What is it about Warmachine/Hordes that you don't like?

[loveless]

I preferred when we were the Legion of Erratablight, myself.

Legion got substantially toned down in the edition change. Not to mention they were so godly during the Field Test that the collective moaning from other players nearly birthed a Chaos God of Despair. Oh, Field Test Vayl and Bow-Cannon Lylyth...how I miss you

It's not a single unit or choice that makes an army good - it's the overall interaction of the chosen forces. You can't just select things at random and expect a solid result.

Think of army building (in any game, really) as baking a cake - there are a lot of ingredients and a lot of potential flavors, but it's up to you to make sure the end product is to your tastes

[Tarliyn]

the correct phrase is "virtually anything in warmachine/hordes can be taken, and built into an effective, game-winning strategy". you're focusing entirely on the first half of the sentence, and completely ignoring the second. certain combos will beat you, only until you've copped how to take them on. cryx used to terrify me. now, i have an extremely good success rate against them. there is no unstoppable force, or immoveable object in this game. i stand by that. Some things (epic denny, epic skarre) have stumped me in the past. i do a post mortem, i judge my decisions in game, i work on solutions. next time, its a different story.

if you want further evidence, the legion of "everbroken" get a seriously bad reputation for being OP by a large segment of the community. and yet, recently at templecon, of all the factions, they did the worst. the game is constantly in flux. certain things dominate for a while, and then the arms race develops in response, and then something else takes its place. everything has a counter.

But if you have to start taking a unit to counter a unit doesnt that take away your options on what you can take? I am not trying to be difficult at all, and I don't think the warmachine is a bad game infact I think it can be really enjoyable. I just think that the illusion that it is more balanced is just that an illusion. One thing that I think sometimes get confused with balance is that the rules are a lot more clearly written than in GW games which makes it better suited for tourny play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deadnight]

But if you have to start taking a unit to counter a unit doesnt that take away your options on what you can take? I am not trying to be difficult at all, and I don't think the warmachine is a bad game infact I think it can be really enjoyable. I just think that the illusion that it is more balanced is just that an illusion. One thing that I think sometimes get confused with balance is that the rules are a lot more clearly written than in GW games which makes it better suited for tourny play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i never list build. I never take units to specifically counter other units. but i see what my opponent can do on the day he beats me. I analyse how i played, and typically i see things i could/should have done differently. I see what his guys did. and i know how not to be put into a position where they can do what they did. i think how i can throw a spanner into the works.

Case in point. I got humped by eSkarre recently at a tourney. It wasnt pretty. reasoning? Her feat. Its stupidgood. really, really, amazingly good. And i took Kromac and Krueger as my casters. picked Kromac. Had i cast bestial on turn 1 instead of warpath, his admonition fuelled deathjack would not have been able to ramage through my lines (my bad. never saw it coming). had i taken Krueger instead (as a control caster) id have had an even better chance (especially with his feat). I dont take something specifically to kill the deathjack. Heck, ive had a basic jug whack the thing down to bits before. But certain combos and synnergies never before experienced will get you. Would i take different things next time? No, not my Kromac list. Kriueger though? yeah, he needs druids. But i havent had the chance to purchase them yet, which is the sole reason they were not there in the first place, and again, i want to buy them for their versatility, not as a counter. thinking about how eSkarre humped me led me thinking about my options in Khador. You go to a tournament, i like to take a control caster as 1 caster. So that leads me to think along the lines of how would i counter it with the old witch, eIrusk, or Zherkova. And eIrusk is a caster i am very interested in, and want to field for his own sake, not a counter. or even if an alpha strike would have forced her feat early, or caused too much damage to make her feat useful after that. and then there is windrushing sorscha. It didnt help how on thinking about it, he moved skarre, cast a spell, and moved her again (cant interrupt movement to cast a spell). copping that, and calling him on it could have won it for me.

at the end of the day, i dont feel the need to take pIrusk, the winter guard deathstar, kayazy, beast09 and the great bears to "win". the interwebs say i should. its never stopped me before! Ive never felt the need to change out things in my list. but i will think of different applications, different combos and synnergies, and different tag teams (what i call 2-caster tournament lists). I've seen too many cross-faction tricks to take on deathstar units that i honestly cannot agree with the notion that to counter unit x, you need unit y. there are a huge amount of options in this game, with even more interlocking synnergies. there is no "one" counter. Just better ways of playing.

