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.

 zlayer77 wrote:


Also the synergy betwen miniatures is the core of Warmahordes.. And the game is decided on the table and not in the list building, any list can beat any other list.. It is more about your personal skill as a player..

This really is just nonsense. Warmachine tournaments have you bring multiple lists and/or sidebars because matchups can absolutely determine victory at any level of play. List building is absolutely a huge part of Warmachine, and part of the fun.

How you can say that "synergy between miniatures is the core of Warmahordes" and then say that list building isn't key is mind boggling.
Let's see how that all trencher Darius list does.

DzC

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Leave a note at the store for the WM players asking if one comes on open night if he would give you a game.

PhantomViper wrote:
Or talk with you store's Press Ganger.

I'm willing to bet that he will be trilled to arrange some games for you on other days.

To be fair I've actually spoken to them. It's a case of "would if they could" but everybody involved (including the PG) has families and budgeted time for specific nights, which happens to be the official WM/H nights for them and the open gaming night for me. I honestly don't blame them for it and I wouldn't feel right pushing for the PG to come in to arrange a game for one person on the off night.

I've been trying to get the folks who do show up on open gaming nights to get into the starter boxes, but they subscribe to the sunk cost fallacy with 40k and I'm already working on pushing DZC on those nights instead.

Neither.

I had about $200 sunk into WM/H when I stopped (just didn't like the game enough anymore).

I had about $2500 sunk into 40k when I stopped. I still have many of the models - no longer playing the game doesn't automatically mean the models stop working. I can find other games for them - like Tomorrow's War, FCW, 5150, ITEN, etc.

I've never made "my investment" the thing keeping me in the game when I no longer like the game for whatever reason. The only thing that keeps me playing a game is having the game be enjoyable to me to play. Once that goes, I tend to stop buying new models, new rules, army lists, etc and they migrate from the "cupboard of shame" to the "shed of shame" to live out their days.

 plastictrees wrote:

This really is just nonsense. Warmachine tournaments have you bring multiple lists and/or sidebars because matchups can absolutely determine victory at any level of play. List building is absolutely a huge part of Warmachine, and part of the fun. .

Warmachine tournaments have you bring multiple lists because it promotes list variety. If tournaments were all single list, you would only see the "catch all" warcaster and lists being used, by allowing multiple lists you promote the use of other types of lists that may be more corner case.

And while list selection and list pairing are a big part of WMH, in the end it doesn't matter what list you bring because a list will only be as good as the player behind it. There is no such thing as a game of WMH that was won on list selection.

zlayer77 wrote:And the game is decided on the table and not in the list building, any list can beat any other list..

PhantomViper wrote:There is no such thing as a game of WMH that was won on list selection.

This just isn't the case. Lists are crafted to accomplish goals. It's a skill. If changing a warcaster in or out drastically changes how the list functions, it obviously changes the power level based on how well the capabilities of that caster interact with the army in question. Imagine a list with a caster who likes to stay back and use magic and you don't take as many arc nodes as you could. Or a caster who relies on their battle group shooting and you take few, if any ranged jacks. Or a caster who works well with living warbeasts and you go with all constructs. Or a caster who has spells that target warrior models and you go jack heavy. And that's just on the negative side of avoiding uselessness. There's a whole world of figuring out the best way to maximize usefulness.

It also comes down to stats. The effect of the Iron Flesh on a higher defense unit is greater as it pushes the number of hits down more drastically. After the attack is done, more models will be left standing and more attacks will have missed because of the distribution of 2d6 rolls. It's objectively more synergistic to cast Iron Flesh on things like Winterguard under Bob & Weave than on low DEF units.

The other thing that points to list building mattering is that some spells and abilities only work within faction while you are free to take mercenaries if you desire. And then they made ranking officers which make these units suddenly count as friendly faction. The synergy is so worth it in some cases that people will pay a points premium for ranking officers in order to have it. Imagine if Cryx could have a Warwitch Temptress Ranking Officer and you could have Black Spot on eSkarre work with Nyss Hunters.

"list building doesn't matter, your skill does" is the cry of those who don't understand that list building is a skill itself. It's especially important in Warmachine and Hordes.

 frozenwastes wrote:

zlayer77 wrote:And the game is decided on the table and not in the list building, any list can beat any other list..

PhantomViper wrote:There is no such thing as a game of WMH that was won on list selection.

