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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.

Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.


Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.

Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.

The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!

I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray

Carnivean also costs as much as Ghettorix or Megalith. That's the point, Carni is really good, and really good in the faction he is in, but his points match it.

As to faction match ups, they are not as huge as people think when they start. I play Circle, and Legion is pretty much built to wreck me, but then knowing that I can prepare for it. I go into list building thinking "What's this do vs Legion? What's this do vs. Cryx?" There are certain caster builds that you have to take into account when building. It isn't imbalance, it is just needing to know what to expect so you can plan appropriately.

Fortunately, with the exception of maybe Minions (especially pigs it seems) all factions have the tools they need to get by. Some a little better than others on some fronts, but especially with the norm of 2 list formats there is really very little reason to com up against a no win match up. Maybe a tough match up, but not a "Well, my army list has nothing to deal with 30 Nob Bikers. GG." sort of situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disclaimer: I know Nob Bikers are no longer a thing, just the first thing I came up with. Maybe 6th ed fixed everything and 40k is a perfect balance wonderland?

I think one of the main issues is not playing Steamroller format--as it fixes some of the major problems voiced here.


If you want a good experience with your friends in a non-tournament setting--follow some of the tournament guidelines such as;

Everyone shows up with two lists and pick just like in a tourney
Play timed turns or deathclock
Allow specialist
Play scenarios
Play character restrictions

I really wish we would have done this from the get go rather than "Oh we'll learn how to play then learn what the hardcore guys do".

 Talamare wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.

Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.


Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.

Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.

The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!

I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray

Yes, that RAT 4 spray... I think more points are tied up in it being a heavy beast than the spray. Like you said, beasts cost more base than a jack. Toss on the good damage attacks and eyeless/pathfinder and you would still be looking at a 10 point beast probably. The spray is probably only a fraction of a point in value.

Why? It could just as easily be construed as an example of you having been outplayed... What were the elements in his list / tactics that gave you the most trouble? What was your list? What did you do? How / why did you loose?

Blaming your list selection or matchup without any critical thinking behind it just ensures that you'll never become a better player.

I wasn't trying to be negative. I will be honest I am a relatively new player so I do ask what I could have done better after my games if the opponent is willing to talk after. The guy even said that my list was going to be an up hill battle against his list. My list has units of flame guard and zealots which don't do well against a feat that sets you on fire if you move forward at pow that is equal to or 2 less than your armour. Also the covenant behind units screws my feat unless I can get to it, which I couldn't. It didn't help that his full units of errants were on the objective right off the bat due to advance deploy and that he went first. He didn't really need that much tactics, he just marched straight up with his lines, stalled me and picked things off as I tried to move up scoring points for being on the objective. I am not saying I played perfectly and I had no chance, but it wasn't like it was going to a game where I knew exactly what my game plan would be and I just needed to execute it. All I am saying is, its an example where one list is going to be a harder match up than another list.

 Surtur wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.

Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.


Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.

Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.

The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!

I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray

Yes, that RAT 4 spray... I think more points are tied up in it being a heavy beast than the spray. Like you said, beasts cost more base than a jack. Toss on the good damage attacks and eyeless/pathfinder and you would still be looking at a 10 point beast probably. The spray is probably only a fraction of a point in value.

Warjacks/beasts that have both strong melee and a ranged weapon automatically cost extra points, just because they have both. Look at a destroyer for khador - it's melee is meh, it's ranged ability is meh, everything in the faction outshines it in melee while costing 2 or 3 points less. The only reason it costs more is because it can do both range and melee.

I think the reason beasts tend to cost more than their warjack counterpart is simply because they are better. They generally have better damage output and many more abilities. Look at a dire troll mauler. Your warlock can spend 2 fury and the thing can land 7 P+S 19 attacks, and it can heal itself, AND it auto heals when it kills something, AND it has a chain attack, AND your warlock can transfer damage to it to avoid assassinations. Compare it to most 9 point warjacks and it stacks up or just outshines them. Lord knows I would love to have one of those in my khador army. I think the ability to transfer damage to a beast to save your warlock is worth at least an additional point in cost. Add in the fact that almost all heavy beasts have 4 or 5 fury means they flat out get more boosts/attacks each turn. Skorne titans are even more superior to warjacks for the added fact that their warbeasts support is just better than ours. You can easily have a bronzeback with better threat range and significantly higher damage output than warjacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, this is where people mistake what balance actually means.

