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.

 Las wrote:

Also as other people have stated the game has a boring aesthetic and lore.

I want to be quite clear here. There is a distinct difference between saying 'I don't like it' and 'It is boring'. The former sounds like an opinion while the later come if as a declaration of fact. Facts should be avoided when altering about the the subjective.

The WM fluff doesn't do it for me. That's OK though because while I don't own a single forces book it doesn't at all impact my ability to play.

 Las wrote:
Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.

It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.

Um...Huh?

I am merely attempting to get you to see how you are coming across to people.

You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.

I would invite you too actually look at the game where the most powerful warcasters/warlocks are predominantly female characters. See eLylith, pHaley, eHaley, pDenegra, eDenegra, eMorvana etc.....

I personally find your umbridge at all this quite silly and an enormous waste of energy but hey, what ever floats your proverbial boat.

I'll leave you with this. When you are a hammer all you tend to see are nails.......

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:
Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.

It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.

You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.

I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.

The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.

It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.

 Las wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:
Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.

It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.

You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.

I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.

The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.

It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.

1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis"
3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store?
4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much?
5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.

I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.

If trolling then bravo good sir, bravo.

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:
Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.

It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.

You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.

I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.

The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.

It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.

1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis"
3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store?
4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much?
5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.

I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.

If trolling then bravo good sir, bravo.

1: that was what I wanted to address, so i quoted it.
2: Yeah, that movie is great. Lags in the second half, though. Except for Joe Flaherty as the soviet soldier.
3: Well, if the game doesn't interest me after looking through the models, flipping through the rules, etc. Why would I force myself to play it or do anything other than curiously watch until I am no longer curious?
4: It certainly reads like a manifesto.
5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.

As for your last remark, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't done anything but deflect to the false idea that I've been gravely and emotionally offended by something instead of having taken a conscious, thinking decision. Cause I was "looking" for it. To be honest I'm not surprised. I've seen people on these boards soberly surmise that that the reason there are more men than women in wargaming is because the male brain is more inclined toward 'analytical thinking.' Any time this issue comes up, its you guys that act like ostriches. It's much easier than actually facing the issue.

 Las wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 Las wrote:
Which is exactly what I do in regards to warmachine. I posted my reason for doing so in this warmachine related thread when page 5 came up.

It seems to have bothered people a great deal. You guys are quite defensive.

You seem to think that based on the old page 5 that PP harbours or is promoting some sort of misogynistic gaming atmosphere.

I think it is part of the general problem of an exclusive culture in wargaming at large, yes. I also think that the company creed is indicative of a product that subtly and inadvertently encourages players to "play like men" and panders to a silly and childish gaming demographic and that this was a reason on top of others (game play, aesthetic and lore) that keeps me from delving into warmachine other than my initial general research and watching people at stores play a game while I'm browsing. That a company would ever think it was cool or edgy to make something like the MKI page 5 their manifesto means to me that they just don't share the perception that inclusiveness and acting like a secure, grown adult are important parts of gaming as I do. Fine, cut.

The general response to this opinion has been to label my concerns to be that of a cartoonish PC fascist because that is a ready loaded counter argument.

It's easy to dismiss the idea that there may be real issues to be confronted or at least thought about in something that is as important and fulfilling to us as gaming when you can just point to any of these ready made distractions.

1. If you are going to quote me quote the whole dang thing. That is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
2. To quote a fantastic movie (Stripes) "Get over yourself Francis"
3. Dude, seriously? You are basing your assumptions on a friggen cursory glance of other people playing a game while you happen to be browsing in a store?
4. Manifesto?!? Pretentious much?
5. It's easy to dismiss anything so blatantly false.

I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or genuine at this point. If genuine I would recommend the ostrich approach to life. That way you will never hear, see, smell, or taste anything that could even remotely offend your fragile sensibilities.

If trolling then bravo good sir, bravo.

