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.

Every now and then, Warmachine players discuss whether the game needs a Mk III, or maybe a Mk II Remix, or some kind of increased focus on model balance errata. The game has a number of flaws - internal faction balance, terrain rules and reliance on poorly-curated infernal rulings to name a few popular ones - but I am increasingly convinced that one rarely-mentioned problem overshadows and even contributes strongly to many of these issues:

Piece trading.

Or, put differently, the tendency for a model to fly across the table at incredible speed, obliterating one of the opposing number instantly with no chance of retaliation but by the surviving members of the army. This happens with almost all unit types - unit members charge across the table and instantly kill opposing unit members, warcasters kill enemy warcasters in one turn and warjacks and especially warbeasts generally must be able to kill similar weight-class models in one round or not be taken at all. Far from the pictures on the front covers of the books or promotional material, you will not see two warcasters engaged in an epic melee, or two warbeasts trading bone-shattering punches. Instead, one will zip across the table and instantly obliterate the other - or, occasionally, will fail and be killed in one turn itself.

There is little combat interplay between opposing pieces, because the rules don't really support it - the interplay has to be between the piece and the surviving members of the other army. Worse, this causes other issues. Many warjacks and warbeasts are obsolete because they rarely do enough damage to kill an opposing warjack or warbeast in one round. A core reason that terrain is absurdly punishing for some lists and not for others is that getting the first hit is so strong, because whoever you hit will be dead. Non-reach warbeasts are often bad in part because they are so likely to never see a second round, meaning the first urgently has to count.

What would a change to this look like? Personally, I think it would have to do away with the turn structure where one player's entire army moves while the other's stands stone-still waiting for its turn to begin. At the very least, models would need to be able to retaliate against enemies that are attacking them. At the more extreme end, we could see something like the Lord of the Rings game where both sides in a combat get to fight - there's no "active player" striking the enemy while the other watches passively.

I do not think this is an easy problem to fix. Unfortunately, it would also require a pretty large departure from the current rules, making it even less likely that a solution will be sought at all.

Do you think my assessment is correct? Do you feel the same way? Do you just love piece trading? It does have one potential upside - without it, it would be hard to pull off last-ditch assassinations. On the other hand, the ability to kill things in one round is often what causes one player to be so far behind to begin with.

I think your concern is valid, but over blown.

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

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

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

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

Would be cool if both models would get to strike in a fight. It sucks sometimes when you sit there getting your war jacks face smashed in hoping it survives. But the game does offer things that make you survive that initial attack like enliven. So there is ways to survive but Iam not sure if all factions have access to that ability

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want me to mark you down for the "loves piece trading" column, then?

I don't think the game will ever be "as good as it can get" with things getting killed in one go all over the place. Let me make an argument here from one thing I think Warmachine does very right.

To me, one of the coolest things about Warmachine is how evocative its rules are. By that I mean: the rules don't necessarily simulate the models well, but they very effectively capture the feel of them. Whether it's a warjack throwing another across the table, a necrosurgeon shielded by a cloud of mechanithralls, a wall of shocktroopers firing as they advance in shield wall or ravagers eating the hearts of their enemies, the models' rules make them come alive in a way that's really special.

Models - especially the big, important ones like casters and beasts - killing other models in one hit with no interplay is a failure to be evocative.

The box does not feature, for example, a gladiator flying across the table and assassinating a mauler like a ninja with an eight-hit combo. They are fighting each other. We are meant to believe these are incredibly tough and powerful combatants pounding away at each other, but that is not what is represented on the tabletop at all. It's not simulation that's missing, though that suffers too. It's a failure to bring the fantasy to life.

Bringing the fantasy to life is one of the most important things the game can do, and it's something that in many other areas the game does very well. But in this one respect, it fails dramatically to do so.

Piece trading is a perfectly valid way to play the game. It doesn't make the game bad.

Chess is 100% about piece trading. And its probably as close to a perfect game as you could get.

 Chute82 wrote:
Would be cool if both models would get to strike in a fight. It sucks sometimes when you sit there getting your war jacks face smashed in hoping it survives. But the game does offer things that make you survive that initial attack like enliven. So there is ways to survive but Iam not sure if all factions have access to that ability

In the Lord of the Rings game, when two models fight they basically have a contested roll to see who wins, and then the winner gets to strike at the loser to try to do damage, then push them away an inch. I guess the closest analogy in Warmachine was if two models in melee each rolled to hit each other, and then whoever got the highest result rolled damage. It's a little different to that, but that's the gist!

