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.

Negator80 wrote: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?

Lack of balance doesn't matter when the game isn't built to be balanced, isn't it?

40k's "sandbox" nature isn't a crutch to make up for lack of balance, it's the core function of the game. It can be equally argued that balance is a poor excuse for a lack of "sandbox" nature.

Many of 6th's rules, such as the different power weapons and the allies rules, allow players more freedom and liberties when designing an army. By adding more rules to address situations whose consequences are mostly background related, 6th gives players more flexibility in terms of creating a story.

Yeah, i have to say i have started warmachine because of 6thED, not necessarily because it's a bad game, but because i wanted a change. That being said, having watched a few games of 6thED, i find that it isn't all that different from 5thEd, it just has a few new shiney things and some random aspects. these are fun to an extent, but i want something a little more focussed and not swarmed with little kids with the attention span of gnats.

the last game i saw in my local GW was a prime example of such, there was a big game that lasted for about 4 hours. with 4-5 people on each side it was bound to be a bit hectic, and the fact that none of them exceeded the age of 14 didn't really help. after the game had finished, the kids were just left with nothing to do and began to run around the store being a bit of a nuisance. I guess i'm not just fed up with 40k, i'm a little fed up with GW, their prices are getting silly, and the average age of people playing has taken a severe nosedive recently.

yes, i'll still play fantasy, because that game still appeals to me, but as my friends move out of wargaming all together, i definitely feel the need to move on from GW games for a while. The problem now lies in finding somewhere to play my games of warmachine, for you guys in the US (where FLGSs are much more common) it must be fairly simple; but over here in the UK, GW has a much firmer foothold, with a store in pretty much every town. this means any game stores get driven out of business pretty quick.

I just hope this new FLGS opening up in essex turns out to be worth the hour drive each way...

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

snip

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.

My point was that in Chess you use your Models, Tactics, and Strategy to protect your warcaster and secure the win. In Checkers it doesn't matter what pieces are as they all work together to secure a victory. Losing a piece in Checkers doesn't hurt as much as losing a piece in Chess. In 40k losing an HQ doesn't mean much just like losing a Checker piece. In WM/H losing your Warcaster/Warlock means game over just like Checkmate in Chess.

Balance is an issue or else there would not be so many people running from 40k right now. People are tired of Deathstars, Flavor of the month armies, New Codexes and BRB that invalidate armies, Armies that get no updates for almost a decade, etc... All parts of balance. What you call combo reliant is actually what is called synergy. Synergy is where your army is built to work well with all of it's parts instead of just spamming the crap out of the most powerful unbalancing unit out of the codex.

While you may think it's ok that GK or IG curbstomp everyone else because it told a story, some people would like a even fighting chance.

Balance was one of the main reasons I left the Hobby/Game that is ModelHammer 40k, not just 6th ed.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Negator80 wrote: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?

Lack of balance doesn't matter when the game isn't built to be balanced, isn't it?

40k's "sandbox" nature isn't a crutch to make up for lack of balance, it's the core function of the game. It can be equally argued that balance is a poor excuse for a lack of "sandbox" nature.

Many of 6th's rules, such as the different power weapons and the allies rules, allow players more freedom and liberties when designing an army. By adding more rules to address situations whose consequences are mostly background related, 6th gives players more flexibility in terms of creating a story.

This is the crux of the problem: as I define a "game", balance is an inherent part of it. I see this so often with regards to 40k, that it can't be held to the standard of balance because... it's casual! It's just a beer and pretzels game! It's wacky!

I propose, more simply, it's just not a very well designed game. The designers have as much as admitted that the game exists to sell the miniatures, so why even attempt the very hard work of balancing the factions/mechanics? So they don't. The concept that the players of a game have equal chance to win is essential to gaming. Which is one reason why GW refers to their products and sundry as a "hobby" primarily.

In fairness, one does have to give applause to their gumption: it's rather like taking all the expensive meat out of a sandwich, filling it with incredibly cheap vegetables and then convincing people to pay full price because it's "healthy".

