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've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

Compared to 40k, Warmahordes is balanced to a very fine point. I struggle to think of an individual model or build that is considered under or over powered. Obviously, you have to think about unit interactions while list-building, throwing things together randomly doesn't pay off as well.

I would say that this is among the most popular table-top games, probably just behind GW's.

Squidmanlolz wrote:Compared to 40k, Warmahordes is balanced to a very fine point. I struggle to think of an individual model or build that is considered under or over powered. Obviously, you have to think about unit interactions while list-building, throwing things together randomly doesn't pay off as well.

I would say that this is among the most popular table-top games, probably just behind GW's.

You'd be correct. Warmachine has been the second highest selling Wargame in the US since at least 2006, excepting one year. The only year it was beat out was when Hordes was released.

What is hordes like?

Magnuszered wrote:What is hordes like?

It's the "fleshy" side of the coin. It works exactly like Warmachine(same rules, they're really the same game) except for how Warlocks and Warbeasts interact.

You'll generally be bringing more Beasts than Warmachine players bring Jacks due to the mechanics: In Warmachine, the leader(Warcaster) generates and gives resources to his Warjacks, in Hordes, the Beasts generate the resources for the Warlock.

How big is a regular game of warmachine?

Magnuszered wrote:How big is a regular game of warmachine?

From what I have seen, the medium sized game is usually a Warcaster, 2-3 'Jacks, and 1-2 units, maybe some solos thrown in too.

From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Magnuszered wrote:From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Highly, but personally, I prefer Infinity however only slightly.

Ok,thanks!

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Magnuszered wrote:From your experiance would you recomend warmachine?

Highly, but personally, I prefer Infinity however only slightly.

You have defied the word of Menoth, Reznik shall be with you shortly.

I think you should look up some warmachine battlereports on youtube to give you an idea about the game flow. VaulSC is one of my favorites for instance.

The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

Apparently, the appeal is that it is the anti-Warhammer...

Lemme give this a shot, since I just started warmachine.

In WM, you can snatch victory from the claws of defeat not easily, or relying on heavy luck like 40k, but if your opponent makes a mistake and you can capitalize on it.

Ranges are close, most guns shoot like 10 inches, most units can run at least 8 or thereabouts, its all sticking and moving and blocking and such.

Then come the warjacks/beasts, who can slam people back, throw them, ect. ect. and shake things up.
Its all very, very balanced and indepth,

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

how is it going down in quality? How is it changing the scale since most tourneys are still 35 after this many years, and every convention will have a 15 pter, as has always been?

Are they forcing you to buy the new stuff?

Scenarios are kinda meh

Negator80 wrote:

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going down in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

It has a very strong set of rules, though, with the only real complaint being that the scenarios are lackluster and repetitive.

how is it going down in quality? How is it changing the scale since most tourneys are still 35 after this many years, and every convention will have a 15 pter, as has always been?

Are they forcing you to buy the new stuff?

Scenarios are kinda meh

While I can´t comment on a decline in quality (for that I simply don´t play long enough yet, barely over a year) I can see where someone might get the idea that they are changing the scale, even though I don´t completely agree with that.

The more or less recent unbound rules make big games possible, and the Colossals and Gargantuans promote bigger games as well (due to the all-eggs-in-one-basket nature of a 20 point beast/jack). But as you said, 35 points is still the norm for games with the occasional 50 points or 15 points for starter lists.

But @OP: Yeah, Warmachine is still pretty balanced, played by many people (in fact, I can find a couple of Warmachine/Hordes players at any point in my FLGS, but I´ve never even seen a 40k or Fantasy game played in there) and I can wholeheartly recommend it.

I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

In my opinion, Warmachine/Hordes is a far superior game to GW's stuff, with the notable exception of Blood Bowl.* That is because I like a game to be challenging, I like to have to think very carefully about what I am going to do with my playing pieces before I move them, and I like to win or lose through player skill instead of bucketloads of dice. To me, GW games are completely annoying because victory depends more on what codex you use and how willing you are to ignore everything but the most useful choices and then spam them. In Warmachine, there is no useless unit. Every unit can be useful in the right combinations, and there are loads of possible synergies.

*I always liked Blood Bowl because it works just like that: you have to plan your complete turn in advance, and making mistakes will very likely cost you the game. Yes, dice can still cost you the game, too, but there is a lot more emphasis on player skill than on luck.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

I think you have a a very skewed view of what strategic options are. The things you call strategic options here are strategic options only in the fluff. In the game, it is just a different point of deployment, which is invariably followed by lots of dice rolling and the guy using the younger codex winning. I do exaggerate, yes, but I think you get my meaning. There are no real strategic options, nothing that will really test your skill as a player. GW's games are not really games that can be played competitively. They were never really meant to. I am not saying they can't be fun, but saying they had more strategic options when they are not even competitive games is just bullgak.