1: that was what I wanted to address, so i quoted it.
2: Yeah, that movie is great. Lags in the second half, though. Except for Eugine Levy as the soviet soldier.
3: Well, if the game doesn't interest me after looking through the models, flipping through the rules, etc. Why would I force myself to play it or do anything other than curiously watch until I am no longer curious?
4: It certainly reads like a manifesto.
5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.

As for your last remark, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't done anything but deflect to the false idea that I've been gravely and emotionally offended by something instead of having taken a conscious, thinking decision. Cause I was "looking" for it. To be honest I'm not surprised. I've seen people on these boards soberly surmise that that the reason there are more men than women in wargaming is because the male brain is more inclined toward 'analytical thinking.'

Ok one more time (it's feeling like I'm banging my head against the wall here).

I have not defended the MK1 page 5. I have pointed out that it has been changed (as have others). I have also pointed out that in the WM/H game the most powerful (minus one or two) of the warcasters / warlocks are FEMALE. Others have pointed out that the gosh dang CEO is a WOMAN. They also have female employees in quite a few prominent and public roles. Go look at the PP website and look at the daily insiders.

I am trying to get you to see the fallacy of your argument, because it holds no water at this time.

As to you not liking the game based on the rules or models, I have even said in another post that it is a perfectly reasonable thing and more power to you.

I am arguing the lunacy/fallacy (take your pick) you are preaching about misogyny in the game/ company making the game that just is not there.

 Las wrote:

5: Okay, defend the MKI page 5. Tell me how saying that a game isn't for sissies and little girls doesn't incline toward exclusivity.

They also said not only did they reinvent the wheel they went and covered in spikes and used it to murder your grandmother and destroy the property she lives in.
They also said they'd deplete the world of pewter by 2006.

Seeing a pattern here?




A poor one in your opinion but it was not meant to be taken too seriously. It's poking fun at stereotypes within the industry. It is made of steel, It's big and industrial. All "manly" things. You're meant to imagine it being read by the "overly manly man" meme or Ron Swanson. WARMACHINE (see even there, it is so bombastic they had to put it all in caps) is a man's mans game. It's a man's man's mans game. They're not literally saying "Sorry to play this game you need to have a penis and shag women all day long" but is playing up to a time tested advertising method.
See ad's for brands like McCoys, described as "man crisps" (complete with baritone voiceover). There's no law that say if you've got a vagina you can't eat McCoys. Just like there isn't one that says ladies cannot play Warmachine.

This stuff is everywhere. Check out the ad's for Hobgoblin ale. "Lagerboy" seems dangerously close to "Nancyboy" in this context (IMO). Showing how Hobgoblin has made lager into a "girly" drink.

It's people like you that got ad like the Yorkie bar ones pulled as some people are offended by anything.

Currently having this same problem with both 40k and Warmachine after getting back into Magic The Gathering again. When compared to a game that takes 45 minutes for a three round match like MTG, with very fast gameplay, going into an hour and half to two hour miniature game just feels like a slow grind. I also find competitive play heavily supported, and a lot more relaxed when compared to GW games and WM, which I do love.

Dunno if anyone else has experienced this but I tend to phase in and out of games. I much prefer the painting side of the hobby, anyway. If only there was a happy medium...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Las wrote:


"I'm not racist, I have black friends!"

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.

I can do this too.

If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.

I see you missed the intent of said post of randomly placing a quote with no context behind it.

"I'm not racist, I have black friends!" also adds nothing to any argument.

But I guess you were just too offended or something.

Aye right pal, pull the other one it has got bells on.

For one, the fact you're still pushing the "anyone who disagrees with me is an offended moral-crusader" shtick rather undermines the idea that you just posted the original quote to somehow show how super clever you were by using it out of context, given that you just happened to choose a quote that when used out of its context appears to convey exactly that argument.

