|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 6, 2017 12:35:41 GMT
Warhammer is a fun game with stable rules and nice minis. Warmachine is not. Also, Warhammer doesn't need to rebalance EVERY UNIT one year after an edition change. they just make a new edition instead of rebalancing
|
|
benkei
Junior Strategist
Posts: 244
|
Post by benkei on Nov 6, 2017 12:50:46 GMT
One year after the prior one? Nah, don't think so
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Nov 6, 2017 13:23:31 GMT
Also, Warhammer doesn't need to rebalance EVERY UNIT one year after an edition change. They are literally doing that right now. All the indexed armies in 8th edition are way behind their codex variants, and factions are getting retooled sequentially. They are also changing a bunch of things with Chapter Approved.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Nov 6, 2017 13:45:07 GMT
Warhammer is a fun game with stable rules and nice minis. Warmachine is not. Also, Warhammer doesn't need to rebalance EVERY UNIT one year after an edition change. Yeah, Warhammer is as stable as it gets, because it's dead and no new rules or units are added to the game. Unless you mean the 9th Age, in which case it's just not true as AFAIK it's constantly changing in a similar way to WM&H with balancing erratas and a new edition incoming. Or if you mean AoS, than I can't really comment on its balance with a straight face, because I don't consider it a strategy game per se, more like a play with toy soldiers with all those absurd bonuses for longer moustache or wearing a hood or pretending to ride a horse...
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Nov 6, 2017 13:58:33 GMT
Warhammer is a fun game with stable rules and nice minis. Warmachine is not. Also, Warhammer doesn't need to rebalance EVERY UNIT one year after an edition change. Yeah, Warhammer is as stable as it gets, because it's dead and no new rules or units are added to the game. Unless you mean the 9th Age, in which case it's just not true as AFAIK it's constantly changing in a similar way to WM&H with balancing erratas and a new edition incoming. Or if you mean AoS, than I can't really comment on its balance with a straight face, because I don't consider it a strategy game per se, more like a play with toy soldiers with all those absurd bonuses for longer moustache or wearing a hood or pretending to ride a horse... M8 I think he's talking about 40k.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Nov 6, 2017 14:25:53 GMT
Honestly I absolutely adore Warmachine, but just understand the kind of game it is, before you get involved.
People who want to play a game a fortnight or a game a month or a game every other month aren't a good fit for Warmachine in my experience. Warmachine has a really high skill level and that means putting in hours of work to not completely suck.
I know some people like Warmachine as a casual game, but at least round where I live, I would advise against it.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Nov 6, 2017 14:50:12 GMT
Yeah, Warhammer is as stable as it gets, because it's dead and no new rules or units are added to the game. Unless you mean the 9th Age, in which case it's just not true as AFAIK it's constantly changing in a similar way to WM&H with balancing erratas and a new edition incoming. Or if you mean AoS, than I can't really comment on its balance with a straight face, because I don't consider it a strategy game per se, more like a play with toy soldiers with all those absurd bonuses for longer moustache or wearing a hood or pretending to ride a horse... M8 I think he's talking about 40k. Is he ? The OP seems to specifically mention not Although I agree that both, being GW games, share similar philosophy and approach to game design, so many posts can be applied to both. Also I was a bit wrong about Warhammer being dead. It's just unsupported. There are quite a few "Oldhammer" communities I know of, playing whichever edition they like the most , even in my small country where the wargaming hobby is really niche.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 6, 2017 15:00:38 GMT
Because of the way stats (big increase in performance per statpoint) and pointcost (you pay per model, not per unit) work, warhammer is much more difficult to balance. While it's easy to add a point of def to a pyg in hordes and not change the entire identity of the unit the same can't be said for, say, giving a point of strength or weaponskill to a goblin in WHF. Changing the statline of any unit really just isn't part of that game and because you need 40+ goblins in a unit and they are worth about 2 points it's just hard to balance.
Edit. Of course you could buy fixed units, but again that drastically changes the face of the game./edit
In other words, warhammer is an old clunky system that could be balanced better than GW ever managed to do, but simply isn't capable to do so to the extend warmachine is. On the other hand warmachine is growing so big they face similar problems and are now trying to balance 50ish impovirished themes instead of 12(?) fleshed out factions.
Balance should stand in service of the game and I don't necessarily like the path PP has choosen. Sometimes you should just leave well enough alone, tackle the most glaring issues and call it a day. In games like this there comes a point where it's up to the players to not abuse interactions that can't be dealt with without complete overhauls.
Warhammer fantasy 8th can be balanced perfectly fine with about 5 houserules to the main rulebook, for any group that aren't a complete bunch of ****wads, because the armybooks were actually balanced pretty well. Units not being taken had more to do with those issues in the main rules (for instance, elite units benefitting from the hordesrule).
