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.

Zatsuku wrote:
Everything I've heard sounds really good. I really wish they hadn't made that stupid retailer decision, because I haven't been this excited about WM/H in years.

Hit the nail on the head for me, except for that I just started WM/H last summer. I love the looks of the new Legion and Cygnar Warnouns (my factions, hooray!) and I like the points adjustments. I may be a scrub, but even I can tell some models don't do nearly enough to merit their points and others do far too much for their points. Pre-measuring is sure to cause a stir, but I favor it. Again, I'm a scrub, but I've always looked at no pre-measuring as a silly thing. "I'm a highly trained soldier/kill-robot that specializes in MURDER. Oops, I forgot how far my gun can shoot accurately and totally whiffed that guy."

Also, the argument against Terratiles as a board becomes invalid with Mark III, so that's pretty cool, even if I was totally going to use them anyways.

I'm tempted to buy those two new boxes for me and the Circle for my wife, I just hope I can get our group to play it more, especially since I'm also trying to get them into Guild Ball at the moment...

I was pretty skeptical of pre-measuring when it came to WHFB, but it really seemed like a much smaller deal than I realized. Made for cleaner games, fewer arguments, and there was still plenty of risk management. Muse on Minis had a great discussion about pros and cons in a recent episode.

I would need certain factions to be nerfed a bit and others to be buffed a bit before I could truly be excited about this

Sining wrote:
I would need certain factions to be nerfed a bit and others to be buffed a bit before I could truly be excited about this

Every model is being redone...

Why is there no convergence of cyriss BB?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Sining wrote:
I would need certain factions to be nerfed a bit and others to be buffed a bit before I could truly be excited about this

Every model is being redone...

Redone but it doesn't mean power levels won't stay roughly the same for some factions. We'll see how it goes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why is there no convergence of cyriss BB?

Cause they're a limited release and on their way to being squatted it seems

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes that is exactly what is happening. All of the new battleboxes are essentially 0pts when you factor in the jack/beast points. They've been specifically designed that way.

Hopefully free focus for jacks and other changes helps to encourage players to also spend some of their 100 pts into jacks rather than take the free jacks and then infantry like now.

Obviously everybody will take free stuff. Increasing free stuff you get to your army does not make jacks good. It just increases models you need to buy...

Here's hoping they fixed game so jacks/beasts aren't just waste of points!

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes that is exactly what is happening. All of the new battleboxes are essentially 0pts when you factor in the jack/beast points. They've been specifically designed that way.

Hopefully free focus for jacks and other changes helps to encourage players to also spend some of their 100 pts into jacks rather than take the free jacks and then infantry like now.

Obviously everybody will take free stuff. Increasing free stuff you get to your army does not make jacks good. It just increases models you need to buy...

Here's hoping they fixed game so jacks/beasts aren't just waste of points!

I believe in the Primecast they stated that the new rules will encourage larger battle groups as the vision for the game has always been about Jacks and Warbeast.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I do wonder because every game I like ends up adding pre-measuring.

Probably because sooner or later the people writing the rules realise how pointless it is to not allow it, as people just find ways around it.

Doubly so in Warmachine where you could essentially pre-measure by checking your control radius anyway.

While I like 'guess' mechanic in principle, my problem with it was that it encourages you to push the rules towards cheating...seen a lots of 'oh, I just forgot this object with known length near the units I need to know the distance between'. It is more fair and friendly when you can just measure everything and that's it.

Also there is a player type who, when they don't know the distance, agonize for AGES over what the distance is and whether they should take the risk...

 DrNo172000 wrote:
I believe in the Primecast they stated that the new rules will encourage larger battle groups as the vision for the game has always been about Jacks and Warbeast.

True that but they stated they wanted to encourage jacks and beasts in MK2(when that edition came I was most active in WM. Ah the memories) and didn't succeed that much. Sure there's at least one token jack/beast but that's because it's free points you can't use to anything else! You would be silly to NOT take it.

Intention good, whether they succeed is another thing.

