I know a little about the rules of Warmahordes, and I know the Wh40k rules pretty well. I also know about the reputation of the two games: 40k is a beer & pretzel game, with spam lists from the Net winning the day. The battles are about simple battle plans with limited tactical decisions (I know that from my observations of kill team games, though, so it's not really representative). Then, Warmachine seems to be about countless tactical choices, and when I scour the Web for winning lists, there are hardly any; on the contrary, most beginners are advised to get some models, start playing and develop their own strategy and skill.

Both games have pretty similar combat rules. Main differences seem to be the attacks of 'Jacks, Focus point allocation and shorter ranges of missile weapons, but they all sound like not a very big deal. Is this reputation true to life? If so, what makes Warmahordes so special?

There are DEFINITELY net lists in warmachine. And the power difference between the top tier lists and the bottom is just as big as 40k. Balance is pretty tenuous and tends to be similar towards the style of "everyone is broken in their own way."

WM is more like MTG, a lot of it is deck building and slapping synergies on top of each other. It is less beer and pretzels because the rules are very precise and designed to allow ridiculous things to happen, and you have to know all of them for every army and how they work together if you are going to play competitively (especially in the harshly timed tournament setting). You have to know a LOT about all the armies because you have to counter their strategy or you'll just die immediately against a lot of armies.

The model counts tend to be smaller, and it is centered around the war-noun who controls your beasts or 'jacks. The warnouns themselves add a lot of the variability, as changing who is leading an army changes how it plays entirely.

The tournament scene is a lil different too because you are allowed to have 2 armies or a side table, thus you encounter far fewer "rock to my paper" situations, if planned properly.

40k has a loose rule set, large model volume, and less obvious/powerful synergies, lending itself to a more stylistic, "for fun" approach. Since 5th ed a lot of the best lists have just been spamming the most cost efficient units possible, but honestly with 7th ed and unbound and apocalypse who can tell what is actually most cost efficient/competitive these days.

For 40k tournaments it is mostly luck of the draw in who you play and finger crossing for TO rule decisions. FAQs are better than they used to be though. I'd love to see a double list system, ironically I bet it would make people a take more balanced lists because they'd have greater chances of running into their anti-list in that situation.

Warmachine is special because the most important part is player skill, not the list choice. Thats why there really isn't such a thing as a Net List, more like Net-combos.

And the biggest skill is judging distances. The only pre-measurement allowed is your casters control area, so you never know for sure what a distance is until you commit to an action. Games are often decided by mm of distance.

Thats why beginners are just told vaguely what to get for their faction so they don't get duds. Its so they just play games and build up skill. After that, we can discuss better list choices.

You can't just plop down a list which won a big tournament and expect to win only knowing the basic mechanics of the game. You need to know the synergies which exist within the list, how your units compliment each other, and how to position your units on the battlefield.


And no, Warmachine combat is totally different from 40k. Its 2D6 instead of D6 based. Stats are not on a scale of 1-10, but rather are a value which could theoretically be any whole number.

Damage also is tracked differently. While in 40k, damage is a simple Y/N. Warmachine is a quantitative system. If I exceed a guys armor by 4 points, he will take 4 points of damage. In 40k I do one point of damage weather I succeed by 1 or by 10.

The value needed to hit is also different. in 40k its only based on the skill of the attacker. In Warmachine its based on the skill of the attacker vs the skill of the defender.

Warmachine is more tactical for a few reasons, one of them being movement and placement. Someone said earlier, the shorter ranges and higher damage output makes what unit goes where far more important. Also, units have more versitility than 40k so you can do different things with them, not to mention what casters and support you have with them will change the way the unit plays.

I wouldn't say units are more versatile. Units usually only have a couple things they can do.

Shooting units are almost always bad in melee. Most melee units have no ranged weapons at all. Some models don't even have any weapons period. Heck, one Warcaster literally has no way of directly damaging another mode. No melee or ranged weapon, and no spells which do damage.

 skybax wrote:

Both games have pretty similar combat rules. Main differences seem to be the attacks of 'Jacks, Focus point allocation and shorter ranges of missile weapons, but they all sound like not a very big deal. Is this reputation true to life? If so, what makes Warmahordes so special?

They aren't. At all. In fact beyond the fact the games invovled six-sided dice and models have stats that represent how good they are at various things I can't think of a single similarity the two game engines share. Well things are measured in inches I guess.

Your best bet would likely to just watch a video of some high-level matches.Seeing is beliving after all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGsy05_g9M4

If the games really are that similar, you should be able to follow the action very easily even if some of the specific terminology is different.

Also, melee attacks have a range. Not base contact.

Basic dudes have a .5" range on melee attacks. Some weapons have Reach, which gives them a 2" melee range. Some weapons even have a rule which gives them a 4" melee range.

Thats a pretty big deal.

The biggest difference that hasn't already been covered above is the difference between threat ranges and the size of the table. In 40k you can hit everywhere on the board with everything at all times because ranges are so long and movement is so high, the end result is that it's a game of target priority and who brought the most efficient guns. WMH requires you to actually manoeuvre intelligently because you can't hit everywhere at all times to the same degree.

The biggest difference that hasn't already been covered above is the difference between threat ranges and the size of the table.

This is the big one for me. This coupled with how terrain works in WMH. A forest blocks LoS for the whole footprint, like 4th ed 40k. 5th ed 40k onwards has a noddy system where only the actual trees block LoS.

This means that on some 40k tables the player winning first turn can shoot half the opponent's army off the table before they get a chance to even move. This leads to the infamous "Let's roll for who wins" mechanic in 40k whereby both players are desperately hoping to go first.

In WMH I generally don't care if I go first or second. Per WMH tourney rules, 1st player starts 7" in. Second players starts 10" in. Also, scenario points are not accrued until 2nd player's second turn. This is a nice way of balancing out first vs. second.

WMH in general isn't as dependent on dice rolls for various effects as 40k. There's no difficult terrain dice roll. You go half speed and that's it. Units that come on from the sides (Very rare in WMH to be fair), come on when and where you want them to, not dependent on a dice roll of 4+/3+ etc.

Each unit member in WMH matters, as well as which direction he is facing (You need to see target in front 180 arc to charge it). You can use front members of units to set up "no go" zones whereby they stab people who try to get by them. Thus a unit of 10 guys could be set as 3 "blockers" and then 7 counter attackers. There is more tactical flexibility with 10 models in WMH than with, say, 30 Ork boyz. The Ork boyz are a gestalt blob whose positioning only matters with regards to AOE weapons and ranges of their guns. When even one Ork is contacted in melee then the whole unit is locked in melee.

In WMH models are locked in melee on a model by model basis. Models (99+% of the time) can only kill what is in their 0.5-2-4" range. This means that an uber death lord of doom in melee with 2 mooks can only kill 2 mooks. This helps to reduce power of uber models. Also, there is no sweeping advance and no destruction of units that lose combat. Thus it is possible to use cheap troops to tie up enemy elites - an accurate historical tactic, as opposed to 40k where the unit of 30 mooks loses by 1, fails a morale check and all die for no reason.

Also, 40k generals are all really nice poeple and don't shoot into melee. No such restriction exists in WMH. If you have a bunch of heavy armoured dudes fighting a bunch of babes in fur bikinis (It's a real unit, I swear) then lobbing in a bunch of blasts to hit all those models - friend and foe - is a great tactic.

In fact shooting your own stuff can be a good tactic. There may be some tricksy elves that your caster cannot hit with his infantry clearing spell. Simply cast it at the back of your own guy, near the elves, and watch any AOE effects of the spell gib the squishy sneaky gits. Great with chain lightning and ashes to ashes.

I wouldn't say units are more versatile. Units usually only have a couple things they can do.

As opposed to the wealth of options in 40k? They can set up nearer the enemy. Their guns have varying degrees of effectiveness vs. different types of enemy armour and at different ranges. Some may even have the exciting rule that they ignore cover.
Compare this with units in WMH that can: Push models towards/ away from them; place LoS blocking AOEs around themselves to screen the army behind them; can dig in, making them very hard to hit with shooting and giving immunity to blast AOEs; can once per game become immune to all non-spell attacks (Combos nicely with their ability not to be targeted by spells); A unit that can curse enemies to take more damage; make its unit invisible; give a friendly model/ unit magical weapons for a turn; can declare an enemy unit as prey and get great bonuses attacking and damaging their prey; can heal nearby friendly beasts; can teleport a model within their boundary a whopping 8"; can calm down nearby beasts; can rile up beasts to make them stronger and more aggressive; can move through enemy models with their amazing gymnastic skills; can move through buildings and obstacles as they become partially ethereal; can make enemies explode into showers of giblets that can hurt nearby enemies; can gather the hearts of their slain foes and use them to buy extra attacks or heal themselves; must attack every time they kill something (Whether new target is friend or foe!); can transfer damage to their friends so is very hard to kill one guy with a number of weak attacks as the whole unit shares the pain; a destroyed model can choose a nearby comrade to die instead of himself; a unit where each model gets more armour and hits harder the fewer unit members are left alive; etc etc


So yes, I'd say a lot more versatility for units than in 40k.


Gaz

Thanks for all the answers! And, OK, WM/H combat is indeed different from Wh one.

Grey Templar, if the most important skill is judging distances, then that would be bad news. I think the charm of the wargames is in feeling like a general on a battlefield; with pre-measuring your feel like, I don't know, a construction worker?

I started watching the Warmahordes match report (and I'm still watching it, it's long). Right now I have to say, the top level tournament armies look far better than the top level tournament army for Wh40k I remember best, garish Necron-Tau with next to no infantry and no fluff at all (and that is despite my love of Warhammer feel).

Gaz, thanks for lots of details, I think they tell me a lot about WMH! When it comes to unit abilities, you could probably find a Warhammer counterpart for each ability you mentioned - but I get it, it's probably not that easy as coming up with them in WM/H, and limited playability of many (most!) units in 40k also limits the range of available abilities.

All in all, Warmahordes sounds like a game I would like very much. I'm actually thinking about tinkering with some Warhammer/Warmahordes rules hack, to play friendly, tactical games with my marines and necrons. Or maybe, when I finish painting my 500 points of 40k, some Warmachine will be next?

 skybax wrote:
Thanks for all the answers! And, OK, WM/H combat is indeed different from Wh one.

Grey Templar, if the most important skill is judging distances, then that would be bad news. I think the charm of the wargames is in feeling like a general on a battlefield; with pre-measuring your feel like, I don't know, a construction worker?

Wait so PreMeasuring is bad because it makes you feel like a construction worker, but it's bad news that there's no Pre Measuring in WMH?

Yeah, I'm confused.

Premeasuring is bad, no premeasuring = bad = Error, Unable to compute?

Sorry, I must've got carried away with the metaphor!

Basically, I don't like when you have to judge distances by sight - that's not the challenge I want to face while playing a wargame. Similarly, a Jenga based combat rules are not what I'm looking for.

I thought that being able see the distance between 24 and 25 inches without measuring is a pretty mundane skill, one that has little to do with commanding an army. But then, I suppose that counting the probabilities of your lascannons wounding a tank also has little to do with actual battle experience. So probably it's all subjective.

EDIT: and now I realised that a good construction worker probably still takes measures instead of judging by sight... I admit, the metaphor kinda sucked.

Its an integral part of the game. Games are often won and lost by millimeters of distance. Those are the best game I feel. Where everyone's skill comes to the fore.

Similarly, a Jenga based combat rules are not what I'm looking for.

What's that mean? That jamming is a bad thing?

Basically, I don't like when you have to judge distances by sight - that's not the challenge I want to face while playing a wargame.

I can appreciate that. WMH might be better if there was premeasuring allowed. After all there's no "guess range" weapons like 40k used to have.

Being able to measure to any model within your caster's control zone does often give a very accurate idea of models in relation to each other.
Obviously this is better if you're playing Harbinger (20") vs. say, Xerxis (10").

I thought that being able see the distance between 24 and 25 inches without measuring is a pretty mundane skill, one that has little to do with commanding an army.

I believe that in ancient times there was a fine art in estimating when to loose the first volley at an approaching enemy: "Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. FIRE!" etc


Gaz

Warmachine would become totally unbalanced if they allowed premeasuring.

It would give factions that have longer threat ranges a total advantage. Gunlines would also dominate.

With having to guess ranges, my army that is slow and has low charge distances I can guess my opponents threat range and hover around what I think is just outside of his range, but maybe he'll think he's got it and fail a charge.

Gazzor wrote:

Basically, I don't like when you have to judge distances by sight - that's not the challenge I want to face while playing a wargame.

I can appreciate that. WMH might be better if there was premeasuring allowed. After all there's no "guess range" weapons like 40k used to have.

Being able to measure to any model within your caster's control zone does often give a very accurate idea of models in relation to each other.
Obviously this is better if you're playing Harbinger (20") vs. say, Xerxis (10").

I thought that being able see the distance between 24 and 25 inches without measuring is a pretty mundane skill, one that has little to do with commanding an army.

I believe that in ancient times there was a fine art in estimating when to loose the first volley at an approaching enemy: "Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. FIRE!" etc


Gaz

First point: Premeasuring sounds daunting, but after a few games you stop noticing and sort of do things by habit.

Second point: You estimate the difference between 3 and 4 inches or 7 and 8 inches a lot more than you estimate the difference between 24 and 25 inches. The distances are so much shorter that the percentage of the distance you're trying to estimate is a lot larger,

Anyone who says that premeasuring is against the rules of warmahordes is either a liar, or completely unable to do math. You are permitted to check command ranges on activation, and your control range whenever. Is it really that difficult for people to do a little bit of basic, close enough trig during a game?

Warmachine also involves a LOT more decisions than 40k. 40k is basically:
- where do I move my units
- which unit will this unit shoot at
- which unit will this unit assault
with a very few variation, like where will I deepstrike, or which psychic power will I use.
Warmachine adds to this:
- Activation order, that can be massively important. This one is often a VERY BIG deal.
- Tons of units that get to choose between two benefits, or types of attack.
- Focus allocation/fury management
- Power attacks.
Warmachine has also much more special rules that will impact the gameplay in other ways that “You hit stronger” or “You can take more punishment”. Putting some model knocked down can be a HUGE deal, I see no equivalent in 40k. There are many rules to move enemy models, or your own models outside of their activation, for instance.

Dronze wrote:
Anyone who says that premeasuring is against the rules of warmahordes is either a liar, or completely unable to do math. You are permitted to check command ranges on activation, and your control range whenever. Is it really that difficult for people to do a little bit of basic, close enough trig during a game?

Command Ranges can only be checked from the leader of a unit to individual models in that unit (its not a "sweep" like Control Range is) and can only be checked during that unit's activation. Also a typical control range is around 14", it helps immensely when judging distances, but on a 48" table you won't be able to reach everywhere.

I think 40k hinges almost entirely upon the strategy. WMH is based around making those decisions on the table and adapting to situations more than what is in the list.

PhantomViper wrote:

Dronze wrote:
Anyone who says that premeasuring is against the rules of warmahordes is either a liar, or completely unable to do math. You are permitted to check command ranges on activation, and your control range whenever. Is it really that difficult for people to do a little bit of basic, close enough trig during a game?

Command Ranges can only be checked from the leader of a unit to individual models in that unit (its not a "sweep" like Control Range is) and can only be checked during that unit's activation. Also a typical control range is around 14", it helps immensely when judging distances, but on a 48" table you won't be able to reach everywhere.

you don't have to. On a given table, unless it's just pure caster kill with no objectives, you have, generally, 2-3 reference points, as well as established objective zones. You may not have ful coverage, but you shouldn't need to, either. Let's face it, when you're playing warmahordes, you're only using, at max, about half the playable area, anyhow.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its an integral part of the game. Games are often won and lost by millimeters of distance. Those are the best game I feel. Where everyone's skill comes to the fore.

The pre-measuring / not pre-measuring was one of several things that put us of the game when we tried it. I much prefer Malifaux where pre-measuring is fine and not a work around built into the system (*)

(*) although as seen on this thread - this is a source of some debate amongst the players whether its part of the game or cheating.

I don't actually see the point in comparing 40k and WM/H - one is a skirmish game one is large scale game - different animals in all respects - your better off comparing other skirmish games to WM/H - like Malifaux , Dredd, Necromunda, Infinity.

Maybe Bolt Action to 40k?

The value needed to hit is also different. in 40k its only based on the skill of the attacker. In Warmachine its based on the skill of the attacker vs the skill of the defender

Not true its the same in both systems -often the opponents are equally skilled, but WS vs WS chart is part of the 40K, I would argue 40k does not reward high WS vs low WS anywhere near enough but that's a different argument.

