minis on their ads like "Brother Angst (with Multi-Melta)".

Like your basic Marine wasn't just a pawn, but a character like in RP, just without special rules.

Now, I'm not saying 40k's a RPG, nonono. But that was the MINDSET GW was coming from.

And even the early 40k games: Space Crusade, Space Hulk, were pretty RP-ish.

Those early games was much more about a joint narrative, storytelling, more than competition.

Like I owned Space Hulk, I usually played Genestealers so my friends can be Marines, but I wanted them to win.

Collaborative, Social, etc. That reminds me of more the RP aspects.

So what changed? Very simply, 25 YEARS AGO VS. TODAY.

40k, like I said, was an experimental path, and it kept going for almost 3 decades.

It started a little more RP-ish, now it's much more competitive Wargame-ish.

 Easy E wrote:


British v. American

Historical vs. Fantasy

Niche vs. Niche

And we recently added GW vs. Privateer Press.

I'm unsure of all those as well, I dunno.

I do think Privateer Press, with their focus on characters and skirmish scale, tried to retain the RP aspect.

But that's just my take. I don't know if you guys agree with me, but I think the RP angle is interesting to consider.

 Talizvar wrote:
Part of my job is writing procedures.
Ever try to describe something and make it fool-proof?
You either have to live with absolute statements or are forced to pull out the flow-chart.
To promote the ideal of "let it go and play nice" needs to be mentioned when the instructions are not rules-lawyer approved.

This can be solved by doing two versions of the rules set: one is the more basic rules set where you can read and understand what you need to know in order to play the game smoothly, and one is a comprehensive rules set that governs any interactions possible. You can see this at work here at MtG's website: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/rules

Basic Rulebook
For casual play and most ordinary situations, you’ll find what you need in the Magic: The Gathering basic rulebook.
Comprehensive Rules
TXT | DOCX | RTF | PDF (Last updated February 1, 2013)
The "Comp. Rules" are the ultimate authority for the Magic game, but you won’t usually need to refer to them except in specific cases or during competitive games. They're not meant to be read from start to finish.

My opinion on this one is that tightly written rules enable both casual and competitive play. I've never seen a reason for why you'd need the opposite to play casually. If you want to change tightly written rules to enable you to do something not within the current system, there is nothing preventing you from doing go that also exists in more sprawling and untested rules.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

Infinity was, is and will be written by Corvus Belli that is a Spanish company.

I'm of the opinion I don't need/want a games rules to be written for casual social rules. I want a game written for tight competative kill my opponent rules, because i can still play a casual social game with those much easier than I can play a tight games with the looser rule set. Since Warmachine was brought up, the vast majority of what I see is fun casual stuff. Yes you get the competitive tournament games, but then everyone hangs out and chats and goes out to eat afterward. We don't need the game to tell us to be sportsmen. I don't want to play with people who need the game to tell them that. I've seen far more bad sports and rule benders in the beer and pretzels game of Warhammer.

Perhaps the difference is in simulation vs game. Having missed editions 1, 3, 4 and 5, I always read Warhammer 40k as attempting to simulate a battle. In a simulation game it makes sense that not everything will necessarily be covered in the rules - you might run into some rare situation that you can make up rules for on the spot.

Warmachine, though, is very much a game. It has pieces that move in ways that aren't necessarily realistic and interact in ways that are logical in the game rules, but not from the perspective of simulating a battle.

A battle simulation and a tight game doesn't necessarily have to be opposites: one can exist with the other. Even 40k fails on the simulation department: there are rules that won't make sense in a fluff or common sense perspective (i.e. random charge distances). I wouldn't want to compare it to Warmahordes since i haven't played it (though the rules appeal to me, the models don't), so I'm just going to bring up another game: Infinity.

Infinity's rules are much more tight compared to 40k (although there are still a few remaining rules disputes but they do not occur 99.9% of the time). And the rules really simulate the fast-paced special operations firefights very well: when playing it feels more like playing paintball/a FPS where you can't just go gung-ho on the opponent. You need to hug cover like an old friend. You need to have back-ups to watch your back. Even the most highly trained unit can die from a stray bullet f they're not being careful.

Even with making an army list, there's no such thing as an army being "unfluffy". Every combination of army list you can make will make sense in the fluff.

My point is, one can have both and they're not mutually exclusive. A game with well-written rules can be used as a battle simulator and a casual game, as well as a tournament-worthy game.

 heartserenade wrote:
But ideally, wouldn't rules dispute not exist when the rules are written tightly in the first place?

I think rules disputes arise from the psychology of different players.

Case in point: In 4th edition 40K there was a rule about AP1 weapons shooting at Skimmers Moving Fast, which allowed the AP1 weapon to penetrate the Skimmer armour if it rolled equal but not above the AV. Normally, all penetrating hits were reduced to glancing on a Skimmer Moving Fast.

This situation arose because the rule was expressed (in words) as an algebraic equation. There was a huge amount of argument about this rule, even though it was logically and mathematically precise, partly because a lot of players could not accept that a roll of say 3 should be better than a roll of 4, or 6. In their psychology, the dice did not represent a random number generating system whose results could be used for different functions in a game, they represented a scale of effect from bad to good.

Perhaps that is an extreme example but it expresses part of what I want to convey.

Obviously there are examples where a rule is genuinely unclear, and there are examples where people argue about the meaning of a rule because they can get an advantage from a particular interpretation based on the location of a comma, or logic and so on.

People will argue about a rule just for the sake of arguing. There was a long-running argument on DakkaDakka about whether Terminator Marines are equipped with Terminator armour.

A lot of the old-time wargames had very densely written rules, and there was a reaction away from that style of writing.This started to happen in the early 90s.

That's a fair point about the WRG tournaments. I wasn't aware of them. How popular were they?

As someone else said earlier, could it be due to not age but the differing backgrounds? GW was set up to distribute American roleplaying stuff in the UK and Priestly probably worked a lot on RPG things. White Dwarf was originally a RP magazine, after all. If Matt Wilson did come from CCGs, then there's a very different mindset. When I play RPGs, it seems more of a relaxed thing to do, and they're cooperative (until I spam bugbears at my young party, feel my wrath idiot who decided to play a Halfling Knight!). On the other hand, when I played the Pokemon CCG all those years ago when I was a young whippersnapper (even then! I pissed my friends off so much when playing that game, and they also pissed me off) the games felt a lot more competitive.

 infinite_array wrote:

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

Then you do know very little. That's on the same level as me complaining that my King in chess doesn't have any personality whatsoever, and assuming that certain people on this forum won't play anything that doesn't have a Games Workshop label on it.

Which I would deserve a hard slap on the back of the head for.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Ah yes, sweeping generalizations from the uninitiated. How droll.

 Maddermax wrote:
Ah, I see, you're ignorant of Warmahordes, which explains your attitude towards it. Try it out sometime, meet the wider Warmahordes community, and you'll discover why your attitude towards and assumptions about it's players are so misguided.

So, since I realized that since I really do know terribly little about this game, I’d better educate myself. To the website!

Found the game description, and the quickstart rules. I’ll hold up my hands – you’re right. There’s certainly no more “hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager” vibe than there is to 40k, and the rules do look pretty elegant. I’m getting a false impression from the brief flip through the first edition rulebook that I looked at years ago.

I’ll stand by the soap opera comment. It’s the same reason I don’t like LotR. But that’s a background issue rather than a style of play issue. I really do wonder what these rules would be like if transposed to a different setting. Or even just added generic Warcasters.

In return, can some of those who believe that Rick Priestly’s rules are badly written and unclear have a look at the Warmaster rules, available for free from the GW website? Or, indeed, anything to discourage competitive play? I think that’s more of a fair comparison than Warhammer or 40k, which wasn’t so much designed as gradually evolved over decades. I’m going to have a look at them myself, been ages since I read them.

So, does it come down to the way (not tightness or exactitude, but in ethos) the rules are written, or the mindset of those who play them?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, it appears you can't get the Warmaster rules from the GW site anymore. Idiots. Never mind....

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

As someone else said earlier, could it be due to not age but the differing backgrounds? GW was set up to distribute American roleplaying stuff in the UK and Priestly probably worked a lot on RPG things. White Dwarf was originally a RP magazine, after all. If Matt Wilson did come from CCGs, then there's a very different mindset.

