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.

 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.

And lots of ignoring peoples counter points. Don’t confuse sharp elbows with personal attacks either.
Plenty reasons why the game is balanced as well. Look at the tournament results for a start, where you have a very broad level of wins across the factions. Regarding the damage being “too high”, again, I’ll disagree. Its part of the nature of the game. its part of what makes even the lowliest mook a valid piece – a basic guy with a rifle in warmachine is a killing machine, who can and will win you games. It’s what gives them “presence”. Compare them to even the mighty Astartes in 40k. Who armed with boltguns, still do hardly anything. No sir, the low damage output in 40k is due to excessive survival mechanisms (roll to hit, wound, armour saves, FNP etc lead to a huge amount of wastage on the attackers side – most attacks do nothing) lead to nothing more than skew, and an overemphasis on the guy with the power weapon and plasma gun. The game, essentially becomes all about them, and all about the AP3 gun that you can put on the field, and your basic doods are nothing more than wound counters with no “presence” on the field. High damage output means essentially that anything you take is worth taking, as they can accomplish something on the field, meaning more variety on the table top. Low damage output means you leave them at home. Meaning you focus on the handful of models that can accomplish stuff. Variety nil.
Regarding the comment that a tactical skirmish game does not equal table top alphastrike, the fact that you still insist this is what warmachine is all about indicates you don’t understand the game. Warmachine has alphastriking, but it is not a game about alphastriking.
Assuming the alphastrike as the cornerstone of the game is all well and good as you start playing the game, where a lot of folks see the game as this:
P1:Charge and kill stuff!
P2: Counter charge the chargers and kill stuff.
P1: Counter-counter charge the counter-chargers and kill stuff.
As your experience grows, and as you “level up”, you will see this simplistic view honestly isn’t true of things. Positioning, movement, control, denial, attrition, tarpits, assassination, on top of various spells and feats etc all soak up the alphastrike or simply ignore/deny it altogether, and bring a lot more to the game. the alphastrike is nothing more than a tool, and certainly not something that defines the game.

 juraigamer wrote:

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.

Why? Their uses are defined by the situation at hand. They’re “options”. Not “complulsions”.

 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.

Regarding the cost – what you say is not necessarily true. A lot of units find uses across multiple lists and builds. In Khador, I’ve got spriggans, iron fangs, uhlans and widowmakers for a start, and these I’ll happily put across the board. Cost is not necessarily more. Also, multiple armies allow for more variety on the tabletop (rather than 40k’s one list to rule them all approach) for a start and secondly, allows you to build in some redundancy for when you face a hard counter to your list – that’s the nature of the game – everything can be countered by something, and some of those counters are hard. And so, you have your second list to mitigate that.

 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. Thoughts?

There is very little spam to begin with in this game, so that point is invalid. I genuinely don’t like the idea of tiers outside of theme lists, or the idea of having excessive terms and conditions involved in how I design my army, and what I can take. I also think this breeds in excessive complication in list building. PP’s whole attitude is one of you can bring whatever you like, at whatever points values. You shouldn’t be punished, or forced into a restricted set of builds because you like colossals. Imposing arbitrary limits, terms and conditions just breeds resentment.
Also, I think this idea would lead to a stale meta, and stale list building. If you require a certain amount of x and y to field z, then all lists will look the same pretty fast, if z is even worth taking. You will never see some options because it simply will not be worth it to build to the tier. Why not just spam x and y? Ultimately, its changes for the sake of changes, and if you ask me, it really brings nothing to a table where frankly, a lot of variety already exists, and where everything can already be built into a game winning strategy.

Tbh this thread has persuaded me that Warmahordes is a interesting game to play. It sounds balanced from what I have read here. Asymmetrically balanced but balanced none the less.

Not asymmetrical per-say, its just the gameplay itself lends towards wild swings in the pace of the game.

One turn it may appear that one side has a huge advantage, but then the other player pulls something crazy and suddenly he's the one with the advantage.

The smallest measurement can be the difference between a giant Rube Goldburg machine of actions that ends in a caster kill and a valuable jack or beast left hanging in the wind like so much dried laundry.

Its never over till its over.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not asymmetrical per-say, its just the gameplay itself lends towards wild swings in the pace of the game.

One turn it may appear that one side has a huge advantage, but then the other player pulls something crazy and suddenly he's the one with the advantage.

