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.

My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.

Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.

Options
Can you play more than one warcaster / Warlock in an army in a normal game - sadly nope. Not even the cool twin sisters in my Legion,
Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope

Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........

Its not really a debate - either you like a game or you don't...............

 Mr Morden wrote:
My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....

WMH would not work with premeasuring (maybe that's your problem. Putting your caster all the way up front to try and get some supposed bonus from premeasuring). 40k's (and WHFB's) premeasuring only works due to their stupid-ass random charge distances. WMH charge distances are always the same and not randomly determined. To be able to premeasure this aspect would break the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....

WMH would not work with premeasuring (maybe that's your problem. Putting your caster all the way up front to try and get some supposed bonus from premeasuring). 40k's (and WHFB's) premeasuring only works due to their stupid-ass random charge distances. WMH charge distances are always the same and not randomly determined. To be able to premeasure this aspect would break the game.

Control Area is about 14-18" correct? so why would the Caster need to be in the front line?

Random charge is no more stupid than "we always charge exactly the same distance whatever and if I nudge my model to .000001 outside this mesurement I am completely immune to being charged" as 40k and WFB used to be and that was bloody stupid

or WMH's cover only works if you are within set distance and not if its between you and the enemy....thats stupid

There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."

Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.

Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.

EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.

 azreal13 wrote:
There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."

Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.

Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.

EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.

Lets agree to disagree - I like random charge and have had many fun moments in recent games - either not quite making it or slamming home after makiing an informed choice based on risk factor which is hardly hard to figure out. On the other hand had lots of dull moments in previous edition games or people nudging units forward just out of the magic charge range that they "estimated" in various ways and called skill.

So for me Playbility = random charge. Fixed charge = dull and finicky

 Mr Morden wrote:

Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.
....

depends on the caster, but even with my own personal assassination happy casters - butcher3 and kromac - i always keep an eye on the scenario. I've lost games by focusing on the killy instead of the zones.

In general, i'd argue my khador army is more geared for scenario contesting than out and out assassination. first rule you learn in the game is "protect your caster!", and when they can hide in the back field, and going for them often times isnt easy, especially against experienced players who know their positioning, it often comes down to scenario. for the most part "the game is all about assassination" tends to be spoken by those who are new to the game.

that said, assassination offers a plan b. no matter how you are losing, you always have that little chance to pull it off - you're never out of the game with this. plus, gearing for the assassination allows for an extra bit of design space both in missions and character design. it allows variety.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Can you play more than one warcaster / Warlock in an army in a normal game - sadly nope. Not even the cool twin sisters in my Legion,
...

uh, yes you can. 75pt games, if im not mistaken. then there is unbound...

 Mr Morden wrote:

Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope

Some do. you've got, for example, multiple breeds of men o war, exemplar bastions, tharn ravagers, iron fangs, winter guard, banes etc. think of them as a basic chassis with different loadout options. Individually, you have Unit attachments (officer types) and weapon attachments (special weapon holders). So yes, you do. Kinda.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........
.

which is where tactics come in. use your movement, positioning and attacking power to destroy the elements of his army with which his feat will benefit. pressure him to feat early, or in a disadvantageous position. counter-feat. Have spells or denial elements in place to allow for control, or soakage. Feats are rightly brutal affairs, but once you get involved in the game, they become just one more thing to deal with.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not really a debate - either you like a game or you don't...............

and fair enough. but one should always be open for fresh input and a different insight

 Mr Morden wrote:
My point was that premeasuring is a good thing and Warmachine pretends not to have it but then has a rule that lets you do it? Why hide it. I wish GW had had it years ago but they do now and Warmahince just sorta has it but not really and you have to kinda cheat to use it.

No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).

 Mr Morden wrote:

Do you or do you not win in the vast majority of games, no matter what the scenario is about or its normal win conditions if you kill the casters ? Thats my point.

Caster kill is always one of the win conditions, but if your group is finding that a majority of its games are ending because of caster kill before a significant part of either army was destroyed, then that is a signal of player inexperience. As you get more experienced you'll be able both to identify the biggest treats to your warcaster as well as all the different ways that you have to keep them safer.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Options
Can you play more than one warcaster / Warlock in an army in a normal game - sadly nope. Not even the cool twin sisters in my Legion,

Yes you can. Any game bigger than 75 points has a dual warcaster option.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Weapon options for non unqiue characters or units? Nope

Why should this be important? A Captain doesn't get to choose if his American Marines will be armed with AK47's or AR-15's so why should I choose what my units should be armed with?

Also, since WMH is a skirmish game, most units will have special rules attached to how they fight with the weapons that they have, if a player could change those weapons then those rules wouldn't make any sense and would have to be removed.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Feats
Again one use seemed to be all you needed..........

