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.

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k list building decisions: How many big guns can I fit in?
WMH list building decisions: Which caster should I take and how will that affect the units I do chose? How much support units per combat unit?

40k strategy: Use as many big guns against their big guns as possible.
WMH strategy: Should I go for caster kill or maybe wear them down with attrition? I'll send in my heavy jacks as a spear point while my infantry tie up his jacks and I'll send in my caster to take out his. But I have to be careful of his feat because that can throw off my timing. I need everything to strike hard at the same time or the effect is ruined and I leave my caster exposed.

So no massive simplifications here then..... 40k has many faults but its not at all how you describe. There are lots of possible ways to build a list depending on your style of play and units you want to take - drop pod armies work differently to gunline.

The above is a silly as saying this:

40K HQ - choose from a variety in your Codex (or multiples / supplement), equip them in different ways and customise to suit your models and play style - wow freedom
WM/H Caster- Choose from a set list of character with predefined abilities you are going to use.

You'd be better comparing the activation sequence and abilities of WM/H to those Malifaux - another steampunk skirmish game based mainly around short range and close combat - which manages to achieve all of the above and OMG premeasuring! without causing the entire world to end..............

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

Depends on how big the first blunder is. Yes, if you focus dump your warcaster and march him into the open with a sandwhich placard sign with a bulls eye on it, and no defense modifiers and you're up against Ecaine, and then you throw your own jack into your own caster by accident, yes you're going to die, and horribly.

However with even a modicum of caution you can typically recover especially if whatever action you take becomes a misstep, you plan a contingency for.

There are absolutely those games / casters that the misjudgement of a quarter inch is the difference between safety and assassination, totally ... but if its that close, you shouldn't take that gamble unless its your only ticket to win.


That's the main difference to me: Warmachine requires chess like layers of contingency planning and future-turn insight... what am i going to do if he does that with that unit/jack, and then how will i react with my stuff.... etc and so forth.

It's not quite as... in depth isn't the right phrase, as that seems like i'm sorta backhand complimenting 40k as being "shallow", and complex isn't right either as that infers that 40k is simple. Layered is what i'll go with.

Yeah. WM/H is much more layered, and depending on what happens in those layers, the butterfly ripple effect changes the entire tenor of the game dramatically.


Sure there's some of that in 40k, i just don't think its quite as extensive.



Also, the sheer encylopedic volume of special rules in Warmachine / Hordes is another thing. You forget a critical rule that a model has at the wrong time, and you're screwed. Whereas there's a lot less special rules at the model level in 40k.


*shrug* They're both good games, imho, they just both scratch different itches for me.


-- Haight


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k list building decisions: How many big guns can I fit in?
WMH list building decisions: Which caster should I take and how will that affect the units I do chose? How much support units per combat unit?

40k strategy: Use as many big guns against their big guns as possible.
WMH strategy: Should I go for caster kill or maybe wear them down with attrition? I'll send in my heavy jacks as a spear point while my infantry tie up his jacks and I'll send in my caster to take out his. But I have to be careful of his feat because that can throw off my timing. I need everything to strike hard at the same time or the effect is ruined and I leave my caster exposed.

A vast simplification in terms of 40k don't you think ? I mean, can you at least try being objective when you talk about the two games ?

You're going out of your way to use a simple and repetitive model for 40k, and a detailed nuanced model for WM/H. You should try to obfuscate your rhetorical devices a little more.

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

No, it's not. People make tons of mistakes in Warmachine and Hordes all the time. They only matter if your opponent can take advantage of the "blunder".

You say that because a tactical mistake was made and the opponent was able to capitalize on it. That it resulted in winning the game for your opponent is immaterial to the argument that "Warmachine/Hordes is more tactical then 40K". It's like saying "I found my keys in the last place I looked." Of course you found your keys in the last place you looked. Did you continue looking AFTER you found your keys?

My assertion is that you must make MORE tactical decisions in Warmachine/Hordes then 40K, but the ones you make in 40K are no less important than the ones you make in W/H.

So the question becomes "Is Warmachine/Hordes more tactical because you make MORE tactical decisions, or because the decisions you make have a bigger impact on the game?"

How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

I agree with Haight- Warmachine is more layered then 40K. I disagree a bit about the special rules. While each model may lack a special rule, there are an awful lot of "special rules" in 40K that apply to whole units and armies, AND specific models may have special rules. It's a common misconception that because 40K doesn't use stat cards, that you think/perceive that 40K doesn't have as many special rules. While it is true that you could field an entire Warmachine army with each model/unit having different models, you could have your entire army in 40K with special rules, and then each model/unit with more special rules. If we discount special rules that apply to entire armies, then yeah, Warmachine has more special rules at the unit/solo model level then 40K. This feels like a pretty broad generalization though...