There may be an element of that, and Rick certainly worked on a lot of RPG stuff in the early years at GW. Then again, Privateer's first products were Iron Kingdoms D20 stuff - the miniatures didn't come until a couple of years later. Matt Wilson was still working at WotC as the art director for Magic when the first couple of Witchfire adventures came out.

So, here ar ethe new wrinkles that I am seeing aarond the theories for the differences....

CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

Demographic Shifts
Rick grew up in a time when games were different than Matt Wilson at Warmachine. Therefore, the difference wants and needs of these generations maybe reflected in the rules they wrote.

This seems like it maybe a correlary of the "Cultural" piece, but again I'm not convinvced that Cultural/Demographics have much to do with it.

Battle vs. Game
I find this to be a compelling discussion that I would love to hear more about.

When Rick writes rules such as BlackPowder, Pike and Shotte, Bolt Action, etc. he is tryign to create a simulation, and recreate the logic of events and situations that have all ready occurred in the past.

Matt Wilson is creting unit interactions in the context of the rules and to create a game. He is not interrested in simulating events that may have actually happened in the past.

Simulation needs to start the probelm with the answer and work backwards. For example, at Balaclava X happened, so how do I make sure something similar happens in my rules.

Game can look at the problem from the beginning. What mechanics do I want to use, and how will this create an outcome on the tabletop. The outcome has not been pre-determined.

This take makes a lot of sense to me, and helps shed light on why a game designer might choose to follow one philosophy over another.

That would also work to an extent for Warhammer, which started from a position of "I have all these RPG miniatures, how can I fight a battle with them" rather than "I wish to create a wargame with these characteristics, what rules and miniatures do I need to create to make that happen"

Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

You mean like a rules that also had interesting fluff background?

Historicals.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

That isn't the discussion. This is a question of the design philosophies of the designers in question, and why they may have these philosophies.

Contrary to some responders belief, this is not a "which is better?" thread. I think both have their merits and drawbacks. I think both methods have

Clear rules can be "fluffy" that's not the issue here Infinity that is an example I am quite familiar with translates the fluff to the tabletop quite good (and I have the impression WM/H does so as well), while 40k as another example does not, its an issue of whether one wants to make rules that follow the background or background that can happen in the rules or not.

The issue I raised is that in my opinion a clear, balanced game system is more susceptible when players want to do their "own thing" invent their own units and so on, this does not take into account fluff based changes which are irrelevant to the game system (so they are not Sepulchurists knight they are templars in hiding, they are not grey knights they are the X radical Inquisitors experiment ectr) I mean wanting to make their own units, it may seem odd to 40k players because the system already allows big freedom build in it (and this is why its too difficult to balance) fut for a CB/ PP player its obvious to see the difference the units are these and are equipped like this precisely, not spend X points to change this into this or add this ad then buy this from this table ectr. and then figure out item X in unit Z when facing opponent V creates a rules breakdown.

Graphite wrote:
That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera

Who hears this, and thinks of this:



And then has their train of thought deteriorate from there?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Graphite wrote:
That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera

Who hears this, and thinks of this:

And then has their train of thought deteriorate from there?

I've heard Stryker's overcharge can lead to Premature Assassination.

EDIT: In all seriousness the use of Warcasters as cementing points for army play styles pretty much means they have to be discrete entities. Characters are probably the most interesting & flavorful way to approach this, at least given the variety Warmachine has with them. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

 Easy E wrote:


CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

I was very excited to see one of our fellow Dakkamates was involved in AEG. That's awesome.

I didn't know the folks involved with the Legend of Five Rings CCG were the founders of Privateer Press.

That explains a lot, especially with Warmachine's focus on special characters and their rules.

The Legend of Five Rings CCG was very fluffy, but characters are cards, defined by their rules.

I absolutely agree with you guys the nature of CCGs wasn't that you rolled a die to resolve arguments.

It's just a different format that lead to a different type of culture

Incidentally, the original Legend of 5 Rings RPG system was my favourite. Very simple, but rich.

(And for those that are familiar with it, I played a member of the Mantis Clan).

---

And here's another point. Rick Priestly didn't just bring that RP experience to 40k...he spread it.

He brought on like-minded people, like Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. And you see their impact.

Like Necromunda. IIRC, it came a little after 40k 2nd edition, when it became a mature ruleset for wargames.

(Previously, 40k was a collection of rules gathered over many White Dwarfs, it was all over the place, a mess).

40k was very much supposed to be a new direction for GW. It was deliberately less RP, more big wargame.

Then Necromunda came out, with its experience points and units developing over time.

It's like GW saying, "Man, I know we're more wargame now...but we want to bring some RP back."

It's like that RP mentality was still GW's comfort zone, IMHO something they never really want to let go of.

That gives me a fuzzy feeling. I just wish White Dwarf was a little more like a RP magazine, rather than a brochure.

 Easy E wrote:
I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.


Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

Of course, I’m sure it is more of a blending of each of these hypotheses. Rarely is one theory always right and the others always wrong. Neither style is inherently wrong or better. However, I’m interested in seeing what your thoughts are on this topic?

I will give you a good answer to this question.. Privateer Press are in sync with the Gaming world of today. By that i mean they understand that other games that people that play Table-top games might like, are focused towards competitive play. Evrything from video games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft, World of Tanks and league of Legends.. its about E-sports and blanced gameplay. The Poker scene has really exploded the last few years on the Internet and its also about Competitive gamplay. Card games like Magic the gathering and others are also focused on competitive gameplay.

Old school Table-top gaming is not something that the younger generations of our world are interested in, not many of them atleast. If its not competitive you get zero braging rights and then why bother doing it? The fun that many people get out of games is there competitive nature. Take that away and you are left with Toy-soldiers that move around a board... it feels lame and old, more like playing with model trains, with a engineer hat on your head.

Bear and pretzel games have zero future in this technological society we live in. It was fun back in the day (70s-80s) but in 2013 the world has moved on.. To bad that some game designers have stagnated and refused to evolve with the times....

Chongara wrote:
. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

Well, in my case it's because I think it's funny. Because Wargames aren't very important, so why not take the Mickey?

The point is, I find the prescriptive, "this is our universe and things shall be thus" way of doing things offputting. And it does to an extent seem to be linked to very precisely defined rules.

 Easy E wrote:
So, here ar ethe new wrinkles that I am seeing aarond the theories for the differences....

CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

Demographic Shifts
Rick grew up in a time when games were different than Matt Wilson at Warmachine. Therefore, the difference wants and needs of these generations maybe reflected in the rules they wrote.

This seems like it maybe a correlary of the "Cultural" piece, but again I'm not convinvced that Cultural/Demographics have much to do with it.

Battle vs. Game
I find this to be a compelling discussion that I would love to hear more about.

When Rick writes rules such as BlackPowder, Pike and Shotte, Bolt Action, etc. he is tryign to create a simulation, and recreate the logic of events and situations that have all ready occurred in the past.

Matt Wilson is creting unit interactions in the context of the rules and to create a game. He is not interrested in simulating events that may have actually happened in the past.

Simulation needs to start the probelm with the answer and work backwards. For example, at Balaclava X happened, so how do I make sure something similar happens in my rules.

Game can look at the problem from the beginning. What mechanics do I want to use, and how will this create an outcome on the tabletop. The outcome has not been pre-determined.

This take makes a lot of sense to me, and helps shed light on why a game designer might choose to follow one philosophy over another.

I know some people who like Flight simulator and other games like that... But I know alot more people who like Battlefield and Call of duty.. Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graphite wrote:

Chongara wrote:
. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

Well, in my case it's because I think it's funny. Because Wargames aren't very important, so why not take the Mickey?

The point is, I find the prescriptive, "this is our universe and things shall be thus" way of doing things offputting. And it does to an extent seem to be linked to very precisely defined rules.

People make money off wargames, I would say that makes them Important... if the hobby dies out alot of people would be out of a jobb... and I really do feel that the Old guard of game designers in this industry (GW for example) are doing a piss poor jobb of uppdating the rules for the times we live in. The simulation and bear and Pretzel aproche needs to change.. Competetive and well balanced rules are the future of the hobby....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

That isn't the discussion. This is a question of the design philosophies of the designers in question, and why they may have these philosophies.