I'm not 100% sure why buying attacks exists to begin with. It's pretty zany and has never seemed to make a lot of thematic sense. It's certainly the cause of most killing of heavies and casters in one round. It's not the whole problem, though, as infantry do have the same issue.

Maybe it'd be interesting if models could simultaneously strike at their attackers, letting them use their initials or buy attacks in the opposing player's turn as well as their own. Sounds bloody, though!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Piece trading is a perfectly valid way to play the game. It doesn't make the game bad.

Chess is 100% about piece trading. And its probably as close to a perfect game as you could get.

I am not sure what you're really replying to. I am not talking about how to play the game - piece trading is a really important part of how you play, and if you're playing Warmachine you should be making piece trades, because you play the game as it is, not how it could perhaps be. Killing things in one round is a really powerful ability, and it warps the rest of the game around it. There is another thread about satyrs close to the top right now, and part of why satyrs are not very good is they are bad at killing other heavies in one round, and in a world where killing heavies in one round is possible, not being able to puts you at a serious disadvantage. In my experience, that is very bad for model diversity. It is also not very fun. Like I said, it breaks the fantasy. I don't think many people got into Warmachine for heavies flying across the table and killing other heavies in one hit.

I haven't said that a game with piece trading is bad. I haven't said Warmachine is bad. I have asserted that piece trading is its most grievous flaw, though I stress I'm much more interested in discussing how people feel about piece trading in Warmachine than which flaw of Warmachine's is the greatest.

You actually wouldn't want to fix this by letting models strike back at models that are attacking them. That would make the game heavily skew towards durability as you'd want your heavy to be tough enough to take some retaliatory hits without getting crippled so it could kill the enemy.

I think piece trading is fine because it focuses the game on positioning and outmaneuvering your opponent. If models got to fight back it would really degenerate into a punching match in the middle of the board and positioning wouldn't matter as much.

Hmm, I dunno.

Removing the alpha and the ability to utterly kill something (not just warbeasts, but infantry models....) changes the game. It stops it being a highly aggressive game with the focus on over the top violence and, as matt wilson says 'beating the scrap out of things'. There is no such thing as 'excessive force'. And you also risk replacing the problems of excessive force with making the game feel like Care Bears having a pillow fight. (Expect to see posts like 'I remember when my stuff in WMH was over the top violent - you know, then it can go it, and get work done. It was awesome. Now all they do is slap each other around a bit. Over the top mayhem? Pfft!')

Having models fight each other, and react to each other in a system where 'it's alwaya your turn' could breed problems. You complain about beasts being redundant because they can't kill stuff in one turn (I disagree btw - beasts are valued for more than just damage output. There's fury banks, animi, wound sinks etc), but having a 'fight it out' system simply puts the focus on the handful of beasts/jacks with high mat and reach and let's them dominate instead. It's not wrong - it works in infinity - but I don't think it works in warmachine without, well, not making it WARMACHINE.

Similarly, removing the turn structure destroys one of the core features of this game - the ability to build synergy chains.

I simply do not see piece trading as an issue. It works for chess. Models should be kill able with over the top violence. I'm not against mark2 remix. The game is fantastically well balanced and fun. But there are mistakes and outliers. Some points costs need to be readjusted, som casters need toned down/up and the rules for colossals and bsttle engines need to be written into the main rules, not expansions. Overall though, it's a tweak that's needed, not a new edition.

Deadnight wrote:
Hmm, I dunno.

Removing the alpha and the ability to utterly kill something (not just warbeasts, but infantry models....) changes the game. It stops it being a highly aggressive game with the focus on over the top violence and, as matt wilson says 'beating the scrap out of things'. There is no such thing as 'excessive force'. And you also risk replacing the problems of excessive force with making the game feel like Care Bears having a pillow fight. (Expect to see posts like 'I remember when my stuff in WMH was over the top violent - you know, then it can go it, and get work done. It was awesome. Now all they do is slap each other around a bit. Over the top mayhem? Pfft!')