Also, in WM/H you do not have to know what every model or unit does. The game comes with stat cards for everything, and at 35 points, reading all of you opponent's stat cards is a matter of 5 minutes. Also, as you gain experience playing the game, you will know the most common choices in your local meta anyway. Yes, you do have to know a few things about your opponent's model's abilities. That is because this is a very tactical, challenging game, not a dice-rolling-fest where victory depends more on list building than what you actually do during the game.

Then there is the matter of casters. First off, the point of this is that by exchanging a single piece, you completely change how the army works. That is quite awesome. A Space Marine Captain makes almost no difference on the board. Exchanging him for a Chaplain makes even less difference. Second, while caster kill is a victory condition, most games seem to actually be won or lost by scenario. The caster kill victory condition just means you cannot just rush blindly forward, but have to take a few protective measures - and that means it will never become a boring I-throw-all-my-army-at-you-and-now-let's-roll-a-million-dice game. Almost no game ends with one army completely wiped out. You have to really balance your offensive game with your defensive game.

So yeah, I can understand people who prefer GW games, because you cannot argue taste and GW games and WM/H are two very different things (and I enjoy GW games for what they are, too, I merely enjoy WM/H more). But prefering GW games over WM/H because they have more strategic options means you haven't even begun to understand how WM/H works.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does, and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort. There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

Well not for everyone, but comparing this to 40k really isn't doing either justice as they are completely different in both army sizes and game play. GW likes the bigger scenario's when I played 40k my norm was between 2000 and 3000 pts. But in Warmachine the smaller games are just as fun and a lot more engaging, I haven't made it up to 100 pts yet, but having played 75 pts it's almost comparable to a 2000 pts 40k game. With the layout of how WM/H works there is no need for vehicles, deep striking, and there are games that incorporate some reserves I just haven't played one yet. You can play with more than one caster in the larger games, also there is nothing stopping you from making your own house rules, if you feel the games not over once you lose your caster why can't you play on? Yes you have a really bad disadvantage there but again your not painted into a corner on this issue if it's just for fun. This won't happen in a tourney, but in your own area that option is up to you.

As for the lack of Strategic options I disagree. There are way more options and synergies in WM/H than there ever will be in 40k as each Warcaster or Warlock can completely change how our army acts even though you have changed nothing but the WC or WL. I had a Marine army that could care less who the HQ was or did, a tact squad would always be a tact squad, Terminators would always be that and the HQ would just hang out. They did little to benefit my army except eat points of course there are a few exceptions, but over all an HQ does not help you as much as your Warcaster does in WM. The tactics are much better as you really have to plan your move out, activations for example are far better than Move, Shoot, Assault.

For game play I like the fact you don't have units in WM/H that can shoot 70" across the board, having less range makes for a more aggressive/active game to me, there is no sitting in a building just shooting with a mitt full of dice just hoping to kill something before they close the gap eventually and kill you (tau come to mind on this one). If you try this in WM your going to get run over. I know it comes down to preference in the end but after converting from 40k to WM I haven't really looked back. But I'm not saying 40k sucks as I enjoyed it when I did play, just wasn't as satisfying after I played WM, just think 40k's gaming system could be better.

warpcrafter wrote:I tried and tried to like Warmahordes, but it just didn't work out. You have to know what every model/unit in every faction does.

same for 40k. you need to know that, for example, grey hunters are great in cc and pretty damned mean at shooting. so getting close to them is a bad idea, unless you're equally good. knowing what every model/unit does is called knowledge. generals win wars as much with knowledge of the enemy as skills of the troops, and also, generals have lost wars because they underestimated, or clearly didnt know what the other guy was capable of doing. for me, unlocking all those combos is part of the appeal. its an easy game to learn, but incredibly difficult to master, due to all the combos and synnergies out there. its called "depth".

warpcrafter wrote:and even then there are many builds that will just trash others with no effort.

and how is that different to 40k's Grey Knights/Space Wolves/IG versus tau and tyranids? there are plenty builds in 40k that if you bring to the table, you might as well just pack up. at least with WMH you get the option of 2 or 3 lists in a tournament. persoanlly, ive always found there is a workaround and a counter.

warpcrafter wrote:There are not any strategic options like in 40K, no deep striking, no reserves, no transport vehicles, you can only have one leader and if he is killed it's over. In my opinion.

they do have reserves, and outflanking (kossites etc) and have you ever heard of 2-caster games? as for "deep striking", thats kinda hard to do in a setting without air power, but gaspy and goreshade do a half decent job at summoning banes and other spirits into the middle of the field. and goreshade can swap out people for jacks. and while a few people dont like the "kill the caster, win the game" approach (Im not one of them) but there are thlose who houserule it that you keep going. personally, i find its great as you always have a chance. you can never let yourself be complacent.

warpcrafter wrote: In my opinion, they painted themselves into a corner by centering the game so much on the warcasters/warlocks and warjacks/warbeasts. The whole game just seems sort of claustrophobic.

isnt that like saying GW painted themselves into a corner by centreing the game so much on space marines?

if "the leader dies and you win" works for chess and the king, then its fine for warmahordes warmahordes is a character centric setting. oddly enough, GW have very much followed PPs path in this with the new focus on herohammer, and SCs.