Again, I'm sorry but this is just another sign of player inexperience. More experienced players will find ways to mitigate the effect that feats have in the game.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not really a debate - either you like a game or you don't...............

Completely agree.

Yes you can. Any game bigger than 75 points has a dual warcaster option.

They don;t seem to be normal games - arn't they 25-50pts? or less -

No, sorry but you are wrong. Measuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).

funny the other WMH player here said:

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that

so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?

Also, since WMH is a skirmish game, most units will have special rules attached to how they fight with the weapons that they have, if a player could change those weapons then those rules wouldn't make any sense and would have to be removed.

Which is inbuilt limitation of the game - for good or bad - I remember it being the same with Confrontation.

Caster kill is always one of the win conditions,

bnut why is it always a win condiiton?

If you kill your US Marine captain you don't normally auto loose the game regardless of what you were actually trying to achieve in the scenario?

Because the caster is the one controlling the jacks. If the caster goes down, so do the jacks. And if all you have is infantry, they'd probably run away. US Marines are a unique thing and not at all like medieval warfare.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Because the caster is the one controlling the jacks. If the caster goes down, so do the jacks. And if all you have is infantry, they'd probably run away. US Marines are a unique thing and not at all like medieval warfare.

I wasn't the one who brought in real world comparisons to a game about magic and steam robots

I get that - but again if a scenario is about achieving a specific objective and you can still achieve it (or at least try) why should the game end with the death of a specfic individual - however important they are in the fluff or army?

Have they never heard of a Pyrrhic victory?

It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.

But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )

Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.

Apple fox wrote:
It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.

But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )

Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.

Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?

There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?

re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?

 Mr Morden wrote:

funny the other WMH player here said:

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that

so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?

Please quote the whole thing. Way to make your own context there...

The bit you left out was

...and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....

Bit of a significant difference there.

Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I get that - but again if a scenario is about achieving a specific objective and you can still achieve it (or at least try) why should the game end with the death of a specfic individual - however important they are in the fluff or army?

Can't you make the same argument for 40K, though? You always win by tabling your opponent, even if they have achieved more victory conditions than you have.


The thing with the Warcaster is that it means that your force's leader matters. Take a Chapter Master in your Marine force - he has no real huge impact on how your force functions or is structured, and your army will by and large by completely oblivious when he dies.

In Warmahordes, your choice of caster has a large effect on how your force functions... take two otherwise identical forces with different casters, and you get two very different games. And you have to balance off utilising the tactical effectiveness of your caster against keeping them alive... because they can be brutally effective if used right, but if they die, it matters.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

funny the other WMH player here said:

If you're referring to a Caster measuring their control area, if you use it for anything other that that

so which is it - a way of kinda cheating or not?

Please quote the whole thing. Way to make your own context there...

The bit you left out was

...and using it for measuring beyond their control area then I don't know what to say....

Bit of a significant difference there.

The important bit was th bit where you said IF you use it for "anything other than measuring their control area" - as the other thing is outside the rules entirely wheras you can mesure your command distance at any time?

So is it a premeasuring mechanism or not? are you just using it to check "your command distance or other things"? Is it intended to do this or just used this way?

Can't you make the same argument for 40K, though? You always win by tabling your opponent, even if they have achieved more victory conditions than you have.

True and thats wrong as well at least in my opinion...........

WayneTheGame wrote:
Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.

Which incidentally I why I seldom use it. I've seen people sweeping their tape measures around waaaayyyyyy beyond their control areas which is just blatant cheating. The only time I have really used it recently is for checking if models are within range for Dash with Vlad3, especially after his feat and stuff gets a little separated after sprinting.

 Grimtuff wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Personally I do see control range as a way to "cheat", well not cheat per se but get around the no premeasuring rule. It does basically feel like cheating only because you can do it at any point, but as said it makes a tactical choice, although sometimes I think it's one of the things that makes the game feel too mechanical and artificial.

Which incidentally I why I seldom use it. I've seen people sweeping their tape measures around waaaayyyyyy beyond their control areas which is just blatant cheating. The only time I have really used it recently is for checking if models are within range for Dash with Vlad3, especially after his feat and stuff gets a little separated after sprinting.

but the other player says:

easuring the caster control area and using that as a means to pre-measure, isn't "kinda cheat", its a deliberate game mechanic designed so that the player has another significant choice to make (do I move my warcaster forward so that I can pre-measure more but leave him more vulnerable to assassination or do I keep him safer in the back lines but I loose on the measuring advantage?).

Seems a very differnt way of looking at it?