Contrary to some responders belief, this is not a "which is better?" thread. I think both have their merits and drawbacks. I think both methods have

The philosophie is new school vs old school... Back in the day people who played with Ten-soldiers wanted to recrate historical battles, and it was much closer to the Model Train hobby... These days the hole Fantasy thing has become mainstream.. and Mainstream people do not want to live, feel or recrate anything.. They want a balanced game to play and lore and fluff comes second... But some old game-designers who are well past their prime, and maybe should be thinking about retirement still belive that the Old school play style has a hughe following, it does not....

 Nucflash wrote:
Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......

I can't... how do you... I mean, what is...

Seriously, there's talking out of your ass, and then there's attaching a heavy-metal sound stage to it and turning the volume to 11.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......

I can't... how do you... I mean, what is...

Seriously, there's talking out of your ass, and then there's attaching a heavy-metal sound stage to it and turning the volume to 11.

The point is! the WORLD is not the same place as it was back in the day when Old dudes like Rick Priestley was the king of game design... The people that like the Bear and pretzel games are 30+ years.. Little kidds want to "head Shoot" people and laugh in their face... If you dont understand this new breed of "gamers", you should not be writing rules in the 21st century

Nucflash as semi-part of this "New Generation"(I've been online daily and almost constantly since '91) you're talking about, you really sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 Nucflash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

. Heck Warmachine itself is a social even for us, we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it...

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...

There isn't anyone in my gaming who is even 30, and more than a few in their early 20s. If we qualify as "Old & Grey" then you've got a fairly extreme idea of what constitutes old. We all still play RPGs, Board Games, Eat dinner together & tell stories. All manner of face-to-face social interaction, and shocker: We all manage to do this while still owning smart phones & having social media accounts.

I've got cousins who are still in the high school school range and they still do face to face social events. Granted more mainstream things like Basketball, school newspaper and shopping, but still. I'm fairly sure this world where anyone who isn't old only enjoys cell phones and reality TV with no desire to interact with other people, doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of people who complain about such things.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Nucflash as semi-part of this "New Generation"(I've been online daily and almost constantly since '91) you're talking about, you really sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.

We might have diffrent views, but the mentality of gamers have changed.. if you choose not to belive me then that is up to you... And you have been online since 91?? that puts you in the Old School category as you must be pushing 30 or even older... And then you are not part of the "new generation".. I'm talking about the kidds born in the 90- and later...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.

. Heck Warmachine itself is a social even for us, we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it...

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...

There isn't anyone in my gaming who is even 30, and more than a few in their early 20s. If we qualify as "Old & Grey" then you've got a fairly extreme idea of what constitutes old. We all still play RPGs, Board Games, Eat dinner together & tell stories. All manner of face-to-face social interaction, and shocker: We all manage to do this while still owning smart phones & having social media accounts.

I've got cousins who are still in the high school school range and they still do face to face social events. Granted more mainstream things like Basketball, school newspaper and shopping, but still. I'm fairly sure this world where anyone who isn't old only enjoys cell phones and reality TV with no desire to interact with other people, doesn't exist anywhere but in the minds of people who complain about such things.

Dude you missed the point.. There will always be people who play the old school games.. I still play RPGs.. My point was that alot more people these days are crying out for balance and competitive gamplay then back in the 90s... The Old school gamers were much more focused on the "social aspect" and fun part of games.. But there has been a push in the computer industry the last few years to make gaming into an E-sport. And I know for a fact that people who like video games, can make the transition to Table-top/board/RPG games.. but for this to happen, and I mean getting alot of them to do it.. The game designers of these games have to adopt the mentality of the computer game makers.. That means Better balance and more competitive play... and less Bears and pretzels...

The world has changed quite a lot, but I do not think it has in the way you imagine it to have, especially in such absolute way.

What "the Internet" has done is connect a widely scattered community of like minded individuals and this as a result made a segmented body united, expectations of quality has been risen, this does not mean the reasons one would wargame would change, but the expectations have.

The mentioned "Pristley approach" is one of a sandbox, give a basic frame spend more time on the background and let the players build their own stuff, its not an invalid approach today it was not in the past and will not be in the future, not my preferred one as I view it as a "here are the ingredients now make your own food", but its key selling point is the background and the freedom it gives to players, because of this flexibility, the rules should be extra tight and playtested, the fact that some products reach the market without having tight rules or been properly playtested, does not mean the approach is invalid or a relic f the past, indifferent to modern audience.

The main problem with these games is when they are presented as a complete system, which they are not.

The other approach, my preferred one, is a complete wargame product, it has tight rules a defined background and balanced forces, players do not have much more to do than collect the miniatures and play the game and that is its key selling point its a finished product.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The world has changed quite a lot, but I do not think it has in the way you imagine it to have, especially in such absolute way.

What "the Internet" has done is connect a widely scattered community of like minded individuals and this as a result made a segmented body united, expectations of quality has been risen, this does not mean the reasons one would wargame would change, but the expectations have.

The mentioned "Pristley approach" is one of a sandbox, give a basic frame spend more time on the background and let the players build their own stuff, its not an invalid approach today it was not in the past and will not be in the future, not my preferred one as I view it as a "here are the ingredients now make your own food", but its key selling point is the background and the freedom it gives to players, because of this flexibility, the rules should be extra tight and playtested, the fact that some products reach the market without having tight rules or been properly playtested, does not mean the approach is invalid or a relic f the past, indifferent to modern audience.

The main problem with these games is when they are presented as a complete system, which they are not.

The other approach, my preferred one, is a complete wargame product, it has tight rules a defined background and balanced forces, players do not have much more to do than collect the miniatures and play the game and that is its key selling point its a finished product.

I like your post .. I would like to say something about hte "sanbox" thing.. MMORPGs of the past were also called sanboxes because the makers of these games grew up with the pen and papper RPGs .. I really liked them alot. But the Themepark MMOS have in the past decade sweept these games away. Today its much more about instant FUN and joyrides..

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

Now when I walked into my local store today it was full of little kidds playing cardgames.. When I went to a Table-top game tournament a few weeks back there was ONE kidd that was younger then 20 years old of more then 50 participants... Now I feel something is wrong here.. back in the 90s it used to be the other way around... 80% kidds and 20% adults... There is little regrowth in the Table-top hobby and I blame that on stale "out of date" game design. That hasent changed with the times and fail to attract a new audiance to the hobby...

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

Dont really care about how they are played.. I care that people buy them more then they buy Table-top games.. And that I'm starting to feel like a dinosaur.. that is about to die out haha.... As I pointed out the regrowth of our preferd hobby is really poor, the same goes for me and my buddies who play the MMORPG Sandbox game "EVE online"... Times are changing and the movers and the shackers of the industry are not keeping up with the times... Soon I feel I will go to conventions and Tournaments and all I will see is a bunch of gray haired dudes.. getting rolled in, in wheelchairs.. And we will be sitting around talking about the good old days....

For better or worse the industry needs a change or this is the future of our hobby..

I might be portraying a dark and sad future here but I do not think I'm totaly off the mark in my predictions.. and I blame the Bear and pretzels approche, It is just not exiting enough to get a wider audience into the hobby... Even if some of you really love it..

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

The bolded part, CCG are not LCG. One you know what in the "pack" the other you buy "packs" until you hopefully get what you want.

Noir wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:

I also had a look at another thread and I saw that X-wing (fantasy flight game) had sold alot of copies the past year.. This is an out of the BOX, ready to play type of game.. slick package and based on a well established IP "Star Wars". Living Card games like Magic the Gathering and others are also the main GO to game for the younger generation of gamers in "our Hobby".. This is also an out of the Box, ready to play type of game...

While both can be played that way, neither really make it a selling point and the majority of players don't play it that way(especially Magic players, but then Magic isn't an LCG, it's a CCG).

The bolded part, CCG are not LCG. One you know what in the "pack" the other you buy "packs" until you hopefully get what you want.