Magnuszered wrote:I've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

the rules, for the most part are extremely balanced. there are a few things that are overpriced by a point (long gunners, men o war) and a few things that are slightly underpriced (black 13th, tartarus) but this is balanced by the nature of the game where the emphasis is squarely on killing power. those slightly overpriced things can be built to work, and those underpriced things can be killed - ive never gone a game against the black 13th without killing them. the rules are among the deepest and most balanced rules out there. they're not perfect, but they are extremely, extremely good - one of the best balanced games out there, in fact.

a lot of people play the game, but ultimately it depends on the local meta. some places dont seem to have any, and some places have switched over entirely from GW games to warmachine and malifaux. check your local scene, but generally speaking, in the last 2 years warmachine's opularity has all but exploded.

Well, I seem to have pinched a few nerves. Allow me to be more specific about what I like about Warhammer 40,000. Tanks, flyers, deep striking, using the whole board instead of just the tiny area in the middle of a 4'x4' board where all your miniatures are supposed to be crammed together in some sort of a rugby scrum. There are a few things I like about Warmachine that I would like to integrate into a game that is somewhat more like 40K, like facing, but generally I like Warhammer 40,000 in large part because it represents to be a real battle scenario rather than a more limited skirmish, despite being nominally unit-based. And with the introduction of the Colossals, Privateer Press have come to the end of what they can do with the Warjack concept. That's another thing I like about 40K, it's not so narrowly focused. And I never mentioned anything about either games relative merits with regard to a competitive setting, because I don't care about that. It's just a more fun game.

I think you are way off on what warmachine is / can be.

First there are units that can reserve and come in from any table edge, you may just not have been exposed to them.

There is an aspect of competitive play where some scenarios have a kill box IE a box in the middle typically 12-18 wide, and 4-8 long. Its not about fighting in the middle its about "scoring" in the middle IE if your don't have models in there the game stops. You can move models outside of it, but have to fulfill a certain criteria.

It seems you definitely like 40K. Warmachine / Hordes are made to be a faster game IE games should not take 2 hours, a high pt game of 50 pts should take 30-45 mins. That's an equivalent of a 2000 pt 40k game played in a third of the time. The goal of warmachine is lots of game play, which is fast, and makes you fight instead of hiding like in 40K where cover is so important.

They are completely different games both of which have merits, both of which I play. Colossals are offered for higher point games and for the collectors. A regular tournment is usually between 35-50 pts, where you almost never see the bigger models.

This isn't meant to offend Warcrafter it seems you have a lack of knowledge how competitive Warmachine players. Warmachine players don't freak out when they lose like 40k players are prone to. They tend to laugh and say "wow i never saw that coming" "want to go again?" Usually because you have only invested 20-30 mins vs 2-3 hours.

njpc wrote:Warmachine / Hordes are made to be a faster game IE games should not take 2 hours, a high pt game of 50 pts should take 30-45 mins. That's an equivalent of a 2000 pt 40k game played in a third of the time.

While I agree that the game can play faster than 40k, I think 50 points in 30-45 minutes is a bit unrealistic unless you're talking about games when a quick assassination happens and then it can be over in less than 10 minutes. I think 1.5 hours is a better approximation for 50 points. Hardcore (tournament format) matches and successful assassinations can be quicker though.

warpcrafter wrote:Well, I seem to have pinched a few nerves. Allow me to be more specific about what I like about Warhammer 40,000. Tanks, flyers, deep striking, using the whole board instead of just the tiny area in the middle of a 4'x4' board where all your miniatures are supposed to be crammed together in some sort of a rugby scrum. There are a few things I like about Warmachine that I would like to integrate into a game that is somewhat more like 40K, like facing, but generally I like Warhammer 40,000 in large part because it represents to be a real battle scenario rather than a more limited skirmish, despite being nominally unit-based. And with the introduction of the Colossals, Privateer Press have come to the end of what they can do with the Warjack concept. That's another thing I like about 40K, it's not so narrowly focused. And I never mentioned anything about either games relative merits with regard to a competitive setting, because I don't care about that. It's just a more fun game.

its not about pinching nerves mate. disliking a game is fine. you're fully entitled to your POV. however disliking a game because it doesnt have a bunch of stuff (even though it does have said stuff!) is a bit of a logical dead end if you ask me. "fun" is also relative.Honestly, im glad you enjoy 40k. go for it. me? i havent enjoyed a game of 40k since halfway through 4th ed. 6th interests me, but i doubt it would hold me. warmachine and infinity are my games of choice, and i consider them to be more fun. YMMV. neither of us is wrong in our perceptions.

