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.

Maybe I've just had bad luck, but I've run across more TFG playing Warmahordes in the last two months than I've run across playing 40K for the last two years. Do people feel page 5 gives them an excuse to be asshats?

One guy I played took forever on each turn and constantly asked to see my stat cards every time I did anything. 35pt game took 3 hours and would have went on longer if I hadn't just ran my caster forward for him to kill just to end the game.

Another guy, I told him upfront I was a new player and would need to ask questions/look up rules. He said, "OK" then proceeded to pull out his tournament Cryx army. I don't know about you folks, but when I play a new guy in 40K, I play my Tau. More specifically I play with ~30 firewarriors (over half of 'em on foot) and a stealth team. I don't pull out 9 broadsides and 40 kroot.

I wasn't exactly thrilled by the Cygnar player that refused to play a scenario, then just hunkered in the back edge of the board shooting the crap out of me, either.

I don't mind losing. I've played 40K since late 2nd. Playing that long you either get over losing or give up the game.

So have I just had bad luck, or is this a common problem with this game?

Sounds like you may have just run into a bunch of a-holes and bad luck. I've got some great players at my local LGS, and always have a fun experience playing.
As for Page 5, I laughed when I first read it. I feel like anyone with an ounce of sense will see Page 5 as an over-the-top, balls out declaration, not necessarily as an excuse to win at all costs, but as something to declare to miniature players that Warmachine is/was a different game from Warhammer, and that Privateer Press was here to take the mini games world by storm.

Page five historically had a polarizing a effect where people usually step up an accept some brutal back and forth games; but on occasion, some take things too far. In mk2 they specifically added the clause "Page 5 is not an excuse."

The first case sounds like a new player (or at least one unfamiliar with your army) being a little too cautious, but I wouldn't see it as anything inflammatory.

The second guy embraced the competitive spirit, but missed an opportunity to try some different things. I can imagine it was a pretty unfulfilling game all around and I feel bad even hearing about that. You should be willing to rise to the challenge of a tournament list, but if it were me playing cryx, Id try something new I'd been thinking about so both players' mistakes might be a bit less punishing.

The third guy needs to man up. His behavior was the exact opposite of what the page 5 ethos supports. I would avoid this guy until he feels less cowardly. (and I am a cygnar player so this isn't faction bias)

In short, you're going to find jerks in any community, playing any game. It may be an unfortunate coincidence that the warmachine/hordes players near you seem to be this way. Also, I would like to mention I had never heard of the terms 'TFG' and 'WAAC' until I started visiting dakka, they seem to be terms that are used almost exclusively in 40k/fantasy.

that's 3 people... Also I agree that the first guy did nothing wrong by wanting to see your stat cards. So that's really...2 people...

Quick question, was it a book scenario or a steamroller one? Cause I played a book scenario the other day and it totally sucked. Whereas the steamroller ones a designed to promote battles and get the armies interacting whilst being fair to both sides.

Other than that, first guy is very nervous about your army and is trying to learn it. Before you play him again, maybe suggest he gets a pen and paper then he can note down important stats as he learns them.

The second guy I have been myself one game. Cryx is a different playstyle to most others and I forgot to tone it down for a game once. Felt really bad once I realised. Chat to the guy, remind him you're new and ask what you could have done better in that game. But it was a bad move on his part. How do you know it was a tournament list BTW?

Remember you don't have to play anybody at all. But at the very least play with a killbox. (end your turn with your caster within 10" of any table edge and you lose.)

I'm glad to hear it isn't rampant. I'll try with some more folks. You can say, "It's only 3 people." all you like, but those 3 create a majority at this point.

It wasn't so much the constant questions from the first guy that killed me, it was the tone of suspicion that accompanied them. And the slow play. That drives me bonkers.

I know it was his tournament list because I asked. I suggested to him after the game that practicing it on a new player probably wouldn't teach him much.

The type of scenario (book or steamroller) wasn't even a topic of discussion for the Cygnar guy. He also complained about the single LOS blocking terrain piece I put in the middle of the board.

