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.

First off this is not a criticism at the Warmahordes rules, I like a set of tight rules as it means that I don't have to endlessly flick through pages of rules.

What I mean is when it comes to the competitive scene, it feels like there is kinda nothing to explore, as if everything's already been figured out like you can pick any caster and already there are units X, Y and Z along with fixed strategies and if you pick any unit outside of those "boundaries" it very hard to win a competitive game, so the competitive game feel a bit more like who can put their units in the better positions and who rolls are hottest.

So what's your opinion?

Cheers to all comments

No more so than any other game system at the competative knife edge.

I mean roll into a highly competative 40K event with Dark Angles and you are going to have a bad time.

Flames of War has certain lists and builds that do better than others.

It is the nature of the beast. Any game with a diversity of rules specific to a certain army or unit type and relies on a randomizer, such as dice or cards to determine outcomes, is going to have certain lists or units that mitigate bad radomizer outcomes or enhances good ones.

The opposite would be something like chess, and even then, the odds can swing depending on color and opening gambits. Not much, but enough that can be measured.

If you have a competative event, people are going to try to use those benefits and mitigate the detriments. That ends up with certain armies always taking certain units and deploying and operating them in the same general fashion.

 happygolucky wrote:


What I mean is when it comes to the competitive scene, it feels like there is kinda nothing to explore, as if everything's already been figured out like you can pick any caster and already there are units X, Y and Z along with fixed strategies and if you pick any unit outside of those "boundaries" it very hard to win a competitive game, so the competitive game feel a bit more like who can put their units in the better positions and who rolls are

Rubbish.

Assault kommandos are maligned by a lot of khador players, and yet a guy won one if the big invitational events recently with them, and vlad 1, of all casters.

Grayle and Cassius get maligned by a lot of circle players (frequently on top of the 'least favourite pile') and iirc, a guy won the Swedish masters last month with them.

Look at tharn ravagers. A marmite unit. Frequently maligned. Look at them with epic morvahna. Couple of guys used them to great effect in the Australian masters, (or gts, can't remember!) and made a big splash about them.

'Everythings been figured out'? No sir, every expansion shifts the meta and forces people to adapt. It's a liquid meta - no faction, or caster stats in top for long, they get spammed, then they get teched, and then you can desk with term. A single new caster or ua can bring a unit back into play that was previously out in the cold.

Due to the synergies of the game, some pieces are if ten taken alongside others - kromac and woldstalkers, epic Haley with a stormwall, but don't think for a moment you 'need' these things to do well, or that a lidt without them is doomed. Its a case of some things being more obvious, and obvious doesn't mean better,. I maintain everything can be built into a game winning strategy. Everything has a place.

I dont think so I mean the internet does have a habit of "This is bad, this good" But WM/H its really abused. I keep getting told not to use the jacks I do, ro i havee to take the WGDS if I want to win w/ Khador.
Some people say no to destroyers, some say yes. It is really just what can I do with them. IMO WM/H has alot of problems, cheese isnt part of it.
Still a fun game and I wish I could get more in

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so I mean the internet does have a habit of "This is bad, this good" But WM/H its really abused. I keep getting told not to use the jacks I do, ro i havee to take the WGDS if I want to win w/ Khador.
Some people say no to destroyers, some say yes. It is really just what can I do with them. IMO WM/H has alot of problems, cheese isnt part of it.
Still a fun game and I wish I could get more in

Same problem here, at my FLGS the meta is very competitive with the usual lists you see on the internet, hence why I keep on thinking that the game is competitive-wise chess-esque because all I see is units X, Y and Z being fielded and who placed their models in the better position, and who pulled off their feat at the right time.

It's like I would love to run Storm knights with Ecaine as a solid hammer to get past heavy hard hitting units, and punch back but alas I keep on getting told that it is a bad idea, (because they are apparently "too slow") and that I should only take X Y Z units with said caster.

