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.

I think that he means a ranking of the various factions (presumably based upon power and/or popularity).

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

If I really had to create a tier list it would probably be the big 8 (cygnar, khador, cyrx, menoth, skorne, legion, circle, trolls) then the mercs/minions/elves, and lasty convergence only because most of their stuff that is in the army book isn't out yet. Mercs and minions aren't really "factions" persay and elves don't have as much to choose from (though what they do have is solid) as the main 8 factions.

Amongst the big 8 some factions would be easier to learn than others (circle seems to need a lot of finesse from what I have seen but played well can compete with the others). Legion seems to be a easier army on beginners.

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

Cryx
Cygnar
Legion
Khador
Retribution
Protectorate
Circle
Trollbloods
Skorne

But to be honest, the difference in power even between the top and the bottom of that list is rather minimal. A MUCH more important tier would be that of Casters.

And a list of top casters would be pretty evenly spread across the factions.

Saying one thing is better than another also assumes equal player skill. A skilled player with "bad" units vs a newbie with "good" units will stomp the newbie each and every time. Its not so much the list as it is the player knowing how to use his list, and the game mechanics in general.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

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

Cryx
Cygnar
Legion
Khador
Retribution
Protectorate
Circle
Trollbloods
Skorne

But to be honest, the difference in power even between the top and the bottom of that list is rather minimal. A MUCH more important tier would be that of Casters.

No way, Circle has shot to the top of that list because of Morv, and Cygnar ONLY BARELY hangs on because of Stormwall, they are pushing towards the weaker end without it
Khador is mid tier at best, and even then its like lower mid tier

The more realistic list is
T1 - Legion, Cryx, Circle
T2 - Cygnar, Menoth, Khador
T3 - Skorne, Retribution, Trollblood


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And a list of top casters would be pretty evenly spread across the factions.

Saying one thing is better than another also assumes equal player skill. A skilled player with "bad" units vs a newbie with "good" units will stomp the newbie each and every time. Its not so much the list as it is the player knowing how to use his list, and the game mechanics in general.

List of top casters are spread out towards the armies I listed as "T1"

eHaley, eGaspy, eMorv, eVayl etc

I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.

On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.

In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.

I think people are calling you a troll for comments such as "Warmachine has lots of 40k reject players..", "A trained monkey could play certain themed warmachine lists/casters" and saying that most of the thread are "rampant fanchilds"

Such comments do not imply a wish to converse in good faith but wish to troll and act like your choice of game is some how superior to another.

Stealth is countered by having a melee focused army, not a shooting army. Although massed aoes tend to shred stealthed infantry, especially if they cause fire.

And you've already proven you either really haven't played much or you are completely failing to grasp the basics of the game simply by your assertions. Nothing to be ashamed about, its not an easy game to master.

Some personal misgivings about the game.

1) there is little option for customization. I cant make my own named character to lead my army.

2) the models themselves are not as detailed as GW. You dont have posability or weapon options like GW has. The models are easily what GW was making ten years ago as far as quality. They also can be difficult to assemble which indicates poor design.

3) a little less quality control on the models. Flash and mold lines can be pretty bad.

 juraigamer wrote:


On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.

Not really. You can still charge models with stealth. It might bother my blood trackers shooting from 7" away (not from 5" though), but my warpwolf stalkers still charge in from 13" away. My iron fangs can charge from 11", or run and engage from 14". Pretty much all factions can deal with stealth. Having stealth is an inconvenience, but there are plenty ways, means and mechanisms that bypass it, deal with it, to ignore it. Melee, blast damage, and the various units, solos and weapon effects that let you ignore it altogether.

So yeah, what else bothers you?

 juraigamer wrote:

In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion

And text your posting history in this thread tells the lie of this statement. You've referred to wm players as 40k rejects, fanchilds and trained monkeys, as well as constantly dismissing the game with nothing to back it up. That's civility?

 juraigamer wrote:
I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.

On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.

In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.

You can't prove anything because you're not providing evidence.

Stealth is not an impossible obstacle to overcome. Very few stealth units are strong defensively beyond stealth. You lose because you don't understand mechanics.

