Warmachine/Hordes General Thread

Being able to place a forest would be sweet as fuck for a faction like Skorne though. Readily available Rush is so good. It'd make the Tyrant Commander see play too as it can grant Pathfinder to your Nihilators.

Lot of that is because of the changes in Mk3.

But beyond that, it gives pBaldur an assassination vector, and you can just place it right in front of your opponent's zone to fuck them.

In fact, most people would just use it to place terrible terrain in the worst spot.

Oh, look, it's Menoth. Better put the largest forest I can manage right in front of their best spot to put their warjacks.

>most people would just use it to place terrible terrain in the worst spot
That's the whole fucking point. Melee armies would be largely unaffected, but gunlines would be unable to shoot.

Except a lot of melee armies have trouble with forests as well.

The guy talking Skorne, above, for example, is an idiot. Having a forest right in front of deployment would be a massive problem for Skorne players.

>Determine terrain placement through dice rolls
Problem sorted.

Shut your nigger ass up. If I couldn't just walk around it, I'd put heavies behind the forest and Rush + run them through it turn 1.

Terrain should not be a balancing factor in the game, because it only serves to constrain the variety of tables you're liable to see.

If, for example, you have to put LOS blocking terrain in the center of the table to balance gunlines, then all you're doing is ensuring that every tourney table ends up with LOS blocking terrain in the center of the table, and nothing else.

The fact that you think that isn't a major problem for you is kind of silly.

So what, you're fine not casting any other spells, or leaving all your support behind, or having to leave the half of your army without pathfinder stuck?

>it gives pBaldur an assassination vector
I'm all for anything that gives the le Baldur meme man assassination a chance of happening more than once in a thousand games. I don't even play Circle anymore but I'd still like to see it happen.

>Better put the largest forest I can manage right in front of their best spot to put their warjacks.
I'm assuming there would be some kind of size restriction so you can't just put down a 24"x6" strip of green felt right in front of your opponent.

>Terrain should not be a balancing factor in the game
I'm afraid that in a game with powerful long range weapons, you sort of have to use terrain as a balancing factor. The alternative is Cygnar continuing to win everything. All tables are the same at the moment anyway; terrain to the side, wide open space in the middle.

Or you just fix the guns themselves.

Terrain means the players can be smart to win. Nerfs means the player is being stripped from the balance equation.

That's the ideal, yes, but it's entirely dependent on however long it takes PP to get around to doing it properly.

user speaks truth; terrain in your face is only not-horrible if you have a Tycom or are using Immortals with UA (and a bit of ruthlessness), and that only because you can subvert opponent expectations and get some screening troops up the table anyway if they thought they gave you a table half that would strip you of your jamming element at a key moment.

And how would you propose that? You want guns to be powerful enough that warcasters who rely on guns/ranged troops are viable without them being overwhelming. Warmachine already has rather short range guns compared to it's movement speeds.

Slash RATs to reflect the net effect of pre-measuring in mk3 vs. mk2 (fewer wasted shots; cart those over into the "miss" category by other means to re-establish the old ratios).

Want to go radical? Make ranged attacks unboostable. Make ranged DAMAGE unboostable.

The sky is the limit, and they literally went with "do nothing".

here we go with the git gud excuse again.

Remember last edition, when Cryx and Legion we're OP. What did Cryx and Legion players tell everyone else?
Git gud.

Remember the focus Vs Fury argument?
What did hordes players say?
Git gud.

So really "Git gud" means "it is broken/op bullshit, but it gives me an advantage that i don't want you to take away"

Yes, unfortunately I agree.
Terrain shouldn't have to be the balancing factor.
For one, not all battles take place in dense terrain, in fact renaissance style battles would have been on open ground.

The other thing is that the models and the rules are set in the rulebook, the terrain elements and the setup of the table aren't. They is way too much difference in what players have available.

How did it happen though? In Mk1 shooting wasn't OP. Mk2 shooting wasn't OP (except lylyth2)
.
Having a ranged weapon was an advantage in itself.
Stealth was a counter; but stealth could be overcome by any model, simply by getting within 5".

assault is a terrible rule and shouldn't be in the game at all.

>assault is a terrible rule and shouldn't be in the game at all.

It sure is weird. I sure *hope* they meant it to be "no such thing as a melee screen for your support models", because that's what it seems to be for.

>Cygnarfag apologism

JUSTICE FOR CRYX

>So really "Git gud" means "it is broken/op bullshit, but it gives me an advantage that i don't want you to take away"

I can only imagine what that must feel like. I'm actually jealous of them. To have something in this game that is worth taking away...

I thought this WAS justice...

What happened to Cryx was well deserved.

It does my heart good to see people complain, though.

Skorne... if mk3 showed me anything it was that people actually played it and either loved it or hated it with a touching unhealthy codependancy.

Cryx... I thought just left it discarded on the ground and moved on to the next jank with hardly a complaint.

The point is for all the factions to be competitive without being oppressing.

Trading one set of factions for another hardly seems like it's going to make the game better, especially since all the people you hated who played Cryx are just going to play Khador or Cyngar now.