Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.