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.

PhantomViper wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

Yeah, no. I dare you to pose that argument to a high level 40K tournament player. If that were true, any random dude with a netlist could win a 40K tournament. Which is not what happens. There is depth there, strategy and tactics, but it may not be to your liking. Note, I did not say it was balanced.

The only tactical choice that 40k gives to its players is target selection, everything else is random. Moving through difficult terrain is random, running is random, charging is random, psychic powers are random, traits are random, objectives are random even the freaking victory points that each objective gives are random! Random is the exact opposite of tactical play.

Also high level 40k tournament player is a contradiction in terms!
All the high level 40k tournament players that I knew about dropped the game when 6th edition was released.

You do realize that balancing risk/reward constitutes tactics, right? Unless every random roll has the exact same chance of success, choosing between them is a tactical choice. And obviously not the only one, stop being obtuse. Furthermore, building your list to maximise said risk/reward is a strategic process.

PhantomViper wrote:

Honestly, either you guys have no idea about what you are talking about or you must live in some weird alternate reality (my bet is on the first)...

And 40k doesn't offer anything other than dice rolling for 3 hours, that game has the tactical depth of Yahtzee...

Weird that you talk about alternate realities while simultanously in reality the best players of said game can crush any casual ones with mediocre/subpar lists, whereas someone who has no idea about strategy or how to play is completely unable to operate some of the lists high level players use, as they are made for their own style of play.

It appears to me you really haven´t played too much 40K on a competitive level? I have played both games this thread is about ( 40K from 2001 and WM/H from 2007 albeit I´m now on a "until further notice" break from it, though I still actively follow the scene. ) So I´m pretty confident in saying that I have a pretty good idea about them both, as next to that I´ve owned over 6 different faction armies from each ( 3 since there´s Hordes ) game, giving me quite a good perspective on them as a whole.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird that you talk about alternate realities while simultanously in reality the best players of said game can crush any casual ones with mediocre/subpar lists, whereas someone who has no idea about strategy or how to play is completely unable to operate some of the lists high level players use, as they are made for their own style of play.

I find that with 40k to play at a high level you MUST go for the optimized lists, it is the main #1 strategy that can leverage the victory.
This one thing you have concrete control over.
Let us add another layer where you have to roll for your model selections... let the crying commence.

More definite choice makes for better impact on tactics, I really would like to see less randomization in the game.
My warlord not deciding what type he wants to be until the eve of a battle or a psyker not sure what he is casting today is rather irritating.

Warmachine gives a list of what the models can do at any given point.
I think GW tends to equate rolling dice as action and fun (adding anticipation?) when just getting to choose an action is more gratifying.

 Talizvar wrote:
My warlord not deciding what type he wants to be until the eve of a battle or a psyker not sure what he is casting today is rather irritating.

Man this killed me.

"I feel like furiously charging into the fray today, my minions!"

"Yes Lord."

"I take that back, I wish to be a tactical genius!"

"Hail!"

 Talizvar wrote:

I think GW tends to equate rolling dice as action and fun (adding anticipation?) when just getting to choose an action is more gratifying.

Well I think this is subjective. Less randomization in certain areas would be good, but some of the most fun things are the random ones ( especially stuff that orks have had during the years in both GW´s main games. )

In terms of optimized lists it holds for both game systems.
Good Eldar lists are hard to beat these days. This is why I shelved my Eldar army atm.
WM is not much different. Merc lists are good and competitive lists usually contain Eiryss and Gorman.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
Sure, assassination is the most common victory condition, but an overextended assassination run usually means defeat for the attacker. The tactical depth is certainly a major advantage to WM. If I have to think like I'm playing chess I'm usually having a good time.

Exactly. I just played a game last night with my Khador vs. my brother's Legion. Absylonia2 popped her feat and charged into Sorscha2, didn't kill her but used an ability to teleport away. Next turn I popped my feat and charged Aby2, didn't kill her. Following turn Aby2 beat Sorscha.

That was exciting. There is nothing exciting about rolling buckets of dice and removing swathes of figures, doubly so if your opponent fields something that you can't reasonably deal with.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Well I think this is subjective. Less randomization in certain areas would be good, but some of the most fun things are the random ones ( especially stuff that orks have had during the years in both GW´s main games. )

I will agree only slightly with this: Some uncertainty is exciting but I like the odds of a "normal" action to pull-off most of the time.
The occasional moments of the dreaded "anything but a one!" are what I think you are getting at.
A 50% odds or less of something going as planned that does not lend some drama is just irritating or the "random for random's sake".

