Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a buddy who swears that Warmachine doesn't have a single broken rule, and the rules are crystal clear. I haven't gotten fully into Warmachine/Horde but I find this very difficult to believe (I've found broken or dubious rules in every table top game I've played).

The only thing I usually think of when he says it, is that I really don't think the two games are all that simmilar. Sure they are table top, but the whole premise of play in WM/Horde seems very unique imo.

thoughts?

No game system has perfect rules.

I do stand behind the Warmachine/Hordes rules as being very tight in their interactions, and very clear cut as to when things are in effect. A lot less is left to interpretation than in 40K.

However, as you mentioned, they are two different styles of games, with 40K being more about larger armies and mass combat, while WM/H is a smaller sized game, with more attention to individual model actions.

I'm almost positive your buddy is wrong. I'm a Warmahordes player, and I think the rule set is fantastic, but I'm sure there is some broken stuff in there. I can't think of anything off hand but I'm sure someone will pop in here with an example.

I never played MK I but there were some weird things with throw chains that let you move your units much further up field then they were supposed to. Those are gone now, except for the Gators but they have their own issues to deal with.

Although there's no 'perfect' rules set, I have *never* encountered the same sort of ambiguity and ongoing issues/debate with WM/H mk2 that has been common with so many GW rules and codex releases. Deffrollas, Doom of Malanti, WBB during Sweeping Advance... it just doesn't exist in WM/H.

Part of that (IMO) is they spell out what happens when you have opposing effects, how timing works, and the preassumption that RAW IS RAW.

As far as a broken, overpowered rule, nothing immediately comes to mind. There are powerful combos that are difficult to hard to defend against, but nothing like the fun of a Kroot line blocking the entrance to the board.

Valid rule questions are dealt with on the PP boards fairly quickly for the most part. There were some delays last year with getting a ruling on how Kara Sloan's feat worked and if the Behemoth's sub-cortex was changed or was supposed to still work like it did in Mk1, but those are few and far between. Rulings aren't coming down to "roll off" or "buy more stuffs".

Gr3y wrote:I never played MK I but there were some weird things with throw chains that let you move your units much further up field then they were supposed to. Those are gone now, except for the Gators but they have their own issues to deal with.

To be fair, that was rules working as intended, rather than an exploit. See numerous mentions of throwing your own Drakhun in NQ strategy articles.

I find warmahordes a bit formulaic compared to 5th edition or 40k in general!

Phototoxin wrote:I find warmahordes a bit formulaic compared to 5th edition or 40k in general!

Example?

I don't think there are really any comparisons in the rules other than they are mini games.

...and, all games become formulaic if you play them enough.

Devilsquid wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I find warmahordes a bit formulaic compared to 5th edition or 40k in general!

Example?

Generally that's the complaint of people who'd rather throw 150 models on the table and roll dice until they go away again. WarmaHordes certainly is a more rigorous/regimented game simply because it's more unforgiving. 40k is more laissez faire as you can still be considered "playing" as long as you have a model on the table.

The biggest difference in the two games is the company response time. If you have a question, you can ask on the boards and get an official response in nearly no time at all. An OFFICIAL response, mind you. Also, they have a glossary, and if two units have stealth, then stealth is worded the same way EVERY TIME. Causes Disruption? Works the same. Knockdown, charge, leap, etc etc etc. Move, Run, shooting attacks, melee attacks, melee range... it's all consistant. None of this confusion between different dialects of english or the use of interchangable terms (turn/round, etc. In fact, fine example: turn and round are defined terms).

So is WM/H broken? Sometimes. But they patch regularly and often. If GW was as player friendly... these boards probably wouldn't need to exist.

Devilsquid wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I find warmahordes a bit formulaic compared to 5th edition or 40k in general!

Example?

When you try to do something in Warmachine/Hordes you follow the same core mechanic and resolution structure. Everything has rules that work and are clear. See?! Formulaic as all get out.

Warmachine/Hordes: Predictable and deterministic rules interactions.
40K: The Hellpit that is YMDK when the new codex comes out with the inevitable vague and poorly defined rules.

Gr3y wrote:

Devilsquid wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:I find warmahordes a bit formulaic compared to 5th edition or 40k in general!

Example?

When you try to do something in Warmachine/Hordes you follow the same core mechanic and resolution structure. Everything has rules that work and are clear. See?! Formulaic as all get out.

I HATE when that happens.

Oh wait, no I don't.

I know I hate playing games where I don't have a rules argument every 10 minutes.

Why should I be able to concentrate on playing when there are fabulous arguments to be had instead?

I haven't played warmahordes, but there is no way that the rule set is perfect, there is no game out there (table top or otherwise) that has a perfect set of rules. Maybe much easier to understand, and to come to a conclusion with compared to 40K (which is notorious for making people rage over whose rule set is more accurate) but not perfect...

No one said perfect.
They said that you always know what the outcome of rules interactions will be.
There are very very few cases of fuzzy interpretation in WM/H rules.
There are also a few cases of some combination of abilities being more powerful than is balanced.

