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.

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Here here!
I use a converted Syntherion named "Forge Mistriss Lucia."

I'm also quite happy to lose some customisability in order to gain more balance.

40k/WHFB isn't generally that unbalanced when you look at basic units on basic units, it's when you have overpowered or incorrectly pointed choices that the game starts to lose balance.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:That looks to be more a problem with your meta than the game. If you only bring the same caster every time then it's your own fault that there is no variety in your games. There are over 100 casters in the game and the smallest faction still has 5 choices. Live a little and try someone new. You may lose with the new caster but see if you don't have some fun again.

HisDivineShadow wrote:
Sounds like you should go back to 'forging a narrative'

Seriously, unique casters keep the game in some sense of balance. Or each 'build your own' would be boiled down to the most efficient sections by the internet.

And if you've lost seven times in the same match up, step up your game.

It was just an example; I didn't play seven times Butcher 3 vs Haley 1. In fact, I play Minions (Gatormen), Circle Orboros and Protectorate of Menoth.

This is not about losing or winning, you didn't understand my point. It's just about the relation between our games and the fluff/official story. When you play Warmachine/Horde, you feel like everything happens only because of the special characters and that all the "nameless 'casters/warlocks" are just here to be slaughtered by them - or at least, can't do anything important for the sake of storytelling.

That's the trouble of only using special characters; they can't truly die. So, all these "warcaster/warlock kills" do actually nothing permanent. And you can see in the story through all the expansions where are the limits of such a situation (which is why the next expansion for Warmachine should be interesting, since PP said someone well known by the players will die in the fluff).

I don't even talk about the weirdness of putting a "former version" of a special character against an Epic one of another, while both can't exist chronogically at the same time. But then, it may be "someone different but with similar powers". Can be funny to see so many Cygnaran warcasters seem to have a gift in temporal magic and are female.

But of course, competitive players don't care about the fluff. Nothing wrong here, it's just a playstyle - but that doesn't mean it has to be the only one.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:


The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Thank you for that answer!

Yes, I understand it is mainly for the balance and that options are usually more restricted in 40k/Battle nowadays because of that reason as well (at least, compared to before). Still, I think it would be possible to create "generic characters" based on roles (for example, something like a tank/support/ranger archetype, a bit like in some RPGs) with very limited options like armament and generic spell lists.

For very specialized characters, the named ones would still be here. It would be nice for a campaign with possibilities of gaining experience or something like that. Maybe in the future, who knows?

About the narrative, of course you can use the same tricks for any other game when you play a named character on the long term. It's just that if the "still alive in the end" trick is used all the time, then it gets used quickly and there is no feeling of "true danger" for this character if he can always escape with no fail. It's the same thing for everything, in fact - and that goes for 40k and their damned special "whatever, I'm Immortal!" characters.

For Battle, problem was solved since everything is destroyed in the end. But hey, it's just a bubble in the universe.


Honestly, I like Warmachine/Horde for the pure "game" content. Fluff is original, but I feel players who like more this part can be a bit bothered by the way it's represented in the game; it's in fact very rigid and gives little space to personnalization. That goes for the figurines as well..."official" conversions are quite severely framed when you compare with GW.

 Sarouan wrote:

But of course, competitive players don't care about the fluff.

Except, you know, for those competitive players who really enjoy reading it all, and could explain to you the Lion's Coup in its entirety, retell the story of Northwatch's final days, or discuss in depth any of the other rich stories in the universe. Apart from those competitive players, sure.

Which game do you play where you in your game you kill a major character and it is reflected in the company's fluff? Are you saying that in your meta when a character is killed then you never use it again (up to and including his particular stats and special ability combo)? The official fluff is like most movies/tv series. People only care about the main character(s). No one cares about special guest star Agent X or any one whose name appears under the word "with" in the credits.

