PPS_Matt Statement Reference

This is less a post and more documentation for myself, PP_Matt (Matt Wilson, the Chief Creative Director) popped up on the official boards and wrote some wonderful posts that people refused to link to (which made their discussions hard to follow). What follows is the copy+paste of the source condensed in once place.


PP_Matt (post #10)Given that you (Oncoming Storm) are pleased with the recent errata, that should give you some confidence that things are going in a positive direction. While your concerns are entirely justified, we want to recap what has transpired over the past few months to frame this all in the proper context and to hopefully put your (OP and the collective ‘your’) mind(s) at ease.

First and foremost, we made some mistakes. No, we did not release the new editions as an open beta. But what became apparent after the new editions came out were that some aspects of development (eg. the Skorne factions) did not get the attention they deserved or required during our development process. Recognizing this, we have made a strong effort to rectify the mistakes and revise rules where necessary to make sure that your models represent a good value to you on the tabletop. And where we have applied these efforts, they have been widely met with a positive approval.

What this should tell you is that we are attentive to the concerns and desires of our community and we are willing to do whatever it takes to create the best possible gaming experience for our customers. We hope that provides you some comfort and confidence in Privateer as a company. No, we’re not perfect, and yes, we are more than capable of making mistakes. But we own our mistakes and we’ll clean up after them to the best of our ability because we care very much about the experience our players have with our games.

The second point we want to make is that the entire purpose of our Community Integrated Development initiative is to again, offer you confidence that whatever you purchase has gone through sufficient play testing that it should not undergo immediate rules revision. While we have made several adjustments over the past few months, we don’t want an environment where your expectation is that things might change at any moment any more than you do. If you can’t purchase our models with confidence because you are afraid that they won’t retain their gameplay value, then the bottom line is, we can’t stay in business. The purpose of the CID is to make sure that in an environment where a single new model can change the entire meta, those new releases have been properly vetted by the community who is going to be playing with them. Our goal with CID is to stabilize the rules environment so that neither you nor we feel the need for something to change.

Will things change in the future? Yes. It is unavoidable and it would be misleading to try and get you to believe otherwise. We release new models every month and have several new factions in the works for future release. While all of these will go through the CID process, there are bound to be instances where something makes it through even our CID process, undiscovered and unchallenged. But through our CID process, we expect to be able to minimize these occurrences such that you should not feel trepidatious about making a purchase. And when things do change, they are changing for the betterment of the overall play environment.

We believe that a continued commitment toward offering the best gaming experience possible is superior to letting mistakes or unexpected issues go without being addressed. While we realize this does mean that we’re asking you to put trust in us as a company that truly cares about the quality of its customers’ experience, we hope that what we have been demonstrating to you over the past several months has proven that we are deserving of that trust.

PPS_Matt (post #18): I can tell you that as a Minions player, a year from now, you’re going to be very pleased, especially if you’ve been looking forward to something on a huge base.

We have a plan right now that stretches through 2019 into 2020 and beyond, that details our model releases each month. For your own sake, and ours, I will not share that plan because it would be suicide (for us). The plan is ever evolving as we continue to respond to the needs of our community, changes in our production processes, and whatever other conditions that may occur that influence how we develop and produce models for WARMACHINE & HORDES. What I can tell you is that every single faction we have produced models for to date is accounted for in that plan, with new additions scheduled for future release. However, with twelve current factions, a new one on the way this summer, and multiple sub-factions within those greater factions, releases for any specific faction are going to be spaced out by longer spans of time than they were in the past. Our goal is to be shipping all new releases around a themed force in a 1-3 month span of time, rather than broadcasting the eventual release of something a year or more ahead of time without a clear release date (which is kind of what I just did for you, apologies, but you know you wanted to hear that!). The point of this is that if you don’t see anything on the immediate horizon for your faction, you should not feel at all like you are ‘less important’, but rather, that you’re just like everyone else, because every faction is at some point going to be in that situation where many months are going to go by without news or a new release. This is a very different approach than what we have done in the past with our anthology books that were created in an effort to provide some level of parallel development to all of the factions of WARMACHINE or to HORDES, where what was published was essentially an imprecise schedule of what was to be released in the coming year. Over time, as the games grew and more factions were added, that approach became flawed. Only so much can be released in a given month or year, and trying to make sure every faction was addressed in parallel meant that each book could only have a few offerings for each faction, which was its own different kind of frustration. So, that’s changing. After the new faction releases in July, what we’ll be doing is releasing blocks of content for one faction at a time. Sometimes it will all come out in one month, and other times it will span two or even three months, depending on the size of the block of content. We feel pretty confident that these blocks of content will be more than sufficient to keep devotees of that faction busy until the next time their faction comes up in the rotation, but it does mean that there will be spans of time without new releases, but we think this will allow us to deliver a much more satisfying offering when we do get around to your faction.