This is probably why I keep on thinking that the game is slightly chess-esque, because it seems that all the strategy's have been found out and that there is nothing to explore, only the "right" units to buy..

 happygolucky wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so I mean the internet does have a habit of "This is bad, this good" But WM/H its really abused. I keep getting told not to use the jacks I do, ro i havee to take the WGDS if I want to win w/ Khador.
Some people say no to destroyers, some say yes. It is really just what can I do with them. IMO WM/H has alot of problems, cheese isnt part of it.
Still a fun game and I wish I could get more in

Same problem here, at my FLGS the meta is very competitive with the usual lists you see on the internet, hence why I keep on thinking that the game is competitive-wise chess-esque because all I see is units X, Y and Z being fielded and who placed their models in the better position, and who pulled off their feat at the right time.

It's like I would love to run Storm knights with Ecaine as a solid hammer to get past heavy hard hitting units, and punch back but alas I keep on getting told that it is a bad idea, (because they are apparently "too slow") and that I should only take X Y Z units with said caster.

This is probably why I keep on thinking that the game is slightly chess-esque, because it seems that all the strategy's have been found out and that there is nothing to explore, only the "right" units to buy..

I'd say play your game and bring the units you want. If you're good with them then even better. If you beat a few of the know it all folks....thats just icing on the cake.

Deadnight wrote:
Assault kommandos are maligned by a lot of khador players, and yet a guy won one if the big invitational events recently with them, and vlad 1, of all casters.

Grayle and Cassius get maligned by a lot of circle players (frequently on top of the 'least favourite pile') and iirc, a guy won the Swedish masters last month with them.

Look at tharn ravagers. A marmite unit. Frequently maligned. Look at them with epic morvahna. Couple of guys used them to great effect in the Australian masters, (or gts, can't remember!) and made a big splash about them.

The way it seems to be is that there's a core of builds you'll often see at tournaments, because they'll reliably perform well, have the tools to handle many things, lack outstanding weaknesses. The downside there is that other highly competitive players will also know the tricks of these common lists and have contingencies to counter them. So while those lists might be heavily represented, they don't win events as often as you might think, because they often run into one of their counters along the way.

At the very top level, you have a small group of super-mutant genius gamers, who seem to delight in frustrating the community by winning with any old thing they lay their hands on. Some of it is the surprise factor ("I didn't plan against that because I didn't think anyone would be daft enough to take it!"), but it does show the game is a decent way away from being solved.

It's also worth noting that skill matters. The best lists still need skill to operate, and they'll never win a game for the player if there's a significant difference in players..

 darefsky wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so I mean the internet does have a habit of "This is bad, this good" But WM/H its really abused. I keep getting told not to use the jacks I do, ro i havee to take the WGDS if I want to win w/ Khador.
Some people say no to destroyers, some say yes. It is really just what can I do with them. IMO WM/H has alot of problems, cheese isnt part of it.
Still a fun game and I wish I could get more in

Same problem here, at my FLGS the meta is very competitive with the usual lists you see on the internet, hence why I keep on thinking that the game is competitive-wise chess-esque because all I see is units X, Y and Z being fielded and who placed their models in the better position, and who pulled off their feat at the right time.

It's like I would love to run Storm knights with Ecaine as a solid hammer to get past heavy hard hitting units, and punch back but alas I keep on getting told that it is a bad idea, (because they are apparently "too slow") and that I should only take X Y Z units with said caster.

This is probably why I keep on thinking that the game is slightly chess-esque, because it seems that all the strategy's have been found out and that there is nothing to explore, only the "right" units to buy..

I'd say play your game and bring the units you want. If you're good with them then even better. If you beat a few of the know it all folks....thats just icing on the cake.

Fair dos, I picked Cygnar mainly for the Knights and Trenchers, just love my favourite aesthetics combined with added tesla coils

The only problem is (coming from a 40k background here) is that often the units I do like, they are often the underperformers (such as the Storm knights as I have been told underperform during games for example) and I don't want to be in that position again, and not feel penalised for using units I like but I also don't want to be pidgon-holed into using units that are X, Y and Z..