Don't get me wrong, GW isn't a scam: what they do well (plastic miniatures) they do very, very well. What they don't care to do well (rules), well, it shows. The "sandbox" is, indeed, a selling point for GW products... but it's not a selling point of the game, per se, but the IP.

The idea that "sandbox", however one wishes to describe it, is essential to a game is obviously and transparently false, since the very oldest and most popular games are those that don't have anything that might be referred to as such (the aforementioned Chess, Checkers, Go, Dominos, , MahJong, etc, etc.).

As an aside, I'm honestly not sure what is even being referred to as "sandbox", if it is something that WH/H lacks, but WHFB/40k has. They both have backgrounds after all, and while I personally I find the 40k fluff on par with the body of Stephanie Meyer's works, I can understand preferring that to the background fiction in WH/H. There is, after all, a reason Twilight got... 4 movies, 5? I dunno. Made a metric truckload of money. But then again, so does GW.

Cryonicleech wrote:

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.

So the evil black checkers can move one square, and the heroic red checkers can move 3 squares, sure it's not fair, but the story is great!

Balance is an issue, and I think it's becoming more and more a problem for GW.

The evil black checkers are heretics trying to bring Chaos to the world and only genetically altered super red checkers can defeat them with their special ability to move laterally as well as diagonally.

In the grimdark of unbalanced gaming there is only Ultra-Checkers!!!

UsdiThunder wrote:Balance is an issue or else there would not be so many people running from 40k right now.

Price and stupid decisions on GW's part is a much, much bigger factor. And if GW doesn't care about balance, it doesn't matter to them whether or not it's balanced, does it? Our personal demands for balance have 0 impact if GW decides to ignore it.

UsdiThunder wrote:What you call combo reliant is actually what is called synergy.

So when did the words "combo-reliant" become bad? They're the same thing, really.

UsdiThunder wrote:While you may think it's ok that GK or IG curbstomp everyone else because it told a story, some people would like a even fighting chance.

It's easier to make a point when you take stuff out of context, isn't it?

No, it's not "ok" for GK or IG to curbstomp everyone else. Too bad they don't. The only armies that had serious problems in 5th that were absolutely unviable were Tyranids and Tau. The concept that 40k is absolutely and utterly imbalanced is ridiculous. It's not balanced by any means, but it's hardly at the point you describe.

Additionally, the point of that statement was to clarify GW's stance. If GW doesn't care if the game is balanced, then it's not going to be balanced. It was never marketed to be a balanced game. Therefore, if there is imbalance, it is because GW's major priorities are to:

1. Sell models
2. Focus on the "cinematic" qualities of 40k

GW doesn't make a balanced game. That's it. It doesn't make it right or wrong, but that's the fact of the matter. So when you find imbalance in a game that wasn't designed to be balanced, it's somewhat pointless to complain, no?

Buzzsaw wrote:This is the crux of the problem: as I define a "game", balance is an inherent part of it. I see this so often with regards to 40k, that it can't be held to the standard of balance because... it's casual! It's just a beer and pretzels game! It's wacky!

In no way, shape or form does that mean GW is "above" the standard of balance. However, you have multiple statements from the design teams that it isn't meant to be balanced. Because you personally like balance in games has 0 impact on whether or not the game ought to be balanced/should be balanced.

Buzzsaw wrote:I propose, more simply, it's just not a very well designed game.

By your standard. I enjoy it, and I accept that it isn't balanced. I like Warmachine too, which is also a well-designed game. And don't take my opinion either, GW still has a large fanbase, though it is shrinking to a degree.

Buzzsaw wrote: The concept that the players of a game have equal chance to win is essential to gaming.

What is this, Ideal Land? Well then sure, everything is perfectly balanced and both sides always have an equal opportunity all the time.

No. Even in Warmachine, there are bad matchups and stronger factions. Cryx and Legion are both better than other factions, just check PP's forums. Not so much better as to make them broken, but they are better to a degree.