At the same time, we’re not cold hearted monsters that enjoy making people wait! And we also love the holidays. I’m going to get myself in trouble for jumping the gun, but we have a plan to make sure that most (if not every) faction has something under the tree at the end of the year (so to speak). December is going to be a month that falls out of our normal release cadence and lets us have a bit of fun, hopefully delivering to each faction what they want most, or at least something that is going to be a lot of fun to get onto the tabletop. And hopefully this breaks up the wait time between releases for your chosen faction, at least a little. Again, I’m working without a net here and divulging things that we aren’t ready to discuss in detail. But I want you to know that no faction is being overlooked or diminished. We have a vested interest in all of them and are eagerly looking forward to the opportunity to build on each one of them.

PPS_Matt (post #36)The new HORDES faction will comprise all of our in-store model releases in July, August and September, which I think will make it officially our most aggressive new faction release schedule, ever. So, no effort is being spared to push the faction out and get players everything they need to build an army.

At the same time, expectations should be realistic. We’ve got 15 years worth of Khador releases in the catalog, for instance. New factions aren’t going to express that kind of volume of offering. But they will be robust. The new faction, for instance, has six new warlocks, which should provide a great amount of variety and different play styles and experiences. The intention is that they will provide more than enough to be competitive and well tuned, with plenty of variety. And you’ll get to help ensure that’s the case very soon!

PPS_Matt (post #93)I am cautiously optimistic about CID as well. As a standard operating procedure, it’s new territory for us. It’s sure to be an evolving process as we find all find our groove.

With regards to models that may appear to need some tuning upward, in some cases (not all), the reason we feel they are performing as intended might be because we know what’s coming around the corner. Model X that seems underwhelming right now might suddenly become very interesting when model Y is released in its theme force at some point in the future. That doesn’t necessarily help the performance of model X right now, but what we don’t want to do is jockey the same model up and down the curve just to make it appealing in the moment. For some things, there is a plan, and that plan just has to come to fruition. In other cases, as we open up a new theme force for CID, we might take a look at an existing model or two make sure it has a desirable role within the theme force. In such a situation, those models would become part of the CID rotation and would be visible to everyone so that you know what is under scrutiny.

Again, the primary goal is to make sure that the environment feels stable and that we’re not randomly changing things. Change and evolution should be an expectable part of the environment, but through the CID process, we want this to become something that has a comfortable level of transparency and predictability for you.

Advertisements

Meta-Benders

In contrast to my last post (which was a hybrid monstrosity of critiquing Privateer Press, reviewing Durant2 and redesigning Durant2), this post is going to be largely positive. Its also about Una2 (and meta-benders in general), so bear with me.

What is a “meta-bender”? Put simply, a meta-bender is a release that causes established meta to shift. A “meta” (actually M.E.T.A.) is “most effective tactic available”. Its slang that has grown to describe the common game environment in which we theory-machine/compete in.

