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.

Warmahordes is all about model placement and taking board space by threat extension or guns---while trying to prevent scenario loss. After you play awhile, this evolves into piece trading and spending resources (Namely your Warnoun's Focus/Fury pool) to satisfy my first sentence. I think it's the most tactically rewarding tabletop game I've played to date. I played 40k for years (and years and years...) and usually it boiled down to army lists and target priority. There was some piece trading involved but due to the very long ranges present in the game, it seemed like it boiled down to either deathstars that could weather shooting or target priority...which didn't feel very rewarding to me..but that's me I suppose. I can't speak directly to modern day 40k as I no longer play it but from games I've watched at the LGS (before it died out completely), it seemed like a lot of rolling on charts and target priority shooting. Which, if that's player's cup of tea, really doesn't bother my knickers any--just not for me anymore.

xxvaderxx wrote:
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.

When I choose to fire my Redeemer (part of my version of the above mentioned Purification Gunline list- incidentally also a model from the very first WM book) I have several considerations. Yes, I must choose the target but even before that I've already made a choice- to do the Redeemer's activation at this point relative to the rest of my army. Positioning still matters for the unactivated portions of my army, who can exploit any gaps or damage I may do. But wait up, before even select the Redeemer I've got to remember to have activated the Chior for the Hymn of Battle bonus (which of course has issue of having a Chior member within 3" and Battle being the preferred Hymn to use on not just the Redeemer but my other jacks, since the benefit is the same for all). Ah but of course before even *that* I'll have to plan out my focus allocation in the Control Phase, powering the Redeemer up for the turn to come. Hope I've remembered to give it enough Focus to do the job. Ah ok so now, after all that- and any other unit activating, like say a Flare from the Reckoner for the +2 to hit that offsets the Redeemers innate -4, I can activate my Redeemer. Shall I move it or would I prefer the +2 Aiming bonus from forfeiting my movement? Sure would help hit stuff. Wait, this is a Purification list, do I want to Purify- activate my caster- first?

At this point I am now at the 'pick a target' step. Now I can consider the targets DEF (defense) rating, if they're in cover or concealment, whether they've been badly placed or turned their back to me when they charged last turn. Anyone knocked down? Engaged in combat? And of course range but that's not usually a problem for a Redeemer. There's a few other things to consider, like Vengeance, Hyper Aggressive and Force Barrier but that's just something a good player stays on top of. So after all that I've picked my target. Now I just have to determine how I want to spend my focus points between more attacks, more accuracy or more damage.

And you know what? This process is exactly the same- replace the Aiming bonus with Charge bonus- for melee. It's within all those mechanics and choices, all that timing and awareness that the exact same models on the exact same table allow a good player to get more out of them than an average player. It's been repeated over and over by WM players- how you use the models matters. It's so much more than 'run forward, throw attacks' because if that's your strategy a) you're in for a rude surprise when it's a dual zone scenario b) you're going to get infinitely frustrated by spells like Freezing Grip, Breathstealer, Rebuke, Time Bomb, Rift, Burning Ash, Caustic Mist, Crippling Grasp or Temporal Barrier (or I'm sure others I've forgotten) that are going to slow your front line to a crawl and/or utterly destroy their ability to charge. Now there may well be times when bricking up *is* the way to go but to pretend it's some sort of default is absurd. Like every other choice you should do it when it's the best strategy available to you. Often it is not.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Nice to see you agree with me.

Steamroller is a particular tournament rules set, not a 'style' of play. A very well balanced one at that, available for free if you click that link. When I have a game of WM all I need to do is ask my opponent for a points value then roll on the table for scenario. Game on.

Another archetypes I think we'll see at the big Gencon tournaments are beast or jack heavy "no reprisals" type forces where you can attack and then largely avoid the counter attack (or be counter attacked in such a way you end up ahead on the piece trade). Legion is really good at it, Cyriss does it well with jacks with some casters. Circle does it well also.

