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.

 motyak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Well, you could alter your comments to be less insulting to the regular players of WM/H who don't do that. Or, you know, just be rude and don't care.

If anyone feels insulted by my comment they might be in the group of people I'm specifically describing: former 40k players who moved onto a new game and are trying to force that new game onto current 40k players, that or they're reading too far into what I said and are taking it as a personal insult regardless.

It was directed at the other bloke, who said that PP fans are insecure, insufferable, unable to take any criticism of the game, etc. What you said wasn't too bad, you don't like being pressured into a game, that's perfectly normal. There is nothing stopping someone liking both PP and some GW games.

I said those things because that literally IS my impression of Privateer Press fans, and frankly the incessant badgering of ClockworkZion earlier in the thread, despite his repeated refusal to buy into the game right now given his financial situation and personal tastes, is right in line with what I said and my previous experience with people who like Warmachine.

 liquidjoshi wrote:

While I do understand and agree that that is off-putting to say the least, I personally am ready to listen to people that will debate reasonably, as opposed to some of the other posters in the thread.

That's the problem, while each side has the occasional fanatic who has to make it into an attack, both sides have them in this thread alone, we have a board community where on even tangentally related threads it's usually less than a page before the usual crowd show up shouting "Taudar OP, Helldrake OP, Faction X sucks, Melee sucks, 6th is a shooting game, GW are incompetent morons. Hearing peoples opinions is great but some people here aren't interested in giving their opinion, they want to smash everyone over the head with theirs until they give in.

Maybe you disagree, maybe you don't see this happening in which case I can simply walk away because we disagree on the fundamental crux of my point and we have to agree to disagree.

 liquidjoshi wrote:

So I don't love GW. I don't even like GW at this point, because they seem not to like us. So while I do love 40K, I detest what GW is doing to it at this point in time. If GW were to turn around and drop prices, I'd like them a lot more.

That's you opinion and that's great, when expressed in the right thread discussing GW. However there are a group of folks here who simply wade into each thread regardless of the OP to remind us all how naff they think 40k has become. Someone wants to talk about Striking Scorpions? They should just use Wave Serpents because incompetent GW made them way better, they should probably hate themselves for being "that guy" and playing an OP army while they are at it etc.

You'll notice this thread is not "It's not all *good* is it?" as an indicator of the boards attitude.

You'll notice this thread is not "It's not all *good* is it?" as an indicator of the boards attitude.

You'll notice this quote as an indicator of your attitude, that it has to be the board and not the game.

 motyak wrote:

You'll notice this quote as an indicator of your attitude, that it has to be the board and not the game.

Not quite, see I'm talking about the negativity itself not the reason behind it. I in fact make no assertions as to the reasoning of the people bulldozing into every thread with overwhelming negativity, simply that they do it. It's an indicator that someone noticed so much of it that they felt the need to post and draw attention to it, nothing more.

Whether or not I think peoples gripes about the game are justified is an entirely separate matter one which I'm stepping around rather than going into again

You know what's the difference between Warmachine players and 40K players?
Warmachine players are antagonistic towards 40K players.
While 40K players are antagonistic towards 40K players.

Do you kow why?
GW sell you a 'guide line ' on how you may play 40k.That you have to MUTUALLY agree with your opponent on how play the game.
Other games give the player a rule set that is clearly defined instructions to play the game .

EG
I have X points of A, do you have you have X points of another army/force?Would you like a game?
Yeah, do you want to play really competitively or more casual?

I like more casual game , OK so do I lets play.

40k
I have X points of army A, do you have X points of another army?
Yes, do you use:-
Flyers,
Superheavies,
Data slate units.
Additional units from FW.
After negotiating what units the players are prepared to play with...

How do you interpret the following rules ....
...........................
Eventually,

How competitive are you ,Oh bugger, never mind the shop is closing see you next week!

Obviously player ONLY playing in a close environment can all mutually agree on how to play.And they can arrive at fun game much easier.

But pick up games of 40k are subject to far more 'issues'.

And its in these pick up game where peoples views on 40k 'guide lines' can differ quite dramatically where 40k players get antagonistic towards other players.Or when players from different groups meet and try to tell the other group their way of playing is 'wrong'.

So if GW plc wrote a rule set specifically focused for the game play of 40k.(Rather than a 'fuzzy guideline'). Then 40k players could just play and enjoy 40k with out all the negotiations/arguments!

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or maybe PP fans just love their game.
I think GW fans just don't know what it's like to play a game they actually like.

