Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:19:12
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Hello everyone.
In the midst of the recent arguments for-and-against 40k, I would like to put my experiences and conclusions out there for judgement and comment. The games I will be comparing 40k directly to are all the games I own/play still. These are: Warmachine/Hordes, Field of Glory, and Flames of War.
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1, where jumping from tall buildings to one's death is a good way to destroy enemy war-engines, et cetera, is not a universe I can place myself into. I do play the game, but I simply cannot get as 'into' it as I do into 40k. I'm sure it's just me, but it's true. As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important. Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience, there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake. It makes it hard to play a Khadoran 'tank company' (as it were), because the rules are not balanced for it.
2) 40k vs Field of Glory: This is less important to me, as the games are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I want a competitive, tournament-ready ruleset with every possible interaction already hammered out during development, I'd play Field of Glory. If I want a fun game that has much more diversity, I play 40k. My army in Field of Glory are 490BC Spartans, classed as "Armored, Offensive Spear, Heavy Foot, Superior Quality." To compare with, for example, Swiss Pike blocks from two millennia later - "Protected, Pike, Heavy Foot, Superior Quality." This means that they're not so different - in 40k, such similarity is rarely found between codexes, which makes the interactions of the game VERY difficult to predict ahead of time, unlike Field of Glory, where literally every interaction can be calculated in one's head ahead of time, making positioning on the field the most decisive matter in a battle, and the dice-rolling is merely a formality in most cases. This is, for me, the epitome of a tournament ruleset.
3) 40k vs Flames of War: These two I consider most similar - both have significant balance problems, both are more 'movie-like' and less grounded in reality than they could be, and both are loads of fun for me. I basically play Flames of War when I'm on a WWII history kick, or when I'm looking to paint and play 15mm tanks instead of 28mm tanks. But they're comparatively quite similar, with Flames of War perhaps having a diversity advantage simply due to the sheer number of options.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:22:29
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
For me, it's really more just because chainswords.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:27:00
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Pustulating Plague Priest
|
Fluff for me. While I think the other games have a good depth to their fluff, I just love the feel of 40k's fluff the most. Seeing as how it sometimes tends to contradict itself can sometimes lead to ways to create headcannon or alternate interpretations. If not that, it's for it's sort of half-fantasy half-science fiction feel that's combined with how over-the-top and diverse the setting is.
This is just my opinion of course.
|
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:29:37
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
SkavenLord wrote:Fluff for me. While I think the other games have a good depth to their fluff, I just love the feel of 40k's fluff the most. Seeing as how it sometimes tends to contradict itself can sometimes lead to ways to create headcannon or alternate interpretations. If not that, it's for it's sort of half-fantasy half-science fiction feel that's combined with how over-the-top and diverse the setting is. This is just my opinion of course. It's this, and the models, for me too. Without the imagery and style and feel of the setting, 40k would be far blander. When it comes to other games, Deadzone I like because of the aesthetic and rules, Malifaux the same, and LOTR because... well, it's LOTR. But 40k is the only one I've played where basically, if you can think of it, you can do it. As for the games I don't get into, even if they're objectively good: Infinity: rules look great, but on the whole, I hate the anime aesthetic. Warmahordes: hate the aesthetic. X-wing: the models are pre-paints and tragically small, I just can't see value for money in it. Historicals of any kind: I probably would, but I can't see any of my regular opponents taking the historical plunge with me, they're all sci-fi guys.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 17:32:28
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:29:41
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
For me:
40k vs WrHd : i hate warmahords aesthetics personally and i hate the people that play it (not all people but the people i see rub me the wrong way)
40k vs Infinity : I cant play it as no one plays it near by :(
My friends got me into the game when i was young, but the fluff and aesthetics kept me in till now.
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:30:32
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
|
I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 17:31:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:31:56
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
You guys sound more and more like desperate car salesman with each thread like this that you open, guess the diminishing number of 40k players seems to really be affecting some people...
