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.

So, as I love to tinker and customize my lists before battle, I obviously spend a lot of time preparing that perfect army list. What I dislike in Warmachine is that seemingly, some models live and die solely by requisition balance now. There are 7 point solos which would be hard sell otherwise and a lot of units seem to be included primary because they get certain bonuses as requisition options. For example, you can take two Ghost Sniper solos, making up 6 points and giving you 2 good attrition pieces in game. While other requisitions like Arcanist Mechanics or CA attachments seem to be an error within list building as it is always better just to pay for them and to take that super expensive solo solely because it costs so many points which you can get for free. Requisition system as it is now acts to stifle creativity rather than to promote it. Any system would be better, just getting your allowance of points would be better from design perspective even if it is little less fun.

In regards to focus management and spending focus on warjacks/warbeasts to purchase additional attacks. I do believe that this is more of a negative than a positive. The issue with this system that it allows way too massive damage spikes. Game becomes extremely alpha-centric and even the biggest colossals are surprisingly fragile due to this system. I do like how this system functions for range weapons, that only exceptions can buy attacks. I enjoy that you can boost your odds when needed. Yet, I feel that focus system is too intrusive and instead of controlling RNG, it rather defines a game. Units become far less important. Only thing that matters is focus allowance and 1 strong weapon. Rest of loadout is irrelevant. Due to this nature, game often feels very one sided. One side manages to get a good turn and it is essentially over on a moment it managed to do its alpha to you. Game plays amazing when it becomes a brawl. When your primary pieces had traded with each other and you have to improvise with whatever you have at hand.

In a same regard, some things in game are too good like anti-shooting tech. Game often feels like it is either easily or very hard. For example, I had a match against CIrcle player who kept casting +3 DEF on his units. I had to hit 16, 17 DEF units every damn turn. Without Blessed Weapons, this is OP ability. Anti-shooting tech works on similar level, shooting only works until opponent does not bring counter to it which will hard counter it. In same respect, I played against Merc warcaster who gave all his mechs +3 SPD, +3 Armor and pathfinder to his entire army. Combine this with his other movement buffs and it is another case of game lacking vision and self discipline. My opponent could take slow as hell mechs and he still blitz through battlefield as it wouldn't exist. Harsh terrain? Doesn't matter. Speed 4 warjacks? Doesn't matter. They are now cheap, massively armored and extremely fast. On the other hand, even if it is a support caster, in bigger game EVERY caster is a support caster as they cant really contribute to the field in match defining turns and are instead spending their focus and activating feats as support warcasters. Game in this regard suffers from power creep, bloat of content and lack of power cap. Some heroes are OP as they have way too many "fixers". I can appreciate support hero who "makes things go fasta". But I at the same time, can't see this hero making those things heavily armored. A good comparison is with Helenya. Her feat is essentially +3 Armor due to how alpha damage works in this game. It has reposition for warjacks, but it is far worse mobility tool than anything that lets to move before an activation. She doesn't help her battlegroup to engage first as she does not enchant their damage, but she allows her battlegroup to be more resilient/stand off/attrition based. She is balanced and with a purpose. Sadly, in this game there are often heroes who can essentially do all the things which specialized hero does and do something else superbly well.

Part of the problem is just the game is so big and varied that there's always going to be problems to find. In the decade I've played, I'll say all those things have been different, many of them in ways you've suggested and it really wasn't any better balanced, it just had different problems.

If anything, one of the more shocking responses to the game for me was the launch of MK3 where, honestly numbers were down and overall the most "even" they've ever been. A lot of players just found it boring compared to the more explosive combat you'd find in MK2. A lot of the work in themes has brought in more of the MK2 "big play" style, for better or worse.

The big challenge is just that the game has grossly exceeded its design space. Themes do a pretty good job of carving out more, but there's also far more themes than PP can manage. Nobody wants to invalidate models, but the truth is some things just can't get attention and fall behind. It's the curse of infinite expansion. Either you officially remove things from the game and upset people with invalid models, or you let things fall to the wayside and upset people with imbalance. At the moment, the game actually has a pretty high percentage of viable models, but there are plenty of things that are essentially soft deleted at this point and the game would benefit a lot from something akin to Magic's Modern format.

I had noticed that. New models come out slowly pushing power creep up while old models do not get balance changes. This strategy is good in short term, but as game goes by it becomes detrimental. Veterans will find most OP combinations and will crush newbies. Players will get alienated as their armies are weak and they do not have fun. There will be ton of models, but most being sub-par.

I never had understood of not having time to review every model and update balance. Game doesn't have many models and heroes to balance. I can read a lot of them and keep track of them, because I'm enthusiastic about it. We are talking about company those job it is to balance their game, we have bunch of dudes doing nothing else all day, but designing and balancing their rules and playtesting their models. There are blatant cases where one or other unit just doesn't have stats compared to its competitors. Some do not have clear and useful purpose. Others do not fit lore. Company seem to expend ever onwards and pay too little attention in supporting their old game.


Most of what I had said is about core ruleset. Purchasing attacks, power attacks which has so many stuff in it that I felt learning to play another game on top of it. Warcaster being replaced by newer ones. All of these things could be solved with some work. There is no need to replace models, just make them as alternative variants of a same units while modifying stats as you wish.


It is a real shame to be honest. I started playing mk.3 and I love this game being "less explosive". I love when game enters it late game phase where you have to fight with scraps. That I do not like is first part of a game where you face battlefield clutter, massive alpha damages, immense buffs, feats, etc.


All I want is tightly balanced game which favors brawling (prolonged fights), strategy, tactics. Has vast customization. I do not like Warmachine due to these reasons. I do not like Warhammer due to RNG and its wonky ruleset. I'm going to try Infinity now, but I did not liked how unrealistic and alpha like this game is. You have essentially whole team of super soldiers and entire squad just takes a brake while one teammate runs away and kills half of the enemy skirmish force all by its own. Then he takes a pause and another of his teamate proceeds to run at supernatural speeds, beats few blocks and engages several enemies while his squad again just sits there and watches.

 Ernestas wrote:
So, as I love to tinker and customize my lists before battle, I obviously spend a lot of time preparing that perfect army list. What I dislike in Warmachine is that seemingly, some models live and die solely by requisition balance now. There are 7 point solos which would be hard sell otherwise and a lot of units seem to be included primary because they get certain bonuses as requisition options. For example, you can take two Ghost Sniper solos, making up 6 points and giving you 2 good attrition pieces in game. While other requisitions like Arcanist Mechanics or CA attachments seem to be an error within list building as it is always better just to pay for them and to take that super expensive solo solely because it costs so many points which you can get for free. Requisition system as it is now acts to stifle creativity rather than to promote it. Any system would be better, just getting your allowance of points would be better from design perspective even if it is little less fun.

You'll have this in every game. 'Trap' options will always be a thing.

 Ernestas wrote:

In regards to focus management and spending focus on warjacks/warbeasts to purchase additional attacks. I do believe that this is more of a negative than a positive. The issue with this system that it allows way too massive damage spikes. Game becomes extremely alpha-centric and even the biggest colossals are surprisingly fragile due to this system. I do like how this system functions for range weapons, that only exceptions can buy attacks. I enjoy that you can boost your odds when needed. Yet, I feel that focus system is too intrusive and instead of controlling RNG, it rather defines a game. Units become far less important. Only thing that matters is focus allowance and 1 strong weapon. Rest of loadout is irrelevant. Due to this nature, game often feels very one sided. One side manages to get a good turn and it is essentially over on a moment it managed to do its alpha to you. Game plays amazing when it becomes a brawl. When your primary pieces had traded with each other and you have to improvise with whatever you have at hand.

The game is only alpha-centric if you present your whole army to be eaten in one go. Warmachine is like boxing. First lesson: protect your caster. Second lesson: footwork (positioning). How you move and position your pieces is crucial both to taking, absorbing and countering.