I agree. I don't think you can just change it and call it a day - there are other issues too that it could make more prominent. There are some combinations of models that are already close to invincible except against extremely specialised armour cracking. There's a lot of damage differential in the game already, and just bringing the top down could be unsatisfying.

I don't think there's anything more violent about one model assassinating another model like a ninja instead of having to brawl it out, though.

Deadnight wrote:
Having models fight each other, and react to each other in a system where 'it's alwaya your turn' could breed problems. You complain about beasts being redundant because they can't kill stuff in one turn (I disagree btw - beasts are valued for more than just damage output. There's fury banks, animi, wound sinks etc), but having a 'fight it out' system simply puts the focus on the handful of beasts/jacks with high mat and reach and let's them dominate instead. It's not wrong - it works in infinity - but I don't think it works in warmachine without, well, not making it WARMACHINE.

Similarly, removing the turn structure destroys one of the core features of this game - the ability to build synergy chains.

I don't think there's anything about a more interleaved turn structure that is anti-synergy. Maybe synergy in the Convergence sense, but everything else would be very similar. It just wouldn't entail one model killing another with no retaliation as much. Similarly, I don't think it would necessarily be any less violent or damaging. Letting you take initials and buy additional attacks on your opponent's turn, for instance, would mean more damage going out overall, not less. I actually really want to try that out, now!

What it would mean is that mobility was about setting up favorable matchups rather than about being able to outright remove an opponent's model for free.

Thanks for your thoughts, too!

I think alternating activation games are cool, but the mechanic itself requires the entire game to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it that it would require the entire game to be redesigned. In which case you haven't fixed the game so much as just started over.

Lots of existing rules would just have to get rewritten since round and player turn duration are important for timing of effects and such. Alternating activations would totally screw with all of those.

Hive Fleet- I think that you are over generalizing and therefore making it very hard to carry on a discussion. Yes, there are some models that can have a threat range of 15" or there abouts but they are not as common as you seem to imply by saying they fly across the table. If you mean that they can move 10" and kill something and then retreat you are still talking about a few models or circumstances. So, I have to believe that your base assessment is incorrect and therefore the rest of your problem is baseless.

Also you say "that some combinations of models that are close to invincible" except to a few counters. Again, I challenge you to be more specific. I would say that you are flat out wrong in this perception without that specificity. I would contend that this "invulnerablility" might last for a turn but you are implying that it is constant thoughout the game. AFAIK there is nothing that can't be taken down with using some common troops/tactics.This is in direct contention with your "It's common for model/units fly across the table and destroy with impunity" complaint. If the unit/model can destroy everything/anything then there can't be invincible units. And vice versa. If a unit/model is invincible then it can't be destroyed by models/units that fly across the board and destroy it with impunity.

So, please indulge me and give me some specifics that I can respond to when you state your case. While either or both of the situations can occur they are not common and can usually be dealt with in a relatively easy manner.

To OP, I don't think the style of game is a 'problem.'

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think alternating activation games are cool, but the mechanic itself requires the entire game to be designed from the ground up to accommodate it that it would require the entire game to be redesigned. In which case you haven't fixed the game so much as just started over.

Lots of existing rules would just have to get rewritten since round and player turn duration are important for timing of effects and such. Alternating activations would totally screw with all of those.

That is possible. I don't think it's an easy problem to fix from the standpoint of an established game. That does not mean it's not a flaw, though.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Hive Fleet- I think that you are over generalizing and therefore making it very hard to carry on a discussion. Yes, there are some models that can have a threat range of 15" or there abouts but they are not as common as you seem to imply by saying they fly across the table. If you mean that they can move 10" and kill something and then retreat you are still talking about a few models or circumstances. So, I have to believe that your base assessment is incorrect and therefore the rest of your problem is baseless.

Flying across the table was just a turn of phrase. For the purposes of the discussion, it doesn't really matter how far the model moves to get there. It could be a SPD 4 'jack walking into melee with another. What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Also you say "that some combinations of models that are close to invincible" except to a few counters. Again, I challenge you to be more specific. I would say that you are flat out wrong in this perception without that specificity. I would contend that this "invulnerablility" might last for a turn but you are implying that it is constant thoughout the game. AFAIK there is nothing that can't be taken down with using some common troops/tactics.This is in direct contention with your "It's common for model/units fly across the table and destroy with impunity" complaint. If the unit/model can destroy everything/anything then there can't be invincible units. And vice versa. If a unit/model is invincible then it can't be destroyed by models/units that fly across the board and destroy it with impunity.