This just isn't the case. Lists are crafted to accomplish goals. It's a skill. If changing a warcaster in or out drastically changes how the list functions, it obviously changes the power level based on how well the capabilities of that caster interact with the army in question. Imagine a list with a caster who likes to stay back and use magic and you don't take as many arc nodes as you could. Or a caster who relies on their battle group shooting and you take few, if any ranged jacks. Or a caster who works well with living warbeasts and you go with all constructs. Or a caster who has spells that target warrior models and you go jack heavy. And that's just on the negative side of avoiding uselessness. There's a whole world of figuring out the best way to maximize usefulness.

It also comes down to stats. The effect of the Iron Flesh on a higher defense unit is greater as it pushes the number of hits down more drastically. After the attack is done, more models will be left standing and more attacks will have missed because of the distribution of 2d6 rolls. It's objectively more synergistic to cast Iron Flesh on things like Winterguard under Bob & Weave than on low DEF units.

The other thing that points to list building mattering is that some spells and abilities only work within faction while you are free to take mercenaries if you desire. And then they made ranking officers which make these units suddenly count as friendly faction. The synergy is so worth it in some cases that people will pay a points premium for ranking officers in order to have it. Imagine if Cryx could have a Warwitch Temptress Ranking Officer and you could have Black Spot on eSkarre work with Nyss Hunters.

"list building doesn't matter, your skill does" is the cry of those who don't understand that list building is a skill itself. It's especially important in Warmachine and Hordes.

What does anything of that has to do with the skill of the player being more important than the list used?

Yes, list construction is a skill and you should build your lists in a way that maximizes the synergy inherent in your models / faction and in a way that makes that army work for the goal that you wan't to accomplish.

None of that changes the fact that if you take the list from the WMW Invitational Champion and put it on the table, you'll probably still lose the game anyway. You also have countless examples of games where the "weaker" list won (see WMW Invitational finals for one such example), because the player behind the list is what makes the difference, not the list itself.

 Kojiro wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:
I would infact argue that Warmachine/Hordes DO not have many special rules.. It has a core set of rules and said spells and effects HAVE to work inside these guidlines.. Some Special rule migh break or tweak..

I beg to differ.

For those that that don't care to count/click, that's nine hundred and eighty seven abilities. That does not include the twenty three standard abilities represented by icons (such as pathfinder). Nor does it include spells, bonds, animi or feats.

I love the WM/H rules but to say there aren't that many special rules- or perhaps more to Torga's that there's a lot to keep track of/possibly forget- just isn't true.

It's certainly a lot of special rules but a couple of things I would note;

That list includes any special abilities that were granted by league models (which you do not see in games).
It includes rules such as "Attachment"--which is not really a rule...but more of just a model type
That list also lists abilities twice if they are derived in different ways...for example they have this listed as separate entries;

Armour Piercing
Armour Piercing (Special Attack)

Same rule, just one model requires the use of a special attack to get it while the other just always has it. Chain Attack is similar...



Anyways, yeah even with all of that, there is a lot of rules.

But at least those rules are the same regardless of which faction/model has them.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
But at least those rules are the same regardless of which faction/model has them.

Agreed. If a model/unit has a rule that, in the BRB is called "Haste" the unit/model calls it haste... They don't call it "Wolf speed" for one model and "Glorious Charge" for another one in a different faction.




*Note, I Totally just made up both "Wolf Speed" and "Glorious Charge" as illustrating a different name for the same rule on different models. I don't recall some of the 40k different special rules as I only have up to 5th Ed. and haven't looked at those books in years.

"Zealot" is a good example of rule bloat present in 40k.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
That list also lists abilities twice if they are derived in different ways...for example they have this listed as separate entries;

Armour Piercing
Armour Piercing (Special Attack)

Same rule, just one model requires the use of a special attack to get it while the other just always has it. Chain Attack is similar...

A hunter under Crippling Grasp (or any other ability that prevents special actions/attacks) can still put a AP shot into your jack,. An Angelius cannot. That is precisely the difference being talked about, that can cost you a game. The effect of the rule is the same but it is two different abilities.

PhantomViper wrote:

What does anything of that has to do with the skill of the player being more important than the list used?

The skill of the player is more important than the list within reason. It's not some universal thing where you can claim the list doesn't matter. For all practical purposes, the list matters. And constructing lists is part of player skill, not separate.

None of that changes the fact that if you take the list from the WMW Invitational Champion and put it on the table, you'll probably still lose the game anyway.

