Read an interesting thread; what is your take?

[stoutdwarf]

Hello all,

I am relatively new at this, both to posting and playing Warmahordes. However, I just finished reading a quite lengthy forum post about what people consider are the downsides to playing Warmachine/Hordes (can be found here ). It boiled down to a lot of bickering, as most opinion posts do, but I came across sort of a conundrum: there was a lot of discussion about the infamous or famous "Page 5". There were quite a few people who were really turned off by them and other who thought they were very tongue in cheek. I am of the latter opinion: that it was more about poking fun at the hobby as well as helping understand that Warmahordes is very fast-paced and often brutal to play.

I was just wondering what you guys thought? Do some players hide behind "Page 5" or does it promote fair and honest play?

There were a lot of of other things brought up as well, but I thought this was the most interesting and I had never thought about "Page 5" that much before this.

A soul token for your thoughts

[MagnustheJust]

Page 5 was Privateer Press's mission statement back when. But some [CENSORED] individuals decided to use it as a rallying banner for wearing your keester as a hat.

It has since become a humorous way of saying be civil when setting about trying to kill each other.

As for the skewed discussion, and I say skewed in relation to some folks' perspective, has been going on since Hordes was released.

My advice is to jut smile & nod as these arguments rage on, and just enjoy the game...


Also, Warseer has a reputation for being a hotbed of inane & insane full on flame wars.

[Quizboy]

I've got to admit, the Page 5 stuff very nearly put me off bothering with Warmachine/Hordes, when I was new to it all. I've encountered more than a lifetime's worth of that kind of dopey macho-nerd chest-thumping, and my first reaction was that the sort of people who'd think that was a good way to start a book weren't likely to be the sort of people who'd write good, reasoned rules and fiction I'd enjoy. I'd rather design decisions be based on something more than whether they make someone feel like a big man.

Thankfully, it turns out the actual content of the games doesn't feel like it's being steered by whoever wrote Page 5, and I've had a fantastic time with them. Which I suppose points to it being a holdover from MK1, when things were pretty different, but also something enough people seem to cling to as a weird point of pride in their game system choice that it'll probably be around forever.

Beyond that, all the stuff about aggressive play I can't read as anything but insecurity. If the rules encourage and reward aggression, there really shouldn't be any need for a page-long exhortation (that kind of reads like it was written with one hand) to play the game the way I'm supposed to. You don't want players to castle up, game scenarios, rules-lawyer? The rules are kind of within your control, write rules that don't encourage that stuff. Oh hey, you already did, awesome! So why am I reading this breathless try-hard screed pleading with me to play properly?

However, a pear is a nutritious and tasty snack, and if I don't actually have one to hand then I'm certainly playing as if I do.

[Xarian]

Beyond that, all the stuff about aggressive play I can't read as anything but insecurity. If the rules encourage and reward aggression, there really shouldn't be any need for a page-long exhortation (that kind of reads like it was written with one hand) to play the game the way I'm supposed to.

Imagine, if you will, that you are thinking about trying WM for the first time after playing 40k (or no wargame at all). You go to your FLGS and grab a WM rulebook - and make it to page 5. It says that the game rewards aggressive play - no more static gun lines! no more frustration with long-ranged bombardment and massive denial!

That's the whole point of that bit about 'rewarding aggression'. Some games reward sitting on your butt (static gun lines, artillery). WM doesn't, and new players won't know that right away. That's why it's on page 5 instead of, say, page 237.

[Quizboy]

Yeah, I see your point that it's aimed at differentiating the game from everything else for potential new players. On the other hand, not all that long ago I literally was thinking about playing WM for the first time, went to my local store, grabbed a copy of the rulebook, and read a page that told me the designers were kind of obnoxious and insecure. And honestly, I put the book down and it was only by chance I got roped into a trial game months later, and found out how much Page 5 misrepresents an amazing set of rules, background and models. So I don't know, whatever the intent, maybe it's bringing in more people than it warns away, maybe the reverse.

I think I may be playing things wrong, and this may be one for the rules forum, but does latching on to your opponent's jugular like a rabid dog that hasn't eaten in days come before or after allocating focus? Also it seems to keep getting me banned from stores

edit: I mean yeah, I definitely see it's not meant to be read as if it's being said with this completely deadpan straight face (I'd add that I think 40k lost a lot of its charm when it forgot it was 2000AD the tabletop game, ie so grim it was funny), but jokey or not, it is what PP chose to put out there right at the front of the book to represent themselves, and I think there's a lot of room to talk about what it's trying to say and why without taking it super seriously. It may not be 100% serious, but it's clearly important to someone.

