A couple of Khador questions

[Waaargh]

First an easy one - what is the purpose of the Devastator in the battlefield? My Khador mate think it's weak, but I see it as having plenty of potential with it's crazy ARM. Then, how can it be used well when facing Trollbloods?

Second question: Which Warmachine factions provide Khador with a good game, and pVlad in particular? And which makes for less ideal games?

Thanks for reading

[Avecrien]

Devs open charge lanes with Bulldoze, block charge lanes with their bulk, and eradicate anything that touches them. You have to be careful not to be slammed or thrown out of the fight. If they're in or even near the action you can expect them to be siphoning a lot of attention because of how big a threat they are once they manage to touch a few things.
With certain casters, like eSorscha, they become an even bigger threat to be around. Vlad can launch them into the enemy units or caster's faces. Butcher makes RoD brutal on feat turn.

[PG_General Nemo]

Anything that can keep our warjacks out of the fight is a bad matchup, so things like Enliven and Crippling Grasp really ruin our day.
Edit: As for the Devastator, it is a troop lawnmower with enormous armor, so it is great for taking even the heaviest infantry out (Champions come to mind in the case of Trollbloods). It will usually die if it goes to-to-toe with a Trollblood heavy unless it has lots of outside help (Infantry support and Signs and Portents in the case of Vlad1).

[Waaargh]

Thanks for the replies. I have gotten answers on most of what I asked, unless there can be said more. Just one thing is open now: Which faction (and perhaps warcaster) provides a good game for Khador?

[Avecrien]

I honestly don't understand the question. What do you mean by good game; what would be a bad game? Too easy/too hard to beat?
I like fighting everybody, though sometimes circle gives me fits with their tricksiness and I loathe elfs.

[Mercykiller]

As a guy who runs DC I find eSevvy to be my greatest nemesis. He can turn them into caster-killers against your Khadoran caster ... which is sadly one of the reasons my choices these days against him are limited to warcasters with the ability to toss iron flesh on themselves.

Menoth in general is a pain unless you're running AKs. All that denial and fire tears apart a lot of the normal Khador things.

Cygnar is less of a concern for us that most if you're going jack heavy with someone like Butcher. Full Throttle makes disruption a joke.

Cryx has never proven to be the huge pain against us that it does versus others due to the large amount of AOE we can put on the board. Thins out their ranks rather nicely.

Hordes struggle against our high armor. I've never lost to a Hordes player other than through assassination; they've gotta go for your throat, they can't match army versus army.

The above opinions are all based on local meta/personal experiences of course.

[JTY]

Define 'good game'.

Asking that is a bit like asking how long this piece of string is and is it the correct length (//holds up piece of string that you can't see).

Certain factions we struggle with, certain factions we run through, certain factions test us hard.
But each instance depends upon your army, your opponents army and how you play the game.
Change any one parameter and the whole things changes somewhat.

You'd be best suited by the observation that Warmachine is a very balanced game; if you keep thinking you can win any game, when you lose you did something wrong.
There is no reason to be wary of which factions are bent or broken and will not balance against Khador.

[Mercykiller]

Indeed, it's usually a matter of specifics. My own views are colored by what casters/armies I normally play (Butcher, MOW) and what casters/armies my usual opponents play. Change the warcaster out and everything changes. My own list were general things to watch out for/be aware of that commonly occur to me.

I will say, however, that as a general rule Hordes struggles against our heavy-armor stuff. That's one of the prime complaints of Circle players in fact.

[Avecrien]

Define 'good game'.
You'd be best suited by the observation that Warmachine is a very balanced game; if you keep thinking you can win any game, when you lose you did something wrong.
There is no reason to be wary of which factions are bent or broken and will not balance against Khador.

On the same token, when I win a game it's more likely that my opponent beat themselves through their choices than I simply trounced them.

[PG_General Nemo]

Any faction can provide a "good game" for any other faction provided similar skill level.