I don't remember whatever thread that was, but alright. If you think an all-jack army in Khador is possible, more power to you, but the players around here seem to think it's folly to try that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:42:23
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Ironically I agree almost 100% with 40k vs. WM/H. Now, I currently play WM/H and have not touched 40k since 2001, but I feel the same way. WM/H, while a great game from a strictly rules perspective, feels completely artificial. I know there's fluff, I've read some (the Butcher of Khardov novella was great) but it just doesn't "click" with me for some reason. I don't mind their aesthetics (although their PVC plastic sucks IMO), but just something about it doesn't feel right, and I haven't been able to put my finger on it. I don't get the same feeling looking through the books or thinking up armies that I got so long ago with 40k, although rules-wise it plays a lot clearer although again, it feels very mechanical. I can't speak to Field of Glory or Flames of War as I've never played either (looked at FoW though). I did play some Bolt Action though and that really appealed to me, and still felt very 40k-like.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 17:43:40
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:42:40
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Honestly, Infinity is my new love miniature game wise, but nobody actually seems to play it, so that's not an option. Warmachine is better from a rules and balance standpoint if you ask me, but I prefer 40k because of the fluff and campaign aspect. A lot of Warmachine players I've talked to don't really know or care about the fluff. I think some of this comes from the model rule cards that come with the kits. It's great for convenience, but it means you don't have to buy the faction book, so you never end up reading any fluff or backstory for your army. Plus about the only way I have ever seen warmachine played is 50 point Masters scenerio tournament style battles. There are rules in the main rulebook for connecting a series of games and your models gaining experience (through the form of warjack bonds). The vast majority of players didn't even know that section existed since nobody uses it. Warmachine just feels way too limited in format and, well, like a game designed to be competitive, rather than the actual representation of a world that can change and grow (which is really ironic when you realize PP actually does have an advancing storyline. It's just that most people don't care about it). Plus the fact there's no "generic warcaster" means you can't really grow out any space for your own unique army. Some people approve of that, for me it sucks all the fun out of what would otherwise be a great system in an interesting world. This said from somebody who really tried to get into warmachine and thought it was better than 40k for a while after I learned the rules for the first time. I play 40k because it's popular, I have friends who play it, I like the fluff (mostly), and I think the Tau models look good.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 17:43:12
Like watching other people play video games (badly) while blathering about nothing in particular? Check out my Youtube channel: joemamaUSA!
BrianDavion wrote:Between the two of us... I think GW is assuming we the players are not complete idiots.
Rapidly on path to becoming the world's youngest bitter old man. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:47:57
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
You guys sound more and more like desperate car salesman with each thread like this that you open, guess the diminishing number of 40k players seems to really be affecting some people...
I don't remember whatever thread that was, but alright. If you think an all-jack army in Khador is possible, more power to you, but the players around here seem to think it's folly to try that.
This one. Only a few threads down on the same page. That you created.
|
    
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:49:53
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman
|
Warmachine to me is just a couple of landships fighting it out. I also tried it in its first edition and some of the model could not be built. But the requirement to enter the box to fight makes it like a boxing match to me.
Fields of Glory I like but only when playing against historical opponents just the feel.
I love most horse and musket games and since I own the figures for both sides in ACW, AWI, ECW and F&I makes it easy to set up a game to play. (I stay away from Europe battles as you mis paint a chevron and it sends the crowd crying).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:51:16
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
tiger g wrote:But the requirement to enter the box to fight makes it like a boxing match to me.
Que?
|
    
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:56:06
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Yeah I have no idea what he means by that, unless it was something from MkI that was changed in MkII. Unless he means like some scenarios; I played one last week where we had to have units in this circle in the middle to win (barring a kill). So maybe he means it feels like a boxing match where you need to be in the "ring", although most tournament/steamroller missions Victory Points are just there, and it's still mostly a caster kill that wins.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 17:56:52
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 17:57:22
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
I've looked though the warmachine rules and am probably going to start an army. I do like the models (not the initial races) but probably only Convergence of Cyriss. And they have fluff as well, in terms of their Tier army system. And the story in the Cyriss army book is great as well, although I would say not as epic. Other than tht, not having played a game, I cannot comment bout actual mechanics.
