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.

I have recently considered starting Skorne because I really like how they look and they play similar to my Khador, so it would be an easy transition and they can do a lot of things better (multiple heavies, really good multi-wound infantry). I really like the Fist of Halaak list with all the cataphract units. My only issue is that this army seems to be really high on the power curve of things, and I don't play in a competitive meta - we're all pretty laid back, many of us are new to Warmachine/Hordes (but not wargaming) and a lot of people play just what they think is fun or what they like without a care for the larger metas and what goes on in the national tournaments.

I don't want to be known as "that guy" who brings a power list all the time to crush people, and since a Fist list is expensive I'd likely not have additional things for a while, but it looks amazing both in aesthetics and in playstyle from what I can see (something I've always wanted to do in Khador but haven't been able to). On the other hand, Warmachine is about competition and playing to win (Page Five and all that) and why should I handicap myself to go easy on others? We have talked about becoming more competitive (our FLGS just moved to a larger store with more room) and things like the Fist of Halaak would need to be addressed at some point, so should I feel bad about doing it because it might make me look like TFG?

Well Warmachine in general is not a laid back kind of game.

There is no such thing as casual vs competitive. There is niche vs generalist.

The "Casual vs Competitive" mindset is from 40k and it needs to be ditched like a syphilitic date.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I have recently considered starting Skorne because I really like how they look and they play similar to my Khador, so it would be an easy transition and they can do a lot of things better (multiple heavies, really good multi-wound infantry). I really like the Fist of Halaak list with all the cataphract units. My only issue is that this army seems to be really high on the power curve of things, and I don't play in a competitive meta - we're all pretty laid back, many of us are new to Warmachine/Hordes (but not wargaming) and a lot of people play just what they think is fun or what they like without a care for the larger metas and what goes on in the national tournaments.

I don't want to be known as "that guy" who brings a power list all the time to crush people, and since a Fist list is expensive I'd likely not have additional things for a while, but it looks amazing both in aesthetics and in playstyle from what I can see (something I've always wanted to do in Khador but haven't been able to). On the other hand, Warmachine is about competition and playing to win (Page Five and all that) and why should I handicap myself to go easy on others? We have talked about becoming more competitive (our FLGS just moved to a larger store with more room) and things like the Fist of Halaak would need to be addressed at some point, so should I feel bad about doing it because it might make me look like TFG?

If you're worried about multiwound models, you've never met a weapon master unit. They can tear them up faster than you can say, "You roll how many dice?"

I think this concern is a non-issue, in any case, metas become 'competitive' based on the players that play. If you don't bring anything 'competitive' there is no reason for your opponents to do so either, and the meta becomes stagnant.

In case of Page 5, It also carries over to Hordes.

I enjoy playing games with my friends, but in the end; you play to win don't you? You do not have to be arrogant or other terms if you win, just have fun and a good time.

I see having an opponent that has a competitive list means I have to work harder to find a way to victory and brings the best out in me. You can be competitive and still have a good time.

It's pretty hard to draw ire for being a munchkin by bringing some selection of models in WMH, mostly since everything has efficient counters (not like invisible Knights and Riptide spam in 40k). The Fist of Halaak tier list is very good at straight fights, but that doesn't make it unbeatable.

(As a sidenote once you've started getting into the play-counterplay in list building/planning where you start to ask yourself how the other guy might screw up your plan and what you can do to avoid that you're making progress)

The Fist of Halaak is a competitive list and what it will do is change your local meta round as they will have to deal with lots of high arm multi-would troops. Some people will complain as they struggle to deal with it but they need to accept that there are casters/lists out there which are going to force them out of their comfort zone or make them think outside the box. Which is a good thing as you all become better players for it.

Very valid points, all. Thing is in my meta barely anyone likes to use Scenarios (I am trying to push for it more, also since I applied to be a Press Ganger), usually people are cool with it if someone mentions, but sometimes there are folks who don't want to go through the trouble setting up a scenario but just use straight assassination, sometimes even without terrain (yuck)! We don't do two list games since most of us don't have enough to make two lists (or at least not have them differ enough). I find that unless you specifically ask to do a scenario nobody is going to bring it up because they likely don't know about them and consider them optional.

I think I will go ahead with it (although it's going to be expensive lol) for exactly those reasons - if we want to start playing more competitively that entails playing scenarios, playing with terrain laid out reasonably (some of our store terrain is literally gigantic, impassable and LOS-blocking walls that go for a quarter of the table) and the possibility of certain lists popular in the larger meta; pretending they don't exist or getting upset at them doesn't change that they are out there and a reality if we start to host tournaments (because people from other metas such as the other large WM/H game store to the east might attend) so we should be prepared for it.