 Mr Morden wrote:

(*) although as seen on this thread - this is a source of some debate amongst the players whether its part of the game or cheating.

For the 11.000th time, its not cheating when it specifically says in the rules what and when you can pre-measure and the only debate that I see is in the threads where you are involved because you insist on bringing this up like it was some great controversy...

You really should have understood this by now, its not that hard of a concept.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

(*) although as seen on this thread - this is a source of some debate amongst the players whether its part of the game or cheating.

For the 11.000th time, its not cheating when it specifically says in the rules what and when you can pre-measure and the only debate that I see is in the threads where you are involved because you insist on bringing this up like it was some great controversy...

You really should have understood this by now, its not that hard of a concept.

Yeah cos this post, before mine as I am sure you noted is completely ambiguous - well done, well read

Anyone who says that premeasuring is against the rules of warmahordes is either a liar, or completely unable to do math. You are permitted to check command ranges on activation, and your control range whenever. Is it really that difficult for people to do a little bit of basic, close enough trig during a game?

it works well with?

Warmachine would become totally unbalanced if they allowed premeasuring.

totally in sinc and agreement - really?

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

(*) although as seen on this thread - this is a source of some debate amongst the players whether its part of the game or cheating.

For the 11.000th time, its not cheating when it specifically says in the rules what and when you can pre-measure and the only debate that I see is in the threads where you are involved because you insist on bringing this up like it was some great controversy...

You really should have understood this by now, its not that hard of a concept.

Yeah cos this post, before mine as I am sure you noted is completely ambiguous - well done, well read

Anyone who says that premeasuring is against the rules of warmahordes is either a liar, or completely unable to do math. You are permitted to check command ranges on activation, and your control range whenever. Is it really that difficult for people to do a little bit of basic, close enough trig during a game?

it works well with?

Warmachine would become totally unbalanced if they allowed premeasuring.

totally in sinc and agreement - really?

Just because players have opinions on the effects on the game that unrestricted pre-measuring would have, doesn't mean that its legality has any ambiguity. You do realise that those posts where talking about unrestricted pre-measuring right? Because you really need to work on your reading skills if you interpreted those two posts as people not knowing if pre-measuring was allowed or not and under which circumstances...

I have given you the exact rules in the book, I have told you what the company that makes the games says about it, I have even given you the Infernal rulings that clarify this issue, what exactly more do you need to understand in which instances is pre-measuring allowed or not?

Its perfectly simple

the Game says "No premesuring" - Correct? Or is now just "you can sorta premesaure a bit and only a bit and only this way? and not everyone thinks you should?

So IMO its a stupid thing and a reason I (and others) did not like this and other game mechanics.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its perfectly simple

the Game says "No premesuring" - Correct? Or is now just "you can sorta premesaure a bit and only a bit and only this way? and not everyone thinks you should?

So IMO its a stupid thing and a reason I (and others) did not like this and other game mechanics.

No, the game doesn't say "No premeasuring" because WMH rules aren't written like that. The game rules explicitly state in what situations you can measure something and how that measurement is made. If there isn't a game rule stating that you can measure something, then you can't do it. How is that hard to understand?

And what everyone thinks should or should not be done is irrelevant when the rules are explicit about something. Also the people that think that things like measuring the control range is somehow "cheating" are people that are new to the game and that usually change their mind when they are shown the relevant rules and the different possibilities that that game mechanic allows. In 10+ years of playing this game, I can honestly say that you are the first person that I've met that seems to have problems grasping this concept for some reason.

That you think that it is stupid that no pre-measuring is allowed is something that you are entirely in your right to think. I, for instance, think that pre-measuring is something that takes away from a game's tactical depth and is usually done to cater to a less skilled player base. Since WMH seems to be growing in popularity I think I can safely say that the game can survive and prosper without you (and those others) so there is no need to change that particular mechanic, thankfully.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its perfectly simple

the Game says "No premesuring" - Correct? Or is now just "you can sorta premesaure a bit and only a bit and only this way? and not everyone thinks you should?

So IMO its a stupid thing and a reason I (and others) did not like this and other game mechanics.

Not everyone thinks you should be able to measure everything anywhere (a theoretical rule).

However, everyone knows and understands that you can and should measure according
to the rules set by the game. (the actual rule).


The disagreement you see is between people who think whether or not the game should
have different rules than it already has. The pre-measuring rules in the game itself are
codified. In 40k terms, it's like making attack rolls. Some people think the WS / BS system
should work a different way, but they all understand how the game works and play the
game as it's set in its rules.

And what everyone thinks should or should not be done is irrelevant when the rules are explicit about something. Also the people that think that things like measuring the control range is somehow "cheating" are people that are new to the game and that usually change their mind when they are shown the relevant rules and the different possibilities that that game mechanic allows. In 10+ years of playing this game, I can honestly say that you are the first person that I've met that seems to have problems grasping this concept for some reason.

Well thats what happened when we played a number the games and looked at mechanics in comparsion to the other games we played, it was a major turn off but as you say you dont want us to to play your game so we are all good................

I, for instance, think that pre-measuring is something that takes away from a game's tactical depth and is usually done to cater to a less skilled player base.

or avoids arguments, speeds play up and reduces cheating but hey whatever

 Mr Morden wrote:

or avoids arguments, speeds play up and reduces cheating but hey whatever

Please explain how constantly measuring everything and anything speeds up play instead of the opposite?

Please explain how measuring before deciding something instead of after reduces arguments?

Please explain how the people that cheat at measuring won't also cheat at rolling dice, moving the miniatures, and basically every other activity in the game?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

or avoids arguments, speeds play up and reduces cheating but hey whatever

Please explain how constantly measuring everything and anything speeds up play instead of the opposite?

Please explain how measuring before deciding something instead of after reduces arguments?

Please explain how the people that cheat at measuring won't also cheat at rolling dice, moving the miniatures, and basically every other activity in the game?

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you msut spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

As I said I am now into Malifaux and it has no issues with Pre-measuring - wheras WM/H appears to be stuck in a half way house between then two - not allowing premeasuring but allowing it sometimes...................despite comments like this:

Warmachine would become totally unbalanced if they allowed premeasuring.

Measuring your Control Area =/= Premeasuring.

Premeasuring would be unrestricted measurement of anything and everything.

Measuring your Control area is a very restrictive form of measurement which only allows you to make educated guesses.

As an aside for me one of the hardest things to come to grips with in Warmachine versus 40k is that there is basically nothing like "Rules as Intended" in Warmachine. The rules are generally pretty explicit (there are a few exceptions), and I've found in games that people often argue about rules because it "doesn't make sense", to which my usual reply is it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, that's how the rule works. Flight for example, doesn't ignore Free Strikes if you move through an enemy model (although I understand it used to work that way in MkI). This has been a point of issue as people argue how silly it is that it doesn't, since you would think you could ignore them, but as I point out regardless of what you think, the rules say nothing about free strikes, so you don't ignore them.

Even though I haven't played Warhammer in over 10 years, I find that I still forget things like combat in Warmachine is basically per model, not unit v. unit, and you can have different models charge in completely different directions, or shoot different things, and the like.

Mr. Morden, the rules are pretty clear. Just because you fail to understand or use them doesn't mean the rule's at fault. Everyone else I've played seems to understand clearly enough and I rely exclusively on pick up games.

I don't actually see the point in comparing 40k and WM/H - one is a skirmish game one is large scale game - different animals in all respects - your better off comparing other skirmish games to WM/H - like Malifaux , Dredd, Necromunda, Infinity.

They're two games whereby players attempt to use their little toy ment to beat their opponent, also using little toy men. WMH is a far larger scale than Malifaux, for sure. Malifaux you can get by with 5+ models. WMH you're looking at similar spending to get to a tourney sized list as for a 40k army.

Not true its the same in both systems -often the opponents are equally skilled, but WS vs WS chart is part of the 40K, I would argue 40k does not reward high WS vs low WS anywhere near enough but that's a different argument.

Wrong. How does WMH reflect a frothing berserker that carves up all his foes like christmas turkey, but is so heedless of danger that a mook can hit him? Give him MAT7 DEF13. How does 40k reflect that? Er, it doesn't...

In 40k shooting at a Carnifex in the open has the same chances to hit as if shooting at nimble Eldar skirting through rubble. In WMH the RAT of the attacker is compared vs. the DEF of the target, and is then modified by cover, concealment, elevation, spells, animi, etc

So a typical rifleman, aiming, hits a Khador warjack on 3+ (35/36 chance) but needs 11+ (3/36 chance) to hit druids inside a cloud effect.


Gaz

Gazzor wrote:

I don't actually see the point in comparing 40k and WM/H - one is a skirmish game one is large scale game - different animals in all respects - your better off comparing other skirmish games to WM/H - like Malifaux , Dredd, Necromunda, Infinity.

They're two games whereby players attempt to use their little toy ment to beat their opponent, also using little toy men. WMH is a far larger scale than Malifaux, for sure. Malifaux you can get by with 5+ models. WMH you're looking at similar spending to get to a tourney sized list as for a 40k army.

WMH and 40k both have a similar market space, too, so people tend to see those as the two alternatives as opposed to smaller/less overlapping competitors.

WMH isn't really a Skirmish game.

At 15-25 points maybe, but the game is designed for 50 point games and its really too many models to qualify as Skirmish. Its definitely a small battle game, but its not a Skirmish game.

Malifaux, Infinity, etc... Those a Skirmish games.

Gazzor wrote:
WMH you're looking at similar spending to get to a tourney sized list as for a 40k army.

While I agree that Warmachine is slightly above a skirmish game (its bigger than squad sized, probably platoon-company sized rather than company-battalion sized like 40k is) and agree with with pretty much everything you mentioned, but this statement is completely incorrect and the main reason is clear once you factor in the game size element I just mentioned. Box for box Warmachine and 40k are comparable in price, but in Warmachine I can buy a battlegroup ($35), a extra jack ($25), two units (2*$35), and 3-4 support solos (4*$15) and that gives me a competitive (assuming a brought decent units) 50pt tournament ready list for around $200.
In 40k using one of my old Eldar builds as an example, you would need a character/leader ($20), 3 units - 10 per box but split into 5 man units (2*$35+$42), 5 Transports (5*$45) and two big MCs (2*$115) to get a decent 1850pt list, so close to $600. Even allowing for a second caster + a couple of units for the Warmachine army pushing it up to $300 (to give you two lists for the standard dual list tournament setup) the 40k army is twice the cost. That doesn't factor in regional pricing either - if I brought that from my local GW it would cost me $150-$200 more. I have now brought pretty much everything in my faction for Warmachine and without going through and calculating everything out I estimate I have spent a similar amount on getting everything in my faction as I did on a single Eldar tournament list.

As far as the main topic here goes, I think the single biggest thing is the rules in Warmachine are significantly more open (i.e. there are far more options available) which allows for a much higher skill cap and makes the game much more dependent on player skill, but through all this increased depth the rules are still rock solid. In 40k I would usually average 10-15 minutes per game (this is tournament games not casual) discussing rules issues. In Warmachine the only rules disputes I have had have been due to lack of player knowledge (i.e. we were both new and had different thoughts on how something worked), everything else has just been as case of taking a couple of seconds to read the 1-2 cards in question and the rules interaction becomes clear.

I can buy a battlegroup ($35),

But they're generally pretty bobbins to be fair. 2 Arguses with Kaya? Destroyer and Juggernaut with Sorscha? I suppose, is still not a bad price with the discount.

Also of note, is the 4 new complete army deals coming out for Khador, Skorne, Menoth and Legion. Circa $135 each and each makes a competitive 35 pts list (Although I've heard Legion one is bad).

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/11/privateer-press-has-quite-deal-for-you.html

So I guess that does disprove my claim above that it's a similar cost to 40k...


But my point stands that I'd class WMH closer to 40k than Malifaux in terms of battle scale.


Gaz

Calling Warmachine skirmish or not doesn't matter, IMHO. Some can call 40k skirmish because your army represents up to 100 soldiers, and not something like 10 000 guys, like in De Bellis Antiquitatis.

I think we all know that Warmachine is usually played with smaller number of miniatures than 40k, and larger than Infinity, so we're set.

 skybax wrote:
Calling Warmachine skirmish or not doesn't matter, IMHO. Some can call 40k skirmish because your army represents up to 100 soldiers, and not something like 10 000 guys, like in De Bellis Antiquitatis.

I think we all know that Warmachine is usually played with smaller number of miniatures than 40k, and larger than Infinity, so we're set.

Smaller number of miniatures, yes. But equal number of Unique units.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Smaller number of miniatures, yes. But equal number of Unique units.

Indeed! And Stormwall is the size of an Imperial Knight, after all.

But then, with Unbound, formations, and Knights, 40k seems to be drifting towards excessive use of elites, vehicles, and large models. We already have armies of tau battlesuits, eldar tanks and necron croissants.

One of the biggest differences between 40k and WMH is that games don't go six rounds. They go until somebody wins, which can happen (usually) in multiple ways.

These rules don't just encourage, they require aggressive play, as you can't hang back for four turns shooting, and hope to steal objectives in the last few turns. If you cede control of the objectives, you will lose.

The biggest difference is that if your caster dies, you lose. This allows games that appear one sided to turn with a well executes (and lucky) assassination attempt. it also means that rarely does a player have to sit through a one sided beat down. If you look at the board, and see that you will lose on objectives, you make a run, and if it fails, shake hands for the loss. WMH has very little "garbage time" compared to 40k.

 Polonius wrote:
One of the biggest differences between 40k and WMH is that games don't go six rounds. They go until somebody wins, which can happen (usually) in multiple ways.

These rules don't just encourage, they require aggressive play, as you can't hang back for four turns shooting, and hope to steal objectives in the last few turns. If you cede control of the objectives, you will lose.

The biggest difference is that if your caster dies, you lose. This allows games that appear one sided to turn with a well executes (and lucky) assassination attempt. it also means that rarely does a player have to sit through a one sided beat down. If you look at the board, and see that you will lose on objectives, you make a run, and if it fails, shake hands for the loss. WMH has very little "garbage time" compared to 40k.

Well it depends. If you're playing Death Clock, you can sometimes cede control of the objective if your opponent runs out of time (and auto loses). With timed turns though, you can't because if the game ends, control points for objectives/zones will determine the winner.

Of course, not everyone plays like that. If you only ever play caster kills and not scenario games with timed turns or Death Clock, it can look less tactical. It's not, but it can appear that way.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
One of the biggest differences between 40k and WMH is that games don't go six rounds. They go until somebody wins, which can happen (usually) in multiple ways.

These rules don't just encourage, they require aggressive play, as you can't hang back for four turns shooting, and hope to steal objectives in the last few turns. If you cede control of the objectives, you will lose.

The biggest difference is that if your caster dies, you lose. This allows games that appear one sided to turn with a well executes (and lucky) assassination attempt. it also means that rarely does a player have to sit through a one sided beat down. If you look at the board, and see that you will lose on objectives, you make a run, and if it fails, shake hands for the loss. WMH has very little "garbage time" compared to 40k.

Well it depends. If you're playing Death Clock, you can sometimes cede control of the objective if your opponent runs out of time (and auto loses). With timed turns though, you can't because if the game ends, control points for objectives/zones will determine the winner.

Of course, not everyone plays like that. If you only ever play caster kills and not scenario games with timed turns or Death Clock, it can look less tactical. It's not, but it can appear that way.

True, but you're making a very critical tactical choice to allow your opponent to hold an objective with the idea that he'll clock out prior to scoring enough points. Still, you probably won't completely cede the objective in that case. You'll jam it, and force him to deal with the contesting model(s), and only score on his turn.

It shows that there are multiple ways to win: you can win on scenario (in nearly any game), you can win on assassination (in virtually all games), or you can win on time (in deathclock matches). Because you can win in multiple ways, you can work to your advantage.

Unless someone gets on an objective with a minute left on his clock, its unlikely that he'd clock out before scoring uncontested.

2 game turns are all that is necessary to score by domination. 3 for control. This is because scoring is done every player turn, not game turn. So if I get an objective on my turn I will score immediately, and again on my opponents turn if he doesn't contest.

Most scenarios also have a 1 point objective that can be destroyed. So if I destroy that, and then dominate a scenario zone with my warcaster, I now have 3 points and will win if my opponent cannot contest the flag/zone immediately. And unless he also takes my warcaster out, he likely won't be able to stop me from taking the flag/zone back to dominate again for the win.