Regarding the spikes, the massive damage output of the game is one of its balancing features. Everything can be killed.

 Ernestas wrote:

In a same regard, some things in game are too good like anti-shooting tech. Game often feels like it is either easily or very hard. For example, I had a match against CIrcle player who kept casting +3 DEF on his units. I had to hit 16, 17 DEF units every damn turn. Without Blessed Weapons, this is OP ability. Anti-shooting tech works on similar level, shooting only works until opponent does not bring counter to it which will hard counter it. In same respect, I played against Merc warcaster who gave all his mechs +3 SPD, +3 Armor and pathfinder to his entire army. Combine this with his other movement buffs and it is another case of game lacking vision and self discipline. My opponent could take slow as hell mechs and he still blitz through battlefield as it wouldn't exist. Harsh terrain? Doesn't matter. Speed 4 warjacks? Doesn't matter. They are now cheap, massively armored and extremely fast. On the other hand, even if it is a support caster, in bigger game EVERY caster is a support caster as they cant really contribute to the field in match defining turns and are instead spending their focus and activating feats as support warcasters. Game in this regard suffers from power creep, bloat of content and lack of power cap. Some heroes are OP as they have way too many "fixers". I can appreciate support hero who "makes things go fasta". But I at the same time, can't see this hero making those things heavily armored. A good comparison is with Helenya. Her feat is essentially +3 Armor due to how alpha damage works in this game. It has reposition for warjacks, but it is far worse mobility tool than anything that lets to move before an activation. She doesn't help her battlegroup to engage first as she does not enchant their damage, but she allows her battlegroup to be more resilient/stand off/attrition based. She is balanced and with a purpose. Sadly, in this game there are often heroes who can essentially do all the things which specialized hero does and do something else superbly well.

No. The point is 'circular balance'. Everything has its 'solver bullet' and it's 'hard counter' and in theory, there is no one thing that is good in all situations. Op in one situation is fine, it's pointless in another. That's how the game has always worked, and this is why you have the 2-list format.

 Ernestas wrote:
I had noticed that. New models come out slowly pushing power creep up while old models do not get balance changes. This strategy is good in short term, but as game goes by it becomes detrimental. Veterans will find most OP combinations and will crush newbies. Players will get alienated as their armies are weak and they do not have fun. There will be ton of models, but most being sub-par.

To be fair, pp have done better than most keeping things relevant. Some of the most reached for units have been there since day 1. And unfortunately the 'power creep' is a function of the nature of ttgs in general.

 Ernestas wrote:

I never had understood of not having time to review every model and update balance. Game doesn't have many models and heroes to balance. I can read a lot of them and keep track of them, because I'm enthusiastic about it. We are talking about company those job it is to balance their game, we have bunch of dudes doing nothing else all day, but designing and balancing their rules and playtesting their models. There are blatant cases where one or other unit just doesn't have stats compared to its competitors. Some do not have clear and useful purpose. Others do not fit lore. Company seem to expend ever onwards and pay too little attention in supporting their old game.

Balancing games is a lot harder than you think. It's an unsolvable equation. It takes a lot longer to do than you think. There's hundreds of units, thousands of rules and special rules and hundreds of thousands of interactions. There is no 'fixing'. There is no 'magical solution'. Pp is not a big company and they have more things to do in an 8 hour shift than that. Right now, Warmachine is pocket change. Most of their cash comes from mini crate and most of their development time is going into WNM.

Regarding not supporting the old game, again, that's a function of the ttgs business model. No company has ever escaped this simple truth. What sells is 'new stuff', hence the 'wave nature' of releases. Pp are looking st the bottom line. The stuff that's been there for years? Pointless. They've made their money on it.

 Ernestas wrote:

Most of what I had said is about core ruleset. Purchasing attacks, power attacks which has so many stuff in it that I felt learning to play another game on top of it. Warcaster being replaced by newer ones. All of these things could be solved with some work. There is no need to replace models, just make them as alternative variants of a same units while modifying stats as you wish.

There is no solving I'm afraid. If they are just variants, people won't buy them. They'll just use a proxy/former model (because hey, it's legal!) and download the rules for free. Even if you could solve it with 'some work' there I should no benefit to pp for this (and again, small company, limited resources, lots off other games and commitments per time). From miniature companies you need to realise 'old stuff' is the enemy. It might be cruel to realise this, but saving the old game does nothing for them.

Personally, I would rather think pp would go down the route of wfb and kill Warmachine. My thoughts mind, I have nothing solid to base this on.

 Ernestas wrote:

It is a real shame to be honest. I started playing mk.3 and I love this game being "less explosive". I love when game enters it late game phase where you have to fight with scraps. That I do not like is first part of a game where you face battlefield clutter, massive alpha damages, immense buffs, feats, etc.

Warmachine probsbly isn't the game for you then, sadly. When I plated, I loved the 'explosiveness' and the 'empowerment' of the game. Clutter is only clutter until I get a few greylord sprays into it. And alphas can be mitigated.

 Ernestas wrote:

All I want is tightly balanced game which favors brawling (prolonged fights), strategy, tactics. Has vast customization. I do not like Warmachine due to these reasons. I do not like Warhammer due to RNG and its wonky ruleset. I'm going to try Infinity now, but I did not liked how unrealistic and alpha like this game is. You have essentially whole team of super soldiers and entire squad just takes a brake while one teammate runs away and kills half of the enemy skirmish force all by its own. Then he takes a pause and another of his teamate proceeds to run at supernatural speeds, beats few blocks and engages several enemies while his squad again just sits there and watches.

With respect, 'all i want' is fine for something simple. 'All I want' is a cup of tea. 'All I want' is a beer. What you want isn't simple. You are asking for a lot. There probsbly isn't any game that ticks all the boxes. You may have to consider some accommodations and compromises at your end too.

Infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there. With some of the best models. You speak of soloing but this is only a thing for beginners. For veterans and people who know the game, soling is much less of a thing. What you also refer to is infinity trying to evoke a 'cinematic' experience and focusing down on one model. I think it does a great job, but I personally wish the rules were less complex, an I wouldn't mind an 'order cap' on models per turn. .

If I may, regarding the games you want, have you looked into gw's necromunda. It's a solid game, lots of strategy, huge customisation and fantastic models. In some ways it's a simplified infinity. Small scale. Gang warfare. We are playing it at the moment and it's a blast. It's a gw game so needs some work st the front end if you want to avoid a silver bullet. At the other end of the scale is warcry. Simple rules, simple to get to grips with, but I find it to be desceptively simple. Really enjoying it (stick with the chaos warbands though. Stormcasts are broken as anything!) but the loadout customisation is more limited. Other options are games like warlords. bolt action. Solid game.

Ernestas
If there is a problem with older players crushing new players and making them have poor experiences this is not the game alone. many systems have this problem. the attitude of the players and the community they foster is what you really need to consider and work to change.


On the topic of MK III theme lists, like steamroller they are not a requirement-could you get some free units? yes, but is it the army you really want to play? everything i field is only based on the models i wanted to use and the caster that best supports them-i chose him after i had the units i really wanted. ( i am acutally using him as irusk II because i hate the model with the flag)

i have 2 different 50 point lists. and a 75 if i need it. all i am doing is swapping some models around

this is my current 50



the alternate i swap out the behemoth for a spriggan and devastator, remove the manOwar dragoon and add the widowmaker solo.



as for infinity. the rambo thing only works for you until you learn how to play the game. and veteran players will shut it down very fast.