Balance is not where everything you can possibly take of X value is equal to everything that's also of X value.


Its where everything together balances out. Rock, Paper, Scissors is actually a very good example of a balanced game, and Warmachine fits that model fairly well.

Sure, we can make jokes about how Legion of Everbroke ignores basically all the terrain on the board, but its not actually broken. It is balanced out by their beasts being expensive and fairly fragile.

The Carnivean is quite powerful, but its only arm18 with 30 boxes and it costs 11 points. That's as much as the freakin Avatar of Menoth!

I disagree, You can't compare Beasts and Jacks, in general All Jacks are cheaper than Beasts for what they do
Also, Carnivean is a speed chassis - meaning it has higher speed but lower armor
Not to mention a lot of its point value is in the Assault Massive Sized Spray

In the world of everblight though, the carnivean/scythean/ravagore are the toughest beasts they have. They are fairly soft for their point cost, but they make up for it with their superior offense and fury mechanic amongst other abilities.

I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.

Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored

Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.

But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.

You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.

 Mordekiem wrote:
I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.

Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored

Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.

But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.

You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.

This is an excellent point: the worst match-ups tend to occur when one "skew" list hits its diametric opposite. The worst I have ever heard of is an all Jack Convergence list with Syntheron versus a Skarre tier 3 list with max Satyxis raiders (stealth and protection from blast damage). Ouch indeed.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Mordekiem wrote:
I would cite one example of a bad matchup as an all stealth list vs a list that has a lot of shooting that ignores stealth.

Stealth models tend to rely on that to protect them against shooting and are not normally heavily armored

Another bad matchup is lots of light/med CC infantry against cover fire templates.

But these are also examples of extreme armies against one another. If you build balanced forces then things like this won't come up.

You can also build armies where you literally throw stuff together with no synergy at all. Also taking a lot of warjacks with casters not designed to have a lot of warjacks tends to be a bad idea, too. But these are just examples of poor list building, not imbalance in the game. And even then they are not auto-lose. You will just be at a noticeable disadvantage because your army just is not as efficient.

This is an excellent point: the worst match-ups tend to occur when one "skew" list hits its diametric opposite. The worst I have ever heard of is an all Jack Convergence list with Syntheron versus a Skarre tier 3 list with max Satyxis raiders (stealth and protection from blast damage). Ouch indeed.

Take it you've never seen a Rahn tier 4 list vs. Butcher2 tier 4 list? Fun times!

I think the short answer is that the game has more layers than 40k, where basically you just carbon copy the most powerful unit in each org slot... for instance, Most tournaments allow you to bring two army lists, which factors into the matchup aspect of balancing. Also, each general completely alters the factions play style via spells/abilities/feat. Additionally the tier lists slightly alter the stats and prices of included units, adding usability if you want to build theme armies around lesser used units. I'm not going to get into the individual numerical balancing, but they spent as much consideration as was put into the army design balancing,

How about a rahn list using all battle mages/magisters vs kromac + druids + ghetorix/stalker combo.

1: That's why you don't make skew lists, especially ones that are shut down by a number of game mechanics.

2: Kromac doesn't need druids. He is man enough to stomp down your little casty words all by himself.

Druids are pretty hit and miss with me. Either they are amazing--or you face Menoth or something with a great deal of blast and get a sad face.

The game is quite balanced, in that every faction can build at least two good lists, and most casters/units are viable in at least some competitive way.

In a local meta, a couple good players can dominate so thoroughly it seems like their faction choice is the reason, so keep an eye on that.

Until you learn to account for all the enemy factions, you will always feel like stuff is broken. You can't build a shooty list without stuff that ignores stealth, for instance.

That all said: the game ain't nearly as balanced as the most enthusiastic proselytizers seen to think. But a lot of the issues resolve themselves in vibrant metas, with a large range of stuff. If nobody in a meta game plays cryx (a nasty counter to legion), then legion will seem OP because he doesn't need to include anti-cryx tools.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Druids are pretty hit and miss with me. Either they are amazing--or you face Menoth or something with a great deal of blast and get a sad face.

