What is wrong with Warmachine/Hordes? I come here and hardly see any new posts. If there are new posts there is 5 or less of them. I remember there use to be lots of discussion on Warmahordes. Has this game really tanked because of third edition or 3.0? If so, why? If not, what happened to all the discussions on Dakka here about Warmahordes?
hotsauceman1 wrote: 40k site first and foremost TBH. I post/mostly lurk on the PP forums.
That is what I thought at first but before 3.0, there was a lot of activity here. Now not so much. That is why I thought something changed after reading comments on other sites in the forum section people say Warmahordes is not so good now and then I find the traffic in Dakka not so much either. So I thought maybe there was a correlation that 3.0 is not a good edition after people bragging about "3 years of testing".
I am surprised 3.0 is not so well received and interest just seems not as it once use to be.
This forum was never that greatly trafficked-try PP forums for more traffic.
There's also less to say then 40K-there's no YMDC, no complaints over the poor state of balance, no talking about cheesy combos. There's also less painting/fluff discussion-that could stand to change, but small community.
That being said, most forums slow down over Christmas-that probably has an effect too.
Yeah, most PP discussion happens on the official forums so even a popular forum like this isn't going to get as much traffic.
Then there's stuff like facebook and reddit, which takes up a chunk of people interested online communications about a game.
There is actually a bunch wrong with WM right now that Mk3 missed the mark on, and you're seeing the fallout happen with stuff like PP's abandoning of the cards and open stats/rules for everyone.
Surprised to see that mk3 failed a margin.
My beloved Cryx lost an edge. By the errata, Gaspy2 has been reanimated with his signature spell no longer being UP but RND.
Another issue is that factions like Cygnar became too strong. Some casters/builds are over the top.
Also Wurmwood has been a bit too strong but now it got nerfed by the errata. Not a bad move.
People who traffic the non-official forums like this one are usually in transition from the games popular here (such as the GW brands) into something new.
Over the last several years (nothing to do with the edition change I don't think, which is more effecting their existing core of players) Warmachine has developed a reputation for being somewhat 'inaccessible' to new players and to not be a 'casual' game that can be learned in a night. The existing WM community prides itself on being a 'on the clock' Tournament community (by and large, there are of course outliers) and this narrows the amount of folks gaming in other genres that are attracted to it as a property with initial casual interest.
I've noticed even the PP forums seem to have slowed over the last few years, the majority of the activity being focused on the rules of the game, getting clarity and discussing what the best/most efficient list builds are by faction or against other power builds in the Meta.
Certainly a change from ten years ago when it was active hugely with painters, modelers, RPG fans and fan fiction writers.
Achilles is right. The game has become a bit inaccessible to those who want to get into it.
The boards are far from enthusiastic and when things stay the same players may fall asleep.
Circle has gained a fantastic new warlock called Una2. She works well with flying Griffons. Take lots of them and the enemy will be in trouble.
But why should I play such a list. It's predictable that PP will axe her in the near future. The same happened to Wurmeood. So I will stay with Kromak and whatnot.
I can see something in what Achilles says about some communities being a bit focused on being tournament communities, but I think a lot of that comes down to the individuals or teams that run local communities. WMH suffered a lot around here towards the end of Mk2 and the accompanying release of GB. A lot of people attributed it to the game getting stale and newer better games (GB at the time) coming along. But then one of the local crowd decided "stuff it, I like this game" and he has since got the local stores (from an hours drive North, South and West) to organise a timetable of events by showing up and talking to them, even though he's from a good way south of the city most of these stores are based in. He's fostered community FB pages and is very active on them either lining up games for new folk with himself or suggesting players he knows in the local meta can give them a good introduction, and just putting in a massive amount of work. And he's not even a Press Ganger yet (or he might have just got okayed, but he was doing this for months before it got sorted out by PP).
So while I agree that communities can be a bit insular/focused on things that aren't that welcoming, you can still be a tournament heavy community (which we are, over one a month) but if the people organising your community have a passion for the game then it'll draw in new blood/draw back old players who had moved on quite well.
Turned into a bit of a ramble, there's a point in there somewhere. Basically the game is alright, communities can be not great, but all it can take is one person to put the work in (and this guy has plenty of family + work commitments) and it'll turn around almost on the spot and start to thrive again. It doesn't help the online discussion of the game much (although those community fb pages are quite active), but if you're getting plenty of games at the store you don't need the online component quite so much
motyak wrote: I can see something in what Achilles says about some communities being a bit focused on being tournament communities, but I think a lot of that comes down to the individuals or teams that run local communities. WMH suffered a lot around here towards the end of Mk2 and the accompanying release of GB. A lot of people attributed it to the game getting stale and newer better games (GB at the time) coming along. But then one of the local crowd decided "stuff it, I like this game" and he has since got the local stores (from an hours drive North, South and West) to organise a timetable of events by showing up and talking to them, even though he's from a good way south of the city most of these stores are based in. He's fostered community FB pages and is very active on them either lining up games for new folk with himself or suggesting players he knows in the local meta can give them a good introduction, and just putting in a massive amount of work. And he's not even a Press Ganger yet (or he might have just got okayed, but he was doing this for months before it got sorted out by PP).
So while I agree that communities can be a bit insular/focused on things that aren't that welcoming, you can still be a tournament heavy community (which we are, over one a month) but if the people organising your community have a passion for the game then it'll draw in new blood/draw back old players who had moved on quite well.
Turned into a bit of a ramble, there's a point in there somewhere. Basically the game is alright, communities can be not great, but all it can take is one person to put the work in (and this guy has plenty of family + work commitments) and it'll turn around almost on the spot and start to thrive again. It doesn't help the online discussion of the game much (although those community fb pages are quite active), but if you're getting plenty of games at the store you don't need the online component quite so much
Totally agree with you. Local and Web presences are disconnected though; and I was primarily focused on trying convey why I think this forum in particular isn't that active.
Would you say the renewed focus of your local players has grown the player base though? Or has it mobilized existing players that already own WM armies. I'm genuinely curious as unless we're talking exponential growth (like 25% or more of players now active having never played WM before your interest 'surge') that would still portray a somewhat insular community state.
Activity can draw new people though, so I'm genuinely curious what your experience has been. Anecdotes are anecdotes however.. so of course neither of us can really give more than just our observations from where we sit.
People who traffic the non-official forums like this one are usually in transition from the games popular here (such as the GW brands) into something new.
Over the last several years (nothing to do with the edition change I don't think, which is more effecting their existing core of players) Warmachine has developed a reputation for being somewhat 'inaccessible' to new players and to not be a 'casual' game that can be learned in a night. The existing WM community prides itself on being a 'on the clock' Tournament community (by and large, there are of course outliers) and this narrows the amount of folks gaming in other genres that are attracted to it as a property with initial casual interest.
I've noticed even the PP forums seem to have slowed over the last few years, the majority of the activity being focused on the rules of the game, getting clarity and discussing what the best/most efficient list builds are by faction or against other power builds in the Meta.
Certainly a change from ten years ago when it was active hugely with painters, modelers, RPG fans and fan fiction writers.
It's one of the reasons why I never got into Warmahordes. After trying to put some minis together and failed, hate metal, then went onto a plastic mini with mold lines running down the center of the face, and then I needed to play like I got a pair, and wanted to play for fun, I gave up.
I thought I read somewhere that 3.0 took away the "play like you got a pair" and was more like GW with stories game play instead of just tournement game play. I wonder if that has anything to do with it, or is it mostly the imbalance of some rules that did it.
I tried to start playing when this new edition came out (I never played old editions so i cant comment on that specifically). I even entered an escalation league at my local store, but in my first league game, which was supposed to be a learning league, i go one shot by a jack that used some crazy combo to do flips around my jack and one shot my caster on turn two. So i go to deploy and move once then i had already lost. I dont want to play a game where it is possible to lose before any interaction has actually taken place.
I'm not new to wargaming by any means, but i don't know another system where that kind of thing can happen. sure 40k is unbalanced, but at least it takes more than one turn for some armies to table you (sure there are exceptions).
i think that is an example of what "inaccessible" means for WMH. not bashing the game itself, if that is the level of competition you want its a great system, but i think that type of thing is where the reputation for inaccessibility is coming from.
Yeah that is "playing like you got a pair" sadly Forcast. For some people that is fun. For me and it seems like you, it's not. Damn, I hate to say it, maybe GW is correct after all.
Davor wrote: Yeah that is "playing like you got a pair" sadly Forcast. For some people that is fun. For me and it seems like you, it's not. Damn, I hate to say it, maybe GW is correct after all.
Thankfully there's games out there made by other companies.
The two I currently play manage to have creative and interesting randomised objectives that create a little narrative for the game while managing to be really well balanced.
Totally agree with you. Local and Web presences are disconnected though; and I was primarily focused on trying convey why I think this forum in particular isn't that active.
Haha yeah, I realised that part way through when I had gone completely off on my tangent, but find myself getting to make so few actual posts (beyond "get back on topic you!") at the moment that I just felt like pushing through and putting my disclaimer at the end Sorry mate.
Would you say the renewed focus of your local players has grown the player base though? Or has it mobilized existing players that already own WM armies. I'm genuinely curious as unless we're talking exponential growth (like 25% or more of players now active having never played WM before your interest 'surge') that would still portray a somewhat insular community state.
It has had several successes. One is it has mobilised players from what was a very fractured meta. People from an hour and a half away are now regularly travelling to events around the area, whereas you used to struggle to get more than 10 because the folk from the store 45 minutes away wouldn't travel. Another is that old players (and I mean quit the game, sold their armies, etc) have come back to the table and started enjoying it again. And finally we have had new players, it hasn't been 25% of the field but of our most recent 30 player tournie I think we had 3-4 new folk, with some more of the "I'll never be able to play on clock/never enjoy doing it, I'll never attend a tournie" people deciding that the community isn't actually going to just repeatedly stomp on their crotch, and that they're welcome to attend these things and having a great time doing so ha. So the uptick in interest has several factors, just got to wait and see if there is enough from each of those things to keep it going I guess
Activity can draw new people though, so I'm genuinely curious what your experience has been. Anecdotes are anecdotes however.. so of course neither of us can really give more than just our observations from where we sit.
Oh for sure man, I've heard stories from other metas about it dying out completely, being held onto by 8-10 hardcore players and never any new blood, or it growing beyond what I'm seeing. You're totally right that anecdotes aren't the best way to view it, I guess I'm just super happy I'm in one of the lucky metas haha No cool youtube channels near me though sadly
-Loki- wrote: Anecdotally, a lot of local Warmachine players seem not too happy with the state of the game at the moment. Seems 3.0 wasn't well received.
Didn't exactly help that we've found Batman, Infinity and Malifaux in the time since though
I'll put in my 2 cents, the change into Mk3 has been horribly received, and this isn't just a local belief, as I've seen a hell of a lot of whining online about it, on 4chan, facebook and the official forums. The way they nerfed some factions (we all know who) some of which absolutely didn't need it, alongside the 'poster boy' factions not only staying relatively free of massive nerfs but getting better drove a lot of people away. There's also the errata to consider, which from a Cryx perspective fixed fairly little, and also generally that the 'fixes' did pretty much nothing.
From the perspective of coming into other games at the same time Mk3 was released, the mass imbalance issues that arose with the new edition became much larger when compared to things like Malifaux and Batman, where the "everything is usable if you know how to use it" is really clear
Without trying to get too ranty, I think that biggest problems with mk3 came from the playerbase.
Mk3 plays very similarly to mk2, and mechanics-wise, it's really just got some tweaks and streamlining. But since literally every card was rewritten, not everything plays like it did. And people seem to hate playing what feels like the old models, but not as good as it was. Things were nerfed for sure, but not as badly as people think they were. They're just stuck with mk2 glasses.
But things needed readjusting. And even if I don't like some of the changes, I applaud PP trying to balance the game without giving in to power creep, which would be the easier, safer way to change things.
There definitely still some rough spots though: there are still some over-strong models, and underpowered factions, but the community/feedback that they're implementing should help as they release new models. And they'll continue to make small changes through errata till things are more balanced.
@forcast- You are only playing with 3 or 4 pieces on a smaller than normal board the first game. Of course things can be over before engagement begins. If you play 40K with only 5 pieces I bet that you'll end up with games where both sides deploy and then the first player tables the other.
i suggest that you try a game with a small number of points (maybe 25) and a full size board. You may still be assassinated on turn 2 but it's less likely.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: @forcast- You are only playing with 3 or 4 pieces on a smaller than normal board the first game. Of course things can be over before engagement begins. If you play 40K with only 5 pieces I bet that you'll end up with games where both sides deploy and then the first player tables the other.
i suggest that you try a game with a small number of points (maybe 25) and a full size board. You may still be assassinated on turn 2 but it's less likely.
I 100% believe you, but all that does is reinforce the point I was trying to make. That unfortunately the game is hard to break into without intimate knowledge of what makes a good list and buying a lot of models.
I also will acknowledge that 40k has a similar problem, but 40k also has kill teams for playing with 5 models.
I don't want to start a my favorite game is better than your game argument so please don't take it that way, its just 40k is the main thing I have to compare to.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: @forcast- You are only playing with 3 or 4 pieces on a smaller than normal board the first game. Of course things can be over before engagement begins. If you play 40K with only 5 pieces I bet that you'll end up with games where both sides deploy and then the first player tables the other.
i suggest that you try a game with a small number of points (maybe 25) and a full size board. You may still be assassinated on turn 2 but it's less likely.
I 100% believe you, but all that does is reinforce the point I was trying to make. That unfortunately the game is hard to break into without intimate knowledge of what makes a good list and buying a lot of models.
I also will acknowledge that 40k has a similar problem, but 40k also has kill teams for playing with 5 models.
I don't want to start a my favorite game is better than your game argument so please don't take it that way, its just 40k is the main thing I have to compare to.
In literally your first game, it's about learning how to use focus/fury how to charge, model activtation, etc. It's not about learning combos and synergy, and certainly not about learning power attacks.
By games three or four, a good teacher will start to point out angles that they could use to make assassination runs.
There's no value in trying to learn a game and get one turn. That's just a waste.
There does seem to be decline in people playing Warmahordes since MK3 dropped. There are local gaming groups around where I live, but not the one I play with, that quit the game entirely when MK3 hit because they didn't like the changes. There also seems to fewer events going on. Personally I have mixed feelings on MK3 myself. The faction that I want to play is Skorne which is bad shape right now. PP has at least acknowledged this however and has a big errata planed for skorne sometime this month. So right now I am in wait and see mode.
In the meantime I have picked up infinity and AOS. Infinity is everything I wanted 40k kill team to be and some.
Forcast wrote: I 100% believe you, but all that does is reinforce the point I was trying to make. That unfortunately the game is hard to break into without intimate knowledge of what makes a good list and buying a lot of models.
I also will acknowledge that 40k has a similar problem, but 40k also has kill teams for playing with 5 models.
I don't want to start a my favorite game is better than your game argument so please don't take it that way, its just 40k is the main thing I have to compare to.
I'm not taking it as anything other than a comparison. There is a version of WM/H that just uses the battlegroup (the caster and his jacks/beasts) but just like kill team you still have to know the rules and what to take.
The point I'm trying to make is that WM/H is very much like 40K for the purpose of gaming. You need to become familiar with the rules for both the models and the game before you can become proficient. You can't play 40K without knowing the rules and you won't have a lot of fun if you just randomly pick models to play. You have to know what you are doing or at least be shown how and what to play before you can really enjoy either game. Do you have to know all the synergies/tactics of all the models? No, but you will as you gain experience.
Try the game again with the outlook of just learning the rules at first and then you can have an idea of what models suit your playstyle best. But remember you're probably going to have you behind handed to you in your infant learning stage.
Davor wrote:What is wrong with Warmachine/Hordes? I come here and hardly see any new posts. If there are new posts there is 5 or less of them. I remember there use to be lots of discussion on Warmahordes. Has this game really tanked because of third edition or 3.0? If so, why? If not, what happened to all the discussions on Dakka here about Warmahordes?
The WMH side of this forum was dead for a long while prior to mk3 hitting. A lot of the discussion here was along the lines of 'getting started, need halp', rather than detailed tacticas and whatnot - the pp boards tended to soak up a lot of that.
To be honest, mk3 from my experience has divided the playerbase in a lot of ways. I think overall that mk3 is a big leap forward, and while there were errors and oversighted in the transition (gang not working not knocked down models etc), pp have done a lot to try and rectify things and I think the switch to a living rulebook and community based playtrsting and feedback, in the long run is a really good idea. I think while a lot of groups have dropped WMH, others have embraced it and grown - here, the active player pool has grown dramatically with the change over, especially compared with the last couple of years of mk2.
I will however say that what has disappointed me about mk3 most of all has been the playerbase. I expected more from us, to be honest. A lot more. Online especially. In the flesh, it's all excitement and everyone here has been enjoying the gsme, but when I look online, kind of nerdraging and whining that I see every day (and what has essentially driven me from the pp forums almost entirely) was the kind of stuff that infested other gsmes that we joined WMH to get away from in the first place. Some of it is warranted - pp missed the boat a bit with skorne, but for the most part it's gamers being whiners and being afraid of change, and gsmers refusing to be creative and get on board with exploring the game, and just wanting to stick to their same oldcrutches that will hold theirs hands and play their games for them. I feel like slapping a lot of people with mk2s page 5.
Forcast wrote:I tried to start playing when this new edition came out (I never played old editions so i cant comment on that specifically). I even entered an escalation league at my local store, but in my first league game, which was supposed to be a learning league, i go one shot by a jack that used some crazy combo to do flips around my jack and one shot my caster on turn two. So i go to deploy and move once then i had already lost. I dont want to play a game where it is possible to lose before any interaction has actually taken place.
I'm not new to wargaming by any means, but i don't know another system where that kind of thing can happen. sure 40k is unbalanced, but at least it takes more than one turn for some armies to table you (sure there are exceptions).
So the take home message from this should be that you learned the first golden rule of 'keep your caster safe'. You lost, essentially because you played badly. It happens. You'll know for next time, and you won't ever let anyone get you with a cheeky move like thst again.You can read your cards, and you can read the other persons cards. It's an open information game. Everything is available to you. Here's the thing. WMH is a game where you learn by being beaten over the head with things. Especially when you start. It's the ultimate school of hard knocks. That's how you earn your wings. WMH is a game with a very high learning curve, and that is one of the best features of it, if you ask me. It means when you are new, and when there are a lot of things to learn, and lots of moving parts, you will lose to more experienced players. Often, you will never see it coming. But as you play, and as you get used to it, and gain experience yourself, things will start to click, and you will see the angles and vectors and combos and plays almost by instinct, and not just yours, but of your opponents. Your knowledge of the game, and your ability to apply it and put knowledge into practice are crucial. Know yourself well and know your enemy better. when you win at WMH, you will have earned it. And trust me, those first wins are hugely rewarding. .