I think we'll also see more solo heavy "oceans X" style armies. They're growing in popularity and are a natural match for casters that can super-solo. Cygnar players who don't take eHaley will often merc solo spam with someone like eCaine. Retribution is actually silly good with high numbers of activations. They can probably be the most punishing to middling skill players who try to be too aggressive and just push the middle. I've seen a lot of Terminus players lose to Rahn, a magister and two mage hunter assassins on the bottom of turn 2.

It took forever for the American competitive meta to see the potential in a Xerxes medium base meat army, but it's finally showing up more. Father Lucant's fat robot recycling will also be a thing to watch out for.

I think part of the thing that has allowed for this level of tactical depth is that the rules work and the point system is roughly okay as well. You can take some anti-synergistic choices and your points of models will do less than other options, but as a whole, you can't build this kind of tactical depth at the highest level of play if the foundation is made up of mushy rules and bad balance.

 Kojiro wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
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.

When I choose to fire my Redeemer (part of my version of the above mentioned Purification Gunline list- incidentally also a model from the very first WM book) I have several considerations. Yes, I must choose the target but even before that I've already made a choice- to do the Redeemer's activation at this point relative to the rest of my army. Positioning still matters for the unactivated portions of my army, who can exploit any gaps or damage I may do. But wait up, before even select the Redeemer I've got to remember to have activated the Chior for the Hymn of Battle bonus (which of course has issue of having a Chior member within 3" and Battle being the preferred Hymn to use on not just the Redeemer but my other jacks, since the benefit is the same for all). Ah but of course before even *that* I'll have to plan out my focus allocation in the Control Phase, powering the Redeemer up for the turn to come. Hope I've remembered to give it enough Focus to do the job. Ah ok so now, after all that- and any other unit activating, like say a Flare from the Reckoner for the +2 to hit that offsets the Redeemers innate -4, I can activate my Redeemer. Shall I move it or would I prefer the +2 Aiming bonus from forfeiting my movement? Sure would help hit stuff. Wait, this is a Purification list, do I want to Purify- activate my caster- first?

At this point I am now at the 'pick a target' step. Now I can consider the targets DEF (defense) rating, if they're in cover or concealment, whether they've been badly placed or turned their back to me when they charged last turn. Anyone knocked down? Engaged in combat? And of course range but that's not usually a problem for a Redeemer. There's a few other things to consider, like Vengeance, Hyper Aggressive and Force Barrier but that's just something a good player stays on top of. So after all that I've picked my target. Now I just have to determine how I want to spend my focus points between more attacks, more accuracy or more damage.

And you know what? This process is exactly the same- replace the Aiming bonus with Charge bonus- for melee. It's within all those mechanics and choices, all that timing and awareness that the exact same models on the exact same table allow a good player to get more out of them than an average player. It's been repeated over and over by WM players- how you use the models matters. It's so much more than 'run forward, throw attacks' because if that's your strategy a) you're in for a rude surprise when it's a dual zone scenario b) you're going to get infinitely frustrated by spells like Freezing Grip, Breathstealer, Rebuke, Time Bomb, Rift, Burning Ash, Caustic Mist, Crippling Grasp or Temporal Barrier (or I'm sure others I've forgotten) that are going to slow your front line to a crawl and/or utterly destroy their ability to charge. Now there may well be times when bricking up *is* the way to go but to pretend it's some sort of default is absurd. Like every other choice you should do it when it's the best strategy available to you. Often it is not.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Nice to see you agree with me.

Steamroller is a particular tournament rules set, not a 'style' of play. A very well balanced one at that, available for free if you click that link. When I have a game of WM all I need to do is ask my opponent for a points value then roll on the table for scenario. Game on.

Also please keep in mind what this fine young internet poster didn't add are more things that need to be thought about...

There are so very many more and these are just off the top of my head as I was reading the quoted post.
Am I going to feat this turn? Did my opponent feat or is he/she likely to? If I shoot that unit over there is it going to free up a lane for something to charge my jack / unit, or my caster? So many many choice and action/reactions that go on in WM.

