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.

 Smacks wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Most of those players there is a conception that they can only get that wargaming experience from GW because it is something they are familiar with.

Yeah I totally agree with this. I used to feel that exact same way. I was unhappy with GW but I didn't find any of the alternatives appealing. "No one else has Space Marines, so meh" (I really did feel that way). But you have to give things a chance. It takes a while for other games to work their way into your head (kinda like a song), but then all of a sudden you can't think about anything else. Now when I look at my Space Marines I can't even remember what the big deal was? The miniatures seem blocky and toy like after a while looking at truescale figures. The fluff is just Matt Ward fanwank, I don't like the company, and the game isn't even that fun. The first step is the hardest, stepping out and trying a new system. Once you're clear you realise that there is a whole world of awesome games out there for you to explore, and cool miniatures, and they're every bit as interesting as 40k. What's more you can even go on their forums and meet the devs... and nag them about stuff

I think it's a shame if you limit yourself to just 40k, it's like never dating more than one girl, or never visiting another country, or living in another city. You can't even tell if you like it because you have no comparison, and no idea what you're missing out on. I think everyone should try new stuff.

This is how I feel. I played 40k for 23 years and now that I left, I look at 40k and think "It's not actually very good." Some of the models are amazing and some are just awful. The rules are atrocious and often step all over the fluff which was the primary reason I played. And now even the fluff is going down hill. (Muderfang McMurderson and his Murdering Murderers.)
Living in Mexico, Iraq, Italy and Japan have given me a much broader viewpoint in looking at America and playing other games has given me a much better viewpoint on 40k. (I love America, don't love GW.)

So overall I think my issue is that I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years, and in that time span I picked up MMOs where you really don't deviate from anything; you pick X Y and Z and use abilities A B and C, and either it works or it doesn't, it's not quite "point and click" but it's not really thinking on your feet either - you do what the top players say to do for maximum effect.

So when I came back to tabletop and wanted to see Warmachine, I ended up liking how clean the rules are but so far the vast number of combos gets frustrating for me because nearly every game I play I end up losing due to either forgetting something or because my opponent will field something that I feel I have no counter for. Of course part of it might very well be the fact that I'm still applying the way I played in 40k 12 years ago to how I play Warmachine today, with units focused on one thing and if they run into issues doing that one thing, it's pretty cut and dried that they'll be ineffective.

WayneTheGame wrote:
So overall I think my issue is that I didn't play any tabletop game for 12 years, and in that time span I picked up MMOs where you really don't deviate from anything; you pick X Y and Z and use abilities A B and C, and either it works or it doesn't, it's not quite "point and click" but it's not really thinking on your feet either - you do what the top players say to do for maximum effect.

So when I came back to tabletop and wanted to see Warmachine, I ended up liking how clean the rules are but so far the vast number of combos gets frustrating for me because nearly every game I play I end up losing due to either forgetting something or because my opponent will field something that I feel I have no counter for. Of course part of it might very well be the fact that I'm still applying the way I played in 40k 12 years ago to how I play Warmachine today, with units focused on one thing and if they run into issues doing that one thing, it's pretty cut and dried that they'll be ineffective.

Unlearning what I learned in over twenty years of 40k was my biggest hurdle. But once you get into the Warmachine mindset, it becomes much easier. There's a lot of great advice on line on how to run your armies.

Herzlos wrote:
Malifaux has a lot of combos and options but I've never really felt that they have a massive impact on the game, possibly because each master has a widely different style and combos. They usually result in extra movement and shooting rather than for example attaching a chaplain to assault marines for more rerolls

Depends on the Crew. I mostly run a Showgirls crew and winning/losing often times comes down to my mission (since the girls are rather terrible at combat, for the most part) and starting a "chain reaction" of special rules/abilities and getting things to work the way that I want them to

PhantomViper wrote:


And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?

Its the exact same thing.

Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.

I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.

Deadnight wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?

Its the exact same thing.

Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.

I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.

While that's true, I've always found there to be... "something" about Warmachine that makes it be treated as a game rather than a narrative. I haven't been able to put my finger on what, it's like the difference in a D&D game between:

"I swing my sword at the Orc. Does a 15 hit his AC? Okay, I deal 5 points of damage."

and

"With a mighty battle shout Yendar lunges forward, swinging his blade in a downward arc and slashing across the Orc's chest"

Both have the same result, but the first example is entirely "game speak", and the second is more of a story. For whatever reason, Warmachine feels more appropriate to the first part, while for all its flaws (speaking personally here ofc) 40k has lent itself to the second one, at least encapsulating the actual game.