Last thing, and even if you skipped the rest of my waffle, this is exactly what they should put on Page 5 of MKIII.

[WithScience]

Page 5 is a great way to differentiate WM/H from other games. If you play a game that's not balanced, then it makes sense to develop informal ways to make the game fair. The main way of doing this is stigmatizing people who use the powerful stuff, or play to win. Page 5, to me, says, "Leave the balance to us; you just focus on having fun." This is probably my favorite part of WM/H: there's no passive-aggressive pressure to not play hard. Hard =\= mean, or in a jerkish fashion.

Honestly, the only gamer explosions I've seen have been 40k. The combination of really vague rules and informal norms for "fair" armies causes rather heated disputes; it's the whole bad fences make bad neighbors principle.

[Triumph Of Man]

After dealing with enough whining and RAI vs RAW bollocks, page 5 seems pretty nice to me.

[Pixelcycle]

I think the biggest thing page five meant to me was "it's okay to play the army that you want to play." After years of comp scores and sportsmanship and being called cheesy if I took any special bells and whistles for my 40k army it was rather refreshing to see that in a rulebook.

I could really do without the machismo chest beating that comes along with it, but I don't think that's something that is caused by page five and is more endemic of gaming in general.

[Lord Sessadore]

Page 5 is a great way to differentiate WM/H from other games. If you play a game that's not balanced, then it makes sense to develop informal ways to make the game fair. The main way of doing this is stigmatizing people who use the powerful stuff, or play to win. Page 5, to me, says, "Leave the balance to us; you just focus on having fun." This is probably my favorite part of WM/H: there's no passive-aggressive pressure to not play hard. Hard =\= mean, or in a jerkish fashion.

This is the message I got from it as well. Play what you want, play hard, and don't worry so much about whether it's cheesy/broken/whatever.

Also, I'm a pretty firm believer that if a player stomps all over someone (in the game or socially) and uses Page 5 as an excuse to tell the other guy to suck it up, he's not following Page 5. I'm pretty sure Page 5 says (or at least strongly suggests) you not be a jerk.

[stoutdwarf]

Thanks for the feedback: that is sort of what I thought. I think that sometimes it is difficult, as some people have pointed out, coming from a game where it is frowned upon to beat your opponent, then come to a game where it is expected that some of your best models and units can get stomped by your friends dire troll, all while he is healing from your dead soldiers. I have seen really positive things here, and that was part of the reason that I switched: I liked the community and it was more helpful and the skirmish style appealed to me. Now I just have to find other who can play in the Prairie of Western Minnesota. =]

On a side note, Warseer is a dark place and should be avoided.

Also, Warseer has a reputation for being a hotbed of inane & insane full on flame wars.

Duly noted. So what would be your recommendations for new players then, take "Page 5" with a large grain of salt at first?

[Lich_Lord_X]

On a side note, Warseer is a dark place and should be avoided.

Warseer is the unofficial-official GW forums. PP hate is incredibly common and quite unfair most of the time. The second I saw that the OP linked to them I laughed and didn't even bother.

[Lich_Lord_X]

For sure. Also take it as a note that if something in the game seems unbeatable or broken, that just means you haven't figured out the solution yet.

It also means don't rage quite because somebody beat you.

[NotInKansas1911]

I like page 5. Generally I've found that if someone is put off by page 5, they will be put off from Warmahordes.

I, on the other hand, took a photo of it and sent it to my friend when we were exploring new games other than 40something. He sold $500 in Tau and I shelved nearly $1000 in IG and Black Templar models accrued over 10 years and we haven't gone back. Page 5 is what sold us on the game.

[hackdZ]

Page 5 was one of the reasons I actually started playing this game.

I was tired of getting dirty looks for fielding models other people thought we're clutch or cheesy. It's essentially encouraging people to examine their own play rather than whine and cry imbalance.

[Matthaeus]

found out how much Page 5 misrepresents an amazing set of rules, background and models.

"obnoxious and insecure" ? That interpretation might well be saying more about you than about them; they certainly don't take it as seriously as you. Which is why there is no misrepresentation. Page 5 does a great job at being the introductory declaration of intent to a tight ruleset designed to bring about unrestrained full-throttle gameplay.
I'm certainly not one to endorse machismo, but I don't see any in page 5; just the promise of full-on clashes in good spirit (part 4 is about sportsmanship).

