Coming from a 40K background (expert level), several friends are always trying to get me to play this game. One of their big selling points is how balanced it is.
I call shenanigans. I find it preposterous that with all of the factions\units and complexity of the game, that it could be balanced.
Let's be honest here: While each faction may be able to compete within the meta, there are optimal builds for each. I would think that each faction has 1-2 casters
that are considered the best, and supporting units that work with those casters.
No there are no such things as "optimal builds" for each faction. As you mentioned a game with this complexity will have pieces that are better and pieces that are worse but generally the difference between those pieces will be so small that player skill will matter more than the relative power of any individual unit.
If you don't believe that the game is balanced, go check out tournament results for major conventions and you'll generally see an almost even spread between all the factions and a fairly eclectic range of lists in each one.
Is the game perfectly balanced? No, it is not, no game ever designed by man has achieved this mythical goal!
But it is balanced enough that the differentiating factor will almost always fall down to player skill.
About 20% of stuff for each faction is pretty crap
Another 30% are narrow usage and only viable under very specific circumstances
There is a good 40% are general purpose, usually good
The final 10% on each faction is a little better than most of the things in that faction and are seen much more often, but at the same time they are often what people bring to counter
That being said, each faction has a different number of good casters
Every faction has 1 or 2 caster that are pretty crap
The rest are very viable
Every faction also has a few casters that stand above the rest, but at the same time they are not 'end all be all'
For example - eHaley would probably be the caster in Cygnar that stands above the rest, but at the same time Caine, Siege, Stryker and Nemo are all extremely competitive. Often even more so than eHaley (even tho she is slightly superior) because of the fact people bring specific stuff to counter her much more often
One more thing to note, the more "meta" something is in this game, the more you will lose for using it. This game gives you the tools to counter any tactic, so if you are using the most popular tactics expecting an easy win, get ready to lose against absolutely everyone
Are there bad matchups in this game. Faction vs faction wise?
Closest thing I can think of as a bad matchup is Legion vs Circle
but its not like its the entire faction thats better
Let me explain a bit
Circle is a very terrain based faction, they have a lot of bonuses and mobility when using terrain, and 1 or 2 casters are VERY based on terrain
but note they might be the most "terrain" based faction but that is still less than half of the faction. They are still great even outside the terrain (moving on)
A very very large amount of Legion stuff have by default the rules "Pathfinder" and "Eyeless Sight"
These rules while appearing in every faction, is way waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more common in Legion (actually Pathfinder might be slightly more common in Circle... moving on)
Pathfinder makes them ignore terrain for movement
Eyeless Sight makes them ignore forests for LoS and stuff
So Circle is all like "haha! I am abusing these forests to get an advantage"
and Legion is like "haha! My base rules naturally ignore them~"
Talamare wrote:
Closest thing I can think of as a bad matchup is Legion vs Circle
So Circle is all like "haha! I am abusing these forests to get an advantage"
and Legion is like "haha! My base rules naturally ignore them~"
I find this to be disingenuous. I play circle. And believe me, circle has forest trickery, but the faction does not solely revolve around forest trickery. In this case, I can drop Baldur, whose feat removes pathfinder, and turns everything into difficult terrain, and plop down laenyssa ryssell, who removes eyeless sight. The circle v legion match up issue does not really bear fruit, if you ask me.
Beyond this, I’ve got a whole hit and run style of play. Blackclads, kromac and the kayas let me hit and run and annihilate at will. Their beasts cant ignore forests when they’re dead, and they cant kill my stuff that did the killing when they’re no longer there any more, or when I’m tarpitting them with skinwalkers or ravagers.
Aftermath. wrote:Okay, answer this:
Are there bad matchups in this game. Faction vs faction wise?
No, not really. You will run into caster v caster issues, but as a whole, all factions are equally viable (except for mercs and minions, but they’re fractions, not factions). Regarding the caster v caster hard match up issues, PP run dual, or triple list tournaments. If one of your lists has a hard match up, you can use the other.
Aftermath. wrote:Coming from a 40K background (expert level), several friends are always trying to get me to play this game. One of their big selling points is how balanced it is.
I call shenanigans. I find it preposterous that with all of the factions\units and complexity of the game, that it could be balanced.
Let's be honest here: While each faction may be able to compete within the meta, there are optimal builds for each. I would think that each faction has 1-2 casters that are considered the best, and supporting units that work with those casters.
Am I correct in my analysis? Be honest - no b.s.
As you say yourself, you come from a 40k background. Not being cheeky, but that says enough! its hard to appreciate balance when 40k is the status quo that you are used to. And please, don’t think im talking down to you – we’ve all gone through the transition.
But shenanigans? No sir, warmachine/hordes is one of the most finely crafted, well balanced games out there. Try it. You’ll be surprised. I ran a hell of a lot of demos for my mates back in Ireland (here in Scotland too), and one thing that struck me each and every time, was that it was like the sun came out for the first time for these folks. Like you, they’d not known (or cared), or more importantly, thought things could be different, but when they played WMH, and the nature of the game slapped them between the eyes, they suddenly saw things different. All of a sudden, their tactical choices mattered, they weren’t going to arbitrarily lose because theirs was an old codex. I’ve seen the 40k scene gutted to a large extent back home, as a lot of folks turned to warmachine. Same here in Scotland. Its popular, and now building on its own momentum. Its doing that for a reason.
That’s not to say there are issues. There are the aforementioned hard match ups, and there is the synergy based nature of the game. What do I mean by this? Everything can be built into a game winning strategy. Some stuff might be more obvious than others. But not everything works with everything, against everything else, all the time. Take two of khadors casters. Irusk and karchev. Karchev is a jack caster – he runs warjacks extremely well. Irusk is the opposite – he’s an infantry-centric caster with limited support for jacks. Now take a whole bunch of jacks with irusk, or take bucket loads of infantry with karchev, and you have a problem. Bad synergy. The casters cant support their army. Its not to say irusk or karchev are bad. Its not to say jacks are bad. Or infantry. Its your choice in the usage of these pieces that is bad. Infantry with irusk is disgusting. Jacks with karchev Is nuts, especially in mangled metal formats. See what I mean? Its not what you take necessarily, its what else you take too.
Now, can factions compete within the meta? Absolutely. Look at the tournament results. There is generally an extremely good spread of factions, and lists throughout. If you do some looking, there are also some very interesting statistics which break down the factions, and what gets taken into cold hard facts. There was one from last years templecon (a huge WMH tourney which broke down the individual faction win ratios and everything- and most managed 45-55% win/loss ratio) this statistic is also general repeated. This isn’t like 40k where a handful of top codices have a handful of top builds. No sir – some things will be seen more often (in circle, its shifting stones and warpwolf stalkers) but they don’t necessarily dominate, nor do they utterly outclass other options.
Regarding the quip of each faction having 1-2 top casters – I’ll have to disagree. I play circle and khador. When it comes to what I regard as A-class casters, or B+, you’ve got Butcher1, Butcher3, Vlad2 (small points games, personally!), Vlad3, irusk1, irusk2, Sorscha 1 (having a bit of a renaissance lately), Sorscha2, Old Witch. Butcher 2 is my personal favourite caster, and I’ve placed top 3 in tournaments with him, so he’s far from unplayable. Strakhov likewise is fun, but a bit of a one trick pony. The only dud is Zerkova, and even then, the PP khador boards have a huge “I won with Zerkova” club going. She’s not bad, just doesn’t have the right tools in faction. In cryx, she’s be great.
Now, lets try Circle. Most are top tier, or extremely solid at worst. Kromac, Krueger, mohsar, kaya, emorv etc. pkaya is underrated and under-appreciated, but she’s good too. Morvahna, when not facing upkeep hate is top tier (hard match up issues aside).Cassius is often seen as the worst warlock, especially against legion, but we had a thread recently spouting his virtues, and his (apparently) excellent uses against them. I can see his merits (hellmouth, stranglehold and a 22” forest for a feat) Grayle too has his detractors, but those that can make him work swear by him. I dunno – I’ve not played him. It’s the same with the units. Tharn ravagers are a marmite unit, but with eMorv especially, and in the post-colossals meta, a lot of folks are giving them a second look and finding that whilst situational, they’re bloody good at what they do.
Now its funny, because don’t take this as an objective look. This is my personal take. I love kromac. He’s why I got into circle. I think he’s a fantastic toolbox, with great beast support, useful control, fantastic magic denial, and a brilliant assassination run. The former holder of the UK masters title hates him, and cant stand him. My mate who recently won the Scottish masters (with cryx. Boo, and hiss!) isn’t too fond of him. Other big names that have won big tournaments in America especially love him. Some folks swear by eKrueger as a fantastic control caster, and his prime version as equally solid. Guess what? I’ve never been able to make either work for me! I just can’t do it. A lot of what is seen as “good” all boils down to personal opinion. If you like a caster, and can get the tools to run your playstyle right, then it’s a good game, regardless of what anyone else thinks. More than anything else, I’d argue this is the case. The forums are incredibly guilty of group think, and of conforming to an extremely narrow view of whats regarded as good. In actual play, I’ve seen so many things dismissed that performed extremely well. take that for what you will, but if you ask me, its a sign of a healthy, and varied meta.
Balance vs Complexity: You say it's impossible. Then you must not be an engineer.
There are no Faction vs Faction auto wins. In fact there are no caster vs caster auto wins. Not only does your force selection make a difference you make a big difference as well.
The most important thing in Warmahordes, in my opinion, is to know the rules. Many people get caught in a gotcha moment and that caused them to lose the game. However, if there is a rules problem it can usually (90%) be resolved by looking at the rule(s) and the timing chart. Warmahordes has a very legalistic way of writing rules. Meaning they define their terms in a certain way and that is the limit of that term's meaning.
In any event it strikes me as odd that you imply that you have never played a game but there must be problems that you are used to having in another game system. Play a few games for yourself and see for yourself.
The biggest balance issue in WM/H is player skill.
This is a game of millimeters and making the least mistakes. Its complex in it's interactions between models and caster, and models with other models.
This game was designed for competitive play and the rules are tight, If you look at the rules questions here and even on the PP official boards, most questions are answered with "See page....of the rule book"
Now word of caution. The battle boxes are not balanced...... they are there to give people a chance to get the rules down before working up to a proper army. I would personally not bring the Cryx box to a demo for new players as pDenny with bone chickens is not the way to introduce new players (she is arguably a top 3 caster in skilled hands). I usually run Khador vs Menoth, or Khador vs Cygnar for demo games are those boxes are fairly equal (in my opinion).
As to the "gotcha moments" they are going to happen at first. This is an open information game, you have the right to ask for any info about your opponents models and even see their cards. Where this hurts new players is you don't know what to ask or what to do with the info yet.
For example look at the Molik Karn missile, he can move almost 2 feet across the table to reach your caster if your not aware of it, but as a new player how would you know until it happens to you (seriously what mouth-breather would do that to a newb...I would at least explain what I could have done and showed them instead of clubbing the baby seal but that's just me.). Think of them as learning tools.
Casters.....IMHO they are more about your style of play, and how well they can achieve what you want them to. My favorite caster is pButcher, I love the model, Mat 9 is just sick, but he is very vanilla. everyone and their mother knows what he does there are no surprises there. Yet its still fun when he puts a colossal in the dirt (cant wait for 3Butcher for more of this) on feat turn by himself.....
.
Generally it is balanced, perhaps not perfectly but enough that player skill is king. I've seen threads of analysis looking at which faction places in more tournaments or which faction won a higher percentage of games in a tournament. It usually shows that balance is pretty good - not prefect, but good enough to imply skill is far more important than faction.
There are bad matchups, usually because a caster has trouble dealing with a certain other caster or faction. However! Warmahordes tournaments generally have two to three lists, and you choose one at the start of your match - so if your opponent has something one of your casters can't deal with, you throw down a different caster.
Some casters are more popular in tournaments definitely, and most factions have 4-5 that see most of the table time, though dark horse casters can do well on occasion. Those casters often have synergies than mean their lists have some similarities, but with so many options and subtle differences in play style, most lists are quite varied, far more so than most "cookie cutter" lists in 40k.
Now there is a point to be made that while most factions are highly competitive, some are not as competitive as others. Minions, for instance, are quite new and have very few options, and even so are broken down into two sub-factions. The far fewer options, and the fact that many players restrict themselves to one sub-faction anyway, means that minions generally have a harder time winning tournaments. Mercs have more variety but are also similarly decided down into sub-factions, which harms their competitiveness (though they don't do too badly at all these days).
Generally though, the balance is really good, and you see a fair bit of variety in which factions and list builds people are bringing and which are winning, without having to resort to 'Comp' scores, which are non-existent in Warmachine .
The factions are what is balanced. Every faction can compete. That said not every unit and warcaster within a faction is equal in terms of how useful they are, but with the right support or proper tactics you can make the less useful ones useful.
Also the game works better when you start using scenarios such as the steam roller 2013 ones. The scenarios help break up gunline style tactics by forcing towards the center of the table, as well as making certain feats and abilities more useful.
Also I have found what others are saying to to be the case, that experience and tactics are superior to just grabbing a netlist.
The game can be very rock paper scissors spock lizard. For every "power" piece there is a counter.
Also the game is very synergy based. Unit a might suck by itself. But add in unit b and suddenly both become rock hard. In fact most units casters etc are like this.
Since the game is based on point values there are always things that people find more or less efficient for the points. Nothing is perfect.
I played 40k since 2nd ed and switched to WMH a few years ago. PP does a much better job balancing things.
The game itself is balanced, but specific matchups may not be balanced.
You can end up with Rock-Paper-Scissors matchups in this game. its not impossible for Rock to beat Paper, but its definitely at a disadvantage. but skill is still the deciding factor. You can have a really solid list, but if you don't know how to play it you won't win.
That is why tournaments are always played with at least 2 lists, sometimes more.
A skilled player with an average list will almost always beat a less skilled player with a rock solid list. But the game also doesn't forgive mistakes, so if a skilled player makes an error he can lose pretty quick.
Some casters are worse than others, but that doesn't mean they won't see play. You'll often see the dark horses show up in 3 list tournaments where its safe to bring a skew list. They can still do pretty well, often because people won't be experienced against them. they don't know all the synergies.
Synergy is a big part of this game. Even if you know all the rules for a model, you need to go beyond that and think how it interacts with the army.
Warmahordes is balanced because:
1. Game philosophy. Privateer Press cares about the rules and updates them. By comparison, GW has stated the rules are there so you can play with your models. You know, move them back and forth and make noises as they strike a pose.
2. Rules philosophy. Warmahordes game system is designed so that each model uses well known concepts. Stealth is Stealth, Arcantrik Bolt is Arcantrik Bolt (except it's probably spelt differently) regardless of what army you play. This goes beyond GW's USRs, and is more in line with "imagine if half of the armies had models with Red Thirst". As a rule of thumb, you don't get codex-unique special rules, beyond a few model-unique ones.
3. Community philosophy. Privateer Press has staff who answer community questions and who promote the community. It's not in the way of calling to get an answer that changes depending on who in customer support you talk to, but rather you get answers which are canon. Also, Privateer Press doesn't shut down their facebook page when they get negative feedback 4. Tournament proof. Eldar and Tau aren't dominating each and every tournament.
5. Release philosophy. Each faction marked as a main faction get a small amount of releases with each major release. This ensures that you don't get single faction at a time that are up to date.
There are weaker factions, but not to the degree that they don't place well. There are weaker builds, but not to the degree that you don't see variations even with the top scoring players.
Disclaimer: this is my take on it after having played one game, lurked this part of the forum and having read the rules. It's fairly obvious, actually, even though Vlad seems soooo good .
Releases are better in general because models/units get released individually. Plus the model comes with its card so you can begin playing it immediately. you don't need to spend the extra money on a faction book like you would a codex.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus the model comes with its card so you can begin playing it immediately. you don't need to spend the extra money on a faction book like you would a codex.
I agree this is technically correct, but a lot of the time it seems to be rather disingenuous. I often ask myself, at least as a newer player who doesn't know how everything works, "how do you know which models to buy if you don't know what they do first?" Actually I think they sell "faction card decks", but at that point I'd rather just buy the faction book and get all the fluff.
One thing I will agree on though, is that the main rulebook has basic army stats in the back for the 4 "main" factions. Think 40k 3rd edition "rulebook codex" (if you've been around that long. If not just think of a basic list that has probably about 1/3 the options available to the faction in total).
Oh, and the books are all available either hardcover or softcover (for less money). Don't know why, but this idea makes me smile.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus the model comes with its card so you can begin playing it immediately. you don't need to spend the extra money on a faction book like you would a codex.
I agree this is technically correct, but a lot of the time it seems to be rather disingenuous. I often ask myself, at least as a newer player who doesn't know how everything works, "how do you know which models to buy if you don't know what they do first?" Actually I think they sell "faction card decks", but at that point I'd rather just buy the faction book and get all the fluff.
You just go onto Battle College and see what models do then decide to buy. Really though, you will end up getting pretty much everything for your faction though, because especially with Hordes changing a few models can really shift the feel of the army. Changing you caster makes it a whole different game.
But don't get the faction decks. Those were just relevant when MK2 was released, and updated the rules for all the extant models at the time. They don't have newer stuff since then, so they are only useful if you want to proxy older models.
As to balance, there was a long debate on the Circle forums about who our worst caster was. After a bit it sounded a lot like arguing which color is best, and people just decided that the gap between best and worst was really narrow, and maybe it was Grayle at worst?
In general the game is balanced because even though there is lots of crazy stuff, there are always answers, and across two lists you are going to be able to deal with all of it.
Aftermath. wrote: The game actually sounds pretty awesome from a balance perspective.
The learning curve sounds painful though. It is almost too much.
You only hear about the crazy combo's but they are few and far between, a good player is more clever than a bad player in slamming, using throws, knocking things down, and stuff to get to your caster or to the objectives and you might be able to move 20 inches but it has to be in a straight line, if I know that I can block you.
There are some combo's that get crazy like the 24" charge but for the most part the casters that have those things only do that one thing so you know to look out for it after your first few games.
Once you get the hang of it its very much like chess, there's a lot of trading pieces and placing models "just so" they do what you want
Because of how the game is designed if you're fighting a certain army, they will usually bring a few things to every game, and then some different stuff depending on the caster, if you're super worried about not knowing things just play a defensive caster and dont spend a lot of focus or fury at first.
Grey Templar wrote: Plus the model comes with its card so you can begin playing it immediately. you don't need to spend the extra money on a faction book like you would a codex.
I agree this is technically correct, but a lot of the time it seems to be rather disingenuous. I often ask myself, at least as a newer player who doesn't know how everything works, "how do you know which models to buy if you don't know what they do first?" Actually I think they sell "faction card decks", but at that point I'd rather just buy the faction book and get all the fluff.
One thing I will agree on though, is that the main rulebook has basic army stats in the back for the 4 "main" factions. Think 40k 3rd edition "rulebook codex" (if you've been around that long. If not just think of a basic list that has probably about 1/3 the options available to the faction in total).
Oh, and the books are all available either hardcover or softcover (for less money). Don't know why, but this idea makes me smile.
Well the faction books don't actually have all the models. Just a good 70% of them.
They do sell faction decks, but those also do not have every model's cards in them.
The only way to get every card in a deck would be to have the Warroom app and buy the decks on there(they update as models are released)
Aftermath. wrote: The game actually sounds pretty awesome from a balance perspective.
The learning curve sounds painful though. It is almost too much.
Well the learning curve may be painful if you jump right into playing 50pt list single warcaster lists (which is the level that a lot of tournament players play at) vs. tournament players, but luckily you shouldn't have to. You can always start at battle-box level and work up from there, which is what the game is design around. There is even a league formant (rules are available online at PP website for free) that is called journeyman league where you start with just the battle-box and every-week work your way up, second week 15pts then 25pts etc. Battle-box is basically just your warcaster/warlock and a some warjacks/warbeats.
Also there is a lot of useful information online at PP forums and battlecollege for new players. Once you get the hang of the game you can move up to playing 25pts or 35pts.
Yea, the curve is steep. Plan to get kicked around for 2-6 months at least. Watch a lot of battle reports and read online. Probably the best thing about the game is that you can get a lot better by studying when you are not playing.
Sounds strange I know, but there are so many tricks and strategies you can learn that you will do most of your learning outside the game. Makes that time we waste at work suddenly valuable!
Wehrkind wrote: Yea, the curve is steep. Plan to get kicked around for 2-6 months at least. Watch a lot of battle reports and read online. Probably the best thing about the game is that you can get a lot better by studying when you are not playing.
The best thing you can do is get into a journeyman league or get a friend or two to start with you so you learn together. "oooh, so THATS how that works!"
That, or if you have a friend that plays that is pretty good and willing to dial back a bit, that is probably better.
The problem with playing with other new people is that you don't notice each other's rules mistakes, and you don't see clever new tricks as much. There is a LOT of depth in the rules and what you can pull off, and learning that is what makes you a good player (and what makes watching videos of good players so valuable.)
Also, are you starting Hordes or Warmachine? I find Hordes can be a little rough at 25 points. You tend to want multiple beasts, but can't really afford them with some infantry. WM on the other hand often is pretty good at 25 due to only wanting one jack for most casters anyway. Either way, the chances of getting a really bad match up at 25 seems to be pretty high in my experience, which makes for sad games. 35 isn't much slower or harder, but you have more options. After a few 15-25 point games I would really recommend 35, and then 50 when you can.
If/when you start to play, things will not look balanced. The first time you run into bane thrall spam with bane lord Tartarus and a caster who can cast telekinesis and/or excarnate and/or a feat that brings back models you will say to yourself how in the world is this fair and/or balanced?
I believe between factions there is a balance in that I believe with everything out currently (MK II, forces books, wrath, domination, colossals, and gargantuans) has tools for dealing with other factions shenanigans. The exception might be the Thornfall Alliance from Minions, I don't thing they have a good breadth of models/units.
As said previously, the complexity of the game comes in learning how everyone interacts together. PP has the QuickStart rules available online and if you can understand those, you can play the game. Depending how much you play, you will get your butt kicked for a good 6mo to a year if you play with an experienced player. When you learn what your army will do, you will do better. When you learn what your opponents army can possibly do, you will do even better.
The hardest part, is deciding what faction to play in the whole Warmahordes universe.
darefsky wrote: You are better off getting the faction cards in War Room at $5 and lifetime updates (which is really nice).
Once you own a faction it also opens up the rules which is a really nice way to look something up quickly.
I don't know about lifetime updates. I believe they caveat-ed that to MK2 only. Still so very worth it, as I don't see MK3 coming for a good long while.
darefsky wrote: You are better off getting the faction cards in War Room at $5 and lifetime updates (which is really nice).
Once you own a faction it also opens up the rules which is a really nice way to look something up quickly.
I don't know about lifetime updates. I believe they caveat-ed that to MK2 only. Still so very worth it, as I don't see MK3 coming for a good long while.
I hadn't heard that but even then, MKIII if its even going to be a thing will be years and years away.
Greatly balanced games (Video, board and tabletop) have three levels of units;
God-Tier
Great-Tier
Situational-Tier
Poorly balanced games (Video, board and tabletop) have two levels of units;
God-Tier
Garbage-Tier
That is to say, no matter the amount of effort or play testing goes into a moderately complex game, you will have creams of the crop and situational units. That's ok--it happens and you can adjust that by furthering releases that disrupt that game meta--moving other units from situational to God, God to Great, etc. Sounds like a marketing plan? Well, it's certainly PPs. UAs, Solos, etc.---are all ways to take those situational units and..give them the situation to be great. The game evolves with wave releases.
