Switch Theme:

How is the balance in Warmahordes?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Elite Tyranid Warrior





hi guys, i just picked up two models off of eBay for a dollar each (i have a hard time saying no to a good deal), so i was thinking of starting up war machine. the models are Khador and Cygnar, but i have no clue what kind of jack they are.

More importantly, I'm concerned about the balance in the game. I come from 40k, and lets face it, 40k isn't balanced in a single faction, let alone the whole game! So are there things that are completely broken? Anything to avoid? factions that are just no fun to play with/against?

thanks in advance!

3500 Imperium army

1250 Nidzilla

1000 Chaos army

1000 Drukhari Raiding Force  
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





It's pretty well balanced. There is a ne edition coming out in two months, so that will probably make the game even more balanced because they are updating all the rules simultaneously.


As for what you have, post a picture. One of the best things about warmachine is that the models are easily identifiable, so that you can tell what they are from across the board.

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 luky7dayz wrote:
hi guys, i just picked up two models off of eBay for a dollar each (i have a hard time saying no to a good deal), so i was thinking of starting up war machine. the models are Khador and Cygnar, but i have no clue what kind of jack they are.

More importantly, I'm concerned about the balance in the game. I come from 40k, and lets face it, 40k isn't balanced in a single faction, let alone the whole game! So are there things that are completely broken? Anything to avoid? factions that are just no fun to play with/against?

thanks in advance!


First up, hold off a wee bit before you jump in – Privateer Press are releasing a new edition of the game at the end of June.

So then, you ask about warmachine and balance. The short answer is that yes, it is a very well crafted games that is very well balanced on the whole (and the previously mentioned new edition – Mk3 should refine the game even more and tidy up all the odds and ends. And after six years of mk2, and with hindsight being 20/20 it's easy to see where those odds and ends are and where pp might have missed the mark a bit in places, but to be fair to them, they have a good record on this so I have no doubt that they are approaching this with good intentions and solid implementations). Or rather, it is perfectly imbalanced. On the micro level, some units hard counter others, but on the macro level the factions are generally well balanced against each other and there are no massive outliers in terms of overall faction performance. This is not 40k. There is nothing like the divide between, say, tau and eldar and orks or chaos. But there are a number of caveats to be aware of – in other words, its not that simple!

The first caveat to be aware of is that warmachine is broken out of the box. Some pieces are arguable ‘better’, or rather ‘more obvious’ than other pieces. What makes the game balanced is the ‘organized play’ approach that Privateer Press use, and this, in effect acts as a giant shock absorber for a lot of the little things that might be broken otherwise. Specifically, things like 2, or 3 list formats are the norm (so, if you come across a hard counter, use your other list!), along with multiple win conditions (scenario versus assassination), and things like sideboards exists in some of their formats. It means there is always something you can do - there is always a plan b. Overall, it goes a long way towards ironing out a lot of the issues whilst allowing for a lot of variable approaches to the game.

The second caveat is that you need to be aware of the synergy based nature of the game (aka combos). List building is a thing, but quite unlike anything you are used to in 40k. In 40k, you find the 'best' thing in your codex and spam it. In warmachine it's different - while there are 'good lists' and 'bad lists', it's not about 'good lists' being about spamming the 'good' units and everything else being left behind and ignored, but rather utilising synergies between the various units to the greatest effect. And everything has a synergy. Everything has a place. Everything can do 'work'. And Pretty much everything can be built into an effective, game winning strategy, but not everything is equally good as everything else, alongside everything else, against everything else, all the time. It’s not homogenous. Some things work better with some other things, and work better against others, but are countered by other things in turn. I often think of the game pieces in terms of ‘questions’ and ‘answers’. And generally speaking, everything in the game has its place as one, or the other, or even both, but everything can be ‘questioned’ in turn, and everything will have its ‘answers’, if that makes sense. There are some ‘duds’ but they are rarer than you think. Most things in the game are playable to a lesser or greater extent (some might be more specialised rather than generalised, or might only shine within a particular build and a handful of casters rather than being always useful all the time with a broad range of casters) and the ‘gap’ between the ‘poor’ units and ‘good’ units is smaller than you think. The massive damage output of the pieces means that despite how much damage your opponents dudes can do to you, you are just as capable of taking them out in turn. Some warcasters (they’re your HQ units – think of a king/queen hybrid in chess. That also chucks fireballs) are infantry-centric. Some are jack, or beast-centric. Running infantry-centric casters with nothing but jacks is a bad idea, and running jack/beast centric casters with loads of infantry is a bad idea. Does this mean those casters you chose were wrong, or poorly balanced? Does this mean the infantry or jack choices were poorly balanced? No. What it does mean is that you used poor synergies in your list. The pieces are generally fine, how you put them together is the issue, or what you matched them up against (if they were hard countered by your opponent, in which case – see my first paragraph about multi-list formats). The game can be seen as rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock in a lot of ways too. Balance is ‘circular’. This is a good thing. It means that there is no one dominant strategy or list. But it does mean that everything has its place, everything has a ‘role’ to play, and that regardless of what you take, or whatever you are playing against, there will be various ‘silver bullets’ out there for it, as well as alternative routes.