Deadnight wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


And what is the difference from your example and Kilkrazy's?

Its the exact same thing.

Although they are the same thing, The perceived difference between a combo and a tactic is this: a combo is seen as an artificial and 'gamey' strategy and so, is looked down on. A tactic is a 'valid' strategy that can be visualised and is applauded.

I've seen Folks hate on the 'gamey' and 'combo' focused nature of warmachine, and the lack of 'real' tactics and complain about 'dry' rules. Yet do any if them 'forge the narrative' (thanks gw!) and look past the mechanics to what they are actually trying to represent? If you only see them as 'rules for a game', and refuse to look further, you will never be capable of seeing them as anything more. The Butcher can be a set of rules, or a tragic berserker, seeking to drown his pain, guilt, anger and personal loss in endless battle.

Well, another big difference between the Napoleanics and Warmachine example of Combo v. Tactics is that one actually happened in real life, while the other is completely a construct ofht egame world and hence "Gamey". Outside of the game world there is no practical application.

Things like focusing firepower and overlapping fields of fire are applicable in the real world as well as the game world. Hence, Tactics since they have been observed happening and working in the real world.

@Wayne- I understand what you mean. If I wanted a thought exercise, I would be at work.

Simply put, edition changes got me in regards to 40k.

I have been playing 40k since RT days and have like 50k points of orks. Almost every epicast/armorcast model including the great gargant.

In 2004, When the 'chapter approved trial assault rules' happened, it became hard to play games as people were testing these Chapter approved rules. 4th edition was a disaster. So I stopped playing.

I picked back up with the launch of the new Ork codex in 2007 and got back on the horse with 5th edition. I played solidly for all of 5th edition, but codex neglect slowly got me as orks were entering 6th edition with a 4th edition codex. 6th edition hit and it became hard to make the transition to a 6th edition force with no real allies and codex creep.

Now Orks have a new codex, and 7th edition is here and I simply don't feel like doing the exhausting work of figuring out 7th edition and a new Ork codex. I am sure I will eventually but right now I literally cannot play with my models without learning all new rules all new codex, inventorying what I have, potentially buying and painting a bunch of new stuff to plug needed holes all to get me to a single game.

On the flip side, I have been getting back into Boardgames and dungeon cralwers simply because they were fun to paint and GW gave me 7 years of no new models for Orks. I found new fun in painting chibi dungeon and regular dungeon monsters. The variety is fun, the people are nice and I don't have to 'fight' all the time with people viciously treating me like I am committing a war crime for not playing their chosen game system like I get from Warmahordes/40k players. My painting and gaming time is now fun and not a chore. Who knows if I will go back to 40k? Maybe? Maybe not? I may start selling off my unpainted ork stuff and shrinking my bitz box and keep my painted stuff around for future use.

The last thing I purchased from GW was a Dakkajet when it released. I have had money to piss away but they neglected my codex to the point when we did get an update, I was already forced out of the game due to two editions.

 Easy E wrote:

Well, another big difference between the Napoleanics and Warmachine example of Combo v. Tactics is that one actually happened in real life, while the other is completely a construct ofht egame world and hence "Gamey". Outside of the game world there is no practical application.

Things like focusing firepower and overlapping fields of fire are applicable in the real world as well as the game world. Hence, Tactics since they have been observed happening and working in the real world.

What about in-game actions in a fantasy world that reflect on real life?

Kovnik joe and the winter guard. Joe, exhorting his fellow brethren to acts of valor worthy of songs and praise. His mighty speeches inspire even the lowliest farmhand conscript to put aside his fear, and fight on against terrible monstrosities. His fear quelled, he is inspired with stories of greatness to do as they did. His aim sharpens, he will fight ever harder with the last ounce of his strength, or he will fight on, and ignore the pain of his terrible injuries.

In game mechanics: he gives tough and fearless, an accuracy bonus, or a strength bonus.

Definitely a combo.

So I suppose heroic leadership is a 'construct of the game world too',eh? People going above and beyond for their heroes? Pish, I say!

Similar things such as markhov or stannis conferring practised manoeuvres for his cavalry... Look at what stannis brings to the table to represent the combined arms approach, synergies and co-ordination between the different tactical groupings of his steelhead mercenary charter (halberdiers, cavalry, and riflemen).. Easily explained, and understood when examined. In-game they're represented by combos and game mechanics, but they just as easily reflect on the actual background in a believable manner.

