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.

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

Well....I....err...son of a biscuit...

So we're nine pages in. Has the unbalancing broken list(s) that a monkey could play and win with made an appearance yet?

 George Spiggott wrote:
So we're nine pages in. Has the unbalancing broken list(s) that a monkey could play and win with made an appearance yet?

I am pretty sure at sometime during these 9 pages someone has mentioned Cryx

 juraigamer wrote:
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?

But that doesn't speak to balance.

If someone takes list in 40k that spams high RoF low power attacks, they're gonna' get crushed by vehicles and MCs, but they'll erase infantry armies.

So long as you can have models with some specialty, there's no way to avoid the scenario you're talking about. If I have models that specialize in removing infantry, and my opponent only brings infantry, then he's screwed. That's not poor balance, that's poor planning on the part of the person that gets wiped off the field. It's one of the major reasons scenario play is so important in WM, and why the multilist format is standard.

 Talamare wrote:
I am pretty sure at sometime during these 9 pages someone has mentioned Cryx

Awesome, what's the build? I want to win all the time and I'm bored of thinking of tactics to win.

 juraigamer wrote:

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.

\

Essentially you seem to be saying, my gimmicks are ok, other peoples gimmicks are bad. I'm sorry that you lose to other people.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
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?

But that doesn't speak to balance.

If someone takes list in 40k that spams high RoF low power attacks, they're gonna' get crushed by vehicles and MCs, but they'll erase infantry armies.

So long as you can have models with some specialty, there's no way to avoid the scenario you're talking about. If I have models that specialize in removing infantry, and my opponent only brings infantry, then he's screwed. That's not poor balance, that's poor planning on the part of the person that gets wiped off the field. It's one of the major reasons scenario play is so important in WM, and why the multilist format is standard.

The scenario that he is talking about doesn't really exist in warmachine, there aren't any magical list combinations or match ups that will allow a player to simply auto-win a game. There are good and bad match-ups, but player skill will still be the single most determining factor in those.

Also the multi-list format serves to increase list variance in tournaments allot more than it does to solve any particular bad match-up problems that might arise, particularly because I'm willing to bet that most players can't genuinely identify what are their list's good and bad match-ups beyond a few basic and glaring ones (and I'm including myself in this group). Also, if the multi-list format served the single purpose of mitigating any unwinnable match-ups, tournaments wouldn't have the "divide and conquer" rule, since that rule might cause you to have genuinely bad match-ups if you take only skew lists.

PhantomViper wrote:

The scenario that he is talking about doesn't really exist in warmachine, there aren't any magical list combinations or match ups that will allow a player to simply auto-win a game. There are good and bad match-ups, but player skill will still be the single most determining factor in those.

Let's not go crazy here- there are some matchups that are as near to auto-win as you can get. Mind you, they require the alignment of the planets, but things can get really, really bad.

I don't think that's an indictment on the game though; those sorts of things are almost impossible to avoid completely. And while some people (perhaps even the majority) take paired lists just for 'the fun of it,' I don't know if we should count either them or that when it comes to balance.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

Let's not go crazy here- there are some matchups that are as near to auto-win as you can get. Mind you, they require the alignment of the planets, but things can get really, really bad.

Which match-ups are those?

The only one that really comes to mind as even being able to realistically happen is an all-shooting Retribution list against an eLylyth all-stealth list and that is because one of the lists focus on a single aspect of the game while the other effectively negates that same exact aspect.

The kind of match-up that you are talking about requires extremely skewed lists, not only on one side, but on both sides so the logical counter to it is not to take a skew list yourself and you'll have the tools to deal with all comers. Balanced IS the new broken after all.

PhantomViper wrote:

The kind of match-up that you are talking about requires extremely skewed lists, not only on one side, but on both sides so the logical counter to it is not to take a skew list yourself and you'll have the tools to deal with all comers. Balanced IS the new broken after all.

I'll agree with this completely, and I think it's a big factor in how WM manages to avoid some of those other pitfalls.

Exactly! If you're playing a skew list then expect it. All the more reason to play a balanced list.

 darefsky wrote:

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

Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.

 darefsky wrote:
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.

It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.

It could also have been the ambient temperature, the presence of local fauna, and possibly the price of tea in China. Don't forget to add those.

 darefsky wrote:
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.

It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.

 juraigamer wrote:

It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.

He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.

And Keith has a history of winning with multiple factions. I believe he previously won with Cryx. And maybe Menoth?

So yeah my bet is on player skill. Not an imbalance in the game.