In my opinion WMH is a great game. I get it though it's not for everyone. That's ok too. For what it's worth, it's the game that made me fall in love with wargaming again. I genuinely would hope you stick with it and would give you every encouragement I can to do so. If you're having problems, feel free to pm or to ask here and I'll do my best to help.
Deadnight wrote: So the take home message from this should be that you learned the first golden rule of 'keep your caster safe'. You lost, essentially because you played badly. It happens. You'll know for next time, and you won't ever let anyone get you with a cheeky move like thst again.You can read your cards, and you can read the other persons cards. It's an open information game. Everything is available to you. Here's the thing. WMH is a game where you learn by being beaten over the head with things. Especially when you start. It's the ultimate school of hard knocks. That's how you earn your wings. WMH is a game with a very high learning curve, and that is one of the best features of it, if you ask me. It means when you are new, and when there are a lot of things to learn, and lots of moving parts, you will lose to more experienced players. Often, you will never see it coming. But as you play, and as you get used to it, and gain experience yourself, things will start to click, and you will see the angles and vectors and combos and plays almost by instinct, and not just yours, but of your opponents. Your knowledge of the game, and your ability to apply it and put knowledge into practice are crucial. Know yourself well and know your enemy better. when you win at WMH, you will have earned it. And trust me, those first wins are hugely rewarding. .
I think this post sums up what "turns people off" of WMH fairly nicely.
"You lost, essentially because you played badly" is a no gak, Sherlock statement to make to a guy who got curb stomped on his first game. Of course he played "badly" because he had never played before. The fact that this was a learning league intended to draw in new players makes the situation worse, because it had the opposite effect of what the organizer intended - it turned a player off from WMH.
"Know yourself well and know your enemy better" is a great slogan but becomes a bitch when you are living it as your hobby. I dropped out of WMH for various reasons, but one of them was the exhaustion I experienced keeping up with the game. After a while I didn't want to have to bring my A-game every single time I played. Blame it on a particular meta, sure, but I've played with various groups at various stores (all different metas) and the experience was roughly the same among all of them: people played for blood and the game stopped being fun.
Everything that you are citing in your post is true, the more you play the more the game opens up and begins to make sense. But why would someone invest that energy into the game in the first place? What incentive is there, especially when the first impression is a negative one? Not everyone wants an uphill climb, with lumps taken, in order to have fun. WMH is supposed to be a game, but it is often treated like enrollment into a boot camp with dice.
"It's the ultimate school of hard knocks." Woo! Sign me up! That sounds like a great way to kill a few hours a week when I am trying to relax and not think about the real-world issues plaguing my life. Nope, that isn't exactly a great selling point for a newbie.
There are a ton of moving parts, even in a battlebox game. On your own, the best thing you can do is read your cards in depth, and see how your caster can protect, deliver, or enhance what you've got. And read the rules and special rules you've got.
When you play someone else, pay close attention to their caster: you want to see what spells they have, and what their feat is. Same as noting what your caster can do for your guys, you can at least get a rough idea of what your opponent wants to do.
From there (in battlebox specifically), your goals are 1) attrition (can I kill my opponents heavy hitters) and 2) assassination (are they open, can I get something there, what are the chances). Those two things scale up to full games, while adding in scenario before assassination.
I think this post sums up what "turns people off" of WMH fairly nicely.
First up, let me apologise if my original reply came off as terse – I had a hell of a lot of stuff going on last night and that certainly was not the intention.
Secondly, for what its worth,I do get it. I can see why people get turned off by some games and not by others. I get it that some people don’t like Warmachine (or any other game, for that matter). Amongst my close friends, I’m the only WMH player (they generally play historicals and flames of war). This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I also believe that ‘the nature of the game’ turning someone off can be resolved as much by that person bringing a change of perception to the table top too. And I regard doing this as a good thing in general. I also think it’s important to bring the right attitude to a game. I play multiple systems, but crucially, I play with some very different groups and more than playing multiple systems, I am happy to come to games with multiple approaches. 2 of my favourite 3 games are Infinity and Warmachine. I like them for the exact reasons that you seemingly don’t. Neither of us is wrong here. My other favourite game is GW’s Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game and I like it for all the opposite reasons to why I like Infinity and Warmachine – it’s a simple, straight forward, immediately intuitive and elegant system that is severely underappreciated and under rated in my view.
"You lost, essentially because you played badly" is a no gak, Sherlock statement to make to a guy who got curb stomped on his first game. Of course he played "badly" because he had never played before. The fact that this was a learning league intended to draw in new players makes the situation worse, because it had the opposite effect of what the organizer intended - it turned a player off from WMH.
It was meant as a simple point of reference – ‘you lost. So what? Its no big deal’. I’m guessing that the internet and tone did its thing again here as pure text is a tough medium to convey nuance. Ultimately though, I look to Page 5. Be magnanimous in victory. Be valiant in defeat, and come back stronger. It turned a player off, as you say, and that’s a shame, but I personally don’t see a loss here as a reason to leave a game overall. Bring a different perception here, as I mentioned previously and it’s no longer something to turn you off of a game.
"Know yourself well and know your enemy better" is a great slogan but becomes a bitch when you are living it as your hobby. I dropped out of WMH for various reasons, but one of them was the exhaustion I experienced keeping up with the game. After a while I didn't want to have to bring my A-game every single time I played. Blame it on a particular meta, sure, but I've played with various groups at various stores (all different metas) and the experience was roughly the same among all of them: people played for blood and the game stopped being fun.
*Nods head*. I feel the pain man! I empathise, and understand exactly where you are coming from here. I burned out of WMH mk2 a few years back for the same reasons as you. Bringing your A-game to the table constantly, as you say, and chasing those top tables is exhausting, time consuming and it ultimately can lead to burn-out. I had to walk away from WMH for about a year when it hit me. For what its worth, though, life intervened and thankfully this doesn’t need to really apply any more - at a masters tournament a few years ago I got talking with a few guys who were, like me, a bit older, and like me, had lots of ‘life stuff’ happening and they couldn’t warmachine-fu 24/7 any more. And looking at the sharks in the room at the top tables who could warmachine all day every day, to be honest, none of us really wanted to play at that level and intensity any more. So we traded numbers, got together and rebuilt a community that had been a bit dead at the time. General attitude was ‘good clean, tight games in terms of ‘accuracy’. But Leave the power builds, the A-game and ‘playing for blood’ at home, we’re here to relax, catch up with mates and roll some dice’. Its ‘all day gaming’ instead of tournaments. And its done no end of wonders for making the game (and us!) feel energised and refreshed and enthusiastic about the game. Even if we get assassinated on the top of turn 2 (happened to me on the bottom of turn 1! Note: don’t run Vlad3 forward into Madrak2 and Northkin fire eaters!) we just re-set and play again. Take home message: not all groups are out for blood. I appreciate and respect your point of view but personally feel that knowing your game (ie knowing your army’s abilities and also knowing your opponents) and knowing what the game is capable of is not necessarily synonymous with being out for blood, ‘living it as your hobby’ or the game not being fun. Maybe it’s worth putting up a flag and looking for like minded people to get involved with? In my experience, the right people with the right attitude make all the difference.
Everything that you are citing in your post is true, the more you play the more the game opens up and begins to make sense. But why would someone invest that energy into the game in the first place? What incentive is there, especially when the first impression is a negative one? Not everyone wants an uphill climb, with lumps taken, in order to have fun. WMH is supposed to be a game, but it is often treated like enrollment into a boot camp with dice.
Why would someone invest that energy in a game? As you say, not everyone wants an uphill climb, but here is where a change of perception comes into play. Climbing mountains is immensely enjoyable – in real life and figuratively speaking. Journey. Reward. Until I played warmachine, I personally didn’t realise how much fun ‘gitting good’ and the ‘competitive scene’ could be, and how much I enjoyed that uphill climb. I wanted to master it, not just ‘play a game’. It’s for the same reason I run marathons. The more effort you put in, the more reward you get out. I generally find more ‘reward’ and ‘meaning’ from a game I have invested that time and effort into ‘pushing myself’ and improving my own abilities. I find it empowering to have gone through those knocks and come out the other side, better and stronger. And this isn’t just a game thing – it’s something I’ve learned to appreciate in all aspects of my life.
"It's the ultimate school of hard knocks." Woo! Sign me up! That sounds like a great way to kill a few hours a week when I am trying to relax and not think about the real-world issues plaguing my life. http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/baf5f2e54c6b17d5c5d39aecadfa1272.gifNope, that isn't exactly a great selling point for a newbie.
Oh, and you speak for all newbies then, do you? With the greatest of respect, since I know you don’t mean it like that (internet and tone is my guess), but please don’t think you speak on behalf of ‘newbies’ or that you can claim to know what a great selling point is for them. What you see as a great selling point (and yes, likewise what I see as a great selling point) are hugely coloured by our own biases and points of view, and neither is an ‘objective metric’. Surely, it ultimately depends on the person though? For example, it sure sounds like a great way to kill a few hours a week when I am trying to relax and not think about real-world issues! And I know a lot of folks drawn to WMH for the exact same reason. Heck, once upon a time, everybody who plays WMH was a ‘newbie’ to WMH and we were all drawn there. Plenty stayed, which does imply that yes, it is a great selling point and enough to draw in a community.
Again, overall, it all depends on what you like! I used to do a bit of boxing. Hard knocks was literally what I did to relax! Same with those 10 or 20 mile cross country obstacle races. (Some at night and over bloody mountains. And it was probably my blood too! Note: check your head torch that its batteries work before setting off!). it’s a rush. Same thing in WMH. The fast paced, high-octane ‘one mistake and you’re done’ knife edge level of ‘intensity’ of the was one of the things that drew me to WMH. And it was something I very much didn’t appreciate before, but learned to appreciate the more I played the game, and it is something I am quite thankful for experiencing as it bled over into allowing me to learn to appreciate a lot of the finer points of sport and the joys of pushing my own limits. WMH is the table top version of a ‘white knuckle ride’. And that ‘white knuckle ride’ can be quite a thrill. (and also, turn 2 assassinations hurt a lot less than being punched in the face and getting chipped teeth! Note: learn to duck!)
Don’t get me wrong – I fully appreciate the value of killing a few hours relaxing at a nice sedate pace – its what I do with my mates every Friday when we do home brewed historicals and flames of war. Just easy going, lots of chat, relaxing after a week of work and no intension whatsoever of ‘pushing’ the games. Then again, as enjoyable as a nice sedate, easy going night of wargames can be (and the older I get, the more I seem to appreciate this approach), there is also a place to have escapism and enjoyment from a tense, intense, knuckle-biting game of WMH. I’m not sure where you stand here but for what its worth, I appreciate both approaches greatly.
In my opinion WMH is a great game. I get it though it's not for everyone. That's ok too. For what it's worth, it's the game that made me fall in love with wargaming again. I genuinely would hope you stick with it and would give you every encouragement I can to do so. If you're having problems, feel free to pm or to ask here and I'll do my best to help.
I think perhaps the real question is;
If you're a business and you're trying to increase the amount of customers you have in the right demographic...
(Let's assume that in this case they're looking for folks with a gaming hobby interest that are employed with $100-500 monthly of disposable income that they can spend on leisure pursuits)
...how do you position your product from an accessibility point of view to attract the largest number of those people in order for your sales to grow?
So.. who are those people?
Are they employed in time intensive positions? How much free time/energy do the majority want to spend on their hobbies? How much actual free time do they have? What component of what you sell are they going to initially be attracted to (the physical properties or metaphysical properties)?
Probably not questions that can be answered in this thread through our anecdotes, but if by your own comments your personal opinion is 'it isn't for everyone'... could that be having an impact on its growth market potential?
Deadnight wrote: So the take home message from this should be that you learned the first golden rule of 'keep your caster safe'. You lost, essentially because you played badly. It happens. You'll know for next time, and you won't ever let anyone get you with a cheeky move like thst again.You can read your cards, and you can read the other persons cards. It's an open information game. Everything is available to you. Here's the thing. WMH is a game where you learn by being beaten over the head with things. Especially when you start. It's the ultimate school of hard knocks. That's how you earn your wings. WMH is a game with a very high learning curve, and that is one of the best features of it, if you ask me. It means when you are new, and when there are a lot of things to learn, and lots of moving parts, you will lose to more experienced players. Often, you will never see it coming. But as you play, and as you get used to it, and gain experience yourself, things will start to click, and you will see the angles and vectors and combos and plays almost by instinct, and not just yours, but of your opponents. Your knowledge of the game, and your ability to apply it and put knowledge into practice are crucial. Know yourself well and know your enemy better. when you win at WMH, you will have earned it. And trust me, those first wins are hugely rewarding. .
I think this post sums up what "turns people off" of WMH fairly nicely.
"You lost, essentially because you played badly" is a no gak, Sherlock statement to make to a guy who got curb stomped on his first game. Of course he played "badly" because he had never played before. The fact that this was a learning league intended to draw in new players makes the situation worse, because it had the opposite effect of what the organizer intended - it turned a player off from WMH.
"Know yourself well and know your enemy better" is a great slogan but becomes a bitch when you are living it as your hobby. I dropped out of WMH for various reasons, but one of them was the exhaustion I experienced keeping up with the game. After a while I didn't want to have to bring my A-game every single time I played. Blame it on a particular meta, sure, but I've played with various groups at various stores (all different metas) and the experience was roughly the same among all of them: people played for blood and the game stopped being fun.
Everything that you are citing in your post is true, the more you play the more the game opens up and begins to make sense. But why would someone invest that energy into the game in the first place? What incentive is there, especially when the first impression is a negative one? Not everyone wants an uphill climb, with lumps taken, in order to have fun. WMH is supposed to be a game, but it is often treated like enrollment into a boot camp with dice.
"It's the ultimate school of hard knocks." Woo! Sign me up! That sounds like a great way to kill a few hours a week when I am trying to relax and not think about the real-world issues plaguing my life. Nope, that isn't exactly a great selling point for a newbie.
I just want to clarify that this wasn't my first game ever, it was my first competitive game and it wasn't my last. My last game ever was a the mission where you have two controls zones. I had controlled one for a turn or two and though I was about to win because i had just killed alot of my opponents army and gotten unit into the zone for denial. however, my opponent proceeds to push my jack back 4" and win the game all in one turn. To touch on what Deadknight said, i know that you lose alot when you try a new game, that is true of almost any new game you play even video games, but it is nice to have the feeling that you might have a chance someday. Also the point about "keep you caster safe", the game had killbox so i actually couldn't keep my caster at a safe distance. I talked the game over with alot of veterans in an effort to gain something of value from the experience and we did the math on charge ranges and things like that and determined that there was basically nothing i could do to avoid what happened aside from playing perfectly. i know its not impossible to play perfectly but that is kind of alot to ask of a new player. You can see why Dark says that it "turns people off".
I can't say a whole lot in terms of your last game since I don't know the details but it could be that you just had a bad match up and, in that case, anyone would have to play a perfect/near perfect game to win. That you came close to winning speaks a lot toward your learning the game.
I guess the more important question is-Did you enjoy the game even though you lost and did you enjoy playing with the people who were there?
If you did enjoy it then I say that you should go back and enjoy some more games. Sooner or later you will be on the giving end of a beating.
If you didn't enjoy the game then you're probably right in not continuing. Life is too short to waste time on things you don't like doing.
Well, WMH is sometimes a one-trick pony. If you can pull it off, your opponent either sees it coming or loses in a second. Not a good prospect for an entertaining game.
But PP is trying to learn from such situations. Not sure if this concerns Cygnar, their favorite faction. In Circle, they nerfed Wurmwood & Cassius in the errata. The feat works for the cmd area now (and no longer for the control area). But after two or three years of playtesting they should have been well aware of the feat. Strange.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, WMH is sometimes a one-trick pony. If you can pull it off, your opponent either sees it coming or loses in a second. Not a good prospect for an entertaining game.
I guess that explains why chess has failed to catch on after all these years.
I really liked the look of WM until I played it for a few months. I burned out on it fast. I know in the 40k section of these boards I'm against a certain level of casual play because I like to play for a win, whether there's a narrative or not, that's how I have fun. I lose as much as I win in my gaming group with that mentality, so I kind of assume I'm not WAAC because I'll take the same list time and time again and win some, lose some and be fine with it as long as I did my best and my friends and I had fun.
WM seems like a different beast altogether to me. I thought I'd like it because it's intentionally a super-competitive system. But then I realized that it's got a similar metagame mechanic to MtG - that if you want to win regularly, you're going to need to have specific models and lists. In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?) and find a way to win with them. If you bring subpar synergy, your army is doing subpar things and you're gonna have a bad time. Bad thing is I showed the models to my friends at one point and they've all decided we're going to play it, although if we as a group play it like we play 40k, it will be a lot better to me, I think.
I play Malifaux now, and that seems well balanced on top of being competitive, and while there are optimizations, there are so many different objectives you might be playing to achieve in a given game that if you just take the same power list every time, there's a good chance you won't always have the tools for the job at hand, and you really have to play to the objectives. I lose more than I win, but I like this system a lot.
Jacksmiles wrote: In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)
I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.
Jacksmiles wrote: In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)
I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.
Yeah, this is the case for me as well.
I don't like to sound too harsh, but I find it strange that at least one person is complaining they can 'lose' the game by Turn 2, but then act as if 40k isn't as bad for this anyway? Especially in the age of super heavies. Not to sound like a hardcore basher, but 40k's internal-army balance is pretty much non-existent. At least in WMH, you can generally bring along a few poorer units and whilst you might not succeed at the highest levels of tournament play with few (hello Skorne) exceptions that unit can still be very much viable, it just isn't at peak performance. In 40k on the other hand, we're in a meta where entire swathes of armies - Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, mostly - have most of their codex's downright unplayable even at a casual level. Good luck going against Eldar or Tau.
Jacksmiles wrote: In my area, the WM scene seems pretty competitive, which means I can't just bring the models that look cool to me like I can in 40k (well, most of the time amirite?)
I left 40k because that's, depending on the army (mine being Tyranids), simply not true.
Yeah, this is the case for me as well.
I don't like to sound too harsh, but I find it strange that at least one person is complaining they can 'lose' the game by Turn 2, but then act as if 40k isn't as bad for this anyway? Especially in the age of super heavies. Not to sound like a hardcore basher, but 40k's internal-army balance is pretty much non-existent. At least in WMH, you can generally bring along a few poorer units and whilst you might not succeed at the highest levels of tournament play with few (hello Skorne) exceptions that unit can still be very much viable, it just isn't at peak performance. In 40k on the other hand, we're in a meta where entire swathes of armies - Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, mostly - have most of their codex's downright unplayable even at a casual level. Good luck going against Eldar or Tau.
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.
I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).
It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.
But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.
I think keeping assassination as a game ending tool is good.
