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.

Da Boss wrote:But metal was a strange choice for PP at first, because their huge heavy miniature designs really don't do well in metal.

I can proudly say that I successfully bridged The Khador Gap twice back in MK1, when I built two marauders for Vlad1 ... then never played the game and eventually sold those hunks of metal and putty and pins to my brother or a clubmate or something Another highlight of my hobby career was sculpting the butt cleavage on a trollkin blitzer, as the old metal model had a huge gap where back met belt. That model I've held onto tho, and vastly prefer the sculpt to the boring plastic multi-kit that replaced it (same goes for all of the troll beasts).

Apologist wrote:

Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

Yeah, I think that might be a good approach to solve a couple of problems – keep the current WM as the Warcaster-focussed, high-intensity game it is, and release a 'lighter' version version that allows for larger games; perhaps themed around the larger, non-Warcaster, battles that are mentioned in the background.

I'm distinctly reminded of The Other Side, the larger army version of Malifaux. Which I was immensely excited about, as MFX hurts my head and I like army games over skirmish ones, and KSed hundreds into ... for it to utterly bomb on the market, AFAIK. I don't really know the story there, but my local stores were burned repeatedly by Wyrd and locals (including me) had moved on from MFX in general. Seems like a familiar plot ...

Polonius wrote:Warmachine is actually a really great game for competitive play, because the combos are so deep, and the mechanics allow for a lot of rich options. The problem, as Lunar Sol alluded to, is that once you learn all the ways a unit can be used, you can't just "unlearn" that. I played Cyngar in MkII, not at a super high level, but I could win a few steam roller matches. Even a basic unit like Gun Mages have a ton of tricks, that once you learn, you can't really unlearn. Usually when we talk about casual play, we mean that players are either learning the game, or playing mostly subconsciously, using muscle memory. 40k is a great game to play casually, because there's enough luck built in, and if you play a maelstrom or other scenario which favors reacting, the game comes down to who adapts better. In Warmachine, a slightly better player can play casually while the slightly worse player gives it his all, and the worse player would still likely lose. It's just a game that really, really rewards player skill.

Maybe the first mind-blowing difference for me when I started playing WMH was that you could target your own dudes. This was like a fundamental shift from years of GW games (and one shared by MFX, the other intensely deep game I've played), and helped me understand the lateral thinking the game rewarded, as opposed to the pretty straight forward application or resistance of force that 40k is built on. It was also made clear to me when I started that if I didn't want to be caught out constantly by other armies' tricks, then I'd need to do my research or be prepared to take a hit and adapt on the fly - obviously the answer was a bit of both. It seems clear that this learning curve has been interpreted as a failing of the game, and I suppose ease of access was never a thing WMH advertised back when it told us to play like we've got a pair

Also, for me 'casual play' means less optimized armies more than anything. But that's coming from a viewpoint that army comp / the meta are a huge part of game performance, which might be rather GW-centric of me, although all the complaining I hear about clockatrice spam or the hermit's preeminence makes me think it's very much an MK3 boogeyman as well.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Maybe the first mind-blowing difference for me when I started playing WMH was that you could target your own dudes. This was like a fundamental shift from years of GW games (and one shared by MFX, the other intensely deep game I've played), and helped me understand the lateral thinking the game rewarded, as opposed to the pretty straight forward application or resistance of force that 40k is built on. It was also made clear to me when I started that if I didn't want to be caught out constantly by other armies' tricks, then I'd need to do my research or be prepared to take a hit and adapt on the fly - obviously the answer was a bit of both. It seems clear that this learning curve has been interpreted as a failing of the game, and I suppose ease of access was never a thing WMH advertised back when it told us to play like we've got a pair

I don't think the learning curve is a failing, it's part of what makes the game so rewarding. It just makes the game very much a game of skill, closer to Chess than to 40k, which has plenty of skill, but a lot comes down to terrain and dice as well.

Also, for me 'casual play' means less optimized armies more than anything. But that's coming from a viewpoint that army comp / the meta are a huge part of game performance, which might be rather GW-centric of me, although all the complaining I hear about clockatrice spam or the hermit's preeminence makes me think it's very much an MK3 boogeyman as well.

See, I view casual as that, but also the idea of how hard each player is trying. Look at the NBA all-star game: the best shooters still score tons of points, because no matter how little you're trying, your body knows how to shoot with a sweet stroke. Defense goes out the window, because that's very effort dependent. A really skilled WMH player could crush a middling player without any thought, simply because they know the game and it's techniques so well.

I collected trollbloods before getting into 40k that I even fully painted, but I only played a few games with them. I love the fact that every thing has a base and a set height that makes line of sight and measuring range a breeze, something that 40k really needs ( I hate people clamming line of sight to my models because they see the tip of the flag I added to it). I only stopped because of the lack of players.