[Waaargh]

So a Cygnar gunline lead by Haley will be good fun? I'd be surprised if so.

[JTY]

^ and even then, if one player is more skilled/has more experience of the rules than the other, he can simply pull a few punches and play his own army in a slightly different way trying different things, which will in turn test him more and give his opponent more to do in the game than simply get their lights punched out by a tried and tested battleplan.

I regularly play new players or less experienced players, and whilst beating them hard once works wonders for making them look out for that approach from me next time, trying different things makes for better games for everyone.

Incidentally, Nemo's sig banner is very cool.

[JTY]

So a Cygnar gunline lead by Haley will be good fun? I'd be surprised if so.

Yes, it's an army I've played a few times and is an army I can beat with eButcher when I'm sober and thinking straight, nevermind trounce with Zerkova or Irusk.
Played it in round 4 of a tourny on Sunday and robbed myself of 2nd place by not doing what I knew I had to, but myself and my opponent both had great fun.

Assuming the game will be no fun, and that a game lost is a game that was no fun, is not going to enjoy you any games.

It is the person you play, not his army, and the challenge is to beat him and have fun doing so.

If that isn't happening then blame either yourself or your opponents, not the game, because this isn't WFB and we aren't playing Top Trumps with armylists.

[Waaargh]

I came out wrong then. Due to all the WM/H balance bashing I thought I might as well give consideration something other than trolls. And, since I play mostly against one person with Khador that might as well be the place from where to begin looking. So, I don't want to beat the snot out of him (got a solid streak during FT ), but instead have fun and interesting games, where we both feel we have a good game. I have tried pKroess a long time ago, just proxying, and me mate didn't like him one bit, same with Eiryss. Hence those can be ruled out, no matter what, initially.

See I am a good guy *hug*.

[PG_General Nemo]

I think the important thing here is to acclimate your friend to the tougher things rather than pull punches, but I understand your desire for good old fashioned beatdown and no funny tricks.

[Avecrien]

As powerful as Eiryss may be, I could not bear the shame of someone telling me "there's an elf in your army."

I respect your interest in not playing overly cheesy things. I don't think we have too much of that in the Motherland. Though people unprepared to deal with our armor and melee prowess might protest. These things said, if you never present a challenge to your opponent, that player will never have good opportunities to grow and improve.

[JTY]

Never rule anything out, think your way around how to beat it instead.
If you're ruling stuff out to make your regular opponent enjoy his games more, don't.

"These damned Rooks move diagonally!"
"Yeah, that's ridiculous. Let's replace them with Pawns instead."
"Aaaah yes, that's more fun."

Khador can take on anything, even with very straight-up face beating armies.

Field what you want, and if your opponent can't beat you, pull some punches and give him a way in, even if you then have to draw him a map and put out a Welcome rug to show him where the way in is if for some reason he isn't seeing it.
You'll benefit from playing in a different way, he'll improve for doing the same

[Waaargh]

Hehe, I should do a counter with a red cross painted on grass or so

[JTY]

It's true though, often players just don't see how to beat an army, no matter how many times they play it they'll make the same mistakes.
I do it as often as anyone. Played a Mortenabra army 3 times the other week because I just wasn't thinking right and was handing my mate easy wins. 3rd game I woke up and we had a good game. I still lost but he properly outplayed me rather than just used my idiocy against me.

The options when your regular opponent can't beat a certain army are either have that player believe the game is broken as you have an undeafeatable army, or give him a gigantic hint.

[Waaargh]

Gosh, there is a lot of answers I didn't even notice, sorry about that...

I honestly don't understand the question. What do you mean by good game; what would be a bad game? Too easy/too hard to beat?
I like fighting everybody, though sometimes circle gives me fits with their tricksiness and I loathe elfs.

A bad game is a one sided affair, or a even a game where player one wins while player two have been doing a lot of stuff early game (Trollbloods trying to cross pHaley's Temporal Barrier is one such case). What I'd call a good game, at this point, is a game where the forces are matched even, and take some lumbs out of each other. For instance having a lot of Long Gunners against pVlad is like having rocks against paper

I hope that defined my "good game".