One thing is sure, if something is perceived as broken in WM/H, the writers are either happy with it as is, or are looking at ways to fix it.
What they are not doing is ignoring it.

Another apect about WM/H is PP is much much faster about the army books. So its not all about everyone flocking to the latest escalated codex for several months.

They got their army books out one right after the other on a very tight schedule. And in doing so still maintained game balance as no one codex has any sort of obvious bias over the others.

Also- when they do a major revamp of their rules- they dont just say 'Heres a new edition, and some figs in a box!' they make the trial rules available to everyone for several months and WANT feedback. Then they make tweaks and put the TESTED final product on the shelves.

Something that to mind the other day when listening to a 40K game: I'm glad that in WM/H, if i hit you with something big enough, your model is going to die. If your ARM 15 warrior gets hit with my Juggernaut's POW 19 axe, it's dead. No rolling a 1 to wound, or other such nonsense.


I like that the rules are tight. that when there's confusion, i pop open the index, look for the relevant section, and 95% of the time find the answer i'm looking for.

The problem on GW's end is they treat the rules as a sort of goofy half-framework for your buddies to nod to once in awhile while you throw dice at each other, while PP set out to actually make a consistent set of rules for a competitive tabletop miniatures game.

GW's setup of "Which writer or two are free for the next few months, let's give them pretty much unrestricted control of what the next few years of this army/rules edition will look like" approach to design is also completely contrary to PP's methods.

Mistress of minis wrote:Another apect about WM/H is PP is much much faster about the army books. So its not all about everyone flocking to the latest escalated codex for several months.

They got their army books out one right after the other on a very tight schedule. And in doing so still maintained game balance as no one codex has any sort of obvious bias over the others.

Also- when they do a major revamp of their rules- they dont just say 'Heres a new edition, and some figs in a box!' they make the trial rules available to everyone for several months and WANT feedback. Then they make tweaks and put the TESTED final product on the shelves.

One year. They put out the Warmachine MKII book last January, and this month they put out the last army book. That's two main rules books and eleven "Codexes" in one year. How Awesome would Warhammer be if GW could do that?

While Warmahordes has an absolutely solid rules set, the reason it isn't broken is because every faction can pull out some unstoppable or super-cool combo that's hard to defend against, and warcasters can give buffs to their units so those units that are iffy or meh can still be playable.

In 40k, armies like Necrons and Daemonhunters suffer to a degree, and many units like Possessed or Chaos Spawn are unplayable, which is why 40k is broken. And Devilsquid's point about stat vs stat is also a key development, WM/H is a lot more reliable when it comes down to dice rolls.

However, I won't explicitly say WM/H is better, because IMHO it still isn't. Yeah, it's a solid ruleset, with little to no rules debates, but honestly YMDC has tons of things in which people try to abuse RAW and RAI to get their units to do stupid things.

A problem with WM/H though is that, just like 40k, once in a while you'll have units that are just meh compared to the new stuff, (I.E. Winter Guard before they got attachments, the current Assault Kommandos, Reeves of Orboros, etc.) which PP tries to usually fix by throwing in unit attachments/weapon attachments, meaning that sometimes to be effective you'll need to shell out a chunk of points on what's effectively a meh unit on 'roids.

For example, if I want to run a Winter Guard unit effectively, I need to spend a minimum of 8-10 points, which may take up a significant amount of my army. It's really rare, and I'm sure someone will quote this and tell me I'm some sort of psuedo-internet slow who doesn't worship PP as some sort of wargaming overlords, but it does happen every now and then.

But, again, the reason it's considered solid is due to the constant clarifications on rules. When GW has an ambiguous rule, they don't really "officially" fix it, they send out an FAQ. Why they don't just fix it is beyond me, really...

To be fair, that Winterguard unit costs 4-6 points. Pretty much every 4-6 unit is rather meh without support or attachments. TFG, Zealots, and Praetorians, for instance. And really, that's probably the way it should be: While I'd like to pay 4-6 for my Exemplar Errants, it probably wouldn't be particularly balanced.

Yeah, certainly true. I have no problems with these units really, just kinda wanted an example of sorts...

And the thing is that even with the minimum units Warcaster buffs/feats can make them much better than they are...

Which is kinda why 40k is a bit less... interesting, I suppose. Much less synergy. I just don't wanna haet 40k though, great game.

Cryonicleech wrote:
And the thing is that even with the minimum units Warcaster buffs/feats can make them much better than they are...

That's balance. Right there. That focus or fury going towards that unit leaves less resources for your 'caster or 'lock to excel and do their thing.

There are three resource mechanics at play here:

Points: Higher point cost units tend to be more self sufficient. My 10 point full Long Gunner unit is a threat all by itself. Especially compared to your six point Winter Guard. However I'm paying for that efficiency by sucking up almost a quarter of a 35 point list.