Age of Cygnar.

 welshhoppo wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Love the game but I've always hated the caster kill = auto win aspect of the game.

It's almost like losing a one in a million wizard has a negative effect on your forces......


Actually, a you can have a few game modes where it does not equal game over.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
Love the game but I've always hated the caster kill = auto win aspect of the game.

"I kind of like Chess but that whole checkmate thing puts me off" (just joking )

Exactly! My main problem with Warmachine is that it feels like playing a game, not commanding a battle. Sure, that victory condition isn't actually part of the core rules, but have you tried getting a game that doesn't comply with tournament restrictions? I get looked at like I dropped my trousers and put my genitals on the table.

It's that "game vs battle" idea that means I dislike removing the last vestiges of a morale system.

 novaspike wrote:
So I'm personally excited, and I like the spoiled changes so far.

On the premeasuring note, I can premeasure in guild ball and I find it makes for a tighter and friendlier game. For example, I know my charge plus melee range, so I can measure it before anything is moved, which takes away the error induced by moving a model, then checking distance, even if it is small.

About terrain: I think that most of the community plays with less terrain then is recommended, especially in steamroller. You need a compelling reason to pick first or pick side, and consider what is near any objectives or zones. Plus it really needs to be asymmetrical, which people don't often do.

As for 2D over 3D terrain pieces, I actually like 2D, since again, it makes for a tighter game. If we're being really honest, good 3D terrain can enhance a game, but if I actually put time into painting an army I like having the visual focus be on my models.

The thing is, the warmachine setting has so many options for really unique-looking terrain - rail termini, urban combats, some really weird Cryxian settlement, a remote Menite temple in the desert, etc, etc, ... You used to see some really cool table setups in No Quarter, but not any more. I remember playing the Sul campaign that was published way back in 1st edition times - one half of the board was filled with buildings, with a breached city wall, attackers flooding through the gaps, defenders in the rubble and on the walls either side - epic stuff! To me, a setup like that enhances the models, because there's a context to everything. YMMV.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The thing is, the warmachine setting has so many options for really unique-looking terrain - rail termini, urban combats, some really weird Cryxian settlement, a remote Menite temple in the desert, etc, etc, ... You used to see some really cool table setups in No Quarter, but not any more. I remember playing the Sul campaign that was published way back in 1st edition times - one half of the board was filled with buildings, with a breached city wall, attackers flooding through the gaps, defenders in the rubble and on the walls either side - epic stuff! To me, a setup like that enhances the models, because there's a context to everything. YMMV.

This this this! I so much love spectacle of good cityfight. It's my favourite way to play 40k. Warhammer was never really good at that so had high hopes originally with WM. Hopes got crushed :(

I like the video on youtube. It's very funny to see the similarities with Another Game Company.

Did you notice how many times the word "share" was pronounced? And how many times the word "competitive" was present? Yes, it's quite amusing.

The most hilarious part for me was the one talking about personnalising your army. In Warmachine, where each profile is very rigid in the rules and suiting the exact equipment of the miniature. Honestly, if there is a game that would be perfectly fine with prepainted miniatures, it's Warmachine/Horde. You have to take a special character with his own story at a set point in time (favorite weapons included), all units have a profile based on what they are exactly looking and the possibilities for conversion are actually as high as converting your own bike; you may do it, but it's not really meant to.

Warhammer was the game when you could really personnalize your army. Warmachine/Horde was always a game of comboting with very rigid rules/profiles and practically no place for options. Them trying to change the course is very funny to see.

So, as someone newish to Warmahordes, are the "faction decks" just for Warroom or will there be physical ones too?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Exactly! My main problem with Warmachine is that it feels like playing a game, not commanding a battle. Sure, that victory condition isn't actually part of the core rules, but have you tried getting a game that doesn't comply with tournament restrictions? I get looked at like I dropped my trousers and put my genitals on the table.

It's that "game vs battle" idea that means I dislike removing the last vestiges of a morale system.