The smallest measurement can be the difference between a giant Rube Goldburg machine of actions that ends in a caster kill and a valuable jack or beast left hanging in the wind like so much dried laundry.

Its never over till its over.

I don't think that's what he quite means. Typically asymmetric balance refers to two sides being different yet having the same power. Ie: horde of dudes vs a few elite dudes and neither has a distinct advantage.

Ok, that makes sense.

Yeah I meant teams have an equal chance to win but are not identically matched.

Like spies vs mercs in the splinter cell multiplayer.

All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction. I'm talking about you can't take any tier, lets say 2, units in anything 25 points and under. We can call a tier 2 unit character jacks and heavy infantry with weapon master weapons. I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list. Combined melee can down bigger things, as can combined range, so that's not an issue.

This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.

I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.

 Surtur wrote:

You must hate 40k then.

Incorrect. I find it has it's issues, but these come down to 2-3 net lists of the month, and a current problem with MC spam. While 33% to 50% of the enemy force can dedicated to eliminating a unit/model/vehicle, that makes sense since in the terms that are presented. I recommend 40k to people as a cheaper game and simply tell them not to play 2-3 of our netlister players.

Now I had an idea, what if you could only buy attacks or boost attacks, not both unless a warcaster?

 malfred wrote:

40k is a dicebucket game.

Warmachine is a gimmick stack.

This is probably the best comparison I've seen so far. It's hard to wade through the rampant fanchilds and find the real conversation, so thank you.

A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win. While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.

Sorry, but you really can't be playing the same game.

Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.


You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.

Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.


As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.

Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.

 juraigamer wrote:
especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.

Drop the trollery please.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorry, but you really can't be playing the same game.

Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.


You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.

Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.


As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.

Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.

Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.

I think if you want to really talk about Warmachine, you need to let go of the 40k comparison because they are completely two different animals.

Warmachine doesn't need to be split off into tiers to restrict unit choices. That would actually create severe balance issues between the factions. The most important stat on any card in the game is Point cost. You get what you pay for in any given army same as your opponent.

The true balance of WM/H (IMHO) comes at the 50 pt level and in a Multi-list SR environment. Knowing your match ups is as important as knowing how to weild your faction to take full advantage of its strengths while accounting for its weaknesses of which every faction has both. The rock/paper/scissors factor that occurs at lower point levels is not an issue at that level, and it is at this level that the most competitive play exists. Its just enough points to get all the business and support models you need along with some problem solvers so your list can be a lot more well rounded.

 juraigamer wrote:

 malfred wrote:

40k is a dicebucket game.

Warmachine is a gimmick stack.

This is probably the best comparison I've seen so far. It's hard to wade through the rampant fanchilds and find the real conversation, so thank you.

Um. I was trying to point out that you can make trivial statements
about any game. Calling that the "best comparison" is pretty silly.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorry, but you really can't be playing the same game.

Yes, the game does still have issues(and people whine about them) but they are nothing like 40k or GW. The game is overall extremely balanced.


You also seem to have missed the point of Theme lists. They are designed from a fluff point of view, as such some are good and others are bad. but things are all still roughly equal. You can still make dozens of competitive lists that are not tier lists. Tier lists don't show up super often in competitive play, except for the few that are good. This isn't a problem.

Most tier lists, even the good ones, impose some hefty restrictions on army composition. Menoth has multiple competitive tiers, but most of them don't allow for you to take the holy trinity of Menite Jack Support(Choir, Vassals, and Mechaniks), most only allow 2 of those choices. Plus restrictions on our three main infantry units.


As for Alpha Strike, if you are constantly losing to it you are simply not learning how to mitigate it. Use speed bump units to block charges. Use bait to draw out an Alpha strike, have it fail, and then use that failure to gain an advantage for yourself.

Maybe if you say what a specific problem you've been having is we could help. Is Molik Karn walking through your army each and every game? Mulg got you down? eHaley feat got you ripping your hair out? All these things have counters, we can help you find them.

Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.

To be fair to him, it sounds like he has in fact played a game or two. Went in for a couple starter games, took a 40k approach, spent half an hour pulling his teeth out of the curb. Then started advocating rules changes without a real idea of how the game works.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Read his whole post, he isn't looking for help with anything, he is just trolling. At this point I even have serious doubts that he has ever even played the game and is just fishing for reactions, just ignore him.

To be fair to him, it sounds like he has in fact played a game or two. Went in for a couple starter games, took a 40k approach, spent half an hour pulling his teeth out of the curb. Then started advocating rules changes without a real idea of how the game works.