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 6, 2017 15:13:14 GMT
I know some people like Warmachine as a casual game, but at least round where I live, I would advise against it. It really does depend on who you play with. I prefer to play casually but I know most of the people at my FLGS don't so when I play there I expect my opponent to be playing on a clock and talking about tournament pairing. Usually that works out fine; they understand that I don't worry about that but I let them do their thing and play on a clock and they let me not worry about my clock so much and joke around, etc. Granted some of that works only because I've been a member of the community for 5 years, was a PG for 3, and still run events so everyone pretty much knows me and my deal. On the other hand I have buddies from college who I play with once a month or so in a much more casual style. We talk about what we want to play to make sure no one gets screwed in list selection, we have takebacks when we forget rules, we make jokes about bad rolls, etc. I certainly prefer the latter, but the former is fine most of the time as well. If you have people who want to play casually it is certainly possible to play casually, but as with any wargame it's a good idea to get a feel for the community at a local store before diving in to playing with them.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Nov 6, 2017 15:18:39 GMT
I know some people like Warmachine as a casual game, but at least round where I live, I would advise against it. It really does depend on who you play with. I prefer to play casually but I know most of the people at my FLGS don't so when I play there I expect my opponent to be playing on a clock and talking about tournament pairing. Usually that works out fine; they understand that I don't worry about that but I let them do their thing and play on a clock and they let me not worry about my clock so much and joke around, etc. Granted some of that works only because I've been a member of the community for 5 years, was a PG for 3, and still run events so everyone pretty much knows me and my deal. On the other hand I have buddies from college who I play with once a month or so in a much more casual style. We talk about what we want to play to make sure no one gets screwed in list selection, we have takebacks when we forget rules, we make jokes about bad rolls, etc. I certainly prefer the latter, but the former is fine most of the time as well. If you have people who want to play casually it is certainly possible to play casually, but as with any wargame it's a good idea to get a feel for the community at a local store before diving in to playing with them. I mean it's certainly possible to play casually and I would probably play that way even if my number of games dropped, because of the community which are now my friends.
That said if I'm trying to pick a game from the two and I know from the off I will have limited time to play and I have no existing social reasons to play. 40k or warhammer are absolutely the right choice.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 6, 2017 15:55:31 GMT
It really does depend on who you play with. I prefer to play casually but I know most of the people at my FLGS don't so when I play there I expect my opponent to be playing on a clock and talking about tournament pairing. Usually that works out fine; they understand that I don't worry about that but I let them do their thing and play on a clock and they let me not worry about my clock so much and joke around, etc. Granted some of that works only because I've been a member of the community for 5 years, was a PG for 3, and still run events so everyone pretty much knows me and my deal. On the other hand I have buddies from college who I play with once a month or so in a much more casual style. We talk about what we want to play to make sure no one gets screwed in list selection, we have takebacks when we forget rules, we make jokes about bad rolls, etc. I certainly prefer the latter, but the former is fine most of the time as well. If you have people who want to play casually it is certainly possible to play casually, but as with any wargame it's a good idea to get a feel for the community at a local store before diving in to playing with them. I mean it's certainly possible to play casually and I would probably play that way even if my number of games dropped, because of the community which are now my friends.
That said if I'm trying to pick a game from the two and I know from the off I will have limited time to play and I have no existing social reasons to play. 40k or warhammer are absolutely the right choice.
If you want casual warmachine i would say that Company of Iron works pretty well. We played like 5 games of it last saturday. Granted if you're new to the game you might have trouble getting that many games in.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 6, 2017 21:49:25 GMT
It all depends on what grabs you, if you like the look or mechanics of Warmachine and want to play casually there's literally nothing stopping you if you have like-minded people to play with. Nothing in the rules say you have to play it competitively, it's just that a very vocal part of the community enjoys playing that way.
|
|
|
Post by shortsleeve on Nov 6, 2017 23:30:30 GMT
no need to start a war lol its a matter of taste, i play what i like the most if its super balance good if its not it doenst matter if u like playing the GAME.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Nov 7, 2017 0:09:09 GMT
One thing to note that because this is a WM/H forum, you're going to get a lot of very pro-WM/H opinions. There are some balanced opinions here too of course, but this is like going to Grand Rapids Michigan and asking which if Michigan or Ohio's college football is better. Chances are you're going to get a biased opinion based upon the (literal) forum you've chosen to seek the opinion of... Psychologically we have a tendency to think our opinions are correct, and give more weight to evidence that supports our opinions, and less to those that refute. So if you're serious about finding out "which game is better", play a few demos of both and see which one you had more fun with / which has the crew of people you had a better time hanging out with. First hand empirical evidence will trump a bunch of internet opinions any day.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 7, 2017 3:20:41 GMT
One thing to note that because this is a WM/H forum, you're going to get a lot of very pro-WM/H opinions. There are some balanced opinions here too of course, but this is like going to Grand Rapids Michigan and asking which if Michigan or Ohio's college football is better. Chances are you're going to get a biased opinion based upon the (literal) forum you've chosen to seek the opinion of... Psychologically we have a tendency to think our opinions are correct, and give more weight to evidence that supports our opinions, and less to those that refute. So if you're serious about finding out "which game is better", play a few demos of both and see which one you had more fun with / which has the crew of people you had a better time hanging out with. First hand empirical evidence will trump a bunch of internet opinions any day. La di da Look at you with your good points. I mean i assume he's going on multiple forums and asking the question to see how people respond. Or he just wants his opinion biased from the very beginning.
|
|