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.

 Haight wrote:


The biggest problem with your ideas is the amount it would exponentially slow down the game. Charges doing more damage make charging worthwhile (past the extra threat range), particularly when with some models it's a commodity you have to pay for. Not being able to buy attacks would just really, really make the game take a lot longer.

Indeed it would, but that was also the requested effect

 Talamare wrote:

 Haight wrote:


The biggest problem with your ideas is the amount it would exponentially slow down the game. Charges doing more damage make charging worthwhile (past the extra threat range), particularly when with some models it's a commodity you have to pay for. Not being able to buy attacks would just really, really make the game take a lot longer.

Indeed it would, but that was also the requested effect

Why would you want a game to last longer?

Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

 juraigamer wrote:
Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

You can say the game is over in one turn all you want, that doesn't actually make it correct. The fact that screening and the like is so important alone is enough to refute that claim.

I don't know how long you've been playing, or how often you play, but I can assure you there's a lot of depth that you're missing.

 juraigamer wrote:
Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

Ok, there's not much I can say to you and Talamare to prove the fairly good balance of the game and that it does involve tactics. I, like the others in this thread, could go "this means that and if this happens yada, yada, yada". That ain't working.

I am a fairly good player. Since the beginning of the year (when I started using Iron Grudge) I've won 70% of my tournament games. I am in the top 20 players in the UK, according to Rankings HQ. I try to examine my games and learn from each one by writing a blog. I don't say this to brag but to help understand where I am writing this from.

What I want to do is go over some of the latest tournament games I've played and if I won due to tactics and maneuvers or gimmic stacks as you put it.

Game 1: I won because I pushed forwards onto a scenario flag. I used one of my units to hold up the enemy in one area and clear out a unit nearby. This allowed me to get Asphyxious3 up the board in safety and score control points.

Game 2: My opponent protected his melee unit behind a wall. Unfortunately they didn't have pathfinder so I placed my models around seven inches from them. This meant he either had to run into my troops and not attack or run somewhere else on the board easily giving me board position and the scenario.

Game 3: I gave the Haley2 player too much space in front of his models. He could then shoot me with impunity and use his sword knights to ensure Haley was safe from any of my stuff getting nearby. I lost because I didn't place things in the right position.

Game 4: By placing a raider captain in the centre of the board, safely behind an objective Kreoss1's feat couldn't wipe out my units.

Now these are little snippets of the games and you are welcome to read more, but if you are not playing scenarios, especially steamroller ones, then tactics and maneuvers are not going to happen in your games. Listen to episode 114 of Muse on Minis and they'll chat about how important placing of models can be.

Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me

I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.

 juraigamer wrote:
Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

Sounds like you might be better off playing 40K. Sounds like it might be more your style.

 Talamare wrote:
Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me

Ah. Sorry then.

Talamare wrote:Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me

I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.

I thought it was a little odd coming from you.

juraigamer wrote:Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

In the beginning, feats can seem overwhelming, ESPECIALLY those from the starter set. Sorcha and Kreoss basically turn the enemy army into a ragdoll for a turn. The more I played though, the less I've relied on my feats in general for actual game impact and instead using the mere threat of certain feats to cause gameplay changes in my opponent.

As for the similarity of caster choice, I haven't really experienced that too much, but there are certain characters that are very attractive gameplay or story wise that draw people to them. In general terms though, most casters still see the field on a regular basis. I can't name a specific character that truly outshines all the others and must be used at all costs.

I have no idea why things dying too fast is a complaint. This is war/battle, things die. Especially if you leave them in vulnerable places. Learn not to do that next time.

 yastobaal wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

Ok, there's not much I can say to you and Talamare to prove the fairly good balance of the game and that it does involve tactics. I, like the others in this thread, could go "this means that and if this happens yada, yada, yada". That ain't working.

I am a fairly good player. Since the beginning of the year (when I started using Iron Grudge) I've won 70% of my tournament games. I am in the top 20 players in the UK, according to Rankings HQ. I try to examine my games and learn from each one by writing a blog. I don't say this to brag but to help understand where I am writing this from.

What I want to do is go over some of the latest tournament games I've played and if I won due to tactics and maneuvers or gimmic stacks as you put it.

Game 1: I won because I pushed forwards onto a scenario flag. I used one of my units to hold up the enemy in one area and clear out a unit nearby. This allowed me to get Asphyxious3 up the board in safety and score control points.

Game 2: My opponent protected his melee unit behind a wall. Unfortunately they didn't have pathfinder so I placed my models around seven inches from them. This meant he either had to run into my troops and not attack or run somewhere else on the board easily giving me board position and the scenario.

Game 3: I gave the Haley2 player too much space in front of his models. He could then shoot me with impunity and use his sword knights to ensure Haley was safe from any of my stuff getting nearby. I lost because I didn't place things in the right position.

