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.

That's something I did not know, the SR packet seems to indicate that heavy conversions are NOT allowed as 80% of the model needs to be the original model so it's recognizable.

WayneTheGame wrote:
That's something I did not know, the SR packet seems to indicate that heavy conversions are NOT allowed as 80% of the model needs to be the original model so it's recognizable.

The Steamroller packet(2015) has no such 80% stipulation. It just says that the majority of the converted model has to be from the original AND that it must be readily identifiable as the model its being used for. Weapons also have to be of the same type as the original. And anything which uses an upgrade kit specifically has to use those parts. So really, the most you could require of the original miniature is 50%, and that it subjectively looks like the original model enough so there is no confusion. All of this comes with the caveat that a TO is free to waive this requirement for any conversion they deem acceptable. If you get the TO's permission ahead of time you are free and clear, something you should do with any game, not just warmachine. This rule isn't there so TOs are required to strictly examine every converted model for adherence to the standards, its to provide a standard in case someone brings a really confusing conversion that causes problems so the TO can say "Hey, that conversion is too confusing, I'll have to disallow it" and not have to deal with a player saying "but the rules don't say I can't use X!"

The purpose of this is to prevent confusion and ambiguity. IE: People shouldn't lose a game because their opponent's pDenny didn't look like pDenny.


I have a Crusader that I converted into Fire of Salvation, with lots of free hand detailing and greenstuff flames pouring out of its mace. It isn't the proper model, but I have yet to have a TO not allow it, and never had an opponent complain about. Especially when it also has "Fire of Salvation" painted on its front arc. It doesn't follow the standard, but it causes no confusion and with TO approval the requirement is waived.

 easysauce wrote:

I would also say GW writes good rules (not perfect OBS, but they are good), perhaps WMH is better at rules (I think they are simpler, and better up kept then 40k for sure, more fun is debatable though), maybe say excellent rules even, but what is the point of a miniatures game if not the miniatures themselves?

No GW rules are not "good". Pretty much every other table top game out there surpasses GW rule writing. GW is pretty much at the bottom.

 easysauce wrote:
that being said, I have numerous 40k armies, many want to go 2nd as null deploy and progressive scoring are things in 40k. Also generally though you are able to choose to have a really important lynchpin that if you lose it early, you are done for, or to choose a list where that is not the case.

If your list has a "lynchpin" that you can't win without then it is the list-builders fault, not the games fault. Most of the games I win I am losing the piece trading battle but setting up an assassination or scenario win.

 easysauce wrote:
And while WMH might have a tighter rule set, its also less complicated (for all the good and bad that brings) it doesnt seem to take advantage of it as much as I would like, I feel like im watchin army scale rules on a squad level game, like it borrows just a little too much from 40k in some ways that dont work for it.

for example, to fix the large impact of unit trading,

You mention piece trading like it is a flaw. It's a feature and part of the game. It's actually how I play other TT games as well. It just works better in WM/H.

 easysauce wrote:
unit trading is much more pronounced at the squad level when one or two units lost almost always changes the game, and maybe its just every list I have seen, but they all have the castor lynchpin i dont think you can really build a list without them.

its not that all the games I saw lost castors first turn, its that they lost a key unit or two that first turn, and that was it, it just snowballed from there in a predictable fasion, I dont like that I as an untrained player was predicting the out come so easily...

maybe i shouldnt complain and just bet $ on the games

Well, the caster lynchpin is built into the system. Again, most people who play see it as a feature, not a flaw. I do agree that after turn 2 you can often see a definite trend as to who is "winning". But I find most games last 3-4 turns. However, unlike a lot of other TTs just killing models isn't going to win. You still need scenario points and assassination is always a fear. There are certain armies and casters specifically, that can win the game all by themselves. They can lose 1 model or all their models, but if they are in the right position they win.

 easysauce wrote:
all in all WMH looks like a good game though, glad to see the communities start to embrace the hobby aspect more

There are definitely more "gamers" than "modelers" in WM. But again, it isn't really a flaw to most. That said, there are some spectacular paint jobs and conversions that I've seen in WM/H that are on par with anything in other games. In a lot of ways I find the WMH army painting to be more creative as I can spend more time and creativity on each individual unit. You also usually only have one of each unit so you aren't painting the same thing over and over.