Go play a well constructed Saeryn list. At some points, you literally have to try to lose.

Buzzsaw wrote:The idea that "sandbox", however one wishes to describe it, is essential to a game is obviously and transparently false

Again, easy to make arguments against unsaid points, yes?

It's a core function of 40k. That doesn't make it a core to every game out there.

Buzzsaw wrote:I personally I find the 40k fluff on par with the body of Stephanie Meyer's works

Congratulations. Who cares? I personally find 40k fluff to be interesting, but that opinion doesn't matter either.

Nobody said 40k was utterly imbalanced.

People did imply GW dont do a good job of balancing.

GW also never said they dont care about balancing 40k.

The notion that balance doesnt matter is stupid.

so youre argument that 'its imbalanced for x reason and thats ok' is stupid.

Negator80 wrote:Nobody said 40k was utterly imbalanced.

People did imply GW dont do a good job of balancing.

GW also never said they dont care about balancing 40k.

The notion that balance doesnt matter is stupid.

so youre argument that 'its imbalanced for x reason and thats ok' is stupid.

1. GK and IG always winning is a hyperbole. Not fact.
2. People want balance. That doesn't meant GW WILL balance.
3. The notion that balance doesn't matter to you is stupid. To GW, it's right as rain.

Your argument that GW fails to have a balanced game when the designers themselves say that they aren't making a balanced game is stupid.


Do you not get the point that GW isn't making a balanced game? It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, but that's how they make the game.

Don't like it? Don't play.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Negator80 wrote:Nobody said 40k was utterly imbalanced.

People did imply GW dont do a good job of balancing.

GW also never said they dont care about balancing 40k.

The notion that balance doesnt matter is stupid.

so youre argument that 'its imbalanced for x reason and thats ok' is stupid.

1. GK and IG always winning is a hyperbole. Not fact.
2. People want balance. That doesn't meant GW WILL balance.
3. The notion that balance doesn't matter to you is stupid. To GW, it's right as rain.

Your argument that GW fails to have a balanced game when the designers themselves say that they aren't making a balanced game is stupid.


Do you not get the point that GW isn't making a balanced game? It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, but that's how they make the game.

Don't like it? Don't play.

You seem to have some trouble understanding: purposefully neglecting balance means you are not designing a game, but something else entirely. In the case of GW, something more akin to a means of showing off the models they so lovingly craft for your consumption.

Again, by your own admission, GW is designing without even an attempt to address balance. Your argument about how the example of GK and IG always winning is hyperbole undercuts your own point. If "balance doesn't matter" is a legitimate point of view, then it wouldn't matter that if that example were true (that IG and GK always win, that is, they are unbalanced).

Examine your own point: why are you claiming that these unequal match-ups don't happen, if "balance doesn't matter"? If "balance doesn't matter", then why object to a specific example where "balance doesn't matter"? The simple answer is, you realize, if on nothing but a subconscious level, that balance does matter.

Cryonicleech wrote:By your standard. I enjoy it, and I accept that it isn't balanced. I like Warmachine too, which is also a well-designed game. And don't take my opinion either, GW still has a large fanbase, though it is shrinking to a degree.

That's quite a lovely appeal to authority fallacy you have there, mind if I take it for a spin? By the standard of popularity, McDonalds or Taco Bell are obviously superior to, say, The French Laundry.

Of course, it's not really fair to Taco Bell to compare them to GW. When you buy food from Taco Bell, you actually get food. When you buy what is ostensibly a competative game from GW, you get... Well, let's see what they say about their own product:

The best model soldiers in the world!

Games Workshop is the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy and futuristic battle-games company in the world. Our major brands are Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. In addition, we hold a global licence from New Line Cinema for a tabletop battle-game based on director Peter Jackson's BAFTA and Academy award winning film trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.