(I'm playing devil's advocate, I just think it's ignorant to label a whole fan base like that. I know plenty of PP fans that are great people.)

People actually liking a game and wanting others to share in the fun, utter Heresy! of course it has to be done in a nice way.

What does cause tensions is when you wish to 'float' between systems at your leisure and some ignorant people take offense at that idea.

At my club we've managed it quite well, its taken a bit but we are finally breaking down the divide between the players who play the different systems. And quite a few of the warmahordes players are former GW employees or have played GW games since they began (or both)

The critique of GW that i seem to get is the following (i'm generalizing here...): the background and models are very good, however the cost has gone up way too much, more importantly the rules have gone off piste to an extent that its a "chore" to play.

Where warmahordes seems to have hit the spot is the fact you can play the game with the battle-boxes, although its not the whole game its enough to get started and learn the mechanics. In addition those mechanics are sound, and even though from a 40k perspective they are highly annoying at first , games run at decent pace even if both players are new and a bit of rules help is needed along the way.

The caster centric mechanic isn't 'herohammer' in the fantasy/40k sense, granted some casters are combat monsters. But you have to work out how to get them there and do damage without getting killed in the process. Some casters are all about boosting your forces or crippling your opponents forces making them easier to hit in combat or stopping them from doing anything useful for a turn (that is highly amusing )

It might not be for everyone but for many it hits something that GW games don't seem to offer anymore...

Just my observations

Just some perspective from a former GW enthusiast. About 20 years ago Games Workshop cared about their fans. Period. You could see it in the games. You could see it in their official events. You could hear it by talking to the staff at Games Day. They were excited about the game, the models and what it brought to the game to make it better.

Even then their models were more expensive. Not like they are today but still around 20% more than similar pieces from other companies. They were cooler, more detailed and you honestly felt like you got what you paid for. Now when I see their stuff I just shake my head. $30 for a single model and it is the same sculpt from a decade or even two decades ago. The same piece origianlly sold for $8. You can't tell me that it is inflation. That is greed.

As for the game I haven't played in probably close to 10-15 years. The armies then had character. They were original. Each army did not have to have a unit the same type of abilities as a unit in ever other army. I left the game for this reason. They have this fantastic back story and fluff and then they strip it from the armies in the game. It becomes to bland and boring. I have had friends who have continued to play and I have seen a new edition come out that complete removes models from the list and leaves players with models that cannot even be used.

Don't get me wrong. It isn't all bad. The models are still gorgeous. The flier and super heavies I think are fantastic models (no idea if the rules are any good). A lot of these units are things that we begged and pleaded for for years without avail. So it is great to see them trying to expand the game (even if it is just for more profit). Personally I think the game will slowly die as players get tired of rehashing the same thing over and over and over. The game is stagnate. The story line never moves along. From past experience if it is now growing and changing and moving forward it is doomed to a long, slow decline.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 motyak wrote:

You'll notice this quote as an indicator of your attitude, that it has to be the board and not the game.

Not quite, see I'm talking about the negativity itself not the reason behind it. I in fact make no assertions as to the reasoning of the people bulldozing into every thread with overwhelming negativity, simply that they do it. It's an indicator that someone noticed so much of it that they felt the need to post and draw attention to it, nothing more.

Whether or not I think peoples gripes about the game are justified is an entirely separate matter one which I'm stepping around rather than going into again

Dakka isn't a gestalt entity, if people are posting negative things repeatedly, it is something they've chosen to do all by themselves. If many posters are posting negative things, or some posters are doing it a lot, then that is only the smoke, it isn't the fire.

The fact that what is often fairly sensible, well reasoned criticism has been labelled "hate" by the OP just speaks to their own prejudices IMO. I guess because I would self identify as somewhere near neutral on the matter (as someone with experience both owning, running and managing businesses for other people, I find some of GWs actions bizarre, and somewhat frustrating that they have such a golden goose and seem intent on slowly strangling it, I see the problems inherent in 40K also, but am lucky to play in a club environment where only a few players don't show enough restraint in exploiting them for it to be a huge issue for me personally, which probably helps retain some perspective - many players simply choose not to use allies, fortifications or LoW, despite the club policy being open to it all) and I see a lot less "hate" posts.

I do see some pretty bizarre, logic defying attempts to argue in favour of GW though, I seem to see those a lot more often than any unsubstantiated "hate" posts.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
This is the very thing that turned me off from Warmachine (besides the aesthetic). The fact that most of your army was entirely inconsequential made it boring for me. It smacked of hero-hammer which I loathe (and is why I gave up on fantasy).

