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.

warpcrafter wrote:I'm quitting Warmachine because of 6th edition. I started it for two reasons, first because I was bored with how counterintuitive and confining so many of the rules for 5th edition 40K was, and there was a growing Warmahordes community at my FLGS. However, it was not to be.

sometimes a change is as good as anything. i wouldnt recommend selling your army though. hold on to it, fair enough if you dont want to invest much into it, but its always nice to have that "bit on the side". i do it with Infinity. the new!shiny! that is 40k 6th ed will wear off within 6 months i fear. and then you'll be left with what you had in 5th. and 4th. and 3d. iron clad "this is how to play sixth properly" builds, with 3 or 4 "the lists" for each codex. I hope im wrong. but ive seen this phenomenon since 3rd ed. personally, im on the sidelines of 6th. guarded thumbs up. there are things in it that genuinely interest me, and i will take my tau out for a whirl for sure, so please dont think me as being one of those anti GW foo's

warpcrafter wrote:It's not a bad game, but it just seems sort of claustrophobic compared to the wide-open Galaxy-wide setting of 40K.

aye, it can be a change of pace going from the galaxy spanning 40k galaxy with a dozen wars raging on each of a million worlds to a game setting thats the size of france, with casualties measures in the hundreds, not hundreds of trillions. personally though, i liked it. there is more of a sense of a "name" in a smaller setting than in the galaxy spanning 40kiverse - i think its a shame that "whatever happens, you will not be missed" got changed to "Marneus calgar, sicarius and vulkan lead every space marine force in every battle across a million worlds". personally, i dont think 40k should have any "names". they should get lost in it, just like everyone else.

warpcrafter wrote:. Add to that the singular and boring way that the game seemed to be played. (Cram everything together in the middle, run forward, form miniature rugby scrum, roll lots of dice, spend half a fething hour analyzing every single action before making your mind up, then it's over, which is good because there's nowhere else to go, thematically or gameplay-wise. They painted themselves into a corner with the Colossals, and that's that.

the cram everything into the middle can be said of 40k too, to be honest. how about 3rd ed, when it was all about rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush. 4th was camping marines or skimmerspam, and fifth was mechhammer. persoanlly i look at "cram everything into the middle" as more of a boxing match than a game of soccer. for me, its much more engrossing and in your face, and aggressive. as to the half an hour analysing everything, its known as the "analysis paralysis" and its a symptom of new players. its the nature of the game, due to the sheer amount of synneriges and combos. do this, this and this? or this, that, and that thing? *shrug* everyone goes through it. but there comes a point where WMH players start to see the combos. where they start to see the synnergies in play, and can see the best way to stack the deck. personally, by the time my oponent has finished his turn, i generally know my couse of action, and how im going to play my turn. half an hour? heh, try that in a steamroller, with 7-10 minute turns (35-50pt games!) or hardcore formats!

also, they didnt paint themselves into any kind of corner. PP generally come out of leftfield when it comes to introducing new things. No sooner has the playerbase caught its breath than they're shaking up the meta with something new. look ar the news from lock and load. warcaster units. warcaster battle engines. new light cavalry for everyone. iron fang axemen. look at the book collossals. there are enough teasers there alone for whats coming. and collossals themselves were a huge success. they're extremely well balanced. they shake up the meta enough to be new, and offer new tactics, combos, synnergies and challenges, whilst at the same time dominating it to the extent that fielding anything else is pointless. the game isnt going to stop with them, trust me. PP have a huge amount of creative space, and creative energy left.

warpcrafter wrote:. Then sixth edition 40K came out, and my ability to pretend that I liked Warmachine evaporated like an Eldar Guardian hit by a melta gun. And then there's the whole knowitall hipster smug storm that seemed to overwhelm Warmahordes night. All my PP stuff is going up on Ebay, and the proceeds are going toward finecast Meganobs. WAAAAAAGGHH!!!

dont sell it just yet mate. like i said, hold on to it, even as your bit on the side. 6th ed might be all you want it to be and more. or it could all wear off quickly once the meta solidifies. but its always better to play multiple games, if you ask me!

I don't think anyone should play a game only because they're
breaking up with another game. That's like rebounding after
a bad relationship. No one expects you to stay with the person
who's not your ex.

You should play because you like the game, the model, or
the people you play with. Just a thought.

Malfred, in most cases, GW IS our abusive ex.

Surtur wrote:Malfred, in most cases, GW IS our abusive ex.