You're right, I don't see your point. Why can't you just make your own narrative and go with that. If you're concerned about special characters then make a chart that you use at the end of every game. If the caster or special character is "killed" then roll on a chart to see if they are truely dead or merely wounded or driven off the field of combat. Then have your group stick with that result. If you're that worried about the official story that you can't stand the thought of a "chornologically challenged match up of casters" then how do you deal with other games? I take it you never play historically based wargames with a "what if" twist. Or do you have problems when Napoleon wins the battle of Waterloo on your table. I doubt that you walk away from such games and say "Well that was silly. It just shouldn't happen that way." It seems to me that you're the one being too restrictive on your imagination. You can only see what is on the table and don't see what could be rather than what is.

And, there is no reason to think that "competitive players" don't care about fluff. That's like saying that "fluff players" don't need to roll the dice and don't really care about the rules of the game. "It's obvious by the fluff that X is much more powerful than Y so just remove Y from the board now." Sounds asinine but thats the corallary to your "competitive" vs "fluff" statement.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Sounds asinine but thats the corallary to your "competitive" vs "fluff" statement.

No, this is the corallary.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

You know for warcasters to gain as much experience as they have, they have to participate (and even lose) in quite a few battles. Some timing issues aside (like you said, certain primes vs epics, etc.) it stands to reason that a lot of our player battles could happen in universe. And each one that ends in assassination just leaves the character wounded or forces them to withdraw.

Personally i don't have a problem having each caster being a main character that I can't really change. It works for me in any other literary work, so why should I demand that in my miniature game? Besides, if I really want to make my own warcaster, you can totally do it in the iron kingdoms RPG (which still essential uses the warmachine system).

Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive,

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.


also, aesthetics wize, while there are some good models, most look ridiculous like some GW guy made them while on PCP... such huge shoulder pads lol but when you pay that much for a model, you want it to be convertable, posable, and cool looking to paint, there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect, most places around here discourage stand ins, conversions, ect ect from what I see/hear.

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

Sounds more like 40k to me.

And you're sure it was first turn? Only about 5% of casters can manage tricks to do any kind of damage to enemy models before they've had a turn. It is certainly quite possible for the second player to damage stuff on their first turn, but only if the first player has advanced too far forwards.

I'd be interested in which casters/ factions were involved, if you can remember please?

As I said, far more like many many 40k games I played than any WM games I've played.

there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect,

Fair point. If you want good rules and good company rules support, play WM. If you want better models and conversions play GW stuff.


Gaz

Gazzor wrote:


Fair point. If you want good rules and good company rules support, play WM. If you want better models and conversions play GW stuff.


Gaz

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.


And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

They could easily work in an initiative system so that units interact with each other, and you can even do simultaneous actions so that each unit feels important (which makes sense given the squad level scale of the game) i go you go isnt the best at this scale IMO.

unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

maybe i shouldnt complain and just bet $ on the games


all in all WMH looks like a good game though, glad to see the communities start to embrace the hobby aspect more

Losing key models in first turn? You sure you weren't watching a 40k game? Most first turns involve running your models forward and getting them in position to strike next turn.

I also love when people who never played a game have so much insight on how the game should be played. Got to love the internet

If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

The issue with that is, how do you balance it? A war caster has an arsenal of spells, and the feat to a lesser degree (suppose you could give a battle commander a feat, makes sense, mini-feats do exist) and how would a battle commander compensate? You couldn't even give him WJ points, since they have to be spent on battle group, plus, you'd be stuck with marshalled jacks, and that seems like a severe handicap. I'm not sure how it would work.

In regards to removing caster kill, sure, try it. We do it occasionally, it's a lot of fun, but fundamentally it changes little in your games. You still have to be insanely careful with your caster, because they can do so much. Once you lose them, no more feats, spells, beasts or jacks (except marshalled). It rewards heavy infantry armies, but even they can't really cope with an army that still has functioning giant stomps, and buffs on their infantry units, and debuffs your own.

Good ideas, but not sure how it would work is all.

Game decided from first turn?
I've literally never seen it.
Most games I play aren't decided until the very end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:


but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

The game.

If you say you've never seen a game be decided on the first turn, then you've never seen someone stuff up deployment and turn 1 against a competent eDenny player. It definitely happens. But the circumstances for it to happen, and the frequency, are so corner case that it isn't exactly a weak point of the game, more if T, U, V, W, X, Y and i the imaginary number all happen at once, you can get a game decided then.

