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.

Mastershake wrote:Constructive criticism to the Warmachine community:

2.“It doesn’t feel like rolling a bucket of dice”--- Realize here that most experienced 40K players have a necessarily good understanding of statistics before I roll into the failing of this statement. What has a better chance of producing a statistical average, two dice, or fifty? The bucket of dice will generally produce results closer to average meaning if you’re not rolling a bucket of dice the game comes more down to blind chance. This means that the statement comes across to many veteran 40K players as “I prefer random chance to strategy”. Again, this is not a good selling point and emphasizing this isn’t going to encourage an astute player that the game is preferable. Really it just demonstrates an ignorance of probability rather than anything related to either game.

I'd like to point out that the distribution of results of a single roll of a six sided die (regardless of the number of samples), and assuming that die is random, will be uniform. This means you are as equally likely to have a 1 as a 6. The arithmetic mean of a N-trial test with a Random die is 6/N. This is has no bearing of your Chance of Success with a particular trial (of a single die-roll). In 40K you have a 3/6 chance of a successful result on a "4+", and a 4/6 chance of a successful result on a "3+".

The War machine mechanic (rolling 2D6 and adding the results) has a different frequency distribution, which approximates (more closely) a Normal Curve. This allows WM/H to use their mechanic to make statements with "more certainty" than you get in 40K. In 40K, weight of shots wins the day (buckets of dice). in WM/H the unit's abilities affect the outcome. (meaning P+S 10 vs A 16 is more Likley to wound than P+S 6 vs A 14).

The mechanics are vastly different.

The last post from the OP really sounded like he never really cared about this and just wanted to complain. I guess this was really just a troll though a really well written one.

I have gamed in 3 provinces (about 1000 miles total distance from the most western to the most eastern), across 8 FLGS in wargaming clubs, warhammer clubs, warmachine clubs (as in, that was their focus) and I have never had some one try to sell me Warmachine this way. My sales pitch was "hey, ever heard of this game. You don't need as many models as 40k, it doesn't suffer from codex creep and they will be releasing a new edition soon so its the perfect time to get in." If the OP were to read this (he said he didn't care anymore) he might highlight that it was being compared to 40k. Well, as I was playing 40k at the time, with 3 painted models and 40+ unpainted ones, and I was just complaining about it, it was a GREAT sales pitch. It may seem wrong that one of the best salespitches for warmachine is "it ain't warhammer" but honestly, the things that I like about 40k are in warmachine, and the things that really bug me aren't. PP has impressed me with how they run their shop and I am glad I tried something new. If someone were to start a GW bashing session, I would have a few things to add. Currently PP has endeared me by avoiding those and when people are honestly frustrated over something GW does and a PP fanboy can turn around and say
"Oh, well PP announces months ahead of time what their release schedule is..." (If I knew my Bretonnians were do for an update in the next year, maybe they'd get some more play time, or even if there is going to be a new edition to get excited about)
"Oh, PP regularly adds something for every faction" (see above)
"Oh, when PP did a 2nd ed, they redid every model at once so that everyone could keep playing competitevly." (My poor questing knights when 7th ed hit, oh my poor genestealers when 5th ed hit.)
"Oh, when PP was doing game balance testing for 2nd ed, they did listen to the input of players" ('cause it took how long for players to realize vamps, daemons, hydras are all broken)
"Oh, PP has never left a faction in the dark for years" (Brets are at 6th or so, don't play them, but poor Dark Eldar)

So yeah, that is a great reason to like PP over GW, but that's not what keeps anyone playing Warmachine. That might open the door for them to try a game or two, and then the game sells itself.

The first post was about the 3 things you've heard as sales pitches that turned you off. Then I'd say you are very happy playing 40k, and aren't too interested in trying something else. So the sales pitch failed. In my work, it is never acceptable to point out faults without at least trying to think of an alternative answer.

1. 'Jacks and 'Beasts. I think these should be one of the #1 sales pitches. Apparently it was back in the day, before InfantryMachine took over. I hope mkII rekindles the furnace for a lot of the people that signed on for giant robots beating the screws out of each other.