And it still do not mather Noir.. Card games can be Whatever.. little kidds are buying them more then they are buying Table-top Wargames.. Little kidds are also buying more video games then Table Top Wargames.. All this is not good for our hobby.. and RPG games have been in a free fall for the last decade. I personaly like Table-top wargames and RPGs more then living Card games(Buy a pig in a poke, hope I got that experssion right in translation hehe) and Video games...

But if we dont stop this bear and pretzels approche to RULE making.. my prediction is that we will soon only play RPG/table top games in the "Old Folks home". We need to get with the times, more competitive rules, more out of the BOX.. readdy to play.. Like the starter sets for both Warmachine and Malifaux for example.... These companies are trying to change with the times.. Other companies are still living in the past... "cinematic gamplay" give me a break please...

I would never call EVE online a sandbox.

A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided, I do not really see sandbox style wargames die out, I can see demand for better quality sandbox wargames with finer quality sand, I can see them loose some ground, but not get extinct or be marginalized to old people.

I do however see an increased demand for complete product wargames of high quality.

Well Nucflash, you may want to hear my input then.

I was born in the late 90s. I'm going to guess and say that I'm younger than you are. I've lived in many countries. I picked up the hobby nearly six years ago with the Lord of the Rings game.

The about Warmachine that I and several other gamers that I know don't like is that it feels too competitive. With 40k or Fantasy, we can laugh about our bad luck. I play Wood Elves, and we joke about how gak my army is, look at that Eternal Guard unit struggling against some Orcs, I'm going to get kicked out of Elven heaven for the defeat of my Glade Guard against some Goblins, let's hope I don't get kicked out of tree heaven when my Dryads and treemen lose etc. With Warmachine, everything is so much more competitive and it loses part of the fun.

The people I play with generally are younger than me. They're the kind of people who are the so-called future of wargaming, as you say. They don't want to play with such clearly defined rulesets. They want to play a game where they can roll a few dice, chat about what's coming up, push some cool soldiers that they can customise incredibly easy around a green table and hopefully win a game. But really, to them, a win is a secondary concern. They're more interested in seeing good looking armies on the table. Sure, there's the rules arguments, but that's part of the fun of the game.

Not only that, but many of them like the look of games such as Hail Caesar or the Rick Priestly games. They like the sound of rolling to see where the Dreadnought hull lands after it's blown up. They don't like the overly rigid structure of Warmachine.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would never call EVE online a sandbox.

A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided, I do not really see sandbox style wargames die out, I can see demand for better quality sandbox wargames with finer quality sand, I can see them loose some ground, but not get extinct or be marginalized to old people.

I do however see an increased demand for complete product wargames of high quality.

Dude you might want to take a closer look at the MMO EVE online the computer game that is what I was talking about..... Its one of the last Sanbox MMOS still around.. And yes it is "A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided", that is what it is all about... look it up...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well Nucflash, you may want to hear my input then.

I was born in the late 90s. I'm going to guess and say that I'm younger than you are. I've lived in many countries. I picked up the hobby nearly six years ago with the Lord of the Rings game.

The about Warmachine that I and several other gamers that I know don't like is that it feels too competitive. With 40k or Fantasy, we can laugh about our bad luck. I play Wood Elves, and we joke about how gak my army is, look at that Eternal Guard unit struggling against some Orcs, I'm going to get kicked out of Elven heaven for the defeat of my Glade Guard against some Goblins, let's hope I don't get kicked out of tree heaven when my Dryads and treemen lose etc. With Warmachine, everything is so much more competitive and it loses part of the fun.

The people I play with generally are younger than me. They're the kind of people who are the so-called future of wargaming, as you say. They don't want to play with such clearly defined rulesets. They want to play a game where they can roll a few dice, chat about what's coming up, push some cool soldiers that they can customise incredibly easy around a green table and hopefully win a game. But really, to them, a win is a secondary concern. They're more interested in seeing good looking armies on the table. Sure, there's the rules arguments, but that's part of the fun of the game.

Not only that, but many of them like the look of games such as Hail Caesar or the Rick Priestly games. They like the sound of rolling to see where the Dreadnought hull lands after it's blown up. They don't like the overly rigid structure of Warmachine.

The problem is that there are to few of you in the general population.. or we would see alot more kidds around.. Now for me personaly I dont want to play with little kidds.. But they are important for the growth and health of the hobby... Now as I said before there are a few that pick up these games... But if you compare with other recreational hobbys in the same general genre, more are playing other things like computer games and card games... This will become a problem sooner or later... And instead of sticking with my guns, saying that cinematic gamplay and bear and pretzels games is the only way forward and digging my head in the sand. I do understand that the Table-top industry needs to change to bring back the masses..

It never had the masses, and it probably never will. It's always been a fairly small niche. I'd hazard a guess that the UK has the highest proportion of wargamers in the population of anywhere, and that's almost entirely down to the ubiquitousness of GW. It'd be almost impossible to grow up in the UK without at least hearing of Warhammer, which I doubt is the case anywhere else. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't mainstream, and probably never will be.

The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed.

Wargaming used to be mainstream enough to feature as a serious plot element in spy dramas, and for respectful TV documentaries to be made about it.

I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

Going more on topic, I am surprised to read what ExNoctemNacimur wrote, people preferring to play an obviously faulted game system over a better written and balanced system because it forces them to be... competitive?

In my opinion a tight balanced rule system does not forces you to be competitive or deprives you from the "beer and pretzels" enjoyment of a game, yes it does deprive you from the excuse that if you loose its the systems fault and its inherit imbalance, but if this is a reason to go hardcore competitive and not enjoy the game, its not a fault of the system.

Again in my opinion the Industry needs not abandon any of the two design philosophies nor one is es valid from the other, but the industry must significantly up its product value and quality, the "Priestly" approach is not an excuse for a bad game system, nor is for imbalanced forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed.

No doubt - HG Wells' Little Wars was a uniquely British creation, and was the first widely available published wargame, but I'd be willing to bet that a minimum of 80% of Brits under the age of 35 who are into wargaming entered through GW and playing one of Rick's games.

The German game Kriegsspiel was widely available earlier than Little Wars, and represents the simulation end of the specrurm, being designed as a staff training aid rather than a game. Both titles are still available.

My point was that wargaming was big in the UK and had a mainstream awareness long before GW. Younger people don't know if they haven't read up on it.

I do agree that most people probably enter through GW these days.

The last wargaming things I remember on TV were the Total War recreations of some historical battles, using a computer game, and the episode of New Tricks that featured a wargames club.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed......

But the HHHobby didn't exist before GW came in to being or so I've been told.

This is one of those time/space paradox thingys isn't it?

 Nucflash wrote:

We might have diffrent views, but the mentality of gamers have changed.. if you choose not to belive me then that is up to you... And you have been online since 91?? that puts you in the Old School category as you must be pushing 30 or even older... And then you are not part of the "new generation".. I'm talking about the kidds born in the 90- and later...
.

and what about them?

Im part of the first generation that really views "video games" as normal, growing up as i did with mega drives, and playstations. Just because kids play slightly different games with slightly different toys doesnt mean our whole culture is changing radically, with "old" stuff consigned to the garbage heap of history, and the "new" stuff being the wave of the future.

New things come and go that make the older ones amongst us scratch their heads. fir me it was kids playing pokemon. for the older ones, me and my generaltion was playing and viewing video games as normal. back in my moms day, it was "radical" to listen to bands like status quo.

but old stuff sticks around. and new stuff finds its place. the new, well it doesnt have to, nor will it ever completely replace the old. and whilst some toys are never and shinier, kids do plenty of the things i did when i was the same age - soccer, climbing trees, biking somewhere etc.