Hope that helps! Welcome to warmachine!

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/26 17:09:27


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in ca
Elite Tyranid Warrior





http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/jyAAAOSw~oFXDix3/$_57.JPG

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/XGwAAOSw3mpXDix1/$_35.JPG

here are the two images of the jacks i won in an auction. I'm excited to get to paint them and start playing. thank you for the responses! Any idea if i should play Cygnar or Khador? I would like an army that focuses a lot on the jacks, and very little to no troops if possible, i think some of the jacks look so lovely!

3500 Imperium army

1250 Nidzilla

1000 Chaos army

1000 Drukhari Raiding Force  
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

Tough to say as everything is getting rebalanced. Traditionally Cygnar would be more keen to use Jacks than Khador but a primary focus of MkIII is getting more robots on the table so you picked a good time to get in to the game.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

 luky7dayz wrote:
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/jyAAAOSw~oFXDix3/$_57.JPG

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/XGwAAOSw3mpXDix1/$_35.JPG

here are the two images of the jacks i won in an auction. I'm excited to get to paint them and start playing. thank you for the responses! Any idea if i should play Cygnar or Khador? I would like an army that focuses a lot on the jacks, and very little to no troops if possible, i think some of the jacks look so lovely!


Bad news time. Those Jacks are from another game called Grind (Privateers equivalent to blood bowl- same factions, different setting) and so are not usable in Warmahordes.

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in us
Storm Guard





 luky7dayz wrote:
Any idea if i should play Cygnar or Khador? I would like an army that focuses a lot on the jacks, and very little to no troops if possible, i think some of the jacks look so lovely!


Take this with a grain of salt as the new edition may change a few things. Mainly the number of 'jacks being played will be increased significantly, and those same warjacks are getting buffed to be more efficient.

Even with those changes I'm fairly certain in that this will remain true, if you want to play a lot of jacks go Cygnar. Khador does not have any Light Warjacks and traditionally has been the faction of 1-2 expensive warjacks and loads of troops. Cygnar's warjacks however are cheaper, faster, in some cases just as powerful, and they tend to be significantly more versatile. Plus Cygnar has more in faction support for their warjacks, with more Warcasters who specialize in Warjacks, and a broader spell reservoir that can make those Jacks better, faster, and stronger. Plus Cygnar has Jeremiah Kraye who is poised to be one of the most baller Warjack caster in the game if he keeps most of his special abilities in the new edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/26 21:31:48


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Yeah, you're going to have to ask again in a month or two (new edition will be fully released by late June but we should have lots of teasers before then!).

I would say it was much more balanced earlier in the current edition (MK2) than it is now. So, with them completely looking at every unit and tweaking / adjusting points costs for MK3, I expect a lot better balance at the start of this new edition. Which means I'm excited to play again
   
Made in ca
Elite Tyranid Warrior





thats ok i can always just get a battle box to start off if those models aren't compatible with warmahordes, that also means I'm not locked into playing just khador or cygnar

i guess ill wait and see come new edition, but thanks everyone for the answers!

3500 Imperium army

1250 Nidzilla

1000 Chaos army

1000 Drukhari Raiding Force  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 luky7dayz wrote:
Any idea if i should play Cygnar or Khador? I would like an army that focuses a lot on the jacks, and very little to no troops if possible, i think some of the jacks look so lovely!


You'll be hard pressed if that's what you want I'm afraid.