Hence the analogy.

I'm finally getting into WMHD due to my dislike of 6th ed 40k.

I had always been 'meaning to' get going with PP games but so many GW projects kept keeping my attention. But, over time, my attitude has become more and more disillusioned with GW, firstly a deep dislike of the business practices followed by a growing dislike of the way the game has been travelling. I'm not ranting at them, hating or anything else, it's not a rage, just more like a Charlie Brown sigh and exclamation of 'Good Grief'... Of all the things they could have done, making the game so massively unbalanced and clunky with 6th was like some massive nostaliga fueled rush to turn the clock back to 2nd ed... I played a lot of 2nd as a young man, it took half the day to set the game up and was a totally unbalanced system. I have spent thousands with GW to enjoy months and even years with my codices at the bottom of the food chain, waiting for an upgrade, whilst MEQ players enjoy a different tier of treatment, despite me paying as much if not more. Even the fluff of 40k, which I have loved watching grow for 25 years, has been altered lately and become overblown and silly (grey knights book).

I won't be selling my armies just yet, but it's like a light has gone out for me with the game. This edition finally got me off my arse to get reading about Warmachine seriously.

I'm loving what I'm reading of PP's games, they seem far more balanced and the play seems delightfully straighforward... time will tell what I make of it. But I think I'm going to like it and even if 40k calls me back in part, I think a part of me now resides with Toruk.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm finally getting into WMHD due to my dislike of 6th ed 40k.

I had always been 'meaning to' get going with PP games but so many GW projects kept keeping my attention. But, over time, my attitude has become more and more disillusioned with GW, firstly a deep dislike of the business practices followed by a growing dislike of the way the game has been travelling. I'm not ranting at them, hating or anything else, it's not a rage, just more like a Charlie Brown sigh and exclamation of 'Good Grief'... Of all the things they could have done, making the game so massively unbalanced and clunky with 6th was like some massive nostaliga fueled rush to turn the clock back to 2nd ed... I played a lot of 2nd as a young man, it took half the day to set the game up and was a totally unbalanced system. I have spent thousands with GW to enjoy months and even years with my codices at the bottom of the food chain, waiting for an upgrade, whilst MEQ players enjoy a different tier of treatment, despite me paying as much if not more. Even the fluff of 40k, which I have loved watching grow for 25 years, has been altered lately and become overblown and silly (grey knights book).

I won't be selling my armies just yet, but it's like a light has gone out for me with the game. This edition finally got me off my arse to get reading about Warmachine seriously.

I'm loving what I'm reading of PP's games, they seem far more balanced and the play seems delightfully straighforward... time will tell what I make of it. But I think I'm going to like it and even if 40k calls me back in part, I think a part of me now resides with Toruk.

Toruk? Didn't you mean Everblight? I'm pretty sure thats what you meant...

Here's a thought, if all of dakka switched to WM/H would the name change to Bashy Smashy?

Dude, yak's not switching. No way.

Tell him Sean Connery prefers Warmachine. That might tempt him.

kowbasher wrote:6E from the ground up seems to have been built to sell models.

That was pretty much the breaking point for me. Where as most game companies make miniatures to go with their game, GW makes a game to go with their miniatures...and not a very good game either.

There's also been two expansions post release for Mark 2 for Warmachine with the second expansion for Hordes coming soon. Nothing in there has become an auto-include. Both the battle engines and the Colossals are good additions, but neither were game breaking nor caused power creep. Everything that was viable before still is but there's more options (not got to haves).

This is a great change for PP that was a constant problem with Mark 1 and pretty much every edition of every GW system in the last 25 years.

Quick question. What army is everyone playing/played in 40k? I played Orks (and IG but stopped playing them because it wasn't fair to my opponents).

Seems like a lot of the people commenting played an non-imperial army from the responses, but I could be wrong.

I'm keeping a 40K army to play with if I feel like it, but I've slowly been switching to WMH for about 4 years. 6th edition will probably push me a little further in that direction. Wish their plastic kits were as good as GW's though.

mrfantastical wrote:Quick question. What army is everyone playing/played in 40k? I played Orks (and IG but stopped playing them because it wasn't fair to my opponents).

Seems like a lot of the people commenting played an non-imperial army from the responses, but I could be wrong.

