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.

 jawn wrote:

I guess to answer your question; Chess-esque? Somewhat. I think it's a lot closer to the NFL, with each batch of releases representing a draft of new models.

This is pretty much the best way to describe it I've ever seen. Assault Commandos were the Randy Moss of the NFL pre-2007. Patriots go 18-1, whose stock goes up? Randy Moss.

Don't build lists people tell you to build. Build your own list, using what you think seems to be some good synergy, then play it. A lot. Sometimes you find a combo that works for you in your meta. Sometimes you have to change a few solos to build modify your list. If you're following what everyone else is saying, you're not playing the game right.

He thing is that every list, every build has a counter. That's what happened with the Khador/Assault Kommando win. He knew what everyone else was taking because they were the current power builds, and then build a list pairing to defeat them. That is why you can't rely on what the internet tells you is good. Everyone knows what you're playing and how to play against it.

I think Chess is the wrong comparison. Warmachine and Magic is a far better one. Unlike GW games, which are awash in tweaks for your units both WM and MtG are games where the actual units/cards are essentially fixed. This results in the ability for the community to really analyze the various options and craft synergies that are very effective together without the many variables that come into play when you have lots of unit upgrades and loadouts to consider.

Essentially, then, both games are deckbuilding games, and with the intense community of gamers that exist, certain decks/lists are going to come to the fore as being highly effective. However, in both games the options are wide enough (and the playtesting and rules development strong enough) that good players will continue to confound the "meta" by bringing surprises to the game and winning.

How distasteful do people here find the chess-like "Rock/Paper/Scissors" aspect of gaming? I ask because to me, there almost seems to be two camps in wargaming:

1] clear "rock/paper/scissors" unit builds/types (so units that overtly counter each other), i.e, "chess-like".

2] no blatantly built in hard counters, requiring other tactics (terrain, resource usage, maybe buffs/debuffs etc) to counter units.

Maybe I have this utterly wrong. But this seems to be the way a lot of wargames are split from a design/meta perspective. It sounds to me that the first approach is unpopular with wargamers. Personally I like both, but I can see how having a "Rock/Paper/Scissors" style game can maybe gimp some lists; i.e a certain type of list will automatically have a very hard time against a certain type of opponent list. Then again, this seems to be at least somewhat prevalent in almost all wargames anyway?

My impression is that a lot of the angst comes from people not playing some of these games as designed

they want to show up at a store or strangers place and pretty much get started straight away with whatever force they brought

where the designers intention could be, (order may vary by system)
generate a mission,
put out terrain (covering a fair amount of the playing surface),
pick your force

(you may or may not be meant to know what you opponent has at some point before the game begins)

 happygolucky wrote:
First off this is not a criticism at the Warmahordes rules, I like a set of tight rules as it means that I don't have to endlessly flick through pages of rules.

What I mean is when it comes to the competitive scene, it feels like there is kinda nothing to explore, as if everything's already been figured out like you can pick any caster and already there are units X, Y and Z along with fixed strategies and if you pick any unit outside of those "boundaries" it very hard to win a competitive game, so the competitive game feel a bit more like who can put their units in the better positions and who rolls are hottest.

So what's your opinion?

Cheers to all comments

I feel like your statement applies way more to 40k than it does to WMH.

List building is a game of synergy. You need to select your units to support each other well and counter your opponent's list. You need to build in redundancy, the ability to capture objectives, anti-infantry, anti-tank, anti-air. In some forces you'll find that some units just don't perform those jobs well, or don't work well with other units, or are just objectively worse than other choices. As players iterate through their lists, if there are objectively good lists to find then players will gravitate towards them.

You see this all the time, in every game. Look at 40k: the rise of Taudar is not a 'net list' thing, it's just objectively good list building. Jetbikes and wave serpents cover the Tau's weakness in movement, riptides provide good anti-everything shooting from a durable platform, and skyrays provide great anti-air. Vespids and Stealth Suits don't get taken because they don't provide anything that can't be gotten better elsewhere.
Or Chaos Daemons - 'flying circus' was/is a good build because it has durable models which can counter one of the biggest weaknesses of the codex - anti-tank. Show up with an army full of bloodletters and chariots and you'll probably have a bad time as well.
Or Chaos Marines - Helldrakes are taken because they are an efficient counter to 90% of the models in game. And if you don't take those Helldrakes, well, it is very hard to win a competitive game.