Polonius wrote:I don't think the learning curve is a failing, it's part of what makes the game so rewarding.

FWIW I don't either, I expect to take my licks when starting a new game, I was more commenting on what I hear people saying are reasons WMH bad.

Jimbobbyish wrote:I love the fact that every thing has a base and a set height that makes line of sight and measuring range a breeze, something that 40k really needs ( I hate people clamming line of sight to my models because they see the tip of the flag I added to it).

Personally, I find the minigames with strong levels of abstraction are also the best (WMH, KOW, etc.), both when it comes to hobbying and actually playing them ...

I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

I would say the same.

If people talk about just the battle box intros in a vacuum, then sure, that is a good way to learn... except that it's not a good representation of how the game is played by most dedicated warmachine groups.

With this addition of Streamroller, various meta altering things for the tournament scene, and constant balance updates means most players just hit and bounce right off the step up to 50 points, let alone the de facto standard of 75. Even the army composition changes at its core, going from a game where you thought was a manageable few warjacks/beasts to a giant mass battle that's somehow using skirmish rules.

So still a failure.

 Vertrucio wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

I would say the same.

If people talk about just the battle box intros in a vacuum, then sure, that is a good way to learn... except that it's not a good representation of how the game is played by most dedicated warmachine groups.

With this addition of Streamroller, various meta altering things for the tournament scene, and constant balance updates means most players just hit and bounce right off the step up to 50 points, let alone the de facto standard of 75. Even the army composition changes at its core, going from a game where you thought was a manageable few warjacks/beasts to a giant mass battle that's somehow using skirmish rules.

So still a failure.

Yeah, the last time we tried a JML here locally it died after the first couple runs, as far as I could tell. Luckily, I was able to scare up a few 25 point games a few months back. While I have collected for a long time, I've never had much game time. It gets really bad when the "We only play Steamroller" crowd is out in force.

this directly relates to a post I made in another forum about building social gaming communities when games are more or less popular but have the possibility of turning off new players because of the attitudes of the players already in the hobby-


As a war game there is always a competitive part of the game. somebody has to win and somebody has to loose. however it is also social activity. I don't go to the shop with all the minis I have taken to time to build and carefully paint to play a game I don't get enjoyment out of. if I didn't want to enjoy it as such I could just stay home and play videogames online instead.

I actually do not enjoy games where I just steamroll my opponent. even being on the winning side it isn't fun, there is no risk, there is no challenge, there is no mutual enjoyment. the game needs to give both players the opportunity to win under a clear rules set and a proper player attitude towards the game. it is one of the reasons why I avoid the tournament like scenes as I find it brings out the worst kind of players or the worst attitudes in people that are detrimental to the community.

On the topic of caster kill, the one place where Steamroller shines is that it makes caster kill less relevant, you can (or at least could - Im out of the loop a few years, not sure if they changed it) kill your opponents caster and still lose the game on scenario because your opponent scored more points from objectives before you offed them. It made for an interesting dynamic where it wasn't enough to just kill your opponents caster, you had a window of opportunity you needed to do it in.

The tournament competitive players flocked to WM/H for that very reason and the casuals avoided it like the plague for that very reason.

In the days of Mk1 and the early days of Mk2, this was not the case. It wasn't really until mid/late 5th/early 6th of 40k that the WMHDs community took a hard bend towards being pure Steamroller. Up until then I was able to enjoy WMHDs casually with my group, after that, the casual players all became tourney players or quit the game.

This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players.

I disagree, but I think PP is trying to have their cake and eat it too - they are trying to woo casuals back into the game (the Oblivion campaign book is proof of this) without alienating the established competitive player base. I understand *why* they are doing it, because the competitive player base is the only thing keeping them in business, but I don't think its possible for them to bring in a casual community while the competitive community remains so firmly entrenched - basically they need to piss off some existing players and take a risk if they want to have a chance at bringing in new blood. Pretty much, I don't think PP can have a casual community unless they rework steamroller to be a slightly more "narrative" type experience that feels more casual in its playstyle, if not outright kill steamroller entirely. While steamroller continues to exist it will be the soup-du-jour of the community which repels any casual-minded players, and theres no getting around that.

I'll tell my Battletech group that they are playing the game wrong because they are playing too casually.

Agreeing with this statement, I think Polonius has the wrong of it when he says mechanic/info heavy is what makes WMHDs a competitive game. Historically, when you look at the super-crunchy mechanically complex wargames like Battletech, Starfleet Battles, Battlegroup Kursk & co, Mustangs & Messerschmitts, Chef de bataillon, etc. you find that they are basically *only* played casually because they are too complex and take too long to play for competitive play to really work. Warmachine/Hordes is actually a fairly simple and streamlined game, it falls into the category of "easy to learn, difficult to master" (unlike the other games which I listed which are "difficult to learn, impossible to master") and *that* is what makes WMHDs a competitively popular ruleset.