I played both tau and tyranids, but this was back in early 4ed before they got to their present sad states. The nearly back-to-back codex updates along with the new edition changed both of my armies drastically and I could not afford to catch either up. I started warmachine intending it to be a small side project as I slowly updated my armies but 5ed rolled in before I could get fully up to date for 4ed so I gave up. Turns out I didn't miss 40k like I thought I would and got sick of two editions of marginally changed rules. I also resented the tedious and very long games that 40k supported -I'm not sure I ever played one to the conclusion and usually one of the players gave up by the top of the fourth turn.
I loved 40k while I was into it and absorbed all the fluff and strategies I could, but I found both to be too finite and eventually the fun well ran dry.

mrfantastical wrote:Quick question. What army is everyone playing/played in 40k? I played Orks (and IG but stopped playing them because it wasn't fair to my opponents).

Seems like a lot of the people commenting played an non-imperial army from the responses, but I could be wrong.

Well the two I own right now are GK and Eldar.

I haven't done anything yet.

But...

I have some Cygnar painted up, and more to build. I was underwhelmed with my first game of 6th.

Honestly, I'll just go with whatever system people are playing. I want to game more than I want to play either game.

Of course, as long as I'm working overtime, I doubt I'll be doing much of either.

mrfantastical wrote:Quick question. What army is everyone playing/played in 40k? I played Orks (and IG but stopped playing them because it wasn't fair to my opponents).

Seems like a lot of the people commenting played an non-imperial army from the responses, but I could be wrong.

I actually played Space Marines. A very small Dark Eldar army as my first (right around when 3rd edition came out) but I was brand new to tabletop gaming and didn't really understand the nuances, and Dark Eldar are definitely a finesse army. Then I got an even smaller Necron army when I saw their rules in White Dwarf.

Then I saw the Cursed Founding rules in Chapter Approved and started a Minotaurs Space Marine army, which I really liked. Of course, Cursed Founding wasn't in 4th, so from there on I just played Space Marines.

So basically, for the vast majority of my 40K "career", I played Spehs Mureens.

Polonius wrote:

Of course, as long as I'm working overtime, I doubt I'll be doing much of either.

BUT you can afford it more now, right?

Oh the trials of adulthood...

sI played CSM and Eldar, and have some normal SM that I was going to use a s Black Templars. I'll still play 40k (haven't tried 6th ed yet) but I won't be investing in it like I used to.

malfred wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Of course, as long as I'm working overtime, I doubt I'll be doing much of either.

BUT you can afford it more now, right?

Oh the trials of adulthood...

I've got so much cash I can afford to buy GW at full retail!

I can't say that I'm playing Warmachine because of 6th. However I am now exclusively playing Warmachine because of 6th. Don't get me wrong, I loved my years of 40K, I think GW's models are amazing, however the recent price increases have scared even myself who I've considered to have a substantial amount of disposable income away. Then, the introduction of so many random things in the game really turned me off. I guess I can't say that I needed a lot of pushing, I have played maybe 2 or 3 40K games in the last 6 months since I started playing Warmachine. I've also been happy with a very diversified game with multiple faction who are all competitive / balanced, not just god knows how many space marine variants. If GW would chill on their price increases at least moderately, publish a balanced game (I don't need it to be competitive, just balanced), and most of all introduce something other than another space marine codex every other release, I'd be pretty fine continuing to play. I have purchased the rulebook, and I'm not running around screaming I'm gonna sell all my 40K, but I'm definitely not investing into the game any more. Well, technically I guess I have with the purchase of the new rulebook, but I mean with new models.

I started WM/H after the recent price hike. I just couldn't justify to myself to spend more money to revamp my Ork, Eldar, and Nid armies to remain effective on the battlefield.

What really reeled me in was when I saw a demo where a Carnivean picked up a Shredder and threw it at Coleman Stryker. I said "I wish my Carnifex or my Wraithlord could throw more than a dirty look at something". Then they introduced me to all the things that could be done in the game.

I have made the following analogy and most have agreed with it: WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers. Both games are good, but to me, I prefer Chess to Checkers.

I've heard the chess and checkers analogy before and I can't say it is totally inaccurate, but I am not sure it is entirely fitting. I liken the games more to a different analogy: Warmachine is like legos and 40k is like play-doh. they both allow creativity and fun but are bound by their intrinsic properties. It may not be a better comparison than chess and checkers but I think it encapsulates the rules, game structure, and background well.

