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.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost

People keep putting this forward, but the battle reports and posts about facing them don't really support it(other than the Stormwall's pods). Damage wise, they don't seem to be doing much more than 2-3 jacks(incidentally, what they happen to replace in most lists), but they're not as sturdy or flexible as those same jacks. The fact that a Bronzeback or War Hog can wreck them in one turn with a little support says a lot.

Yes, people are putting together stupid crazy lists(like Darius + 2 Stormwalls), but it's really not that different from Jack heavy lists and, like every new entry, we'll learn to adapt to them in a couple months.

spiralingcadaver wrote:The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)

It's not being pushed by the company; you're making that up with zero proof. For example, when GW pushes stuff, they devalue what used to be good, improve what theyre pushing, and fill their publications with crap about them. PP hasnt done any of that.

Your colossal review is also lacking facts; again just making that stuff up. As the above post states, there is plenty of stuf that kills colossals.

Finally its not about whoever has more money has a better army. A gamer that doesnt take a colossal and instead takes 3x heavys spends like 50$ more. 50$ is nothing.

Playing mercs primarily, the fact that heavier-hitting factions' stronger heavies can deal with them isn't very consoling, where I tend to have trouble taking out regular old heavies in bulk, though can at least avoid those :/. Also, when talking about new pieces, the mundane ones are never the issue, as they'll never heavily impact meta. The outliers are the problem, and I think that the outlying Colossals are pretty rough.

As mercs, my options are basically branch in to dwarves or get a colossal, neither of which is ideal. Since I don't do tourneys, I'll probably be putting a toy on a CD and saving $150($130? something like that), but that's mostly because I'm less invested in WM than I used to be (due to bad feelings towards PP).

For all its failings, at least GW's giant kits aren't part of regular play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NegatorXX wrote:It's not being pushed by the company; you're making that up with zero proof. For example, when GW pushes stuff, they devalue what used to be good, improve what theyre pushing, and fill their publications with crap about them. PP hasnt done any of that.

PP has been making bigger models and made a new format as the focus of two books, if that isn't pushing something, I don't know what is.

Your colossal review is also lacking facts; again just making that stuff up.

I didn't want to turn it into a detailed rant, so suffice to say that a bunch of guns and health provides a concentration of power that I believe is overpowered (or, at least strongly game/meta-changing) in the stronger cases.

As the above post states, there is plenty of stuf that kills colossals.

Yep, but, like I said, most require notably redesigning (at least my) lists, which is what I argued was an issue in design.

Finally its not about whoever has more money has a better army. A gamer that doesnt take a colossal and instead takes 3x heavys spends like 50$ more. 50$ is nothing.

every army (I believe) can buy 2 9-10 point heavies for $70 total.

I'm not sure where 3 heavies =same points as a colossal and costs more? The cheapest heavies (6 points) all cost ≤$35, and the expensive ($) heavies are 8-13 points, so wouldn't be 3 heavies

Colossals compare more to things like units. I did some math on this, but some multi-wound units actually are more per point. Some solos too. The Wrack, for instnace, costs something like $20 for 1pt. The game swings a bit. Traditional warjacks and warbeasts tend to be the lowest per-point cost though.

I think things like Unbound less "push for" big games than give support. People do play big games. People tend to of also found the to be a circle of hell. As I see it, PP isn't so much actually pushing for larger games (since again, lists seem to me just to be shuffling around more than actually getting nay bigger). But they have given tools for folks who do like big games (I have a guy about who loves them despite no one else wanting to go above 50) can do it more easily and without tossing out more infantry "Because I had nothing else tos pend it on."

And stuff.

Blaque wrote:Colossals compare more to things like units. I did some math on this, but some multi-wound units actually are more per point. Some solos too. The Wrack, for instnace, costs something like $20 for 1pt. The game swings a bit. Traditional warjacks and warbeasts tend to be the lowest per-point cost though.