I would personally like a version of the game that runs on d12’s instead of 2d6 as the primary. I wish it was quicker, and allowed multiple simultaneous attacks.

1d12 is not the same as 2d6 - those are two entirely different wholly incomparable probability distributions - 1d12 has more in common with 1d6 than it does with 2d6, at that point you really might as well just be playing with 1d6 instead. Warmachine as a game *is* a 2d6 probability curve, if you replace it with 1d12 then you've created a completely different game.

Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

Then play a different game - thats not what this is. You're basically saying "I want to play Chess, but I want it to be more like Risk". Just play Risk and let Chess be Chess.

Yeah, I think that might be a good approach to solve a couple of problems – keep the current WM as the Warcaster-focussed, high-intensity game it is, and release a 'lighter' version version that allows for larger games; perhaps themed around the larger, non-Warcaster, battles that are mentioned in the background.

They already did that. Its called Unbound. Nobody played it, because it wasn't Steamroller.

I'm distinctly reminded of The Other Side, the larger army version of Malifaux. Which I was immensely excited about, as MFX hurts my head and I like army games over skirmish ones, and KSed hundreds into ... for it to utterly bomb on the market, AFAIK. I don't really know the story there, but my local stores were burned repeatedly by Wyrd and locals (including me) had moved on from MFX in general. Seems like a familiar plot ...

Basically long story short, the demand for the game wasn't actually there in the first place (Wyrd struggled to attract backers to the Kickstarter and unlocked only a fraction of the stretch goals they expected to, even after realigning the stretch goals to make them easier to reach and provide better content/value return to backers). Most of the market demand for the game was filled during the kickstarter itself, leaving retailers post-Kickstarter very little opportunity to sell more product as everyone that was interested in the game already had it. Worse still though, was that the market shifted in the time between Kickstarting the game and delivering it, so by the time people got it they were no longer really interested in it as a lot of people had moved on from Malifaux and similar games with the resurgence of 40k and AoS 2nd edition.

I think somebody’s got their poopedy-pants on.

I’m aware of the probability curve difference between d12 and 2d6. Did you know it also introduces the possibility of rolling a 1 !?! I’d accept spikier results for quicker gameplay. It tends to balance anyhow. Low Def, High Armour is more likely to be missed, and more likely to be damaged by a hit. High Def, low Arm is more likely to be hit, and more likely to have 0 damage after being hit. The “inverse” nature of Def and Arm for most units neutralizes the individual probability changes.

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

Other people may like that, but given the “dying” concerns many have about WMH, it may be a concern others have, especially newcomers, that could be lessened by a game system more suited to the number of models and interactions on the table.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Agreeing with this statement, I think Polonius has the wrong of it when he says mechanic/info heavy is what makes WMHDs a competitive game. Historically, when you look at the super-crunchy mechanically complex wargames like Battletech, Starfleet Battles, Battlegroup Kursk & co, Mustangs & Messerschmitts, Chef de bataillon, etc. you find that they are basically *only* played casually because they are too complex and take too long to play for competitive play to really work. Warmachine/Hordes is actually a fairly simple and streamlined game, it falls into the category of "easy to learn, difficult to master" (unlike the other games which I listed which are "difficult to learn, impossible to master") and *that* is what makes WMHDs a competitively popular ruleset

Yeah, I think I used the term "casually" too, well, casually. I meant that it's tough to be play WMH at a low level of effort, or while distracted, unless the two players have very similar skill levels. Or maybe it's just that way for me. Obviously more complex, simulation style games are only played to see what happens, with no expectation of coin flip level balance.

Some of that comes down to how you approach the game. There was a whole era of "clean play" that's great, even vital for tournaments, but for most people the harshness of charge lanes and activation order make a punishing game more punishing than it needs to be. Personally, I'd be happy to see units be able to move through other members of the same unit as a general rule. I think things like that are the kind of things that make the game challenging to play without necessarily adding a lot of strategic value.

 greatbigtree wrote:

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

You're entitled to your opinion, but this is just wrong. The reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because of the normal distribution that results from using 2d6 - luck is a significantly reduced factor as a result as you have a weighed likelihood of making your rolls, and knowing how to mitigate the remaining luck (via boosting, etc) is a key aspect of gameplay. Another major reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because it emphasizes maneuver over attrition, the games tactical depth is reliant upon the precision of movement (and measurement in general). You're basically asking fo WMHDs to be a game other than WMHDs - at that point just go play something else (like, say, 40k - since that seems to be the exact thing you're looking for) and let Warmachine be Warmachine.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