2. A different type of strategy. (For the more mathematically inclined) I'm the kinda guy that did an analysis of the likely hood of all 10 or higher stats in a D20 campaign. (By the way, the likelihood of the entire party being 10+ is below 10% IIRC) To me, the mechanic of using 2d6 is a great idea. The mechanic of Boosting is ingenious. Showing an in game example of a mat 5 or 6 beast trying to hit a def 14 model with the #'s really does show that "feel of control" and "being able to mitigate the dice" mat 5 vs def 14 - 2d6 - 28%, 3d6 - 74%, WOW, that like changing from BS 2 to BS 4.5, but it may cost you a second attack. (that's when you start going into risk analysis with tree diagrams and such )

3. Feats. (Though I usually forget about them) the 'casters are huge in the game and have that ability, for the turn when you REALLY need it, to have a huge impact on the game. And they are huge impacts on the game. I think it kinda lends the feeling of epicness to the 'casters that appeals to that same nerve that was always tempted to play an epic character in D&D

Deminyn wrote:
2. A different type of strategy. (For the more mathematically inclined) I'm the kinda guy that did an analysis of the likely hood of all 10 or higher stats in a D20 campaign. (By the way, the likelihood of the entire party being 10+ is below 10% IIRC) To me, the mechanic of using 2d6 is a great idea. The mechanic of Boosting is ingenious. Showing an in game example of a mat 5 or 6 beast trying to hit a def 14 model with the #'s really does show that "feel of control" and "being able to mitigate the dice" mat 5 vs def 14 - 2d6 - 28%, 3d6 - 74%, WOW, that like changing from BS 2 to BS 4.5, but it may cost you a second attack. (that's when you start going into risk analysis with tree diagrams and such )

Okay, this would not have sold the game for me. I would have said, "Huh. You can
do that..." and then wandered off to look at the cool artwork...

@OP: I think, in a large part, it's the PG program that brings this attitude out. They are incented to pitch WM, and do so. Assessing WM's player base via their sales pitch is like assessing GW's player base's attitudes via the redshirts attitude.

@Endgame:

Taking the dice out of the occasion: Maybe, but not usually in an even game. Sorscha won't be just standing in your face being def 18 unless the other guy doesn't know about slams. The process in my experience goes more like: "Ok, I've got enough shooting to kill Sorscha if she's def 5 from being knocked down. She's way over there though, so I need to run a jack in front of her then slam it in the back with another. Jack bowling it is. The Pin jack is easy, my Arcnode will do fine, she's small based. It can run to about 3 inches out, that's not perfect but it'll have to do. I've got a heavy to be the ball, but he's only got a few boxes left on his movement slot, and he's engaged by two IFP. Argh. Those free strikes might get him. Ok, I need to kill them. Can't shoot them, need the shooting for Sorscha once she's down...Ok, Gorman can walk over and throw his poison bomb at my own jack, even if he misses the deviation will still have them in, and they'll melt. I think they are tough, but knock down is good enough...unless, wait, does their U/A make them steady? What about kovnik Joe? Crap, which Sorscha buffs IFP? Ok, I can just use my caster to get them off, but that'll take the focus I was going to boost the slam with, now it might miss...wait, I don't need Gorman for the guys now, he can go and blind the pin jack (limit's of his range but I'm pretty sure it'll be in), so it'll be hit on not - ones..."

Caster Kill: I dunno, I think the difference is that mostly the same luck just wins the game straight out in WM. Instead of popping the land Raiders and condemning you to eventual defeat, Magnus double rockets your caster and the other player shakes your hand. Not that WM doesn't have "no win" situations though. Karchev runs up into the Kill Box and his armys' limited shooting rolls its ass off and kills your anti-jack. You get the choice of moving up and getting squished or losing by scenario.

Balance: I know the guy who won the Adepticon Invitational for 40k last year. That's about as big as you get. He's switching to Dark Eldar. I won the first 'Ardboyz round with Necrons against a very spirited field, though they failed out in the second to a scrub who brought substandard units that just happened to hit my weak spot. At the first round of the Atlanta Circuit (very competitive) last week there was an Ogre player on the top tables, while I won the first round of WHFB's Ardboyz with my Chaos Dwarves.

I like both of the games, enjoy and play them to my best. My order of preference is 40k > WM/Hordes > WHFB > FoW.

The last post from the OP really sounded like he never really cared about this and just wanted to complain. I guess this was really just a troll though a really well written one.

Seemed like the affair had run it's course. I'm not a fan of continuing discussions that bring up nothing new for several pages, so if there doesn't appear to be anything more to be said, I generally leave it alone. I stated things that came across poorly as a sales pitch, instead of adressing them, the responses began to read like "this is why I would say it to someone". I was once told at the mess hall that the food tasted like ass because many people were allergic to spices and seasonings. A perfectly valid point, but didn't resolve the fact that it tasted lke ass.