I agree with this (except the Wracks example: every category, if big enough, will have a few pieces that fall outside the curve-- the fact that there is a $50 warcaster doesn't stop most from costing $10-20), but Colossals tend to replace heavies, not solos and units, so I don't find the comparison entirely accurate.

People tend to of also found the to be a circle of hell.

Not sure what this is, assume a typo/mistake.

Either way, I feel that magazine(i.e. the original NQ release of Unbound)/supplement books (like other companies have done) would be the way of providing optional format rules, rather than incorporating them into a main book with new unit type rules (Colossals, like cav, battle engines, etc. released in other books) and pieces designed for smaller/regular games.

Maybe it's just where I game, but my community almost unanimously felt like Unbound was an attempt to push more minis/larger games on a game that doesn't really support large scales...

It might be community-based. What I meant is that playing bigger games tend to well...suck. I played Unbound twice and kind of hated it. And I don't know many folks who liked it either about here. As I see it, it is there to facilitate a kind of game for some people. It is not meant to be the actual main game.

To add, a huge chunk of the appeal of WM/H (to me at least and I think a good chunk of the net community) is the competitive aspect. It is a game that does take tournament play and use in mind quite a bit, instead of secondary as I gather most other minis games do (Malifaux tried but I think handled it poorly). Unbound explicitly is not that. And so ends up being a niche thing even still.

Finally, a bit on explanation, Unbound was in Colossals apparently mostly as filler. PP has had issues meeting demand of late, and so part of the point of colossals and including Unbound was actually to have a light release to let them make sure they catch-up on everything (they still have some things from Wrath not out yet or even on the docket). It has, I think though, created an impression of them wanting bigger games as default. (Which again, I feel they seem more itnerested in different list set-ups than anything, with support for bigger games if you want being easier).

And stuff.

I guess all im sayin is 'I believe it is overpowered' is much different then 'the results of the last 15 tournaments'.

When you say 'regular play', can you list how many games youve played against colossals to give us some background on your opinion?

Has PP changed anythign about SR2012 that forces the use of them?

Have you always only used lists that cant deal with heavy armor, dont make use of all of your faction's models, and always been apprehensive about using the one or two lists you are comfortable with?

Re: clarification, -- haha, yeah, we're on the same page there, at least. And, no, we don't generally play Unbound here, we just felt like PP was saying we should.

And I didn't know that's why that was included. Personally, I would have preferred three smaller books (Colossals; Gargantuans (I cringe every time I write those... considering Colossus and Gargantua are already (real) words that frankly also sound way more intelligent, though that's neither here nor there); and Unbound), but I guess PP is still trying to claim that the games are technically separate.

I will say a couple things. First Warmachine is a resource management game. Hordes is a risk management game. Cryx is a swarm army that likes to drown people with bodies. Something I like about warmachine is that you ALWAYS have a chance to win (kill the caster and its game). Iv'e seen scrap thralls explode a caster to death. 40k you know who is going to win just by looking at the list. There are 3 types of list in warmachine (of course your list may not fall into 1 types) there is the rock... a few really hard hitters, paper... swarms of infantry, and scissors... the anti infantry list. Cryx is usually a paper/scissors army. Khador is Rock (wintergaurd is scissors). Something to consider with cryx is they are a glass cannon. They hit hard and fast but shatter with ease, so if you don't manage to kill something its probably gonna destroy you during its turn.

The point scale will depend on your area. If there is a mature society 35-50 will be the norm. If there is a bunch of new people then battlebox-25 will be the norm. Exp players don't usually mind playing a 15 point scale but don't ask them to play battlebox.

a good infantry unit for cryx and the staple for the army are Mechanithralls, Necro Surgeon, and Bile Thralls. Arch nodes are good, Slayers are better and deathjack will **** some **** up
Satyixs raiders with UA and Captian is considered a competitive list with some Mcthralls screening them with PSkarre backing them up is a very tournament savy list.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Cryx was my first army.... Turned into gators though xD

NegatorXX wrote:I guess all im sayin is 'I believe it is overpowered' is much different then 'the results of the last 15 tournaments'.