Well, maybe not if you are this guy... http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?16328-Cygnar-to-the-Max!!!&highlight=cygnar

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
What I like in Warmachine/Horde is the way rules were written; it's very rigorous and can be a bit "boring" to read, but they are clear and use a lot of universal keywords. Even the "special rules" usually follow the same pattern, so the whole thing can be played smoothly.

To me, the most grievous flaw of this game are its unique characters. You are forced to play with them since you can't create "your own warcaster/warlock" to lead your small force - that and the fact they usually are more powerful/interesting than their generic counterpart when they exist. Thus, all of your games look a bit silly when the Butcher 3 kills for the seventh time Haley 1.

Sure, you can say "it was not the real Haley/Butcher". Even so, it's so repetitive than after a while, you stop trying to justify it.

The issue with "create your own" is it's very hard to balance & in the competitive environment it all ends up being the same 2-3 combos. Like in warhammer fantasy against chaos I KNOW his BSB has a 1+ rerollable save & 2+ ward vs flaming, OR it has a 2+ save with a 3+ ward & rerolls 1s.

Also it doesn't have to be "killed" it could be wounded & carried off by comrades, shaken & forced to flee, captured etc. Just help spice the narrative. And there is nothing against saying "This is Vadim. His stats & abilities match Vlad but his model is converted & his name is Vadim with a new backstory"

Actually, correction: You can't do that in most tournament environments. The model has to be mostly made of the original model (80% IIRC) so it's easily recognizable as the model it is. For casual games go ahead and convert to your heart's content, but heavy conversions are not allowed in tournaments (also the reason why you cannot convert an unreleased model e.g. the Grolar and use it in a tournament).

Actually I can. Here's a direct quote from the 2015 Masters packet:

his discretion, an EO can make exceptions to
these rules to approve any reasonable conversion.

A converted model must contain a majority of parts from the
WARMACHINE or HORDES model for which the rules were
written

Majority is 50%, Event Organizer can override restriction & the restrictions is utter bs. I have custom converted models & I have just put the original, modified to look dead, as a corpse on the base and the "new" guy stole his weapons. Technically I am not breaking any rule, but even if I was the Event Organizer can just say "I'll allow it" as the conversion rules give him explicit leeway to do just that.

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

I see piece trading as the heart of any solid vs game system. For table top games it means that positioning is the most important thing.

I have played games where you win through the will of the dice gods, what you brought to the table, the will of the narrative and I think Othello beats them out on depth of strategy.

The Division Of Joy wrote:


It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

I'd love to know exactly who these people are...

I suspect I know a few of the individuals you are referring to, but not a single one of them plays at the FLGS.

Just curious.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

I actually like that suggestion!

 MWHistorian wrote:

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

For what it's worth, I always thought one of (perhaps not the biggest) flaw of WM/H was that DEF was a single stat (while MAT and RAT are separate). An elite swordsman should be significantly harder to hit with a sword than a gun.

And you know what, if you did that, it might add a new level of strategy to the game. It might be interesting to see it in a game, at least to me, and unlike what OP complains about, it doesn't require you to rebuild the whole system, but it would make some changes in a possible 3rd edition.

I actually like that suggestion!

It already exists. Some models have "duelist" which adds to their DEF in Melee (Kayazy Eliminators for example).

Yeah, or they have unbreakable. Which is additional armour in close combat.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeah, or they have unbreakable. Which is additional armour in close combat.

*Unyeilding.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It already exists. Some models have "duelist" which adds to their DEF in Melee (Kayazy Eliminators for example).

There is though, a difference between having a few select models with an extra rule and a general re work to add a stat to models. As changes go it could really be done by extending the stat bar a little. If 40k players can learn 9 stats then 8 shouldn't be too hard for WM/H players.

Most models fall into either ranged units or melee units and suffer a sort of 'middling' of their DEF stat. Elite swordsmen should have a high melee defense but average ranged defense, like 15/12. Instead we get something like 13, inaccurately representing either stat. Conversely something like gun mages (just as an example) may be excellent at avoiding incoming fire but are woefully under trained once someone gets up close to them.

Warcasters in particular could benefit. Who do you think you have better chances of landing a hit on? A Journeyman caster or The Butcher? Because as is the Butcher- master of melee- is easier to hit at range and up close.