If you're down on scenario, or just lost too many key pieces, it gives you a shot at winning, and conversely, always something to look at for when you're ahead.
Removing it would also open up some casters to be really abusive: the Butcher3s and Kromac2s who want to mix it up and don't always want to support their army can just run in and cripple the enemy army and 'die' safely.
Forcast wrote:
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.
'Kill the king and win the game' works fine for chess though...
Forcast wrote:
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.
Personally I don't find playing out a foregone conclusion for a few turns to be anything resembling satisfying.
Forcast wrote:
I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.
Agreed - there is a place for both. More and more, I'm coming to realise 40k sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to WMH. Not necessarily 'casual', but maybe 'post-competitive'. At a certain point in your life, you grow out of needing to push yourself to the max and prove yourself all the time, and come to realise the value in a more laid back approach. 40k might be a poorly constructed gam, and while, in my opinion, it 'needs' a light touch and a bit of co-op game building to function we'll, I don't need necessarily see either of these as bad things in and of themselves.
Plus I've got battle at calth that I'm painting up right now as imperial fists, I'd love to get some small scale squabbles (can't call them skirmishes, lol) going!
I do not think WMH is hard to break into. It has a steep learning curve but that is not necessarily bad either. Not everyone wants to have their hand held or wear kid gloves or be bubblewrapped when they play against someone else. It just takes a different perspective, and coming from 40k it can be hard (40k often has that skewed mentality where doing your best is frowned upon), but once you embrace the attitude behind pp games (page 5) and see it for what it is and accept it on its own merits rather than basing it on ported merits and perceptions from the other game, you can see it's not a monster to be afraid of. Often people find themselves surprised to be enjoying themselves in a game, thst, unlike 40k is based on personal empowerment, and where, yes, it doesn't all come down to you. And it's a pretty damned good feeling when you climb thst mountain and see the full view.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).
It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.
But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.
Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).
It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.
But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.
Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!
If I wanted to play chess I'd play chess.
Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).
And yet you should because ,despite this, there is still nothing wrong with 'kill the king and win the game'. I mean, if it works for a game that has been there for centuries and has been played and enjoyed by millions, there must be some merit at least to the mechanism.
Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).
Cryx in mk2 was a faction with a low skill ceiling and a lot of entitlement amongst its players. You 'levelled up' faster playing with cryx. You could go a lot further with less ability playing cryx and fewer consequences than other factions. This is not to disparage cryx players - there are amazing players out there who play cryx. Despite the levelling up faster aspect, that ceiling did not necessarily 'cap out' with good skills you could go as far as anyone's else with them too in the long game.
However, a lot of cryx players were used to them being the 'easy button' faction with a lot of obvious solutions with very few 'prices' or sacrifices that had to be made. Cryx dido many things almost too well, without consequences or cost, and while for the most part they weren't necessarily broken (there were exceptions) they were the faction that was out in front and shaped the meta for most of mk2. 'Just apply banes' was a meme of a reason. As was 'but how does x play into cryx'. Cryx weren't broken, but they skewed the meta in an unhealthy direction.
At the top tables, cryx won and lost about as much as everyone else, but on the lower and middle tables, where the effects of 'levelling up faster' was more obvious and was where the problems were really felt by a lot of people.
Thst said, a lot of things thst cryx players took for granted and fed into their success, such as recursion, immunity to command checks, crucially, some frankly ballbustingly amazing infantry choices in a meta where infantry was king, and some ridiculously 'out there' casters and got slapped hard (and in my mind, justifiably so..) by the nerf bat, and the switch to the more jack focused meta of mk3(wthth resulting loss in value and status of infantry from its overly dominant position- and this is true for all factions btw- infantry was over represented), a shift In terms of more infantry punishment, and more effective gunline options and this turned a lot of cryx players sour. Because change. And no more obviousness. And previous click and delete play. Essentially, they complain For some right reasons, and a lot of wrong ones. Each of those changes pp made could be justified individually. Combined, there is an argument that there was maybe too much. Thst maybe cryx has had what amounts To a slap in the face and when they were down, a kick in the family jewels for added insult.
There was a lot of salt from a lot of people during the transition, and being frank with you dt, my opinion of the WMH community dropped by quite a few notches during the transition. I wasn't impressed with s huge amount of the 'sky is falling' whining and moaning. Because people,will always complain about changes.
Forcast wrote:
Now that I think about it, I think its just the assassination mechanic that bothers me the most. Where you can have a fully functioning army, but if the general dies, literally everyone packs up and goes home no questions asked.
'Kill the king and win the game' works fine for chess though...
Forcast wrote:
I can't argue about the lord of war and deathstar proliferation that is happening in 40k, that's pretty obvious. I will just say that it does take them at least a few turns blasting or chopping your army to be tabled. while the game may be "over" as in the outcome is decided, you can still play and get some chap shots in before you are tabled. Unlike WMH where your army just quits functioning.
Personally I don't find playing out a foregone conclusion for a few turns to be anything resembling satisfying.
Forcast wrote:
I really can't stress enough that I'm not against WMH existing as an alternative to 40k, quite the opposite, both games benefit from having competition (not to mention prices). That's why I'm posting in a thread asking why WMH seems to be hard to break into for new players.
Agreed - there is a place for both. More and more, I'm coming to realise 40k sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to WMH. Not necessarily 'casual', but maybe 'post-competitive'. At a certain point in your life, you grow out of needing to push yourself to the max and prove yourself all the time, and come to realise the value in a more laid back approach. 40k might be a poorly constructed gam, and while, in my opinion, it 'needs' a light touch and a bit of co-op game building to function we'll, I don't need necessarily see either of these as bad things in and of themselves.
Plus I've got battle at calth that I'm painting up right now as imperial fists, I'd love to get some small scale squabbles (can't call them skirmishes, lol) going!
I do not think WMH is hard to break into. It has a steep learning curve but that is not necessarily bad either. Not everyone wants to have their hand held or wear kid gloves or be bubblewrapped when they play against someone else. It just takes a different perspective, and coming from 40k it can be hard (40k often has that skewed mentality where doing your best is frowned upon), but once you embrace the attitude behind pp games (page 5) and see it for what it is and accept it on its own merits rather than basing it on ported merits and perceptions from the other game, you can see it's not a monster to be afraid of. Often people find themselves surprised to be enjoying themselves in a game, thst, unlike 40k is based on personal empowerment, and where, yes, it doesn't all come down to you. And it's a pretty damned good feeling when you climb thst mountain and see the full view.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I always thought Warcaster/Warlock death should just force a CMD check (maybe with a penalty, maybe not) on the remaining units in your army. Those that pass can fight on, those that fail flee (and Warjacks and Warbeasts do what they normally do when their controller dies).
It would still make assassination devastating to an army, but it wouldn't be the end point of the game.
But I guess Warcasters/Warlocks are central to the theme of WMH, so the armies just bug out when their magician dies.
Chess analogy too. By the way, mk3 did away with cmd checks!
I don't really enjoy chess is part of the problem lol.
I agree with you on 40k for sure, and 30k is my favorite iteration of 40k right now for sure. Its more "balanced" because there are limited factions and everyone has access to the same basic tools other than a few special units.
I would agree that as a veteran playing the losing side of a forgone conclusion is not fun at all, as a new player it is a good place to learn the literal rules. Getting assassinated turn 2 doesn't teach you anything, I'm still fuzzy on how it happened to me exactly and I don't think i could duplicate the results even I wanted to because my understanding of the overall concepts in the game improved by 0.001. only thing I learned was that I really should figure out how to not have that happened again (meaning lots of research on the internet). I would rather be playing a game than researching, even if I'm losing.
I am a people person ultimately and I don't get as much joy in reaching the top of the mountain when I had to stomp on my friends to get there. But at some regional tournament I bet its a lot of fun, which seems to be where WMH sets its focus.
And yet you should because ,despite this, there is still nothing wrong with 'kill the king and win the game'. I mean, if it works for a game that has been there for centuries and has been played and enjoyed by millions, there must be some merit at least to the mechanism.
What are you trying to argue here?
Some people don't like the assassination win condition. Your response of "LOL but chess" isn't a response. Yes, chess has that mechanic but chess is almost perfectly balanced as a game. Is WMH?
In MK I assassination was almost always used as a means to win, and what happened? Eventually scenarios and other win conditions were introduced into the game, so clearly "kill the king and win" isn't the high water mark of game mechanics. If it was, why would MKIII have other win conditions?
Interesting that MKIII did away with CMD checks. That must be fun for Cryx and their former ability to lower command values. LOL. Is that part of why Cryx players are upset? I am asking for a friend... (I was a Cryx player).
Cryx in mk2 was a faction with a low skill ceiling and a lot of entitlement amongst its players.
Uh oh, red flag! You make a lot of opinionated statements that attempt to masquerade as facts, but really, they are just your opinions. And it sounds like your ego got hurt by a Cryx player or two.
From what I have read about MKII Cryx and MKIII Cryx it seems that PP over reacted to Cryx power level by implementing major debuffs to casters/troops, and in the game changes from MK II to MK III took a lot of the mechanics that had previously defined the faction (cheap infantry, lots of spells) and reduced or redacted those mechanics. Coupled with the refocus on Warjacks/Beasts, and Cryx is left in limbo with no real defining faction characteristic. Now, that might not be a nuanced summation of the situation that is merely what I have gleaned from reading threads on here and on the PP forums.
But, if that is close to the truth, then that sort of change would result in "sour grapes" because the game designers fundamentally changed how an army functioned and played overnight. I can't imagine any but the most die-hard of fans not being irritated by that sort of monumental shake-up of a faction. And if that shake-up results in fewer people enjoying their faction that understandably leads to anger.
This discussion on the PP boards was enlightening. In it Cryx players acknowledge that there are still some powerful lists in the faction, but those lists are reliant on a handful of models, those lists are predictable and boring to play, and they leave out the vast majority of the faction's models/options. That doesn't sound like much fun to me.
I've also noticed that Cryx's lack of range attacks (a problem since MK1, but mitigated back then by 30 point arc nodes and Skarlocks that could actually sling spells) is still a major grievance on the PP forums when everyone else seems to get guns galore. Again, doesn't sound like much fun when your tactical options are a handful of Warcasters and the same two or three troop choices to mitigate the fact that every other faction has toys that you don't.
You call it aversion to change on the Cryx player's parts, I call it PP upending an entire faction and expecting people to pick up the pieces and just deal with it.
Cryx thrived on trickiness and misdirection. You weren't supposed to know exactly where the death stroke was coming from when facing a Cryx army. If things are as "samey" as some Cryx players are claiming well, the trickiness of the faction is diminished (if not outright destroyed) and you are left with a faction that's main trick (recursion?) is able to be pulled off by other factions, while at the same time Cryx can't do what most of the factions are doing (shooting). That doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread and turn it into a "What is Wrong with Cryx" thread, so I'll end it here.
From my local standpoint, it was warmahordes (with a helluva assist from x-wing) that has rendered all gw games extinct except at the gw itself. I personally wont play warmahordes (sticking to malifaux, wrath of kings, and confrontation) but at least here locally you dont see alot of "forum" folks but you can go to the flgs and any night and the tables are full. the pressganger is very proactive and the journeyman league is very well run. out of all the games it is far and away the easiest to get into as a new player provided the store/pressganger has the leagues going. I don't like the game mechanics and gave the rpg a try, great setting but awful rules IMO. the models and their price are competitive. I like some of the sculpts but not others. I have not heard any complaints about mark3 yet, but I tend to avoid the whole area and just stick to my haunted cowboys
I thought that GW rendered all GW games extinct except at the GW itself. Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight were just in a good position to take advantage of the holes created by their inept handling.
My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.
My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.
I also cut my strategy teeth with Risk and Chess, but I always hated the Checkmate condition, and games with my brother usually ended up with me wiping out everything else on the board anyway. Of course, my Risk dice have come to haunt my 40K/WMH games, too. I could outnumber my dad's army 3:1, but the dice would leave me down to 1.5:1 in short order.
My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.
My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.
One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.
Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.
My largest complaint with the mark3 change is that a large portion of my army is irrelevant now. It's similar to MTG power creep in that yes there are a diverse set of cards and you can play with them all while having a relatively good time. From my experiences (6+ years of warmahordes) The majority of the player base plays competitively, thus if you aren't playing with the most specialized or optimized units or gearing your lists to deal with the current tournament metas you may as well not even unpack your models. The faction I owns identity was infantry/combined arms themed but now warjacks/beasts is the name of the game so unless im fielding specialized units there are better options than say a 3rd of the models I own, nothings more fun than owning models or what have you that you might as well use for dust collectors. This is just my stance on it currently but other factions/players are obviously going to have different experiences.
NH Gunsmith wrote: One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.
Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.
You misunderstand. The customization that is allowed in WarmaHordes is only cosmetic, nothing changes how the individual models fight or do their work. If I want the unit to do its job a little differently, I have to pick another unit.
While this is useful for a new person building their army, it tends to make things a little stale for me.
NH Gunsmith wrote: One thing I like about Warmachine, is that it is fairly easy for somebody who just bought an army to get it assembled most of the time. A lot of (not all, there are some real pains to get together) the units and models are fairly straight forward to get together without having excess junk and unit options not represented in the box. There is tons of ways to customize your units and models if you want to, and the recently redone conversion rules for organized play make it even easier to use your unique models in a competitive setting.
Instead of having to buy, beg or barter for parts from a certain box so you can have the options your other box might not have come with, you can order a lot of individual parts to do what you want to. Not too many companies offer an in house bitz service. I myself just placed an order shy of $100 in parts to finish up the conversions I have planned. So there is plenty of customization for those who want it, but not everybody wants or needs to convert an army for a game.
You misunderstand. The customization that is allowed in WarmaHordes is only cosmetic, nothing changes how the individual models fight or do their work. If I want the unit to do its job a little differently, I have to pick another unit.
While this is useful for a new person building their army, it tends to make things a little stale for me.
Ah, fair enough. Not going to lie, after 14 years of GW games I got tired of asking people what their converted weapons and "counts as" weapons are since their kit didn't have it. I have come to like how little variation there is in a units equipment. I find it nice that when I go to the store to get in some pick-up games I don't have to constantly remind myself what something is and can just quickly glance at a unit and know what it is capable of. If I want oodles of customization or unit options, I would rather play a smaller scale skirmish game where I find it more fitting and easier to keep track of. But, I understand what you mean though, I have done my fair share of kit bashing and conversions to my 40k armies when I still played it.
@naxium- I can't really comment on trolls. My meta doesn't see them much. Have you checked them out post errata? I know that there were changes made and maybe some of them would be beneficial to you.
I like Warmahordes a lot. I really do, the fluff is engrossing and interesting to me (tad more lighthearted than 40 but it still has enough grim darkness for me). The problem comes when it hits the tabletop. The tables that most people at my store play with are so plain it's almost hilarious, just hills with a couple of plastic pieces representing "water" and "forests" makes for some dull scenery.
My other problem comes in that I'm not a particularly great tactician. Warmahordes has so many nuances that go right over my head, where I could have done 20 million different things better. I could have cast this spell which combos GREAT with this units mini feat (still don't know what those are...) and then you have the unit do THIS OTHER thing. I'm not that bright, so I don't realize 3/4 of this till it's pointed out, resulting in my getting curbstomped 9 times out of 10
Charistoph wrote: I thought that GW rendered all GW games extinct except at the GW itself. Privateer Press and Fantasy Flight were just in a good position to take advantage of the holes created by their inept handling.
My problems with WarmaHordes is the lack of customization available for the characters and units and the assassination condition.
My start in tabletop was Battletech and a lot of the fun with that one was the customization of the units, .40K helped continue with that concept with all the customization options in all but their Characters.
I also cut my strategy teeth with Risk and Chess, but I always hated the Checkmate condition, and games with my brother usually ended up with me wiping out everything else on the board anyway. Of course, my Risk dice have come to haunt my 40K/WMH games, too. I could outnumber my dad's army 3:1, but the dice would leave me down to 1.5:1 in short order.
I gotta ask, have you tried the newest battletech and alpha strike? I have been a btech fan since the 80's, love that game! the new stuff is just great, customization and campaign and all the glory of old.
The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.
I do admit, Gotchas! Are really annoying, but I love how I can turn up with my army and have decent game against any opponent. You don't have that with GWs work.
welshhoppo wrote: The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.
It's a shame PP didn't come out with their own line of terrain. The licensed GF9 terrain was freaking awesome, but since it was faction specific it couldn't really be utilized en masse. When PP started taking back licenses and making accessories themselves I was hopeful that terrain would eventually make an appearance but that never materialized.
I honestly feel like the meta shifts were the biggest issue with MKIII. There were a lot of shifts of power when the edition hit, which seemingly soured the fanbase a little (I played Cryx initially in MKII, but moved into Cygnar). I'd argue that honestly the buffs to shooting (or, rather, shooting jacks via power up) was one of the most painful aspects, since not every faction has great native shooting defense or a lot of it gets ignored (Kara Sloan is a great example of this).
Seems like the in-faction tweaking isn't the best either. I heard Skorne had serious issues when MKIII first released, and some staple units in some factions got nerfed/changed (Black 13th and Bile Thralls, for example) which further shook up people's lists.
I honestly still really enjoy WM/H's core gameplay. It does take a while to get used to, (I used to get thrashed all the time as a beginner) and I agree in some instances without players who are willing to help engage new players in learning (such as giving advice, discussing alternate tactics, etc.) the learning curve can feel a bit more steep.
welshhoppo wrote:The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.
I do admit, Gotchas! Are really annoying, but I love how I can turn up with my army and have decent game against any opponent. You don't have that with GWs work.
I don't think it's the players fault. From what I have seen on YouTube, from players and Privateer Press, the problem I see with Warmahordes is, it's a mad rush to the middle Each and Every Single Time. Hardly anything is ever in the corners or off to the sides. Nobody places terrain in the middle so you have to go around it. So why bother with terrain if all you ever do is HOP over the fence and rush to the middle?
I could be wrong of course since I don't play, but this is what I see on YouTube especially from PP videos and games.
welshhoppo wrote:The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.
I do admit, Gotchas! Are really annoying, but I love how I can turn up with my army and have decent game against any opponent. You don't have that with GWs work.
I don't think it's the players fault. From what I have seen on YouTube, from players and Privateer Press, the problem I see with Warmahordes is, it's a mad rush to the middle
Each and Every Single Time. Hardly anything is ever in the corners or off to the sides. Nobody places terrain in the middle so you have to go around it. So why bother with terrain if all you ever do is HOP over the fence and rush to the middle?
I could be wrong of course since I don't play, but this is what I see on YouTube especially from PP videos and games.
This is why you put a Circle player in the loop on terrain placement. You want to see some terrain in the middle? You'll see some terrain in the middle all right.
Well the steamroller rules say terrain must be in the centre of the board and it can't be within 6 inches of a board edge. It should be in the middle, some of the best games I've played have revolved around having a forest or a building messing up everyone's plans.