I really don't want to tell you 'how you should be playing' but I'll warn you that 'All jack' is a skew with severe hard counters and is neither effective in mk2 nor is it fluffy. Jacks are like modern tanks in that they need infantry support, and while mk3 spoilers show that pp is giving some some to jacks and trying to push the game in a direction where more of them get onto the board and where more jacks is both easier to run, and more effective, 'all jack' will in all likelihood remain a bad idea. If anything. Menoth is the best faction for running jack heavy currently, not cygnar or khador.

And that is part of the fluff. Jacks are rare. Not 'space marine' rare, but they're still rare. Especially in khador (resources are limited so thry make do with small number of very heavy warjacks, and fill the gap with horse drawn tanks and super-heavy infantry like men-o-war) - for example, irusks famous 4th assault batallion has over 10,000 infantry, and 80 warjacks.

Personally I look at it this way: having robotmachine gsmes with a dozen jacks on each side - well, the jacks just blend in to each other and get lost in the crowd. When you have two or three per side. Standing head and shoulders above squads of infantry - now they have 'presence'. Sometimes 'less is more'. In 40k, it's the same problem with space marines - they're supposed to be this super rare ultra elite force, but on the actual table top. Virtually everyone is playing marines and they die like flies. Their very 'presence' is diluted to caricature by their sheer numbers.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

Faction-to-faction? Pretty much fine. It shifts over time, but you shouldn't expect a wipe-out just because you're playing X-faction against Y faction.

Within a faction? Pretty terrible. There are a lot of pieces that are just plain overpriced, so no one outside of new players, ones that are obsessed with them, or ones that need to include them in a theme list take. It's not like you can't make them work, but you've got to try a lot harder to get them okay, while other things are obviously strong out of the gate, and if you put the same amount of effort in, would wreck things hard.

Personally, I feel like PP's got some serious balance issues in making a highly competitive, combo-based game, where if something's not strong or at least right for the cost/job, it's too weak to be worthwhile, so there's a very narrow window of actually balanced.

I have no idea if the bad things will stay bad, get the appropriate help to be even, or overcompensate and get too good, in the new edition. One can always hope for an even game, but I'm not hoping that hard.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Within a faction? Pretty terrible. There are a lot of pieces that are just plain overpriced, so no one outside of new players, ones that are obsessed with them, or ones that need to include them in a theme list take. It's not like you can't make them work, but you've got to try a lot harder to get them okay, while other things are obviously strong out of the gate, and if you put the same amount of effort in, would wreck things hard.


I think you are being a bit too severe when your say internal balance is 'pretty terrible'. There are very few true irredeemable 'duds' in the game. Most things can get work done, and even if it requires a more specialised build, if that unit is effective there, you can't realistically call it 'terrible' - just specialised eg men o war with epic irusk are actually a pretty damned solid choice (ts solves their low speed, and an arm21/8 hits and tough wall that can be seen/shot/and moved through by my own guys, and can't be by my opponent-martial discipline for the win- opens khador up to circle level movement and control/denial shenanigans and should not be underestimated), whereas normally they'd be regarded as a bit of a 'dud'. Another example would be taking assault kommandos against corrosion heavy cryx or fire heavy menoth. They get a lot of undeserved stick, but I've had some excellent work done by my kommandos with the vlads.

'More obvious' is a thing in this game, but it's not necessarily 'better'. It doesn't mean the other stuff suddenly isn't worthwhile. Everything can be built into an effective strategy. If anything, talking about only taking those 'better units' is a bit of a trap that stops players being creative and exploring the rest of the game. Most things on the table top are nowhere near as bad as 'the math' will bluster about. And frankly, creative players will go further than people that lean on the 'best' options as a crutch.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

I'll put it a different way- I think that there are a more than insignificant number of options that are bad, or bad enough that they're corner-case, and I don't want to spend $50 on a corner-case option.

I played one faction just with a theme list, so I was fine buying suboptimal options there, but still didn't really like that it was the case, and there are lots that fall into the camp of "trash except under one or two circumstances" and, as a player with a relatively tight budget, that meant that they were typically options that didn't make any sense.

Yeah, if you're talking cheap stuff or game content where you're not buying units (i.e. in video games), I don't really care about bad options. But, expensive things that won't see a lot of play aren't worth it to me.

Most of the time, those instances of X buff making Y underpowered unit okay can be used to make a good unit great instead, so why spend extra money and effort salvaging a bad unit?


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I'll put it a different way- I think that there are a more than insignificant number of options that are bad, or bad enough that they're corner-case, and I don't want to spend $50 on a corner-case option.