Well Rahn has plenty of blasts, but Kromac gives the druids resolve so those blasts really have a hard time actually killing a model. That is on the rare few chances he actually got to cast a spell.

Polonius; I am really interested to hear why you think the game isn't very balanced, or what you think are points of imbalance/breakage.

Please elaborate, good sir!

Not to jump the train on Polonius, but while the game's balance is good, its not perfect. For example, look at the Gargantuans/Colossals release. The Stormwall is quite powerful, and it is arguable that it is the most powerful release of the year. It is considered a faction staple and shows up in a large number of Cygnar lists, often but not always because of synergy, but also because it is just so damn good for its points cost. Inversely, look at the Archangel, a beautiful but much-maligned model that a legion player I talk to says that he can't think of a reason to take one over their heavies. Thats not to say that the Archangel doesn't have its place, but rather that the models aren't exactly balanced in the grand scheme of things, since you just have so many more reasons to take the Stormwall than the Archangel.

That being said, perfect balance isn't necessarily a good thing. M:tG designers have gone on the record of stating that they purposefully have cards that are of varying power levels for a variety of reasons (such as to establish colour identities, to improve the dynamics of limited games such as draft and sealed, and to help teach newer players what effects are powerful by having a wider showcase of power ranges) and that as long as cards don't fall to far above a certain point in power level, the metagame will continue to be healthy because even though there is an imbalance on a card by card basis, as a collective whole no one strategy is dominant. This can be applied to Warmachine/Hordes. Even though the Stormwall 'may' be the most powerful model in the game, it isn't unbalancing since other models/units which are also both powerful and different result in a net balancing effect.

Fortunately the imbalances in the Colossal/Gargantuans are not crippling.

Legion is no worse for wear for having a poor Gargantuan, nor are Cygnar and Skorne dominating because their Gargossals are amazing.

Each faction certainly has its sub-par units, some are laughably bad(just look at the Cleanser UA) but the vast bulk are playable in at least some fashion. And even stuff that is bad is really only bad by virtue of not being good.

I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

RegalPhantom wrote:

That being said, perfect balance isn't necessarily a good thing. M:tG designers have gone on the record of stating that they purposefully have cards that are of varying power levels for a variety of reasons (such as to establish colour identities, to improve the dynamics of limited games such as draft and sealed, and to help teach newer players what effects are powerful by having a wider showcase of power ranges)

...to sell more booster packs by introducing "mythic rares"...the list goes on

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

"Cygnar" and "underpowered" probably shouldn't be in the same sentence if you ask me. Although to be fair I only seriously got into the hobby after the Stormwall was a thing. That said, whenever you talk about "underpowered" Khador starts to raise its hand, then doesn't bother and just takes another drink of Vodka

 dementedwombat wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

"Cygnar" and "underpowered" probably shouldn't be in the same sentence if you ask me. Although to be fair I only seriously got into the hobby after the Stormwall was a thing. That said, whenever you talk about "underpowered" Khador starts to raise its hand, then doesn't bother and just takes another drink of Vodka

Surprising huh?
I remember a few tournaments before Stormwall was released and Cygnar was down to like 7-8 players in the tournament

PP does a good job of 'active balancing' if they feel a faction is too weak, they will give them something that either cover their weakness (think Incinidiarii on Skorne) or something is very strong (think the 40 pts of Guns called the Stormwall). On the other hand, if a faction is being a little too strong, they will give other factions more ways to counter the reason why that faction is strong

IIRC, Keith won the Iron Gauntlet with a eHaley/eGaspy combination--and the single jack in Haley's army was Thorn. I also believe he won Warmachine Weekend with eCaine---and Ol' Rowdy as his single jack.

RegalPhantom wrote:
Not to jump the train on Polonius, but while the game's balance is good, its not perfect. For example, look at the Gargantuans/Colossals release. The Stormwall is quite powerful, and it is arguable that it is the most powerful release of the year. It is considered a faction staple and shows up in a large number of Cygnar lists, often but not always because of synergy, but also because it is just so damn good for its points cost. Inversely, look at the Archangel, a beautiful but much-maligned model that a legion player I talk to says that he can't think of a reason to take one over their heavies. Thats not to say that the Archangel doesn't have its place, but rather that the models aren't exactly balanced in the grand scheme of things, since you just have so many more reasons to take the Stormwall than the Archangel.

