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.

 Boss Salvage wrote:


I have no experience playing WMH online, but both tools are very abstract and seem to support the game well. I've thought about giving it a shot some time, despite being a very mini-driven miniwargamer, especially as I like skew lists that cost $$$ to build and probably suck. But I'm often held back by being pretty out of touch with actually playing WMH at this point :/

Wartable is a very good tool for online play of WmH as well as Guild Ball and Judgement. For games that emphasise precicion placement and are not all that worried about 3D (elevation) it is almost the perfect program. TTS is a mess for miniature games, as you note the simulation is a poor man's version of actual play and very vulnerable to issues with load times on weak connections. It is, however, better at simulating elevation which is why you see people playing stuff like Infinity and Warcaster on it. Overall, I am not a big fan of online play, but when I play online I gravitate toward Wartable unless I am doing playtesting that only has mods on TTS.

Alternating activations is definitely fashionable at the moment. I'm not sure its strictly superior, but it's very popular. I think it definitely has some big advantages, primarily in the form of reducing extended downtime for the inactive player, but it has a lot of quirks that can really cripple it if developers don't go out of their way to limit the power of things like activation advantage and really reduces model synergy. I haven't seen an AA game that can capture the sense of mechanical army identity Warcasters provide, even in games that have similar central character commands.

The main thing with WMH's implmentation at this point is just turn length. The opposing player is just out of the game for too long at the current game size and mistakes a player makes take too long to bare out. I'm not entirely sure what the best way to fix it is, but I definitely think something would be lost changing to full AA.

 Wehrkind wrote:

(Yes, you can buy tools to paint on arcs as well. But buying a third party tool does not bode well for PP, and trusting other people's painted arcs... well, I have seen some questionable ones.)

Tools? All you need is a piece of checkered paper.

As for Wartable, I think it is awesome and I recommend it to everyone. Excellent for smaller battles (BM) especially, as the games take longer than ones with models.

Wehrkind wrote:Re: Video Game: Was that actually a turn based direct port? I didn't get into the KS, and then ignored the game on Steam while it languished on my wishlist. My sense was that it was very tarted up, fancy graphics etc. instead of just solidly implementing the rules.

Warmachine Tactics had most of the mechanics from Mk 2, with the army purchasing of Mk 1 and the unit interactions of Company of Iron. Focus mechanic was there, spells were there, turn-based IGOUGO actions, but there were no actual units. Each "model" was its own thing, and never in a unit. Some models could still do unit actions like CMA, provided there was a similar model close enough to do the job. In the multiplayer army builder, you're not even required to have a unit leader.

I've not made it past the 3rd (or is it 4th?) mission in the campaign as yet. There is a bit of a crashing problem and while the models do look good, the "cinematics" tend to be more about a camera panning around statues while the characters talk (not even mouth movement). It would have been better to have stills they panned across as they could have had more impact for much cheaper. Story-wise, from what I understand, focuses on Cygnar's Junior Warcaster, Allison Jakes, as she follows her mentor, Commander Dalen Sturgis, in a response to a Khador invasion. She apparently grows in to a full Warcaster through the campaign and something happens to her mentor. It's not even very long, only comprising about 10 missions, I think.

LunarSol wrote:Alternating activations is definitely fashionable at the moment. I'm not sure its strictly superior, but it's very popular. I think it definitely has some big advantages, primarily in the form of reducing extended downtime for the inactive player, but it has a lot of quirks that can really cripple it if developers don't go out of their way to limit the power of things like activation advantage and really reduces model synergy. I haven't seen an AA game that can capture the sense of mechanical army identity Warcasters provide, even in games that have similar central character commands.

The main thing with WMH's implmentation at this point is just turn length. The opposing player is just out of the game for too long at the current game size and mistakes a player makes take too long to bare out. I'm not entirely sure what the best way to fix it is, but I definitely think something would be lost changing to full AA.

Having more of a reactionary system would help make it be more healthy. Right now, the only normal reaction system is Free Strikes, with Counter-Charge and Counter-Blast requiring the model to have the rule to use them.