1. 'Jacks and 'Beasts. I think these should be one of the #1 sales pitches. Apparently it was back in the day, before InfantryMachine took over. I hope mkII rekindles the furnace for a lot of the people that signed on for giant robots beating the screws out of each other.

2. A different type of strategy. (For the more mathematically inclined) I'm the kinda guy that did an analysis of the likely hood of all 10 or higher stats in a D20 campaign. (By the way, the likelihood of the entire party being 10+ is below 10% IIRC) To me, the mechanic of using 2d6 is a great idea. The mechanic of Boosting is ingenious. Showing an in game example of a mat 5 or 6 beast trying to hit a def 14 model with the #'s really does show that "feel of control" and "being able to mitigate the dice" mat 5 vs def 14 - 2d6 - 28%, 3d6 - 74%, WOW, that like changing from BS 2 to BS 4.5, but it may cost you a second attack. (that's when you start going into risk analysis with tree diagrams and such )

3. Feats. (Though I usually forget about them) the 'casters are huge in the game and have that ability, for the turn when you REALLY need it, to have a huge impact on the game. And they are huge impacts on the game. I think it kinda lends the feeling of epicness to the 'casters that appeals to that same nerve that was always tempted to play an epic character in D&D

I think this is about right actually with the possible exception of number 2. 1 and 3 both offer features that are quite distinct and what makes the game actually stand out next to it's counterparts. Another big part of this affair seems to be knowing your audience. If the player is genuinely disgruntled about 40K it should be a much easier sell, but if the player is just looking for another hobby a more neutral approach like this is a good bit better. Number 2 isn't bad, but much like other strategy elements commonly boils down to things that you just do. Sometimes you do really need to think about what to boost or when to get an extra attack, but it's usually pretty clear. Deminyn, you've actually suprised me by adding something new in the second page of a thread, you have my respect.

40kenthusiast wrote:
Taking the dice out of the occasion: Maybe, but not usually in an even game. Sorscha won't be just standing in your face being def 18 unless the other guy doesn't know about slams.

If you're going to pull something like that (slamming friendly models into enemy ones) you need to have the right pieces in place. I set this up in MKI with Nemo and MKII with Kraye -- Storm Lance runs 16" to get into (or near) base with enemy caster, Channel spell through Thorn for Free Movement, then slam up to 15" away, and then profit with some nice shooting. You don't need to build your list on it, but just paying attention to the current board lay out will let you pull it off more than you would think.

40kenthusiast wrote:
Balance: I know the guy who won the Adepticon Invitational for 40k last year. That's about as big as you get. He's switching to Dark Eldar. I won the first 'Ardboyz round with Necrons against a very spirited field, though they failed out in the second to a scrub who brought substandard units that just happened to hit my weak spot. At the first round of the Atlanta Circuit (very competitive) last week there was an Ogre player on the top tables, while I won the first round of WHFB's Ardboyz with my Chaos Dwarves.

I like both of the games, enjoy and play them to my best. My order of preference is 40k > WM/Hordes > WHFB > FoW.

Maybe its not as bad as I feel then. My Tau get stomped pretty hard against dual Lash CSM, and my block infantry heavy Empire has lost twice without inflicting any causalities from cascading terror checks when playing against Slannesh Daemons. I burned out pretty hardcore in 40k by the end of 3rd edition 40k and the start of 7th fantasy and can't say I've tried to keep a competitive spirit in either game when WM / Hordes fits me as well as it does.

Mastershake wrote:
Seemed like the affair had run it's course. I'm not a fan of continuing discussions that bring up nothing new for several pages, so if there doesn't appear to be anything more to be said, I generally leave it alone. I stated things that came across poorly as a sales pitch, instead of adressing them, the responses began to read like "this is why I would say it to someone". I was once told at the mess hall that the food tasted like ass because many people were allergic to spices and seasonings. A perfectly valid point, but didn't resolve the fact that it tasted lke ass.

So eat somewhere else? Seriously, I don't know what you expected from this thread. I think people have been perfectly reasonable with their responses to you. Playing WM and 40k both require little models to push around, measuring distance for movement and rolling dice to decide outcomes of actions taken. You're just going to have to deal with the comparisons. Instead of telling the WM community they're selling it wrong, how about you suggest how they can sell it right?