Rule of thumb is to have 3 heavy hitters and the rest of the army there to support them.. if i kill your super rambo guy right away what is the rest of your force designed to do to pick up the slack?, or what if i just kill your order pool? then your hero has no actions (love doing that to achilles noob players).
infinity is incredibly balanced and very active for both players. the only down side to the game is the amount of terrain you need to setup to have a good table.

these are the kind of things i always recommend with infinity lists at 300 points

offensive
1.range with high burst
2.heavy weapon with some sort of visor to deal with cammo
3.range with good AP

many of those same units are also very good in close combat and have some form of cammo

along with that i always recommend
.medic/doctor
.hacker/evo
.engineer
.g servants for the doc and mechanic -palbots etc..
.bodies to fill the order pool-line troopers, remotes (my preference since i play haqq) etc.. in infinity even a grunt with a combi rifle might win you the game.

Useful units/skills but not required-
.chain of command
.impetuous units
.named characters ( i use saladin in my general list but thats the only one)
.forward deployment/infiltration


You also do not want to hide your army like 40K. with the ARO system you want to have people looking down fire lanes.

deadnight

i think N3 really overdid it with all the hacking programs/devices. our groups still prefers to use the old N2 version where there were only -hacker VS hacker kill, freeze HI, take control of TAGS, marking (nomad special thing) and the 3 bonus options EVOs gave to your rolls.

 aphyon wrote:

deadnight

i think N3 really overdid it with all the hacking programs/devices. our groups still prefers to use the old N2 version where there were only -hacker VS hacker kill, freeze HI, take control of TAGS, marking (nomad special thing) and the 3 bonus options EVOs gave to your rolls.

Aphyon, can you please spoiler that giant picture?

I like your irusk. He was always a solid caster. Big b was always a favourite jack. And you can never go wrong with widowmakers. Towards my end of playing WMH, some of my favourites were '5th border legion' irusk 2 and vlad3. I repainted 200 odd khador models into the 5ths scheme. And repainted 100 odd models for retribution. And a hundred odd circle ones. Twice.

Irusk 2 was supremely underrated during mk2, and vlad 3 was legitimately more fun than you ever have a right to expect from khador. Vlad 3 and murder ponies was ridiculous. Personal favourite caster was always the Butcher.

Regarding infinity, I tend to agree. N3 was overcooked. Brilliant, but undercooked. These days I prefer the 'less is more' school of rule design. Weirdly loving gw's warcry. I very much found infinity guilty of the 'too many modifiers' and 'too much book keeping' to be 'fun' though. But those are just personal gripes I have anyway. I am very intrigued by their 'stripped back' mode they've spoken about. I have 3 factions - Ariadna, pan-o and ju-Jong (about 80 models in total) and would dearly love to get them on the board again. Either that, or a 4-man veteran Kazak box.

DeadnightMade, I disagree with a lot of what you had said. Yet, I see your point and while it might be pragmatic thing for them to do now, I do not think it is what we should do from idealistic side of thing. I think, they should try harder, but life is as it is. Keep in mind that when you read my response, I disagree on a lot of things, but there is no need to argue about them. Lets just accept that we have different views on this matter. I liked your recommendations at the end and I will try it one day. At the moment, I have tons of Warmachine models still waiting to be assembled and painted. I love collecting them and buying them cheap on ebay. Though, even in this PP drops the ball heavily. Some miniatures are quite good. Others really pathetic. Their quality varies immensely while their price not. This makes collectors and hobbyist very annoyed at PP and this is why I think that they should slowly release older models in new standards. It is not for the money, but for the sake of their pride.

You'll have this in every game. 'Trap' options will always be a thing.

Trap options appear when there is too many units within a game. Developers start stopping caring about balance of a game and starts releasing newer options who pretty much take up role of older models. That is the problem with these games, developers just keeps on releasing new crap until eventually games get into unworkable state and they have to reboot it with huge rework.

The game is only alpha-centric if you present your whole army to be eaten in one go. Warmachine is like boxing. First lesson: protect your caster. Second lesson: footwork (positioning). How you move and position your pieces is crucial both to taking, absorbing and countering.

Regarding the spikes, the massive damage output of the game is one of its balancing features. Everything can be killed.

How game IS NOT alpha centric? You can take one basic warjack, pump it with buffs and focus. This warjack will be able to demolish far heavier and more expensive warjack and will leave you in losing position where you now have to do the same with less models which is often impossible. A good example is Griffon and Arcanist Mechanick example. On its very own, Griffon worth 8 points can hit for with 19 and 15 POW attacks. It is a very mobile piece on its own and I'm excluding buffs on top of it. So my tactic is to deliver massive ranged pounding and then buff single warjack to ridiculous levels and send it to inflict damage way above its class through purchasing more attacks. This 8 piece example can do 3D6 POW 15 and 2D6 attacks. Then it can just keep purchasing attacks and buy 2-3 more attacks depending on buffs. So it is 3x2D6 attacks. On average, this little light jack can easily do to respectable Armor 19 heavy 11+3+3 x 7 = 14 + 21 = 35 points of damage! I'm not even including other obvious buffs like what you can get from warcaster or simply taking +2 to all from jack'marchal if I'm not mistaken. This little warjack is as dangerous as any heavy warjack if not more so, because his stats is where it counts. In pathfinder and mobility.

This kind of nonsense is everywhere in game. Oh, do you have weapon master infantry? Add on die to damage. On charge attacks you get boosted damage rolls. Oh, you have a warcaster those feat gives you damage dice? Here, my Ryssovass Defenders now can do 5D6 damage rolls. That averages at 28 damage from a single, medium priced infantry unit which by its sheer damage output can even slaughter even heavy warjacks if they are unlucky enough to get in their way. And there are a lot worse combinations than this. Do you want to know Houseguard Halberdeers? You can get +2 Movement from Desperate Pace, +2 from Hunter's Mark, +More speed from some other warcaster's buff. You have cheap unit capable of charging at least 15 inches through the battlefield and they hit really hard on impact.

My point is that these combinations lend itself to very one sided games. I go quite well in this game until I meet a veteran who pulls out some OP bs and game is not even close. In every match I'm like "alright, what broken nonsense my opponent will do this time". If my opponent doesn't bring any broken nonsense, I either crush him with my broken nonsense or we actually have close and fun game.

No. The point is 'circular balance'. Everything has its 'solver bullet' and it's 'hard counter' and in theory, there is no one thing that is good in all situations. Op in one situation is fine, it's pointless in another. That's how the game has always worked, and this is why you have the 2-list format.

I say that it goes too far. What kind of talk this is? You can have a good game until opponent purchases another warcaster? This also lends itself poorly to tournament balance. Lets say if you have shooting army and you like your army. Yet, you know there is THAT ONE GUY who has anti shooting list. This is it. Shooting armies are not competitive anymore, because you have to go for an army list which maximises your win chances. Hard counters are always bad within a game, because it is a static game. You can't just say "oh, let me change into different army", because you do not have a different army. It is expensive to acquire just one army and only hardcore players will be bothered in regularly changing their lists. Counters should exist, but they should not be so absolutely massive to a point your list becomes obsolete.

To be fair, pp have done better than most keeping things relevant. Some of the most reached for units have been there since day 1. And unfortunately the 'power creep' is a function of the nature of ttgs in general.

I agree on it, but constant power creep is also a reason why all games die with age. I have people in my club who are very cynical about PP releases due to their power creep. A tight balance has to be enforced, old units remastered and new units nerfed after the hype.

Balancing games is a lot harder than you think. It's an unsolvable equation. It takes a lot longer to do than you think. There's hundreds of units, thousands of rules and special rules and hundreds of thousands of interactions. There is no 'fixing'. There is no 'magical solution'. Pp is not a big company and they have more things to do in an 8 hour shift than that. Right now, Warmachine is pocket change. Most of their cash comes from mini crate and most of their development time is going into WNM.

Regarding not supporting the old game, again, that's a function of the ttgs business model. No company has ever escaped this simple truth. What sells is 'new stuff', hence the 'wave nature' of releases. Pp are looking st the bottom line. The stuff that's been there for years? Pointless. They've made their money on it.