Well, that is not how I feel about it after playing the game for a while. Most models will be able to threaten a warcaster under the right circumstances, and to protect one just by getting in the way. Most of them have rules and combo that will allow them to have some influence on the game under the right circumstances.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
In my experience they all, almost without exception, are incredibly vocal about the game and will brook no criticism of Warmachine whatsoever.

There are a bunch of valid criticism of Warmachine to be made. For instance, most of the models are designed as mostly monopose, even those that will likely be taken multiple time in an army (either because of spam, or because it is actually an almost monopose triple (or more) kit, with many heavy warbeast sharing the same body). I even have a unit of 10 pygmy bushwackers that contains two set of 4 clones, and two unique models. Also, the lack of unnamed character is sad, as it does not allow for much fluff creativity. And the rules are very good as game mechanics, but really not that narrative. For instance, the kriel warrior have some prayers that gives them access to some bonus, you choose which every turn. It works good as a game mechanic, but it is in no conceivable way linked to any fluff I have ever seen written about them being particularly religious or something. It is just a game mechanic. Similarly, quite often when you win, especially by scenario play, it does not feel like an actual victory where your forces actually managed to do something that will give them an edge or anything.

I am in no way saying Warmachine is perfect. I just think it is a very good idea to have armies for both Warmachine and 40k. Not putting all your egg into the same basket, and all that. That is what I did, and I am pretty happy about it. That is why I tried to convince someone who seemed on the edge of doing the same : in my experience it was a very good decision, so I thought I should share that. Is that really so much obnoxious ?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
Simple answer.... Buy from chines offsellers.
Fixes how expensive it is, and shows GW they dont rule the world

They have no way of knowing how many people are doing that, so I don't think it'll help them understand the point any better honestly.

Theyll start to notice that less and less people are buying there models

Well I have nothing against Warmachine and risking throwing more fuel to the fire but from what I've seen from it's player base, they tend to be pretty....preachy about their game to say the least, to the point of putting me off when I was trying to choose what game I play.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
Simple answer.... Buy from chines offsellers.
Fixes how expensive it is, and shows GW they dont rule the world

They have no way of knowing how many people are doing that, so I don't think it'll help them understand the point any better honestly.

Theyll start to notice that less and less people are buying there models

I'm pretty sure they already notice that now.

 GuardStrider wrote:
Well I have nothing against Warmachine and risking throwing more fuel to the fire but from what I've seen from it's player base, they tend to be pretty....preachy about their game to say the least, to the point of putting me off when I was trying to choose what game I play.

I've seen that as well, I think it might be that a lot of Warmachine players now are ex-GW players so tend to extol its virtues nonstop.

While I really like what I see from Warmachine beyond the fluff feels a bit weak; like the game mechanics feels like a game and not a story, which is good from a balance perspective but not from a "Why are we fighting" perspective... it feels very MMO/MOBA-ish where you play a "match" just because there's a match, and while there's a story about who your guys are, you aren't really there for any reason; in fact if I had to describe Warmachine it'd pretty much be a tabletop MOBA (I guess just MBA then?). Compare that to Warhammer where it's a lot easier to give a battle a story, even a simple one, even if not for the game itself then for your own records. Warmachine doesn't have that feeling it's almost like randomly Stryker encountered Sorcha out in the field somewhere ("A Wild Kommander Sorcha appeared!"), rather than like Stryker doing a raid on a Khador military facility to capture some plans, with an actual narrative reason behind it. As much as I despise GW's pushing the narrative as an excuse to ignore game balance, I like at least in my own mind thinking that a battle has some meaning in a larger conflict, not basically a random encounter.

Well the thing is Warmahordes is the better game system. It is more clear , has more balance etc then anything GW has ever made for any edition of w40k or WFB .

While I really like what I see from Warmachine beyond the fluff feels a bit weak; like the game mechanics feels like a game and not a story, which is good from a balance perspective but not from a "Why are we fighting" perspective.

This I don't understand . You play a game to play a game and games are there to be won . That is like the most basic thing , children learn . If someone wants to hear stories he can buy a book or an audio book , because that is what they are for .

Makumba wrote:
Well the thing is Warmahordes is the better game system. It is more clear , has more balance etc then anything GW has ever made for any edition of w40k or WFB .

While I really like what I see from Warmachine beyond the fluff feels a bit weak; like the game mechanics feels like a game and not a story, which is good from a balance perspective but not from a "Why are we fighting" perspective.

This I don't understand . You play a game to play a game and games are there to be won . That is like the most basic thing , children learn . If someone wants to hear stories he can buy a book or an audio book , because that is what they are for .