You're entitled to your opinion, but this is just wrong. The reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because of the normal distribution that results from using 2d6 - luck is a significantly reduced factor as a result as you have a weighed likelihood of making your rolls, and knowing how to mitigate the remaining luck (via boosting, etc) is a key aspect of gameplay. Another major reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because it emphasizes maneuver over attrition, the games tactical depth is reliant upon the precision of movement (and measurement in general). You're basically asking fo WMHDs to be a game other than WMHDs - at that point just go play something else (like, say, 40k - since that seems to be the exact thing you're looking for) and let Warmachine be Warmachine.

The problem is Warmachine being Warmachine got it in this problem in the first place. The "Highly Tactical Measurements and Placing" really scares away new players.
The game needs to change significantly to remain competitive. It needs to be easy to pick up, play and then enjoy
Warmachine thrived when it was the game people picked up to play on the side cause it was easy to understand. But now with Bloat of the line and GW stepping up their side game rules......it aint competing.
It needs to go down in scale, Caster, Warjacks, unit and a solo or two. It needs to be a simplier game to pick up both from a rules perspective and model perspecting.

You can't really talk about tactical when the game is blobs at 75 points mashing into each other, but still rolling individually.

Warmachine was tactical, now it's mass battle that's trying to pretend to be small, but still get all the sales benefits of being big.

A big example was for a while, WM was over reliant on a wide variety of rulers and measuring devices placed all over to simulate moves. They literally had to curtail that with rules limiting things to one measuring device.

Honestly, part of the reason why newer players don't stick around is the slog that games become to be that tacticool.

I'd love for the original Warmachine rules to stay as they are, but focus back on 50 points and lower skirmish. 75 or above become a new game more suited to that. Best of both worlds similar to how GW is handling and being successful at doing.

Instead of that, PP focuses in on random minis in crates instead of updating their lines.

Yeah, I would say that’s my point. It’s not easy to get into the game in its current state. The micro-measuring and wombo-combos are not fun to play into. And yeah, it’s a rough learning curve but the sharpest part is being 1/16 of an inch outside of range, or putting yourself 1/16 of an inch inside somebody’s wombo-combo 20” surprise assassination.

And speeding up combat is needed at 75 points. Rolling out 1 unit’s worth of ranged attacks, after lining up each model’s micro-measured individual LOS, and rolling the back guys first so your front guys are in range... and then losing out on one shot for the 1/16” range... it’s not tactical, just taxing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I would say that’s my point. It’s not easy to get into the game in its current state. The micro-measuring and wombo-combos are not fun to play into. And yeah, it’s a rough learning curve but the sharpest part is being 1/16 of an inch outside of range, or putting yourself 1/16 of an inch inside somebody’s wombo-combo 20” surprise assassination.

And speeding up combat is needed at 75 points. Rolling out 1 unit’s worth of ranged attacks, after lining up each model’s micro-measured individual LOS, and rolling the back guys first so your front guys are in range... and then losing out on one shot for the 1/16” range... it’s not tactical, just taxing.

I fully agree with this, but I also think this is only one part of the problem.

This all also feeds into the 'burden of knowledge' required to play the game. There is so much to know and so much going on and so many combos to keep track of that the on-the-go-bookkeeping is similarly extreme. All of that feeds into a not-so-fun experience in my opinion.

I feel WMH is in warhammer fantasy battle territory. It's an old tired game that has become bloated, working on old tired mechanics, and is a game that is unattractive to start, or continue playing. And that has lost a lot of players, and they cannot attract new players or replace those that leave. Those People that still play have their stuff already and are not regally buying.

Pp could attempt to fix/change the rules and try to make a 'great' game for the dozens that still play, but is it worth it? Those folks will just keep playing with what they have. What pp face is gw's dilemma. What sells in this industry is 'new' stuff. Hence the 'wave' release nature of our hobby. The back catalogue isn't worth a huge amount - it's essentially dead weight, Bar a handful of things. Gw said as much of their stuff during the chapter house case. Hence pp not really bothering with the older factions any more. Those mines have been mined out. All they can do Is sell 'new' stuff. Hence order of the golden crucible last year, and infernals this year. But the game is already bloated, you can't only add so much more weight in terms of factions. The game has only so much design space and only so many ways in which the game can be 'changed'. This is what gw faced. An old game, tired mechanics, disinterest in the community at large, only limited changes they could make and only limited things that could be added and arguably, for a negligible return on investment of resources. There comes a point where you have to burn it all to the ground and start again. Their decision was to see off the old world in a blaze of glory and bring in Aos, which after a few years is thriving, not to reboot the game as it was. Did it annoy a lot of the older fans. Yes. But gw was ok with this. from gw's perspective they weren't buying anyway. From a business POV they were not losing anything by taking wfb out back. Investing in those players who were not buying, and this old game that was not selling simply wasn't worth the return. they made a ruthless business-focused decision not to try and draw them (or rather, to cut them out!) in with the game they were invested in, and try and build a new game for a new market, and bring in and develop a fresh community that would buy into a new ip. It was ruthless, but from a purely business perspective, they were not necessarily wrong. In the long term, I cannot fault them.