To be fair the Butcher is pretty damn big, slow and heavily armoured.

I like the one stat, people who are good at fighting in melee actually have another rule which helps them. Stealth.

 Kojiro wrote:


There is though, a difference between having a few select models with an extra rule and a general re work to add a stat to models. As changes go it could really be done by extending the stat bar a little. If 40k players can learn 9 stats then 8 shouldn't be too hard for WM/H players.

More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

 Kojiro wrote:

Most models fall into either ranged units or melee units and suffer a sort of 'middling' of their DEF stat. Elite swordsmen should have a high melee defense but average ranged defense, like 15/12. Instead we get something like 13, inaccurately representing either stat. Conversely something like gun mages (just as an example) may be excellent at avoiding incoming fire but are woefully under trained once someone gets up close to them.

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

 Kojiro wrote:

Warcasters in particular could benefit. Who do you think you have better chances of landing a hit on? A Journeyman caster or The Butcher? Because as is the Butcher- master of melee- is easier to hit at range and up close.

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Deadnight wrote:
More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

Well that's the discussion isn't it? Yes there are rules that modify ARM and DEF but those would presumably be removed as redundant. But that's kinda my point- the game already modifies specific DEF values but only does so sporadically.

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

No of course not everyone is elite, I use them only to highlight the flaw. Of course some models will have a matching ranged and melee def but they're not the ones who are hamstrung here. Stormblades for example are supposed to be the premier swordsmen of Cygnar, yet in a straight up fight vs say, their inferior cousins the Sword Kinights the numbers are exactly even (in terms of who hits who). Nyss are stand out example- the exception, not the norm. Bear's strenght is a buff, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Buff can change anything.

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Which is why he should have a low Ranged DEF. But in melee, he's a truly frightening monster- and superbly skilled.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
More moving parts means it's easier for something to break down. There are a number of special rules in place already that allows for either armour or defense to be modified against ranged or melee attacks. Seems that an extra stat isn't needed.

Well that's the discussion isn't it? Yes there are rules that modify ARM and DEF but those would presumably be removed as redundant. But that's kinda my point- the game already modifies specific DEF values but only does so sporadically.

So you remove a bunch of rules only to replace them with a bunch of other rules that do exactly the same thing? Especially when, as you say below, a lot of units will have the same value for both melee and ranged defense. Yeah, not seeing it...

 Kojiro wrote:

Not all swordsman are elite. The ones that are get duellist. Seems fair. As for ranged units or melee units, I don't think what you say is strictly true - my Nyss hunters want a word. As do my winter guard. Bears strength is a thing,

No of course not everyone is elite, I use them only to highlight the flaw. Of course some models will have a matching ranged and melee def but they're not the ones who are hamstrung here. Stormblades for example are supposed to be the premier swordsmen of Cygnar, yet in a straight up fight vs say, their inferior cousins the Sword Kinights the numbers are exactly even (in terms of who hits who). Nyss are stand out example- the exception, not the norm. Bear's strenght is a buff, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Buff can change anything.

What makes them inferior? Storm blades are mat7, but wear incredibly heavy plate armour and a second layer of electrically insulated armour, I find it hard to believe that they can completely ignore it. Their def is fine.

Bears strength shows units can do both melee and ranged. Pigeonholing units into either ranged or melee doesn't work when units can do work in both, buffs are a part of this. We don't talk about things 'naked', we talk about things in the context of the various synergies available to them.

Furthermore, What's the point of having two separate defense stars, when most units will have identical values for both? Seems kinda pointless and excessive. There's a word for it. It's called 'bloat'. Things like duelist, defensive line, stealth and unyielding already allow for relevant units to have de facto different values against melee and ranged attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

He's seven and a half feet tall, four feet wide, and he wears a modified berserker for his warcaster armour. He's easy to hit for a reason - there's a lot of him to aim at.

Which is why he should have a low Ranged DEF. But in melee, he's a truly frightening monster- and superbly skilled.

Mat9 and terror cover the 'truly frightening monster' and 'superbly skilled' aspects. Def14 is not exactly high either for ranged attacks. Similarly in melee, he's seven and a half feet tall and four feet wide. Kinda hard to miss.

Uppn further examination I have to vote "no" on the new idea.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Uppn further examination I have to vote "no" on the new idea.

Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Deadnight wrote:

So you remove a bunch of rules only to replace them with a bunch of other rules that do exactly the same thing?

No you remove a bunch of rules and replace them with a single, elegant number.

Furthermore, What's the point of having two separate defense stars, when most units will have identical values for both?

Talk about a leading question. Clearly you and I disagree on the idea that most will have identical values.

There's a word for it. It's called 'bloat'. Things like duelist, defensive line, stealth and unyielding already allow for relevant units to have de facto different values against melee and ranged attacks

The idea here is- between editions- to remove rules that can be replicated by a simple number. Numbers are, by their nature, clearer and more precise and almost certainly less cumbersome than any written rule. I'd be very hesitant to call that bloat.

Similarly in melee, he's seven and a half feet tall and four feet wide. Kinda hard to miss.

See we've strayed here into fluff land- use Vilmon if you want. The basic idea is that the more skilled a swordsman is, the harder he will be to hit in melee. That skill however does not translate equally well to avoiding bullets. But it also goes the other way- some models might be fast, agile and difficult to shoot but be less skilled in melee combat, such as Pygs, Stonewards, Daughters or just about anything dwarven.

To put it another way, your MAT might be 2 points higher than your opponents but it doesn't make a difference when they attack you. A Stormblade officer needs a 7 to hit a Daughter of the Flame. Yet she needs a 6 to hit him! Despite the fact he is supposedly a significantly better than melee fighter than her. Two stats would allow units to have the melee defense their skill (or lack there of) demands while allowing them to have an equally appropriate ranged defense.

Of course, could be you're right, and most units would have similar stats but I don't think that's right. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

I honestly wouldn't mind RDf/MDf as separate stats in Mkiii. That said I'm fine with it as is. Either way works for me.

It doesn't over complicate things & removes the need for certain special rules. But it would need to be a complete change of models as well as a redress of point costs so likely it would only happen during an edition change.

 Kojiro wrote:

No you remove a bunch of rules and replace them with a single, elegant number.

Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

It won't be a single elegant number though. It's a single number on several hundred warcasters, warlocks, warbeasts, warjacks, units, solos etc. there is nothing elegant about it.

 Kojiro wrote:
talk about a leading question. Clearly you and I disagree on the idea that most will have identical values.

you actually said it yourself.

 Kojiro wrote:

The idea here is- between editions- to remove rules that can be replicated by a simple number. Numbers are, by their nature, clearer and more precise and almost certainly less cumbersome than any written rule. I'd be very hesitant to call that bloat.
.

As mentioned it's not a single number. It's a single number on a hell of a lot of stuff. That is replacing a handful of rules.
Thryre also a lot less flavourful and 'flat'. Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance. So if that's the case, what's wrong with the current system where a handful of rules exist that offer stat mods based on specific circumstances? In any case, I still fail to see how your system offers an improvement.

 Kojiro wrote:

See we've strayed here into fluff land- use Vilmon if you want. The basic idea is that the more skilled a swordsman is, the harder he will be to hit in melee.

There's more to melee that just mat. Your argument falls apart when a model is so damned big that you can't fail to hit. All mat9 of the butcher doesn't stop the fact that he is as large as your average horse. There is a lot of him to hit. Parrying with your sword isn't all you do to block attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

That skill however does not translate equally well to avoiding bullets. But it also goes the other way- some models might be fast, agile and difficult to shoot but be less skilled in melee combat, such as Pygs, Stonewards, Daughters or just about anything dwarven.

Fast, agile but less skilled in melee? Speed7, def 15 and mat5. Done. Agile and difficult to hit doesn't stop when someone gets close to you. If you can move fast enough that he can't get a bead on you with a rifle, you can move fast enough to dodge a sword thrust. The fact that you talk about daughters in that 'less skilled' category ruins your argument- those girls are hardcore. You can't talk about a unit with acrobatics and anatomical precision as being 'less skilled'. Or dwarves being fast agile and difficult to shoot either.

Those abilities you want to create to represent different abilities in different circumstances already exist. Defensive line, duellist, immobile, unyielding etc. and as I said already, a handful of effective rules beats everything needing a new stat.