 Elemental wrote:


The way it seems to be is that there's a core of builds you'll often see at tournaments, because they'll reliably perform well, have the tools to handle many things, lack outstanding weaknesses. The downside there is that other highly competitive players will also know the tricks of these common lists and have contingencies to counter them. So while those lists might be heavily represented, they don't win events as often as you might think, because they often run into one of their counters along the way.

At the very top level, you have a small group of super-mutant genius gamers, who seem to delight in frustrating the community by winning with any old thing they lay their hands on. Some of it is the surprise factor ("I didn't plan against that because I didn't think anyone would be daft enough to take it!"), but it does show the game is a decent way away from being solved.

It's also worth noting that skill matters. The best lists still need skill to operate, and they'll never win a game for the player if there's a significant difference in players..

Pretty much agreed

If you like storm knights then you should invest in a stormblade captain. He makes the units more efficient.

Fair dos, what buffs does he give his squad? and is he in the plastic kit or is he a solo?

HE's a solo.

Weaponmaster, Reach, and he grants tactician to storm knights.

(they can move through each othe0r

Ok, cools thanks

From playing it for the last several years, I would say it does have that vibe to it, yes... not to the degree of chess, of course- no other game is as worked out / analyzed as that

In any game that's played on even the most casual competitive level (ie, two friends in a basement just having a good time even), there's going to be a metagame that develops. And so long as a meta exists, and so long as players have different factions/characters available to them, there's going to be some differences between them that are simply more valuable in the meta that exists.

IMO powergamers ruin everything. I saw it in D&D 3.5 (take 2 levels of Class X and 5 levels of class Y and 1 level of Prestige Class Z and 4 levels of Prestige Class A), I saw it in WoW and other MMOs (take X ability, use Y priority system for maximum DPS), I saw in in 40k and Fantasy and anything else (Don't take unit X, it sucks. Good lists use units A, F and G).

Nothing new. I do find from reading a lot about it though that Warmahordes is balanced enough to where it's not a foregone conclusion that you'll lose if you use an "unorthodox" list, just you'll have a more difficult time, and will need to be that much better/lucky.

That said though, I am starting to dislike the theorycrafters infesting every game with "proven" lists that are better than other lists. It's like these people can't enjoy the game for being a game, it has to be broken down to exact numbers with bad/okay/good choices.

WayneTheGame wrote:
IMO powergamers ruin everything. I saw it in D&D 3.5 (take 2 levels of Class X and 5 levels of class Y and 1 level of Prestige Class Z and 4 levels of Prestige Class A), I saw it in WoW and other MMOs (take X ability, use Y priority system for maximum DPS), I saw in in 40k and Fantasy and anything else (Don't take unit X, it sucks. Good lists use units A, F and G).

Well, when one option is obviously the best to the point that it invalidates the other options (essentially removing the point of having an option in the first place), it's not a matter of power gamers ruining everything, it's a matter of narrow game design ruining everything.

That said though, I am starting to dislike the theorycrafters infesting every game with "proven" lists that are better than other lists.

And yet none of that blame falls on the developers who make such blatantly overcentralizing lists possible.

It's like these people can't enjoy the game for being a game, it has to be broken down to exact numbers with bad/okay/good choices.

If anything, it's actually a more intimate way of enjoying the game, since they end up analyzing it down to its core mechanics.

 happygolucky wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont think so I mean the internet does have a habit of "This is bad, this good" But WM/H its really abused. I keep getting told not to use the jacks I do, ro i havee to take the WGDS if I want to win w/ Khador.
Some people say no to destroyers, some say yes. It is really just what can I do with them. IMO WM/H has alot of problems, cheese isnt part of it.
Still a fun game and I wish I could get more in

Same problem here, at my FLGS the meta is very competitive with the usual lists you see on the internet, hence why I keep on thinking that the game is competitive-wise chess-esque because all I see is units X, Y and Z being fielded and who placed their models in the better position, and who pulled off their feat at the right time.