Game 4: By placing a raider captain in the centre of the board, safely behind an objective Kreoss1's feat couldn't wipe out my units.

Now these are little snippets of the games and you are welcome to read more, but if you are not playing scenarios, especially steamroller ones, then tactics and maneuvers are not going to happen in your games. Listen to episode 114 of Muse on Minis and they'll chat about how important placing of models can be.

Basically this.

Reductive statements can be made about games..

For example:

Soccer is just a game played of waiting until the other side makes a mistake. Until then,
you're just passing the ball.

Football is all about matching the right offense vs. the right defense or vice versa.

Basketball are games of outscoring your opponent.

40k is a dicebucket game.

Warmachine is a gimmick stack.

 juraigamer wrote:
Provided the game relied more on well planned tactics and overall maneuvers, rather than one turn of gimmic stack, I'm all for it.

I heard warmachine is a tactical skirmish game, instead it's a snipers paradise were 95% of people in each nation use the same sniper rifles.

I concur that maybe 40k seems more like your game, you should stick to it. If after "the scores of games that you've played and seen played" you didn't grasp the importance of tactics and manoeuvres in the game you'll probably never will...

You've also failed to provide any shred of evidence to any one of your absurd claims.

Warmachine is definitely a game of gimmicks, gimmicks that take real forthought and planning to use.

You activate one model or unit out of order and your planned assassination run will fail.

There is an insane amount of tactical depth to pulling off the various schananagins you have available, and its all about exploiting what you have available to the limit. And if you make a mistake your opponent will try to capitalize on it.

 Talamare wrote:
Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me

I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.

That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.

 Talamare wrote:
Hold on now, I seriously hope people don't misunderstand me

I am a strong proponent that this is one of the most balanced games there is. These last few posts from me were to encourage modifications to the rules because someone REQUESTED an alternate form of playing in which things don't die as fast, and he wanted a way to reduce the damage output of things. So I made those suggestions, and I stand by my suggestions. I am also very open to alternate forms of playing games, and am always happy to try a house rule someone wants to attempt.

It may have been better to have started a new thread. I think people may have been confused since we were discussing balance of the game and it appeared you were trying to suggest ways to "balance" things that did not need to be balanced.

At least I was.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.

There are rules to damageable structures.

Arkon wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
That makes a lot more sense then. I kinda like where the core rules are right now, well other than maybe not being able to charge structures and shallow and deep water is rather cruel to jacks to the point that the almost never used to be fair to warmachine players.

There are rules to damageable structures.

Yes, but since they're not models you can't charge them, which was Blood Hawk's concern.

If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)

 dementedwombat wrote:
If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)

I don't get why he should get a bonus.

I mean, he doesn't defeat the giants.

 malfred wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)

I don't get why he should get a bonus.

I mean, he doesn't defeat the giants.

But Colossals seem to be near the size of windmills, and move about as fast!

 dementedwombat wrote:
If you want to charge at windmills then you should bloody well be able to! Damiano should get a bonus for it if you really want to get technical. (nobody is going to get that joke)

Didn't he wreck one in Wrath?

 Talamare wrote:
NOTE - This is not suggestions to make the official game different

This is suggestion to make everything survive more

My two best suggestions so far is that
1 - No buying attacks
2 - Charging does NOT give you an additional die on damage

and Yes, this means that the balance of everything would drastically shift,
Would it make for an interesting game? Perhaps...
Would the game be longer? Very likely...
Would the game be unplayable? Doubtful

Find a friend and try it out for a game or two, You might just enjoy it

This might be fun if you balanced it out by making Trample attacks easier to pull off, and possibly gave back the +2 POW bonus on the charge. You would probably have to make spells cost more.

Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.

Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.

There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?

 juraigamer wrote:
Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.

The alpha strike can be denied / minimized by the correct positioning of your own units and by tactics. Something that should be readily apparent to anyone that has played and watched "dozens of games" being played.

 juraigamer wrote:

The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

It doesn't drive the actual cost up much more because multiple armies could mean as little extra expense as buying a different warcaster.

 juraigamer wrote:

A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have.

There are very few spam lists (basically only some tier lists) and they aren't nearly prevalent or powerful enough to warrant any type of change in list building rules just to deal with them. Also powerful pieces already have a built in limited availability mechanic called FA. How can you not know this?

 juraigamer wrote:

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that your personal opinions display a complete lack of understanding of the game and its mechanics and until you at least try to fundament them with actual data they should be ignored.

Field Allowance is already in the game.

The game also has very little spam in it. Theme forces have
some spam, and that's about it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.

Well, in my experience, alpha-striking seems a good strategy for early-middle learning curve, whereas beta-strike becomes a favoured tactics for more experienced players. It's not immediatly easy to figure out what you can sacrifice, and in what ways you can do it to maximise your return. The more comfortable you are with a list, the easier it is to see how trading pieces can be used to your advantage. And it's still possible to wiff your rolls. I've had a fully-focused Behemoth charge heavies and fail to take out a single system more times than once.