You have done nothing civilly. You've lazily provided arguments with massive holes in logic and demanded they be accepted. Demanding that we provide our problems with the game has nothing to do with your argument. It is a strawman to divert attention.

Stealth in this game is one of the weaker aspects to overcome

Stealth in 40k (and the other one that is basically double stealth, I forgot the name) is much more difficult

Even more so, there are a few units that have both which results in +2 cover save and cover saves are hard to deny

Stealth? Welcome to chain lightning, stormwalls, stormpods, aoes, aoes with fire, ashes2ashes, bile thralls and a whole lot of other mechanics to kill stealthed units dead.

Indeed. Things like Redeemers, Deliverers, and Judicators laugh at Stealth because they were going to miss with their AoE spam anyway.

In 40k there's five types of units. A, B, X, Y, Z and Flyer*. To kill A and B you need bullets. A is weak to bullets and die if you mention them. To kill X, Y and Z you need melta or melta-like weapons. To kill Flyers you need other Flyers, 'cause unless you are Tau you don't get decent anti-air. If you want to have something that's good against all five unit types (and flyers) you need the Hellturkey.
That's 40k in a nutshell.

Stealth in 40k isn't all that bad in 40k, really, more and more codexes get ways to deal with it. Stealthed models tend to be unit type A, by the way.

In Warmachine I've only heard Retribution put forward as a faction with problems dealing with Stealth, and that is apparently a designed faction weakness.

Essentially, all the bad things Jurai' has used to describe Warmachine feels foreign to me unless I apply it to Warhammer instead, in which case it feels he's describing everything that's wrong with that system. This is, incidentally, to me an indication that he's trying (and succeeding) at trolling.

* Flyers are poorly imagined and tacked on with little afterthought.

 Talamare wrote:

...
The more realistic list is
T1 - Legion, Cryx, Circle
T2 - Cygnar, Menoth, Khador
T3 - Skorne, Retribution, Trollblood
...

I find your placement of Legion extremely surprising. While they can have showings in the top8 of many good tournaments, when you take the aggregate of all players they tend to have poor showings. One could argue that it simply means that they have a high barrier-to-entry for playing them well, but I have a feeling that it's just the strength of a few players propping them up.

I always get the feeling that Legion is very strong when the players are low-mid level skill, but weaker for higher skilled players. I haven't given it a ton of thought, but I suspect it is because Legion offers pretty strong mechanics that flatten the learning curve, but not a lot in the way of clever tricks. I think that makes the faction easier to pick up and smack other players around with than some like Circle etc. for a while, but due to those strong mechanics players adapt to it, and then Legion isn't left with much in the way of shenanigans. Circle for instance has tons of tricks with Shifting Stones that you can't really list tweak for and tend to just limit options in game, while with Legion once you get used to their beasts treating the board like open terrain you can treat them much like any other faction with fragile critters.

Granted, I don't play Legion (Circle, obviously) but I think that's why Legion's the terror of the newer players, but doesn't seem to place well.

Legion can still be brutal in the hands of experienced players.

It definitely flattens the curve, but it doesn't have any lower of a potential.

Its probably just that once you've gotten some experience Legion isn't as much of a nightmare as it used to be.


Legion players going to other factions may also have issues because suddenly they can't ignore Forests and Terrain with their main heavy hitters and have to learn a new skill set, one that most players learn early on.

That maybe, though I still wonder then why they take other factions to tournaments and do well instead of playing Legion. Then again, maybe this was just the year of Circle, or I am biased due to my wolfy predilections

I have seen many Legion players say Legion gets boring after a while.

Here's some analysis to chew on/over (many thanks to mattieK) for compiling this;

http://endgamegaming.net/2013/10/30/wtc2013-faction-analysis/


Now, of course, due to the nature of WTC matchups---this may skew some of the results--but overall I feel this is a pretty good indication of the game. Which, shows (at least to me), that the game is very healthy. Outside of three outliers (Cryx, Khador and Minions)--most factions are pretty damn close to break even on win/loss. And even of the three outliers, Minions are really the only 'true' outlier.

It appears for Cryx, eGaspy and pSkarre carried the faction.
Cygnar--both Haley versions were the heavy lifters
Menoth---Harby carried the ball the most--and still carried a 62%
etc.