[Tarliyn]

i never list build. I never take units to specifically counter other units. but i see what my opponent can do on the day he beats me. I analyse how i played, and typically i see things i could/should have done differently. I see what his guys did. and i know how not to be put into a position where they can do what they did. i think how i can throw a spanner into the works.

Case in point. I got humped by eSkarre recently at a tourney. It wasnt pretty. reasoning? Her feat. Its stupidgood. really, really, amazingly good. And i took Kromac and Krueger as my casters. picked Kromac. Had i cast bestial on turn 1 instead of warpath, his admonition fuelled deathjack would not have been able to ramage through my lines (my bad. never saw it coming). had i taken Krueger instead (as a control caster) id have had an even better chance (especially with his feat). I dont take something specifically to kill the deathjack. Heck, ive had a basic jug whack the thing down to bits before. But certain combos and synnergies never before experienced will get you. Would i take different things next time? No, not my Kromac list. Kriueger though? yeah, he needs druids. But i havent had the chance to purchase them yet, which is the sole reason they were not there in the first place, and again, i want to buy them for their versatility, not as a counter. thinking about how eSkarre humped me led me thinking about my options in Khador. You go to a tournament, i like to take a control caster as 1 caster. So that leads me to think along the lines of how would i counter it with the old witch, eIrusk, or Zherkova. And eIrusk is a caster i am very interested in, and want to field for his own sake, not a counter. or even if an alpha strike would have forced her feat early, or caused too much damage to make her feat useful after that. and then there is windrushing sorscha. It didnt help how on thinking about it, he moved skarre, cast a spell, and moved her again (cant interrupt movement to cast a spell). copping that, and calling him on it could have won it for me.

at the end of the day, i dont feel the need to take pIrusk, the winter guard deathstar, kayazy, beast09 and the great bears to "win". the interwebs say i should. its never stopped me before! Ive never felt the need to change out things in my list. but i will think of different applications, different combos and synnergies, and different tag teams (what i call 2-caster tournament lists). I've seen too many cross-faction tricks to take on deathstar units that i honestly cannot agree with the notion that to counter unit x, you need unit y. there are a huge amount of options in this game, with even more interlocking synnergies. there is no "one" counter. Just better ways of playing.

A good player can always use and win with a possibly underpar list.
To be honest though, the only two tabletop miniature games I have played on any sort of regular basis as been warmahordes and fantasy. I found warmahordes slightly more balanced than 7th ed fantasy but I have found that warmahordes and 8th ed fantasy are pretty much on the same page as far as balance goes. Maybe as a fantasy player I have been so beat down from GW hate that I can't recognize that 8th ed fantasy is pretty well balanced too. But when comparing those two I don't see a large disparity.

Warmahordes greatest strength is its focus on skirmish and its clear rules writing which lends itself to competitive play really really well.

[Gazak Blacktoof]

Not to sounds like I'm going on the defensive, but PP is quite big on all this stuff too. I find the Page 5 hate a very strange problem, since as you say, it polarises people's opinion about the game and I've noticed this complaint a lot on Warseer.

Perhaps they are, but with page 5 as a mission statement you wouldn't know it. The introduction to the GW books, by comparison, shows people jovially gaming around a table and talks about having fun, gaming with friends and making the game your own.

Do people use house rules or comp in warmachine and hordes? It isn't something I've ever seen discussed at great length or heard of on the podcasts I listen to. It has always seemed to me that the player base treat the rules as sacrosanct and that altering them is a big no-no. Whilst GW do get bitched about because of their lack of community support, their standoffish approach has led to a big variety in the tournament scene, with all manner of comp and non-comp events, with and without soft scores and scenarios. There are now an increasing number of team based events along with the doubles events that have existed for years.

Just to be clear, Page 5 wouldn't stop me playing warmachine, because I game with friends anyway. It's still the models and art style that keep me away.