I played one faction just with a theme list, so I was fine buying suboptimal options there, but still didn't really like that it was the case, and there are lots that fall into the camp of "trash except under one or two circumstances" and, as a player with a relatively tight budget, that meant that they were typically options that didn't make any sense.

Yeah, if you're talking cheap stuff or game content where you're not buying units (i.e. in video games), I don't really care about bad options. But, expensive things that won't see a lot of play aren't worth it to me.

Most of the time, those instances of X buff making Y underpowered unit okay can be used to make a good unit great instead, so why spend extra money and effort salvaging a bad unit?


Important reasons, like maybe Because you like the aesthetics of the unit. Or you like the caster that makes them shine. In my case, I'm a huge fan of vlad3 and assault kommandos are for me one of the iconic khador units. Finding a way to get them to the board and make them shine is a great feeling,


Because that 'bad' unit can potentially offer things otherwise not available - see my previous point about men o war with irusk, or assault kommandos with Vlad (a self buffing unit that is now 3d6 dropadice to hit and wound, thst with gas grenades is effectively mat8, def14 and putting out 3 attacks each, plus with the flamethrower attachments gets a massive amount of infantry clearing done. Normally they'd not be looked at, but with their immunities, they offer something thst, say, more staple units like Nyss hunters, iron fans or the winter guard Death Star or other 'good/great' units don't bring to the table or can't do.

There are duds. Kossites come to mind, but even then, Jamie Perkins won a masters with the buggers in his list so they must have some value.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver



Oklahoma

Dunno if you look at cygnar, there are a few issues where you have so many POW 10s running around you simply do not choose others. I have a sentinel, but right now can't think of a single list to put him in. Magnets for a cyclone, again not making it to the table. Why? ATGM can do that and better. Cost and usefulness are simply outweighed when looking for a warjack to compliment the list. And those are limited to cracking high armor value.
   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

How about comparing pStryker to eHaley? How about triumph vs. any other heavy? How about trenchers vs. Nyss? Who uses longgunners when there are gun mages?

(These are rhetorical questions, no, I don't really care to argue the nuance of which list someone played well.)

I play a fair amount of other games, and WM is the one where things stand out where things are near-useless in all but X corner case list. Usually (in other games) I see everything in a narrower range of power, where some things great in certain builds and okay elsewhere, rather than WM's good in certain builds and trash elsewhere.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 spiralingcadaver wrote:
How about comparing pStryker to eHaley? How about triumph vs. any other heavy? How about trenchers vs. Nyss? Who uses longgunners when there are gun mages?


Congratulations, you've pretty much listed the who's who of the commonly regarded over performing and under performing models in the game (though e-Haley post nerf isn't nowhere near as obnoxious as she once was) and put them up against each other. Cygnar as well, is one of those factions that seems over represented by this. The only one you are missing on top of this is Denny 2.

the gulf is nowhere near as extreme in other places, which was my point. I mean, in khador for example, will we compare the merits of wg infantry and riflemen, kayazy, iron fangs, kommandos, uhlans, outriders, kossites kommandos and men o war, most of them, at worst work in specialised builds, but generally can feel build with a wide variety of casters and aren't anywhere 'near useless' as you claim. I've run pretty much all of these units, bar kossites which I don't own, and I've found most have far more game than the voices on the internet who love sweeping claims and generalisations would like to think, who seem obsessed with 'but iron fangs and Nyss hunters!!11!' . I still laugh at how outriders were so widely panned when they were released,but dammit, those murder ponies are utterly savage. Then we compare mercenary options like boomhowlers, Nyss hunters and steelhead halberdiers (don't laugh - the steelhead 'boat' has some serious utility in what it can do) and I know for a fact that I have a place for pretty much everything here. What I play often just comes down to preference.

And I never said there were no duds. Just far fewer redeemable duds than is made out. Sadly, trenchers long gunners and triumph are three of those units, and have been regarded as such since the start of mk2 (well, triumph came a bit later...)And even then, long gunners have game with some builds.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

(These are rhetorical questions, no, I don't really care to argue the nuance of which list someone played well.)
.


It's an important question to consider though. I mean if a player can win a tournament using them by playing well, then it stands to reason that there is some value to them. It backs up my point that so called 'good' units are sometimes a bit of a crutch, and a bit of creativity goes a long way towards levelling the playing field. Unless you play trencher spam (although I did see a plucky trencher bayonet Denny to death once).