It's like I would love to run Storm knights with Ecaine as a solid hammer to get past heavy hard hitting units, and punch back but alas I keep on getting told that it is a bad idea, (because they are apparently "too slow") and that I should only take X Y Z units with said caster.

This is probably why I keep on thinking that the game is slightly chess-esque, because it seems that all the strategy's have been found out and that there is nothing to explore, only the "right" units to buy..

I'd say play your game and bring the units you want. If you're good with them then even better. If you beat a few of the know it all folks....thats just icing on the cake.

Fair dos, I picked Cygnar mainly for the Knights and Trenchers, just love my favourite aesthetics combined with added tesla coils

The only problem is (coming from a 40k background here) is that often the units I do like, they are often the underperformers (such as the Storm knights as I have been told underperform during games for example) and I don't want to be in that position again, and not feel penalised for using units I like but I also don't want to be pidgon-holed into using units that are X, Y and Z..

Everything has its place in this game. Its about finding the right synergies between the units, and the casters (and other units, solos etc.) Find a way to play the models you like and make them effective. Don't listen to what other people think. Make it your own game, this isnt 40k, everything can be killed and everything can be beaten.

yes definetly, except chess is far more strategic as it has no dice involved...

warmahordes plays like random chess, I really cant see the appeal in it, too simple and repetitive RE armies I can play or face to be engaging game wize, not enough flavour to the factions to be attractive hobby wize....

I will walk by the 20 or so armies at the bigger WMH tournaments, and feel like I have only seen 3 or so different armies... played abit of it, found it played exactly as I expected, very simple with the same "play one of these few these power builds or lose" problems present in 40k

too many of the players bitterly emphasiing that its a "real game" too if you happen to play somthing else.

I just played in a small tourney (10 people). There wasn't a duplicate list amongst us. In fact I think that there was only one instance of having the same caster amongst all the players. It was a 2 list tourney and there were 19 different casters.
It really depends on the meta that you're playing in. If you have players that feel that they have developed the ultimate army list then you must be playing guys who have won major tourneys and have retired from competitive play. In my meta if someone plays a tough list then the rest of us try to beat it and then we become the targets (kind of like king of the hill). No one in my group is so static that they can't try new strategies or models or both.
As has been said before, if you don't know how to play your list then it doesn't matter how well it did somewhere else. You're going to lose to someone who devised their own list and knows how to use it.

Group think. Throw in some unhealthy fanboyism and the sky is the limit.

It's the problem with any game that happens to have fans on the internet.

I haven't noticed any problems with people running all the same stuff in tournaments. I've seen all sorts of crazy things.

My local meta tends to be rather diverse, though it is still rather small we tend to have every faction represented except the minion sub faction the farrow. Some factions are more popular than others but i have seen all but farrow played at the local LGS(s) that have warmachine nights.

I will admit that the local legion players had converged and all seemed to be running pLylyth, Carnivean, warspears, and shredders. Though honestly those are the exact models that come in the two player starter set for legion, which is a really great buy for those starting the game. Though I did notice that when all those legion players expanded beyond the starter set the all seemed to be buying different stuff and vary quickly that began to show on the table as well.

Though honestly I think how diverse your play group has to do with how much faith is put in the local "alpha" players (if your community has any). Online communities tend to have a lot of alpha players saying that A, B, C are the good units while X, Y, and Z are the bad ones how much people act on that depends on the people and the local community.

It's definitely not a game of only play the "power builds" or lose because those unorthodox builds and "under powered" factions keep winning the big events. Two years ago someone took Cygnar, maligned as a weak uncompetitive faction, qualified for and then won the Warmachine Weekend Invitational with them. This year the event had Trollbloods and Khador, other maligned factions get to the finals to slug it out, both side using models and units that are/were considered bad and that you're not supposed to take. I consistently hear of stuff like that from other big tournaments, people winning with odd and unorthodox stuff at the big events.