Sorry, it seems like there has been a miscommunication. I'm not saying that models are destroyed "with impunity" - the heavy that kills the other heavy in one turn is often itself killed on the next turn. And that's the problem. There's so little interplay between models in a game that's ostensibly about models smashing into each other. Instead, it's one model killing another in one hit, followed by another model killing it in one hit in retaliation, and so on and so forth. That breaks the fantasy, and it contributes to other issues with the gameplay.

Part of piece trading is, like in chess, a balancing act. If you can kill my model with yours there are things to consider. Are you willing to trade your model for mine? Will you moving to attack me allow me to kill your caster since your model is now out of place? Has your model left a zone so that I can now dominate that zone and score control points? While there may be no direct confrontation of models the game is about more than one model in an army. You have to consider the ramifications of each piece's actions in relation both to your army and mine.

Don't forget that the game is representative of a sliver of a battle (in most cases). You can look at it as one piece vs another or you can imagine it like the fluff. Your Bronzeback tears into my Juggernaught and before my Juggernaught can react your Bronzeback manages to lay several heavy blows into it rendering it useless. Don't forget when a system on a jack goes down that system is rendered damaged but not destroyed or obliterated. The same for a jack in general. Marking off all the boxes does not necessarily mean the Jack is truely destroyed merely not operable in the immediate time frame. The same with beasts. If all of the branches are marked off the beast may have lost its will to fight or may simply run off. It isn't always dead.

I realize the mechanics may make it seem like it's one hit and that's it but it is up to you to fill in the action with fluff as you see it.

Your asessment is correct in as far as "The game doesn't support round-to-round slug fests between big models" and "Models are oftened judged by their ability to net you a gain in a piece trade" are true. However you can't really say this is a "Flaw" in Warmachine. This is because your assessment that this would require something like an overhaul of the turn structure to "correct" (and it would take that and more, given the complaint is about what happens in the context of single activations) is also true.

The issue is that your "flaw" here is just a natural implication of everything the game engine is set up to do. It's like saying the one grievous flaw in bananas is that they're yellow and filled filled with a soft sugary substance. That's just what makes a banana a banana.

Anything that would get rid of the piece-trading aspect of Warmachine would make it an entirely different game. That means the complaint here is less "Warmachine has this flaw" and more "I wish I was playing some game other than Warmachine, albeit one with simliar themes and the same models".

I may not play Warmahordes, but I do think I can offer a bit of outside perspective, as I play 40k. (I would play Warmahordes, but I can only afford one tabletop game at the moment)

From what the OP is describing and Warmahordes's turn structure, prolonged battles are possible, but not currently likely.

When two models become engaged in combat, are they considered "locked in combat", where they can't simply move out of the fight? That's one suggestion for prolonging fights, as now escape is impossible.

Another measure of CC effectiveness is how easy it is to actually hit something. In 40k, prolonged battles are the norm because it's actually quite hard to hit people in CC; two similarly skilled models will only hit each other around 1/2 the time, barring any special modifiers.

Warmahordes uses the same "to hit" and "to wound" principle as 40k, so changes to this system would prolong the battles.

However, I was under the impression that people played Warmahordes because it's faster paced and the fights are over quickly (especially in comparison to 40k).

This isn't a simple rule though, this is a main game mechanic.

I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't play the game if you don't like one of the FUNDAMENTAL rules of it.

Yes, terrain rules and the fact some factions can ignore that terrain can be a little imbalanced... Unless you are a good player and can counter it.

Yes, watching a model charge your model and destroy it in one round, changing your game plans can be annoying... Unless you are a good player and can counter it.

Basically, Warmahordes has its core rules, everyone knows them before they start playing the game and there is nothing "broken" because they can all be dealt with... If you are a good player and can counter it.

The most "broken" rule and easily visible flaw is damage transfer in Hordes. It makes one of the two victory conditions in the game nigh on impossible against certain lists.

I honestly don't see this as a problem.