I don't really have an issue with most warmahordes players around here although I'll admit there a few tfgs I've seen around.

I would almost call the people I've played TFGS but everyone points out mistakes in a polite manner so that their opponent can learn and get better.
They also don't try to pound on new players and they've let things live they normally wouldn't but warned the person for future games.
In short they will try to help you learn but if you don't try also they will pond on you.

.....complaining about LOS blocking? Scenery MAKES Warmachine. 5-7 pieces of terrain, per table at least 3 of which should be blocking LOS. 4" AoE sized forests are perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll just add to my previous reply, though. Page 5 is....an agenda. It means never giving up, never giving less than your best, and applauding your opponent when they pull off a ballsy move that cuts your forces to bits. This is what Warmachine is about. Playing hard, outsmarting your opponent, and knowing that being on the defensive end is likely to get you walloped.

Now, when I go to WM tournaments there's always a good friendly atmosphere....and everyone knows that when the games begin you put on your game face. Never feel offended when someone questions a rule or asks to look at a card....the rules of WM are simple but the interactions of these key rules are not. There's a world of difference between your models advancing, making a full advance, being pushed, being placed, being slammed, and being thrown.

Hands down, though, the best way to play is with scenarios and with lots of small pieces of varied terrain, plenty of models have things like Camouflage, or Prowl, or pathfinder that require terrain to interact with. Not having this wide and varied terrain basically mean Khador and Cygnar have a huge advantage.

Do I think that page5 ancourages a WAAC mentality? Generally in the UK only in the positive sense that sometimes someone comes up with a gutsy move that flattens you. I have only ever played 2-3 players who I would class under the "people I never wish to play again" banner and that's in 2-3 years of being a tourney regular.

newbis wrote:
One guy I played took forever on each turn and constantly asked to see my stat cards every time I did anything. 35pt game took 3 hours and would have went on longer if I hadn't just ran my caster forward for him to kill just to end the game.

Maybe the guy is new? Maybe the guy has reading issues? Not necessarily a fault of the game

newbis wrote:
Another guy, I told him upfront I was a new player and would need to ask questions/look up rules. He said, "OK" then proceeded to pull out his tournament Cryx army. I don't know about you folks, but when I play a new guy in 40K, I play my Tau. More specifically I play with ~30 firewarriors (over half of 'em on foot) and a stealth team. I don't pull out 9 broadsides and 40 kroot..

Here Id probably ask a bit of perspective change. Even if he brought out his tournament army as long as your list itself isnt totally out of whack you still have a pretty good chance of beating him statistically. How did he play against you as a whole though?

newbis wrote:
I wasn't exactly thrilled by the Cygnar player that refused to play a scenario, then just hunkered in the back edge of the board shooting the crap out of me, either.
.

Now THIS guy may have issues against losing. The scenarios are there specifically to prevent "turtle" lists from dominating. Avoid.

newbis wrote:
So have I just had bad luck, or is this a common problem with this game?

Its not really a problem with a game...more the players. The TFG will be a TFG no matter what game they play. Even hungry hungry hippos.

But WMH as a whole though with its competitive style of play and good balance helps get rid of the "grey areas" that the TFG thrives in.

I find that it fosters a competitive player base (combined with the rule set), and, yeah, competition can bring out less pleasant players.

WM is very much based on knowledge, so I wouldn't fault that guy. Usually I just ask people up front "what's the longest threat range your [X] can manage?" when facing something new, as to not take forever, but I think that was fine.

The others seem pretty bad, though.

Maybe I've just had bad luck, but I've run across more TFG playing Warmahordes in the last two months than I've run across playing 40K for the last two years. Do people feel page 5 gives them an excuse to be asshats?

One guy I played took forever on each turn and constantly asked to see my stat cards every time I did anything. 35pt game took 3 hours and would have went on longer if I hadn't just ran my caster forward for him to kill just to end the game.