On the other hand, you have the poorly balanced game with God and Garbage Tier---that will pretty much remain that way in faction until their next major release (which may be years). Sure, there is always a possibility another armies release may bring your garbage unit from the heap---but given the themes present in book releases (40k for example)--if your unit doesn't fit the current meta niche in releases---well it's garbage until next release.
So yes, realistically, your friends were right with how balanced Warmahordes is. It's the best I've played or seen to date--and I've tried a lot of systems.
Take chess for example. You couldn't have more balance in a game.
The game is entirely based on skill, each player has the exact same pieces and strategies available to them.
Someone coming into the game for the first time, never ever having played or heard of it, might think its unbalanced. After all, White gets to go first all the time. But really its all about the skill involved.
Warmachine is similar to chess, except there are far more possible pieces and it adds customization. Imagine if Chess was a point based game. Instead of the normal compliment of pieces you always had a King and purchased other pieces up to a set point value. you could have an army of nothing but Rooks if you wanted.
This would still be a balanced game, but it would simply take on a massive amount of complexity.
Warmachine is a tactically complex game. The rules themselves are simple and straight forward. they mean exactly what they say. And everybody knows what everything does(theoretically) because its an open game. But its up to you to actually take advantage of how the rules interact, exactly like chess. Everybody knows what the different moves are, its the combination of moves that decides the game.
There are a few bad match ups, and at low 11-15 point range the game can get a little unbalanced. However you'll never find really bad match ups, where one army is destined to lose before the game even starts like you would if you put down an all melee Dark Eldar army against flyer spam Necrons in 6th edition.
For example in my local Journeyman league I played a battlegroup game that was
Me:*
Kara Sloan
Defender
Hunter
[Please note I chose to run 2 points down for the first week of the Journeyman league so I could afford Rienholdt and a Minuteman week 2]
Him:
Vlad1
Decimator
Kodiak
He ran Vlad1 with windwall activated so that I couldn't shoot his army with my Defender or Hunter basically negating my entire army. IE my almost purely ranged shooty army could not shoot. This is by definition a bad match up.
So what I did is position Kara so he couldn't charge her.
He feated and charged both of my 'jacks almost killing them both; each had about 5 health left at the end of turn 2.
He though he had the game in the bag.
However I popped my feat, moved up shot him with Kara. Activated my Defender, tried to move him out of melee range, but the free strike killed him. Activated my Hunter, who is immune to free strikes, moved him out of melee range, shot the Decimator and thanks to her feat was able to get a second shot off with Kara assassinating Vlad.
So even in a "bad" matchup where most of your army isn't even a threat it is still possible to win.
The game isn't balanced. It will never be balanced. There are stand out casters and units. Optimal builds? None that I can think of, but there are many synergistic templates it might be wise to follow with certain Warcasters/Warlocks. Privateer Press actively try to a reasonable extent to balance units. Some overpowered units might recieve hard counters, underpowered units might recieve unit attatchments or other synergistic figures to enhance their original purpose. If thatls your preferred style of balancing a tabletop game then you can pick up Warmachine, Hordes, or the myriad of other game systems that operate in this manner.
Like all games however its not for everyone. There might be other reasons the game is unappealing to you, which is perfectly fine. I struggle to play the game due to the PP is best attitude kindly displayed by some posts above me, or by the hardcore page 5 rule applications.Maybe your friends are coming on too strong or you simply don't want to move on from 40k?
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I can't see anything worth changing radically enough to warrant a new edition just yet.
I think they need to redo two holds or otherwise give light jacks like the vigilant a purpose again (since they changed it so you cant hold a colossal with a light or something stupid)
Zond wrote: The game isn't balanced. It will never be balanced. There are stand out casters and units. Optimal builds? None that I can think of, but there are many synergistic templates it might be wise to follow with certain Warcasters/Warlocks. Privateer Press actively try to a reasonable extent to balance units. Some overpowered units might recieve hard counters, underpowered units might recieve unit attatchments or other synergistic figures to enhance their original purpose. If thatls your preferred style of balancing a tabletop game then you can pick up Warmachine, Hordes, or the myriad of other game systems that operate in this manner
Just because there are some standout casters/units etc doesn't mean the game is not balanced. It will never be 100% perfect on all things and a lot of "balance" is just perceptions. I think your next statement about optimal builds is more indicative of if the game is balanced. Synergy is definitely important and that is the intention of the developers.
I've also noticed that some "power" casters/units etc vary from person to person and meta to meta. And generally these "power" casters generally only make a noticeable difference at the highest levels of play. Between your buddies and at your LGS it is usually more about skill and knowledge than what you are playing with.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I can't see anything worth changing radically enough to warrant a new edition just yet.
I think they need to redo two holds or otherwise give light jacks like the vigilant a purpose again (since they changed it so you cant hold a colossal with a light or something stupid)
I disagree, I can't see a tiny little jack holding a colossal. But heck just the strength check would be hard enough to role.
Zond wrote: The game isn't balanced. It will never be balanced. There are stand out casters and units. Optimal builds? None that I can think of, but there are many synergistic templates it might be wise to follow with certain Warcasters/Warlocks. Privateer Press actively try to a reasonable extent to balance units. Some overpowered units might recieve hard counters, underpowered units might recieve unit attatchments or other synergistic figures to enhance their original purpose. If thatls your preferred style of balancing a tabletop game then you can pick up Warmachine, Hordes, or the myriad of other game systems that operate in this manner
Just because there are some standout casters/units etc doesn't mean the game is not balanced. It will never be 100% perfect on all things and a lot of "balance" is just perceptions. I think your next statement about optimal builds is more indicative of if the game is balanced. Synergy is definitely important and that is the intention of the day.
Yeah, exactly what I said then. The game will never be 100% balanced, people make mistakes after all. It also has stand out units, but the designers try their best, like most games out there. It's essentially Magic: The Gathering with miniatures. Each expansion brings new combinations, some better or worse than others.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I can't see anything worth changing radically enough to warrant a new edition just yet.
I think they need to redo two holds or otherwise give light jacks like the vigilant a purpose again (since they changed it so you cant hold a colossal with a light or something stupid)
I disagree, I can't see a tiny little jack holding a colossal. But heck just the strength check would be hard enough to role.
But a light holding a heavy makes sense. They should allow locks on any size model from any size model. The strength difference will make it not a big deal anyway. Colossal would have a very low chance of getting locked in the first place and they could easily break it.
Otherwise all those lights with two open fists are basically pointless for their power attack potential.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I can't see anything worth changing radically enough to warrant a new edition just yet.
I think they need to redo two holds or otherwise give light jacks like the vigilant a purpose again (since they changed it so you cant hold a colossal with a light or something stupid)
I disagree, I can't see a tiny little jack holding a colossal. But heck just the strength check would be hard enough to role.
But a light holding a heavy makes sense. They should allow locks on any size model from any size model. The strength difference will make it not a big deal anyway. Colossal would have a very low chance of getting locked in the first place and they could easily break it.
Otherwise all those lights with two open fists are basically pointless for their power attack potential.
I agree with what you are saying. As is you can still use your lights to throw small based models into the enemy to knock them down. Works wonders on high def casters......
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, I can't see anything worth changing radically enough to warrant a new edition just yet.
I think they need to redo two holds or otherwise give light jacks like the vigilant a purpose again (since they changed it so you cant hold a colossal with a light or something stupid)
I disagree, I can't see a tiny little jack holding a colossal. But heck just the strength check would be hard enough to role.
But a light holding a heavy makes sense. They should allow locks on any size model from any size model. The strength difference will make it not a big deal anyway. Colossal would have a very low chance of getting locked in the first place and they could easily break it.
Otherwise all those lights with two open fists are basically pointless for their power attack potential.
I agree with what you are saying. As is you can still use your lights to throw small based models into the enemy to knock them down. Works wonders on high def casters......
it doesn't work most of the time because the light doesn't have the str to get the distance to the caster.
I agree that colossals shouldn't be locked by lights, heavies should, the problem is, if i remember right, that you can't move after breaking a lock, so a light in your back arc can just relock you turn after turn and you can't do anything about it besides kill it.
also colossals should be able to slam and throw other colossals, just because!
Raek gets behind the Colossal, arm locks. Abs Blight Fields the Stormwall (Not really needed but fun to stack). At the start of the next turn, it must first break the lock (which it does automatically with its strength). However, it cannot move or turn to face the Raek and it doesn't have virtuoso so its activation is dead now unless it was in melee range of something else. Even then, it must spend Focus (which it can't because of Blight) to get more attacks out of that arm. Most times though, it just sat there as the Legion player would need to be foolish enough to run something into its front arc.
Zond- I would really like to know how you define a "balanced" game. Do you require absolutely every model to be perfectly mirrored or is it something a bit more reasonable.
The only perfectly balanced game that I can think of is tossing a coin in the air and lettting it fall on a perfectly level non-porous frictionless surface with one person being unable to see the coin while in the air and calling heads or tails.
Considering the various major tourney results in which many different factions have won and the players use many different casters/sorcerors. Include the fact that almost any given game is decided by players planning and counterplanning (ie., auto win/loss is a very rare thing) and I think that Warmahordes is a very balanced game.
The OP is asking if Warmahordes is balanced. I, and others, have stated that it's not perfectly balanced. What game is? I then went on to say the designers and developers try their best to make it balanced, but sometimes units are under or overpowered but it's often addressed through rule update a such as an errata or expansion.
I have never claimed one side is over or underpowered, or that certain combinations are broken. I have pointed out that optimal combinations or synergies exist, which again exist in every game.
I'm struggling to understand what's unreasonable about what I have stated. I never said it was unbalanced. I was simply stating that perfect balance untenable, and tried to establish if some other reason was putting the OP off trying the game.
My apologies if that was what you were trying to achieve.
The way your statement came across to me, is that the game in unbalanced and very biased toward certain builds. You didn't say the game was not perfectly balanced but you did say that the game is not balanced. and sounded pretty much as if it could never be balanced. I'm sure that the OP realizes that no game is ever perfectly balanced.
IMO it is not balanced. Not when there is a faction that Ignores quite a bit of defense tricks and ignores half the board(Legion)
If this game is "Rock Paper Scissors" that you requires multiple lists, you are basically saying it is not Balanced, In a balance game you should be able to beat any faction with any build
See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
Balance is not being able to beat anything with anything. Its having a complete set of options available to deal with anything that may come at you. Multiple lists allow you to build to specific strengths.
You build a list you really like and are quite skilled with, but its not good against one specific faction for some reason. Thats just how it is. You can use your second list option to build a list that counters the specific weakness of the primary list, and hopefully the other list covers this list's weaknesses as well. Now you have everything covered, you have an answer for each situation.
That is what real balance is. Balance isn't there to save you from yourself, your own list building failings, but rather its simply the big picture. If you fail to take advantage of it that's your fault.
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
Balance is not being able to beat anything with anything. Its having a complete set of options available to deal with anything that may come at you. Multiple lists allow you to build to specific strengths.
You build a list you really like and are quite skilled with, but its not good against one specific faction for some reason. Thats just how it is. You can use your second list option to build a list that counters the specific weakness of the primary list, and hopefully the other list covers this list's weaknesses as well. Now you have everything covered, you have an answer for each situation.
That is what real balance is. Balance isn't there to save you from yourself, your own list building failings, but rather its simply the big picture. If you fail to take advantage of it that's your fault.
I absolutely agree. This is an excellent summary of the concept of balance.
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
Balance is not being able to beat anything with anything. Its having a complete set of options available to deal with anything that may come at you. Multiple lists allow you to build to specific strengths.
You build a list you really like and are quite skilled with, but its not good against one specific faction for some reason. Thats just how it is. You can use your second list option to build a list that counters the specific weakness of the primary list, and hopefully the other list covers this list's weaknesses as well. Now you have everything covered, you have an answer for each situation.
That is what real balance is. Balance isn't there to save you from yourself, your own list building failings, but rather its simply the big picture. If you fail to take advantage of it that's your fault.
Are there bad matchups in this game. Faction vs faction wise?
short answer: yes.
long one: I play mainly Warmahordes, it is the game (among the ones I've tried, and they're a lot) that I like the most. I feel it pretty balanced, and most important, I feel that where some unbalance arise it's because it's almost impossible to balance everything in a so complex and rich of option game, not for selling needs. This said even here there are subpar miniatures, and top tier lists, BUT it's also very true that nothing is so unbalanced at the point that the skill difference between player doesn't count anymore. So I honestly feel this is the best game available on the market (for my tastes and needs, ofcourse), far superior (again for my tastes and needs) in every aspect to 40K but one: the bad matchup is here more influent than in 40K. apart the obvious fact that *generally speaking* in any game the more you specialize your list (or your deck, or whatever), the more you'll be influenced by mactchups (in a good or bad way) and the more you keep your list versatile, the more you 'll be able to ignore matchup (but also never having a crushing win or loss), apart this, in Warmahordes the matchup is more influent than in WH40K, imho.
Please, keep in mind that the above is my thought and feelings about the game, don't jump at my throat =)
Also, even with this, I still feel this is the best, most fun and rewarding game to play: the rules are so well thought and developed, the skill of the players are so influent, that widely compensate for a bad matchup.
Gabbi wrote: the bad matchup is here more influent than in 40K. apart the obvious fact that *generally speaking* in any game the more you specialize your list (or your deck, or whatever), the more you'll be influenced by mactchups (in a good or bad way) and the more you keep your list versatile, the more you 'll be able to ignore matchup (but also never having a crushing win or loss), apart this, in Warmahordes the matchup is more influent than in WH40K, imho.
I disagree, I've watched games in 40k (and even played a few myself), where the matchup was so bad that there was literally nothing that one of the players could do to influence the outcome of the game. I've never saw anything of that type in WMH.
I think the imbalances in warmahordes are such that they simply provide the capacity for greater or lesser shenanigans- meaning players must know how to exploit the units for them to be powerful. As opposed to 40k, where the broken units are basically easy mode.
Just yesterday I fought a Harbinger list that had the covenant of Menoth and Errants against my PKreoss list. I got destroyed. Eg of a game where one list dominates another list, but if I had taken something different, than it becomes a different game altogether.
asianavatar wrote: Just yesterday I fought a Harbinger list that had the covenant of Menoth and Errants against my PKreoss list. I got destroyed. Eg of a game where one list dominates another list, but if I had taken something different, than it becomes a different game altogether.
Why? It could just as easily be construed as an example of you having been outplayed... What were the elements in his list / tactics that gave you the most trouble? What was your list? What did you do? How / why did you loose?
Blaming your list selection or matchup without any critical thinking behind it just ensures that you'll never become a better player.
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray
Carnivean also costs as much as Ghettorix or Megalith. That's the point, Carni is really good, and really good in the faction he is in, but his points match it.
As to faction match ups, they are not as huge as people think when they start. I play Circle, and Legion is pretty much built to wreck me, but then knowing that I can prepare for it. I go into list building thinking "What's this do vs Legion? What's this do vs. Cryx?" There are certain caster builds that you have to take into account when building. It isn't imbalance, it is just needing to know what to expect so you can plan appropriately.
Fortunately, with the exception of maybe Minions (especially pigs it seems) all factions have the tools they need to get by. Some a little better than others on some fronts, but especially with the norm of 2 list formats there is really very little reason to com up against a no win match up. Maybe a tough match up, but not a "Well, my army list has nothing to deal with 30 Nob Bikers. GG." sort of situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Disclaimer: I know Nob Bikers are no longer a thing, just the first thing I came up with. Maybe 6th ed fixed everything and 40k is a perfect balance wonderland?
I think one of the main issues is not playing Steamroller format--as it fixes some of the major problems voiced here.
If you want a good experience with your friends in a non-tournament setting--follow some of the tournament guidelines such as;
Everyone shows up with two lists and pick just like in a tourney
Play timed turns or deathclock
Allow specialist
Play scenarios
Play character restrictions
I really wish we would have done this from the get go rather than "Oh we'll learn how to play then learn what the hardcore guys do".
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray
Yes, that RAT 4 spray... I think more points are tied up in it being a heavy beast than the spray. Like you said, beasts cost more base than a jack. Toss on the good damage attacks and eyeless/pathfinder and you would still be looking at a 10 point beast probably. The spray is probably only a fraction of a point in value.
Why? It could just as easily be construed as an example of you having been outplayed... What were the elements in his list / tactics that gave you the most trouble? What was your list? What did you do? How / why did you loose?
Blaming your list selection or matchup without any critical thinking behind it just ensures that you'll never become a better player.
I wasn't trying to be negative. I will be honest I am a relatively new player so I do ask what I could have done better after my games if the opponent is willing to talk after. The guy even said that my list was going to be an up hill battle against his list. My list has units of flame guard and zealots which don't do well against a feat that sets you on fire if you move forward at pow that is equal to or 2 less than your armour. Also the covenant behind units screws my feat unless I can get to it, which I couldn't. It didn't help that his full units of errants were on the objective right off the bat due to advance deploy and that he went first. He didn't really need that much tactics, he just marched straight up with his lines, stalled me and picked things off as I tried to move up scoring points for being on the objective. I am not saying I played perfectly and I had no chance, but it wasn't like it was going to a game where I knew exactly what my game plan would be and I just needed to execute it. All I am saying is, its an example where one list is going to be a harder match up than another list.
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray
Yes, that RAT 4 spray... I think more points are tied up in it being a heavy beast than the spray. Like you said, beasts cost more base than a jack. Toss on the good damage attacks and eyeless/pathfinder and you would still be looking at a 10 point beast probably. The spray is probably only a fraction of a point in value.
Warjacks/beasts that have both strong melee and a ranged weapon automatically cost extra points, just because they have both. Look at a destroyer for khador - it's melee is meh, it's ranged ability is meh, everything in the faction outshines it in melee while costing 2 or 3 points less. The only reason it costs more is because it can do both range and melee.
I think the reason beasts tend to cost more than their warjack counterpart is simply because they are better. They generally have better damage output and many more abilities. Look at a dire troll mauler. Your warlock can spend 2 fury and the thing can land 7 P+S 19 attacks, and it can heal itself, AND it auto heals when it kills something, AND it has a chain attack, AND your warlock can transfer damage to it to avoid assassinations. Compare it to most 9 point warjacks and it stacks up or just outshines them. Lord knows I would love to have one of those in my khador army. I think the ability to transfer damage to a beast to save your warlock is worth at least an additional point in cost. Add in the fact that almost all heavy beasts have 4 or 5 fury means they flat out get more boosts/attacks each turn. Skorne titans are even more superior to warjacks for the added fact that their warbeasts support is just better than ours. You can easily have a bronzeback with better threat range and significantly higher damage output than warjacks.
Grey Templar wrote: See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.
Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.
Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.
Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.
The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!
I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray
In the world of everblight though, the carnivean/scythean/ravagore are the toughest beasts they have. They are fairly soft for their point cost, but they make up for it with their superior offense and fury mechanic amongst other abilities.
I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.
Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored
Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.
But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.
You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.
Mordekiem wrote: I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.
Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored
Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.
But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.
You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.
This is an excellent point: the worst match-ups tend to occur when one "skew" list hits its diametric opposite. The worst I have ever heard of is an all Jack Convergence list with Syntheron versus a Skarre tier 3 list with max Satyxis raiders (stealth and protection from blast damage). Ouch indeed.
Mordekiem wrote: I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.
Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored
Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.
But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.
You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.
This is an excellent point: the worst match-ups tend to occur when one "skew" list hits its diametric opposite. The worst I have ever heard of is an all Jack Convergence list with Syntheron versus a Skarre tier 3 list with max Satyxis raiders (stealth and protection from blast damage). Ouch indeed.
Take it you've never seen a Rahn tier 4 list vs. Butcher2 tier 4 list? Fun times!
I think the short answer is that the game has more layers than 40k, where basically you just carbon copy the most powerful unit in each org slot... for instance, Most tournaments allow you to bring two army lists, which factors into the matchup aspect of balancing. Also, each general completely alters the factions play style via spells/abilities/feat. Additionally the tier lists slightly alter the stats and prices of included units, adding usability if you want to build theme armies around lesser used units. I'm not going to get into the individual numerical balancing, but they spent as much consideration as was put into the army design balancing,
The game is quite balanced, in that every faction can build at least two good lists, and most casters/units are viable in at least some competitive way.
In a local meta, a couple good players can dominate so thoroughly it seems like their faction choice is the reason, so keep an eye on that.
Until you learn to account for all the enemy factions, you will always feel like stuff is broken. You can't build a shooty list without stuff that ignores stealth, for instance.
That all said: the game ain't nearly as balanced as the most enthusiastic proselytizers seen to think. But a lot of the issues resolve themselves in vibrant metas, with a large range of stuff. If nobody in a meta game plays cryx (a nasty counter to legion), then legion will seem OP because he doesn't need to include anti-cryx tools.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Druids are pretty hit and miss with me. Either they are amazing--or you face Menoth or something with a great deal of blast and get a sad face.
Well Rahn has plenty of blasts, but Kromac gives the druids resolve so those blasts really have a hard time actually killing a model. That is on the rare few chances he actually got to cast a spell.
Not to jump the train on Polonius, but while the game's balance is good, its not perfect. For example, look at the Gargantuans/Colossals release. The Stormwall is quite powerful, and it is arguable that it is the most powerful release of the year. It is considered a faction staple and shows up in a large number of Cygnar lists, often but not always because of synergy, but also because it is just so damn good for its points cost. Inversely, look at the Archangel, a beautiful but much-maligned model that a legion player I talk to says that he can't think of a reason to take one over their heavies. Thats not to say that the Archangel doesn't have its place, but rather that the models aren't exactly balanced in the grand scheme of things, since you just have so many more reasons to take the Stormwall than the Archangel.
That being said, perfect balance isn't necessarily a good thing. M:tG designers have gone on the record of stating that they purposefully have cards that are of varying power levels for a variety of reasons (such as to establish colour identities, to improve the dynamics of limited games such as draft and sealed, and to help teach newer players what effects are powerful by having a wider showcase of power ranges) and that as long as cards don't fall to far above a certain point in power level, the metagame will continue to be healthy because even though there is an imbalance on a card by card basis, as a collective whole no one strategy is dominant. This can be applied to Warmachine/Hordes. Even though the Stormwall 'may' be the most powerful model in the game, it isn't unbalancing since other models/units which are also both powerful and different result in a net balancing effect.
Fortunately the imbalances in the Colossal/Gargantuans are not crippling.
Legion is no worse for wear for having a poor Gargantuan, nor are Cygnar and Skorne dominating because their Gargossals are amazing.
Each faction certainly has its sub-par units, some are laughably bad(just look at the Cleanser UA) but the vast bulk are playable in at least some fashion. And even stuff that is bad is really only bad by virtue of not being good.