You're introducing a new variable here: player familiarity with the list. I think we can both agree that obviously those who know how their list is supposed to function are going to do better than those who don't understand it.

You also have countless examples of games where the "weaker" list won (see WMW Invitational finals for one such example), because the player behind the list is what makes the difference, not the list itself.

List strength is also match up dependent. Sometimes the "weaker" list is actually stronger.

Player skill obviously matters. It's just not this "the list is always secondary to player skill" nonsense that keeps getting trotted out. It's a useful thing to say if you're trying to sell 40k players on WM/H, but it's just not accurate.

40k most certainly if I had to pick between the two. I'm very much inspired and energized by the background and nothing pulls on my past 14-year old self's heart strings like Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000.

 frozenwastes wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

What does anything of that has to do with the skill of the player being more important than the list used?

The skill of the player is more important than the list within reason. It's not some universal thing where you can claim the list doesn't matter. For all practical purposes, the list matters. And constructing lists is part of player skill, not separate.

I'm not saying that they are separate skills and I'm not clamming that the list build / selection process doesn't matter, let me try another way to see if I can get my point across in a better way:

I believe that list building / selection can make you loose the game but it won't make you win it.

If someone just throws a number of models together without any regards for how they are supposed to function together, then yes, probably no amount of player skill will prevent that list from loosing, but given any competently built list I believe that the player that plays the best in the table will always (or almost always), triumph over the player that has the matchup advantage.

 frozenwastes wrote:

None of that changes the fact that if you take the list from the WMW Invitational Champion and put it on the table, you'll probably still lose the game anyway.

You're introducing a new variable here: player familiarity with the list. I think we can both agree that obviously those who know how their list is supposed to function are going to do better than those who don't understand it.

Not only player familiarity but also individual player skill. In my opinion those are all factors that will have a much greater influence on the winner than what list each player was taking.

 frozenwastes wrote:

You also have countless examples of games where the "weaker" list won (see WMW Invitational finals for one such example), because the player behind the list is what makes the difference, not the list itself.

List strength is also match up dependent. Sometimes the "weaker" list is actually stronger.

Agreed. But in the match in question that wasn't the case, go listen to the interviews with both players, they both stated that the Circle player had a clear advantage in that matchup. The Menoth player didn't even had a feat in that matchup!

 frozenwastes wrote:

Player skill obviously matters. It's just not this "the list is always secondary to player skill" nonsense that keeps getting trotted out. It's a useful thing to say if you're trying to sell 40k players on WM/H, but it's just not accurate.

 Coldhatred wrote:
40k most certainly if I had to pick between the two. I'm very much inspired and energized by the background and nothing pulls on my past 14-year old self's heart strings like Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000.

Though you don't necessarily need the wargame for that. I find the RPG's a much more engaging source of 40K background and fiction. The wargame feels a bit played out in that regard because it has to focus on, well, wars.

PhantomViper wrote:
And here we will have to agree to disagree, I guess. Over the years I've watched way too many games, and played in a few of them myself, where one of the lists had a clear and definite advantage over the other and yet the "underdog" list still won the game because the stronger list got outplayed, so I could never share your opinion on this.

But I don't disagree with any of that. I just have a problem with making this an absolute. That is never the list and always the player. That's clearly not true as it's a combination.

In my opinion, if after loosing a game a player thinks "how can I change my list to win this", instead of "what play could I have done differently to win this", then he is going about it the wrong way and will probably never be a very good WMH player.

You need to do both. It could be that the list is a bad drop against a large portion of the field and needs to change.

One thing I can definitely say is that Warmachine feels a lot more mechanical and dry, even if it really isn't. I recently have started playing with timed turns since my local shop is having its very first Steamroller tournament in a month. The turn limit is going to be 10 minutes per turn, and let me tell you it is INSANELY hard right now to do all your movement and actions in the span of 10 minutes. I find it to encourage sloppy play because you are in a rush to get things done and make mistakes. It's not something I enjoy at all because it makes the game feel a lot more "hardcore" than a typical tabletop game where you laugh and joke around at things during the course of the game. I get that it's to minimize banter and maximize playtime, but it feels like it sucks the fun part out of a game and makes it into "serious business". No small talk, just game speak, and rushed at that.

I have always, and will always, feel that 40k is best suited to a more laid back style of game. That doesn't excuse the poor rules and, in fact, makes them stand out more because the "collector" is the guy most likely to play whatever they want and shoddy, unbalanced rules hurt that kind of player more than the cheeseweasel who will drop a spammy netlist.