For example, look at Steelhead halberdiers with set defense blunting the charge. Riflemen who have trained with the halberdiers in co-ordinated actions,and hence have the discipline to provide extremely accurate fire, despite the close proximity of their comrades. And then the cavalry - given a combat bonus when they're trained to co-ordinate their movements with their fellows to as to not stampede their own allies, and hit the flanks of any units bogged down by the halberdiers. Co-ordinated actions comprising three separate,and distinct wings of a mercenary charter. Hmm, you're right. Riflemen, halberdiers and cavalry actively working together? What tosh. Such a well oiled military machine Must be an artificial gamey combo.

-Loki- wrote:
Pretty much.
A combo to me is using multiple things specifically designed to work together. For example, in Malifaux: You see your Teddy is just out of charge range. So you first activate Baby Kade, and use his ability 'Where's Teddy?' to teleport Kade into base to base contact with Teddy, which then pushes Teddy 6" towards the enemy. Then, if your opponent doesn't activate that model to avoid the threat in his turn, Teddy is in charge range next turn.

That's using a model that has a specific ability that works only with another model. That's a combo.

Simply doing something like forcing your opponent into a closer formation to hit them with blast weapons is, as you said, called tactics. There's no specific interation between the units that only works between those units.

I think that folks that have negative associations with "combos" are reacting to more than just tactics. In napoleonics a player does have to use the various elements he has before him in a synergistic way. However, most most players are dealing with relatively similar units and relatively similar tactics, though there are of course many variations.

Games like Warmachine take away that similarity and pile on the variables and special rules in a way that goes beyond tactical choices of the sort seen in some other games. Thus there arise certain "combos" of units or abilities that are especially powerful. Understanding the interplay of all the variable elements of that game takes a base of game knowledge that is extremely broad to the point where it becomes an exercise in memorization as much as simply understanidng good tactics. This sort of stacking of combos and the supreme importance of list-building is what causes many folks to compare Warmachine and similar games to CCG's where deckbuilding and memorization of a vast amount of game knowledge are as or more important than in-game tactics.

This is not to say that one is a better way to play, but there's a huge difference between the two and they result in very different play experiences.

Azazelx wrote:
It's not my only game, either - but I use the models from anywhere else as you do, and therefore I've got a GW-esque Elf army, an old-school GW-ish Ogre army (closer to the old Mercenaries in theme, but hey), a Gondor army, and an old-school Undead army with Middle-earth/Mordor overtones. My Orcs (and Goblins) and Dwarves and Chaos/Abyssal Dwarves will all be very World's Edge Mountains in their themes, and my Skaven will be full-fledged Skavenblight. An Empire army using a mix of GW and Perry. Romans from the south using Warlord and Foundry models, along with their Greek neighbours using the same.

Basically, enough GW armies using mostly or significant numbers of GW figures to keep using the GW fluff, if not the rules, mashed up with Middle-Earth, the Classical Era and the Dark Ages, along with slightly Generic Fantasy (which fits with WFB pretty well, anyway). Which is why I really enjoy KoW.

A good approach and one that's similar to my own. I mix and match brands of figs have figs that see use across multiple games of varied scopes. For example, the same elf may see the battlefield with:
-Song of Blades for Warband Skirmish
-Of Gods and Mortals for Platoon size Skirmish
-Kings of War For Company battles and above

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


In Kilkrazy's example the player is using the cavalry's ability to force infantry into squares as a way to maximize the impact of another one of his units (his artillery).
In your example you are using Baby Kade's ability to increase Teddy's threat range as a way to maximize his damage.

Its the exact same thing.

My guess is that it's about the details.

Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.

nkelsch wrote:


I am sure I will eventually but right now I literally cannot play with my models without learning all new rules all new codex, inventorying what I have, potentially buying and painting a bunch of new stuff to plug needed holes all to get me to a single game.

If you are going to get 7th edition, you better get it now. It only has a life about 1 1/2 years now before 8th edition. Might not even make it that long. 8th might come sooner than that. Just saying, be leary when buying the rules, they will be obsolete relay soon. Hate to see anyone play close to $100 and then not be able to use what they bought. Happened to me with 6th edition. Got it when it came out, but bought the iPad version so it was easier for me getting back into. Man was not worth if to for the 6 months.

Mario wrote:

My guess is that it's about the details.

Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.

 Eilif wrote:

Mario wrote:

My guess is that it's about the details.

Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.

Exactly.

One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Mario wrote:

My guess is that it's about the details.

Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.

Exactly.

One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.

Again, its the exact same thing: the Napoleonic example is also a combination of interactions that only works with two specific units (cavalry and artillery) and has to be performed in a specific order for it to work (cavalry threatens infantry -> infantry forms square becoming more vulnerable to artillery -> artillery blasts the gak out of the infantry). If the infantry formed into square by player choice (given that the choice is: get charged by cavalry in line and loose the whole unit or form into square and take extra casualties from artillery, meaning that there really isn't a choice), or because the cavalry in that hypothetical Napoleonic rules set has a rule that automatically forces all infantry to form into square is pretty much irrelevant.