That being said, perfect balance isn't necessarily a good thing. M:tG designers have gone on the record of stating that they purposefully have cards that are of varying power levels for a variety of reasons (such as to establish colour identities, to improve the dynamics of limited games such as draft and sealed, and to help teach newer players what effects are powerful by having a wider showcase of power ranges)
...to sell more booster packs by introducing "mythic rares"...the list goes on
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
"Cygnar" and "underpowered" probably shouldn't be in the same sentence if you ask me. Although to be fair I only seriously got into the hobby after the Stormwall was a thing. That said, whenever you talk about "underpowered" Khador starts to raise its hand, then doesn't bother and just takes another drink of Vodka
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
"Cygnar" and "underpowered" probably shouldn't be in the same sentence if you ask me. Although to be fair I only seriously got into the hobby after the Stormwall was a thing. That said, whenever you talk about "underpowered" Khador starts to raise its hand, then doesn't bother and just takes another drink of Vodka
Surprising huh?
I remember a few tournaments before Stormwall was released and Cygnar was down to like 7-8 players in the tournament
PP does a good job of 'active balancing' if they feel a faction is too weak, they will give them something that either cover their weakness (think Incinidiarii on Skorne) or something is very strong (think the 40 pts of Guns called the Stormwall). On the other hand, if a faction is being a little too strong, they will give other factions more ways to counter the reason why that faction is strong
IIRC, Keith won the Iron Gauntlet with a eHaley/eGaspy combination--and the single jack in Haley's army was Thorn. I also believe he won Warmachine Weekend with eCaine---and Ol' Rowdy as his single jack.
RegalPhantom wrote: Not to jump the train on Polonius, but while the game's balance is good, its not perfect. For example, look at the Gargantuans/Colossals release. The Stormwall is quite powerful, and it is arguable that it is the most powerful release of the year. It is considered a faction staple and shows up in a large number of Cygnar lists, often but not always because of synergy, but also because it is just so damn good for its points cost. Inversely, look at the Archangel, a beautiful but much-maligned model that a legion player I talk to says that he can't think of a reason to take one over their heavies. Thats not to say that the Archangel doesn't have its place, but rather that the models aren't exactly balanced in the grand scheme of things, since you just have so many more reasons to take the Stormwall than the Archangel.
Actually that doesn't mean that the Archangel and the Stormwall aren't balanced in the grand scheme of things, just not balanced against each other.
Also, JVM, arguably one of the best Legion players in the world has used the Archangel several times on national level tournaments, so it should have its merits as a playing piece somehow... The Archangel, just like the vast majority of models in WMH depends on two things: meta and personal play style. I love the Archangel and have achieved good results with him in my meta, on the other end of the spectre, I can't make the Hunter work in my Cygnar lists and find the Ravagore somewhat lacklustre and those are models that most players in their respective factions will acclaim as "some of the best in the faction"...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
Cygnar isn't dominating anything because they aren't winning a majority of the tournaments that they are entering. If one faction is having some advantage over the others right now I'd say its Circle because people haven't figured out how to consistently win against Goatvana yet.
Yeah, eHaley with double Stormwall is certainly a good list, but its not rocketing Cygnar up to the top.
Its one of those lists that everybody needs to be prepared to deal with. As a result it doesn't always place very well because its being explicitly countered.
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
I dunno about dominating. But Cygnar was generally considered pretty low on the power curve until colossals came out. Now I think some of the newer releases have definitely helped them and not just the Stormwall.
And other colossals and gargantuans are nice. I think part of what makes the Stormwall so good is that it works with so many of the Cygnar casters. Hence why you seem to see it more. Others seem to be more limited to which caster/lock they excel with. So while they are still good they may not be good with the casters that people like.
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
Cygnar isn't dominating anything because they aren't winning a majority of the tournaments that they are entering. If one faction is having some advantage over the others right now I'd say its Circle because people haven't figured out how to consistently win against Goatvana yet.
That's because its already a new era, This time it is Circle's in the limelight
Talamare wrote: I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall
but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release
I dunno about dominating. But Cygnar was generally considered pretty low on the power curve until colossals came out. Now I think some of the newer releases have definitely helped them and not just the Stormwall.
And other colossals and gargantuans are nice. I think part of what makes the Stormwall so good is that it works with so many of the Cygnar casters. Hence why you seem to see it more. Others seem to be more limited to which caster/lock they excel with. So while they are still good they may not be good with the casters that people like.
This is pretty much exactly what I am saying, so we agree with each other <3
From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.
Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.
Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?
Dice are a huge factor, you can win and lose based on simple rolls. Comparing warmachine to chess is nonsense.
Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units.
I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.
If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.
Warmachine is a faster paced game, although not at the speeds of Dust Tactics, which is something you can either appreciate or loathe. The benefit of a fast paced game is that you can cram more games into each meeting and if you are the odd one out that didn't get a match up you can reasonably be sure that you can still have time for a game. The drawback is obviously that a game can easily snowball depending on a crucial moment.
That's not really something to objectively hold against it I feel. Subjectively, sure, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I mean some take a bit of cream in their tea and there's plenty of misguided heathens that drink coffee.
A funny thing to note though is that everyone (who actually have played wargames) seem to agree that the cost of 40k is really high, but that in the Warmahorde camp there seem to be two camps.
One is big and that's the "nah, it's not very expensive" while the other is notably smaller but still has a presence.
Personally, I look at expected armies, see their small size and note that the price tag per model is roughly as for 40k which uses some 4 to 10 times the amount of models.
I'm with the larger camp, by the way.
Jurai, the good thing about Warmahordes is that they use two dice which makes the result of an action more predictable and gives tactical benefits more impact. I think the pace of the game and the high casualty rate stems from that people exploit tactical and above all synergy in order to scew the odds from being fair and slow paced to being a blood bath.
juraigamer wrote: From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.
Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.
Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?
Dice are a huge factor, you can win and lose based on simple rolls. Comparing warmachine to chess is nonsense.
Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units.
I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.
If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.
It isn't clear to me we are talking about the same game. Or really the same concept of balance. Warmahordes is about piece trading and planning out processes and traps, which is why it is like chess. The dice are there, but there are sufficient ways to affect their outcome that planning around that variability is part of the game. If you are questioning the balance because units can be removed off the table and games sometimes come down to just a few models late in the match, I don't see how that implies imbalance or not being chess-like.
List building is also part of the game, and while there are some obviously good casters, very few are unplayable, and those tend to cycle around a bit anyway.
And what games are you watching where Khador players always run Kharchev? Just this past summer there were a lot of top tournament places taken by Khador with Butcher and a swarm of Doom Reavers. You see eGaspy lists a lot from Cryx, but also things like Satyxis spam and a other oddities. And it isn't like Cryx has been setting the world on fire; people plan for that sort of dude spam list and deal with it.
Really, it seems like you have a long way to go up the learning curve. I don't mean that as an insult either; Warmahordes has a LONG learning curve, and can be pretty miserable as you climb it. A good part of the game is knowing what is out there and what your opponent can do, and planning for that. Much more so than the GW games, as synergy and combinations of models create very different effects you have to understand.
juraigamer wrote: From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.
source?
scores of games? with respect, I've seen quite the opposite. almost everything can be built into a game winning strategy. 'the best' is meaningless considering this.
Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.
thats part of the game though - that damage output outpaces resilience. and to be fair, a sacrificial unit to bait your enemy in can be a part of your plan too. certain spells, feats and abilities can be utterly ruthless, but they can be hard countered by other stuff (purification, for example. means nothing to epic krueger, whilst it makes magnus cry). On the whole, and especially with the two/three list formats in tournaments, there is no reason why you should find yourself in a situation where you cant do anything. balance does not necesaarily mean 3 twos is the same as two threes; not everything is equally good against everything else, all the time. but on the whole, on the larger faction levels, all those imbalances level out and the factions are pretty stolidly alligned.
Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?.
I see plenty cryx armies without banes, thank you. mcthralls, bile thralls and satyxis are incredibly nasty. as for the khador warjack caster - i take it you mean Karchev? Believe me, that is... short sighted. when it comes to top khador casters, you have a lot to pick from. butcher3 looks like a powerhouse, but butcher1 is solid too. both irusks are phenomenol (top tier, by any definition. epic irusk at 50pts is a monster), as is sorscha2 and the old witch. sorscha1 is going through a renaissance at the moment and vlad3 has a lot of good points in his favour too. about the only 'dud' is zherkova.
Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units..
it shouldnt surprise you. most folks, when talking about price, will take about the costs of entry for the game, more so than the upper ceiling of what you'll pay. i can spend £100 and have a tournament viable army or an extremely solid base of a faction. i cant do that with 40k. i'll agree - warmachine has cost me plenty (probably more so than 40k) but i feel like my money has gotten me a lot further for what i've put into it. spending £10-£15 on a new caster which radically changes how my whole army plays? yeah, awesome. with 40k, you dont have tihs.
I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.
at the higher levels though, it gets far more involves. bring in alphastriking, attriton, control/denial, manipulation, piece trading, tarpitting. what do you mean by burst damage though, if you dont mind me asking?
If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.
yeah, this i actually cant agree with. this is one of the corner stones of the game; no matter how nasty something is, you can kill it. i got sick of 40k a long time ago where my whole army's shooting would only kill a handful of enemies after hits, wounds, saves and FNPs were factored in. it made basic weapons worthless, and the only weapons worth a damn the guy with the powerfist or meltagun. everyone else was an ablative wound counter. in warmachine, that guy with a rifle can actually win you the game. he can kill stuff reliably. and if you ask me, its a good thing that the kill-ratio of the game is the way that it is.
Deadnight wrote: I see plenty cryx armies without banes, thank you.
And how many Menoth lists without Choir ? It really seems to me that the Choir is the more ubiquitous model of Warmachine.
I've seen so many shifting stones for Circle too, but that may just be my local adversaries.
Deadnight wrote: yeah, this i actually cant agree with. this is one of the corner stones of the game; no matter how nasty something is, you can kill it.
I always have HUGE issues with high-armor warjack. And I'm playing two heavy warbeasts and the shooting troops with the highest POW available in my faction, at 20 points . But I'm still a beginner.
Remember that plinging away at a heavy with a bunch of grunts is always an option.
Most infantry can take down big things by grinding it down. A dozen guys doing 2-3 damage each will kill anything pretty quickly. Or at least cripple a system, and anything with a damaged system is pretty much out of the game.
My grunts are burrowers, and I sure try to use them against anything heavily armoured with a lot of damage boxes now that I saw how hard it is to deal with kind of stuff using a bomber and a blitzer.
Yea, part of each faction's definition is it's support pieces. I think that is true in hordes especially, with stones and gorax in Circle, the stone carrier trolls have, pain givers for Skorne, pile of Fury management solos in Legion all helping define what the factions are capable of. You have choir in Menoth, scads of arc nodes in Cryx, no arc nodes in Khador save one, mercs with crazy support solos, Cygnar with junior warcasters, etc. The factions are built around that sort of stuff. No Circle beast comes with the Rage animus because it would be insane on anything less than 11 points, but Primal is planned for and the beasts are designed with the possibility of +2str/mat and auto frenzy in mind. Movement shenanigans from stones practically define the Circle experience as opposed to another fast but squishy faction.
Deadnight wrote: I see plenty cryx armies without banes, thank you.
And how many Menoth lists without Choir ? It really seems to me that the Choir is the more ubiquitous model of Warmachine.
I've seen so many shifting stones for Circle too, but that may just be my local adversaries.
Deadnight wrote: yeah, this i actually cant agree with. this is one of the corner stones of the game; no matter how nasty something is, you can kill it.
I always have HUGE issues with high-armor warjack. And I'm playing two heavy warbeasts and the shooting troops with the highest POW available in my faction, at 20 points . But I'm still a beginner.
A couple of things;
First, what faction are you playing (I couldn't seem to find it in the rest of the thread)?
Second, which is kinda dependent on the answer above, it may very well be that you are simply not able to access all your tools; Hordes especially I find don't scale well downwards because of the way Fury works. 20 points is really just barely beyond a battlebox, and can be very, very frustrating in Hordes. Especially if you are just beginning (rather different for an established player, who might run... uh, I dunno, two Bronzeback Titans a Cyclops Savage and... something...).
And how many Menoth lists without Choir ? It really seems to me that the Choir is the more ubiquitous model of Warmachine.
I've seen so many shifting stones for Circle too, but that may just be my local adversaries.
.
i've seen a fair bit of the choir in jack heavy armies, but on the whole, you can do without it.
same with stones. i play circle, and whilst they're fun, and whilst they open up a huge bag of tricks, they're not always needed. i did fine for ages when i first started by not taking stones, so my view of circle is coloured by seeing them as an asset, not a crutch.
I always have HUGE issues with high-armor warjack. And I'm playing two heavy warbeasts and the shooting troops with the highest POW available in my faction, at 20 points . But I'm still a beginner.
i call shenanigans. even at 20pts. i've one-turned a stormwall colossal with a warpwolf stalker.
apply arm debuff if you have it. apply strength buff. charge. profit. there is no reason a pair of warpwolves, skorne titans, dire trolls or carniveans cant kill anything else in the game. even if you cant kill the damn thing after 2 heavy warbeasts have unloaded, theres gonna be enough damage to left and right arms to make its punching back problematic. and all this time kromac is moving up to assassinate.
with circle, i've got bloodtrackers with pow11 weapon master ranged attacks. backed up by warpwolf stalkers, feral warpwolves, and the monster that is ghetorix (def16, str23 with primal, and eKaya). its going down.
with khador, i've got irusk. battle lust+iron fangs, or great bears. put in aiyanna and holt for the +2 damage buff. then each of your IFs is putting out POW13+2+4D6 damage. heck, if you want more, put in gorman. i have no issues bringing down 2 warjacks in a turn.
what units are you using, and what are you going up against?
Deadnight wrote: I see plenty cryx armies without banes, thank you.
And how many Menoth lists without Choir ? It really seems to me that the Choir is the more ubiquitous model of Warmachine.
I've seen so many shifting stones for Circle too, but that may just be my local adversaries.
Deadnight wrote: yeah, this i actually cant agree with. this is one of the corner stones of the game; no matter how nasty something is, you can kill it.
I always have HUGE issues with high-armor warjack. And I'm playing two heavy warbeasts and the shooting troops with the highest POW available in my faction, at 20 points . But I'm still a beginner.
A couple of things;
First, what faction are you playing (I couldn't seem to find it in the rest of the thread)?
Second, which is kinda dependent on the answer above, it may very well be that you are simply not able to access all your tools; Hordes especially I find don't scale well downwards because of the way Fury works. 20 points is really just barely beyond a battlebox, and can be very, very frustrating in Hordes. Especially if you are just beginning (rather different for an established player, who might run... uh, I dunno, two Bronzeback Titans a Cyclops Savage and... something...).
I play Circle as my main faction, but I also do Khador for my steampunk candy.. I honestly have no problem with the fury mechanic.. It only becomes a problem if you don't plan for it, all the horde armies to my knowledge have some sort of fury manipulation to keep the problem of your beasts going postal with frenzy.. If your going to go beast heavy you have to keep in the back of your head that you can only leech so much from your beasts if you don't bring some sort of support for them..
Aftermath. wrote: The game actually sounds pretty awesome from a balance perspective.
The learning curve sounds painful though. It is almost too much.
Most games are harder than 40k, since 40k rules are too abstract and illogical.
|If you aren't willing to learn, you might be stuck with 40k forever, but hey if thats your thing thats ok too :3
Oops, I should have been more cautious before posting, and made myself clearer.
Buzzsaw wrote: Second, which is kinda dependent on the answer above, it may very well be that you are simply not able to access all your tools
I'm playing Gunnbjorn's embryonic army. Meaning not that I follow the tier list (I may break it by adding some war wagon, because the mini is awesome !) but that I do only take models with guns, except for the one which uses grenades instead (i.e. my bomber), and I do sculpt them some military caps and cigars . I voluntarily don't use all the tools available to my faction. Some Mauler would definitely be able to crush heavily armored 'jack with that +1 POW, +1 FURY, awesome animus, and extra chain-strike attack ! But they don't go along with the theme of my army. I know perfectly well it's far from optimal, but it's like that I want to play, with the narrative and aesthetic aspect in the foreground .
I maybe misunderstood what I was answering to, but I meant not everything is destroyable by any army. Of course everything is destroyable by something, else it would be pretty stupid. My blitzer and my bomber both spending all their focus to try and kill some Khador warjack not even disabling a system, barely scratching the paint, when I thought the game was going ok was some moment. Maybe if my burrowers had been near, I could have add a few extra attacks, but I'm not sure it would have changed much.
Grey Templar wrote: Just because 99% of Menoth lists take a specific unit doesn't mean its unbalanced.
I never meant to say it was unbalanced. Just that some models are really ubiquitous.
Every Starcraft player creates a supply depot/pylon at every game, doesn't mean the game isn't balanced !
Another thing, why is there no point limit requirement for colossal? I see 25 and 35 point lists with these damn things and it's worse than MC spam in 40k.
juraigamer wrote: Another thing, why is there no point limit requirement for colossal? I see 25 and 35 point lists with these damn things and it's worse than MC spam in 40k.
Any army that brings a colossal at 25 points is going to be hurting in other aspects
If you don't bring it any support it will easily die to things that kill heavies, and its very likely that the enemy will only trade half as much points as you spent on your big guy
It really isn't. If your list can't crack a gargossal in a turn, or ignore it some how, you are not prepared for heavy armor in general. Whether it is whittling it down before sending in a heavy hitter to split it open, putting 20 points of heavies into it, or just debuffing it to the point it is barely functional, if you can't break that, anyone with 20 points of heavy armor is well beyond you as well.
There's a reason you only see two gargossal focused lists at tournaments; eHaley Stormwall and Bart with Battened+Spiney Growthed Galleon are the only two that make the colossal really better than 20 points of heavies. Arguably the Stormwall is just better than anything in Cygnar, but most other factions have to think really hard before putting 20 points into one model with severe movement limitations.
juraigamer wrote: Another thing, why is there no point limit requirement for colossal? I see 25 and 35 point lists with these damn things and it's worse than MC spam in 40k.
I can take down a colassal with 2 crusader jacks. 12 points vs 20. The only colossal that that is a problem for is Stormwall because of disruption, but then that means jack against hordes. In that case I take a bronzeback and nuke it solo with fury to spare. Battle engines and colossals are cool, but very restrained in their balance.
I can wreck a colossal pretty easily with a couple 6 point jacks. And seriously cripple it with only 1.
Colossals at low points are skew lists. Either you can deal with them or you can't, and its about 50/50 between those two extremes.
eFeora and a couple Crusaders will make any Colossal beg for mercy. Sure it will take all her Focus for one turn(5 for the jacks, 1 for upkeeping Escort) but it will take out the bulk of the enemy army and is worth it.
Its silly easy to bone a colossal at low points without even sacrificing anything major.
That is assuming you get the jump on the collosal. On the flip side, that collosal could pretty easily wipe out your battle group by itself which would basically win it the game. But that's how it is at low points, whoever gets the first big charge has a big advantage.
KingKodo wrote: That is assuming you get the jump on the collosal. On the flip side, that collosal could pretty easily wipe out your battle group by itself which would basically win it the game. But that's how it is at low points, whoever gets the first big charge has a big advantage.
Well that depends how low you get. At low enough points a sole warcaster can kill a huge chunk of an army. All by himself. With his two machine guns.
dementedwombat wrote: Just saying, you guys are seriously making me feel bad about wanting to buy the Prime Axiom...such an amazing looking model.
How come? Some people say they don't like running into colossals at low levels. If they play a warmachine army that can take Gorman they have a 2 point solo that can, as long as the enemy don't have ATGM/other stealth ignoring ranged units in the right place/lucky AOE deviations/a feat like Harby's, neuter that colossal for a round or two. God I love Gorman.
KingKodo wrote: That is assuming you get the jump on the collosal. On the flip side, that collosal could pretty easily wipe out your battle group by itself which would basically win it the game. But that's how it is at low points, whoever gets the first big charge has a big advantage.
Only with really bad positioning on the part of the non-colossal player. That colossal has to be able to get within 2" of 2-3 jacks and then roll really well to get enough hits to wreck them. Even a relatively fragile Cygnar jack can soak 1-2 hits from a Pow 12 colossal. A colossal would have to be really lucky on dice to drop even 2 undamaged jacks.
What really happens is that there are some screening infantry between the colossal and what is coming to scrap it. If the colossal has some buddies to shoot those infantry out of the way, it might get the charge into one jack and probably kill it with it's 4 attacks. Then the 2 remaining jacks cripple the colossal, or kill it out right. If they just cripple, the next turn one jack gets smashed, then his friend avenges him.
And god help you if you are facing Hordes... a good heavy beast will out threat almost every gargossal, and can usually come close to one rounding any colossal short of the Conquest. His friend will definitely finish the job if he doesn't.
Colossals don't hit much harder than regular heavy warjacks. 1-2 more damage points at best and their armor is no better.
If anything, a Colossal is less threatening because it can't put any more attacks than an equivalent heavy with only a slight increase in quality. And that huge base is quite cumbersome.
With only a few infantry models I can totally prevent a colossal from getting where it wants to go. Sure, it CAN trample, but it still has to find an empty place to put its base at the end. That's a pretty tall order. Meanwhile all my heavies can easily charge through the gaps in my infantry and converge on the colossal to wreck it. Heck, heavy infantry can bring a colossal down. I disabled a Kraken with only a half dozen Errants and 3 pissed off KE.
I'll never have my heavies close enough together for a huge base to get all of them together.
dementedwombat wrote: Just saying, you guys are seriously making me feel bad about wanting to buy the Prime Axiom...such an amazing looking model.
How come? Some people say they don't like running into colossals at low levels. If they play a warmachine army that can take Gorman they have a 2 point solo that can, as long as the enemy don't have ATGM/other stealth ignoring ranged units in the right place/lucky AOE deviations/a feat like Harby's, neuter that colossal for a round or two. God I love Gorman.
Because I can't justify the price tag since apparently colossals aren't worth taking over an equivalent points value of heavy jacks
That said puncture and tow...someday I'll get to live the dream and a caster/lock is flying into the arms of my forces by air mail.
EDIT: I wrote tow, it really should be drag. Wrong rule name. Don't want to cause confusion.
dementedwombat wrote: Just saying, you guys are seriously making me feel bad about wanting to buy the Prime Axiom...such an amazing looking model.
How come? Some people say they don't like running into colossals at low levels. If they play a warmachine army that can take Gorman they have a 2 point solo that can, as long as the enemy don't have ATGM/other stealth ignoring ranged units in the right place/lucky AOE deviations/a feat like Harby's, neuter that colossal for a round or two. God I love Gorman.
Because I can't justify the price tag since apparently colossals aren't worth taking over an equivalent points value of heavy jacks
That said puncture and tow...someday I'll get to live the dream and a caster/lock is flying into the arms of my forces by air mail.
Well that is true, they can be killed, but so can everything else. And its a colossal, not a gargantuan, so right there you have one positive
KingKodo wrote: That is assuming you get the jump on the collosal. On the flip side, that collosal could pretty easily wipe out your battle group by itself which would basically win it the game. But that's how it is at low points, whoever gets the first big charge has a big advantage.
pMorg+beast handlers+gladiator+Bronzeback=ICBM or as close to one as you get in this game. And since that's only 13 points, it leaves you room for a mortithurge willbreaker for an extra free swing in case the corpse wasn't mangled enough.
dementedwombat wrote: Because I can't justify the price tag since apparently colossals aren't worth taking over an equivalent points value of heavy jacks
I think the point is, Colossals don't necessarily replace heavy jacks in low-point games. Colossals have a more meaningful place in larger games.
Colossals are like any skew in low point games, it's just not likely any given list is going to account for it. Seriously, bringing something like 25 AD infantry models is going to be just a regenerate. Low points games are just weird.
Which brings me back to one of my core problems with the game.
The damage is too damn high. What good is a system with damage boxes and tactical combat when you just crush a model/unit in one turn? There is great promise if the game came down to more than just one turn of "this better work" instead it's all about an alpha strike.
That being said, in terms of army balance there are other issues. From what I've seen of tournament lists, it's pretty much always the same things. The games internal faction and external balance needs to be refined.
But then you get models that can survive almost anything. Kill an Arcane Shielded Centurion on pStryker's feat turn with one model. P+S 20s are swinging at dice minus 9. Even Siege's Feat only drops it to 20, or maybe to 16 (I'm not 100%, would AS and feat be added before or after the halving?) for one hit. Armour piercing drops it to one of those as well. It is pretty hefty.
Which brings me back to one of my core problems with the game.
The damage is too damn high. What good is a system with damage boxes and tactical combat when you just crush a model/unit in one turn? There is great promise if the game came down to more than just one turn of "this better work" instead it's all about an alpha strike.
That being said, in terms of army balance there are other issues. From what I've seen of tournament lists, it's pretty much always the same things. The games internal faction and external balance needs to be refined.
I see your point on this aspect, Everyone can kill in 1 turn. I think tho the way to fix this would be to remove 'buying attacks'
Most things can only 1 shot after buying a ton of attacks. If you want to house rule this to try it out...
I never actually thought about stopping people from buying more attacks, this actually makes sense. If the MK III ruleset removes that ability and does something to keep weapon master infantry from being the next best thing, we might have a great game.
So you basically just made Jacks and Beasts pointless.
Their entire point is that they are the one thing that can buy extra attacks besides the Warnoun.
I do think Fury is a tad too powerful, but not enough to break the game. Make Frenzy more of a downside.
Jacks are just right. At most a regular Jack(that doesn't have a special rule like Deathjack or the Avatar) can have 3 Focus. Which is either a charge and 2 additional attacks or 3 additional attacks and no charge.
Maybe change frenzy so that the fury doesn't go away. So you're beast will continue to be out of control until you suck the Fury off with your Warlock, which may cramp your ability to manage your other beasts.
motyak wrote: But then you get models that can survive almost anything. Kill an Arcane Shielded Centurion on pStryker's feat turn with one model. P+S 20s are swinging at dice minus 9. Even Siege's Feat only drops it to 20, or maybe to 16 (I'm not 100%, would AS and feat be added before or after the halving?) for one hit. Armour piercing drops it to one of those as well. It is pretty hefty.
I recommend not trying to kill it that turn. Instead try any (or all) debuffs that you have avialable to you, blinding, throwing, disrupting, freezing, knocking down and arm locking it are a just the tip of the iceberg for methods of ignoring it for a turn.
It wouldn't be much of a Feat if you could just kill things under it anyway.
Why would I want to kill him? I'm running the centurion in this scenario But yeah, he's slow and what not so you can just ignore/work around him for a turn and try and hit something else, but I was trying to point out that not everything can be one rounded easily.
Their entire point is that they are the one thing that can buy extra attacks besides the Warnoun.
I do think Fury is a tad too powerful, but not enough to break the game. Make Frenzy more of a downside.
Jacks are just right. At most a regular Jack(that doesn't have a special rule like Deathjack or the Avatar) can have 3 Focus. Which is either a charge and 2 additional attacks or 3 additional attacks and no charge.
Maybe change frenzy so that the fury doesn't go away. So you're beast will continue to be out of control until you suck the Fury off with your Warlock, which may cramp your ability to manage your other beasts.
Hardly pointless, You can still boost attacks. Tho this rule would heavily skew towards Jacks and Beasts that have more additional initial attacks.
I suppose it would require additional fine tuning to REALLY house rule for everything to survive longer
Probably would also need to remove the boosted damage on charges
What if the only way to get boosted damage was from charging? I know there are some spells and feats that do the same thing, but ignoring those, wouldn't the game get more tactical? Focusing on power attacks and positioning even more?
juraigamer wrote: What if the only way to get boosted damage was from charging? I know there are some spells and feats that do the same thing, but ignoring those, wouldn't the game get more tactical? Focusing on power attacks and positioning even more?
This called an infantry list. Play a dudeswarm some time.
Seriously though boosting damage is almost always grossly inefficient on 'Jacks/Beasts. You get more damage output out of buying more attacks. Just because anything in the game *can* get one rounded, doesn't it mean it will every time by every piece. The issue is it sounds like you want every game to run like two Attrition lists getting stuck into each other. That provides a less interesting game with more limited tactical considerations not more.
It sounds like you expect damage boxes to represent something that has some variety of insurance against any threat in the game. They're not really there for that. They how much resources are needed to put a particular target down, and how they hold up to incidental damage from sub-optimal attack vectors, how much risk goes into taking a free strike from a blocker, etc.. etc..
Boxes aren't going to save you from the Bronzeback or 4-focus Avatar with Ignite . However a free strike from Vilmon is going to mean very different things to a Templar vs a Warpwolf Stalker.
Chongara wrote: [boxes represent] how much resources are needed to put a particular target down, and how they hold up to incidental damage from sub-optimal attack vectors, how much risk goes into taking a free strike from a blocker, etc.. etc..
What? Boxes don't represent resources need to kill, boxes are just hit points, which don't matter when one jack or beast goes all out vs one jack/beast. The first strike(s) are the most important, they often negate the need for a second (round).
I'm not entirely sure where people are getting the idea that one-rounding things happens too often.
Hell, take a Juggernaut on a Juggernaut- 4 pow 19's vs arm 20 comes out to ~24 damage. That's well below the amount one would need to actually kill the Jug (34). This is actually the case for the majority of things- you often need a hair more 'force' to push things over the edge, either in the form of some buff or additional input from another source.
And therein is a significant bit of strategy. How do you deny some portion of the opponent's force from reaching your high-value targets, putting them out of range for being killed? This is why chaff/jamming infantry is so incredibly important, something that hasn't really been mentioned in this discussion. The proper use of jamming infantry and screening is pivotal, simply because the damage is so high. You need to prevent your opponent from leveraging all their force against you.
Besides even all /that/, that doesn't even speak to balance, it speaks to the style of the game. When I look at tournament standings, I tend to see a pretty healthy mix of factions at the top. Sure, it's pretty rare to see minions or mercs or ret in those positions, but that's (unfortunately) to be expected due to their more limited selections. While there's certainly some factions that appear higher more often (coughcryxcough), I'm never /surprised/ to see something like Trollbloods top 8.
Hell, the ease with which everything is killed is probably one of the reasons the game /is/ balanced. If everything had to go out into some grindy, attrition-y thing, then even small balance problems would show through /much/ more easily.
BoardroomHero wrote: Sure, it's pretty rare to see minions or mercs or ret in those positions, but that's (unfortunately) to be expected due to their more limited selections.
For two of those(Mercs and Minions) it's less about limited selections and more about them needing to be balanced not just in Faction, but across EVERY Faction that can take them.
Hell, for Blindwater, even if there were more options, you'd most likely still see dual or triple Posses regularly cause they're just that good.
juraigamer wrote: What if the only way to get boosted damage was from charging? I know there are some spells and feats that do the same thing, but ignoring those, wouldn't the game get more tactical? Focusing on power attacks and positioning even more?
You mean, so that you can truly build certain armour models such that the only way to kill them is to bring specific models? Boosting and extra attacks exist in order to give you the tools to mitigate rock paper scissor situations. If you only bring rock and scissor you can boost a scissor to become a paper so to speak. Or put in game terms, if you forgot or were unable to bring armour piercing then your mandatory 'jack can still kill your opponent's heavy jack - or that if you didn't bring spray attacks your jack can still kill a fair number of Winter Guard.
The slow pace and the high survivability of certain models, in close combat especially, is one of the things in Warhammer 40k that makes that system so bad (if we ignore the poor implementation).
Try to focus on the objective of each game instead. Why do you want to kill the 'jack? Is it because you're playing a kill point game (in which case you are doing it wrong) or is it because it's standing on an objective marker or in the way of the enemy caster? Remember that the Warbeasts and Warjacks are simply resources you use in order to secure victory. Taking one round or three rounds to kill it isn't going to make a difference except test your significant other's patience when the game gets into it's fourth hour. It's all about the resources needed to kill a warnoun. Does it take one beast to kill it? Did it need to be forced? Did it need the action of a supporting model to accomplish it? How much of my opponent's army did it force to dedicate in the action? Will I be able to capitalize on the situation by killing more models of his next turn or did this put me in a strategically more advantageous situation?
I don't know, it feels like you're essentially complaining about how a pawn in chess shouldn't be able to kill a hostile pawn in just one move.
NOTE - This is not suggestions to make the official game different
This is suggestion to make everything survive more
My two best suggestions so far is that
1 - No buying attacks
2 - Charging does NOT give you an additional die on damage
and Yes, this means that the balance of everything would drastically shift,
Would it make for an interesting game? Perhaps...
Would the game be longer? Very likely...
Would the game be unplayable? Doubtful
Find a friend and try it out for a game or two, You might just enjoy it
Ok the thing with one hit point weapon master infantry is that they are all pretty much glass cannons. My full unit of forgeguard that I own, even with higher than average armor for infantry, they still can die very quickly. Taking away damage output from them would mean they would stay in the case. No seriously why take them if the damage output went down?
Don't look at Warmarchine from a 40k prespecitve. 40k has horrible balance and units/models that are basically invincible (unit of tzeench daemons with grimwar and forewarning for 2++ re-roll able or sear councils with fortune). I mean I remember watching games of 40k with a Iron armed TMC that basically won the game by themselves or watched a single helldrake lol an entire army or any game with the swarmlord vs. chaos daemons. The fact that any unit can die if you put enough resources towards it is a good thing in warmachine. The worst feeling in any game is when no matter what you throw at something you don't do anything.
Damage output in warmachine is just fine, big expensive warbeasts and jacks hit like trucks but that is the point and the reason that they are taken. Besides if you make it that a fully buffed bronze back can't wreck something in one turn you do realize that other heavies such as the cannoneer wouldn't be doing jack damage to something.
Edit: As far as alpha strike being important, it is very important in warmachine, well until you realize that the game gives you plenty of tricks to mess with that. Spells like inhospitable ground, or phaley temporal barrier can take that ability right away. Covering fire from my cyclone keeps banes away from my units. Using terrain to your advantage can also limit your opponents alpha strike. So yea plenty of ways to deny your opponent that easy charge.
Edit:
NOTE - This is not suggestions to make the official game different
This is suggestion to make everything survive more
My two best suggestions so far is that
1 - No buying attacks
2 - Charging does NOT give you an additional die on damage
and Yes, this means that the balance of everything would drastically shift,
Would it make for an interesting game? Perhaps...
Would the game be longer? Very likely...
Would the game be unplayable? Doubtful
Find a friend and try it out for a game or two, You might just enjoy it
I don't have to try it, I have played enough warmachine know that is not a good idea. A few things: A) that does not make everything survive more that makes jacks/warbeasts survive more. A lot of models like arcane tempest gun mages depend on high defense to survive and will still die in one hit even without the bonus die for charge damage. Also most times when a jack is fighting gun mages 9 times out of 10 you are boosting to hit because of the high defense anyway. Most infantry have one hit point and only decent arm so they will be just as vulnerable as before. Medium base infantry or shield wall infantry stand a better chance but they still die generally in one hit to heavies. B) You also made the game more rock paper scissors which is bad. One unit I use a lot press gangers now is rather useless towards anything with a damage grid or spiral. Before I could at least in a pinch charge them in verses a heavy to try take it out, without the charge bonus they don't have much chance at all. Now press gangers aren't good normally against jacks anyway but at least I can do something on the charge, that makes them less of rock/paper/scissors unit. C) Not every faction is jack/warbeast heavy. I play both mercs and cygnar, they can pull off large battle groups but they generally work better with infantry. Melee infantry with your changes will have serious issues killing anything with a grid or spiral. This will hurt infantry heavy armies. D) Also a lot of times people buy attacks after preforming combat maneuvers with heavies, such as trample. You trample through the infantry that you are in combat with up to what you actually want to kill and then start buying attacks. So trample, slam and other maneuvers would probably be used even less.
So yea you would make the game even more rock paper scissors. Which is NOT an improvement.
Which brings me back to one of my core problems with the game.
The damage is too damn high. What good is a system with damage boxes and tactical combat when you just crush a model/unit in one turn? There is great promise if the game came down to more than just one turn of "this better work" instead it's all about an alpha strike.
That being said, in terms of army balance there are other issues. From what I've seen of tournament lists, it's pretty much always the same things. The games internal faction and external balance needs to be refined.
I've seen huge variety in tournament lists, actually.
Regarding damage being too high - no. It's a feature, not a bug. High damage output means you can go out and kill stuff. It's a huge weakness in 40k that the ability to survive is is much greater than the ability to kill. You need to hit, wound, roll armour saves, fnp also and various other tricks. It means out of every hundred shots, very little killing is done. 50 space marines with bolsters actually accomplish very little, when you think about it. This excessive survival ratio means most your basic guys with basic guns are worthless. 40k boils down to the guy with the meltagun and power fist, everything else is nothing more than an ablative wound. In warmachine, that basic nook with a rifle is a viable and effective piece. He can play a vital role and reliably be aggressive. He can win you games, and he can reliably kill stuff, that is a good thing.
Regarding your issues with units being able to kill anything on a charge, maybe you should expand your tactical knowledge of the game, by playing and using denial tools, infantry tarpits, charge lane blocking, and jamming? Learn to use to full breath of options in the game instead of blaming the game, and then asking for the game to change because of what seems to be a bit of a refusal to step up and learn effective counters. With respect, what your doing is unsporting.
juraigamer wrote: I never actually thought about stopping people from buying more attacks, this actually makes sense. If the MK III ruleset removes that ability and does something to keep weapon master infantry from being the next best thing, we might have a great game.
So change the game before changing tactics. Because it must be the game that's wrong? No offense mate, but we already have a 'great' game here. It's solidly built, ans extremely well balanced. No extra attacks, and no extra damage dice for weapon masters won't so somehow make the game better. It won't add anything. Infantry will still be shredded (that won't change) and the rest will just be boring dice rolling where you roll a load of dice and nothing really happens. Warmachine is about over the top carnage, beating the scrap out of your opponent, and applying brutal. overwhelming force, not nickel-and-diming them.
Talamare wrote:
I see your point on this aspect, Everyone can kill in 1 turn. I think tho the way to fix this would be to remove 'buying attacks'
Most things can only 1 shot after buying a ton of attacks. If you want to house rule this to try it out...
Nope - you just skew the game, you don't improve it. All this will do is invalidate beasts and jacks, and put even more emphasis on dudeswarm and weapon master infantry.
Everything can be killed in one turn? Well then stop it getting the drop on you, or stop it getting there in the first place. Solved.
I don't have to try it, I have played enough warmachine know that is not a good idea. A few things: A) that does not make everything survive more that makes jacks/warbeasts survive more. A lot of models like arcane tempest gun mages depend on high defense to survive and will still die in one hit even without the bonus die for charge damage. Also most times when a jack is fighting gun mages 9 times out of 10 you are boosting to hit because of the high defense anyway. Most infantry have one hit point and only decent arm so they will be just as vulnerable as before. Medium base infantry or shield wall infantry stand a better chance but they still die generally in one hit to heavies. B) You also made the game more rock paper scissors which is bad. One unit I use a lot press gangers now is rather useless towards anything with a damage grid or spiral. Before I could at least in a pinch charge them in verses a heavy to try take it out, without the charge bonus they don't have much chance at all. Now press gangers aren't good normally against jacks anyway but at least I can do something on the charge, that makes them less of rock/paper/scissors unit. C) Not every faction is jack/warbeast heavy. I play both mercs and cygnar, they can pull off large battle groups but they generally work better with infantry. Melee infantry with your changes will have serious issues killing anything with a grid or spiral. This will hurt infantry heavy armies. D) Also a lot of times people buy attacks after preforming combat maneuvers with heavies, such as trample. You trample through the infantry that you are in combat with up to what you actually want to kill and then start buying attacks. So trample, slam and other maneuvers would probably be used even less.
So yea you would make the game even more rock paper scissors. Which is NOT an improvement.
"I dont need to try it, I KNOW ALL AND KNOW ALL WILL FAIL"
"MY UNIT WON'T WORK AS WELL, SO I REFUSE TO THINK OF OTHER WAYS TO PLAY"
etc etc
If you want to keep being closed mind it, Go for it.
If you want to just have a joke game or two with a friend, its up to you
"I dont need to try it, I KNOW ALL AND KNOW ALL WILL FAIL"
"MY UNIT WON'T WORK AS WELL, SO I REFUSE TO THINK OF OTHER WAYS TO PLAY"
etc etc
If you want to keep being closed mind it, Go for it.
If you want to just have a joke game or two with a friend, its up to you
Meh, I said my 2 cents. If you are going to suggest trying fundamental changes like that and then just say those that criticize are closed minded that is your problem.
*Warning* Turn away if you don't have a sense of humor..
To anyone complaining about this being not balanced, either does not have the necessary unit's or figures to make themselves more powerful or needs to refer to page 5.. LMAO Remember this is a joke.. We are fighting about miniatures and rules for said miniatures for goodness sake..
I actually love this ruleset. I have played since MK1 and if you want to talk about unbalanced.. Lets talk about that set of rules.. Granted certain things put out crazy damage, try not to be in its way.. Find a counter to it.. In this game there is a counter to everything that is powerful, just takes some ingenuity and dedication to find it.. But it is there..
Agreed with the content of his post---and I also agree with his post.
Sure, there are piece trades present in WM--at least at the start/midlevel of the game. As you progress in the game, you begin to learn how to mitigate those piece trades---or make those piece trades appear to be favorable to the opponent while really wanting to bait them into initiating.
For example, yeah I can make my Stalker in my eKaya list pretty much capable of dropping any heavy in the game if I invest enough support and Warlock Fury into it. Primal, Forced Evolution, Warp Strength. Of course, this takes 2 Fury from a support Gorax, a spell spent from my Warlock and exposure of a 10 pt beast--which I really hope doesn't roll a double 1 for a hit or miff some damage rolls--else I invested all of that energy and threw away my heavy. Or oops, I forgot about Enliven on the Menoth heavy and make sad face as he walks away. Or, even if he doesn't, I drop his 8 pt Reckoner into the dirt--and hope (If I have enough Fury left to Sprint)--that he can't get his second Menoth heavy into me after he washes his focus with Choir--as the Menoth player will swap 8 pt heavies for my Stalker all day.
This also assumes you can get your Stalker into the Reckoner that isn't being shielded by self sac, tough Errants (or Enliven)---and my opponent is unaware of how hard/fast I can push my Stalker.
Using another example (infantry), when you first start playing and...perhaps...are used to another game...your first inclination will be unit swapping entire units. Well, I charge this big unit into his big unit because they can all get there and kill those front 5 guys dead--now he smashes the rest of his front unit into what's tying him up---now our second units go. After you play a bit, you find yourself starting to even swap individual models from intertwined units into each other--more carefully committing units rather than just trying to roll buckets of dice.
And I don't mean any of this in an offensive way. I played 40k for "years" and I still find myself wanting to the do the before mentioned--then getting my head to switch more into WM mode.
Meh, I said my 2 cents. If you are going to suggest trying fundamental changes like that and then just say those that criticize are closed minded that is your problem.
I don't have to try it, I have played enough warmachine know that is not a good idea. A few things: A) that does not make everything survive more that makes jacks/warbeasts survive more. A lot of models like arcane tempest gun mages depend on high defense to survive and will still die in one hit even without the bonus die for charge damage. Also most times when a jack is fighting gun mages 9 times out of 10 you are boosting to hit because of the high defense anyway. Most infantry have one hit point and only decent arm so they will be just as vulnerable as before. Medium base infantry or shield wall infantry stand a better chance but they still die generally in one hit to heavies. B) You also made the game more rock paper scissors which is bad. One unit I use a lot press gangers now is rather useless towards anything with a damage grid or spiral. Before I could at least in a pinch charge them in verses a heavy to try take it out, without the charge bonus they don't have much chance at all. Now press gangers aren't good normally against jacks anyway but at least I can do something on the charge, that makes them less of rock/paper/scissors unit. C) Not every faction is jack/warbeast heavy. I play both mercs and cygnar, they can pull off large battle groups but they generally work better with infantry. Melee infantry with your changes will have serious issues killing anything with a grid or spiral. This will hurt infantry heavy armies. D) Also a lot of times people buy attacks after preforming combat maneuvers with heavies, such as trample. You trample through the infantry that you are in combat with up to what you actually want to kill and then start buying attacks. So trample, slam and other maneuvers would probably be used even less.
So yea you would make the game even more rock paper scissors. Which is NOT an improvement.
A - 1 HP Infantry with Low Armor that rely on Defense won't see any real changes... Correct... Irrelevant... (Edit- and Honestly they don't need any changes, they are already considered the most "survivable" infantry type, Edit2 Outside of Tough abuse)
A2 - 1 HP Infantry with High Armor or Medium Armor with 8 HP... WILL be able to survive much longer, which is already an improvement. Considering these types of infantry now are often no different in survivability than their lower arm cousins
B - The game has been based on counters ever since the beginning, relying on having tools that work better in situations makes the game BETTER. Ubiquitous "WIN" units are bad, which is also why most of us quit 40k B2 - "My extremely low Pow unit will no longer be able to hurt heavies, and that makes your suggestion bad"
C - No, Melee infantry designed to kill infantry will have a difficult time killing heavies. Melee infantry designed to kill heavies won't be hurt at all...
D - Agreed, The idea is to also make those power attacks more popular. So we would need to improve the overall suggestion in a way that would promote power attacks
Talamare wrote: If you want to just have a joke game or two with a friend, its up to you
The key words here are "joke game". You are talking about a "joke game" and want people to take it seriously?
@ Juraigamer: You may not like the Chess comparison, but it is very apt. The piece trade is very similar. In both games you offer up your pieces in order to put the enemy in a worse position. Both games are very much about move/countermove. The game is designed with offense in mind to keep things aggressive, fast and tactical. Also in both games the King/warcaster being lost causes you to lose the game. All pieces in both games tend to have various power levels, but all are useful. The number of parallels you can draw between the two is enormous. I played 40k for about 15 years. I've played chess since middle school. and when I switched to warmachine I found that thinking like a chess player was more helpful in a lot more ways than thinking as a 40k player.
Increasing defensive stats and/or reducing offensive ones will just make a relatively boring game where you go back and forth battering your head on a wall and/or roll buckets of dice. 40K is actually much more reliant on good/bad dice rolls than Warmachine. In Warmachine the dice are set up to reward good stats as your rolls average out much more. Also Warmachine rewards tactics and knowledge of the game much more as you have to rely on these things instead of buckets o' dice.
All that said, there are still ways to play the hard to kill game in Warmachine. Terminus is probably the ultimate example. Wintergaurd deathstar is another. And it can also be done multiple ways thru bringing units back, maxing ARM, maxing DEF, using clouds or other things to make you harder to kill. But OTOH everything you can bring can also be countered. Both of those have hard coutners in the game that make their defenses all for naught.