Our business is about helping mighty armies to meet headlong on the field of battle. At our HQ in Nottingham, in the UK, we design, manufacture and retail the vast range of Citadel Miniatures plastic and metal soldiers and rulebooks, which are the foundation of an almost infinite hobby. The UK manufacturing operation in Nottingham is complemented by a production facility at our despatch warehouse in Memphis, TN, USA.

At the heart of the Hobby are the millions of gamers aged 12 upwards, who spend many of their waking hours collecting, creating, painting and building up the armies which they will go on to command on a carefully prepared table top battlefield.
Tabletop wargaming

It's all about two people facing each other across a battlefield, each attempting to move their models into position to fire upon their opponent's force or attack them in hand-to-hand combat. The victor is decided by a combination of skill and luck with the players rolling dice to determine whether an arrow hits or a foe is struck down.

...

The Hobby

Investors and potential investors in Games Workshop need to understand what we mean by the Hobby.

A hobby is something people make time for. It is not a pass-time and therefore not usually analogous to watching TV or playing computer games. In our case, as with most hobbies, it involves commitment, collection, craft or manual skills and imagination. Someone who is involved in the Games Workshop Hobby collects large numbers of miniatures, paints them, modifies them, builds terrain and war games with them in our imaginary universe. This involves huge amounts of time.

Games Workshop Hobbyists play war games with large numbers of metal or plastic miniatures they have carefully chosen and, usually, painstakingly painted, on a table top face to face with their friends. It is a social and convivial activity loved by Hobbyists the world over.

Our job therefore revolves around our ability to recruit new gamers (of all ages) and keep them in the Hobby.

We publish many games systems giving potential Hobbyists a range to choose from and alternate systems for experienced gamers. We categorise these systems as 'core' (Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000) or 'specialist' (Warmaster, Mordheim, Necromunda and similar). New Hobbyists are likely to start with core systems or The Lord of The Rings Strategy Battle Game, which as well as a being a challenging adventure is also an excellent introductory game.

It's fascinating to see how they describe their own product, isn't it? It's nominally a game, but they are far more interested in talking about the "hobby". It's also rather interesting that they mention "This involves huge amounts of time", a rather... well, provocative admission.

To be honest, I was going to add more, but I can't really think of any argument better then their own testimony. That description is... well, it's really something.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Lets leave taco bell out of this before feelings get hurt.

Buzzsaw wrote:You seem to have some trouble understanding: purposefully neglecting balance means you are not designing a game

What? By whose standards? You can't arbitrarily say that a game needs balance to be a game. You can absolutely ignore balance when creating a game. It's not a wise decision, but it's not impossible.

Buzzsaw wrote:Again, by your own admission, GW is designing without even an attempt to address balance. Your argument about how the example of GK and IG always winning is hyperbole undercuts your own point. If "balance doesn't matter" is a legitimate point of view, then it wouldn't matter that if that example were true (that IG and GK always win, that is, they are unbalanced).

Hmm? I saw a false statement. Yes, it's unbalanced. It's not over-the-top never fun to play GK/IG always win unbalanced, but it's unbalanced, severely towards certain armies, but not to that degree.

Buzzsaw wrote:Examine your own point: why are you claiming that these unequal match-ups don't happen, if "balance doesn't matter"? If "balance doesn't matter", then why object to a specific example where "balance doesn't matter"? The simple answer is, you realize, if on nothing but a subconscious level, that balance does matter.

I'm not objecting and saying every army has an equal opportunity. IG and GK do take more wins, because it's an unbalanced system. However, that doesn't meant that GK and IG always win, they just win more. Believe it or not, you can have an argument that qualifies, rather than refutes or supports, a statement.

Buzzsaw wrote:That's quite a lovely appeal to authority fallacy you have there

Congratulations, you totally got that wrong. No one assumes a lack of intelligence on your part, please don't overly exert yourself to prove so. What you've linked is also not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to popularity.