[Marth]

I think "Good Game" is more an issue of the players. Playing the right person, I could get completely owned and still have a good game (presuming I did not screw myself over). But playing the wrong person? ...

Which is a reason I never attend tourneys. Can't really tell what people there are going to be, and once I enter a tourney, my mindset also switches to WIN (cause winning is fun, after all), making me a less bearable person in general. A grim face due to seriously bad dice are one thing, a grim face due to seriously bad dice when it means something to me is something completely different.

I once played the Haley Barrier Spam, Mk.1. I lost, but the game still was good. The only dissappointment was my inability to take out those gunmages with my Spriggan's Explosive Grenades...

[Waaargh]

I understand what you are saying. Now, I have said what how I describe a good game between my mate and I, can you give my a hint to my question? .

[Karazax]

It sounds like you are asking what would be as close to perfect of an even match up with no particular advantages for your opponent or you. That's a difficult question to answer because assuming both players have solid lists, and relatively equal skill level, it is difficult to say how each player will adapt to the opponents army. A match up one player finds cheap or cheesy, may be easy to over come for a different player.

In other words, no matter what army any one suggests there are things that your opponent may find "cheap". There is often a grass is greener on the other side mentality about power balance, but realisitically if the other side had NOTHING that you didn't like facing then you are probably winning games that are not that challenging.

But if your opponent provides their army list then people can make suggestions on what he might consider changing or tactics for dealing with things he is having problems with. In the long run that will make him a much better player than just banning anything he doesn't like facing. But without knowing his exact army list and what he is having problems with it's hard to give very specific advice.

[Avecrien]

I could field the same army as my opponent and one of us still get stomped in a one sided affair. If they bait to split my forces and I buy it without anticipating his next combo, I could be crying foul even though I have the same models and could've done the same thing.

Some people say when you teach/demo the game to someone you're supposed to let them win. I think that's horribly misguided. You don't learn if you don't lose. You're starting that person off with an obfuscated idea of what a player is capable of.
Facing things like Haley can help you evolve as a player so when that sort of denial and subterfuge shows up you might hate it but you won't fear it. Yes, the initial reaction to me seeing certain casters/combos played is unpleasant but there is _nothing_ so rewarding as grinding their bones to make your bread.
I've done my share of whinging about Retribution, and I don't like the way the faction is balanced, but I'd be a liar to say I didn't relish retooling my armies so they can overcome it all.

To echo Karazax, getting other players' thoughts on army lists and strategies can help you get over the hump so you can enjoy the fights more.

OOH! I want to add that when you mention a rocks against paper fight, you may find that being less of an issue in bigger games. Sometimes it can be hard to build a balanced list with smaller games. Making sure you always walk on the field with your bases cover goes a long way towards making sure the fight isn't one sided.

[Marth]

Some people say when you teach/demo the game to someone you're supposed to let them win. I think that's horribly misguided. You don't learn if you don't lose. You're starting that person off with an obfuscated idea of what a player is capable of.

Ever since I know that I am one of those who said as such, I want to comment, if I may.

I still think it holds true. You won't hook player on the game if you stomp them, right? (We once had a PG in our area who... ehm... Harbinger Mk 1, nuff said.) Once they got in on a "real" (as in: No more Demo) game, I'd have them face something ugly sooner or later (the sooner he got a grip on all the rulles, the sooner).


Oh, and I second what Karazax said at the beginning. There are no completely equal matchups. Even if you played yourself and the same army build. As was said, the grass tends to be greener on the other side, the hue of green depending on the matchup (We are looking at you, PoM! ).
That's why I said it depends on the person you are playing. I'm sorry, I think I can't provide a better answer than that. (I'm a human sciences students - we're there to bring up questions, not to provide answers )

[Waaargh]

I like how it this has turned into a philosophical thread.