A - 1 HP Infantry with Low Armor that rely on Defense won't see any real changes... Correct... Irrelevant... (Edit- and Honestly they don't need any changes, they are already considered the most "survivable" infantry type, Edit2 Outside of Tough abuse)
A2 - 1 HP Infantry with High Armor or Medium Armor with 8 HP... WILL be able to survive much longer, which is already an improvement. Considering these types of infantry now are often no different in survivability than their lower arm cousins
B - The game has been based on counters ever since the beginning, relying on having tools that work better in situations makes the game BETTER. Ubiquitous "WIN" units are bad, which is also why most of us quit 40k B2 - "My extremely low Pow unit will no longer be able to hurt heavies, and that makes your suggestion bad"
C - No, Melee infantry designed to kill infantry will have a difficult time killing heavies. Melee infantry designed to kill heavies won't be hurt at all...
D - Agreed, The idea is to also make those power attacks more popular. So we would need to improve the overall suggestion in a way that would promote power attacks
A: What game are you playing? Between chain lightning, storm pods, stormsmiths, gunmages with deadeye I cut straight through high defense infantry. Most survivable infantry type? Please. That is just cygnar too, and other factions have pop and drop (pKreoss anyone), ash to ashes, blast damage, electroleap type effects, slams, throws, etc. Plenty of effects deal with high defense. Only infantry that I see reliably survive until the end of the game are the medium base kind, such as Man-O-War Shock-troopers.
A2: What you mean shield walled 1 hp models? Given what you pay for them their durability shouldn't go up. Remember that a full unit of these guys are still cheaper than most heavies. For what you pay for them they are just fine.
The 8 hit point infantry are basically one weight class smaller than light warjacks. So yea they die horribly to heavies and high damage units like doom reavers and troll champions but so do light warjacks.
B: Based on counters yes, but I did say that press gangers are not good at fighting jacks. My point is that at least they could potentially try to hurt a jack if the situation absolutely called for it. On the charge they can put a dent in a warjack, probably not kill it but maybe help another model lets say my heavy to finish it off, or finish off the enemy jack after my heavy went to town. With the no more boosted charge damage they can't even do that.
To use a different example it would be like if the black 13th didn't have brutal damage as an attack type (just didn't exist) I probably wouldn't field them in my TAC list. Why? because if I go against gators for example (which are really popular I have found) I won't be doing much damage at all to all those medium base infantry and warbeasts. Or at least not enough to warrant spending the pts on them.
B2: Yes that means that press gangers are much more a rock paper scissors unit, please explain why you think that is good thing.
C: "No, Melee infantry designed to kill infantry will have a difficult time killing heavies. Melee infantry designed to kill heavies won't be hurt at all..." YES THEY WILL. Getting the charge against heavies IS how units like forge guard get the job done vs. jacks. Even if I don't kill you on the charge I will at least maybe cripple an arm or cortex and make that jack far less useful and then finish you off next turn. Any melee infantry that want to drop that jack fast need that charge bonus to do it otherwise you will lose a good chunk of those infantry, since any hit on those from the heavy WILL squash them.
D: Then you have a strange way of going about it then. Most times people don't use those power attacks because a lot of times just charging in and getting your initials and extra attacks from focus/fury is just better. Making it so you can't attack period if you weapon lock will probably make me less likely to do that over just attacking.
D: Then you have a strange way of going about it then. Most times people don't use those power attacks because a lot of times just charging in and getting your initials and extra attacks from focus/fury is just better. Making it so you can't attack period if you weapon lock will probably make me less likely to do that over just attacking.
In general people use less power attacks because they are often not needed, Why get clever and fancy attempting to disable when buying more attacks and just pounding them will remove them completely
One potential solution would be that power attacks are no longer a choice between initials or power attacks
Talamare wrote: NOTE - This is not suggestions to make the official game different
This is suggestion to make everything survive more
My two best suggestions so far is that
1 - No buying attacks
2 - Charging does NOT give you an additional die on damage
and Yes, this means that the balance of everything would drastically shift,
Would it make for an interesting game? Perhaps...
Would the game be longer? Very likely...
Would the game be unplayable? Doubtful
Find a friend and try it out for a game or two, You might just enjoy it
The biggest problem with your ideas is the amount it would exponentially slow down the game. Charges doing more damage make charging worthwhile (past the extra threat range), particularly when with some models it's a commodity you have to pay for. Not being able to buy attacks would just really, really make the game take a lot longer.
The biggest problem with your ideas is the amount it would exponentially slow down the game. Charges doing more damage make charging worthwhile (past the extra threat range), particularly when with some models it's a commodity you have to pay for. Not being able to buy attacks would just really, really make the game take a lot longer.
Indeed it would, but that was also the requested effect
The biggest problem with your ideas is the amount it would exponentially slow down the game. Charges doing more damage make charging worthwhile (past the extra threat range), particularly when with some models it's a commodity you have to pay for. Not being able to buy attacks would just really, really make the game take a lot longer.
Indeed it would, but that was also the requested effect
juraigamer wrote: Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.
I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.
You can say the game is over in one turn all you want, that doesn't actually make it correct. The fact that screening and the like is so important alone is enough to refute that claim.
I don't know how long you've been playing, or how often you play, but I can assure you there's a lot of depth that you're missing.
juraigamer wrote: Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.
I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.
Ok, there's not much I can say to you and Talamare to prove the fairly good balance of the game and that it does involve tactics. I, like the others in this thread, could go "this means that and if this happens yada, yada, yada". That ain't working.
I am a fairly good player. Since the beginning of the year (when I started using Iron Grudge) I've won 70% of my tournament games. I am in the top 20 players in the UK, according to Rankings HQ. I try to examine my games and learn from each one by writing a blog. I don't say this to brag but to help understand where I am writing this from.
What I want to do is go over some of the latest tournament games I've played and if I won due to tactics and maneuvers or gimmic stacks as you put it.
Game 1: I won because I pushed forwards onto a scenario flag. I used one of my units to hold up the enemy in one area and clear out a unit nearby. This allowed me to get Asphyxious3 up the board in safety and score control points.
Game 2: My opponent protected his melee unit behind a wall. Unfortunately they didn't have pathfinder so I placed my models around seven inches from them. This meant he either had to run into my troops and not attack or run somewhere else on the board easily giving me board position and the scenario.
Game 3: I gave the Haley2 player too much space in front of his models. He could then shoot me with impunity and use his sword knights to ensure Haley was safe from any of my stuff getting nearby. I lost because I didn't place things in the right position.
Game 4: By placing a raider captain in the centre of the board, safely behind an objective Kreoss1's feat couldn't wipe out my units.
Now these are little snippets of the games and you are welcome to read more, but if you are not playing scenarios, especially steamroller ones, then tactics and maneuvers are not going to happen in your games. Listen to episode 114 of Muse on Minis and they'll chat about how important placing of models can be.
Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me
I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.
Talamare wrote:Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me
I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.
I thought it was a little odd coming from you.
juraigamer wrote:Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.
I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.
In the beginning, feats can seem overwhelming, ESPECIALLY those from the starter set. Sorcha and Kreoss basically turn the enemy army into a ragdoll for a turn. The more I played though, the less I've relied on my feats in general for actual game impact and instead using the mere threat of certain feats to cause gameplay changes in my opponent.
As for the similarity of caster choice, I haven't really experienced that too much, but there are certain characters that are very attractive gameplay or story wise that draw people to them. In general terms though, most casters still see the field on a regular basis. I can't name a specific character that truly outshines all the others and must be used at all costs.
I have no idea why things dying too fast is a complaint. This is war/battle, things die. Especially if you leave them in vulnerable places. Learn not to do that next time.
juraigamer wrote: Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.
I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.
Ok, there's not much I can say to you and Talamare to prove the fairly good balance of the game and that it does involve tactics. I, like the others in this thread, could go "this means that and if this happens yada, yada, yada". That ain't working.
I am a fairly good player. Since the beginning of the year (when I started using Iron Grudge) I've won 70% of my tournament games. I am in the top 20 players in the UK, according to Rankings HQ. I try to examine my games and learn from each one by writing a blog. I don't say this to brag but to help understand where I am writing this from.
What I want to do is go over some of the latest tournament games I've played and if I won due to tactics and maneuvers or gimmic stacks as you put it.
Game 1: I won because I pushed forwards onto a scenario flag. I used one of my units to hold up the enemy in one area and clear out a unit nearby. This allowed me to get Asphyxious3 up the board in safety and score control points.
Game 2: My opponent protected his melee unit behind a wall. Unfortunately they didn't have pathfinder so I placed my models around seven inches from them. This meant he either had to run into my troops and not attack or run somewhere else on the board easily giving me board position and the scenario.
Game 3: I gave the Haley2 player too much space in front of his models. He could then shoot me with impunity and use his sword knights to ensure Haley was safe from any of my stuff getting nearby. I lost because I didn't place things in the right position.
Game 4: By placing a raider captain in the centre of the board, safely behind an objective Kreoss1's feat couldn't wipe out my units.
Now these are little snippets of the games and you are welcome to read more, but if you are not playing scenarios, especially steamroller ones, then tactics and maneuvers are not going to happen in your games. Listen to episode 114 of Muse on Minis and they'll chat about how important placing of models can be.
Basically this.
Reductive statements can be made about games..
For example:
Soccer is just a game played of waiting until the other side makes a mistake. Until then,
you're just passing the ball.
Football is all about matching the right offense vs. the right defense or vice versa.
juraigamer wrote: Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.
I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.
I concur that maybe 40k seems more like your game, you should stick to it. If after "the scores of games that you've played and seen played" you didn't grasp the importance of tactics and manoeuvres in the game you'll probably never will...
You've also failed to provide any shred of evidence to any one of your absurd claims.
Warmachine is definitely a game of gimmicks, gimmicks that take real forthought and planning to use.
You activate one model or unit out of order and your planned assassination run will fail.
There is an insane amount of tactical depth to pulling off the various schananagins you have available, and its all about exploiting what you have available to the limit. And if you make a mistake your opponent will try to capitalize on it.
Talamare wrote: Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me
I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.
That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.
Talamare wrote: Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me
I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.
It may have been better to have started a new thread. I think people may have been confused since we were discussing balance of the game and it appeared you were trying to suggest ways to "balance" things that did not need to be balanced.
Blood Hawk wrote: That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.
Blood Hawk wrote: That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.
There are rules to damageable structures.
Yes, but since they're not models you can't charge them, which was Blood Hawk's concern.
If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)
dementedwombat wrote: If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)
dementedwombat wrote: If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)
I don't get why he should get a bonus.
I mean, he doesn't defeat the giants.
But Colossals seem to be near the size of windmills, and move about as fast!
dementedwombat wrote: If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)
Talamare wrote: NOTE - This is not suggestions to make the official game different
This is suggestion to make everything survive more
My two best suggestions so far is that
1 - No buying attacks
2 - Charging does NOT give you an additional die on damage
and Yes, this means that the balance of everything would drastically shift,
Would it make for an interesting game? Perhaps...
Would the game be longer? Very likely...
Would the game be unplayable? Doubtful
Find a friend and try it out for a game or two, You might just enjoy it
This might be fun if you balanced it out by making Trample attacks easier to pull off, and possibly gave back the +2 POW bonus on the charge. You would probably have to make spells cost more.
Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.
There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?
juraigamer wrote: Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
The alpha strike can be denied / minimized by the correct positioning of your own units and by tactics. Something that should be readily apparent to anyone that has played and watched "dozens of games" being played.
The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
It doesn't drive the actual cost up much more because multiple armies could mean as little extra expense as buying a different warcaster.
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have.
There are very few spam lists (basically only some tier lists) and they aren't nearly prevalent or powerful enough to warrant any type of change in list building rules just to deal with them. Also powerful pieces already have a built in limited availability mechanic called FA. How can you not know this?
My thoughts are that your personal opinions display a complete lack of understanding of the game and its mechanics and until you at least try to fundament them with actual data they should be ignored.
juraigamer wrote: Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
Well, in my experience, alpha-striking seems a good strategy for early-middle learning curve, whereas beta-strike becomes a favoured tactics for more experienced players. It's not immediatly easy to figure out what you can sacrifice, and in what ways you can do it to maximise your return. The more comfortable you are with a list, the easier it is to see how trading pieces can be used to your advantage. And it's still possible to wiff your rolls. I've had a fully-focused Behemoth charge heavies and fail to take out a single system more times than once.
There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
Well, I think the intent is to both allow and prevent hard-counter lists. Combos can appear dickish, but that's the Page 5 element of things. If you didn't bring a counter to it, figure out a way to defeat it with what you have. If you can't do that, well, that's your list-building and planification problem. 2-lists tourneys allow for one power-combos list and one ''counter-all'' list (or at least 'counter as much as possible').
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?
I'm unsure about how that's different from the current state-of-affairs? Solos are almost always betwen 1-3 points, Light Jacks are almost always between 4-6 points, Heavy Jacks are almost always between 6 -... you get the picture. Every spammy lists open up the hard-counter problem. An infantry lists gets owned by fire based armies or bulldozers, etc. A Jack list gets owned by anything ethereal or high mobility, etc. Personnaly, I'm happy when I see an opponent bringing out some spam to the table. That means they've already done their first tactical mistake, even before the game started.
juraigamer wrote: Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times.
Claiming victim while ignoring evidence. Also shifting burden of proof. VERY bad arguing.
My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
You must hate 40k then. Ranged armies alpha striking from across the board. If you cannot mitigate your opponent's nor establish your own alpha strike that speaks to poor tactics.
Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.
Value is determined by situation, not by whim.
There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
Multiple lists is optional and if you have a list that is anti infantry and one that is anti jacks, you're essentially gambling on what your opponent is bringing. More often it is to optimize or mitigate against certain factions or beasts/jacks that potentially cripple you. YMMV.
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?
There is very little spam. Creating tiers could actually have the opposite effect of what you desire. Example: Why try to pay points get higher when you can make a potentially more effective list for less?
juraigamer wrote: Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.
There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?
So your only argument that it's not balanced is because certain warnouns can do too much damage in one turn? Really? Will dragging the game out longer make it anymore balanced? Like others have said, learn to position your units.
As for faction tiers, WMH used to have it in MK1 iirc, where epic casters could only be played above a certain pointage. As it is, not everyone brings a colossal to the table either and even if they did, they rarely bring more than 1 so I'm not sure what 'spam' you're talking about.
juraigamer wrote: There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
Have you ever played Magic? Just like in Magic the combos are the point. They are working as intended. If they were not then PP would nerf them. They actually expect people to play to the power combos and not play an army full of individual units, etc.
Also, the second list is also very similar to another common magic rule: Sideboards. Your second list can be as simple as replacing the caster and a few other things to being completely different.
As for cost if you are playing in competitive tournies you probably already have all the stuff you need. And probably aren't completely hurting for money either since entering the tournies and going to the cons costs money as well. If you are hurting for money that bad then you probably need to reconsider your budgeting priorities. For people who are looking to keep the cost low you are still able to play the game for fun with your friends. I've built multiple 35 point lists for under $200 MSRP that while they may not be top end tourney lists they are definitely able to hold their own at the LGS. And if you do want to do local tournies at your LGS and keep the points cost low most of those starter tournies tend to be one list or optional second list. And again, you can be more than competitive in this type of setting for under $200.
The idea of not allowing warjacks/warbeasts to buy additional attacks would make them even more useless than they already are. In fact, it would make the game much less balanced as infantry centric factions would gain a massive edge. Big expensive warjacks already get locked in tarpits really easily. imagine how insanely useless they would be if they could only make 2 attacks each turn at most? I could tarpit a 10+ point model for an entire game with 3 points of infantry. I do think that armor values seem sort of less important currently. I mean, compare DEF vs ARM on a winterguard squad. DEF of 12 means most other regular infantry have to roll about average to slightly below average to hit, but those same infantry will likely only need to roll anything other than snake eyes to kill. It does seem like Armor values are kind of useless unless they are insanely high. My Forgeguard have high armor for a front line infantry squad, but alot of other faction's comparable infantry (IFPs, Stormblades etc) will kill them with below average rolls. This kind of stuff literally has nothing to do with balance though. besides, knowing that all of your units are so "mortal" makes the game alot more exciting especially when compared to it's competitors IMHO.
juraigamer wrote: Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.
And lots of ignoring peoples counter points. Don’t confuse sharp elbows with personal attacks either.
Plenty reasons why the game is balanced as well. Look at the tournament results for a start, where you have a very broad level of wins across the factions. Regarding the damage being “too high”, again, I’ll disagree. Its part of the nature of the game. its part of what makes even the lowliest mook a valid piece – a basic guy with a rifle in warmachine is a killing machine, who can and will win you games. It’s what gives them “presence”. Compare them to even the mighty Astartes in 40k. Who armed with boltguns, still do hardly anything. No sir, the low damage output in 40k is due to excessive survival mechanisms (roll to hit, wound, armour saves, FNP etc lead to a huge amount of wastage on the attackers side – most attacks do nothing) lead to nothing more than skew, and an overemphasis on the guy with the power weapon and plasma gun. The game, essentially becomes all about them, and all about the AP3 gun that you can put on the field, and your basic doods are nothing more than wound counters with no “presence” on the field. High damage output means essentially that anything you take is worth taking, as they can accomplish something on the field, meaning more variety on the table top. Low damage output means you leave them at home. Meaning you focus on the handful of models that can accomplish stuff. Variety nil.
Regarding the comment that a tactical skirmish game does not equal table top alphastrike, the fact that you still insist this is what warmachine is all about indicates you don’t understand the game. Warmachine has alphastriking, but it is not a game about alphastriking.
Assuming the alphastrike as the cornerstone of the game is all well and good as you start playing the game, where a lot of folks see the game as this:
P1:Charge and kill stuff!
P2: Counter charge the chargers and kill stuff.
P1: Counter-counter charge the counter-chargers and kill stuff.
As your experience grows, and as you “level up”, you will see this simplistic view honestly isn’t true of things. Positioning, movement, control, denial, attrition, tarpits, assassination, on top of various spells and feats etc all soak up the alphastrike or simply ignore/deny it altogether, and bring a lot more to the game. the alphastrike is nothing more than a tool, and certainly not something that defines the game.
Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.
Why? Their uses are defined by the situation at hand. They’re “options”. Not “complulsions”.
juraigamer wrote: There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
Regarding the cost – what you say is not necessarily true. A lot of units find uses across multiple lists and builds. In Khador, I’ve got spriggans, iron fangs, uhlans and widowmakers for a start, and these I’ll happily put across the board. Cost is not necessarily more. Also, multiple armies allow for more variety on the tabletop (rather than 40k’s one list to rule them all approach) for a start and secondly, allows you to build in some redundancy for when you face a hard counter to your list – that’s the nature of the game – everything can be countered by something, and some of those counters are hard. And so, you have your second list to mitigate that.
A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?
There is very little spam to begin with in this game, so that point is invalid. I genuinely don’t like the idea of tiers outside of theme lists, or the idea of having excessive terms and conditions involved in how I design my army, and what I can take. I also think this breeds in excessive complication in list building. PP’s whole attitude is one of you can bring whatever you like, at whatever points values. You shouldn’t be punished, or forced into a restricted set of builds because you like colossals. Imposing arbitrary limits, terms and conditions just breeds resentment.
Also, I think this idea would lead to a stale meta, and stale list building. If you require a certain amount of x and y to field z, then all lists will look the same pretty fast, if z is even worth taking. You will never see some options because it simply will not be worth it to build to the tier. Why not just spam x and y? Ultimately, its changes for the sake of changes, and if you ask me, it really brings nothing to a table where frankly, a lot of variety already exists, and where everything can already be built into a game winning strategy.
Tbh this thread has persuaded me that Warmahordes is a interesting game to play. It sounds balanced from what I have read here. Asymmetrically balanced but balanced none the less.
Not asymmetrical per-say, its just the gameplay itself lends towards wild swings in the pace of the game.
One turn it may appear that one side has a huge advantage, but then the other player pulls something crazy and suddenly he's the one with the advantage.
The smallest measurement can be the difference between a giant Rube Goldburg machine of actions that ends in a caster kill and a valuable jack or beast left hanging in the wind like so much dried laundry.
Grey Templar wrote: Not asymmetrical per-say, its just the gameplay itself lends towards wild swings in the pace of the game.
One turn it may appear that one side has a huge advantage, but then the other player pulls something crazy and suddenly he's the one with the advantage.
The smallest measurement can be the difference between a giant Rube Goldburg machine of actions that ends in a caster kill and a valuable jack or beast left hanging in the wind like so much dried laundry.
Its never over till its over.
I don't think that's what he quite means. Typically asymmetric balance refers to two sides being different yet having the same power. Ie: horde of dudes vs a few elite dudes and neither has a distinct advantage.
All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction. I'm talking about you can't take any tier, lets say 2, units in anything 25 points and under. We can call a tier 2 unit character jacks and heavy infantry with weapon master weapons. I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list. Combined melee can down bigger things, as can combined range, so that's not an issue.
This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.
I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.
Incorrect. I find it has it's issues, but these come down to 2-3 net lists of the month, and a current problem with MC spam. While 33% to 50% of the enemy force can dedicated to eliminating a unit/model/vehicle, that makes sense since in the terms that are presented. I recommend 40k to people as a cheaper game and simply tell them not to play 2-3 of our netlister players.
Now I had an idea, what if you could only buy attacks or boost attacks, not both unless a warcaster?
This is probably the best comparison I've seen so far. It's hard to wade through the rampant fanchilds and find the real conversation, so thank you.
A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win. While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.
Sorry, but you really can't be playing the same game.
Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.
You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.
Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.
As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.
Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.
Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.
You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.
Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.
As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.
Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.
Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.
I think if you want to really talk about Warmachine, you need to let go of the 40k comparison because they are completely two different animals.
Warmachine doesn't need to be split off into tiers to restrict unit choices. That would actually create severe balance issues between the factions. The most important stat on any card in the game is Point cost. You get what you pay for in any given army same as your opponent.
The true balance of WM/H (IMHO) comes at the 50 pt level and in a Multi-list SR environment. Knowing your match ups is as important as knowing how to weild your faction to take full advantage of its strengths while accounting for its weaknesses of which every faction has both. The rock/paper/scissors factor that occurs at lower point levels is not an issue at that level, and it is at this level that the most competitive play exists. Its just enough points to get all the business and support models you need along with some problem solvers so your list can be a lot more well rounded.
Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.
You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.
Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.
As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.
Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.
Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.
To be fair to him, it sounds like he has in fact played a game or two. Went in for a couple starter games, took a 40k approach, spent half an hour pulling his teeth out of the curb. Then started advocating rules changes without a real idea of how the game works.
Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.
To be fair to him, it sounds like he has in fact played a game or two. Went in for a couple starter games, took a 40k approach, spent half an hour pulling his teeth out of the curb. Then started advocating rules changes without a real idea of how the game works.
"rampant fanchilds"
"A trained monkey"
"Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players."
Those aren't terms used by someone that is genuinely trying to improve something, He is just a troll fishing for reactions.
Are you actually reading the responses, or are you having this conversation with yourself, in your head? Because this entire thread seems to me like your internal discourse trying to reinforce your already established beliefs, and certainly not like you are trying to have a constructive discussion about the balance of the game.
juraigamer wrote: All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction.
Or, you know, you must not have evaluated the relative usefulness or units regarding their cost. If you are claiming inbalance, you need to provide a proof, or at the very least an example. Saying ''Weapon master'' isn't that kind of proof. Do you know how hard it is to actually manage to get a single Examplar Knight in position to pull off something? Have you tried? Because it ain't easy. Jacks are in effect limited to a certain number, that of the realistic amount of focus you can feed them from your warcaster. All other troops, solo, attachements and such are limited by the Faction Allowance.
While there are a few balance issues in the game, I have yet to see one that would be solved by adding restrictions on the number of units you can take.
I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list.
i.e. "it allows you less innovation and less freedom for no specific, properly established reasons''
This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.
Lulz whut? Look further than Haley's twin colossal list, you'll see this is not so much the case.
I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.
Seriously, now I'd like to know the amount of games you have actually watched (in full lenght) and played (and how many times with the same lists). While there's truth to saying that, at some point, players will lose because the opponent managed a really powerful alpha-strike, saying that ''the first move or lucky dice decides the match most of the time'' is just so very very wrong. The first move is almost always inconsequential. The lucky dice, if by that you refer to the caster kill dice throw, well, that's forgetting every other actions that went into making sure that dice could be thrown.
I mean, I'm amazed you've managed to not realize how wrong that statement is, if you have any wargaming experience at all.
juraigamer wrote: A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win. While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.
So, you like trolling prospective wargamers? Okay, that pretty much explains your behaviour in this thread. Please kindly proceed to go get fethed sideways by a rampaging moose.
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
Personal preference. Either by play style or by aesthetics.
Do you want to hit the enemy with lots of big giant robots?(Menoth, Convergence, or Cygnar) or maybe lots of monsters?(Skorne or Legion)
Do you like playing a hit and run style battle(Circle, some Cygnar builds)
Do you want to run swarms of infantry backed up by the toughest jacks in the game(Khador)
Do you want to run an army of angry elves(Retribution)
How about an army of masochistic elves who torture baby elephants(Skorne)
Do you want to zap your opponents with electricity(Cygnar)
Do you want an army of pirates(mercs running the Talion charter)
How about an army of pigs(Thornfall Alliance)
An army under the dominance of Lord Carver, bringer of most massive destruction, esqIII? Yes that is his full name(Thornfall alliance)
How about an army of gator men?(blind water congregation)
An army of twisted elves that worship a dragon god who lives in enchanted crystals placed in their warlocks chests, ironman style!(Legion )
An army of angry hippie werewolves who want to protect the forest(Circle)
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
I agree it is just a troll. But I think the thread should just die not be derailed. Your question belongs in its own thread, IMO.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
As starter sets go Cygnar have quite a simple one, and the caster who comes with their starter set is (in my opinion) the most vanilla caster in the game. Is this a bad thing? Hell no I love pStryker, that racist-ginger-concentration-camp-making nutter. Its just that his spell list is quite straightforwards, as is his feat. Similarly his battlebox has maybe 2 areas that people can trip up on; Tremor attack on the Ironclad and Powerful shot on the Charger. These aren't really hard rules, its just that people often don't read them word for word to start with (I know I misunderstood Powerful shot the first time around), which is fine, and why there is a gigantic internets here to help you iron out the problems.
Why not start your own thread with a detailed list of things you like in an army and we can try and help. Like wolfs with axes that love eating harmanz? Circle for you! Want to 'ride the lightning' (in a non-sexual way)? Cygnar it is. The thought of sending infantry into the grinder for Mother Russia Khador and watching them come out battered, bloody and victorious on the other side (but they can also do jacks and stuff to an extent)? Khador! Let us know what you like and we'll help you find an army you fancy. Also, which models you like, just go to PP's site and browse the gallery for a bit.
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
I agree it is just a troll. But I think the thread should just die not be derailed. Your question belongs in its own thread, IMO.
Thats a fair point. Sorry for the derail. I will post a new topic shortly.
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
Khador if you want to start slowly on the rules complexity/interactions. Most Khador models are strong/resilient on their own, so it becomes more a matter of playing the field right and less about pulling out some master combo. "Less" being the operative term.
Cryx if you want a faction that is slightly more demanding as far as ''gimmicky'' goes, but still very very strong. They have insane debuffs. The have insane troops. They have great offensive spells, and a lot of nodes to cast them from.
Rhul (mercs) have less choices, but that might not be so bad for a beginner. They have great ranged jacks.
Retribution is also a faction with less models, and people also say that it makes them weaker. I, for one, does not see it. Their ranged units hit like a ton of bricks, and there's sometimes very little you can do about it beyond ''kill them before they hit you''.
I consider Menoth and Cygnar harder to play from a beginners perspective. Protectorate is a bit more defensive then all other factions, and at first it seems (as juraigamer might have been led to believe) that alpha-strike is what decides the game. With less mobility, Protectorate is often stuck with beta-striking. My experience with playing Cygnar goes back to a long time, but back then gunlines worked once every blue moon. That probably isn't the case anymore, what with Kara Sloan. But still, I'd avoid gunlines at first. You can still make a few very good melee/jack-centric lists with Cygnar, tho.
I've only got experience playing against Horde, so take what follows with a (un)healthy dose of salt.
Legion is the usual choice for starters. They ignore a lot of what are normal restrictions for enemy factions. Lots of people think that makes them a lot stronger. IMO, stronger, perhaps, but not broken. I usually have a harder time against Retribution than against Legion.
Circle is said by a lot to be one of the weaker factions. I don't see it at all. They have great offensive spells, insane movement gimmicks and very decent beasts. Mobility is a game winner in WarmaHorde, and Circle got plenty of it, more than almost anyone, in fact.
Skorne is said to be one of the weaker factions, and I see why. They have insane beasts. The rest is, in itself, pretty meh. They are designed to shine by synergy, but PP did done derped on this one, and (I feel) took a page of GW's game design book. A term has even been coined : Skornergy. Skornery is synergy that is supposed to balance out mediocre natural stats, but in reality only ends up being a high-priority target for the enemy. Just like the Standard of Dakka with Dark Angels.
Trollbloods are akin to the Protectorate, and therefore not an ideal first choice for faction.
I know next to nothing about the Farrows and the Blindwater Congregation. I know one day I'll start a Rask force, just so that I can scream ''TENTACLE RAEP TIME!!'' every time one of my Swamp Horror kills Eyriss.
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
I would take a look at what motyak and GreyTemplar have said, it is all personal preference and playstyle you want to get out of the game, although I would say try and make another thread since the judaigamer seems to insistent of being an ass/troll about the balance of the game although many people gave good evidence to support it.
For the most part, the game it balanced to a high degree as I see it. Most everything is balanced where everything has a shining strength but also a glaring weakness one has to cover for so the opponent does not exploit that one needs to be aware of (Hell, even the infamous eHaley list, which is the biggest cheese list by most players in this game, is still beatable if you know how to counter it), the tournament scenarios are very balanced and fun to play with being able to win on scenario or assassination, with the two-list format being good so you do not get screwed by a bad match-up. Also, all units have their uses for the most part, it is just what right synergies you want to give them in order to make them effective.
carlos13th wrote: Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.
That's not quite true, new units always upset the existing balance, but not in the same way as 40k. They upset balance until people figure out where they fit in, and what can deal with them, rather than upsetting balance until a new edition/the next codex drops. As they should. So you'll see a lot about how a large chunk of things from new books are broken-good, but when you look at the highly regarded tournaments and you get the model breakdowns from those games, you see that it isn't usually too bad.
The Cygnar ones had 2 casters which were used in over 50% of lists, neither of which was their 'newest' caster. Their newest solo was used in 6.3% of lists, newest unit (I think it was Tempest Blazers at the time of this tourney I'm looking at) was used in 21.52% of the lists, and their newest jack was in 55.70% of their lists. So you can see that of all their new shiny units, only one made it into over half of their lists.
carlos13th wrote: Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.
This is due to the nature of the rule system. Models get their rules released individually, not in batches like GW.
So each faction will get a few new models a year generally. And each model comes with its rules on the card, the books don't have all the models in them and are mostly for fluff really. You can get an app and buy all the cards for a faction for only $8. Plus you get an army builder style tool, as well as damage tracker.
carlos13th wrote: Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.
If there is inbalance in the game, it isn't because of codex-creep, or at least, not from codex-creep understood in its usual meaning. The little inbalance there is comes from the fact that every time PP brings out a new model, they must balance it with, what, 35 other options per faction, including about over a dozen warcaster which each changes the normal dynamics of the game. And with the eligible Mercs.
The doubts about inbalance are only natural. Given that level of complexity, and how much the game banks of precise sequence of actions, it's really a miracle, and much to PP's credit, that it isn't a complete mess of overpowered ''gotcha'' combos.
There is a form of codex-creep in that the core factions have been in production for longer, and thus have more choices. Dwarves (Rhul) have suffered from that, Pirates too, to a lesser extent (they have amazing solos to compensate). Retribution players are known to complain a lot about it, but I think they are already spoiled with that they have. Apparently, because of its special rules, Convergence won't suffer at all from it. Hasn't been enough time to know, in my opinion.
carlos13th wrote: Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.
What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?
Going to add to the pile that asthetics helps a bit. I would say any of the original eight Factions would be a solid choice based on what you like best. They have the most long term support, most current flexibility (Retribution is catching-up over time) and such. Some still have a bit of a curve, but as an example for myself, I started on Circle Orboros, which is arguably the most "finesse" Faction of the original eight and have stuck to them for quite a few years now. I had never played a minis game before this one, so it was quite alien for me at first.
So jumping into the Faction whose playstyle fits what you want and whose aesthetic looks nice to you is what's most important than anything I think.
juraigamer wrote: All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction. I'm talking about you can't take any tier, lets say 2, units in anything 25 points and under. We can call a tier 2 unit character jacks and heavy infantry with weapon master weapons. I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list. Combined melee can down bigger things, as can combined range, so that's not an issue.
you're applying arbitrary terms and conditions to the game, and telling people how they should be building their armies. this is not a "positive" step - this simply breeds in resentment. what you are doing is trying to apply a pseudo "comp" system, and if ten years of 40k has taught me anything, comp simply creates far more problems than it even attempts to solve.
why should character units be tier 2, for example? beast09 is sorscha's personal, best, most trusted and favourite jack. it makes far more sense that this would be the first jack she'd pick instead of a random juggernaut. No sir, this is a terrible idea. furthermore, you are limiting the scope of the game. you are saying you cant take x, unless you have y, and you meet these restrictions. this is fundamentally a bad move, and utterly alien to PP's design ethos where everything is playable and legal out of the box, and at all levels. which is as it should be. PPs design ethos offers far more (a) flexibility, (b) freedom, and (c) choice. With their system, i can build the army i want and really "flesh things out" and add a real personal touch. with yours, i cant. despite what you say, there is no "fleshing out". there are only terms and conditions that add nothing but an arbitrary set of restrictions. therefore your system is flawed.
This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.
and some are taken for sheer fun and joy. ever face butcher's mad dogs of war theme list? mine is at 50pts, with 8 squads of doom reavers. epic, insane amounts of fun, despite its serious match up issues. i dont care - i still field it. Many others are happy fielding others purely for the lulz.
I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.
.
you say this repeatedly, with nothing to back it up. At this point im convinced you're trolling and utterly unwilling to have a doscourse on the subject, instead you're just talking to yourself and repeating your own mantra.
Alpha strike? Nope. several factions are designed around not having the alphastrike - menoth, khador and trolls spring to mind. plenty other attrition builds exist that are all about soaking up the alphastrike and spitting it back in your face. saying its about every match all the time is laughable, and again demonstrates your utter failure of comprehension of this game.
first move, or lucky hit doesnt decide games either. thats far more accurate with regard to 40k where you can wipe out swathes of the other guy's army on turn 1.
Now I had an idea, what if you could only buy attacks or boost attacks, not both unless a warcaster?
.
jacks are still useless, beasts are barely functional at best, and Butcher wins every game. solution solves nothing, and adds nothing to the game bar problems.
Honestly, you should learn to actually play the game well first, before trying to come up with bad solutions that aren't needed, and only cause more problems.
This is probably the best comparison I've seen so far. It's hard to wade through the rampant fanchilds and find the real conversation, so thank you.
.
fanchilds? please. stop the trolling - its doing you absolutely no favours. Or is "fanchilds" the term you use for people who bring arguments you simply dont want to face? regardless, you do realise the poster in question listed off all the games in terms of how you can dismiss them? if you were positive about the games, you can describe them in other ways, or if you stand back and be objective, you can do the same thing. but you know, you have your mind made up. it makes sense you are going to jump on the narcissistic POV and call it "truth".
A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win.
and what casters are you doing this with? Hmm? you're very big on statements, and extremely light on actual arguments, and valid points to back these up. fancy being a politician?
tihs might work if your opponent is not playing. do you play 2-player computer games with no one at the other controller? this is the same scenario. "cast feat, cast spell, charge, win" works only until the point when your opponent starts to actually engage with you. cast feat? fine. except when i've forced you to feat early with my positioning. cast spell? nope. i've got bestial/lamentation up. No spells lols. charge? strangehold. speed debuff. you're not charging. win? yeah, try another one.
While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in.
like the trained monkeys that can play tau/IG gunline in 40k? please.... stop trolling.
please, back this up. how is 40k more balanced, and with what other rules? How are the rules more balanced? any look at YMDC and the tournament rankings will tell you otherwise. All i see in 40k is the same handful of builds dominating everywhere. third ed boiled down to "rhino rush", or "shoot the rhino rush", fourth was skimmerspam/camping marines, fifth was tank hammer whilst sixth is spam flyers and MCs.
. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. .
yup. I'll agree with you - warmachine isnt perfect. no game is. but it is light years ahead of GWs offerings in terms of cross factional, and interfactional balance, rules terminology, community support etc. and furthermore, tournament standings and discussions on the PP boards point to a pretty good spread, and win/loss ratio across the factions. there was an excellent thread last year about templecon (should still be there) which broke down all the win/loss percentages, and all factions pretty much had a 50/50 +/-5% win/loss ratio. pretty solid argument in favour of balance, if you ask me,
PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.
Other way round bub. its not that warmachine is made upof 40k reject players (and again with the trolling...) - its that warmachine players reject 40k. Warmachine is where 40k players go when they grow up. dont get me wrong, 40k can be a fun game. but saying its balanced, let alone more balanced than PP games is utterly false.
People have been playing warmachine for over a decade now. I think we have a handle on the game. the fact that the game is expanding at such a rate (and has been since Mk2 hit the scene three years ago) shows a level of enthusiasm amongst gamers that no one can deny. i've seen multiple GW-centric gaming groups gutted by warmachine - everyone dropped 40k, and moved on. if folks can play 40k and see the problems (and many do - it takes about fifteen minutes from the release of a codex before folks start pointing out mistakes and issues), then folks can play warmachine and see the problems. yes, there are some (jack marshals and cross factional jack uspport pieces could be expanded on), but for the most part, everyone is eagerly taking up arms for the factions in the iron Kingdoms. Seems to me that people actually know what they're doing...
If I really had to create a tier list it would probably be the big 8 (cygnar, khador, cyrx, menoth, skorne, legion, circle, trolls) then the mercs/minions/elves, and lasty convergence only because most of their stuff that is in the army book isn't out yet. Mercs and minions aren't really "factions" persay and elves don't have as much to choose from (though what they do have is solid) as the main 8 factions.
Amongst the big 8 some factions would be easier to learn than others (circle seems to need a lot of finesse from what I have seen but played well can compete with the others). Legion seems to be a easier army on beginners.
Cryx
Cygnar
Legion
Khador
Retribution
Protectorate
Circle
Trollbloods
Skorne
But to be honest, the difference in power even between the top and the bottom of that list is rather minimal. A MUCH more important tier would be that of Casters.
And a list of top casters would be pretty evenly spread across the factions.
Saying one thing is better than another also assumes equal player skill. A skilled player with "bad" units vs a newbie with "good" units will stomp the newbie each and every time. Its not so much the list as it is the player knowing how to use his list, and the game mechanics in general.
Cryx
Cygnar
Legion
Khador
Retribution
Protectorate
Circle
Trollbloods
Skorne
But to be honest, the difference in power even between the top and the bottom of that list is rather minimal. A MUCH more important tier would be that of Casters.
No way, Circle has shot to the top of that list because of Morv, and Cygnar ONLY BARELY hangs on because of Stormwall, they are pushing towards the weaker end without it
Khador is mid tier at best, and even then its like lower mid tier
The more realistic list is
T1 - Legion, Cryx, Circle
T2 - Cygnar, Menoth, Khador
T3 - Skorne, Retribution, Trollblood
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And a list of top casters would be pretty evenly spread across the factions.
Saying one thing is better than another also assumes equal player skill. A skilled player with "bad" units vs a newbie with "good" units will stomp the newbie each and every time. Its not so much the list as it is the player knowing how to use his list, and the game mechanics in general.
List of top casters are spread out towards the armies I listed as "T1"
I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.
On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.
In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.
I think people are calling you a troll for comments such as "Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players..", "A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters" and saying that most of the thread are "rampant fanchilds"
Such comments do not imply a wish to converse in good faith but wish to troll and act like your choice of game is some how superior to another.
Stealth is countered by having a melee focused army, not a shooting army. Although massed aoes tend to shred stealthed infantry, especially if they cause fire.
And you've already proven you either really haven't played much or you are completely failing to grasp the basics of the game simply by your assertions. Nothing to be ashamed about, its not an easy game to master.
Some personal misgivings about the game.
1) there is little option for customization. I cant make my own named character to lead my army.
2) the models themselves are not as detailed as GW. You dont have posability or weapon options like GW has. The models are easily what GW was making ten years ago as far as quality. They also can be difficult to assemble which indicates poor design.
3) a little less quality control on the models. Flash and mold lines can be pretty bad.
On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.
Not really. You can still charge models with stealth. It might bother my blood trackers shooting from 7" away (not from 5" though), but my warpwolf stalkers still charge in from 13" away. My iron fangs can charge from 11", or run and engage from 14". Pretty much all factions can deal with stealth. Having stealth is an inconvenience, but there are plenty ways, means and mechanisms that bypass it, deal with it, to ignore it. Melee, blast damage, and the various units, solos and weapon effects that let you ignore it altogether.
In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion
And text your posting history in this thread tells the lie of this statement. You've referred to wm players as 40k rejects, fanchilds and trained monkeys, as well as constantly dismissing the game with nothing to back it up. That's civility?
juraigamer wrote: I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.
On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.
In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.
You can't prove anything because you're not providing evidence.
Stealth is not an impossible obstacle to overcome. Very few stealth units are strong defensively beyond stealth. You lose because you don't understand mechanics.
You have done nothing civilly. You've lazily provided arguments with massive holes in logic and demanded they be accepted. Demanding that we provide our problems with the game has nothing to do with your argument. It is a strawman to divert attention.
Stealth? Welcome to chain lightning, stormwalls, stormpods, aoes, aoes with fire, ashes2ashes, bile thralls and a whole lot of other mechanics to kill stealthed units dead.
In 40k there's five types of units. A, B, X, Y, Z and Flyer*. To kill A and B you need bullets. A is weak to bullets and die if you mention them. To kill X, Y and Z you need melta or melta-like weapons. To kill Flyers you need other Flyers, 'cause unless you are Tau you don't get decent anti-air. If you want to have something that's good against all five unit types (and flyers) you need the Hellturkey. That's 40k in a nutshell.
Stealth in 40k isn't all that bad in 40k, really, more and more codexes get ways to deal with it. Stealthed models tend to be unit type A, by the way.
In Warmachine I've only heard Retribution put forward as a faction with problems dealing with Stealth, and that is apparently a designed faction weakness.
Essentially, all the bad things Jurai' has used to describe Warmachine feels foreign to me unless I apply it to Warhammer instead, in which case it feels he's describing everything that's wrong with that system. This is, incidentally, to me an indication that he's trying (and succeeding) at trolling.
* Flyers are poorly imagined and tacked on with little afterthought.
...
The more realistic list is
T1 - Legion, Cryx, Circle
T2 - Cygnar, Menoth, Khador
T3 - Skorne, Retribution, Trollblood
...
I find your placement of Legion extremely surprising. While they can have showings in the top8 of many good tournaments, when you take the aggregate of all players they tend to have poor showings. One could argue that it simply means that they have a high barrier-to-entry for playing them well, but I have a feeling that it's just the strength of a few players propping them up.
I always get the feeling that Legion is very strong when the players are low-mid level skill, but weaker for higher skilled players. I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I suspect it is because Legion offers pretty strong mechanics that flatten the learning curve, but not a lot in the way of clever tricks. I think that makes the faction easier to pick up and smack other players around with than some like Circle etc. for a while, but due to those strong mechanics players adapt to it, and then Legion isn't left with much in the way of shenanigans. Circle for instance has tons of tricks with Shifting Stones that you can't really list tweak for and tend to just limit options in game, while with Legion once you get used to their beasts treating the board like open terrain you can treat them much like any other faction with fragile critters.
Granted, I don't play Legion (Circle, obviously) but I think that's why Legion's the terror of the newer players, but doesn't seem to place well.
Legion can still be brutal in the hands of experienced players.
It definitely flattens the curve, but it doesn't have any lower of a potential.
Its probably just that once you've gotten some experience Legion isn't as much of a nightmare as it used to be.
Legion players going to other factions may also have issues because suddenly they can't ignore Forests and Terrain with their main heavy hitters and have to learn a new skill set, one that most players learn early on.
That maybe, though I still wonder then why they take other factions to tournaments and do well instead of playing Legion. Then again, maybe this was just the year of Circle, or I am biased due to my wolfy predilections
Now, of course, due to the nature of WTC matchups---this may skew some of the results--but overall I feel this is a pretty good indication of the game. Which, shows (at least to me), that the game is very healthy. Outside of three outliers (Cryx, Khador and Minions)--most factions are pretty damn close to break even on win/loss. And even of the three outliers, Minions are really the only 'true' outlier.
It appears for Cryx, eGaspy and pSkarre carried the faction.
Cygnar--both Haley versions were the heavy lifters
Menoth---Harby carried the ball the most--and still carried a 62%
etc.
Nothing really surprising in the data---except for eMorv. She carried around a 50%--whereas her prime version carried a 67%. At first, you would think "Well--everyone knows about pMorv now so techs against her"---but really eMorv tech should be just fine against pMorv. Maybe it just doesn't hit her as hard (removing eMorv's heal ability with non living for example). Anyways, the game looks pretty damn healthy to me from the data presented---except for my poor, poor Minions.
I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others
However it is nice to see which faction is currently the most popular
Also, here is the ranks by win %
Cryx, Menoth, Trolls
Circle, Skorne, Cygnar
Legion, Retribution, Khador
Oh, I ranked Legion as first because they are brutal in the hands of an expert (as you said) and still great in the hands of a nub. I suppose Cryx shares these qualities, but at the same time I feel that Cryx gets a little weaker by the fact that every other faction builds specifically to counter you... Tho seriously that is also an issue...
Talamare wrote: I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others
...
To be fair though, you can't just judge a factions performance on only it's very best players...
Talamare wrote: I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others
...
To be fair though, you can't just judge a factions performance on only it's very best players...