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

 malfred wrote:
Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

Say what?

Thats all fascinating but what does it have to do with Warmahordes?

 Tamwulf wrote:

 HisDivineShadow wrote:
This is largely, and while wordy, incorrect.

Warmahordes is unforgiving of tactical blunders. Your first misstep can and often is, your last.

No, it's not. People make tons of mistakes in Warmachine and Hordes all the time. They only matter if your opponent can take advantage of the "blunder".

I was tacking onto this.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 malfred wrote:
Right. I was trying to explain blunders to Packers fans the other week.

Yes, the Pack gave the game away. However, the Seahawks still had to take what was given. If any team was going to do it, the Seahawks were. I can also see the Packers themselves being able to capitalize on an error, or Denver, or the Patriots.

But not the Bears. Never the Bears.

Say what?

Thats all fascinating but what does it have to do with Warmahordes?

What he's saying is that spotting and capitalizing a feth up is half the battle in warmachine, which could not be more true. Hell with some casters its probably 80% of the battle. Spotting a tiny mis-step with 4-6 layers of order of activation, and correctly gauging it from a huge threat range away is what he's referring to, and what i meant by "layered" above.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

This is pretty much what I think about the discussion. I thought I posted about it earlier, but I think I was just lurking. 40k has a stupid number of options, so the planning of the army is more important than its performance.
WMH relies so much upon reacting to your opponent.

I'm probably wayyyyyyyy off but I still agree.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:


How about this assertion: Warmachine/Hordes has more tactical options then 40K, but 40K uses more strategy. You need both to win a game.

Considering that strategy in a miniature game is mainly in list building and tactics is in how you actually play the game, yes, I agree with your assertion that in 40k strategy is the most important part of the game and in WMH tactics are the most important part of the game.

This is pretty much what I think about the discussion. I thought I posted about it earlier, but I think I was just lurking. 40k has a stupid number of options, so the planning of the army is more important than its performance.
WMH relies so much upon reacting to your opponent.

I'm probably wayyyyyyyy off but I still agree.

My personal opinion is that the customizable nature of 40K makes list building more granular, but not necessarily more indepth. My experience with 40k is that a very large number of the options you are presented are cute, but you rarely end up using, and there are certain loadouts you take more often than not (fair being fair, the same is true at the unit / caster / jack selection step levels .... there are just some things that go better together).

So I think 40k is at first glance (keeping unbound out of it) appears as if its monumentally more granular, but at the end of the day looks are deceiving, and its probably only moderately more so. It is still more for sure.

That's offset by the fact that at this point in their genesis, I think most WM armies have at least par number of choices open to them, to potentially many more in just root army book selections available to you (say, Cygnar - one of the core four, who also has access to a boatload of mercs... compare this to anything other than maybe Space Marines (which i think would probably be pretty even!), and i think you have more Unit / Entity level choices than most 40K armies). Whereas you have more granular flexibility at the Unit / Entity level - I.e., i can give my HQ a powersword, or lightning claws, or if i'm really feeling cheeky this relic thingy. With Warmachine, once you make your selection, in most cases if you have any further granularity with that choice, it is in the size of the unit rather than further options.

I suppose Theme lists are some slight granularity, but I think it doesn't really count, as you're giving up lots of options to gain a very small amount of unique granularity.


So the way i end up parsing it : WM/H in most (not all) cases have more Macro-level choice, whereas 40K gives more Micro-level choice.


However then enter unbound.... and yeah... the options become ginormous, and the granularity can be pretty large too. That being said, if WM/H had a "Take whatever you want" mode too, then at the Unit / Entity selection step, i still think there'd be more for WM, but still more granularity obviously once you've made that selection and are fleshing it out with options.


What's kind of interesting is the Macro split at least is a direct effect of how Privateer goes to market (which is brilliant, btw). Every other year a book releases for each game. Then over the next 12-18 Months, those models slowly trickle out, and at month 12 or so, the next book drops for the next game. Their pipeline is literally always full, just about ensuring that they have cashflow from all their army lines year round - maybe not huge infusions, but i think a steady reliable stream is preferable than a 1 month carpet bomb when it comes to cashflow... by taking this approach they've ensured that every army is getting a couple things in every 12-18 month cycle or so, and the fans of either game never have to go too too long before getting another hit / fix. It's genius. Whoever came up with that marketing scheme, they deserve a raise for it...


... Anywho, i'm getting really off topic. I'll stop now.

One of the big things is that 40k seems to focus on a single style of play, while WMH is more about how your things interact. There's a lot more activating this unit to give this other unit something, then activating this other unit to attack this guy, then finally activating the unit I buffed two activations ago because now I killed a model blocking line of sight to a key enemy model.

