Warmachine feels ripped off

[Calibre]

I and a couple of players/friends had a discussion at our local games store, and we came to the consensus that Warmachine feels ripped off. In the beginning (MK1) when the game was still being marketed and the only thing that you could buy was the starter boxes, we were sold on this great game filled with Huge War Machines which was the most powerful things in the game. Back in those days it was still popular to play entire armies composed just out of jacks and we would ?dis? guys playing mostly troops, and back then most faction?s troops paled in comparison against the might of Warmachines.

These days you can?t compare Warmachines to beasts, you mostly get sub par stat-line coupled with the lack to assign similar focus to fury and on top of it all beasts not only grant the caster spells to put on other beasts, but also to themselves, which also makes for very dynamic army build. Most of the arguments are along the lines of ?Yea, but you Warmachine guys get better troops?, I beg your pardon but I doubt, guys back then, joined the game to play troops, they didn?t join thinking these awesome Warmachines were to be upstaged by beasts. Another argument horde players tend to make ?We pay a premium for our really good beasts?, okay fair enough but mostly Warmachine factions do not have similar cost/slot options. To do make a small comparison, I encountered a situation where a Cygnar player, faced off against a Circle player in Mangled Metal. During the game a situation came up where a Shadowhorn wanted to throw a Ironclad, both of similar cost yet, not only could the Shadowhorn hit with ease, it had more STR which means it will get bonus to dice off on 2d6, more movement adding in the ability to jump and then more fury and animus.

The situation went poorly for the Cygnar player, but it made me think okay let?s say the situation where in reverse where the Ironclad caught the Shadowhorn. Locking the Shadowhorn in place would be good option to prevent him from being thrown and using his movement tricks but it?s not a good option given the lacking STR of the Ironclad. I then went the ?just try and do as much damage as I possibly could? route and found on average I would not down the beast, which will mean that the Warlock will just heal the damaged systems back up and destroy the Ironclad. In a straight up fight, given the Ironclad had the advantage the Ironclad will lose to his counterpart, which doesn?t seem fair to me.

The outcome of our conversation was that the horde players agreed that Warmachine just don?t measure up, but that the game is not only balanced around just jacks and beasts. Some also reasoned that beasts were intentionally made to be powerful, in order to promote Horde side of the game especially against Warmachines. A lot of Warmachine players argued that they wouldn?t mind beasts that much if they could also assign a same number of focus to the jack even at risk of damaging the jack or if beasts systems would only count as functional if 50% of the boxes were still left undamaged. How do you feel about this?

[scout's honor]

How do you feel about this?

The same I did 529 threads about this topic ago.

Without going into the technical part of how Warmachine and Hordes are balanced, simply looking at tournaments and individual games at my LGS tells me quite convincingly Hordes is not sweeping up with an unduly high percentage of wins. It's pretty even. You can give me all the technical arguments and details about specific parts of the rules you care to list, but none of those prove anything in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence. If your arguments lead you to believe otherwise, you're either not considering everything or you're wrong about something.

[PG_PrOtOcoN]

But to chime in at least a little bit.
You are not factoring in all the differences between a jack and a beast. I play both Warmachine & Hordes and they have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd go over it again with frenzy, forcing, repair options, late game fury availability etc.

If you haven't already, try borrowing or proxying some Hordes and give it a try.
It's not as clear cut as you might think.

I sympathize though, its never pleasant to receive a alpha strike with a Circle list =p

[Bean Mk. II]

People have been complaining about "infantry-machine" since before Escalation. Privateer has created a game where warjacks feature in every fight. If they wanted a game where warjacks featured prominently in every fight, I have to presume that they'd write different rules.

However, it's clear that, in the beginning, they really didn't understand what they'd done--they had a vision of their product which was not consistent with what the product actually was, and this led to some fairly critical misrepresentations of the game, in the beginning. I guess I feel that these early marketing errors have mostly been done away with--that Privateer now has a fairly good grasp of what their game is and is better about representing it accordingly.

[PG_Jyggdrasil]

OMG! After just 529 threads on this topic it all becomes clear and I have changed my mind.

