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 think its amusing that people think WM is all about tournament play.

There are alot of WM tournaments- and theres alot less drama because of the more concise rules.

But- I think those WM tourney players also play alot of freindly games. I know alot more 40k players that only play at tournaments.

But the 'casual' thing- it seems slowed to sat 40k is more casual(just look at all the e-drama about 40k tourneys and bat reps). If I walk into a LGS with a 1500pt 40k army- thats like 2 or 3 hours for a game. 35-50 pts of WM is about 60-90 minutes. Being able to play for an hour seems more casual to me- and if that happens to be in a game with well done rules- it just means the rules are better. It doesnt mean the rules are designed for tournaments- it just means they work better.

It IS a bit "Magic: the Hordesmachine", isn't it?

Not really- I mean there is synergy between units. But without positioning and maneuvering them properly thier abilities are a moot point. Card games are 2 dimensional in that regard.

Also- you dont have to have the newest set of releases to have effective units. The 'classic' or core stuff is still viable and competitive.

i remember when i started warmachine, a friend of mine tried to talk me out of it because it was just a "card game with minis" and it was all combos and nothing else.

i actually like the synergy, it makes the game really dynamic. and in the end your still rolling dice, so the chance element is still there. ive seen deathjack triple wiff on caster kills quite often, when snakes come, they like to bring friends.

please go into it its the best game ever, i was hesitant then when i jumped into the pool of warmahine i drowned, its awsome you will not regret it.

I've tried it, and tbh, I can't summon the "killer" to make the game fun for myself - and walkovers must get boring for my opponents.

I initially chose Cygnar because none of the other factions "style" appealed to me.

Menoth? Too hidebound and religous. Fanatics.
Khador? Too "russian" (I have issues with this).
Cryx? Too creepy-for-its-own-sake. I dislike Chaos in 40k for the same reasons.
The elves? I get my fill from fantasy space elves with guns and mecha from 40k. I don't need more pointy ears with guns looted from farscape (their rifles look uncannily like Ka D'argo's sword-gun from that series).

I've since realised that the starter box for Cygnar is underpowered compared to the others. Hence I have not completely given up on the game, it is merely on the back burner until I get a more "competitive" force together with a different caster and some other units.

I like Khador because they don't bother with light warjacks, instead they have troops in steam powered armor. Also, after Orks and Plague Marines, that obnoxious bright red color scheme is a nice change of pace. As for the rules, they are really wordy and detailed, which is good, because it seems to me that it would make it hard to rulelawyer your way into a win.

Mk1 definatly had a bit of 'mtg' about it - cygnar's 'the bullet' It turns into a meta of papers<scissors><rock or mtgs control><aggro><combo type thing>

Mistress of minis wrote:Not really- I mean there is synergy between units. But without positioning and maneuvering them properly thier abilities are a moot point. Card games are 2 dimensional in that regard.

Also- you dont have to have the newest set of releases to have effective units. The 'classic' or core stuff is still viable and competitive.

I would have to disagree with you there. Maneuvering with warjacks, and maneuvering by choosing the cards that are in your deck and trying ot get certain combos in your hand/on the table come to essentially the same thing. You are trying to bring out an irresistable force that your opponent cannot counter. Which is different from a game like 40k, where you are trying to achieve objectives/destroy your opponents forces over the course of the game, with fewer opportunities game-wide to Skarre-bomb your opponent. It's just a matter of preferance to me, really. I got turned off early on by caster kills in Mk I. I am just jumping back into Mk II; maybe it's a slightly different beast now. I hope so, I really do like my Khador. Did my jacks in a semi-winter camo.

studderingdave wrote:... when snakes come, they like to bring friends.

One of hte truer truisms in wargaming, lol.

chromedog wrote:I've since realised that the starter box for Cygnar is underpowered compared to the others. Hence I have not completely given up on the game, it is merely on the back burner until I get a more "competitive" force together with a different caster and some other units.