I think the mistake youre looking at is a blanket assumption that what kids play now is different to what we did when we were their age, and thats what they'll want forever, not wanting our cool toys/likes in the process. and i think thats a short sighted view. people might like their stuff now. but they're kids. theyre gonna grow up. and as you grow up, your attitudes change. things that i wanted as a kid - i dont want them now. things that were meaningless to me as a kid - well they mean something to me now.

and the next generation will follow in my footsteps. they'll stop being teenagers, and hit their twenties. theyll get cars and fiances, and houses with mortgages. they will fully mature mentally, and the things that they see as important, and the things they'll want to spend their time on, and more importantly, how theyll want to spend their time - likewise. they'll see the same things as being important in their 20s as i do. sure, there is a time and a place for frenetic online gaming with instant gratification, but there is also a time and a place for having your mates over, having the tv on in the background, rolling some dice casually, and so on. basically, what im saying is this: you want different things at different stages in your life. and strangely, the next generation of currently-playing-x-stations-and-playcubes-online will be tomorrows twenty-somethings, and ill almost guarantee you that they will find themselves curiously agreeing with me when its their turn to hit 28. as they say "the more things change, the more things stay the same".

edit: god, im old :(

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK had the highest proportion of wargamers before GW existed......

But the HHHobby didn't exist before GW came in to being or so I've been told.

This is one of those time/space paradox thingys isn't it?

Well, the HHHobby certainly didn't exist... but the hobby did.

My impression from reading Peterson's "Playing at the world" (asides from the impression that he has not learned that minute detail is best left in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the narrative) is that US miniatures gaming easily was the equal in size to UK miniatures gaming in the 60s. The other impression, which I also get from my early 90s/late 80s flirtation with historicals, is that the approach to rules design and the proposed "tight" rulesets preceding the "Rick Priestley approach" is that they were anything but, and that the americans were as whimsical with their rules (and everything else) as early GW was.

And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

@Nucflash-

I think you and I will have to disagree. Rick himself talked about this very issue once here:

http://fightingfantasist.blogspot.com/2011/06/rick-priestley-talks-wisely-on-subject.html

...for a certain section of teenagers, the fact that you had wargames rules was part of your social life, because you’ve got no ability to have any other kind of social life. You don’t have the soft skills. So when mid teenage boys interact with one another, the fact that they can do it with a set of rules, enables them to have a conversation, and do something together. It gives some common ground. But the rules become really important. For a more mature kind of individual, and, ironically, for a much younger individual, the rules can be quite soft. Because when you’re very young, you know how to play, and when you’re much older, you feel faintly embarrassed that you might have taken this or that much too seriously.

Right now this "new" generation of gamers is anythign but "new" they are still pretty much the same as the generations before them. They just aren't old enough to realize it yet.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
My impression from reading Peterson's "Playing at the world" (asides from the impression that he has not learned that minute detail is best left in the footnotes rather than cluttering up the narrative) is that US miniatures gaming easily was the equal in size to UK miniatures gaming in the 60s. The other impression, which I also get from my early 90s/late 80s flirtation with historicals, is that the approach to rules design and the proposed "tight" rulesets preceding the "Rick Priestley approach" is that they were anything but, and that the americans were as whimsical with their rules (and everything else) as early GW was.

The US scene was big and there was a significant amount of communication between the "big guys" over there and in the UK.

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

So how did the philosophy they chose to follow lead them to make the rules choices they make?

 Easy E wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
@Nucflash-Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ProtoClone wrote:
And here I was thinking that they wanted to achieve the same thing, for you to have fun...how silly of me.

They do. Of course, the interesting thing is that their philosophy to how you achieve fun is different. Why would that be the case?

Because they each wanted something different and specific from their game. Why insert a reason when there doesn't appear, or need, to be one?

So how did the philosophy they chose to follow lead them to make the rules choices they make?

They probably wanted something specific in their game. Like how TSR wanted something specific for D&D, then Palladium felt the need to do it differently then TSR because they wanted something specific for their game.

I know almost everyone has said "If I had made Game-A I would have done X differently because it doesn't feel right/I don't like it as is".

Answer: Opinion and preference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

I am going to be starting a thread in the Video Games section with this as the topic.

 Nucflash wrote:
We need to get with the times, more competitive rules, more out of the BOX.. readdy to play.. Like the starter sets for both Warmachine and Malifaux for example...

I think you're mistaking effect for cause. In all of the examples you list, you're assuming that it's the rules driving the adoption rate. However, that mistakes the primary difference in the 'newer' generation of games - cost. It's far more accurate to say that games that are aggressively pursing lower costs for their entry-level offerings are doing significantly better than games that do not. The phenomena you are describing can very easily be ascribed as much to the lower cost of entry for both Warmachine and Malifaux as it can their rulesets.

It's the same reason that clicky games and 'boxed' wargames like X-Wing do so well on the open market. Very low barriers to entry; simple rules, cheap to pickup; all very easily adopted. Contrast with a traditional wargame where you have significantly higher startup costs coupled with the time factor, making for a less favorable product for the younger generation.

People used to play 40k in their teens because it was cheap and there weren't many other competitors. Most game stores today have plenty of offerings designed to catch the 'marginal' input customers, and you're seeing fewer people willing to put in the (rather significant) cost for the larger games.

IMO, at least.

Yeah I think you're right on point there.

I think its a balance between cost, product value and model count, huge model count does not only increase cost, but drives off potential players.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I think its a balance between cost, product value and model count, huge model count does not only increase cost, but drives off potential players.

It can put off a good number of players but it can also draw in a players who want to play big games. I've played skirmish games and now I want bigger games, hence I enjoy 40K. I'm now looking at starting Hail Caesar and Bolt Action too, yes both, both have input from Rick Priestly. and both generally require high figure count. They're what I want and like 40K cheaper than the CMG games I've played in the past.

I generally like Rick Priestly's take on Wargaming.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


Going more on topic, I am surprised to read what ExNoctemNacimur wrote, people preferring to play an obviously faulted game system over a better written and balanced system because it forces them to be... competitive?

I'm not sure, but I think it's more of the idea that they know the game is imbalanced and so don't take it so seriously. With Warmachine, we know that it's a lot more balanced, and so it's played a lot more competitively. It's sort of like playing football with your mates or playing football against other schools - you take things a lot less seriously when you're playing in a casual setting rather than a more competitive setting.

 Nucflash wrote:
The problem is that there are to few of you in the general population.. or we would see alot more kidds around.. Now for me personaly I dont want to play with little kidds.. But they are important for the growth and health of the hobby... Now as I said before there are a few that pick up these games... But if you compare with other recreational hobbys in the same general genre, more are playing other things like computer games and card games... This will become a problem sooner or later... And instead of sticking with my guns, saying that cinematic gamplay and bear and pretzels games is the only way forward and digging my head in the sand. I do understand that the Table-top industry needs to change to bring back the masses..

Yeah, I don't think so.

Warmachine appears to be widely sold in the States. If it's what the kids want, why does 40k continue to outsell it?

The reason why I was initially wary of starting miniature wargaming was that I had to assemble all my models and then paint them.

Kids not starting up the hobby probably aren't driven by the balance of the rules. They don't start because of the price (because whichever way you play it, GW or PP, 35 bucks for a single miniature is a lot of money) and that they have to assemble, paint and learn huge rulebooks (the 40k book is what, 130 pages for the rules? The quickstart guide to Warmachine/Hordes still is quite lengthy. Compare that to an interactive tutorial on a video game). The reasons for some of my friends leaving the hobby stated that it was cost and time that affected their decision. The reason they start the hobby up is probably due to model choice and the idea of playing a game with these cool models. Some may go for the Warmachine aesthetic, but it appears more like the idea of Space Marines or Elves in space or whatever. They also want to play the game their friends play. The reason I started LOTR is because my friends played it. I didn't give two hoots about whether my Easterling warrior would perform just as well as 2 goblins on the tabletop. Neither did my friend. To us, that's a secondary consideration. I'm never going to play a game in which the models I collect are something I loathe. I'm never going to collect an army with models that I dislike, and while you may disagree, I'm going to assume and say that most other people will not collect an army or play a game with models that they dislike. It's the reason why I was in conflict about starting up a Fantasy army or a WM/H army. I'd heard a lot about how awesome the game was, but at the end of the day, I preferred the idea of lords fighting on Stags and unleashing hails of arrows onto goblin hordes (though eventually, I gave in and started WM/H - I now have two armies for the game, one 35 pt Circle army and one 15 pt Menoth army, but I have like six Lord of the Rings armies, two large 40k armies and a fairly large fantasy army because I have too much time).

TL;DR - kids won't start because one game is more balanced, they'd start because they like the models, the models are widely available and they want to play what their friends play, whether that's 40k, LOTR, Warmachine, Infinity etc.