Another guy, I told him upfront I was a new player and would need to ask questions/look up rules. He said, "OK" then proceeded to pull out his tournament Cryx army. I don't know about you folks, but when I play a new guy in 40K, I play my Tau. More specifically I play with ~30 firewarriors (over half of 'em on foot) and a stealth team. I don't pull out 9 broadsides and 40 kroot.

I wasn't exactly thrilled by the Cygnar player that refused to play a scenario, then just hunkered in the back edge of the board shooting the crap out of me, either.

I don't mind losing. I've played 40K since late 2nd. Playing that long you either get over losing or give up the game.

So have I just had bad luck, or is this a common problem with this game?

This is easy, there was only 1 TFG in this scenario.


One guy I played took forever on each turn and constantly asked to see my stat cards every time I did anything. 35pt game took 3 hours and would have went on longer if I hadn't just ran my caster forward for him to kill just to end the game

This guy did not know your army, he didn't know what things did in your army, so he asked, and was just generally a slow player, he most likely was not being a dick, he was learning your army as in this game, you need to know your opponets army as well as your own.


Another guy, I told him upfront I was a new player and would need to ask questions/look up rules. He said, "OK" then proceeded to pull out his tournament Cryx army. I don't know about you folks, but when I play a new guy in 40K, I play my Tau. More specifically I play with ~30 firewarriors (over half of 'em on foot) and a stealth team. I don't pull out 9 broadsides and 40 kroot.

It does not matter if your a "new" Player, this game has a learning curve, i have my armies, i will play the list i want to play no matter who it was against, If your new, i will not pick a crappy army to play you, i will pick a good army that i always use and play it.. you said your new to this game, let them use a tourney army, let them C-ombo kill you, this is how YOU learn, until you see some of the crazy things some armies are capable against, you wont have a clue by just reading the cards. i Remember my first game against pSorcha.. omg wtf Stationary Windrush assasin from like 13-14", it happened once, i learned, i know how to avoid it now.

You will find games you get stomped into the ground, as ive said, this game as a steep learning curve, learn from this. Don't expect to say Hi, im new, please dont use your regular army, make a soft list so i dont really learn anything about what your army really does.

I wasn't exactly thrilled by the Cygnar player that refused to play a scenario, then just hunkered in the back edge of the board shooting the crap out of me, either.

This guy was TFG, he knew what his army did, and what happens against Cygnar if you are forced to walk at them. Its a bit of a dick move. This is like playing 40k on a 4x8 table vs a cheesy ranged IG list, starting on short table edges and 6ft between eachother.


This is no Page 5 Junk. Warmachine is a balanced game, that relies on you knowing your own army just as much as your opponets. As well as caster matchups.

Okay, I have to bud in here and say something. COMMAS ARE NOT PERIODS. Thank you.

Surtur wrote:Okay, I have to bud in here and say something. COMMAS ARE NOT PERIODS. Thank you.

You mean "butt in".

Pg. 5 does not produce WAAC d-bags, in fact the opposite. Page 5 is not about winning, its about giving it your best and not giving up. It is also about expecting your opponent to do the same.
My suggestion is to always play warmachine in a timed format and use the scenarios. The game is much better with scenarios, and the timed format puts a cap on some of the analysis paralysis that can happen in warmachine.
Regarding your opponent taking his tournament force against you, I don’t see the issue here.
Warmachine can be an unforgiving game; personally I lost the first 10 games I played (possibly more).

Bakerofish wrote:

Surtur wrote:Okay, I have to bud in here and say something. COMMAS ARE NOT PERIODS. Thank you.

You mean "butt in".

Nah, my butt's too cute for this conversation.

BryanC wrote:Pg. 5 does not produce WAAC d-bags, in fact the opposite. Page 5 is not about winning, its about giving it your best and not giving up. It is also about expecting your opponent to do the same.

That was stated pretty assertively. Would you like to back that up, or was it conjecture? 'cause, I can pretty easily see how Page 5 (especially the first edition, less family-friendly versions) could be read to encourage aggression and, with it, competition and power gaming. Not saying I know for a fact that it does, but not saying it doesn't.