When my local group started, I ended up with Cygnar by default, as it was the only main faction left unplayed... I think you'll find that MK2 has done some good for the venerable Cygnar starter box, leaving only the Cryx starter being horribly overpowered compared to the rest (15 points in box compared to 10-11 for the others). The Charger recieved powerful shot (1 focus to boost both attack and damage), so it can kick out 2x boosted POW12 a turn with 3 focus - up to 16" if you snipe him. While knockdown has been weakened due to the new "shake effect" abilities granted to warjacks and casters - it isn't as debilitating as one might initally find, considering that to get your battlegroup mobile again, it cost one focus / model. Stryker's earthquake and the Ironclad's tremor attack are potent tools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grizgrin wrote:I got turned off early on by caster kills in Mk I. I am just jumping back into Mk II; maybe it's a slightly different beast now.

If you can't stand caster kill, then Warmachine is not the game for you, as caster kill is still happening-a-plenty in MKII. Loss by caster kills usually falls into two categories:

1. The player failed to protect him/her and they died when your opponent took the initiative and killed him/her before you could execute your attack.
2. The player executed their attack and failed to achieve a decisive advantage (or victory) leaving your warcaster exposed.

While 2 can (and often does) happen because of some bad bounces of the dice, both scenarios can be mitigated by careful play in order to minimize your enemies retaliatory movement. This includes, overcharge, knockdown, smoke, terrain and screening/blocking charge lanes with sacrificial models. IMHO loss of casters early in the game is more a symptom of weak generalship rather than an overly cheap win condition.

I love warmachine and hordes, I just wanted to start off with my opinion. I find play on the table is much more important in warmachine than 40k, I think most games of 40k are won by building a really good list. While list building is important in warmachine if you don't understand how to use the list properly in many different situations your unbeatable list will get curb stomped by many vetran players.
Give it a try, expanding horizons is a good thing. I also agree with others here, malifaux is worth a look check out their website and read the e-zines. If you like the fluff you will probably like the game. Objectives in scenario's are the only win conditions.

grizgrin wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Not really- I mean there is synergy between units. But without positioning and maneuvering them properly thier abilities are a moot point. Card games are 2 dimensional in that regard.

Also- you dont have to have the newest set of releases to have effective units. The 'classic' or core stuff is still viable and competitive.

I would have to disagree with you there. Maneuvering with warjacks, and maneuvering by choosing the cards that are in your deck and trying ot get certain combos in your hand/on the table come to essentially the same thing. You are trying to bring out an irresistable force that your opponent cannot counter. Which is different from a game like 40k, where you are trying to achieve objectives/destroy your opponents forces over the course of the game, with fewer opportunities game-wide to Skarre-bomb your opponent. It's just a matter of preferance to me, really. I got turned off early on by caster kills in Mk I. I am just jumping back into Mk II; maybe it's a slightly different beast now. I hope so, I really do like my Khador. Did my jacks in a semi-winter camo.

studderingdave wrote:... when snakes come, they like to bring friends.

One of hte truer truisms in wargaming, lol.

i
I don't think it's simply a coincidence that Matt Wilson did lots of art for both CCG products (M:TG) and wargames (Vor, etc.). Obviously he had exposure to both, knew people in the industry, and at some point had n " Ah Ha" moment and said "what if I took everything that people like about M:TG and put it in this more visceral and tactile form of a miniatures game?" Brilliant idea actually.

He then realized that he had a vehicle to set him apart: the whole page five/GW is evil/"plastic is for crap" mantra of the early days that was used to gain converts disgruntled at GW and get a foot hold.

Heck we have combos and focus on synergy, factions/attack types denoted on color lines, the inclusion of cards, a focus on tournament/competitive play, reducing one life pool ends the game, etc.

The DNA link between M:TG and WM is definitely identifiable.

That isn't a knock, it's simply an observation

Range and manuever are just as important as the abilities on the cards. Failing a charge, or not using terrain for cover can lose the game no matter how awesome the special ability is.

On paper doing the theory crafting it looks like the card game- on the table its alot less. Warmachine can easily be lost by a 1/2" mis-move and an opponent that can see the mistake. Cards are luck of the draw based on the shuffle- no shuffle in WM.