Another thing that adds tactical depth is that models attack models. So rather than having a whole unit attack a whole unit as a single decision point, you can have individual models splitting their fire any way you want.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Another thing that adds tactical depth is that models attack models. So rather than having a whole unit attack a whole unit as a single decision point, you can have individual models splitting their fire any way you want.

Or having only a few models charge and the others run somewhere else (like onto the objective...etc).

And when you get things like combined melee or combined range going you have to make decisions about multiple attacks at lower strength, or less attacks at higher accuracy and strength.

While Gun Mages get all the chicks, it's still a thing of beauty to see a pHaley feat turn temporal barrier Long Gunner waterfall, zeroing in on the right targets with the right amounts of volley fire and then realizing they over concentrated because there's a priority target with a shield guard model near by. So then they do the last couple shots individually and hope to get enough successful damaging hits to compensate for the once per round shield guard move. All the while the opponent is sitting there and assessing which model they need to protect from which shot.

Backfire wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
I don't think they need to expand into larger games. 35 to 50, depending on the points values of each model, is roughly the model count that 40k was when it grew from being a house game made by the UK importer of D&D to being the internationally played miniature game.

People may say they want the big battles of 40k with 100+ models per side, but the game size that sells well across the board and made 40k the big deal it was at it's height is a lot closer to 35-50 points of warmachine than not.

Thing is, when people build up their collections, they naturally want to use them on tabletop. When I began 40k, a 1000 point game felt big. Nowadays, I don't feel like getting out of bed under 1500, and more would be better. Unfortunately, for a newcomer, big armies are intimidating in many ways (playing time, painting, cost). This is a conundrum for tabletop games. It is well known that WHFB suffers from being such a dinosaur, 40k armies have got bigger over time (though 6th edition briefly reversed the trend) and WM players too have kinda began to complain how big the games are getting.

The norm around here for casual 40k is like 3000+ point games.... its absolutely stupid, a 6x4 table is already too small for you to play a proper game of 40k at 1500 points, at 3000 you might as wrll be refighting the bloody napoleonic wars, no room to maneuver, wimply line up and roll dice until something happens as you slog one another (which is a bit unfair as the napoleonic wars were actually very maneuver intensive, but anyway)

Then my local store hosted a torunament, just shy of 30 players, many of them from outside the immediate area... everyone brought a 2000 pt list, built using the San Francisco Bay Area Open rules (which are inte ded to balance things out and prevent stupidity from ensuing). Every list was virtually identical, minimum troops and as many flyers/monstrous creatures/tanks as possible. Turns out a 2000pt 40k tourny list has a smaller model count than my average 35 pt WMHDs list.

xxvaderxx wrote:

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.

Indeed. They worked. Which was my point. And thry also worked at the expense of a lot of other styles of play. Assault armies, for one.

Remember - your point was all warmachine armies play the same, and 40k armies don't. And yet I've seen every 40k edition since third boil down to a handful of builds playing the same way.

xxvaderxx wrote:

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.

Steamroller isn't everything bud. That was the point.

Jeez a lot about page 5 haha

40KNobz11 wrote:
Jeez a lot about page 5 haha

And the thing is- which some people seem determined to miss- that Page 5 comes up about as much at WM events as the Foreword/Designer's Notes in a 40K book does at 40K events.

Can you imagine someone saying 'Well I read the Foreword to the rules... I'll discount the 40K based on that!' yet that's precisely what some do with WM. Not part of the fluff, not part of the aesthetic, not part of the rules but a Foreword. To me that seems like looking for a reason to criticise and grasping the longest straw you can find.

People do trash GW quite a bit for "forge the narrative."

But that's usually long after they've given up on the game as a hopeless mess after actually giving it a chance for a decade or more.

The people take the piss out of 'Forge the Narrative' is because it's used as an excuse for bad rules writing, whereas Page 5 is used as an excuse to accuse someone of being a dick.