I disagree. I like to play a game as much as the next guy, but I like games to be part of something else (part of why I love campaigns in 40k) and not just some random battle with random people. Even if the game isn't part of a campaign I like the notion that there's an actual reason within the fluff of the game for the game to be played.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 GuardStrider wrote:
Well I have nothing against Warmachine and risking throwing more fuel to the fire but from what I've seen from it's player base, they tend to be pretty....preachy about their game to say the least, to the point of putting me off when I was trying to choose what game I play.

I've seen that as well, I think it might be that a lot of Warmachine players now are ex-GW players so tend to extol its virtues nonstop.

While I really like what I see from Warmachine beyond the fluff feels a bit weak; like the game mechanics feels like a game and not a story, which is good from a balance perspective but not from a "Why are we fighting" perspective... it feels very MMO/MOBA-ish where you play a "match" just because there's a match, and while there's a story about who your guys are, you aren't really there for any reason; in fact if I had to describe Warmachine it'd pretty much be a tabletop MOBA (I guess just MBA then?). Compare that to Warhammer where it's a lot easier to give a battle a story, even a simple one, even if not for the game itself then for your own records. Warmachine doesn't have that feeling it's almost like randomly Stryker encountered Sorcha out in the field somewhere ("A Wild Kommander Sorcha appeared!"), rather than like Stryker doing a raid on a Khador military facility to capture some plans, with an actual narrative reason behind it. As much as I despise GW's pushing the narrative as an excuse to ignore game balance, I like at least in my own mind thinking that a battle has some meaning in a larger conflict, not basically a random encounter.

The fluff, the model range (I love the warjack looks but in the overall I prefer gw minis) and the more flexibility in making armies (generic leaders, kitbashing,more personality) was what made me choose 40k in the end.

Also the fact that Warmachine is more competition oriented, I had a very bad experience with over competitive people in MTG which made me abandon the game altogether. Not that 40k doesn't have those people but It's easier to find in 40k people who just to have fun running a fluffy list and creating a narrative instead of min-maxing and creating optimal lists.

But once again I don't have anything against warmachine, as I said I love the warjack aesthetic, I find it's rules better and like the fact it doesn't take 3 hours to finish a game. Once I finish my 40k army there is a good chance of me delving in Warmachine (pity Infinity doesn't have a community here since I would love to try it)

WayneTheGame wrote:
Warmachine doesn't have that feeling it's almost like randomly Stryker encountered Sorcha out in the field somewhere ("A Wild Kommander Sorcha appeared!"), rather than like Stryker doing a raid on a Khador military facility to capture some plans, with an actual narrative reason behind it.

That is true. I mean, you can basically end up with some guy fighting against his future self, and if he stands completely within some perfect circle in the middle of the battleground, he suddenly win and the opponent's army disappear or something. Not exactly very narrative. You can still care about the fluff when building your army, when painting and converting your models, when reading fluff books, when playing the RPG, but when playing the actual game, it does not matter… much.
Not that GW is perfect at doing that (I mean, random objectives WTF ?) but at least they try, and that makes a big difference.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:


This is the very thing that turned me off from Warmachine (besides the aesthetic). The fact that most of your army was entirely inconsequential made it boring for me. It smacked of hero-hammer which I loathe (and is why I gave up on fantasy).

You could not be more incorrect with that statement. EVERY model has a major use in your force. Every model can impact the game. A simple Winter Guard with his blunderbuss can kill the enemy caster or a Colossal. Same goes for certain utility models (It is my goal to headbutt a caster to death with a Corollary ). To say that they are nothing just smacks of ignorance (sorry to sound harsh, but it's true.). Try playing some scenarios, then you'll see how useless those models that are not your caster are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Warmachine doesn't have that feeling it's almost like randomly Stryker encountered Sorcha out in the field somewhere ("A Wild Kommander Sorcha appeared!"), rather than like Stryker doing a raid on a Khador military facility to capture some plans, with an actual narrative reason behind it.

That is true. I mean, you can basically end up with some guy fighting against his future self, and if he stands completely within some perfect circle in the middle of the battleground, he suddenly win and the opponent's army disappear or something. Not exactly very narrative. You can still care about the fluff when building your army, when painting and converting your models, when reading fluff books, when playing the RPG, but when playing the actual game, it does not matter… much.
Not that GW is perfect at doing that (I mean, random objectives WTF ?) but at least they try, and that makes a big difference.