For two, even in the hilariously unlikely event you were just trying to point out that the "I'm not racist..." comment was in your view a red herring, you're wrong. That remark was made in response to someone claiming that the MK1 statement couldn't possibly be sexist or homophobic, because PP is run by a woman. That's a total non-sequitur, the one has no bearing on the other; the woman could be homophobic and sexist(there are plenty of female anti-feminists afterall); she could be choosing not to assert her opinion that the screed was sexist and/or homophobic because there was a generally pro-statement atmosphere among the other senior figures at the company; or she could simply have sublimated her own opinion in pursuit of profits if the marketing department told her a sexist and/or homophobic intro statement would make the company more money. Given that it is a non-sequitur, using the "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" quote is an entirely proper use of the form, as it uses a non-sequitur to illustrate the fallacious nature of the comment being addressed. ie it does exactly what you're claiming you were trying to do, except it did it right.

Hi! I'm a woman who plays Warmachine.

I've almost never, to my knowledge, had any issue with sexism in the local Warmachine community and the rare occasion has been, I believe, driven by obliviousness rather than hostility.

The modern page 5 is a good sentiment wrapped up in some unfortunate verbiage. That said, everyone complains about overpowered and underpowered stuff as much as just about any other community anyway, so it doesn't matter.

What does this have to do with the OP, though?

I have to say, I certainly don't see most games end in stomps one way or the other. In many instances they come right down to the wire. The fact that you lose the game if your caster dies is something I initially thought would be a negative, but in practice often when someone's had a really amazing turn it's also left them exposed to a counterattack that can allow the other player to recover or take the game.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the OP's experience, though!

Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?

xxvaderxx wrote:
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.

Check out this channel.

http://www.twitch.tv/chainattacktrev

Or this one.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_FvOvF3a5vvSbcAseqVhg

Or this from WarGamerGirl, who breaks it down really well.

https://www.youtube.com/user/WarGamerGirl

xxvaderxx wrote:
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

Wow, really? That's the complete opposite experience of what my friends and I had. We played Warmahordes for the first time and thought, "wow, compared to 40k, I feel like I actually had an influence on the outcome of the game."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?

Explain?

 slowthar wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?

Explain?

Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.

Warmachine lack of tactics? Are you serious? I.. I can't even fathom that statement because Warmachine seems to have more tactics than 40k could ever hope to do, unless you count list building to be tactics.

The "Quidditch" mechanic as you put it is there for a reason: So there's always a chance at victory. Unlike 40k where you can get tabled on Turn 2 and have nothing that can win, there's typically always a chance in Warmachine to pull out a victory, in fact the majority of games I've seen and played have literally been down to the wire where both players have barely anything left, and someone nets a caster kill.

Also, Page 5 is to emphasize the aggressive nature of the game, which is also why some scenarios use the Kill Box (can't have your caster within 14" of a board edge), to prevent people hiding their caster the entire game. Personally Page 5 is one of the things I love about Warmachine; it comes right out and says that it's not a game you play if your goal is to steamroll everybody you fight or if you only care about winning, and to play aggressive. I will admit that Warmachine feels very metagame-y. I was actually listening to a podcast the other day that was talking about that, how in Warmachine you have to understand how the game rules work, and use it to your advantage e.g. if you have weak unit in combat with an enemy Warjack, and you have a ranged unit that could kill the Warjack, it's okay (even if typically unrealistic) to move your unit in combat out of combat and take the free strikes, because you just allowed for your own unit to kill it or to open up a charge lane or whatever.

Warmachine doesn't play "narrative", Warmachine plays like Battle Chess.

 darefsky wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.

Check out this channel.

http://www.twitch.tv/chainattacktrev

Or this one.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_FvOvF3a5vvSbcAseqVhg

Or this from WarGamerGirl, who breaks it down really well.

https://www.youtube.com/user/WarGamerGirl

Ill take a look, but from everything i have seen and everything i have heard from the designer team and philosophy i stand by what i said.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

I would invite you to look at tournament and higher level WM gaming.