So until I actually get a game in, 40k still has more appeal. And also, it is much easier to find a player for 40k. I've yet to get a contact from the volunteer Press Ganger for my city though. Quite a pity. But I will still be getting myself the models. I hope the quality would be equal to what I have experienced I. 40k. There were some reports of poor quality Cyriss being produced. I hope they have taken the initial poor ones off the shelves.
|
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:00:38
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Stabbin' Skarboy
|
I find 40k in my meta to be filled with really fluff friendly people.
Warmachine when I got the demo from my store was introduced more about the statistics and list building. Mostly a sign of that meta around here.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:04:11
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen.
|
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:09:13
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I'll start off by saying that I really, really enjoy WM/Hordes, and I think it's the best system around. I don't think the OP is wrong. Even if they're both in heroic scale, WM has more of a comic-book style in their models, and not everyone will be up for that (I actually tend to prefer the 40k/fantasy stuff, though there are certainly some PP sculpts that I think are absolutely fantastic). I can understand some pushback against some of the rules, though I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that those are some odd lines to draw. As 'game-y' as combined ranged/melee attacks may feel, I personally find the whole pile-in melee of 40k and the inability to shoot into melee at all a much bigger offender. But that's pure opinion, and I can certainly understand why you'd prefer one over the other. Honestly, balance is much better in WM though. I think you're confusing specific army lists with overall balance. 'Balance' means that most choices are good choices, or serve some sort of a role, and that each army has good odds of winning against another army, independent of other considerations. The comparison you made is a comparison of lists, which is something very different. Indeed, that example is exactly why you're allowed 2-3 different lists in WM/Hordes tournaments, so that there's much less of a chance of that kind of rock-paper-scissors. But all-in-all, it really seemed like reasonable criticism. Not all games can be for all people.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 18:11:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:09:44
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
milkboy wrote:PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen. 
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
|
    
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:13:07
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
Grimtuff wrote: milkboy wrote:PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen. 
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
But I believe we cannot claim someone to be hypocrite just because he does not know as much, for instance. Perhaps he is not the guru of Warmahines? Does that mean he intentionally lied and misled others?
|
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:23:34
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
|
milkboy wrote: Grimtuff wrote: milkboy wrote:PhantomViper wrote:I would take the time to refute each one of the OP posts regarding Warmachine since they are easily disproven fabrications (the supposed balance issues) or just blatant hypocrisy (the notion that CRA is somehow more or less believable than a number of rules in 40k), but since me and the OP already had that discussion and he just chose not to answer my points on the other thread, I see no reason to rehash it in this thread.
I think the Op was being reasonable. Surely there is no cause to call him a fabricator or a hypocrite? Unless you mean to toss the first Molotov in a flame war?
Relax, dude. Stay a while and listen. 
Despite there being evidence to the contrary, such as in that monster thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
But I believe we cannot claim someone to be hypocrite just because he does not know as much, for instance. Perhaps he is not the guru of Warmahines? Does that mean he intentionally lied and misled others?
No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:38:44
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
How do people justify handing money to a company that actively disdains its player base?
Enjoy the game, sure. It can be fun at times. But I wouldn't give money to someone that just insulted me, no matter how cool the game was.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:41:11
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
|
The "artificial" feeling of WM/H could be what's kept me away from it even though it's taken off well around here. Dreadball, Deadzone and X-Wing thankfully do not suffer from that, but are still much better balanced than 40k from what I've seen and played.
Though 40k is highly flawed, it wouldn't take much to get myself anf others enjoying it again - and what we want (balance, price, listening to feedback etc) would make the game better for everybody.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:47:18
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Yonan wrote:Though 40k is highly flawed, it wouldn't take much to get myself anf others enjoying it again - and what we want (balance, price, listening to feedback etc) would make the game better for everybody.
Exactly this. It's not that I don't necessarily want to play 40k, just I look at the insane pricing, I look at the shoddy rules and lack of balance, and I ask myself why I want to spend money and put in hours (to say nothing of the actual time playing) for a game like that?
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:49:58
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:Hello everyone.