There is good random and bad random.

Good random, I find, is things like vehicle explosions - especially the old Ork variety. Some thematic results but nothing that is really game-defining.
Bad random are game-defining things, especially ones that happen before the game or you can mitigate extensively through the game.

A good example of 'Bad Random' is generating psychic powers. Invisibility is an extremely powerful spell, almost game breaking. Half of the competitive 40k games I've seen so far are won and lost on Invisibility. So let's build a list that has an invisibility psyker! Oh wait.. you can't.. unless you take one of 3 psykers in the game that can essentially guarantee getting invisibility. Queue a large percentage of competitive lists fielding Be'lakor (for Daemons/CSM) or Tigurius/Sevrin Loth for Imperials. And so now you have these lists which exploit a gimmick for that particular caster in ways which other armies can't match, which just stretches the overly long list of upper tier lists to even more unattainable heights.


I play both WMH and 40k competitively (Convergence and Trolls, Daemons and Tau). I like both games for different reasons.
I can say with certainty that players who call 40k 'less strategic than Yahtzee' or players who call WMH 'a big pile in the middle' are both wrong.
For WMH - the 'melee' in the center might seem to a 40k player like just 2 units running in to each other, but the exact positioning and facing of each and every model is crucial. Models aren't as fast as in 40k, they can only move forwards, and the longest ranged weapons in the game are ~16". Trying to assess a WMH board from a 40k perspective is like trying to assess a chess board from a 40k perspective.
For 40k - if you think its just about throwing buckets of dice, well, you can do that in WMH too if you want! Go charge at the enemy try to kill as much as possible without using any kind of buffs or positioning. This ends in scenario loss in 40k games exactly as it does in WMH games.

Trasvi wrote:
There is good random and bad random.

Good random, I find, is things like vehicle explosions - especially the old Ork variety. Some thematic results but nothing that is really game-defining.
Bad random are game-defining things, especially ones that happen before the game or you can mitigate extensively through the game.

A good example of 'Bad Random' is generating psychic powers. Invisibility is an extremely powerful spell, almost game breaking. Half of the competitive 40k games I've seen so far are won and lost on Invisibility. So let's build a list that has an invisibility psyker! Oh wait.. you can't.. unless you take one of 3 psykers in the game that can essentially guarantee getting invisibility. Queue a large percentage of competitive lists fielding Be'lakor (for Daemons/CSM) or Tigurius/Sevrin Loth for Imperials. And so now you have these lists which exploit a gimmick for that particular caster in ways which other armies can't match, which just stretches the overly long list of upper tier lists to even more unattainable heights.


I play both WMH and 40k competitively (Convergence and Trolls, Daemons and Tau). I like both games for different reasons.
I can say with certainty that players who call 40k 'less strategic than Yahtzee' or players who call WMH 'a big pile in the middle' are both wrong.
For WMH - the 'melee' in the center might seem to a 40k player like just 2 units running in to each other, but the exact positioning and facing of each and every model is crucial. Models aren't as fast as in 40k, they can only move forwards, and the longest ranged weapons in the game are ~16". Trying to assess a WMH board from a 40k perspective is like trying to assess a chess board from a 40k perspective.
For 40k - if you think its just about throwing buckets of dice, well, you can do that in WMH too if you want! Go charge at the enemy try to kill as much as possible without using any kind of buffs or positioning. This ends in scenario loss in 40k games exactly as it does in WMH games.

Piling in the middle "with a strategy" is still piling in the middle. Speed runners make very calculated efforts and motions in order to maximize their speed. They still only move in 1 direction. Just because your combo requires execution, does not mean you can do anything but your combo.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Piling in the middle "with a strategy" is still piling in the middle. Speed runners make very calculated efforts and motions in order to maximize their speed. They still only move in 1 direction. Just because your combo requires execution, does not mean you can do anything but your combo.

And your point is...?

With regards to the whole feat being a win button issue, it certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. I've been running epic Haley, who is just amazing with a brilliant feat, in her theme list, which utilises some of the, ahh, less favoured Cygnar models (Trenchers). I've forgotten to feat in several games, and still won/come within an inch of winning. Sometimes in the same night. So I've learnt 2 things from those games. 1) Feats aren't some I win button, you can do just fine without them as long as you play well and 2) I need to learn to play better.

Mymearan wrote:


You do realize that balancing risk/reward constitutes tactics, right? Unless every random roll has the exact same chance of success, choosing between them is a tactical choice. And obviously not the only one, stop being obtuse. Furthermore, building your list to maximise said risk/reward is a strategic process.