NH Gunsmith wrote:Ah, fair enough. Not going to lie, after 14 years of GW games I got tired of asking people what their converted weapons and "counts as" weapons are since their kit didn't have it. I have come to like how little variation there is in a units equipment. I find it nice that when I go to the store to get in some pick-up games I don't have to constantly remind myself what something is and can just quickly glance at a unit and know what it is capable of. If I want oodles of customization or unit options, I would rather play a smaller scale skirmish game where I find it more fitting and easier to keep track of. But, I understand what you mean though, I have done my fair share of kit bashing and conversions to my 40k armies when I still played it.
Very true. One reason Necrons were the last GW army I built were because I didn't have to worry about the customization as much, and I was tired of dealing with GW's crap rules. To be fair, WarmaHordes has grown on me, but mostly because of the storylines allowed me to get in to the game easier. There are three more reasons I have had difficulty getting in to WarmaHordes, but customization was simply the first main one.
thekingofkings wrote:I gotta ask, have you tried the newest battletech and alpha strike? I have been a btech fan since the 80's, love that game! the new stuff is just great, customization and campaign and all the glory of old.
A little bit. I have almost a company full of miniatures. The hard part is that the local group was just starting to build up when my LGS went to crap. There was another store, but it was way out of the way and I had just lost my job, making it hard to meet up with anyone. A new LGS has opened up recently, but it can be hard to get time to get there since I am still just the House Husband.
I was able to play a game of the new rules recently taking an Eridani Jump Thunderbolt supported by a JagerMech and Enforcer against a Dragonfire and another Medium. Ended up gutted as I moved quickly up to take advantage of a lake and my medium-ranged weapons, while my lance-mates hugged the treeline farther back. The lake made it harder for me to be hit, but allowed me to be the closest to the enemy attracting the majority of their fire. Still, had fun till I was gunned down.
Cryonicleech wrote:I honestly still really enjoy WM/H's core gameplay. It does take a while to get used to, (I used to get thrashed all the time as a beginner) and I agree in some instances without players who are willing to help engage new players in learning (such as giving advice, discussing alternate tactics, etc.) the learning curve can feel a bit more steep.
When Steamroller is running hot, I have found it hard to find someone willing to help me learn the game. Combine that with my desire to "play it painted", and having little painting time available, and that has made it harder to get in to WarmaHordes. Toss in a little army ADD (Protectorate, then Trollbloods, then Mercs, then Skorne, back to Mercs, then restarting Skorne), and you have a recipe for nothing happening.
I don't think it's the players fault. From what I have seen on YouTube, from players and Privateer Press, the problem I see with Warmahordes is, it's a mad rush to the middle
Each and Every Single Time. Hardly anything is ever in the corners or off to the sides. Nobody places terrain in the middle so you have to go around it. So why bother with terrain if all you ever do is HOP over the fence and rush to the middle?
I could be wrong of course since I don't play, but this is what I see on YouTube especially from PP videos and games.
If you play caster kill, you will be right. Everything meets in the centre.
But in scenario play, the situation is different.
You have flags, objectives like bunkers, and zone. Contest, control, and dominate is what scenario play is all about.
And if you don't run it with butcher, but instead run it with Irusk2, those doom reavers are now immune to blast damage and can't be knocked down when they pass a tough
welshhoppo wrote: The terrain is actually the players fault. The PP staff have been banging the "actually bring some bloody terrain" drum for a while now. We just don't tend to actually use it.
It's a shame PP didn't come out with their own line of terrain. The licensed GF9 terrain was freaking awesome, but since it was faction specific it couldn't really be utilized en masse. When PP started taking back licenses and making accessories themselves I was hopeful that terrain would eventually make an appearance but that never materialized.
What turned me off is every single warmahorde game I've ever witnessed at a store ever. Nobody paints their models. Terrain? Pffft. It seems like it should be pre-painted like x-wing because nobody cares about the hobby, its all about the competitive aspect. I don't know if the game is fun, but for me a lot of people the converting and modeling and (dare I say it) narrative is what draws in a lot of people. There are no stories being told, its just metagaming. That's fine for some people, but its just not my cup of tea.
Don Savik wrote: What turned me off is every single warmahorde game I've ever witnessed at a store ever. Nobody paints their models. Terrain? Pffft. It seems like it should be pre-painted like x-wing because nobody cares about the hobby, its all about the competitive aspect. I don't know if the game is fun, but for me a lot of people the converting and modeling and (dare I say it) narrative is what draws in a lot of people. There are no stories being told, its just metagaming. That's fine for some people, but its just not my cup of tea.
I can understand that 100%, but the same can be said of other games on a similar scale or larger. I can count on one hand the amount of times I have played a game of 40k against a painted army out of the many games over the years. And there is plenty of conversion opportunities in Warmachine, but to most of the people I know converting isn't something they are interested in. Doesn't stop me from doing conversions, and that is why I prefer to use an army that fields Warjacks instead of Warbeasts.
Terrain, or the lack of, is based on your local scene though. I love lots of terrain, and I like to fill the table according to PP's guidelines. I get the feeling a lot of guys don't even think about how little terrain they are using because they get used to using very little while learning and just keep doing the same thing out of habit.
Don Savik wrote: What turned me off is every single warmahorde game I've ever witnessed at a store ever. Nobody paints their models. Terrain? Pffft. It seems like it should be pre-painted like x-wing because nobody cares about the hobby, its all about the competitive aspect. I don't know if the game is fun, but for me a lot of people the converting and modeling and (dare I say it) narrative is what draws in a lot of people. There are no stories being told, its just metagaming. That's fine for some people, but its just not my cup of tea.
With the greatest of respect, saying things 'WMH players have no time for the hobby, never paint or convert' is perpetuating a falsehood. Take me. I am 97% painted for all my stuff (only betrayal at calth to paint up) and my WMH is, bar one model (kromac who is stripped and being repainted/converted), 100% painted. That's over 200 khador, 100odd circle, 80 odd retribution and a few dozen mercy/minions. All painted. I need terms of conversions, over half my doom reavers, my great bears, my war dog, female Fenris, female irusk, a squad of female iron(ing) fangs, kromac, ghetorix, my myrmydons, my bokurs are all converted. I'm one player. And i am far from the only one. If you want links, I will point you to other amazing examples of WMH converted models/armies such as the reco stormall, the assault on sul, the return of the orgoth, the legion of mechablight, and an amazing khador gun carriage to airship conversion. Pp have painting and converting contests in no quarter.Most of my friends have fully, or close to fully painted WMH armies, and we always play on terrained-up boards. The alternative is silly. In terms of narrative, the narrative of WMH is pretty impressive. The Lore is a genuine hidden gem and quite excellent and if you want any pointers feel free to ask. I will e apply tooblie and I guarantee you that you will change your mind on the lore.
On the other hand, I have also witnessed across multiple counties over a decade plenty of 'grey legions' fighting on 'planet bowling ball' games of 40k and you don't have ToView look far to see no end of army lists with utter contempt for the lore and narrative. And this is true for plenty other games too, whether gw or otherwise. To the point where I have despaired for gw players who show no interest InThe hobby, and just beating each other over the head with netlists.
Plenty gamers don't paint. That is a fact. But it is not confined to a specific system. For every wmh players with a Grey metal army, there are a dozen 40k players with the same (by dint of there being a far larger community). Plenty gamers do paint. Plenty gamers paint and convert. Creative people will be creative, regardless of the system. Plenty gamers poop all over the lore as only want to play a game and not immerse themselves in a ip. They're not wrong for wanting this either.
With the greatest of respect don savik, you're wrong. Plenty WMH gamers care deeply about the hobby and it's unfair for you To make sweeping unfair and unflattering generalisation for those of us that do while giving the players of the other games what amounts to a free pass for doing the same thing.
Our gaming group has all kinds of players. Some paint their armies before they field them (like me), others dont bother.
The background of WMH is a bit ''small'' (I guess you have a better word) when compared to other games.
wuestenfux wrote: Our gaming group has all kinds of players. Some paint their armies before they field them (like me), others dont bother.
The background of WMH is a bit ''small'' (I guess you have a better word) when compared to other games.
Have you read the rpg material by any chance? I found it did a great job of bringing the world to life. And if I may, it's anything but 'small', geographically, or pseudo-historically. I get where you're coming from though - going from the galaxy spamning 40k-inverse to an ip that is essentially the size of Western Europe does require a shift in perspective, but for what it's worth, the iron kingdoms is anything but small. Now I feel only pp would release the cryx, ios and Rhul sourcebook!
wuestenfux wrote: Our gaming group has all kinds of players. Some paint their armies before they field them (like me), others dont bother.
The background of WMH is a bit ''small'' (I guess you have a better word) when compared to other games.
It is newer, and it isn't as heavily marketed, but the Iron Kingdoms were a D&D 3.0 setting once upon a time. They don't lack for material, they just don't push it as hard as GW does.
The RPG itself (in its current form) really needs a good group to make it work, because the rules aren't outstanding by themselves. But there is oodles of fluff. Add that to all the information available from the D20RPG days and there is enough to really sink your teeth into.
Similarly, the old No Quarters (from Mark 1) are absolute goldmines for fluff, their guts and gears sections (can't remember if they were called that back then or not though, basically the unit/warjack in depth descriptions) are absolutely wonderful.
What about the Skorne errata published in Jan. 2017?
Jason Soles has reported that ''In the run-up to the release ... we made a few mistakes. ... I won't dwell on what went wrong ...''
What the heck? Any more details?
wuestenfux wrote: What about the Skorne errata published in Jan. 2017?
Jason Soles has reported that ''In the run-up to the release ... we made a few mistakes. ... I won't dwell on what went wrong ...''
What the heck? Any more details?
Beyond the release of the Skorne errata? Not sure. As I understand it they felt they'd painted themselves into a corner with the Skorne design space, and ended up with a faction that was 'balanced' but devoid of personality and interestingness. As a Skorne player I like the errata on paper, but I haven't had much chance to see it in practice.
wuestenfux wrote: What about the Skorne errata published in Jan. 2017?
Jason Soles has reported that ''In the run-up to the release ... we made a few mistakes. ... I won't dwell on what went wrong ...''
What the heck? Any more details?
They redid the faction, updated all the cards and fixed a lot of problems that skorne suffered in the transition to mk3.
They were badly in need of a fix, and it's good they put some work into fixing them. They have multiple options now which is what every faction needs.
It's also good that they aren't relying on their in house testing completely anymore, because that has been shown pretty clearly to be inadequate with this edition change.
wuestenfux wrote: What about the Skorne errata published in Jan. 2017?
Jason Soles has reported that ''In the run-up to the release ... we made a few mistakes. ... I won't dwell on what went wrong ...''
What the heck? Any more details?
Most of the details can probably be found in the Skorne board on their forum site, especially soon after the release.
I was very active in Mk2 and enjoyed the game a lot. But towards the end of MK2, there were some very boring lists appearing. Especially Bradigus really sucked the fun out of playing. I also got tired of the "you dont get to do anything" casters that were very common, and there was too many combos that could kill you on turn 1 practically if you moved your caster at all. ADR was also too much to keep up with, this is my hobby, not my job.
Mk3 sounded good at first, reigning in the worst offenders and making jacks very playable, but then it became apparent that there are just new boring lists. Spam seems to have gotten worse now :(. And then all the changes, too often new casters and models instead of making current ones usable, erratas that just clearly go too far or miss the mark...
I have lost faith in the ability of PP to actually keep the insane amount units and casters in balance, and I just can´t be bothered to stay up to date with all the changes. And in warmachine, when you are not up to date, you learn the hard way by getting caster killed in turn 1-2.
Warmachine seems like a game just for the hardcore gamers that are able to play at least once a week. Casually playing warmachine seems like an exercise in futility as you will always just be "had" by an unknown combo.
It does suck to have 20-ish painted jacks and hundreds of infantry just gathering dust in the cabinet though :(
Agreed with all of that, illumini (well, except I stopped mk2 earlier, thought I was taking a break but haven't come back...)
It was fun when I was really invested, but doesn't lend itself to casual play and is so repetitive that I kept burning out when I was invested (each time, there'd be an arc of getting back in, doing some stuff, refining it, then can't look at another assassination vector or w/e for a few months)
Illumini wrote: It does suck to have 20-ish painted jacks and hundreds of infantry just gathering dust in the cabinet though :(
On a completely unrelated topic, Mayhem is an interesting little fantasy battle game. Did you know it has a trait called 'construct', that allows a unit (of, say, fewer than two models) to be decked out with heavy weapons and controlled by a wizard?
Personally, what I hate about WarmaHordes is the mix of material they use for their mini (metal, plastic and resin) and the lack of customization. Rule wise, it seems far better than 40K, especially the balance of the game. Still, I haven't bought a single model, even though some of their mini's are stunning and the game looks better done, because it lacks the modeling aspects that I so enjoy with 40K (unless you're an expert converter who can sculpt green stuff and such). Plus, their quality level is quite behind GW, even though they charge about the same price per mini.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: ...Plus, their quality level is quite behind GW, even though they charge about the same price per mini...
The resolution on the casts is lower, but the artists are better. GW has a certain fondness for burying everything under an avalanche of ridiculous-looking embossed bling, Privateer has some sense of composition.
What sort of customization are you looking for? There's no rule that you can't add details to the models. The only thing that you are not allowed to change is the type of weapon(s) and shields(s). Even then you are allowed to use different forms of the same weapon (so you can change one sword for another).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: What sort of customization are you looking for? There's no rule that you can't add details to the models. The only thing that you are not allowed to change is the type of weapon(s) and shields(s). Even then you are allowed to use different forms of the same weapon (so you can change one sword for another).
The material (hard plastic, metal) is a bit hard to work with.
GW models look much better than the PP ones, by a mile.
I get that people say there is a lack of customization, and it seems to be half and half what they mean. If you mean lack of unit option customization, can't help you there. Some of us like that, and don't ming saving weapon options for skirmish level games. But if you mean that there is a lack of physical customization, you are wrong, there is plenty if you want there to be. Privateer Press has the best in house bits service I have found in the industry. And you can get around the mixing of materials with a little effort if it bugs you. As an example, here is the Beast-09 conversion I finished last night. It isn't a huge one, but Ruin's legs make Beast look much better, and I didn't have to turn to plastic parts to do it to avoid mixing materials.
A lot of stuff doesn't need any conversions or customization, it is clear cut what it is for a reason. But the possibilities are more than out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, PP might not have an obscene amount of fine detail plastered on the outside of their models, but how many people actually take the time to make those details actually look good. How many of us are good enough painters to really take advantage of that detail? I know more than one person that enjoy painting PP models over GW'S because we aren't full time figure painters, and the larger open areas and deeper larger details are easier for us to work with.
But I also see a lot of GW guys showing me their super sweet ultra detailed models, but they are bare plastic because they are afraid to paint it and take some of the tiny details away or not be able to do the model justice. But, for those that are really good painters, I can see that Warmachine can seem to be a bit dull to paint.
But hey, that's what I love about gaming, there is a system and army that is perfect for whatever you are looking for in a game.
Yeah, their PVC for their prices were a large contributor to my lessened interest.
And GW models do tend to be completely overwrought and cluttered with detail, but their average (even with that junk) is still way higher than PP in my book.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Yeah, their PVC for their prices were a large contributor to my lessened interest.
And GW models do tend to be completely overwrought and cluttered with detail, but their average (even with that junk) is still way higher than PP in my book.
Fair enough, I will concede that a lot of their PVC's leave a lot to be desired. I don't use any of their plastics though, all my stuff is metal. But I could say something similar about when I played 40k, I refused to use anything Finecast.
Mr. CyberPunk wrote:Personally, what I hate about WarmaHordes is the mix of material they use for their mini (metal, plastic and resin) and the lack of customization. Rule wise, it seems far better than 40K, especially the balance of the game. Still, I haven't bought a single model, even though some of their mini's are stunning and the game looks better done, because it lacks the modeling aspects that I so enjoy with 40K (unless you're an expert converter who can sculpt green stuff and such). Plus, their quality level is quite behind GW, even though they charge about the same price per mini.
I so fully agree with this. I am putting together my Lord of Change and the quality of this kit shames Privateer Press. Hardly any mold lines. They are well hidden unlike Privateer Press mold lines going straight down the face of some minis. Shameful. Yes I am paying more, but the less aggravation I get is so worth it now.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:What sort of customization are you looking for? There's no rule that you can't add details to the models. The only thing that you are not allowed to change is the type of weapon(s) and shields(s). Even then you are allowed to use different forms of the same weapon (so you can change one sword for another).
And that is another reason I don't care for Warmahordes. "You can't do that". Says who? GW encourages "counts as" (of course as long as it's with Citadel miniatures being used ) but still the freedom GW allows you just makes it more better. It's a big turn off that "counts as" is frowned apon in Warmahordes from what I see.
Davor, those rules are really only for tournaments and conversions or swaps you do are up to the TO to approve. In a friendly game you can model your army however you want. The same can be said about conversions when you go to a 40k tournament, the TO can say no to your conversion there as well, the difference is that PP has very clear guidelines to go off of.
Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.
But that's one thing I like, the models don't NEED to be converted to be able to use them, and there are tons of conversions based off of PP models. Not everybody wants to do a lot with modelling, and a lot of people would rather have slightly less opportunities for conversions to have a rule set they like more. I found these pictures in less than five minutes with a Google search, there are many many more out there. I just liked these ones.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.
Not sure. I had a lot of fun building Extreme!Behemoth.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I haven't seen conversions of PP models very often.
The plastic models have some potential for conversion, but if you are a modeler, then you will be better off with GW models.
But that's one thing I like, the models don't NEED to be converted to be able to use them, and there are tons of conversions based off of PP models. Not everybody wants to do a lot with modelling, and a lot of people would rather have slightly less opportunities for conversions to have a rule set they like more. I found these pictures in less than five minutes with a Google search, there are many many more out there. I just liked these ones.
That Leman Russ Khador wagon-thing is pretty neat. Same with blimp.
Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.
Very true, but how many people honestly convert their Space Marines besides the occasional character or unit leader? And how many of all the options that a unit can take are actually viable in 40k? When I played from 3rd to the newest edition of 40k before selling all my stuff, there really seemed to be a few options worth taking except if I was making a fluffy army. Just having all those ways to kit out your guys seemed like a trap, since you knew there were better choices for the points. Unless you wanted to waste some extra guys and space in your case, why would you ever build something with the lesser option and be met with disappointment except in the few oddball instances it is the better choice instead of taking the generalist choice.
Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.
Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.
Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.
Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.
Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.
