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.

I've been playing 40k for about a year and a half or so, and I'm really loving it. I like most of the models and the game itself and I don't really see myself quitting, though I know a lot of people are fed up with GW as a company. I've heard really great things about Warmachine and Hordes, and I really like a lot of the models, so I decided to buy Hordes Primal and try out a starter game. I got a few of my 40k buddies to try it out with me with mixed results. It can be kinda hard to teach yourself all the rules, as you tend to miss a lot of stuff. We chose to proxy the Legion battle-box against the Trollbloods. It was certainly fun enough, but didn't really captivate us. I really want to keep going with it, but I'm not entirely sure how to convince my friends to come along with me.

I'd like to know what it is that makes so many people really love this game. The first games we played really only got us to the realization that the WM/H : Chess analogy works pretty well. It didn't really occur to us at first that it's a game of Warlock/caster assassination. Not everyone of my 40k buddies really liked that as a hook, although I think it provides a neat contrast to other games I've played. I guess what it comes down to is that every single person I talk to who has played both 40k and WM/H practically falls over themselves trying to convince me never to play 40k again. Although this isn't likely to happen, I'd still like to know where this opinion comes from, and (more importantly to me) how to convince my friends to keep trying to figure out WM/H. Thanks for any input!

-Wiegraf

only thing I can say is the battle boxes come with an excellent quick-start rules guide.

After that, maybe you just need to keep playing? Also keep in mind terrain is important in Warmachine/ Hordes maybe try different things.

Fences, ruins, forests, all have cool rules in Warmachine/ Hordes.

350/ 500 point games definately have a different feel from 750 to 1500 point games of 40k. Lots of emphasis on the caster/ activation order, etc.

Maybe you could try proxying 750 point games to stick to Warmachine if you'd rather play with larger armies.

Also, maybe there's a pre-existing local group at a store or otherwise.

I think they're still figuring out scenario play over at
Privateer Press. If they make the scenarios too easy, then
the players find an easy way to exploit model special
rules or advance deployment for the insta win. If they make
the scenarios too hard, then people ignore them and just
go for the caster kill.

I'll post more later, but I really should start on some work.

malfred wrote:I'll post more later, but I really should start on some work.

Overrated idea, that.

Wiegraf wrote:
I'd like to know what it is that makes so many people really love this game.

Tactical options. In 40k, most of your choices are made before the game even starts. Squad size, weapon upgrades, wargear, etc. Deployment is the last set of big decisions you make. After that it boils down to target selection (for the shooty bits), whether you charge across the board or wait to counter assault (for the assaulty bits), and use of terrain (for both bits).

In WM/H, you have less pregame decisions (very few weapon upgrades and no wargear), but you have more in-game decisions. Need to manuever instead of attack? Then run. Need to shoot something? Well, you could move and shoot or stay where you are and shoot for an accuracy buff. Still need more accuracy? Boost. Need to do more damage? Boost. Need to attack again? Spend Fury/Force your beast. Need to get an enemy model out of your way? In 40k, your only option is to kill it. In WM/H, you can kill, Push, Slam, or Throw it, or use something that creates a similar effect such as Krueger's Tornado spell or the Basilisk Drake's animus, Impact. A Warlock can move, fight in melee (or shoot), cast spells, use a feat, and heal themselves or their beasts all in the same turn. And since each caster and lock is different, switching one model changes how your army plays drastically. Terrain also plays a big role, especially if you create your own. Most models move at half rate and can't charge through rough terrain, but others ignore it completely. This adds another dimension to gameplay as positioning is very important.

Now don't get me wrong. I like 40k. The models and fluff are great. Things are much more customizable on the painting table and Army Builder. But once it hits the tabletop, everything is relatively rigid, and the tabletop is what matters to me most. Combine poor rules writing and little effort to correct mistakes and compare it to boatloads of special rules (sometimes with contradicting interactions), a frequently updated FAQ, and a forum where you can talk to the devs directly. If you're like me, the choice will be easy.

oomiestompa saves the day!

Now I don't have to post.

But you posted anyways.

Two other things that endear it to me are how clearly (by comparison) they write the rules, and how almost every unit is good and useful.

But I think one of the most interesting and unique things about it is how it avoids Slippery Slope.

Eric Sirlin wrote a big article about this in video games (link below), but the basic concept is that in most games, once one player begins to lose by a little bit, he’s at a disadvantage and likely to fall further and further behind. When this happens, that player may actually lose long before the game is technically over, which isn’t exactly fun. Warhammer and 40k have this issue to some extent, though scenarios actually mitigate it. If you play smart, often you can come back and win via the scenario even if your army gets beaten down.

Warmachine & Hordes avoid it through the mechanic of the caster kill. What this means is that even if one player’s army is being taken apart, if he can set up and score the caster kill, he can come back from behind and win in one fell swoop. This means that there are practically no boring turns. There is almost always some suspense, and a reason for both players to be interested and excited in what’s happening.