When you say 'regular play', can you list how many games youve played against colossals to give us some background on your opinion?

Has PP changed anythign about SR2012 that forces the use of them?

Have you always only used lists that cant deal with heavy armor, dont make use of all of your faction's models, and always been apprehensive about using the one or two lists you are comfortable with?

Not many games, and, playing non-rhulic mercs, like I said, I feel I don't have the punch to get through that sort of armor, even in jack-heavy/focus-efficient (magnus) lists, without getting my own merc colossal (stand in*). What's worse, in said list, not only is a colossal the only solid answer to other colossals, it's generally just a better choice than 2ish heavies (which I'd be replacing), reinforcing my feeling that they're not properly balanced: I feel it's objectively a necessary choice to field to deal with others, and an optimal choice, regardless of outside threats.

What really pisses me off, though, is my standard all-comers list, a skirmishing Bad Seeds list, which can handle most heavy lists by outmaneuvering and outgunning them, has zero answer to Colossals, since they have the firepower to wreck any infantry I have access to with AOES, other than Trencher Infantry, which are less than optimal choices...

*

spiralingcadaver wrote:
What really pisses me off, though, is my standard all-comers list, a skirmishing Bad Seeds list, which can handle most heavy lists by outmaneuvering and outgunning them, has zero answer to Colossals.

Try out a unit of Sword Knights with UA and a Marshalled Jack(I use either a Nomad or a Talon, personally, but in this case, I'd go Nomad). Charge the Colossal with the Jack first to an extreme angle(try to get just in the front arc on one side), then the Sword Knights(order is important because of the Flank bonus). Due to the huge base and Practiced Maneuvers, it won't be hard to get all 11 armed members engaged as well as the Jack. In addition to the Jack's damage, that's 11 models rolling 4D6 Damage with Precision Strike and the option to do Penetrating Strikes if there's only a few boxes left.

I'll keep an eye on this thread as I'm currently looking at starting Warmahordes, doing a Cryx and Everblight force side by side.

(the alternate was Retribution of Scyrah because they're kinda pretty, but Cryx has the starter kit + appeals to my darker side Also, the Hordes alternative was Circle Orboros, but frankly Dragons won out.)

I normally run my SKs as ambushers (so no marshal), but that'll actually work pretty well since, if I deploy them behind it, it'll at least force the jack to turn away from my main force. Thanks for the advice.

Too bad, I love my li'l trencher chain gun, but I guess they finally need to go, for the UA...

spiralingcadaver wrote:The first is definitely subjective, but I feel like creativity of pieces, and artistic integrity, have both taken a hit since MkI.

With 2, I meant that the game is being pushed by the company towards larger stuff (bigger models, worth more points; and Unbound- regardless of success, there is a push towards larger games).

Also, I think that the Colossals aren't healthy for the game, since they require redesigning lists rather than strategies. I also don't think they're healthy for the game because they have a disproportionately high damage output for their point cost, while a relatively high point cost per dollar, meaning it's getting in to the realm of whoever has more money has the better army.

(For the record, I don't think Battle Engines disrupted the game, but that's mostly because PP was way more conservative with them (health, and damage output) than they were with Colossals.)

im actually curious as to the comment regarding artistic integrity. creativity is interesting - its a very tight path they're weaving with new stuff. if its too good its game changing, and if its not good enough, its not game changing. IMO theyve done a very good job of keeping the new stuff in line with the power level previously seen. its not codex:grey knights, is it? Also, in terms of creativity, have you seen the stuff they've come up with for the future? warlock units. epic based warlocks. PP seem to do tangents constantly - everyone expected kossite light cavalry. no one expected greylord scouts, and i think its a very new, innovative and exciting possibility. battle engines and colossals are interesting new pieces, and will shake up the meta enough without completely replacing it. thats the strength of PPs design ethos.