...or not :-)

[Pinegulf]

>These days you can’t compare Warmachines to beasts, you mostly get sub par ...

Yawn. Must we wednesday again...
So what? Jacks aren't as good as beasts, but people in machine side still manage to win. So... What's the problem?

[Digestive]

Hmm, working with the old pdf's here, but Shadowhorn: STR 10 and Ironclad STR: 11. Seems like you didn't count the stuff the caster (edit: Kaya?) was doing.

[Gavriel]

I feel for the desire to play a warmachine faction with list compositions more akin to Legion lists (1 Unit, couple of support solos, and 5+ warbeasts) but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the game because the early Mk I marketing wasn't accurate to how the game developed over 9 years. Present day PP marketing presents Warmachine as a game featuring giant robots fighting among large masses of troops. That's the impression they want to give and that is how the game is built. If you want a game entirely about giant robots stomping around and breaking each other, go play battletech.

[Octavius_Maximus]

When i looked at the rules, i freaked out a little too. Beasts are a little worrying, and in the numbers they can take them They seem worrying.

Well, you know what?

I played 3 games against Legion of everblight Beast heavy forces with the trimmings with my Khador.

3 Victories. Im a newbie, he's a vet. Hordes really just dont seem very scary to me now, low pow beasts, relatively high def (nothing a good spell or boost or knockdown or stationary or lucky roll cant stop) low armour, medium boxes.

All they have is speed, really, and easy access to fury So how do you mitigate that?

Well you slow them down and take out their fury management solos. Without them, how many beasts do you think can run hot in a turn.

Decide a turn when he's about to hit you. Kill his fury management and then push all your force in close. Granted, you may lose some stuff if you choose badly. Then next turn you can run amok, while things frenzy.

Or he doesnt want to risk that and pulls back and only uses one beast. That beast gets isolated and murdered.

Or he pulls everything back, and its a stalemate again.

Beasts have limits, pretty big ones. Exploiting them is the key to victory.

[The_Bionic_Labrat]

that time of the month again, is it?

I and a couple of players/friends had a discussion at our local games store, and we came to the consensus that Warmachine feels ripped off. In the beginning (MK1) when the game was still being marketed and the only thing that you could buy was the starter boxes, we were sold on this great game filled with Huge War Machines which was the most powerful things in the game. Back in those days it was still popular to play entire armies composed just out of jacks and we would “dis” guys playing mostly troops, and back then most faction’s troops paled in comparison against the might of Warmachines.

"in the beginning" is hardly an argument. things change, things evolve. and things have to start somewhere. seriously, what do you expect? the current roster to be released in one go? i cant take an argument seriously thats saying a game must be defined by its most bare handful of original releases.
since warmachine: prime, there have been infantry options. Warjacks might be war machines, but warjacks are not WARMACHINE. they're a part of the setting, but they are not the setting. In any case, back then, when "all" you had was the stater packs, im sure checking up on the interwebs would have informed you that infantry were coming too.

These days you can’t compare Warmachines to beasts, you mostly get sub par stat-line coupled with the lack to assign similar focus to fury and on top of it all beasts not only grant the caster spells to put on other beasts, but also to themselves, which also makes for very dynamic army build.

i dont generally see beasts as being higher statted than jacks. In some cases, higher spd, and def. but they're generally squishier and hit less hard. dynamic? if by "warpack-centric" then i agree with you. warmachine simply plays by different (and not inferior) dynamics, being more combined arms- centric. the battlegroup is not the game.

Most of the arguments are along the lines of “Yea, but you Warmachine guys get better troops”, I beg your pardon but I doubt, guys back then, joined the game to play troops, they didn’t join thinking these awesome Warmachines were to be upstaged by beasts.

i did. i joined the game to play Doom Reavers. there, your point knocked on its head. as to being "upstaged". they're different dynamics, and different synnergies. jacks are not beasts, and beasts are not jacks. they mean different things to their relevant factions, and they're not meant to be compared in a "like for like" manner.