"rampant fanchilds"

"A trained monkey"

"Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players."

Those aren't terms used by someone that is genuinely trying to improve something, He is just a troll fishing for reactions.

Are you actually reading the responses, or are you having this conversation with yourself, in your head? Because this entire thread seems to me like your internal discourse trying to reinforce your already established beliefs, and certainly not like you are trying to have a constructive discussion about the balance of the game.

 juraigamer wrote:
All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction.

Or, you know, you must not have evaluated the relative usefulness or units regarding their cost. If you are claiming inbalance, you need to provide a proof, or at the very least an example. Saying ''Weapon master'' isn't that kind of proof. Do you know how hard it is to actually manage to get a single Examplar Knight in position to pull off something? Have you tried? Because it ain't easy. Jacks are in effect limited to a certain number, that of the realistic amount of focus you can feed them from your warcaster. All other troops, solo, attachements and such are limited by the Faction Allowance.

While there are a few balance issues in the game, I have yet to see one that would be solved by adding restrictions on the number of units you can take.

I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list.

i.e. "it allows you less innovation and less freedom for no specific, properly established reasons''

This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.

Lulz whut? Look further than Haley's twin colossal list, you'll see this is not so much the case.

I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.

Seriously, now I'd like to know the amount of games you have actually watched (in full lenght) and played (and how many times with the same lists). While there's truth to saying that, at some point, players will lose because the opponent managed a really powerful alpha-strike, saying that ''the first move or lucky dice decides the match most of the time'' is just so very very wrong. The first move is almost always inconsequential. The lucky dice, if by that you refer to the caster kill dice throw, well, that's forgetting every other actions that went into making sure that dice could be thrown.

I mean, I'm amazed you've managed to not realize how wrong that statement is, if you have any wargaming experience at all.

 juraigamer wrote:
I recommend 40k to people as a cheaper game

 juraigamer wrote:
A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win. While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.

So, you like trolling prospective wargamers? Okay, that pretty much explains your behaviour in this thread. Please kindly proceed to go get fethed sideways by a rampaging moose.

Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

Personal preference. Either by play style or by aesthetics.

Do you want to hit the enemy with lots of big giant robots?(Menoth, Convergence, or Cygnar) or maybe lots of monsters?(Skorne or Legion)

Do you like playing a hit and run style battle(Circle, some Cygnar builds)

Do you want to run swarms of infantry backed up by the toughest jacks in the game(Khador)

Do you want to run an army of angry elves(Retribution)

How about an army of masochistic elves who torture baby elephants(Skorne)

Do you want to zap your opponents with electricity(Cygnar)

Do you want an army of pirates(mercs running the Talion charter)

How about an army of pigs(Thornfall Alliance)

An army under the dominance of Lord Carver, bringer of most massive destruction, esqIII? Yes that is his full name(Thornfall alliance)

How about an army of gator men?(blind water congregation)

An army of twisted elves that worship a dragon god who lives in enchanted crystals placed in their warlocks chests, ironman style!(Legion )

An army of angry hippie werewolves who want to protect the forest(Circle)

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

I agree it is just a troll. But I think the thread should just die not be derailed. Your question belongs in its own thread, IMO.

 carlos13th wrote:

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

As starter sets go Cygnar have quite a simple one, and the caster who comes with their starter set is (in my opinion) the most vanilla caster in the game. Is this a bad thing? Hell no I love pStryker, that racist-ginger-concentration-camp-making nutter. Its just that his spell list is quite straightforwards, as is his feat. Similarly his battlebox has maybe 2 areas that people can trip up on; Tremor attack on the Ironclad and Powerful shot on the Charger. These aren't really hard rules, its just that people often don't read them word for word to start with (I know I misunderstood Powerful shot the first time around), which is fine, and why there is a gigantic internets here to help you iron out the problems.

Why not start your own thread with a detailed list of things you like in an army and we can try and help. Like wolfs with axes that love eating harmanz? Circle for you! Want to 'ride the lightning' (in a non-sexual way)? Cygnar it is. The thought of sending infantry into the grinder for Mother Russia Khador and watching them come out battered, bloody and victorious on the other side (but they can also do jacks and stuff to an extent)? Khador! Let us know what you like and we'll help you find an army you fancy. Also, which models you like, just go to PP's site and browse the gallery for a bit.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

I agree it is just a troll. But I think the thread should just die not be derailed. Your question belongs in its own thread, IMO.