There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

Well, I think the intent is to both allow and prevent hard-counter lists. Combos can appear dickish, but that's the Page 5 element of things. If you didn't bring a counter to it, figure out a way to defeat it with what you have. If you can't do that, well, that's your list-building and planification problem. 2-lists tourneys allow for one power-combos list and one ''counter-all'' list (or at least 'counter as much as possible').

A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?

I'm unsure about how that's different from the current state-of-affairs? Solos are almost always betwen 1-3 points, Light Jacks are almost always between 4-6 points, Heavy Jacks are almost always between 6 -... you get the picture. Every spammy lists open up the hard-counter problem. An infantry lists gets owned by fire based armies or bulldozers, etc. A Jack list gets owned by anything ethereal or high mobility, etc. Personnaly, I'm happy when I see an opponent bringing out some spam to the table. That means they've already done their first tactical mistake, even before the game started.

 juraigamer wrote:
Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times.

Claiming victim while ignoring evidence. Also shifting burden of proof. VERY bad arguing.

My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.

You must hate 40k then. Ranged armies alpha striking from across the board. If you cannot mitigate your opponent's nor establish your own alpha strike that speaks to poor tactics.

Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.

Value is determined by situation, not by whim.

There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

Multiple lists is optional and if you have a list that is anti infantry and one that is anti jacks, you're essentially gambling on what your opponent is bringing. More often it is to optimize or mitigate against certain factions or beasts/jacks that potentially cripple you. YMMV.

A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?

There is very little spam. Creating tiers could actually have the opposite effect of what you desire. Example: Why try to pay points get higher when you can make a potentially more effective list for less?

 juraigamer wrote:
Lots of personal attacks, no real reasons why the game is balanced. Fun times. My stance on the damage is too high still stands. A tactical skirmish game does not = tabletop alpha strike.

Oddly, I don't have a problem with the power attacks available, though it seems a few are too favored. Slam and throw are too common, arm locks and such should be used more IMO.

There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

A step in the right direction would be faction teirs for units, things like colossal would be high teir units, while little troopers and jacks would be small teir units. The teirs would have a limit per the point value. This would help keep the spam lower and would probably make people buy more units that they didn't have. Thoughts?

So your only argument that it's not balanced is because certain warnouns can do too much damage in one turn? Really? Will dragging the game out longer make it anymore balanced? Like others have said, learn to position your units.


As for faction tiers, WMH used to have it in MK1 iirc, where epic casters could only be played above a certain pointage. As it is, not everyone brings a colossal to the table either and even if they did, they rarely bring more than 1 so I'm not sure what 'spam' you're talking about.

 juraigamer wrote:
There's some pretty dickish combos out there, and while I've managed to win vs just about everything (helps that I have 2.5 armies) The notion that warmachine tournaments seem to allow multiple army lists doesn't sit well with me. It drives the actual cost up much more than would be perceived. If someone could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.

Have you ever played Magic? Just like in Magic the combos are the point. They are working as intended. If they were not then PP would nerf them. They actually expect people to play to the power combos and not play an army full of individual units, etc.

Also, the second list is also very similar to another common magic rule: Sideboards. Your second list can be as simple as replacing the caster and a few other things to being completely different.

As for cost if you are playing in competitive tournies you probably already have all the stuff you need. And probably aren't completely hurting for money either since entering the tournies and going to the cons costs money as well. If you are hurting for money that bad then you probably need to reconsider your budgeting priorities. For people who are looking to keep the cost low you are still able to play the game for fun with your friends. I've built multiple 35 point lists for under $200 MSRP that while they may not be top end tourney lists they are definitely able to hold their own at the LGS. And if you do want to do local tournies at your LGS and keep the points cost low most of those starter tournies tend to be one list or optional second list. And again, you can be more than competitive in this type of setting for under $200.

The idea of not allowing warjacks/warbeasts to buy additional attacks would make them even more useless than they already are. In fact, it would make the game much less balanced as infantry centric factions would gain a massive edge. Big expensive warjacks already get locked in tarpits really easily. imagine how insanely useless they would be if they could only make 2 attacks each turn at most? I could tarpit a 10+ point model for an entire game with 3 points of infantry. I do think that armor values seem sort of less important currently. I mean, compare DEF vs ARM on a winterguard squad. DEF of 12 means most other regular infantry have to roll about average to slightly below average to hit, but those same infantry will likely only need to roll anything other than snake eyes to kill. It does seem like Armor values are kind of useless unless they are insanely high. My Forgeguard have high armor for a front line infantry squad, but alot of other faction's comparable infantry (IFPs, Stormblades etc) will kill them with below average rolls. This kind of stuff literally has nothing to do with balance though. besides, knowing that all of your units are so "mortal" makes the game alot more exciting especially when compared to it's competitors IMHO.