Another argument horde players tend to make “We pay a premium for our really good beasts”, okay fair enough but mostly Warmachine factions do not have similar cost/slot options. To do make a small comparison, I encountered a situation where a Cygnar player, faced off against a Circle player in Mangled Metal. During the game a situation came up where a Shadowhorn wanted to throw a Ironclad, both of similar cost yet, not only could the Shadowhorn hit with ease, it had more STR which means it will get bonus to dice off on 2d6, more movement adding in the ability to jump and then more fury and animus.

Look at it this way. I play both circle, and khador. i play both sides. its not about a 7pt 'clad, or a 9pt feral. When i play circle, before even starting, 20pts (+WB pts) will be spent on the most basic, and necessary beast combo - stalker, feral and a gorax. 15pts thats feasty, and 2 min squads of troops. thats not a hell of a lot. i have a low model count, lower attack ratio to points and lower board presence. added to that, when my beasts die, strategically, i suffer a far greater blow than if a juggernaut dies. Whn i play circle, i am actually quite envious of the freedom i have in building warmachine lists. i can take 2 jacks, and still spam excellent troops and solos. in hordes, it simply cannot be done.

The situation went poorly for the Cygnar player, but it made me think okay let’s say the situation where in reverse where the Ironclad caught the Shadowhorn. Locking the Shadowhorn in place would be good option to prevent him from being thrown and using his movement tricks but it’s not a good option given the lacking STR of the Ironclad. I then went the “just try and do as much damage as I possibly could” route and found on average I would not down the beast, which will mean that the Warlock will just heal the damaged systems back up and destroy the Ironclad. In a straight up fight, given the Ironclad had the advantage the Ironclad will lose to his counterpart, which doesn’t seem fair to me.
?

So you're essentially (a) complaining that the shadowhorn could do something and (b) you were using bad tactics. to (a), i'll say what do you want - immunity:hordes? or do you want to turn hordes factions into the fire warriors of warmachine? to (b) its not 1v1. first rule i ever learned when facing hordes was "take the beasts down". dont wound them. kill them. If necessary, dont just send in the ironclad. send in 2. or use your infantry. bloody hell, its not that hard to kill a beast!

The outcome of our conversation was that the horde players agreed that Warmachine just don’t measure up, but that the game is not only balanced around just jacks and beasts. Some also reasoned that beasts were intentionally made to be powerful, in order to promote Horde side of the game especially against Warmachines. A lot of Warmachine players argued that they wouldn’t mind beasts that much if they could also assign a same number of focus to the jack even at risk of damaging the jack or if beasts systems would only count as functional if 50% of the boxes were still left undamaged. How do you feel about this?

pfft. with all due respect, they need to stop whining. Warmachine measures up fine. tournament results prove that. and of course the game isnt balanced around just jacks and beasts. this is not "focus v fury: the game". there is so much more that plays a role. beasts are not "more powerful". they use a mechanic that lets them do more, but has more hurdles to jump through, and that is ultimately, a lot riskier and strategically less stable and more vulnerable. jacks dont need to spend moar focus, and beasts dont need to be nerfed.

the only good thing to ever come from these kinds of threads is the idea that "failsafe" could be a warcaster to warjack ability - ie spend a focus to ignore the effects of a crippled system.

[Dacian]

If you want a game entirely about giant robots stomping around and breaking each other, go play battletech.

Or Grind...play Grind...
To the op
Shadowhorn =str10 ironclad =str 11

[RJM]

One of these discussions, eh?

Back in those days it was still popular to play entire armies composed just out of jacks and we would “dis” guys playing mostly troops, and back then most faction’s troops paled in comparison against the might of Warmachines.

Oops, you lost me. Because you can still play this way in your group if you want, and it will likely be just as good as it ever was. Because, guess what... Back in Mk I... those all jack armies would have been even worse off than they are now. You're just remembering it fondly through nostalgia.

[ShoX]

Wanna play jacks? Play jacks.

[EvilFuzzyDoom]

Seriously, has the last thread about this even dropped off the front page?

Play Hordes if you think it's so good. Then cry when a Warcaster kills all your beasts.
Or when you can't field as many heavies as your opponent because running them all at capacity will ruin you.
Or when your feats are rubbish.
Or when all your beasts cost more than jacks of comparable power.
Or when you have no spell lists.
Or when your character heavy's spirit track gets taken out second turn.

Seriously guys.
Seriously.

[Tyr852]

I'm new still so I haven't seen this kind of thread yet but from the games I've played against Hordes - everything that people have said above is true , both sides are balanced in their own way and a Mangled Metal game isn't the best representation IMO as I look at something like Karchev + Behemoth + Juggernaut in that size game and could say the same thing in WM's favour.

I'm sure the point has also been made that many of our troops can easily wreck their heavy beasts in a round which as said previously is much more crippling then us losing a warjack. Not sure how well getting more focus would go over as something like Beast 09 with 4 focus from the bond is already terrifying

[Calcifar]

Good, Good!

but the question which truly stems itself :





Why. always. on. Wednesdays.






ps. Ironclad has more strength than a Shadowhorn.

[Chip]

Ever
Get
That
Feeling
Of
Deja
Vu?

I got bored of searching, but there are others going back yeeeeeears. And I left out the multiple threads on why 'jack marshalling should be better and if Warjacks are generally underpowered.

The general feeling over thousands of posts in dozens of threads across multiple months of releases is no. No they aren't unbalanced.

[Murkhadh]

This again?

[leo_neil316]

low pow beasts,

What?

Top end beasts hit harder than jacks and then have access to buffs. Take the bronzeback for example, it's gonna leave any non-character warjack in the dust for damage. Without buffs it's getting 1 boosted 17, 2 16's and 5 more 17's. That's 32 damage past ARM 20.

A juggernaut is gonna get a boosted 19, an unboosted 15 and two more 19's. that's 23 damage past ARM 20.

And juggernauts are pretty freaking hard hitting heavy warjacks!

And legion? The legion Carnivean gets a 14, a boosted 18, two unboosted 16's and 3 more unboosted 18's. 30 damage past ARM 20. And the scythean/typhon both do a boosted 17 followed up with another 5 17's. That's 27. That's still more than a juggernaut!

But yeah otherwise it all works out in the end. I'll quite happily throw a fully loaded ironclad and let it spin if it takes out an enemy heavy. I only need it for certain things.

If I've got an 11 point heavy beast I've got much more invested in it. And it's a far bigger target.

Plus the ability to boost outside control range is HUGE. If nothing else it lets your caster fight from far further back.

[EvilFuzzyDoom]

Ever
Get
That
Feeling
Of
Deja
Vu?

I got bored of searching, but there are others going back yeeeeeears. And I left out the multiple threads on why 'jack marshalling should be better and if Warjacks are generally underpowered.

The general feeling over thousands of posts in dozens of threads across multiple months of releases is no. No they aren't unbalanced.

For extra recursion, you should link back to this post every time the topic comes up.

[elplagUe]

Mortenebra disagrees that Hordes is better then WM.

[Octavius_Maximus]

What?

Top end beasts hit harder than jacks and then have access to buffs. Take the bronzeback for example, it's gonna leave any non-character warjack in the dust for damage. Without buffs it's getting 1 boosted 17, 2 16's and 5 more 17's. That's 32 damage past ARM 20.

A juggernaut is gonna get a boosted 19, an unboosted 15 and two more 19's. that's 23 damage past ARM 20.

And juggernauts are pretty freaking hard hitting heavy warjacks!

And legion? The legion Carnivean gets a 14, a boosted 18, two unboosted 16's and 3 more unboosted 18's. 30 damage past ARM 20. And the scythean/typhon both do a boosted 17 followed up with another 5 17's. That's 27. That's still more than a juggernaut!

But yeah otherwise it all works out in the end. I'll quite happily throw a fully loaded ironclad and let it spin if it takes out an enemy heavy. I only need it for certain things.

If I've got an 11 point heavy beast I've got much more invested in it. And it's a far bigger target.

Plus the ability to boost outside control range is HUGE. If nothing else it lets your caster fight from far further back.

Im actually still not convinced. Looking through the beasts im not seeing a single pow over 17. While in Khador I can see the Pow 18 Sustained Attack Rip Saw, The pow 19 Crit Stationary Ice Axe, The Pow 20 Crit Smite, The Pow 18 War lance, and, if you want to get into it, the Pow 12 Armour piercing fists.

And this is before buffs. The Bronzeback is 10 points and yes, while it has a lot of attacks, they are still Pow 17 at max. each one doing, on average, 3 damage to a Spriggan or Behemoth, even with 5 fury thats not going *that* far, unless you start hitting on the boosted damage, and even thats not going to go much further.

Im not saying its not a massive beatstick, im just saying that i think that many heavies can take the punishment and, with some mechanical assistance (worried about hordes? Always take Mechaniks!) can send them back.

[wargrim]

Top end beasts hit harder than jacks and then have access to buffs. Take the bronzeback for example, it's gonna leave any non-character warjack in the dust for damage. Without buffs it's getting 1 boosted 17, 2 16's and 5 more 17's. That's 32 damage past ARM 20.

1. Please elaborate, because in your example the bronzeback has 6 fury.
2. When people say "low pow beasts" it normally means "low pow for their point cost". So, with more used fury a 11 point beast does more damage than a 7 point jack? Not quiet surprising, isn't it?

Back to topic:

Ever
Get
That
Feeling
Of
Deja
Vu?

Absolutely, what's tomorrow? Is Thursday the Cryx-is-overpowered-day or the I-hate-Haley-Day? Maybe i miss remember all together and it's How-Jackmarshalls-should-be.

[The Buoyancy of Water]

And this is before buffs.

Except boosting, Khador doesn't have a huge number of ways to boost their jacks POW (I think Gorman, A+H and possibly Ragman off the top of my head?). No idea about Skorne since I haven't really played them, but I know Circle routinely hit higher POW than Khador due to the abundance of STR increases they can get.

That being said, I believe the systems are very well balanced.

Cheers,
Dave

[drachenfels]

everything is fine between the systems.

[Octavius_Maximus]

Except boosting, Khador doesn't have a huge number of ways to boost their jacks POW (I think Gorman, A+H and possibly Ragman off the top of my head?). No idea about Skorne since I haven't really played them, but I know Circle routinely hit higher POW than Khador due to the abundance of STR increases they can get.

That being said, I believe the systems are very well balanced.

Cheers,
Dave

Fury, pButchers Feat, Unearthly Rage, Epic Sorschas Feat and signs and portents.

Yes, granted, not many. But between those and Boosting, and ways to charge for free and get alpha strikes (boundless charge, Strakhovs feat, Vlads feat, etc) i think they arent bereft of damage improvement.

[sathoon]

-snip!- (original post)

Warmachine/hordes has been compared in terms of balance since the advent of milk on cereal, the arguement is THAT old. And one only has to look at tournaments which have both hordes and warmachine to able to tell that hordes gets as much time near the top as warmachine does.


The loss of a warbeast is profound on a warlock, a warcaster that loses a warjack gets harder to kill and will continue swinging at full power till it hits the dirt. The trick is to remove whole warbeasts each turn, then the warlock finds itself unable to influence the battlefield unless it starts cutting (I hate that phrase. It makes them sound fricking emo!).

warmachine= resource allocation
hordes= risk assessment

[elplagUe]

@sathoon - that Wonka is EPIC.

[Zombied00d]

Im actually still not convinced. Looking through the beasts im not seeing a single pow over 17. While in Khador I can see the Pow 18 Sustained Attack Rip Saw, The pow 19 Crit Stationary Ice Axe, The Pow 20 Crit Smite, The Pow 18 War lance, and, if you want to get into it, the Pow 12 Armour piercing fists.

Mulg and the Earthborn Dire Troll would like to speak with you. When they're done I believe there may be a warpwolf stalker waiting to talk as well...

[The_Bionic_Labrat]

Except boosting, Khador doesn't have a huge number of ways to boost their jacks POW (I think Gorman, A+H and possibly Ragman off the top of my head?). No idea about Skorne since I haven't really played them, but I know Circle routinely hit higher POW than Khador due to the abundance of STR increases they can get.