Thats a fair point. Sorry for the derail. I will post a new topic shortly.

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

Khador if you want to start slowly on the rules complexity/interactions. Most Khador models are strong/resilient on their own, so it becomes more a matter of playing the field right and less about pulling out some master combo. "Less" being the operative term.

Cryx if you want a faction that is slightly more demanding as far as ''gimmicky'' goes, but still very very strong. They have insane debuffs. The have insane troops. They have great offensive spells, and a lot of nodes to cast them from.

Rhul (mercs) have less choices, but that might not be so bad for a beginner. They have great ranged jacks.

Retribution is also a faction with less models, and people also say that it makes them weaker. I, for one, does not see it. Their ranged units hit like a ton of bricks, and there's sometimes very little you can do about it beyond ''kill them before they hit you''.

I consider Menoth and Cygnar harder to play from a beginners perspective. Protectorate is a bit more defensive then all other factions, and at first it seems (as juraigamer might have been led to believe) that alpha-strike is what decides the game. With less mobility, Protectorate is often stuck with beta-striking. My experience with playing Cygnar goes back to a long time, but back then gunlines worked once every blue moon. That probably isn't the case anymore, what with Kara Sloan. But still, I'd avoid gunlines at first. You can still make a few very good melee/jack-centric lists with Cygnar, tho.

I've only got experience playing against Horde, so take what follows with a (un)healthy dose of salt.

Legion is the usual choice for starters. They ignore a lot of what are normal restrictions for enemy factions. Lots of people think that makes them a lot stronger. IMO, stronger, perhaps, but not broken. I usually have a harder time against Retribution than against Legion.

Circle is said by a lot to be one of the weaker factions. I don't see it at all. They have great offensive spells, insane movement gimmicks and very decent beasts. Mobility is a game winner in WarmaHorde, and Circle got plenty of it, more than almost anyone, in fact.

Skorne is said to be one of the weaker factions, and I see why. They have insane beasts. The rest is, in itself, pretty meh. They are designed to shine by synergy, but PP did done derped on this one, and (I feel) took a page of GW's game design book. A term has even been coined : Skornergy. Skornery is synergy that is supposed to balance out mediocre natural stats, but in reality only ends up being a high-priority target for the enemy. Just like the Standard of Dakka with Dark Angels.

Trollbloods are akin to the Protectorate, and therefore not an ideal first choice for faction.

I know next to nothing about the Farrows and the Blindwater Congregation. I know one day I'll start a Rask force, just so that I can scream ''TENTACLE RAEP TIME!!'' every time one of my Swamp Horror kills Eyriss.

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

I would take a look at what motyak and GreyTemplar have said, it is all personal preference and playstyle you want to get out of the game, although I would say try and make another thread since the judaigamer seems to insistent of being an ass/troll about the balance of the game although many people gave good evidence to support it.

For the most part, the game it balanced to a high degree as I see it. Most everything is balanced where everything has a shining strength but also a glaring weakness one has to cover for so the opponent does not exploit that one needs to be aware of (Hell, even the infamous eHaley list, which is the biggest cheese list by most players in this game, is still beatable if you know how to counter it), the tournament scenarios are very balanced and fun to play with being able to win on scenario or assassination, with the two-list format being good so you do not get screwed by a bad match-up. Also, all units have their uses for the most part, it is just what right synergies you want to give them in order to make them effective.

Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.

 carlos13th wrote:
Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.

That's not quite true, new units always upset the existing balance, but not in the same way as 40k. They upset balance until people figure out where they fit in, and what can deal with them, rather than upsetting balance until a new edition/the next codex drops. As they should. So you'll see a lot about how a large chunk of things from new books are broken-good, but when you look at the highly regarded tournaments and you get the model breakdowns from those games, you see that it isn't usually too bad.

The Cygnar ones had 2 casters which were used in over 50% of lists, neither of which was their 'newest' caster. Their newest solo was used in 6.3% of lists, newest unit (I think it was Tempest Blazers at the time of this tourney I'm looking at) was used in 21.52% of the lists, and their newest jack was in 55.70% of their lists. So you can see that of all their new shiny units, only one made it into over half of their lists.

 carlos13th wrote:
Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.

This is due to the nature of the rule system. Models get their rules released individually, not in batches like GW.