Being forced to defend your general at all costs doesn't seem game-y to me. Maybe it doesn't work as well because your general has to be Privateer Press's character and not yours, but the idea that if your opponent can kill "you", you lose makes sense.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, as someone newish to Warmahordes, are the "faction decks" just for Warroom or will there be physical ones too?

Both. You can either buy them on Warroom, and they are digital only, or you can buy a physical deck (they exist now, but they will have to become much bigger come June), and you'll be able to have a physical copy instead.

People who bought a Warroom all-deck bundle since Jan 1st 2016 will get a free cross over to the new rules. Apparently.

And people who bought decks on warroom before then will get a discount.

 Killionaire wrote:
Pre-measurement is a sign of the times: Your ability to eyeball 11.5 inches isn't a meaningful distinction of skill as compared to your ability to think through how you're doing a task or going about accomplishing a goal.

Likewise, Caster Kill has a very important gameplay mechanism: It allows players on the back foot to have a chance at winning by taking advantage of an opening. It increases the skill ceiling by allowing one to swap to a 'Plan B' if your army got off on the wrong foot and took a bad initial punch, but the enemy overextended doing so.

Generally, all of the 'I got pasted turn 1/2!' arguments come from inexperience.

You're not wrong, but when 50% of your local playerbase are people who meet three-four times a week for multiple games, and you're a guy who gets to play once a month... it definitely makes a game with a stark gap between haves and have-nots.

I understand mind you, but getting to go to a game night, seeing a war-caster you've never seen, and getting turn 1 wombo-combo'd isn't fun for almost anyone... especially if its your only chance to play for some time.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

You're not wrong, but when 50% of your local playerbase are people who meet three-four times a week for multiple games, and you're a guy who gets to play once a month... it definitely makes a game with a stark gap between haves and have-nots.

I understand mind you, but getting to go to a game night, seeing a war-caster you've never seen, and getting turn 1 wombo-combo'd isn't fun for almost anyone... especially if its your only chance to play for some time.

I'm not sure what you even can do about that, though. People who play the game more will likely become better at it. If you play once a month and don't really keep up with new releases then you're at a disadvantage regardless of what the game is.

Rosebuddy wrote:
I'm not sure what you even can do about that, though. People who play the game more will likely become better at it. If you play once a month and don't really keep up with new releases then you're at a disadvantage regardless of what the game is.

You're correct in that, but some games are certainly more forgiving than others, and some games you can trot out an older list or what have you and still have an enjoyable and vaguely competitive game. WM/H is probably the least forgiving mini game going for this sort of thing. And that's not a bad thing as such for those that are into it, but makes playing it occasionally vs peeps who play alot more often sometimes provides a frustrating or "unfun" experience. I've found playing WH/H is either "all in" or not at all.

Rosebuddy wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

You're not wrong, but when 50% of your local playerbase are people who meet three-four times a week for multiple games, and you're a guy who gets to play once a month... it definitely makes a game with a stark gap between haves and have-nots.

I understand mind you, but getting to go to a game night, seeing a war-caster you've never seen, and getting turn 1 wombo-combo'd isn't fun for almost anyone... especially if its your only chance to play for some time.

I'm not sure what you even can do about that, though. People who play the game more will likely become better at it. If you play once a month and don't really keep up with new releases then you're at a disadvantage regardless of what the game is.

Agreed, but the hyper competitive nature of the game, an insta-win/loss condition, and having about a million super-combos that can only be memorized, makes for an experience where the gulf between players of different skills is much, much wider.

I play X-wing, and Guild-Ball competitively too, but I see new players finding "some" success much more readily, without necessarily it turning into a game of lucky dice.

For good or ill, and I believe there is room for everything in this hobby so good on them, Warmahordes rewards particularly hardcore players who will make it their sole game/hobby.

Warmahordes really has very little casual play, just competitive play at different levels. It's one area where the Magic analogy breaks down, in that there is no equivalent to Commander or draft for Wm/H, where savvy, but not hardcore, players can at least hand with the bruisers.