However, I don't experience the same emotions playing Warmachine as I used to when playing 40k or when reading/watching 40k battle reports (as I don't play anymore). It's a superior game, and I am enjoying it, but it feels "off" and that makes what GW is currently doing to 40k even worse for me because it's almost like I will daydream about playing 40k again, and then GW comes along and smacks me back awake into reality.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The turn limit is going to be 10 minutes per turn, and let me tell you it is INSANELY hard right now to do all your movement and actions in the span of 10 minutes. I find it to encourage sloppy play because you are in a rush to get things done and make mistakes. It's not something I enjoy at all because it makes the game feel a lot more "hardcore" than a typical tabletop game where you laugh and joke around at things during the course of the game. I get that it's to minimize banter and maximize playtime, but it feels like it sucks the fun part out of a game and makes it into "serious business". No small talk, just game speak, and rushed at that.

I find timed games to be a total brain drain. After two timed games I'm pretty much done for the day. I don't know how people go to big tournaments and play five rounds in a single day. I like to do big stupid things so It's possible that I'm just not compatible with tournaments.

However, I don't experience the same emotions playing Warmachine as I used to when playing 40k or when reading/watching 40k battle reports (as I don't play anymore). It's a superior game, and I am enjoying it, but it feels "off" and that makes what GW is currently doing to 40k even worse for me because it's almost like I will daydream about playing 40k again, and then GW comes along and smacks me back awake into reality.

I know what you mean. When I played Bolt Action is was like I was coming home after a long time away. Warmachine is very, very gamey. It's like WM/H is about hard coding interesting game decision making into the process of play but things like 40k, Bolt Action, Saga, Dropzone Commander and others are more about allowing the interesting parts to emerge from play. It makes them more susceptible to bad design as that can get in the way of the emergence, so 40k ends up actually being worse for casual play despite eschewing competitive play in favor of it.

I personally like the timed rounds in the steamroller tournaments. I enjoy fast play and quick decision making. What always bothered me about 40k tournaments was my turn could take 20 minutes while my opponents turn could take 45 minutes. I feel nothing is worse then standing there for 45 minutes waiting.

WayneTheGame wrote:
One thing I can definitely say is that Warmachine feels a lot more mechanical and dry, even if it really isn't. I recently have started playing with timed turns since my local shop is having its very first Steamroller tournament in a month. The turn limit is going to be 10 minutes per turn, and let me tell you it is INSANELY hard right now to do all your movement and actions in the span of 10 minutes. I find it to encourage sloppy play because you are in a rush to get things done and make mistakes. It's not something I enjoy at all because it makes the game feel a lot more "hardcore" than a typical tabletop game where you laugh and joke around at things during the course of the game. I get that it's to minimize banter and maximize playtime, but it feels like it sucks the fun part out of a game and makes it into "serious business". No small talk, just game speak, and rushed at that.

I really like Deathclock. I find that it helps immensely to cut down on the amount of time that you sit around doing nothing waiting for your opponent to finish its turn and yet it still gives you the possibility to take your time and plan and play the game properly.

On the other hand, I really dislike Timed Turns because they make the game feel extremely rushed to me and always seem to promote sloppy play.

I find it weird that you guys are choosing the hardest of the two methods for your very first steamroller tournament.

PhantomViper wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
One thing I can definitely say is that Warmachine feels a lot more mechanical and dry, even if it really isn't. I recently have started playing with timed turns since my local shop is having its very first Steamroller tournament in a month. The turn limit is going to be 10 minutes per turn, and let me tell you it is INSANELY hard right now to do all your movement and actions in the span of 10 minutes. I find it to encourage sloppy play because you are in a rush to get things done and make mistakes. It's not something I enjoy at all because it makes the game feel a lot more "hardcore" than a typical tabletop game where you laugh and joke around at things during the course of the game. I get that it's to minimize banter and maximize playtime, but it feels like it sucks the fun part out of a game and makes it into "serious business". No small talk, just game speak, and rushed at that.

I really like Deathclock. I find that it helps immensely to cut down on the amount of time that you sit around doing nothing waiting for your opponent to finish its turn and yet it still gives you the possibility to take your time and plan and play the game properly.

On the other hand, I really dislike Timed Turns because they make the game feel extremely rushed to me and always seem to promote sloppy play.

I find it weird that you guys are choosing the hardest of the two methods for your very first steamroller tournament.