The alternative is to go Warhammer and treat units as a cohesive whole with models as Damage markers instead of the model on model interaction they have been going with. Alternatively, is of course, smaller games, such as Brawlmachine or the 50 point games some have used.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 Wehrkind wrote:
I have seen lots of people playing TTWGs online with programs basically consisting of circles and rectangles (what was the one you used to play on, Salvage?) so it seems like a version of that that looked pretty and took care of rules too should be fairly popular and cheap.

Online options for tabletop minigames were around before the pandemic, but the last year has seen people get into them in a more serious way. WMH is played on Vassal or War Table, Kings of War on Universal Battle, 40k / Kill Team / Infinity on Tabletop Simulator, etc. Personally, I can't stand TTS because it simulates the experience of playing a game with 3D models, dice and terrain, which is clunky and disappointing when you're a kinaesthetic player (i.e. I want to see my actual minis and roll actual dice). This also means it poorly simulates playing the actual game, as so much goes into the simulation of the physical game (but let's be real, Warhammer is barely about the game and more about scooting things into position and seeing how well you can coerce as many dice as possible towards peak performance). UB on the other hand does KOW well, but KOW is a happily abstract game so it translates well - if again, no minis, no real dice, and computer measuring leads most players to strive for a level of geometric perfection that is rare in the real world (i.e. games take fething forever, thanks in part to being able to undo/redo everything).

I have no experience playing WMH online, but both tools are very abstract and seem to support the game well. I've thought about giving it a shot some time, despite being a very mini-driven miniwargamer, especially as I like skew lists that cost $$$ to build and probably suck. But I'm often held back by being pretty out of touch with actually playing WMH at this point :/

Vassal! That's the one I was thinking of! I am imagining the effective implementation of say Blood Bowl with the ability to place terrain etc. like Vassal. I would probably skip the AI entirely except in the form of a very basic tutorial bot to practice combos against.

TTS... I want to love it. I built a port for a board game into it some years back and it was good for that, but I haven't tried any actual gaming. Still, if one could optimize something similar to give 3d models, terrain they stand on, and then have it handle the rules, that wouldn't be the worst.

Oh, and also a HARD stop turn timer (They did that in the pc version of Blood Rage, which works very nicely as a game I think, if only a distant second to playing in person.)

RE: Warmachine Tactics: Aye, that sounds about right; I was thinking it wasn't exactly WMH on the pc, but a different game set in the world. I still don't get why companies do that... playing on the table with paints and dice and drinks and smells, totally different than playing online. I doubt many people will drop one for the other, but rather pursue online when it is more feasible than in person. I can only imagine the kind of filthy lucre one could have made offering a WMH or 40k tabletop-on-pc experience during the past year.

 LunarSol wrote:
Alternating activations is definitely fashionable at the moment. I'm not sure its strictly superior, but it's very popular. I think it definitely has some big advantages, primarily in the form of reducing extended downtime for the inactive player, but it has a lot of quirks that can really cripple it if developers don't go out of their way to limit the power of things like activation advantage and really reduces model synergy. I haven't seen an AA game that can capture the sense of mechanical army identity Warcasters provide, even in games that have similar central character commands.

The main thing with WMH's implmentation at this point is just turn length. The opposing player is just out of the game for too long at the current game size and mistakes a player makes take too long to bare out. I'm not entirely sure what the best way to fix it is, but I definitely think something would be lost changing to full AA.

As I wrote earlier, it is a choice in design. I know a lot of people that like the downtime of a I Go You Go system because they use it to think about their game. AA makes that more difficult, as does constant interruptions in the form of things like Tough Rolls (or AROs, or Overwatch rules, or a number of other not-your-turn activity). I also know personally like the "Plan Coming Together" aspect of sequential activation of all your models in a WMH IGYG turn. A lot reaction stuff messes that aspect up.