 Mordekiem wrote:

He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.

The game was recorded and is available on youtube.

 Mordekiem wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

It could have also been the matchups, dice, terrain and such as well.

He provided game reports on the PP forums. I believe Keith said he thought he was going to lose but his opponent made a mistake. He took advantage of the error and won.

And Keith has a history of winning with multiple factions. I believe he previously won with Cryx. And maybe Menoth?

So yeah my bet is on player skill. Not an imbalance in the game.

Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive

But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error

 Talamare wrote:

Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive

But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error

I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.

Oh yea, I remember that game too. That was fun to watch.

Really though, even if he had lost, he took Cygnar to the top table at a really big event. If it was that big of a handicap he would either have to be a crazy good player, or seen a ridiculous amount of luck to take it that far.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive

But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error

I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.

Yeah, IIRC, he abandoned the run after a miss. The Menoth player then rolled pretty crazy to hit/kill Caine (Provided he had declared the choir, which I guess the replay showed he had not).

I'm not crazy about taking the game back up after reviewing a replay and people had left the room--but that was the judge's call so whatevahs.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

Yea. He had lost the game, but they rewound the tape and found out that the opponent forgot to activate choir (even tho he was in perfect placement and such to do so) meaning the damage is reduced just enough for eCaine to survive

But honestly he could barely say he proved Cygnar is not underpowered when you consider the list he won with was eCaine, Rowdy and pretty much all Mercs. Also he theoretically lost if his opponent didn't do such a daft error

I remember watching that game, eCaine only was in that position to be assassinated because Keith made a really gutsy assassination run. The menoth player's caster was like camping a few focus behind a wall and Keith's rangers for mark target where on the whole other side of the map. There may have been a few bad rolls for eCaines shots in there as well.

Yeah, IIRC, he abandoned the run after a miss. The Menoth player then rolled pretty crazy to hit/kill Caine (Provided he had declared the choir, which I guess the replay showed he had not).

I'm not crazy about taking the game back up after reviewing a replay and people had left the room--but that was the judge's call so whatevahs.

I believe it was someone in the crowed that had caught the mistake.

I am all for video replay for something like that, when its in a huge tournament.

 juraigamer wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

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

Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.

So people have provided multiple examples of national tournaments and events with varied results and no specific skew towards any faction (save Cryx). All your examples are "My list", "I noticed", "My lists".

You're providing meta examples of why you think the game isn't balanced. No one is entrenched. You're coming off as a small sample of a massive population claiming disfunction. Can you see why the rest of the community considers that odd? Everytime someone tries to show you that, you change what you want. You want to know what is bad now? Why should we bother when you already seem dead set on the balance being bad to begin with?

 juraigamer wrote:

Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.

Disagreeing with you, and providing evidence is 'zealotry' now, is it. Like how, for example the multitudes of ways and means to take on armies with stealth which disagree with your notion that short of playing legion, stealth armies auto win? Or explainations as to how your 'solutions' with tiers, only boosting attacks or damage would cripple warbeasts and jacks, or how evidence that the alpha strike does not dominate the game despite your continued assertion to the opposite (and backed up with no evidence whatsoever on your part) Come off it mate.

Mate, that's not zealotry. It seems to me this definition of 'zealotry' that you are running with is simply folks not mindlessly agreeing with you. And for some reason, you don't like the fact that people are disagreeing with you, and backing up what they say.


But if you want to know what's bad?


Easy. Jack marshals could do with a buff, and there should be a push for more battlegroup support pieces like the retribution arcanists and the protectorates choir to allow for more factions to play more reliable jack heavy lists. That's the only one, really.

Aside from that? Then it boils down to preference. Personally I'd like to see an errata for the necrosurgeon and stitch thrall unit in cryx, I think what they do is a bit ott. Then again, it's not like I dont have solutions to the issue, which is why 'I don't like unit x' doesn't really count towards the problems of the game.

Deadnight wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:

Seems that way. I can't really get anyone to give me their stance/info on whats bad other than "It's a different game" and "It's all about tactics", since thats every game ever, I can't help but horribly face palm at the zealotry in this thread.

Disagreeing with you, and providing evidence is 'zealotry' now, is it. Like how, for example the multitudes of ways and means to take on armies with stealth which disagree with your notion that short of playing legion, stealth armies auto win? Or explainations as to how your 'solutions' with tiers, only boosting attacks or damage would cripple warbeasts and jacks, or how evidence that the alpha strike does not dominate the game despite your continued assertion to the opposite (and backed up with no evidence whatsoever on your part) Come off it mate.