As for larger games, i dont see it. we still play 35pts and 50pts here mainly. what i do think is amusing is how when PP put in the rules for unbound games, as an optional "epic engagement" type deal, everyone jumps up and starts yelling how they're destroying the game, and wanting bigger games. my arse. Does anyone remember superiority, and escalation, and the huge campaign section? were people thinking PP were dumping on competitive gaming for the sake of narrative then? im sure there were some. Look, they're options. they're possiilities, not a direction.

And i think you're wrong about collossals. i've seenthe math done. a Conquest will not put out more damage than a behemoth, or even a pair of juggernauts. and you dont and wont "need" collossals to do well, you're flat out wrong on those scores. regarding changing lists - how is that a bad thing? i spent 4th ed 40k essentially playing the same tau list (hammerhead, fish and kroot spam) and it got very boring, very fast. Collossals are new options. for a start, they're alternatives. they're not replacements. as much as i want a conquest with eIrusk, Irusk, and Strakhov, its not going to make an inherently "better" list. its a different list. different strategies. different combos/synnergies. and thats a good thing" Because why would i want to just stick to my same old lists? PP is very fond of having a liquid meta - of constantly shaking tihngs up, and of always keeping the meta a little bit off balance with something new on the horizon that will shake it up. what has worked wont always work. Page 5, remember? prepare to change, evolve and adapt.

spiralingcadaver wrote:Playing mercs primarily, the fact that heavier-hitting factions' stronger heavies can deal with them isn't very consoling, where I tend to have trouble taking out regular old heavies in bulk, though can at least avoid those :/. Also, when talking about new pieces, the mundane ones are never the issue, as they'll never heavily impact meta. The outliers are the problem, and I think that the outlying Colossals are pretty rough.

playing a real faction might help! what contracts do you play, if you dont mind me asking? and to be fair, if you can deal with 2 jacks, you can deal with a collossal. they dont come with immunity: opponent. honestly, you shouldjust Page 5 it, and make killing collossals you're objective.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
As mercs, my options are basically branch in to dwarves or get a colossal, neither of which is ideal. Since I don't do tourneys, I'll probably be putting a toy on a CD and saving $150($130? something like that), but that's mostly because I'm less invested in WM than I used to be (due to bad feelings towards PP).

you're assuming everyone will be taking a collossal in every game. they're not that game-bending. and whats wrong with expanding your options?

spiralingcadaver wrote:
For all its failings, at least GW's giant kits aren't part of regular play.

see above, you're approaching this with the fallacy of thinking that collossals are, all of a sudden "regular play". trust me, collossals are a great new aspect of the game. but they're not IG valkyrie/vendettas necessary for competitive lists.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
]PP has been making bigger models and made a new format as the focus of two books, if that isn't pushing something, I don't know what is.

just like the summer campaigns, and the superiority campaign? its an option, its not a blueprint. as they said themselves the original unbound rules are in NQ. here is just them putting it into a more official book.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
I didn't want to turn it into a detailed rant, so suffice to say that a bunch of guns and health provides a concentration of power that I believe is overpowered (or, at least strongly game/meta-changing) in the stronger cases.

no, thats wrong. as mentioned, if you can take down 2 jacks, you can deal with a collossal. they dont do more damage than jacks (or weapon master infantry) of a comparable cost. and being a meta changer is a good thing. as mentioned, they're interesitng new alternatives, not replacements. it would be a bad thing if they're not worth taking.

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yep, but, like I said, most require notably redesigning (at least my) lists, which is what I argued was an issue in design.

not mine. butcher. feat turn. epic butcher. 8X doom reaver squads. eirusk. battle lust + great bears, and demo corps. which is stuff im already quite happy to do. my circle will just rely on a charge from a primaled feral. but thats just me. Other factions have their options too. honestly, im not finding any changes to any other edition, in terms of new options, tactics, snyyergies and combos. and all this is a good thing, if you ask me :

Re: creativity, I meant that their model design is stagnant (no new concepts in my opinion: making a new version that has a different weapon, into a warcaster, or bigger does not impress me) and their writing and art are similarly lacking.