Our Press Ganger chose it, I honestly don't think it's going to go over well. Most of us are very new to the game (few months max) and aren't used to pressure during games. Death Clock I could see as that's normal, but I was under the impression timed turns were more for like Masters/Hardcore. *shrug*

WayneTheGame wrote:

Our Press Ganger chose it, I honestly don't think it's going to go over well. Most of us are very new to the game (few months max) and aren't used to pressure during games.

Then suggest to him that he increases the time in each turn to 15 mins, there is a provision for this in the SR rules packet so it would still be considered an "official" SR tournament and it would put allot less pressure on the players.

Thinking about it some more, I can understand why he chose timed turns, since the clocks required for Deathclock would need a bigger initial monetary investment, thankfully our FLGS covered all the costs for these and a few of us players also bought our own to use in bigger tournaments or even to play friendly games with.

PhantomViper wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Our Press Ganger chose it, I honestly don't think it's going to go over well. Most of us are very new to the game (few months max) and aren't used to pressure during games.

Then suggest to him that he increases the time in each turn to 15 mins, there is a provision for this in the SR rules packet so it would still be considered an "official" SR tournament and it would put allot less pressure on the players.

Thinking about it some more, I can understand why he chose timed turns, since the clocks required for Deathclock would need a bigger initial monetary investment, thankfully our FLGS covered all the costs for these and a few of us players also bought our own to use in bigger tournaments or even to play friendly games with.

Well it's a 35 point tournament, so it's supposed to be 7 minutes, and he upped it to 10. Still it's going to be a shellshock for a lot of us :p

WayneTheGame wrote:

Well it's a 35 point tournament, so it's supposed to be 7 minutes, and he upped it to 10. Still it's going to be a shellshock for a lot of us :p

Ah, that is different! I thought that it was 10 mins for 50 pts which is the usual timed turns limit.

PhantomViper wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Well it's a 35 point tournament, so it's supposed to be 7 minutes, and he upped it to 10. Still it's going to be a shellshock for a lot of us :p

Ah, that is different! I thought that it was 10 mins for 50 pts which is the usual timed turns limit.

The tournament format of PP given by Steamroller missions is quite nice.
However, the time-limited turns are a big problem for newbies.

I too prefer the clock for the whole game rather than using timed turns. I find timed turns grueling.

@Wayne- Some advice, if I could. I used to play very competitively (had a blast, was a great time) but burned out about as hard as you can.

What made it less mechanical and more fun again was playing the scenarios in the No Quarter issues or the oddball scenarios they have in each league packet. You have the same rules, but if gives you some flavor and chaos to break the mechanical part of the game up a bit. Then we even started having one off scenario days with ridiculous matchups to keep it fresh and engaging (200 points of Cryx 1 caster vs 3 50 point lists, 3 casters total).

Essentially, after you finish your Steamroller, take a break from timed turns and packet scenarios. Everyone needs variety, and most WM/H folsk forget that too, leading to burn out/dissatisfaction. Good luck at your steamroller!

 plastictrees wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:


Also the synergy betwen miniatures is the core of Warmahordes.. And the game is decided on the table and not in the list building, any list can beat any other list.. It is more about your personal skill as a player..

This really is just nonsense. Warmachine tournaments have you bring multiple lists and/or sidebars because matchups can absolutely determine victory at any level of play. List building is absolutely a huge part of Warmachine, and part of the fun.

How you can say that "synergy between miniatures is the core of Warmahordes" and then say that list building isn't key is mind boggling.
Let's see how that all trencher Darius list does.

What I said was if you bothered to read anything, But I guess you just wanted to continue bashing on me personaly, and that is fine .. That list building is not done in a way that if I take one list and you take the wrong one against it becomes an AUTO WIN.. Personsl skill Plays in. And the reason you run multiple list in turnaments is because you want to even the playing field as much as possible... And at that level everything mathers, from how you deploy your force to the decissions you make and what miniatures you are using..

But as far as I know the question i responded to was to a person who wanted to start out.. Not "I want to play tournaments how much effect do list have at that level of gameplay".. And the fact that people change up the list and try and bring less used minatures says alot about the Tournament scene in warmachine..

