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.

Over in another thread Grimdesign said "we really need one of those online tests that you answer a few questions and it plops out a warmahordes faction." What sort of questions/answers are needed to create such a thing do you guys think?

Should there be two separate trees for choosing by playstyle or faction looks?

There should be one for Warmachine, and one for hordes if there was one.

Somone may want to use the fury mechanic or would rather use Focus.

That right there Narrows it down alot.

A question that might help determine Hordes v WM is "Do you prefer careful planning of resource allocation or high risk/high reward?"

"Do you favor manuverability and light armor or heavy armor and low manuverability?"

"Would you rather play on an open field or with as much terrain as possible?"

"Do you prefer to rely on spells, units, or base stats to provide your best defenses?"

"Would you rather one powerful unit, or multiple single models that combine their abilities?"

I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

I can run melee Cygnar, or a fast Khador list, or a stompy Circle list, or a tough Legion list if I know what I'm doing.

infinite_array wrote:I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

Agreed. For most of Nagashek's questions, the same faction can answer both halves depending on how you build.

For example:


"Do you favor manuverability and light armor or heavy armor and low manuverability?"

Khador can fit both: the average build with the WG Death Star or eButcher Doomie spam is highly maneuverable with light armor, where as a MoW and Jack builds is all about the armor while sacrificing maneuvering(although a Karchev Jack build is a good middle ground as Tow leads to a lot of maneuvering shenanigans and makes the army deceptively fast). Them being perceived as the slow, heavy armor faction is due purely to aesthetics, but the average list that you see is the very opposite.

infinite_array wrote:I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

Totally agree. But I do feel there is an general feel to each of the factions. I play cryx and If you are facing me you can generally expect to see infantry, offensive spells and tricks to negate your stuff. That's the idea I'm thinking of. Getting further into the faction will then lead to Mortenebra, Asphyxious, or Terminus who are totally different from what I listed.

Rather than by faction, you can do it by warcasters, with each answer giving multiple responses


IE: you prefer a mix of infantry and jacks you should pick:
Warcaster 1
Warcaster 3
Warcaster 5

Platuan4th wrote:

infinite_array wrote:I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

Agreed. For most of Nagashek's questions, the same faction can answer both halves depending on how you build.

For example:


"Do you favor manuverability and light armor or heavy armor and low manuverability?"

Khador can fit both: the average build with the WG Death Star or eButcher Doomie spam is highly maneuverable with light armor, where as a MoW and Jack builds is all about the armor while sacrificing maneuvering(although a Karchev Jack build is a good middle ground as Tow leads to a lot of maneuvering shenanigans and makes the army deceptively fast). Them being perceived as the slow, heavy armor faction is due purely to aesthetics, but the average list that you see is the very opposite.

I'd realized the same thing a little bit into my samples, and realized that trying to narrow it down by caster, with questions related to asthetics for faction might be more accurate.

infinite_array wrote:I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

I can run melee Cygnar, or a fast Khador list, or a stompy Circle list, or a tough Legion list if I know what I'm doing.

Mortenabra does not make Cryx a 'jack faction any more then Kallus makes Legion an infantry faction and shoehorning casters into bad builds doesn't cut it either.

Question 1: What faction do you like the look of the models most?

I'm not really sure there needs to be a question 2

infinite_array wrote:I think a problem with this is that most factions are able to break through the preconceived 'attributes' that most people give to them.

I can run melee Cygnar, or a fast Khador list, or a stompy Circle list, or a tough Legion list if I know what I'm doing.

As a Circle player just starting out...Id be interested to see a stompy Circle list. Ive got a long history of playing slow, heavily armored, hard hitting armies (like khador or Troolblood) in all my other wargames, and chose Circle as a bit of something different...but if I can make a Circle list that fits my natural play style Id be very interested.

Dais wrote:Question 1: What faction do you like the look of the models most?

I'm not really sure there needs to be a question 2

I think this would be a good start and from there question two would be about general playstyle. Then it would drill down as to what caster and what units would be recommended for the player to try/buy.

Stompy Circle (35):

eKaya + Laris
Wilder
Feral
Stalker
Pureblood
Gorax

2 Units of Stones

That's a stompy list in that it has 3 heavy warbeasts.... but thats it. It is the opposite of slow, not well armored, only hits hard with it's surgical strikes but not in general, and relies heavily on lots of movement shenanigans.

Try the Baldurs. Epic Baldur has a spell and feat that makes you immune to knockdown and adds +3 armor; add some woldguardians/wardens/megalith and you have a wall of stone beasts with nigh invulnerable armor that slowly makes its way to the enemy then smashes with random tricks. Regular Baldur is similar. A Warpwolf would fit in as well for some speed as well. Lastly i'd recomend a unit of Gatormen as they fit well in most Circle lists, are quite hard to kill, and bring lots of flexibility.