[Deadnight]

Perhaps they are, but with page 5 as a mission statement you wouldn't know it. The introduction to the GW books, by comparison, shows people jovially gaming around a table and talks about having fun, gaming with friends and making the game your own.

different attitude really. With GeeDub, its a peer and pretzels game, and not meant to be taken too seriously. its like having mates over with a few beers and watching "the game" followed by a not-so-serious kickabout in the back yard. which is all fair enough. Privateer Press' attitutude is different - their attitude is to treat it seriously, and to almost look on it like a professional sport. Ultimately though, Page 5 is nothing but a good thing, and a good ethos and attitude to build on, and to use with others on this game. Nothing below suggests anything other than this. Its wargaming. we know why we're here, and what we're looking for in a game, and in our opponents.


1) Thou Shalt Not Whine seriously, more 40k players should take this to heart. there is an internet joke out there that a group of 40k players is called a whine. the constant moaning, complaining and whining ruins the game for me.
2) Come Heavy Or Don't Come At All plat the best game you can. bring your best, bring your A game, and throw down. thats the ultimate respect you can give me as a friend and opponent.
3) Give As Good As You Get self explanitory. go down fighting. dont wimp out.
4) Win Graciously And Lose Valiantly seems a mighty fine ethos.
5) Page 5 Is Not An Excuse the crux of the matter. anyone using page 5 as an excuse to be a jerk, quite simply, is a jerk. and they were jerks before page 5 came along. doing what he's doing completely misses the point of page 5. to be honest, i dont see how any of that can be taken to encourage anything other than a good attitude towards your opponents.

Do people use house rules or comp in warmachine and hordes? It isn't something I've ever seen discussed at great length or heard of on the podcasts I listen to. It has always seemed to me that the player base treat the rules as sacrosanct and that altering them is a big no-no. Whilst GW do get bitched about because of their lack of community support, their standoffish approach has led to a big variety in the tournament scene, with all manner of comp and non-comp events, with and without soft scores and scenarios. There are now an increasing number of team based events along with the doubles events that have existed for years.

why would we use house rules? House rules are terrible. House rules are a sign of lazy writers who couldnt be bothered putting through a finished and polished product. would you be happy buying a car with a faulty engine, knowing that it was up to you to tweak it to make it work? I certainly wouldnt. As a second point i would argue - why would i want house rules? there are no "gaps" to cover. there are no wishy-washy implied rules that require a gentleman's agreement.

that said, some people do house rule it. I've seen some people play non-warcaster games (which i think could be fun, if built right). I've also seen some people play without the "kill a caster, win a game condition". its not for me though - i dont see the point.

As to comp, comp is terrible. why would i want to bring that to warmachine, when i dont evenwant it in 40k! i've never seen a comp system that was anything other than a flawed mess that did nothing but cause even more hassle and imbalance. All comp does is arbitrarily screw over certain armies, and themed builds for the arrogant notion of "this is how you SHOULD be playing". case in point - mandatory 25% troops, or 1 troops choice for every non-troops choice, for reasons of "fluff", as troops are the majority. thats fine. My Space Wolves are howling with laughter. i'll happily take 500+pts of grey hunters in drop pods (the fluffy backbone of any great company) and comp will not affect me in the slightest. my tau on the other hand are crying as i have to devote a huge proportion of my army to extremely sub par, or mediocre choices. fair? "fluffy". Not by a long shot. some armies require those elite and heavy choices - some armies are built around that, like eldar and tau. Im sorry, but its my money, my time and effort and my army. you cant tell me HOW TO PLAY, and it smack of nothing more than sheer belligerent arrogance to suggest to me that its OK to punish me for my choices in my game of choice. rant/off. btw this is not directed at you. just the idea of comp.

regarding the variety in PP games, there are a few formats that were originally fan-created that have sprung up (eg the highlander format). how about the famous "foodmachine", and other tournaments to raise awareness, and money for good caused (like breast cancer brawl, typiucally featuring pink armies) which were all fan-created. I dont see what you're trying to get at here. Just like "house rules", if GW are producing a half finished product, or not supporting a certain aspect of the hobby, people have to go off and do it themselves. PP, on the other hand have an excellent relationship with their player base. fan suggestions, and ideas become official, just like the highlander format. heck, fans have a huge input on this game. its something GW doesnt do. Case in point: the Black Dragon Pikemen. these were iron fangs mentioned in the earliest No Quarter magazines. there was a campaign to make an official unit of black dragon pikemen, and do you know what? when PP saw the interest, they made the unit. How many times do 40k players want this or that (squat codex anyone?) only to be completely ignored. heck, look at the playtesting of the Mk2 rules. the entire PP community was invited to take part, playtest and be a part of the process. and it made it all a better game.