In warmachine the game you play can be and built in an near-infinite number of ways as you connect the bricks. The rules are more rigid like the plastic bricks and can bear quite a load, but when everything is all together you are going to have some sharp corners and edges. Some people don't like to have the seems between blocks and bumps on top showing and get turned off. The background is also confined a bit -there are a lot of bricks out there, but if you are looking an orange corner piece you might not have that in your toybox.

40k is like play-doh in that it offers an infinite and shapeable sandbox. The rules don't hold a sharp edge well and can sometimes deform if you press hard enough, but you are open to make whatever you can imagine without restraint. Some people love to leave their fingerprints on their new creations and really get into making it their own. You can even mix the colors now! The problem here is how easily things get squished when a big blob from a different color gets added to the pile. I also found that 40k got a bit stale; as soon as I exhausted the old fluff archives, my play-doh dried out as a consequence.

UsdiThunder wrote:WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers.

God this gets so over-used. I still remember when WHFB was Chess and 40k was Checkers

WM/H is like Magic. It's heavily combo-reliant and requires that you know your list and your opponent's lists. 40k is like chess. You can have 2 really good players who can have an intense, strategic, and well thought out game, but for most people it's 2 guys playing for the hell of it.

They're two completely different games with two completely different purposes.

Cryonicleech wrote:

UsdiThunder wrote:WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers.

WM/H is like Magic. It's heavily combo-reliant and requires that you know your list and your opponent's lists. 40k is like chess. You can have 2 really good players who can have an intense, strategic, and well thought out game, but for most people it's 2 guys playing for the hell of it.

horsegak. I've never had a game of chess where I failed to take a piece because I failed to roll far enough to move.

Dais wrote:I've heard the chess and checkers analogy before and I can't say it is totally inaccurate, but I am not sure it is entirely fitting. I liken the games more to a different analogy: Warmachine is like legos and 40k is like play-doh. they both allow creativity and fun but are bound by their intrinsic properties. It may not be a better comparison than chess and checkers but I think it encapsulates the rules, game structure, and background well.

In warmachine the game you play can be and built in an near-infinite number of ways as you connect the bricks. The rules are more rigid like the plastic bricks and can bear quite a load, but when everything is all together you are going to have some sharp corners and edges. Some people don't like to have the seems between blocks and bumps on top showing and get turned off. The background is also confined a bit -there are a lot of bricks out there, but if you are looking an orange corner piece you might not have that in your toybox.

40k is like play-doh in that it offers an infinite and shapeable sandbox. The rules don't hold a sharp edge well and can sometimes deform if you press hard enough, but you are open to make whatever you can imagine without restraint. Some people love to leave their fingerprints on their new creations and really get into making it their own. You can even mix the colors now! The problem here is how easily things get squished when a big blob from a different color gets added to the pile. I also found that 40k got a bit stale; as soon as I exhausted the old fluff archives, my play-doh dried out as a consequence.

This is the greatest analogy I've ever seen comparing the two systems!

12thRonin wrote:horsegak. I've never had a game of chess where I failed to take a piece because I failed to roll far enough to move.

I've never had a game of chess where I've failed to kill the king because I didn't roll high enough. Warmachine uses dice too.

Dais explained it better than I did. The flaw in the "Chess and Checkers" comparison is the assumption that chess is somehow better than checkers. Complexity =/= superiority.

Cryonicleech wrote:

12thRonin wrote:horsegak. I've never had a game of chess where I failed to take a piece because I failed to roll far enough to move.

I've never had a game of chess where I've failed to kill the king because I didn't roll high enough. Warmachine uses dice too.

Dais explained it better than I did. The flaw in the "Chess and Checkers" comparison is the assumption that chess is somehow better than checkers. Complexity =/= superiority.

Another problem with both examples is that Chess/Checkers is a balanced game with both sides having the exact same pieces. I fell that WM/H offers the closet example of a balanced game, but 40K.... Not so much.

mrfantastical wrote: I feel that WM/H offers the closet example of a balanced game, but 40K.... Not so much.

While imbalance is a flaw, 40k isn't supposed to be a balanced game. 40k is offered to tell a story, moreso now with 6th edition in place. Which means that balance isn't so much of an issue.

I guess it depends on who youre asking; whether complexity is better then sandboxish. Sandboxing is a poor excuse for lack of balance, but If can still enjoy it then knock yourself out. As far as stories; you get out what you put in regardless of system.

Out of curiousity, what does 6E do that produces a better narrative then 5E?