My suggestion is to always play warmachine in a timed format and use the scenarios. The game is much better with scenarios, and the timed format puts a cap on some of the analysis paralysis that can happen in warmachine.

How about for people who don't do well under time? Should they "suck it up"/"learn to play, n00b" and, while avoiding tournaments, still be faced with a tournament-equivalent setting? Or, should they "play another game, if you don't like this one"?

Regarding your opponent taking his tournament force against you, I don’t see the issue here.

Another very open-minded attitude, that would encourage the community and new players.

BryanC wrote:Regarding your opponent taking his tournament force against you, I don’t see the issue here.
Warmachine can be an unforgiving game; personally I lost the first 10 games I played (possibly more).

I guess I assumed the point of playing any game is for both players to have a good time. If I had gone to a tournament, I would have expected to see tournament armies. As this was casual play, I expected a casual game.

Having taught a fair number of people to play 40K, I don't see how smashing the new guy accomplishes anything. I could still have learned things without him ramming his army down my throat. I expected to lose before I even saw his army. I expect to continue to lose the majority of my games for the first six months to a year. That isn't the point at all.

I know any new game has a learning curve. I don't think that excuses clubbing a baby seal.

@newbis

again id like to ask how the experience was playing against him as a whole?

because in WMH a "tourney" list and a "casual" list can have very little difference between one another and in some cases, none at all

I play my tourney list against newbies all the time and I play my casual list in tourney lists all the time

yes theyre the exact same list

the only real difference is how i play.

For myself I am always playing my “tournament Builds” trying to hone them and get better with them, this is the army I play.
Now if you opponent was rude or uncivil in some manner than you completely have a right to complain.
Now I understand that you are a new player, and generally when I am playing someone new I go out of my way to explain all the rule and interactions, even calling out when they are making a move that may compromise them due to some combo they haven’t seen before. This is something I do, but I don’t generally expect this type of behavior from everyone.
Just think of it this way, if your opponent gave you his 100% than he considers you a worthy adversary. Take it as a learning lesson and next time you play him you will know what is coming.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

spiralingcadaver wrote: That was stated pretty assertively. Would you like to back that up, or was it conjecture? 'cause, I can pretty easily see how Page 5 (especially the first edition, less family-friendly versions) could be read to encourage aggression and, with it, competition and power gaming. Not saying I know for a fact that it does, but not saying it doesn't.

Page 5, even the original one does indeed state that you should give it your all, which as you pointed out does encourage aggressive play. It does not encourage aggression, there is a difference. It also states that if you lose you should lose gracefully, so it also encourages good sportsmanship. In none of the editions does it promote being a jerk.

spiralingcadaver wrote: How about for people who don't do well under time? Should they "suck it up"/"learn to play, n00b" and, while avoiding tournaments, still be faced with a tournament-equivalent setting? Or, should they "play another game, if you don't like this one"?

Wow you took that suggestion the wrong way. I feel that using scenarios and timed games improves the game greatly. If you find time to be an issue, than give yourself an antiquate amount of time. Here is why I feel that these improve the game:
1. Warmachine can cause quite a bit of analysis paralysis due to all the combination. At some point you just have to commit and do something, if it costs you the game, no big deal you play another game. It can be frustrating to some (and this was one of the points In the original post) to have to wait a long time for your opponent. Timed rounds caps this frustration.
2. The scenarios offer an alternate win condition, which means that your opponent can not sit in the back of the field and camp. The game was meant to be played with scenarios.

spiralingcadaver wrote: Another very open-minded attitude, that would encourage the community and new players.

Actually, I love promoting warmachine, I think it is a great game and I want more people to play it. The fact is it that I have a list, which is my tournament list, this is the list I am playing at all times. I tweaking it here and there, but generally I’m trying to get good with it. That does not make me a bad sport or unwelcoming in any way. On the contrary, I’m the guy who when sees new people watching the game will go out of their way to give them an overview of how the game works.