Balancing risk / reward is only a tactical choice when that choice is based on tactical factors, what you are talking about isn't balancing risk / reward, its playing the odds and that is called gambling not tactics.

Also I agree that building your list to play the odds better is a strategic process, that is why I never said that 40k didn't have any strategy, it just has very shallow tactics.

PhantomViper wrote:


Balancing risk / reward is only a tactical choice when that choice is based on tactical factors, what you are talking about isn't balancing risk / reward, its playing the odds and that is called gambling not tactics.

In this you are wrong. Tactics and strategy can, will and will have relied on chance. Be it on the tabletop, an actual battlefield, or even a sports stadium. This is simply true.

The two main things that put us off with our initial 6 games (both as new players)

The "I win, sod the scenario" Caster kill aspect.

The Pretend "no pre-measuring" but allow people to "finesse" it seemed very off.

Kill the General has always been a valid strategy in real war. Armies crumble when you remove the comman.

And there is no "pretend no pre-measuring". There is no pre-measuring.

You are only allowed to check veeeeery few and explicitly named things. Everyone has the same rule.

Oh wow. Looks like I broke one big tie there.

I love the assassination aspect, and I love that the game is tactical, and not *as* dice driven or as codex driven. No, there is no such thing as a perfect balance in these games, and I can accept that, but most of my games are won or lost based on the tactical play over some non-play situation. I honestly care little about fluff, though I am fond of my gators in appearance.

I play games to play games, others want a game where you push pretty pieces and throw dice. I respect that, it just isn't me. The last 40k game I played I ran over a decent player with my Eldar, knowing full well that my army played itself. I hate that. I played in a tournament this past weekend and went a whopping 1-3 (the win was a major stupid mistake by my opponent, who was winning until I killed his caster). and had more fun losing than I ever have "winning" in 40k.

This isn't a slam on 40k players, but the truth is, Warmachine and Warhammer players are after different things. We can co-exist just fine, so play what you like.

RoninXiC wrote:
Kill the General has always been a valid strategy in real war. Armies crumble when you remove the comman.

And there is no "pretend no pre-measuring". There is no pre-measuring.

You are only allowed to check veeeeery few and explicitly named things. Everyone has the same rule.

According to the rulebook I read, you can check your control area at any point in the game which with some casters happens to take up a large portion of the table - so you can pre-measure and in fact other WMH players claim its part of the skill of the player to be able to use this pretend no-premeasuring effectively............

Kill the general is fine if that's the scenari0o - battles have been both won and lost with the death of their leader - sometimes leaders die and it spurs on their troops to victory. To bother having a scenario and then have it completely ignored by the oh well I just kill that guy and ignore the scenario is not great.

 Mr Morden wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Kill the General has always been a valid strategy in real war. Armies crumble when you remove the comman.

And there is no "pretend no pre-measuring". There is no pre-measuring.

You are only allowed to check veeeeery few and explicitly named things. Everyone has the same rule.

According to the rulebook I read, you can check your control area at any point in the game which with some casters happens to take up a large portion of the table - so you can pre-measure and in fact other WMH players claim its part of the skill of the player to be able to use this pretend no-premeasuring effectively............

Kill the general is fine if that's the scenari0o - battles have been both won and lost with the death of their leader - sometimes leaders die and it spurs on their troops to victory. To bother having a scenario and then have it completely ignored by the oh well I just kill that guy and ignore the scenario is not great.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with either of these things. Being able to utilize the ability to measure your control area is an important skill in warmachine. It seems to me that you're thinking of it as an exploit, which it is not. It is completely intended to be able to use these measurements to attempt to judge distance between models.

Also, since when has multiple routes to victory been a bad thing? It affords the players more options in their play styles.

The two games can (and obviously do) coexist. I play both, but for different reasons. I play warmachine/hordes when I want to play a competitive game of skill, and I play 40k when I want to relax, roll big handfuls of dice and push beautiful models around on the table.

 Nate668 wrote:


The two games can (and obviously do) coexist. I play both, but for different reasons. I play warmachine/hordes when I want to play a competitive game of skill, and I play 40k when I want to relax, roll big handfuls of dice and push beautiful models around on the table.

Thing is, Warhammer 40,000 not requiring skill is an impossibility from any angle possible that is based on reality and not bias. Again, there are tournament dominating WH40K players who often come up on top ( or even win the same tournament in a row twice out of countless contestants like we saw this year ) and there are those who aren´t very good in the game.