Pp are in exactly the same position. The parallels are very interesting.

essentially have to sell 'new' stuff. All of the WMH back catalogue is irrelevant. Forget about it. Hence monpoc. Hence riotquest. Hence neo-mechanika. They're probsbly viewing WMH as something to maintain, and feed with limited releases, but to hold big projects and big development while the other ips and communities/sales are developed. And then they'll turn from maintenance to archive.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

The issue is biggest for people like me who might get like 2-3 game a month plus occasional tournament once in a while. I remember late mk1, early mk2 after playing like a year it was still running into yet another new combo I had never ran into before that gave opponent easy caster kill.

Then came new stuff...I couldn't learn all the combo's fast enough to keep up with new ones let alone catch up with old ones.

Felt like unless I can play several games a week it's going to be hopeless.

Well Warmachine was marketed at the more "professional gamer" that took their game very seriously, at least back in the Mk1 and earlier Mk2 days (page 5 page 5 page 5!!!!) before I got out of it, so that makes sense.

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

The issue is biggest for people like me who might get like 2-3 game a month plus occasional tournament once in a while. I remember late mk1, early mk2 after playing like a year it was still running into yet another new combo I had never ran into before that gave opponent easy caster kill.

Then came new stuff...I couldn't learn all the combo's fast enough to keep up with new ones let alone catch up with old ones.

Felt like unless I can play several games a week it's going to be hopeless.

You know, you are not wrong.

I remember when i played, and I was decent, and could have been good (even took a few scalps of folks who went on to win nationals :p) but I definitely noticed the same thing.

Warmachine was intense. You really had to put effort into it, and play a lot of games, both to get good and to stay good. There was always something new, or a here to unknown combo. It was extremely exciting and rewarding, if you were into that kind of thing. There was a time when I absolutely loved it.

Thing is, it took time. To be that good, you had to be playing several games a week, and at least every other day.

So when I started seeing the lady who is now my wife, when I started hitting the pavement and training for marathons, or hitting the gym, or getting serious about weights, or holidays or kids or whatever. Warmachine for me took a backseat. Looking back, probsbly around the time colossals came out.

And to be fair, when you were current, stating current was a tough slog. When you stepped back, it just got harder and harder. For me, i stepped back enough that when i came back a year or two after, it just wasn't the same. The burden of knowledge had increased significantly to the point where I saw it as an obstacle. And I just wasn't interested in investing that amount of time just to get up to par, if I was lucky! I can only imagine how you felt from your perspective.

You know what's interesting, 40K and Fantasy Battles were equally rule-intensive, yet most units only had 1 or 2 unique rules at most, with anything else being rather universal. While some rules in WMH are rather wide spread (Grevious Wounds as an example), there are a lot of completely unique rules that run around, and pure unit count can be quite intimidating from the outset.

However, both 40K and AoS have more factions over all, even if most have fewer models to work with individually.

To me, it's the stacking of abilities. I'm rather rusty, but let's say I'm playing Ret, and I want to send a Heavy Jack into someone else. I want to buff it twice with an Arcanist (both buffs?) then put a de-buff on my target (Let's say, Helena) plus I want to put a buff on that Jack, and then remember to load it up with focus, but attack the target a couple of times with dudes that can pull the target 2" closer so I can save the focus for a charge and instead take an extra attack, but also keep a clean path, and also don't block the other duders that are needing to shoot...

Do I need to feat? Is the target immune to Pushing? Should my Manticore spend focus to increase power, or take an extra attack? Should I use my initial attack as a combined attack for bonus damage at a loss of an attack?


That's what I can recall from a single "decision" made a year ago, on whether or not to charge. That was even before calculating worst-case damage.

There is just too much going on in what should be simple decisions. It's too daunting for casual players running into "professionals".

 greatbigtree wrote:
To me, it's the stacking of abilities. I'm rather rusty, but let's say I'm playing Ret, and I want to send a Heavy Jack into someone else. I want to buff it twice with an Arcanist (both buffs?) then put a de-buff on my target (Let's say, Helena) plus I want to put a buff on that Jack, and then remember to load it up with focus, but attack the target a couple of times with dudes that can pull the target 2" closer so I can save the focus for a charge and instead take an extra attack, but also keep a clean path, and also don't block the other duders that are needing to shoot...