Check out this channel.

http://www.twitch.tv/chainattacktrev

Or this one.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_FvOvF3a5vvSbcAseqVhg

Or this from WarGamerGirl, who breaks it down really well.

https://www.youtube.com/user/WarGamerGirl

Ill take a look, but from everything i have seen and everything i have heard from the designer team and philosophy i stand by what i said.

The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.

WayneTheGame wrote:


The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.

Indeed.

The amount of times I've realised too late and gone "Crap, should have activated that unit first!" or forgot to put focus on a jack (yes, really) as I got too excited and caught up in the game. The times when I've had to think on my feet due to the dice betraying me (seriously, how does Butcher3 miss a Warpwolf 3 times in a row?) and having to have emergency use of my feat.

To give a specific example from last week- Butcher3 vs. Grayle. I had to think long and hard about how to use Butcher3's focus and how to activate stuff. Butcher3 was in melee with a Warpwolf Alpha who was more or less dead. I didn't want to activate Butcher as I could sneak in an assassination run if something else offed the WWA. But, alas my dice betrayed me again and I was forced to activate B3. He kills it easily and now I had to properly ponder how to use his focus.

He had his full compliment of 6 and this is where I learn that I REALLY should have cast silence of death earlier as it was an upkeep and I needed 7 focus to get the assassination run off successfully. Energizer for 1, Impending Doom for 2, Silence of Death for 2 then a flashing blade. Sadly I was out by 1 inch for catching Grayle in Impending Doom (I would have had the extra focus to get the extra inch out of Energizer had I cast SoD a turn earlier...).

Show how much you have to plan sometimes turns in advance.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Tried WM/WH, i really want to like it, but the lack of tactics and that everything boils down to pilling in on the center and seeing who can take the enemy "king" first, makes it a non starter for me.

Plenty tactics bud.

Think less 'soccer pitch' and more 'boxing ring'.

Also, ' take the king' is a good feature. Whilst it's the main win condition when you start, as you expand your knowledge and play more, gaming for caster kill is quite cumbersome when compared to gaming for scenario. Saying the game is about this, and revolves around this is a short sighted and incorrect statement. Good players simply don't often leave casters vulnerable. It's not something you can rely on. But the fact that it's there is a good thing - it means you're always in the game. You always have a chance. It means never give up, and never be complacent. In any case, it offers pp an extra amount of design space fir when they design new casters etc.

Personally, whilst I would genuinely love to see some non-linear and attacker/defender scenarios, I find the steamroller scenarios perfect for tournaments.

 Grimtuff wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


The thing is, battles look that way because of Page 5 and needing to be aggressive. There's a ton of synergy in Warmachine, the order you activate a unit matters, the order you shoot (models shoot, not units) matters, etc. So it's in reality very complex even though when you look at it, it looks like just a big mosh pit in the middle of the board.

Indeed.

The amount of times I've realised too late and gone "Crap, should have activated that unit first!" or forgot to put focus on a jack (yes, really) as I got too excited and caught up in the game. The times when I've had to think on my feet due to the dice betraying me (seriously, how does Butcher3 miss a Warpwolf 3 times in a row?) and having to have emergency use of my feat.

To give a specific example from last week- Butcher3 vs. Grayle. I had to think long and hard about how to use Butcher3's focus and how to activate stuff. Butcher3 was in melee with a Warpwolf Alpha who was more or less dead. I didn't want to activate Butcher as I could sneak in an assassination run if something else offed the WWA. But, alas my dice betrayed me again and I was forced to activate B3. He kills it easily and now I had to properly ponder how to use his focus.

He had his full compliment of 6 and this is where I learn that I REALLY should have cast silence of death earlier as it was an upkeep and I needed 7 focus to get the assassination run off successfully. Energizer for 1, Impending Doom for 2, Silence of Death for 2 then a flashing blade. Sadly I was out by 1 inch for catching Grayle in Impending Doom (I would have had the extra focus to get the extra inch out of Energizer had I cast SoD a turn earlier...).