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1, .
tanks? erm... you do realise its a 19th century level of technology? Warjacks are not tanks - they're steam engines with legs. and they've got plenty moving parts and exposed and vulnerable points on their chassis.
regarding CRAs (or CMAs) being "gamey", fair enough. To me though, i rather put a bit of effort in. rather than a "dry" mechanic, i try to picture what its representing. Rather than disconnecting myself, and seeing it as something "gamey" i try and evoke it in my mind. I immerse myself in the game. to me its less ten guns blazing away, and more eight or nine of your guys moving, aiming in specific firing patterms to distract and harass a jack (hey, in a world where armies field warjacks, infantry will be trained in anti-warjack tactics and manoevres), beast or warrors. aim for eyes, pistons, vents etc. split its concentration. make it lose focus. Make it drop its guard a bit as a result. all the time the one other guy is waiting for that perfect shot. Now sure - you could have twenty pages of rules to describe this. and it will get lost in the process. or you could have a simple in game mechanism that gives an accuracy and damage buff proportional to the number of dudes that are involved in it.
In any case. its a game mechanic. Personally i find 40k has far more game mechanics that actively fight my immersion - for example one guy gets clipped in cc - and everyone drops their guns, reaches for swords and dives in. or how a grot can hold up a dreadnought from moving.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do play the game, but I simply cannot get as 'into' it as I do into 40k. I'm sure it's just me, but it's true. .
have you explored the fluff? genuinely curious about this one. i used to be the same as you, then i got serious about the fluff (novels, RPG material etc) and it really brought the world to life. If anything, i have an easier time now immersing myself in the iron kingdoms than the sillyness that the 40kiverse has become (kaldor fracking draigo, codex:comedy robots, and necrons emailing inquisitors and collecting battles. pffft!)
Unit1126PLL wrote:Hello everyone.
As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important. .
this amuses me no end. Im in agreement though - they're in the wrong. for what its worth though, PP isnt just a steamroller focus. Although i would like to see more non-linear scenarios (some attacker/defender missions would be fun) etc. However, check out their NQ magazine, and some of their older books - superiority for one. they've had huge swathes of ink devoted to campaigns, and one off scenarios, both big and small. heck, they've got the historical battles lately too as well as other once-off games. there might be some useful little nuggets to mine. Big issue is getting other folks on board, but thats your local playerbase, not the game - the game supports more themed games too.
I'll agree with you - fluff is important. But IMO, in warmachine the divide between "fluffy" lists and "power" lists - well, really, there isnt.... What you field on the table top is what appears in the fluff. end of. there is no divide. Now if you want to play "theme lists", then there are specific formats for them too. I field epic butcher's mad dogs of war theme list. i've done quite well with him, and 48 doom reavers  And for what its worth - the fluff is there. what you read in the warmachine books might be the "arcade" version, but some of the novels (the butcher, warcaster/warlock chronicles, into the storm, extraordinary zoology) are cracking good reads, and i would heartily recommend the RPG books for really bringing the world to life. i know quite a few people who play the wargame as a game, but explore the world via the RPG.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience, there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake. It makes it hard to play a Khadoran 'tank company' (as it were), because the rules are not balanced for it.
ns.
seems like you're playing wrong more than anything. All jack is a relatively poor choice, thematically as much as anything, especially in khador. war jacks are war machines, but they're not WARMACHINE. Infantry has always been a part of the game. the khadoran widowmaker is as iconic a unit as the juggernaut.
Hows about putting iron fangs against those warbeasts, and watch them beasties die. i think you're being a bit dishonest in your appraisal. Warmachine isnt balanced around every thing being equally good against everything else, all the time. Nor is it balanced around being about warjacks. Warmachine is balanced on the macro level. Warmachine is balanced on synnergies, and combos. balance in warmachine means everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy. those jacks are concentrated force. but just like "real" tanks in the real world, they need infantry support. they're not great at infantry clearing - they dont do lots of "nickel and dimes". they put out a handful of "big hits". those big hits overkill a grunt, and his buddy, and leave the other twenty mooks enraged. but they also kill the fifteen foot tall warpwolf or dragonspawn stone dead. So it becomes a game of tactics. you use your warjack as "concentrated force" where it is most needed, and you use your infantry to take out the other infantry, and back it up where needed. In 40k, i lose because i play blood angels. In 40k, i lose because i play tyranids.Some builds are just so far behind. In warmachine, i dont lose because i play khador. i lose because i play poorly. similarly with jacks. all jack might be a limited build, but there is always room for a one, or two-jack build.