I find a more accurate statement to be that PP games aren't a good starting point for the casual modeller or conversion fan. Most of the infantry sized kits in each army for 40k are a similar size or are very similar in how they go together, making it easier to kit bash and convert. Don't get me wrong, there are people who go above and beyond with sculpting new features or details. What I like about converting PP models is that it brings a whole new set of challenges when planning out how you want to personalize your models. I have done more work with pinning and putty in my current Khador army then I have with any other game system. Plus, as I have said earlier in this thread, what other company makes it so easy to convert when in PP's web store, I have access to over 2,000 parts for just Warmachine (haven't checked to see how many are on the Hordes side of things), that I can order whenever I want? It has been a long time since GW stopped their Bitz Wagon and now you have to buy whole new kits to do your conversions and kit bashes. Your only limiting factor is your skill and imagination.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Very true, but how many people honestly convert their Space Marines besides the occasional character or unit leader? And how many of all the options that a unit can take are actually viable in 40k? When I played from 3rd to the newest edition of 40k before selling all my stuff, there really seemed to be a few options worth taking except if I was making a fluffy army. Just having all those ways to kit out your guys seemed like a trap, since you knew there were better choices for the points. Unless you wanted to waste some extra guys and space in your case, why would you ever build something with the lesser option and be met with disappointment except in the few oddball instances it is the better choice instead of taking the generalist choice.
While 40k certainly falls into the "optimum build" trap common in many games, that problem is only the case if you want to play competitively. Now, without opening the "casual vs. competitive" can of worms my point simply is that 40k is structured in a way (for better or for worse) to allow for extremely casual, non-optimized play as well as competitive play. There is room for both groups to exist within the fan base even though they often get in each others way.
In that regard some people enjoy converting models with sub-par equipment because its fluffy, or they like the look of the model. If their gaming environment allows them to field the less powerful Codex options more power to them! For a few years I was in a group of players where the rule of cool was primary, and unit abilities were secondary. That was a fun group to play with!
PP models don't allow for that versatility. There is one way to build them just like they are equipped one way. From a modeler's perspective that is limiting and possibly boring.
Ultimately I think this all centers on the player's priorities. If a player wants a tight, competitive game, PP offers great outlets for that desire. The models are secondary to the actual game, and so an emphasis on modeling is not as important as learning the strategies behind the various units/armies.
But if a player is interested in the aesthetics of modeling, in conversions, in (forgive me) "narrative" game play that gives a player freedom to model/equip their characters as they see fit within an existing rule set, then a game like 40k offers more opportunities for that player to indulge their interests. The models are primary with game play sometimes treated as a secondary concern.
Still, PP games aren't necessarily the best fit for modelers/conversion fans. The fact that some people do conversions on PP models doesn't negate wuestenfux's observation that conversions in the PP community (compared to other games like 40k) are rare and GW's kits lend themselves to conversions well. In fact that second point is reinforced by said Khador-themed Leman Russ.
I find a more accurate statement to be that PP games aren't a good starting point for the casual modeller or conversion fan. Most of the infantry sized kits in each army for 40k are a similar size or are very similar in how they go together, making it easier to kit bash and convert. Don't get me wrong, there are people who go above and beyond with sculpting new features or details. What I like about converting PP models is that it brings a whole new set of challenges when planning out how you want to personalize your models. I have done more work with pinning and putty in my current Khador army then I have with any other game system. Plus, as I have said earlier in this thread, what other company makes it so easy to convert when in PP's web store, I have access to over 2,000 parts for just Warmachine (haven't checked to see how many are on the Hordes side of things), that I can order whenever I want? It has been a long time since GW stopped their Bitz Wagon and now you have to buy whole new kits to do your conversions and kit bashes. Your only limiting factor is your skill and imagination.
Hehe, Back when I played, Khador was notorious for the level of work needed to get the models to look good. "The Khador Gap" they called it, when the Warjack hulls wouldn't quite go together properly and you needed to putty the gaps in order to make an intact looking hull. That used to be considered a bad thing, but I am glad you find it to be a worthwhile challenge! No snark either, I am glad you are enjoying the army.
PP conversions aren't necessary and could potentially be deemed invalid by a TO, so I stand by my statement. The game just isn't a good fit for players who are modelers first and players second.
While I can't argue that GW's lack of a bits service is anything but lame, I will counter with their kits often come with so many additional bits that conversions can be done without requiring purchases from a bits catalog. Its not a great counter argument, but inevitably after building even a basic army, a player should have a fairly robust bits box after the project. You don't get extra parts with PP kits. At least not intentionally.
Hehe, Back when I played, Khador was notorious for the level of work needed to get the models to look good. "The Khador Gap" they called it, when the Warjack hulls wouldn't quite go together properly and you needed to putty the gaps in order to make an intact looking hull. That used to be considered a bad thing, but I am glad you find it to be a worthwhile challenge! No snark either, I am glad you are enjoying the army.
PP conversions aren't necessary and could potentially be deemed invalid by a TO, so I stand by my statement. The game just isn't a good fit for players who are modelers first and players second.
While I can't argue that GW's lack of a bits service is anything but lame, I will counter with their kits often come with so many additional bits that conversions can be done without requiring purchases from a bits catalog. Its not a great counter argument, but inevitably after building even a basic army, a player should have a fairly robust bits box after the project. You don't get extra parts with PP kits. At least not intentionally.
Hah, actually most of it has been conversions and repositioning models. Been abusing the heck out of the parts order service, already have bought about $200 in parts alone.
-Behemoth has been repositioned and has Ruin's groin armor.
-Beast-09 has Ruin's legs, and has had the arm pistons replaced with brass rod
-Metal Spriggan has Beast-09's legs that have been cut and pinned into a walking position, Beast-09's waist, shaved off the groin armor and fit the Spriggan's, Devastator knee armor, Devastator arm pistons and everything is pinned.
-Marauder is made from Beast-09 after shaving all the defining details of Beast-09, shaved off chest award, got rid of the neck armor to fit a classic Marauder head in, cut Beast's upper arms to replace the pistons with brass rod to match up to classic Marauder arms, Ruin's legs that have had all the spikes filed off the feet, and cut Beast-09's groin armor out and replaced it with Behemoth's, used some shoulder spikes from Drago on it as well.
-Man-o-War Kovnik has legs from Shocktrooper Kapitan, back of his body was replaced with a standard Shocktrooper's, filed wrist to change the angle of the axe.
-Man-o-War Drakhun dismount has parts from the mounted Drakhun model, Demo Corps legs, and I tracked down one of the older Drakhun weapon arms that holds the blade at a lower angle (since when I went to order that arm, it is apparently not being made anymore haha).
-Man-o-War UA has been made from the chest of the Shocktrooper Kapitan and dremelled out the head, standard Shocktrooper back, Shocktrooper legs, Man-o-War Kovnik shoulders after shaving one of the rank marks off, and the rest of the parts from the standard UA. Wanted it to match the scale of the rest of the Man-o-War.
-Classic Man-o-War Shocktroopers have had half of their legs replaced with Demo Corps legs to give them some variety
-Winter Guard Mortar has had their backs shaved flat so I could pin on Rifle Corps backpacks to make the two units match better.
-Winter Guard Rocketeers have been made using metal Rifle Corps and classic Rocketeer weapons and backpacks, to keep them matching my metal Rifle Corps.
There's a few more I have missed or have gotten started on yet, but I understand taking the lesser of two choices for a fluffy army quite well. My Imperial Fists, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar and Guard have all been very fluffy and heavily themed armies that take lesser options to keep with the theme.
But the big difference between taking a subpar army in 40k and Warmachine is that in Warmachine anything can kill anything. And there is always a chance to win by scenario or caster kill, so you can always put up a fight with your army using clever play. The same cannot be said about 40k if you show up to a pick up game and your opponent is running a very competitive army. Over the last couple of years I have had more wins than losses with my casual fluffy pure Khador army by just using my resources better.
On your point about conversions in tournaments, under the updated conversion policies, you are far less likely to not have your models be allowed if you follow a few very clear simple rules that set a standard for your conversions. Unless they give you that in 40k, you can have some jack wagon show up with a terminator piled in bits with something that resembles a pole arm and hey look, your fighting some forms of Typhus. Plus, if your a casual player, why are you convinced with tournament regulations?
And most of those extra bits you get in your plastic squad boxes for 40k are junk, or better options for another kit. I still would rather stick with keeping just what you need in a box for newer players who might get a bit confused or overwhelmed about what junk goes on where, and why do I have six flamers when I can only use one or two based off of the squad size. Having the option to see each part with a clear picture on PP's website is much easier than having to turn to eBay parts sellers, and better for people like me who like to plan their conversions ahead of time.
With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.
That is really cool, I would have loved to see that.
NH Gunsmith wrote:Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.
Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.
Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.
Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.
Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.
How many Units have access to more than one UA? What about WA? How many units have more than one Solo directly affect them?
Heck, how many units actually HAVE access to WAs? UAs are actually starting to become a little more plentiful, but there is still a significant percentage which have no Attachments whatsoever.
hotsauceman1 wrote:With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.
To be fair, that change has been fairly recent. Previous to that, it was something 90% of the original model, not just PP parts.
That being said, I've seen some amazing conversions over the last year from a techno-organic Legion built lego-style from dozens of bits to a couple of StarWars-inspired modifications and sea-based Skorne and Cygnar.
And yeah, I agree that that amount of customization is fairly exaggerated in a number of different ways. The game, community, and material aren't very conducive to conversions. I did my fair share (and they were enjoyable challenges), but they were certainly outside of the norm in my experience.
NH Gunsmith wrote:Even though there aren't many physical weapon options for a unit in Warmachine, there are a surprisingly large amount of how to use your units in the game and ways to give them options.
Let's take the Iron Fang Pikemen as an example;
Bare bones they are a fairly inexpensive unit that can be used as jammers or to take out Light Warjacks or dent heavies.
Now your options to change how they function;
-Unit Attachment, now they are a flexible unit that can either be surprisingly fast, clear a hole in the enemy and reposition for something else to come through or reform into a new line of hard to remove dudes. Also gives them Pathfinder, opens up new charge angles and makes them get to the fight more reliably.
-Iron Fang Kovnik, immune to Knockdown, hey now we are getting a unit together that can really form the core of an army and take a lot to remove by taking away options to drop their usefulness. Also allows them to spread out farther to jam even more enemies, and not be clustered together against AOE's.
-Kovnik Markov, now my Iron Fangs can see and move through each other. Plus you end up with an infantry clearing cavalry model who can tackle with heavier stuff as well.
-What Warcaster am I going to run, it can't be said enough how much they change the way a unit can function, they are a tool box of options in themselves.
Unlike in 40k where your units are pretty self sustaining, needing those options in the unit/model listing and kit since they don't generally need or reveive constant support. Warmachine's unit options are really how many point are you going to spend on them with the various UA's, WA's and Solos to change their function and utility. So they really don't need to have all the multipart kits with weapon options. Which I can understand is a hassle for the gamer who wants to make an army of super detailed heroes, it just isn't an integral part of the game since your options come from elsewhere in the army.
Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.
How many Units have access to more than one UA? What about WA? How many units have more than one Solo directly affect them?
Heck, how many units actually HAVE access to WAs? UAs are actually starting to become a little more plentiful, but there is still a significant percentage which have no Attachments whatsoever.
hotsauceman1 wrote:With the new Rule being only 50% of a PP MODEL there is alot of stuff out there that are conversions. and their Conversions got really relaxed and their rules make it easier. With all bases having a certain height for LOS, you can go crazy. One guy at the LVO had all his Griffions on high up roosts sleeping. Or high in the eair swooping. No LOS problems there.
To be fair, that change has been fairly recent. Previous to that, it was something 90% of the original model, not just PP parts.
That being said, I've seen some amazing conversions over the last year from a techno-organic Legion built lego-style from dozens of bits to a couple of StarWars-inspired modifications and sea-based Skorne and Cygnar.
Why do units need access to more than one UA, WA or solo? How many options do you use in your codex for your army? And, once again, the units themselves don't need a lot of options when you have Warcasters. Once your 40k squad is assembled, did you take the time to build one of every option in case you need to use it? Probably not, each Warcaster is nothing but options for your unit and army. Between large impacts on the game (feat), and their smaller impacts on the game (field marshal abilities, supportive actions and spells), I don't need a lot of modelled options. I can change how every unit plays by using a different Warcaster. Not going to lie, the argument that because my units don't come with buckets of useless bits and tons of unit options that won't be used, that there is no customization in the game is getting old and tired. It just has different forms of unit options and customization that isn't on the physical model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since the old policy is no longer in effect, why does it matter about what the old conversion policy FOR TOURNAMENTS is? It has no effect on the current game.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Why do units need access to more than one UA, WA or solo? How many options do you use in your codex for your army? And, once again, the units themselves don't need a lot of options when you have Warcasters. Once your 40k squad is assembled, did you take the time to build one of every option in case you need to use it? Probably not, each Warcaster is nothing but options for your unit and army. Between large impacts on the game (feat), and their smaller impacts on the game (field marshal abilities, supportive actions and spells), I don't need a lot of modelled options. I can change how every unit plays by using a different Warcaster. Not going to lie, the argument that because my units don't come with buckets of useless bits and tons of unit options that won't be used, that there is no customization in the game is getting old and tired. It just has different forms of unit options and customization that isn't on the physical model.
It is not old and tired for those whom it is a concern. Part of it is developmental, and I pointed that out when I first stated my reasons. My first tabletop game was Battletech. Models didn't matter and you didn't even need to use the units FASA gave you. You could design your own and they (largely) followed the same construction rules that the official units were made of. This was the ultimate level of customization and I loved it. Now, compare that to WarmaHordes and it is like having no options whatsoever. It would be like going from 7th Edition Necrons back to 3rd edition.
As for how many Attachments and Solos are needed? As many as needed to provide options to the player being their army. One of the beauties of using Unit and Weapon Attachments is they can be sold as separate kits so you don't have extra bits lying around. Even more importantly the units are being setup so that they are multi-kits as it is.
The key word here is "options". It provides the player the ability to choose how they want to run the unit. To have or not to have is not a huge case of options.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Since the old policy is no longer in effect, why does it matter about what the old conversion policy FOR TOURNAMENTS is? It has no effect on the current game.
I have never had a problem with it. I have rarely every decided to get a model just to modify it, so that part has never bothered me. It is a problem for some, but in many of those cases, the game environment they chose to follow wouldn't have a problem with it in the first place.
I see your points now, wow, Battletech seems like you could have gone really nuts with unit construction. I felt the same way you did at first about the somewhat constricting army design, until I found the beauty in the simple yet complex army construction Warmachine offers. I am more of a pick up gamer, very rarely schedule games or have a particular group I go out of my way to play with (besides X-Wing).
I really enjoy just being able to go to a store to play Warmachine, and there are very few questions asked about my opponents army construction. I sometimes miss having a large equipment lists, but it is something I would rather save for games like Necromunda or Mordheim where it seems to be better suited. If 40k had stayed on a scale back the way it was in 3rd edition, I would have still probably enjoyed it. But between scale creep of the game, primarchs, super powered named characters, formations, data slates, allies and unbound, the amount of options had become overwhelming and unnecessarily complicated and tedious to keep up with which drove a lot of my enjoyment of it away with 40k for a casual pick up game. So what you see as a problem with Warmachine, I see as one of it's greatest benefits for a casual pick up gamer.
I actually like the lack of customization for models (not convertability, which is pretty open now).
I always know what something will do, regardless of how it looks. Especially when trying new lists, or even new factions, having mutable equipment options would mean I could build my models, then either hate the loadout, or decide that's not how I want to play something and be stuck.
novaspike wrote: I actually like the lack of customization for models (not convertability, which is pretty open now).
I always know what something will do, regardless of how it looks. Especially when trying new lists, or even new factions, having mutable equipment options would mean I could build my models, then either hate the loadout, or decide that's not how I want to play something and be stuck.
Mutable equipment in WMH? Not sure what you mean. The models are all ''clampack'' more or less.
Unfortunately for WarmaHordes, there really isn't much more customization than there were with 3rd Ed Necron Warriors. The upgrades are not between this option or that option, it is either have or don't have.
.
There's plenty customisation though. It can be viewed, as much as anything else as a presentation thing too.
With gw games, you are typically presented with a basic 'naked' or bare-boned 'frame', typically with the option to swap out or upgrade the basic loadout to other weapon/equipment options.
With warmachine, rather than follow this more modular approach, you are presented with each of the various loadout optionsas a distinctive 'unit type' and 'finished product'.
Rather than a basic man o war frame armed with shield cannon and anihalator blade for x points which can be swapped out for an ice maul for y points or a grenade cannon for z points, you are presented simply with ahocktroopers, demo korps or bombardiers. Specific loadout combinations in gw games are often given their own monikers too, let's not forget. Privateer press Loadout options are essentially more like infinity in presentation. I don't think it's better or worse than the cb or gw approach, it's just a different way of presenting options.
Looking at it this way, there are plenty units and jack chassis that can be loaded out and equipped various ways.
NH Gunsmith wrote: I see your points now, wow, Battletech seems like you could have gone really nuts with unit construction.
Yes, and no. As I said, all the units used the same construction rules (largely, some of the earliest were... quirky). There were a lot of built in considerations when doing construction. Using an Xtra Light Engine would provide more available weight, but take up physical space for Weapons AND make the Engine easier to hit and disable, killing the Vehicle. Weapons could use little heat for good damage, but used explosive ammunition and took up a lot of space. Energy Weapons were rather light for their damage, but could heat up your 'Mech so that it was reduced in function, reduce the pilot's abilities, or even just cook off your ammunition.
The rules were also more nuanced and complicated than WarmaHordes in many areas so that it was usually no more than 4 on 4, and often less.
Still, there are a lot of things I liked about it, and the spirit of creation that allowed was one of my favorites. The other was its turn cycle. The IGOUGO system of Warhammer and WarmaHordes does drive my grognard a little nutty.
Deadnight wrote: There's plenty customisation though. It can be viewed, as much as anything else as a presentation thing too.
With gw games, you are typically presented with a basic 'naked' or bare-boned 'frame', typically with the option to swap out or upgrade the basic loadout to other weapon/equipment options.
With warmachine, rather than follow this more modular approach, you are presented with each of the various loadout optionsas a distinctive 'unit type' and 'finished product'.
Rather than a basic man o war frame armed with shield cannon and anihalator blade for x points which can be swapped out for an ice maul for y points or a grenade cannon for z points, you are presented simply with ahocktroopers, demo korps or bombardiers. Specific loadout combinations in gw games are often given their own monikers too, let's not forget. Privateer press Loadout options are essentially more like infinity in presentation. I don't think it's better or worse than the cb or gw approach, it's just a different way of presenting options.
Looking at it this way, there are plenty units and jack chassis that can be loaded out and equipped various ways.