WMH counters this a lot by giving you incentives to take many different units (esp Hordes with Animus), compare to 40k's "find what is good and take 6 of it" mentality.


In short, if you are playing *any* game competitively, this is going to be a 'problem'.

Wouldn't it not be more like Knightmare chess?

 easysauce wrote:
yes definetly, except chess is far more strategic as it has no dice involved...

warmahordes plays like random chess, I really cant see the appeal in it, too simple and repetitive RE armies I can play or face to be engaging game wize, not enough flavour to the factions to be attractive hobby wize....

I will walk by the 20 or so armies at the bigger WMH tournaments, and feel like I have only seen 3 or so different armies... played abit of it, found it played exactly as I expected, very simple with the same "play one of these few these power builds or lose" problems present in 40k

too many of the players bitterly emphasiing that its a "real game" too if you happen to play somthing else.

HAHA... do you know what i find worst about Warmachine/Hordes? That the game is so F..ing good that I can no longer bring myself to play anything else. All the games I have tried after starting with Warmachine/hordes has paled in comparison, when it comes to options that I can use, Fun factor and Balance. The best thing about the game is that you can win even when you are pushed into a corner, by assassinating your opponents Warcaster/warlock.

GW games are garbage compared to WM/Hordes. Sadly I have found that though better then GWs games(the bottom feeder of Miniature Wargames), games like Infinity, Malifaux, flames of war and the latest Warzone game also pale in comparison. So I can no longer play them because i get frustrated and irritated.

The reason is that in WM/Hordes I am in complete control of my army, there is almost no randomness to the games I play, I have a very high win ratio because of this. I am good at playing tactical games, I used to play a Chess competitively. RANDOM is not FUN...

There is only one thing that needs to go away in WM/Hordes and that is "tough", its the only random mechanic, getting a 5-6 plus save, over and over, that I hope they take away for the 3rd edition.

Dumb people need as much RANDOM as possible to find games fun, you know why? because the less RANDOM there is in a game the more they will LOSE. And [MODE EDIT - Please find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself. - Alpharius]don't like losing and they are not smart enough or dedicated enough to get better at playing a game. This is the reason that GW is still in business, there are way to many stupid people out there in the world... Sad but true...

You really should endeavor to express yourself in a way that isn't going to instantly put off the majority of people reading your post.

Also - dice rolling?

Golgo13 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
yes definetly, except chess is far more strategic as it has no dice involved...

warmahordes plays like random chess, I really cant see the appeal in it, too simple and repetitive RE armies I can play or face to be engaging game wize, not enough flavour to the factions to be attractive hobby wize....

I will walk by the 20 or so armies at the bigger WMH tournaments, and feel like I have only seen 3 or so different armies... played abit of it, found it played exactly as I expected, very simple with the same "play one of these few these power builds or lose" problems present in 40k

too many of the players bitterly emphasiing that its a "real game" too if you happen to play somthing else.

HAHA... do you know what i find worst about Warmachine/Hordes? That the game is so F..ing good that I can no longer bring myself to play anything else. All the games I have tried after starting with Warmachine/hordes has paled in comparison, when it comes to options that I can use, Fun factor and Balance. The best thing about the game is that you can win even when you are pushed into a corner, by assassinating your opponents Warcaster/warlock.

GW games are garbage compared to WM/Hordes. Sadly I have found that though better then GWs games(the bottom feeder of Miniature Wargames), games like Infinity, Malifaux, flames of war and the latest Warzone game also pale in comparison. So I can no longer play them because i get frustrated and irritated.

The reason is that in WM/Hordes I am in complete control of my army, there is almost no randomness to the games I play, I have a very high win ratio because of this. I am good at playing tactical games, I used to play a Chess competitively. RANDOM is not FUN...

There is only one thing that needs to go away in WM/Hordes and that is "tough", its the only random mechanic, getting a 5-6 plus save, over and over, that I hope they take away for the 3rd edition.

Dumb people need as much RANDOM as possible to find games fun, you know why? because the less RANDOM there is in a game the more they will LOSE. And [MODE EDIT - Please find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself. - Alpharius]don't like losing and they are not smart enough or dedicated enough to get better at playing a game. This is the reason that GW is still in business, there are way to many stupid people out there in the world... Sad but true...

Well that escalated quickly.

 Alpharius wrote:
You really should endeavor to express yourself in a way that isn't going to instantly put off the majority of people reading your post.

Also - dice rolling?

Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want. Freak occurrences do happen but they are not that common.
..And sorry but the White Knighting of some people, demands a harsh and brutal respons, especially when they have proven time and time again that they do not know what they are talking about....

Golgo13 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
You really should endeavor to express yourself in a way that isn't going to instantly put off the majority of people reading your post.

Also - dice rolling?

Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want. Freak occurrences do happen but they are not that common.
..And sorry but the White Knighting of some people, demands a harsh and brutal respons, especially when they have proven time and time again that they do not know what they are talking about....

Spoken like a new user who hasn't been around long enough to have seen anything here "time and time again".

How about a visit to the time-out room and come back when you learn how to play with others.

Golgo13 wrote:
(belligerent verbal diarrhea)

QFT, and I don't mean "quoted for truth."




I mean "quit freaking talking".

Though I do agree that 40K and WHFB are *too* random for my taste, and while they were never the most tactical of wargames, the latest editions seem to have stripped them of all tactics beyond list building, and it seems that in the competitive scene, there's basically a "right" way to build a list for a given army, and almost everything else is generally the "wrong" way, whereas in Warmahordes there's a place for every unit and more than one way to skin a cat. With that said, I think Warhammer/Warhammer 40K is a fine casual game, but I imagine even mentioning the word "casual" is going to drive Golgo to apoplexy.

Golgo13 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
You really should endeavor to express yourself in a way that isn't going to instantly put off the majority of people reading your post.

Also - dice rolling?

Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want. Freak occurrences do happen but they are not that common.
..And sorry but the White Knighting of some people, demands a harsh and brutal respons, especially when they have proven time and time again that they do not know what they are talking about....

I think the thing about WMH dice is that nearly everything (except Tough, as you say) is a 2-dice test (or more, depending on bonuses). That means that you have a proper probability distribution and things in general are more reliable, and less frustrating when things don't go your way. It also gives them much finer control over bonuses and tuning of the odds. Compare to 40k, where each +1 step is a 16.6% chance and you always have a 16.6% chance to fail...
Its also why you see some of the more reliable armies and strategies in 40k relying on buckets low-strength shooting over single high-Strength shots - you're much more likely to get the expected result if you roll more dice, and missing that one S10 shot per turn can be game-losing even when - especially when - it had high likelihood of success.

Golgo13 wrote:


Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want.

What are you basing that on? I've played for some time, at different cons and I don't find that 90% number accurate at all.

Unless you mean by repetition of attacks or applied force, you can eventually get the outcome you want.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

Golgo13 wrote:


Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want.

What are you basing that on? I've played for some time, at different cons and I don't find that 90% number accurate at all.

Unless you mean by repetition of attacks or applied force, you can eventually get the outcome you want.

That 90% number is probably from the statistical school of pulling numbers out of your behind...

But the fact of the matter is that the 2D6 mechanic allows for a much more stable statistical probability curve that, when combined with the boosting mechanic, means that you will get the result you expect in most situations.

But since it still uses dice, you are still going to get those cases where you need a 4+ to hit and you get a triple 1 on a boosted roll!

I think what he's expressing (poorly) is that you can stay mindful of future rolls of different numbers of dice + relative attack and defense scores and plan accordingly. Rolling 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, adding drop the lowest, or rerolls or a variety of factors and knowing your mat/rat, all the modifiers and the target number lets you really rely on the bell curve.

As for the variety in armies, a friend of mine is preparing for the major US tournament scene and we had a brain storming session where we figured out all the lists we're going to have to get test games against in order to prepare and tweak his army. It came to like 24. And the top players have totally embraced a rogue strategy over the last year, so even then, he's sure to come across things he's never seen before or anticipated.

If you only see 3 different army lists at a local tournament, your players are bad. Very, very bad.

Golgo13 wrote:

HAHA... do you know what i find worst about Warmachine/Hordes? That the game is so F..ing good that I can no longer bring myself to play anything else. All the games I have tried after starting with Warmachine/hordes has paled in comparison, when it comes to options that I can use, Fun factor and Balance. The best thing about the game is that you can win even when you are pushed into a corner, by assassinating your opponents Warcaster/warlock.

GW games are garbage compared to WM/Hordes. Sadly I have found that though better then GWs games(the bottom feeder of Miniature Wargames), games like Infinity, Malifaux, flames of war and the latest Warzone game also pale in comparison. So I can no longer play them because i get frustrated and irritated.