An appeal to authority would be "Games Workshop says they make the best miniatures in the world, and they would know something about making miniatures, so it must be true!" An appeal to authority is a fallacy when, and this is the fun part, I actually make an appeal to an authority

Meanwhile, an appeal to popularity would be "Games Workshop has so many fans that they must be the most popular miniatures company"

GW has a large fanbase. That's not a false statement, nor is it a statement that GW can exclusively make. This forum is a testimony to that, if anything.

Please tell me that the sentence "Games Workshop has a large fanbase" is false. Please do. This forum, hell the number of Games Workshop based and related forums, proves my point. It's not just opinion, it's a fact. They're not #1, not by any means necessary, but they are certainly big.

Buzzsaw wrote:It's fascinating to see how they describe their own product, isn't it? It's nominally a game, but they are far more interested in talking about the "hobby".

Ok, so let me get this straight. Games Workshop is more interested in talking about the hobby. What can we deduce from this statement?

Well, obviously, they're here to sell models. This is their primary goal, correct? Which means that they aren't necessarily interested in internal balance.


The problem we seem to have here is the concept of balance within a game. SHOULD a game be balanced? Absolutely, it makes sense. However, when a game is designed "balance" is not something that is inherently required. In fact, the only thing really required for a game is a set of rules and a social agreement to follow those rules for the sake of the game. Yes, it might not be a "fun" game, but it is a game nonetheless.

While balanced rules could sell more models, Games Workshop chooses not to have a balanced ruleset, and suffers the consequences for it. It's an illogical decision, but a potential decision nonetheless.

Cryonicleech wrote:
The problem we seem to have here is the concept of balance within a game. SHOULD a game be balanced? Absolutely, it makes sense. However, when a game is designed "balance" is not something that is inherently required. In fact, the only thing really required for a game is a set of rules and a social agreement to follow those rules for the sake of the game. Yes, it might not be a "fun" game, but it is a game nonetheless.

While balanced rules could sell more models, Games Workshop chooses not to have a balanced ruleset, and suffers the consequences for it. It's an illogical decision, but a potential decision nonetheless.

I really doubt GW has some sort of committee meetings where they make decisions akin the lines "OK, lets make Razorbacks really powerful so we sell tons of them". I think they just don't care too much if something is unbalanced, as competive gamers are not their chief customers and the game is not specificially aimed to them.

If you remember how MtG began, the early sets were insanely unbalanced. This was not a big problem as long as play was casual, but when transferred to competive unlimited environment, it broke down. So they then moved to well balanced, non-OP expansions, and found out that people hated them, and did not buy them. So they began to again make expansions with very powerful individual cards.

However, for a miniature company it does not necessarily work out like that, since unlike in a CCG you know what you get. People don't buy 20 boxes of GW products and hope to find Lasplas Razorback. They go and buy exactly what they want, which means they don't buy something else which is weak. So despite popular (mis)conception, it is not a given that unbalanced game is a sure way to make more money.

I might also point out that those armies generally regarded as most powerful in 40k 5th edition were often amongst the cheapest to collect. That's why Grey Knights was so insanely popular, you did not need that many models to have a competive army.

They very well might have such a committee. Just look at this whole flier fiasco. Prices jump just in time for flier rules and 6th edition's crazy flier imbalance. PP has a damn balanced game across God knows how many factions. So, an argument from total anecdote: I don't freak out every time a new book comes out from PP the way I want to from GW. Every time they release a codex or BRB invariably some army is going to require not insignificant new investment to stay viable or will go into egg crates in the closet. My orks are going to need big time cash to stay fun to play, my BT are dead as dead, and my Imp Fists well, we'll see they seem ok.

My Khador force on the other hand? Might take it up to 50 points this year or I may just dig deeply into Dust Warfare. GW is a model company, and while those models are awesome, I'm sick of their terrible ruleset and the indigestion I get every time they touch the rules.

UsdiThunder wrote:

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

snip

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.