[Bollster]

I think it's a little bit sexist, not intentionally of course and they have put a line in to that effect, that it isn't supposed to be gender discriminatory, but they could have used a different phrase that means the same thing without the tired implication that testicles are associated with courage, daring, risk taking, etc. It's only a minor gripe and it really doesn't ruin anything for me at all, but I do think that could turn off some people when they first see it.

[Matthaeus]

About "play like you've got a pair", I suppose ? True, "guts" for instance would have conveyed the same meaning, but I think it doesn't sound as good. I guess a case could be made for it, but ultimately it's a slogan. Slogans are stupid and exaggerated by design. I seem to remember this one just intrigued me with its over-the-top'ness.

[Rochr]

Interesting thread about Warmahordes on Warseer? Half of the players got a META of 2-3 people and the other half are just GW players who never played it being haters. Move along people.

[Sheer_Falacy]

Did anyone hating on the thread (or the warseer in general) actually read it?

One of the complaints that shows up a few times in the thread is that Warmachine players look down on players of other games, particularly 40k. Try to prove them wrong.

[Wishing]

It also means don't rage quite because somebody beat you.

This is the main way I interpret page 5. Despite being presented in a machismo fashion of "are you hard enough?" kind of language, the underlying point is to approach the games maturely. Take the game for what it is, play the way you want to play, and don't throw a tantrum when you lose. Accept that it's just a game, and the point is to go into it with an open mind and push some models around and have fun, without obsessing over min-maxing or game balance.

[Quizboy]

(you know, I REALLY could use some sleep and I am making no damn sense in this comment, so I'm going to stop editing it and SLEEP LIKE I'VE GOT A PAIR!)

[PG_Kaptajn Congoboy]

I found Page 5 (I started back in Mk1 days) to be very entertaining when I first read it. It was a "mission statement" that promoted the game as a balls-to-the-wall, hee-haw, stereoid-fueled ***-kickin' manly exercise...to an audience was miniature gamers. How the original Page 5 could be read as anything but a tongue-in-cheek joke is competely beyond me. Mk2 Page 5 is just Wheaton's Law in five points. Which, I guess, is fine, but not as amusing.

[HRM]

Interesting thread about Warmahordes on Warseer? Half of the players got a META of 2-3 people and the other half are just GW players who never played it being haters. Move along people.

Not accurate, but whatever. At least the mods aren't so heavy-handed over there as they are here.

[Slice]

There is one guy that hates the term "threat range" because it sounds too nerdy.

Another one suggested then he should rename it to "Horrible brutality radius" - which i will do from now on. :P

[Wishing]

I post on warseer, including in the PP section, though there doesn't seem to be much point in doing so since there is almost no traffic there compared to here... never noticed any difference in post quality though.

[Lich_Lord_X]

Not accurate, but whatever. At least the mods aren't so heavy-handed over there as they are here.

No they are worse on warseer. I once posted an image macro to be funny and they deleted the post and a mod PM'd and told me to go back to reddit. They also close more than half the threads that get opened on there.

[HRM]

There is one guy that hates the term "threat range" because it sounds too nerdy.

That'd be me. I stand by my opinion.

[HRM]

No they are worse on warseer. I once posted an image macro to be funny and they deleted the post and a mod PM'd and told me to go back to reddit. They also close more than half the threads that get opened on there.

Really? I've never noticed a thread get locked on Warseer, but I'll confess I'm not there much.

I dunno... I see threads locked here all the time and wonder why. Like the Rock Wall thread - nothing was said that warranted a closure in my opinion. No-one can tolerate a little good old-fashioned flame war anymore. Everyone gets all butt-hurt over it.

[Zwaggs33]

To be honest, reading page 5 made me want to take a deeper look into this game. I thought it was hilarious! The company made me laugh, in only 5 pages, so I was ready to continue. Still find it rather funny.

[West996]

Did anyone hating on the thread (or the warseer in general) actually read it?

One of the complaints that shows up a few times in the thread is that Warmachine players look down on players of other games, particularly 40k. Try to prove them wrong.

I think it is important to put the animosity between GW and PP players into perspective. Personally I break it down into three different categories.

1) The first is that much of it is a half serious 'my game is better' rivalry where it is only natural to display a little bit of animosity toward your competition. The same rivalry that is displayed between factions.

We don't usually even mention 'the other game' in name on these forums. Mostly because it starts flame wars but also because of this friendly rivalry.

