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.

Which game has a higher percentage of unhealthy rules disagreements between players?

In the long run, 40k would have more, but there are simply more games being played. In a
room filled with x number of 40k players and an equal number of WM players, which one will
have more problems, rules wise?

I think you already know the answer

One system tries to put out good rules and the other just wants to sell models.

Never had a rules issue that lasted more than a few hours with Warmachine thanks to the format of their rules forums. I don't think I've ever encountered a rules problem off 'The List' in an actual game.

I've been waiting of the Hellion shoot and +1 Strength issue since 4th edition was released.

Bat Manuel wrote:I think you already know the answer

I don't because I rarely play competitive events, and the ones that I've run seem to
have a large contingent of veteran/literate players who ask questions they already
know the answers to.

One system tries to put out good rules and the other just wants to sell models.

Yeah, but I wanted something a bit more objective for this question.

I've gone to 2 decent-sized 2-day 40k tournaments, and there were very few (if any) rules arguments there. However, the atmosphere there was generally very friendly. I've never been to any Warmachine tournaments, so I can't say how much of that's going on (although there were WM/Hordes tourneys at the same events).

Having done tons of both now, I'd honestly say there were a little more questions asked per game of 40k (at a GT style event).

Not by a huge margin though. While most WM/H tournament questions involve the judge coming by and reading the relevant rules on the card aloud at which point both players go 'ohhh', there are still plenty of complex issues in WM/H that require beyond the book knowledge of the game or an impartial judge to answer.

The primary difference between the two is really that WM/H questions are all answered officially either through their living FAQ document or through 'Infernal' posts on their rules forums. (Infernals are designated rules-guy with the ear of the developers.) Judges still make rulings at events based on their memory of these calls on the forums, so they may be as imperfect as a 40k judges ruling based on the phase of the moon - but after a WM/H game with an issue, you can at least find an official answer so you know how to do it next time.

What about the tone of the games? Were they generally friendly or not?

I tend to find there are far more contentious, non answered questions in 40K, for example Deffrollas.
In Warmachine, any problem has been sorted rapidly by asking a judge, and not in a nasty way either. Though, there hasn't been much nastyness in 40K either, it's more that there is no clear answer so both players get frustrated.

I've also found that in warmachine people don't try anything funny unless its clearly allowed in the rules.

In 40k the loose rules generally have players doing things 'by the rules' that are not clear and can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

I've been to a bunch of each kind of tournament and have only run into one issue with warmachine (The guy wouldn't admit he was wrong even when I showed him the text, he still wouldn't submit) and a bunch of issues with 40k. That being said I like the 40k tournament format better.

Bat Manuel wrote: That being said I like the 40k tournament format better.

This is what I'm interested in. Why is that?

The missions in WM are contrary to what I'd normally play which is just caster kill. I'm not a huge fan of holding terrain as some forces are clearly better at it than others and its just lame to win a game and not kill anything.

Hey guys, I just had this same discussion with the fellas at my local game shop a couple of days ago...
Now, I've been playing 40k for almost 20 years; since Rogue Trader. I've been through all the rules evolutions 40k has gone through, played in both GT and RT type tournaments, and been on the giving and receiving end of my fair share of disputes. I just started Warmachine last January, and have recently won my first Steamroller event. I will tell you this.
IMHO, Warmachine is kicking 40k's butt when it comes to Player Ethos. By "Player Ethos", I mean the general mindset and demeanor an average player will bring to any given game.
When a person enters a 40k tournament, he/she seems to enter "rarified air" with all of the old school gurus and Theory-hammerists running around. The format of the rules is a bit too abstract, if you ask me, and the aforementioned beardies sometimes attempt to use rapid-fire stat quoting and machine gun dice rolling to bully (yes, BULLY) newer or less certain players into making mistakes, or into capitulating in a rules dispute before any Judge is called. Also, the abstract nature of the rules seems to result in the Judges themselves being wrong or unsure on a ruling. Now, some may say that this just means Noobs should stay in the Kiddie Pool, so to speak. This kind of thinking, which has been (unintentionally, of course) fostered by the 40k community and hubris, is unfortunate. It makes players afraid to be assertive, and bogs down the game, both in process and philosophy.
Warmachine, I have found, is COMPLETELY different. The game is set up to "Play Like You've got a Pair". This kind of kitzchy phrase actually is very pertinent when understanding the game. It encourages players to be aggressive. I kind of adopt the mindset of "When in doubt, ATTACK!" By directly challenging all players at the same time, the writers (hopefully intentionally) have taken the pressure of failure off the players, and kind of made it ok to lose. I don't know anyone who plays WM that, when telling of a recent sweeping victory, won't follow up with a story of an equally sweeping defeat. That's just how the game is. It says so in their rulebook. YOU WILL LOSE.
This, in effect, makes the games less negatively competitive, and allows just enough emotional distance from the game to appreciate your opponent's cool stuff, as well as your own. Also, I've been deeply impressed with P.P.'s concern with their customers. Hell, they released the new rules set for free simply because they knew it was driving the players crazy!! This shows that gamers and lovers of games are at the helm.
This is not to say that I don't still love 40k. I just think that think that maybe they have Businessmen and lovers of Money at the helm, and need to get some good ol' fashioned blood-n-guts gamers back on the bridge. I kind of have to agree with Bat Manuel, to an extent. GW is trying to sell product, at the cost of their game quality.
Oh, well... gotta go post my new PoM army list for the Tournament this weekend!

