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.

Vulcan wrote:Another influence is tastes.

I've looked over Warmachine. I've looked over the rules. I've even watched several games. It's sorta...meh to me. I can't get excited about it.

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

You need to pay closer attention to the game the next time you see someone play it (or possibly watch better players). Maneuver is extremely important to the game, moreso than in fantasy (there are in fact arcs of visibility that have a pretty large impact on what you can and can't do). Placement of your units relative to your caster is extremely important as well. If you send them out too far not only do you lose your ability to buff them, etc. but you allow your opponent easier access to your caster which could result in a caster kill. Likewise, if you position certain units too close to your caster, you risk having the enemy push/throw them into your caster, etc.

Edit: Ninja'd by CT Gamer

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Two people have already said this, but what the gak, I'll agree.

Warmachine actually depends on turning, firing arcs and facing. Certainly more-so than 40k, if not Fantasy.

Actually, skirmish games are where you're going to find such detail - larger games must have more abstraction if they wish to be playable in a decent amount of time. Having 5-10 (or more, if playing a Platoon-sized skirmish game, like Warmachine) in an army total, however, means that more emphasis can be placed on how those models act in-game.

I'd also go as far to say the Warmachine isn't actually steampunk - it's more 'fantasy with steam-and-magic-powered robots and blackpowder'.

However, I highly encourage you to pick up Firestorm Armada, especially since Spartan Games is now working on improving both the game and the fluff.

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

Agreed, I know I'm perfectly happy not investing any more time or money into another hobby. I play 40k and my friends call me super stubborn for not even making a swing into fantasy.

CT GAMER wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Movement, proximity and facing are vital in Warmachine and the movment phase and consideration of facing (Models have front and rear arcs which effect what they can attack, if they can charge, and can potentially give opponents bonuses to hit for rear strikes) is a very important part of the game.

In addition models can be knocked down which is an added level of consideration tied to movement and attack bonuses, etc..

On top of that the placement of models in relation to friendlies in order to benefit from spells and abilities makes movement and position pivitol to victory a lot of the time.

Your above quote suggets that you know very little about Warmachine...

Exactly. People who know how to position models in Warmachine are going
to do much better than people who are careless about such things. I suspect
that applies to 40k in some ways due to model placement, casualty removal,
etc. etc.

I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

My newest game will eithe be the Uncharted seas or Firestorm armada though. If its uncharted seas then i hav3e to wait till the end of next month for the new sculpts to hit the market, Ork fleet and ELves... mmmm.

I'm trying to pick up malifaux.

I only want to play GW games because they're the only thing interesting. I don't want to waste time or money on magic, since everything just cycles out. Warmachine is kinda meh, battletech is boring as feth. Yugioh is stupid as hell, since everything is being printed common. 40k and WHFB are the only interesting traditional games, outside catan and last night on earth, or any other board game, or those obscure TCGs, like .hack//enemy, or legend of the five rings.

sennacherib wrote:He isnt playing 40k right now because hes bored with it, and hes unwilling to even try a new game. THATS whats annoying to me. Unwillingness to try somthing new.

Who says thats what it is? Maybe he's just tired with tabletop games full stop, maybe he still likes 40K but is bored with his faction, maybe he's bored with the type of games you guys have been playing lately.

Maybe what he wants is a fresh outlook on 40K, not a new game altogether.

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

So you don't like your friends because they have a narrow opinion of gaming in your view?

Simple solution:

Find new friends. You can even find new friends that enjoy the other system who maybe don't enjoy 40k.

For me GW has 2 things going for it. #1 a great background universe, #2 existing base of players. In general I dislike it when my FLGS focuses on any mini game that isn't 40k.

The reason for this is simple. The more time and money spent on playing other games = less active and more withdrawn 40k players.

For example our FLGS had on a regular 40k league night 15-20 players. As my FLGS has pushed WHFB we have lost 3 to 5 players and as they pushed Warmachine we have lost another 3-5 players. Its now rare to see over 12 people on league night. I'd rather have more players than less, and as such it is in my interest to not promote other mini games.

remilia_scarlet wrote: battletech is the most amazing game on the face of the planet.... if you have four hours to kill.