Note that's not to say that you don't get match ups where you see someone lose all hope because "oh no I can't beat eLylyth I'll die" and just give up and not play properly, but that's hardly a fault of the rules, more the player not wanting to try.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary.

The issue with that is, how do you balance it? A war caster has an arsenal of spells, and the feat to a lesser degree (suppose you could give a battle commander a feat, makes sense, mini-feats do exist) and how would a battle commander compensate? You couldn't even give him WJ points, since they have to be spent on battle group, plus, you'd be stuck with marshalled jacks, and that seems like a severe handicap. I'm not sure how it would work.

In regards to removing caster kill, sure, try it. We do it occasionally, it's a lot of fun, but fundamentally it changes little in your games. You still have to be insanely careful with your caster, because they can do so much. Once you lose them, no more feats, spells, beasts or jacks (except marshalled). It rewards heavy infantry armies, but even they can't really cope with an army that still has functioning giant stomps, and buffs on their infantry units, and debuffs your own.

Good ideas, but not sure how it would work is all.

He'd have a feat by merit of being a character, maybe Battle Plans instead of spells, and infantry/solo points. War Casters and Warlocks should be more focused on Jack and Beast synergy whereas Commanders or Chieftains could be more Infantry focused, maybe with a command mechanic akin to Focus/Fury that improves infantry. To compensate you can always take Journeymen.

I mean it'd have to be a rewrite of the game, which is why I suggested for a third edition.

 easysauce wrote:
Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive,

just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.

I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.

Depends on the skill level, caster / faction / list matchup and playstyle. If you have a good player with legion using an alphastrike list or a good skorne player with the molik missile against someone below their level, sure going 1st wins.

Personally I almost always give my opponent 1st turn. I like to counter deploy. I was helping teach a khador player counter-deployment and his cryx opponent plopped bile thralls on the flank, so I told him to put his assault commandos opposite them & shut them down (Hooray immunity corrosion!) Got a big slow nasty on your right flank, cool let me put my stuff on the opposite side so you spend a few turns having to slide down the line.

If you're good with ranges 1st turn isn't huge. You can always retreat a few inches (ok killbox could cause issues just be smart) in order to create the necessary gap. I'd much rather have the advantage of knowing how my opponent deployed and being able to counter it.

Now, I'll admit to my lack of knowledge, having only played a single small scale game, but to return to the OP: As I understand it, you main concern is the lack on interaction between models. E.g. my Khador Manhunter outflanks and goes for a kill. The enemy loses its model without ever getting a single strike, any retaliation has to be done by other models. Not very epic.

Compare this to a melee in 40k where both player's units get to strike in each other's turn. A challenge issued will emphasize this even more as the two heroes have a go at each other. In these rules the battle clearly becomes a duel-like situation (between units and even more so between characters).

Now, the problem. This (the 40k) process locks the two units in combat. They will grind each other down (as fleeing from melee is really not an option unless you have special rules – e.g. Hit & Run). So the two units will spend a number of turns grinding each other down and nothing really happens apart from dice rolling.

To me this is quite a downer with 40k. I play orks (I'm fluff-oriented and hence fairly heavy on boyz) and actually rely on this tactic to some degree. And frankly once you've charged there's not really much tactics left, only statistics.

So in this regard I would actually say that the OP's original problem is one of the benefits of WMH, which attracts me to the game. You can still play attrition tactics I guess, but by choice and not because the rules demand it. (Ok this can go for 40k as well, if you choose other factions, but still, once you're in melee...)

To me the main drawback is the narrower space for narrative development. Once a character is down, it's down ... It would've been easy to have, as someone mentioned above, generic type warcasters (e.g. "Khador Sniper Captain") without names, while still retaining the named ones (we all love Sorsha, right? *Willow flashback*). I'm also somewhat disappointed when it comes to model quality but it may have been back luck. I think I like the game but I want to like the miniatures and the storytelling just as much.

To me, it's the way PP have pushed the competitive element that has pushed me away from WM. I love the fluff, and despite some of the poor models, I've enjoyed painting some of them.

