Talk:Warmachine

Iron Kingdoms Background

This bit currently is pretty innaccurate. I'm going to fix it up. Just in case anyone really disagrees with me, here is the old version.

The Warmachine game is set in the world of Caen, upon the continent of Immoren. Western Immoren, where the game is set, consists of 8 major political powers known collectively as the Iron Kingdoms. They are:

   * Cygnar
   * Protectorate of Menoth
   * Khador
   * Cryx
   * Ord
   * Llael
   * Ios/ Nyss
   * Rhul

Cygnar, Khador, Cryx, Ord, Ios, and Rhul are sovereign countries; the Protectorate of Menoth is technically subject to the law of Cygnar, one of the major points of dispute between these two nations; Llael is currently being occupied by Khador in the IK timeline.

Ord and Rhul, the kingdom of the dwarves, are officially neutral states, though they maintain friendlier relations with Cygnar than the other lands. Ios is a nation of Elves. Nyss can be considered a breakaway colony of Elves.

The various powers listed here are explored in more details in the Iron Kingdoms RPG. In Warmachine, the focus is on the four major factions: Cygnar, Khador, Menoth and Cryx.

Oy, that was me, I just forgot to log in when I typed the above and edited the article.Atinoda 10:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The entire article needs much more detailed information such as dates and people, names of designers, illustrators, publishers and other factual data. The description of gameplay and overall presentation could use a little reordering, and a somewhat less subjective point of view --Mylakovich 00:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, an inclusion of the plot and other information from Escalation, as well as a list of various fanzines where official info might be found (such as the Gorten campaign found in the recent issue of Handcannon)

---

Agreed, but artist and designer information may be better served in the Privateer Press entry. Knowing which pictures in Apotheosis were done by Matt Wilson and which were done by Chippy is not likely to help public understanding of the WARMACHINE game itself. --Burrowowl 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Err, Mylakovich, inclusion of the dates and people may be a violation of PP's copyrights, not to mention against Wikipedia's principles. Probably a condensed version, just for info.

As for the subjectivity, I agree, let's rewrite everything from an objective Imperial Khardic POV. :) Lynx7725 02:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead! Only a pitiable traitor to the Motherland would dare disagree! --Mylakovich 19:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The faction descriptions strike me as somewhat inaccurate: Khador, Llael, Ord, and Cygnar are the Iron Kingdoms themselves. The Protectorate of Menoth is, de jure, an autonomous region withing Cygnar, and certainly does not qualify as a "kingdom" due to its lack of its own monarch. Additionally, the Nyss can hardly be considered a proper world power, as they have no army, no diplomatic ties, negibile outside trade, and effectively have no impact on the outside world. I'm considering changing the Iron Kingdoms Background section to reflect this, but would like to solicit feedback before committing. --Burrowowl 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Can we use official art to illustrate this page? Should we create separate pages for each of the factions to expand on the basic information listed in this entry? DoomSayer 17:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

When I put some images up in the Iron Kingdoms entry, I solicited their explicit permission to do so. I suspect they'd be open to the idea. Regarding separate entries for the factions, that may be a good idea, but some care should be taken, as we shouldn't be spilling too much of the setting information here (it's Privateer Press's intellectual property, after all). Burrowowl 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Looks like somebody decided to change the game's name from "WARMACHINE" (as its publisher writes it) to the more Wikipedia-styleguide-friendly "Warmachine." Thoughts? Comments? I'm mildly tempted to switch it back, as the all-caps version is the proper name of the game. Burrowowl 03:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I am all in favor of this plan. Privateer Press has stated on several occasions that the proper "spelling" of the game's name is "WARMACHINE." Atinoda 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps make Warmachine a disambiguation page for WARMACHINE and War Machine?

I've been bold and gone ahead and done it. We do as-specified caps for other products like iPod and I don't see how this case is different. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the normal capitalization rules for ALLCAPS products; we don't do as-specified ALLCAPS for other products. See WP:MOSTM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You should go ahead and change HORDES too, in that case. Althai (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Worth noting one inaccuracy on the gameplay- everyone except 'jacks has a Command stat. Not just troops. Might not hurt to update this with info about elite warcasters and point ranges, as well as the Steamroller rules.

-Wraithshadow

Fixed another inaccuracy. Maintenance and Control phase order and descriptions were mixed up.

-Blightshadow 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures?