You don't have to "piece trade" if you set up properly. Or sometimes it's worth trading my 8 point gladiator to throw behemoth backwards into charge range of my bronzeback & beat him to an oily pulp.

It's all about risk:reward as is any game. Set up properly, and more importantly BUY CHAFF. I come from WHFB and for certain armies, having 2-4 units you KNOW will be thrown away to die, but in return mess up your opponents positioning can win games. So I guess I'm quite used to saying "Yep, you can eat my praetorian swordsman, my bronzeback is hungry and you need fattening up!"

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

considering the 'fantasy' is about over the top violence, beating the scrap out of your opponent with overwhelming force etc, Id argue that the vision of the game is evoked pretty well on the table top.

And remember - a model is just a model. It's part of a greater whole. There what counts.

And we're talking jacks and beasts. What about infantry? Is it ok for A warbeast, or even another infantry model to 'fly across table' and murder a fellow infantryman? Stick a sword in him, there's not much else to argue...

Doesn't 40k have this exact same problem except it occurs with one side utterly destroying the other at range?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

When two models become engaged in combat, are they considered "locked in combat", where they can't simply move out of the fight? That's one suggestion for prolonging fights, as now escape is impossible.

They are considered engaged, which gives extra defense against shooting(and the possibility that if a shot misses it might hit one of the other models in the combat).

Models are always free to leave engagement range. But if they do this then the enemy model's they leave get a free strike. A free melee attack with a bonus to hit and a boosted damage roll.

Escape is allowed, but at a cost. A boosted damage attack roll can do serious damage.

You may want to consider one of the tough factions where the models aren't feeble girly boys like Cygnar jacks.

I'm talking about swole models like Tiberion with Defender's Ward cast on him and under effect of Xerxis feat whilst enemy beast is under the effect of an Agoniser Howl. He's then equivalent to ARM27. Good luck smashing that in a round.

You can create anvils in the game. It just takes a bit of work.

And if you want a survivable caster? PBorka with Iron Flesh, Earthborn animus on him hiding behind a wall conjured by Janissa, whilst within range of an active Krielstone aura, after being topped off by his keg carrier.

DEF19 in melee (DEF21 vs. most shooting), ARM23 in melee and has good odds to wander out of melee if you damage him. Can also have 6 transfers. Is immune to most stationary and to all KD effects.

Purification sadly leaves him at DEF14 ARM21, which ain't too shabby I guess.


Gaz

I don't see piece trading as one of the issues in the game.

Piece trading keeps the game aggressive and moving along at a good pace.

It's like caster kills. It's another aspect of the game to keep it exciting and always give you a chance.

Both are aspects that people may or may not like, but they are core concepts to the game.

I also don't think infernal rulings are an issue either. Most game companies don't even have official rule gurus, especially GW. And PP also has annually updated Errata.

Terrain could be better. Most notably to me is it is all considered 2D for the most part. Very few rules for going up and down. But certainly not a deal breaker.

The worse issue is model balance. But overall I think PP does a great job on that. With so many models and so many rules having them all 100% balanced is impossible. The fact that they keep most of them playable at some level actually says a lot about the game to me. That said, balance is one of those things a company should always try to improve even if they will never get 100%.

This rant sounds like it comes from someone that has played only a couple games and has judged the entire game based on those few games.

Warmachine/Hordes is basically fine; it's the players that sometimes need "tweaking".

On the infernal issue. They actually do an amazing job because every ruling is double checked with the developers(thats what a "checking" in the thread means)

Any rules which don't have a checking means that the question was either asked and checked before or its a simple question that doesn't require a checking.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the infernal issue. They actually do an amazing job because every ruling is double checked with the developers(thats what a "checking" in the thread means)

Any rules which don't have a checking means that the question was either asked and checked before or its a simple question that doesn't require a checking.

You have to love that PP cares so much for their games.

I think the turn structure and piece trading are integral to the way the game is right now and actually support more diversity in lists.

Starting with the turn structure, that's what defines many special rules and army synergies (ie they'd be useless without the i go, you go structure). Take Cryx for example: strong debuff faction with majority low stat troops (yes banes are a thing, but they hit unusually hard and are still only have MAT 6, for example purpose I'm thinking more mechanithralls), what I'm getting at is that many factions rely on layered buffs or debuffs that can easily be negated by changing the turn structure. Throwing down something then having the opponent go and remove it before you can make use of it makes lower quality troops (or warnouns) that relied on that buff/debuff to do work not worth taking. I think it would make the game more spammy of "elite" units.