Measuring outside the Control Area - is simply cheating outright is it not?

The bit I read in the rulebook talked about it being used as certain spells / feats that require you to know if you are in range - but that seems to be allowing massive liberties?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.

But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )

Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.

Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?

There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?

re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?

Everblight considers evrything expendable, but he doesn't throw them away. Killing a warlock is still a blow to everblight and his plans and takes time to recover.
I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate.
In 6th I never found a need to pre measure, and I have never met a player that found a need ether. I have never been short for something that could have been avoided by the premesureing. So in 40k it doesn't realy bother me other than it sometimes takes newer players a little longer to learn.


Anyone actually cheating is cheating, regardless of the rules of the game. This goes for 40k also

 Mr Morden wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
There's an issue at work here which is to do with the playability of the game vs any sense of replicating "reality."

Random charge is bad because it takes yet another element of the game out of player control and in the hands of fate, further reducing player skill as a factor in determining a winner.

Fixed charge range is a tad less realistic, but amounts to a more playable game for most.

EDIT
Slightly amused that autocorrect changed "player" to "payer" in a 40K thread.

Lets agree to disagree - I like random charge and have had many fun moments in recent games - either not quite making it or slamming home after makiing an informed choice based on risk factor which is hardly hard to figure out. On the other hand had lots of dull moments in previous edition games or people nudging units forward just out of the magic charge range that they "estimated" in various ways and called skill.

So for me Playbility = random charge. Fixed charge = dull and finicky

It's more

Random charge = more fun for Mr Morden, fixed charge = probably better for the game as a whole.

But I will concede that random charge is something I don't take huge issue with, it is more a symptom of random everything taking player choice more and more out of the game, and being used as a crutch for poor game design (how much more broken would things be if you could pick the exact powers, warlord traits, daemonic gifts etc you wanted each game?)

Apple fox wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
It doesn't have to be allways part of the win condition, but they use it in a lot of standard missions as part of the gameplay and as part of the naritive. Evry faction int he game values there Warcasters and warlocks. It's very rare for them to be on suicide missions, and in a lot of cases killing a Warcaster or a warlock would be a great victory for a faction in a skirmish.

But off the top of my head we do know what happens when a Warcaster and a warlock dies.
At least what we used was war jacks shut down until someone could get controll and beasts frenzy. (Posibly from unbound games? Or NQ ? )

Also about the controll range, it's not premesureing, but if you have the info you can use it without cheating.

Well Lylyth has been sent on several (n fact pretty much every bit of fluff she is in ) and Everblight considers everything expendible........ some of the other facitons are not much better?

There are quite a few units in the game that can control Jacks and Beasts and some of the latter can function ok without control?

re the control range - either its a mecanism for a specific thing that people abuse or its a game mechainic that allows partial but not complete premeasuring? Opinion seems to be divided?

Everblight considers evrything expendable, but he doesn't throw them away. Killing a warlock is still a blow to everblight and his plans and takes time to recover.
I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate.
In 6th I never found a need to pre measure, and I have never met a player that found a need ether. I have never been short for something that could have been avoided by the premesureing. So in 40k it doesn't realy bother me other than it sometimes takes newer players a little longer to learn.

As players of very many games for decades our club finds premeasuring helps elimate arguments and speeds up play, especially for newer players.............your expereince may be different............

He pretty much threw away Lylth on a recon mission to find out about the Dragon under the Castle of Keys and recently to see what would happen if he took on a Dragon with his minions, There are very very many examples in the fluff of characters so very very nearly dying and last minute rescues are pretty much a given

Random charge = more fun for Mr Morden, fixed charge = probably better for the game as a whole.

And my entire club............lets not forget them and many other players I talk to..............

You still have player choice - you just work out the odds and decide if its worth it.................

I don't think opinion is that decided, your never premesureing. Your always measuring a set distance from a set point. How you use that info is up to debate

I don;t get this - if the rule is there to achieve a specific aim and you use it for another - how is that right?

And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.

I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.

Apple fox wrote:
And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.

I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.

I didn;t say that and I am fine with the idea of some games being "kill the King" but if there is scenario win coniditons this should not be the be and end all - perhaps an element at most to represent those "suicide missions" that the main characters always surive (which is good and pulpy )

Would you tell a new player about the Command Radius method of premeasuring?

There are quite a few bits of 40k i would change but I enjoy it more

 Mr Morden wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
And because of that, warlocks and Warcasters are not valuble? I didn't say they are never sent on suicide missions at all, on both of those could be consider insanely worthwhile from a dragon in that world.

I have never had an argument about that. Nor found new players to have any issues as said. But right now I know which game I rather teach new players when they come in.
It's easy to disagree with this part of rules in 40k.