 Kojiro wrote:

To put it another way, your MAT might be 2 points higher than your opponents but it doesn't make a difference when they attack you. A Stormblade officer needs a 7 to hit a Daughter of the Flame. Yet she needs a 6 to hit him! Despite the fact he is supposedly a significantly better than melee fighter than her. Two stats would allow units to have the melee defense their skill (or lack there of) demands while allowing them to have an equally appropriate ranged defense.

should it? Parrying with your sword isn't all you do. Best trick I learned in boxing was don't be there when the punch lands. Only thing better than having to block a punch is not having to block it at all by ducking, dodging and weaving out of the way.

Simply put, with regard to your example, Her agility > his swordsmanship. Not hard really. And he wears the heeaviest damned infantry armour cygnar generally issues out. It will affect his ability to be mobile. She doesn't. She is brutally efficient with her strikes as well as extremely athletic and nimble. Being skilled with a sword isn't the end of the story.

Like I said. Two stats is fine. But we have a system already in place where things like duelist give you precisely what your looking for, where you get bonuses to def/armour based on appropriate circumstances and you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

 Kojiro wrote:

Of course, could be you're right, and most units would have similar stats but I don't think that's right. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

You said in yourself.

Deadnight wrote:
Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

I see no reason to remove them.

It won't be a single elegant number though. It's a single number on several hundred warcasters, warlocks, warbeasts, warjacks, units, solos etc. there is nothing elegant about it.

Actually yes, it is. A single number on any given stat card is going to be clearer and simpler than any written rule. What you appear to be arguing is that the burden placed on players by adding such a number would be too great.

Now if you're changing your argument from from 'it would be bloat' to 'more numbers is too great a burden on the players' that's ok. BUT I would point out that 40k uses 9 stats and Infinity uses 8 to WM/H current 7. You can argue that 7 is better but there is clearly evidence to that more numbers is not an prohibitive burden. If 40k players can handle it I have no doubt WM/H players can.

But let's just think about this for a second. Why couldn't we just add a split stat to units requiring such a split, like Dragoons do for armour? A simple line in the rule book about to clarify it's always Ranged/Melee. There's no additional burden on a player to remember a unit has a split DEF stat than there is to recall it has a given special ability.

As mentioned it's not a single number. It's a single number on a hell of a lot of stuff. That is replacing a handful of rules.

So put the split stat on the handful of models.

Thryre also a lot less flavourful and 'flat'

So rather than having '16/14' on MK3 Kayazy you'd rather '14 with Duelist: This model gains +2 DEF against melee attack rolls '?
And I thought you were arguing against bloat.

Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance.

This just makes no sense.

So if that's the case, what's wrong with the current system where a handful of rules exist that offer stat mods based on specific circumstances? In any case, I still fail to see how your system offers an improvement.

Because a split stat- which you apply only to a handful of or models if you want- is cleaner and simpler.

There's more to melee that just mat. Your argument falls apart when a model is so damned big that you can't fail to hit. All mat9 of the butcher doesn't stop the fact that he is as large as your average horse. There is a lot of him to hit. Parrying with your sword isn't all you do to block attacks.

Ugh, it's like you're willfully ignoring the point.

Fast, agile but less skilled in melee? Speed7, def 15 and mat5. Done. Agile and difficult to hit doesn't stop when someone gets close to you.

Let's look at this shall we? Your hypothetical model hits an Knight Exemplar, Stormblade or Dawnguard- all the elite melee troops or their respective factions- on a 7 (58%). The best of their faction hit you back on 8 (41%). Two points less mat and by your own definition, less skilled in melee and it has a 17% higher hit rate.

Or dwarves being fast agile and difficult to shoot either.

Ok the dwarves were miscategorised (long post, got confuzzled). They're not fast and agile but rather slow and cumbersome. They're the other side of the argument. Skilled warriors who are slower but still able to defend themselves very well. The might be, for example, 11/13 (ranged/melee) to represent that their slower, stocky frames don't lend themselves to agility but martial prowess means they're not easy targets in a fight. But they system doesn't support this because it assumes that hitting the slow moving target with a gun is equally difficult to walking up and stabbing it.

should it? Parrying with your sword isn't all you do. Best trick I learned in boxing was don't be there when the punch lands. Only thing better than having to block a punch is not having to block it at all by ducking, dodging and weaving out of the way.

Would it be fair to say you learned to be harder to hit with a punch? Tell me, do you think you became equally harder to shoot?