My point was that in Chess you use your Models, Tactics, and Strategy to protect your warcaster and secure the win. In Checkers it doesn't matter what pieces are as they all work together to secure a victory. Losing a piece in Checkers doesn't hurt as much as losing a piece in Chess. In 40k losing an HQ doesn't mean much just like losing a Checker piece. In WM/H losing your Warcaster/Warlock means game over just like Checkmate in Chess.

Balance is an issue or else there would not be so many people running from 40k right now. People are tired of Deathstars, Flavor of the month armies, New Codexes and BRB that invalidate armies, Armies that get no updates for almost a decade, etc... All parts of balance. What you call combo reliant is actually what is called synergy. Synergy is where your army is built to work well with all of it's parts instead of just spamming the crap out of the most powerful unbalancing unit out of the codex.

While you may think it's ok that GK or IG curbstomp everyone else because it told a story, some people would like a even fighting chance.

Balance was one of the main reasons I left the Hobby/Game that is ModelHammer 40k, not just 6th ed.

The reliance on the caster is one thing I see as a big flaw of WarmaHordes. I havent really played yet, but Im thinking that the mechanic of losing a single model causing your game to essentially end might be a huge turn-off. Ill have to give it a try and see. If I end up not liking the ssytem its no huge loss, I still have another system or two that I can use the models with, thanks to creation rules.

YakManDoo wrote:They very well might have such a committee. Just look at this whole flier fiasco. Prices jump just in time for flier rules and 6th edition's crazy flier imbalance. PP has a damn balanced game across God knows how many factions. So, an argument from total anecdote: I don't freak out every time a new book comes out from PP the way I want to from GW. Every time they release a codex or BRB invariably some army is going to require not insignificant new investment to stay viable or will go into egg crates in the closet. My orks are going to need big time cash to stay fun to play, my BT are dead as dead, and my Imp Fists well, we'll see they seem ok.

An opposite anecdote: if you started Tau when they first came out in 2001 or so and bought what was relevant then, very same units still are the best Tau units now in 6th edition. In fact, new ruleset made them stronger than they were in 5th, and new units they have gained since aren't particularly powerful (or downright horrible) and not necessary for top Tau army. This is another peculiar thing with GW, often the totally new units they release aren't particularly great rulewise, sometimes downright awful. There are some exceptions of course.

I don't understand what kind of Ork army you have that it was supposedly nerfed by 6th. Trukk spam, Slugga Green Tide? I dunno, those might have been hurt by changes. Can't say for BT, my Dark Angels became much more viable in 6th Edition.

Whilst GW isn't particularly well known for their tight rulesets (to put it mildly), I've never found it as particularly big hindrance to gaming enjoyment. I mean, after playing Descent, 40k feels like really well designed ruleset.... (And I had pretty good times with Descent, too.)

Another example is of course MtG. I loved its early, poorly designed, horribly imbalanced incarnation, and quit when it became to transform to its present form.

Backfire wrote:I really doubt GW has some sort of committee meetings where they make decisions akin the lines "OK, lets make Razorbacks really powerful so we sell tons of them".

Of course that's not how they do it.

Backfire wrote:I think they just don't care too much if something is unbalanced, as competive gamers are not their chief customers and the game is not specificially aimed to them.

Indeed, it's more like this. "Hey, you know what would be cool? Grey Knight Terminators as Troops! And if you take a certain character, you can get 2 wound Grey Knight Terminators as Troops!"

Backfire wrote:I might also point out that those armies generally regarded as most powerful in 40k 5th edition were often amongst the cheapest to collect. That's why Grey Knights was so insanely popular, you did not need that many models to have a competive army.

True. But IG and DE Venomspam, both popular and competitive, were wildly expensive. However Grey Knight took the cake as the cheapest and most competitive.

Mad4Minis wrote:The reliance on the caster is one thing I see as a big flaw of WarmaHordes.

Naaw, just like Chess is reliant on the king. It's notoriously difficult to kill most warcasters/warlocks easily (Depending on the situation, of course) and you spend more time trying to create vectors to assassinate your opponent's caster/lock. It's a really intuitive system, and I highly suggest everyone try it at least once.