It doesn't take very long to win on scenario. You just need one turn.

There is a a lot to like in war machine I will grant. I'd like to come up with a game that was 40K but played something half way between war machine and flames of war. Board size vs range and speed important - 40K's boards are very small relative to shooting ranges, as has been mentioned, which is a problem with most terrain not blocking line of sight. I also like sudden death objectives and the number of models.

On the other hand I would argue that having to judge distances carefully doesn't make a game more "Tactical". It is a skill, and I don't mind it, but it isn't tactics.

That said, I think war machine is a more tactical game for average players, but at the top the two games are just as cut throat, must know every rule, exact model position down to the 1/2" matters, and so on.

 kestral wrote:
I'd like to come up with a game that was 40K but played something half way between war machine and flames of war.

If you look at the links in my signature that's (funnily enough) one of my projects. It's on hold because I can't find any testers, unfortunately.

I'm going to toss my hat in the ring on the side of the pre-measuring would improve the game side.

If you are playing steamroller pretty much 90% of the board is pre-measured for you. You know where your opponent starting zones are, you know where yours are. All the zones objectives and flags on the table are an exact size and placement. All that along with being able to measure your control range at any time gives you a pretty darn good idea of what the ranges, distances, etc all are. Not to mention other small, but important things you can measure like command range, melee range, models like Reinholdt, etc. You also have a smaller board, and a lot of boards have lines down the middle, etc.

So would premeasuring ruin the game? No, because you pretty much already can.

Also, I don't think being able to judge distances is the most important skill. Pretty much because you can judge most distances pretty well already, especially with a warcasters with a control. I also don't think it should really matter. I'd love to see more premeasuring in all wargames. It makes the game smoother and easier to play and more friendly to newbies who can learn to play the game instead of learn how to measure by sight.


Last but not least, carpenters "measure twice and cut once". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/measure_twice_and_cut_once Please quit destroying a very useful proverb.

One thing I have found wit warmahordes and Warhammer is..warhammer is very much dicehammer, no matter how skilled you are and how well you play or synergise, your space marines hit on 4's. Dont get me wrong from my limited experience with warmahordes luck of the dice is still a factor, but being able to mitigate the dice is very important. things like cover and concealment, defensive spells, backstrikes, boosting, defense and armour debuffs and stuff, in 40k its like "Oh I failed a roll thats unlucky" and in WMH its more like "Oh I failed my roll, how could I have increased my odds of hitting, maybe if I had cast this spell, or moved this unit here, etc etc" and at the same time 40k being shot at is like "I hide behind the wall and hope he rolls bad" where WMH seems to be more "Oh I get in cover, how many focus/fury should I camp this turn? am I out of Molik Karns ridicolous threat range?" and if you get those questions wrong you might lose. I played a game against one of the rhulic casters, and he outplayed me in such a way that I only had one model close enough to threaten him and next to no chance for scenario, so my best chance was a caster kill and with his feat I was unable to give him a dirtnap (it was the one less damage die feat) meaning I had left a line open to my caster and just...got killed, but that sorta play, forcing me to overextend and making me pillowfisted is a sorta move I never saw in years of 40k.

I dont think I made any mistakes but if I have I shall correct them post haste

I'll start off by saying I'm fairly new to Warmahordes and actually miniature war gaming in general and not experienced in Warhammer 40k at all.

I was wondering if the warlock/warcaster model is worth noting as a difference between the two games at least this seemed worth noting from brief discussions I had with people regarding comparing these two games. This warlock/warcaster holds a huge significance in the game which I believe in Warhammer doesn't exist to that level where a win objective literally is contained within the model and a good portion of an army's strength is actually centralized through these figures. This also creates a bit of difference between Warmachine and Hordes as well allowing for even more variation within the game in terms of play style within and between the Factions.

I actually think this is a great feature of the game if not the greatest and reminds me of the difference between Warcraft 3 and Starcraft. Your army lacks a lot of strength if you try to minimize the role of the warlock/warcaster or incorporate more independence rather than interdependence between models within the army.

That is true. The warcaster does dictate a lot about how a list functions. The same list with just a warcaster swap can end up playing totally differently.

Actually the lack of premeasuring is something that to me makes things feel more General-Y.

You have to know how fast your cavalry can charge before the enemy can get a bead on them (how I interpret "failed charges"), you have to know the range on your artillery so your muskets are effective (do you know the real effective range of a musket? Whites of their eyes isn't just an expression).

Not only that, but WMH gives you a LOT, a LOT more options on a given turn with the focus/fury boosting mechanic and the spells/animi. Any model that can boost (caster or beastie/jack) can "boost" to roll on 3d6 instead of 2d6. This gives you way more control over the odds than 40k in the hitting/hurting department.

In 40k, you charge, you have a lot of dice to roll. In Warmahordes you've got five or six decisions to make.

Well you see, characters have 1 time use abilities... like Ultramarine chapter tactics... and they can hit you with melee weapons at short ranges... like Eldar Avatars of Khaine. So yes..

I think the topic has strayed a little bit from the original question, and no one has really defined what tactics are. So...

Tactic : an action or method that is planned and used to achieve a particular goal

: the activity or skill of organizing and moving soldiers and equipment in a military battle

Strategy:: a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal usually over a long period of time

: the skill of making or carrying out plans to achieve a goal

-from Merriam-Webster online dictionary

How do these apply to a table top gaming system? It's pretty simple, really. Strategy is your army selection. What you put in your army, and how it's going to be used. For example, I take a Space Marine Librarian with a jump pack who is a level 3 Psyker. Before the game, I will roll on the Telepathy table to get Invisibility. Next, he will be attached to my Vanguard Veterans with jump packs to enable them to get across the board fast and engage my opponent in close combat where they will dominate due to their special equipment and characteristics. The Librarian will also have a secondary function of nullifying any psychic powers. In Warmachine, I take Commander Coleman Stryker as my Warcaster. I look at his spells, and see he has Arcane Shield, a defensive buff to armor (+3 actually). I want my army to take a ton of punishment, and basically out last my opponent, so I take a Journeyman Warcaster as well that also has Arcane Shield. Next, I add a Stormclad and Centurion heavy warjack with ARM 18 and 19 respectively. With Arcane Shield applied to both of them, it becomes 21 and 22. Chew on that for a while!

See how I have a basic idea of what I want each unit to do? The next part of strategy is deployment and who goes first. If you win the roll (and both games have models/units that can help you win the roll for first turn), you can decide who deploys first and who goes first. It's a pretty powerful ability, but again, goes back to your army selection. Let's say I have a bunch of slow moving models that require a lot of buffs to set up the "Perfect Kill". I might want to go second so I can see where my opponent goes and cast my buffs to engage him. Or maybe I've made a fast, Alpha Strike type army and I want to go first. Deployment can make or break your game, and you have to have a plan for where your units are going, and what they will do when they get there. Sometimes, it's as simple as "I'm deploying this 5-man Tactical Squad here, so they can move up and take that objective on Turn 2". Other times, it's more involved, like "I deploy my Iron Fang Pikemen and the Unit Attachment along with the Kapitan here, so they can pop their mini-feat on turn 1, use the shield wall order, and run in the same activation to provide a screening element for my slower warjacks. As my opponent engages the Pikemen, my warjacks will be able to counter charge and lend a supporting action to the Pikemen. With that much force in one area, I will be able to control that zone and score a control point to win the game". The player that just plops down his army with no real concern for the scenario or table (terrain, control zones, objectives) is playing at a HUGE disadvantage to the player that carefully considers and plans for the scenario and table. A strategic plan can be as loose or detailed as you want, but realize the old maxim: "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (Hulmuth von Moltke). This is because sometimes, you opponent just does something you did not see or was totally unexpected. More often then not, it's because you rolled really bad on the dice or your opponent rolled really well.

So what then is tactics? Tactics are what you do during the game to promote, ensure, and carry out your strategic plan to win. If your strategic plan to win was to deploy your fast moving units forward so you could take a bunch of objectives, then the tactics are moving those units forward using a jump pack, or running, or teleporting, or casting a spell that gives them a movement buff, or maybe it's even another unit shoots and eliminates a threat to your unit so it can freely move up and take an objective.

A tactic is seeing a Cygnar Stormwall on the table, and using Gorman di Wulf to throw Black Oil on it rendering it useless for a turn so the rest of your army can act without worrying about a colossal on the table. Another tactic is measuring the range to an enemy unit, and then considering if it would be better to rapid fire your bolters, or charge the enemy instead. Finally, another tactic would be placing Bob, the lone Space Marine out front to "soak up" a lascannon shot, instead of your own lascannon armed trooper. Or maybe running a light warjack that has reach into an area to deny a charge or elicit free strikes as models go buy, or maybe its a "speed bump" to prevent your opponent from charging something else for a turn.

Ok, so now that we have some formal definitions and ideas on what strategy and tactics are, I would say that BOTH systems have elements of strategy and tactics. 40K is a bit more strategic in army selection due to the vast amount of choices you have, and the way you deploy can be critical to winning the game. Warmachine/Hordes has less options for army selection, but the character and synergy of the army is much, much more important at the tactical level. Your strategic choices for army selection might be smaller then 40K, but they are just as important.

Both systems require you to look over the table, select a scenario, and come up with a plan to win the game.

At the tactical level, it's very easy to say 40K has less tactics then Warmachine/Hordes. This is not true. Whether the 40K player realizes it or not, placement of Bob the Space Marine on the table is critical to what happens next. Bob could define your shooting range, your charge range, and even your first would in a phase. Placement of Bob affects what happens to the entire unit, and Bob can define the tactical limitations of the unit. In Warmachine and Hordes, the importance of placement of Bob the Pikeman is readily apparent. Is he base to base with another Pikeman to benefit from Shield Wall? Is he within the Command Range of the Pikeman Kapitan to recieve orders? Is Bob within the Control Area of Supreme Kommandant Irusk when he pops his feat "Desperate Ground"? Is Bob facing the right way so he can charge something?

I would grant that in Warmachine/Hordes, you have more options and decisions to make at the Tactical level then you do in 40K. This more relates to the activation of each unit separately, and how synergistic your army is- basically, A + B = C^2 instead of just C. You don't really get that in 40K.

TLDR; Warmachine/Hordes presents the player with more tactical options then 40K; 40K has fewer tactical options, but the decisions you make are just as important as the ones in Warmachine/Hordes. If anything, the ones you make in 40K can make or break your game because of one critical decision. While there are critical decisions in Warmachine/Hordes as well, you can usually recover from a bad one.

This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

Indeed. Warmahordes is a very unforgiving game. The learning curve is steep.

40k has almost no order of activation issues. In Warmahordes you must activate some things in a specific order to make plans work. I've won, and lost, plenty of games because I or my opponent made an order of activation mistake.

 Grey Templar wrote:
40k has almost no order of activation issues. In Warmahordes you must activate some things in a specific order to make plans work. I've won, and lost, plenty of games because I or my opponent made an order of activation mistake.

The activation mechanic alone is a pretty big differentiating factor. When I'm playing 40k about the most in depth activation issues I have are "kill the transport first so I can shoot what's inside." With Warmachine you have to think stuff like "this warjack has the upkeep buff on it I need to kill this threat, so it has to go first, then I want my warcaster to activate so he can re-cast that buff on my other warjack, which will then kill this other threat, but before that jack can get a charge lane I have to clear out this infantry screen, but they out threaten me so I can't just charge in because I spaced my units properly, so I will have to drift some blast damage onto them since their defense is too high for me to hit any other way, which means I have to un-engage my ranged unit that can do blast damage from this other enemy unit that ran in their face last turn...oh, and I need to not lose on scenario or get my warcaster killed while accomplishing all this." That example completely ignoring the focus induction rubix cube I have to solve at the start of every turn since I play Convergence.

In general I feel like I am faced with many more meaningful decisions that have to be made each turn than I am with 40k.

P.S. Funny story: once I played 40k for the first time in quite a while after playing Warmachine, and I started trying to take warmachine style activations with my models. my opponent looked at me with a raised eyebrow when I moved one infantry squad then started shooting.

40k list building decisions: How many big guns can I fit in?
WMH list building decisions: Which caster should I take and how will that affect the units I do chose? How much support units per combat unit?

40k strategy: Use as many big guns against their big guns as possible.
WMH strategy: Should I go for caster kill or maybe wear them down with attrition? I'll send in my heavy jacks as a spear point while my infantry tie up his jacks and I'll send in my caster to take out his. But I have to be careful of his feat because that can throw off my timing. I need everything to strike hard at the same time or the effect is ruined and I leave my caster exposed.

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k list building decisions: How many big guns can I fit in?
WMH list building decisions: Which caster should I take and how will that affect the units I do chose? How much support units per combat unit?

40k strategy: Use as many big guns against their big guns as possible.
WMH strategy: Should I go for caster kill or maybe wear them down with attrition? I'll send in my heavy jacks as a spear point while my infantry tie up his jacks and I'll send in my caster to take out his. But I have to be careful of his feat because that can throw off my timing. I need everything to strike hard at the same time or the effect is ruined and I leave my caster exposed.

So no massive simplifications here then..... 40k has many faults but its not at all how you describe. There are lots of possible ways to build a list depending on your style of play and units you want to take - drop pod armies work differently to gunline.

The above is a silly as saying this:

40K HQ - choose from a variety in your Codex (or multiples / supplement), equip them in different ways and customise to suit your models and play style - wow freedom
WM/H Caster- Choose from a set list of character with predefined abilities you are going to use.

You'd be better comparing the activation sequence and abilities of WM/H to those Malifaux - another steampunk skirmish game based mainly around short range and close combat - which manages to achieve all of the above and OMG premeasuring! without causing the entire world to end..............

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

Depends on how big the first blunder is. Yes, if you focus dump your warcaster and march him into the open with a sandwhich placard sign with a bulls eye on it, and no defense modifiers and you're up against Ecaine, and then you throw your own jack into your own caster by accident, yes you're going to die, and horribly.

However with even a modicum of caution you can typically recover especially if whatever action you take becomes a misstep, you plan a contingency for.

There are absolutely those games / casters that the misjudgement of a quarter inch is the difference between safety and assassination, totally ... but if its that close, you shouldn't take that gamble unless its your only ticket to win.


That's the main difference to me: Warmachine requires chess like layers of contingency planning and future-turn insight... what am i going to do if he does that with that unit/jack, and then how will i react with my stuff.... etc and so forth.

It's not quite as... in depth isn't the right phrase, as that seems like i'm sorta backhand complimenting 40k as being "shallow", and complex isn't right either as that infers that 40k is simple. Layered is what i'll go with.

Yeah. WM/H is much more layered, and depending on what happens in those layers, the butterfly ripple effect changes the entire tenor of the game dramatically.


Sure there's some of that in 40k, i just don't think its quite as extensive.



Also, the sheer encylopedic volume of special rules in Warmachine / Hordes is another thing. You forget a critical rule that a model has at the wrong time, and you're screwed. Whereas there's a lot less special rules at the model level in 40k.


*shrug* They're both good games, imho, they just both scratch different itches for me.


-- Haight


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k list building decisions: How many big guns can I fit in?
WMH list building decisions: Which caster should I take and how will that affect the units I do chose? How much support units per combat unit?

40k strategy: Use as many big guns against their big guns as possible.
WMH strategy: Should I go for caster kill or maybe wear them down with attrition? I'll send in my heavy jacks as a spear point while my infantry tie up his jacks and I'll send in my caster to take out his. But I have to be careful of his feat because that can throw off my timing. I need everything to strike hard at the same time or the effect is ruined and I leave my caster exposed.

A vast simplification in terms of 40k don't you think ? I mean, can you at least try being objective when you talk about the two games ?

You're going out of your way to use a simple and repetitive model for 40k, and a detailed nuanced model for WM/H. You should try to obfuscate your rhetorical devices a little more.

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

No, it's not. People make tons of mistakes in Warmachine and Hordes all the time. They only matter if your opponent can take advantage of the "blunder".

You say that because a tactical mistake was made and the opponent was able to capitalize on it. That it resulted in winning the game for your opponent is immaterial to the argument that "Warmachine/Hordes is more tactical then 40K". It's like saying "I found my keys in the last place I looked." Of course you found your keys in the last place you looked. Did you continue looking AFTER you found your keys?

My assertion is that you must make MORE tactical decisions in Warmachine/Hordes then 40K, but the ones you make in 40K are no less important than the ones you make in W/H.