I think the key is balance. I go You Go is fine so long as one player can't wipe the other out in the first few turns super easily. The issue in 40K and AoS is that often as note you can do such significant damage in a single turn early on that it puts the opponent in a really bad position.

AoS even gets worse with having the doubleturn - which I think has a muted impact only because close combat alternates in its phase so the attacked player can at least make some first attacks during that phase. However as ranged units become more common and other things (like always attacks first) appear I figure people will start to feel the pinch more and more.



The issue in GW games is more that its super easy for some armies to simply steamroll early.


Instead what should happen is that steamrolling should be a mid to late game event and the result of key planning and playing early in the game; which should be more trading off like for like punches between armies.

deleted

My understanding was the forum closure was just another reaction to the WotC lawsuit. Their forums were being run almost entirely by unpaid volunteers and when they removed those programs they didn't have any way to moderate them.

 LunarSol wrote:
My understanding was the forum closure was just another reaction to the WotC lawsuit. Their forums were being run almost entirely by unpaid volunteers and when they removed those programs they didn't have any way to moderate them.

That was my understanding as well. There was a LOT of worry in the whole US part of the wargame industry about potential fallout from the Yale vs WOTC/Shawn vs WOTC cases and the later Emerald City comic con one. The end result was settlements in all three cases, but the judges ruled that the judge and con volunteer programs all clearly were volunteer programs, so the complaints did not look like they had much in the way of legs.

I still think it was a premature decicion by PP, but many gaming companies did some heavy backtracking during these cases.

deleted

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
My understanding was the forum closure was just another reaction to the WotC lawsuit. Their forums were being run almost entirely by unpaid volunteers and when they removed those programs they didn't have any way to moderate them.

A large number of reddit subreddits are moderated by unpaid volunteers as well, and reddit isn't shutting down anytime soon. All I'm saying is that maybe PP acted a bit hastily in that decision(and I still think shutting down Pressgangers was one of the dumbest things they could have done) and closing the public forums on their website effectively scattered all fans of PP across the multitude of the internet instead of giving them a single, main focal point to discuss the game.

I think part of PPs decision to can the forums was also due to the generally very negative response to Mk3. I feel that negativity was justified, and PP played that very badly. I think PP would have done better to acknowledge the community's frustration and admitted Mk3 had issues, they were working on them, etc. instead of taking their (forum) ball and going home. For me at least it solidified a sense that PP had become rather petulant and entitled towards their customers, much like GW had.

I hope PP can turn things around and that a Mk4 comes out that redeems the company and game. I really liked WMH Mk2, and I think the game has a lot of legs left to it. Arguably, they could probably release a Mk4 that is Mk2 with the worst balance issues fixed and just never release another new model, treating the game as a finished set, and do pretty well.

Thing is minicrate apparently makes a lot of money for them and whilst there is a collectable aspect to it; its basically at its core alternative sculpts for core models.

What they could (should) do is turn that on its head; start making actual replacement sculpts for models for existing armies. When you look at GW armies a lot of the core have been the same for years and years. Big forces with regular updates like Marines haven't had all that many totally new ideas over the years; just reimagined ones. Heck Primaris just copy-cat the same unit slots and types broadly speaking

PP could easily do several years of just updating models for hteir core line whilst adding one or two new models. The balance would remain fairly flat over that period in terms of adding new tricks; but it would let them get new fancy models out and I'm sure they've learned a thing or two since hteir first editions.

 Wehrkind wrote:
I think part of PPs decision to can the forums was also due to the generally very negative response to Mk3. I feel that negativity was justified, and PP played that very badly. I think PP would have done better to acknowledge the community's frustration and admitted Mk3 had issues, they were working on them, etc. instead of taking their (forum) ball and going home. For me at least it solidified a sense that PP had become rather petulant and entitled towards their customers, much like GW had.

Eh, there was a lot of it before Mk 3 was launched. Mk 3's launch just didn't do much to reduce it.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is minicrate apparently makes a lot of money for them and whilst there is a collectable aspect to it; its basically at its core alternative sculpts for core models.