by the way, please dont bring in the focus v fury debate. they're balanced. regardless, all-jack for khador is a bad call. its extremely unfluffy. khador are quite limited in the numbers of warjacks. Irusks 4th assault battallion for example has 80 warjacks, and over 12,000 infantry. Jack heavy can be done but its a very niche build in khador- just like assault themed tau. all-jack is ludicrous. thanklfully, things are improving with malakov. if you want the best results out of multiple jacks, may i recommend menoth, or convergence? but khador "tank kompanies" really arent a thing in the fluff im afraid. the problem is, all jack is a skew. it will have favourable match ups, and poor ones. khador's main strength is its sons and daughters of the motherland. always has been.
Also, regarding super powerful combos - can you give examples? So far, i've never seen any one thing dominate exclusively. Iast big tournament that had all the stats analysed on the PP boards - khadoran players for example fielded something lime 80% of their warcaster options. I've seen all factions do well when played well.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/02 19:00:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:50:11
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
|
But, for those that haven't read the previous thread, and since I have a bit of time to kill before diner, here it goes:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) 40k vs Warmachine: This is a big one for me. There are three major concerns: engagement, fun, and what people consider 'balance' to be. Personally, I find 40k more engaging than Warmachine; the Warmachine rules feel very mechanical and artificial, with things like "Combined Ranged Attack" feeling especially unnecessary and 'injected'. I can't put myself into the game - a universe where the models looks so silly (yes, I know this is subjective), where firing 10 AK-47's at a tank is ridiculously more effective than firing 1,
CRA and its melee equivalent CMA aren't supposed to represent 10 AKs firing at a tank. We are talking about a quasi-medieval setting where a rifle (STR10) can already penetrate and damage all but the strongest armor (of the top of my head, only 3 warjacks in the game have ARM above 21). In that kind setting, it doesn't take a big leap of the imagination to assume that repeated blows or shots to areas of the armor that have already been stricken before will do progressively more damage. That are instances of this type of "tactic" splattered over all types of both fiction and historical literature from medieval to sci-fi.
I've already asked this of the OP, but I'll ask again. Maybe this time he'll be able to answer me: How come you find CRA / CMA to be immersion breaking rules, but are apparently fine with jets hovering on a battlefield that has the length of a football field, pistols that cant fire more than the length of a tank, shots that all miraculously only hit the closest member of the target squad, etc? Those rules don't seem equally mechanic to you?
Unit1126PLL wrote:
where jumping from tall buildings to one's death is a good way to destroy enemy war-engines, et cetera, is not a universe I can place myself into.
This one you'll have to explain to me, since I have no idea of what you are talking about.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
As for 'fun,' I have more fun playing 40k as well. If I want to play a themed game of 40k, I ask, and most people are quite willing to acquiesce at my local store. If I want to play a theme game of Warmachine, most of the people I talk to cite Page 5, and then tell me to bugger off (basically). It isn't fun for me to always 'play like you've got a pair' every single game - to me, fluff is important.
I won't comment on this since this exclusively a matter of personal preference and due to the composition of your group.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thirdly, "balance." There's a weird double-standard here in my opinion. In 40k, you can field any model you want in any combination you want, but some combinations yield better results than others. In Warmachine, you can do much the same thing, but it's heralded as 'more balanced.' For example, in 40k, I can field an IG tank company against some FMCs in the Daemons codex, and get crushed handily. People will cite this as "imbalance." However, if I play an all-Jack Khador army against, say, a Circle or Legion army in Warmachine, much the same thing will happen to me - I'll be butchered, because of the focus vs fury mechanics. Yet this is heralded as balance; in my experience,
This isn't how balance works, you don't get to purposely choose an entire army made of pawns, play against an army made of queens and then loose and cry that the game isn't balanced. Balance exists in warmachine because no matter what faction you choose or what unit you wan't to play, you'll be able to do so and get a reasonable expectation of winning the game if you are more skilled than your opponent. There are some combinations that will not work, but you will have to work at finding them and those that you've listed aren't one of them btw. You can play an almost all jack Khadoran army and you will have a much bigger chance of winning the game against Legion or Circle than with a all-tank IG army against Daemons. Your lack of knowledge in the game even shines through on your choice of matchups, that Khador force would have a much tougher time facing of against Cryx or Skorne then Legion or Circle...