And again, all of those "broader and more widely applicable concepts" also apply to games like Infinity, Malifaux and WMH. Outflanking a model / unit still has benefits, choosing the correct target for each unit still is extremely important, things like screening units are still used, forcing enemies to bunch up to become more vulnerable to blast weapons or to spread out to avoid that vulnerability but be unable to support each other are all just tactically viable and important aspects of each of those games as remembering if unit x, y or z has a special rule or not.

That is why those games are sometimes described as having more tactical depth, because not only do you need to concern yourself with "regular" tactics, you also need to consider a whole new set of tactical problems that aren't covered in those. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this since I think that the reason that these games have all these special rules is because they are all skirmish games, it would become pretty boring really fast if their rules would be as simple as those for a company, battalion or army style game.

As a P.S., I would like to leave here the definition of tactics as is found in the merriam-webster dictionary:

Definition of TACTICS

1
a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

The way I understand it...

Example of a combo:

Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.

Example of tactics:

Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.

It is fairly obvious that the tactic is a general principle that can be applied in lots of different eras of warfare though the exact application will depend on immediate factors such as terrain, the quality of your forces and so on.

The combo is a special ability of one unit that will not work with a different unit, but once you have learned it, it works automatically.

It s largely a debate about semantics and a bit pointless to argue. If someone wants to think of it as Combos and another as Tactics, it is no skin off my back.

I know the way I prefer to think about and play my games. If someone else does it differently and has fun.... oh good for them. It doesn't bother me one bit.

 Easy E wrote:
It s largely a debate about semantics and a bit pointless to argue. If someone wants to think of it as Combos and another as Tactics, it is no skin off my back.

I know the way I prefer to think about and play my games. If someone else does it differently and has fun.... oh good for them. It doesn't bother me one bit.

I agree, 2nd 40K was also "combo" like, Khorne berzerkers in a Landraider move 12" deploy KB get a 2 strength hit KB had 2+ save so not a problem then than do a charge 12" attack the enemy in one turn! , 40k always had certain combinations of gear, characters, units an items that could be devastating.

It is just a matter of taste for people to go to the more synergy style games or the more classical tactical games.

From Wikipedia:

In fighting games, combo specifically indicates a timed sequence of moves which produce a cohesive series of hits, each of which leaves the opponent unable or almost unable to block or otherwise avoid the following hits in the sequence

Which games follow a similar structure to this, where there can be a sequence of events that the player who is being attacked can do little or nothing to avoid the sequence of events? Note in Magic this is similar, as when their 'combo' goes off it starts a sequence of events where the deck wins with little the opponent can do, short of avoiding the situation starting in the first place or hard counters (or c-c-c-combo breakers, if you prefer).

I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!

Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.

But as someone else said, this is a skirmish game and can't rely on Napoleonic tactics and prefer special abilities to add depth. Like Infinity's troops all have special abilities to make them unique.
If someone doesn't like special abilities for their troops, skirmish games might not be for them.

I think when people criticise combos they are referring to the kind of "Herohammer" character who doesn't need tactics because his rules make him so powerful that he can roll over nearly any opposition you point him at.

-Loki- wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Mario wrote:

My guess is that it's about the details.

Tactics: In the first example there is no rule that forces the events to happen, the opponent choses to react that way and gets trapped.
Combo: The second example is a combination of abilities that are specific to the units and the result is not something that could work with any other two units of a similar type.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it much better with many fewer words. Tactics are broader and more widely applicable concepts. Combos are a series of rules and special rules that apply to a specific combination of units, strung together into a unique chain of events to give a desired result.

Exactly.

One is general tactics. The other is a combination of interactions that only works between two specific units.

Kilkrazy wrote:The way I understand it...

Example of a combo:

Up, Down, Up, Down, Left, Left, Left, Right == Unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick unless the opponent does a good block at the right time.

Example of tactics:

Pin the enemy with a frontal attack, and move a second unit to attack around the flank while his attention is diverted.

It is fairly obvious that the tactic is a general principle that can be applied in lots of different eras of warfare though the exact application will depend on immediate factors such as terrain, the quality of your forces and so on.

The combo is a special ability of one unit that will not work with a different unit, but once you have learned it, it works automatically.

All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.

On that note I'll add, if it hasn't been said in the last couple of pages: in general, tactics arise from mechanics; combos arise from rules. To be a wee bit more specific, it could be whittled down further to mechanics + universal rules vs. units + special rules.