List Building is a big factor though in both, but it seems to matter more in WMH where you can have such a high variety. Even a lot of the tournament lists have no "one true way" to make them; there are some common choices that you tend to always see, but the support is largely up to the individual person's taste.

Ironically my local meta is now arguing over how some WMH lists can be "unfun" to play and how we shouldn't play people who use them, because there's no fun in a tournament list that someone else designed...

Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

 Moktor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

I don't mind the idea of 'tough' as a hard as nails trooper gritting his teeth and fighting on despite the bullet in his gut is Evocative. It stops being evocative when said tough roll occurs after being punched in the face repeatedly by something like the behemoth, when clearly, said trooper should be paste.

Saving throws and Armor Saves work the same way.

And some factions have ways to remove Tough, and those are
generally fluff inspired spells and ability. For example, a few
bounty hunters have the rule Take Down where their melee
attacks ignore Tough.

Deadnight wrote:

 Moktor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

To be fair, there, the likes of epic haley, epic Skarre (especially feat), saeryn (especially feat)and epic deneghra spring to mind as 'unfun'. I don't like having whole turns where I cant do jack, where I cant respond, actively engage or participate in the game, or where my opponent tells me how to activate my army. In my mind, there should always be a work-around, or some way to respond to things. Those above examples simply say 'no' to too many things too loudly/harshly, and offer so little room for a response/answer, that I, and a lot of other players find it very hard for such things to be seen as 'fun'.

I am not going to lay the claim of 'broken' or anything, or that I can't deal with it (I can) but when mark3 rolls around, I'd like to see casters like these rejigged into better creations.

There are few things I truly dislike about WMH, but certain feats and ... dare I say it... tough, annoy me. The feat is a double-edged sword. It adds variety to the game, but it also makes it too easy to swing things unnecessarily toward one side... all based on a single ability. Rask is quickly becoming my favorite caster if for no other reason than me being able to shut down, or at least mitigate, many feats. The feat (as fun as they can be) detracts a bit from the game because of this.

As far as tough, it is getting way too common. Trolls, pirates, gators... often you even see 4+ tough rolls. It is bad enough that you can't depend on tough as the defender, but when you get somone making 12 out of 14 tough rolls... it then makes the game more reliant on luck and rolls. No fun. (Don't worry, the next turn I showed him... Hyperion crit:Consumed those stupid pirates!)

Luck will always be a factor. I am 100% behind assassination as a win. I even enjoy the crazy "everyone is broken" feel of the game, because it is typically balanced. Feats and tough, however, feel like they go a little too far by taking balance out and replacing it with luck. Less reliance on luck is always better IMO.

I don't mind the idea of 'tough' as a hard as nails trooper gritting his teeth and fighting on despite the bullet in his gut is Evocative. It stops being evocative when said tough roll occurs after being punched in the face repeatedly by something like the behemoth, when clearly, said trooper should be paste.

Its not a perfect representation of course. But it could easily be that the Behemoth just didn't get a solid hit in and only grazed him. A graze would normally be enough to kill someone, but not something that tough.

Tough also represents unnatural resilience. Like Trollbloods who can regrow entire limbs if given enough time.

malfred wrote:Saving throws and Armor Saves work the same way.
T
And some factions have ways to remove Tough, and those are
generally fluff inspired spells and ability. For example, a few
bounty hunters have the rule Take Down where their melee
attacks ignore Tough.

*nods head* agreed mostly, though I'd argue tough is more like feel no pain. Personally I feel better access to anti tough tech would be a good direction to take.

Grey Templar wrote:
Its not a perfect representation of course. But it could easily be that the Behemoth just didn't get a solid hit in and only grazed him. A graze would normally be enough to kill someone, but not something that tough.
.

Snake eyes on a damage roll, or failing to hit by 1 do this too. Plus when said trooper repeatedly passes said test?

Grey Templar wrote:
Tough also represents unnatural resilience. Like Trollbloods who can regrow entire limbs if given enough time.

I'm not convinced. 'Unnatural toughness' only goes so far. Heck, feel no pain is similar, and in 40k is ignored by weapons with a strength of double the targets toughness, or by things like ap2. Underlined a bit for emphasis. They also need vast amounts of food. Now don't get me wrong, I like tough, but I feel it is (a) over used and (b) should be ignored by some more things than there are....

Tbh I think FNP/Tough is one of the few mechanics which I think is handled better in 40k than it is in Warmachine. The issue is that in Warmachine you need very specific tech (Blood Hags etc) to ignore it, whereas in 40k simply having a powerful enough attack can bypass it. From a fluff/conceptual standpoint that makes more sense to me, a Fennblade might repeatedly shrug off POW10s, but when Imperatus on the end of a Synergy chain hits something at POW 25+ any standard infantry model would be completely gone. That said I can't think of any good way to implement a system like this without making the mechanic seriously clunky - which is one of the major advantages of Tough vs FNP (Tough is almost always on so is a much smoother mechanic than the conditional FNP). FNP also has an advantage in that it works with the normal damage system much more smoothly, its essentially just a different type of armour save. Since there are no saves on Warmachine Tough becomes a unique but generally frustrating mechanic that breaks up the normal flow of the game. I agree that the best way to work on this moving foward is to give wider access to anti Tough rules.