Right now the system doesn't support variances in melee and ranged defensive capability well. Almost every single unit's ability to avoid getting shot is coincidentally exactly the same as it's ability to defend itself in melee. That seems a bit hokey to me.

 Kojiro wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Will it be a single number for all rolls, or will things like cover and concealment still be a thing?

I see no reason to remove them.

So, you want to replace a system whereby special rules etc affect a models relevant stats in specific circumstances with a ‘flat’ split defence system. Ok, but bear in mind, you’ve just admitted that with your system, a models relevant stats still gets affected by special rules in specific circumstances, like cover/concealment? Yeah, I’m not seeing it.

 Kojiro wrote:

Now if you're changing your argument from from 'it would be bloat' to 'more numbers is too great a burden on the players' that's ok. BUT I would point out that 40k uses 9 stats and Infinity uses 8 to WM/H current 7. You can argue that 7 is better but there is clearly evidence to that more numbers is not an prohibitive burden. If 40k players can handle it I have no doubt WM/H players can.

I don’t necessarily make a distinction between the two. Its still more stuff, and more unneeded stuff that needs to be tracked. Regarding comparisons to either 40k or infinity, I don’t think they’re valid. 40k is a bloated mess of a game, with incredibly cluttered, schitzophrenic, counter-productive and counter-intuitive rules. 9 stats is far too much, especially when you need 4 (WS, I, Attacks, Str) to resolve something like melee combat. In any case most of those 9 values in 40k are a single number - 4. Most of the rest are 3s. It's not hard to memorise. Warmachine is quite a bit more complex. Similarly, with Infinity, while it is a technically brilliant game (and my personal favourite), it rightly gets flack for the excessive complexity and poor implementation of certain aspects of it. N2 was terrible for excessive flowery language and shocking layout issues. And again, some of whats there is not needed. BTS as a stat? Could be represented just as effectively with other mechanisms. What saves Infinity as a functional game is that it is a game where an army is ten dudes. It’s a fifth or a quarter of the size of your average warmachine army. Trying to port the level of complexity you find in Infinity to larger games will quickly lead to a broken down system. Amusingly, for Infinity, despite ‘more’ stats, split defense isn’t a thing. You roll Phy for dodging against melee, and ranged attacks.

 Kojiro wrote:

But let's just think about this for a second. Why couldn't we just add a split stat to units requiring such a split, like Dragoons do for armour? A simple line in the rule book about to clarify it's always Ranged/Melee. There's no additional burden on a player to remember a unit has a split DEF stat than there is to recall it has a given special ability.

Poor examples. Split armour happens on a handful of models of a single unit type (dragoons). Why not, instead of split stats, use a generic series of ‘universal special rules’ that work across the board, and save the stat bloat when split stats must be rolled out across all models?

 Kojiro wrote:

So put the split stat on the handful of models.

You mean, like what’s already in place with USRs applying to a handful of models? You’re re-inventing the wheel to do the exact same job. Pointless.

Besides, weren’t you back pedalling and trying to say that models with the same split def would be a minority?

 Kojiro wrote:

So rather than having '16/14' on MK3 Kayazy you'd rather '14 with Duelist: This model gains +2 DEF against melee attack rolls '?
And I thought you were arguing against bloat.

I am. Duelist is one thing to keep track of, and works whether it’s on a kayazy, or anything else amongst hundreds of models in the game. With your system, There is the 14/16 on the kayazy, the 11/13 on the dwarf, the 12/13 on the long gunner, the 11/12 on the winter guardsmen etc. and then every other warcaster, warlock, warbeast, warjack, solo and unit. It’s a massive amount of needless work for developers, playtesters, and players.

Removing bloat for me is taking things like rapid strike, backswing and cleave and combining thrm into a generic 'you get two attacks with your weapon' rule.

 Kojiro wrote:

Thry will still probably be modified by things like cover and concealment, so despite the addition of an extra 'ahem' elegant number, you are still left with things that modify stats based on circumstance.
This just makes no sense.

See first point. Current rules that modify stats based on circumstances require a trigger. Unyielding works in the specific circumstances of that model being engaged. Defensive line works when in base to base. Duellist works against melee attacks. Specific circumstances.

