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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think your concern is valid, but over blown.

The current rules mechanics are about as good as I think they could get. The only area which needs improvement is internal balance. Certain units and models are far too weak when there is no reason for them to be.

I can't fault PP for occasionally messing up on a unit's rules when it gets released, nobody's perfect, but I do fault them for not rectifying issues that become obvious after the fact. Given how the rules for individual models are released, using errata to fix models which are too weak is an easy thing to do. They've done a little of it, but not enough.

I think this is partially caused by PP being a little too cautious with their releases. Many recently released miniatures over the last few cycles have been conspicuously missing rules, where its obvious it was stronger in the playtesting and then got overnerfed without further testing before release.

We don't need Mk3. We just need maybe a year or so of PP going back and fixing miniatures they messed up the rules for.

Yes Please, I want my decimater to be good please. I want the coolest jack in the Faction to be good.
Seriously, No one uses the books for the rules. No one. Nothing is stopping them from drastically changing rules. Heck, their card system is MADE for this.

Well, then you have the issue of 'how do I know I/my opponent has the most up to date card' which while isn't necessarily a huge issue, I'm not sure the card system is made for it as such.

The one thing that they do have to help in this situation is Warroom. It is made for this. Like didn't they change Rhyas to give her reach, and update the clam jacks to be able to slam without opening their shells.

Warroom is excellent for keeping everyone up to date, and I don't know a single warmachine player who doesn't use it in at least some form.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Well, then you have the issue of 'how do I know I/my opponent has the most up to date card' which while isn't necessarily a huge issue, I'm not sure the card system is made for it as such.

Well they can do a mass updat from time to time.
And isnt part of Warmachine to know all the up to date stuff?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

And isnt part of Warmachine to know all the up to date stuff?

No. It's almost impossible unless you dedicate all your free time to WM/H. Even at the highest competitive levels you generally only know the main competitive builds.

Let's take skorne as say an avg.
13 casters
11 solos (including zaadesh)
1 battle engine
1 collossi
14 units
20 Beasts

Now there's 4 hordes factions and 6 WM factions (Say 5 because ret & convergence are smaller) and we still havent added minions & mercs.

117 casters
99 solos
9 battle engines
9 colosssi
126 units (not including UAs)
180 beasts

NOBODY can know what all of those do. You can look at it & have a general idea of whast they do but to expect someone to know every unit is just not going to happen. And remember that list is esxcluding minions & mercs, excluding the new WM & Hordes books slated for release and counting convergence & ret as one faction so it's a low end estimate at best. Plus you have to remember all the weird synergies & interactions they can have amongst them.

My COC Reciprocators last all game usually. Op is looking for problems where there aren't any.

Things die when they get hit. The solution isn't to give them some ability to hit back without dying. It's to NOT let them get hit in the first place by maximising defense bonuses or distances.

Yeah I don't think you will get many people who actually play Warmachine agreeing with you here OP. The 'entire army goes' with individual unit activations turn structure is one of the fundemental aspects that make Warmachine such an incredible tactical game and is a massive part of what make the game play so smoothly. This is a feature of the game, not a flaw.

Part of the reason 40k (as an example) can end up playing so slowly is that even though it also has an 'entire army goes' turn structure (I'm sure there is a proper name for this) in terms of what players are actually doing this is not how it actually plays out - in some respects it is an alternating 'I go - you go' system. I.e. Player A rolls to hit and wound at I5, Player B rolls saves, then Player B re-rolls failed saves, then Player A rolls hits and wounds at I4, Player B rolls saves, then Player B re-rolls failed saves, then Player B rolls hits and wounds at I4, Player A rolls saves etc etc. This is just a basic example, doesn't even factor in any special rules etc.

You obviously can avoid this scenario if there are no armour saves being rolled, but that happens about as often as Warmachine has the inverse scenario occur (i.e. Tough, Admonition etc).

If you put something in range to be charged by something that can effortlessly kill it then that is completely your fault - you know how hard something hits and how fast it can move - this is an open information game. If it is important you can premeasure it (by moving your caster appropriately) but in either case gauging distances is a skill and is part of being a good player. If you leave your model in range of something that has a 20% chance of killing it then that is also your decision - there is an element of risk involved but the intention is that you get a better reward from it. If you stay completely outside of threat range then again, that is your decision, but you are trading board space and possible scenario points to keep your model alive. These are all perfect examples of what a tactical wargame should be about.

Its interesting that you attribute this to Warmachine specifically as the concept of piece trading exists in pretty much all tactical wargames (and from a general standpoint war/combat in general is about piece trading as well). I would disembark 5 Fire Dragons next to a Land Raider, knowing that the Fire Dragons were absolutely going to die in return, but that is a positive piece trade for me. This is no different from Warmachine because the Land Raider died without making any form of counterblow but had the exact same options available - the player choose to put the Land Raider in that position and it had options available to both mitigate (pop Smoke etc), completely ignore (just be further away) or counter (shoot the Fire Dragons/transport before it could deliver).

If you want to watch giant robots slug it out over several turns, play battletech. In order to avoid piece trading a game must have a much deeper gameplay for individuals than what warmachine has to offer.

I can understand the OP's post, piece trading can sometimes seem a bit... uninspired. But I don't agree that it's a flaw.

My issues, as is most people's, is faction balance, both internally and externally. Take Cygnar for example. Trenchers, in almost every form, are an extreme corner case. The same goes for Long Gunners, Stormguard(base and Silver Line, really) most, (if not all) artillery pieces (without serious list tailoring) and many warcasters, who are the staple of the WM/H army/gaming experience (Darius, again outside of serious list tailoring (I.E. double Stormwall).