I would be interested to know how many people in this thread have played both 40k and Warmachine. Having played 40k for 15 odd years before moving to Warmachine its almost impossible for me to comprehend how anyone who has played both systems could compare the depth of tactics in both games. Warmachine has an incredibly well written ruleset which allows for an huge number of options, rewarding players who can think outside the box. The biggest thing for me is that you can push the game in Warmachine as hard as you want and the rules don't fall apart. In 40k the core rules can fall apart even at a casual level as soon as you try and do something slightly unusual.

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Well for one thing, there is no such thing as "Net Lists". Not in the way that its commonly held to mean in terms of 40k.

Sure, you can use a list someone else made up that did well in a tournament or something, but unless you know how to use that list properly its going to do you no good.

So yes, your meta does need a swift kick in the pants. This isn't a game for whiners. The difference between casual games and tournament games is where the game is being played, not how the game is played or how lists are constructed.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Also that list isn't a "net list" in any way possible, its a Theme Force and those basically build themselves after you've followed all the restrictions.

 Grey Templar wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

Well for one thing, there is no such thing as "Net Lists". Not in the way that its commonly held to mean in terms of 40k.

Sure, you can use a list someone else made up that did well in a tournament or something, but unless you know how to use that list properly its going to do you no good.

So yes, your meta does need a swift kick in the pants. This isn't a game for whiners. The difference between casual games and tournament games is where the game is being played, not how the game is played or how lists are constructed.

Sadly they don't see that. Most of them played 40k so have a stigma against tournament play it seems. They were all pissed at a guy for a while who had eHaley and a Stormwall because most of them would rather fiddle with their own things and play what they think looks cool but not do 50 points or 2 list pairs since they feel that's only for tournaments. I'm glad I finally got people to start using SR scenarios instead of just playing caster kill games!

It's just one of those situations I guess. They want to approach the game more casually, I want to take full advantage of the fact the game is built as a fairly balanced, competitive set of rules. Some people seem to want to play WMH as though it was 40k, basically.

50 points is where the game shines. It's the equivalent of a 2k 40k army. It allows a player to use models that enhance the army without having to go "bare bones". I suppose your group also outlawed any 40K pieces like Knights and super heavies because they didn't feel like fighting them. This isn't 40K where everything just gets thrown in to a fight. If they don't like to have eHaley effect their army then they should find a way to go around her or send in things in waves. If she was the end all be all then she would be winning every tourney. The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
50 points is where the game shines. It's the equivalent of a 2k 40k army. It allows a player to use models that enhance the army without having to go "bare bones". I suppose your group also outlawed any 40K pieces like Knights and super heavies because they didn't feel like fighting them. This isn't 40K where everything just gets thrown in to a fight. If they don't like to have eHaley effect their army then they should find a way to go around her or send in things in waves. If she was the end all be all then she would be winning every tourney. The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Exactly my argument. Nothing is unbeatable, just things can make you think and change your tactics to deal with it.

This isn't a game for whiners

The same with any other caster. PP makes you think and if you're not willing to do that then you should probably just go back to monopoly or even candyland.

Its that sort of comment that tends to be quite depressing to hear and read.............

WM/H is a very precise/technical game that some find less fulfilling - its simply not for everyone - but that doesn't make it "better" or people who don't like "Lesser".

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Your local meta needs a swift kick in the pants. What do they mean some lists can be unfun? Which ones?

Specifically net lists were called out after I said I'd like to get enough doom Reavers for Butcher2s theme force. Most of them don't know or care about tournament lists or theorycrafting on forums.

It's a theme list. They're often very exacting in their requirements so there's very little leeway for composition. Mad dogs of war is possibly the most fun you can have with butcher. It combines doomies and butcher. I run it with right squads of doomies at 50pts. This combination of elements simply cannot be improved upon. It's also extremely thematic and true to the fluff.

Plus it's hardly broken. Unbelievably fun, but far from the 'net list' of 40k as you can get. And also, it's in no way overpowered.

I do agree that eHaley with a Stormwall is not fun to play against. Not because its broken, its not, but because it basically takes away 2 of your turns.

There are ways to mitigate her feat. Its not fun for either player though. PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Really?? When did that happen.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
PP has expressed regret over eHaley's design.

Really?? When did that happen.

then why don't they FAQ it?