That is part of a problem. They ride game into the ground and start a dozen new projects. They all are going to experience same fate and due to mismanagement, they will earn only pocket change. It is not hard to balance game, there are units which are obviously over performing and there are units who obviously under performing. You can put them on power curve and disparity between units will be obvious. Then there is another step, you have to look at each unit within an army and ask if none of these units overlap each other in their functions. They should not in most cases, then you have to ask what are purpose of these units. When you define that purpose, you calculate statistically if they are capable of doing that purpose better than other units. For example, you put Cleave on an expensive unit and make it your anti-infantry option. Yet, then you have to playtest that unit and to calculate if an unit performs better in that role than similar unit, but instead of cleave they have weapon master. You create databases, you create statistical models, you draw statistical outcomes and then you rely on game sense to see if it can perform its intended purpose. First taking look at how popular these units are statistically in tournaments and games. Secondly, gathering public opinion on them. Thirdly, using your own judgement.

For example, I had purchased Scythe and thought "oh boy, she looks insane at clearing infantry". Yet, in very first game I fought against veteran game who kept his squad dispersed in formation where there I got only 1 extra hit on his squad and later none. I had learned that multifire works best with either damage buffs, adding dice via feats or simply heavily debuffing. Garryth 2 with its witchmark of -2 DEF and -2 Armor can make light warjacks evaporate under her own threat. 4 attacks will result to 4 x (3D6 - 4) = 4 x 7 = 28 with 6 point investment which is extremely difficult to kill. Stack that debuff with another -2 armor and you can do same extremely withering fire on a heavy warjack. This is excluding feat where she can just casually throw around 4 x 4D6 dice at incoming enemies. There is no unit which even remotely comes to her level of absurdity on its own. For example, Heavy Rifle Team which is meant for such task is balanced in this task. It can only do usually just plain 2D6 damage which is meager 7 damage. Any buffs with them stacks linearly and thus, they are not balance problem. With Scythe any buffs stacks up geometrically and thus she is constant balance problem. How to balance her? It is very simple, remove weapon master from her weapon which causes her imbalance and adds nothing to her primary role as infantry lawnmower.

And what a surprise, Scythe is a new unit...

There is no solving I'm afraid. If they are just variants, people won't buy them. They'll just use a proxy/former model (because hey, it's legal!) and download the rules for free. Even if you could solve it with 'some work' there I should no benefit to pp for this (and again, small company, limited resources, lots off other games and commitments per time). From miniature companies you need to realise 'old stuff' is the enemy. It might be cruel to realise this, but saving the old game does nothing for them.

Personally, I would rather think pp would go down the route of wfb and kill Warmachine. My thoughts mind, I have nothing solid to base this on.

Not everything that you do has to be about money. In this way most projects were killed. Remastered models might not be popular, but company has to have some pride in their product if they wish it to succeed. Otherwise they will ALWAYS produce second tier games. And if they manage to produce a gem, they will make it crap with time. I'm not asking a lot, most of the stuff is already here. Game is 90% done. What it needs is some slow after launch support where devs from time to time nerf some stuff and buff underperforming stuff. Yet, after seeing card list, most of cards were not changed since release. Devs never actively supported their game and people are surprised why game had died...

Being smaller should not mean that you behave as juggernauts like games workshop. You are small, which means that you have a lot less bureaucratic crap to deal with. Devs could just jump from time to time to their old projects and breathe new life into them. Without proper support of their product, it becomes an endless negative spiral. Game is dying, because it is not supported. It is not supported, because game is dying. All what devs do is after launch money generating.

Though, a lot of those problems I believe stems from dev themselves. It takes hard work to make those 8 hours per day count and only few are capable of that. Like in school, you do it in half-assed way and then you discover that your work is shoddy beyond belief as I heard from Mk.3 launch and have to cancel out thoughts that you had killed a massive project by your laziness.

Warmachine probsbly isn't the game for you then, sadly. When I plated, I loved the 'explosiveness' and the 'empowerment' of the game. Clutter is only clutter until I get a few greylord sprays into it. And alphas can be mitigated.

And this is the sad part. It could be a game for me with just few changes. If devs would change attack purchase to work like they work for ranged attacks. If they would focus on tighter balance. I would love this game. Yet now I often do not feel true satisfaction from it. It is often feels that I'm crushing my opponent and lose from something very silly like a death clock or a point loss. Or I'm being crushed on Turn 1 of a fighting and from there I'm just entertaining my opponent and letting him to have all the fun in crushing me without me being able to effectively fight back.

With respect, 'all i want' is fine for something simple. 'All I want' is a cup of tea. 'All I want' is a beer. What you want isn't simple. You are asking for a lot. There probsbly isn't any game that ticks all the boxes. You may have to consider some accommodations and compromises at your end too.

Infinity is probsbly the most technically brilliant wargame out there. With some of the best models. You speak of soloing but this is only a thing for beginners. For veterans and people who know the game, soling is much less of a thing. What you also refer to is infinity trying to evoke a 'cinematic' experience and focusing down on one model. I think it does a great job, but I personally wish the rules were less complex, an I wouldn't mind an 'order cap' on models per turn. .

If I may, regarding the games you want, have you looked into gw's necromunda. It's a solid game, lots of strategy, huge customisation and fantastic models. In some ways it's a simplified infinity. Small scale. Gang warfare. We are playing it at the moment and it's a blast. It's a gw game so needs some work st the front end if you want to avoid a silver bullet. At the other end of the scale is warcry. Simple rules, simple to get to grips with, but I find it to be desceptively simple. Really enjoying it (stick with the chaos warbands though. Stormcasts are broken as anything!) but the loadout customisation is more limited. Other options are games like warlords. bolt action. Solid game.

Well, I just don't like concept of soloing. I made an extreme example, but in reality I just really hate this concept. You want to establish some distance between you and your enemy. Yet, enemy just uses few orders, runs through entire map, kills your dude and maybe even another if you misplaced him. I do not like when you can deliver such "alphas". I would love it a lot more if game would be more "combined arms" or limited in single unit performance. I like when all units have their part to play and none grossly outperforms the other. I like when there are more elements to consider, for example distance. Buffs and orders just make mockery of it. In Infinity we have orders allowing single unit to run through entire map, in Warmachine we have stacking buffs which allow melee units to have higher threat range than of a longest infantry shooting.

Thank you for your recommendations, I had invested into Warmachine and will be playing it for a little more. I also want to build armies and have a collection to show for, not fragmented army lists. Yet, I already see how I will get sick of it. Then I will jump to Infinity, because I quite liked it. I probably will get sick of it due to order system or some other nonsense which I won't like. I still need to start playing Warhammer tabletop games, but I already do not like them. In them you essentially take as much dice as you can throw and in the end you do few wounds... I was interested in Necromunda and Warcry, I will have now more reasons to try them out, thanks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon,

If in a list I can take 7 point solo which single handedly has potential to win games for free or I can get free CA, is there a list building problem on competitive level in this example?

In a same manner, I feel stifled with in army bonuses as they are simply too good not to take majority of the time. 2 Ghost Sniper solos are simply too good as attrition pieces and as point capturers. 7 point free solo is simply too good on its own not to take for free. These types of bonuses should not exist as they create units which are only really taken for free and their point cost is irrelevant. Such heavy bonuses on discounts should come with even more limitations on your list. Otherwise, just flat 15 extra point on 75 army would work better from design and balance perspective.

The big magic of Infinity's order system is for all the theory of soloing, its not really a thing that happens in game. The ARO system makes orders more of a push your luck mechanic than anything. Every order you spend on a model is an opportunity for that model to die, and if you really try to solo, realistically you'll lose that piece. If your gameplan is literally to have as many orders as possible on one model, when that model dies you don't have a plan B.