So each faction will get a few new models a year generally. And each model comes with its rules on the card, the books don't have all the models in them and are mostly for fluff really. You can get an app and buy all the cards for a faction for only $8. Plus you get an army builder style tool, as well as damage tracker.

 carlos13th wrote:
Sounds like it hasn't yet succum to anything like codex creep.

If there is inbalance in the game, it isn't because of codex-creep, or at least, not from codex-creep understood in its usual meaning. The little inbalance there is comes from the fact that every time PP brings out a new model, they must balance it with, what, 35 other options per faction, including about over a dozen warcaster which each changes the normal dynamics of the game. And with the eligible Mercs.

The doubts about inbalance are only natural. Given that level of complexity, and how much the game banks of precise sequence of actions, it's really a miracle, and much to PP's credit, that it isn't a complete mess of overpowered ''gotcha'' combos.

There is a form of codex-creep in that the core factions have been in production for longer, and thus have more choices. Dwarves (Rhul) have suffered from that, Pirates too, to a lesser extent (they have amazing solos to compensate). Retribution players are known to complain a lot about it, but I think they are already spoiled with that they have. Apparently, because of its special rules, Convergence won't suffer at all from it. Hasn't been enough time to know, in my opinion.

 carlos13th wrote:
Hey guys. Since this seems to be descending into an utter farce (may have been from the beginning to be honest, considering the OP's claims of fanboyisum and calling people trained monkeys and 40k rejects.) I was wondering if you would answer a somewhat unrelated question.

What faction would you recommend for someone who has never played before who has very little experience in wargaming?

Going to add to the pile that asthetics helps a bit. I would say any of the original eight Factions would be a solid choice based on what you like best. They have the most long term support, most current flexibility (Retribution is catching-up over time) and such. Some still have a bit of a curve, but as an example for myself, I started on Circle Orboros, which is arguably the most "finesse" Faction of the original eight and have stuck to them for quite a few years now. I had never played a minis game before this one, so it was quite alien for me at first.

So jumping into the Faction whose playstyle fits what you want and whose aesthetic looks nice to you is what's most important than anything I think.

And stuff.

 juraigamer wrote:
All these responses about limiting the number of certain units seems to be missing the forest for the trees, or you guys MUST have certain units to play your faction. I'm talking about you can't take any tier, lets say 2, units in anything 25 points and under. We can call a tier 2 unit character jacks and heavy infantry with weapon master weapons. I see this as a positive step for the game, as it forces you to flesh out your list. Combined melee can down bigger things, as can combined range, so that's not an issue.

you're applying arbitrary terms and conditions to the game, and telling people how they should be building their armies. this is not a "positive" step - this simply breeds in resentment. what you are doing is trying to apply a pseudo "comp" system, and if ten years of 40k has taught me anything, comp simply creates far more problems than it even attempts to solve.

why should character units be tier 2, for example? beast09 is sorscha's personal, best, most trusted and favourite jack. it makes far more sense that this would be the first jack she'd pick instead of a random juggernaut. No sir, this is a terrible idea. furthermore, you are limiting the scope of the game. you are saying you cant take x, unless you have y, and you meet these restrictions. this is fundamentally a bad move, and utterly alien to PP's design ethos where everything is playable and legal out of the box, and at all levels. which is as it should be. PPs design ethos offers far more (a) flexibility, (b) freedom, and (c) choice. With their system, i can build the army i want and really "flesh things out" and add a real personal touch. with yours, i cant. despite what you say, there is no "fleshing out". there are only terms and conditions that add nothing but an arbitrary set of restrictions. therefore your system is flawed.

 juraigamer wrote:

This also brings me to another issue, themed list. Certain themes are always chosen and in almost every warmachine net list I can find, simply by their power.

and some are taken for sheer fun and joy. ever face butcher's mad dogs of war theme list? mine is at 50pts, with 8 squads of doom reavers. epic, insane amounts of fun, despite its serious match up issues. i dont care - i still field it. Many others are happy fielding others purely for the lulz.

 juraigamer wrote:


I see a place for alpha strike in the game, but not every match all the time. The first move or lucky hit decides a match most of the time. Most issues with damage come from poor internal faction balance, where as the only external problem I see is legion vs circle.
.

you say this repeatedly, with nothing to back it up. At this point im convinced you're trolling and utterly unwilling to have a doscourse on the subject, instead you're just talking to yourself and repeating your own mantra.
Alpha strike? Nope. several factions are designed around not having the alphastrike - menoth, khador and trolls spring to mind. plenty other attrition builds exist that are all about soaking up the alphastrike and spitting it back in your face. saying its about every match all the time is laughable, and again demonstrates your utter failure of comprehension of this game.

first move, or lucky hit doesnt decide games either. thats far more accurate with regard to 40k where you can wipe out swathes of the other guy's army on turn 1.

 juraigamer wrote:


Now I had an idea, what if you could only buy attacks or boost attacks, not both unless a warcaster?
.

jacks are still useless, beasts are barely functional at best, and Butcher wins every game. solution solves nothing, and adds nothing to the game bar problems.