Show how much you have to plan sometimes turns in advance.

All this is true in 40k, but you are not restricted in lets say the game flow. Meaning the fact that you have to pile in the center takes directly away from tactics. There is no setting an ambush, there is no hiding units, there is no controlling important areas that are not objectives them selves. Tactics is in the Movement part of the game, sure you can miss a necessary combo activation or what ever have you, but those are things you should have seen if you had run the math behind it, risk management is very limited tactically wise.
To be more crude about it, all armies in WM/WH do the same, they go in an dish it out, they go about it differently, but that is it, you have to get stuck in. While in 40k getting stuck in is just 1 tactic. Also kill the king mechanic is annoying to no end.

Warmachine is a game where you can usually accurately predict the odds of your actions, combined with how important activation order and combining abilities is and I find the game has an incredible depth and is very tactically demanding. I totally understand that it can be mentally straining to play a lot of WM/H. Still I love the battle of wits that it leads to and I actually feel like I won or lost on my own decisions.

40k I do actually enjoy still, because of the large amount of dice and randomness it's hard to accurately predict odds beyond 'probably and maybe' when you're in the middle of a game. Because of this a lot of hilarious situations can end up happening which is where I get most of my fun in 40k. (Tau battlesuits beating Orc Boyz in combat, a tank full of Incubi deepstriking, crashing and exploding, a single blaster shot destroying a battlewagon and killing a unit of boyz etc.) Unfortunately I always kind of feel like I am watching a game of 40k instead of playing it, even though one of my armies is on the table.

Still both are fun in different ways.

Zatsuku wrote:
Warmachine is a game where you can usually accurately predict the odds of your actions, combined with how important activation order and combining abilities is and I find the game has an incredible depth and is very tactically demanding. I totally understand that it can be mentally straining to play a lot of WM/H. Still I love the battle of wits that it leads to and I actually feel like I won or lost on my own decisions.

40k I do actually enjoy still, because of the large amount of dice and randomness it's hard to accurately predict odds beyond 'probably and maybe' when you're in the middle of a game. Because of this a lot of hilarious situations can end up happening which is where I get most of my fun in 40k. (Tau battlesuits beating Orc Boyz in combat, a tank full of Incubi deepstriking, crashing and exploding, a single blaster shot destroying a battlewagon and killing a unit of boyz etc.) Unfortunately I always kind of feel like I am watching a game of 40k instead of playing it, even though one of my armies is on the table.

Still both are fun in different ways.

While some statistically improbable events do certainly happen, i dont think you dont quite fully understand how statistics work, because what you wrote is self contradictory.

xxvaderxx wrote:


While some statistically improbable events do certainly happen, i dont think you dont quite fully understand how statistics work, because what you wrote is self contradictory.

It's more about the fact that since I can easily predict what is going to happen in Warmachine I don't often take the kind of risks that lead to those kinds of events that I described in 40k.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Las wrote:


"I'm not racist, I have black friends!"

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what." -Stephen Fry.

I can do this too.

If you want to try arguing that "Sissies. Little girls. Nancy boys... go home. This game is not for you." doesn't display an element of homophobia and sexism, feel free, I always enjoy a good contortionist act, but do yourself a favour and check context next time.

I see you missed the intent of said post of randomly placing a quote with no context behind it.

"I'm not racist, I have black friends!" also adds nothing to any argument.

But I guess you were just too offended or something.

Aye right pal, pull the other one it has got bells on.

For one, the fact you're still pushing the "anyone who disagrees with me is an offended moral-crusader" shtick rather undermines the idea that you just posted the original quote to somehow show how super clever you were by using it out of context, given that you just happened to choose a quote that when used out of its context appears to convey exactly that argument.