GeeDub not getting involved in the community is not something thats made the hobby better.

Just to be clear, Page 5 wouldn't stop me playing warmachine, because I game with friends anyway. It's still the models and art style that keep me away.

thats fair enough. the models are one of the main stopping points, in that they're different to the norm (the "norm" being GeeDub). I honestly dont see it myself though - i love the PP sculpts.

[Jerrus]

There is a bit of comp with Character Restrictions and multiple lists though.

Sent from my E10i using Tapatalk

[Sparowl]

Dead night, I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Whilst GW do get bitched about because of their lack of community support, their standoffish approach has led to a big variety in the tournament scene, with all manner of comp and non-comp events, with and without soft scores and scenarios. There are now an increasing number of team based events along with the doubles events that have existed for years.

I was thinking about what you say here, and came up with a different conclusion. It's not necessarily their standoffish approach that creates variety in the tournament scene. I believe that time has a great deal to do with it too. Look at any game that has been around for awhile, and you'll begin to see variety of styles, sanctioned or not. Two great examples would be Magic and DnD. Given more time, and continued prosperity, I believe Warmahordes will also gain those extensions, especially if the company supports them.

This is all speculations, of course, but I thought some people might enjoy some food for thought.

[Gazak Blacktoof]

Paddy, I don't think that because players want to play the game differently to the designers that's necessarily because the design is sloppy, it's just a matter of taste. Having never met any of the GW design team I couldn't tell you how they feel about the game. People will often think they can do something better or make it more to their liking, and house rules and comp spring up from those people who make an effort to make a game their own. It's the same with PC gaming where mod communities spring up because they want to make their mark on a game and think they can improve upon an element of design or want to throw something quirky into the mix. Their efforts wont be to everybody's liking.

I don't think that GW games are perfect either and I think that good house rules can make it better, but that goes to the point I'm trying to make.

I didn't know which formats for the PP games were fan created, that's why I asked. I think it's great if PP've adopted elements that the community have created. I hope that PP players get to enjoy a breadth of formats for years to come and perhaps what Sparowl says is correct, it's just the age of the communities, and probably size too, that has lead to the development of the GW and in particular the WHFB tournament scene.

As far as I'm concerned comp is nothing but a house rule, a modification to the game, and they have to be looked at in turn and judged on their own merits. Players often jump to conclusions and tar them all with he same brush, which is unwise no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

[paddyalexander]

I don't think that GW games are perfect either and I think that good house rules can make it better, but that goes to the point I'm trying to make.

The problem is that different groups, clubs and tournament organisers will/have developed their own house rules based on their own inturpretations of the rules and this leads to fragmentation of the community.

An example would be a situation I had to deal with before I had stopped playing gwPLC games altogether. I travel between Cork and Dublin a lot. I played 40k with groups of friends in both areas and because of different house rules and different inturpretations of both core rules and rules from different codexes it became very frustrating for me to play certain armies in both groups. Even with people whom I had gamed with for over a decade, we would read a gwPLC rulebook or special rule and both come up with different inturpretations of it.

A house rule, or more likely with a gwPLC game system, many house rules make moving between groups or attending large tournies for those systems daunting because they have and do have a big impact on how the game is played. If your army suddenly doesn't work because one or more rules are being played differently that can lead to an ill fealing. I've often said that I can't remember a game of 40k or Warhammer Fantasy Battle that I played over multiple editions (1992/3 - 2006/7) were I didn't end up having to come to some sort of comprimise with my opponent over a rule. I had fun. But it was in spite of the ruleset not because of it.

It is the exact oppisite with Warmachine & Hoardes. The rules are written so well that there is only one possible inturpretation of the rules. I play someone localy, 200km away or someone from the States or South Africa over Vassel and be garunteed to have the same experience as far as the rules are concerned.

gwPLC has stated many times that they are a miniture company and that the rules are just another way to sell their game. I can remember a Standard Bearer were Jervis Johnson wrote that we should feel lucky that gwPLC even give us a ruleset at all (the same article mentioned that only a third of the models that gwPLC sell are to people who play their game systems as a positive thing!).