Nothing really surprising in the data---except for eMorv. She carried around a 50%--whereas her prime version carried a 67%. At first, you would think "Well--everyone knows about pMorv now so techs against her"---but really eMorv tech should be just fine against pMorv. Maybe it just doesn't hit her as hard (removing eMorv's heal ability with non living for example). Anyways, the game looks pretty damn healthy to me from the data presented---except for my poor, poor Minions.

I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others

However it is nice to see which faction is currently the most popular

Also, here is the ranks by win %
Cryx, Menoth, Trolls
Circle, Skorne, Cygnar
Legion, Retribution, Khador


Oh, I ranked Legion as first because they are brutal in the hands of an expert (as you said) and still great in the hands of a nub. I suppose Cryx shares these qualities, but at the same time I feel that Cryx gets a little weaker by the fact that every other faction builds specifically to counter you... Tho seriously that is also an issue...

 Talamare wrote:
I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others

...

To be fair though, you can't just judge a factions performance on only it's very best players...

Deadnight wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others

...

To be fair though, you can't just judge a factions performance on only it's very best players...

The best players show the faction at it's finest, when every available exploit and advantage has been taken into consideration. It also gives a base assumption of skill rather than the broad mid level player's skill or the uncertain newbie skill. As warmachine players, we know that certain armies naturally shift in power as the skill level raises. Legion and Cryx are very overwhelming to newbies to handle and they require considerable knowledge and skill to take full advantage of giving them the appearance of OP to new players. In the mid field things tend to sway back to balance with certain casters or models causing problems in their meta until they are adapted to. In general that's what most places do is just constantly adapt to new models and factions as new players come in or people change armies giving things short term OP appearance until players learn more about the game. The biggest takeaway from this is how well most factions are balanced that they still have a strong presence. The few that are behind are mercs and minions, which never are going to be as good as full fledged factions because of the nature of mercs in WMH, and Scyrah which is still playing catch up in crucial areas of play.

 juraigamer wrote:
I can't prove anything, we are on the internet. While I can say I've played something like 60+ games and run three journeyman slow growth leagues, it's up to you if you guys want to believe that.

On the note about 40k, because it's larger and you have more stuff, having the tools you need becomes easier. If are playing an opponent who basically stealth their whole force in warmachine, then unless you're legion and/or have a shooting based force, you lose.

In each of my posts I am trying to maintain a level of civility, and further the discussion. Lets try this instead, list your personal CONs that you guys feel warmachine has (please), and lets go from there. I've already mentioned some of mine, so let me see where you guys are coming from, instead of calling me a troll.

Ok I'l bite. Stealth isn't an issue if you have prepared for it. My favorite method is running a lowly little trooper up and shooting him in the back with an AOE or running him up and moving his buddy behind him and hitting him (and the stealth model with a spray).

Where you are stumbling and most people do when first coming over from 40k is that its a whole different game. You have to set aside your preconceived notions of how table top games work. From what you are saying it strikes me that no one has really taught you about list building in this game. You have to come from a view of problem solving/creating problems for your opponent to answer.

First and foremost, pick a caster that you like and fits your style of play. Figure out what you want your units to do/problems they solve, Is this unit going to be a tarpit/countercharge/jam/heavy hunter ect. and go from there. Once you understand what your units are designed to do and how you are going to use them, you will start to understand how this game works.

From there you can go and look at how other people's units/casters/jacks etc play against you. This is when you start to build 2 lists for tourneys, so you can mitigate your weaknesses between the lists and now you are playing a game that truly comes down to player vs player.

Good luck and I hope you can find someone locally who can really help guide you in your understanding of the game.

I say locally because for this game you really need someone who can be at the table with you, and show you mistakes offer suggestions. reset and replay things so that you really get a good feel and actually see it.

 Talamare wrote:
I absolutely love data and statistics, but sadly that data sheet doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't tell us the competitors level (so we don't know how many people are bad with a faction, but chose to play it. Thus bringing the average % wins down)
Not to mention the sample data is rather small and a couple of factions have twice as many games played than others

Well, that was the WTC event--so I would assume that's about as good of a sample of the best players in the world as one can get. If you are unfamiliar with the WTC, here is some information here;

http://wmhwtc.wordpress.com/

Sure, travel costs probably removed a player or two--but I know of the US players (whom had to travel the longest)---they had Keith, JVM, Will, etc. go--which would quite arguably be the best WM players in the US. I don't know the European team scene but I believe they had qualifiers to compete at the WTC as well. Canada wasn't represented this year though.

Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words.

As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion.

Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.

My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.

You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?

 juraigamer wrote:
Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words.

As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion.

Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.

My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.

You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?

I think this topic is at the point of people talking at each other, everyone is entrenched and that's gonna be about that.

I will say that if player vs player are equal in every way, than a list match up can have that effect. Lists just have hard counters, that is why you see that 2 list format at tournaments to prevent someone from just auto winning. I say this with a grain of salt as people are people and mistakes happen in every game even at the highest level.

I'll say it from the rooftops, this game is balanced its the players who are not. Look at Keith Christianson, He got tired of people complaining about Cygnar being "under powered" so he played them for a year and won WMW. He proved its the player not the models.

 juraigamer wrote:
Perhaps I'm just explaining issues I have with the game in a way that causes knee jerk reactions from extreme warmachine players. It's hard for me to put it into words. ...

As has been highlighted, part of it is your choice of words. By effectively poisoning the well in discussion and coming off as antagonizing to those who disagreed with you (in some cases, by enjoying the game), you have made it appear that you are not arguing from good faith. This has resulted in folks more or less dismissing you, as can be seen with a lot of comments highlighting you insulting people instead of your key points.

 juraigamer wrote:
... As stated I can't prove a damn thing, but I can say (albeit to a brick wall it seems) that I played retribution, circle and ashlynee mercs. I won pretty much 80% of the games I played, though lost the most when I was playing circle vs legion. ...

Emphasis added. That's what I'm talking about above.

 juraigamer wrote:
... Having played what I did, I saw trends, certain units and casters favored by both locals and the internet. My problem wasn't with the spam, so to speak, of only the good units and tactics, but the way the game handles them.

My rhan force was feared locally, to the point where players brought as much anti-magic and knockdown stuff they could. I enjoyed setting up hammer shots through arc nodes, using telekenisis and managing my focus. What I didn't enjoy is gimmics. Game winning feats, abilities, characters, and so forth.

This is a nature of a game with a competative environment. By your claims to win/loss and the impact you had on the local meta, the meta shifted otwards you as an expected factor and adapting to that. This is an example of a healthy game as I can gather, as in chasing that problem gaps open elswhere, folks exploit that (by say taking less magic or anti-shooting or whatever) and that shifts the meta elsewhere. The game is built iwth a TCG-like view of meta shifts and mechanics. The gimicks more or less are what makes the game dynamic and what allows a lot of these perceived shifts for folks.

 juraigamer wrote:
... You apparently have to know so much about every faction, model and ability to see something coming and stop it. Assuming equal levels, then the matchup dictates who has the advantage. I think I'm trying to say the way things in warmachine work, you can have nicely balanced games, and then you can have games you don't stand a chance in. That, to me, dictates bad game balance. Am I wrong in saying if you play X list against Y list you can effectively lose (or have little chance to win) before playing?

It's not wrong to say that List X v. List Y probably doesn't have a chanced, but due to the nature of list construction requiring you build to strengths and weaknesses, expected opponents and scenario, it also means nothing since you haven't quantified whether the lists are well-constructed. And when that's also taken into account, whether players do know the game as a whole. It is the source of a lot of skill in complicated games, knowing what you might face. A lot of the top level play is based on experience, honing things in, finding synergies and knowing positioning. Strong lists come from their work, but will play stronger in those hands. There are also lists ou thtere (I find Cassius and Mohsar of Circle this) whereby even if you have the good list, if you have no clue as to how to pilot it, you'll fall face flat and fail against anyone who knows how to do their's.

So in short, I can grant you List X > List Y is a thing that can occur. But then again, I can say that a drawing by a professional can be better than one by a sixth grader. Without more qualitative statements it's a usseless premise.

And stuff.

/thread

Hey Commisar Darefsky! Spray's ignore stealth. You've been running dudes up and spraying them to death for no reason.