What they could (should) do is turn that on its head; start making actual replacement sculpts for models for existing armies. When you look at GW armies a lot of the core have been the same for years and years. Big forces with regular updates like Marines haven't had all that many totally new ideas over the years; just reimagined ones. Heck Primaris just copy-cat the same unit slots and types broadly speaking

PP could easily do several years of just updating models for hteir core line whilst adding one or two new models. The balance would remain fairly flat over that period in terms of adding new tricks; but it would let them get new fancy models out and I'm sure they've learned a thing or two since hteir first editions.

Minicrate is a nice income source I am sure, but I have in on good authority that what makes them the big bucks is new faction releases or large releases for old factions.

I heard a great quote about GW from someone on the inside there: -"GW's most secure and largest source of income is a large number of guys buying the same Space Marine over and over, forever"

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:


Minicrate is a nice income source I am sure, but I have in on good authority that what makes them the big bucks is new faction releases or large releases for old factions.

I heard a great quote about GW from someone on the inside there: -"GW's most secure and largest source of income is a large number of guys buying the same Space Marine over and over, forever"

Generally that's true for the industry, hence the 'wave' nature of most releases. Pp were no different, with annual hordes and wm releases and then more recently 'one new faction every year'.


However, regarding minicrate, I've heard it from my own sources that minicrate is, or at least was pp's primary income, at least up to very recently. Wmh apparently barely keeps the lights on any more. Most of their r&d is going into warcaster as well, not wmh.

Perhaps it was for a time?

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
Perhaps it was for a time?

Indeed, maybe it still is, but until pp goes public and releases their financial we can only speculate.

Locally to me, Warmachine died when Mk3 came out. Which was a pity, as I was actually starting to get interested in it again after sitting out most of mk2.

To me, it seemed like the local competitive player base didn't care about Warmachine - they just wanted tournament events. Once Warmachine had a "wobble" in that competion gameplay, everyone moved over to Malifaux almost overnight. Then Guildball, then X-Wing.

40k has survived for thirty years despite the reputation of its rules by making something a lot of people get emotionally invested in - I kept my army despite it being rubbish for an edition or two because there was all that backstory to it that was what interested me. Warmachine started out like that, but then there was a year-long hiatus where all that happened was rules updates, with nothing of any interest coming out until Hordes began to add more narrative material again.

I've still got a couple of boxes of Menoth models - that thought of a huge Exemplar army is still one that tempts me - but they just gather dust now. :(

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


40k has survived for thirty years despite the reputation of its rules by making something a lot of people get emotionally invested in - I kept my army despite it being rubbish for an edition or two because there was all that backstory to it that was what interested me. Warmachine started out like that, but then there was a year-long hiatus where all that happened was rules updates, with nothing of any interest coming out until Hordes began to add more narrative material again.

I think this is something that is often overlooked about GW games. Rules wise they are not the greatest. But for 80-90% of the Wargaming community, the rules are "good enough" to have a fun game with friends on a Saturday afternoon. The entry level of the game is presented as such. the community is built around a fun game and hobby to play with friends backed up by amazing lore. Competitive play is something you can seek if you of a mind to. But most people really just play basement-hammer games for their entire involvement in the GW games.

The WM/H community is built around formal competition. Casual/narrative play and hobby are an add ons or niche corner cases you can go seek if you want to and can find the people who are like minded. But the general stance of the community is all about competition. Its how we measure ourselves and the success of our community. Its how we judge the worth of a model, list, theme, caster etc. Its all about that top table stat line. And PP seems unable or unwilling to say any different. If the game is to recover or regain its previous popularity etc, it needs that casual, hobby driven, basement machine crowd.

deleted

 Mr. Grey wrote:

Sunno wrote:

The WM/H community is built around formal competition. Casual/narrative play and hobby are an add ons or niche corner cases you can go seek if you want to and can find the people who are like minded. But the general stance of the community is all about competition. Its how we measure ourselves and the success of our community. Its how we judge the worth of a model, list, theme, caster etc. Its all about that top table stat line. And PP seems unable or unwilling to say any different. If the game is to recover or regain its previous popularity etc, it needs that casual, hobby driven, basement machine crowd.