Actually that doesn't mean that the Archangel and the Stormwall aren't balanced in the grand scheme of things, just not balanced against each other.

Also, JVM, arguably one of the best Legion players in the world has used the Archangel several times on national level tournaments, so it should have its merits as a playing piece somehow... The Archangel, just like the vast majority of models in WMH depends on two things: meta and personal play style. I love the Archangel and have achieved good results with him in my meta, on the other end of the spectre, I can't make the Hunter work in my Cygnar lists and find the Ravagore somewhat lacklustre and those are models that most players in their respective factions will acclaim as "some of the best in the faction"...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

Cygnar isn't dominating anything because they aren't winning a majority of the tournaments that they are entering. If one faction is having some advantage over the others right now I'd say its Circle because people haven't figured out how to consistently win against Goatvana yet.

Yeah, eHaley with double Stormwall is certainly a good list, but its not rocketing Cygnar up to the top.

Its one of those lists that everybody needs to be prepared to deal with. As a result it doesn't always place very well because its being explicitly countered.

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

I dunno about dominating. But Cygnar was generally considered pretty low on the power curve until colossals came out. Now I think some of the newer releases have definitely helped them and not just the Stormwall.

And other colossals and gargantuans are nice. I think part of what makes the Stormwall so good is that it works with so many of the Cygnar casters. Hence why you seem to see it more. Others seem to be more limited to which caster/lock they excel with. So while they are still good they may not be good with the casters that people like.

 Talamare wrote:
I disagree, Cygnar is kinda of dominating because of Stormwall

but to also be fair, they were very slowly becoming the underpowered faction before that release

Cygnar isn't dominating anything because they aren't winning a majority of the tournaments that they are entering. If one faction is having some advantage over the others right now I'd say its Circle because people haven't figured out how to consistently win against Goatvana yet.

From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.

Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.

Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?

Dice are a huge factor, you can win and lose based on simple rolls. Comparing warmachine to chess is nonsense.

Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units.

I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.

If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.

Warmachine is a faster paced game, although not at the speeds of Dust Tactics, which is something you can either appreciate or loathe. The benefit of a fast paced game is that you can cram more games into each meeting and if you are the odd one out that didn't get a match up you can reasonably be sure that you can still have time for a game. The drawback is obviously that a game can easily snowball depending on a crucial moment.
That's not really something to objectively hold against it I feel. Subjectively, sure, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I mean some take a bit of cream in their tea and there's plenty of misguided heathens that drink coffee.

A funny thing to note though is that everyone (who actually have played wargames) seem to agree that the cost of 40k is really high, but that in the Warmahorde camp there seem to be two camps.
One is big and that's the "nah, it's not very expensive" while the other is notably smaller but still has a presence.

Personally, I look at expected armies, see their small size and note that the price tag per model is roughly as for 40k which uses some 4 to 10 times the amount of models.
I'm with the larger camp, by the way.

Jurai, the good thing about Warmahordes is that they use two dice which makes the result of an action more predictable and gives tactical benefits more impact. I think the pace of the game and the high casualty rate stems from that people exploit tactical and above all synergy in order to scew the odds from being fair and slow paced to being a blood bath.

 juraigamer wrote:
From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.

Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.

Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?

Dice are a huge factor, you can win and lose based on simple rolls. Comparing warmachine to chess is nonsense.

Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units.

I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.

If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.

It isn't clear to me we are talking about the same game. Or really the same concept of balance. Warmahordes is about piece trading and planning out processes and traps, which is why it is like chess. The dice are there, but there are sufficient ways to affect their outcome that planning around that variability is part of the game. If you are questioning the balance because units can be removed off the table and games sometimes come down to just a few models late in the match, I don't see how that implies imbalance or not being chess-like.
List building is also part of the game, and while there are some obviously good casters, very few are unplayable, and those tend to cycle around a bit anyway.

And what games are you watching where Khador players always run Kharchev? Just this past summer there were a lot of top tournament places taken by Khador with Butcher and a swarm of Doom Reavers. You see eGaspy lists a lot from Cryx, but also things like Satyxis spam and a other oddities. And it isn't like Cryx has been setting the world on fire; people plan for that sort of dude spam list and deal with it.