I do liek the cards for convenience sake though- beats the heck out of 'Wait, let me look that unit up in my codex to check thier ability' If thats what makes it a card game- bring it on

Brother SRM wrote:Don't "move on" to Warmachine, just play it. There's absolutely no need to be exclusive to one game system. If you've been playing 40k for 17 years as you claim, you probably have no shortage of toys to play with.

That was my first thought too.

Brother SRM wrote:Don't "move on" to Warmachine, just play it. There's absolutely no need to be exclusive to one game system. If you've been playing 40k for 17 years as you claim, you probably have no shortage of toys to play with.

Seconding this.

I've NEVER been an exclusive-to-one-company's-game player.

I've played 40k since the beginning - but i also played battletech at that time as well. In the early 90s, i played Kryomek or Warzone as well as 40k, in the later 90s and early 2000s I played VOID/Urban War as well as 40k. Now, I play Infinity as well as 40k.

A change is as good as a holiday. Different game rulesets and different mindsets to go with them. Keeps the mind keen.

Also exposes you to more of the "hobby" than merely what GW want you to believe.

Isn't Chess ultimately based around a 'Caster kill' scenario, when you get right down to it?

Play Anima Tactics. My tournament list cost me 65 bucks and new figs are 10 bucks a pop for the vast majority. Really solid rules, beautiful minis and I've been able to grow the player base down here rapidly. I personally don't like Warmachine's "memorize a list of random abilities" style of play.

Mistress of minis wrote:I think its amusing that people think WM is all about tournament play.

There are alot of WM tournaments- and theres alot less drama because of the more concise rules.

But- I think those WM tourney players also play alot of freindly games. I know alot more 40k players that only play at tournaments.

But the 'casual' thing- it seems slowed to sat 40k is more casual(just look at all the e-drama about 40k tourneys and bat reps). If I walk into a LGS with a 1500pt 40k army- thats like 2 or 3 hours for a game. 35-50 pts of WM is about 60-90 minutes. Being able to play for an hour seems more casual to me- and if that happens to be in a game with well done rules- it just means the rules are better. It doesnt mean the rules are designed for tournaments- it just means they work better.

I think your missing the point.

We are talking about fundamentals of design, official endorsement/support of non-"sport" play, and each player bases acceptance of non-standard play and formats.

40K has official formats for 40K that are 100% not meant to be played as "sport", like Apocalypse. I find far more 40K players willing to play Apoc. or some other alt. format (COD, Spearhead, etc.) or a one-off story driven scenario or campaign then I have ever found in the WM Player base.

Mostly when I ask my WM opponents if they want to play a scenario they look at me like I'm insane for asking, and if given the choice they simply will choose caster kill. It is the norm of the WM player culture at this point, and few deviate from it.

In fact most WM PLAYERS still want caster kill and it's "instant win" quality included in any scenario they do play which always leaves me wondering about if you can ignore a scenario by simply playing how you always do then what was the point of the scenario to begin with? That is the main difference I see in the two player bases. PP seems to pay lip service to non-"sport" play, but PP can't seem to embrace the full potential of story-based play, campaigns, and scenario play, and so leave caster kill in every scenario and dilute the experience as a result.

Yes 40K also has it's share of uber-competative types that focus heavily on "sportshammer", but the people talking about custom armies, campaigns, alt. formats, scenarios, etc. give more of a balance of play styles and a more balanced experience imho, and that is refreshing for those of us who aren't simply interested in how many caster kills we can wrack up...

Not to mention many M:TG players saw Wm as their gateway into miniatures gaming because it was a game that put an emphasis on many of the skills and strategies they had already honed as ccg players. I had many M:TG players try WM when I had my shop and loved it for that reason. It was relatable to what they already knew in many ways despite being presented in a different form. I even heard some of them teach WM to other M:TG players using M:TG terminology and concepts as a reference. Not to be overlooked imho...