Mate, that's not zealotry. It seems to me this definition of 'zealotry' that you are running with is simply folks not mindlessly agreeing with you. And for some reason, you don't like the fact that people are disagreeing with you, and backing up what they say.


But if you want to know what's bad?


Easy. Jack marshals could do with a buff, and there should be a push for more battlegroup support pieces like the retribution arcanists and the protectorates choir to allow for more factions to play more reliable jack heavy lists. That's the only one, really.

Aside from that? Then it boils down to preference. Personally I'd like to see an errata for the necrosurgeon and stitch thrall unit in cryx, I think what they do is a bit ott. Then again, it's not like I dont have solutions to the issue, which is why 'I don't like unit x' doesn't really count towards the problems of the game.

The junior war casters that are coming out for all the factions will help a lot with jack support and it kinda fixes the marshal issue.

I don't see factions like Khador getting a choir type unit. As much as I would love a choir in Khador, I think that could easily break the game.

 darefsky wrote:


The junior war casters that are coming out for all the factions will help a lot with jack support and it kinda fixes the marshal issue.

I don't see factions like Khador getting a choir type unit. As much as I would love a choir in Khador, I think that could easily break the game.

Indeed, it's 'a' solution and I'm sure it will help.

By the way, I wasn't thinking a choir for khador (it would be awesome though!) but something like retributions arcanist (greylord arcanist?) with power booster and something like artillerist (+2 to jack ranged attack rolls, re-roll scatters) for a point would be an interesting piece. Help khadoran ranged game and give harkevich a boost. That's more like I was thinking.

Well, either that or allow them a list of actions as tactics for jacks like as skorne tyrant commander does for his infantry.

Khador has the Greylord Jack Marshal, the Koldun Lord,
with Power Booster already.

And the Man-o-war Kovnik with his Drive that boosts all attack rolls for his jacks.

 malfred wrote:
Khador has the Greylord Jack Marshal, the Koldun Lord,
with Power Booster already.

I can think of much better ways to spend that 10+ points

Well usually he isn't Marshaling the jack but just power boosting one in the battlegroup. In which case he's more than worth his points.

malfred wrote:Khador has the Greylord Jack Marshal, the Koldun Lord,
with Power Booster already.

indeed they do. and he's not widely chosen for a variety of reasons. all he does is give a focus. there is no additional options, or tactics available - thats what im talking about. Look at the retribution arcanist. +2 strength for a jack, power booster. repair. and he costs as much as a wardog.

the retribution arcanist is a fantastic support piece for jacks. Taking two of them gives huge efficiency to a battlegroup. the koldun falls far short im afraid. Its the right idea, but IMO too early in the development cycle. lessons learned, and hindsight, and all that.

the greylord costs too much for what he does - give a focus. "moar focus" is all well and good, but the simple fact is "moar focus" isnt necessarily what is needed to increase the viability, and visibility of more-jack-heavy armies. he's on the right path (kind of) but falls short, as is. imagine more jack support pieces costing a point that could confer things like artillerist, re-rolls, ignore stealth, make-attacks-count-as-magic/fire/corrosion-attacks, ancillliary attack, or even what jack marshals already do now(albeit for only their own marshalled jacks)-free run/charge and one boost to a/all battlegroup jacks.
What makes menoth work so well as a jack supporting faction isnt the huge focus pool on their casters (only a few do). its the support pieces they can bring to the table that really help push things off the ground. I imagine Harkevich for example, with a unit like the choir, and vassals. Because right now, there are jack casters out there, or rather casters that seem to want to be jack casters, but they're a few critical support pieces short of being truly valid choices. Harkevich would be an utter beast if he was a menite caster. the fact that the lack of support pieces available to him really hurts his game is a failing. IMO, more, and more importantly, more valid jack support pieces, and a few changes to how jack marshalls operate would be a huge boon to the game, and help along those who want to play "heavier" lists without punishing those like me who prefer infantry hordes.

Grey Templar wrote:And the Man-o-war Kovnik with his Drive that boosts all attack rolls for his jacks.

If jack marshals could do this to battlegroup jacks, instead of only their own marshalled jacks, we'd have something interesting. right now, a lot of jack marshals, aside from thor, and the gun mage captain are a bit lacking IMO. they can be valuable, but i genuinely feel they fall a step or two short of being serious contenders for places in most lists. if the jack marshals could independently buff a warcasters battlegroup (acting as battlegroup support elements, if you will) , they would be a big asset.