Do I need to feat? Is the target immune to Pushing? Should my Manticore spend focus to increase power, or take an extra attack? Should I use my initial attack as a combined attack for bonus damage at a loss of an attack?


That's what I can recall from a single "decision" made a year ago, on whether or not to charge. That was even before calculating worst-case damage.

There is just too much going on in what should be simple decisions. It's too daunting for casual players running into "professionals".

I rather disagree. The only time that comes in to issue when compared to 40K or AoS, asides from being new, is when you start building up the scale to competitive levels.

Think about how many units either Warhammers field, and compare against how many units WMH fields. Then look at the number of Monsters and Vehicles the Warhammers field, then look at the the number of Jacks, Beasts, and Battle Engines they field. Then, probably the most key point out of this, how many individual Infantry and Cavalry models the average list has between Warhammers and WarmaHordes. Most of those buffs and interactions are supplied by those sole models (though there are a few buffing units out there like the Beast Handlers and Choir).

Next sense of scale to consider is that the Warhammers are designed for unit interactions while WMH is designed around model interactions. A horde of models in WMH usually only tallies in at around 40 models, with smaller numbers as you go more elite. That is around what you're looking at as the minimum for most of the elite armies in Warhammer (aside from the Knights). Yet the games take just as long. A game of 100 models in WMH is the equivalent of Apocalypse because of that scale of interaction. Warhammer games would be unwieldy if you had to operate every interaction on a model by model basis. Unfortunately,, because you have to have a pair in order to do most WMH interactions, there is almost no way to reduce it to WMH scale without really cheapening the whole set up. That level of interaction is what causes you to consider those challenges you talk about and multiply out as you approach the competitive point level, which isn't as bad at the lower Requisition levels.

I have to flat out disagree with your assertion.

I’m describing a “single” decision about charging one model (40k unit) into another model (40k unit).

Like, If I were to charge a Dreadnought into another Dreadnought in 40k. How many actions / active decisions do I make? There are aura buffs... but that’s not a decision. I have Chapter Traits, but again, not a decision. I’ve already shot my ranged weapons, so don’t need to worry about order of activation. There is *almost certainly* not anything remotely in my way of charging.

Hypothetically, I *might* have cast a buffing psychic power in the psychic phase, and I might have had a Mechanic repair a couple of wounds.

But in the decision of whether or not to charge, there’s not a lot to factor. Arguably, too little to factor... will I roll enough distance? Is again not even that much of a decision other than odds of making it.

For me, the WMH scenario has a lot of micromanaging going into me smashing my big robot into your big robot.
1: Focus Allocation to Jacks / Hellena
2: Coordinating order of activation - 2 Arcanists to provide buffs
3: Order of activation - Move Hellena within range, while attempting counter- charges against her (good game design)
4: Hellena to cast debuff on target
5: Have Hellena attack and *choose* to push model closer, instead of damaging
6: Have Hellena cast buff spell on Manticore.
7: Manticore is within “walk-in” range. Decide not to charge, to conserve Focus for more attacks. Move into attack range, micro-managing to avoid being attacked and not block LOS from other units on my team.
8: Decide whether 4 attacks with bonus damage is better than 5 attacks without.
9: Decide if 1 initial attack with bonus damage is better than 2 initial attacks without.
10: Should I use power attacks? Headbutts? Slam? I don’t even remember what those do!
11: Roll each attack separately, discarding the lowest die for the buff, randomly allocate damage location... did I immobilize you? If so your Def drops to 5, right?
12: Basically auto-hit now that you’re immobilized, probably destroy your Jack with remaining attacks.
13: Use Rythym of War buff to move 3” back to clear lanes for other units to do their thing.

Vs:

1: Librarian casts Spell of Doom on Dreadnought.

2: Techpriest is nearby, so repairs a point of damage.

3: Dreadnought moves and shoots target, target survives.

4: roll 2d6, hopefully be within range to charge.


I mean, I’m on the 40k is too shallow for its own good train. But 13 *active* decisions being made, one of which is the crucial focus allocation to, for all intents and purposes, charge one Dreadnought into another.

WMH isn’t more tactical because I take Arcanists whose only job is to buff jacks. I could pay 1 more point per Jack and just have better stats... my tactical options are the he same. Casting a debuff on a target, and a buff on the attacker (2 spells) is no more tactically brilliant than a single spell that could be just as effective.