One of my favorite things about Infinity is its probably the game where my assumptions have crumbled hardest once I started really playing the game. A model can't really solo efficiently unless your opponent sets up poorly and the terrain is too open. That sounds like the optimal strategy but in practice it doesn't pan out at all. Usually the optimal turns involve teamwork. One model flanking to clear a lane for another to safely take out a key piece. Soloing often requires spending orders inefficiently because of how much it risks a key piece. It's all about stacking the odds in your favor as much as possible, which often comes down to trying to get shots on opponents outside their optimal ranges, which often really demands clever maneuvering through the terrain. I think its probably the most interesting game I've played from a positioning standpoint.

I will see if I will come to like Infinity. Afterall, I just played few demos and I simply did not liked order system. My local hobby shop was irresponsible in how they managed shipping of new miniatures and order which I had ordered before Christmas only now was ordered. Store owners had asked if anyone wants anything for a new order since there were problems with last one. A lot of chaos and a lot of incompetence going on.

I got operation Icestorm, its expansion and paint set for nomands. Probably will add paints for panocean too. I do not care much about new bundle coming out. What I like is Nomands and PanOcean. Then Ariadna and Haqqislam. I probably end up with these armies which speaks volumes about Infinity lore, because with Warmachine I couldn't really get into any faction due to there being next to none of it which I could comfortably read.

 Ernestas wrote:

If in a list I can take 7 point solo which single handedly has potential to win games for free or I can get free CA, is there a list building problem on competitive level in this example?

That depends on if you can take 3 of the 7 point solo or just one. If all three requisition slots were always the same model, it would likely be a problem. Realistically though, an auto include isn't really a huge issue as long as there's room for other choices. There's actually a ton of situations where players make suboptimal choices to maximize their free points and would benefit from taking something like a CA for free that improves their unit instead.

 Ernestas wrote:
DeadnightMade, I disagree with a lot of what you had said. Yet, I see your point and while it might be pragmatic thing for them to do now, I do not think it is what we should do from idealistic side of thing. I think, they should try harder, but life is as it is. Keep in mind that when you read my response, I disagree on a lot of things, but there is no need to argue about them. Lets just accept that we have different views on this matter. I liked your recommendations at the end and I will try it one day. At the moment, I have tons of Warmachine models still waiting to be assembled and painted. I love collecting them and buying them cheap on ebay. Though, even in this PP drops the ball heavily. Some miniatures are quite good. Others really pathetic. Their quality varies immensely while their price not. This makes collectors and hobbyist very annoyed at PP and this is why I think that they should slowly release older models in new standards. It is not for the money, but for the sake of their pride.

Disagreements are fine, don't worry. I loved playing Warmachine. Love the lore still, and the models range from ok to pretty damned good. I never had issues with pp model's as a hobbyist, and that included my various conversions - like my girls of Warmachine - female irusk from sorscha, female fenris, female vlad 3 (vladimira, and yes, Mira and sorscha is still a better love story than twilight) and my iron fangettes (or ironing fangs if you want to be cheeky).

 Ernestas wrote:

Trap options appear when there is too many units within a game. Developers start stopping caring about balance of a game and starts releasing newer options who pretty much take up role of older models. That is the problem with these games, developers just keeps on releasing new crap until eventually games get into unworkable state and they have to reboot it with huge rework.

I don't think it's about not caring about balance. It's the unfortunate outcome of commercial pressure, nothing more. It's a business at the end of the day. The names behind Warmachine were very good at their jobs, and genuinely loved what they did (I have friends in the industry who were on 'buying drinks' terms with some of the most at conventions).

 Ernestas wrote:

How game IS NOT alpha centric? You can take one basic warjack, pump it with buffs and focus. This warjack will be able to demolish far heavier and more expensive warjack and will leave you in losing position where you now have to do the same with less models which is often impossible. A good example is Griffon and Arcanist Mechanick example. On its very own, Griffon worth 8 points can hit for with 19 and 15 POW attacks. It is a very mobile piece on its own and I'm excluding buffs on top of it. So my tactic is to deliver massive ranged pounding and then buff single warjack to ridiculous levels and send it to inflict damage way above its class through purchasing more attacks. This 8 piece example can do 3D6 POW 15 and 2D6 attacks. Then it can just keep purchasing attacks and buy 2-3 more attacks depending on buffs. So it is 3x2D6 attacks. On average, this little light jack can easily do to respectable Armor 19 heavy 11+3+3 x 7 = 14 + 21 = 35 points of damage! I'm not even including other obvious buffs like what you can get from warcaster or simply taking +2 to all from jack'marchal if I'm not mistaken. This little warjack is as dangerous as any heavy warjack if not more so, because his stats is where it counts. In pathfinder and mobility.

Long story short, you need to get more experience. Nothing more. You've spent a lot of words saying 'the damage output is extremely high'. I know this. I've played the game since mk1. It's been a design feature since back then, and like I said, the take home message should be 'that annoying thing? Yeah, I can kill it'.

As to that griffon that just demolished my cheap and expensive juggernaut. Well, there's a squad of iron fangs next to it and he's losIng it next. That is assuming he gets the charge off. Ever hear of screenings. Like I said, learn your positioning.

 Ernestas wrote:

This kind of nonsense is everywhere in game. Oh, do you have weapon master infantry? Add on die to damage. On charge attacks you get boosted damage rolls. Oh, you have a warcaster those feat gives you damage dice? Here, my Ryssovass Defenders now can do 5D6 damage rolls. That averages at 28 damage from a single, medium priced infantry unit which by its sheer damage output can even slaughter even heavy warjacks if they are unlucky enough to get in their way. And there are a lot worse combinations than this. Do you want to know Houseguard Halberdeers? You can get +2 Movement from Desperate Pace, +2 from Hunter's Mark, +More speed from some other warcaster's buff. You have cheap unit capable of charging at least 15 inches through the battlefield and they hit really hard on impact.

My point is that these combinations lend itself to very one sided games. I go quite well in this game until I meet a veteran who pulls out some OP bs and game is not even close. In every match I'm like "alright, what broken nonsense my opponent will do this time". If my opponent doesn't bring any broken nonsense, I either crush him with my broken nonsense or we actually have close and fun game.

See above. You,need more experience. A few weeks ago you were saying how you were unbeatable. Now it's 'everything is broken' and 'the sky is falling'. Come on. Page 5. Warmachine is a game where veterans beat newbs. He's got all those synergies. Well, so what? So do you. Learn them. Git good. That's where the skill part of the game come in. Then you get your game where it is close. Back when I was decent I often played against folks that open national masters. On rare occasions, I even bet them, or got so damned close.

 Ernestas wrote:

No. The point is 'circular balance'. Everything has its 'solver bullet' and it's 'hard counter' and in theory, there is no one thing that is good in all situations. Op in one situation is fine, it's pointless in another. That's how the game has always worked, and this is why you have the 2-list format.

I say that it goes too far. What kind of talk this is? You can have a good game until opponent purchases another warcaster? This also lends itself poorly to tournament balance. Lets say if you have shooting army and you like your army. Yet, you know there is THAT ONE GUY who has anti shooting list. This is it. Shooting armies are not competitive anymore, because you have to go for an army list which maximises your win chances. Hard counters are always bad within a game, because it is a static game. You can't just say "oh, let me change into different army", because you do not have a different army. It is expensive to acquire just one army and only hardcore players will be bothered in regularly changing their lists. Counters should exist, but they should not be so absolutely massive to a point your list becomes obsolete.

There only true until you expand your roster. get a second caster. Expand. It's one of the core features of the steamroller format.

It's actually one of the strongest features of the balance of the game. That, multiple win conditions and multiple lists for tournaments. Hard counters and soft counters are both necessary features in good game design. Otherwise you are saying there isn't no poIn the to having anti tank guns because they murder tanks. If you don't have hard counters, something quickly becomes an 'immovable object' and the game deteriorates from that point.

 Ernestas wrote:

agree on it, but constant power creep is also a reason why all games die with age. I have people in my club who are very cynical about PP releases due to their power creep. A tight balance has to be enforced, old units remastered and new units nerfed after the hype.