You are completely ignoring the scenarios from the MkI books, Superiority had a ton of "caster vs this unit" type scenarios.
Also, NoQuarter has consistently had scenarios that shake up the caster-kill trend, such as the historical cards they had for Karchev before he was a machine.

Your experience is not everyone's experience. Using the words "most" and "many" to try and weigh that is misleading.

My experience has been the opposite of yours. We have all come from GW games.
I have not met a single person that said they started with Magic.
When playing with friends or during league, scenarios are the default for my area. Guess maybe they got bored with caster-kill.
Tourneys are subject to the rules used. We had different scenarios in each game in all 3 tournaments I have been to.

CT GAMER wrote:In fact most WM PLAYERS still want caster kill and it's "instant win" quality included in any scenario they do play which always leaves me wondering about if you can ignore a scenario by simply playing how you always do then what was the point of the scenario to begin with?

Different strokes for different folks.

IMO, having caster kill as an alternate condition in scenario games is more of a balancing factor as opposed to a weakness of the system. I'll give you a few examples:

1. In games that are control point based, these typically favor the faster armies. In order for a slow army to come back from a control point deficit, they need to either annihilate enemy objective holders and then hold the objectives themselves (hard) or kill the enemy caster. Depending on the disparity of speed between the two armies it might not be advisable to go after option 1...!

2. In scenarios such as king of the hill where the warcaster MUST be put in harms way, experienced players learn to limit the hazardous exposure to their warcasters by blocking charge lanes, LOS and by liberal application of defensive boosts - again, a side that is loosing the control point race has little recourse other than smashing the enemy warcaster out of the objective zone (temporary and not very effective) or killing them.

In both cases, one side is going heavy after the objectives and the second side has caster kill as an option. In games where both sides are going after caster kill as the win-condition, sometimes towards the end of the game, neither side has enough resources to get the job done - in that case, it suddenly reverts to a race for control points.

I was looking into it, but after watching a few games, and none of them lasting more then half an hour I decided not to play.

From what i saw it all appears to be a game of "who can pull off their combo first"

skrulnik wrote:You are completely ignoring the scenarios from the MkI books, Superiority had a ton of "caster vs this unit" type scenarios.

Yes am aware of the MKI scenarios: The ones most people never played. Not to mention that was two books ago and scenario play is still the exception rather than the norm.

It isn't a bad thing per se, but it is what it is, and it will either appeal to you or not as a player depending on what you look for in a game and your approach to gaming.

When i want to play a cool scenario or play more story-based games I play 40K. When i want to test my wits against someone and see who can pull off combos, nasty builds and so forth i play WM.

And yes your mileage may vary, but I have seen enough games between enough players, attended enough cons, game nights, and events in enough states and read enough posts on enough message boards ( I have been on the PP boards in one guise or another since when the board had lass then 200 members and I have been playing WM since BEFORE original Prime even hit the shelves) to think I'm not too far off...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShivanAngel wrote:I was looking into it, but after watching a few games, and none of them lasting more then half an hour I decided not to play.

From what i saw it all appears to be a game of "who can pull off their combo first"

It is a big part of WM play especially at high levels. I have had plenty of games end turn one or two, and games under an hour are common, especially amongst skilled players. Either you enjoy striving for such lethality or you don't, but "deck building" and constructing uber-synergistic super-combos is the name of the game w/ Wm...

I never could get behind the Warmachine/Hordes fluff. That and I find that every single one of their miniature lines I like half the models and hate the other half, which to me makes them un-playable. Converting is becoming a bit more accepted amongst the warmachine crowd but I know it used to be very frowned upon.

I find most games of warmachine between competent players usually end turn 3 or 4, there are some exceptions to this of course. Mostly being unaware of what your opponents models do is the reason for turn 2 kills, turn one kills are almost unheard of now with mk 2.
Let's face it warmachine isn't for everyone, it takes time to practice and learn not only what your models do but what many of the powerful models in other army's can do also.
I think warmachine is a great game but it is not a beer and pretzel gaming experience. Play and practice are the only way you are going to learn if you love this game.

whitekong wrote:
warmachine is a great game but it is not a beer and pretzel gaming experience. Play and practice are the only way you are going to learn if you love this game.