That's not to say you don't have options on the enemy turn. Things like admonition, counter charge, and defensive strike are very powerful, often game changing. Changing the structure devalues those rules a bit.

Going on to piece trading, I think it allows more diversity in what people do. Some people like to make the most durable lists possible (like mentioned, tibbers with defenders ward, or the trolls miserable meat mountain style list) to make it harder to piece trade with them, or to raise the piece trade 'value' of something through support (it now requires a heavy to kill that arm stacked trooper, which can allow me to get ahead on attrition when I counterattack). Another style is to take numerous low value units, buff their attack, and let em go. I'm thinking of lesser warbeast missles, buffed speedy light jacks, etc. If you try to discourage piece trading, those units then only find value against similar units, again making people want to spam only the best stuff. That would actually lead to some huge disparity in playing different factions since some of their "best" stuff is character (so restricted to 1) or they just don't hit the same levels of attack/durability as other factions.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

What I am getting at is that there is no interplay between the two models - one gets into melee and simply obliterates the other without reprisal, which is totally contrary to the fantasy the game is trying to sell.

considering the 'fantasy' is about over the top violence, beating the scrap out of your opponent with overwhelming force etc, Id argue that the vision of the game is evoked pretty well on the table top.

And remember - a model is just a model. It's part of a greater whole. There what counts.

And we're talking jacks and beasts. What about infantry? Is it ok for A warbeast, or even another infantry model to 'fly across table' and murder a fellow infantryman? Stick a sword in him, there's not much else to argue...

I did mention infantry. They're subject to the same thing, and I think that's a problem too. When, as an example, a Stalker kills an entire block of pikemen without them being able to strike back, that's sort of silly! I don't think that's so bad, though? And I'm not sure it would be any less evocative if the pikemen could try to strike back somehow while they're getting mown down like wheat. With infantry, the thing I'd point to more as undesirable is the way infantry one-round other infantry without retaliation. When these characters are supposedly locked in combat with each other, it doesn't really make much sense that only one side is allowed to attack. Then, as others in the thread have mentioned, we end up with gamey things like putting sacrificial models out ahead to try to blunt the alpha strike.

Thanks to those who have shared their thoughts! They're very interesting. I would like some of you to note, though, that nowhere in my post did I write, "the game is broken because" or "the game sucks because my model dies in one hit." I think there's a design problem here, and I've laid it out here because I am fascinated by it. Warmachine as a whole is a really interesting game to analyse precisely because people actually care about the rules instead of them being a half-baked afterthought, and it's fun to think about what works and what doesn't.

The problem you're having is based on the my turn your turn mechanic of the game. There are models that can intervene during the other player's turn and there are even a few models with the defensive strike rule (attack them before they attack you) but by and large it's just the way the game goes.

As a general rule on my turn I attack you on your turn you attack me. You can look at it as the tide of battle with one side having the initiative first and the other side, if it survives, retaliating. Don't forget that each piece only represents 1 man/beast/whatever. In your Stalker example you could look at it as the Stalker just flailing his sword to the left and right cutting down everything in his way. Not too many normal soldiers are going to be brave enough to step in there and take a poke at him. They'll wait until the Stalker stops or their friends are ready to attack with him and then launch their counter strike.
There is no time scale to the turns. Some could represent seconds others tens of seconds or even a minute.

So don't look at the turn mechanically look at the game fluff wise even during the game and I think that you will be satisfied in that manner.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
When these characters are supposedly locked in combat with each other, it doesn't really make much sense that only one side is allowed to attack

They do attack. In their turn. That's how the game is built mechanically - in my turn, I do my stuff, in your turn, you do your stuff. During your turn, you've got initiative and my guts are too busy trying to defend themselves to attack back. It's always your turn works for skirmish games like infinity, but really gets in the way of the synergy/combo based games pp are wanting to design.

Back in mk1, there was a ridiculously huge list of things that could act outside of their turn. It was one of the things thst bloated and screwed up the game in the end, and pp removed the vast majority of out of activation stuff for a reason.