Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I keep looking at Warmachine, and thinking about assembling a Merc army when the new rules for them come out (I believe they haven't yet, but I'm not keeping that close an eye on things) but there are three points that are putting me off...

First, Play Like You Got a Pair. I've heard a little about this but it's something that bugs me a bit. If I think hanging back and keeping on the defensive is the best plan I'm not supposed to? I'm not sure if this is a rule of just a philosophy or what. Also, how does it work for armies focused on long range combat?

Secondly, I'm under the impression that you have a Warcaster and it's, essentially, the model that wins and looses a game. Once the model is gone the game is lost. Does the game really revolve around a single model this much?

And finally, I'm told that each time a model is released or re-released it's power and rules make it the 'must buy to remain competitive' style of thing. Which is why I refuse to play Magic...I dislike the idea of paying good money for something that I won't be able to use because the rules have been changed or, in the case, banned.

Personally, I actually like both games. I just can't afford to be in two different miniature game hobbies at the same time.

So I remember picking the game up back when it originally came out, and I thought the caster/jack combo was pretty cool and the caster duel was pretty fun. Then within a year nobody was taking that many jacks it was all about infantry, then it was all about cav. I've heard the new mk2 rules take it back to the jacks being more powerfull, which would make the game more appealing for me to get back into.

My main problem with the game is the model's. Given almost every faction there isn't one that I like all the models for. And it seems like I always dislike the ones that are actually usefull for the game. They produce some amazing model's, and some not so amazing model's, just like gw, I just think that GW consistently pulls off a whole "army" except for the occasional clunker (ie pumbagor). But here's the biggest difference to me, I like to convert model's I don't like and there really isn't too much substituting you can do in Warmachine.

@Warmaster

I agree. I bought the Protectorate box when it was first released and a couple of blisters, but the game didn't take off where I lived. Some of the models are really cool, but the PP shoulderpads give space marines pad-envy....they often cross into the absurd in their proportions.

I like how I bought AoBR to play with my son and he bored with it easily at age 11. It was too simple for him and asked if we could play Warmachine or Malifaux. As far as I am concerned, nuff said, and sums up the childish simplicity of 40k.

Jon Garrett wrote:I keep looking at Warmachine, and thinking about assembling a Merc army when the new rules for them come out (I believe they haven't yet, but I'm not keeping that close an eye on things) but there are three points that are putting me off...

First, Play Like You Got a Pair. I've heard a little about this but it's something that bugs me a bit. If I think hanging back and keeping on the defensive is the best plan I'm not supposed to? I'm not sure if this is a rule of just a philosophy or what. Also, how does it work for armies focused on long range combat?

Secondly, I'm under the impression that you have a Warcaster and it's, essentially, the model that wins and looses a game. Once the model is gone the game is lost. Does the game really revolve around a single model this much?

And finally, I'm told that each time a model is released or re-released it's power and rules make it the 'must buy to remain competitive' style of thing. Which is why I refuse to play Magic...I dislike the idea of paying good money for something that I won't be able to use because the rules have been changed or, in the case, banned.

1. It's not a philosophy or a rule, it's a joke. On page five of every rulebook there's an over the top rant about "playing like you have a pair." In the newest rulebook it specifically states not to take the page as a reason to be a jerk.

2. It's true that the game revolves around your warcaster/warlock, though there are different scenarios, most players play 'caster kill as the win condition.

3. They just had a major rules revision to fix this problem, and I never found it that rampant in the first place.

Hope that helps.

Jon Garrett wrote:And finally, I'm told that each time a model is released or re-released it's power and rules make it the 'must buy to remain competitive' style of thing. Which is why I refuse to play Magic...I dislike the idea of paying good money for something that I won't be able to use because the rules have been changed or, in the case, banned.

Hold on there, dude, Magic very rarely bans anything. Particularly in n00b-friendly Type 2 / Extended events built around recently-released cards. The fact that the very early cards implemented a pseudo-gambling "ante" or dexterity-based mechanism for balance is the primary reason for things being banned. WotC doesn't do either of these anymore, so complaining about a decade-old "problem" just isn't valid. It'd be like you were complaining how 2nd Edition 40k allowed people to make bizarre all-Cyclone ML/Assault Cannon Termie SW armies, despite those things having been superseded several times over.

*Edited for Spelling*

I always liked rolling buckets of dice. It's the one thing that makes Games Workshop games so much fun to play over more traditional type games. There aren't too many games, even RPG's that you get to roll 50+ dice in a single roll. It's just cool to hold that many dice in your hand.

The combo/synergy thing is not really my bag either, because most of the time the unit that you are pulling for the synergy can't really do much else but whatever special ability they are using.

Then there are the "gotcha's". As you're learning, expect to get your face caved in multiple times as some weird ability you never heard of spanks you all across the table. This happens alot if you play more skilled opponents than you, and when you couple that with the attitude that most gamers seem to have, it's not a very friendly environment. I mean, if I want to be embarrassed repeatedly for being bad at a game, I can play CoD or Halo online with a bunch of kids.