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

I want to love it. I have far too much Cryx. but it doesn't put it's arm around me and draw me in. It just kicks me me the then shouts 'should have worn a cup noob'.

Maybe people ruin a game, not a system.

P.s does anyone want to buy some Cryx?

The Division Of Joy wrote:
To me, it's the way PP have pushed the competitive element that has pushed me away from WM. I love the fluff, and despite some of the poor models, I've enjoyed painting some of them.

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

I want to love it. I have far too much Cryx. but it doesn't put it's arm around me and draw me in. It just kicks me me the then shouts 'should have worn a cup noob'.

Maybe people ruin a game, not a system.

P.s does anyone want to buy some Cryx?

Sounds like your group needs to play some of the campaign/ league put out by PP. They are a lot of fun as you build your hero by gaining experience while playing games. Your hero can also get wounded during the league which effects his stats during the league until you rest him/her. It's not a competition league and our shop is having a lot of fun.

 Chute82 wrote:
Sounds like your group needs to play some of the campaign/ league put out by PP. They are a lot of fun as you build your hero by gaining experience while playing games. Your hero can also get wounded during the league which effects his stats during the league until you rest him/her. It's not a competition league and our shop is having a lot of fun.

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

 easysauce wrote:

Ive only watched a half dozen or so games, but were all be people who are really into it and competitive
just seemed to me like the guy who got first turn started taking key models off the other guys side, and it was game over from the first turn.
I fully admit I only know what I have seen, but in just over a half dozen games I didnt see one where I couldnt tell what the outcome was going to be after the first turn, one guy always seemed to cripple the other in the first turn and that was it.

To be fair, for people that are apparently ‘really into it’ and ‘competitive’, they’re pretty bad at it! Outside of seriously janky lists against extremely poorly thought out deployments from extremely poor players, no one will cripple the other guy in the first turn. Taking models out on the first turn itself is extremely unusual, bar lucky deviation rolls from AOE attacks.

The alphastrike in this game is utterly brutal. Present your whole army on a plate for my alphastrike, and yes, I will destroy it. But good players know this, and will plan accordingly to mitigate the alpha, with things like clever positioning, chaff, tarpitting, control elements etc. there are plenty ways to blunt the alpha, such as defensive buffs (defense, armour), use of cover/concealment, recursion (stuff that dies comes back) or control elements (things that bugger up shooting/movement etc)

A lot of players plan on going second.it has its advantages. You get to deploy further onto the field, you get to counter deploy against your opponents positioning, react to his moves, and most importantly, control points are scored from the second player’s second turn onwards. Fine, they don’t go first, but they have every chance of clearing the zones and getting a leg up in the scenario game.

The games you watched? Yeah, they sound like beginners playing from a very basic and limited playbook rather than veterans.

 easysauce wrote:

also, aesthetics wize, while there are some good models, most look ridiculous like some GW guy made them while on PCP... such huge shoulder pads lol but when you pay that much for a model, you want it to be convertable, posable, and cool looking to paint, there just doesnt seem to be that much freedom in the hobby aspect, most places around here discourage stand ins, conversions, ect ect from what I see/hear.

Eh, no. Go google HMS griffon, stormhammer, the crimson harvest, legion of mechablight etc. the materials (metal) is more unforgiving, but there is plenty freedom in the hobby.

The big shoulder pads make sense as well in the context of the gam world. This is a world where twelve foot tall robots and monsters exist and are the norm. It makes sense to have top heavy armour to absorb and deflect those overhand blows (I cant see a juggernaut doing uppercuts to be honest). Just like how Mantic dwarves have their heaviest armour on their shoulders and heads.

 easysauce wrote:

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

Playing the game?

 easysauce wrote:

that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.

In 40k you pick a faction, only to arbitrarily find out its incredibly broken or incredibly underpowered. Effectively, you can be ‘done for’ before you even play a game.