Into list and playstyle: Used to lead with pVlad for S&P, now he is toying a bit around with Old Witch and has mentioned Zerkova and Butcher. He make use of artillery to cause early damage either in form of Mortar or Behemoth, supported by Widow Makers and Greylords. MoW sometimes make a defensive wall while units of Doomreavers and IFP countercharge and/or flank. He waits for the opportune moment to strike when my troops are depleted or spread thin. My pet peeve when we play is to not dedicate the troops for a proper game winning assault, while rather stay satisfied by making a few kills here and there.

That is why I assume a faction/caster fighting guerrilla warfare will be the best suited to match the playing style.

[JTY]

It isn't true by any stretch Marth, just an assumption that people make. A common assumption I'll grant you, but still and all.

The outcome of an intro game means very little, the presentation means everything.
It may be true that some people who get intro'd won't come back if they lose the intro game. But experience teaches that if they win the intro and come back, they'll quit soon enough anyway.
The only way to hook players in is by pitching the intro to suit them; getting the blend of narrative and rules just right. Then afterwards explaining what is possible within the hobby based on their preferances; some people want fluffy narrative campaigns, some want RAW tournies.
It isn't easy, and that is why most people running intro games assume that if you let the new player win you are doin' it right. Which of course you aren't, you are just doing it the easy way.



Waargh, if your regular opponent is favouring Old Witch and Zerkova, he is favouring a very subtle style of caster so any problems he's having are going to be magnified; neither of those casters is easy to use, their armies really need to be built in a very specific way and that in turn makes them harder.

Anyway, this is a philosophical debate, because the question is 'how do I balance the games?', to which there is no easy answer.
I reckon you are out-playing your opponent, so I'd be wanting to help him grow (even if I had to draw him a diagram).
Others are suggesting that you go further down the route you've tried; that you dicount certain models/units. I can't see that benefiting anyone in the long run though.

For me the answer isn't 'let him win', it's 'teach him how to win'.

Two very distinctly different things.

[Esper]

Some people say when you teach/demo the game to someone you're supposed to let them win. I think that's horribly misguided. You don't learn if you don't lose. You're starting that person off with an obfuscated idea of what a player is capable of.

While I agree in general, I don't agree for a demo game. The purpose of a demo game is to first and foremost get a new person interested in the game. You're showing the basic mechanics of focus management, movement, combat, power attacks, etc. Stomping someone who's never played the game before at the top of turn 2 with a Sorscha woosh or Kreoss drop-and-pop doesn't exactly give you enough time to demonstrate the mechanics of the game.

[Marth]

Well, then the best tactic for a demo game would be - get two interested people, have them play each other. You stand back, and explain.

[JTY]

Ideally yes.

Failing that the simple best way to play the game is not to be a complete twonk and go for the n00b's throat just to prove how gigantic yer balls are.
Explain rules, explain their options, try and give them a few clues and hints, warn them off from very stupid actions, don't punish them for silly mistakes (unless they keep doing it and the game is becoming crap as a result), and let the outcome of the game unravel in its own way rather than try and force it. If it can come down to simple dice rolls and easy decisions then all the better.
The person running the game should not be out to display their superiority and should instead endeavour to make the game equal and interesting by helping the player being intro'd. In truth, doing this will allow the player being intro'd to see that the game does involve a lot of tactics, and that experienced players get alot more from it than simply shoving models around and rolling dice.

The person running the into is the teacher and the intro game builds that relationship. If the new player sticks he'll return to that teacher time and again in future looking for advice, be it on the game, the rules or other aspects of the hobby.
Running an intro game right is then very important because the person running it has more at stake than a simple sale.

Simply assuming that the n00b must be allowed to win just doesn't cut it guys.

At the end of the day, anyone can be made interested in our hobby through an intro game.
What's hard is making that happen. It's much harder than simply making them win.

[Marth]

Okay, so let me restate (in an effort to... well... end this excursion):

At the end of the day, the n00b should win (barring very bad play or the wrath of the dice gods), but he should have to take the win by himself, not having it handed to him.

I suppose that's not so difficult. After all, if he's hooked (which either happens during the beginning explanation or turn 1, or never), people generally develop that desire to win, I guess.

[Waaargh]

Waargh, if your regular opponent is favouring Old Witch and Zerkova, he is favouring a very subtle style of caster so any problems he's having are going to be magnified; neither of those casters is easy to use, their armies really need to be built in a very specific way and that in turn makes them harder.

Anyway, this is a philosophical debate, because the question is 'how do I balance the games?', to which there is no easy answer.
I reckon you are out-playing your opponent, so I'd be wanting to help him grow (even if I had to draw him a diagram).
Others are suggesting that you go further down the route you've tried; that you dicount certain models/units. I can't see that benefiting anyone in the long run though.

For me the answer isn't 'let him win', it's 'teach him how to win'.

Since Hordes FT where Khador has been tuned down (Greylords slowing through Blizzard, and pVlads spells gotten tinkered with) and Trollbloods got some improvements, I have been doing well in our games. Before that I think it was rather even. Honestly I think it is more a case of adapting to a different playstyle (warbeasts in place of Champions, and they can't be stunned). Anyways, my friend have used Old Witch once so far and pVlad in almost every other engagement we have had, 20-30 I think.

But that is of less importance. The reason to start with a WM army is because of all the disparity talking, I'd like to have a try at playing this system, and of course to have more wonderful models. Since my Khador buddy is the person I play against most often, it seems like a good foundation for an army to build one that makes for Good Games (see earlier post) against his Khador force. Less than a try at hampering myself/us.

It would also be a shame to spend money on, say, building an army based on Long Gunners, just to have to replace them soon due to Wind Wall, or rely on magic attacks that is stopped by Doomreavers. Notice I say base and rely opun, which is quite different from having some support in form of Mage Hunters or Long Gunners, or offensive spell slinging.

I once played W40k with some friends, with a building gunline type of army. In that particular group it was frowned upon, the games were called boring and one sided. A positive game experience lies in the eye of the beholder, and in that context it was a negative experience. I'd like to avoid such a thing again (cut throat games and environments can be good fun, as long as all armies/factions have an almost perfectly equal chance of making killer armies).

[Avecrien]

There is a _huge_ gap between letting someone win and trying to show off how uber you are via cheese winz.
As usual, I agree with whatever JTY says and I think Marth and I are on the same page now.

Waaargh, I don't think you should base any list too heavily on one archetype. That's usually how people wind up getting frustrated and feeling someone else is overpowered, in my experience.
(Let me say again how much I appreciate your listening to what makes the game fun for everyone around you)
In my area, turtling armies-anything that snipes but really doesn't want to advance, are frowned upon. Many of us picked up Warmachine and Hordes because it's marketed as an aggressive game. Khador wasn't my first faction. I switched factions because the one I started with allowed me to stand ground and nail people from across the board. It did help me win games, it didn't help me find opponents.

While each faction caters more to a specific playstyle, you can really customize and switch up the focus of your lists enough that a player-especially someone like you who is looking for a good game-can make the experience what they like.
I won't tell you to build around what your friend is playing, but I would suggest not fielding what he doesn't yet have an answer to. Incorporeal cavalry, invulnerable solos, 26" caster assassinations can all wait. But having a good variety of threats on your side, assuming you're as helpful during the game as here, will help him get comfortable with more so he can grow as a player and you won't have to feel as boxed in.

I hope I'm contributing here and not just getting through my work day

[JTY]

I once played W40k with some friends, with a building gunline type of army. In that particular group it was frowned upon, the games were called boring and one sided.

It would be so easy to use that quote to exemplify the differance between the approach of two companies to rules.
One treats rules as a product in its own right accompanied by a range of toy soldiers that must be solid and sound, the other as something to have to accompany your toy soldiers and if the rules aren't good they blame the customer for being the 'wrong type of person'.