And finally, the one thing that just never jived for me was the way the battles flow. The game is definetely a skirmish game, and I'm really wanting something with a little grander scope. I much more prefer the "unit of unit" concept that Games Workshop has going on, and I've been through the Hero-Hammer days. The current 5th edition rules are some of the best this game has ever seen.

Oh, and none of the models really do it for me. Pauldron-machine aside, just look at the Retribution faction. Compare those to GW Wood Elves, and Eldar. The Eldar range just flows together so well and has a very nice, smooth, curved aesthetic, that the Privateer Press range hasn't been able to latch onto yet. (There are some gems, don't get me wrong, like the dawnguard, but the faction as a whole is just going in too many directions aesthetically.)

Hey Everyone, lots of good information here, hope to keep it coming.

I feel it's a bit like Heroclix because of the Combo/Synergy and rolling 2d6 to add to your Attack to hit their Defense.

It also reminds of BattleTech, which I haven't really played, but I recall the Mech Dmg charts and it bears a resemblance to the Warjack damage chart. I think the idea of combo-synergy and having fewer, tougher models sounds like an intriguing concept..so I may just give it a chance as a secondary game to Warhammer.

The main thing that attracts me to the game right now is the cool looking Warbeasts and Warlocks from the different factions of Hordes. I honestly can't decide which one I would want to play because they all look REALLY cool to me.

The Warmachine Warjacks look pretty neat as well, but to me they aren't as interesting or unique/varied as Hordes. Basically, they're all human factions with different colors/symbols on their Warjacks. I prefer to play non-human races, usually something monster-ish or Beast-like...which is why I'm considering doing a trading some Orks for some Circle of Orboros.

Here's an offer that I have going now, I would like to get some opinions from people who know the relative value of both armies of possible.

My
AOBR Ork set.
1x Warboss, 20x Boyz, 5x Nobz, 3x Deffkoptas.
+5 Nobz
1x Trukk
Various other Bitz from the Battlewagon kit, and possibley a huge bag of WFB Orc Bitz, mostly arms/weapons.

He gave me the option of picking 1x Warlock, 1x Heavy WB and 2x Light Warbeast from the following list.

warlocks
e kruger 12
baldor 8

light war beast
2x argus 9
gorax 13
woldwatcher 13

heavy war beast

woldwarden 20
gnarl horn 30

I'm not sure what the exact values are on these, but using the values that he gave me, I would probably choose the following...

E. Krueger
Gorax
Worldwatcher
GnarlHorn.

I would like to get more by offering Burna boyz and perhaps some additional bitz, but I'm not sure how good his units are. What do you guys think?

Zatsuku wrote:

1. It's not a philosophy or a rule, it's a joke. On page five of every rulebook there's an over the top rant about "playing like you have a pair." In the newest rulebook it specifically states not to take the page as a reason to be a jerk.

2. It's true that the game revolves around your warcaster/warlock, though there are different scenarios, most players play 'caster kill as the win condition.

3. They just had a major rules revision to fix this problem, and I never found it that rampant in the first place.

Hope that helps.

It does. Thank you. I'll certainly take another look. I'm hoping to stock this stuff if I get a little shop up and running anyway, but I'm more likely to be enthusiatic about it if it's good, rather than just shifting a product.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hold on there, dude, Magic very rarely bans anything. Particularly in n00b-friendly Type 2 / Extended events built around recently-released cards. The fact that the very early cards implemented a pseudo-gambling "ante" or dexterity-based mechanism for balance is the primary reason for things being banned. WotC doesn't do either of these anymore, so complaining about a decade-old "problem" just isn't valid. It'd be like you were complaining how 2nd Edition 40k allowed people to make bizarre all-Cyclone ML/Assault Cannon Termie SW armies, despite those things having been superseded several times over.

As I said, I don't play Magic. I'm working on what friends who do play Magic have told me. I once asked to look at a friends cards and was handed a large binder full of cards that I could check out, because they were apparently no longer legal. And then I asked how much some of the cards had cost him and went a little pale. And this was from the guy trying to get me to play Magic. If that's not true then I'll take another look at the system.

DarkZephyr, that's not necessarily a good deal. The value of your models comes to somewhere around 70-80 dollars and then add the bitz, depending on how much value you give them. In return, you're getting a "Starter Box" worth of Hordes stuff, which is only about 50 dollars. (The Hordes battle box comes with Kaya, Warpwolf and 2 Argus, basically a caster, Heavy and Two Lights).

Well i would say that the aobr stuff and the truck is worth about 60-70, and you cant comepare the battle box with the one he has picked out because it the cheepest stuff vs the more exspensive stuff also the price that are copared to are from miniature market at 30% retail, it was also offer number one, and if you where to compare normal retail it 85 dollars worth of circle, and ebay dakka rouge market, and every else there is guys almost giving aobr stuff away, which bring the value down considerably.

@Jon: most likely he's showing cards that aren't legal in one format but are legal in other formats. Kinda like Apoc.