Unit1126PLL wrote:
there are super-powered combos in Warmachine too, and taking anything outside of a super-combo is viewed as noobish or as a mistake.
And this is the part that is blatantly false. In practically ever single major tournament you'll get players winning with factions or units that everyone had previously dismissed as being less competitive. It has reached such a point that you'll find that general forum opinion is changing to the Infinity motto of : its not the list, its the player. And we all know how easy it is to change general forum opinions...
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/02 18:51:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:56:45
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
The OP doesn't understand what balance is.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 18:57:38
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
|
DontEatRawHagis wrote:I find 40k in my meta to be filled with really fluff friendly people.
Warmachine when I got the demo from my store was introduced more about the statistics and list building. Mostly a sign of that meta around here.
I don't understand your criticism. You showed up for a demonstration of the game and you didn't like that they showed you how to play? If I went to a demo for a game and all I got was background fluff I can read myself I would be upset. A good story can enhance a game's experience, but it can't redeem bad rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neither does GW.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 18:58:32
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 19:01:22
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
I really really like the 40k universe and I mostly enjoy 40k in its present form - having been here form the beginning :0
I am disheartened by the inernal balance in and between the various codexes - Eldar is a prime example - ranges for the absoluetly dire Banshees to the totally broken and OP Wave Serpents - the new Ok Codex is the same - lets reduce the cost of Lootas FFS but not sort out other issues or make more choices - why does the Flash Gitz Kaptain not have any choices - why does Mad Dok have Cybork body - or if so why does it do nothing.
On the other hand I have played a handful of games of Warmachine and whilst I have large collection of the models - we did not enjoy the games we played that much due to:
The "no pre-measuring" but here is a method to get round it written into the very rules.....just get with it and put premeasuring in.
The Take the King insta win regardless of scenarios seemed way too prevalent and too easy to acheive
Lack of customisable options
Some Feats seemed massively powerful and game winning
Like the fluff, like lots of the models, didn't like the game
Star Wars - I ike the true 3 films of Star Wars - there are only three to me. The game was just meh - prefered Wings of War or even Tactica Aeronautica - especially found the if you touch another mini rule loose all your dice bloody annoying.
|
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 19:09:25
Subject: Re:Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Mr Morden wrote:
On the other hand I have played a handful of games of Warmachine and whilst I have large collection of the models - we did not enjoy the games we played that much due to:
The "no pre-measuring" but here is a method to get round it written into the very rules.....just get with it and put premeasuring in.
40k has only had premeasuring since 6th. For the longest time this is not the norm. What's your point?
The Take the King insta win regardless of scenarios seemed way too prevalent and too easy to acheive
It's really not. Not to sound too arrogant but your group is obviously not playing very well and exploring all the tactical options if caster kill is that easy
Lack of customisable options
Not really. For example, there's 4 variants of the Juggernaut chassis for Khador. Think of them simply as the weapon variants available to say, a Dreadnought spread across 4 entries.
Some Feats seemed massively powerful and game winning
That's kinda the point. That's why they're one use only.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/02 19:10:17
    
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/07/02 19:14:59
Subject: Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
|
 |
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar
|
Everyone who had played Infinity recommends it to me but I have way a lot invested into to 40k and am not getting into another game.
I bet Infinity is a good system b/c I have never seen anyone knock it. It just doesn't have the number of players 40k does.
So b/c of number of players and what I have invested into 40k I am staying 40k.
I tried Warmachine and 40k when I was 1st deciding which game to get into and i didn't like how useless some of the Jack Controllers were and some were just OP. I didn't like the damage system on Jacks either.
|
01001000 01101001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110 |
|
 |
 |
|