That is part of a problem. They ride game into the ground and start a dozen new projects. They all are going to experience same fate and due to mismanagement, they will earn only pocket change. It is not hard to balance game, there are units which are obviously over performing and there are units who obviously under performing. You can put them on power curve and disparity between units will be obvious. Then there is another step, you have to look at each unit within an army and ask if none of these units overlap each other in their functions. They should not in most cases, then you have to ask what are purpose of these units. When you define that purpose, you calculate statistically if they are capable of doing that purpose better than other units. For example, you put Cleave on an expensive unit and make it your anti-infantry option. Yet, then you have to playtest that unit and to calculate if an unit performs better in that role than similar unit, but instead of cleave they have weapon master. You create databases, you create statistical models, you draw statistical outcomes and then you rely on game sense to see if it can perform its intended purpose. First taking look at how popular these units are statistically in tournaments and games. Secondly, gathering public opinion on them. Thirdly, using your own judgement.

Tight balance has to be enforced - sure. Now the trick is mating this with commercial pressures. Your,company won't last long if all you have is a game with 2 factions, each of three units. You need to expand. That is a core aspect of this business model.

And yes, it is hard to balance a game. Extremely hard. It's not as simple as 'stick them a power curve' or doing dps math. Playtesting, similarly takes a huge amount of time and tgere are a huge amount of variance and context that cannot be ignored.

 Ernestas wrote:

For example, I had purchased Scythe and thought "oh boy, she looks insane at clearing infantry". Yet, in very first game I fought against veteran game who kept his squad dispersed in formation where there I got only 1 extra hit on his squad and later none. I had learned that multifire works best with either damage buffs, adding dice via feats or simply heavily debuffing. Garryth 2 with its witchmark of -2 DEF and -2 Armor can make light warjacks evaporate under her own threat. 4 attacks will result to 4 x (3D6 - 4) = 4 x 7 = 28 with 6 point investment which is extremely difficult to kill. Stack that debuff with another -2 armor and you can do same extremely withering fire on a heavy warjack. This is excluding feat where she can just casually throw around 4 x 4D6 dice at incoming enemies. There is no unit which even remotely comes to her level of absurdity on its own. For example, Heavy Rifle Team which is meant for such task is balanced in this task. It can only do usually just plain 2D6 damage which is meager 7 damage. Any buffs with them stacks linearly and thus, they are not balance problem. With Scythe any buffs stacks up geometrically and thus she is constant balance problem. How to balance her? It is very simple, remove weapon master from her weapon which causes her imbalance and adds nothing to her primary role as infantry lawnmower.

So a veteran did the positioning thing that I mentioned you need to learn, and you came undone. Damage output is staggering.cfor,sure. That's nothing new. I play khador. She still won't last when Lola comes to say hi.

 Ernestas wrote:

Not everything that you do has to be about money. In this way most projects were killed. Remastered models might not be popular, but company has to have some pride in their product if they wish it to succeed. Otherwise they will ALWAYS produce second tier games. And if they manage to produce a gem, they will make it crap with time. I'm not asking a lot, most of the stuff is already here. Game is 90% done. What it needs is some slow after launch support where devs from time to time nerf some stuff and buff underperforming stuff. Yet, after seeing card list, most of cards were not changed since release. Devs never actively supported their game and people are surprised why game had died...

Except it does define he bottom line. Lots of remastered models is a luxury to many. When your a small company of just over two dozen people, money is important. These are not charities, and they won't survive with thoughts and feelings.

And like I said, you are asking a lot. I don't sympathy this to be cheeky or aggressive or anything like that. But it verges on unrealistic expectations in a lot of ways. The game might be ninety percent done, but this is also a game of diminishing returns. That extra ten percent is nine hundred percent more effort.

In fairness to pp, they do rejig the models. Are you familiar with cid? They do rejig a couple of times a year. But these are things that need to be careful. Smaller tweak. A whole rash of changes just causes chaos.

 Ernestas wrote:

Being smaller should not mean that you behave as juggernauts like games workshop. You are small, which means that you have a lot less bureaucratic crap to deal with. Devs could just jump from time to time to their old projects and breathe new life into them. Without proper support of their product, it becomes an endless negative spiral. Game is dying, because it is not supported. It is not supported, because game is dying. All what devs do is after launch money generating.

Though, a lot of those problems I believe stems from dev themselves. It takes hard work to make those 8 hours per day count and only few are capable of that. Like in school, you do it in half-assed way and then you discover that your work is shoddy beyond belief as I heard from Mk.3 launch and have to cancel out thoughts that you had killed a massive project by your laziness.

Or maybe it's a lot harder than you give credit for.

Being smaller also means tighter margins and less room for error. They are still a company that sells worldwide, remember. That beurocratic crap is often necessary. Do you realise how complex legal stuff can be? Sales are a nightmares. As one issue. It's not just designing rules. There's probsbly the smallest part of their day job. And like I said, this is a company of barely over two dozen people. You don't have the luxury of private projects that you can just dedicate time too.

 Ernestas wrote:

this is the sad part. It could be a game for me with just few changes. If devs would change attack purchase to work like they work for ranged attacks. If they would focus on tighter balance. I would love this game. Yet now I often do not feel true satisfaction from it. It is often feels that I'm crushing my opponent and lose from something very silly like a death clock or a point loss. Or I'm being crushed on Turn 1 of a fighting and from there I'm just entertaining my opponent and letting him to have all the fun in crushing me without me being able to effectively fight back.

To be fair to pp, they are probsbly amongst the most focused on balance in this industry.The problem is that the balance you want is to all intents and purposes unachievable.

And to be fair to you again, you're still new. Get some experience under your belt and you'll get what you're after. Warmachine is a game that you have to play more of to get good.

 Ernestas wrote:

Well, I just don't like concept of soloing. I made an extreme example, but in reality I just really hate this concept. You want to establish some distance between you and your enemy. Yet, enemy just uses few orders, runs through entire map, kills your dude and maybe even another if you misplaced him. I do not like when you can deliver such "alphas". I would love it a lot more if game would be more "combined arms" or limited in single unit performance. I like when all units have their part to play and none grossly outperforms the other. I like when there are more elements to consider, for example distance. Buffs and orders just make mockery of it. In Infinity we have orders allowing single unit to run through entire map, in Warmachine we have stacking buffs which allow melee units to have higher threat range than of a longest infantry shooting.

I don't disagree, but again, you exaggerate. Soloing across a map doesn't happen for veteran players. And of all the games out there, infinity is probsbly among the best for everyone having their parts to play.

 Ernestas wrote:

Thank you for your recommendations, I had invested into Warmachine and will be playing it for a little more. I also want to build armies and have a collection to show for, not fragmented army lists. Yet, I already see how I will get sick of it. Then I will jump to Infinity, because I quite liked it. I probably will get sick of it due to order system or some other nonsense which I won't like. I still need to start playing Warhammer tabletop games, but I already do not like them. In them you essentially take as much dice as you can throw and in the end you do few wounds... I was interested in Necromunda and Warcry, I will have now more reasons to try them out, thanks.

Recommendations are free. I invested a lot in WMH. I don't regret it. I had a lot of fun playing the game. Still adore the lore. I have all the RPGs material going back to the witchfire trilogy in the very early noughties. If anything. Play multiple games. They all kinda scratch different itches. Thumbs up!

 Ernestas wrote:

If in a list I can take 7 point solo which single handedly has potential to win games for free or I can get free CA, is there a list building problem on competitive level in this example?

In a same manner, I feel stifled with in army bonuses as they are simply too good not to take majority of the time. 2 Ghost Sniper solos are simply too good as attrition pieces and as point capturers. 7 point free solo is simply too good on its own not to take for free. These types of bonuses should not exist as they create units which are only really taken for free and their point cost is irrelevant. Such heavy bonuses on discounts should come with even more limitations on your list. Otherwise, just flat 15 extra point on 75 army would work better from design and balance perspective.