The reason is that in WM/Hordes I am in complete control of my army, there is almost no randomness to the games I play, I have a very high win ratio because of this. I am good at playing tactical games, I used to play a Chess competitively. RANDOM is not FUN...

There is only one thing that needs to go away in WM/Hordes and that is "tough", its the only random mechanic, getting a 5-6 plus save, over and over, that I hope they take away for the 3rd edition.

Dumb people need as much RANDOM as possible to find games fun, you know why? because the less RANDOM there is in a game the more they will LOSE. And [MODE EDIT - Please find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself. - Alpharius]don't like losing and they are not smart enough or dedicated enough to get better at playing a game. This is the reason that GW is still in business, there are way to many stupid people out there in the world... Sad but true...

I'm asking you this as a fan of the game, who considers it to be the best game for my tastes in wargaming:

Please rein in the fanboying and the putting down of other games. Please? It doesn't help your cause, and will damage the community of the game by discouraging readers who will assume all players are as shouty and superior as you're being in this post.

PhantomViper wrote:
But since it still uses dice, you are still going to get those cases where you need a 4+ to hit and you get a triple 1 on a boosted roll!

I've seen a 1/1/1/1 damage roll before.

Golgo13 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
You really should endeavor to express yourself in a way that isn't going to instantly put off the majority of people reading your post.

Also - dice rolling?

Dice rolling is not that random in WH/Hordes, the outcome is about 90% what you wanted. If you plan right things should go the way you want. Freak occurrences do happen but they are not that common.
..And sorry but the White Knighting of some people, demands a harsh and brutal respons, especially when they have proven time and time again that they do not know what they are talking about....

Thank you very much, Captain Tough Guy. Feel free to retire back to 4chan, now that your job here is done. Or wherever it is that your ilk congregate.

You can dissect and analyze pretty much any game you want and have a "golden standard" to win.
Don't care, not a tournament player or a power gamer. I filed models that I think look cool or make odd combos for fun and to see what happens.
You can have "cheeze" in almost any game.

You get out of games what you want to get out of games, heck for me 75% of the fun is painting and modelling. Other 25% is getting together with friends swapping dirty jokes and playing with our dice and "toy dolls".

For some folks it is crushing their enemies and making their women lament or whatever for others it is something in between.
Find your happy spot and find some one like minded to play with. Be it WH40k WHF or 1st edition out of print warzone game, if you have a good opponent you will have a good time.

Can I just say, I dislike the anology to Chess?

Chess is a massively complex game that is only simple to play. The best Warmachine or Hordes (or 40k, or WHFB, or Infinity or...) list still determines a lot through dice rolls.

There is no random element to Chess. At all. You either outthink your opponent or you do not. The X beats Y beats Z beats X type of gameplay is rock-paper-scissors, not chess.

TL;DR Respect chess as the supreme, best strategy game ever made please.

PhantomViper wrote:

That 90% number is probably from the statistical school of pulling numbers out of your behind...

"87% of the statistics referred in Internet discussions are made up."

Backfire wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

That 90% number is probably from the statistical school of pulling numbers out of your behind...

"87% of the statistics referred in Internet discussions are made up."

Stop quoting Edison

 SRSFACE wrote:
Can I just say, I dislike the anology to Chess?

Chess is a massively complex game that is only simple to play. The best Warmachine or Hordes (or 40k, or WHFB, or Infinity or...) list still determines a lot through dice rolls.

There is no random element to Chess. At all. You either outthink your opponent or you do not. The X beats Y beats Z beats X type of gameplay is rock-paper-scissors, not chess.

TL;DR Respect chess as the supreme, best strategy game ever made please.

No. Chess is actually quite simple. It all comes down to memorization and regurgitation of strings of moves. That's it. It's a wonderful introduction to the world of strategy wargaming, and a much more widely accepted one than, say, 40k or any of the other games we play. But it's hardly the supreme strategy game.

As far as the Warmahordes question goes, it always seems extremely cheesy to me when I see it played. I don't touch it, because it always appears to actually conform to the worst accusations that get levied at 40k.

 Elemental wrote:

Golgo13 wrote:

HAHA... do you know what i find worst about Warmachine/Hordes? That the game is so F..ing good that I can no longer bring myself to play anything else. All the games I have tried after starting with Warmachine/hordes has paled in comparison, when it comes to options that I can use, Fun factor and Balance. The best thing about the game is that you can win even when you are pushed into a corner, by assassinating your opponents Warcaster/warlock.

