What is it about Warmachine/Hordes that you don't like?

[Warp Zero]

First off, I'd like to say that we should keep this thread civil and constructive. I know gamers can get passionate about games they love or hate. Okay, with that said, I want to throw the title question out there.

What is it about Warmachine/Hordes that you don't like?

It could be the things that made you stop playing. It could be that you still play but just have a few minor gripes. I'd like to read any of these responses.

I have a couple of reasons for asking. One reason is because I just started the game myself and so far I'm enjoying it. However, before getting into the game, I only found positive reviews. I wanted to hear both sides to this game. I know why people have gotten into it, but I haven't heard from people who tried and it didn't like it. Or played for a while and then quit. The only time I hear why people didn't get into the game it was a very short answer that didn't reveal too much. I'd like to know more.

Another reason is because, I've always played a lot of table top war games over many years and I really like to delve into the game mechanics and examine what works for some people and what doesn't. I don't know if I'll ever become a game designer and make my own game. I don't think I'll ever will, but I still enjoy studying it. So please, let me hear your thoughts.

Granted, this forum may be the wrong place to post this question. Probably only people that really like the game come here. However, I didn't know where to post it. I definitely wasn't going to post it on the Privateer Press forums.

[Bingo the Fun Monkey]

That Page 5 "tradition" really grinds my gears.

[Darwin_green]

*putting on flame retardant typing gloves on.*

trying to get Warhammer 40k gamers to give it a shot.

[RandomThoughts]

1. I don't like the rulings on some stuff, that seems non-sensical for me and generally makes immersion in the game a bit hard:
Iron Flesh - makes you harder by somehow making you harder/heavier/ironer, which explains the Speed bump, but shouldn't it increase ARM instead of DEF?
Armor Penetration: Shouldn't it half ARM on all targets, not just ones with (arbitrary) big base sizes?
etc.

2. The game sometimes feels too caster-centric to me. I love infantry and troops doing their thing, and while most of my recent games find the right mix between Infantry and caster both shining, I also had games that felt like two super-heroes duking it out with some hapless bystanders around them.

3. I think many people are originally put off by non-streamlined unit design. It's like, most units seem a bit unwieldy and clunky, some parts never seem to fit in. Like half the spell-list of your caster at first makes no sense to you, or you can't pin down whether your jack is supposed to be ranged or melee, or your unit has a bunch of abilities that don't seem to work well together, or your caster has two awesome spells you want to cast all the time, but his focus only allows one of them each turn. Or just fitting your army into the 15/25 point limit without running a point short or having to take something you don't want because you have one or two points left over at the end. Stuff like that.
(Interestingly, the more you play, the more you get beyond these, to the point where you actually like the choices units with multiple purposes give you and stuff like that)

I'll post more if I can think of more.

RT

[Grimtuff]

Armor Penetration: Shouldn't it half ARM on all targets, not just ones with (arbitrary) big base sizes?
etc.

2 words: Game balance. Now you know to keep said Casters away from Behemoth, eMagnus, eKreoss etc. On the flipside it makes models on small bases with rather high armour a good thing to go toe to toe with them, as they have trouble doing any significant damage to them. It's things like this that simply make it a better game as you cannot just run in a wildly hit things and expect to come out on top all the time. You have to think about unit placement and what can deal with what. This special rule is just a microcosm of Warmahordes (relatively) tight rules.

2. The game sometimes feels too caster-centric to me. I love infantry and troops doing their thing, and while most of my recent games find the right mix between Infantry and caster both shining, I also had games that felt like two super-heroes duking it out with some hapless bystanders around them.

Try playing scenarios. That is all.

3. ...your caster has two awesome spells you want to cast all the time, but his focus only allows one of them each turn.

Complaining about pVlad. Classy.

Or just fitting your army into the 15/25 point limit without running a point short or having to take something you don't want because you have one or two points left over at the end. Stuff like that.