Fi also, progressive scoring is the whole basis of steamroller. Scenarios. Read them.

 easysauce wrote:

And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

You can do more with the game mechanics in WMH than you can do in 40k. ‘complicated’ is not a good thing. don’t mistake 40k’s clunky interface and bloat for depth or complexity.

 easysauce wrote:

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

They could easily work in an initiative system so that units interact with each other, and you can even do simultaneous actions so that each unit feels important (which makes sense given the squad level scale of the game) i go you go isnt the best at this scale IMO.

Firstly 'fixing' implies there is a problem. It's not. It's a feature, not a bug.

Drags the game out though. Having an initiative just skews the game for high-int models. Igougo is, unfortunately essential to the synergy/combo based gameplay of warmachine. While ‘its always your turn’ benefits games like Infinity, WMH is a larger model-count game. Being able to interrupt my turnis a big ‘break’ in the system, and PP removed the vast majority of ‘I activate during your turn’ stuff in the changeover from Mk1 to Mk2 for a reason. In any case, each unit already feels important. Unlike 40k, where everyone is a wound counter for the guy with a meltagun, every model in WMH can get involved. You just do it during your turn.

 easysauce wrote:

unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

In a game where 30 models is a ‘huge’ army, losing a squad of ten is rightly seen as a big deal.

 easysauce wrote:

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

Losing a key unit or two on first turn? Rubbish. Lists, or it didn’t happen. In any case, see above. You saw six games. You’re not an expert, and neither are the people you’ve been watching. Saying things were predictable from there simply says less about the players you were watching rather than the game.

If/when they come out with a third edition I'd like to see options for battle group commanders that aren't warcasters or warlocks.

Archduke Runewood is a General and should be in charge of the army because he's the Archduke of East Midlunds with a mustache worthy of his rank. I don't care how good at gun fighting some alcoholic lieutenant is, he's not really in charge. I'm fine with things drastically falling apart with a Warcaster kill on the warjack side of things and to a lesser extent the other models, but it shouldn't be the Check Mate. Taking out all the enemy Commander units should be a checkmate, not just the wizard. It'd also make it more plausible to play more aggressively with your casters. They should be the Queen piece, not the King piece. The most powerful model on the board, not the most vulnerable. Losing the Queen is bad on its own but in some circumstances it might be necessary

Aye, but Runewood isn’t a warcaster either. He’s a lay preacher to the church, effectively. That alcoholic lieutetnant is in charge for a reason. He’s not just a ‘wizard’. that displays a fundamental lack of appreciation for the nature of a warcaster. Whilst drunk or hungover, Caine can win whole battles all on his lonesome. Any one with the warcaster talent is immediately taken away, and put through thorough officer training as well – they’re leaders and commanders as well as fighters. Caine is contantly operating beyond the borders of cygnar taking out enemies before they can even become threats. He can operate on a fluid level that the regular army simply cannot do – its too ponderous. Caine is gifted, and can control warjacks. That makes his a tremendous battlefield asset, and one that needs a level of tactical command and operational freedom to work. Runewood is a guy with a moustache, nowhere near as vital or as useful. There is a reason why warcasters are in charge, and why the regular army bends over backwards to support and accommodate them.

It is the checkmate condition for a reason too. There are literally dozens of warcasters in the entire setting. Not thousands, or even hundreds. Dozens. they’re that rare and vital to operations. Plus is makes sense to me that your most powerful piece is also your most vital, not just a throwaway tool. Warcasters are not a throwaway asset in the fluff, and the game represents that.

There are battles and skirmishes in the iron kingdoms all the time where warcasters aren’t present. But seriously, they’re kinda boring and uninteresting by comparision. You might as well go play 40k because it wont have any of the interesting aspects that make warmachine warmachine.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

Those idiots should actually 'read' page5. Rulebook also says don't be a dick, and doesn't look too kindly on crushing noobs or gloating. Really? That's three of the five principles of page5 they're crapping on. They're the kind of people that give gamers a bad name....

The Division Of Joy wrote:

And I don't feel the game lends itself to a continuing narative campaign. It's a series of set pieces, rather that a flowing story on the board. It's a Michael Bay movie with crappy CGI.

You can do it though. My mate does, back home. You're only gonna get out what you're willing to put in, and I think there are enough narrative style campaign ideas out there that can be ported over. All they need is agreement and cooperation of the players and a wee bit of creativity.