I won't do that, that'd be bad.



Waargh, didn't realise you were planning on picking up a WM faction, tbh

Why not tell us what you are looking at?

[PG_Pickles]

It is the person you play, not his army, and the challenge is to beat him and have fun doing so.

If that isn't happening then blame either yourself or your opponents, not the game, because this isn't WFB and we aren't playing Top Trumps with armylists.

Waargh, if your regular opponent is favouring Old Witch and Zerkova, he is favouring a very subtle style of caster so any problems he's having are going to be magnified; neither of those casters is easy to use, their armies really need to be built in a very specific way and that in turn makes them harder.

There is a contradiction in there somewhere....

[Waaargh]

Khador was the first faction that seemed interesting really (no really), but that will make for mirror matches now. Cygnar is cool due to the image of trenchers, and can be turned into a cool Great War/steampunk army. For efficiency I think Gun Mages would be strong, and I think either Stryker or Caine would be fun to play. Gun Mages are just a wee strange on a battlefield, with the highwayman looks.

Then there is the Retribution. But all the space elves have to kept out, just leaving mage hunter. That won't an army make.

Mercenaries could also be an option, the Rhul looks great methinks, and the Highborn Covenant could also work, and fit suspiciously well into the background. I have no idea if these are playable on even terms with Khador though, it's just the mercenaries after all.

Both Cyganr and Retribution would do fine with a skirmish playstyle methinks (I also hear Cygnar is weak, but if that is actually the truth I don't know).

As you can see I lean mostly towards Cygnar.

[Avecrien]

Cygnar is definitely not weak. They're the kings of shooty and the new meta is very pro-shooty. The areas I've played in usually look down on Cygnar players because of how frustrating a well built swan force can be. But you used pHaley as your example of what wasn't a good game so you know what I'm talking about.

You could do a lot of other things with them that might not be considered cheesy, and they have a ton of cool/fun models that I'd like to play with, but I don't trust myself with access to what they've got. I'd fall right back where I started.

[JTY]

There is a contradiction in there somewhere....

Is there?

And here's me thinking quite genuinely that Old Witch and Zerkova are quite tricky casters to use, so it'd be better to learn how to use them well rather than start comping Waargh's armies...


C'mon Pickles, you can do better than that.

[Waaargh]

Bump, for all the promised answers (I'm looking at you JTY ).

[JTY]

Oh, right.
Sorry.

Well, Cygnar would seem on paper the stellar opposite of Khador, they are the faction with the guns and the range.
But that is altering with the MKii stuff; it looks like Khador is getting better at range.
Still and all, Khador poses massive problems for Cygnar ranged armies, by and large we take huge damage before folding, and if Cygnar can't fold us before we close with them, it becomes short and bloody. That makes the Khadoran's challenge to build a solid and impenetrable army, and the Cygnaran's challenge to build a serious can opener.

That said, Ctgnar can be a combat faction as well; they have fast, hard hitting units in abundance, so there is no reason to follow the well trodden path to where the Long Gunners and Gun Mages are.

Retribution I don't much like myself; they are an odd faction.
Everything they do well they have all their own way, and they have numerous ways of screwing with other factions.
That is nicely offset by how brittle they are though, and Khador has some very useful tools to cripple them, eButcher or Kharchev's speed combined with lots of jacks can really upset Ret armies, and Zerkova can really punish them for relying on magic.

My gut reaction would be to look at Mercs.
They are the most diverse, and with the new contracts you can field some very themeatic armies using the cool Cygnar models.
Depending upon the caster and contract you use the force changes beyond all recognition. That should allow you to build an army that does anything you want, and a couple of simple changes will make it a totally different beast,

I have a huge soft spot for mercs it has to be said, and will be expanding my own Khador army with enough Mercs to field full Merc armies in time.
The diversity is the real hook for me.