GW games are garbage compared to WM/Hordes. Sadly I have found that though better then GWs games(the bottom feeder of Miniature Wargames), games like Infinity, Malifaux, flames of war and the latest Warzone game also pale in comparison. So I can no longer play them because i get frustrated and irritated.

The reason is that in WM/Hordes I am in complete control of my army, there is almost no randomness to the games I play, I have a very high win ratio because of this. I am good at playing tactical games, I used to play a Chess competitively. RANDOM is not FUN...

There is only one thing that needs to go away in WM/Hordes and that is "tough", its the only random mechanic, getting a 5-6 plus save, over and over, that I hope they take away for the 3rd edition.

Dumb people need as much RANDOM as possible to find games fun, you know why? because the less RANDOM there is in a game the more they will LOSE. And [MODE EDIT - Please find a less objectionable way of expressing yourself. - Alpharius]don't like losing and they are not smart enough or dedicated enough to get better at playing a game. This is the reason that GW is still in business, there are way to many stupid people out there in the world... Sad but true...

I'm asking you this as a fan of the game, who considers it to be the best game for my tastes in wargaming:

Please rein in the fanboying and the putting down of other games. Please? It doesn't help your cause, and will damage the community of the game by discouraging readers who will assume all players are as shouty and superior as you're being in this post.

Going to second Elemental on this (also a fan of this game as well), you need to put away the blind fanboyism and insults, because it makes the community look like what you are doing and does not help you case at all. Now on to the topic:

Is competitive Warmahordes Chess-like? Now, I am going answer this question as a Yes and No (and this is my opinion on it).
For the 'yes' part of it, there are many themes from Chess that Warmahordes does pick up, such as piece-trading. Often in a game, you want to take out as much points usually equal to his army and/or what it is and its importance before he gets you back. Another is planning a turn or two in advance, and reacting to changes in order to outwit your opponent and find alternate ways to get out of the situation or lead him into a trap. As well, losing your Warcaster/lock (which is akin to the King/Queen in the game) means you will lose automatically almost all the time (there are some rules that allow you to keep playing after a caster dies, just to keep that mind, but this is not common).

No, for the 'no' part of my answer: Not every army is going to operate the same as on a chess board and its pieces. One could be specially designed for playing the scenario, but can not be so well-versed in getting out of jams or getting that caster assassination. As said, the opposite can be true as well. Another thing to keep in mind that almost everything has a place in a list, and a change in your list can change how it will play on the table, in which may or may not have a place that you have in mind, in which may or may not work in that list (an example being having a load of infantry with a caster based around jacks and so on, with only one or two jacks . This might be a bad example, and very generalized, but I thought of using an extreme to explain it in Layman's terms).

PhantomViper wrote:
But since it still uses dice, you are still going to get those cases where you need a 4+ to hit and you get a triple 1 on a boosted roll!

Elemental wrote:
I've seen a 1/1/1/1 damage roll before.

I thought I share this thing I made a while back to revolve my thoughts on this when my dice hate me, even with boosted rolls. (Yes, I know it is anime. You do not have to watch it if you hate it that much).

 Jimsolo wrote:


As far as the Warmahordes question goes, it always seems extremely cheesy to me when I see it played. I don't touch it, because it always appears to actually conform to the worst accusations that get levied at 40k.

Wow, you could not be more wrong in that statement.

{quote]As far as the Warmahordes question goes, it always seems extremely cheesy to me when I see it played. I don't touch it, because it always appears to actually conform to the worst accusations that get levied at 40k.

For an additional note, Retribution of Scyrah just won Masters at Templecon, another of the factions that's typically considered on the lower tiers of competitiveness.

 Jimsolo wrote:


No. Chess is actually quite simple. It all comes down to memorization and regurgitation of strings of moves. That's it.

And King Lear is simple to write because it's just a bunch of words put in order.

"Chess is simple."

Said by people who aren't very good at chess.

I'm just saying, it takes a lifetime to master it. It's been around for 500+ years. It hasn't been touched or improved upon in that time because there hasn't been any need for it.

Chess cannot be "boiled down" to a series of "strings of moves repeated" because that'd mean there was one winning stretegy that'd work every last time. Considering it's a 500+ year old game, and literally thousands of books have been written about the strategy of the game, and yet no one has managed to boil the game down to just a couple simple things that'll win you every match? I'd say it is king of strategy games, and always will be.