I do Not disagree. Theme lists were one of the worst things about mkiii and one of the things that ultimately turned me off the game. But pp are hardly unique in this. Unfortunately, ttgs are just very limited systems and can only hold so much weight.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

If in a list I can take 7 point solo which single handedly has potential to win games for free or I can get free CA, is there a list building problem on competitive level in this example?

That depends on if you can take 3 of the 7 point solo or just one. If all three requisition slots were always the same model, it would likely be a problem. Realistically though, an auto include isn't really a huge issue as long as there's room for other choices. There's actually a ton of situations where players make suboptimal choices to maximize their free points and would benefit from taking something like a CA for free that improves their unit instead.

I guess it is a personal choice, but personally I always find it very difficult to justify a list with low requisition value. I feel like pretty much stuck always taking 2 Ghost Snipers, because its combo is so good value wise. I'm always inclined to maximize point value of what I want to take. If I have to make sacrifices, I make cheaper battlegroup and maximize myself on requisition choices. Squeezing just that one high value solo which you might otherwise not can easily mean between victory or a loss. For example, Scythe on its own can attrition entire flank of enemy infantry and score, contest few points which otherwise you could not. She has insane mobility thanks to never ending special rules for her. She is also one of the biggest range threats now in game after any buffs. She can do 4 x 4D6 damage with Ossyan every time she is taken during his feat turn and that is some crazy-ass ranged damage!

Solos on their own are very powerful for their points and I feel that you will not see ANY of these solos unless taken for free. That I think is a symptom of a bad system if some units are only "good" if given for free. You should want to take them on their own regardless if you have to pay for them or not, but in my experience we have an opposite reality. People always optimize their lists around taking certain units for free rather than building a list which they would build anyways.

In my eyes, requisition system is interesting addition to a game, but ultimately it only causes issues. I think that themes on their own would be very strong competition wise and devs needed at release satisfy themselves with just that and then bake into these additional bonuses later . As for now, I think that bonuses would be best solved by boring allowance to go overboard with points. Lets say, in 25 point list you are allowed to take 30 points worth of stuff. Yet, if you have 25 point army, you are not allowed to take anything else. With 50 points, you get 7 points overhead and with 75 you get 10 points overhead. This bonus would allow you to be more flexible with making your list, because you do not feel bad by being slightly under, because you are allowed to be slightly over in your army list. That would still allow for some min/maxing, but to a lot lower degree than it is now. Instead of getting 6-7 points of goodies per requisition point, these bonuses now would go into building an army which you want to build and lessens times when you just that point or two short on your ideal army composition. It also minimizes times when points and power wise some solo is just better than what you would like to have since now, differences will be at least twice smaller if not more.

aphyon,

If in a list I can take 7 point solo which single handedly has potential to win games for free or I can get free CA, is there a list building problem on competitive level in this example?

In a same manner, I feel stifled with in army bonuses as they are simply too good not to take majority of the time. 2 Ghost Sniper solos are simply too good as attrition pieces and as point capturers. 7 point free solo is simply too good on its own not to take for free. These types of bonuses should not exist as they create units which are only really taken for free and their point cost is irrelevant. Such heavy bonuses on discounts should come with even more limitations on your list. Otherwise, just flat 15 extra point on 75 army would work better from design and balance perspective.

Well that's the difference in your game group setting. you are looking at pure performance. i am looking at working together models i want to play with. since i play in a casual setting there is no unit "to good not to take". i dont take them because i do not want to take them even if they are "free". i still try to take the best sinergy for the units i have (that was the entire point of using irusk II ) but the overall reason i take these units is because they look cool.

it is the reason i run a gobber tinker instead of a squad of khador mechanics even though the latter would perform better.

Yup, I'm competitive minded player when on a table and hobbyist when at home. Though, I believe such system would be better for both types of people. It would allow more freedom for you to create your army. It would be better on individual unit balance. It would also open more customization possibilities for competitive minded players,

 Ernestas wrote:
Yup, I'm competitive minded player when on a table and hobbyist when at home. Though, I believe such system would be better for both types of people. It would allow more freedom for you to create your army. It would be better on individual unit balance. It would also open more customization possibilities for competitive minded players,

The thing is... it wouldn't. The same problems would exist, just in different ways. Prior to requisition people were upset that solos and the like were hard to justify in lists. People put far too much faith in points to create options but points don't really work that way. The idea that if two things are equal they'll be equally valid ignores too many gameplay factors that drive build decisions.

Ultimately, the big issue is just that in the grand scheme of the game, the decision of what solos you take is pretty unimportant. Players can generally swap this stuff around pretty freely, but they don't because they've found something they see as the correct decision and don't really need to change it. If you'd like to take a different solo... do it. The truth is it probably won't make a crippling different to your list. If you want to make substantial changes you're more likely to start with a different caster or adjust the units in the faction. It's similar to why GW has a perpetual problem with the cost of things like power swords.

Yes, but that was before solos were so damn powerful. If a unit does not earn his place in a list, it is a balance problem, not design one. Scythe is one of most powerful units for its points cost and you would want take on its own. Or even famous example, Arcanist Mechanick. Every list auto buys them without any bonuses, because they want to have them. Or Houseguard Thane. It is an auto include in Defenders of Ios list. Did you had any problems in justifying paying for Mage Hunter Assassin solos? Is it Sylys too expensive to ever be included in lists? No, these are all great solos which people will pay for them regardless.

If players find hard to justify solo it is more due to its sucking. There are a lot of such solos in a game, some of them are simply too situational and hard to make use of in every game, others simply cost too much for what they do. A lot of combat solos are not that particularly powerful, but they cost quite a bit. You can spend 4-8 points for a unit which does not provide any buffs, is easy to kill and does not provide more combat value than light warjack or maybe just adding elite infantry to your army. There is a huge balance problems, especially with dragoons. You spend 8 points for what is just beefed up 4 point cavalry unit. Though, there is sharp disparity between power levels of old combat solos and new ones, it will always be a problem if PP will keep just releasing overpowered units.

For me the problem lies in that my list does not want to include any of those solos, but I feel that my list is sub-optimal if I spend my requisition points on CA attachments rather than theme bonuses or getting most powerful solos available. I always feel locked in taking 2 Ghost solos, because they earn their value in points back as attrition pieces and they are excellent in flag capture for 1 Requisition point. I feel locked into solo picks, because a single solo can win you a flank and they are really dangerous in late game.

Customization aspect of a game is not for people who are not interested in it. If they want to get countered eventually, it is their problem, though nature of such games means that you often find variety as you play with widely different people and armies. Certain people will not be interested in list creation and they won't care either way. Customization should be geared for people who are interested in theorycrafting, min&maxing and optimizing. I for example struggle to play two straight games with same list.

Honestly, I don't play WMH for the customization aspect. I play it for the relatively tight ruleset and the stompy beasts and robots.

I didn't play 40K for the customization aspect. I played it for the story and the modeling. The rules were trash.

I sure wouldn't play Infinity for its customization. I would play it for the spec ops skirmish of the future and the impressive models. The ruleset still makes my head hurt every time I try to learn it.

Where I go for customization is an old workhorse of feudal houses and clans that had destroyed their civilizations before Game of Thrones ever tickled HBO's ear. Their equipment is so precious that they are passed down generations for hundreds of years. Where the reason your equipment was custom was not because of fancy boardroom decisions, but because the equipment was there to be ripped off of your enemy's mount, and the original manufacturer is a radioactive crater long turned silent. Yeah, I go to Battletech. It's as clunky as hell, but I get to create there like no other system and units can take forever to kill.

Sorry for being bit late to respond.

