|
Post by oncouch1 on Nov 7, 2017 3:26:03 GMT
I will echo the sentiment that you want to pick the game that gives you want from a war-game. You want to play a beer and pretzels game with high variance and not a ton of decisions, 40k. You want to play an extremely competitive game where the difference between winning and losing is a millimeter, Warmachine.
Neither of those two games lend itself well to the strength of the other. I played competitive 40k, it was a farce. I had an event where I massacred each opponent and did not receive a prize, not even best general (the award for the person with the highest battle score, which was me) The reason behind that was due to my getting zeroed on my sportsmanship soft score by two opponents, disqualifying me from a prize. The tournament organizer tracked them down and asked if I had done anything unsportsmanlike they each responded in the same way. They thought by list was cheesy and that it was too effective, nothing to do with me as an opponent. The tournament organizer agreed with them and disqualified me from prizes even though the event had unique composition requirements that my list 100% fit within. I was disqualified for building an effective list with optimal choices. In my experiences with 40k/fantasy this kind of attitude is commonplace. People feel the need to police what you get to bring. I do not agree with that line of thought. I don't care what my opponent brings. If it is legal I am good to play against it.
In Warmachine less people will complain about the composition of your list and there is a greater emphasis on personal skill. That said Warmachine is a difficult endeavor to undertake if you do not enjoy self reflection and optimization Warmachine is difficult to enjoy. Warmachine is not the kind of game that appeals to casual players. They generally get chewed up and spit out, masticated and frustrated. This is generally due to their inability to reflect/grow, the reasons they are struggle is themselves not the models they bought.
|
|
|
Post by safetyturtle on Nov 7, 2017 15:05:23 GMT
I don't completely agree, it varies a lot depending on where you play. The reason there are comp systems in place for many 40k tournies is that the rules aren't really balanced well enough.
|
|
|
Post by safetyturtle on Nov 7, 2017 15:07:54 GMT
M8 I think he's talking about 40k. Is he ? The OP seems to specifically mention not If so, he would have said "warhammer fantasy" and considering that that's not a thing anymore, it's very rational to assume he's talking about WH40k here, especially as it's a lot more popular.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 7, 2017 16:21:15 GMT
I feel like a broken record, but it also seems like every time I try to explain this position yet another person talks over me saying the same things.
Nothing about the game(s) themselves dictate that they are "competitive" or "casual". It is 100% possible to find or create a community of players that have no interest in tournament play and are more than happy to play relaxed, casual games. WARMACHINE/HORDES does not "chew up and spit out" casual players, competitive communities that are unwilling to foster less-competitive players do. If you find a community that is willing to work with you you can totally play Warmachine/Hordes without getting "masticated and frustrated". It is a game, you can play it to the extent you want to, and the idea that somehow the game rules themselves are what creates an environment that is unwelcoming to non-tournament play is patently ridiculous.
Much like any game in the internet age, the people who take it very seriously will inevitably be the most vocal. That doesn't mean that it's a fact of the game and it doesn't mean that every player agrees with them. It doesn't even mean that they're the majority (we don't have nearly enough data to know that).
So, hopefully for the last time, Warmachine is not IN ITSELF a game that can't be played casually. It is a game that can be played a number of ways, and how you want to play depends entirely on you and the people you play with.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Nov 7, 2017 16:27:09 GMT
I feel like a broken record, but it also seems like every time I try to explain this position yet another person talks over me saying the same things. Nobody is saying that you are wrong though. Lots of people just like to express what *they* think is important about WMH. Which isn't that the game can theoretically be played totally casually, as you point out. But that in their practical experience, the important thing is that the game is played by the communities they know in a competitive fashion that chews up casuals and spits them out. Rawr.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 7, 2017 16:52:12 GMT
Of course Warmachine isn't inherently competitive. It just works really well as a competitive game.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Nov 7, 2017 20:13:28 GMT
I feel like a broken record, but it also seems like every time I try to explain this position yet another person talks over me saying the same things. Nothing about the game(s) themselves dictate that they are "competitive" or "casual". It is 100% possible to find or create a community of players that have no interest in tournament play and are more than happy to play relaxed, casual games. WARMACHINE/HORDES does not "chew up and spit out" casual players, competitive communities that are unwilling to foster less-competitive players do. If you find a community that is willing to work with you you can totally play Warmachine/Hordes without getting "masticated and frustrated". It is a game, you can play it to the extent you want to, and the idea that somehow the game rules themselves are what creates an environment that is unwelcoming to non-tournament play is patently ridiculous. Much like any game in the internet age, the people who take it very seriously will inevitably be the most vocal. That doesn't mean that it's a fact of the game and it doesn't mean that every player agrees with them. It doesn't even mean that they're the majority (we don't have nearly enough data to know that). So, hopefully for the last time, Warmachine is not IN ITSELF a game that can't be played casually. It is a game that can be played a number of ways, and how you want to play depends entirely on you and the people you play with. I agree. Finding people who share how you want to play the game is super important towards enjoying the hobby. That said it is going to be much easier to find/build a casual group of 40k players than Warmachine. The opposite is true when competition is concerned. The games do appeal to different crowds.