Regarding the rest, page 5 has been a boring and unproductive answer for years, as is "buy more figures" (within reason).

For the record, the vast majority of my games don't involve taking out 2 jacks together, but isolating them and destroying them, which is a very different matter.

I didn't cry doom about cav, character jacks, etc. --having been around the game since the beginning, I stick with my position that the new giants are not healthy for the game. I'd rather they didn't exist :/

Magnuszered wrote:I've been thinking of starting a new wargame, one that I can play at an independant retailer so I searched for online for a popular wargame. I found warmachine.
I like the look of warmachine but I would like to know something about it hence the tital. I like the look of the Cryx.
Are the rules balanced? Do lots of people play the game?

The game has cool models and fluff imho.

As for gameplay:

1. it is all about "deck building", synergy and pulling off combos. It is M:TG in miniatures form.

2. It is a brutal game with little room for error because losing your warcaster (army leader) is the game ender. You can be wiping your opponent but if he pulls off an assassination run and kills your caster the game ends and you lose (you will like or hate this aspect depending on your own preferences).

3. In general the game is played ultra-competatively and rewards powergaming, deck tuning and theorymachine. This isn a bad thing if that is what your looking for in a game, but be prepared...

4. It has a staggeering number of units, combos and rules interactions at this point and the simplest thing overlooked can kill you if you aren't aware of a certain combo or interaction.It is a game that is hard to play smartly if you aren't willing to do your "homework".

Pulling off combos is important, but so is model placement
and positioning. I get the magic comparisons, but it's a
miniatures game and where you put your models matters.

I put them in my mouth.

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

What's this 'Page 5' thing I keep seeing in Warmahordes stuff?

Aww, cute. Good to see there's still plenty of PP white knights around when someone badmouths the game.

To be fair though, I am a fan of Warmachine and Hordes. The game does punish you for not doing your homework, though, and not being aware of certain combos can truly punish you.

Warmachine/Hordes is also decently balanced, with only Legion and Cryx slightly (read, VERY slightly) maintaining a higher lead in terms of victories. However, it is like M:tG in some sense, very combo reliant.

Perhaps my least favorite part of Warmachine/Hordes is the competitive nature. While the game doesn't encourage bad sportsmanship, and it's great that it offers a solid competitive game, there are many ultra-competitive gamers out there and WM/H's aggressive nature tends to breed some, "interesting" characters.

The storyline is, just like 40k, also stagnant, despite what some people might tell you. There might be an underlying story, but since the community gets in an uproar every time someone dies in the fluff, PP has refused to kill anybody.

(On a slightly unrelated note: Seriously, epic epic casters? Why should I care about the character's development anymore? If they never die, their development doesn't matter)

Actually, I'd like to see some characters die. You could still use them in games, after all using pSomeone now is also anachronistic already. So having some characters die would make the fluff better.

And one thing about the ultra-competitiveness: the game is indeed not for the casual gamer who plays once a month and spends the rest of his hobby time collecting, converting and painting, because you really need to practice, practice, practice. I've had maybe 30 games up to now during the last two months, and I don't know my units all that well yet (I have around 15 cards I need to learn - plus five casters), not to mention my enemy's. But I can sometimes pull off a victory here and there by paying really close attention to what my opponent does and, more importantly, to what I do. After all my defeats, I knew exactly what mistakes I made. And I remembered about half of those in later games.

Actually, I think what I want to say is that learning the game and losing a lot doesn't bother me at all, but is actually a lot of fun, too. If you don't mind losing and learning from it, this game is for you. If you want to nothing but to curbstomp your opponent every time and are easily frustrated when you lose, play 40K Grey Knights (although I have no idea whether they are still as good in 6th, if not then maybe Space Wolves are. Dunno).