If I'm paying €50 plus (actualy closer to €60-80) just for a rulebook I expect it to not require me to finish off designing it. Theres a big difference between having to patch problems in a games system yourself and creating fun extra rules or ways to play the game, which is what house rules should be.

There are a massive amount of both offical & unofficial ways to play PPs' games. Don't like caster kill? Don't use it. I played scenarios back in mark one that either didn't use it or where you simply gained a scenario point for killing one. Take a look at the crazy scenario boards they use at Templecon and Warmachine Weekend. Even the scenarios in No Quarter are pretty cool, two that spring to mind are a battle on a frozen lake with rules for smashing the ice and a board that featured a mine in one of the deployment zones that could be covered so that one side had hidden deployment but restricted movement because of the entrances.

[Wishing]

Do people use house rules or comp in warmachine and hordes? It isn't something I've ever seen discussed at great length or heard of on the podcasts I listen to. It has always seemed to me that the player base treat the rules as sacrosanct and that altering them is a big no-no.

Paddyalexander and Deadnight's replies are very good regarding this, and they very well highlight the fundamental difference between the gaming philosophies of GW and PP, and why their games are difficult to compare directly for this reason.

GW’s core philosophy is that their games are essentially just some organized brainstorming regarding what you can do with the cool minis they produce. They provide a fictional world and a basic suggested framework to use to simulate battles in that world. The idea is that you get together with a local group, and as a group you make the game your own, by modifying the core rules as you see fit and making up your own stuff to go with it. The focus is on creativity and cooperative play in small, local and close-knit groups. That’s how you’re supposed to play GW games.

PP’s core philosophy is that the games are a complete and polished package, and the reason you buy models isn’t for the models themselves, but so you can use them in the game, in the same sense that you buy CCG cards so you can play with them. Since the game is sold as a complete product, the attraction of the game is that the model line is always growing so you can keep collecting and building bigger and more versatile armies. Like a CCG deck, you can take your army anywhere in the world and play it against anyone else, because the rules are locked down and set to always be the same. That’s how you’re supposed to play PP games.

GW’s advantage is that it encourages creativity and a free, sandbox approach to gaming, much like a roleplaying game. The weakness is that when you play this way, you stay within your own group, and because you make the experience your own, there is less of a feeling of a global community all sharing the same experience. With PP, everyone is on the same page which creates a global community, but the cost of this is that you are expected to stick within the rules as written and do the same as everyone else – effectively you are always a consumer, rather than a designer in your own right.

In conclusion, GW games are good for those who want to make their toy soldier games their own and like house rules and making their own units. PP games are good for those who want a finished no-nonsense product that they can take to tournaments with no modifications or fuss. If you try to make the games something they are not, ie. making GW competitive or making homebrew PP rules, then you can do so, but you are more likely to run into conflict with either the nature of the rules as written or with the community at large.

[paddyalexander]

The thing that irks me about gwPLCs' "our rules are only ment to be played by two friends in a basement" approach is that it feels like an excuse to release badly writen, poorly balanced, unplaytested rules. It promotes the idea that anything else wouldn't be fun and would stymie the creativity of the players.

I've never had the fun of the game destroyed because of a clearly worded & well balanced ruleset. Quite the oppisite in fact. The only times my opponents or I have to crack open the rulebook at all is to get clarification on a rule or rule interaction. Never to get fuel for a mid-game debate as to which of our inturpretations of a rule are correct. I've also never had my creativity hobbled by the ruleset saying "no, the rules won't let you do that". I've done everything from designing models to be used in the game (most recent being a character Maurader that Zerkova can channel trough), fun/crazy senarios and even my own ruleset for a 6-10mm scale game set in the Iron Kingdoms.

Just because the end result is a finished and polished product does not mean that you can't do everything creative you can do with a broken, half-a**ed product. At the end of the day it (at least feels to me) is just an excuse by gwPLC not release a well made set of rules. Which I find sad because I played their games for over a decade, I love the worlds that their games are set in and I love the community that has grown up around their games. I would love to be a gwPLC customer and "hobbiest" again but one of the several major reasons I stopped buying and playing their games was the horrendous lack of balance in their games systems.