|
|
|
Post by plungingforward on Nov 8, 2017 22:20:08 GMT
The one thing I actually DID like a lot about Warhammer Fantasy Battle was that the game played out analogous enough to an ancient battle - big, largely homogeneous groups of troops with set battlefield roles (missile troops, light & heavy infantry, light & heavy cavalry, skirmishers, beasts, artillery and so on) - that I could apply a lot of "outside" knowledge and be successful. This also made individual games very easy to talk about with non-players, not only as a recruiting tool but also just in terms of generating interesting discussion. I sometimes find difficult with Warmachine, which plays a lot more like a sport in some respects. (That and being able to create my own personalities. As a big RPG guy, leading my army with somebody else's P.C. is kind of sad.)
That said, the reasons I dried up on WHFB were largely time and space related - Warmachine plays on a smaller surface with fewer models over less time. You'll want to set aside the better part of a day for a good game of WHFB, and I didn't have that any more. Once I crossed over, though, I found actual recruitment - as opposed to just discussing games - to be easier. Warmachine requires much less of a buy-in to play an actual, satisfying game. The fact that they can build and paint a battle box in a day or two means they're able to launch right in.
Also, and even more importantly, the extremely solid set of rules can entice those who enjoy playing games - but aren't going to settle for the series of gentleman's agreements that make a game of Warhammer possible - to play Warmachine in the first place. I've brought people into Warmachine that simply would not play Warhammer after a trial game or two, so that has to count for something.
|
|
|
Post by mikethefish on Nov 8, 2017 23:56:01 GMT
I don't completely agree, it varies a lot depending on where you play. The reason there are comp systems in place for many 40k tournies is that the rules aren't really balanced well enough. True story.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Nov 9, 2017 0:47:20 GMT
I don't completely agree, it varies a lot depending on where you play. The reason there are comp systems in place for many 40k tournies is that the rules aren't really balanced well enough. True story. It's been a while since I played 40k, and almost never in a tournament setting, what are these "comp systems?"
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Nov 9, 2017 6:15:38 GMT
It's been a while since I played 40k, and almost never in a tournament setting, what are these "comp systems?" Plungingforward above mentioned gentelman's agreements needed to play a not-nonsensical game of WH or WH40K, due to GW casual (if you put it politely)approach to game balance. Comp systems are sets of community designed composition rules to make the game more balanced by, for example , limiting access to overpowered stuff, blocking abuse of loopholes or disallowing spamming of things that were too effective for their cost. Using them makes playing possible without the need for those gentelman's agreements (which are impossible in a tournament for example) SOme of the comp systems were total bs devised by armchair whiners, but others like the excellent Swedish comp for WH40K or Polish balancing patch for WH which paved the way for World Team CHampionships comp rules were amazing, improved the game immensely or in the case of WH 7th edition, made it actually playable .
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Nov 9, 2017 8:15:58 GMT
It's been a while since I played 40k, and almost never in a tournament setting, what are these "comp systems?" Plungingforward above mentioned gentelman's agreements needed to play a not-nonsensical game of WH or WH40K, due to GW casual (if you put it politely)approach to game balance. Comp systems are sets of community designed composition rules to make the game more balanced by, for example , limiting access to overpowered stuff, blocking abuse of loopholes or disallowing spamming of things that were too effective for their cost. Using them makes playing possible without the need for those gentelman's agreements (which are impossible in a tournament for example) SOme of the comp systems were total bs devised by armchair whiners, but others like the excellent Swedish comp for WH40K or Polish balancing patch for WH which paved the way for World Team CHampionships comp rules were amazing, improved the game immensely or in the case of WH 7th edition, made it actually playable . So... Houserules?