How exactly is this different from the endless Space Marine vs. Space Marine games that 40k provides?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That is true. I mean, you can basically end up with some guy fighting against his future self, and if he stands completely within some perfect circle in the middle of the battleground, he suddenly win and the opponent's army disappear or something. Not exactly very narrative. You can still care about the fluff when building your army, when painting and converting your models, when reading fluff books, when playing the RPG, but when playing the actual game, it does not matter… much.
Not that GW is perfect at doing that (I mean, random objectives WTF ?) but at least they try, and that makes a big difference.

How is that different from 40K? You can have a Captain Tycho and Death Company Tycho having a square off. Unless you're playing a specific scenario, every game will have awkward match-ups springing from the simple fact that two players may like to use one special character. It's just the nature of wargames.

Regarding the death of the Warcaster ending the game - a Warcaster is the army's commander and an inspiring figure. His loss is as much a deathblow to his men's morale as the loss of a general in real life, causing them to retreat. This can also represent a Pyrrhic victory - sure, you have most of your army intact, but your commander is dead, which buries your long-term strategic plans.

Besides, for all the talk of 40K proponents how the rules of the game are merely a suggestion, what prevents you from ignoring that part of Warmachine's rules? Make the game continue after one side loses their Warcaster, it changes little beyond cutting access to his spells.

As for the fluff =/= game comment - have you ever read a Warmachine story? Because the fluff is very close to how the game is played. I'd say it's much closer than how 40K stories translate to what happens on the tabletop (i.e. not very well).

 Grimtuff wrote:
How exactly is this different from the endless Space Marine vs. Space Marine games that 40k provides?

Honestly it isn't, but when it's a logical battle in 40k you can at least justify it yourself. I find the same thing very hard in Warmachine, but then again that's not what Warmachine tries to do, so I can't fault them for it. As a game, I think Warmachine is fairly amazing because it has actual balance and how you use a unit is more than what unit you use, but even with the fluff behind it I can't get past it being simply background material, similar to how each hero in say League of Legends has a backstory but it doesn't really matter, or how in MtG you're actually meant to be rival wizards dueling, but I don't know of anybody who actually cares about that.

I guess the best way I can explain it is that in 40k/WHFB, the background is supposed to be something you consider before, during and after the course of the game. In Warmachine, the background material is just that - it's in the background and has little or no bearing on the game you're playing.

 Paradigm wrote:
Have an exalt, OP.

As I've said time and time again, 40k is what you make it. Take it seriously, make winning the focus and you'll probably be disappointed fast.

On the other hand, just play to have a good time, throw some dice with friends and see awesome minis blowing each other apart, then you can have hours of fun.

This, this here is 100% how I try to play the game I love.

So I come back and the threads now changed from whats good about 40k to now somehow involing PP and WM/H..

Wow...

 happygolucky wrote:
So I come back and the threads now changed from whats good about 40k to now somehow involing PP and WM/H..

Wow...

Should tell you what's actually good about 40k i.e. not much

WayneTheGame wrote:


Should tell you what's actually good about 40k i.e. not much

Warmachine. The game with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "If you don't enjoy it, you're ignorant."

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Warmachine. The game with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "If you don't enjoy it, you're ignorant."

Warhammer 40.000. The game with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "If you don't play it the way I do, you're playing it wrong and should feel ashamed for it."

Dakkadakka . The forum with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "My system is better and I am gonna insult yours"

Actually, there is nothing wrong with 40k.

We, the community, need to consider it from a new perspective.

 -DE- wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Warmachine. The game with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "If you don't enjoy it, you're ignorant."

Warhammer 40.000. The game with the attractive, inclusive ad slogan: "If you don't play it the way I do, you're playing it wrong and should feel ashamed for it."

More like.. Warhammer 40,000: The "game" where you have to discuss with your opponent beforehand what books are allowed, what supplements are allowed and whether you're playing friendly or competitive before you even decide what kind of game you're going to play. Name me another game (true RPGs don't count) where you can't just sit down to play without hashing out a bunch of stuff beforehand just to figure out what kind of game you're actually having?

Seriously though at this rate they might as well go back to Rogue Trader where you needed a Game Master to regulate things. GW seems to think 40k is more like a tabletop combat RPG than a wargame at this point anyways.

Indeed, that's a singular quality of Warhams I noticed. Nowhere else have I seen such deep divisions within the player base. These are the only systems where players are classified into fluff gamers, tournament gamers, collectors, painters... For all the other games, you merely state that you're an X player and that's enough. Not so with Warhams. They're such complex games you need to further categorize gamers, because mixed matches will only result in grief and hurt feelings. Curious.