Like several other games of this genre, there are pics, but this one could use some. Colonel Marksman 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I added an image of a Juggernaut, does this help? If someone wants to replace it, feel free. Althai 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

would a picture of 2 starter sets fighting each other be a better pic? Shas'o sodit 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason we should stick to having only one picture, so if you have such a picture (i.e. you took the picture or you know who did, so we don't run into any copyright issues), upload it and add it to the article! Althai 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i'll try & get a picture done next i go to my gaming club then, i do have 2 painted starter sets, but my Cygnar aren't that good & are getting repainted & i've very little scenary at home Shas'o sodit 11:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments and criticisms

The first half of this section reads like the personal gripings of one or two people, and is certainly not NPoV, and is probably also original research (and as I'm not the one who added the tag, I'm obviously not the only one who feels this way.) The section on GW games also seems to be original research, and doesn't seem NPoV either, although some sort of comparison to GW games might be good if it could be done in a purely factual way. Personally I think this whole section should be deleted, unless some legitimate sources can be found (which seems unlikely, as we're talking about a minis game here. Althai 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

good reason for that, it was 1 person who wrote all 3! Me!

if anyone wants to try & make it look better go ahead, but i know those are 3 things which the PP forums have discussed, the special rule one can probably go, the DEF stat is very strange, how DEF 12 is easy to hit, but DEF 14 needs thinking, its only 1 point of difference & it counts for so much

the GW, i included that you can't really compare it to a GW game, as its far different (as i said, its a cross between Necromunda & Inquisitor) as they re-enact 2 different styles of war. i avoided the bit where the majority of PP gamers were p*ssed off with GW overall & moved to PP games as it makes GW look bad (they are bad, but it doesn't need saying) ;)

the problem is that the 3 are opinions, and to have any evidence of it is gonna come from a forum Shas'o sodit 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because something has been discussed on the privateer press forums does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia, and these comments all seem pretty biased to my eyes. A much better source for comments and criticism would be independent game reviews. There are published game magazines with reviews of games, and such things would be perfect things to cite for comments and criticism. Independent online game reviewers would be a huge improvement, even ones where anyone can write a review such as boardgamegeek.com or similar. At least there people are trying to give a balanced review of a game, and not just complain about what they don't like. But personal gripings of individual posters on the privateer press forums is certainly not NPoV, and does not belong in Wikipedia. Personally, I'd be inclined to remove the whole thing, but I figured I'd give you a chance to clean it up first if you think you can adapt it into something that reasonably belongs in Wikipedia. While I do appreciate your desire to contribute, it's good to edit with the goals of Wikipedia in mind, and I'm not sure if you're doing that here.

I would be very pleased if you added some more photos to the article though, if you have some to add. Althai 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

balls! forgot the pic! i'm sure others can something sorted, otherwise its gonna be a week till i get another chance. as for the comments, how would you suggest to improve it? of all the 3, the DEF talk is probably the keeper, the GW talk is probably a little pointless (if i was to write the full GW comment, it would include that the majority of PP games feel like that GW pushed them away in some way), but the special rule is pointlessShas'o sodit 08:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not so much with the criticisms/comments on PP games themselves, the problem is that they consist mainly of the personal points of view of you and other people on the PP forums, and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia. If you could source commentary on the game with some independent review of the game, perhaps in an online or print gaming magazine, then those sorts of things would make sense, but otherwise they should all go. Althai 05:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section. If you wish to replace it with an independent and verifiable source of criticism and reviews, you are welcome to do so. Althai (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced category

This article is the last one in Category:Articles with unsourced categories. I think we should make an effort to solve this.

The thing is that this article is in the Category:Steampunk games, because it is closely connected with the Iron Kingdoms RPG, which is called "something of a steampunk version of Dungeons & Dragons" (although this statement itself in Iron Kingdoms is also unsourced).

Could someone find a clear reference, calling Warmachine a steampunk game, or at least add some text that makes inclusion into this category more defendable. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference and added it. Apart from the fact that the text clearly says that the game employs "steam-powered warjacks", which is enough of an indication as well. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing a Better Article?

Hey all. I agree with the "B" rating on the quality of the article. Why don't we get together and improve the artcile so its quality does the game some justice?

I'd like to see the MK II rules under its own heading on the page, explaining the significance of the change. We should also probably agree on a single format for all the faction pages, and at least put up a smattering of info on the nonexistent skorne and Retribution pages.

The release date sections should be updated and at least somewhat synchronized with the Privateer Press site.

Lastly, I think having a brief explanation of the gameplay would be helpful. Having a few good high-quality shots of battles in progress would be great, too.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentley Foss (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving this Article

Looks like there hasn't been a serious attempt to improve this article in a few years, and most of the article is stub. I think one of the main issues is the lack of good secondary sources. Most of the sources will be primary in nature. Being a board game, there likely will be notability issues with many secondary sources. With that being said, I'm going to try and work on this article, any assistance is greatly appreciated :) Ries42 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a bit myself, changed "warlord" to "warcaster" as that is more technically correct (some would say the best kind of correct), as well as referencing some newer models, types, and development items since the last update. (ianpinsker) 09:18, 20 September 2017 (CST)