But that's waaay offtopic. Sorry OP.

 Easy E wrote:
I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

You have alot of false distinctions bewteen the two.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

Partially untrue. Rick's style still leads to being competitive. You still are fighting one another, and someone still wins and loses.

Conversely, while you are competiting against one anotehr in warmachine, you still are working together to have a fun game. Tight rules=/= no sportsmaneship and gentleman behavior and fun.

Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

False nartative. You've never been over our game group playing warmachine where the drinks flow and the games are played, but its more social then gaming. AGain, you're making distinctions where either could be one or the other.

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

Rick's HAS to rely on gentleman conduct, becuase frankly, he sucked at writing rules right the first time. There SHOULDNT be any disputes if the rules are right. Converesely, there isnt any reason not to have gentleman's conduct with warmachine if you two wish to alter or agree to something.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

Ultimately, I think this is most of the case. You see it in GW's business designs as well as game theory when Rick was with GW.

Historical vs whatever....never had any experience with historicals, cant say.

Niche vs niche is irrelevant. Both are wargames. They may or not appeal to you if you like sci-fi vs steam punk.

I do not agree with the classification of Priestly's style as social or narrative. In my opinion he sits on the fence. If he really wanted a social or narrative game he would do away with points values and win conditions. If these things remain, some waac player will game the system. Sadly this is what happens to GW games. I enjoy both narrative games as well as competitive games. However, I want one or the other. The on the fence stuff sucks.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

Going more on topic, I am surprised to read what ExNoctemNacimur wrote, people preferring to play an obviously faulted game system over a better written and balanced system because it forces them to be... competitive?

In my opinion a tight balanced rule system does not forces you to be competitive or deprives you from the "beer and pretzels" enjoyment of a game, yes it does deprive you from the excuse that if you loose its the systems fault and its inherit imbalance, but if this is a reason to go hardcore competitive and not enjoy the game, its not a fault of the system.

Again in my opinion the Industry needs not abandon any of the two design philosophies nor one is es valid from the other, but the industry must significantly up its product value and quality, the "Priestly" approach is not an excuse for a bad game system, nor is for imbalanced forces.

You know its Hurting others take makes EvE fun... Scaming and fooling people... I know some of you find this horrible but I must confess I also like to play Boardgames to dominate and crush people... I dont care if you are a 10 years old or 50 years old. My only mission from a start of a game (computer/boardgame/Tabletop game of poker for money) is to win win win.. and as an added plus if I can make you angry and upset while doing it, will give me added kicks... Sorry it is nothing personal and people that know me accept it or they avoid playing me and I ridicule them for it. I think that is the reason I prefer will writen to the point rules.. Because the fluff do not interest me, and skills are the only thing that mathers.. And Rick Prieslty play for fun Bear and pretzel you can win with dumb luck... I HATE THAT... I win most of my games.. not because of Luck, or rules Laywering (because I dont use those kind of tactics and I dont have to in Warmachine). I just move better and I trade miniatures better on the game board then most people... I'm good at strategic games... But the less LUCK there is the better the game is.. That is why Chess will always be the KING OF GAMEs for me....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spaceelf wrote:
I do not agree with the classification of Priestly's style as social or narrative. In my opinion he sits on the fence. If he really wanted a social or narrative game he would do away with points values and win conditions. If these things remain, some waac player will game the system. Sadly this is what happens to GW games. I enjoy both narrative games as well as competitive games. However, I want one or the other. The on the fence stuff sucks.

The problem is that I am a Waac player And the reason I hate Rick Priestly games is because they allow you to "bend the rules" because they are so poorly written. There is no skills in playing the rules, that is what weak people who cant play do. For example the Orc player in our local gaming group, always bend the rules and found loop holes to take advantage off... After we swtiched over to Warmachine, he gets beaten 9 times out of 10... And he hates the game... And you know why?? because he sucks at playing Strategic table top games.. If he cant play the rules and bend them he will lose.... The mayor reason for playing well made balanced rules is so you can see who really is good at playing a game.. and not who can cheese the rules best...

You know there is a misconception that playing to win (or WAAC) is a free pass to be a horrible person, no that's a character flaw in my books, you can play to win and still be a decent person.

And hurting others in EVE is not what makes it fun, its what keeps it at the niche market it is and why I said it is held hostage at that point, in my opinion EVE had it because from the start dealing with such things is a difficult challenge fr the game designer and CCP decided to simply not bother, that's poor unclear undefined rules right there a fact that scammers took to maximum advantage there is no disadvantage being one, horrible game design.

I have to agree with spaceelf.
There is nothing wrong with writing a co-operative narrative driven rule set.Where the aim of the game is to work WITH you opponent to tell a great story and play it out.
This is the sort of game that OLD historical rules sets used to do in re-fighting historical battles.The sort of game Rick started on at W.G.R.G.

And if these rules are promoted as narrative co-operative games that is perfectly fine.

However, GW plc has a studio writing rules in this way, but markets them to appeal to a wide demographic as possible.
DROPPING PV and just using senario driven games is where WHFB and 40k work best.

But GW plc want to sell toy soldiers to as many people as possible.
So use PV and special rules to drive sales of the short term sales of minatures at the detriment of the game and the player base stability.

Most people play 40k DESPITE its rules not because of it.

The rules written focusing on game play , irrespective of the level of competition or co-operation are the best sort of game.
As these let the intent of the developers be shown to the gamers.
So the gamers pick the game most suited to them and their play style.

When GW promoted a range of games , they were far more honest about the type of game play each game was best suited for.
Now they pretend WHFB and 40K are suitable for every age and play style, despite this being very far from the truth.

In short co-operative games AND competative games are ALL fine for their respective play style and respective game groups.
Its only when they are mis- marketed there are real problems....IMO.

The only big difference I see in both philosophies is the people playing them... Some people can play 40k competitively and others can play warmachine narratively... Yes some games are more targeted for certain types of styles but it boils down to the gamers themselves, and how far they want to take things.

I don't see any conflict between any style of game and being a gentleman while playing it... that association was poor IMO.

As always Nucflash tries to make some absolutist points about things but when someone is talking about his own view on how times changed, how things are now etc and then starts with things like "Childrean these days have alot less imagination. " I tend to move away. I mean how out of touch can you be with reality?

The only thing that changed in philosophy is that today you have more options in your tabletop and that ,contrary to all predictions, our hobby is actually growing... Much like " video did not kill the radio star" videogames did not kill tabletop gaming and neither one philosophy in gaming will kill the other.

Speaking of kids is a good example, today they have a palette of choices that any of us farts could only dream off and the results are amazing! for them lots of option is their philosophy and they always look for different things without being stuck into only one mode or game... That alone is very promising.

One thing that is being missed about WM/H is that while its competitive, its also balanced. The rules do tend to favor a somewhat aggressive style of play. However, even the rulebook says that this isnt permission to be an ass. It is possible to have a friendly and competitive game.

Lets also not forget that its possible to win with a huge variety of army combinations. Even "fluffy" lists have a fair chance of winning a game. The majority of winner/loser in WH/H is up to the player and how well they use what they have. While there are some tougher than average builds, there are no "automaitc win" builds like some other major games favor.

All that being said, I feel that the best rule sets out there are from the small guys. Look at things like Shockforce/Warengine and Song of Blades & Heroes.


As far as this "narrative" game style...it seems to me they are saying that certain armies can expect to always lose, but thats OK because you told a story. Am I missing something? WTF is that junk? To me that line of thinking stinks of someone making an excuse for an unbalanced rule set. I see no point in playing a game Im guaranteed to lose every time. I certainly dont have to win every time, but I like having a fighting chance.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I don't see any conflict between any style of game and being a gentleman while playing it... that association was poor IMO.

Not to pick on you Navarro, but I honestly don;t see where people got this from my original post. Neither style is forcing someone to play a certain way. Please point out where the original post said tight =/= fluffy or whatever direvative people usually like to argue about. Of course, they can play however they want. I also went to great pains to point out that neither way was better, but a lot of people bring their own baggage to a topic like this so it was bound to happen.