I don't think it's about not caring about balance. It's the unfortunate outcome of commercial pressure, nothing more. It's a business at the end of the day. The names behind Warmachine were very good at their jobs, and genuinely loved what they did (I have friends in the industry who were on 'buying drinks' terms with some of the most at conventions).

But that doesn't really explain me anything. All I can see is new models being so grossly strong or outright OP in my eyes, but I never see old models being revised. When I had checked card list and when they were updated I had found out that there are precious few changes who would not be from 2016-7. This means that in 3 years game was left to die as it is constantly bloated with ever more units who are designed to be too strong in order to sell which just murders main strength of this game, balance.

Long story short, you need to get more experience. Nothing more. You've spent a lot of words saying 'the damage output is extremely high'. I know this. I've played the game since mk1. It's been a design feature since back then, and like I said, the take home message should be 'that annoying thing? Yeah, I can kill it'.

As to that griffon that just demolished my cheap and expensive juggernaut. Well, there's a squad of iron fangs next to it and he's losIng it next. That is assuming he gets the charge off. Ever hear of screenings. Like I said, learn your positioning.

I know that my griffon will die and I'm happy with it, because you won't kill anything else. Griffon in itself is bad warjack if he is not ridiculously buffed. He lacks capacity against infantry. Against warjacks he has quite low POW. He becomes awesome with buffs, but for me it just seems too much. It makes game to feel a lot less about weapons, platforms and units and far more about buff stacking. Units become nothing more than a platform to get buffs on and thus the only thing which matters is if they have pathfinder and one strong weapon?

See above. You,need more experience. A few weeks ago you were saying how you were unbeatable. Now it's 'everything is broken' and 'the sky is falling'. Come on. Page 5. Warmachine is a game where veterans beat newbs. He's got all those synergies. Well, so what? So do you. Learn them. Git good. That's where the skill part of the game come in. Then you get your game where it is close. Back when I was decent I often played against folks that open national masters. On rare occasions, I even bet them, or got so damned close.

I can't remember saying that.

There only true until you expand your roster. get a second caster. Expand. It's one of the core features of the steamroller format.

It's actually one of the strongest features of the balance of the game. That, multiple win conditions and multiple lists for tournaments. Hard counters and soft counters are both necessary features in good game design. Otherwise you are saying there isn't no poIn the to having anti tank guns because they murder tanks. If you don't have hard counters, something quickly becomes an 'immovable object' and the game deteriorates from that point.

First, you are talking about format which majority of players do not play. Secondly it doesn't answer my question that some warcasters do the same thing, but a lot better. Game has quite a bit of bloating where one warcaster can be better than another in his role. We have warcasters which feats are weak and others who can fix entire armies weakness and get something nice on top on it. For example, warcaster which I talked about. Plus speed, pathfinder and armor if it wasn't enough while other warcaster who is supposed to be all about those warjacks only get +3 ARM and other part of her feat as well might not exist, because game heavily promotes focusing down your targets.

There only true until you expand your roster. get a second caster. Expand. It's one of the core features of the steamroller format.

It's actually one of the strongest features of the balance of the game. That, multiple win conditions and multiple lists for tournaments. Hard counters and soft counters are both necessary features in good game design. Otherwise you are saying there isn't no poIn the to having anti tank guns because they murder tanks. If you don't have hard counters, something quickly becomes an 'immovable object' and the game deteriorates from that point.

By dismissing what I had said, you get units who obviously outperforms someone else in all regards. I had never said that we should never expand, but game only does that all the time and it pays no respect to balancing anymore. All updates to game are ancient and we never seen major revision to units which you should say as expensive. Fixing some most problematic things by from time to time going and giving random buffs or nerfs would help a lot and would cost next to nothing for a company, because they are obviously better. Now what I see in tournaments are gross abuse of units which are really strong. Is it only me who can see certain units being spammed to the max in every list and understand that they are too strong or alternatives are too weak?

So a veteran did the positioning thing that I mentioned you need to learn, and you came undone. Damage output is staggering.cfor,sure. That's nothing new. I play khador. She still won't last when Lola comes to say hi.

You had missed my entire point. One unit which is of course freshly released is far more powerful than old unit which is specialized to do its role. One unit is anti infantry, another specialized anti armor and this anti infantry unit does far better job in anti armor role than a specialized anti-armor unit. You really don't see a balance problem here?

Except it does define he bottom line. Lots of remastered models is a luxury to many. When your a small company of just over two dozen people, money is important. These are not charities, and they won't survive with thoughts and feelings.

And like I said, you are asking a lot. I don't sympathy this to be cheeky or aggressive or anything like that. But it verges on unrealistic expectations in a lot of ways. The game might be ninety percent done, but this is also a game of diminishing returns. That extra ten percent is nine hundred percent more effort.

In fairness to pp, they do rejig the models. Are you familiar with cid? They do rejig a couple of times a year. But these are things that need to be careful. Smaller tweak. A whole rash of changes just causes chaos.

But in order to have a good product you have to invest into it. If you only are concerned about the money you will always go into this cycle. Lets say PP releases its new game. It is a great success. Yet, PP only does things for money and never considers investing into its product. It slowly will get shittier and shittier as they bloat their game with new models. Make old models obsolete. All in name of their bottom line. Eventually they kill their new project and need another revenue source and thus they have to make a new project. This is what I see them doing. They have plenty of projects with little support who they keep making worse. For example, all models being released for Warmachine I perceive as very powerful or OP, I see in tournaments plenty of balance issues and with this constant powercreep and no investment in trying to fix anything, I see PP as just slowly ruining their product and I have absolutely no faith in them not to do the same thing to any of their other projects.

Or maybe it's a lot harder than you give credit for.

Being smaller also means tighter margins and less room for error. They are still a company that sells worldwide, remember. That beurocratic crap is often necessary. Do you realise how complex legal stuff can be? Sales are a nightmares. As one issue. It's not just designing rules. There's probsbly the smallest part of their day job. And like I said, this is a company of barely over two dozen people. You don't have the luxury of private projects that you can just dedicate time too.

I do not believe that it is. This is the core of the problem. People who are supposed to do the main stuff are loaded up with unnecessary crap during their workday and thus they can't do well the stuff which is most important. It is to work on their game, make sure that balance patches come regularly, that game is balanced and well received. Probably Mk,3 disaster could be heavily mitigated if devs could just focused and worker harder on their game rather than doing unnecessary stuff all day long. Don't you see what is happening here? In order to cut costs, they put work to people who should not be doing that in a first place. This results that their core product is not as good as it can be. Thus when people get it, they are not as enthusiastic about it. Because of it they buy less of that product. Company receives less money, because their product is not as good as it could had been. Thus they can't hire more people and their margins are lower. It is a cycle which they themselves put their company in and they will never break out of mediocrity if they are unwilling to make sacrifices and put hard work in ensuring their true bottom line, quality of their product.

To be fair to pp, they are probsbly amongst the most focused on balance in this industry.The problem is that the balance you want is to all intents and purposes unachievable.

And to be fair to you again, you're still new. Get some experience under your belt and you'll get what you're after. Warmachine is a game that you have to play more of to get good.

Can we get on a same page on this. I had checked when last time unit cards were updated and I was deeply disappointed. By what metric we can discuss and agree this question on? I mean, if this game is really focused on balance and is updated since now I hold belief that company just keeps on slowly ruining their product by putting new very powerful or broken units into a game and rarely if ever doing any balancing of their product.

Recommendations are free. I invested a lot in WMH. I don't regret it. I had a lot of fun playing the game. Still adore the lore. I have all the RPGs material going back to the witchfire trilogy in the very early noughties. If anything. Play multiple games. They all kinda scratch different itches. Thumbs up!

I had invested into full Retribution list and I will end up with most units from that army. Then I have Legion of Everblight army which I need to finish. I have full Khador cavalry army. I have Cygnar colossus and some warjacks, units to start building an army around. Then I have Circle and Menoth some units, but they are not much of an army, barely 25 points worth of random units.