Meh, competitiveness is the nature of the beast. However, I disagree that WM/H is not for the casual gamer. I've seen players who play only 2-3 times a month and pull out wins because they understand the theory behind it. Like MtG, if you know what you're doing and have a rough idea of what your opponent is doing you've got a good chance of winning.

It's not the competitive aspect I dislike, it's that WM/H has more examples of bad sportsmen than anything else. Because the game is marketed as competitive, there's a greater chance of encountering TFGs.

CT GAMER wrote:

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

Page 5 tells you to eat your models?

Cryonicleech wrote:It's not the competitive aspect I dislike, it's that WM/H has more examples of bad sportsmen than anything else. Because the game is marketed as competitive, there's a greater chance of encountering TFGs.

I dont play warmahordes yet, but I feel the need to argue this :p

My girlfriend breeds show mice, and we have friends that breed show rabbits, dogs, birds and hamsters.

Most of the people in any one of these hobbies make the TFGs in MTG, warhammer, yugioh and online gaming combined, look like tame fluffy kittens you just want to hug.

Seriously, the petty, cutthroat backstabby nature of these people, with numerous rumours, thefts, threats, police cases, etc has made it so much easier to deal witn pretty much everyone elses crap.

Your average TFG doesn't bother me anymore. xD.

There's TFGs everywhere, really, for every activity under the sun.

Surtur wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Surtur wrote:I put them in my mouth.

That is so page five...

Page 5 tells you to eat your models?

That is what I took from it.

I've found the opposite; that 40k's loose, gray area rules (relative to WM/H's tight ruleset) are a breeding ground for jerks to impose their jerky wills.

I like Warmachine because it's so vastly different than 40k. You use less models. Scenarios are less important. In fact, it's usually easier to just kill the enemy caster than win by scenario. It doesn't help that most of the scenarios in steam rollers are so darn complicated IMO.

In WM, you definitely need to know what everything on the table does, so there is a learning curve. You can also pull off some cool combos, so it's kinda like MTG with models instead of cards.

Oh, did I mention there is very little randomness in WM/Hordes? I hate randomness in games, especially randomness for no reason - I'm looking at YOU mysterious forests! GW has a hard on for randomness in their games.

I'm really glad there are no transports or big flyers in WM. If there were I would lose a lot of interest in the game. Oh, and you know what? PP doesn't make finecast models. Just metal and plastic with very few resin pieces.

Oh, and the rules are tight. Very well-designed and any loopholes are FAQ'ed, and unclear areas are answered by an infernal on the PP forums very quickly.

And there's no Matt Ward weird gak in Warmachine/Hordes background. There just isn't.

So yeah, WM/Hordes is the anti-Warhammer and that's why I like it.

Well, this has turned into one heck of an intense thread. I'm glad to see so many views expressed here though, hopefully the OP and others with similar questions can get a lot from this discussion. Magnuszered, don't be afraid to follow up with other questions or ask for clarifications here because I see many posts based on personal preferences (which is fair since those are the only preferences we each have to use as reference.)
The major points of difference between warmachine and other popular games are the rules and community. The models and background are different, but that is to be expected any time you change to a new game.
The warmachine and hordes mark two rules are wonderfully designed and, in my own opinion, two of the best rules documents ever written for tabletop gaming. The nature of explicit and directly worded rules means you can take a step back from trying to rationalize odd or complex interactions and just play the game by the wording of the rule.
Gaming communities are each unique and can be bastions of respectable players or dens of utterly despicable subhumans; In spite of this I feel most warmachine communities have one or two common threads of knowing at least the core rules and their own models' rules well. It has been said before that the game has a steep learning curve and I feel like that leads most players to have a pretty strong comprehension of the rules by the time they become capable players. You definitely want to know what kind of people are playing in your area before you buy in big though, any game can be ruined by a rotten group of opponents.
If anyone wants to check things out for themselves after reading the varied responses here check out the quickstart rules in the following link and proxy up a quick game with a friend.
http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/the-game