Vladigar wrote:how about you suggest how they can sell it right?

The fabled constructive criticism?

George Spiggott wrote:The fabled constructive criticism?

Doesn't the Internet forbid it?

I play a wide range of games although mostly 40k in the last 6 months. The army I have is Tau. One of the armies that has for quite some time be largely ignored by GW. There are others in in worse shape but not many. I have enjoyed playing the game but the opposing forces are starting to look very similar. Many have some super hero with friends. The game itself takes some time to play and requires a major investment of time and money to build a playable army. I am starting to look at Tyranids as a variation but they are not that impressive game wise, although I like the models.

I noiticed that more players were starting to play Warmachine, a game I new nothing about. I did my usual research to see if it is a game I would like to get into and came to the conclusion it was. My reasons are quite simple:

1) Time to play a game is fairly short if you wish.

2) The investment up front is not too serious.

3) The models are in many cases a lot better designed than the Tau ones I have.

4) They release new models every so often which then adds some newness to the army.

5) They have a set of rules which are a lot clearer than GW. GW do not support the 40k game that well. The modelling side they do an excellent job. Even 40k's most ardent fans are critical of GW for this. Potentially this may be changing but we shall see.

6) The game concept and play is different from 40k and thus provides a new game.

7) The game itself provides a wide set of challenges with the few pieces involved. Each model may have several different options one can use. On top of which, the sequence of play is also critical. This is somewhat true of GW but the fact everything moves, fires and then assaults makes the game play simpler as there is normally no serious requirement to decide what order to move the units in or attack with them. In fact the use of initiative determines the order of attack in most cases.

I do not plan on stopping playing 40k, just reducing the time spent on it whle I try out other games. Both game systems have a detailed world and extensive range of models for it. The games are very different and so it really is a matter of preference as to which one you prefer, if at all. If you meet players who are keen supporters of Warmachine, it is possible some are ex-40k players with a stong animosity towards GW as a company. Many players have had many of their models obsoleted by GW and are bitter about the amount of time and money lost. This I think we can all understand.

All in all, some will play both games while others only one. It does seem though that most Warmachine players are aware of 40k whereas many 40k players have little idea of Warmachine, thus they are not able to make a comparison at all. In all fairness, if someone is aware of both games and chooses just one to play, then he has an opinion on why he chose that game. If you consider that opinion elitist or whatever other terminology you may use, perhaps you might consider other topics on which you know both sides and express an opinion, perhaps strongly, before you become so damning of others doing the same thing!

What a weird thread. The OP basically boils down to "You're selling it wrong from how I like it! Do it better!" but offers not much more substance beyond that.

I'll chip in the reasons I switched to Warmahordes ages back. My background was that I was a WHFB/40k player for decades. I started with Rogue Trader and 4th ed. Fantasy. I switched out during 3rd edition 40k, tried to get back in at 4th, but lost interest at that point.

Here are my top 5 reasons why I started:

1. Smaller model count armies. I am a super slow painter, so I like smaller armies.
1a. Small up front startup cost. Ties into 1.
1b. Skirmish scale is fun. I always liked Mordheim/Rogue Trader.

2. Clear and tight rules that make sense (to me). Much less instances of rules lawyer-ing. I can spend more time on the strategy part of the game than on the rules lawyer-ing part of the game which happened a lot when I was playing GW games.

3. Movement and facing matter a lot more than in 40k. In a way, it was like playing WHFB 5th edition in the movement department, which I liked. You had to plan your moves much more carefully than in 40k. In 40k it doesn't matter if you get flanked or attacked from behind. (At least this was true when I left the game, not sure about now)

4. I liked the troll models. To me they were like bigger, blue-er orcs, which I liked in the GW systems.

5. I like the support from PP. Updates, new models, early announcements, story that changes, community input to the game, etc.

I also had heard the OP's selling points before, and while I agree with some of the points (I don't like rolling a ton of dice to figure out what happened, I didn't like the direction 40k was going in the way it dealt with strategy, etc.) they weren't really the biggest selling points for me on the game. But they certainly didn't hurt in getting me interested in WM/H. So in that respect, I beg to differ with the OP's opinion that they are bad sales tactics, as they did help me to move systems in a small way, though possibly not in the largest way. I am sure there are also others that found the arguments the OP says are ineffective were actually effective on them.