As i said, you are fully entitled to your POV. i tend to look at the mid-field WM "scrum" as more of a boxing match than a game of rugby. its all up close. and dancing around a limited space, rather than wide sweeping manoevres. some prefer the former, the others prefer the latter. both are fine.

I know what 40k is trying to represent, (but fails badly IMO) in that its meant to be a company level encounter I think it falls down, as it uses too much stuff that is more appropriate in an army level engagement (flyers, artillery, that by rights should be 10 miles behind the front lines etc) whilst at the same time using a kind of individual based customisation more appropriate to a skirmish (or even "gang" based) game the size of warmachine, or infinity. its not "real", but i completely understand the preference for a full-on engagement, and not just a skirmish between 20 guys and a steam belching mech. i think there are better games of that scale out there - Flames of War comes to mind, but thats just my opinion.

I dont think colossals are the end of the warjack concept. there is plenty more direction, and options PP can take. look at the news from lock 'n' load. Lylith3 on a super-large based chariot. warcaster, and warlock "units". light cavalry (and heavy cavalry) for all the factions that didnt get it before. alternative UAs (black dragons). as for jacks, colossals are something they've been kicking around with for years. all jacks are not suddenly gonna be colossals, and yes, there is plenty room for new character jacks, and new jack models to be released. dont worry, the horse isnt dead yet

but one quip. if 40k isnt so narrowly focused, then why is literally everying so focused on space marines? there is only so much they can do with them!

The appeal for me is that to build a more usable army its cheaper. 5 metal is 20$ for widowmakers while 5 finceast is 50$

WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers. In WM/H there is more strategy and tactics IMO than 40k.

It's about positioning and kill vectors. Blocking charging lanes, and opening shooting lanes. Each piece of your army has a use and synergies with other parts of your army.

The big thing I liked is that these big Beasts and Warjacks with arms they can actually use them for more than chopping wood. You want to throw something or someone? You can do it in WM/H. Put another War-noun in a head-lock, it is doable. Melee options are plentiful: slam, trample, lock, throw, oh my!!

UsdiThunder wrote:WM/H is to Chess as 40k is to Checkers. In WM/H there is more strategy and tactics IMO than 40k.

I actually really like that. It's pretty appropriate as well. In 40k, units can be customized to perform the task of any other unit, everything is essentially the same across the board. In WM/H each unit is unique, each has it's role and it will take some serious skill to manage it effectively.

spiralingcadaver wrote:The game is going don in creative quality and seems attempting to go towards 40k in scale (larger armies, larger pieces).

I think the first one is a bit of subjective opinion on this myself. I personally think some fairly cool stuff has been coming out as they expand on some parts of the Factions, such as the Circle eldritch things, Cygnar stormnouns, and what have you.

The second one is weird, but not I think what you think is happening. When PP started, games were small, using a bigger point system with about 270 battle boxes going to 350pt armies a lot. After a while they setteled into 500pts, and tried to push for 1000pt games. This can be seen in Escalation, the second book, with FA 2 warjacks, Mercenary warcasters and a couple of the Faction casters only having rules useful in higher point games.

This didn't happen. People played 500pts. anyways. PP then introduced a 750pt game bracket for epics, and this became popular because you could only play epics at 750+pt. games. In a lot of areas, 500pts and 750pts were kind of the standards. The only major important tournaments that used 1000pt lists was Gencon, as far as I can gather.

With MkII, the point scale shifted and people played 35pts. when they played 500pt., and 50pts when they played 750pts. The thing is that those are in some ways smaller armies with more warjacks or warbeasts in them generally.

Huge-based models actually don't in themselves shift things. Last year with their new releases, everyone got them, and all that happened is people fit them into their existing lists. And as I see lists being churned-out on forums for the new huge-based warnouns, most all of them are still 35pt or 50pt lists, and again, the only major tournament with higher than that right now is GenCon, which I think is a bit less considered the "top tournament" for PP stuff these days than the 50pt invitational one at Warmachine Weekend.

Kind of long-winded, but PP introducing huge-based models isn't actually moving the scale of games, unless you meant in piece side specifically. In this case, I don't see it in itself as an issue. But the game itself is simply changing list compositions with these in mind, rather than just tacking them onto existing armies.

And stuff.

The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)