Fixed.


Just kidding. I love BattleTech but it... it's definitely not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

This is true, but it's not so simple as "walk across board, smack enemy caster in the face, win" as, in direct contrast with what Vulcan said, moving, positioning, blocking, vision arcs, etc., are 100% crucial to the game. And in a scenario, while you're trying to assassinate your opponent's caster, he might just complete the objective right under your nose and win. If anything, I find Warmachine more tactical than WHFB's "Whoever gets off their big-nasty spell first and kills their opponent's Death Star wins". Every single game of 8th edition I've ever played has been won or lost with magic. Magic the Deathstar to death=win. Lose your magic=lose. Maybe that's just the local meta around here. Fantasy used to be a very tactical game, but 8th, while fun, is pretty watered down.

RatBot wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote: battletech is the most amazing game on the face of the planet.... if you have four hours to kill.

Fixed.


Just kidding. I love BattleTech but it... it's definitely not for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

sennacherib wrote:I wasnt really a fan of Warmachine because of the emphasis on alpha strike and the game ends. THis i hear has been remedied in the newest version. If that is the case then i would be open to giving it another try.

The ability to do it with some combos/army builds has been altered, but the goal/focus is still the same: Kill the enemy caster and you win.

99.9% of games played are simple caster kill games, and even when scenarios are introduced (usually at tournaments) they more often then not are designed to get you to engage rather then present an actual scenario, and all scenarios have caster kill as a default victory condition.

This is true, but it's not so simple as "walk across board, smack enemy caster in the face, win" as, in direct contrast with what Vulcan said, moving, positioning, blocking, vision arcs, etc., are 100% crucial to the game. And in a scenario, while you're trying to assassinate your opponent's caster, he might just complete the objective right under your nose and win. If anything, I find Warmachine more tactical than WHFB's "Whoever gets off their big-nasty spell first and kills their opponent's Death Star wins". Every single game of 8th edition I've ever played has been won or lost with magic. Magic the Deathstar to death=win. Lose your magic=lose. Maybe that's just the local meta around here. Fantasy used to be a very tactical game, but 8th, while fun, is pretty watered down.

Warmachine is one of the most tactical miniatures wargames in existence, as I have already stated.

From a gameplay perspective it is very tactical, nuanced, and challenging.

However it is a game that has pretty much been co-opted by the uber-compete tournament crowd. Scenarios are often an after-thought, and Caster kill the accepted norm. It is essentially M:TG in miniatures form. That can be good or bad depending on your expectations...

Yes and no.


Its about the players comfort zone. It's already a hard nut to crack to get into 40k, but after getting peed on each and every edition, and watching people leave and splinter off... the issue isn't so much that people don't WANT to play a new game, they just don't want to shell out a tone of cash and end up feeling... cheated.

Issue comes down to investment, value, and time.

You really can't fault someone who is in thier zone, all you can do is try to work with them, and either the game sells itself, or it doesn't.

Warmahordes isn't everyones game, neither is 40K. It just depends on your site, and the X factors involved.

I saw one group of hard core 40K gamers go to Flames of War in the space of two years, and another group of 40K players go Historical in the space of a month, it just depends on your group and the game you present. Might have a bunch to do with how you present it, as well. I saw someone trying to sell malfaux as "The new 40K" and almost start running people off, and another guy try to sell Inquisitor like it was something special, even before the figures started showing up in that larger scale. Both were priceless comedy gags in the making to watch.

Gamers are a fickel bunch. It just takes time to get people into new games.

Grot 6 wrote:Its about the players comfort zone. It's already a hard nut to crack to get into 40k, but after getting peed on each and every edition, and watching people leave and splinter off... the issue isn't so much that people don't WANT to play a new game, they just don't want to shell out a tone of cash and end up feeling... cheated.

Issue comes down to investment, value, and time.

That's an interesting point. In a way, I think people will be more willing these days to try something new having been elbowed out of picking up a new army from one of GW's systems.