For two, even in the hilariously unlikely event you were just trying to point out that the "I'm not racist..." comment was in your view a red herring, you're wrong. That remark was made in response to someone claiming that the MK1 statement couldn't possibly be sexist or homophobic, because PP is run by a woman. That's a total non-sequitur, the one has no bearing on the other; the woman could be homophobic and sexist(there are plenty of female anti-feminists afterall); she could be choosing not to assert her opinion that the screed was sexist and/or homophobic because there was a generally pro-statement atmosphere among the other senior figures at the company; or she could simply have sublimated her own opinion in pursuit of profits if the marketing department told her a sexist and/or homophobic intro statement would make the company more money. Given that it is a non-sequitur, using the "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" quote is an entirely proper use of the form, as it uses a non-sequitur to illustrate the fallacious nature of the comment being addressed. ie it does exactly what you're claiming you were trying to do, except it did it right.

Must be said to be the only one who didn't get why he posted it. But, there is no need to try defend yourself, that just makes it sad instaed of a easy mistake that could of happened to anyone.

xxvaderxx wrote:


All this is true in 40k, but you are not restricted in lets say the game flow. Meaning the fact that you have to pile in the center takes directly away from tactics.

40k has random objectives. meaning often times there is no point even coming to the table with a coherent plan in the first place.

Plus - the centre pile in isnt devoid of tactics. boxing ring, not soccer pitch. it might seem like small movements and shuffles, but its still tense and engaging. those movements still matter. In any case- how do you get to the centre? is your first wave the big hitter? Or the expendable soakage. is your second wave support, or concentrated force? are you seeking the alpha strike, or beta strike? or will you hold the centre and flank with cavalry? where will you pivot? what happens when the left, or right flag disappears? Or are you just running forward as far and as fast as you can go, or do you have a plan? its a lot more than just "piling into the centre".

xxvaderxx wrote:

There is no setting an ambush.

there is an ambush rule.

xxvaderxx wrote:

there is no hiding units.

there is hiding. you cant see beyond 3" into terrain. there is also other LOS blocking effects. then there is stealth which "hides" you from ranged attacks. then there are various spells and abilities that prevent targetting effects etc.

xxvaderxx wrote:

there is no controlling important areas that are not objectives them selves.

when the tau do this its a good thing! ground is irrelevant in itself, its only relevant as a position from which to make a kill. makes sense to me. and if a hill, or a centrally placed piece of terrain offers an advantage, expect a scrap over it.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Tactics is in the Movement part of the game, sure you can miss a necessary combo activation or what ever have you, but those are things you should have seen if you had run the math behind it.

considering movement is the one phase which really allows "positioning", aside from the effects in the control phase, it kinda makes sense that movement and tactics would be interlinked. but to be fair, tactics plays roles elswhere. spell casting, for example. when, where, how? feats. the same. look at attacks. do you punch them or seek to double hand throw that warbeast out of position? do you go with a mass of attacks, or go all in on one big combined attack? trust me - tactics flows through every aspect of the game, not just movement.

xxvaderxx wrote:

risk management is very limited tactically wise.
.

you've not played Hordes then, eh? Welcome to Fury! warmachine is resource management, risk management is their other game.

xxvaderxx wrote:

To be more crude about it, all armies in WM/WH do the same, they go in an dish it out, they go about it differently, but that is it, you have to get stuck in. While in 40k getting stuck in is just 1 tactic.

so thats why gunlines worked so well in 6th ed 40k!

and PP wanted to push an aggressive "in your face" game. getting stuck in is an aspect of that. they simply didnt want games where people lines up in their deployment zones and shot at each other with no more thought than "how do i set up".