That's my reasoning, anyways. I know some of our players are more laid back and don't really care if they play with terrain or on a flat board, if they just put all terrain on their own side or their opponent 's side (as one person put it, terrain doesn't matter to their army [Legion] so it doesn't need to be on their side), or if they just play straight assassination, but that's not how I am.

WayneTheGame wrote:
but sometimes there are folks who don't want to go through the trouble setting up a scenario but just use straight assassination, sometimes even without terrain (yuck)!

I would play them, with my all-shooting Gunnbjorn army . Seriously, nobody plays Legion or Circle? Because if some do, when they will see how terrain work for them, especially with scenario too, you will just have to tell them that terrain + scenario is the official way to play and you can be sure they will call for it at every game!
Really, scenario are just part of how the game work, playing without them makes little sense.
Two lists are not necessary if you can put up an all-comer list. Why? Because even in case of a bad matchup, maybe you can out-think your opponent thanks to… the scenario .

 Grey Templar wrote:
The "Casual vs Competitive" mindset is from 40k and it needs to be ditched like a syphilitic date.

Meh. Not sure if condoms protects against this, but if not, just do not have sex and you do not need to ditch him/her.

We don't really have Legion or Circle players, and the few we do have seem to pick anything that strikes their fancy instead of building with synergy because they "play for fun"

I have started really pushing scenarios to the point where now I think I will refuse to play a straight assassination game or a game on a flat board with no terrain (seriously, we have some terrain - some of it isn't that great since it was swiped from heroclix or some similar game, but still it's better than nothing).

Invest in a couple of pieces of various colored felt. Make some 2inches x 2 inches, some 3x3 and a few 4x4. Then color code them so that some are forests some are hills and some are buildings. It's not the best terrain but it is cheap and easy to use. Also download the Steamroller scenerios. They are free and then you can randomly generate scenerio games. If you do that then you will also need a couple of 12" diameter circles, a couple of 6x12 rectangles, 2 30mm bases, and 2 40mm bases. Have a few extra of these so that more than 1 scenerio can be played at the same time.
Good luck.

@the Page 5 guys:

I totally get where WayneTheGame is coming from, and he's being a conscientious gamer. In my meta, there's lots of sub-optimal stuff going on like guys running Kossites, Zerkova, Venethrax, Cassius and the like - for funsies. Tier 1 lists just ROFLSTOMP them. There's lots of discussion that the "niche" players should step up their game to "compete properly" with the hardcore crowd instead of using random crap they like. I find this mindset frustrating as it is much easier for the Tier 1 players to dial down their lists and concentrate on polishing the basics (this sharpens the overall game) than demanding that the rest of the meta advance to suit them.

 keezus wrote:
@the Page 5 guys:

I totally get where WayneTheGame is coming from, and he's being a conscientious gamer. In my meta, there's lots of sub-optimal stuff going on like guys running Kossites, Zerkova, Venethrax, Cassius and the like - for funsies. Tier 1 lists just ROFLSTOMP them. There's lots of discussion that the "niche" players should step up their game to "compete properly" with the hardcore crowd instead of using random crap they like. I find this mindset frustrating as it is much easier for the Tier 1 players to dial down their lists and concentrate on polishing the basics (this sharpens the overall game) than demanding that the rest of the meta advance to suit them.

Exactly right. I mean, I don't want to piss off the local meta (I'm a recent addition) by coming with a Tier 1 list and crushing everyone, but at the same time I want to encourage us playing more seriously because A) The game is built around that concept and B) If we host tournaments then people from more serious metas will show up and THEN they'll just crush everyone, which leaves a really sour taste in everyone's mouths and might even sour them on being competitive afterwards for some "outsiders" to come in and wreck everyone.

WayneTheGame wrote:
and the few we do have seem to pick anything that strikes their fancy instead of building with synergy because they "play for fun"

Even then they would likely gain enormously from terrain.
“Hey, you cannot see my warbeast, or even reach it by running, but I can see you normally and will not be slowed at all” forests and all that .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:
In my meta, there's lots of sub-optimal stuff going on like guys running Kossites, Zerkova, Venethrax, Cassius and the like - for funsies. Tier 1 lists just ROFLSTOMP them. There's lots of discussion that the "niche" players should step up their game to "compete properly" with the hardcore crowd instead of using random crap they like.

As far as I can tell, a tier 1 players running whatever they like for funsies will rolfstomp bad players with tier 1 lists, so… learn to use the rules to your advantage, rather than using a weblist . (Not saying this to Keezus, just a generic advice.)

Not using scenarios is a very bad idea.