So Reinholt, Wardogs, Arcanists etc. are stuff you don't want. Mmmkaaayyy...

trying to get Warhammer 40k gamers to give it a shot.

This, this, this. Oh God this.

In my experience, it's not that they don't want to play the game, it's that they won't divert funds from their precious GW, despite moaning about pretty much everything regarding them.

Go figure.

[Hellebore]

I don't like game mechanics in general where you instantly win by killing one model. That background reinforces it doesn't make such a mechanic good.

I don't like their slogan. I find the whole thing arrogant, like they think they're taking the moral highground and everyone else should agree or shutup. The game should speak for itself.

I don't like the aesthetic of a great proportion of their miniatures. Only a few models caught my attention. I hate oversized shoulder pads, fists, weapons and warjacks that are so deformed their heads are in their crotches. I can appreciate GW's scale given the OTT of warmahordes...

I also don't like mechanics being presented by tiny little icons. It doesn't make learning the rules any faster than writing the name of the ability, especially when said ability icons are ~2mm in diameter on the cards....

On the other hand I do appreciate their bluntness about what they want you to get out of the game ala page 5. There are some models I like and have recently purchased (mainly non foot cataphract skorne). I also do think that in general their rules are well thought out and designed. The game works. I just don't like all or nothing victory built into them.

Hellebore

[commanddarksun]

The only issue i have is the pricing tbh but that because its seems that things are $=£ which means we pay alot more for it. The only problems I have with it as a system is the main books(prime and primal) need to be sorted out so they are easier to read. Thats my opinion i could be wrong, o well.

[NixonAsADaemonPrince]

I don't like game mechanics in general where you instantly win by killing one model. That background reinforces it doesn't make such a mechanic good.

I don't like their slogan. I find the whole thing arrogant, like they think they're taking the moral highground and everyone else should agree or shutup. The game should speak for itself.

I don't like the aesthetic of a great proportion of their miniatures. Only a few models caught my attention. I hate oversized shoulder pads, fists, weapons and warjacks that are so deformed their heads are in their crotches. I can appreciate GW's scale given the OTT of warmahordes...

I also don't like mechanics being presented by tiny little icons. It doesn't make learning the rules any faster than writing the name of the ability, especially when said ability icons are ~2mm in diameter on the cards....

On the other hand I do appreciate their bluntness about what they want you to get out of the game ala page 5. There are some models I like and have recently purchased (mainly non foot cataphract skorne). I also do think that in general their rules are well thought out and designed. The game works. I just don't like all or nothing victory built into them.

Hellebore

Every single thing that this fine gentleman has just said.

I dislike the focus on the caster and that you lose if he/she dies. I prefer having all my units able to act independently and fight on until the bitter end.

The miniature style is, in general, not for me. A little too steampunk for my tastes, though I will say that some of the character models look rather nice.

The slightly arrogant attitude which surrounds it is also off putting, it always feels like I'm somehow stupid for liking GW games. I don't think that of people who play Warmachine (If you're enjoying the game it obviously suits you) so I feel it's a bit unnecessary to receive that opinion (Though I will stress that this is by no means from every WM player I've met, just a vocal few).

I must admit that despite all this I'm always tempted to start WM, what with all the positive reviews, as I'm sure that my opinion will change in some areas as I really get into the game. The main things stopping me are that I can never find a group of models which I really like, and there aren't exactly a lot of WM players round here.

[Zond]

Page 5 and the slogan put me off the game. Strikes me as immature, a little sexist and generally arrogant. It also seems to be used to justify the fanatacism surrounding Privateer Press, which is exactly the same as the fanatacism surrounding Games Workshop and other manufacturers, yet comes off as more "holier than thou".

I do like the look of most of the models and I have all the Iron Kingdoms RPG books as I enjoy the background, but the general attitude I percieve as surrounding the game puts me off.