It is still modular, but also very very limited, and that last part is what you are missing in my point. For the most part, most units are either they are there fully, half-sized, or not (and smaller units do not have the half-sized options). Many get Unit Attachments which add a little more to how they are used. A very few can add a Weapon Attachment, but again, this is still binary, yes or no, rather than which Weapon Attachment you want to add. And that is still how it is today. Back when I first was looking in to WarmaHordes, many of those "optional" builds were just starting to come out, most of the early Granted/Tactics Solos were just being tested. This is still, "take it or not".
That is why I am referring it to 3rd Edition Necrons. Sure, they had options, but they were little more than, "take this unit, does it get its one option?" In order to actually start looking at a more options in the system, I need to be able to choose between UAs and WAs. I would be fine with even that. But hey, there are a handful of percentage which even have access to 1 WA, let alone 2. Heck, Hordes has/had 2 WAs across all the armies out there.
Yes, you can change out the Warcaster/Warlock, but it isn't enough for the unit itself, especially when so many do not do anything for units at all, or one may be looking to expand Iron Company play.
I think the 'options' issue largely comes down to the size of the game, Warmahordes tends to be a lower model count than say 40k, but its still usually between 20-30 models at which point nonspeedy book-keeping and 'what model does what ?' starts to impact the flow of the game
I think Charistoph's Battletech example is good, yes the Battletech rules allow all sorts of custom hijinx but at the 'cost' of model count, I suspect you could play bigger games but then stock builds and/or duplicate units become the norm.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I think the 'options' issue largely comes down to the size of the game, Warmahordes tends to be a lower model count than say 40k, but its still usually between 20-30 models at which point nonspeedy book-keeping and 'what model does what ?' starts to impact the flow of the game
There are still opportunities for options even in low-point games, and it is something I have pointed out a couple times now. The availability of UAs would be the easiest to set up and use to influence this as they are already more plentiful than the Weapon Attachments. But I still would like to see more Weapon Attachments come out, as they are almost non-existant in Hordes and still rather rare in Hordes. The Solos help with this, but I still see them as separate units capable of being used independently.
But again, those are MY problems with WarmaHordes. This doesn't make it the game bad, just one of the things I find wrong with the game and could be improved.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I think Charistoph's Battletech example is good, yes the Battletech rules allow all sorts of custom hijinx but at the 'cost' of model count, I suspect you could play bigger games but then stock builds and/or duplicate units become the norm.
Not exactly, There is a lot of room for exploration, especially since they have increased the options over time. And oddly enough, there is never enough room to do what you want. Even more so, when it comes to a lot of tournaments and events, it is preferred to use corporate designs. There is also the challenge involved with using these less-optimal designs that attracts a lot of the more experienced players.
Not thrilled they're removing the cards from the packages. Feels like a nickel and dime move if I have to keep buying the faction decks over and over (super excited at the prospect of having to rebuy the Skorne deck because they released something that wasn't done).
All of the cards are going to be available online. You can pay to get them printed up like their cards on the same quality card stock etc, or you can just print it yourself. They feel this will allow them to update and tweak things that the community comes across through the community playtesting, and saving people from buying a model and having an out of date card too soon. So theoretically it's an improvement and I guess we'll see in time. I like my war room though so it doesn't really factor in to my gaming.
motyak wrote: All of the cards are going to be available online. You can pay to get them printed up like their cards on the same quality card stock etc, or you can just print it yourself. They feel this will allow them to update and tweak things that the community comes across through the community playtesting, and saving people from buying a model and having an out of date card too soon. So theoretically it's an improvement and I guess we'll see in time. I like my war room though so it doesn't really factor in to my gaming.
Thank you. That's what I understood as well but wanted to see if I was wrong.
I'm not a fan. If they have a problem playtesting these things, I wish they would follow Hawk Wargames model and release units new rules as a demo months ahead for people to play with and test before making them "official".
I just don't like scrolling through the several different cards on a device as I feel it slows the game down but if I can get them printed it's not so bad. Unless they are constantly changing them or I get gouged on shipping.
We'll see I guess. I can always print my own then as well.
motyak wrote: All of the cards are going to be available online. You can pay to get them printed up like their cards on the same quality card stock etc, or you can just print it yourself. They feel this will allow them to update and tweak things that the community comes across through the community playtesting, and saving people from buying a model and having an out of date card too soon. So theoretically it's an improvement and I guess we'll see in time. I like my war room though so it doesn't really factor in to my gaming.
Thank you. That's what I understood as well but wanted to see if I was wrong.
I'm not a fan. If they have a problem playtesting these things, I wish they would follow Hawk Wargames model and release units new rules as a demo months ahead for people to play with and test before making them "official".
I just don't like scrolling through the several different cards on a device as I feel it slows the game down but if I can get them printed it's not so bad. Unless they are constantly changing them or I get gouged on shipping.
We'll see I guess. I can always print my own then as well.
They are going to be doing that with their playtesting, at least that's how I understood it when I was lurking on the PP forums trying to figure it all out. I was grumpy about the cards as well. After having Matt explain it on the forums (it is nice that the head honcho talks to his customers), it isn't the doom and gloom I thought it was.
They won't be constantly changing things left and right, they will only be doing the quick changes like Una2 if something is not working as designed and is breaking the game. Besides the occasional changes to tweak the balance, I don't see this being a deal breaker for me. I would rather an attempt to fix or adjust something be made on a small card than have to wait years to get a new codex that holds no promises on to whether or not my collection will be useful, or overpowered and take the fun out of the game.
Time 2 Roll wrote:Not thrilled they're removing the cards from the packages. Feels like a nickel and dime move if I have to keep buying the faction decks over and over (super excited at the prospect of having to rebuy the Skorne deck because they released something that wasn't done).
Or worse, is it all going digital?
Digital is better for pp, and better for us in multiple ways in terms of a game following the 'living rulebook' approach. If they have to update or make changes they can do it in an easy and straight forward manner, and it should easier for us at the other end to stay up to date. And I say this as a big fan of 'real' cards, but if you ask me, war room is close to indispensable in terms of its practicality and usefulness.
Time 2 Roll wrote:
Thank you. That's what I understood as well but wanted to see if I was wrong.
I'm not a fan. If they have a problem playtesting these things, I wish they would follow Hawk Wargames model and release units new rules as a demo months ahead for people to play with and test before making them "official".
They will be following this approach. Digital is simply better for this. Cards have to be printed, and once printed are 'fixed' and permanent. And should issues arise, printed cards can't be fixed as easier. Use of cardboard cards as the primary means of presenting rules actually holds privateer press back. One of the changes of mk3 Isi pp changing to a 'living rulebook' approach where necessary changes can be made and implemented easily. And communicated easily.
Essentially new releases have a demo/beta period where pp can and will take feedback and will make changes as necessary.
Time 2 Roll wrote:
I just don't like scrolling through the several different cards on a device as I feel it slows the game down but if I can get them printed it's not so bad. Unless they are constantly changing them or I get gouged on shipping.
We'll see I guess. I can always print my own then as well.
Hmm, as I understand from Matt Wilson War room will be updated with the changes, so you shouldn't be dealing with multiple versions of a card - just what's current.
And you can print out your own cards as a PDF. Best of both worlds.
They should hopefully not be changing, but pp have indicated they plan to have a twice yearly errata to deal with problems and clarify rules issues. Even then, pp have been explicit they won't be using this for sweeping changes, but rather just to target obvious outliers that are having a negative effect on the game. Combined with the cid you've got a pretty robust system that is fully capable of dealing with any imbalances that arise. If you're worried about constantly changing things bear in mind, would you prefer the alternative of something broken or a negative play experience existing for years at a time with no means or ways of dealing with it? The latter is far more destructive for the long term health of a game.
If this was a computer game, we'd all want patches, rather than being stuck with a buggy beta.
Back in the distant past of Prime when the book and cards were B&W it was a great system.The rules were fresh and felt like a breath of fresh air into what was a heavily dominated GW area. This for me changed when we stared to see the sheer glut of same faction taken to the max with each expansion, This also spilled over with the character models, first it was Epic casters, then what it is now I have no idea, but it is silly.
Instead of exploring the rich history of the world they created it was for far too long focused on 4 factions for each game system, to the point where the lines between the factions has blurred, what once made Khador unique to play can now be done by most factions. The game styles become watered down.
The game is now a nightmare for anyone who is new to enter, which must be a very daunting prospect. I imagine it turns people away.
For me the game was at it's best when it was a Caster some Warbeast/Warjacks and a unit. I think it become to heavily invested in units, the game should be about the big spectacle of watching hulking monsters and robots fight supported by their controller who helps to boost their abilities.
The game as it is now is a mess, however battlebox games can still be fun.
Infantry is still useful, but the average battlegroup is 3-5 jacks/beasts with a bit of support to taste. And it's very easy to go battlegroup heavy with most casters (who you wouldn't necessarily consider jack casters either).
It's much harder to build as infantry heavy then it was in mk2. And what's wrong with faction diversity? It cuts down on autolose matchups and prevents you from having to play into the same kinds of lists over and over again.
stonehorse wrote: Back in the distant past of Prime when the book and cards were B&W it was a great system.The rules were fresh and felt like a breath of fresh air into what was a heavily dominated GW area. This for me changed when we stared to see the sheer glut of same faction taken to the max with each expansion, This also spilled over with the character models, first it was Epic casters, then what it is now I have no idea, but it is silly.
I disagree. 'Epic' characters (which is really mk1 terminology) are absolutely fine for an ongoing storyline in what is essentially a character-centric game and they simply represent the changes those characters go through as the story moves forward. There have been some very interesting character evolutions in that time. I'd rather have three different versions of vlad or Stryker than three completely 'new' characters. Or even 'make your own' characters where everyone's special snowflake is a thing.
I also disagree that it 'was' a great system. Mk1 was brilliant, butnalso brilliantly flawed and had any amount of poorly designed ridiculous shenanigans that bogged a game down into tediousness. Mk2 was a huge leap forward, but had its issues. The game grew overall, but for all that, while there's are more units and things, I disagree that these have made the game worse.
Instead of exploring the rich history of the world they created it was for far too long focused on 4 factions for each game system, to the point where the lines between the factions has blurred, what once made Khador unique to play can now be done by most factions. The game styles become watered down.
.
I think you might be out of touch with recent developments. Pp have done a lot exploring the history of the world. Firstly, check out skull island expeditions - their publishing arm. They've released quite a few collections and novels from some impressive names as well. Secondly, check out the iron kingdoms rpg material. Pp felt the rpg was the better method of exploring the world and its history, and there Is merit in that approach. The core books (ikrpg and unleashed) are backed up by some pretty epic source books like kings nations and gods as well Asmara some published adventures. If you want to see the richness of the world, there's where you go. And it's pretty epic if you ask me.
Also, it's not just the four factions any more. You're probsbly aware of the retribution of scyrah, the convergence of Cyriss and the cephalyx releases as well as the new hordes factions of grymkin- which look quite interesting if you ask me. Also there are the subfactions covered in the various mercenary/minion pacts.
Regarding the lines between the factions being blurred, that is an inevitable consequence of the growth of the game. And unless you want factions to stagnate and be pigeonholed into one idea, factions need To grow organically into other areas or they risk becoming a one dimensional charicature (blood angels with bloodfists, blood missiles and bloodnouns all over the place)This is inevitable, and frankly, necessary and is not a bad thing. All factions have varied playbooks. can do more than one thing, but they do them in subtle and different ways. This is a good thing for the health of the game. Khador, for example might have some shooting units but how they approach the shooting game is different to how retribution or cygnar do it. Khador is still khador and will never play, or be a red cygnar even if technically, they can now do some of the things that only cygnar did in the original release over ten years ago.
The game is now a nightmare for anyone who is new to enter, which must be a very daunting prospect. I imagine it turns people away.
There is a lot of stuff there, but you don't need all of it to get going. There is any amount of advice and 'how to' guides from the community to prospective new people's thst it's not like chucking someone into the wilderness and expecting them to survive.
For me the game was at it's best when it was a Caster some Warbeast/Warjacks and a unit. I think it become to heavily invested in units, the game should be about the big spectacle of watching hulking monsters and robots fight supported by their controller who helps to boost their abilities.
Firstly, hordes, aside from trolls has always been quite warpack-centric with minimum unit/solo support. Even trollbloods, arguably the most troops heavy hordes faction have the potential to go warbeast heavy. And in mk3, for warmachine with the new power up rule, it has shifted things up markedly to the point where now, it is entirely possible to go quite jack heavy and not suffer for it. Mk1 was a bit extreme in how infantry dominated at the expense of jacks. Mk2 pulled the pendulum back, but arguably not enough. Mk3 has shifted it back further almost to the point where your vision of a caster, warbeast/warjacks and a unit is a far from uncommon sight.
However, I think warmachine is, and should be more than just warjacks fighting each other. The game is bigger than that. While I appreciate (and like) the shift towards more jacks being playable, I don't agree with the positions that the gsme should just be about this. I like units. I liked the game when I could field lots of units too. Remember, jacks are rare. irusks 4th assault bridage has something like 20,000 infantry and 80 warjacks. I like the idea of jacks towering over squads of infantry - it gives them 'presence' if you ask me.
The game as it is now is a mess, however battlebox games can still be fun.
I disagree. Ive enjoyed all my games of mk3 so far. I think mk3 made some very necessary changes, and privateer press' shift towards a 'living rulebook' is a very positive step.
novaspike wrote: And what's wrong with faction diversity? It cuts down on autolose matchups and prevents you from having to play into the same kinds of lists over and over again.
There is likely a sweet spot somewhere between faction diversity and the complete blurring of lines between factions to the point where factions are represented only by what colors you paint your army. For some it feels like PP has done the later rather than the former.
What lines were you using to define factions? I would honestly like to see a list/rundown of how the factions were defined in your eyes.
How would PP keep the game growing if the "shooty" faction just kept getting more "shooty" things and "melee" faction just got more of the same? Wouldn't people just say, "That's the same thing as that other thing that we already have. Can't we have some diversity?"
It seems as though you have put PP in a no win situation- keep the sharp lines and stagnate or blur the lines and lose faction identity.
armies and nations adapt and change over time, they adjust to new realities,. I dont think that is a problem in the iron kingdoms, they are all essentially human beings, racing to build the newest better thing then their enemy. My only complaint with the whole thing is how damn difficult the "story" is to keep up with. the fluff is too spread out and as far as I know there is no where you can go to get the "up to date" on the evolving plotline.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
There is likely a sweet spot somewhere between faction diversity and the complete blurring of lines between factions to the point where factions are represented only by what colors you paint your army. For some it feels like PP has done the later rather than the former.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Yup, feel it was some time early mkii where that line started to fall apart for me...
Where would you define those lines?
Genuine question.
thekingofkings wrote:armies and nations adapt and change over time, they adjust to new realities,. I dont think that is a problem in the iron kingdoms, they are all essentially human beings, racing to build the newest better thing then their enemy. My only complaint with the whole thing is how damn difficult the "story" is to keep up with. the fluff is too spread out and as far as I know there is no where you can go to get the "up to date" on the evolving plotline.
Pp will be moving over to using skull islands expedition as the main avenue of pushing the fluff forward.
Still, no quarter is great for the gavin Kyle files (love them! They recently dropped a bombshell of vlad marrying the empress), and the more recent fluff discussions (arms and armaments and tactics, training fighting styles of the various units in the game)the rpg is great for setting information, and in terms of the current 'state' of things, prime and primal do a pretty good job of laying it all out, whilst the command books give a good overview of the individual factions.
The tl; dr is that two years of uneasy peace is ending. Khador is getting aggressive again!
Honestly, DN, it's been quite some time since I've played. A couple years back, I could give you a clearer answer and probably ranted a bit, but I've just mostly lost interest... I don't keep up with any meta and mostly think I'm holding on to the armies I am out of nostalgia.
I think part of it was probably that everyone got the same new toys (colossals, etc.) at the same time, which I totally understand, but suddenly it meant everyone had a strong option for super armor or w/e. And, as more casters appeared, it felt like they eventually became less distinct as PP realized which spells were good for roles and suddenly someone's signature ability was on a few different pieces.
I eventually dropped circle because I already had fast move through cover options, and even if it was only on a couple casters or fewer units in a force I already had, I didn't care about the extra options in circle when I could just play circle-light in a faction I knew better. Same reason I dropped khador despite having a fairly large collection there-- they used to be the heavyweights with some epic infantry, but as other infantry got better and factions all got a ton of heavy options, their distinctness kind of faded for me and I was able to fill that niche in list design in factions I had larger collections for.
Factions definitely still had their specializations, but with such a glut of warcaster styles and general options, a big enough collection in another faction could do something similar.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
There is likely a sweet spot somewhere between faction diversity and the complete blurring of lines between factions to the point where factions are represented only by what colors you paint your army. For some it feels like PP has done the later rather than the former.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Yup, feel it was some time early mkii where that line started to fall apart for me...
Where would you define those lines?
Genuine question.
My comment above was to novaspike's question about faction diversity. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that (faction diversity), and there is likely a sweet spot to be achieved in some hypothetical thought exercise, but PP didn't achieve that with WM/H (my opinion).
I stopped playing after MK II's beta test, so I'd agree with spiralingcadaver that the blurring of the factions was somewhere in MKII.
MKI had issues, but even with four expansions + the Pirates release, the games' factions maintained a semblance of individual uniqueness. Cryx were tricky glass cannons with lots of magic and kill vectors, Khador had insane armor, were slow, low magic, but hit like a sock-jack, Cygnar had lighting, disruption, and shooting, Menoth was all about denial, torching troops and countering magic, and Mercs were supplemental and the debate at the time was "are they really a faction?"
I've tried to get back in to WM for years now, but everything I have read just makes the game seem bloated and miserable. The factions are not reminiscent of the factions I originally bought and painted and there doesn't seem to be a through-line among them. Cygnar is blue, but they aren't the shooting army any more. Khador does shooting. Trolls do shooting. Legion does shooting. Cryx is green, but they aren't the recursion or magic army any more, because Legion can do that. Circle can do that. Hell, the new not-Malifaux faction apparently are bad ass at recursion too. Neat! ( ) I think even Menoth does recursion now, but I may be mistaken there.
My point is, after a while the defining elements of the factions seem to have been lost which takes a lot of flavor out of the game.
To be clear both of you are basing your opinions on impressions made about five years ago. Don't you think that you should actually try the game out again before making your declarations about Mk3?
Yes, Khador can shoot now- but not as well as Cygnar.
Yes, Menoth has one caster who can do recursion (once as a feat)- but that is hardly Cryx level recursion. I'm not sure what recursion Everblight can do besides one caster's feat. One model can use body tokens to make a new light warbeast but again that's hardly Cryx level.
Hearing about a game or even looking at it is a poor basis for making up ones mind about the game. You are, of course, free to make up your minds however you like but I think that you are shortchanging both yourselves and the game at the moment.
I was asked when I got an impression about how the game changed. I didn't say I stopped playing then.