I think like anything you will find variety within gaming groups and the way people behave with wargames according to their character. My club had guys who would seem to pick up new games every 2 weeks (come to the club with fully painted forces for them, god knows how they found the time!), while at the same time people who have wheeled out the same army year after year and played the same game. That being said, at heart I think most of us are pulled in by the site of well painted miniatures on good terrain (and people having fun by that process) - if you take time to set up a good demo game, take time with minis/terrain etc. then you will probably find a good percentage of wargamers would be willing to give it a try, especially if it's a game with a lower model count and/or price point.

augustus5 wrote:Try talking Warmachine players into playing 40k. .

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

Worglock wrote:

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

Nerd on nerd violence: the plague of wargaming

Most good points have already been made, but I wanted to bring up two:

First, the 'sunken costs' fallacy. I'm not denying that Warhammer takes up a substantial investment in time and money. However, psychologists and behavioral economists have also documented the 'sunken costs' fallacy. This is a behavior where people overestimate or overvalue their previous investment in a choice, and avoid benefitting from a change. This occurs in all sorts of arenas, from financial investment to personal spending decisions. Dan Ariely has covered it in his Freakonomics books (very interesting reading). I'm not suggesting a cure for the fallacy, but it's just something to be aware of. People will value the $200 they have already spent on a game a lot more than the $200 they could spend on a new one.

Second, have you considered preparing some skirmish game yourself? Rather than asking someone else to invest in a game system, maybe pick up a set and paint up two small factions (I know Warmachine is releasing this very soon themselves). Instead of asking someone to invest in a new system, you can just invite them to play a new game with you. They don't have to buy any models. They just have to spend time learning and playing the game. This might get them interesting in starting their own faction, but if it works at all, it will get you some games in a new system.

Worglock wrote:

augustus5 wrote:Try talking Warmachine players into playing 40k. .

Please don't do this. Some of us had to work really hard to get the Warmafail kids out of GW, we don't want them back.

And it was such a nice thread, too. Oh well.

I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

CT GAMER wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

A big part of that is because I enjoy maneuvering blocks of troops around. Skirmish games have little to no attraction, because the maneuver aspect is so... trivialized. Move x inches, no need to worry about turning, facing, fire arcs, nothing. Just move.

Movement, proximity and facing are vital in Warmachine and the movment phase and consideration of facing (Models have front and rear arcs which effect what they can attack, if they can charge, and can potentially give opponents bonuses to hit for rear strikes) is a very important part of the game.

In addition models can be knocked down which is an added level of consideration tied to movement and attack bonuses, etc..

On top of that the placement of models in relation to friendlies in order to benefit from spells and abilities makes movement and position pivitol to victory a lot of the time.

Your above quote suggets that you know very little about Warmachine...

I never said I knew a lot about it. I've watched it played. I've flipped through the books. And compared to WFB, the maneuver system seems quite simple.

And I know all about positioning models so that effects overlap, I play Dark Elves and usually have the general, battle standard, and Cauldron in three separate places...

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Ha, I can picture this in an episode of that "Deadliest Warrior" show or whatever the hell it's called, where they'd bring in some fat neckbeards with socks full of Behemoth Warjacks and Ork Dreadnoughts and have them smack ballistic gel torsos covered with accelerometers.

sennacherib wrote:
This apathetic attitude extends to all things that are not GW and typical reasons why the players dont want to try a new game usually involve the money is gonna cost, learning new rules, but mostly it seems like they lack motivation or are just addicted to GW tit. it even extends to some games that GW does produce. I sold all of my LotR stuff because no one here would try the game, even though i had about 7 armeis painted and ready to go. Anyone have a similar experience.

It's actually very simple. Most players are like me, they don't live and breathe and sleep miniature wargames. I have lots of hobbies, of which playing wargames is only one. I don't have time to invest to anything else than one (maybe two) systems and they're GW games as they're most common, and easiest to find both models and opponents for. It was same with MtG, I played that when convenient and had no interest to any other trading card game systems.

It's simple demographics and probabilities, and nothing to do with GW making its customers to mindless zombies. (I'm sure they would do that if they could).

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Luckily most of those guys like that are now safely segregated into the ghetto called 'Ard Boys. They can beat themselves and their own kind all day.

coolyo294 wrote:I can just imagine gangs of 40k players ambushing unsuspecting Warmafail players and then beating them with Dreadsocks.