The notion of micromanaging the Manticore’s initial attack as either one combined attack or 2 individual attacks is a triviality. There are so few situations where the combined attack was *mathematically* better, to a minor degree, that it was usually a waste of time to consider. Using a focus for more damage but 1 less attack generally came down to whether or not the Manticore had a full 3 focus. Even then, the average outcomes were often close enough that using the special ability was often a hindrance.

40k has too few meaningful decisions.

WMH has too many “trap” decisions. I love that there are many meaningful decisions, but dislike that minutiae can so easily cost a game. When a decision isn’t tactical, it’s just burdensome. Gotcha! Isn’t great play, it’s just Gotcha!

If I suddenly put a blindfold on my opponent, and kept playing the game, would it really be a victory? Surprise! You didn’t see me move my whole army into assassination range while your weren’t able to see, now I charge with everything. Gotcha! That’s something that I think is strongly pushing me out of WMH. I love the game, but there’s too much for me to know in my available time to commit to playing.

Warhammer also has very few situations where you can be doing fine then suddenly lose. Warmahordes you could be playing a great game, accidentally leave a model a few inches out of place, then suddenly blam-caster kill-auto lose. The only comparable element would be a double turn in AoS.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I have to flat out disagree with your assertion.

Probably because you don't understand what I'm saying. The level new players are to be operating at will not have the resources to go through all those numbers of models for those decisions. It's only if you're going through at 50 points or above that you will even have the capacity to really put all that in to one decision.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Like, If I were to charge a Dreadnought into another Dreadnought in 40k. How many actions / active decisions do I make? There are aura buffs... but that’s not a decision. I have Chapter Traits, but again, not a decision. I’ve already shot my ranged weapons, so don’t need to worry about order of activation. There is *almost certainly* not anything remotely in my way of charging.

Those aura buffs are part of an earlier decisions, such as model placement, but even then, there are not very models in a Warhammer army capable of even providing those buffs as opposed to WMH where solos are set up to buff/debuff or be a hammer.

This illustrates my point:

 greatbigtree wrote:
For me, the WMH scenario has a lot of micromanaging going into me smashing my big robot into your big robot.
1: Focus Allocation to Jacks / Hellena
2: Coordinating order of activation - 2 Arcanists to provide buffs
3: Order of activation - Move Hellena within range, while attempting counter- charges against her (good game design)
4: Hellena to cast debuff on target
5: Have Hellena attack and *choose* to push model closer, instead of damaging
6: Have Hellena cast buff spell on Manticore.
7: Manticore is within “walk-in” range. Decide not to charge, to conserve Focus for more attacks. Move into attack range, micro-managing to avoid being attacked and not block LOS from other units on my team.
8: Decide whether 4 attacks with bonus damage is better than 5 attacks without.
9: Decide if 1 initial attack with bonus damage is better than 2 initial attacks without.
10: Should I use power attacks? Headbutts? Slam? I don’t even remember what those do!
11: Roll each attack separately, discarding the lowest die for the buff, randomly allocate damage location... did I immobilize you? If so your Def drops to 5, right?
12: Basically auto-hit now that you’re immobilized, probably destroy your Jack with remaining attacks.
13: Use Rythym of War buff to move 3” back to clear lanes for other units to do their thing.

Vs:

1: Librarian casts Spell of Doom on Dreadnought.

2: Techpriest is nearby, so repairs a point of damage.

3: Dreadnought moves and shoots target, target survives.

4: roll 2d6, hopefully be within range to charge.

And that is part of the scales of which I'm talking about. How many of those steps are you going to take in a Battlebox game? 15 points? 25? There is a reason why JMLs are set up to grow up. Oddly enough, that ramp up of complexity doesn't exist in Warhammer that much, but you can be drowned by the number of models in to a little indecision.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I mean, I’m on the 40k is too shallow for its own good train. But 13 *active* decisions being made, one of which is the crucial focus allocation to, for all intents and purposes, charge one Dreadnought into another.

WMH isn’t more tactical because I take Arcanists whose only job is to buff jacks. I could pay 1 more point per Jack and just have better stats... my tactical options are the he same. Casting a debuff on a target, and a buff on the attacker (2 spells) is no more tactically brilliant than a single spell that could be just as effective.

I didn't say it was more tactical because of that. I just said that WMH allows/encourages you to set up your army to set up a decision stream like the one you mentioned above because it uses a far lower number of units (as well as models) and the decision-making is more focused on the model than the unit. Those Arcanists in 40K would either be taking up a Wizard's slot or an Elite's slot, while you are only limited in points and their own Field Allowance in WMH. Meanwhile, you'd also be throwing out 4-6 other units to cover and support whatever those Arcanists are doing, instead of using a single unit to screen them or jam a unit that would threaten them. This is the other part of the scale of which I speak.