Honestly, you should learn to actually play the game well first, before trying to come up with bad solutions that aren't needed, and only cause more problems.

 juraigamer wrote:

This is probably the best comparison I've seen so far. It's hard to wade through the rampant fanchilds and find the real conversation, so thank you.
.

fanchilds? please. stop the trolling - its doing you absolutely no favours. Or is "fanchilds" the term you use for people who bring arguments you simply dont want to face? regardless, you do realise the poster in question listed off all the games in terms of how you can dismiss them? if you were positive about the games, you can describe them in other ways, or if you stand back and be objective, you can do the same thing. but you know, you have your mind made up. it makes sense you are going to jump on the narcissistic POV and call it "truth".

 juraigamer wrote:

A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters. Simply cast feat, cast spell, charge, win.

and what casters are you doing this with? Hmm? you're very big on statements, and extremely light on actual arguments, and valid points to back these up. fancy being a politician?
tihs might work if your opponent is not playing. do you play 2-player computer games with no one at the other controller? this is the same scenario. "cast feat, cast spell, charge, win" works only until the point when your opponent starts to actually engage with you. cast feat? fine. except when i've forced you to feat early with my positioning. cast spell? nope. i've got bestial/lamentation up. No spells lols. charge? strangehold. speed debuff. you're not charging. win? yeah, try another one.

 juraigamer wrote:

While 40k isn't much better in terms of IG basilisk spam, it's still slightly more balanced with other rules that kick in.

like the trained monkeys that can play tau/IG gunline in 40k? please.... stop trolling.
please, back this up. how is 40k more balanced, and with what other rules? How are the rules more balanced? any look at YMDC and the tournament rankings will tell you otherwise. All i see in 40k is the same handful of builds dominating everywhere. third ed boiled down to "rhino rush", or "shoot the rhino rush", fourth was skimmerspam/camping marines, fifth was tank hammer whilst sixth is spam flyers and MCs.

 juraigamer wrote:

. So I still hold that warmachine's balance needs work. .

yup. I'll agree with you - warmachine isnt perfect. no game is. but it is light years ahead of GWs offerings in terms of cross factional, and interfactional balance, rules terminology, community support etc. and furthermore, tournament standings and discussions on the PP boards point to a pretty good spread, and win/loss ratio across the factions. there was an excellent thread last year about templecon (should still be there) which broke down all the win/loss percentages, and all factions pretty much had a 50/50 +/-5% win/loss ratio. pretty solid argument in favour of balance, if you ask me,

 juraigamer wrote:

PP is still GW-lite, back when few realized the problems with the game, but that happens, especially when Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players.

Other way round bub. its not that warmachine is made upof 40k reject players (and again with the trolling...) - its that warmachine players reject 40k. Warmachine is where 40k players go when they grow up. dont get me wrong, 40k can be a fun game. but saying its balanced, let alone more balanced than PP games is utterly false.

People have been playing warmachine for over a decade now. I think we have a handle on the game. the fact that the game is expanding at such a rate (and has been since Mk2 hit the scene three years ago) shows a level of enthusiasm amongst gamers that no one can deny. i've seen multiple GW-centric gaming groups gutted by warmachine - everyone dropped 40k, and moved on. if folks can play 40k and see the problems (and many do - it takes about fifteen minutes from the release of a codex before folks start pointing out mistakes and issues), then folks can play warmachine and see the problems. yes, there are some (jack marshals and cross factional jack uspport pieces could be expanded on), but for the most part, everyone is eagerly taking up arms for the factions in the iron Kingdoms. Seems to me that people actually know what they're doing...

If there was an army tier list what would it be?

 sing your life wrote:
If there was an army tier list what would it be?

How do you mean?

Use of the word "tier" is confusing in the context Warmachine context due to the presence of theme forces that utilize tiers.