[Ponge]

I'm not a fan of Hordes/warmachine. The main issue I have with it is that a game can be decided by a couple of great rolls on 3 dice. If your opponent starts to roll 6-6-5 etc the game can quickly be over. Luck is obviously something that every wargame needs a portion of but most wargames make you throw more dice which evens the luck factor out more.

[Thanatos_elNyx]

I'm not a fan of Hordes/warmachine. The main issue I have with it is that a game can be decided by a couple of great rolls on 3 dice. If your opponent starts to roll 6-6-5 etc the game can quickly be over. Luck is obviously something that every wargame needs a portion of but most wargames make you throw more dice which evens the luck factor out more.

That can happen but at least the game isn't won in the Purchase Army phase.

[Deadnight]

I'm not a fan of Hordes/warmachine. The main issue I have with it is that a game can be decided by a couple of great rolls on 3 dice. If your opponent starts to roll 6-6-5 etc the game can quickly be over. Luck is obviously something that every wargame needs a portion of but most wargames make you throw more dice which evens the luck factor out more.

and yet you play 40k... i've lost plenty games of 40k because the other guy rolled a 6,6,6, against my hammerhead that was contesting an objective. Ive won games because the other guy rolled lots of 1s on his terminator saves...

the "bucket o' dice" that is 40k simply benefits the army that gets to throw out more stuff. it doesnt even out the luck. If anything, luck is a lot more mitigated in warmachine, as the spread in the rolling of your 2d6s, and 3d6s is a lot more maintainable than single d6s. single d6s tend to be more random from what i gether from the statisticians. Plus, with the boosting mechanic helps mitigate the luck factor as well. My dice have a habit of being jammy, and yet over the course of a tournament, i took down the results, and the average 2d6 roll was just over 7, and the average 3d6 roll was 10.5. So no, i cannot agree with you here

good rolls can win a game. and why shouldnt they? a handful of good soldiers can win a battle. good rolls winning a game (and the opposite, of course) is true for every game, whether infinity, starship troopers, warmahordes, WFB, 40k, bushido, malifaux (well, good cards in this case) necromunda, mordheim, epic, kings of war etc.

with all due respect, "i dont like it, because if you roll well, you can win" doesnt come across as a convincing argument, im afraid.

[Ponge]

and yet you play 40k... i've lost plenty games of 40k because the other guy rolled a 6,6,6, against my hammerhead that was contesting an objective. Ive won games because the other guy rolled lots of 1s on his terminator saves...

the "bucket o' dice" that is 40k simply benefits the army that gets to throw out more stuff. it doesnt even out the luck. If anything, luck is a lot more mitigated in warmachine, as the spread in the rolling of your 2d6s, and 3d6s is a lot more maintainable than single d6s. single d6s tend to be more random from what i gether from the statisticians. Plus, with the boosting mechanic helps mitigate the luck factor as well. My dice have a habit of being jammy, and yet over the course of a tournament, i took down the results, and the average 2d6 roll was just over 7, and the average 3d6 roll was 10.5. So no, i cannot agree with you here

good rolls can win a game. and why shouldnt they? a handful of good soldiers can win a battle. good rolls winning a game (and the opposite, of course) is true for every game, whether infinity, starship troopers, warmahordes, WFB, 40k, bushido, malifaux (well, good cards in this case) necromunda, mordheim, epic, kings of war etc.

with all due respect, "i dont like it, because if you roll well, you can win" doesnt come across as a convincing argument, im afraid.

The fact you reduce my argument to the one you claimed it to be doesn't help either.
I never said its a flaw in the design, I just don't like the fact your warcaster can die because your opponent is losing and goes all out and rolls 6-6-5 or something. He basically won the game with one dice roll. You can say it would be my fault for leaving the chance of that to happen open but you can't get around situations like that everytime.
Thing is against your Hammerhead the odds are allot bigger since he didn't need a triple 6 to win the game and the fact you lost because your hammerhead was wrecked is pretty situational.