[RandomThoughts]

2 words: Game balance. Now you know to keep said Casters away from Behemoth, eMagnus, eKreoss etc. On the flipside it makes models on small bases with rather high armour a good thing to go toe to toe with them, as they have trouble doing any significant damage to them. It's things like this that simply make it a better game as you cannot just run in a wildly hit things and expect to come out on top all the time. You have to think about unit placement and what can deal with what. This special rule is just a microcosm of Warmahordes (relatively) tight rules.

Try playing scenarios. That is all.

Complaining about pVlad. Classy.

So Reinholt, Wardogs, Arcanists etc. are stuff you don't want. Mmmkaaayyy...

Just out of curiosity, was that condescending tone intended?

I mean, seriously, your whole post comes across like a personal attack? Did I act like a total jerk to warrant that behavior, or what's your deal?

To answer directly to your points:
1. Perhaps the current armor piercing rule has a purpose in the gaming context of the game, I certainly won't deny it. My point is this: There are certain rules that make me go "that doesn't make sense" - a whole lot less than in 40K, don't get me wrong, but since the OP explicitely asked for things I don't like, I think it's a fair point.
2. I play scenarios most of the time, but it doesn't always stop the caster-centricity, especially with casters like pSorscha and pCaine with their game-changing Feats.
I once saw a game that pSorscha won before a single casualty was inflicted by freezing all enemy units in running distance of the control zone in turn 2...
Don't get me wrong, again, I accept the power of Warcasters and I mostly like using them, but sometimes they just seem to concentrate too much game-changing power in one spot. And, please don't forget, Casters dominate games even more when people unfamiliar with or new to the game play it.
3. Did you notice the point where I explicitly said "makes it hard for new players, trying to get into the game"? You know, people who don't know yet what to do with various solos, because they are still grappling with things like pVlad and the uncertainty which of his mutually exclusive spells is better and things like that?

[Aladin_sane]

I guess I miss the customisation that GW offers with its models and GW have been tempting me back with their recent release of amazing miniatures. But the well designed game keeps me with H/WM and they do have some stand out models.

I don't get why page 5 is such a big thing for a lot of people, I never see it mentioned here in the UK, nor do I get this 'arrogance' some of the above have mentioned.

[commanddarksun]

same really im still annoyed at how much i have to spend money wise on a unit

[CasaHouse]

I have to agree that the caster-assassination angle is kind of a turn-off for me. Some of the greatest fun I've had with the Warhammer games has been pulling off a stalemate or even a win when my army has been decimated and all my characters are dead. But in Warmahordes, if your character dies, all your other dudes just give up. **** it, they're all going home. I don't like that.

-Casa

[lbecks]

I don't like metal minis anymore. And they put mold lines in weird places for their plastic.

[khaosBlizzard]

I don't like game mechanics in general where you instantly win by killing one model. That background reinforces it doesn't make such a mechanic good.

you dont have to play assassination games. you can play scenarios or just go untill one side completely wipes out the other

[Warp Zero]

trying to get Warhammer 40k gamers to give it a shot.

I'm a regular player of 40k. Been playing since the beginning of 3rd edition. I'm still playing to this day. I actually enjoy both games. I treat it like a mood thing. What am I in the mood for? Like food. You in the mood for pizza or burgers?

However, it wasn't an easy and smooth journey when in came to getting into Warmachine/Hordes and coming from 40k. I know each person's story varies, but for me, it was like this: the Warmachine/Hordes players at my gaming store were okay guys and all, but the way they'd bash 40k turned me off. Now, it wasn't the act of bashing 40k that turned me off. I do that too and I play the game. It was the things they said that were stupid about 40k that I disagreed with. Then, couple with that, what they said about Warmachine/Hordes that, in their eyes, "fixes" those problems 40k had, this all made me think Warmachine/Hordes wasn't for me. Actually, there are two more factors at the time. The arrogance of the Warmachine/Hordes players was one. The other being that I kept hearing how it's possible (in Mk.I) to just caster kill on turn 1 and that it was totally common enough to be a negative play experience.