Backfire wrote:Whilst GW isn't particularly well known for their tight rulesets (to put it mildly), I've never found it as particularly big hindrance to gaming enjoyment.

This, for so much win. Exalted.

That's not to say, however, that balance isn't necessary for enjoyment. Some people simply enjoy balance, others need balance. The point being that because one system is balanced doesn't make another system flawed, or less entertaining. The games are aimed a completely different markets and they really need to be compared as such.

The reliance on the caster is one thing I see as a big flaw of WarmaHordes. I havent really played yet, but Im thinking that the mechanic of losing a single model causing your game to essentially end might be a huge turn-off. Ill have to give it a try and see. If I end up not liking the ssytem its no huge loss, I still have another system or two that I can use the models with, thanks to creation rules.

I thought so too when i first started, but i found out the game is so much deeper then what it appears on the surface. I encourage anyone that would like to play, to give it a try, but leave all your 40k rules, and notions at the door.

There are scenarios in the rulebook in which killing the caster is but one win condition. Steamroller (consider it Ardboyz of WM/H) has about 12 scenerios available for free.

Keeping your warcaster alive isn't as tough as you think, considering just about every caster/warlock is one of the toughest models on the board to kill in most games.

Plus I have to admit, 40k trys to capture that cinematic feel, but a good game of WM/H is like watching a movie or anime.

If Warmahordes was a movie, it'd be one of those super tense ones where the ending either totally surprises you or lets you down. It's interesting to watch and see how each player plays, because sometimes you never see the ending coming.

40k is more like one of those gore flicks. Entertaining, a little cheesy and hard to bear sometimes, but still fun. I may not be able to see 8 foot tall superhumans crash through walls screaming "For the Emperor!" but I can do the next best thing.

Mad4Minis wrote:
The reliance on the caster is one thing I see as a big flaw of WarmaHordes. I havent really played yet, but Im thinking that the mechanic of losing a single model causing your game to essentially end might be a huge turn-off. Ill have to give it a try and see. If I end up not liking the ssytem its no huge loss, I still have another system or two that I can use the models with, thanks to creation rules.

mrfantasical wrote:I thought so too when i first started, but i found out the game is so much deeper then what it appears on the surface. I encourage anyone that would like to play, to give it a try, but leave all your 40k rules, and notions at the door.

There are scenarios in the rulebook in which killing the caster is but one win condition. Steamroller (consider it Ardboyz of WM/H) has about 12 scenerios available for free.

Keeping your warcaster alive isn't as tough as you think, considering just about every caster/warlock is one of the toughest models on the board to kill in most games.

This was the same feeling when I was first thinking about trying WM/H. I was pleasantly proven wrong once I got my battlebox and started playing. The biggest lesson I had to learn was how to get the maximum use out of my warcaster at the same time protect him/her from harm. IMO it makes the games more intense and enjoyable.

regarding the whole "balance" and "game" argument.

GW have a corporate philosophy. they are about "the hobby". they exist to sell models. Jervis has gone on record to state that something like 2/3s of their customers dont even play the game. rules? secondary concern. Ultimately, GW sells their "vision" of what the hobby is, they sell an "idea". To them, its about how things were "back in the day", with 2 friends in a basement rolling dice and having a laugh on a saturday afternoon, and really not caring what happens with the "game" - its about the time with friends. this "idea" is one they want tp push without technology, without advertising. GW dont advertise because they're bad at it. GW dont advertise because they dont want to - it spoils the image that they want to sell of a game/hobby/community that grows through "word of mouth". they have an idea of what the game is, and thats what they push.