MWHistorian wrote:I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!

Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.

I think it's more like a combo if you have some unique grenade-throwing ability or experimental grenades (maybe that you can switch on and use only once per engagement) that momentarily boosts the firing accuracy of your specific team 20-50%, besides disorienting the baddies.

Note I would call Killcrazy's example a special move, and not a combo.

A simple combo could be 'Jab -> Jab -> Jab' chaining three quick punches in a row, though that wouldn't be a devastating combo.

'Jab jab jab' could be a tactic. A jab is a fairly standard move, and I'd hazard most beat-em-up characters could pull off a short string of them to some extent, to act as a feint, to follow up a feint, to keep the opponent at arm's length, or just do plain ol' damage.
It's when you do something like 'jab jab jab fireball unstoppable overhead cartwheel kick shoryuken' that the perception might shift a wee bit.

If you use it like that, it is a poke (roughly speaking). If it hits, then doing the follow move makes it a hit confirm into full combo.

But there are some games that are more 'Combo games' than others, like Marvel vs Capcom series. Generally, older games like Street Fighter 2 are pretty combo light, while damage from individual attacks is higher, so there is more of an emphasis on spacing, for example, as the combo part of the game is less emphasised.

I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.

 Daba wrote:

I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.

No. Neither WMH nor Malifaux have anything to do with "getting into position and then executing your combo".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.

I'm sorry if that might come of as rude to you, but you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about if you think that "which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules" applies to either of those games. A simple glance at any major tournament result for WMH will show you that lists that win those tournaments will have very little success when they are simply copied and used by other players. Both of those games are allot more about how you use your models than what models you choose to build your list from.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Daba wrote:

I think that can be at a glance analogous to tabletop games where games like Warmachine and Malifaux (maybe?) could be about getting into position and then executing your combo while Blood Bowl and Infinity are more like the ones where it is about spacing throughout the game with high damage individual attacks.

No. Neither WMH nor Malifaux have anything to do with "getting into position and then executing your combo".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

All this. +1. Regarding the 'automatic' comment in particular, I'd say this is why Warmachine, Malifaux et al feel like 40K dressed up in steampunk or horror clothes, to me. It still depends too much on your 'build' - which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules.

I'm sorry if that might come of as rude to you, but you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about if you think that "which specific models you take, to run on rails and get off a specific chain of rules" applies to either of those games. A simple glance at any major tournament result for WMH will show you that lists that win those tournaments will have very little success when they are simply copied and used by other players. Both of those games are allot more about how you use your models than what models you choose to build your list from.

That is very true. Many people try to just copy the list and think that will win it for them. It doesn't work like that in WMH. It's how you use what you got. You need an army that fits your play style. I'm a blunt instrument, a hammer. I don't play Cryx. I play Khador and Convergence (A vector heavy convergence) because they fit how I think.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I remember in the army when we did combos. I'd throw in the flash grenade to momentarily stun the baddies inside the room. My team would then move inside and shoot them while stunned. Combos work great!

Hmmm...that does sound an awful lot like tactics.
Oh well.

Here's how I'd personally differentiate the two on a gaming table.... Say you have this exact scenario... you have enemy unit "hiding" inside a room, with a squad of infantry outside. Now, the rules for this wargame allows for the infantry squad to pop the flashbang, and shoot the enemy/clear the room while they're stunned. This would be tactics, as it's similar to our Napoleonics example (you want to do A, B, and C in that order to have the greatest effect)

A "Combo" in my mind is where that same unit pops a flashbang, but instead of it just going off/hitting/stunning you have to perform a Special Rule of some kind in order to see if it gets stunned. That works, and allows the unit to shoot the enemy with a special Assault shooting move, since that didn't wipe out the enemy, but the Assault Shooty Move didn't kill everyone, the attacking unit activates its next Special Rule, which allows it to finish off the remaining enemy in Close Combat (simulating a capture, or kill, etc)


From what I've heard of WMH, it's kind of in that second realm, where if I have a special rule go off at the right time, I can string together a whole bunch of moves that are almost impossible to break up, or prevent from happening.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

From what I've heard of WMH, it's kind of in that second realm, where if I have a special rule go off at the right time, I can string together a whole bunch of moves that are almost impossible to break up, or prevent from happening.

To put it bluntly, you've heard wrong, nothing like that is even remotely possible in WMH or Malifaux or any other miniature game that I know of.

Perhaps these needs to be aken to the Warmachine vs 40K thread a few places down.

Anyone else move from GW? Why? What did you go to?