Really, it seems like you have a long way to go up the learning curve. I don't mean that as an insult either; Warmahordes has a LONG learning curve, and can be pretty miserable as you climb it. A good part of the game is knowing what is out there and what your opponent can do, and planning for that. Much more so than the GW games, as synergy and combinations of models create very different effects you have to understand.

 juraigamer wrote:
From the scores of games I've seen and played, I can say warmachine isn't balanced in the slightest, unless everyone is only running the best their faction has, with their best caster.

source?

scores of games? with respect, I've seen quite the opposite. almost everything can be built into a game winning strategy. 'the best' is meaningless considering this.

 juraigamer wrote:

Certain feats, spells and abilites completely overtake a game, to the point where once you have a unit/model being attacked, it's gone, no matter what unit it is.

thats part of the game though - that damage output outpaces resilience. and to be fair, a sacrificial unit to bait your enemy in can be a part of your plan too. certain spells, feats and abilities can be utterly ruthless, but they can be hard countered by other stuff (purification, for example. means nothing to epic krueger, whilst it makes magnus cry). On the whole, and especially with the two/three list formats in tournaments, there is no reason why you should find yourself in a situation where you cant do anything. balance does not necesaarily mean 3 twos is the same as two threes; not everything is equally good against everything else, all the time. but on the whole, on the larger faction levels, all those imbalances level out and the factions are pretty stolidly alligned.

 juraigamer wrote:

Each faction has it's own tricks and some are far better than others. You will basically never see a khador player without that warjack caster, or a cryx player without... baneknights?.

I see plenty cryx armies without banes, thank you. mcthralls, bile thralls and satyxis are incredibly nasty. as for the khador warjack caster - i take it you mean Karchev? Believe me, that is... short sighted. when it comes to top khador casters, you have a lot to pick from. butcher3 looks like a powerhouse, but butcher1 is solid too. both irusks are phenomenol (top tier, by any definition. epic irusk at 50pts is a monster), as is sorscha2 and the old witch. sorscha1 is going through a renaissance at the moment and vlad3 has a lot of good points in his favour too. about the only 'dud' is zherkova.

 juraigamer wrote:


Dice are a huge factor, you can win and lose based on simple rolls. Comparing warmachine to chess is nonsense.

(1) piece trading
(2) 2d6 offers a very solid bellcurve of repeatable results though.

 juraigamer wrote:

Also, warmachine is more expensive than 40k, which suprised me. It's a fun game, but damn are it's costs high. Sure you can buy 3 warjacks and a caster and a few solos for under $150 USD, but you will buy more, that's the catch, and you will buy units..

it shouldnt surprise you. most folks, when talking about price, will take about the costs of entry for the game, more so than the upper ceiling of what you'll pay. i can spend £100 and have a tournament viable army or an extremely solid base of a faction. i cant do that with 40k. i'll agree - warmachine has cost me plenty (probably more so than 40k) but i feel like my money has gotten me a lot further for what i've put into it. spending £10-£15 on a new caster which radically changes how my whole army plays? yeah, awesome. with 40k, you dont have tihs.

 juraigamer wrote:

I can't say I'm not proud of getting into the game, but I can say I wish it wasn't so... reliant on burst damage. I wanted to battle away, not get charged, lose a guy, charge back, kill that guy.

at the higher levels though, it gets far more involves. bring in alphastriking, attriton, control/denial, manipulation, piece trading, tarpitting. what do you mean by burst damage though, if you dont mind me asking?

 juraigamer wrote:

If I was to change anything about the game, I would actually lower everythings damage output.

yeah, this i actually cant agree with. this is one of the corner stones of the game; no matter how nasty something is, you can kill it. i got sick of 40k a long time ago where my whole army's shooting would only kill a handful of enemies after hits, wounds, saves and FNPs were factored in. it made basic weapons worthless, and the only weapons worth a damn the guy with the powerfist or meltagun. everyone else was an ablative wound counter. in warmachine, that guy with a rifle can actually win you the game. he can kill stuff reliably. and if you ask me, its a good thing that the kill-ratio of the game is the way that it is.