WMH is about decisions about the model, while Warhammer is about the unit. Sometimes WMH is asking how to get one model to one point, sometimes it is about removing them. It has always been this way. The current competitive track has pushed the number of models higher and higher all the time, and this Requisition setup, while simpler, has enhanced this.

I could literally create this scenario in a 5 point game. It’s 4 models. Hypothetically, those Arcanists could be free in a theme, for a “0” point game. At least they hypothetically could have... not sure about the current themes.

And, in context, yes. I was playing 50 or 75 point games. I was comfortable with that amount of models. Your pointing out that with fewer points there are fewer models? I mean, no gak? Of course there are fewer models? That has nothing to do with my point that, seemingly, each action in WMH is a Rube Goldberg machine of needlessly interconnected complications that could be streamlined for convenience, speed of play, and accessibility to newer players?

I feel the game is needlessly complex, and could remain a deep and satisfying game to play even if it was made less cluttered by the multitude of interlocking pieces. Sometimes, a +2 to hit and damage is sufficient to say, that unit is buffed, now go smash that other robot.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I could literally create this scenario in a 5 point game. It’s 4 models. Hypothetically, those Arcanists could be free in a theme, for a “0” point game. At least they hypothetically could have... not sure about the current themes.

And, in context, yes. I was playing 50 or 75 point games. I was comfortable with that amount of models. Your pointing out that with fewer points there are fewer models? I mean, no gak? Of course there are fewer models? That has nothing to do with my point that, seemingly, each action in WMH is a Rube Goldberg machine of needlessly interconnected complications that could be streamlined for convenience, speed of play, and accessibility to newer players?

I feel the game is needlessly complex, and could remain a deep and satisfying game to play even if it was made less cluttered by the multitude of interlocking pieces. Sometimes, a +2 to hit and damage is sufficient to say, that unit is buffed, now go smash that other robot.

My assertion was that much of it is due to scale, and you did not prove me wrong, yet you disagreed.

No, Arcanists cannot be taken for free in a 5 point game right now because the Requisition system is based on army size (every 25 points), not model types (ex: 30 points of Warjacks), unless you set it up with your opponent before hand.

As for "needlessly", that is up to debate and part of the other aspect of scale I was speaking of that you do not seem to want to address. Warhammer does not include many support units in an army. You have the wizard, sometimes a banner bearer, and sometimes a technician/engineer, and that's it per army. This generally leads to few decisions in army making and running and only focus on the damage they can make versus the base ability to avoid damage, which leads to herding ants on the table. For some this is boring, while the WMH provides the ability to set up interesting decisions such as what you are describing? Is it "needless"? Well, I suppose that it is not needed in an absolute sense, but it is the game design that was desired, so it is needed in that specific sense.

Ok, so even not in a theme. As soon as I have 4 points available, plus the Battlegroup.

Literally the first thing Ret players are told to get, for use in all themes, is a pair of Arcanists.

The very, immediately practical, step beyond the Battle box is to get 2 Arcanists so you can buff your Manticore.

This has nothing to do with scale. It is the VERY FIRST STEP past Battle Box. And yes, that's the majority of that turn. The rough equivalent of, I don't know, 500 points of 40k? In which I *might* have 4 units to play with... just like WMH...

This isn't so much interesting decisions, as remembering a formula. Once the formula is mastered... It's just making sure all the pieces of the chain are there. There's never a "bad" time to buff your Robots with an Arcanist. In 40k terms, it's like having 4 little deathstar units cruising the board, all needing their many layers of buffs and curses and assorted goodies... but it's the same activation, once you know it.

The trick, is knowing everyone else's chains of activation. if you don't know the chains, you can't know your odds. If you don't know your odds, you aren't making informed decisions. Yes, you have to make decisions, and yes, they have consequences, but if I don't know what my opponent can do, because it's a case of 4 models all interacting together to pull a miracle out of their arse… it always feels like a cheap shot. Fewer layers makes it easier for your opponent to make informed decisions, which makes for a more interesting game for both players.

It avoids the Gotcha. And Gotcha exists at all point values in WMH, moreso than other games, I've found. I still like the game. It's just too knowledge intensive. If you don't know how all the units in your opponent's army intermesh, you can't know the potentials.

The issue I had with this game is that it feels a lot like

Set up; Set up; Set up.

Plan Status: Green

Push "I win" button.

Game over.

It's dull and boring. The models are mostly metal from what I can tell and steam punk never really excited me all that much. There were far more people playing 40K in my area that I chose to enter that IP instead. I think a lot of people look at it this way.

Today, GW is even more of a power house. I can't think of a single other miniature game company that has anywhere near the presence that GW currently has. That alone is probably the biggest knock on other companies games.