I played a computer game called Terraira which for some reason was directly compared to Mine Craft. Two competing games with fiercely loyal fan bases. On those forms we call Mine Craft 'Voldamort'.

2) Much of the hate you see is pure internet trolling. Don't let that represent the actual opinion of either side. This is the internet after all and trolls abound.

3) The third forum of this perceived 'looking down on' is a little harder to distinguish. I will speak on this from a personal stand point. To preface, I played Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k for many many years and I did enjoy my time playing them. So they are 'good' games.

There is a big 'BUT' that follows that statement however. After being introduced to WM/H I do strongly believe that it is a superior game system to that of the Warhammers and I don't think this is solely opinion based.

With out going into too much detail I'll just say that it seems obvious that WM/H has a much better overall game balance and rule set. The term 'rule lawyer' doesn't even exist in WM/H. There is no room for lawyering. It is such a great rule system and a real pleasure to play with.

So I don't look down on GW players, but I do truly believe that if everyone who played GW games gave PP games an honest try they would easily be converted. I do believe it is a superior product.

As for Page 5, I never thought about it before but I guess you can take it a few different ways.

When I first read it I laughed and I thought it just meant that PP had a sense of humor.

[Wishing]

After being introduced to WM/H I do strongly believe that it is a superior game system to that of the Warhammers and I don't think this is solely opinion based.

With out going into too much detail I'll just say that it seems obvious that WM/H has a much better overall game balance and rule set. The term 'rule lawyer' doesn't even exist in WM/H. There is no room for lawyering. It is such a great rule system and a real pleasure to play with.

So I don't look down on GW players, but I do truly believe that if everyone who played GW games gave PP games an honest try they would easily be converted. I do believe it is a superior product.

But that *is* looking down on GW players, because you feel that they are attached to an inferior product, which can only be because they haven't seen the light yet. That WM has a more precise and consistent set of rules than 40k isn't something that I personally dispute, but I do think that this is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Players of 40k play it because they like the models, the fluff, the universe and the whole feel of the franchise. They may prefer the chaotic nature of rolling buckets of dice and randomly written codexes to WM's more streamlined and clinical structure of gameplay and design. You can compare the way the different games are written and produced and come to your own conclusions, but feeling that your choice is objectively the superior one is suggestive of arrogance. I'm sure you're not an arrogant person, but in my view it's not respectful of others to think that they only make choices different from yours because of a lack of education. There's much more to it than that.

Also, rules lawyering definitely exists in WM. Every miniature game has casual/competitive/rules lawyer camps, and WM is no exception.

[muag]

however there are those 40k players who are zealots who wont even look at a wm/h merch while its on the shelf. i am myself a soon to be 40k convert i can speak from personal experience of this, there are even some who refuse to even look at warhammer fantasy merchandise for fear it will mess with there favor with the dice gods. my personal opinion on the matter is that wm/h is the better system even though i have yet to purchase a model or even play the game. the only two things are preventing my conversion 1 is money and two the lack of a meta at my local game store

[Negatorxx]

But that *is* looking down on GW players, because you feel that they are attached to an inferior product, which can only be because they haven't seen the light yet. That WM has a more precise and consistent set of rules than 40k isn't something that I personally dispute, but I do think that this is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Players of 40k play it because they like the models, the fluff, the universe and the whole feel of the franchise. They may prefer the chaotic nature of rolling buckets of dice and randomly written codexes to WM's more streamlined and clinical structure of gameplay and design. You can compare the way the different games are written and produced and come to your own conclusions, but feeling that your choice is objectively the superior one is suggestive of arrogance. I'm sure you're not an arrogant person, but in my view it's not respectful of others to think that they only make choices different from yours because of a lack of education. There's much more to it than that.

Also, rules lawyering definitely exists in WM. Every miniature game has casual/competitive/rules lawyer camps, and WM is no exception.

clarity of rules is highly relevant to the quality of a 'game'. Now if you want to compare the 'hobby'.....

And the rules lawyering of wm/h is barely perceptible compared to 40k...

[quindraco]

I think the spirit behind page 5 is very good, but frankly the language is needlessly sexist. I happen to agree with Betty White on the colloquialism employed, but I think it would be best to avoid any sexist language at all in the rulebook, and express the same view in gender-neutral terms.

[Wishing]

clarity of rules is highly relevant to the quality of a 'game'. Now if you want to compare the 'hobby'.....