I'm not the best player, so take this with a grain of salt. . .

Page 5 means two things. First of all, it means that you have a license to play as hard as you can. Play to win. Secondly, it means that you have no excuse not to do so. There are no comp or soft scores to hide behind once the dice start to roll. The game is the game, nothing more or less.

Regarding your three opponents: Guy #1 needed to speed up his turns. After the first few times, you should have just told him to write that stuff down.

Guy #2. . . Beating up on the new guy happens. In general it has two purposes: first of all, it's an ego booster. Secondly, though, it can also show off exactly what the game is capable of. Sort of a, "Watch this and learn: this is cool," sorta moment. The first time you get Snipe-Feat-Go'd or Excarnate Bane Blasted sucks, but hopefully you learn something from it.

Guy #3 was a d-bag.

newbis wrote:
I guess I assumed the point of playing any game is for both players to have a good time. If I had gone to a tournament, I would have expected to see tournament armies. As this was casual play, I expected a casual game.

That doesn't mean the same thing in WM/H as it does in 40K(where it essentially means hamstringing your list in an effort to gain better balance against lower tier lists). As the game and armies are actually balanced in WM/H, "casual play" tends to mean trying out new combos to see if they work and attempting to better your playing. Sometimes it doesn't and it simply means that it's a game where you're not playing or thinking as hard as you would in a tournament and you can slow down play to actually chat and joke with your opponen.

Unlike GW games, "casual play" is more about the attitude you bring NOT the armies.

BryanC wrote:stuff

Thanks for taking the high road, here. I was kind of offended by what you said, and I'm sure it showed in my post, but your explanation was well thought out and level-headed, and I mostly agree with your longer answers, or at least see where you're coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

newbis wrote:

BryanC wrote:Regarding your opponent taking his tournament force against you, I don’t see the issue here.
Warmachine can be an unforgiving game; personally I lost the first 10 games I played (possibly more).

I guess I assumed the point of playing any game is for both players to have a good time. If I had gone to a tournament, I would have expected to see tournament armies. As this was casual play, I expected a casual game.

Having taught a fair number of people to play 40K, I don't see how smashing the new guy accomplishes anything. I could still have learned things without him ramming his army down my throat. I expected to lose before I even saw his army. I expect to continue to lose the majority of my games for the first six months to a year. That isn't the point at all.

I know any new game has a learning curve. I don't think that excuses clubbing a baby seal.

I agree entirely, here. If I'm planning on playing someone new, I'll bring a weaker (or, at least, experimental) list to play against them. I generally won't bring my "A" game, won't play as hard, and, most importantly, tell them what to watch out for. Ill probably still win, but that doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to murdelize my opponent.

Regardless of how competitive casual WM games are, I won't

Bakerofish wrote:@newbis

again id like to ask how the experience was playing against him as a whole?

because in WMH a "tourney" list and a "casual" list can have very little difference between one another and in some cases, none at all

I play my tourney list against newbies all the time and I play my casual list in tourney lists all the time

yes theyre the exact same list

the only real difference is how i play.

I was jammed about 8 inches outside my deployment zone on turn two, leaving me no real way to maneuver.

Turn 3 he popped a feat, all the mini-feats he had, used every trick in his army and killed over half my units. The game was over on turn 4.

I received no advice, no breaks, nothing. "You have tough. I ignore that. You can heal? I can stop that. Blast templates? This half of my army doesn't take damage from those. Enliven on a 'jack? I hit it and now it can't move." That was what I got. I did not complain, I played it out. Was it fun? Nope.

I sense a difference in philosophy from a number of responses. I play to have fun. I don't always have to win to have fun. I will play with sub-optimal units just to see what they do. I don't bring tournament lists to friendly games. I don't have any problem with tournaments, in fact, I enjoy playing in them. But I don't expect casual games to have the same cut-throat vibe.