I didn;t say that and I am fine with the idea of some games being "kill the King" but if there is scenario win coniditons this should not be the be and end all - perhaps an element at most to represent those "suicide missions" that the main characters always surive (which is good and pulpy )

Would you tell a new player about the Command Radius method of premeasuring?

There are quite a few bits of 40k i would change but I enjoy it more

I would tell a new player about it, but you can find out a lot of info just checking most importent things to do with the controll area.
That information is part of the game since there is no way around giving it away. It's accounted for in play.
The kill the king as said is removed in some scenarios, we have even play without Warcasters and warlocks in games.
But it's asumed as part of the basic game.

As for 40k I enjoy it with the players I play with, I enjoy enough of the lore to be enthusiastic about it. Even the base rules them selves I wouldn't see issue with that much. But at this point I won't pay for them.

PhantomViper wrote:

No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.

I believe your use of the word refute to be unfounded. Refute means to prove something wrong, as in absolutely. Very rarely does such a thing occur on an internet forum.

I can't compare to any of the other miniature games, as I haven't played any of them...but I can tell you that the sheer variety in army list building in 40K is what got me started originally, and has brought me back 20 years later. I love the fact that even though I play Space Marines, I can play "Heavy Armor" Space Marines, "Mechanized Infantry" Space Marines, "All Cavalry" Space Marines, "Long Range" Space Marines, "Close Combat" Space Marines and any combination therein...and I can be effective with it.

I also love the fact that, while there are some "if you want to win, you play this way" theories, I can attempt all manner of craziness, and if I expend enough energy to refine it, I can make it work. I am putting together an all-infiltration, all-melee 'nid army as we speak. Will it work? Who knows, but I will find a way to win some games, then I will dismantle it and move on to some other looney effort.

I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Ok...ramble off

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.

 Yonan wrote:

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.

Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.

I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.

 CrosisDePurger wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

No, I meant that we had this exact same discussion in the thread that Grimtuff linked where I refuted all his claims and offered counter points of my own that Unit1126PLL even failed to address. Then he turns around and creates a thread with those exact same half truths that have already been refuted. After a while one cannot help it but to start question the motivations of the OP behind all of these threads.

I believe your use of the word refute to be unfounded. Refute means to prove something wrong, as in absolutely. Very rarely does such a thing occur on an internet forum.

It also means to deny or contradict...

So, yeah..

 dementedwombat wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:
I don't want "tight rules" and "competitive" and "balanced". This is the same reason I play Eve Online. I want the freedom to use the stuff that everyone else says is unusable, make it effective, leave my opponents dumbstruck, and then change to some other harebrained idea once the mainstream picks up on it.

I don't want "rock always beats scissors always beats paper always beats lizard always beats spock always beats rock". I want "bring enough paper, supported by bumblebees and tangerines, and you can kick scissors ass unless scissors has the spatula".

Balance and tight rules not only doesn't prevent that, but enhances it. There's no way you're making an effective list out of rough riders or khorne berzerkers. Rock paper scissors? 40k is full of it. Trouble with land AV14 (rock)? Bring Lascannons (paper). Trouble with hordes? Bring pie plates or high fire rate. Enemy has too many fliers and you don't have enough anti air? Looks like you brought scissors to a rock game friend.

Actually this is a valid point. In Warmachine there are less absolutely awful un-winable matchups than there are in 40k. They still exist but there are much fewer of them.

I will say that reading through different miniature game rules really has helped me appreciate different sides of the hobby, and it really should be something people try to do, even if they don't plan on playing the game in question, just to get an idea on how other games do things. I never really had much stock in the "warmachine rules are better written" people until I actually bought and read the Warmachine rulebook. That book is amazingly written. That's one thing I can not deny, nor would I want to.

You both make valid points, and I guess my rambling post wasn't so much why I like 40K better, but why I like 40K. Period. Having never read the rules for Warmachine, I'm going by secondhand statements from WAAC guys at my FLGS about the "tight rules" and "balance" and how that means everyone is playing with equally capable (read: (to me) HOMOGENIZED AND BORING) armies.

If you are seeing "every situation has A solution", then you are not looking deep enough. Every situation has multitude solutions, and alternate solutions, and combined forces emergency solutions. My all-melee pure Genestealer/Deathleaper army may be all a horde of scissors, but my sheer numbers, rending claws, sheer numbers, broodlords, sheer numbers, infiltration/outflank and sheer numbers give me some paper, rock, lizard and spock to go with it. (except for anti-air which I haven't figured out yet. I'm thinking go to ground in cover and just hide after killing everything on the ground.)