With many of the Gargossles being "meh", not to mention the Battle Engines, I'm surprised the PP doesn't do more to ensure that the units, solos and larger centerpiece models aren't given some form of update, whether with errata (or more likely, and plausible) a different UA or upgrade kit.

 Cryonicleech wrote:
I can understand the OP's post, piece trading can sometimes seem a bit... uninspired. But I don't agree that it's a flaw.

My issues, as is most people's, is faction balance, both internally and externally. Take Cygnar for example. Trenchers, in almost every form, are an extreme corner case. The same goes for Long Gunners, Stormguard(base and Silver Line, really) most, (if not all) artillery pieces (without serious list tailoring) and many warcasters, who are the staple of the WM/H army/gaming experience (Darius, again outside of serious list tailoring (I.E. double Stormwall).

With many of the Gargossles being "meh", not to mention the Battle Engines, I'm surprised the PP doesn't do more to ensure that the units, solos and larger centerpiece models aren't given some form of update, whether with errata (or more likely, and plausible) a different UA or upgrade kit.

I really worry about the second generation Colossal's and Gargantuan's. PP listens to the players, and I'm sure they have heard the lamentations of the players over the huge based models. The Stormwall seems like the out liner of huge based effectiveness/power by a significant margin. Some would argue that the Galleon is up there as well, but that's more of a function of the warcasters available to Mercs then how good the Galleon is. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Mountain King/Archangel, with everything else being closer to that end then the Stormwall/Galleon end.

I... fear? that the second generation will totally eclipse the first generation huge based models and we'll never see them. This is a shame, as some of them, particularly the Archangel, is one of the best models PP has ever produced. The other factions will then learn the heartache of Cygnar: why take anything else when you can take a Stormwall? Stormwall is the answer to everything...

At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

 ImAGeek wrote:
At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

PP is really going to have to work hard to find the sweet spot for the new gargossals. I could see the new model putting the older model out of business in many of the factions.

 Chute82 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
At the same time I don't want another lot of sub par gargossals because they don't want to make the last ones obsolete.

PP is really going to have to work hard to find the sweet spot for the new gargossals. I could see the new model putting the older model out of business in many of the factions.

Personally I'd almost rather that. At least then I can play one gargossal from the faction competitively, as opposed to having two that are useless. But then I only own the Woldwrath so I'm not too worried about lots of my big expensive models being obsolete. The best option is to errata the old ones to be more useful.

I think we will see improvements. Look at the initial battle engine releases vs the last three (TEP, meat thresher, sacral vault). Worlds of difference.

Goofy ass models.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Goofy ass models.

Clearly.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Goofy ass models.

Clearly.

Don't feed the troll

No, that's seriously why I have never considered playing it. The general appearance of the models is really goofy. It takes what is an issue in 40k and fantasy to 11.

Thanks for the name calling though. Sorry to have an opinion about your goofy looking game.

Some of the earlier models were a little off, but they are Mich nicer now.

Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it? I get it, you don't like the figures ergo the game is no good. How does your input add to the discussion?

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones? Taste in models is a personal thing and you are certainly entitled to your opinion but just saying "I don't like it" doesn't really lead to much in terms of a discussion.

If you can't have a conversation without calling each other names, I can remove your ability to participate in the conversation.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones?

Giant Pauldrons, top-heavy clunker machines, different factions are just differently painted giant machines. That's why I've never been interested in it. As I said, the things GW does badly turned up to the extreme.

It's a legitimate complaint. It's why I play hordes as opposed to WM. I don't like the super top-heavy jacks. The beasts look much better imo.

The only WM army I have is ret but I tend to run light on jacks heavy on infantry.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

You clearly didn't read the first post then. The entire thread is about a certain fundamental aspect of the game's mechanics.
It's not a vent your opinion thread.

Yeah, totally TLDR. Thought the title was more accurate. Carry on with your game then...lol

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Yeah, totally TLDR. Thought the title was more accurate. Carry on with your game then...lol

You read the title and nothing else, didn't you?

Guilty as charged. I thought I made that clear.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Slave- If you have never considered playing the game then why do you bother commenting on it?

The thread title literally asks what, in my opinion, is it's greatest flaw.

If you could elucidate on your position then maybe an intelligent discussion can occur. What specifically don't you like about the warmahordes models and/or why do you feel the game you choose to play makes better ones?

Giant Pauldrons, top-heavy clunker machines, different factions are just differently painted giant machines. That's why I've never been interested in it. As I said, the things GW does badly turned up to the extreme.

The hell man. In 40k half the factions are just variations of space marines. The warjacks in WM look different. Khador-cygnar-cryx- ret, they are poles apart. The only ones I'd consider to have any similarity in basic build (NOT DECORATION) is menoth.

In regard to the OP, if the game was slowed down how would anyone ever get an assassination except through really janky moves? Pushing abilities would become paramount to move people out of zones. Interesting idea/premise but....ugh, sounds boring

I agree with the general consent of this thread: the things you want describe an entirely different game requiring a complete overhaul from the ground up just to change the core mechanics. Given just how functional and overall excellent the rules are right now, I would be very skeptical that such a rewriting would result in an improved game.

To build on the chess analogy, what would happen if chess pieces were given hit points? Instead of capturing a piece, two pieces would share a square, dealing 1 damage to the other piece per turn. How would this affect the way chess was played?