 Kojiro wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
Jeez a lot about page 5 haha

And the thing is- which some people seem determined to miss- that Page 5 comes up about as much at WM events as the Foreword/Designer's Notes in a 40K book does at 40K events.

Can you imagine someone saying 'Well I read the Foreword to the rules... I'll discount the 40K based on that!' yet that's precisely what some do with WM. Not part of the fluff, not part of the aesthetic, not part of the rules but a Foreword. To me that seems like looking for a reason to criticise and grasping the longest straw you can find.

I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.

 Las wrote:
I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.

Tell me, what kind of people shouldn't be partaking of Warmachine- according to the current version posted a little ways back- of Page 5?

 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.

That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person. If someone accuses me of killing kittens then I'm going to get defensive, but that shouldn't add any weight to the case that I'm a kitten-murderer. Yes, you can say "Oh, I mean unconscious or culturally rooted sexism / racism, I'm not accusing you directly.", as also comes up in these arguments, but that always feels like a dodge to me, a way to provide plausible deniability that you're not actually attacking someone.

While I'm not saying they're never warranted, such accusations are imbalanced by nature. If I accuse you, or something you like, of being sexist or racist, even if the accusation is obviously (to you) unwarranted, you might notice it's extremely hard to defend against it while coming across as not being wilfully insensitive. In part, that's a good thing--it indicates that there is a strong taboo attached to being bigoted, and that we don't want to be regarded as such a person. But the problem with something becoming a sensitive & taboo topic is that the standard of proof is lowered, and this makes it a prime target for people who want to win an argument without the bother of actually having an argument. This isn't unique to accusations of bigotry, it's the root reason behind every tiresome rhetorical trick we see on these and other forums. If an argument or accusation can agitate people simply by being made, then it will be abused on the internet.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that while there is still a very real problem with sexism in general and in this hobby, that doesn't mean that every accusation of such is automatically merited, or that the only reasons someone would deny it in a specific case is wilful blindness.

 Las wrote:

I hate to dig this back up but there is a significant difference. The foreword to 40k (and every other wargame that I have familiarity with) does not goof around with what kind of person should be partaking, even if it is a joke.

I think we've all met that jackass who makes us wince, the one who'll make unfunny and misogynistic jokes, and then claim he was just kidding and why so serious? Nobody with a glimmer of self-awareness wants to be that guy.

But then we come to the question of if sexually discriminating language and stereotypes get a pass if they're being used in a clearly ironic and exaggerated way, or if they're quoting long-established phrases and usages--"Do X like you've got a pair." is much more striking and catchy than "Do X like you have qualities of courage and brashness that are traditionally associated with exemplifying masculinity.". Few of us would claim that saying "Wow, that took balls." implies that a woman would not be capable of a similar act of audacious bravery.

The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:

A: "Heh, that's pretty funny. I understand that give the context, it was meant as a comical exaggeration, and I don't think they're having a go at me personally."

or

B: "Well, looks like they're writing towards macho males, and this isn't for me."

It comes down to if you consider A or B to be the more common reaction. Personally, speaking for nobody but myself and given the context, I'm inclined to go with A and regard it as intentionally over the top, clearly enough that I consider that A will be the more common reaction.

 Elemental 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.

That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person.

Literally all of us hold racist and sexist views. They're part of our culture and we're steeped in them. It doesn't make you a bad person. Nothing makes you a bad person. Actions are bad, people aren't.

 Elemental wrote:
The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:

Reactions aren't binary. Stuff like that is offputting by some amount. How much people care and what impact it has in the end will depend on the person and their circumstance.

On long-established phrases and usages, I'm just going to link Douglas Hofstadter because it's in my browser at the moment and it's pretty spectacular and everyone should read it.

But like I said, I haven't found the Warmachine community to be particularly unusual due to page 5. People don't really pay any attention to it at all.

It says specifically to not be a donkey cave.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Elemental 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.

That's the thing that always comes up in these arguments--of course people will get defensive when you, essentially, accuse them of holding racist or sexist views and thus being a bad person.