The best players show the faction at it's finest, when every available exploit and advantage has been taken into consideration. It also gives a base assumption of skill rather than the broad mid level player's skill or the uncertain newbie skill. As warmachine players, we know that certain armies naturally shift in power as the skill level raises. Legion and Cryx are very overwhelming to newbies to handle and they require considerable knowledge and skill to take full advantage of giving them the appearance of OP to new players. In the mid field things tend to sway back to balance with certain casters or models causing problems in their meta until they are adapted to. In general that's what most places do is just constantly adapt to new models and factions as new players come in or people change armies giving things short term OP appearance until players learn more about the game. The biggest takeaway from this is how well most factions are balanced that they still have a strong presence. The few that are behind are mercs and minions, which never are going to be as good as full fledged factions because of the nature of mercs in WMH, and Scyrah which is still playing catch up in crucial areas of play.
juraigamer wrote: I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.
On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.
In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.
Ok I'l bite. Stealth isn't an issue if you have prepared for it. My favorite method is running a lowly little trooper up and shooting him in the back with an AOE or running him up and moving his buddy behind him and hitting him (and the stealth model with a spray).
Where you are stumbling and most people do when first coming over from 40k is that its a whole different game. You have to set aside your preconceived notions of how table top games work. From what you are saying it strikes me that no one has really taught you about list building in this game. You have to come from a view of problem solving/creating problems for your opponent to answer.
First and foremost, pick a caster that you like and fits your style of play. Figure out what you want your units to do/problems they solve, Is this unit going to be a tarpit/countercharge/jam/heavy hunter ect. and go from there. Once you understand what your units are designed to do and how you are going to use them, you will start to understand how this game works.
From there you can go and look at how other people's units/casters/jacks etc play against you. This is when you start to build 2 lists for tourneys, so you can mitigate your weaknesses between the lists and now you are playing a game that truly comes down to player vs player.
Good luck and I hope you can find someone locally who can really help guide you in your understanding of the game.
I say locally because for this game you really need someone who can be at the table with you, and show you mistakes offer suggestions. reset and replay things so that you really get a good feel and actually see it.
Talamare wrote: I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much. It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down) Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others
Well, that was the WTC event--so I would assume that's about as good of a sample of the best players in the world as one can get. If you are unfamiliar with the WTC, here is some information here;
Sure, travel costs probably removed a player or two--but I know of the US players (whom had to travel the longest)---they had Keith, JVM, Will, etc. go--which would quite arguably be the best WM players in the US. I don't know the European team scene but I believe they had qualifiers to compete at the WTC as well. Canada wasn't represented this year though.
Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words.
As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion.
Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.
My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.
You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?
juraigamer wrote: Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words.
As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion.
Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.
My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.
You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?
I think this topic is at the point of people talking at each other, everyone is entrenched and that's gonna be about that.
I will say that if player vs player are equal in every way, than a list match up can have that effect. Lists just have hard counters, that is why you see that 2 list format at tournaments to prevent someone from just auto winning. I say this with a grain of salt as people are people and mistakes happen in every game even at the highest level.
I'll say it from the rooftops, this game is balanced its the players who are not. Look at Keith Christianson, He got tired of people complaining about Cygnar being "under powered" so he played them for a year and won WMW. He proved its the player not the models.
juraigamer wrote: Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words. ...
As has been highlighted, part of it is your choice of words. By effectively poisoning the well in discussion and coming off as antagonizing to those who disagreed with you (in some cases, by enjoying the game), you have made it appear that you are not arguing from good faith. This has resulted in folks more or less dismissing you, as can be seen with a lot of comments highlighting you insulting people instead of your key points.
juraigamer wrote: ... As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion. ...
Emphasis added. That's what I'm talking about above.
juraigamer wrote: ... Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.
My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.
This is a nature of a game with a competative environment. By your claims to win/loss and the impact you had on the local meta, the meta shifted otwards you as an expected factor and adapting to that. This is an example of a healthy game as I can gather, as in chasing that problem gaps open elswhere, folks exploit that (by say taking less magic or anti-shooting or whatever) and that shifts the meta elsewhere. The game is built iwth a TCG-like view of meta shifts and mechanics. The gimicks more or less are what makes the game dynamic and what allows a lot of these perceived shifts for folks.
juraigamer wrote: ... You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?
It's not wrong to say that List X v. List Y probably doesn't have a chanced, but due to the nature of list construction requiring you build to strengths and weaknesses, expected opponents and scenario, it also means nothing since you haven't quantified whether the lists are well-constructed. And when that's also taken into account, whether players do know the game as a whole. It is the source of a lot of skill in complicated games, knowing what you might face. A lot of the top level play is based on experience, honing things in, finding synergies and knowing positioning. Strong lists come from their work, but will play stronger in those hands. There are also lists ou thtere (I find Cassius and Mohsar of Circle this) whereby even if you have the good list, if you have no clue as to how to pilot it, you'll fall face flat and fail against anyone who knows how to do their's.
So in short, I can grant you List X > List Y is a thing that can occur. But then again, I can say that a drawing by a professional can be better than one by a sixth grader. Without more qualitative statements it's a usseless premise.
juraigamer wrote: I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?
But that doesn't speak to balance.
If someone takes list in 40k that spams high RoF low power attacks, they're gonna' get crushed by vehicles and MCs, but they'll erase infantry armies.
So long as you can have models with some specialty, there's no way to avoid the scenario you're talking about. If I have models that specialize in removing infantry, and my opponent only brings infantry, then he's screwed. That's not poor balance, that's poor planning on the part of the person that gets wiped off the field. It's one of the major reasons scenario play is so important in WM, and why the multilist format is standard.
My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.
\
Essentially you seem to be saying, my gimmicks are ok, other peoples gimmicks are bad. I'm sorry that you lose to other people.
juraigamer wrote: I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?
But that doesn't speak to balance.
If someone takes list in 40k that spams high RoF low power attacks, they're gonna' get crushed by vehicles and MCs, but they'll erase infantry armies.
So long as you can have models with some specialty, there's no way to avoid the scenario you're talking about. If I have models that specialize in removing infantry, and my opponent only brings infantry, then he's screwed. That's not poor balance, that's poor planning on the part of the person that gets wiped off the field. It's one of the major reasons scenario play is so important in WM, and why the multilist format is standard.
The scenario that he is talking about doesn't really exist in warmachine, there aren't any magical list combinations or match ups that will allow a player to simply auto-win a game. There are good and bad match-ups, but player skill will still be the single most determining factor in those.
Also the multi-list format serves to increase list variance in tournaments allot more than it does to solve any particular bad match-up problems that might arise, particularly because I'm willing to bet that most players can't genuinely identify what are their list's good and bad match-ups beyond a few basic and glaring ones (and I'm including myself in this group). Also, if the multi-list format served the single purpose of mitigating any unwinnable match-ups, tournaments wouldn't have the "divide and conquer" rule, since that rule might cause you to have genuinely bad match-ups if you take only skew lists.
The scenario that he is talking about doesn't really exist in warmachine, there aren't any magical list combinations or match ups that will allow a player to simply auto-win a game. There are good and bad match-ups, but player skill will still be the single most determining factor in those.
Let's not go crazy here- there are some matchups that are as near to auto-win as you can get. Mind you, they require the alignment of the planets, but things can get really, really bad.
I don't think that's an indictment on the game though; those sorts of things are almost impossible to avoid completely. And while some people (perhaps even the majority) take paired lists just for 'the fun of it,' I don't know if we should count either them or that when it comes to balance.
Let's not go crazy here- there are some matchups that are as near to auto-win as you can get. Mind you, they require the alignment of the planets, but things can get really, really bad.
Which match-ups are those?
The only one that really comes to mind as even being able to realistically happen is an all-shooting Retribution list against an eLylyth all-stealth list and that is because one of the lists focus on a single aspect of the game while the other effectively negates that same exact aspect.
The kind of match-up that you are talking about requires extremely skewed lists, not only on one side, but on both sides so the logical counter to it is not to take a skew list yourself and you'll have the tools to deal with all comers. Balanced IS the new broken after all.
The kind of match-up that you are talking about requires extremely skewed lists, not only on one side, but on both sides so the logical counter to it is not to take a skew list yourself and you'll have the tools to deal with all comers. Balanced IS the new broken after all.
I'll agree with this completely, and I think it's a big factor in how WM manages to avoid some of those other pitfalls.
I think this topic is at the point of people talking at each other, everyone is entrenched and that's gonna be about that.
Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.
darefsky wrote: Look at Keith Christianson, He got tired of people complaining about Cygnar being "under powered" so he played them for a year and won WMW. He proved its the player not the models.
It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.
darefsky wrote: Look at Keith Christianson, He got tired of people complaining about Cygnar being "under powered" so he played them for a year and won WMW. He proved its the player not the models.
It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.
Not in the WMW Invitational, you have to have won a qualifying tournament just to get invited to this thing. So you are playing only folks that are really good to start with. Now some luck is required, there are pairings that can help or hurt etc. As for terrain...... Look at pictures of the boards they set up that weekend (they are online and you can see them). They were insane and did not have much of an advantage to either player.
I would also tell you to look at rankings for all major tournaments in the US and Overseas you will see a lot of the same names over and over again. This game really does come down to skill, in as much as any game with a random element can. The difference is that the rules give you ways to mitigate the dice through skill, but every once in a while no matter how good you are the dice will get you.
It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.
He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.
And Keith has a history of winning with multiple factions. I believe he previously won with Cryx. And maybe Menoth?
So yeah my bet is on player skill. Not an imbalance in the game.
He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.
The game was recorded and is available on youtube.
It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.
He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.
And Keith has a history of winning with multiple factions. I believe he previously won with Cryx. And maybe Menoth?
So yeah my bet is on player skill. Not an imbalance in the game.
Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive
But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error
Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive
But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error
I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.
Oh yea, I remember that game too. That was fun to watch.
Really though, even if he had lost, he took Cygnar to the top table at a really big event. If it was that big of a handicap he would either have to be a crazy good player, or seen a ridiculous amount of luck to take it that far.
Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive
But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error
I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.
Yeah, IIRC, he abandoned the run after a miss. The Menoth player then rolled pretty crazy to hit/kill Caine (Provided he had declared the choir, which I guess the replay showed he had not).
I'm not crazy about taking the game back up after reviewing a replay and people had left the room--but that was the judge's call so whatevahs.
Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive
But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error
I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.
Yeah, IIRC, he abandoned the run after a miss. The Menoth player then rolled pretty crazy to hit/kill Caine (Provided he had declared the choir, which I guess the replay showed he had not).
I'm not crazy about taking the game back up after reviewing a replay and people had left the room--but that was the judge's call so whatevahs.
I believe it was someone in the crowed that had caught the mistake.
I am all for video replay for something like that, when its in a huge tournament.
I think this topic is at the point of people talking at each other, everyone is entrenched and that's gonna be about that.
Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.
So people have provided multiple examples of national tournaments and events with varied results and no specific skew towards any faction (save Cryx). All your examples are "My list", "I noticed", "My lists".
You're providing meta examples of why you think the game isn't balanced. No one is entrenched. You're coming off as a small sample of a massive population claiming disfunction. Can you see why the rest of the community considers that odd? Everytime someone tries to show you that, you change what you want. You want to know what is bad now? Why should we bother when you already seem dead set on the balance being bad to begin with?
Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.
Disagreeing with you, and providing evidence is 'zealotry' now, is it. Like how, for example the multitudes of ways and means to take on armies with stealth which disagree with your notion that short of playing legion, stealth armies auto win? Or explainations as to how your 'solutions' with tiers, only boosting attacks or damage would cripple warbeasts and jacks, or how evidence that the alpha strike does not dominate the game despite your continued assertion to the opposite (and backed up with no evidence whatsoever on your part) Come off it mate.
Mate, that's not zealotry. It seems to me this definition of 'zealotry' that you are running with is simply folks not mindlessly agreeing with you. And for some reason, you don't like the fact that people are disagreeing with you, and backing up what they say.
But if you want to know what's bad?
Easy. Jack marshals could do with a buff, and there should be a push for more battlegroup support pieces like the retribution arcanists and the protectorates choir to allow for more factions to play more reliable jack heavy lists. That's the only one, really.
Aside from that? Then it boils down to preference. Personally I'd like to see an errata for the necrosurgeon and stitch thrall unit in cryx, I think what they do is a bit ott. Then again, it's not like I dont have solutions to the issue, which is why 'I don't like unit x' doesn't really count towards the problems of the game.
Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.
Disagreeing with you, and providing evidence is 'zealotry' now, is it. Like how, for example the multitudes of ways and means to take on armies with stealth which disagree with your notion that short of playing legion, stealth armies auto win? Or explainations as to how your 'solutions' with tiers, only boosting attacks or damage would cripple warbeasts and jacks, or how evidence that the alpha strike does not dominate the game despite your continued assertion to the opposite (and backed up with no evidence whatsoever on your part) Come off it mate.
Mate, that's not zealotry. It seems to me this definition of 'zealotry' that you are running with is simply folks not mindlessly agreeing with you. And for some reason, you don't like the fact that people are disagreeing with you, and backing up what they say.
But if you want to know what's bad?
Easy. Jack marshals could do with a buff, and there should be a push for more battlegroup support pieces like the retribution arcanists and the protectorates choir to allow for more factions to play more reliable jack heavy lists. That's the only one, really.
Aside from that? Then it boils down to preference. Personally I'd like to see an errata for the necrosurgeon and stitch thrall unit in cryx, I think what they do is a bit ott. Then again, it's not like I dont have solutions to the issue, which is why 'I don't like unit x' doesn't really count towards the problems of the game.
The junior war casters that are coming out for all the factions will help a lot with jack support and it kinda fixes the marshal issue.
I don't see factions like Khador getting a choir type unit. As much as I would love a choir in Khador, I think that could easily break the game.
The junior war casters that are coming out for all the factions will help a lot with jack support and it kinda fixes the marshal issue.
I don't see factions like Khador getting a choir type unit. As much as I would love a choir in Khador, I think that could easily break the game.
Indeed, it's 'a' solution and I'm sure it will help.
By the way, I wasn't thinking a choir for khador (it would be awesome though!) but something like retributions arcanist (greylord arcanist?) with power booster and something like artillerist (+2 to jack ranged attack rolls, re-roll scatters) for a point would be an interesting piece. Help khadoran ranged game and give harkevich a boost. That's more like I was thinking.
Well, either that or allow them a list of actions as tactics for jacks like as skorne tyrant commander does for his infantry.
malfred wrote:Khador has the Greylord Jack Marshal, the Koldun Lord,
with Power Booster already.
indeed they do. and he's not widely chosen for a variety of reasons. all he does is give a focus. there is no additional options, or tactics available - thats what im talking about. Look at the retribution arcanist. +2 strength for a jack, power booster. repair. and he costs as much as a wardog.
the retribution arcanist is a fantastic support piece for jacks. Taking two of them gives huge efficiency to a battlegroup. the koldun falls far short im afraid. Its the right idea, but IMO too early in the development cycle. lessons learned, and hindsight, and all that.
the greylord costs too much for what he does - give a focus. "moar focus" is all well and good, but the simple fact is "moar focus" isnt necessarily what is needed to increase the viability, and visibility of more-jack-heavy armies. he's on the right path (kind of) but falls short, as is. imagine more jack support pieces costing a point that could confer things like artillerist, re-rolls, ignore stealth, make-attacks-count-as-magic/fire/corrosion-attacks, ancillliary attack, or even what jack marshals already do now(albeit for only their own marshalled jacks)-free run/charge and one boost to a/all battlegroup jacks.
What makes menoth work so well as a jack supporting faction isnt the huge focus pool on their casters (only a few do). its the support pieces they can bring to the table that really help push things off the ground. I imagine Harkevich for example, with a unit like the choir, and vassals. Because right now, there are jack casters out there, or rather casters that seem to want to be jack casters, but they're a few critical support pieces short of being truly valid choices. Harkevich would be an utter beast if he was a menite caster. the fact that the lack of support pieces available to him really hurts his game is a failing. IMO, more, and more importantly, more valid jack support pieces, and a few changes to how jack marshalls operate would be a huge boon to the game, and help along those who want to play "heavier" lists without punishing those like me who prefer infantry hordes.
Grey Templar wrote:And the Man-o-war Kovnik with his Drive that boosts all attack rolls for his jacks.
If jack marshals could do this to battlegroup jacks, instead of only their own marshalled jacks, we'd have something interesting. right now, a lot of jack marshals, aside from thor, and the gun mage captain are a bit lacking IMO. they can be valuable, but i genuinely feel they fall a step or two short of being serious contenders for places in most lists. if the jack marshals could independently buff a warcasters battlegroup (acting as battlegroup support elements, if you will) , they would be a big asset.
Arcanists also die to a stiff breeze. It's not really directly
comparable. I was just saying that the faction had Power
Booster available to it. Whether or not people wanted to use
it was another question entirely.
malfred wrote: Arcanists also die to a stiff breeze. It's not really directly
comparable. I was just saying that the faction had Power
Booster available to it. Whether or not people wanted to use
it was another question entirely.
So do koldun lords. 13/13 with a few hit points isn't exactly what I call 'surviveable'.Everything dies in this game if you point stuff at it, so saying arcanists are fragile kinda goes without saying!
At the end of the day, Its an apt comparison, and a useful example of the jack support I'm referring to.
There is a difference between having the illusion of options, and having valid options. Whilst it's a lot more visible in 40k, IMO despite his uses, the koldun lord lies on the formers side of the spectrum. He has his uses, but falls short of opening up khadoran play book. Which is the issue of most jack marshals. Which is my issue with the lack of battlegroup support units in the game, and what I see as a failing in jack marshals. Whilst not being broken as it stands, or being a serious fault in warmachine, It could be something that could add a lot to the game.
malfred wrote: Arcanists also die to a stiff breeze. It's not really directly
comparable. I was just saying that the faction had Power
Booster available to it. Whether or not people wanted to use
it was another question entirely.
So do koldun lords. 13/13 with a few hit points isn't exactly what I call 'surviveable'.Everything dies in this game if you point stuff at it, so saying arcanists are fragile kinda goes without saying!
At the end of the day, Its an apt comparison, and a useful example of the jack support I'm referring to.
There is a difference between having the illusion of options, and having valid options. Whilst it's a lot more visible in 40k, IMO despite his uses, the koldun lord lies on the formers side of the spectrum. He has his uses, but falls short of opening up khadoran play book. Which is the issue of most jack marshals. Which is my issue with the lack of battlegroup support units in the game, and what I see as a failing in jack marshals. Whilst not being broken as it stands, or being a serious fault in warmachine, It could be something that could add a lot to the game.
Hey, you never know, maybe PP have been planning a no-Warcaster format for a while, and then all of a sudden jack marshall will make sense? *blatant wishful-thinking*
Shoot, I always have a jack marshal in my highborn list, but besides Thor Steinhammer, I never really use them. I think the issue with Khador is that the cheapest jack you can take is a 6pt heavy that needs to take up space in your front line whereas I can marshal a 3pt gunner to thor that can sit back and provide ranged support. Khador just doesnt have any uses for a jack marshal.
Perhaps if the power booster ability could allocate a focus to a jack that already has focus on it, then those support pieces like the koldun lord would be better. I mean, that is basically the same effect as Cygnar's squire that we see so often, except it has no limit and it would be harder to kill.
the greylord costs too much for what he does - give a focus. "moar focus" is all well and good, but the simple fact is "moar focus" isnt necessarily what is needed to increase the viability, and visibility of more-jack-heavy armies. he's on the right path (kind of) but falls short, as is. imagine more jack support pieces costing a point that could confer things like artillerist, re-rolls, ignore stealth, make-attacks-count-as-magic/fire/corrosion-attacks, ancillliary attack, or even what jack marshals already do now(albeit for only their own marshalled jacks)-free run/charge and one boost to a/all battlegroup jacks.
So just play Skorne?
artillerist - nah, but who even has this?
re-rolls - check
ignore stealth - check
make-attacks-count-as-magic/fire/corrosion-attacks - check
ancillliary attack - check
free run/charge - check
one boost to a/all battlegroup jacks - its +2 damage, but close enough for - check
malfred wrote: Arcanists also die to a stiff breeze. It's not really directly
comparable. I was just saying that the faction had Power
Booster available to it. Whether or not people wanted to use
it was another question entirely.
So do koldun lords. 13/13 with a few hit points isn't exactly what I call 'surviveable'.Everything dies in this game if you point stuff at it, so saying arcanists are fragile kinda goes without saying!
At the end of the day, Its an apt comparison, and a useful example of the jack support I'm referring to.
There is a difference between having the illusion of options, and having valid options. Whilst it's a lot more visible in 40k, IMO despite his uses, the koldun lord lies on the formers side of the spectrum. He has his uses, but falls short of opening up khadoran play book. Which is the issue of most jack marshals. Which is my issue with the lack of battlegroup support units in the game, and what I see as a failing in jack marshals. Whilst not being broken as it stands, or being a serious fault in warmachine, It could be something that could add a lot to the game.
Except a Koldun Lord does a lot more than just jack support. He's a battle wizard, gives all Greylord Ternions battle wizards and has a MAGICAL 8" spray -_- That triggers off battle wizard....
Talamare wrote:
So just play Skorne?
artillerist - nah, but who even has this?
re-rolls - check
ignore stealth - check
make-attacks-count-as-magic/fire/corrosion-attacks - check
ancillliary attack - check
free run/charge - check
one boost to a/all battlegroup jacks - its +2 damage, but close enough for - check
So “go play another faction”. Thanks. Whilst it gives me what I want, it doesn’t really address, or solve the issue, especially in relation to warmachine factions. What i enjoy about this game is how no one faction is pigeonholed into doing one thing, or one faction being the "thing" faction- all factions, by rights, have a large, viable playbook. Sadly though, i do think a few pages could be added to the warmachine one.
Regardless, I already play multiple factions. I play khador, and circle, actually. Whilst missing my point, you do illustrate in a very good way why hordes factions are generally able to run beast heavy so effectively – excellent beast support, and excellent anciliary beast support (I’m surprised you don’t mention paingivers by name though). Regarding all those things you mention – I think it’s a shame more warmachine factions don’t have more ways to gain access to some of those abilities and confer them to their jacks. Khador in particular suffers from a dearth of effective ways to run multiple warjacks – thankfully, iron fangs and doom reavers are more than awesome enough to make up for it (I’ve got 8 squads of the nutters for my butcher 2 theme list). Whilst not having cross faction battlegroup support doesn’t hurt the game in any meaningful way (warmachine/hordes is still awesome), I do think having them only benefits the game.
When I play my circle army, I enjoy playing heavy, and running lots of warpwolves and other heavies with my warlocks. I have lots of support pieces in play that facilitate this – for circle, its shifting stones, blackclad wayfarers, heck even druid wilders. Skorne, trolls and legion all have excellent “pack” support.
But warmachine factions generally lack this level of jack support, aside from the protectorate, and CoC. Personally, I don’t really care. “moar jacks” is not a style I am particularly interested in – I like a handful of jacks, backed up by a heavy backbone of infantry. But I’ve seen enough folks lament the lack of effective ways to run jack heavy armies to believe that its lack is a bit of an issue. And even I think having a solo that could supercharge a jack could bring my game something.
Unfortunately, too many folks see the answer as completely changing how focus works, or other ridiculous gimmicks (the second pool of focus for jacks, as well as a pool of focus for spells particularly irks me). I see the answer as more effective battlegroup support tools. I think having some of these in play wouldn’t require changing the game, but it would enhance the game.
Sining wrote:
Except a Koldun Lord does a lot more than just jack support. He's a battle wizard, gives all Greylord Ternions battle wizards and has a MAGICAL 8" spray -_- That triggers off battle wizard....