[Deadnight]

The fact you reduce my argument to the one you claimed it to be doesn't help either.
.

with all due respect, that was the content of your original post. that by rolling well 1 time (with a 6,6,5, which is an incredibly lucky roll by the way), he won.

The main issue I have with it is that a game can be decided by a couple of great rolls on 3 dice. If your opponent starts to roll 6-6-5 etc the game can quickly be over. Luck is obviously something that every wargame needs a portion of but most wargames make you throw more dice which evens the luck factor out more

here is your post. What exactly did i reduce it "to", and what did i reduce it "from", based on what you've written here?

I never said its a flaw in the design, I just don't like the fact your warcaster can die because your opponent is losing and goes all out and rolls 6-6-5 or something. He basically won the game with one dice roll. You can say it would be my fault for leaving the chance of that to happen open but you can't get around situations like that everytime.

in this case you should have been more specific in your criticism. In this case, its not so much rolling well, as the casterkill mechanic that you seem to have issues with.
In the first place, yes it was your fault for exposing your caster. I've done the same before. and lost. And i've done it to other people who've exposed their casters. First "how to play better" rule you learn in warmachine is "learn to protect your caster". Personally, i find the casterkill mechanic to be fantastic. why? because the game is never over. you always have a chance. you can never let your guard down. there is always a chance for that hailmary, or glorious heroic charge that gets you the win. effectively, you're always in the game. I've been on both ends of the scale where i've won/lost in such a manner. its a balance feature, and an in-built counter, as well as being a very viable playstyle called "assassination", as opposed to "attrition".

Thing is against your Hammerhead the odds are allot bigger since he didn't need a triple 6 to win the game and the fact you lost because your hammerhead was wrecked is pretty situational.

And again, with all due respect i disagree. yes, he rolled amazingly well with a 6,6,5. (reminds me of a game i played with pIrusk versus his Kaelysa, and it was with such a roll that i pulled off my hailmary with a behemoth, locked in combat lobbing a bombard at his caster- i love the subcortex rule!) And what would have happened had he rolled a 4,2,3? average rolls? or all 1s. Its called a "hailmary" for a reason - its not guaranteed. And i've seen many more last ditch hailmarys fail miserably than succeed.

regarding the hammerhead comment, it was more than "situational". crucial rolls are never "situational". or else i can throw the comment back at you, and point out how a 6,6,5 against an Iron Fang Pikeman wouldnt have acheived any where near the same result. my hammerhead was contesting the objective. had it not died, it would have been a draw. it was his "win condition". And he got it with a lucky dice roll. he could have rolled a 1. and id have been fine. he rolled a 6. and that got him the game. just like the 6,6,5 against you.

[Wishing]

The thing that irks me about gwPLCs' "our rules are only ment to be played by two friends in a basement" approach is that it feels like an excuse to release badly writen, poorly balanced, unplaytested rules. It promotes the idea that anything else wouldn't be fun and would stymie the creativity of the players.

I've never had the fun of the game destroyed because of a clearly worded & well balanced ruleset. Quite the oppisite in fact. The only times my opponents or I have to crack open the rulebook at all is to get clarification on a rule or rule interaction. Never to get fuel for a mid-game debate as to which of our inturpretations of a rule are correct. I've also never had my creativity hobbled by the ruleset saying "no, the rules won't let you do that". I've done everything from designing models to be used in the game (most recent being a character Maurader that Zerkova can channel trough), fun/crazy senarios and even my own ruleset for a 6-10mm scale game set in the Iron Kingdoms.

Just because the end result is a finished and polished product does not mean that you can't do everything creative you can do with a broken, half-a**ed product. At the end of the day it (at least feels to me) is just an excuse by gwPLC not release a well made set of rules. Which I find sad because I played their games for over a decade, I love the worlds that their games are set in and I love the community that has grown up around their games. I would love to be a gwPLC customer and "hobbiest" again but one of the several major reasons I stopped buying and playing their games was the horrendous lack of balance in their games systems.

A very understandable viewpoint, and one it is hard to disagree with. For example, many people feel that the army books for WHFB 8th are very balanced compared to previous army books, and this obviously does not hurt the game at all, but make it better.