Then Mk.II came along and I read some interviews with the PP guys and they convinced me that some of those oddities of Mk.I would be gone. I also figured I'd give the game a shot and form my own opinion rather than let a few bad representatives of the player base turn me off to the game. I'm glad I did, it turned out to be a pretty fun game so far.

My tip to Warmachine/Hordes players that want to recruit 40k players is this: don't insult their game. In a way, by saying 40k sucks, you're saying their stupid for playing it. Its one step away from just straight calling them stupid. You're not going to recruit like that.

Anyways...

I enjoyed reading the responses so far. Please, keep 'em coming. I wanna read more.

[HRM]

I don't like how internal balance isn't as good as the PP fanboys make it out to be. Has anyone EVER taken Winter Guard Infantry without taking the whole "deathstar"? Seriously, if the unit is not good on it's own, if the UA is a de facto auto-include... then just make the UA part of the unit, and bump up the cosat by however many points.

[Dyrnwyn]

Right now I dislike the trend towards 'BIGGER' that seems to be popping up in WM/H. First Battle Engines, now Collossals. I didn't like it when GW did Apocalypse, or shoehorned really big kits into stock armies, like that giant spider thing in OnG, or the Trygon/Mawloc, or basically anything on the new oval bases or flying stands. I'm disappointed to see the same sort of focus in WM/H.

I don't have any general gameplay or rules gripes - most of my issues with PP are fiddly rules issues, and 'how could you screw up this caster?' whines. I absolutely hate the way they handled eBaldur, and while I feel he is a halfway decent scenario 'lock, he's NOT a very good lock to run all Wolds with, which his Primal version can do just fine. eMagnus is one of my favorite casters, but It'd be nice if he had one more focus or retained Resourceful from his Prime version - eMags is more of a super-solo than a jack-friendly caster.

I don't like game mechanics in general where you instantly win by killing one model. That background reinforces it doesn't make such a mechanic good.

To be fair, I have played games where we continued to play even after losing a caster. Problem is that the caster is so central to your force that losing it basically guarantees a loss - having the game stop at caster kill just keeps you from playing out the bitter conclusion. Certainly, there are moments where you COULD conceivably still win after losing your warnoun, but having all your beasts go feral or all your jacks go inert pretty much neuters a big chunk of your list, or all of it in some cases. Why keep going to the bitter end, and just call it to save time?

[Keravin]

I don't like how internal balance isn't as good as the PP fanboys make it out to be. Has anyone EVER taken Winter Guard Infantry without taking the whole "deathstar"? Seriously, if the unit is not good on it's own, if the UA is a de facto auto-include... then just make the UA part of the unit, and bump up the cosat by however many points.

Yes pretty regularly. They fulfil a different function, but they are nice and cheap. Plus with 35 winter guard I can't take them all as deathstars because there is a limit on the uA and only one Joe.

[Hellebore]

To be fair, I have played games where we continued to play even after losing a caster. Problem is that the caster is so central to your force that losing it basically guarantees a loss - having the game stop at caster kill just keeps you from playing out the bitter conclusion. Certainly, there are moments where you COULD conceivably still win after losing your warnoun, but having all your beasts go feral or all your jacks go inert pretty much neuters a big chunk of your list, or all of it in some cases. Why keep going to the bitter end, and just call it to save time?

As I said, that the background reinforces that mechanic doesn't really make it good. The entire premise of the game and background revolves around the concept that the warcaster/warlock is absolutely central to the army. Removing them makes most things stop working altogether/go out of control. I don't like that they decided to make the game and setting work that way. Playing on doesn't make this mechanic any better, it just reinforces the problem. Even if you don't stop playing when the caster is dead, removing them effectively removes your jacks/beasts and makes it all but a victory.

It creates a decisive feel, but I don't like mechanics that are so dependent on one another that removing them effectively stops the game.

Hellebore