What I did say is that one philosophy seems to FAVOR a certain style of play based on the other core philosophies of the game design. For example, Rick clearly want's some type of balance or he wouldn't make Point Values, and Warmachine clearly wants some form of collaberation or it wouldn;t be a two player game.

Sorry, i just had to get that bit off my chest. Again, I'm not tryign to argue one philosophy is better than another. I'm trying to point out that such game design philosophies seem to exist, and think through why a designer would choose one ove rthe other, even if the choice is mostly unconscious habit.

 Mad4Minis wrote:

Lets also not forget that its possible to win with a huge variety of army combinations. Even "fluffy" lists have a fair chance of winning a game. The majority of winner/loser in WH/H is up to the player and how well they use what they have. While there are some tougher than average builds, there are no "automaitc win" builds like some other major games favor.

WM/H isn't any more or less balanced than most other games; people still talk about netlists in WM/H and there are most certainly suboptimal builds that make winning extremely difficult versus lists that have a well defined 'gimmick'. Anytime you break synergy in WH/H you're asking for trouble; that's the biggest problem most new players have, is learning what's synergistic and what isn't.

My viewpoint may be slanted because my Rhulics keep getting curb-stomped by pretty much everybody else, but I don't think it's fair to say that WM/H is 'balanced'. It's interactions are more strictly defined, sure. But it's plagued with bad lists like any game system will be. Local metas will always ensure that someone thinks their list is bad, because in context it is.

 Mad4Minis wrote:

All that being said, I feel that the best rule sets out there are from the small guys. Look at things like Shockforce/Warengine and Song of Blades & Heroes.

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll have to check those out!

@madforminis.
The thing is most of the narrative is from senarios.
Most historical games pre 1980s were mainly set up for re creating historical battles.(AFAIK.)
As most historical battles only really ocurred when one side had a substantial advantage.One side is usually very likely to loose, but the senario lets the players swap and see who does best in a bad situation.(This is how most historical games were player when I was a kid.)


Not to mention most other games have lots of tactical depth.(Unlike 40k where strategic focus is used to appeal to newbs and collectors.)
40k game play is so shallow most people either focus on the end result , (W/L/D).OR add a ton of narrative to make the game interesting.(Leading to the WAAC FAAC divide.)
(PV are really only needed for pick up and play games.And for this type of game they need to be more accurate than GW plc allows in 40k WHFB.)

 IceRaptor wrote:
WM/H isn't any more or less balanced than most other games; people still talk about netlists in WM/H and there are most certainly suboptimal builds that make winning extremely difficult versus lists that have a well defined 'gimmick'. Anytime you break synergy in WH/H you're asking for trouble; that's the biggest problem most new players have, is learning what's synergistic and what isn't.

My viewpoint may be slanted because my Rhulics keep getting curb-stomped by pretty much everybody else, but I don't think it's fair to say that WM/H is 'balanced'. It's interactions are more strictly defined, sure. But it's plagued with bad lists like any game system will be. Local metas will always ensure that someone thinks their list is bad, because in context it is.

I have to disagree pretty vehemently here. The factions themselves are quite balanced. Rhulics are not a full faction, they're just a small subset of the Mercs faction and not intended, yet, to be standalone (PP has basically stated this). If your perception of balance is skewed by the inability of Rhulics to be a competitive standalone faction, then that's essentially because you're trying to play a known and intentional underdog competitively.

On top of this, although many known gimmicks/modules do exist, the lists that people win with at a high level of play do not tend to incorporate them. I don't think there's been a major tournament series in the US that double Stormwall has taken, for example (supposed to be totally broken). The top Skorne players are rarely running Molik Karn bullet, as another example.

In fact, the people who go and win tend to generally be the same handful of players, regardless of what faction they play. Watt is an obvious example, having won events with Skorne year before last, and Menoth last year. If the same people are winning with a variety of stuff, and it's not the FOTM BEST! stuff, that's the best indicator there is that player ability trumps netlists, and therefore stuff is actually pretty balanced.

That is not to say that every model is equal. There are 'bad' models in every faction that rarely see play. Sometimes they're stuff people don't give a fig about, like Khadoran Kossites, and sometimes they're stuff that you want very badly to play but it's just not that good, like Mountain King.

But in terms of total game balance? Yes, WM/H is better balanced than the vast majority of the field, and that includes 40k.

 sourclams wrote:

I have to disagree pretty vehemently here. The factions themselves are quite balanced. Rhulics are not a full faction, they're just a small subset of the Mercs faction and not intended, yet, to be standalone (PP has basically stated this). If your perception of balance is skewed by the inability of Rhulics to be a competitive standalone faction, then that's essentially because you're trying to play a known and intentional underdog competitively.

Not being a highly competitive player, I'll defer to your assertions about the tournament scene. I tried to bracket my statements with my own biases to make it clear where I was coming from. My personal experience is that people claim WM/H is extremely balanced, but there appear to be strong and weak match ups that can occur. Disregarding my personal example, would you state that you can take any combination of models from faction A and have no easier to harder time against models from faction B?

In other words, if I take a suboptimal build of say Cryx against an optimized Cygnar list, am I going to get my butt handed to me, or can it compensate for the disparity with skill? If it's just that optimized Cryx is sufficient to win against optimized Cygnar then I would argue it's the game that's balanced per se, but rather the metas that are in play during the tournaments. If you know that 1/3 of Cryx is 'tournament ready' against 2/3 of Cygnar then that's fine, but that's not what I'd say indicates the 'game' is balanced as much as a particular meta is balanced.

I know the Rhulics are the underdog, that doesn't matter to me (because I picked them for aesthetics). And WM/H has been designed to be more competitive and thus more 'equivalent' in certain matchups. But asserting that it's more balanced overall - eh, that doesn't feel right to me. You can get really asymmetric matchups in play. It's not Infinity (oofph) but it's possible.

So in short, I agree and I disagree!

Warmacine/Hordes is highly based on skill, but it also depends on the factions. Not because one faction is vastly superior to another (they aren't), but because some armies are a lot more difficult to play, for example Circle. I'm going to give Menoth a go and see if I don't lose quite so many games!

 IceRaptor wrote:

In other words, if I take a suboptimal build of say Cryx against an optimized Cygnar list, am I going to get my butt handed to me, or can it compensate for the disparity with skill?

I think this is where the confusion lies. Most people say that WM/H is balanced at the faction level. No faction wil get roflstomped everytime nor will one faction win every time.

In terms of optimized lists, sure you can win with one lacks synergy or basic list building principles, but why try to win a drag race with a lawn mower running on laundry detergent?

IceRaptor wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

I have to disagree pretty vehemently here. The factions themselves are quite balanced. Rhulics are not a full faction, they're just a small subset of the Mercs faction and not intended, yet, to be standalone (PP has basically stated this). If your perception of balance is skewed by the inability of Rhulics to be a competitive standalone faction, then that's essentially because you're trying to play a known and intentional underdog competitively.

In other words, if I take a suboptimal build of say Cryx against an optimized Cygnar list, am I going to get my butt handed to me, or can it compensate for the disparity with skill?

I feel that a skilled player with an subpar list will beat an unskilled player with what could be considered a better list (Like eHaley + Stormwall x2).

PsychoticStorm wrote:And hurting others in EVE is not what makes it fun, its what keeps it at the niche market it is and why I said it is held hostage at that point, in my opinion EVE had it because from the start dealing with such things is a difficult challenge fr the game designer and CCP decided to simply not bother, that's poor unclear undefined rules right there a fact that scammers took to maximum advantage there is no disadvantage being one, horrible game design.

Or maybe CCP has a different vision from yours? There player count is increasing while MMO's like World of Warcraft and ToR are losing players. While you may not like the idea of someone being able to kill you at any time, that does not make EVE a bad game. If the freedom to do as you please is the cost for it not having 10+ million subscribers, I'm down with that.

its the freedom to do as you wish without any retaliation as long as you do not wish to do something meaningful like playing the game as advertised.

A person who blackmails, scums, cheats (other players not the game) double crosses, ectr ectr. has virtually nothing to be afraid of, on the other hand a miner, a hauler, anything non pirate has everything to loose and no protection or chance of retaliation.