I haven't played mkIII because I didn't feel like dropping $40 on a game I wasn't super in to, to keep up, but am willing to give it a try once the living army stuff drops, but I think it would take a miracle surpassing the mediocre reception it got for me to do more than play with the collection I have and maybe paint a few things I never got around to.
Hearing about a game or even looking at it is a poor basis for making up ones mind about the game. You are, of course, free to make up your minds however you like but I think that you are shortchanging both yourselves and the game at the moment.
While what you say is true, it is missing the point.
I stopped playing in the MK II beta because I didn't like the direction of the changes being made. I was also livid that the Legends models I had just bought were being changed only a few months after release. Every few years when I'd check in on the state of the game all I'd see are the issues that made me quit playing in the first place. Hell, a couple years ago I broke down and bought a Cryx MKII deck a Cryx faction book and the MK II Prime. I read through everything and hated what I found. You know what didn't happen when I read MKI? I didn't hate it. I loved it. I got so excited I went out and bought multiple factions and pushed hard to get the game played at my LGS. But MK II just left me numb.
So why would I invest (more) time and (more) money giving a game that I perceive to be problematic a shot? My nostalgia for MKI is not that strong.
I already spent thousands on MKI, I don't need to give PP any more money. If I could play without paying more money I would give it a shot. But that isn't going to happen (playing for free).
And more to the point what reason has PP given me to take a risk at trying their new rule set? A rule set apparently so hamfistedly launched that the cards were retconned almost immediately upon release and they had to redo Skorne only a few months later. Oh, I get to pay for an app to play with instead of cards because of a "living rule book"? Awesome, more money to spend!
Now, am I short changing MKIII by not trying it? Maybe. But from reading the PP boards, especially the Cryx ones, I don't think I am missing much. And isn't that the point of this thread? To identify what people perceive to be wrong with Warmahordes. Well, when those people give their impressions replying with "Aw, c'mon, give the game a try!" comes off as kinda tone deaf.
Yeah, I was basically over the moon with the first book, had a pretty charming kinda' low budget competitive thing going on. Turned out it didn't have great balance, but I liked it and the next couple books. But the attitude shift in 2nd edition was pretty frustrating.
BTW, I thought cards were going to be free in basic PDF form with the LRB? Was I wrong?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Yes, Menoth has one caster who can do recursion (once as a feat)- but that is hardly Cryx level recursion. I'm not sure what recursion Everblight can do besides one caster's feat. One model can use body tokens to make a new light warbeast but again that's hardly Cryx level.
Clearly you haven't seen or played against Mk3 Cryx, because their recursion is absolute garbage now. Cryx level recursion in Mk2 was amazing, Cryx recursion in Mk3 pales in comparison to the likes of High Reclaimer, and apparently even the new Grymkin. It was SO bad that one of the major recursion feats in Mk2, Gaspy2, got nerfed into such a state no one played him until the new errata made him somewhat usable again.
THIS is a perfect example of the almost complete removal of faction identity, another that you mention is how Cygnar are still the premier shooting faction, while Idrians, kitted out Winter Guard and Farrow Brigands are some of the best shooting units in the game at the moment. Cygnar have a minor form of an identity in their lightning ability, although even that is seemingly changing with some of the teases about Convergence
I'm not a developer of the game so I'm not going to defend it. You see it how you see it and I see it as I see it.
The thread is titled "What is wrong with Warmachine?" If I see that someone says that X is wrong and I feel differently then I'm going to point out why I think that they are wrong. If someone agrees or disagrees then so be it. I've had my say and they've had theirs.
BTW: the rules are now free via download at the PP website. Cards will be available for free around June/July IIRC.
I played Khador for about a year at the height of MkII, and I haven't been back to play in over a year. Why is that? The players, the rules, the models, and the attitude.
Bear in mind that I started wargaming in Warhammer 40K at the height of 5th edition, with an Imperial Guard army.
Firstly, the players in my local area are very, VERY, competitive (at least at the time). I gave it a shot. I picked up a bunch of models, I read forums and tactics, watched dozens of battle reports on YouTube, researched the game like crazy, and put more effort into the game than was probably healthy. In about 40 games I played over that year (about one a week or so), I won 3 games. THREE. One was my first demo game where my opponent showed me exactly how to use my warcaster's feat and spells to go for ran assassination against his warcaster. The second was in a mangled metal game where I was able to eyeball within a half an inch for a perfect charge, which swung the game in my favor. The third was against a Cryx recursion list that failed a bunch of rolls against my Warcaster, giving me time to reform the line and assassinate their caster. I won't complain about the mechanics allowing for assassinations or chesey shenanigans, nor will I complain about not being strong enough as a player. And while the players did a good job early on in trying to teach me how to play and gave several suggestions on how to win, it was never enough to help me pull through a victory. But when one of them says to another "let's go to another store across the state and screw up their meta", that tells me how competitive the community is, which I am not. There is nothing wrong with being competitive, it just isn't for me at all. To be fair, I haven't been back to play there in over a year, so things may have changed. Winning is not everything to me by any means, but it could really be a turn off for newer players trying to get into the game.
Secondly, the rules didn't mesh with my brain. Sure, it was balanced out pretty well, but some of them just didn't click in my head. I also made the mistake early on of playing with the models that I thought looked cool, rather than what was "good". Trying to keep up with the local players, I fixed this by not finishing my Man-o-War units and going for the WGI Death Star, getting a Behemoth model rather than a Decimator, and Doom Reavers instead of Manhunters. I was trying to fit in and play at the level of the locals. Later, I skimmed through MkIII when it came out, looking at what would affect my Khador army, and there were some good changes. But I was able to see how PP was making changes to help sell different products; Man-o-war units getting better, while the Winter Guard Death Star dropped in power in favor of the WG Rifle Corps. While the game played the same and Warjacks were now much better (especially for Khador as they got cheaper in points), there were enough other changes that I had trouble wrapping my brain around them all.
Third, the models. I can forgive a model's rules not being good (I got used to that with 40K), but the choices of the designers gave me nightmares. I despised assembling the multi-part pewter models (single pose, fully assembled were not an issue for me), that stuff used on the Iron Fang Pikemen plastic kit was atrocious, and it was almost impossible to pin some of the models's joints since the pieces were so awkward and fragile. I never could get my Sorscha2 to stay together. And what was the deal with the re-pack for the Iron Fang Uhlans? Soft resin horses and solid pewter riders? I had to get really creative to get them to not bend under the weight of the pewter. And then the detail amount between older and newer model sculpts was so stark and contrasting that I did not want to field certain combinations of units for aesthetic reasons.
Fourth, the attitude that I perceived of the community at large. I am generalizing, but the smug superiority I felt from certain comments just rubbed me the wrong way, especially when comparing PP to GW.
"PP doesn't make new models overpowered like GW!" Yes, they did. They both did. I seem to recall it being really bad for Hordes more so, but I remember this being a thing.
"Learn to play! Get good! Play like you've got a pair!" I learned, I tried, and I don't appreciate comments that I can't use in front of my (then six year old) step-daughter.
"No conversions or scratch builds allowed! PP knows what they are doing for the models!" Granted, this is not such an issue nowadays, but when you have abstracted out the rules for a model's height and width bsaed on their base size, why does this matter?
I tried to not be bothered by it, but the comments I heard early on by the Warmahordes players I know to still be playing in my area, but it was the final straw. After trying for a year to participate, I decided to give it a break and come back later. I heard about MkIII coming out, I got the core rulebooks, but it just wasn't enough.
My experience may be entirely anecdotal, but looks to me like several others have had similar experiences to me. This game isn't for everyone, and that's okay. I was aggravated and disappointed at my experiences, but I bear no ill will anymore to the players, the community, or the company. I only wish them all the best, and I hope PP gets Warmachine and Hordes back up their former glory. However, I do feel that PP needs to make the game more accessible to newer players to keep the game from stagnating.
I am a GW fan, but I do know that competition is a good things for everyone. GW can't sit on its laurels again, and PP can't either. When companies compete, customers win.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: I picked up a bunch of models, I read forums and tactics, watched dozens of battle reports on YouTube, researched the game like crazy, and put more effort into the game than was probably healthy.
I also made the mistake early on of playing with the models that I thought looked cool, rather than what was "good".
See, these days at least, that'd be a big alarm bell to me. When you get funneled into a specific shopping list and have to study for a game, you have to wonder if it matches the definition of the term.
But when one of them says to another "let's go to another store across the state and screw up their meta", that tells me how competitive the community is, which I am not. There is nothing wrong with being competitive...
Apparently, there's something wrong with it.
I am a GW fan, but I do know that competition is a good things for everyone. GW can't sit on its laurels again, and PP can't either. When companies compete, customers win.
Re: competition, I'd beg to differ-- GW's been pretty shaken up by the influx of competition and has been doing more interesting and, frankly, more competent (which isn't to say perfect) things in the last few years than when they were coasting on their market share. I think Buster was exactly right there.
Unlike Buster, I got in close to the ground floor, and was highly competitive in the game, never did the tournament thing, but did my fair share of wrecking. And yeah, the entire environment was shaped by PP being the anti-GW, which meant they were competitive with pretty tight rules. But then that got to be the only attitude, and was one of many contributing factors to me bailing on the line. And I was definitely part of that crowd who thought PP was awesome and GW shown as a bloated behemoth that didn't know how to get gak done. Again, I'm agreed with Buster, that PP's currently mostly been resting on their laurels by not really doing much other than shuffle things around for their die-hard fans.
No offense Buster but based on what you are saying the people in your meta were/are Aholes. Anyone who says "let's screw these people over for fun" is not someone that i would want to spend time with for any reason.
Sometimes the game doesn't fit the person and sometimes the meta doesn't fit. In you case it sounds like a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
I hope that if/when you try PP again it's with people who really play the game competitively but mostly to have fun (the 2 not being mutually exclusive). Best of luck.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: I picked up a bunch of models, I read forums and tactics, watched dozens of battle reports on YouTube, researched the game like crazy, and put more effort into the game than was probably healthy.
I also made the mistake early on of playing with the models that I thought looked cool, rather than what was "good".
See, these days at least, that'd be a big alarm bell to me. When you get funneled into a specific shopping list and have to study for a game, you have to wonder if it matches the definition of the term..
To be fair, I was really excited to try the game out. Meeting new players, trying out a new (and supposedly "better") rules set, and a new aesthetic for models all appealed to me. I had been a GW player for about 4 or 5 years when I started my Khador army, and was wanting to try something new.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: No offense Buster but based on what you are saying the people in your meta were/are Aholes. Anyone who says "let's screw these people over for fun" is not someone that i would want to spend time with for any reason.
Sometimes the game doesn't fit the person and sometimes the meta doesn't fit. In you case it sounds like a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
I hope that if/when you try PP again it's with people who really play the game competitively but mostly to have fun (the 2 not being mutually exclusive). Best of luck.
No offense taken! I'm just sharing my experiences. But I agree, the players and community make a huge difference in the experience. But when this store is 45 minutes away from home, and the next closest one being almost 2 hours away, I'm lacking in other players.
I haven't parted with any of my Khador models yet (since I can't bring myself to part with a model I have painted), but I am hesitant to get back into it anytime soon, at least while I am living where I do, since petty politics and high school drama were plaguing the local wargamer scene a few years back...
Basically, a second FLGS opened upa couple years before the first store had some drama with a guy who organized a BUNCH of wargame tournaments, particularly for GW games. He got banned from the first store, so he and all of his friends began to congregate at the second store, now nearly all the GW tournaments and clubs are meeting at the second store. So now it's the WarmaHordes players in the older store, and all of the GW players at the other store.
Add in the fact that the local press ganger works for the first store, won't support the other store because of that, who at one point criticized me for buying a GW kit a few months back ("They'll never get any of my money again!" he said, verbatim, as he was ringing up my transaction at the first store), and the fact that that very press ganger was the one who mentioned going to other store to screw with their meta. Unless the newer, second store starts to get more interested in PP games, I will be focusing on other games and projects.
I sure hope that other communities don't have the petty drama like we do here. Ugh. At least it is toned down now.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: No offense Buster but based on what you are saying the people in your meta were/are Aholes. Anyone who says "let's screw these people over for fun" is not someone that i would want to spend time with for any reason.
Sometimes the game doesn't fit the person and sometimes the meta doesn't fit. In you case it sounds like a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
I hope that if/when you try PP again it's with people who really play the game competitively but mostly to have fun (the 2 not being mutually exclusive). Best of luck.
No offense taken! I'm just sharing my experiences. But I agree, the players and community make a huge difference in the experience. But when this store is 45 minutes away from home, and the next closest one being almost 2 hours away, I'm lacking in other players.
I haven't parted with any of my Khador models yet (since I can't bring myself to part with a model I have painted), but I am hesitant to get back into it anytime soon, at least while I am living where I do, since petty politics and high school drama were plaguing the local wargamer scene a few years back...
Basically, a second FLGS opened upa couple years before the first store had some drama with a guy who organized a BUNCH of wargame tournaments, particularly for GW games. He got banned from the first store, so he and all of his friends began to congregate at the second store, now nearly all the GW tournaments and clubs are meeting at the second store. So now it's the WarmaHordes players in the older store, and all of the GW players at the other store.
Add in the fact that the local press ganger works for the first store, won't support the other store because of that, who at one point criticized me for buying a GW kit a few months back ("They'll never get any of my money again!" he said, verbatim, as he was ringing up my transaction at the first store), and the fact that that very press ganger was the one who mentioned going to other store to screw with their meta. Unless the newer, second store starts to get more interested in PP games, I will be focusing on other games and projects.
I sure hope that other communities don't have the petty drama like we do here. Ugh. At least it is toned down now.
I have been kind out Warmahordes as well, but mostly because I have been turned off with how some of the rules were and the balance kind of being wonky later on in mkii and the community being overbearing. Now for a disclaimer, I love being competitive to a large extent but I want to have fun and make friends during the process so to speak. My experience with some players I used to play with is they can be friendly but they put competition first and foremost. And some that I did play with seem to get on my case if I did play another game, but this were players who were not frequent people there. However, not at the level of drama you suffered so I am sorry you got gak on by a douche. Granted I have my personal opinions of GW and their main games to some extent (Blood Bowl I do actually like), but if I was a store owner and it was paying the bills, I am not gonna bite the hand that feeds so to speak and stock them.
On the point though, not only is that uncalled for but that does seem like a big conflict of interest that the guy was a local press ganger and an employee at a store. Which seems he is trying to push a specific agenda at his store, which is usually a receipt for disaster. Hopefully your other projects do go well for you (and what I found is outside of 40k or Warmahordes, there tends to be a large difference with how communities act from playing Bolt Action, X-Wing and the like. Granted there are some that can be bad, but my experience with those games tend to be quite different but also welcoming. Hopefully something new is better for you or you find some good people to game with if you are getting back to GW games. Best of luck!
I'm pretty sure that PGs are not allowed to work for the store that they are responsible for covering. Also PP discourages PGs from putting down other gaming systems/companies. You should put in a word about this to the quartermaster at PP. Maybe after that things will get better for the environment.
spiralingcadaver wrote:Re: competition, I'd beg to differ-- GW's been pretty shaken up by the influx of competition and has been doing more interesting and, frankly, more competent (which isn't to say perfect) things in the last few years than when they were coasting on their market share. I think Buster was exactly right there.
Sure. I noticed GW seemed to take some influence from Confrontation's success, way back when, and with their more recent financial woes it's more apparent. But I don't know if fancier plastics, video game licenses and dusted-off board games fundamentally change the 'shiny rules for shiny models' thing that 40K and WFB had, and that AoS continues. They just say it on Warhammer TV now.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:No offense Buster but based on what you are saying the people in your meta were/are Aholes. Anyone who says "let's screw these people over for fun" is not someone that i would want to spend time with for any reason.
Sometimes the game doesn't fit the person and sometimes the meta doesn't fit. In you case it sounds like a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
When the game is heavily marketed and reknowned as ultra-competitive, I'd hazard it doesn't exactly do much to dampen those antagonistic, jerky qualities, wherever they turn up. Backpedalling and saying 'hey, page five was only a little joke!' isn't much use when you've printed it thousands(?) of times and distributed it among listbuilding ex-GW players.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:To be fair, I was really excited to try the game out. Meeting new players, trying out a new (and supposedly "better") rules set, and a new aesthetic for models all appealed to me. I had been a GW player for about 4 or 5 years when I started my Khador army, and was wanting to try something new.
I know the feeling! I was in the same boat - I still have some Cygnar minis about here somewhere.
But years and several different games later, it feels like... disgruntled gamers get the first train out of GW city, and get off at the first stop - which might be one of a handful of games, but WMH in this case. But it's such a short distance away that it practically feels like a suburb of GW. What I mean is, WMH may be more balanced than 40K - it's not an especially high bar - but other factors are so similar:
- The 'full package' of rules, minis and background - which is convenient and unified, but also intended to keep you locked in to GW's/PP's system. As one small example, see recent comments about how even conversions of a PP model can be frowned upon, because they don't precisely fit 'the system'.
- The unit-specific special rules, the imbalance, and shifting meta. Three things, but linked, IMO. Each one arguably leading to the next. Buster's anecdote about having to buy the 'right' minis doesn't come as a shock. I see complaints that Cryx recursion has been nerfed; I don't have a clue what recursion is, but it's plain that it's a mechanic or rule that Cryx should specialise in, but don't anymore. Cryx suffers from that, compared to other factions. I see nostalgic comments about the old game with a Warcaster, some jacks, and maybe a handful of other minis. Does that mean that WMH is suffering from the same 'buy more' bloat that eventually knackered WHFB?
Overall, I see complaints about MkIII. Some comments that changes were necessary (which I won't argue with) but also comments about how it upsets things, upsets the meta. (And when I see the importance placed on a game's 'meta' - by direct comment or how often it's mentioned - that's another warning bell to me. Indicates how much effort you'll have to put into gaming the system as opposed to playing the game) It may rebalance the game, but I'll bet a lot of players who stay on will have to buy more minis - the 'right' ones.
All things that GW has done, or accusations that've been leveled at them. Leads me onto...
- Listbuilding. I see people say that WMH is more tactical than 40K (again, low bar) but also about how dependent it is on combos, about new players being skewered by carefully set-up 'assassinations', and so on. GW has mathammering and formations/battalions; PP has combos. Again, all dependent on having a list of the 'right' minis with the right special rules to buy. And so...
- Miniatures. Maybe the least complaint; fancy, flashy models can be undeniably desirable. But like I say, it's a bit different when they come with a pageful or cardful of special rules. It creates a mental link - you have to buy that model for those rules - but can also create a false impression of how flashy the model really is.
And c'mon, did anyone else think the watchamacallems - the gargantuans? - were taking the wee-wee a bit, and trying to cash in on GW's increasing reliance on big monsters, walkers etc.?