Humans are extremely efficient problem solvers (read: lazy). Once we find a solution to a problem, we’re unlikely to change that solution unless something else changes. One of the desired results of playing and participating in a game is to win and because humans are lazy, we’ll gravitate to the path of least resistance. For a tabletop wargame, this results in the development of the “meta gamestate”. While a meta is not an inherently bad thing to have in a game, it is quite easy for a meta to become toxic and stale.

After the initial release frenzy had died down, mkIII Warmachine settled into a fairly stale meta with surprising speed. Competitive players brought two archetypes of lists to tournaments, gunlines and armor spam (there were a few outliers here, but the majority were gunlines or armor spam). The online communities, the groups of people looking for their meta solution to Warmachine (i.e. a win with the least possibility of loss), latched onto the competitive meta. In factions where the models no longer supported the meta, morale plummeted and positivity vanished (hi Cryx players!). It turns out that thinking is hard and complaining is easy (6 months in people are starting to discover that Cryx has some pretty potent game, but I digress). What was most shocking to me is exactly how quickly the meta crystallized. Any discussion with players basically got the same answers and nobody wanted to try new things. Partially this is on PP, as I’ve mentioned previously the first two waves of Warcasters were incredibly bland, timid in scope and uninspired (I understand their timidity and I’m not advocating that it was unreasonable, I’m just saying that the first 6 months of mkIII didn’t live up to the hype). Basically, by not releasing powerful, dynamic casters that force people to think about the meta, PP doomed the meta to its state of rapid stagnation.

Now we have Una the Skyhunter. A Circle warlock that does a fairly specific thing very well (which is running light warbeasts into an army and murdering everything dead) that is completely outside the scope of the current meta (gunlines and armor spam), she forces the meta to change (to gunlines, armor spam and Una2 counters). As players adjust their two list pairs, it causes new thoughts and ideas to occur. Because of these new thoughts and ideas, lists change even more and new strategies form. The meta warps irrevocably and we have a completely new environment to play in!

This is why I like Una2 and meta-benders in general. They represent new problems on the table, new puzzles to solve and new tactics to emerge. All of these things are signs of a healthy game (and it makes things far more interesting than any of the battle box casters or junior 2s have). So good on PP for releasing Una2, I look forward to more meta-benders and more puzzles in the future!

Afternote: I’m aware that Una2 is the last caster in the junior release cycle, she’s just so starkly different from the rest of them that she might as well be her own release cycle.

Let’s Rumble!

Apparently I’m rather fond of starting post titles with “Let’s…”. Anyways, Privateer Press put out variant rules for playing small games of Warmahordes in the 2016 Steamroller document (link here). The basic idea is this is a 15-35 point game played on a 30×30″ board. There are some differences in deployment but it’s basically played the same as a full sized game.

The other important piece of this post is that I’ve been playing Star Wars: Armada recently (a good buddy of mine bought heavily into the game and was looking for someone to play against). One of the key features of that game is that the players take turns activating their models and it got me thinking:

“What would Warmachine play like if there were alternating activations?”

So I got together an interested opponent and we played a Rumble game with alternating activation…and it was a fantastic amount of fun! There were a few rules adjustments that we had to make on the fly in an attempt to maintain a little balance and fun.

  1. The player with the fewest activations gets to activate a model/unit first. This player is the “first player” for that round.
  2. The first player takes a maintenance phase, then the second player takes a maintenance phase.
  3. The first player takes a control phase, then the second player takes a control phase.
  4. A round is over when all models have activated.
  5. Models that are knocked down during an opponent’s activation behave as if they were knocked down during an opponent’s turn.
  6. Models that are made stationary during an opponent’s activation behave as if they were made stationary during an opponent’s turn.

That’s about it. I want to try this a few more times before formalizing some sort of document, but I think this idea has a lot of potential. If you try it and have some feedback, please let me know!