This game is balanced around Steamroller scenario play. Not using them gives a huge unbalanced advantage to assassin casters and gunlines.

You absolutely must use scenarios to have a balanced game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not using scenarios is a very bad idea.

This game is balanced around Steamroller scenario play. Not using them gives a huge unbalanced advantage to assassin casters and gunlines.

You absolutely must use scenarios to have a balanced game.

I wish there was an easy way to make that clear, because the general viewpoint is that the scenarios in Prime/Primal are specifically mentioned as being optional since the "basic game" is straight caster kill, and Steamroller scenarios are related to tournaments and therefore aren't for regular play. Note I don't agree with that (obviously) but that's the counter I've seen. I think it comes from a 40k mindset honestly, where tournament things tend to be their own separate world.

In any event in regards to my OP I think I'm going to stay with Khador a bit longer, since I really have not played a ton of games so I feel it's silly to switch factions before I actually learn how to use the faction I have

Being "that guy" is more about the player then the list.

That said, I don't think Fists of Halaak is nearly as annoying as some eHaley/deBray nonsense, where you opponent basically doesn't get to play.

...oh, and I want to agree with everyone else: scenarios are really important, and add a lot of balance and depth to the game.

Terrain is not optional in this game (see page 40 of Primal or Prime uder Two player games second sentence). Scenerios are not "optional" but they are varients of the base game (please note the use of "base"). They are also talked about on page 40, with details given later in the book.
If your players are going to say that "it's not in the main book I don't want to use it". Then also tell them that most of the troops/beasts/casters are also not in the main book but the game is obviously designed to use them (just like scenerios).
In my meta we had a guy that built a 25 point list that won everytime he played. He wasn't TFG but it made everyone take a look at what they had available and then try to beat his list. IIRC he won 17 games straight before losing. And then we had a new King of the Hill. Play a list of figures you like and if you win then don't rub it in. Just treat your opponent like you have in the past. If they start complaining challenge them (nicely) to do something about it.

 keezus wrote:
@the Page 5 guys:

I totally get where WayneTheGame is coming from, and he's being a conscientious gamer. In my meta, there's lots of sub-optimal stuff going on like guys running Kossites, Zerkova, Venethrax, Cassius and the like - for funsies. Tier 1 lists just ROFLSTOMP them. There's lots of discussion that the "niche" players should step up their game to "compete properly" with the hardcore crowd instead of using random crap they like. I find this mindset frustrating as it is much easier for the Tier 1 players to dial down their lists and concentrate on polishing the basics (this sharpens the overall game) than demanding that the rest of the meta advance to suit them.

This game is won by the players, not the models. A good player running a puddle of models grabbed off the shelf at random will stomp a new player running a list someone won a tournament with nine times out of ten.

My meta plays SR scenarios almost exclusively. It can be a bit frustrating since every game feels very competitive rather than even the slightest bit casual, but I'm definitely learning through the school of hard knocks.

chaos0xomega wrote:
My meta plays SR scenarios almost exclusively. It can be a bit frustrating since every game feels very competitive rather than even the slightest bit casual, but I'm definitely learning through the school of hard knocks.

That's my concern (as in that's how I'm afraid others might think) so thank you for providing the opposite viewpoint. I think there's a fundamental difference in how to approach WM/H over 40k, in that even a "casual" WMH game can (should?) be played as though it's a tournament game without a prize, while 40k has the whole idea that you can be laid back and not take a game seriously.

I do find it a very fascinating difference between the two.

chaos0xomega wrote:
It can be a bit frustrating since every game feels very competitive rather than even the slightest bit casual, but I'm definitely learning through the school of hard knocks.

Warmachine is competitive. Pretty much all the time. It can be competitive but relaxed, though, which just as good as non-competitive.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This game is won by the players, not the models. A good player running a puddle of models grabbed off the shelf at random will stomp a new player running a list someone won a tournament with nine times out of ten.

Well... that goes without saying... but not all players are Will Pagani. Most players of average level can't overcome bad matchups through pure skill alone.

Models won't win you games, but they can definitely lose games for you if you took the wrong stuff and/or aren't skilled in their use.

Eventually, one of your players will fiqure out stupidly insane stuff from their lists. Then the power will amp up.
Take the list. Just do it

@Hotsauce: The arms race will happen on its own as the community grows. I have found in past experience that accelerating the arms race to the last stage (i.e. the hardest lists) immediately has the following adverse effects:

1. As every player's budget is different, those of like mind to advance to the top tier may not be able to due to monetary constraints. If the barrier to entry for top tier is too high, and the only way to be competitive is at that level, they may decide that their monies are better spent elsewhere.