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 9, 2017 9:04:56 GMT
Yes, the gentlemen's approach "the casuals" have taken to in warhammer. With that in min, is warmachine really that well balanced in it's basic form? Look at all the precautions PP have shoehorned into the game to keep up this appearance (yes, Im purposely exagerating here ): Since a standard 75pt list is in fact not able to stand on it's own in a tournament, you bring 2 or even 3 lists and hope you won't mess up the rock-paper-siccors game. An unfavourable matchup can all but destroy your chances just as good as a really bad decision during the game. Because certain entries won't get taken and gunlines are impossible to play against, scenario has become a thing to force people into playing less onedimensional lists or to stop you from avoiding engagement. I approve of this because it makes the game more interested and I like "balanced" lists alot more than spammy lists. Modelbloat is now splitting factions into subfactions because the immense ammount of interactions 'have become impossible to balance' So much in fact where they are now asking the vocal internet majority to balance the game for them (again, a slight exageration) because for some reason they can't figure out for them selves that, not only is it powerfull to have a caster with a -7armour swing and a -4stat swing to everything else, it's simply not enjoyable. No the tiny KD pieplate is what's wrong there. I didn't play mk2 that much bit people keep telling me there is more list variety now than there ever was back then... in the tournament scene. The fact that so many interesting lists didn't have and still won't have a place in a socalled competitive environment speaks highly against this community percieved balance. I don't want to say just any list should be able to stand a chance against a well thought out list, but I do think a well thoughtout all commers list should, and that's just not possible in this game. Going back to the gentlemen's approach, I say warmachine is subject to it just as much as warhammer. It's fine to bring all "the cheese" you can muster but you agree to it beforehand. The difference between the two games is that the majority of warhammer players tends to, indeed, call that cheese (the more loose and casual approach the has been mentioned in this thread) and among warmachineplayers it has found an identity as competitive play and is not thought of as being a beardy bastard anymore, which I think is a good thing. In reality though you just turned things around and instead of agreeing to a cheesefest you agree to playing something dope and quirky because you want to have fun with those black ogruns that never see play otherwise. The gentlemen's agreement has a role to play in both games.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Nov 9, 2017 12:49:26 GMT
Yes, the gentlemen's approach "the casuals" have taken to in warhammer. With that in min, is warmachine really that well balanced in it's basic form? Look at all the precautions PP have shoehorned into the game to keep up this appearance (yes, Im purposely exagerating here ): Since a standard 75pt list is in fact not able to stand on it's own in a tournament, you bring 2 or even 3 lists and hope you won't mess up the rock-paper-siccors game. An unfavourable matchup can all but destroy your chances just as good as a really bad decision during the game. Because certain entries won't get taken and gunlines are impossible to play against, scenario has become a thing to force people into playing less onedimensional lists or to stop you from avoiding engagement. I approve of this because it makes the game more interested and I like "balanced" lists alot more than spammy lists. Modelbloat is now splitting factions into subfactions because the immense ammount of interactions 'have become impossible to balance' So much in fact where they are now asking the vocal internet majority to balance the game for them (again, a slight exageration) because for some reason they can't figure out for them selves that, not only is it powerfull to have a caster with a -7armour swing and a -4stat swing to everything else, it's simply not enjoyable. No the tiny KD pieplate is what's wrong there. I didn't play mk2 that much bit people keep telling me there is more list variety now than there ever was back then... in the tournament scene. The fact that so many interesting lists didn't have and still won't have a place in a socalled competitive environment speaks highly against this community percieved balance. I don't want to say just any list should be able to stand a chance against a well thought out list, but I do think a well thoughtout all commers list should, and that's just not possible in this game. Going back to the gentlemen's approach, I say warmachine is subject to it just as much as warhammer. It's fine to bring all "the cheese" you can muster but you agree to it beforehand. The difference between the two games is that the majority of warhammer players tends to, indeed, call that cheese (the more loose and casual approach the has been mentioned in this thread) and among warmachineplayers it has found an identity as competitive play and is not thought of as being a beardy bastard anymore, which I think is a good thing. In reality though you just turned things around and instead of agreeing to a cheesefest you agree to playing something dope and quirky because you want to have fun with those black ogruns that never see play otherwise. The gentlemen's agreement has a role to play in both games. That's like saying it's a gentleman's agreement to use the rulebook.
|
|
fanguad
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by fanguad on Nov 9, 2017 12:59:10 GMT
I think dirtyharrypotter's point is that you can't play a "fluffy" WM list without getting destroyed, unless you have a "gentleman's agreement" with your opponent that you'll both play non-competitive lists. It's definitely the case that the default WM list you show up with, even to casual game day, is a highly competitive list.
|
|