Heh. I too enjoyed the Warhams crowd until I tried WM/H and realized, in every possible way, it's simply a better game.

Enjoy your "competitive" tickle fest as you bro-punch your opponent while muddling your pile of toys around the table throwing buckets of dice until someone wins.

And I know all about positioning models so that effects overlap, I play Dark Elves and usually have the general, battle standard, and Cauldron in three separate places...

There's no comparison between WH and WM/H. There simply isn't.

Is that directed at me?

I too used to see warmachine as a threat to my 40k experience since a local warmachine league pulled 40k players out of my opponent base. As i said before some of the primary mechanics of the game i dont enjoy. Namely the alphastrike the caster and you win...

That said, many good points have been made. Im gonna pick up some Uncharted seas, paint two fleets and make some terrain and then play demo games with the open minded members of our community. The fickle and the unwilling i just wont play with untill they are either ready and willing or never at all.

sennacherib wrote: As i said before some of the primary mechanics of the game i dont enjoy. Namely the alphastrike the caster and you win...

The steep learning curve is really difficult to get your head around initially... for people who aren't used to 0 tolerance mistakes (because generally it's you making a mistake that your opponent capitalizes on), having the game end before you really feel like you've played one is an un-fun element.

You have to have an in-depth understanding of your opponent's lists and models, which again makes the game hard for new players, but once you begin to overcome the steep learning curve it really does become more of a game, not 'whoever alpha strikes first wins'.

You learn how to deny your opponent assassination vectors and how to make an attempt at an assassination run impossible or so costly that doing so will punish them horribly. Althought many games are won via assassination, I have played many, many games through horrible grinding attrition where the majority of both lists are dead.

insaniak wrote:The thing is, a lot of people really just aren't interested in playing every game that's released. Or, in a lot of cases, in playing anything other than whichever game they've decided to follow.

That's nothing to do with GW or not. For some, these games are just something to do to while away a few hours... but to others, each new game is a substantial investment in time (to learn the rules and assemble whatever is required to play) and money.

And some are simply happy with what they're playing. Supported or not, if you have a game that you enjoy, there's no particular impetus to go out and try a similar game made by someone else.

Insaniak hit it right on the nose. I, myself, was and still am an avid 40K player. When Fantasy released the IoB set, a bunch of my friends wanted to try it out for the first time, or just expand on what they already had, especially with the new rules that had come out. For a long time, I fought the urge to get into another game, mostly due to time and money constraints. Eventually though, I did "cave", so to speak, and now have close to 4000 points worth of High Elves.

For the most part, I've enjoyed Fantasy. However, I still find 40K to be more fun, and as such, continue to play 40K more often. I guess "change" being the "spice of life" is true for some, and not for others. And to add a little more to what Insaniak said, human beings are creatures of habit by nature. Once we find something we're comfortable with, we have a tendency to stick to those routines for a long time, until we are convinced otherwise that something else out there is better.

Some people are happy with what they've got and the games they play now. They might not have enough money to start something new, or may view it as turning their back on an investment made.

Personally I'd like to try out HeavyGear, AnimaTactics, or Infinity. One night at the table I was saying as much and one friend said that he'd about 3K invested in 40K and he didn't want to get into another system.

I figure I'll just by enough of the new system and lend my stuff out demo style. If my friends like it, they'll buy in. Either way I get to play.

And compared to WFB, the maneuver system seems quite simple..

Does not compute.

Warmachine has the same elements that WFB has:

1. both have three types of movement: normal, chargin/assaulting and running/marching

2. Both factor in facing in regards to what can be attacked/charged/seen, etc.

3. Both games have rules/abilities/etc. that factor in the proximity of friendly/enemy models.

4. Both games are often won as a result of who manages movement and model placement/facing the best

So in fact both are fairly similar. What seperates WFB is that ranked blocks have to reform or pay to wheel while Wm models can turn freely before/during after movement for the most part (except in certain situations like having to face what you charge, etc.)

So yes while WFb's restrictions on block/ranked units may be more restrictive then what exists in WM this does not mean Warmachine's movement is "simple" as you keep suggesting, and in fact in most ways the games are highly similar...