Clarity of rules is certainly a factor when it comes to evaluating the quality of a ruleset, but it's not the only or the defining factor in how fun it is to play. If you take a random pair of people, ask them to play a game of 40k and a game of WM, then ask which they enjoyed more, they aren't likely to answer "WM had more clarity in its rules writing, therefore I enjoyed it more". They're going to enjoy the game or not based on the gameplay experience itself, which will be based on a subjective feel of what kind of gameplay the subjects prefer. You can't just categorically state that clearer rules means a more fun game (which is what a "good" game should be).

And as you suggest, when someone says that they don't understand why anyone would play 40k over WM since WM has clearer and more balanced rules, they are ignoring the entire hobby side, which is hugely important for most gamers in my experience.

[Sul-Menite]

I don't mind the message it's trying to send but the sexist language did put me off (I'm a woman) and I'm glad that they have seemingly dropped it.

[Snarl]

Did anyone hating on the thread (or the warseer in general) actually read it?

One of the complaints that shows up a few times in the thread is that Warmachine players look down on players of other games, particularly 40k. Try to prove them wrong.

My personal observation is that this is prevalent in players invested solely in any one game systems for sub-consicious reasons: their local meta size. TT communities thrive on a large and diverse group (i.e. Meta), so members of group 1 put down the game of group 2 in order to sustain or increase their Meta. In a general sense, these persons are simply protecting their investment in the specific hobby title by ensuring they have opponents. MMOs have the same phenomenon for the same reasons.

My favourite of course is the posts by "converts"; at least those that aren't guerilla marketing posts. I find the need to announce the decision to switch games fascinating.

Of course this only applies to my observations of vocal (well, internet-wise) players of single systems. Your mileage may vary.

[Blarmb]

Also, rules lawyering definitely exists in WM. Every miniature game has casual/competitive/rules lawyer camps, and WM is no exception.

Except that "Rules Lawyering" is for the most part a healthy thing in Warmahordes. Complaining about "Rules Lawyering" in Warmahordes is like complaining about it in Magic: The Gathering, pointless. The rules are deliberately written, clear and cohesive. For any given situation there is not only a correct ruling, but 99% of the time it flows in an understandable way from commonly used play mechanics.

This is different in some games, for instance 40k. The 40k ruleset doesn't even use consistent terminology from book to book, phrases like "Removed from play", "Removed as a casualty", "Destroyed", "Killed" all may or may not refer to the same situation each other and may or may not even refer to things consistently between books. The rules contradict themselves in places and sometimes rules are little more the bits of flavor text, without the actual mechanics ever being described.

In environment like that "Rules Lawyering" is often degenerate and little more than attempt to interpret the extreme levels of vagueness in your favor.


In something like an RPG, D&D, WoD and the like rules lawyering is bad because sometimes telling a good story or having fun with the group demands bending the existing rules. They're a noncompetitive game, so throwing out rules when you need isn't inherently negative. Someone who is being a "Rules Lawyer" in an RPG is basically just saying "STOP HAVING FUN GUYS".


I just don't think it's fair to call looking for rules cohesion in a competitive game with tight rules (Warmhordes) is "Rule Lawyering" in the same sense it is in a game with vague, nebulous rules or a noncompetitive sort of game.

[Heavygear]

In my local meta I and other Warmahordes players took a lot of crap over starting a new game. Fantasy and 40k and Mordheim were about the only things being played.

First it was because we were being flighty, switching back and forth between many different games. That ended after we just played Warmhordes non stop for like a year.

Then we were generally left out of any GW based games because we were labeled "Traitors" and "Warmahordes only players" so we didn't play GW games anymore.

Then we found out what it all really boiled down to was the GW players were simply afraid that no one would play with them anymore and since they all have thousands of dollars invested in GW they panicked and freaked when we found a game we considered to be just as if not more fun to play.

The thing is I have money invested in both games and enjoy both.

Now when people ask me what I play I just say "I swing both ways."

I will say Warmachine has made me a better player, because I feel there is more balance and strategy involved. Thanks in no small part to page 5. Because there are no excuses in warmachine. If I don't win a game it is becaue I made an error that cost me the game. I can usually tell you what the mistake was after the game and I know not to make the mistake again.

Having played both Fantasy and 40k for over 10 years I can not say the same about those game systems. A friend of mine is fond of saying in Fantasy

"Both sides have shields, but one sides shields are made of steel and the others are made of straw."

[Driver]

Warseer?

There is not a more wretched hive of scum and villainy for 2 parsecs in any direction...