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

I play a fair amount of other games, and WM is the one where things stand out where things are near-useless in all but X corner case list. Usually (in other games) I see everything in a narrower range of power, where some things great in certain builds and okay elsewhere, rather than WM's good in certain builds and trash elsewhere.


It's the synergy/combo based nature of the game coupled a lot of the time with the inertia of 'forum group think' that exaggerates everything either to the point of 'amazing*' or 'terrible' with nothing in between. The reality on the table top is quite often different. (I see this all the time in khador, with the perceived 'need' to play b3, when most khador casters actually have viable game). Some combos work, some don't. It's not necessarily a 'bad' thing. Just a thing. Again though, I think you are being too severe and harsh in your criticisms when you call things out as either near useless in all but x corner case list. Some things - sure. But the majority of stuff can get work done. I think it's closer to 'grest in certain builds, OK elsewhere, and terrible in some places'. Like my assault kommandos - despite their (lack of) reputation, ive seen them 'have game' with the vlads, irusks, and sorschas. That's hardly corner case.

*read 'adequate at best' if it's 'your' faction, and 'broken' if it's the faction you play against.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/28 18:28:46


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

On the extremes, yeah. That's the point. Those extremes aren't in the other competitive games I play. There might be "auto-include if you're already taking X piece" but there aren't those obvious "why'd you ever take A when there's B?" pieces available in one faction.

Your "they can work well in the right cases" is my "they weren't balanced well to begin with, in a game where efficiency is essential." I played a ton for some time, and sometimes the so-called groupthink was wrong and something had uses, but a lot of times, it was dead-on, or close enough that I didn't see the reason in trying to get X trash solo to work when there were four others for the same cost that got the same job done, better. And that's a $10-20 on a solo that then gathers dust or I wait around trying to trade it off to a completionist or w/e. Or a $20-60 warjack. Or a $50-100 unit.

The game is too expensive and competitive for me to waste time and money on something that's been poorly balanced.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




How are extremes not in the other games you play? There has to be a unit that is best and a unit that is worst by definition of the terms. If all of the units are of the same utility then why bother buying more than the minimum needed to be placed on the table.

In any game that wants to cover a variety of uses for its game there are always going to be corner case usefulness models and suboptimal model choices. You wouldn't send a paratroop unit to fight a panzer division and you wouldn't want to use an unsupported panzer division in a heavy urban environment.
The point being if a game company wants to have a game that is not chess (all the pieces are the same every game) then there needs to be the option that a player can take wealer/lesser units and try to make them work in a given situation.
   
Made in us
Abel





Washington State

There is no reasoning with a bitter, ex Warmachine/Hordes player. They will always see bad models, worse units, and lament the fact that their favorite whatever just doesn't stack up to something else in the game.

They will armor themselves in bitterness and contempt, and argue with anyone that doesn't see the game the way they do.


Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
-






-

I don't think that necessarily always the case, and of course we should perhaps always at least try, within the confines of the rules here!

   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How are extremes not in the other games you play? There has to be a unit that is best and a unit that is worst by definition of the terms. If all of the units are of the same utility then why bother buying more than the minimum needed to be placed on the table.
I was just arguing for tighter balance.

Of course there's a curve of power- it's not somehow self-evident like you suggested, but game designers aren't perfect so it'll happen. I just feel the spread is much wider/more extreme in PP's lines than many, and better fine tuning/understanding of power levels (or lack of understanding) would be a major factor of whether 3rd edition drew me back in to the game.

In very simple terms, say there's a 1-10 scale of power (relative to game cost, of course). Say PP's line is currently the mostly in the 3-8 range and outliers get to the full 1-10. I'd like most things to be in, say, the 4-7 range and the whole game to be in the 3-8 range. I don't think the extremes make a better game, that's all.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in us
Purged Thrall





FL

Frankly, (and as mentioned) I think we're going to see a much tighter balance moving into Mk3.

I'd argue there are two parts for balance. Rules-wise, the game is very balanced, and is set to even out and be more streamlined in the new version.

As to faction balance, I still think it's better then a lot of other games. That isn't to say it can't be improved though. I also have high hopes for the new edition based on what's been spoiled so far.

So they just did the preview of Cryx (easily one of the top three factions in terms of tournament attendance and results), and you see some interesting changes so far.