However, it's not just about the different levels of balance within GW and PP games, it's about their approaches to balance. GW would obviously have perfect balance if they could - it's just not that big of a deal for them, their focus is elsewhere. Hence why they can release new versions of army books over and over again - a ruleset is never "finished", it is always evolving and always changing. Nothing is definitive.

PP's approach is entirely different. They don't release new versions of their old models - when a model is released, it has a card with its stats on it, and that is it. Barring errata or edition changes (which are done ony to fix bugs, not as a regular scheduled feature), the stats on the card are that model's stats forever. In GW, if you don't like an army book, you can just keep using the old army book. This is not an option with PP. A PP playing group could theoretically modify the stats on the cards of various models, and make up their own home-brewed rules for new factions - as you say, nothing technically prevents this. However, having read the PP boards since 2003, my general impression is that very very very few players have any interest in modifying or adding to the PP rules with homebrew. They tend to play tournament style or not at all. Contrast that with the rules development forum on this board. If you like playing with homebrewed PP stuff, maybe you are the exception that proves the rule.

So the point is that yes, GW could theoretically have loads better balance in their rules, and PP could theoretically be a mecca for homebrewers and converters. However, the way their games are produced and presented, their players naturally gravitate towards one or the other.

[loveless]

So the point is that yes, GW could theoretically have loads better balance in their rules, and PP could theoretically be a mecca for homebrewers and converters. However, the way their games are produced and presented, their players naturally gravitate towards one or the other.

Does a PP player gravitate towards taking advantage of balance, or do players seeking balance gravitate towards PP?
Do homebrewers and converters gravitate towards GW, or do GW's rules dictate the need for homebrewers and converters?

There are several ways to look at those scenarios.

Privateer designers and writers interact with the community on a regular basis through blogs, their own forum, and various events. I think this has given them a certain level of trust from their players and humanized them a fair bit.

GW designers and writers often give the feeling of being locked away in a tower, sending out scraps of paper with rules and half-coherent background material. Not since the Dark Eldar release has it really seemed like GW grabbed the community and pulled them in. More recent releases have had designer notes and rules snippets from the design team that feel half-assed at best. Heck, the most recent release (The Empire) had next to no notes at all, save for a quick filler video from the book's maligned author. GW feels distant - PP doesn't (though part of me wonders if that isn't a cultural thing as well).

Back to the main point, though - do the games attract a certain type of player, or do the games dictate what sort of player a gamer will become? And what of those who play both?

[paddyalexander]

PP's approach is entirely different. They don't release new versions of their old models - when a model is released, it has a card with its stats on it, and that is it. Barring errata or edition changes (which are done ony to fix bugs, not as a regular scheduled feature), the stats on the card are that model's stats forever. In GW, if you don't like an army book, you can just keep using the old army book. This is not an option with PP. A PP playing group could theoretically modify the stats on the cards of various models, and make up their own home-brewed rules for new factions - as you say, nothing technically prevents this. However, having read the PP boards since 2003, my general impression is that very very very few players have any interest in modifying or adding to the PP rules with homebrew. They tend to play tournament style or not at all. Contrast that with the rules development forum on this board. If you like playing with homebrewed PP stuff, maybe you are the exception that proves the rule.

Actualy PP themselves run and promote year round global leagues broken into seasons. Each season comes with special alternate rules for certain models in each faction with the card made available both online and trough No Quarter Magazine. Here's a link to the current seasons' cards:

http://privateerpress.com/files/gnar...%20REDUCED.pdf

Maybe it's because I'm an older gamer who loves running things like micro-campaigns and participating in leagues, I've made unique upgrades that could be applied to units as they played trough a league in games ranging from 40k and Epic to AT-43, Battletech and Warmachine, but I really don't think my take on the game is unique, especialy when Privateer themselves promote such play officialy.

Running one day campaigns where previous victories grant a player extra rules/abilities/points in the final game or simply saying that the player who pulls off the most power attacks in this turn will get d6 extra focus on their caster durring a casual game is not unique to me (because I borrowed those ideas from others) and are not prevented by the rules system or company. You will always find a minority of players for any rules system who are purists, who only want to play official rules with official models with official terrain with official scenarios. Just because they like their way of playing the game doesn't stop other players from doing their own thing.