1b. Another problem is many of the top net-lists are SKEW lists due to the character restriction provision in the tournament packs. This often leads new players competing in the arms race down a dead-end street as the models required are not flexible enough to be included in other lists.

2. Immediate advancement to the top tier may eliminate players who aren't as hardcore (or do not have the time to be hardcore). To play at the highest levels requires a lot of commitment of time to familiarize yourself with your own army, its limitations, and the strengths and limitations of your opponents. This is very time consuming and players may or may not have the time to devote to this - i.e. jobs, studies, family etc. If the only level played is the highest level, these people may decide that the hobby is not for them as they get ROFLSTOMP'd at every gaming session.

Granted, some are of the opinion that the above is somehow indicative of players "not devoted enough" to the hobby, and that "culling of the herd" is beneficial as it results in the most competitive environment. I feel this view is short sighted, as such a hostile approach isn't condusive to growing the community.

Of course - YMMV.

 keezus wrote:
@Hotsauce: The arms race will happen on its own as the community grows. I have found in past experience that accelerating the arms race to the last stage (i.e. the hardest lists) immediately has the following adverse effects:

1. As every player's budget is different, those of like mind to advance to the top tier may not be able to due to monetary constraints. If the barrier to entry for top tier is too high, and the only way to be competitive is at that level, they may decide that their monies are better spent elsewhere.

1b. Another problem is many of the top net-lists are SKEW lists due to the character restriction provision in the tournament packs. This often leads new players competing in the arms race down a dead-end street as the models required are not flexible enough to be included in other lists.

2. Immediate advancement to the top tier may eliminate players who aren't as hardcore (or do not have the time to be hardcore). To play at the highest levels requires a lot of commitment of time to familiarize yourself with your own army, its limitations, and the strengths and limitations of your opponents. This is very time consuming and players may or may not have the time to devote to this - i.e. jobs, studies, family etc. If the only level played is the highest level, these people may decide that the hobby is not for them as they get ROFLSTOMP'd at every gaming session.

Granted, some are of the opinion that the above is somehow indicative of players "not devoted enough" to the hobby, and that "culling of the herd" is beneficial as it results in the most competitive environment. I feel this view is short sighted, as such a hostile approach isn't condusive to growing the community.

Of course - YMMV.

All valid points to an extent, however it does seem that some are trying to apply the 40k mindset to WM/H and it doesn't work. To be honest i haven't encountered the "arms race" as you describe it, most of boils down to hard won experience and knowing where you went wrong etc. Sure some lists do look nasty on paper however they require the knowledge of what the units do to actually make them work "properly" and even then there is variation on that theme.

Moreover, i think people should be reminded that due to the "competitive" nature of the game there is that temptation to lay on the filth somewhat. Sure its a shock in the fist instance, however many players i know will go and ask where they went wrong and work out what to do next time they bump into said list. For me personally its a refreshing environment to be in as even though the game has a steep learning curve, i've been told many times that i have good lists its just you need to focus on one or two and play them to refine them to your taste.


Just my humble view: to the OP go for it if you want to all will have a lot to learn...

 keezus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
This game is won by the players, not the models. A good player running a puddle of models grabbed off the shelf at random will stomp a new player running a list someone won a tournament with nine times out of ten.

Well... that goes without saying... but not all players are Will Pagani. Most players of average level can't overcome bad matchups through pure skill alone.

Honestly? I've been playing Warmahordes for about six months and I just beat an eight-jack Cyriss army with an infantry Morvahna list after all the veteran players in the store agreed the game had been lost in army selection. A bad matchup in this game isn't a guaranteed win the way an invisible Knight versus a Daemons army in 40k is, it's an edge that can be overcome or worked around.

Which 8 jack cyriss army? And e or p Morvahna?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Honestly? I've been playing Warmahordes for about six months and I just beat an eight-jack Cyriss army with an infantry Morvahna list after all the veteran players in the store agreed the game had been lost in army selection. A bad matchup in this game isn't a guaranteed win the way an invisible Knight versus a Daemons army in 40k is, it's an edge that can be overcome or worked around.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Certainly, in bad match ups it is possible to win if you exceed your opponent in skill. There is always bad bumps of the dice as well. Bad match ups limit your options, or force you to gamble on sub-optimal plays where your outcome is entirely dependent on the dice gods. In a situation assuming equal skill, your opponent should be able to somewhat predict your actions, as your actions are limited.

8 Jacks suggests the Forge Master. eMorv is actually a favorable matchup as he's very upkeep dependent and purification rustles his jimmies. pMorv seems like a poor matchup on paper, but without seeing both the lists, this can't be verified either.