The day all players are equal in performance is the day skill does not exist.

Because even in the WM/H community it seems to be seen in different light and in previous discussions / threads and here in the last few posts - seemed to be considered very differently by different players.

Being able to utilize the ability to measure your control area is an important skill in warmachine. It seems to me that you're thinking of it as an exploit, which it is not. It is completely intended to be able to use these measurements to attempt to judge distance between models.

compared to:

There is no pre-measuring. You are only allowed to check veeeeery few and explicitly named things. Everyone has the same rule.

I play an awful lot of games on a very casual basis - had a great game of Malifuex the other night I much prefer pre-measuring in all games tbh and I am unsure if there would be a major problem if it was allowed without pretence?

re Caster death wins above all else - I wouldn't mind if it was only for general non scenario play and ignored unless scenario said it was in play - objectives can be achieved with or even because of the sacrifice of leaders.............

If we get round to playing it again ( I have pretty much all the books and 4 large armies - about 150pts of Legion not used yet - well not in this game!) we will try general premeasuring at any time and scenario only win conditions

Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.
It seems to be beginners that have a problem with this until they learn what their caster can and can't do. Which lends further support to my claim that these people making these assertions don't have any or much actual experience with WM/H.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.
It seems to be beginners that have a problem with this until they learn what their caster can and can't do. Which lends further support to my claim that these people making these assertions don't have any or much actual experience with WM/H.

Lol so assassination is not a tactic unless you do it right?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.
It seems to be beginners that have a problem with this until they learn what their caster can and can't do. Which lends further support to my claim that these people making these assertions don't have any or much actual experience with WM/H.

Lol so assassination is not a tactic unless you do it right?

I didn't say it wasn't a tactic, I said it wasn't the game ruining tactic you're claiming it is and that if you knew more about the game, you'd know that.

MWHistorian wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.
It seems to be beginners that have a problem with this until they learn what their caster can and can't do. Which lends further support to my claim that these people making these assertions don't have any or much actual experience with WM/H.

Lol so assassination is not a tactic unless you do it right?

I didn't say it wasn't a tactic, I said it wasn't the game ruining tactic you're claiming it is and that if you knew more about the game, you'd know that.

Unless...

MWHistorian wrote:Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.

xxvaderxx wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.
It seems to be beginners that have a problem with this until they learn what their caster can and can't do. Which lends further support to my claim that these people making these assertions don't have any or much actual experience with WM/H.

Lol so assassination is not a tactic unless you do it right?

I didn't say it wasn't a tactic, I said it wasn't the game ruining tactic you're claiming it is and that if you knew more about the game, you'd know that.

Unless...

MWHistorian wrote:Caster killing is much harder to pull off than some people are letting on. If you go for a caster kill and ignore the objectives, you'll probably find yourself losing the game unless your whole list is built around the assassination run.

Not sure what your point was. It's a more complicated game than you're saying it is. There is no clear win buttons and no clear lose buttons. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but perhaps you should give the game a try. It's a far more tactical and strategic game than 40k. Yes, 40k does have tactics and strategy, but it's shallow and simplistic compared to WMH. Caster kill is a part of the game but there are also many other ways to win such as destroying all the jacks, objectives, etc. It's a complex game and I'm not going to run through a billion scenarios with you so you can get that "Aha!" moment and point a finger at something you think is a flaw without actually knowing much about it.

What's your view on Premeasuring in WMH?

Allowed?
Not allowed?
Finessed?
Only very specific times - or as the rulebook says - anytime you want within the Control range?

 Mr Morden wrote:
What's your view on Premeasuring in WMH?

Allowed?
Not allowed?
Finessed?
Only very specific times - or as the rulebook says - anytime you want within the Control range?

I think that i eye gauging cm wide measures is a carpenter skill and has no place in a board game.

 Mr Morden wrote:
What's your view on Premeasuring in WMH?

Allowed?
Not allowed?
Finessed?
Only very specific times - or as the rulebook says - anytime you want within the Control range?

Pre-measuring is allowed when the rules say it is and in every other instance it is not allowed.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
What's your view on Premeasuring in WMH?

Allowed?
Not allowed?
Finessed?
Only very specific times - or as the rulebook says - anytime you want within the Control range?

Pre-measuring is allowed when the rules say it is and in every other instance it is not allowed.

p77 - you may measure the control area of your models at any time for any reason - so any time you like basically - hence "pretend no-premeasuring". As I said if we get round to playing it again we'll just premeasure - saves the sheningans and pretence.