their "idea" of the "GW game" is that it is, essentially, a user-defined "kitchen-sink" setting. they throw everything into the mix, and whatever you want, well thats what you pull out of it. Now, on the plus side, you've got a product that appeals to a wide range of tastes, and can be built to be casual, competitive, or even just for shiny pretty things to put in a display case. WHatever you want, it can offer. Now for me, on the downside is the lack of direction that the user-defined kitchen sink setting presents - to me, it doesnt know what it wants to do. every edition pushes some different aspect of the game that gets abused to hell and back. to me, i see a game that tries to be a company level encounter, with units more appropriate to an army level engagement (flyers, rear echelon artillery - how did they get on the 40k frontlines?? etc) whilst at the same time attempting containing features that attempt to micromanage your squads down to the individual's most customiseable gear - which is something more appropriate to a game on the scale of warmachine or infinity.

to me, when someone says "GW should do this", or "GW should do that". No, they wont, and they shouldnt. they're doing precisely what they want to do. this isnt *just* your game- its everyone else's too, and not everyone else wants what you want either. remember, its a kitchen sink. its for everyone. find what you want out of it, find like minded folks, and play with them. seriously, too many of the issues on this, and any other board come from people who essentially want different things from the same game.

to answer the question - i got into WM at the start of 5th edition actually. i burned out towards the end of 4th for various reasons and fifth simply didnt excite me. I stepped away from the hobby for about 2 years, and when i tried to get enthusiastic about diving into 5th with a new army, i just couldnt deceive myself that it was for me. and it was a shame because it was a hobby i enjoyed. then i looked at the handful of warmachine models on my desk, and did some research, and found out PP were doing a worldwide playtest for 2nd ed. a company that actually wants my input to make a better game? here's me sold. and i havent looked back. i wont leave warmahordes for 40k. its hard to go back there after experiencing WMH i find. 40k to be is slow and sluggish, and lacks drama. that said, 6th has piqued my interest and i might dabble in it from time to time - my tau are itching for a scrap with the new rules!

I think of Warmachine and Hordes as the WWF of wargames.

There's a lot of posturing and a lot of cinematic fighting
between generals.

malfred wrote:I think of Warmachine and Hordes as the WWF of wargames.

Cute pandas and baby elephants serenely frolicking in the jungle?

I want a warcaster named BONESAW now.

Backfire wrote:

malfred wrote:I think of Warmachine and Hordes as the WWF of wargames.

Cute pandas and baby elephants serenely frolicking in the jungle?

Yes. ...until the Skorne arrive.

Surtur wrote:I want a warcaster named BONESAW now.

Scaverous not close enough?

Dais wrote:

Backfire wrote:

malfred wrote:I think of Warmachine and Hordes as the WWF of wargames.

Cute pandas and baby elephants serenely frolicking in the jungle?

Yes. ...until the Skorne arrive.

Which leaves only tortured pandas and baby elephants.

malfred wrote:

Surtur wrote:I want a warcaster named BONESAW now.

Scaverous not close enough?

Scaverous vs The Butcher... in.. THE... MEGADOME!!!!!

I always meant to get back into 40K one day, but I think 6th ed put that to rest once and for all. In general, I think my tastes have changed over the last two years. I prefer relatively balanced games where "game-breaking" and the "power list vs casual list" divide aren't so much of a concern. I think the final straw was reading the list of changes people are having to make to make 6E tournament-viable at all.

Plus, the army I collected (Sisters of Battle) is pretty much on the scrapheap in favour of more and more Space Marines with new colour schemes and wacky rules, and the prices have only gone up. One nice thing about Privateer is that their factions all get new stuff at about the same rate, and factions don't get abandoned or put on life support for a decade or more.

I bought the 6th Ed BRB and Prime MkII at the same time. The more I read them both the more I am loving WM/H.

My biggest issue with 6th is the randomization for its own sake. I am a fan of tactics and strategy. In war gaming I feel like I should be able to mitigate the risk of the dice and I just don't see a way to make that happen reliably within the rules of 6th Ed.

As to the things I really like about WM/H;

Factions are updated simultaneously.
There is a good balance between factions and mercanarys help that as well.
There are as many good builds as there are imaginations.
PP requests and uses gamer feedback.
And the goes on and on.