So the question becomes "Is Warmachine/Hordes more tactical because you make MORE tactical decisions, or because the decisions you make have a bigger impact on the game?"

How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

I agree with Haight- Warmachine is more layered then 40K. I disagree a bit about the special rules. While each model may lack a special rule, there are an awful lot of "special rules" in 40K that apply to whole units and armies, AND specific models may have special rules. It's a common misconception that because 40K doesn't use stat cards, that you think/perceive that 40K doesn't have as many special rules. While it is true that you could field an entire Warmachine army with each model/unit having different models, you could have your entire army in 40K with special rules, and then each model/unit with more special rules. If we discount special rules that apply to entire armies, then yeah, Warmachine has more special rules at the unit/solo model level then 40K. This feels like a pretty broad generalization though...

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

 malfred wrote:
Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

Say what?

Thats all fascinating but what does it have to do with Warmahordes?

 Tamwulf wrote:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

No, it's not. People make tons of mistakes in Warmachine and Hordes all the time. They only matter if your opponent can take advantage of the "blunder".

I was tacking onto this.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 malfred wrote:
Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

Say what?

Thats all fascinating but what does it have to do with Warmahordes?

What he's saying is that spotting and capitalizing a feth up is half the battle in warmachine, which could not be more true. Hell with some casters its probably 80% of the battle. Spotting a tiny mis-step with 4-6 layers of order of activation, and correctly gauging it from a huge threat range away is what he's referring to, and what i meant by "layered" above.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

This is pretty much what I think about the discussion. I thought I posted about it earlier, but I think I was just lurking. 40k has a stupid number of options, so the planning of the army is more important than its performance.
WMH relies so much upon reacting to your opponent.

I'm probably wayyyyyyyy off but I still agree.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

This is pretty much what I think about the discussion. I thought I posted about it earlier, but I think I was just lurking. 40k has a stupid number of options, so the planning of the army is more important than its performance.
WMH relies so much upon reacting to your opponent.

I'm probably wayyyyyyyy off but I still agree.

My personal opinion is that the customizable nature of 40K makes list building more granular, but not necessarily more indepth. My experience with 40k is that a very large number of the options you are presented are cute, but you rarely end up using, and there are certain loadouts you take more often than not (fair being fair, the same is true at the unit / caster / jack selection step levels .... there are just some things that go better together).

So I think 40k is at first glance (keeping unbound out of it) appears as if its monumentally more granular, but at the end of the day looks are deceiving, and its probably only moderately more so. It is still more for sure.

That's offset by the fact that at this point in their genesis, I think most WM armies have at least par number of choices open to them, to potentially many more in just root army book selections available to you (say, Cygnar - one of the core four, who also has access to a boatload of mercs... compare this to anything other than maybe Space Marines (which i think would probably be pretty even!), and i think you have more Unit / Entity level choices than most 40K armies). Whereas you have more granular flexibility at the Unit / Entity level - I.e., i can give my HQ a powersword, or lightning claws, or if i'm really feeling cheeky this relic thingy. With Warmachine, once you make your selection, in most cases if you have any further granularity with that choice, it is in the size of the unit rather than further options.

I suppose Theme lists are some slight granularity, but I think it doesn't really count, as you're giving up lots of options to gain a very small amount of unique granularity.


So the way i end up parsing it : WM/H in most (not all) cases have more Macro-level choice, whereas 40K gives more Micro-level choice.


However then enter unbound.... and yeah... the options become ginormous, and the granularity can be pretty large too. That being said, if WM/H had a "Take whatever you want" mode too, then at the Unit / Entity selection step, i still think there'd be more for WM, but still more granularity obviously once you've made that selection and are fleshing it out with options.


What's kind of interesting is the Macro split at least is a direct effect of how Privateer goes to market (which is brilliant, btw). Every other year a book releases for each game. Then over the next 12-18 Months, those models slowly trickle out, and at month 12 or so, the next book drops for the next game. Their pipeline is literally always full, just about ensuring that they have cashflow from all their army lines year round - maybe not huge infusions, but i think a steady reliable stream is preferable than a 1 month carpet bomb when it comes to cashflow... by taking this approach they've ensured that every army is getting a couple things in every 12-18 month cycle or so, and the fans of either game never have to go too too long before getting another hit / fix. It's genius. Whoever came up with that marketing scheme, they deserve a raise for it...


... Anywho, i'm getting really off topic. I'll stop now.

One of the big things is that 40k seems to focus on a single style of play, while WMH is more about how your things interact. There's a lot more activating this unit to give this other unit something, then activating this other unit to attack this guy, then finally activating the unit I buffed two activations ago because now I killed a model blocking line of sight to a key enemy model.

List Building is a big factor though in both, but it seems to matter more in WMH where you can have such a high variety. Even a lot of the tournament lists have no "one true way" to make them; there are some common choices that you tend to always see, but the support is largely up to the individual person's taste.

Ironically my local meta is now arguing over how some WMH lists can be "unfun" to play and how we shouldn't play people who use them, because there's no fun in a tournament list that someone else designed...

Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

 Moktor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

I don't mind the idea of 'tough' as a hard as nails trooper gritting his teeth and fighting on despite the bullet in his gut is Evocative. It stops being evocative when said tough roll occurs after being punched in the face repeatedly by something like the behemoth, when clearly, said trooper should be paste.

Saving throws and Armor Saves work the same way.

And some factions have ways to remove Tough, and those are
generally fluff inspired spells and ability. For example, a few
bounty hunters have the rule Take Down where their melee
attacks ignore Tough.

Deadnight wrote:

 Moktor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

I don't mind the idea of 'tough' as a hard as nails trooper gritting his teeth and fighting on despite the bullet in his gut is Evocative. It stops being evocative when said tough roll occurs after being punched in the face repeatedly by something like the behemoth, when clearly, said trooper should be paste.

Its not a perfect representation of course. But it could easily be that the Behemoth just didn't get a solid hit in and only grazed him. A graze would normally be enough to kill someone, but not something that tough.

Tough also represents unnatural resilience. Like Trollbloods who can regrow entire limbs if given enough time.

malfred wrote:Saving throws and Armor Saves work the same way.
T
And some factions have ways to remove Tough, and those are
generally fluff inspired spells and ability. For example, a few
bounty hunters have the rule Take Down where their melee
attacks ignore Tough.

*nods head* agreed mostly, though I'd argue tough is more like feel no pain. Personally I feel better access to anti tough tech would be a good direction to take.

Grey Templar wrote:
Its not a perfect representation of course. But it could easily be that the Behemoth just didn't get a solid hit in and only grazed him. A graze would normally be enough to kill someone, but not something that tough.
.

Snake eyes on a damage roll, or failing to hit by 1 do this too. Plus when said trooper repeatedly passes said test?

Grey Templar wrote:
Tough also represents unnatural resilience. Like Trollbloods who can regrow entire limbs if given enough time.

I'm not convinced. 'Unnatural toughness' only goes so far. Heck, feel no pain is similar, and in 40k is ignored by weapons with a strength of double the targets toughness, or by things like ap2. Underlined a bit for emphasis. They also need vast amounts of food. Now don't get me wrong, I like tough, but I feel it is (a) over used and (b) should be ignored by some more things than there are....

Tbh I think FNP/Tough is one of the few mechanics which I think is handled better in 40k than it is in Warmachine. The issue is that in Warmachine you need very specific tech (Blood Hags etc) to ignore it, whereas in 40k simply having a powerful enough attack can bypass it. From a fluff/conceptual standpoint that makes more sense to me, a Fennblade might repeatedly shrug off POW10s, but when Imperatus on the end of a Synergy chain hits something at POW 25+ any standard infantry model would be completely gone. That said I can't think of any good way to implement a system like this without making the mechanic seriously clunky - which is one of the major advantages of Tough vs FNP (Tough is almost always on so is a much smoother mechanic than the conditional FNP). FNP also has an advantage in that it works with the normal damage system much more smoothly, its essentially just a different type of armour save. Since there are no saves on Warmachine Tough becomes a unique but generally frustrating mechanic that breaks up the normal flow of the game. I agree that the best way to work on this moving foward is to give wider access to anti Tough rules.

I would be interested to know how many people in this thread have played both 40k and Warmachine. Having played 40k for 15 odd years before moving to Warmachine its almost impossible for me to comprehend how anyone who has played both systems could compare the depth of tactics in both games. Warmachine has an incredibly well written ruleset which allows for an huge number of options, rewarding players who can think outside the box. The biggest thing for me is that you can push the game in Warmachine as hard as you want and the rules don't fall apart. In 40k the core rules can fall apart even at a casual level as soon as you try and do something slightly unusual.

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Well for one thing, there is no such thing as "Net Lists". Not in the way that its commonly held to mean in terms of 40k.

Sure, you can use a list someone else made up that did well in a tournament or something, but unless you know how to use that list properly its going to do you no good.

So yes, your meta does need a swift kick in the pants. This isn't a game for whiners. The difference between casual games and tournament games is where the game is being played, not how the game is played or how lists are constructed.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Also that list isn't a "net list" in any way possible, its a Theme Force and those basically build themselves after you've followed all the restrictions.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Well for one thing, there is no such thing as "Net Lists". Not in the way that its commonly held to mean in terms of 40k.

Sure, you can use a list someone else made up that did well in a tournament or something, but unless you know how to use that list properly its going to do you no good.

So yes, your meta does need a swift kick in the pants. This isn't a game for whiners. The difference between casual games and tournament games is where the game is being played, not how the game is played or how lists are constructed.

Sadly they don't see that. Most of them played 40k so have a stigma against tournament play it seems. They were all pissed at a guy for a while who had eHaley and a Stormwall because most of them would rather fiddle with their own things and play what they think looks cool but not do 50 points or 2 list pairs since they feel that's only for tournaments. I'm glad I finally got people to start using SR scenarios instead of just playing caster kill games!

It's just one of those situations I guess. They want to approach the game more casually, I want to take full advantage of the fact the game is built as a fairly balanced, competitive set of rules. Some people seem to want to play WMH as though it was 40k, basically.

50 points is where the game shines. It's the equivalent of a 2k 40k army. It allows a player to use models that enhance the army without having to go "bare bones". I suppose your group also outlawed any 40K pieces like Knights and super heavies because they didn't feel like fighting them. This isn't 40K where everything just gets thrown in to a fight. If they don't like to have eHaley effect their army then they should find a way to go around her or send in things in waves. If she was the end all be all then she would be winning every tourney. The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
50 points is where the game shines. It's the equivalent of a 2k 40k army. It allows a player to use models that enhance the army without having to go "bare bones". I suppose your group also outlawed any 40K pieces like Knights and super heavies because they didn't feel like fighting them. This isn't 40K where everything just gets thrown in to a fight. If they don't like to have eHaley effect their army then they should find a way to go around her or send in things in waves. If she was the end all be all then she would be winning every tourney. The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Exactly my argument. Nothing is unbeatable, just things can make you think and change your tactics to deal with it.

This isn't a game for whiners

The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Its that sort of comment that tends to be quite depressing to hear and read.............

WM/H is a very precise/technical game that some find less fulfilling - its simply not for everyone - but that doesn't make it "better" or people who don't like "Lesser".

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

It's a theme list. They're often very exacting in their requirements so there's very little leeway for composition. Mad dogs of war is possibly the most fun you can have with butcher. It combines doomies and butcher. I run it with right squads of doomies at 50pts. This combination of elements simply cannot be improved upon. It's also extremely thematic and true to the fluff.

Plus it's hardly broken. Unbelievably fun, but far from the 'net list' of 40k as you can get. And also, it's in no way overpowered.

I do agree that eHaley with a Stormwall is not fun to play against. Not because its broken, its not, but because it basically takes away 2 of your turns.

There are ways to mitigate her feat. Its not fun for either player though. PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Really?? When did that happen.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Really?? When did that happen.

then why don't they FAQ it?

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Really?? When did that happen.

AFAIK, never.

If PP had any regret about eHaley they could have easily changed it during either the change to MK2 and / or posterior FAQ's like they did with eGaspy.

 Mr Morden wrote:

This isn't a game for whiners

The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Its that sort of comment that tends to be quite depressing to hear and read.............

WM/H is a very precise/technical game that some find less fulfilling - its simply not for everyone - but that doesn't make it "better" or people who don't like "Lesser".

That technical aspect lends itself more to a competitive/tournament meta, which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Casual gamers have been playing less of WMH lately around here. A bit OT but whatever..

I still don't think that a more tactical game needs to be so focused on tournament play. I still don't understand how 40k could be played tournament wise.

With the bloat they've pumped into 40k over the last two editions, I don't think its possible to play a "professional" tournament with the serious time and money investment in behalf of the TOs to clear lists for approval and gather all rules needed for play and the unstable meta that gets upset every month with supplements, new armies, new models out of white dwarf. 40k is madness incarnate.

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Citation ?

Cuz i respectfully call bs on this. I worked for PP for a while as an Infernal, including the time of transition from Mk1 to Mk2.

Never, ever once heard anything even remotely close to this, and i worked pretty damn close with both Kevin Clark and David Carl, and by proxy via both, Jason soles. In fact, quite the contrary to be honest. I always heard her lauded as a very strong, but dismantle-able caster if you took the right approach, but one that could easily fluster an opponent into making mistakes.

Now, granted that's been a few years, but this would speak more to the development of future pieces and not the caster, if they were developed so they could be abused by her.


Not intending to be a jerk, but i just highly, highly doubt that any PPS'er would publicly state regret for the design of one of their models. Privately... perhaps... but publically ? Under company banner ? No frickin' way. I just know too much about how the development team works to believe that. If there were ANY reservations at all, they'd be uber private, and unlikely to be shared outside a very small coterie of people.

It was roughly the same time they said they also regretted how all the Apotheosis casters were designed. Its why they've been very skittish about new types of casters every since.

Its why all the Battle Engine warcasters before eXerxis were decidedly meh.

They do regret them, but not enough to errata. Haley isn't OP, just bad design from the perspective of trying to make a fun game.

I'd have to go digging through the old PP forums to find the posts though.

The apotheosis sound bite you refer to is (paraphrased) "The development of apotheosis nearly broke the game from an internal process development point of view. We will probably never release another book with 4 casters per faction again."

They did not regret any of the casters, they regretted how much strain it put on their staff by not realizing how much work dropping 16 (.... 16 ? i forget if Apoth had any mercs... so its at least 16, maybe more... been a long time now)... casters would be and to make sure they were balanced, etc. Having been on that side of it, egads, i would not have wanted to be working on a 16 warcaster release. 2 per faction is a challenge enough, 3 is pants on head crazy. I can just imagine what 4 per faction was like.


Fair being fair: i wasn't an infernal at that time, so i have but i was very friendly with Kevin Clark already by the time Apoth dropped.


I don't think you'll be able to find a quote from a PPS'er that out and out states "The company's stance is that we regret this warcaster", or something along those lines. Especially around the late Kevin Clark, early David Carl era's of development. If you can i'd be curious to see who it was from - i.e., was it from one of the guys higher up the ladder, or PPS_TIMMUH who worked for a summer as a caster.

 Haight wrote:
The apotheosis sound bite you refer to is (paraphrased) "The development of apotheosis nearly broke the game from an internal process development point of view. We will probably never release another book with 4 casters per faction again."

They did not regret any of the casters, they regretted how much strain it put on their staff by not realizing how much work dropping 16 (.... 16 ? i forget if Apoth had any mercs... so its at least 16, maybe more... been a long time now)... casters would be and to make sure they were balanced, etc. Having been on that side of it, egads, i would not have wanted to be working on a 16 warcaster release. 2 per faction is a challenge enough, 3 is pants on head crazy. I can just imagine what 4 per faction was like.


Fair being fair: i wasn't an infernal at that time, so i have but i was very friendly with Kevin Clark already by the time Apoth dropped.


I don't think you'll be able to find a quote from a PPS'er that out and out states "The company's stance is that we regret this warcaster", or something along those lines. Especially around the late Kevin Clark, early David Carl era's of development. If you can i'd be curious to see who it was from - i.e., was it from one of the guys higher up the ladder, or PPS_TIMMUH who worked for a summer as a caster.

Look at the name dropper! LOL

I can back up/support everything Haight says about this. PP has NEVER expressed regret over a model (and never will!). They may say how much work, time, and effort they put into something and it nearly broke them. they might issue errata later about a model (which they have done only a handful of times) , but never have they ever said "...wish we hadn't made such a model..." or some such, and if they did, I want to see the quote, time, and place so I can give it to Matt Wilson and watch him go ballistic and probably fire the person that said it.