Butcher has fury, and his feat. Irusk has battle lust. Karchev has unearthly rage. Vlad has Signs and Portents. Epic Sorscha has her Feat. Hitting Hard is one thing Khador needs no extra help with!

as to circle, for the most part, they have warpwolf morphing, and primal. which, when you think about it, costs a third of an army. of course it should hit hard.

[The Buoyancy of Water]

Not sure if Fury is warrior model, but Battle Lust is. Of the rest, eSorscha's feat is the only one which isn't just adding dice, but still has no effect on a jacks POW. We don't get many actual POW buffs in faction (1 from the list you gave). We do indeed hit hard, but through boosts/pseudo boosts.

Again, I think the systems are fine. Legion/Circle beasts are squishy as hell once you get a hold of them

Cheers,
Dave

[scout's honor]

Absolutely, what's tomorrow? Is Thursday the Cryx-is-overpowered-day or the I-hate-Haley-Day? Maybe i miss remember all together and it's How-Jackmarshalls-should-be.

Nah. Thursday used to be where-are-my-Bombardiers/Destors/Vyre jacks day, so logically now it's where-is-my-second-heavy-jack-kit day. Although it moonlights as when-will-my-NQ-subscription-arrive kickoff day every second Thursday after the new NQ's street date.

We do indeed hit hard, but through boosts/pseudo boosts.

After a liberal application of infantry-based axe-to-face, who even cares about increasing the P+S of jack attacks anymore?

[Octavius_Maximus]

Mulg and the Earthborn Dire Troll would like to speak with you. When they're done I believe there may be a warpwolf stalker waiting to talk as well...

I was actually only talking about Skorne. Sorry that wasnt clear.

Also Noone hits as hard as Behemoth :P Thats a title he's going to keep, i think, even when the colossals come out.

[Triumph Of Man]

I and a couple of players/friends had a discussion at our local games store, and we came to the consensus that Warmachine feels ripped off. In the beginning (MK1) when the game was still being marketed and the only thing that you could buy was the starter boxes, we were sold on this great game filled with Huge War Machines which was the most powerful things in the game. Back in those days it was still popular to play entire armies composed just out of jacks and we would “dis” guys playing mostly troops, and back then most faction’s troops paled in comparison against the might of Warmachines.

Some also reasoned that beasts were intentionally made to be powerful,

Just as Warcasters, infantry, and solos in Warmachine are intentionally made to be more powerful than their hordes equivilants. PP obviously did this to promote and sell dirty Warmachine over Hordes! Look, I can make totally baseless conclusions too!

[lastspartacus]

Warmachine is balanced by its imbalanced infantry units, not its warjacks

[PG_Feeple]

Ever
Get
That
Feeling
Of
Deja
Vu?

I think I love you.

[elplagUe]

I find the majority of the games I lose to Hordes are to Saeryn. Everyone else fails to impress when I have 6-7 Heavies with boosted attack rolls and +2" of movement.

The inherent weakness of warmachine is mitigated by its superb casters.

Hordes requires beasts to function. A note on animi, but locks tend to have less spells then casters, and the difference is made up with animi, some of which are practically useless.

Warmachine requires warjacks to function, because infantry doesn't stop tramples, etc. Combined arms is the way to go.

Then again, you have casters like Mortenebra that can give infantry the finger and go toe to toe with hordes in all respects.

[drachenfels]

I find the majority of the games I lose to Hordes are to Saeryn

kind of a bad analogy here since Saeryn is pretty much regarded as the #1 Warlock in the game... it would be like saying "I lose to eHaley regularly..."

[wargrim]

Hordes requires beasts to function. A note on animi, but locks tend to have less spells then casters, and the difference is made up with animi, some of which are practically useless.

Actually, many animi are just worse versions of spells. Farstrike is non-upkeep able one model-only Snipe etc.

[drachenfels]

Actually, many animi are just worse versions of spells. Farstrike is non-upkeep able one model-only Snipe etc.

again bad analogy since farstrike can be put out on multiple things at the same time. the upkeep able snipe can only be on a single thing at a time.