It's definitely limited my interest in the game, as I don't have the desire to become good. I like playing, but I get rolled pretty easily by even reasonably competitive players.

There are actually some alternative game modes of Warmachine.
E.G. there is one without a caster. There are loads of scenarios in No Quarter and so on.

If you dont like the win conditions of Warmachine than, yes, Warmachine is probably not the game for you. But is that different to anything else? If you dont the win conditions of Magic (kill the enemy by attacking his face), what than?

RoninXiC wrote:
There are actually some alternative game modes of Warmachine.
E.G. there is one without a caster. There are loads of scenarios in No Quarter and so on.

If you dont like the win conditions of Warmachine than, yes, Warmachine is probably not the game for you. But is that different to anything else? If you dont the win conditions of Magic (kill the enemy by attacking his face), what than?

Then you make mill-decks, etc? :-p There ARE other ways to win in Magic, so that analogy isn't quite apt.

I get your point though. :-) Again, not criticizing, its just a little "exclusive" and a little off-putting for those who won't, or can't commit THAT level of hardcore time to a given system. Others are just a more granular experience where it can be enjoyed by a wider audience.-

 Polonius wrote:
Warmahordes really has very little casual play, just competitive play at different levels. It's one area where the Magic analogy breaks down, in that there is no equivalent to Commander or draft for Wm/H, where savvy, but not hardcore, players can at least hand with the bruisers.

It's definitely limited my interest in the game, as I don't have the desire to become good. I like playing, but I get rolled pretty easily by even reasonably competitive players.

Does the game support narrative play? I had the book, had a circle force, gave it a try but sold it all as it seemed one dimensional.

Well you can play Warmachine for scenario win only. Many people do.

Warmachine is a more "serious" game than most others, thats true for sure

RoninXiC wrote:

If you dont like the win conditions of Warmachine than, yes, Warmachine is probably not the game for you. But is that different to anything else? If you dont the win conditions of Magic (kill the enemy by attacking his face), what than?

Poison counters!!!
I actually quit the Magic scene fairly early on since the game became so competive. I wanted to explore and try out all kinds of weird decks, other just wanted to tourney play which was no fun for me. So that's why WM/H is not for me, even though I like the setting and to some degree, aesthetics as well.
But some people like their wargames hyper-competive and nothing wrong with that. It's like sailing, some sail handicap races with their day cruiser, others want to push themselves with fast racing boats, and really cut-throat hardcore people sail Star. There is room for everyone. It will be interesting to see how PP manages to both make the game more streamlined while keeping their playerbase happy.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Warmahordes really has very little casual play, just competitive play at different levels. It's one area where the Magic analogy breaks down, in that there is no equivalent to Commander or draft for Wm/H, where savvy, but not hardcore, players can at least hand with the bruisers.

It's definitely limited my interest in the game, as I don't have the desire to become good. I like playing, but I get rolled pretty easily by even reasonably competitive players.

Does the game support narrative play? I had the book, had a circle force, gave it a try but sold it all as it seemed one dimensional.

First off, I'd define casual play as a format in which a player can play maybe a few times a month at most, and still play the game with a viable chance of winning. Even in casual play, skilled players will win far more often than not, but there tends to be more luck in casual play, or at least less required knowledge.

In that regard, Wm/H really doesn't have a casual outlet. I was going to joke that playing Wm/H casually is like playing 40k competitively, but that's not really true. Wm/H is all about knowledge: what your army does, what your enemy's army does, etc. You just can't turn that off, even if you build a weaker list.

AFAIK, there is no official narrative rules, but I'm sure there are some out there in No Quarter or fan site somewhere.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

Does the game support narrative play? I had the book, had a circle force, gave it a try but sold it all as it seemed one dimensional.

Depends on what you mean by narrative play.

Does the base game let you improve your units in a campaign, or have characters gain new skills or suffer injuries? No.

But PP runs league where players fight to control areas on a map (see below), or get alternate units, or improve units/heroes over the course of the campaign.