I have never played warmahordes, and I don't know the rules, but, I have to say, in my experience, while not a hugely tactical game, tactics has a very large impact on 40k,
especially when it comes to what you want to do with units, because of all the elements that have to be considered..

I bet they even love Lord Rock bottom and that one Troll holdin the piglet....

Who doesnt love that troll!

I have never played warmahordes, and I don't know the rules, but, I have to say, in my experience, while not a hugely tactical game, tactics has a very large impact on 40k,
especially when it comes to what you want to do with units, because of all the elements that have to be considered..

But nowhere near as much as WMH. I played 40k for 11 years. My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).
I even managed to win a relatively big tourney (40 players) witha really really bent Nidzilla list. I'd worked out the maximal killpower in Excel spreadsheets and in gameplay i simply pushed them forwards and rolled dice. My most serious tactical decision was remembering to park my Carnifexes behind ruins for 4+ cover save.

In WMH my strategy is to take options from the 50%-90% of options that are viable (Some books are better balanced than others) and build them into a balanced all comers list (Or as 1 list of a 2 list pairing to take on all comers). For tactics I then consider what capabilities my opponent's list has and tailor my moves to mitigate his strengths whilst maximising mine. I also need to balance scenario vs. attrition vs. caster kill.

If WMH is like Chess, 3-4ed 40k was like Chequers and 5th ed 40k onwards was like Yahtzee.


Gaz

The Closest that PP will come to saying "oops!" is nerfing a warcaster 3 times.

Gazzor wrote:
But nowhere near as much as WMH. I played 40k for 11 years. My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).
I even managed to win a relatively big tourney (40 players) witha really really bent Nidzilla list. I'd worked out the maximal killpower in Excel spreadsheets and in gameplay i simply pushed them forwards and rolled dice. My most serious tactical decision was remembering to park my Carnifexes behind ruins for 4+ cover save.

If that's how you play, I pity you. Also, any game that involves dice to decide most outcomes can be said to be just moving pieces and rolling dice, to a certain extent.
What makes it tactical is how you use the units. Did you ever have to decide what units you wanted to shoot each turn in what order to get the most out of your units? Something tells me you did.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Gazzor wrote:
But nowhere near as much as WMH. I played 40k for 11 years. My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).
I even managed to win a relatively big tourney (40 players) witha really really bent Nidzilla list. I'd worked out the maximal killpower in Excel spreadsheets and in gameplay i simply pushed them forwards and rolled dice. My most serious tactical decision was remembering to park my Carnifexes behind ruins for 4+ cover save.

If that's how you play, I pity you. Also, any game that involves dice to decide most outcomes can be said to be just moving pieces and rolling dice, to a certain extent.
What makes it tactical is how you use the units. Did you ever have to decide what units you wanted to shoot each turn in what order to get the most out of your units? Something tells me you did.

You're talking about extremely basic tactics that every tabletop game has to have. Obviously 40k has to have some tactical decisions or it would literally be a "PEW PEW- I got you!" make-believe game. But that's not to say that WMH isn't significantly more nuanced in applying its tactical decision-making process to the game.

40k largely comes down to list-building. There may be some variants to successful lists and the lists will change as the game evolves, but it always comes back to what you put in your army. Lists will continue to be a more and more important part of playing 40k as the game moves further in the randomness direction, where lists form the most crucial portion of a player's ability to control the game.

The Closest that PP will come to saying "oops!" is nerfing a warcaster 3 times

Or how about the time they actually said, "Oops"?

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?199452-Force-Wall-NQ-Tier-Dear-DC-Please-Errata/page9

Note that this was within 1-2 weeks of the issue being raised. Not several months, or never, for GW rules issues.

PP are trying to make a balanced game. GW pretty much aren't, as much.

If that's how you play, I pity you.

How should I play oh arbiter of play styles?

Also, any game that involves dice to decide most outcomes can be said to be just moving pieces and rolling dice, to a certain extent.

Yup, especially in 40k the roll for 1st turn whereby 1st player gets to blow loads of his opponents stuff off the table before it gets to move. Moving pieces is a lot less important in 40k as the range of guns is so long and 40k terrain rules so numpty and pointless that you can get shot almost anywhere on the table.

What makes it tactical is how you use the units.

Agreed.

Did you ever have to decide what units you wanted to shoot each turn in what order to get the most out of your units? Something tells me you did.

Yup, I sure did. I decided that I wanted the enemy units with heavy weapons/ plasma guns dead ASAP. I shot them first. I then murdered the rest of the opposing army that lacked any weapons that were a serious threat to my 8 TMCs.
As to where to move units. Who cares? Gun ranges are so long and terrain rules so bobbins that positioning is nowhere near as important. To be fair, if playing an assault army I'd be moving my assault stuff as fast as possible towards the enemy, but that's not really rocket science.
And with the stupid random charge length rules GW has gone out of its way to make both 40k and WFB systems less tactical.

Having played 40k (As I wrote above) and WMH for circa 4 years, I think I can make a fair comparison between the games.

40k is a nice hobby game, which doesn't require much brain power once you've written your killer list as it almost plays itself (Apart from remembering a bunch of stupid unintuitive rules that go against sensible tactics - although that's more a WFB bugbear that I've got).

And you're not going to ever likely see an army as spectacular as 6 Imperial Knights (Obviously people take those for modelling reasons, not cause they're bent).


Gaz

AH the good old leafblower. Longfang spam. Purifier spam. etc etc. Competitive play exposes the harsh realities of 40k's "balance." Sorry Creed, but Gazzor is rather correct in his analysis of 40k. Take the biggest weapons you can, and as many as you can and you will likely win in 40k. Other games have safeguards to prevent this kind of thing. FoW has dozens of lists, but they're highly restrictive. Infinity has multiple forms of limits on heavy weapon spamming: order groups, SWC and ava. WMH limits units and while jacks are unrestricted, they depend on resources in game. Firestorm Armada has the tier system. The list goes on, GW's list building allows for spamming power. Their balance in codexes pushes power spamming. Their balance between codexes is laughable making matchups hard to unbeatable in many situations. Tack this onto a very wild set of rules that's very loose with it's wording, that contains a LOT of random elements and has very poor game design elements as it's core. Units lack facing, individual movement values, cover is easy to obtain and heavily benefits certain armies over others, proliferation of low AP makes power armor near worthless, terrible rules for flanking/deepstrike, and very few mechanics involve anything that isn't attacking or making attacking better. Possibly the biggest sin of all? Dreadnaughts and monsters are BORING! They look awesome and all, but they function just like everything else. DoW made dreads pure awesome. Sweeping their arms, crushing dudes, smashing them into the ground and tossing them around like dolls. Warjacks and warbeasts power attacks do SO much more for the cinematic feel than anything GW has done.

I've played 40k for a few years and have only recently begun my adventure into WarmaHordes, and these are my opinions.

40k whether playing in tournies or casually with friends almost always seemed to be just spam power unit then move your guys and throw dice. I felt like it pretty much played itself.

WM/H just feels like it has so much more depth and decisions to make. From choosing a caster to jacks to units to all mesh and how they will interact and support them. There are so many times when messing up your activation order can cost you the game.

To me 40k is a better hobby as the model customization is easier to do. But WM/H is a better game as its rules are more concrete/clear/actually rules and not more of a suggestion to forge narrative battles.

In the past year I picked up WMH and 12 years ago played 40k. I recently had the urge to consider playing 40k again (Necrons look really cool) but watched a batrep or two from Miniwargaming (whom I largely dislike but they're one of the few who do 40k batreps). I forget the specifics but it looked insanely boring, just everything move up, some things shoot, rinse repeat. Almost no tactical choices at all. It didn't even look fun.

That's why I love WMH. I played a game against my brother's Legion last night and almost everything I did had some kind of tactical maneuver or idea behind it, it wasn't moving up just to get in range, it was moving up to put pressure on this unit or contest this zone or so I could flank around and shoot this key piece that was hiding.

It really boils down to this.

If you think 40k is tactical, you really have never played a a truly tactical game.


But to continue on a metaphor, WMH is chess, 5th 40k is checked. 7th 40k is Sorry.

The board game. Not just sorry.


Tho it is.

Sorry.

I've played 40k for over twenty years and though I loved it, I always felt that it was lacking something. the first time I played WMH I knew I had found my game. Not only did my decisions matter, but I really had to think about every move. I loved it.
With my SOB army, I spammed meltaguns in immolators and Excorcists and just shot the enemy from afar while zooming up to shoot stuff point blank. It was very simplistic. Not easy, but simple.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've played 40k for over twenty years and though I loved it, I always felt that it was lacking something. the first time I played WMH I knew I had found my game. Not only did my decisions matter, but I really had to think about every move. I loved it.
With my SOB army, I spammed meltaguns in immolators and Excorcists and just shot the enemy from afar while zooming up to shoot stuff point blank. It was very simplistic. Not easy, but simple.

Yeah, that seems to be how most 40k games tend to go, not much tactical decisions but more of where to apply firepower only. The sad part is that I might enjoy 40k if it wasn't for everything else GW does.

Every action in Warmachine has a risk associated it. Mitigating that risk, be it retaliation, poor placement, or death, is a huge portion of the game. One of my factions revolves heavily around model placement to inflict damage and limit return damage. Three of the casters I enjoy have specific feats or spells that involve this very element of "double alpha strike".

Alpha Strike.

That term alone has different connotations. In a GW game, Alpha Strike (post 5E full reserve armies) means he who wins the dice roll to go first (and isn't seized on, a BS mechanic). Outside of essentially hiding, he who goes first usually can pummel a great deal of damage into the opposing army.

In Warmahordes, Alpha Strike is the player who gets the first major punch and is not determined by which player goes first. It is determined entirely by army composition and player skill to judge enemy threat ranges and timing of certain actions (spells, mini feats, regular feats, etc.). Some armies can pull off multiple alphas and others are entirely designed to take it on the chin.

I find a lot of the disparities can come down to a simple analysis:

What's usually a player choice in Warmachine is usually a random dice roll in Warhammer.

It doesn't help that in 40k the range of the weapons spans the entire board. Against a first turn gun line there is no hiding from it. You have no option but to take it in the fact and carry on from there.

As the weapon range in WM/H is far shorter, first turn doesn't always mean first shots fired. You have to get closer in order to attack, so sometimes the first player will be the first in range. But then you have to decide whether you have enough fire power to bare in order to mitigate the return fire. Or does your opponent have the ability to counter attack with what they have the next turn.

Gazzor wrote:
My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).

So what you're saying is... you're the reason people think 40k is 99% listbuilding, and the rest is autopilot like FF12 Gambit system.

 Pyeatt wrote:

Gazzor wrote:
My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).

So what you're saying is... you're the reason people think 40k is 99% listbuilding, and the rest is autopilot like FF12 Gambit system.

Its like that because that's how you win at 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:

Gazzor wrote:
My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).

So what you're saying is... you're the reason people think 40k is 99% listbuilding, and the rest is autopilot like FF12 Gambit system.

Its like that because that's how you win at 40k.

How I win at Pokemon Red is boot up my emulator, search online for "gameshark" codes, and bum rush brock with 6 lvl 100 Mew's. How I "play" the game is I grab bulbasaur and kick butt for 20+ hours. Change "Gameshark" to Netlist, change "Bulbasaur" to "solid fun list"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Get my point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:

If you think 40k is tactical, you really have never played a a truly tactical game.

.

I imagine you with a neckbeard and an "ironic scarf" smoking clove cigarettes.

 Pyeatt wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:

Gazzor wrote:
My strategy was to take the 2-4 uber units per book, spam them as much as possible to make the most points efficient list. My tactics were to push my models towards my opponents whilst rolling a bunch of dice and win (90% of the time at club level, 70% of the time at tourney level).

So what you're saying is... you're the reason people think 40k is 99% listbuilding, and the rest is autopilot like FF12 Gambit system.

Its like that because that's how you win at 40k.

How I win at Pokemon Red is boot up my emulator, search online for "gameshark" codes, and bum rush brock with 6 lvl 100 Mew's. How I "play" the game is I grab bulbasaur and kick butt for 20+ hours. Change "Gameshark" to Netlist, change "Bulbasaur" to "solid fun list"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Get my point?

you dont need gameshark for 40k. The game is just designed poorly.

Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

No, you didn't.

But PLEASE!!! Lets get back to the point of the thread, which is patting yourself on the back for not buying GW, and condescending snipes like "you've never played a tactical game" guy

 Pyeatt wrote:
But PLEASE!!! Lets get back to the point of the thread, which is patting yourself on the back for not buying GW, and condescending snipes like "you've never played a tactical game" guy

Its not condescension if its true.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

Its not, AFAIK there is no way for a player to make an attack into an enemy deployment zone on the first turn of the game.

I can't think of a way to do it with ghost cheese that can't be touched.

I mean, if you're running incorporeal, an attack removes the
incorporeal for a turn. I'd like details before I assume one thing
or another is going on.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

Turn 1? Really? Really?

Let's see this tourney list you saw that auto wins on turn 1. Let's see the tournaments it's grabbed...

Incorporeal can be dealt with. Magic weapons, or on the turn they attack and they lose incorporeal...

Oh and tac implies take all comers. That includes incorporeal. It's just one more thing to be aware of in the game.

It's easily possible for games to end the bottom of round 1, assuming the first player overextends badly. Though that's really more due to player error than anything else. Certainly not untouchable ghosts.

PhantomViper wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

Its not, AFAIK there is no way for a player to make an attack into an enemy deployment zone on the first turn of the game.

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

Drakeraids wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

Its not, AFAIK there is no way for a player to make an attack into an enemy deployment zone on the first turn of the game.

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

I can think of a couple of ways that a player could kill his opponent at the bottom of turn 1 (Ravyn's feat-snipe-go) but these are akin to fool's mate in chess. Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen often or with some regularity? Not in my experience. Or I should say not after it happens once to a player or that player's friend and only then if it's their first game against those few casters. AFAIK there is no way to kill an opposing caster on the top of turn 1 without the opponent's willful cooperation.

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

I didn't look up the relevant numbers, but...

Player 1 sets up his warcaster at 10" deployment line. Player 2 sets up his warcaster at the 10" line. Table is only 48" across, but the distance between the two warcasters is only 28" before the game starts. Warcaster 1 activates, moves up 5". Player 2 activates bottom of turn 1, moves up 5". There is now only 18" between the two warcasters. That's in a regular game.

In Steamroller, player 1 is at the 7" line, player 2 at 10" (that's 31" between the warcasters). If both are SPD 5, then at the bottom of turn 1, they will be 21" apart. Assuming player 2 is the Vayl player with the theme force and a Spell Martyer: Spell Martyer sets up at the 13" deployment line. Spell Martyer is SPD 6, so it can run 12" and is now sitting on the 25" line. Obliteration is a 10" spell, so Vayl will be able to arc a spell through the Spell Martyer up to the 35" line. Player 1 started at 10" (38" up the board), moved up to 15" (33" up the board) line... So yeah, Vayl has +/- 2" to play with, and Vayl doesn't even have to move. So top of turn 1 between Spell Martyer and opposing warcaster, there is only 25". Warcaster moves up 5", Spell Martyer runs- that distance is down to 8". Vayl now arcs spells and hits opposing warcaster.

One of the key skills you have to develop in Warmachine/Hordes is the ability to calculate threat ranges and, to a lesser extent, angles. In the above scenario, you could easily avoid a spell assassination here by not moving a full 5", or blocking line of sight. Or by taking out the Spell Martyers (if you have the range for it). Threat Ranges!

If it's any consolation, turn 1 assassination was far, far more prevalent in MK I, and Epic Vlad led the way. He could just about get his entire army into your deployment zone on turn 1. Or, at least enough of his army to kill your warcaster if you set them up on your deployment line.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

I don't think I can hit you with Molik Karn turn one, I've done it top of two but not turn one.

 Tamwulf wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

I didn't look up the relevant numbers, but...

Player 1 sets up his warcaster at 10" deployment line. Player 2 sets up his warcaster at the 10" line. Table is only 48" across, but the distance between the two warcasters is only 28" before the game starts. Warcaster 1 activates, moves up 5". Player 2 activates bottom of turn 1, moves up 5". There is now only 18" between the two warcasters. That's in a regular game.

In Steamroller, player 1 is at the 7" line, player 2 at 10" (that's 31" between the warcasters). If both are SPD 5, then at the bottom of turn 1, they will be 21" apart. Assuming player 2 is the Vayl player with the theme force and a Spell Martyer: Spell Martyer sets up at the 13" deployment line. Spell Martyer is SPD 6, so it can run 12" and is now sitting on the 25" line. Obliteration is a 10" spell, so Vayl will be able to arc a spell through the Spell Martyer up to the 35" line. Player 1 started at 10" (38" up the board), moved up to 15" (33" up the board) line... So yeah, Vayl has +/- 2" to play with, and Vayl doesn't even have to move. So top of turn 1 between Spell Martyer and opposing warcaster, there is only 25". Warcaster moves up 5", Spell Martyer runs- that distance is down to 8". Vayl now arcs spells and hits opposing warcaster.

One of the key skills you have to develop in Warmachine/Hordes is the ability to calculate threat ranges and, to a lesser extent, angles. In the above scenario, you could easily avoid a spell assassination here by not moving a full 5", or blocking line of sight. Or by taking out the Spell Martyers (if you have the range for it). Threat Ranges!

If it's any consolation, turn 1 assassination was far, far more prevalent in MK I, and Epic Vlad led the way. He could just about get his entire army into your deployment zone on turn 1. Or, at least enough of his army to kill your warcaster if you set them up on your deployment line.

That is not what I'm talking about and AFAIK that is not what Drakeraids is talking about as well. If we assume that the "victim" warcaster moves, then there is a whole plethora of ways that he can die without moving again, it is in no way restricted to either Vayl or Hexeris.

We are (or at least I am) talking about killing someone in his deployment zone, top of round 1 using the SR deployment rules (frankly I haven't even heard of anyone playing non-SR by this point).

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

not sure how that's even possible.

Oh, I don't like that these people aren't saying that 40k is the best, most tactical game, but I don't know anything about the game they're comparing it against. I better just make stuff up about how their game is no better and mock them. That'll teach those infidels!

PhantomViper wrote:

That is not what I'm talking about and AFAIK that is not what Drakeraids is talking about as well. If we assume that the "victim" warcaster moves, then there is a whole plethora of ways that he can die without moving again, it is in no way restricted to either Vayl or Hexeris.

We are (or at least I am) talking about killing someone in his deployment zone, top of round 1 using the SR deployment rules (frankly I haven't even heard of anyone playing non-SR by this point).

Let's clarify: it's about a 'tourney list'' that wins on turn 1 with 'crazy ghost cheese'.

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

I'm not sure on the exact mechanics for Vayl, I think it requires her to be in tier so her warbeasts get +2 speed on the first round, and you need to use slipstream. I don't play her or have her cards, but its been done to me before, and it was explained in a manner that I could not find fault in. I just kinda shrugged and made a note to deploy in shield wall next time. Hexeris 1 I'm more familiar with. It goes like this, it requires you have a Razor Worm, a Titan Gladiator, and Aptimus Marketh. Its activation intensive and you basically give up a warbeast for free, but he can do it.

Both players deploy. You deploy Hexeris at the 7". They deploy something you want to nuke at the 10" (So 38 inches away from you). You advance deploy the Razor Wurm directly opposite at the 13". Marketh moves and puts Soul Slave on the Worm. Gladiator moves, pushes the Worm 1 inch to the 14. Casts Rush on it. Worm activates and runs 14 inches, base speed 6, making 12, then +2 from rush, taking it to the 28. Hexy has 14 inch control area, and is at the 7. He needs to move 7 inches to have the Worm in his control area to arc, so you move something 9~10 inches away and let him charge it. He then arcs an Obliteration 10 inches from the Razor Worm (38)~ into the enemy assuming they are on the deployment line.

Vayl does it better because she can feat and do two fully boosted ones, from closer IIRC. Its janky as hell and typically not worth it but you can do it.

Pyeatt wrote:
Warmahordes is no different. I've seen tourney lists that end the game turn 1 because someone brought TAC, and the other guy brought some crazy ghost cheese that couldnt be touched.

Yeah, tell me more. I wanna hear about the turn 1 winning ghost cheese list.

Unless of course it's a load of bollocks that you just made up...

But PLEASE!!! Lets get back to the point of the thread, which is patting yourself on the back for not buying GW, and condescending snipes like "you've never played a tactical game" guy

Point of the thread was answered several pages back. Then some poeple are saying that 40k is tactical as well. True that they are both tactical, to the same extent that a housecat (40k) is the same as a tiger (WMH). Both are cats, but one's a lot more cat than the other.

As to feeling good about not buying any more GW, that is based, I suspect, on relief about no longer playing a numpty game produced by a company that really appears not to give two figs about producing a good quality game or supporting it. They can't even be bothered to run their own forum, which pretty much every game company manages to do.


Gaz

Gazzor wrote:

Let's clarify: it's about a 'tourney list'' that wins on turn 1 with 'crazy ghost cheese'.

Yeah, tell me more. I wanna hear about the turn 1 winning ghost cheese list.

Unless of course it's a load of bollocks that you just made up...

Gaz

Um, I didn't make up anything gaz - you're quoting the wrong guy- thst quote by you is quoting me. And I'm literally just clarifying the statement, as it claimed by someone else.p

But yeah, I don't see it happening either...

Sorry mate. Post edited for clarity.

Was referring to the original poster that you were querying. Bad quoting etiquette on my part there. :(

And my language was a bit naughty, but I've not edited that.


Gaz

 Tamwulf wrote:

 Haight wrote:
The apotheosis sound bite you refer to is (paraphrased) "The development of apotheosis nearly broke the game from an internal process development point of view. We will probably never release another book with 4 casters per faction again."

They did not regret any of the casters, they regretted how much strain it put on their staff by not realizing how much work dropping 16 (.... 16 ? i forget if Apoth had any mercs... so its at least 16, maybe more... been a long time now)... casters would be and to make sure they were balanced, etc. Having been on that side of it, egads, i would not have wanted to be working on a 16 warcaster release. 2 per faction is a challenge enough, 3 is pants on head crazy. I can just imagine what 4 per faction was like.


Fair being fair: i wasn't an infernal at that time, so i have but i was very friendly with Kevin Clark already by the time Apoth dropped.


I don't think you'll be able to find a quote from a PPS'er that out and out states "The company's stance is that we regret this warcaster", or something along those lines. Especially around the late Kevin Clark, early David Carl era's of development. If you can i'd be curious to see who it was from - i.e., was it from one of the guys higher up the ladder, or PPS_TIMMUH who worked for a summer as a caster.

Look at the name dropper! LOL

I can back up/support everything Haight says about this. PP has NEVER expressed regret over a model (and never will!). They may say how much work, time, and effort they put into something and it nearly broke them. they might issue errata later about a model (which they have done only a handful of times) , but never have they ever said "...wish we hadn't made such a model..." or some such, and if they did, I want to see the quote, time, and place so I can give it to Matt Wilson and watch him go ballistic and probably fire the person that said it.

Yeah, just... knowing who and what i know, if someone came out and publically said that, they'd be in a meeting pretty quick i think getting their donkey-cave chewed apart. I imagine it's the same at most companies.


BTW... good to "see" you Tam. How you been ? I've been flirting with the idea of picking up cygnar again. There's a good crew at the local store, and my boy's of pokemon playing age.... the warmachine players just happen to play on the same day as the pokemon kids, soooooo....


EDIT: just read the rest of the thread catching up.

... so people still complain about incorporeal ?! Did i just time warp back to Escalation era where denny and 2 pistol wraiths, a bunch of arcs, and season to taste was the bees knees !?


EDIT 2: Interesting to whomever posted the thing by PPS_DC that said there was a goof. Good on them for admitting it and moving forward. I always liked DC for the most part. Saw eye to eye on most stuff, battled on a very small number of things, and ultimately think we managed to accomplish a nice amount of work together. One thing i appreciate(d) about him was he always shot from the hip, there was very little PC beating around the bush. If an issue were dead or moot, it was dead or moot, thanks for your input, lets move on. It helped you not beat dead horses that weren't going to magically get less dead.

If you are losing to crazy ghost cheese that cant be touched with a TAC list you clearly havent got a TAC list, a TAC list should take all comers, including incopreal stuff and every kind of crazy cute cheese that can be thrown at you

 DukeBadham wrote:
If you are losing to crazy ghost cheese that cant be touched with a TAC list you clearly havent got a TAC list, a TAC list should take all comers, including incopreal stuff and every kind of crazy cute cheese that can be thrown at you

The problem is the term "TAC list" in 40k has evolved into this generic jack-of-all-trades thing, and with the current edition of 40k that's not even in the realm of an effective play style. With WM/H, a TAC list *can* take on all-comers, so there seems to be some language disparity.

To be fair, guys, T3 Bradigus lists can assassinate an enemy warcaster/warlock in their deployment zone. Not turn one, mind you, but that dude is crazy right now.

Other then that, if you lose bottom of one/top of two, it's entirely your fault because you made a mistake. It's not like getting shot off the table with Wave Serpents, but rather you moved into engagement range of a long range threat and didn't protect yourself. My best is top of two Mortenebra who waddled out of her deployment zone and camped no focus. Vayl2 enjoyed that greatly.

Drakeraids wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

I'm not sure on the exact mechanics for Vayl, I think it requires her to be in tier so her warbeasts get +2 speed on the first round, and you need to use slipstream. I don't play her or have her cards, but its been done to me before, and it was explained in a manner that I could not find fault in. I just kinda shrugged and made a note to deploy in shield wall next time. Hexeris 1 I'm more familiar with. It goes like this, it requires you have a Razor Worm, a Titan Gladiator, and Aptimus Marketh. Its activation intensive and you basically give up a warbeast for free, but he can do it.

Both players deploy. You deploy Hexeris at the 7". They deploy something you want to nuke at the 10" (So 38 inches away from you). You advance deploy the Razor Wurm directly opposite at the 13". Marketh moves and puts Soul Slave on the Worm. Gladiator moves, pushes the Worm 1 inch to the 14. Casts Rush on it. Worm activates and runs 14 inches, base speed 6, making 12, then +2 from rush, taking it to the 28. Hexy has 14 inch control area, and is at the 7. He needs to move 7 inches to have the Worm in his control area to arc, so you move something 9~10 inches away and let him charge it. He then arcs an Obliteration 10 inches from the Razor Worm (38)~ into the enemy assuming they are on the deployment line.

Vayl does it better because she can feat and do two fully boosted ones, from closer IIRC. Its janky as hell and typically not worth it but you can do it.

I'm the exact opposite because I play Legion but I know very little about Skorne.

Just an FYI though, in that Hexeris example that you gave, the Obliteration would still have automatically missed. You need to have more than 38" for the spell to be within range, especially since the latest clarification that states that touching something isn't considered within anymore.

Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Drakeraids wrote:

Vayl and Hexeris can both spell you from your deployment zone if they go first. I think that's it though.

How? I'm doing the math and the most that I can get for Vayl is 35" from her board edge (Theme force AD Spell Martyr runs = 13" + 12" + 10" Obliteration range ). How do you get the extra 3.1" needed? If you add a couple of Seraphs to the list you could get an extra 2", but even then you're still short.

I'm not sure on the exact mechanics for Vayl, I think it requires her to be in tier so her warbeasts get +2 speed on the first round, and you need to use slipstream. I don't play her or have her cards, but its been done to me before, and it was explained in a manner that I could not find fault in. I just kinda shrugged and made a note to deploy in shield wall next time. Hexeris 1 I'm more familiar with. It goes like this, it requires you have a Razor Worm, a Titan Gladiator, and Aptimus Marketh. Its activation intensive and you basically give up a warbeast for free, but he can do it.

Both players deploy. You deploy Hexeris at the 7". They deploy something you want to nuke at the 10" (So 38 inches away from you). You advance deploy the Razor Wurm directly opposite at the 13". Marketh moves and puts Soul Slave on the Worm. Gladiator moves, pushes the Worm 1 inch to the 14. Casts Rush on it. Worm activates and runs 14 inches, base speed 6, making 12, then +2 from rush, taking it to the 28. Hexy has 14 inch control area, and is at the 7. He needs to move 7 inches to have the Worm in his control area to arc, so you move something 9~10 inches away and let him charge it. He then arcs an Obliteration 10 inches from the Razor Worm (38)~ into the enemy assuming they are on the deployment line.

Vayl does it better because she can feat and do two fully boosted ones, from closer IIRC. Its janky as hell and typically not worth it but you can do it.

I'm the exact opposite because I play Legion but I know very little about Skorne.

Just an FYI though, in that Hexeris example that you gave, the Obliteration would still have automatically missed. You need to have more than 38" for the spell to be within range, especially since the latest clarification that states that touching something isn't considered within anymore.

Lord Arbiter Hexeris's warbeast bond requires CMD not CNTRL,
a difference of 6". I don't know if that's enough to pull off this
particular trick, but then again I'm too lazy to figure it out. Because
math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:
To be fair, guys, T3 Bradigus lists can assassinate an enemy warcaster/warlock in their deployment zone. Not turn one, mind you, but that dude is crazy right now.

If it's not turn 1, how are you still in the deployment zone? Unless you've
parked there, then this isn't really the same thing. I think the example they
were citing ("making up" or "inventing". If this were politics I'd use the term
"fabricating") was meant to illustrate a win condition allowing for absolutely
no response. Bradigus theme force comes close, but not quite in the way
as posted.

He is crazy right now though. Totes cray cray.

This thread made me google "ghost cheese", and I found adorable lil string cheeses with ghost-y eyes drawn on the wrapper...

Also, everyone is trying to "deal with Bradigus" currently, because he's new and people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
...people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

This can't be true! It's too logical to be true!!!

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

This is fair, but having played both games what 40k brings to the table isn't anything in the way of tactical depth, or a meaningful competitive frame work.

It's great for pushing dudes around without having to track a bunch of variables or a complex possibility space. It's great for larking at random moments or interactions. It handles being "paused" better, doesn't require precision measuring and all-in-all just has lower overhead on moment to moment play.

These are fine things to like. These might even be things someone cares about and makes/breaks a game for them. All valid reasons to like 40k over the competition, including WM/H. However, I just don't see the space for making a genuine, informed argument that 40k offers the same quality of tactical game play,diversity with impact or substantive system mastery.

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

We're not saying it's better, just far more in depth in terms of strategy, because it is. If you don't like to think out every move and just want to toss dice around, then WMH isn't for you. That's not right or wrong, fun is subjective. But WMH is more tactical and in-depth in terms of gameplay.

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

I look at a conversation about if one game is more tactical than another on an analytical basis. That is, if 40k were determined to be more or less tactical, I see it as a direct attribute and not a quality that determines if it is "better or worse" than WM/H.

You can argue perhaps that chess is more tactical than checkers, but does that make checkers a bad game? I don't think so. But then I think the problems with 40k have way more to do with how GW is trying to market the game (i.e. extreme cost of rules, army bloat) and less to do with whether the game is as tactically engaging as WM/H.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

We're not saying it's better, just far more in depth in terms of strategy, because it is. If you don't like to think out every move and just want to toss dice around, then WMH isn't for you. That's not right or wrong, fun is subjective. But WMH is more tactical and in-depth in terms of gameplay.

You will note that I did not say 40K is the most in depth tactical simulation in the universe - its far from it - 40K is not designed this way - why are people not accepting this and insist on comparing a large skirmish, finicky and ultra precise fantasy combat game with a large scale Sci-fi game - what's this achieving?

However I question the threads basically saying - look this game is great -and this game sucks?

There are tactics and skill involved in playing 40k - its not just thrown large amounts of dice randomly on the table as is being suggested and which is frankly insulting.

Precision, forethought and the understanding of intricate interactions between units is definitely required of WM/H - but then this is as much or even more true of Malifaux and many other games.............and to a certain extent in 40k as well.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

We're not saying it's better, just far more in depth in terms of strategy, because it is. If you don't like to think out every move and just want to toss dice around, then WMH isn't for you. That's not right or wrong, fun is subjective. But WMH is more tactical and in-depth in terms of gameplay.

You will note that I did not say 40K is the most in depth tactical simulation in the universe - its far from it - 40K is not designed this way - why are people not accepting this and insist on comparing a large skirmish, finicky and ultra precise fantasy combat game with a large scale Sci-fi game - what's this achieving?

However I question the threads basically saying - look this game is great -and this game sucks?

There are tactics and skill involved in playing 40k - its not just thrown large amounts of dice randomly on the table as is being suggested and which is frankly insulting.

Precision, forethought and the understanding of intricate interactions between units is definitely required of WM/H - but then this is as much or even more true of Malifaux and many other games.............and to a certain extent in 40k as well.

Not claiming tactical depth is unique to Warmahordes either. I'd agree Malifaux operates on roughly the same level. Something like Flames of War is a step down in both depth and complexity, but probably is better in terms of getting depth out of what complexity it has. Infinity as battle reports and player testimony seem to describe it is probably somewhat above something like flames of war in depth, but below even WM/H & Hordes Malifaux in terms of how much depth it gets for the level of complexity.

However the OP was asking why WM/H has more Tactical depth and that's a fine question. The point of the thread is to illustrate that and satisfy someone's curiosity.

Certainly 40k isn't just "Just" throwing d6s at each other, there's some element of list building too, and also the need to be able to memorize target priority. It's all rather bare bones though. It is more d6 throwing than other things, which isn't "Bad" in anyway.


EDIT:

If the OP opened a thread saying "In what ways is Warmahordes more frustrating than other games, and how can it leave you feeling bad after a game?" there would be plenty to say in that thread too.

Most are not saying 40K sucks, just that it is not the tactical game WM/H is. I would compare 40K to bowling and WM/H to American Football. Bowling is fun for many people. Are there tactics, subtlety, and nuance in bowling? Sure, but it's not in the same category that football is in tactical diversity.

The question this thread is asking is the difference in tactical level between the two games, not which is good and which is bad. After playing 40K since 2nd edition and WM/H for about three years now, it is obvious to me that WM/H has much more tactical depth.

 malfred wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
...people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

This can't be true! It's too logical to be true!!!

I blow minds for a living.

I have seen games end on turn 1, but its always been because of a really dumb error on the part of the losing player.

Like spending all your fury and charging forward against a Kraken that has access to Ghost Shot.

eHaley can get a Hunter shot into the opponent's deployment zone of turn 1, but its not going to kill any warcasters. Its a gimmick to try and disable a warjack before it gets a chance to activate.

The earliest you can reliably win WMH is turn 2, but again it usually requires a misstep from your opponent.

Bad matchups do exist, but that's why the competitive format uses multiple lists.

 Grey Templar wrote:
eHaley can get a Hunter shot into the opponent's deployment zone of turn 1, but its not going to kill any warcasters. Its a gimmick to try and disable a warjack before it gets a chance to activate.

I killed Mortnembra with two shots from a Hunter in an EHaley list once (marshalled to a Gun Mage officer with Strangeways granting Focus, Crit Brutal, Temporal Acceleration, and Deadeye all up on it) but that was turn two.

Yeah, although you'll never get to repeat that against the same player twice.

Warmachine does have a lot of gimmicky assassination possibilities, but they'll never happen to the same player twice. It is a lot like the Fool's Mate in Chess, it'll happen once against a newbie and then they're wise to it.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 malfred wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
...people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

This can't be true! It's too logical to be true!!!

I blow minds for a living.

Does that make you a cerebratute?

I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

But I do feel the way models activate is more fluid than 40k and makes it easier to keep track of what models you have moved and what needs to be done. It makes your choice in what to activate in what order extremely important.

In the end I don't think it is more tactical I just feel it is different. If I had to pick a game that feels more tactical I would probably say something like Infinity because you have to take into effect not only your own turn but how your models react on the opponents turn.

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Killing the warlock is one win condition.

Taking and holding ground is another.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Try playing Steamroller. You'll find that assassination as a win condition drops off dramatically.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Certainly it's a big part of the game but to say it's the basis of the entire game, when several matchups can see an array of outcomes from decisive wins to close game without either caster ever being in danger it certainly can't be what the entire game is about.

 Chongara wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Certainly it's a big part of the game but to say it's the basis of the entire game, when several matchups can see an array of outcomes from decisive wins to close game without either caster ever being in danger it certainly can't be what the entire game is about.

We just played a mini 3 round tourney. And one of the rules was that if you killed the enemy warcaster. The game wasn't over. I didn't design the tournament, but I think it was in the steamroller rules.

Welshhoppo, did anyone win the game after their caster was assassinated? I would doubt that someone would since they play such a big part. I'm just curious, not trying to get into the argument about caster kill being what the game is about.

A desperate assassination run when you realize you can't win the scenario sounds prrrreeetttyyy tactical to me.

 Chongara wrote:


Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Sounds like it is center the game is based around to me, not all of the game but a big chunk. Thanks for proving my point

Caster kill. Feature. Not bug.

The game is based around winning. Caster kill is just one way to win.

Someone said somewhere that WH40K is a bit like Tic Tac Toe and WM/H is chess, I find it quite a good metaphore/description/whatever.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

 Limey wrote:
Welshhoppo, did anyone win the game after their caster was assassinated? I would doubt that someone would since they play such a big part. I'm just curious, not trying to get into the argument about caster kill being what the game is about.

I don't believe so, not many of us lost warcasters. But the rules were That beasts went rabid and jacks went inert, but units still worked. You can't ever afford to throw the caster away, regardless of whether losing it is an instant kill.

Iron-Fist wrote:
There are DEFINITELY net lists in warmachine. And the power difference between the top tier lists and the bottom is just as big as 40k. Balance is pretty tenuous and tends to be similar towards the style of "everyone is broken in their own way."

WM is more like MTG, a lot of it is deck building and slapping synergies on top of each other. It is less beer and pretzels because the rules are very precise and designed to allow ridiculous things to happen, and you have to know all of them for every army and how they work together if you are going to play competitively (especially in the harshly timed tournament setting). You have to know a LOT about all the armies because you have to counter their strategy or you'll just die immediately against a lot of armies.
...
For 40k tournaments it is mostly luck of the draw in who you play and finger crossing for TO rule decisions. FAQs are better than they used to be though. I'd love to see a double list system, ironically I bet it would make people a take more balanced lists because they'd have greater chances of running into their anti-list in that situation.

It's not for the above reasons. Most of the outcome is determined before the game even starts.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

 Surtur wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

Lots of games do use pre-measuring - whether stated or as an element of the board design- whether a game is better with or without pre-measuring is subjective. I and others feel it is a positive element but I take your point.

 Surtur wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I already did but guess I am on ignore.........

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

I don't think one way is better than the other, just different.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

He didn't explain at all, because the things that he "explained" are based on assumptions and on behaviours that don't actually happen during gameplay.

"You don't need to constalty measure anything" - No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

"We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever" - What is the difference between agreeing during the movement phase or when the actual shot needs to be taken? This doesn't diminish any need for an actual agreement to exist between the players so where is the reduced arguments?

"means no queries later if the table is knocked" - What if the table is knocked before anything was actually measured? Or are you capable of memorising all the measurements that were made during a game in order to perfectly replicate a board state?

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

"Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on. "

Funnily enough, all the cheaters in our play group stayed with 40k and WHFB. Pre-measuring doesn't reduce cheating, a cheater can still move a model in the middle of the game and unless you record every single measurement made, you'll have no way to prove him wrong.

It's a bit of a mixed bag whether it speeds up or slows down a game for me personally. I've both spent too much time over analyzing whether or not I was in charge range and measuring out the table state. For most people this tends to be a rare occurrence that happens on crucial turns. Tfgs are going to be the ones over doing it, but rules shouldn't be decided solely upon tfgs. And yeah, cheating happens regardless of ruleset, the one rule will do little to change that.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.

I think Mr. Morden explained it just fine in his above post. Scroll up and read it.

He didn't explain at all, because the things that he "explained" are based on assumptions and on behaviours that don't actually happen during gameplay.

"You don't need to constalty measure anything" - No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

"We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever" - What is the difference between agreeing during the movement phase or when the actual shot needs to be taken? This doesn't diminish any need for an actual agreement to exist between the players so where is the reduced arguments?

"means no queries later if the table is knocked" - What if the table is knocked before anything was actually measured? Or are you capable of memorising all the measurements that were made during a game in order to perfectly replicate a board state?

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

"Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on. "

Funnily enough, all the cheaters in our play group stayed with 40k and WHFB. Pre-measuring doesn't reduce cheating, a cheater can still move a model in the middle of the game and unless you record every single measurement made, you'll have no way to prove him wrong.

They happen in our group and games club and other I have attended- obviously different worlds - I am talking from actual expereince rather than opinion - I assume you are the same

Everything I have stated works for us EXACTLY as I stated. If its not for you then fine but don't call me a liar thank you very much and the stram man arguements that you keep throwing out are just weak - I have told you how this improves the game for us in games we play. Observation not just retoric.

No you don't, but there will be allot more measurements being taken, this will NOT speed up the game, it will actually slow it down and it was something that was apparent in both the transition from 7th ed WHFB to 8th edition and in the transition from 5th ed. 40k to 6th.

Nope that never happened to us - people prevaracate whether or not they presmeasure, guess - or use their oh so awesome "skill" In estimating. People can actuall look at actual tactics in the game when they are not considering whether or not their are 1mm our of range.

"or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake" - Again, this also could happen before any measurement was taken and you wouldn't know anything unless you memorised every measurement made during the game.

So - as I said it helps in any other circumstance - pretty obvious to many of us who play a variety of games..............

Again what truely tactical game suffes from premeasuring? Are you saying Malifaux does, do you think Chess is less of a "proper" game because the board is subdivided into equal squares and you actually know if you can reach your opponents pieces or not - leaving you to actually use tactics to win?

I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

Some feats would be bonkers. Especially ones that you might need to be advance forward to use. Like Denny's feat. If she wants to catch your warcaster, but isn't sure if she will with an advance/charge, if she could premeasure she'd know. Otherwise its a risk/reward type of deal.

Fantasy doesn't need the element of unknown in the current rules. Warmachine does.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I felt like warhammer fantasy lost something when they went with premeasuring, namely cannons became insanely good. I simply declared the impact 6 inches in front of what ever I wanted to hit and the bounce usually took care of the rest. 7th Ed and before I would have to declare a direction and distance than measure the impact point, then random overshot and bounce. That and they came in with random charges to balance out premeasuring, true Los worked its way in killing wood elves, ranged got worse from being able to kite out of effective range and the chance of a long charge getting your archer in combat a turn before they should have. GW games are the only game I can think of that has done a before and after picture of premeasuring and I don't like it at all, but mostly because they traded that tactile risk for random risk and other stupid changes they did or refused to do. There's very little imperial evidence to prove premeasuring is good or bad, but there are a lot of anecdotes for it. I will say that premeasuring in Warmachine would probably break the game as certain feats would get out of hand and there's a lot of little things that moving into a perfect position that has been calculated out just wouldn't feel good to go against.

I'm curious what feats would break the game? A lot of those are based on Ctrl which can be premeasuring anyways.

If you play Steamroller then you can generally "premeasure" most things that are important. You know zones, starting zones, ctrl areas, etc. And certain casters pretty much allow you to premeasure everything. I haven't seen it break the game nor do I feel casters are more powerful because they usually can premeasure.

The only thing that not premeasuring does is make it harder for newbies. Which WM/H has a pretty steep learning curve as is so reducing that would be beneficial as it would get more people in the game and focus more on tactics instead of spatial awareness. The only people who should worry about premeasuring are vets who need an advantage over newbies.

Some feats would be bonkers. Especially ones that you might need to be advance forward to use. Like Denny's feat. If she wants to catch your warcaster, but isn't sure if she will with an advance/charge, if she could premeasure she'd know. Otherwise its a risk/reward type of deal.

Fantasy doesn't need the element of unknown in the current rules. Warmachine does.

I play both Dennys and never have really had that issue. It is a huge threat range as is. And still don't see it as game breaking. No rules are changed. She gains no additional threat or abilities. All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Again, it comes down to precision of placement. The warcaster has limited premeasuring and in that faucet can get quite good information that base decisions on and good eyeballing will get good results. The ability to plant a tape measure down before you move and begin measuring out the perfect spot before risking anything is a bit much. eGaspy figuring out perfect charge angles, eHaley catching the maximum amount of your army with precision, these sorts of things can cause major balance problems. Harry's feat would essentially become useless as everyone could figure out how to move and avoid it. These actually negate tactics and risk and bring it to cold calculation of is this good or bad instead of am I making a good risk?

All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Exactly - it may well be a skill - well sorta - but its nothing to do with tactics - how you use information is tactics not whether you gain that by "skill" , informed guess work or by simply pre-measuring.

 Mr Morden wrote:

All it does is reward the person with good spatial judgement. Which has zero to do with tactics and is usually only a benefit to longtime players.

Exactly - it may well be a skill - well sorta - but its nothing to do with tactics - how you use information is tactics not whether you gain that by "skill" , informed guess work or by simply pre-measuring.

Information gathering is still an important tactical skill. As is how you decide to act upon uncertain information.

 Surtur wrote:
Again, it comes down to precision of placement. The warcaster has limited premeasuring and in that faucet can get quite good information that base decisions on and good eyeballing will get good results. The ability to plant a tape measure down before you move and begin measuring out the perfect spot before risking anything is a bit much. eGaspy figuring out perfect charge angles, eHaley catching the maximum amount of your army with precision, these sorts of things can cause major balance problems. Harry's feat would essentially become useless as everyone could figure out how to move and avoid it. These actually negate tactics and risk and bring it to cold calculation of is this good or bad instead of am I making a good risk?

Yet again, no mechanics are actually changed in anything you mentioned. eGaspy either will or will not have those charge angles. eHaley either will or will not be able to catch more or less of your army. Either your models are close enough to catch al of them or they are not. And again, with feats that are CTRL they are pretty darn easy to use as is. OTOH the opposing player can also premeasure to make sure his models are the right distance apart so they both won't get caught. Wouldn't that weaken these abilities? Not really, it would come down to both players having the same information and then the decisions they make based off of that info are more important.

And by Harry, I assume you mean Harby? It is possible that people may use that info to move around perfectly. But the feat still does mechanically the exact same thing. It stops people from moving closer to her. models who are just going to skirt around her are still going to skirt around.

Again, nothing game breaking I am seeing. If anything it evens the playing field and makes the game more dependent on your actual skills and tactics instead of one person having an innate advantage over the other based off an ability that really has nothing to do with tactics and moving around little men at all.

I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

 Surtur wrote:
I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

Whoa whoa whoa. You are putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say things wouldn't change in how you play the game. I said they would not be Game Breaking or cause major balance issues which is what others claimed. You could play the game with pre-measuring and it would still be a very balanced and playable game. How the game plays changes slightly, but I don't see how it would ruin balance or make it unplayable. Yes, the game would change slightly. It would be more tactical and less luck. Not a bad thing in my book.

The situations you described above (and in previous posts) are not game breaking or cause balance issues. Ultimately the situations you described are pure luck and chance. Luck on your opponents part that his forces were a fraction of an inch apart. Or luck on your part that your models were a fraction of an inch closer together than your opponent thought. And luck is what this all comes down to. You are making a guess which may or may not be correct. Which when you are coming down to fractions of inches you really are just guessing.

Also, premeasuring works both ways. So it balances out in that respect, too. And as stated earlier by others it helps deal with potential conflicts and cheating much easier as well.

I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I understand the mechanics are the same, it's the precision that changes, and that changes the outcomes and the decision making process. There are times when measuring out changes a lot. I had a feat turn with eThangs that would have destroyed my friends entire jack force (this was a 100 point game with two casters) provided everything went to plan. I was off by a fraction of an inch. I've had an opponent misguess the distance between my models thinking they could squeeze through for a caster kill attempt. Being able to premeasure has the ability to change a great number of variables that to say it wouldn't matter in the least is oversimplifying the situation. Perfect vs imperfect information matters a lot.

And yes I meant harby my phone love to correct me.

Whoa whoa whoa. You are putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say things wouldn't change in how you play the game. I said they would not be Game Breaking or cause major balance issues which is what others claimed. You could play the game with pre-measuring and it would still be a very balanced and playable game. How the game plays changes slightly, but I don't see how it would ruin balance or make it unplayable. Yes, the game would change slightly. It would be more tactical and less luck. Not a bad thing in my book.

The situations you described above (and in previous posts) are not game breaking or cause balance issues. Ultimately the situations you described are pure luck and chance. Luck on your opponents part that his forces were a fraction of an inch apart. Or luck on your part that your models were a fraction of an inch closer together than your opponent thought. And luck is what this all comes down to. You are making a guess which may or may not be correct. Which when you are coming down to fractions of inches you really are just guessing.

Also, premeasuring works both ways. So it balances out in that respect, too. And as stated earlier by others it helps deal with potential conflicts and cheating much easier as well.

How are either of those 'just luck'? Its lucky that I positioned my models just so to block a charge lane? That's not luck. Luck is random. I chose my position.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

There you go again throwing that "bad" word around. No one but you is stating that a game is better or worse for allowing or disallowing pre-measuring. You seem to have a huge inferiority complex over this for some weird reason...

And to address your examples, yes, chess is a game with a very reduced tactical depth that is based around memorizing a finite number of piece placement options and what their correct counter is. There is absolutely 0 innovation in tactical play in chess because all of the possible moves and counter moves are recorded, that is why all the major players use computers to figure out the best openings and the best set of moves, its all pre-determined.

You prefer tactically less complex games that allow pre-measurement and so don't need that much thought put out in things like model placement or math, we get it, there is nothing wrong with it and a game isn't bad or good because of it.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

It would go like any other change that PP makes: the internet would erupt with a million cries that the game was over!

After the beta period, the change would be appraised and would be reversed or maintained if PP thought that it was prejudicial / beneficial to their ideals of what the game should be and the game would go on.

But since pre-measuring has no practical benefit over the current system and has in fact quite a few drawbacks from a tactical depth standpoint, I highly doubt that even if MK3 ever comes, that pre-measuring will be a part of it.

You don't like pre-measuring so its automatically "bad" - we get that................. lots of people do like it in many many games as has been stated on numerous occasions - somehow you keep ignoring all those many games that use it and are somehow not poorer for I?

Again is Chess or Go reduced in its gameplay or "tactical depth" because its uses set grid of squares, is Malifuax because you can premeasure?

There are clear and well explained reasons that it can help games - it may or may not be right for WM/H but that's a different argument entirely. As has been said - part of tactics is using information in the correct, most appropriate and beneficial manner- its got absolutely nothing to do with if you can eyeball a distance or not or if the rules allow you to measure x but not y.

If people want the potential to win games because they have slightly better or even massively superior spatial awareness rather than actual in game tactics that too is obviously their decision.

There you go again throwing that "bad" word around. No one but you is stating that a game is better or worse for allowing or disallowing pre-measuring. You seem to have a huge inferiority complex over this for some weird reason...

And to address your examples, yes, chess is a game with a very reduced tactical depth that is based around memorizing a finite number of piece placement options and what their correct counter is. There is absolutely 0 innovation in tactical play in chess because all of the possible moves and counter moves are recorded, that is why all the major players use computers to figure out the best openings and the best set of moves, its all pre-determined.

You prefer tactically less complex games that allow pre-measurement and so don't need that much thought put out in things like model placement or math, we get it, there is nothing wrong with it and a game isn't bad or good because of it.

Wow what a staggering amount of arrogance and passive aggressiveness allow me to retort...........

I said "bad "as you constantly in all you posts say how the specific game you enjoy and its mechanisms are so very superior - espeically in regard to "tactics" - its entirely obvious that you feel that very people could ever reach your high plateau of skill and tactical knowledge - it must be very cold up there on the mountain.

Yeah you are so right - Malifaux does not require thought - no does any other game except your perfect WM/H...................

Love the way you gnore other people saying the same as me that perhaps maybe games are better with it but I guess that selective reading comprehension for you.

Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

On the flip side, you would also lose out on moments where players try to take a long-shot maneuver, find themselves just out of range, and lose their gamble. Or succeeds, because they guessed better than their opponent. Instead, people would simply measure stuff, and that would be that. A lot fewer risky plays.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Wow what a staggering amount of arrogance and passive aggressiveness allow me to retort...........

I said "bad "as you constantly in all you posts say how the specific game you enjoy and its mechanisms are so very superior - espeically in regard to "tactics" - its entirely obvious that you feel that very people could ever reach your high plateau of skill and tactical knowledge - it must be very cold up there on the mountain.

Yeah you are so right - Malifaux does not require thought - no does any other game except your perfect WM/H...................

Love the way you gnore other people saying the same as me that perhaps maybe games are better with it but I guess that selective reading comprehension for you.

And there you go again...

In the very next post to the one that I say that a game isn't better or worse than the other you again resort to putting terms like "superior" and "better" in my mouth...

More Complex != Superior / Inferior, one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other. And I didn't said anywhere that Malifaux didn't require thinking. What I said was that it didn't require as much thinking when it comes to model placement, because all the measurements are known beforehand, and that it didn't require as much thinking put into mathematically analysing the distances involved, because all distances are known.

Malifaux's tactical complexity come from an even more complex unit activation model and from the bigger impact that the resource management aspect has in the outcome of the game. It presents its players with a distinct range of tactical choices than the ones that are presented in a game of WMH. AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME BETTER OR WORSE THAN WMH, JUST DIFFERENT!

Is English your first language? You flag implies that it is, but with the difficulties that you continuously demonstrate, first in interpreting simple game rules and now in interpreting simple posts, it is starting to make me wonder.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, premeasuring would mean that there were fewer games decided by silly things like someone thinking they're in range, going for something, then finding out they weren't in range and subsequently losing because of it. Personally, I think moments like that tend to rob both players of a cool game, so I wouldn't really miss them.

When it doesn't come down to win or lose it's not so bad. It's usually when someone estimates a charge wrong and a heavy or caster ends up flatfooted half a millimetre away from where they were trying to go.

Trying to estimate distances can be kinda fun, though. Either way is OK!

On the flip side, you would also lose out on moments where players try to take a long-shot maneuver, find themselves just out of range, and lose their gamble. Or succeeds, because they guessed better than their opponent. Instead, people would simply measure stuff, and that would be that. A lot fewer risky plays.

That's what I'm okay with, I think? I mean, there would still be lots of risky plays, just they'd be about whether you succeed in your dice rolls and stuff, whether you weighed the odds properly, not oh, you're out by 1mm so your entire activation was pointless and now you probably lose.

I have not seen many people who are really excited when they guess wrong and fail. Usually people seem disappointed or unhappy that their model or half their unit or whatever got to do literally nothing. I wouldn't mind getting rid of that.

I mean, when I picked up the Warmachine box, I wasn't thinking "wow I am going to have a blast trying to guess ranges." The models smashing into each other, throwing each other around the table, being cute, etc. That's what makes me want to play, not "oh, you're out by 1mm, you lose." That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

It's not fun for the opponent either because it just made the rest of the game pointless and it is intensely silly and boring.

Tonight I played a game that came down to my opponent trying to kill my warlock. He thought he could probably get his colossal into melee. I thought he probably couldn't. It turns out I was right, and so instead of getting to do something interesting like, say, make attacks with his 19-point model, he failed his charge and the game was essentially over. That is dumb and not as fun as if he had been able to say, well, okay, this isn't going to make it into melee so I'll attack something different and maybe it will be a game.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

It's not fun for the opponent either because it just made the rest of the game pointless and it is intensely silly and boring.

Tonight I played a game that came down to my opponent trying to kill my warlock. He thought he could probably get his colossal into melee. I thought he probably couldn't. It turns out I was right, and so instead of getting to do something interesting like, say, make attacks with his 19-point model, he failed his charge and the game was essentially over. That is dumb and not as fun as if he had been able to say, well, okay, this isn't going to make it into melee so I'll attack something different and maybe it will be a game.

If you opponent's colossal was trying to get into melee with your Warcaster, then you could have known 100% if he was going to fail or succeed by simply measuring your warlock's control range and so would your opponent.

If the game was dependant on that single movement, then your opponent shouldn't have made it if he wasn't 100% sure that he was going to make it. He took a gamble and he lost. Worse than that, he took a gamble that he could have avoided. That is not the game's fault, that is the player's.

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That isn't fun for anyone really, at least that I've seen.

Except for your opponent that perfectly positioned his models to lure you into making and failing that charge.

It's not fun for the opponent either because it just made the rest of the game pointless and it is intensely silly and boring.

Tonight I played a game that came down to my opponent trying to kill my warlock. He thought he could probably get his colossal into melee. I thought he probably couldn't. It turns out I was right, and so instead of getting to do something interesting like, say, make attacks with his 19-point model, he failed his charge and the game was essentially over. That is dumb and not as fun as if he had been able to say, well, okay, this isn't going to make it into melee so I'll attack something different and maybe it will be a game.

If you opponent's colossal was trying to get into melee with your Warcaster, then you could have known 100% if he was going to fail or succeed by simply measuring your warlock's control range and so would your opponent.

If the game was dependant on that single movement, then your opponent shouldn't have made it if he wasn't 100% sure that he was going to make it. He took a gamble and he lost. Worse than that, he took a gamble that he could have avoided. That is not the game's fault, that is the player's.

In this case, the colossal had a much larger threat range than my caster had control area, so I had no way of telling if it was in range or not.

I'm not interested in whose "fault" it is. These situations come up constantly in Warmachine, and when they do they usually make the game less fun, because someone has some big smashy thing that is not getting to do any kind of big smashy, and that's boring, and it's boring for both players when that model is flatfooted and dies to no particular effect. Premeasuring would help reduce the number of those situations.

Furthermore, *amazing thread title tie-in* it would increase the weight of tactics by decreasing the emphasis on being able to eyeball distances. Then we can all be even more smugly superior in how much more tactical our pet game is than 40k!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

In this case, the colossal had a much larger threat range than my caster had control area, so I had no way of telling if it was in range or not.

I'm not interested in whose "fault" it is. These situations come up constantly in Warmachine, and when they do they usually make the game less fun, because someone has some big smashy thing that is not getting to do any kind of big smashy, and that's boring, and it's boring for both players when that model is flatfooted and dies to no particular effect. Premeasuring would help reduce the number of those situations.

Maybe those situations make the game less fun for you, but they are the reasons that make the game more fun for allot of other people. I don't care about rolling dice, if I did I would still be playing GW games, I care about outsmarting and outplaying my opponent.

If I can make my opponent 19pt model useless simply by virtue of positioning, that is pretty awesome in my book.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Furthermore, *amazing thread title tie-in* it would increase the weight of tactics by decreasing the emphasis on being able to eyeball distances. Then we can all be even more smugly superior in how much more tactical our pet game is than 40k!

No it wouldn't, it would actually diminish the weight of tactics because it would make positioning meaningless. Removing options from a game make it less tactical, not more.

That's like saying positioning is meaningless in chess - it's precisely backwards. Removing a mechanic from a game makes the others carry more weight.

In any event, if you prefer the mindless gotcha moments based on distance perception to a deeply satisfying tactical and strategic interplay between the opponents, that is your prerogative and there's nothing wrong with that.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That's like saying positioning is meaningless in chess - it's precisely backwards. Removing a mechanic from a game makes the others carry more weight.

Have you ever played chess competitively? I would guess not. Again, for those that don't know this: Chess is a very tactically limited game due to the limited way in each piece moves and the finite number of positions that this implies.

Also removing a mechanic from a game only accomplishment is reducing the number of available options. Less options means less tactics that one can employ. If I can't deal with that Colossal by baiting him into a bad position, then you've just cut a percentage of my possible tactical answers. How is that more tactical?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
In any event, if you prefer the mindless gotcha moments based on distance perception to a deeply satisfying tactical and strategic interplay between the opponents, that is your prerogative and there's nothing wrong with that.

That "distance perception" crap is a myth. I'm a Continental European, my only contact with measurements in inches is on the table top so that causes my distance perception skill in inches to be completely useless.

WMH is an open information game, every move that your opponent makes you have to know about. You can use this information and some simple math to calculate distances with a very high degree of accuracy. You can also use every other tactical option that the game gives you to achieve the same result, be it shooting a ranged weapon from another unit to the more straightforward control range measurement.

Those are only mindless gotcha moments if all you are interested is in pushing models forward and rolling dice without giving any thought to where your models are. If you think that that is "tactical and strategic interplay" you don't really understand what those terms mean.

I think you'd find that Warmachine breaks down pretty fast too if subjected to the sort of analysis that's been done on chess. I bet it would be pretty fascinating to try!

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think you'd find that Warmachine breaks down pretty fast too if subjected to the sort of analysis that's been done on chess. I bet it would be pretty fascinating to try!

It is fascinating and is something that is studied a fair bit in AI classes, especially in computer game design degrees.

Think about this: how come we can develop computers that give human chess master a run for their money, but we can't seem to replicate that level of AI sophistication for other tactical games?

Its because deep down chess is a very simple game with a very straightforward set of rules. That allows a computer to do what it does best: analyse a pre-determined set of conditions and decide what is the best course of action based on those conditions. And given the limited number of moves that each piece can do, that allows the computer to extrapolate much further into future possible plays.

Now if you take a game that has virtually limitless move possibilities for each unit like WMH or Starcraft (or practically any other miniature or computer strategy game), and the number of plays that a computer can see into the future is reduced to the immediate moment and in those conditions the human brain can adapt much faster than a computer can.

Strategy games that don't have a set amount of outcomes can't really have a good AI programmed into them for the reasons Phantomviper said. Its simply too complicated for the computer to handle. The real cause of this complication is the fact the game occurs in 3-d space. Not in a 2-d grid of points.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I disagree. Warmachine would not remain balanced if you were allowed to premeasure everything. Lots of abilities revolve around not being able to premeasure.

How do you think it would go if PP did a proper Mk3 ruleset built from the ground up with premeasuring included?

If it was totally rebuilt with premeasuring in mind then it would be ok. But as it is, the game requires you not to be able to premeasure. It would change the game completely if they did that. I couldn't say it would be a good or bad change, but as the game is perfectly fine right now I say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

So the thread has now devolved to pre-measuring, eh?

Why is it that so many people want Warmachine to become like 40K?

Pre-measuring would alter Warmachine/Hordes in a fundamental way and change the game experience (for the worse IMHO). No one, and I mean NO ONE, EVER mentioned pre-measuring in 40K before 6th Edition came out. It wasn't even considered. And then it happened. What else happened? The game designers had to compensate in some way for taking away the "randomness" of position and placement of models. How did they do it? By random charge distance. Running a random distance. Deepstrike scatter. Snap shots, overwatch, random sweeping advances, and consolidation moves. All these things were changed to compensate for being allowed to pre-measure.

The limited amount of pre-measuring you are allowed in Warmachine and Hordes is fine. Being able to measure your warcaster/warlock control area at any time is a good enough pre-measure for me.

Stop trying to make Warmachine/Hordes into 40K!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Wow what a staggering amount of arrogance and passive aggressiveness allow me to retort...........

I said "bad "as you constantly in all you posts say how the specific game you enjoy and its mechanisms are so very superior - espeically in regard to "tactics" - its entirely obvious that you feel that very people could ever reach your high plateau of skill and tactical knowledge - it must be very cold up there on the mountain.

Yeah you are so right - Malifaux does not require thought - no does any other game except your perfect WM/H...................

Love the way you gnore other people saying the same as me that perhaps maybe games are better with it but I guess that selective reading comprehension for you.

And there you go again...

In the very next post to the one that I say that a game isn't better or worse than the other you again resort to putting terms like "superior" and "better" in my mouth...

More Complex != Superior / Inferior, one thing doesn't have anything to do with the other. And I didn't said anywhere that Malifaux didn't require thinking. What I said was that it didn't require as much thinking when it comes to model placement, because all the measurements are known beforehand, and that it didn't require as much thinking put into mathematically analysing the distances involved, because all distances are known.

Malifaux's tactical complexity come from an even more complex unit activation model and from the bigger impact that the resource management aspect has in the outcome of the game. It presents its players with a distinct range of tactical choices than the ones that are presented in a game of WMH. AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME BETTER OR WORSE THAN WMH, JUST DIFFERENT!

Is English your first language? You flag implies that it is, but with the difficulties that you continuously demonstrate, first in interpreting simple game rules and now in interpreting simple posts, it is starting to make me wonder.

As I said - your passive agressive style is both very clear and familiar. but back to your argument.

No your still missing the point - of course Malifaux requires as much or even more thinking precisely because you know the distance - therefore you are making a descion based on facts - not on (at best informed) guess work or how well you can eyeball distances.

Not pre-mesuring means that this particular aspect ot the game - where and how you move your figures is based on guess work and gambling - which is precisley what you later go on to say you dislike???? I am sorry I do not understand this.

WM/H allows partial and limited forms of pre-measuring (for whatever reason) which you seem fine with?

If the game was dependant on that single movement, then your opponent shouldn't have made it if he wasn't 100% sure that he was going to make it. He took a gamble and he lost. Worse than that, he took a gamble that he could have avoided. That is not the game's fault, that is the player's.

Stop trying to make Warmachine/Hordes into 40K!

No one here is - they are different games, at different scales, in different genres - As I have said before there is really zero point in comparing them except for one side to score points saying - my game is the bestest because..........X