Woldwyrds and Consistancy (or How to Win Warmachine)

I have been thinking about how best to make use of the Woldwyrds I recently bought and painted. What it comes down to, is I need to apply their gun in the best way possible, a slightly difficult task because they’re RAT 6 (for giggles, here’s the card because I can totally do this now!)

woldwyrd-card

Clearly Woldwyrds have zero issues actually getting to where they need to be (7 inches of scoot coupled with pathfinder makes it super easy to go where you’re needed) but the RAT 6, it’s rough. Normally, I’d be unconcerned. It has three shots and can boost….but it only has 2 Fury with which to boost with and that’s a problem. There are a few easy ways to handle this, but the point I’m trying to make is this: Warmachine is won by maximizing your consistency and minimizing your opponent’s consistency.

We, as players, do this mainly though buffs and debuff. We want to make the process of removing out models as unlikely as possible while maximizing the chances we remove our opponent’s models. For the Woldwyrds specifically, there are three methods I can think of off the top of my head.

First and easiest, the green version of the Cygnar Rangers, an Argus Moonhound. +2 RAT to anything within 5″ and line of sight of the Moonhound.

Second, aim bonus! While not the easiest thing to apply due to their range, it is almost always an option.

Third, slams. Probably my favorite power attack and one that is largely captilized upon by attacks (instead of heavies), Circle has a beauty of a slambot at 12 points, the Gnarlhorn Satyr. Knocked down models have a DEF of 5, slammed models get knocked down. That’s typically a DEF of at least 7…plus Gnarlhorns have Counterslam which I suspect is just this side of amazing (since being knocked down on your own turn is horrendous).

Maybe I should just suck it up and make a list for this…I’m already 40% of the way there…

List Design

So I’ve started to think a bit more about list design in recent days (actually lots of different design things, like is it okay to give a high powered single target gun to a low RAT model because hard targets typically have low DEF?) and I wanted to codify my process and see if I can refine or improve it any (I may have rambled on some of this previously, but I’m hoping some of it is new…ish).

So first, my process:

Step 1) Pick the War-noun. Be it ‘caster or ‘lock, this model is what dictates the rest of the list and the over-arching strategy on the table. Designing a list without can work, but it won’t be nearly as tuned.

Step 2) Define the victory condition. How does the model from Step 1 want to win the game? Typically it’s one of three strategies: Attrition, Scenario or Assassination. Tournament play opens another avenue, Time. There are multiple layers to each of these conditions, but the general definition serves us for the moment.

Step 3) Identify models that support the primary victory condition. Put them all in a list.

Step 4) Define the weakness or lose conditions for the selected War-noun. How is this model going to lose the game?

Step 5) Identify models that cover or compensate for that weakness. Put those models in a list.

Step 6) Compare the two lists, anything that happens to be on both lists is probably worth taking. Evaluate and compare the remainder of the lists, take what does the job best.

Step 7) Fill remaining points with high utility models (Gorman, Menoth Punch Monks) and support (Choir).

One of the challenges of this approach is that it is really difficult to evaluate models without putting them on the table. For the longest time I dismissed Punch Monks as “cute, but useless” preferring the support offered by a Vassal or a few mechanics instead. Turns out that a single Punch Monk can hold a flag unassisted for turn after turn after turn (DEF18 and immunity to knock down is really hard to kill). Similarly, there was a period of time where I stuck Kell Bailoch into every single list I made, then I tripped across an opponent who knew how to handle Kell and put Kell into the dirt repeatedly. At this time I had a different method of list building: Pick your caster, stick your favorite models in, fill the list with whatever fits. Not a great process but easy to do.

This is on my mind since I recently sorted through a really one-sided Malekus game. My misplays coupled with my bad list (built via the old method) led to a brutal game, one I would care not to repeat. I think my new process, while much more involved, will serve me much better. I’ll probably post a few full blown explanations as I go through it for the first few times (maybe it’ll catch some comments from the internet).