Agreed.

Some people however want to deny the competitive/sport nature of WM, which is certainly the predominant play style and attitude of the player base as a whole...

I adopt a "when in Rome" approach when I play WM and embrace that aspect of the game and it's culture, even though I abhor and avoid it when I play 40K...

I agree that it could be a very fun game and what not, but after playing MTG for around.... 10-15 years the whole turn turn combo dead thing is not my cup of tea anymore...

I loved combo decks back in the day, they were one of my favorites and i played the hell out of them... Maybe thats why im not that into warmachine now.

Yes, playing a game with units that dont have special abilities is so much better And when they do have some odd trait- having to flip through a codex to prove to your opponent is so much better than showing them a card :p

People seem to forget 40k used to have cards back in the day, and they were rather useful. That was one of the changes from 2nd to 3rd that annoyed alot of the guys I game with.

Mistress of minis wrote:Yes, playing a game with units that dont have special abilities is so much better And when they do have some odd trait- having to flip through a codex to prove to your opponent is so much better than showing them a card :p

People seem to forget 40k used to have cards back in the day, and they were rather useful. That was one of the changes from 2nd to 3rd that annoyed alot of the guys I game with.

I don't think anyone is denying the usefulness of cards themselves...

WM HAVING cards and WM PLAYING like a CCG are two unrelated things...

I also have seen plenty of people have to flip through WM books to show people the specific traits associated with Tier lists, how a power attack works, etc., etc. so whats your point really?

Balance wrote:Isn't Chess ultimately based around a 'Caster kill' scenario, when you get right down to it?

Not from the perspective that turned me off to caster kill in the first place. What got my goat about it was the whole irresistible combo aspect. You cant combine a white knight and white bishop to produce some Super Queen who can go blast straight through the enemy lines. Really, I was just expressing a matter of personal preferance regarding the game, I'm not trying to knock holes in anyone elses fun or point at other opinions and decry them.

CT GAMER wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Yes, playing a game with units that dont have special abilities is so much better And when they do have some odd trait- having to flip through a codex to prove to your opponent is so much better than showing them a card :p

People seem to forget 40k used to have cards back in the day, and they were rather useful. That was one of the changes from 2nd to 3rd that annoyed alot of the guys I game with.

I don't think anyone is denying the usefulness of cards themselves...

WM HAVING cards and WM PLAYING like a CCG are two unrelated things...

I also have seen plenty of people have to flip through WM books to show people the specific traits associated with Tier lists, how a power attack works, etc., etc. so whats your point really?

Agree with CT Gamer (and I guess MOM as well, they appear to be in sync here) regarding the cards themselves being useful. I thought there were going to be a drag at first until I saw how few of them you actually need. That makes it a hell of a lot easier. Especially compared to the recent GW codex designs that seem to snowblow rules sporadically throughout the god damn codex. That? Now THAT fething annoys me.

CT GAMER wrote:WM HAVING cards and WM PLAYING like a CCG are two unrelated things...

So, its having cards, and being compared to playing like a card game(despite card games lacking things like....terrrain and measuring)- are totally unrelated? I like the circular logic there...

CT GAMER wrote:I also have seen plenty of people have to flip through WM books to show people the specific traits associated with Tier lists, how a power attack works, etc., etc. so whats your point really?

Flipping to a book to show a Tier bonus might happen at the start of the game. Power attacks are a basics rules thing thats bound to come up on occasion. Neither are nearly as frequent as the need for the books in 40k- book that also spread the rules around. Look up one units rule in a codex, then look up the universal rule that goes with it, then hope an FAQ doent make you look somewhere else. Its gotten pretty unweildy, and people seem surprised that games take 3 or 4 hours.

If you prefer having to have a book in hand to play an army, vs a few cards- thats your choice and I'll respect the biceps you build up carryin all the extra books (as its not a requirement to have the WM Forces books like the codexes are for 40k)