PP may have started out with a reputation as the anti-GW, but from a few steps back the line gets very blurry. I'd propose that WMH's popularity wasn't based on doing things wildly differently to GW, but from PP doing the same thing as GW, with a couple of balance and tactical tweaks.
Oh, I totally agree that GW tends towards shallow. But, they've also been making some pretty good board games (Silver Tower definitely has flaws, but has quite a few good elements which have nothing to do with its predecessors, for instance), and have started to get better at making more niche or distinct material that I think drew so many people in around 3rd edition.
Their games are still bloated and designed to move toy soldiers with terrible balance, and I think a ton of what they're doing is banking on nostalgia, but I'm kinda' appreciating what they're up to right now, which I couldn't say a few years back.
You know every says page 5 was there to show how ultra competitive or how to be a jerk and be covered by the company.
Here's what page 5 really says:
1) No whining - I think that a vast majority of players of whatever game can appreciate this statement;
2)Come Heavy or don't come at all- bring your best and let's play it against my best. I don't see anything about being a jerk in this statement but that's where most people find it;
3) Give as good as you get - again a very common piece of tactical wargame advice;
4)Win graciously and lose valiantly- not a bad piece of advice for life in general and;
5)Page 5 is not an excuse- this is the part of page 5 most people forget/ignore. The people who are jerks point to the other parts of the page but ignore this part. PP is basically saying "Play hard, play fair but whatever you do have fun and make sure your opponent is doing the same.
How this translates to be an ultracompetitive jerk per the rules of the game escapes me. It doesn't matter what the rules say to those people they'll just find other excuses for their behavior.
Because content isn't everything. The tone was very aggressive. They did a great job defining themselves as different, but a large part of that was due to that very tone, setting themselves as the anti-GW, instead of play nice, play fluffy. Couldn't find an image of it, but it certainly isn't the page 5 of later editions that they backpedaled on.
And I believe that it was the introduction to the 1st edition that shaped the fanbase and its perception of the game and how the game was received/popularized, not the introduction to the 2nd edition.
spiralingcadaver wrote: And I believe that it was the introduction to the 1st edition that shaped the fanbase and its perception of the game and how the game was received/popularized, not the introduction to the 2nd edition.
I think it pretty much was. Or at least a good amount of the fans twists it into something beyond its original meaning (again, I remember page 5 being a lot more aggressive in tone in mki but still keeping the fifth part relatively unchanged. Correct me if I am wrong on that).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I'm pretty sure that PGs are not allowed to work for the store that they are responsible for covering. Also PP discourages PGs from putting down other gaming systems/companies. You should put in a word about this to the quartermaster at PP. Maybe after that things will get better for the environment.
Someone should tell my local PG that. There's a store, whom I shall call X, in my country that basically makes it their business to buy out influential players in the community, whether by giving them discounts/hiring them or whatever. Another store has complained that basically the local PG is getting a free trip to Gencon from X but coincidentally, the local WMH scene has also moved over to Xs. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
You have anyone in mind specifically? Just curious as to your statement. As far as I can tell most of the big named PPers are too busy with either the PP boards, their twitter accounts and, probably, their jobs.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: You have anyone in mind specifically? Just curious as to your statement. As far as I can tell most of the big named PPers are too busy with either the PP boards, their twitter accounts and, probably, their jobs.
No, I haven't. I had some questions (and disappointments with the assembling of units) when I restarted WM in 2014 and the answers looked like defending PP. You just don't answer this way when you are not getting payed by them or work for them.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I was quoting and opining from the Prime Mk2 edition.
spiralingcadaver wrote:And I believe that it was the introduction to the 1st edition that shaped the fanbase and its perception of the game and how the game was received/popularized, not the introduction to the 2nd edition.
How was the 1st edition page5 different from the 2nd edition one?
Leo_the_Rat wrote: You have anyone in mind specifically? Just curious as to your statement. As far as I can tell most of the big named PPers are too busy with either the PP boards, their twitter accounts and, probably, their jobs.
No, I haven't. I had some questions (and disappointments with the assembling of units) when I restarted WM in 2014 and the answers looked like defending PP. You just don't answer this way when you are not getting payed by them or work for them.
WM/H has a portion of their fan base that is incredibly rabid when it comes to defending it, especially when it comes to comparison to GW stuff.
Zywus wrote: How was the 1st edition page5 different from the 2nd edition one?
Like I said, couldn't find it, but it's a much more in-your-face/aggressive tone. A young company making a strong first impression, which IMHO ultimately negatively shaped their fanbase.
nobody wrote: WM/H has a portion of their fan base that is incredibly rabid when it comes to defending it, especially when it comes to comparison to GW stuff.
Swampmist wrote: Welp, this place might start to see more traffic if the current scare on the PP forums turns out to be true
What's the current scare?
PP announced that they are going to be streamlining their forums, currently the only forums we know for certain that will stick around are the rules one and the one for their new development process.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I was quoting and opining from the Prime Mk2 edition.
spiralingcadaver wrote:And I believe that it was the introduction to the 1st edition that shaped the fanbase and its perception of the game and how the game was received/popularized, not the introduction to the 2nd edition.
How was the 1st edition page5 different from the 2nd edition one?
The full, hideous, insulting, pro-WAAC 1st edition drek for all to see.
Warning: Not suitable for wussies!
Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you.
If you cry when you lose, get lost -- you're going to lose. If it hurts your fragile sensibilities to see your favorite character get pounded unmercifully by a rapid succession of no-holds-barred iron fury, you'd better look the other way. If you've ever whined the words, "That's too powerful," then put the book down slowly and walk away before making eye contact with anyone or they'll realize your voice hasn't changed yet.
This game is about aggression. This is the game of metal-on-metal combat. This is fuel-injected power hopped up on steroids. This is WARMACHINE -- the battles game that kicks so much ass we have to use all capital letters.
We didn't set out to reinvent the wheel with this game -- we just armor plated it, covered it in spikes, and rolled it over your grandma's house.
WARMACHINE is simple. It's easy to learn, has no reference charts, no heavy arithmetic, and doesn't require constant trips to the rulebook. At the same time, WARMACHINE possesses deep strategy. The ability to unlock combinations of abilities and spells and maneuvers is practically limitless. For every perfect strategy, there is a foil. For every immovable object, there is an unstoppable force. Just when you think you've got it all worked out, you'll be blindsided by something you never saw before. The more you dig, the more you'll find.
WARMACHINE favors the aggressor. You've got to throw the first punch if you want to land on top! Too many games set players up to be timid. Games drag out with little action because the game favors defensive strategies. Players park their soldiers behind walls like old ladies hiding from a loud noise.
Not in WARMACHINE! If you want your opponent to come to you, you're going to get steamrolled. You've got to have balls to play this game! You've got to charge your opponent and hang it all out there! You've got to break his formations. You've got to be relentless with your onslaught. You have to go for the jugular and latch on like a rabid dog that hasn't eaten in days. Anything less and you'll be hamburger.
You're playing with power now. Don't be afraid! Few things are more satisfying than slamming your opponent's warjack into a unit of soldiers and watching them fall like bowling pins! (We call this jack bowling.) Try picking up an enemy warcaster (with a warjack, of course) and throwing it across the battlefield! It's almost more fun than you should be allowed to have with miniatures game.
The miniatures of WARMACHINE deliver on every level that the game does. These warjacks radiate power! We're pouring so much metal into these things that at our current rate, we'll deplete the world of pewter by 2006. And these things were made for modeling. The incredible detail and expert sculpting will create one of the most enjoyable painting experiences you've ever had.
This is a new era in tabletop miniatures wargaming. This is a game made for you, by people like you. It's not a load of sterilized mass market drek designed by a room of corporate meatplow. This is raw. This is brutal. This is WARMACHINE.
So play like you've got a pair, or put down the metal and go find something made of plastic.
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I was quoting and opining from the Prime Mk2 edition.
spiralingcadaver wrote:And I believe that it was the introduction to the 1st edition that shaped the fanbase and its perception of the game and how the game was received/popularized, not the introduction to the 2nd edition.
How was the 1st edition page5 different from the 2nd edition one?
The full, hideous, insulting, pro-WAAC 1st edition drek for all to see.
Spoiler:
Warning: Not suitable for wussies!
Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you.
If you cry when you lose, get lost -- you're going to lose. If it hurts your fragile sensibilities to see your favorite character get pounded unmercifully by a rapid succession of no-holds-barred iron fury, you'd better look the other way. If you've ever whined the words, "That's too powerful," then put the book down slowly and walk away before making eye contact with anyone or they'll realize your voice hasn't changed yet.
This game is about aggression. This is the game of metal-on-metal combat. This is fuel-injected power hopped up on steroids. This is WARMACHINE -- the battles game that kicks so much ass we have to use all capital letters.
We didn't set out to reinvent the wheel with this game -- we just armor plated it, covered it in spikes, and rolled it over your grandma's house.
WARMACHINE is simple. It's easy to learn, has no reference charts, no heavy arithmetic, and doesn't require constant trips to the rulebook. At the same time, WARMACHINE possesses deep strategy. The ability to unlock combinations of abilities and spells and maneuvers is practically limitless. For every perfect strategy, there is a foil. For every immovable object, there is an unstoppable force. Just when you think you've got it all worked out, you'll be blindsided by something you never saw before. The more you dig, the more you'll find.
WARMACHINE favors the aggressor. You've got to throw the first punch if you want to land on top! Too many games set players up to be timid. Games drag out with little action because the game favors defensive strategies. Players park their soldiers behind walls like old ladies hiding from a loud noise.
Not in WARMACHINE! If you want your opponent to come to you, you're going to get steamrolled. You've got to have balls to play this game! You've got to charge your opponent and hang it all out there! You've got to break his formations. You've got to be relentless with your onslaught. You have to go for the jugular and latch on like a rabid dog that hasn't eaten in days. Anything less and you'll be hamburger.
You're playing with power now. Don't be afraid! Few things are more satisfying than slamming your opponent's warjack into a unit of soldiers and watching them fall like bowling pins! (We call this jack bowling.) Try picking up an enemy warcaster (with a warjack, of course) and throwing it across the battlefield! It's almost more fun than you should be allowed to have with miniatures game.
The miniatures of WARMACHINE deliver on every level that the game does. These warjacks radiate power! We're pouring so much metal into these things that at our current rate, we'll deplete the world of pewter by 2006. And these things were made for modeling. The incredible detail and expert sculpting will create one of the most enjoyable painting experiences you've ever had.
This is a new era in tabletop miniatures wargaming. This is a game made for you, by people like you. It's not a load of sterilized mass market drek designed by a room of corporate meatplow. This is raw. This is brutal. This is WARMACHINE.
So play like you've got a pair, or put down the metal and go find something made of plastic.
Cheers
Mark
Oh, man. That's so cringy
I don't get the impression that could have been intended to be taken completely serious though.
Unfortunately it was, setting the tone that attracted a certain type of player. Not all of course, I've some great games of Warmachine and Hordes over the years. But that 'manifesto' gave the organised play an ugly foundation.
I was glad to see that it was tempered with Mkii and has vanished in Mkiii, but the taint remains.
Well that was replaced by the time of MKI Remix, I actually have the book around here somewhere, I'll have to dig it out. But it's pretty much the same as the mkII version.
I was glad to see that it was tempered with Mkii and has vanished in Mkiii, but the taint remains.
Cheers
Mark
I find MK2 increased the playerbase enough that the only remnants of the MK1 page 5 are people it drove off that still carry the scars. The majority of players only really know the tempered MK2 version and only make rare references with tongues planted firmly in cheeks. There is always "that guy" I suppose, but its been years since the community was immature enough to take him seriously.
Hahahaha, I forgot about that page 5. You know, it makes me smile rereading it. Yeah, I never took as "You must play like a donkey cave and insult everybody and anybody not playing Warmachine, crush your opponents and laugh at them, and insult their (wo)manhood with derogatory remarks."
Most of the people who were like that, we're like that to begin with in my community, and played like that in every game system they played. They quickly adjusted or didn't find people who would play the game with them. Sure, that page 5 might have given people something to hide behind while being a loser, and it could have been worded better. But I get the feeling it was supposed to be more for a giggle and not taken as the law of the land for Warmachine.
Thanks for finding that, Norfolk. Yeah, that's even a little worse than I remembered.
Not all the circles I ran in took that to heart, but it definitely did attract that WAAC mentality. And some of that was awesome since it made the game more strategy than fluff, but it also warped a lot of people's attitudes.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Thanks for finding that, Norfolk. Yeah, that's even a little worse than I remembered.
Not all the circles I ran in took that to heart, but it definitely did attract that WAAC mentality. And some of that was awesome since it made the game more strategy than fluff, but it also warped a lot of people's attitudes.
If I recall, PP were trying to be different and start with a joke to set them apart from more serious wargame producers.
My meta took it as a tongue-in-cheek joke that was meant to be cringy.
But yeah, it's actually a little embarrassing to read B&W prime's page five.
Considering that they definitely were trying to set themselves up as a competitively rewarding game in opposition to GW back when it was a much more exclusively big game in town, IDK, think it was about a more personal thing, since they couldn't compete w/ the bigger guys, so it needed to be directly speaking to the audience, and I think it worked.
So play like you've got a pair, or put down the metal and go find something made of plastic.
Sure, there's plenty of social reasons to cringe in the rest of the original page one, but the part that gets me every time is the part at the end about plastic, when they're producing so much cheap, soft plastic now.
Also, the bit about the rules being simple bothers me, because they encourage RAW rules-lawyer behavior, reading everything word-by-word, looking for loopholes. I don't think the rules are actually any "tighter" than GW - they just encourage people to read them that way. There's no room for common sense in Warmahordes rules.
In my opinion, as someone who's played the first edition, the remix, and second edition, but not third, is that the designers were never all that good at writing rules without crazy loopholes or event chains, or understanding probability. For balance they rely on having a few patterns that tend to have around the same point costs, and different special rules, and when things stray from those patterns they are rarely balanced well. But they had those nice pewter miniatures, and that attitude, and at least it was something different - a smaller game than WHFB or WH40K, but not so small that it has no character.
And they have to boorish behavior of actually answering any rules questions sometimes within hours. they write their rules using common American English and actually try to make the rules as clear as possible to most people. And you know those RAW rules sometimes you have to just ignore fluff and do things because it's a game mechanic and not a novel.
There's no room for common sense? Really? I mean really? Sometimes when you play a game somethings must be sacrificed for playability but just because it may not fit the picture in your mind doesn't mean it ignores common sense.
Yeah... I'm down on PP for a lot of things, but their rules clarity is still ahead of GW. They occasionally have weird gak, but compared to GW where IIRC it took until 6th to really use keywords and only recently started putting out FAQs quickly?
I mean, could you imagine the knockdown/gang interaction if it happened with GW, you'd be looking at hundreds of pages of arguing over RAI vs RAW, at least PP step in to sort out their cock ups.
PP faltered a bit with the new edition. It was likely released a bit too soon before it was fully baked (which is why Skorne had to be completely redone, the knockdown/gang fiasco and the balance issues). PP is slowly molding it into a well oiled machine. It will just take time.
PP just needs a shot in the arm to energize the community again. I think the new faction will do that in the short term.
Red_Five wrote: PP is slowly molding it into a well oiled machine. It will just take time.
Had a small chuckle over this. Well oiled machine? When they are following in the footsteps of GW I can't see how they will ever be a well oiled machine. After all getting rid of their forums (if true) for people to discuss openly about Warmahordes and PP? Seems like something GW would do.
Red_Five wrote: PP is slowly molding it into a well oiled machine. It will just take time.
Had a small chuckle over this. Well oiled machine? When they are following in the footsteps of GW I can't see how they will ever be a well oiled machine. After all getting rid of their forums (if true) for people to discuss openly about Warmahordes and PP? Seems like something GW would do.
I meant in terms of the rules and the move with the CID forum. I think PP is figuring the edition out and making it hum.
I agree, they are making a boneheaded mistake with the closure of their own normal forums but I understand why they are doing it. Facebook and other social media outlets are the natural place to promote the game, generate buzz and bury any criticism.
The sad thing is that much of the criticism has helped make the game better. PP's own self reflection and desire to make itself better is what set it apart from GW.
I... I dunno about that. Their forums were pretty much a hotbed of semantic arguments and fanboys/mods slapping down most criticism, at least while I was active there.
spiralingcadaver wrote: I... I dunno about that. Their forums were pretty much a hotbed of semantic arguments and fanboys/mods slapping down most criticism, at least while I was active there.
They could be but there was a wealth of knowledge there as well. Every community has its vocal idiots.
welshhoppo wrote: Well the new forum aren't out yet, let's at least wait until Sunday before we start complaining about them.
It is hard not to be pessemistic when they were mass closing threads asking for more info.
Forums are going to be different but who knows what that means. The actual forum software was really showing its age a year ago, and other companies have had similar downtimes recently to move to more mobile friendly software.
It remains to be seen what the new forums are like, but they're hardly going away completely and as long as the rules forums remain and get regular answers they'll be providing their most important advantage to the system.
As for the rest? Well, obvious things to cut are stuff like the List subforums and things like MonPoc (RIP ) forums. I'll be curious what we see out of L7 and Bodgers on that front as well. On the whole its needed a reorg for at least 3 years now, so there's nothing worth panicking about yet.
- General Discussion/Announcements
- A Forum for each faction with a sub-forum for lists
- A Warmachine/Hordes Rules Questions forum
- A forum for any other game they make (with a rule question sub-forum, if necessary)
- A modeling/Painting/Hobby Forum
That would be my "core" group of forums. Everything after that is frosting.
welshhoppo wrote: Well I'm hoping they went silent because they realised they done pooped up and started getting around to fix it.
I'm sure they went silent for most of a week because they have a HUGE database of posts they are transitioning in to a new style. It wouldn't surprise me if it was under a new system as well. Too which, it is easier to transition when someone isn't adding on to the pile at the same time.
Any statements of the forum dying is not but wishful thinking on the parts of some at this time.
welshhoppo wrote: The faction forums were the place to be at, people used to just whine at the flavour of the month on the main forum.
Yeah I'll be sad if I lose my Minions forum
On the plus side, I'll finally talk about Warmahordes on Dakka . PP is crazy!!
Edit:
Haight wrote: Also, fwiw, though i'm a mod over there, i have just as much idea as what's going on or what sunday / monday / whenever brings as you guys.
Oh man, now that really is crazy! Hopefully it works out well for those of you really invested in it (although honestly, what PP gamer isn't, tons of knowledge was only on the forum).
Also, maybe we should make a dedicated thread for this topic, since we've diverged from what this one was originally about. Does someone want to make one, ideally with a copy of PP's announcement (I didn't save it, and my link leads to the forum maintenance page) about reworking their forums?
If you do, post a link here and then I'll lock this one up so we can discuss there. Thanks!
Edit: I've found the announcement and made a new thread for it, see here:
Sorry mate.
) but still the freedom 
. 