ToR was a mesh and the falling numbers it has show it, WoW is loosing an insignificant amount of subscriptions (for it) after years and years of going strong, nobody should really be surprised, in my opinion EVE shows the steady growth of players opening more alt accounts, as it was in the past.

While all the above are of topic I will try to steer it halfway on topic, from a game designers perspective, allowing somebody to do something without true or proper risk/ challenge is a bad game design and has no balance.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its the freedom to do as you wish without any retaliation as long as you do not wish to do something meaningful like playing the game as advertised.

A person who blackmails, scums, cheats (other players not the game) double crosses, ectr ectr. has virtually nothing to be afraid of, on the other hand a miner, a hauler, anything non pirate has everything to loose and no protection or chance of retaliation.

ToR was a mesh and the falling numbers it has show it, WoW is loosing an insignificant amount of subscriptions (for it) after years and years of going strong, nobody should really be surprised, in my opinion EVE shows the steady growth of players opening more alt accounts, as it was in the past.

While all the above are of topic I will try to steer it halfway on topic, from a game designers perspective, allowing somebody to do something without true or proper risk/ challenge is a bad game design and has no balance.

I created a topic in the Video Game section about this (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/523407.page).

 IceRaptor wrote:
In other words, if I take a suboptimal build of say Cryx against an optimized Cygnar list, am I going to get my butt handed to me, or can it compensate for the disparity with skill?

Without knowing yours or your opponent's skill level and familliarity with the models, it's impossible to guess. If you used those Cryx models reasonably, and within the scope of the scenario, then I'd assume the Cryx player would trump a Cygnar eHaley double Stormwall gunmage list that just LOL-ed and pewpewd all da shotz.

T4 Rasheth and T4 Doomshaper have both won major tournament series, and both were considered terribad until they did so.

If it's just that optimized Cryx is sufficient to win against optimized Cygnar then I would argue it's the game that's balanced per se, but rather the metas that are in play during the tournaments. If you know that 1/3 of Cryx is 'tournament ready' against 2/3 of Cygnar then that's fine, but that's not what I'd say indicates the 'game' is balanced as much as a particular meta is balanced.

I don't honestly understand your fractional tournament-capable 'meta' breakdowns. Something that is bad in one context (Trenchers) could be good in another (Trenchers with Siege). To some degree matchups do matter, but given that almost every tournament allows multiple lists and the specialists/sideboard in the 2013 SR rules, having an 'optimized list' matters less than knowing your list and abilities, and your opponents' lists and abilities, and maximizing your effectiveness while making few mistakes or falling into their traps.

I know the Rhulics are the underdog, that doesn't matter to me (because I picked them for aesthetics). And WM/H has been designed to be more competitive and thus more 'equivalent' in certain matchups. But asserting that it's more balanced overall - eh, that doesn't feel right to me. You can get really asymmetric matchups in play. It's not Infinity (oofph) but it's possible.

Yes, this is quite true. Asymetric or 'skew' lists often run into semi-hard counters or are themselves semi-hard counters. If you're/they're building these sorts of lists, then that itself is part of your overall strategy. There is really no 'One List to Rule Them' in the game or even in the individual factions, though. And, even then, there's really no lack of bad/skew matchups in 40k or other game systems, and I'd have to say that a bad matchup in a Wm/H game still has a lot of potential to be overcome simply because removing a single model ends the game.

 Easy E wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I don't see any conflict between any style of game and being a gentleman while playing it... that association was poor IMO.

Not to pick on you Navarro, but I honestly don;t see where people got this from my original post. Neither style is forcing someone to play a certain way. Please point out where the original post said tight =/= fluffy or whatever direvative people usually like to argue about. Of course, they can play however they want. I also went to great pains to point out that neither way was better, but a lot of people bring their own baggage to a topic like this so it was bound to happen.

What I did say is that one philosophy seems to FAVOR a certain style of play based on the other core philosophies of the game design. For example, Rick clearly want's some type of balance or he wouldn't make Point Values, and Warmachine clearly wants some form of collaberation or it wouldn;t be a two player game.

Sorry, i just had to get that bit off my chest. Again, I'm not tryign to argue one philosophy is better than another. I'm trying to point out that such game design philosophies seem to exist, and think through why a designer would choose one ove rthe other, even if the choice is mostly unconscious habit.

Fair enough. I was referrint to:

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

I read here a loaded underline of Rick= gentleman and PP= gamers... and the VS means they are the opposite....while I was pointing out that this connection was poor... Maybe a better choice would be friends VS players or something along those lines, but then again I probably read this the wrong way.

Gamers vs Gamers seems like the most correct way to me.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Gamers vs Gamers seems like the most correct way to me.

Yeah, my phraseology is poor.

The versus refers to how the designer approaches the rules compared to the other designers. Both are gamers and designed for gamers, but they have a different tone.

I honestly don't know how to phrase it, Guidelines vs. Rules maybe?

Rick's style is to give you guidelines to play by, but he encourages you to modify them in the writing to fit your needs.

Warmachine is designed to be rules that are not to be broken. That way players will always have the same basis for understanding how a game will flow/work. Granted, the players can still do what ever they want, but the designers did not intend for you to modify the rules on your own, hence the references to optimization and wording in the foreward and such.

Does that catch the flavor better?

 sourclams wrote:

I don't honestly understand your fractional tournament-capable 'meta' breakdowns. Something that is bad in one context (Trenchers) could be good in another (Trenchers with Siege). To some degree matchups do matter, but given that almost every tournament allows multiple lists and the specialists/sideboard in the 2013 SR rules, having an 'optimized list' matters less than knowing your list and abilities, and your opponents' lists and abilities, and maximizing your effectiveness while making few mistakes or falling into their traps.

There's a point of distinction that I'm driving out though, which is what if permutation X of a set of models is 'tournament-capable' but permutation Y is not 'tournament-capable', then saying 'faction A is balanced against faction B' is perhaps more correctly characterized as 'faction A can be optimized to be effective against faction B'. Our dispute likely comes down to how strictly we're assigning value to 'balance' - if I can't pickup and play list 123 against list 987 that's not necessarily 'balanced' by my definition of the term. Which was what I was saying about WM/H and every other wargame - they all have issues being 'balanced' in the sense that you don't get a major advantage against another opponent by virtue of the list you bring. You pretty much have to be playing a symmetric matchup to completely eliminate list-building as a skill component to success.

It appears that you're saying that 'balance' comes at the more restricted end of the spectrum, in that my 'optimized' list of faction A has a reasonable chance of success against your 'optimized' list of faction B, and that there's as much room to optimize A as there is B. That's fine, and I even agree that Warmachine appears to be the leader of all the systems out there at this point. Whether or not that's due to their rules, or how their very well developed tournament structure, I don't know. But I'm willing to write it up to the rules and not necessarily the culture.

 sourclams wrote:

Yes, this is quite true. Asymetric or 'skew' lists often run into semi-hard counters or are themselves semi-hard counters. If you're/they're building these sorts of lists, then that itself is part of your overall strategy. There is really no 'One List to Rule Them' in the game or even in the individual factions, though. And, even then, there's really no lack of bad/skew matchups in 40k or other game systems

Sure, but as I reference above, this is an aspect of 'balance'. Perception of a game's balance will vary depending on how far apart on the spectrum of hard to soft counter any given matchup is. If you bring a list that has hard-counters against the units that I love, then basically I'm going to think the game is 'broken' because there's little I can do to counter it (such is the nature of hard counters, right)? Sure, you can tell a person 'well just play X instead of Y' - which removes the hard counter aspect - and is completely valid. But that doesn't negate that the original matchup was, by definition, asymmetric. Which is another way of saying unbalanced.

 sourclams wrote:
I'd have to say that a bad matchup in a Wm/H game still has a lot of potential to be overcome simply because removing a single model ends the game.

Like objectives, assassination can mask a multitude of sins. Sure, 40K doesn't have caster kill scenarios - but if they did, would that make the game more 'balanced', or would the caster kill be 'hiding' the balance 'issues'?

WM/H is a great game, don't get me wrong. I just find that it has plenty of asymmetric matchups, like most open-ended wargames. A good portion of learning the game is learning the meta and how to apply it to your gaming group.