Literally all of us hold racist and sexist views. They're part of our culture and we're steeped in them. It doesn't make you a bad person. Nothing makes you a bad person. Actions are bad, people aren't.

If that wasn't what some people wished to imply with such accusations, I wouldn't see "Check your privilege" and the like being used so often as a glib dismissal. Again, the social theory is one thing, but the way that it is often made cruder and deployed scattershot on the Internet to win arguments is massively different.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
The question is, what's the reaction of the people who are allegedly being discriminated against? If someone from a demographic excluded by the "have a pair" and "sissifed" language reads that, their possible reactions could be:

Reactions aren't binary. Stuff like that is offputting by some amount. How much people care and what impact it has in the end will depend on the person and their circumstance.

Claiming that it is always offputting is also a simplification.

I was having this discussion, about different games bring different things to the table with my old gaming group while I was up visiting family yesterday.

War machine has the tightest rules around. But unless you are into a more tourment mind, games like the OP happen. My old group is into mailifax, which is fun in a more beer and pretzels way similar to mordiem.

However, since I moved away, and no long in a group, I have less interest in war machine or mailifax. But with the new ork release, I've a renewed interest in 40k at least modeling/conversion wise, something hard to do in warmachine.

Depends on what you're looking for. Any game opponents can get crushed in.......

This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.

40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.

Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.

I know when I was looking for a new game when MKI was out, I read page 5. I took the page's advise. I put the book down and walked away. It was very clear that Warmachine was not the game for me. That's okay and I appreciated not having to waste my time or money on it.

It is not the type of gaming I promote or care for. I personally would rather that it wasn't so popular based solely on what I read there. However I also realize I'm not the arbiter of fun for everyone else.

I like that 40K is focusing on forging the narrative, but I think the way they go about it is not good. I prefer games that focus on telling a story, have scenario play, and require a bit of work/thought by the players to put together something that is fun and interesting to play. I prefer collaboration and see the act of playing a game as a covenant between two players to have fun and entertain each other; not a competition.

That said, play what you want to play. I actually envy people who can get enjoyment from all types of games. I am not one of those people.

"Forging the narrative" is also completely backwards. Humans are narrative machines. You simply have them experience a series of results and they will naturally cobble together a narrative. This idea that you can have the results themselves matter less because you actively need to forge the narrative is nonsense. If you really want to "forge the narrative" then just have good rules that are balanced well so people have the opportunity to naturally cobble together the events of a game into a story.

It feels more like Force the Narrative, yes.

Barfolomew wrote:
This is the major difference I see between Warmachine and 40K.

40K is about building your list and picking the order of targets to kill. If the player who goes first kills the highest threat unit of his opponent on turn one, the game is basically over.

Warmachine is about knowing how your models interact and how to take advantage of those interactions. Except for your caster, loosing anyone one unit is not going to cripple the army. The list you bring impacts play style, but their really aren't any terrible units that can make you loose by seeing the table.

In my opinion, you give way too much credit to tactical decisions on the battlefield in 40k. In my extensive experience, 40k strategy is:

35% codex selection
50% list selection
15% in-game decisions

In my not-so-extensive Warmahordes experience, Warmahordes is:

5% army selection
20% list selection
75% in-game decisions

To me, there is merit, and a lot of enjoyability in list selection. In fact, one of my favorite things in CCGs was always deck construction, which is pretty much the same thing. However, when barely any of your in-game decisions are relevant, it kind of makes a 4 hour game a complete waste of time.

Also, I just realized I didn't account for dice rolls in the above lists, so feel free to belittle me and name call like we're on the Internet.