You’re attempting to replace a limited set of universal rules which are affected by circumstance-based bonuses/penalties with a unique extra stat for hundreds of models, which is nevertheless still affected by circumstance based bonuses/penalties. If you can’t get away from it, why not just use the system as it is, which is both functional and effective?

 Kojiro wrote:

Because a split stat- which you apply only to a handful of or models if you want- is cleaner and simpler.

Only until other things get factored into the equation. And again, there is no real benefit to a split stat as compared to a set of USRs which accomplish the same goal. Plus, weren't you saying earlier thst having the same value for both def's would be a minority?

It's definately simpler (though not easier) but it's also bland. Those usr's add a certain amount of flavour that a number in a statlines never will.

 Kojiro wrote:

Ugh, it's like you're willfully ignoring the point.

And that you lack reading comprehension.

 Kojiro wrote:

Let's look at this shall we? Your hypothetical model hits an Knight Exemplar, Stormblade or Dawnguard- all the elite melee troops or their respective factions- on a 7 (58%). The best of their faction hit you back on 8 (41%). Two points less mat and by your own definition, less skilled in melee and it has a 17% higher hit rate.

Those knights are all wearing frickin plate armour! Of course they’re easier to hit! Christ, its not rocket surgery. Plate armour and nimbleness generally don't go together. Put my dude and your elite warriors against a nimble and agile kayazy eliminator, and it’s a different story.

 Kojiro wrote:

Ok the dwarves were miscategorised (long post, got confuzzled). They're not fast and agile but rather slow and cumbersome. They're the other side of the argument. Skilled warriors who are slower but still able to defend themselves very well. The might be, for example, 11/13 (ranged/melee) to represent that their slower, stocky frames don't lend themselves to agility but martial prowess means they're not easy targets in a fight. But they system doesn't support this because it assumes that hitting the slow moving target with a gun is equally difficult to walking up and stabbing it.

One could argue that being a smaller target at range means they’re harder to hit as well, and that the ‘height issue’ would counter a lot of the ‘natural martial prowess’. Martial prowess isn’t the end of the story. Agility, perception, initiative – they’re all just as crucial to your ability to defend, and they work against threats that are close and far away. Being slower directly affects being able to defend yourself really well.

And why are targets at range 'slow moving'? Assumptions, and all that...

 Kojiro wrote:

Would it be fair to say you learned to be harder to hit with a punch? Tell me, do you think you became equally harder to shoot?

Im a poor example – im def7 against both. I wouldn’t fancy my chances either shooting or stabbing the likes of a charging bruce lee on a battlefield with twelve foot tall werewolves and hundreds of bullets zipping around and explosions and body parts flying everywhere. Especially with a single shot breech loading rifle with appalling range, power and rate of fire.

Then again, great reflexes and agility goes a long way against both. Especially at the ranges warmachine plays at. You can't move faster than bullets, but you can move faster than the guy who is trying to aim at you.

 Kojiro wrote:

Right now the system doesn't support variances in melee and ranged defensive capability well. Almost every single unit's ability to avoid getting shot is coincidentally exactly the same as it's ability to defend itself in melee. That seems a bit hokey to me.

Except where it’s not. You know, when modified by appropriate special rules like duellist, unyielding, force barrier, defensive line, stealth etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:


It's just (and this is my local meta, YMMV) it seems to attract the super-competitive, won't buy a model till he's googled the best list, crush noobs and gloat types. There are exceptions, but you want a game you can play a variety of armies. The amount of times I was told 'the rulebook says you have to be as competitive as possible'.

I'd love to know exactly who these people are...

I suspect I know a few of the individuals you are referring to, but not a single one of them plays at the FLGS.

Just curious.

None play at the FLGS. That's why I play there and not at the local club.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

The only hard no-no is using another companies intellectual property / copyrighted material. Such as converting all of my Man-O-War units into 40k Terminators and using 40k iconography.

Even this restriction only applies to PP sponsored events that are recorded for streaming. The average player will likely never encounter this.

Actually the 2015 packet includes it for the rules for all Steamrollers, not just the ones run specifically by PP, and the first instance of them enforcing an early version of it was when their head TO arbitrarily banned all models with GW parts at Adepticon, an event they weren't streaming. It is a really stupid rule and I've yet to see any TO outside their own enforce it. You're welcome for it by the way.