Circle however is the last faction to be any of those traits you like, Mad4minis lol. In spite of circle relying on heavy warbeasts, it will always make use of tricks to get the win over straight up brute force.

EX:

Baldur
megalith
woldwarden
warpwolf stalker/woldguardian or unit of Gatormen
shifting stones
Druids of orboros

You know, I've had a lot of trouble trying to think of a Horde army that would fit me. I went with Cygnar for Warmachine easily.

I like Trollblood themes, but dislike most of the models (especially the heavy warbeasts).

I like Skorne Warbeasts, especially Titans, and kinda like the Cyclops. I'm okay with the playstyle, but I generally dislike the infantry models and am not a huge fan of the warlocks.

With Circle I like Baldur and the construct warbeasts. I kinda like Satyrs, but I just don't like the other warlocks, beasts, and infantry and playing just Baldur lists seems like it'd really limit me.

I kinda like the Legion playstyle, infantry models, and a few of the warlocks, but the beasts drive me up a wall with the heads (they look like cartoonish xenomorphs) and the battle engine just doesn't do anything for me.

Ah well.

What about pigs or gators?

I kinda like the gators, not as hot on the pigs, but I also understand that both are rather limited right now in models and playstyle.

nobody wrote:I kinda like the gators, not as hot on the pigs, but I also understand that both are rather limited right now in models and playstyle.

This is true, but that makes them no less competitive.

Platuan4th wrote:What about pigs or gators?

The Merc / Minion contracts are the most restrictive in the game by model.
However speaking as a Searforge player, yes they are often predictable and good at 1 thing pending caster, however they are some of the most resilent lists in the game because you have to really drive 1 aspect of the game to succeed.

Example:
Gorten: really can end a kill box game at almost anytime if he really wants to with careful positioning.
Durgen: with some careful unit selection and not going overboard on range can build a very very resilient counter fight list.
Barney: I knock you down. I create swallow water every where. We only fight when I want.
Calaban: for his feat vs spell list, may just have all the spells most caster want.
Carver: when you absolute want to fight, you pop his feat. its the butchers feat.. with overtake. Really if you thought the butcher was good, and if you like farrow models, this is just plan nasty.

While I do understand that they can be competitive I don't really feel that there would be as much variety between gator armies as there would in, say, Skorne or Circle.

As such, I really can't get myself hyped up to collect and play them.

nobody wrote:While I do understand that they can be competitive I don't really feel that there would be as much variety between gator armies as there would in, say, Skorne or Circle.

As such, I really can't get myself hyped up to collect and play them.

Consider that you are more likely to find two similar skorne armies then you are to find two Gator/Pig armies at all in the same gaming group.

Also, their playstyle is quite different, with lots of options to make each game different.

There just aint no pleasin you is there!

NegatorXX wrote:Consider that you are more likely to find two similar skorne armies then you are to find two Gator/Pig armies at all in the same gaming group.

Is that assessment based around the probability that you're more likely to find more Skorne players in a group than Minion players?

Correct


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as in army options for minions, yeah about 50% of the meat of your force will remain the same each game. But the way each warcaster applies it is vastly different.

NegatorXX wrote:

nobody wrote:While I do understand that they can be competitive I don't really feel that there would be as much variety between gator armies as there would in, say, Skorne or Circle.

As such, I really can't get myself hyped up to collect and play them.

Consider that you are more likely to find two similar skorne armies then you are to find two Gator/Pig armies at all in the same gaming group.

Also, their playstyle is quite different, with lots of options to make each game different.

There just aint no pleasin you is there!

I know, right? There are only so many ways you can combine Archidon and Molik Karn.

NegatorXX wrote:

nobody wrote:While I do understand that they can be competitive I don't really feel that there would be as much variety between gator armies as there would in, say, Skorne or Circle.

As such, I really can't get myself hyped up to collect and play them.

Consider that you are more likely to find two similar skorne armies then you are to find two Gator/Pig armies at all in the same gaming group.

Also, their playstyle is quite different, with lots of options to make each game different.

There just aint no pleasin you is there!

Keep in mind, I've already tossed pigs out as an option because I'm not fond of the models

I mean, look at it this way: With my Cygnar army, I can play a Siege list or a eHaley list...and share maybe 1 or 2 solos between them with everything else being different. I just can't see doing that at all with Gators.

I've been re-reading up on the factions involved, so we'll see if my opinions change.