Now, to be fair - Id like to see more non-linear and abstracted scenarios - i'd love to see more attacker/defender missions. PP focus on steamroller formats for their organised play, but there is no reason you couldnt tweak any of their older campaign maps, or campaign scenarios for the current game. there is no reason you couldnt import mission types from other games amongst your local group. you'll only get out of the game what you're willing to put in.

xxvaderxx wrote:
. Also kill the king mechanic is annoying to no end.

feature. not bug. caster kill as a mechanic offers
(a) design space for PP. they have variety in how they can design new units.
(b) vital plan b alternative for a losing player. it means if he goes behind, he's still in the game. its not over until its over. I've heard of plenty guys playing 7th ed 40k where one guy wins just by picking random mission cards and he goes ahead by a load of points just by finishing his turn. player 2 has no options. frankly, having a plan be to keep you in the game is a good thing.
(c0 vital consideration for a winning player. dont get cocky. dont get complacent. you can be ahead on scenario points. guess what? you can still mess up and lose.
(D) your commander on the field actually matters. It always bothered me how, in 40k, your commander dies and no one really cares - thry just carry on as normal...

This "you have to pile in the center" notion represents a real shallow level of thinking when it comes to the game. At the moment a very powerful archetype is the purification gunline.

It's a warcaster with a apell that removes upkeep spells (usually buffs and debuffs) and then a lot of shooting stuff.

If you face such an army and just pile into the middle, your opponent will remove the protective spells you had on your stuff and chew you up with gunfire. If you are running the purification gunline army then you need to walk the fine line between being able to contest the objectives and getting your ranged stuff engaged.

You end up with a very tense situation where people are maximizing the terrain, thinking about threat ranges, and trying to assess the other person's force and plan. For example, the enemy might be have really good non-upkeep defenses against your guns. Or they might actually out shoot you. Or they might give everyone of your units the wrong target and you'll have to reposition as an additional tactical consideration.

And that's just talking about a couple of the issues involved with one archetype. And the archetype s can be fake outs where you think they're trying to win one way and instead they go for another. When you can change one model and the entire focus of the army changes, it's pretty easy to have a non obvious real plan.

Anyone who thinks WM/H is about just charging up the middle and fighting it out until you get a caster kill is not even aware of the real factors needed to assess the game. I have met some WM/H players who themselves never get past such shallow thinking. They'll still get a game with some very chess like thinking, but they're missing out on what's really there inside the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 slowthar wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?

Explain?

Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.

You don't win by catching the snitch(that's a side effect more often than not from the 50 points it awards), you end the game. They make a point in at least 2 books that you can catch the snitch and still lose. In fact, they point out that NOT catching it and preventing the other team from doing likewise is a valid tactic to prolong the game so you can close the gap points wise and Harry himself catches it in one game precisely to just end it because they're losing by so much.

So, the Golden Snitch, while decent, isn't the best analogy for a Caster/Lock.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 slowthar wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:
Does anyone ever play without the quiditch mechanic?

Explain?

Caster kill automatically wins the game. It is referring to catching the golden snitch in Quidditch (from Harry Potter) which gives them 50pts and wins them the game.

You don't win by catching the snitch(that's a side effect more often than not from the 50 points it awards), you end the game. They make a point in at least 2 books that you can catch the snitch and still lose. In fact, they point out that NOT catching it and preventing the other team from doing likewise is a valid tactic to prolong the game so you can close the gap points wise and Harry himself catches it in one game precisely to just end it because they're losing by so much.

So, the Golden Snitch, while decent, isn't the best analogy for a Caster/Lock.

I was going purely from memory there. I think I need to brush up on my Harry Potter knowledge.

Deadnight wrote:

so thats why gunlines worked so well in 6th ed 40k!

Gunlines in fact worked very well in 6th, still do in 7th. They are mobile and its not just who and what shots but from where as well that matters. Kind of difficult to explain in WM terms, when the only direction that matters is forward.

Deadnight wrote:

Now, to be fair - Id like to see more non-linear and abstracted scenarios - i'd love to see more attacker/defender missions. PP focus on steamroller formats for their organised play, but there is no reason you couldnt tweak any of their older campaign maps, or campaign scenarios for the current game. there is no reason you couldnt import mission types from other games amongst your local group. you'll only get out of the game what you're willing to put in.

Nice to see you agree with me.