Focus/Fury: I need that to boost my ARM, run my 'jacks or transfer damage. While I saved a chunk of points and can now field a larger force, I have to be more selective in how I manage it as I have additional drain on my resources. Do I buff up that brick of infantry and let one of my 'jacks go hungry? Or do I feed the 'jack and leave them exposed? Let's get tactical up in this piece!

Activation: Because each unit activates and resolves its actions separately I need to think carefully about which order I do things in. Units that require non upkeepable spells require me to active my 'caster/'lock first. That means I need to hand out my buffs, cast my spells, and maybe beat some face at the top of my turn, leaving my most powerful tool unable to react if the situation changes later in my turn sequence. Maybe that unit that I just buffed whiffed their attacks and damage. If I counted on them to keep charge lanes clear then I now have no way to extract my commander. The best I can hope is to either survive the coming assault or move something into position to eat the attack for me. I've won and lost games because units were activated in the wrong sequence.

Taking the demand on these resources into account I think PP has done a positively stellar job in costing their models. Yeah, maybe pistol wraiths are a little over costed, and maybe Triumph should be a point cheaper for what it does, but about 95% of the time you can see why something is a 2 point solo or a unit is 4/6 instead of a 3 point solo or a 6/10 unit.

Gr3y wrote:
Taking the demand on these resources into account I think PP has done a positively stellar job in costing their models. Yeah, maybe pistol wraiths are a little over costed, and maybe Triumph should be a point cheaper for what it does, but about 95% of the time you can see why something is a 2 point solo or a unit is 4/6 instead of a 3 point solo or a 6/10 unit.

I really think this is a vindication of the change to the points system. It becomes much less opaque; you can actually see what is a bit to expensive rather than question whether a solo needs to change in points +/-5-10 points.

The tack-on-UA solution to making a unit decent is also only half the picture, I think. I am currently running a 35pts Amon list with an ungodly amount of light jacks (I think I may have found an use for the Vigilant in my meta, oh my) and a Reclaimer for that extra Focus oomph on the feat turn. Depending on the exact build, I include a 6 or 10 man TFG unit without the UA. These guys are not really meant to be what a 10 man TFG+UA unit can be at peak efficiency: they are meant to die at a decent pace (they Shieldwall up if faced by multiple model killing spells like Chain Lightning or AOE's, thus demanding that my opponent actually devote resources to killing them rather than just bump a bunch of them off with impunity), cover from models attempting to sneak in between my models to run interference, provide souls for that Reclaimer, and if they are still around in the late game, pick off things that are in the way for the Dervish jumping jack circus assasination run. This 4 or 6 pts unit this is a bit different from what the 6+2pts TFG do in, say an eFeora list. But no other Protectorate unit can do what they do at that price.

Cryonicleech wrote:However, I won't explicitly say WM/H is better, because IMHO it still isn't. Yeah, it's a solid ruleset, with little to no rules debates, but honestly YMDC has tons of things in which people try to abuse RAW and RAI to get their units to do stupid things.

Emphasis mine.

Cryonicleech wrote:
A problem with WM/H though is that, just like 40k, once in a while you'll have units that are just meh compared to the new stuff, (I.E. Winter Guard before they got attachments, the current Assault Kommandos, Reeves of Orboros, etc.) which PP tries to usually fix by throwing in unit attachments/weapon attachments, meaning that sometimes to be effective you'll need to shell out a chunk of points on what's effectively a meh unit on 'roids.

For example, if I want to run a Winter Guard unit effectively, I need to spend a minimum of 8-10 points, which may take up a significant amount of my army. It's really rare, and I'm sure someone will quote this and tell me I'm some sort of psuedo-internet slow who doesn't worship PP as some sort of wargaming overlords, but it does happen every now and then.

Once again, emphasis mine. PP is a minis company. They continue to make money because they improve underpowered units to make them sell. And they do TRY to improve on their failures and their successes, acknowledging each. Yes. They fail. But they strive for improvement.

Honestly I stopped playing PP because I couldn't handle how FAST they updated armies. Having to buy new units CONSTANTLY to keep up with the creep got effing ridiculous. But that rule set is rock solid, it seriously is.

Nagashek wrote:
Honestly I stopped playing PP because I couldn't handle how FAST they updated armies. Having to buy new units CONSTANTLY to keep up with the creep got effing ridiculous. But that rule set is rock solid, it seriously is.

I think they corrected that quite well with MkII. The basic prime units are still as viable as they ever were, and you dont need the fanciest new unit to stay competitive.

Part of the problem there is scale. When Evolution was released the number of units available to each faction doubled overnight. Now Warmachine has five books and the MkII rebalance. It will be quite some time before that problem reoccurs, if it ever does.

Seriously, when it was at its worst there were only one or two 'must' have units per year. How 'must' they were depends upon your gaming environment.

I don't know about other factions but all the Prime units for Cryx are good. There are no duffers in Prime.

Menoth has solid Prime models. Zealots are iffy, but at 4/6 points they have
their uses.

The situational Khador Prime unit seems to be Man-O-War, but Butcher theme
force speeds them up a ton.