I think Magic also has different 'classes' of official tournaments, as I remember. As I remember, there was at least one that was pretty much 'anything goes' with a few small exceptions.

Magic's "Ante" rule was actually a neat idea as it was intended to make strategies based on 1 card less reliable and keep the card values down. Few people every played with it as truly making the card 'up for grabs' when I played (which was the first 2-4 years the game was out) but the card was still drawn and unavailable, so you might see your great monster or spell benched for the game.

Darkzephyr wrote:Hey Everyone, lots of good information here, hope to keep it coming.

I feel it's a bit like Heroclix because of the Combo/Synergy and rolling 2d6 to add to your Attack to hit their Defense.

It also reminds of BattleTech, which I haven't really played, but I recall the Mech Dmg charts and it bears a resemblance to the Warjack damage chart. I think the idea of combo-synergy and having fewer, tougher models sounds like an intriguing concept..so I may just give it a chance as a secondary game to Warhammer.

The main thing that attracts me to the game right now is the cool looking Warbeasts and Warlocks from the different factions of Hordes. I honestly can't decide which one I would want to play because they all look REALLY cool to me.

The Warmachine Warjacks look pretty neat as well, but to me they aren't as interesting or unique/varied as Hordes. Basically, they're all human factions with different colors/symbols on their Warjacks. I prefer to play non-human races, usually something monster-ish or Beast-like...which is why I'm considering doing a trading some Orks for some Circle of Orboros.

Here's an offer that I have going now, I would like to get some opinions from people who know the relative value of both armies of possible.

My
AOBR Ork set.
1x Warboss, 20x Boyz, 5x Nobz, 3x Deffkoptas.
+5 Nobz
1x Trukk
Various other Bitz from the Battlewagon kit, and possibley a huge bag of WFB Orc Bitz, mostly arms/weapons.

He gave me the option of picking 1x Warlock, 1x Heavy WB and 2x Light Warbeast from the following list.

warlocks
e kruger 12
baldor 8

light war beast
2x argus 9
gorax 13
woldwatcher 13

heavy war beast

woldwarden 20
gnarl horn 30

I'm not sure what the exact values are on these, but using the values that he gave me, I would probably choose the following...

E. Krueger
Gorax
Worldwatcher
GnarlHorn.

I would like to get more by offering Burna boyz and perhaps some additional bitz, but I'm not sure how good his units are. What do you guys think?

Thats not a good deal.

Better to just buy what you want and not trade for it.

- Plastic orks? You have a good starter set there. why would you short yourself with that?

And for the Warmachine?

You need to get your army list up, and then buy what you want as a starter.
One of the things with Warmachine is that some of the units are great, some are just awful.

They are getting up thier in price, so you go get them second hand, but then you get trapped by just focusing on the price, and get some garbage units, that don't work for your army list, or even work in your army.

Best way is to get your book, pick out your units, get them, and call it a day.
As for Hordes, get on board with the MK2 rules online. They're free.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Best way to learn is to get a basic caster, a jack, an infantry squad, and work them until you know what your doing.

Go through the castor, see how he does by himself against the jack. The take him and the Jack against the infantry squad, and then later take the jack and the squad against the caster.

basic.

then add another jack. then another squad, and maybe another solo.

When you get wise on the rules, then you go against a small 500 points each, and see how it goes.


If you have a buddy that has them, use thier first. try it out, if youy like it, then get in on it. Hardest thing is that Warmachine isn't for everybody.

Sometimes its an aquired taste, sometimes it sits around for a bit and then you bring it out once in awhile out of the blue.

Generally Warmachine is more of a skirmish game, less models on the field so each piece is a bit more important. As for whether or not one is better than the other is almost impossible to say. I personally hate GW I got into wargaming with 40k but Warmachine was just right for me. I prefer to form strategy and combos rather than throw 4 bricks of dice at somebody and say I win.

The final mk. 2 rules for warmachine are out now, with Prime MK2 and the force books and decks now being released. Hordes is right behind it with its tourney legal rules out right now and the final rules right around the corner. So now is a good time to start playing and buying models.

The whole magic comparison is a little odd but I guess it sort of fits, the cards dont really do anything in the game, they are for tracking damage and a quick reference for model/unit abilities.

Oh yeah, theres no such thing as a "comp score" in Warmachine/Hordes tournaments so you dont get penalized for your list being competitive or some whiny player crying foul because you trounced him, never undeerstood that aspect of GW tournaments.

As for the page 5 statement, its about being aggressive. The game is meant to be played aggressively with testosterone and no holds barred carnage. Turtling is generally a tactic that will lose you games. The theory of a good defense is a better offense is the basic idea.

So if that sounds appealling to you as it did me then by all means pick up some models, and start playing like you've got a pair

The Magic statement is based on how WM/H is strongly-sequence dependent, like a Magic combo deck.

Ah I see, that could be said for any game. I definitely see the combo aspect for sure. I'd say the activation order is more important than sequences.

By "sequence", I meant model activation (for WM/H).