Let's see the WarmaHordes and 40k lists from the LVO this weekend and see which game has the more monotonous lists.

At Warmachine Weekend this year, the final table saw;


Assault Kommandos in one list
Skarath and Dahlia in the other list


Two units that were very rarely taken before the event, although I'm sure they are more popular now. The status quo is the status quo, until a good player finds a way to make certain units work (Or a new caster comes out that makes them click).

Morvahna;
Woldwrath
Reeves

eGrim;
Full units of scatter gunners

etc, etc.

Warmahordes is very much like chess. There is a board with pieces on it and the players take turns moving the pieces around.

 easysauce wrote:


warmahordes plays like random chess, I really cant see the appeal in it, too simple and repetitive RE armies I can play or face to be engaging game wize, not enough flavour to the factions to be attractive hobby wize....
.

Simple and repetitive? Not in my experience my good man. I've never played two games that went the same. Change a single piece and the army completely changes. And it's certainly a tad more engaging to a lot of people than 40ks current 'gunline and win' armies.

Gave you read the fluff? You know, the no quarter articles? The Gavin Kyle files, guts and gears etc? Or the novels? Or the iron kingdoms rpg material? Trust me bud, there is plenty flavour.

 easysauce wrote:


I will walk by the 20 or so armies at the bigger WMH tournaments, and feel like I have only seen 3 or so different armies... played abit of it, found it played exactly as I expected, very simple with the same "play one of these few these power builds or lose" problems present in 40k
.

I doubt it. Frankly, I'd love to see these "power builds" you mention that dominate the game. Where were you seeing '3 or so armies'? What 'bigger WMH tourneys'. Didn't you say before you had trouble getting ten guys to do your WMH tourneys? In my experience I've seen all of the armies hit the tabletop mate. And a huge amount of the casters have ended up opposite me.

 easysauce wrote:

too many of the players bitterly emphasiing that its a "real game" too if you happen to play somthing else.

Heh, you're funny. In my experience, the guys who play warmachine are far more likely to have a go at other games. From the Scottish warmachine players, I know a lot who do other games likedystopian wars (quite popular in Scotland), infinity, flames of war and malifaux and even 40k. Funny that.

the_trooper wrote:
Group think. Throw in some unhealthy fanboyism and the sky is the limit.

It's the problem with any game that happens to have fans on the internet.

right here. Find a game you do not play and bash on it an bit, like minded people will agree and those who do not will refute your points.

 happygolucky wrote:
First off this is not a criticism at the Warmahordes rules, I like a set of tight rules as it means that I don't have to endlessly flick through pages of rules.

What I mean is when it comes to the competitive scene, it feels like there is kinda nothing to explore, as if everything's already been figured out like you can pick any caster and already there are units X, Y and Z along with fixed strategies and if you pick any unit outside of those "boundaries" it very hard to win a competitive game, so the competitive game feel a bit more like who can put their units in the better positions and who rolls are hottest.

So what's your opinion?

Cheers to all comments

To be fair, you're right to an extent. It sounds like you were looking at a lot of the lists at Warmachine Weekend - essentially the Warmachine Super Bowl, where the best of the best lock horns and see who comes out on time. Because this represents a closing of the year, you will see a lot of similar lists - the current batch of releases have been 'figured out' and after the Qualifiers and other minor Masters events, you'll start to see the cream rising to the top.

What's really funny about your question though, and the comments above mine regarding stagnation, is that a mere TWO releases (two single models, in fact) will be turning the meta upside-down by introducing Retribution to the top competitive scene - WITHOUT invalidating other armies. You'll see this occur pretty much every year.

I guess to answer your question; Chess-esque? Somewhat. I think it's a lot closer to the NFL, with each batch of releases representing a draft of new models.