Sniper Skorne

So a fellow forumite on the Privateer Press forums (by the handle of StivBelgrade) proposed an interesting concept for Skorne, a bunch of Cyclops Shamans and another warbeast with the Far Strike animus. Cyclops Shamans can copy any animus of other warbeast near to them and have a 10”, POW12 gun that has Ghost Shot (a ranged weapon with Ghost Shot ignores LOS, cover and concealment).

I like this concept. The idea of Skorne putting a serious ranged assassination threat on the table without a single heavy warbeast amuses me and so, at ridiculous o’clock in the morning, while sleep is eluding me, I began to build on this concept.

Here’s my first attempt:
Skorne – Skorne Sniper mkI
Dominar Rasheth – WB: +28
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 4)
–    Cyclops Raider – PC: 9

Ancestral Guardian – PC: 5
Paingiver Bloodrunner Master Tormentor – PC: 4
Swamp Gobber Chef – PC: 1
Gobber Tinker – PC: 2

Praetorian Karax – Leader & 9 Grunts: 11
Paingiver Bloodrunners – Leader & 5 Grunts: 9
Paingiver Beast Handlers – Leader & 3 Grunts: 5

One of the big issues that people on the forums picked up on is: this style of gunline list doesn’t handle masses of infantry well. What they missed was, it doesn’t handle armor either…whoops…

Before I discuss the second version of the list, I want to discuss the various pieces of this list that I like and how the work together.

First, Rasheth. He has the fury potential to run 4 Shamans hot every turn (animus + fully boost) and not risk frenzies (3 fury * 4 shamans = 12 fury, -4 beast handlers, perfect 8). He also has an armor debuff, a terrifying feat turn (effectively boosting the Shamans to POW17, RAT8 for that turn) and has decent anti-infantry tech (acid clouds!). Compared to the other Skorne warlocks, none even came close to contesting this choice.

Second, Ancestral Guardian. Rasheth can arc through a warrior model. This will typically kill it (1d3 damage). Not only is the AG able to collect that soul, if I need to arc through it, it won’t die (and as a construct, I can chase it around with the Gobber Tinker to keep it healthy).

Those are the two big pieces that make the core of this list actually go. Now I’m going to say something that is going to drive the hivemind nuts, Battle Engine. On the Warmachine side of things, if a player mentions a battle engine, they typically get shout at about how that’s wasting power up and that heavy jacks are better and in most cases, the hivemind isn’t wrong about such things, but this is Hordes. Beast are more expensive and don’t have any magical nonsense like Power Up making the battle engine more expensive via opportunity costs. Now there are two available to Skorne, the angry turtle (in-faction) and the Meat Grinder (Minions). Each brings different strengths to the board and I think for this list, one is clearly superior.

Siege Animantarax (Angry Turtle)

My initial impression was that this model sucked, hard, really hard. SPD4 is bad enough on a beast, but it’s just crippling when the base is too big to hide. At a second glance, it seems that this model could move a whole 7” in a turn if the opponent would shoot it just a little…still rather awful (my opponents don’t have a “just a little” setting on their shooting, just “several overkill-y tons”). On the third glance, I finally saw that it could trample and had Reposition[3″]! Praise the Sun! The angry turtle can scuttle 10” a turn without any help (and that’s actually good enough). Overall, I think that the output this model has is still too limited to mulch huge swaths of infantry (5” bases are super awkward to trample with) but it’s something that I’m planning on returning to.

Meat Grinder

I’m actually just in love with this model! Its quick (SPD6), deadly to pretty much all infantry, and is near impossible to jam up. Primarily this is a model that chews through infantry by knocking them down and rolling 16+5d6 against everything that’s in melee range on the charge (which when coupled with Bulldoze and a huge base, can be a lot of models). The fact that it can also toss out 2-6 RNG12, POW12 shots is just straight gravy!