I'm not sure I agree on the last point, but I'm willing to be converted.

I'll check out that campaign link then. As I said, I really want to like the game. I've bought Captain Gunbjorn as he's a cool model and I live almost every Trollblood figure, so will be doing that as a long term slow burn project.

I just find the WM community either a little 'intense' (mostly online though, it's very defensive) or unwelcoming, and the games I've played a little soulless. Hopefully that'll change, because the mechanic is great (one of the reasons I'm loving Guild ball at the moment) and the fluff is awesome.

 pinkmarine wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

Also, practically every No Quarter will have one or more narrative missions inside, so you should also check them out if that interests you.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:

Any link to this stuff ...? Campaigns with possibilities of character development rather than sequential battles are just what I'm up for.

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues/broken-roads

Awesome, a million or so thanks!

Also, practically every No Quarter will have one or more narrative missions inside, so you should also check them out if that interests you.

Most of them are refights, however designed for two specific factions, sometimes with specific army composition. I do sort of wish they would have a campaign type of publication or more thematic scenarios (as opposed to the standard Steamroller scenarios) like they had in one of the MkI books that featured a complete 4-player campaign with special missions. Even if it was a series in NQ with different scenarios (again perhaps similar to the MkI style which was itself similar to 40k type of missions with attacker/defender, things like having to hold an objective or unbalanced forces) more suited to casual gameplay.

I do, for instance, think that there should be scenarios where you don't have a warcaster but a ranking Jack Marshal. In fact I recall some NQ scenarios that did this, and also killing the opponent's commander didn't win the game as there were other conditions. The game doesn't really support that, however. Most Jack Marshals, for instance, are pretty poor (disclaimer: I play Khador so most of ours are bad) and some of the NQ scenarios are grossly imbalanced to the point of some making me scratch my head how they are intended to be played.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.

That's the thing that got me interested in WMH too. I like going into bad matchups and seeing how I can deal with it. It's a great game, and its not for everybody, there are plenty of people in my local area that have complained about how competitive it is, and that's fine. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a delicious cup personally.
is

WayneTheGame wrote:

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

Um, yes You can.

It depends on how clever you are with your conversions. Models have to be Based on the original model, With like for like weapon swaps. But that won't stop you using vlads stats, and even having the core model, just jazzed up with other bits. It's not hard.

This is a 100% tournament legal 'ahem' 'gun carriage'. http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion
Heck, I have a female fenris conversion thst is 100% legal. There are other armies like stormhammer and the Crimson harvest that are so heavily converted very little remains of the original identity of the army whose rules they're using. But they're still 100% tournament legal. The legion of mechablight simply gets a free pass from its awesomeness.

Heavy conversions are allowed, and ultimately, Are frequently oked by the to. Saying otherwise is simply incorrect Wayne.

WayneTheGame wrote:

On a more personal note, what attracted me to WMH in general was the fact the game seemed focus on competitive rules without catering to casual gameplay. I like that the rules basically tell you to play hard or don't play at all and not to whine "but that's overpowered" but suck it up and deal with it. This causes issues in casual metas where people still want to hash out negotiations before games e.g. "Can you not use Haley2 tonight? I don't like playing against her" which IMHO has no place in the game, and I say that as a Press Ganger.

And yet, you can play warmachine casually too. It's not a casual versus competitive thing Wayne, it's simply a clearly written, watertight set of rules that is functional for a wide variety of play styles. Competitive is not the only horse in town, nor should it be. And I say that as a competitive player.theres every reason to not want to play haley2 or to turn every game into srs bsness. Sometimes it's ok to just do something silly to blow off steam. For me, I don't mind her, but if all you do all the time is reach for her, and play the same list constantly, I will mind you. Because you are being boring, and playing a very limited game, and that affects me. Page 5 is more that 'play competitive', and play hard or don't play at all. it's play your best, and respect your opponent. It's about not being a dick, its about branching out, covering new ground and not just relying on the same old tired formulas and lists. It's about being creative in what you play, and how you play.