I wouldn't mind if Warmachine had some way or method of playing a more "beer and pretzels" game built into the rules. A tight competitive ruleset is one thing, but sometimes it's nice to just hang out with a buddy and have a more casual game.

This is how our group played for many years before some people started to move away from the area. We were playing in our basement (well kitchen actually) totally oblivious to "the meta" and the wider community. The tight ruleset meant we could have fun games without needing to debate rules every 5 minutes. When my mates and I decided that to stop things getting repetitive we should look to play other people we went out to the wider world......

......and that's when our love of the game started to diminish if im honest. While we have met some lovely people, for the most part people we have met have been completely different from us in outlook, approach. We realised pretty swiftly that if we were going to play these people we needed to "get good" and spend hundreds of pounds to buy whatever the meta lists were at that time. And from there over the course of Mk3 im the only person left in our game group who has the remote interest in the game and any form of positive view of it.

I know, tiny violin, woe is me etc. But its a story iv heard over and over and over again. PP has huge issues as a company. But the community and the community attitude is one of the big reasons that WM/H is avoided by many people and stores and has such a large group of people actively advocating against it.

deleted

I found the meta- tourney vs casual issue with PP pretty similar to the one with GW. There always seemed to be a group who wanted to throw down unpainted meta armies and be kind of unpleasant, others who wanted to play nicely painted and entirely unworkable fluff armies, and some in the middle who had nice armies and were trying to win but were good sports. I think the PP system maybe favors more of the former, rather unpleasant group, but really I have seen about equal numbers of both.
That said, I have been very lucky to have pretty good gaming groups for a long time, and have been able to identify and hang out with the guys who can appreciate "I want to try out a new silly list" vs "Let's try and sharpen ourselves on each other's knives" kind of games, and enjoy both.

Mr. Grey wrote:I wouldn't mind if Warmachine had some way or method of playing a more "beer and pretzels" game built into the rules. A tight competitive ruleset is one thing, but sometimes it's nice to just hang out with a buddy and have a more casual game.

It does as much as 40K or AoS does. What matters is the attitude and willingness of the people who play it. It might surprise you to know that the only limitations on scenario is what you and another person are willing to work with, same as Warhammer. It might also surprise you to know that No Quarter often had scenarios which were purely narrative and not meant for the competitive scene at all. Yet, it was the local groups which determined how hard-core they were willing to accept.

For some evidence of that, look up Brawlmachine and how the response for it has been.

Wehrkind wrote:I found the meta- tourney vs casual issue with PP pretty similar to the one with GW. There always seemed to be a group who wanted to throw down unpainted meta armies and be kind of unpleasant, others who wanted to play nicely painted and entirely unworkable fluff armies, and some in the middle who had nice armies and were trying to win but were good sports. I think the PP system maybe favors more of the former, rather unpleasant group, but really I have seen about equal numbers of both.
That said, I have been very lucky to have pretty good gaming groups for a long time, and have been able to identify and hang out with the guys who can appreciate "I want to try out a new silly list" vs "Let's try and sharpen ourselves on each other's knives" kind of games, and enjoy both.

I think one of Warhammer's advantages is that their rules are just bad enough so that people don't take it too seriously. And yes, there are as many of the tourney people in 40K in the local area as there are in WMH. But Warhammer's rules are just so dang senseless at times it is harder to take seriously without damaging one's sense of logic. Warmachine is sold on that tight design, so I guess some people get caught in a competitive trap cycle.

I think too many people were caught up with the Steamroller scene that they lost sight of the numerous other ways people could choose to play the game. I also know of some that took off more for X-Wing where the rules are similarly tight, but didn't have to deal with the hobbying side of it. WMH models are quite nice, but they do have a lot of detail which can be intimidating to paint.

I admit I find it hard to relate to what some of you describe "mk3 was not so great so people went back to WH40K".