For my part this was actually an unattractive feature when I started. I’m much more used to a kind of gaming where I win by playing the mission, and by disabling my opponent’s army enough that he can’t complete the mission or prevent me from doing so. I usually don’t like very character-centered games, and usually use weak/sacrificial ones myself. So when I started playing Warmachine it was kind of unpleasant to lose the game when I was in the lead because I left my caster slightly exposed. But when I got my head around it, I started enjoying the suspense it adds to the game.

Warhammer's still my favorite wargame, with 40k second and Warmachine third, but WM is pretty darn cool, and definitely offers a different play experience from the GW games.

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_slipperyslope.htm

I like that, that's insightful. Especially regarding the possibly unsatisfying feeling you get playing Warmachine/ Hordes when you first start.

You mean constantly losing? I went through that for 6
straight months.

I played just Deneghra for like a year, and I usually won, but when I killed half my opponent's army and he whacked her, it was frustrating. I got used to playing extremely cagy with her.

I've been using Asphyxious for a bit now, and he's a neat change of pace. Better at emergency HtH, though I still mostly play conservative hang back and cast with him.

I just recently started fielding Goreshade, and I'm finding he suits my original style of play better. He has multiple abilities which make him harder to get at and kill, and (for a hefty cost) can even prevent opposing casters from casting spells or using feats within 14" of him.

One of the other appealing things about the game is how different the various warcasters are, and how they make your army work differently. A Warcaster is kind of like buying your HQ AND a package of all your wargear options for the army all in one model. Deneghra does great with arc node Bonejacks and has little need for infantry. But Skarre really enhances infantry and is not an amazing caster, so gets less mileage from arc-nodes.

Skarre isn't amazing, but there's something to be said for
that magic turn when she has 9-12 focus to work with.

Can you say 3 hellfires?

Mannahnin wrote:One of the other appealing things about the game is how different the various warcasters are, and how they make your army work differently. A Warcaster is kind of like buying your HQ AND a package of all your wargear options for the army all in one model. Deneghra does great with arc node Bonejacks and has little need for infantry. But Skarre really enhances infantry and is not an amazing caster, so gets less mileage from arc-nodes.

I don't know about Warmachine, but in Hordes you buy a new Warlock you get a whole new army for $10 to $15.

Warmachine/ Hordes never ceases to amuse. I do prefer the gothic feel of 40k tho. WHFB too, if it comes to it.

I've heard that "a whole new army" line repeated almost ad nauseum, and I disagree with it.

You still have the same units, though the caster will change how useful they are, and to some extent how you use them. Some casters really work well with some units, or not so well with others, but that's really not the same thing as having a whole new army. To do that you usually need to switch at least a few units as well. For example, if you had a mixed jack/infantry Cygnar list led by Haley, and swapped in Darius, your jacks would be scarier, and your caster would play much differently, but the army would still be substantially the same. If you ALSO swapped out a couple of infantry units for more jacks, then the army is really different.

I think people repeat this line just because the casters themselves have such different spells and strengths, and since the game does center on them to a great deal, they really shape your perception of your options.

say all you have is the box set, a squad of infantry (say swordsmen or champions or pretorians or pikemen or whatever). If all you change is your warlock, that is a pretty substantial change in how the army plays.

A Thaggy list uses Death Shroud and attition tactics, with Thaggy laying down the beatstick.

A Vayl list is direct attack with Hoarfrost and her beasts, carefully disecting an opponent's defences.

That to me is two different ways to play, more variety. This is opposed to say a 40k Space Marine army where I decide variety mostly on what models I think are cool that day, and how shooty or assaulty I want to be.

And then meanwhile if I'm highjacking threads, the Lylyth list would seem different to an opponent, while she pops those POW 12's into his lines.

Likewise if I was myself facing Trolls I would consider facing Grim, Doomie or Borka to be three entirely different games.

I think the thing is that Warmachine/ Hordes isn't really a game of vast armies. In 750 it would probably seem like less of a change, but in 350 or 500 changing your Warlock is pretty central.

but that's just imo of course.

Fair enough. I think the fact that your caster makes up a significant percentage of your army points also magnifies his impact.

I just really liked the fact that individual models and units
can change your army to the point where you don't have
to spam a single unit type if you don't want to.

It was a great feeling buying a unit of Temple Flame Guard
knowing that I could paint something else if I felt like it
after that. I didn't have to buy five squads of the same
model or conversion to play competitively.

I'm glad we can all agree drinking Dr. Pepper and playing Hordes > virgins in the kingdom of heaven.

Virgins don't know what they're doing anyway. Grownup girls who know what they like FTW.

I really like Hordes/WM. However, I do not like that (WM in particular) there are a lot of "If I had known you could that, I would not have done this," effects. Some of that can be entertaining, but it can make for a very steep learning curve. And someone like me that may only game once a month, it can make it a drag, because every game it's re-learning what your opponent can do and not just what you can do. It can also lead to someone learning one or two tricks and stomping on all their friends for quite awhile.

And while 40k has their share of broken (or borken as PP would say) stuff, it seems like it is more prominent in WM/H (20 bane knights and Tartarus FTW!).

However, I definitely enjoy H/WM more than 40k at the moment.

H/WM is just pants.