40K almost got me out of wargaming to be completely honest. It was boring because
-codex vs codex imbalance
-horrible codex release schedule
-internal codex imbalance
-random objectives reduced strategy
-random terrain reduced strategy
-d6 s reduced consistant results
-despite playing huge games, you have a very simple rock paper scissors mechanic
- y rules writing
-AP system made some matches horrible and some matches extremely easy
-Felt like playing on a congested highway, when I was trying to run a mobile list
-Close combat is clunky
-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.-Due to the rules, spamming is rewarded.
-Takes 3 hours to play a game
-Wound mechanic+instakill mechanic clunky.
-Shooting is based on 1 stat
-Game is often decided on turn 1, leaving losing player bored

Now in contrast, warmachine is amazing because:
-All agressive actions take both models stats into account
-Synergy between models makes the game more complex while reducing gameplay time
-Armor+box mechanic is much smoother and balanced against all types of damage
-Takes 45 minutes to an hour and a half to play
-Faction vs Faction is balanced
-While internal faction balance is not perfect, every single unit in the game can be used without killing competitive play
-Due to scenario+caster kill as ways of winning, the game is almost never over.
-Due to scenario+caster kill as ways of winning, balance between agressive action and defensive action make for an insteresting game
-2D6 and 3D6 make getting results more consistent, allowing for more tactical play
-Scenarios are tightly designed
-Tight rules set
-Piece count allows for manuevering
-Game scales well

Am i missing anything?

 Easy E wrote:
I know when I was looking for a new game when MKI was out, I read page 5. I took the page's advise. I put the book down and walked away. It was very clear that Warmachine was not the game for me. That's okay and I appreciated not having to waste my time or money on it.

It is not the type of gaming I promote or care for. I personally would rather that it wasn't so popular based solely on what I read there. However I also realize I'm not the arbiter of fun for everyone else.

I like that 40K is focusing on forging the narrative, but I think the way they go about it is not good. I prefer games that focus on telling a story, have scenario play, and require a bit of work/thought by the players to put together something that is fun and interesting to play. I prefer collaboration and see the act of playing a game as a covenant between two players to have fun and entertain each other; not a competition.

Original pg.5 was a big turnoff for me as well, I often like to play defensive game where I build myself an unassilable position. It mirrored with some negative experiences I had in MtG.

I love 40k's "cinematicism", but I agree that in some ways they are trying to force it upon the players. Currently, 40k is pretty much like they have written The Simpsons in last 10+ seasons: "Hmm, I'm out of ideas, what next? -Well lets roll the dice and consult The Simpsons Plot Progression Chart! Ok, the results are...'Homer...hits himself...in the face...with pie'. OMG that is so hilarious! A pie! This is comedy gold! Our viewers will love it!"

I almost never play with random terrain or objectives. I mean, I get it, that sort of thing has its place, but it's not everywhere.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

Now in contrast, warmachine is amazing because:
-All agressive actions take both models stats into account

Just to nitpick- for I do love the PP system- this has always bugged me. You have a melee attack stat and a ranged attack stat, which I'm fine with, but then only a single defense stat. This always seemed off to me. A skilled swordsman should be exceedingly difficult to hit in melee but not significantly more difficult than any other man sized thing with a gun. Conversely a trooper who is fine shooting from a crouching or prone position should be harder to hit at range than the knight who has little choice but to run towards you.

Like I said, just a small nitpick.

Agreed, but also realize that in 40k, even though you roll WS vs. WS, even if you're like 4 points lower you still always hit on a 4+. I hate that! Why can this f*%$ing guardsman have a 50/50 shot of hitting my hive tyrant?!

 slowthar wrote:
Agreed, but also realize that in 40k, even though you roll WS vs. WS, even if you're like 4 points lower you still always hit on a 4+. I hate that! Why can this f*%$ing guardsman have a 50/50 shot of hitting my hive tyrant?!

Balance? TBH I'd find it more ridiculous if they had zero way of hitting it.

Personally I find Warmachine to be refreshing tactics-wise, although I will agree that the game really feels mechanical and very meta-like due to rules that exist by virtue of it being a game. I don't personally mind that, as I'd rather have a game than a simulation, but it does feel like you're playing a tabletop CCG when you get into all the counters/tokens, or AOE rings or whatnot on the field.