THe Most interesting is that at Tournaments people do try and mix things up and bring new stuff etc.. And that constantly shakes up the META of Warmachine/hordes.. The same can not be said for other games... So there are no Real I WIN Button lists in warmachine and the potential to assassinate the enemy caster makes all list still have a chans to win.. Even if the opposition has some sort of hardcounter against your force.. I have made alot of uppsets playing Warmachine and you are never out of the Match "Untill you lose the game that is"

But the main point Was the "list" in itself do not win games.. In 40k I can go autopilot if I have the right list... NO SKILL NEEDED... because it is a skillless game...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:

zlayer77 wrote:And the game is decided on the table and not in the list building, any list can beat any other list..

PhantomViper wrote:There is no such thing as a game of WMH that was won on list selection.

This just isn't the case. Lists are crafted to accomplish goals. It's a skill. If changing a warcaster in or out drastically changes how the list functions, it obviously changes the power level based on how well the capabilities of that caster interact with the army in question. Imagine a list with a caster who likes to stay back and use magic and you don't take as many arc nodes as you could. Or a caster who relies on their battle group shooting and you take few, if any ranged jacks. Or a caster who works well with living warbeasts and you go with all constructs. Or a caster who has spells that target warrior models and you go jack heavy. And that's just on the negative side of avoiding uselessness. There's a whole world of figuring out the best way to maximize usefulness.

It also comes down to stats. The effect of the Iron Flesh on a higher defense unit is greater as it pushes the number of hits down more drastically. After the attack is done, more models will be left standing and more attacks will have missed because of the distribution of 2d6 rolls. It's objectively more synergistic to cast Iron Flesh on things like Winterguard under Bob & Weave than on low DEF units.

The other thing that points to list building mattering is that some spells and abilities only work within faction while you are free to take mercenaries if you desire. And then they made ranking officers which make these units suddenly count as friendly faction. The synergy is so worth it in some cases that people will pay a points premium for ranking officers in order to have it. Imagine if Cryx could have a Warwitch Temptress Ranking Officer and you could have Black Spot on eSkarre work with Nyss Hunters.

"list building doesn't matter, your skill does" is the cry of those who don't understand that list building is a skill itself. It's especially important in Warmachine and Hordes.

All the things you wrote still dosen't win you the game on list selection... In our current local meta I play "semi optimal stuff" against people who are less skilled then myself. The sad thing though is even though I Nerf myself I still win about 90% of those games.. Because even with a semi optimal list against a "tweaked and very good lists" I am still the better player.. SO I will win regardless 9 times out of 10 against the those with less skill... Even when they are using OUR more optimal tournament lists against me...

The only thing I can give you is that the closer you are to your opponent in skill the more the list will effect the game.. But will a better list Autowin on selection "NO" it will not...

is the cry of those who don't understand that list building is a skill itself

This is just hillarious, let me give you another thing... Many Torunament list can't be played by regular players of Warmachine/hordes.. You know why? because the list have a plan and need to be excuted in the right way.. I would say this List building has an effect in Warmachine if you KNOW how to use said list to its optimal preformance.. You can't just pick a list from a Torunament and then expect to win with it... You have to know how it is used.. This means that List in Warmachine are tested in play then they are tweaked and tested again.. And when they suit my playstyle and I have optimized it it will run great for ME... But if you picked the exact same list and haden't watched me play it you would probably LOSE using it... So the skill in Warmachine is not to BUILD lists it is to Make a List that you have a plan for on the table, and stuff that looks great on papper (and things that dont) have proven time and time again to be the opposite on the table..

Bradigus, the New circle caster for example did very vell in the last tournament in England.. But Guess whast, everyone used their own tweaked list.. SO NO list where exacly the same... 4-6 diffrent lists for the same caster... in the same tournament..

If warmachien Hordes was like Magic the gathering then everyone would show up with exacly the same list (because in magic all the top players use almost identical decks).. But this is not true in Warmachine/hordes with leads me to belive that "player skill in the GAME" plays in alot more then what list he is using...

The only thing that would rescue WM/H for me is the release of an asymetrical campaign book. I played intensely for 3 years. The game undoubtably has appeal in its characters, models and speed of play, while maintaining the uniqueness of each model.

However, no matter how hard people try to deny it, having the wrong model on the table means instant disaster for 2 evenly matched players, and in some cases you may as well just shake hands if you don't have the right model. Even worse, is when the terrain on the table becomes terribly broken. ie. eLilyth with a forest in the middle of the table... just slap yourself in the face for an hour, it's more fun. It can be a great game when both players take responsibility for balancing the game experience, but I have never seen a game of WM that was intrinsically balanced by the point system.