Here is an example of what I consider to be a fun game. I played a Circle guy. He beat the snot out of me. The difference was that I never felt like I had no chance. I never felt like he believed it was his mission in life to grind me into the ground. He actually let me play the game while beating me. That is what I expect.

Warmachine (in my opinion) is built on combos and assassination, so, what you tend to see is people go all-out, and there are often game-swinging turns.

There are certain ways of playing that basically do revolve around a snowball effect where, if interrupted, they'll go down. This sort of list sounds like what you went up against. Also, there are definitely hard matches, and it might have just been one of those, at least in terms of army composition.

However(!), personally, I find Cryx a little overpowered and a lot brutal for new players, besides the part where it's discouraging to variously have your army shut down, which Cryx does an admirable job with.

Everyone will run up against that first time they play a strong Cryx list. Even casually played, some can really wreck your day. This is an unfortunate problem with how Cryx plays, and, hopefully your next opponent will be kind enough to tell you how to deal with the list, or, at least, what you should expect.

@newbis

I appreciate the answer and Yes I now see the problem.

In our WMH community there's a saying:

"There are no friendly lists, only friendly players"

Your enjoyment of the game is largely dependent on the type of folks you play with and if thats the majority of folks you play with then i really feel sorry for you. Dont blame the game though as from personal experience its the exact opposite. The WAACs and TFGs play another game and one of the reasons I play WMH is that the people who play are nicer

if youd let us know what your list was and what his list was maybe we can help ya figure out how to avoid getting roflstomped and at least get into the game with more even footing

hopefully thatll help ya get a little bit more enjoyment...regardless of who youre playing with

and im inclined to agree with spiralingcadaver about Cryx. You really have to TRY to come up with a weak list and even then the list can still have its tricks

Well, as a suggestion newbis, it sounds like you may be playing a decent sized list right off the bat. I recommend escalating your list size to get comfortable with the game. Start at 15 and grow in small steps while learning and always ask around for suggestions and ideas. Try different things out. If your opponents don't want to play small enough to accommidate you, then tell them that you aren't prepared to play any larger and maybe next time you'll play them.

This may or may not be the case, but it may help. I know right now I can't play warmachine and expect to win because I haven't been able to play in MONTHS. It's too in depth for that. I can't say the same about 40k. I haven't played that in a few months and I know I can dive right back in. So there is some tactical growth to be had if you came from 40k.

Hm, I think Surtur's got a point. If you're relatively new to the game, start small. Begin at 15 points, then go to 25, and then 35. Trying to play at 35 right off the bat - even if you've played other wargames - is going to be a lot to handle.

Bakerofish wrote: You really have to TRY to come up with a weak list and even then the list can still have its tricks

Cephalyx.

I didn't even have to try.

Joking aside, I get your point and Newbis'. As I said, it's about attitude, not the list. The Cryx player's attitude was crap, but it wasn't really because of his army that it wasn't fun, it was his unwillingness to help a newer player out in understanding what the list did, what he was doing, and suggesting ways(either during or after) to prevent it from happening again. When I teach new players, I ALWAYS walk through my turns and what I'm doing at every single step. The game lasts a little longer that way, but it gives them a chance to learn what everything does and to understand why I'm doing what I'm doing. Afterwards, I'll discuss what went wrong and suggest ways to help prevent that in their next game. They almost always enjoy it(and those that don't end up not enjoying the game itself at any point) and most times I'm actually teaching using my standard Cryx list(if it's not a battlebox game) so that they can experience what the faction can do in a more controlled environment instead of against the style of player you did.

Most of your feeling of having no chance, Newbis, is because you're new and therefore don't know what everything does and don't know the common power combos out there yet. Once you've played more and seen them a couple of times, you see ways to prevent them or, depending on your own combos and units, sometimes stop them outright from being able to happen at all. A good opponent would help you out with that while you're new.

I'll keep at it. I expect I'll eventually come up with at least a few people in the area that are fun to play against. I really was starting to get concerned the culture of this game was producing more TFG than not.