Without going super specific, you see some of the 'best' options being toned down in order to be more flexible, or to fulfill different roles (bane warriors (hard hitting) are different then bane knights (stable damage on the charge with reach/vengeance) which are different then bane riders (long threat range with higher accuracy then the other two)). Things that are supposed to be cheap have a reduction in stats to make them cheap.

You also are seeing a rework of 'dud' models. The new Wraith Engine sounds like something I would consistently put on the table based on the couple of spoiled changes (always on incorp, higher speed, popping out free solos when things are killed around it), and the changes to Venethrax make him look like a pretty damn good jack caster (big change from before, he was all personal threat that did nothing for his army or battlegroup).

Even Denny1 has been changed. She's still a debuff beast, but her regular spells aren't as ball busting as they were before (crippling grasp in particular).

And jacks are going to be more of a thing, if even because of the way the game will be structured.

When they spoiled the new slayer cost/stats, it was pretty "meh" on the cryx forums. But seeing as how with Denny1 you can run 3 slayers or 5 deathrippers for 2 points, all of which are allocated 1 focus with no expenditure from your caster, people are starting to look at them in a new light. Those are resources that any player would be doing themselves a disservice to ignore.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Tamwulf wrote:
There is no reasoning with a bitter, ex Warmachine/Hordes player. They will always see bad models, worse units, and lament the fact that their favorite whatever just doesn't stack up to something else in the game.

They will armor themselves in bitterness and contempt, and argue with anyone that doesn't see the game the way they do.


I think that while you could take nearly any unit/model in the game, and use it effectively as some sort of academic exercise, it's simply laughable to think that the game is as well balanced as it was meant to be, or that people think it is.

Part of it is the nature of the size of the game now: 12 factions, hundreds of casters, well over a thousand units/solos. There is going to be a bell curve, no matter how close PP tries to balance things. In late 2nd edition, the pool of tournament used casters, jacks, beasts, and units has shrunk to a pretty small percentage. Now, the usable stuff is still a pretty decent sized ecosystem, but there are literally dozens of casters, units, and models that are simply never used because they're speciality is too narrow and something else does it better, or they're simply poorly balanced.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:
 Tamwulf wrote:
There is no reasoning with a bitter, ex Warmachine/Hordes player. They will always see bad models, worse units, and lament the fact that their favorite whatever just doesn't stack up to something else in the game.

They will armor themselves in bitterness and contempt, and argue with anyone that doesn't see the game the way they do.


I think that while you could take nearly any unit/model in the game, and use it effectively as some sort of academic exercise, it's simply laughable to think that the game is as well balanced as it was meant to be, or that people think it is.

Part of it is the nature of the size of the game now: 12 factions, hundreds of casters, well over a thousand units/solos. There is going to be a bell curve, no matter how close PP tries to balance things. In late 2nd edition, the pool of tournament used casters, jacks, beasts, and units has shrunk to a pretty small percentage. Now, the usable stuff is still a pretty decent sized ecosystem, but there are literally dozens of casters, units, and models that are simply never used because they're speciality is too narrow and something else does it better, or they're simply poorly balanced.




...and because of player inertia.

Sadly, while you are correct in a lot of what you say, player inertia is a thing too. And quite often, this self-selection often just artificially limits the gaming ecosystem. Because players are lazy and put too much stock into what the group think dictates.

There are plenty examples of solid units that were released (greylord outriders and vlad3 immediately come to mind, and amusingly Ruin gets a mention here too!) that were loudly and boorishlay dismissed as useless and pointless and nowhere near as good as what people wanted things to be (in ruins case, a day after the cries of'omg he is super Killy' we had cries of 'he offers nothing new. He is useless, he is no different to any other khador jacksand dies too easily, I am not impressed '. I kid you not. I had to down a shaker of salt whenever I go on the pp forums.

Sometimes it takes ages for good ideas to filter through and be seen as useable because of this inertia and players reluctance to step out from conformity, step away from clutching on boomhowlers and embrace creativity - runes of war pops to mind immediately - it wasn't until a year after it was released, and flanzer started getting success that people took notice of it. Sometimes, easily dismissed units, when played right show value - eg kossites and assault kommandos - both of whom have been in masters winning lists.

You are right though. There are dozens of things that are not used. But this is a game of hundreds of things. Dozens falling a bit short is still a hell of a lot better than the state of play in other games, and falls well short of the system of play that people are claiming.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/30 08:26:00


greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
 
Forum Index » Privateer Press Miniature Games (Warmachine & Hordes)
Go to: