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've been in 40k games (1500 & 1750) where I've won without loosing a model. I've also been destroyed to the model while my opponent has lost nothing. Sadly the later is more common than the former in my case.

Of course... I've played a lot of games.

WM is similar, although because there is a single model that can end the game at below 1000 points, zero casualty victories are more common. But at higher point values (750) it also becomes difficult to win at WM with no losses. At 1000 points it is extremely tough.

WM is like chess in that respect. An inexperienced player in chess can get mate'd in 2-3 moves if he really screws up without a single piece being traded. In WM if you are not careful with your caster, the same can happen.

Been playing a long time too Russ, just have never seen it happen. Not a lot of games give you an auto victory for taking out a piece. (wargames that is)

The point is that it is a different style of game than most tabletop miniature games. Not saying it is a bad thing, but it has a very different play style.

Agreed. And I know you've been playing awhile, which is why I was surprised you never witnessed anyone get totally nerfed in 40k. It usually happens when some poor bastard (me, in many cases) is trying out some wacky new list concept and goes up against a veteran player with a min/maxed force.

Heh heh, even in bad luck I have seen at least a single kill

But, the world is a very very big place!

Here's one to try: KOS vs 2 monolith necron force.

"Plant more 'shrooms ma, wez all outta boyz"

That is a rather extreme example, Russ.

I don't think I've ever been in a game in which one side didn't kill a model, though I've been in some pretty one-sided games (out of how many hundred? Do you still have Dakka stats somewhere?).

The issue is less about how many models you kill, however, and more about the character-centric rule of most WM scenarios that caster kill trumps all. In some ways it's a good thing. It gives a player who is losing, even badly, a way out and some excitement. OTOH, it also makes all other tactical considerations, and superior play up to that point in the game, basically irrelevent if you make a (sometimes very small) mistake with your caster. This, to me, is a serious problem with the game. Not enough to keep me from playing it regularly, but certainly one which annoys me pretty much every time I play.

Perhaps, but it is also a true story.

Ragnar you've also wipped me out to the model and lost nothing in the past.   You may not remember those bad beats... but they haunt my dreams.  HAUNT I tell ya. 

You guys just need to play orks more.

Posted By RussWakelin on 04/11/2007 12:53 PM

That is a rather extreme example, Russ.

Perhaps, but it is also a true story.

Ragnar you've also wipped me out to the model and lost nothing in the past.   You may not remember those bad beats... but they haunt my dreams.  HAUNT I tell ya. 

You guys just need to play orks more.

You're right, I don't remember wiping you to the model without losing anything.  Because it never happened.   I do remember getting my clock cleaned by your orks in my second league, but even in that game, I at least killed a few guys.

Posted By RussWakelin on 04/11/2007 12:18 PM

Heh heh, even in bad luck I have seen at least a single kill

But, the world is a very very big place!

Here's one to try: KOS vs 2 monolith necron force.

"Plant more 'shrooms ma, wez all outta boyz"

Much worse than that is the old Virus Outbreak card on Imperial Guard.  I saw one guy loose 90% of his army before the first turn.  The everything left was shot up and his Leman Russ blew up and tumbled over his last squad causing them to break and run off the board. All over in half a turn.

Playing Orks this weekend in a mini tourney

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/11/2007 12:45 PM

The issue is less about how many models you kill, however, and more about the character-centric rule of most WM scenarios that caster kill trumps all. In some ways it's a good thing. It gives a player who is losing, even badly, a way out and some excitement. OTOH, it also makes all other tactical considerations, and superior play up to that point in the game, basically irrelevent if you make a (sometimes very small) mistake with your caster. This, to me, is a serious problem with the game. Not enough to keep me from playing it regularly, but certainly one which annoys me pretty much every time I play.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  I really like the "alternate win condition" system in Warmachine.  While I do agree that assassination should not have a place in every mission, I do like the fact that an otherwise loosing army always has that chance to make a comeback, even in the late game...

In 40k, usually if one side has taken 75% casualties, the game is effectively over.  While it can be argued that achieving 75% casualties should entitle the dominant side to a victory... I feel that having an objective to achieve, even if it is assassination is far more satisfying than GW's straight VP system...

Example: 

In one 500 point game, my high reclaimer had 32 focus one turn.  This meant that 27 friendly trooper models had DIED in his control area the previous turn (or I had just taken 78% casualties over the course of one enemy turn - damn bile thralls + venom). 

In a normal game, this would be a rout.  However, we were playing the mission where you had to cross the middle line and prevent enemies from entering your half of the table...  My opponent got so carried away slaughtering my army, that he forgot the objective, and my badly wounded paladin was all that I needed to reap the one control point and win.  I believe I had 3 models alive at the end of the game.  (Even without this condition, with 32 focus and stuck with the stats of a Jr. Warcaster, I might have been able to kill Deneghra, dead, Dead, DEAD!)

This kind of win would NEVER happen in the GW system, since the VP differential for loosing 92% of your army and inflicting 12% casualties on your opponent would completely negate the feeble VP bonus that GW gives out for mission objectives.  While this is not a fault of the game system, I feel that this mode of mission design encourages a very rigid playstyle based on VP ROI trumping all other considerations.

Anyhow.  YMMV of course. 

I play Cryx so I'm all for the alternate win. Sometimes. Well it depends... Well it helps me but sometimes I feel cheap killing a 'caster just to pull out a win. Well no, I lie. I love it. I played a game against Trollbloods the other day and I killed only one model. It was Doomshaper so I won.
I'd be nakkered if I had to kill all those trolls...
It makes any game a close game. Even what looks like a blowout. I like it.

Wow. Assassinating a warlock takes some doing (like overexposing a warlock
and burning all your fury I guess).

Doesn't GW have quarters claiming type objectives?

Yeah, GW has a number of missions where the mission objective trumps all. OTOH different people people play it differently, so...

I like the alternate win conditions in WM, it does allow a player whose forces have been devastated to pull out a win. In the SR3 missions, you win either by objectives/control points, or by Caster Kill. VPs *only* matter if time is called before anyone has done either of those two.

There seems to be much less "VP denial" in WM than 40k. People don't just hide half of their army (either behind terrain, or in indestructible skimmers), because if they do, they can't defend their warcaster/warlock or achieve the mission The game structure very much encourages aggressive play, which makes for a more fun game.

Posted By keezus on 04/11/2007 2:54 PM

In 40k, usually if one side has taken 75% casualties, the game is effectively over.  While it can be argued that achieving 75% casualties should entitle the dominant side to a victory... I feel that having an objective to achieve, even if it is assassination is far more satisfying than GW's straight VP system...

This kind of win would NEVER happen in the GW system, since the VP differential for loosing 92% of your army and inflicting 12% casualties on your opponent would completely negate the feeble VP bonus that GW gives out for mission objectives.  While this is not a fault of the game system, I feel that this mode of mission design encourages a very rigid playstyle based on VP ROI trumping all other considerations.

In this you're simply incorrect.  In Alpha missions (1/3rd of all games played, according to the rules) this is always possible.  I've gotten my army thoroughly mauled but still drawn or WON the game based on having my few surviving units holding quadrants.

This is also part of why GW jacked the VP awards for the objectives in 4th.  In a 1500pt Gamma Cleanse, controlling a neutral quadrant is worth 375pts.  Controlling your opponent's home quadrant is worth 750.   Eaither can easily turn a loss into a win.

Very true.
I really must look into hordes/warmachine some day. The trollblood miniatures are brilliant. Do all factions get equal support from PP?
(My biggest personal bugbear about GW)

Yep, they do. This is one of the nicest things about PP. Everyone gets regular infusions of new stuff.

Hmmm.
I'd need to hook a bunch of friends on it, but I'm good at that...

"This kind of win would NEVER happen in the GW system, since the VP differential for loosing 92% of your army and inflicting 12% casualties on your opponent would completely negate the feeble VP bonus that GW gives out for mission objectives."

I think you nailed it in your own post -

" While it can be argued that achieving 75% casualties should entitle the dominant side to a victory..."

If I take out +90% of your army, while losing neglible forces on my side, the game should be mine. And to be fair, the VP bonuses in 40k can actually be quite substantial - if you play Secure and Control at 1500pt, and only roll 3 Loot counters, each counter is worth 500 VPs - or  over 30 dead Space Marines. Even if you roll an average of 4 Loot counters, each counter is still worth a meaty 375 VPs.

And as Mannahnin stated, in Alpha missions, it's all about the objectives. In my gaming group, we pick armies, then roll mission, then roll mission difficulty (Alpha, Gamma, Omega.) I know some people look down on Alpha as "baby-level," but I feel the chance of playing Alpha forces you to pick a better balanced list (something that doesn't rely on Infiltration or Deep Strike,) just as Omega discourages you from taking totally Mechanized armies.

But you're right, to each his own, some prefer the alternate win condition, some don't. Good gaming!

Zoned

I have never quit a game of Warmachine/Hordes because simply the game isn't over until its over. As a opposed to some other games where it is apparent who will win on turn four. And suffering through the rest of it is not worth it. But knowing that regardless of how badly I'm mauled I can still mount a come back is an important part of the fun to me.

I have the exact same experience with 40k though. I once had both of my Falcons dropped on turn one before I got to move, and came back to score a Draw with the VP differential in my favor.

40k really does support come from behind wins too. It just doesn't make them so easy by making one hero more important than the rest of your army put together.

Qoute:

I have never quit a game of Warmachine/Hordes because simply the game isn't over until its over. As a opposed to some other games where it is apparent who will win on turn four. And suffering through the rest of it is not worth it. But knowing that regardless of how badly I'm mauled I can still mount a come back is an important part of the fun to me.

I played a game of WM last night and had only about 313 of my Menoth ready. My opponent had 500 in Trolls. I played to that fact that he was overwhelming in points and that I wouldn't stand a chance. I waited for that one moment were he was a little overconfident and killed his caster. You can give up some attrition to set up an unwise opponent and that's what I like about Warmachine. One moment of laxity and it's game over. Both systems are great and have different playing styles but I think a little luck plays a bigger role with 40K than warmachine.

Heh heh, I would say that luck can play a HUGE roll in both systems. It can entirely change a gameplan. I have seen "sure things" in both games wif, and in so doing change the entire course of that battle. That nice caster kill isn't always a given, even when you set it up all nice. And that grot herd sometimes can hold up the strongest assault from Khorne Berzerkers for the whole game....

This is my favorite aspect of Privateer, their system of new releases is brilliant. 

Instead of releasing new army lists (codex's) they release new game supplements, which are big books.  Each supplement includes new units and material for all the forces in the game.  For example, Apotheosis introduced giant "Unique Warjacks" and "Epic Warcasters" to the WM game, and each faction got one.  Superiority introduced Cavalry to the game, and each faction got mounted units, etc.

This is fairly crafty on many levels:

• No race is ever neglected, each release has something for everyone.  (One could argue the mercs were a bit neglected until Superiority, but they weren't really a core faction until then)
• Game balance is easier to maintain, as all factions get new toys at the same time.
• The new books sell better, as ALL fans of the game system will buy the books, since there is something for everyone.
• All factions get new models at the same time.  Other companies might have all the releases in a given quarter dedicated to a specific faction, PP has all the releases dedicated to a specific expansion.  i.e. Over 3 months everyone gets new unit attachments, cavalry, etc.
• Shorter waits for new stuff for your favorite faction. 

There is a down side, however, and that is the above method makes it more challenging to support a lot of factions.  WM supports 5 factions this way, any more would be VERY difficult to keep between the pages of one supplement.

PP mitigated this problem with another clever idea, release a SECOND game with 4 new factions, but make it compatible with the first. Hordes releases work just like WM, and all Hordes players are very excited about this summer's "Evolution" release, which will give all Hordes forces new units like the massive alpha warbeasts and cavalry.

This means that there are now effectively 9 faction choices in the Iron Kingdom games of WM and Hordes that can all play against each other.   It is true that Hordes releases don't contain much for WM factions, nor do WM releases give much to Hordes, but each release does update all the factions in the given game. 

I think the guys over at Battlefront Miniatures are toying around with a similar concept for Flames of War, releasing army books for "Theaters of War" instead of army books for just a specific country.  I could be wrong about that, but that's what I thought I read someplace.

If other companies could figure out how to emulate PP on this one it would be good for all.  But I can certainly understand how extremely difficult a shift it would be for a large company with many armies to support to manage such a change.

 

---

Side note: I'd just like to commend everyone in this thread for discussing such a hot topic about two games we're all passionate about and keeping it civil.  Kudos!

Who would have thunk that would happen on Dakka? Geesh.

The one thing that makes me curious, is just how long can a system like that keep doing that? I mean, Confrontation ran into the same support problem with multiple armies. It starts to weigh itself down. How long can you keep pushing stuff out before the entire thing weighs itself down?

Well, it has weighed down a bit. There's no Warmachine expansion this
year but instead we're going to see Hordes in summer and magazine preview
expansions for Warmachine. So slower, yes, but until they expand the
game size to 2000 pts, the nature of the game will change only so much.

To Russ' list of advantages, I'd add another: the ability for everyone to know what's in other army lists, ie. to limit cheat. I can't number how many times a "creative" opponent invented special abilities to his/her units or just improved their profile.

Posted By malfred on 04/13/2007 10:19 AM
Well, it has weighed down a bit. There's no Warmachine expansion this
year but instead we're going to see Hordes in summer and magazine preview
expansions for Warmachine. So slower, yes, but until they expand the
game size to 2000 pts, the nature of the game will change only so much.

Yowza.  I can't even imagine playing WM at that size.  The rules set is just too focused on individual models.  How long would that take?  I've had a couple of really tactical 500pt games of WM take two hours or so, and at this point  I'm reluctant to expand to 750.  The additional levels of complexity and length of game time needed with multiple casters does not appeal to me at all.   1k still doesn't get you the model count or "full size battle" feel of Warhammer, but it actually takes longer to play and has a lot more stuff to keep track of.  2k just seems insane to me, unless they change the rules substantially.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/12/2007 8:10 PM
I have the exact same experience with 40k though. I once had both of my Falcons dropped on turn one before I got to move, and came back to score a Draw with the VP differential in my favor.

40k really does support come from behind wins too. It just doesn't make them so easy by making one hero more important than the rest of your army put together.

I find that to be more of an exception than a rule for 40k. I like the game and I'm one of the few remaining players of it at my LGS. And I've managed some come from behind wins. But you have to admit that too often its very much like rock/paper/scissors.