I, personally, do not consider WH40K to be a substitute to WM&H any more than Monopoly would be a substitute for me if for some reason I couldn't play Brass or Arkwright or 18XX. So for me it is surprising that for so many players they are really no different and just the fact that both are miniature wargames makes them interchangeable.

 Charistoph wrote:

It does as much as 40K or AoS does. What matters is the attitude and willingness of the people who play it. It might surprise you to know that the only limitations on scenario is what you and another person are willing to work with, same as Warhammer. It might also surprise you to know that No Quarter often had scenarios which were purely narrative and not meant for the competitive scene at all. Yet, it was the local groups which determined how hard-core they were willing to accept.

That was a part of the game from the very beginning. The Escalation campaign for Mk1 was purely narrative, a way to play through the storyline of the book with some possibility of variation. We did some of it back around 2008-2009 but with first the Superiority and then the Legends releases coming people wanted to play the new stuff and it eventually fell off. Oblivion's campaign system is another attempt to push narrative play after NQ went under, but as you write, local groups have individual preferences. That being said, most local (and we have 3 clubs) attempts at narrative play seem to sputter out no matter the system. Our Infinity: Paradiso campaign also failed, and with a few rare exceptions, narrative play campaigns for 40k locally don't have the legs to survive more than a few games.The ones that manage it are the groups dedicated to narrative play, and they tend to give tournament types and people in the middle (like me) a wide berth. Which is kind of sad. It doesn't help that many campaign systems that try to implement an "XP" or resource gain system barely survive more than four to five games because the gap becomes too big and the losers just give up. That was the fate of the Corellion campaign we did in Armada and I've never seen a Mordheim or Necromunda campaign survive more than four or five rounds either.

Cyel wrote:
I admit I find it hard to relate to what some of you describe "mk3 was not so great so people went back to WH40K".

I, personally, do not consider WH40K to be a substitute to WM&H any more than Monopoly would be a substitute for me if for some reason I couldn't play Brass or Arkwright or 18XX. So for me it is surprising that for so many players they are really no different and just the fact that both are miniature wargames makes them interchangeable.

It's for the same reason that some people watch rugby and some people watch football, and some people are happy to watch sports, regardless of thr shape of ball being kicked.

People went back to 40k for a lit of reasons, but I dont think mk3 was one of the biggest reasons. Truth is, I think the wmh malaise had set in mid way through mk2 and the rot had set in towards the end. Alomg with pp's other obvious missteps, Mk3 didn't do enough to grab those that remained (I'm in this camp) and didn't do enough to attract back those who'd gone back to gw games. And by that time you also have the 'playerbase' dilemma - fewer people playing wmh makes it harder to get people interested, whereas for gw it was the opposite.

deleted

I think in a way you are both right. 40k for me doesn't scratch the same itch as WMH; Frostgrave might be a better replacement in that regard. On the other hand, going back to 40k is key: damned near everyone has a 40k army (or 5) so if your goal is to play a game of an evening with a friend, that's an easy one.
Add in "Hey, 40k doesn't suck so bad anymore!" along with "WTF happened to my army with MK3?!" and you will get a lot of people thinking "Hey, we used to play 40k. Let's dust those little guys out".

That said, while I pulled out the Sisters for a few games, I didn't get pulled back into 40k. I just stopped playing wargames for a while, albeit mostly due to life changes in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note: with WMH Mk3 and wtf happened to my army:

From my own experience, the changes to Circle around Shifting Stones, power attacks and a few other odds and ends, I really didn't care much for how they played. My nascent, all conversion Skorne army... yea that didn't see the field again for a while. My Merc list was largely unchanged, but it was more a fun silly list than anything I wanted to play in a tournament.

So that's what I meant there. I know a lot of people really liked the changes in their chosen factions, but for me my core faction of Circle just stopped working the way I enjoyed, and my sub factions either got gutted or just a one off to begin with. (It didn't help my sub factions were 50-100% conversion custom armies that were only tournament legal with approval.)