Thanks for missing my point. I was specifically referring to him as a jack support piece, in the context of what I see as a general lack of effective battlegroup support pieces. As you say, you take him for the spray, and the ternion buff. He’s a great cheap solo for what he does. But specifically as a jack support piece (which is my issue) he falls down. As a jack marshall, he is “OK”. But you don’t really take him for this. Because jack marshalls are themselves lamentable., I feel if every faction had an arcane mechanic unit in the vein of the retribution arcanist, it could add a lot of variety, and a lot of versatility to warmachine battlegroups which they currently do not have. You don’t need to take it, you don’t need to change your lists, but some folks get something out of it that they want, whilst not breaking the game.Things like Jack marshals being able to independently buff warcaster controlled jacks would be a huge boon, and add a lot of versatility to warmachine battlegroups. Like I said, it doesn’t affect me particularly – I’m happy with a solid backbone of iron fangs and some winter guard riflemen. Or as many doom reavers as I can fit into a list. With Butcher3 leading the charge. But when I stand back and look at the game, I see battlegroup support as an area worthy for a bit of attention, and an area that could bring a lot to the game.
It fully addresses and solves the issue, since the game is overall designed to be similar but not equals. Not every faction has everything, and not having everything does not mean they are pigeonhole. Khador should not and does not need all the things you list. It would be if I played Scyrah and started saying that Scyrah really needs some ARM25 Jacks that can detect stealth in its CMD range.
Sometimes trying a new faction IS the answer. They may fit better to your playstyle. They help get rid of the "Grass-is-greener" syndrome. And sometimes it is just good to get away from something for a little bit and come back with fresh eyes.
And one of the nice things about this game is it doesn't cost a huge amount of money to get a decent 35 point army together to play around with.
I guess that is why I have 4 armies plus a 5th one that is unassembled.
Talamare wrote: It fully addresses and solves the issue, since the game is overall designed to be similar but not equals. Not every faction has everything, and not having everything does not mean they are pigeonhole. Khador should not and does not need all the things you list. It would be if I played Scyrah and started saying that Scyrah really needs some ARM25 Jacks that can detect stealth in its CMD range.
i will disagree. all hordes factions having excellentbeast support does merely highlights the lack of jack support in warmachine armies. "hordes has it" doesnt fix the problem of "warmachine doesnt have it".
i never said khador needs everything i listed; i merely listed out various ideas of things that could be interesting additions. are you telling me that, for example, a solo with ancilliary attack, or artillerist wouldnt be useful? or add to the game? or help along a caster like harkevich? or help along neglected jacks like destroyers? are they not there because they dont fit the faction (odd how jack support wouldnt be a facet of factions with jacks...) or because PP simply havent got round to grappling with the issue? we'be had plenty of things added to the game that have enhanced it that were contentious at the time - cavalry, epics, gargossals, battle engines, heck even ranking officers had people worried. a bit of jack support? IMO, nothing to get your knickers in a twist over. arguing they shouldnt get it because it doesnt fit the factions is rubbish. IMO you can still have a typically khadoran arcane mechanic that buffs khadoran jacks in a thematic way, whilst his opposite, a cygnaran arcane mechanic can buff cygnaran jacks in a similarly thematic way. heck, PP fit in ranking officers for all the factions, i dont see how they couldnt do thematic jack support.
However, on topic, i do genuinely think khador does need some of those things i mentioned. I feel Khador, of all the factions suffers from a limited playbook. As an example of how jack support would help khador? Case in point: Harkevich. I really want to like the guy. But as cool as he is, and as much as he wants to step up, he falls just that little bit short. Harkevich promised to bring in a few new pages to the Khador playbook, but unfortunately, he is a few key support pieces short of filling that role. Imagine Harkevich as a menite caster. he would be an utter beast of a gunline caster. but in khador? khador lacks the pieces to really make him shine. And harkevich isnt the only one either. its something that i feel is inherent across a lot of factions. and its a failing that doesnt necessarily even need to be a failing.
With respect, you seem to be stating "this is the game as is, it must never change. How dare you come up with new ideas to expand the factions and bring them something new". Im not asking for retribution to have an ARM25 jack (but i'd have few issues with one of them getting arcane shield in its place). I am asking for warmachine factions in general to get more pieces to support the actual warmachines that give the name to the game, especially for people that want to play with more heavy metal in their lists.
With respect, not having everything does limit the scope for armies, especially when what im referring to is jack support, as opposed to tactical plays (and ironically, i'd argue that circle, as a faction is pretty complete in what it can bring to the table. why not khador?). Without the key support pieces, our jacks languish as the "meh" units of khador. there was a recent breakdown of statistics of the WTC games, and most warmachine lists took only a bare number of jacks. khador lists were the most guilty of this, and most simply took along one jack because they had to. because frankly, khador players had no means or ways to get more out of them.[u] I geniuinely regard that one simple fact as a failure.(as an aside, are you OK with this? Are you arguing that this is "right", and "a good thing" and "how things should be"?)Dont get me wrong i love my infantry horde, but i dont want this game to be just about infantrymachine all over again. And sadly, im not the only one. I've seen too many other complaints from folks stemming from this one simple fact to dismiss it as irrelevant, whatever my personal favourite styles of play are (like i said, i'm that guy with 8 squads of doom reavers). As much as i will dismiss a lot of the nonsense solutions to the issue, the issue remains. the question i'll ask at the end of the day is this: "what exactly are you losing when another player gets something to enhance his style of play, that you're simply not going to take anyway"? while he wins, you dont lose either. think about it.
Mordekiem wrote: Sometimes trying a new faction IS the answer. They may fit better to your playstyle. They help get rid of the "Grass-is-greener" syndrome. And sometimes it is just good to get away from something for a little bit and come back with fresh eyes.
And one of the nice things about this game is it doesn't cost a huge amount of money to get a decent 35 point army together to play around with.
.
why do you think i play circle as my main faction now? trust me though, its not about the grass being greener Mordekeim*. warmachine factions are as effective as they've ever been, but i genuinely feel the playbooks could be expanded a bit. thats all (and like i said, its not for my sake - i've got my 8 squads of doom reavers to keep me occupied!)
*Sadly Irusk 2 destroyed Khador for me. He is such an awesome caster, everyone else in the faction felt limited afterwards. He was the caster that made me see how limited the rest of khador playbook was (not through them being bad though, just through irusk2 doing all the typical khadoran stuff -buff damage and surviveability)-whilst simultaneously allowing movement shenanigans and having an utterly disgusting control feat to boot). Although im not doubting vlad 3 and butcher 3 will be tempting me back to the motherland. butcher 3 is simply "win" manifested as a model. he's my favourite caster, i genuinely cant wait to get him.
Talamare wrote: It fully addresses and solves the issue, since the game is overall designed to be similar but not equals. Not every faction has everything, and not having everything does not mean they are pigeonhole. Khador should not and does not need all the things you list. It would be if I played Scyrah and started saying that Scyrah really needs some ARM25 Jacks that can detect stealth in its CMD range.
i will disagree. all hordes factions having excellentbeast support does merely highlights the lack of jack support in warmachine armies. "hordes has it" doesnt fix the problem of "warmachine doesnt have it".
I wouldn't call "Whelp Management" excellent beast support.
Legion and Skorne have excellent beast support.
Circle and Trolls have some options, but nothing spectacular.
Minions have nothing that I can think of.
So two factions have excellent 'beast support. I think that's fine.
Minoins have Targ who does have herding, medicate, and Ancillary Attack. Which helps but doesn't help the warlock keep his pigs from frenzy. Gators (which in my experience are more popular) don't have anything.
Edit: About Khador though, they do have some REALLY good jacks though. They tend to be hardy and hit hard. Clam jacks, I HATE them because they always stand in zones or bulldoze their way and kill half my troops with rain of death.
@Deadnight: So functionally your overall complaint is that Jacks don't have appropriate support across all factions? Did I summarize appropriately? Of course, from a design perspective, there is more to consider than just that. For example, since you're going into the WarMachine vs Hordes comparison:
-Jacks are mostly cheaper
-Jacks have more boxes
-Jacks tend to have higher base P+S
-Jacks are more likely to have a gun
-Jacks generally have higher arm (lower def)
So there are mitigating factors to consider. In addition, the design of the game has inherent imbalance as well:
-Warcasters are generally better than Warlocks (stats, spells, feats)
-WarMachine infantry is generally superior, as is infantry support
When you take all of that together, you have to be willing to concede some things. One of those is that jack marshalls are not that strong. Else you'd have high focus spell casters running hyper efficient jacks. Do you see an issue there? Step outside your specific faction bubble.
You do not need to describe the differences between jacks and beasts and focus and fury. I already fully appreciate and understand the fundamental differences of both. I'm often the one explaining it when the inevitable (and misguided) 'waaagh fury is broken and so op compared to focus debates' pop up, and so on. Believe me, I fully appreciate both systems. I've played both for long enough(since mk1 really)! And I play against some of the best players in Scotland (masters champion is in my group) I'm only going into hordes v warmachine in the context of the support options horde factions have for their beasts (point taken malfred) in order to better explain the point that I'm trying to get across with regard to warmachine.( and failing miserably, despite my best efforts. Crazy work hours are not good!)
In fact what I brought up wasn't even an issue that means all that much to me, and how I play. I'm quite happy with one or two jacks And a backbone of infantry - as I've said multiple times already. I do see it as an issue in the sense that I think it's a failure of the system that more warmachine factions are so limited in being able to run jack heavy due to a lack of support. Recent data from tournaments backs thus up, and I don't necessarily think what I saw was a 'nice' breakdown of faction statistics. Quite a few folks want to be able to play viable jack heavy lists (by all accounts, it's what gets a lot of people into the game... Butcher did it for me...) that aren't originating from the protectorate, and honestly I'm sympathetic to them, that's all. Giving them options to expand their game won't necessarily hurt mine.
Now, you mention better casters and better infantry. Which is true. But support pieces won't imbalance the equation. Surely more support pieces costing points, and more jacks takes away from this excellent infantry? More jacks means less banes, after all, to use a frequently touted cryx list...
I've given examples of the types of support pieces that I talking about,repeatedly. It Just seems to me folks are thinking I'm saying something completely different. The protectorate have the choir, but really, it's the retribution arcanist who I think is a wonderful piece. A 1pt solo that hands out a few simple buffs, and yet he really enhances the battlegroup. He most certainly doesn't allow, as you put it 'high focus spell casters to run hyper efficient jacks', but he is a huge asset to a retribution battlegroup all the same. He certainly makes two or three hacks more enticing, and for factions like khador or cryx, that's two more than is normally taken.
I think jack marshals are weak, but it's not because they were deliberately powered down when balancing them against the other mitigating factors of the game, I think it's just their rules have been shown to be somewhat lacklustre over time as the game has evolved, and been explored more fully, as evidenced by the fact that so few are generally taken.
As to stepping outside my faction bubble, that's a bit snide mate, and not fully appreciated. I've got a pretty good handle on both my factions, with enough placings at tournaments to know that I'm not just talking wind. And.ive got a healthy appreciation for the other factions. Pp do a great job, warmachine and hordes is by far my favourite wargame. But I was asked what I thought was wrong with the game. It's not the damage output. It's not that one faction dominates. It's that I'd like to see a less seen, underused and frequenltly dismissed and lsmbasted play style gives a bit of a buff. That's all. But for some reason, it's like I'm advocating the third reich... (Yay, nazi reference. This thread is complete)
I have been rather meh on jackmarshals personally as well, IMO the fix to give them all better drives (or a drive at all) and don't require a command check to activate it. So make drives more like field marshal.
Though about the Arcanist, I really liked that guy on the drawing board until I actually played some games against the elves and I don't like him nearly as much as I did before. Most of their heavies are expensive as it is and also rocking damage values that are only seen on Merc bargain bin jacks (such as the vanguard). Also with power booster a lot of elf jacks are very focus hungry with either getting abilities like fleet (for the griffin) or getting better stats with focus and it is not like the elf warcasters have any higher focus stats than warcasters of other factions.
Found this somewhere, perhaps my main issue was this, and was being exasperated by warcaster, jack and unit choices.
Spoiler:
-assuming both players are of equal playing skill-
Of the big four, only Khador has any feeling of being slightly less impressive than the other three. (Due to the Colossals meta shift messing up the old ways of Khador high-def infantry spam) Though its safe to assume this next book will help that out.
Mercs and Ret are both a tiny fraction lower in power tier, but not significant enough that they can't do well in any competitive scene. And CoC is currently suffering from a lack of models released yet so that's yet to truly be seen.
Hordes wise, Skorne was probably the only one of the main four that suffered greatly since mk2, but Gargants gave them a significant push up.
Then minions are basically a piece of @#$% but fun to play.
So tiers:
Toppest Tier: Cyrx. Menoth, Cygnar
Topper Tier: Legion, Trolls, Circle, Skorne, Khador
Top Tier: Ret, Mercs, CoC*
Mid Tier: Mercs as single contract
Bottom Tier: Minions
juraigamer wrote: Found this somewhere, perhaps my main issue was this, and was being exasperated by warcaster, jack and unit choices.
Spoiler:
-assuming both players are of equal playing skill-
Of the big four, only Khador has any feeling of being slightly less impressive than the other three. (Due to the Colossals meta shift messing up the old ways of Khador high-def infantry spam) Though its safe to assume this next book will help that out.
Mercs and Ret are both a tiny fraction lower in power tier, but not significant enough that they can't do well in any competitive scene. And CoC is currently suffering from a lack of models released yet so that's yet to truly be seen.
Hordes wise, Skorne was probably the only one of the main four that suffered greatly since mk2, but Gargants gave them a significant push up.
Then minions are basically a piece of @#$% but fun to play.
So tiers: Toppest Tier: Cyrx. Menoth, Cygnar Topper Tier: Legion, Trolls, Circle, Skorne, Khador Top Tier: Ret, Mercs, CoC* Mid Tier: Mercs as single contract Bottom Tier: Minions
Does this hold water?
I'd say it's close to accurate, but armies in the two highest tiers generally move up or down depending on the local Meta and according to releases book to book, so it's pretty fluid. I know a lot of people would argue with Legion and Circle being anything but "toppest" tier as well, or with Cygnar being up there, so it's not exactly an easy thing to call.
The only other things are that Minions is probably on the level of Mercs taking pure Searforge or Pirates (the other two contracts are much better and shouldn't be a separate entry), so you probably don't need an extra tier for each of them, and CoC probably shouldn't be on there at all just yet (give it a year for all the basic models to come out).
juraigamer wrote: Found this somewhere, perhaps my main issue was this, and was being exasperated by warcaster, jack and unit choices.
Spoiler:
-assuming both players are of equal playing skill-
Of the big four, only Khador has any feeling of being slightly less impressive than the other three. (Due to the Colossals meta shift messing up the old ways of Khador high-def infantry spam) Though its safe to assume this next book will help that out.
Mercs and Ret are both a tiny fraction lower in power tier, but not significant enough that they can't do well in any competitive scene. And CoC is currently suffering from a lack of models released yet so that's yet to truly be seen.
Hordes wise, Skorne was probably the only one of the main four that suffered greatly since mk2, but Gargants gave them a significant push up.
Then minions are basically a piece of @#$% but fun to play.
So tiers:
Toppest Tier: Cyrx. Menoth, Cygnar
Topper Tier: Legion, Trolls, Circle, Skorne, Khador
Top Tier: Ret, Mercs, CoC*
Mid Tier: Mercs as single contract
Bottom Tier: Minions
Does this hold water?
I wouldn't say skorne suffered to any major extent - skorne are a veritable powerhouse of a faction.
Regarding the tiers you list, again whilst nice as a rule of thumb, it's not entirely accurate. The tiers are extremely fluid and with the liquid meta evolves in this game, no defined tier of faction can exist. I've seen dozens of tiers rating the factions, and all were different. This is no different to any of the rest. Match up and releases will play a role.
The only caveat I'd bring in is to not put minions, Mercs and the coc alongside the others. The former toe are fractions, not factions and direct comparisons are not fair. The latter is just released so any kind of rating should wait until it has all it's stuff out.
juraigamer wrote: Found this somewhere, perhaps my main issue was this, and was being exasperated by warcaster, jack and unit choices.
Spoiler:
-assuming both players are of equal playing skill-
Of the big four, only Khador has any feeling of being slightly less impressive than the other three. (Due to the Colossals meta shift messing up the old ways of Khador high-def infantry spam) Though its safe to assume this next book will help that out.
Mercs and Ret are both a tiny fraction lower in power tier, but not significant enough that they can't do well in any competitive scene. And CoC is currently suffering from a lack of models released yet so that's yet to truly be seen.
Hordes wise, Skorne was probably the only one of the main four that suffered greatly since mk2, but Gargants gave them a significant push up.
Then minions are basically a piece of @#$% but fun to play.
So tiers:
Toppest Tier: Cyrx. Menoth, Cygnar
Topper Tier: Legion, Trolls, Circle, Skorne, Khador
Top Tier: Ret, Mercs, CoC*
Mid Tier: Mercs as single contract
Bottom Tier: Minions
Does this hold water?
I wouldn't say skorne suffered to any major extent - skorne are a veritable powerhouse of a faction.
Regarding the tiers you list, again whilst nice as a rule of thumb, it's not entirely accurate. The tiers are extremely fluid and with the liquid meta evolves in this game, no defined tier of faction can exist. I've seen dozens of tiers rating the factions, and all were different. This is no different to any of the rest. Match up and releases will play a role.
The only caveat I'd bring in is to not put minions, Mercs and the coc alongside the others. The former toe are fractions, not factions and direct comparisons are not fair. The latter is just released so any kind of rating should wait until it has all it's stuff out.
Yes and no on the Mercs. They have 2 really good Colllasals now and with a new caster or two I think they will be up there with the rest of them.
juraigamer wrote: Found this somewhere, perhaps my main issue was this, and was being exasperated by warcaster, jack and unit choices.
Spoiler:
-assuming both players are of equal playing skill-
Of the big four, only Khador has any feeling of being slightly less impressive than the other three. (Due to the Colossals meta shift messing up the old ways of Khador high-def infantry spam) Though its safe to assume this next book will help that out.
Mercs and Ret are both a tiny fraction lower in power tier, but not significant enough that they can't do well in any competitive scene. And CoC is currently suffering from a lack of models released yet so that's yet to truly be seen.
Hordes wise, Skorne was probably the only one of the main four that suffered greatly since mk2, but Gargants gave them a significant push up.
Then minions are basically a piece of @#$% but fun to play.
So tiers:
Toppest Tier: Cyrx. Menoth, Cygnar
Topper Tier: Legion, Trolls, Circle, Skorne, Khador
Top Tier: Ret, Mercs, CoC*
Mid Tier: Mercs as single contract
Bottom Tier: Minions
Does this hold water?
Khador just won the WMW Masters Invitational in a final against Trolls. And in a 16 player field 8 out of 11 factions were represented (I don't believe that CoC can be counted in any of these because less than half the faction has been released yet).
The missing factions were: Retribution, Mercs and Minions.
So I would say that that list is a pretty fair assessment if we stick with the qualifier "assuming both players are of equal playing skill" which is pretty much impossible to uphold seeing as in a tournament where the players were arguably the best in the US, the "toppest tier" factions lost to factions that are from the "topper tier".
I'll throw my two cents in here too, since I've been trying to explain some of these same concepts to friends of mine.
I started off wargaming in general as a 40k player. I loved it and I still do enjoy aspects of it, but Warmahordes has ruined 40k for me.
Short answer: the rule interactions are so tight that it's never really ambiguous as to what will happen when I play. And if I"M not sure, then it's easy to look at the "Rules" subsection in the forum to get an answer 99 times out of 100 (which may be the actual number that I've looked up).
I think the fact alone that PP gives you a forum to discuss rules/tactics (and get official rulings) is leaps ahead of GW. Plus erreta are usually small changes (I don't think I've seen anything as big as "this gun no longer works the way everyone assumed it did")
Big picture though, it goes back to what everyone has said to an extent: given how smoothly the rules work, every unit can be used well (some are more situational than everyday though).
My best personal example? In 40k my last big army was a Wych focused Dark Eldar army. 6th edition gutted my tactics for army delivery (with other things) making my army almost unplayable. In essence, if I had a bad matchup (which now included most armys) there was little I could do to remedy that.
On the other end of that, in warmachine, I've started messing around with the Witch Coven in Cryx. On paper they have quite a few bad matchups as they are a VERY low armor caster who mostly rely on stealth. In reality, their feat actually mitigates their greatest weakness, and the army list I choose can push the line of engagment to a point where they arn't always about to die.
Which (in true rambling style) brings me back to an idea about balance. I can have two identical warmahordes armys and only change the caster/lock and most of the time it will play pretty differently. (Lookin at you, "Who's the boss?" tournaments). If I change my HQ in 40k, it usually won't signifigently impact what each individual role a unit wants to do. Warmachine is balanced around the idea that the army composition is important. 40k is based around the idea that each unit's designated role is important. If I just picked the "strongest" units in my warmachine faction, they'd most likely be terrible due to bad synergy or at the least, not optimized for what they do best.. If I picked the "strongest" units from a codex in 40k, I have an all-comers list more often that not
The only time I've ever felt the game was unwinnable or imbalanced (I've been playing ~ once a week for a year) was when I brought a heavily anti light inf./stealth list (expecting to play agianst cryx) and ended up playing against a troll heavy infantry based list. Which was my own fault. But I still knocked the enemy 'lock down to 1/3 of his health, which to me indicates that you can do well even in a bad situation.
This has probably been said time and time again over the pages upon pages of posts... But why not say it again. So I came from playing 40k for about 8 years and I absolutely loved the game. The models are amazing, I feel the rules, for the scale of the game, are solid enough. And I just had so much fun seeing the massive amounts of models in every game, not to mention rolling fistfuls of dice. So after a while I started taking the game pretty serious and wanted to start playing at a competitive level... This is where I soon realized with exactly how unbalanced the game really was and how you HAD to have the newest thing out or you just couldn't compete. When you go to a GT and 8 out of the top 10 are running almost identical lists, to me, there is a problem. So after that I began looking at warmachine because I heard it was balanced and blah blah blah. Of course I didn't believe it because I was a GW fanboy. So I beg can playing the game and I will say, once you learn the game and understand the mechanics of the game, it is about as balanced as it can get. Yes you have some extremely powerful casters, or units, but with the nature of the game and the rules set, you are never out of the fight. At the tourney level with how the games are run, you have multiple ways of winning. That right there is absolutely amazing, not to mention the multiple list formats. So from a competitive standpoint the game is extremely balanced and the rules are extremely tight... So you may have a hard time believing that his game is balanced, but I'm here, as well as multiple others, to tell you that it is. If I had to chalk it up to one thing, it would be lack of experience and skill outside of your local meta.
You'd also be surprised just how often low level casters and other models show up at high level tournaments.
You get good enough at this game you can make anything work.
The fact Khador won while running Assault Kommandos says a lot. Its all about player skill.
Now its best to acquire that skill while using the "better" models simply because its easier to use them. This allows you to not worry about understanding how the model works and instead concentrate on how to win the game with them.
.
Fun times!
moment. Maybe if my burrowers had been near, I could have add a few extra attacks, but I'm not sure it would have changed much.