That's an interesting take. I hadn't thought of bullies.

In my opinion, 40K has more unhealthy rules disputes due to the nature of how GW balances their rules updates with their codices (which is to say, they don't). By contrast, PP updates all armies at the same time so imbalance is minimized. Most rules debates at our club by WM/H players are due to the complexity and timing of certain combos which almost always ends with a "Wow! I never put that together! That's cool!". 40K, however, spawns World War 3 over wether an army that hasn't been updated in 6 years can take a certin tank because people rules-lawyer the definition of a squadron. It's just my experience and only in casual games, but most 40K players I've met are passionate about winning at any cost; whereas most WM/H players I've met are passionate about having fun.

I dunno, I hear that same criticism about WM/H players, Vladigar.

I agree with Vladigar to a certain extent. But I maintain that the game ethos is what defines the type of player and play experience. The environment set up by the rules nazis and writers in each gameset cause the feeling that Vladigar is getting. From one perspective, Warmachine is a MUCH more cutthroat game than 40k. But it, in my opinion, is also a lot more light-hearted, because, as I mentioned earlier, the text makes it ok to lose. When the pressure of winning is reduced, it allows the players to see that after all, we're just playing with toy soldiers.

How do you merge the two ideas of cutthroat + less pressure to win?

edit: Not challenging you, just curious.

I'll try:
Since it's a very aggressive ruleset, you can do some things that feel like downright cheating - but are completely and almost always explicitly permitted by the rules. So that's the cutthroat element.

Since it's a pretty well balanced ruleset (there are still goofs, I feel), you can actually utilize the cutthroat style mentioned above without feeling like you're ruining the game. You also won't ever feel like you're entitled to a win because of the list that you've built. You're encouraged to try as hard as you want, but given the knowledge that every other army (almost) has an equal chance of stomping your awesome pile of near-cheating power into the ground.

So less pressure to win, because it's never assumed that you will.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

Awesome, thanks.

malfred wrote:I dunno, I hear that same criticism about WM/H players, Vladigar.

Like I said, it's just my personal experience with the local playerbase. And I don't play in tournaments where I'm sure a lot more rules debates occur. However, even then I hear less horror stories from WM tournaments than 40K tournaments (the D6G's Craig's story notwithstanding). I think Moz gave an excellent view on it.

I agree that Warmachine has more aggressive rule set that can end the game at any turn (Warcaster Kill), but because of the danger of sudden death, it's acceptable to lose. Losing in 40K always feels like a big deal, like "I should have won", while most losses in Warmachine are "Wow, I totally didn't see that, Wow awesome rolls, or Gah, I can't believe I failed that roll and now you win". Every lose is a moment of wonder and usually excitement. I'm still a big fan of 40K, but I'm also a big fan of good rules and a great tournament scene(I feel Warmachine excels in those areas) .

Judging by the new book for the new WM race, are WM/Hordes switching to a more GW Codex style release system? I have heard that they are going to be making "books" for each faction, much like GW in the coming months/years.



Clay

Primarch wrote:Judging by the new book for the new WM race, are WM/Hordes switching to a more GW Codex style release system? I have heard that they are going to be making "books" for each faction, much like GW in the coming months/years.



Clay

For now, the books are all about updating all the stuff at the same time.

We don't know how they plan to update after this year's release.

malfred wrote:
We don't know how they plan to update after this year's release.

It was actually stated by a PPSer that future releases would continue to update all of the factions at the same time. The faction books are single releases to get everything from escalation to legends in the same book. Its actually very newb friendly (don't need to buy 6 books to get everything for your faction).

As the 'everyone gets updated' system is one of Warmachine's strengths PP would be foolish to drop this.