Now the battle engine serves two purposes in this next list, a “DISTRACTION CARNIFEX” and as a solution to infantry swarms.

The second part of this second iteration is the 6 points I want to fill with questions. A few options jump out at me:

  1. Totem Hunter – Fast, prey, great solo hunter.
  2. Hutchuk – Ambushing grenadier. Also not a slouch in melee at P+S 14.
  3. Double Bog Trog Trawlers – Ambush! 13” drag threat into the rear arc at RAT7. Funny things happen when unit leaders get drug out of coherency (especially backwards).
  4. Void Spirit + Feralghast – Incorporeal models are a pain to deal with.
  5. Master Tormentor + Gobber Tinker – More repair for the Battle Engine, another Channel target for Rasheth.

(It’s at this point that I realized that without troops to arc through, Rasheth starts to hate life and the AG really under performs, so I cut the AG. This freed up 5 more points, so I took a unit of Bloodrunners and a second Gobber Tinker.)

Skorne – Skorne Sniper mkII
Dominar Rasheth – WB: +28
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 8)
–    Cyclops Shaman – PC: 8 (Battlegroup Points Used: 4)
–    Cyclops Raider – PC: 9

Meat Thresher – PC: 19

Gobber Tinker – PC: 2
Gobber Tinker – PC: 2

Paingiver Beast Handlers – Leader & 3 Grunts: 5
Paingiver Bloodrunners – Leader & 5 Grunts: 9

This list is something that I’m really excited to put on the table. To get to 75 points, I would add in Zaadesh, move two Shamans to him and swap the Raider for a Cannoneer. A unit of Karax and a Feralghast rounds off the 75 even.

Since the point of this list is assassination, I feel that the pressure from the Shamans should be sufficient scenario pressure to keep things even. Attrition is going to be where this list suffers and a lot of that will be down to how effective the Meat Grinder will be at clearly other infantry swarms.

Cull the Infantry (Battle Report, Vindictus vs Madrak2)

Okay, so I made a statement on the forums in a debate that I decided to uphold (it amounted to running an infantry swarm list into Madrak2). Here’s the battle report. The table had 12 pieces of terrain (most of it was small, see the picture). Scenario was Take and Hold. Troll player (my lovely wife) won the roll and chose to go first.

Vindictus
-Repenter
-Repenter
-Castigator
Errents (were actually Errents)
Idrians Skirmishers + UA (Temple Flameguard + Errent UA)
Flame Bringers (random collection of big bases as mine are still in a multitude of pieces).
Allegiant of the Order of the Fist (the lonely chior member).
Kell Bailoch
Rhupert Carvolo
Deliverer Sunburst Crew
Deliverer Sunburst Crew

Madrak2 (the yellow base)
-Bouncer (the painted gunbunny)
-Axer (the unfinished gunbunny)
-Dire Troll Mauler (the retribution heavy)
Krielstone + UA (the man o wars)
Trollkin Champions (Ogrun Warspears)
Warders (Convergence models)
Fell Caller Hero
Stone Scribe Chronicler
Swamp Gobber Bellows Crew
Trollkin Champion
Northkin Fire Eaters

The water is obvious. The slatted thing is a trench. There’s a log and a wall which are both linear obstacles. The house is an obstruction, there’s a pair of forests (a strip and a roundish one with a green foam stump on it), a green foam block obstruction, a crate of TNT (Holden special terrain) and a pair of mine entrances (also Holden related). The bridge counts as a hill with only two ways up.

img_20160924_213310

Madrak deployed across from my flag, tucked a little behind the lake (to be within reach of the Krielstone). The Fire Eaters skewed hard to the left side.

I deploy with the Idrians acrossacross from MadrakMadrak, the Sunburst in position to take the bridge on turn 1, the Flame Bringers skewed to the right edge, and Vindictus tucked behind his jacks.

Idrians declare prey target as the warders. My wife takes a double shot of rum to sip on, I chose a Yuengling Black and Tan myself. Here are our deployments. My wife forgot that the Fell Caller hero could pass pathfinder to the Kreilstone (hence why they’re skewed to the side and not directly behind the water).

img_20160924_220348

Round 1, everybody runs. Things of note Madrak loads up the Krielstone, Fire Eaters snuggle up to the mine entrance. Vindictus puts Defender’s Ward on the Ponies. Punch Monk lands on the flag.

img_20160924_223159

Round 2, Trolls: Trolls run up the board, Kreilstone does Kreilstone things (Combat Warding aura for the entire game). Fire Eaters take mine entrance to change sides of the board. Gobbers make a cloud. Madrak loads up the Krielstone to the max amount. Warders run towards the center of the table to start screening the Krielstone. The Champions run forward towards the Idrians.

img_20160924_225652

Round 2, PoM: I feat and put a few boxes of damage out (one of the Sunbursts pops both gobbers with AoE). The Flame Bringers advance down the flank, trying to stay out of charge range. In hindsight, I could’ve feated turn one and aggressively positioned the Idrians to put a lot of shots onto Madrak (and thus, onto the warders). Being spread out and not under the Krielstone, I probably could’ve killed quite a few of them.

img_20160924_231811

Round 3, Trolls: Trolls run to engage, Madrak scuttles near to warders, hovering between the flags. Fire Eaters spray themselves and miss the Punch Monk who scoots into their back arc. The Warders engage the Errants, the Champions engage the Idrians.

img_20160924_233855

Round 3, PoM: Punch Monk kills a Fire Eater and damages the other (I come up with the wonderful idea of doing up a Punch Monk as a Doctor of Internal Medicine, specifically a Proctologist). Errents deal maybe 9 boxes of damage to the warders. Idrians clear out a couple champions (turns out that this wasn’t a good idea since it cleared the charge lane for Madrak). Flame Bringers clean up another two, leaving one alive. One of my big mistakes was this turn as well. I left a Repenter up near the strip forest to get a spray on the Champions and didn’t realize that this was completing the Madrak pacman chain. Oops.

img_20160925_000959

Round 4, Trolls: Fell Caller buffs Madrak with +2 MAT, he buffs and feats and charges into the space left by the dead champions (OOPS!). Nom nom noms through the Idrians (he ends up taking ~6 points of damage from pentience, totally meaningless since I was unable to put any other damage onto him. Ends the chain at Vindictus and kills him (I thought I had the spacing slightly better). Even without killing Vindictus, losing the majority of the Idrians would’ve seriously hampered my ability to kill anything.

img_20160925_002127

Results: Madrak2 wins!

Final Thoughts:

  • The Sunbursts did very little work.
  • The Errents did very little work.
  • The Madrak2 list had no ranged presence.
  • My spacing was crap.
  • Ponies are good.
  • Next time I need to bring better weapon masters (perhaps the Knights) or Daughters.
  • Idrians having Prey on the Warders is still an okay choice since Madrak will probably be passing Idrian shots from him to the Warders. The problem is that the Idrians do not possess enough range to shoot Madrak and not get charged (I’m dubious about having them within “run to engage range of Madrak as well, since he can Grim Salvation off to the Warders if the distancing is correct).
  • Vindictus may not be the right choice (but I think he could be the right choice still).
  • I need to drink my beer faster so it doesn’t get warm.
  • What I kill out of Madrak’s army literally doesn’t matter if I can’t watch my spacing.
  • I want another

My wife also had some thoughts about the Trolls

  • Combat Warding was worth its points several times over (as a large part of my PoM list was setting the trolls on fire).
  • Slotting puppet master into the list (via the Knot), would be better then the Stone Scribe and Swamp Gobbers.
  • Haha, tough is fun!

tl;dr Watch your spacing against Madrak and he won’t be able to wreck your army.

That’s pretty much it for this battle report.