|
Post by macdaddy on May 14, 2017 19:00:57 GMT
I wonder how many people would jump on board if PP came out with a narrative form of playing the game. Rules for generating characters and special solos. Kind of like a cross between IKRPG and the board game. I know they technically have crossroads going in right now but being able to make my own campaigns and run events with a pp rulers would be nice
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 14, 2017 19:09:20 GMT
I wonder how many people would jump on board if PP came out with a narrative form of playing the game. Rules for generating characters and special solos. Kind of like a cross between IKRPG and the board game. I know they technically have crossroads going in right now but being able to make my own campaigns and run events with a pp rulers would be nice Id find that to be the tightest shorts (Apparently the S word isn't filtered) ever to be honest. Like THAT is what 40K has over Warmachine in Spades. Place for you to carve out your own little universe. Your army is truly your own. Warcasters would be perfect for that. It would take allot of fine balancing, but it could be doable.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 14, 2017 19:33:01 GMT
I wonder how many people would jump on board if PP came out with a narrative form of playing the game. Rules for generating characters and special solos. Kind of like a cross between IKRPG and the board game. I know they technically have crossroads going in right now but being able to make my own campaigns and run events with a pp rulers would be nice People have been asking for customisable warcaster foreeeevvvveeeer so I'd say quite a lot. Id say its the lack of context. "Story Battles" Are not promoted enough. Because of the lack of context there is not enough cool stuff to do. I tried a story battle once and it was very fun. I sneaked some Manowars behind enemy lines using a mine cave system. One of the fun things to do is scenarios like some of the unbalaced ones that have appeared in various NQ's. For example, there was one that had Nemo, some warjacks, and maybe a few other models vs. a larger Khadoran force with no warcaster. The idea being that you are showing that 'multiplier' warcasters are supposed to be on the battlefield. I remember one that was supposed to Everblights battle with Ios when he first woke up. He measures his control from the back center of his board edge, is FURY 20 and gets to place/fire (I don't remember which) several POW 20 5" AoEs a turn.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 14, 2017 19:35:35 GMT
People have been asking for customisable warcaster foreeeevvvveeeer so I'd say quite a lot. Like Warmahordes has a much clearer " Fatasy RPG" connection then other stuff. There could be lots of neat things. Like how if your a Cephalyx, and defeat a Khadoran Army you can have them be mind controlled next time?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 14, 2017 21:26:44 GMT
People have been asking for customisable warcaster foreeeevvvveeeer so I'd say quite a lot. In my experience, it's what most people ask for when they start WM after being used to GW games. "In 40k I could name my own general, why can't I do that here?" The Masters in Malifaux are all named, and all the Guild Ball characters seem to be named too, so it's probably the same for the other more modern games that have followed in WM's path. People just really like being able to design and name their own heroes. I don't think it's something PP will ever do though. What's the first thing you notice that WM has and 40k doesn't? Stat cards. WM is and always has been designed so that all models and units have a stat card, which is permanent and fixed, like a Magic card. I think WM is just as likely to make customisable cards as Magic is. To give people what they want without compromising their game, I feel like PP would have to release a separate game, which would be a cross between WM and the RPG. Something like Gangs of Five Fingers and so on, with custom warcasters and custom warjacks. No stat cards, you design your own models on a piece of paper, just like in 40k. I think the reason they won't make such a game is that it wouldn't bring in new players - it would mainly cannibalize players away from WM and over to the new game. So I think for it to happen, it would have to be as a replacement for WM, not in addition to it. But... what people are really asking for when they want customisable warcasters is for WM to be more like 40k. Do we really think that that's what PP will want to do?
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 14, 2017 22:00:30 GMT
Speaking of fun narrative scenerarios there is one on the the new crossroads of courage that seems like the bees knees. I really want to play it cause it seems fun. It's the one where you have a fort and one army is trying to get into the safety of the fort by any means necessary while running away from a massive doomsday force of grymkin (or insert force here) while the other force is trying to keep tge "refuges" out long enough and make all the repairs in the breaches.
I really wish they released more scenarios like that. Or kept a online pdf of all of them or something. Call it narrative scenerarios or something. I also wish more people played them.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 14, 2017 22:52:40 GMT
People have been asking for customisable warcaster foreeeevvvveeeer so I'd say quite a lot. snip I think a small spin off "custom warcaster" game would likely see more popularity than Grind or the Colossal Wrestling thing. Hell they could even make a customisable Warlock/Warcaster kit like Wyrd did with their Through The Breach character kit.
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on May 14, 2017 23:23:32 GMT
If they made customizable casters, it would be broken or linear as hell. Some spells and rules are just blatantly superior to others, and the casters are balanced around having some strengths and weaknesses that players would never willingly take. Even if they did some kind of pros/cons system where taking some strong rule/spell forced you to also take a weak rule/spell, people would find the optimum caster that gives their faction what it otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have, and use nothing but that.
The fact of the matter is that something like Lords in WHFB or HQs in 40k are infinitely more simplistic than a warcaster or warlock, and have way less of an impact on your army. Such customization in those games just makes for some interesting list-building possibilities, but in WMH it would be list-making and faction-breaking.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 14, 2017 23:43:07 GMT
Pp makes a shed load of narrative play. They do narrative leagues every year and often include points for doing fun stuff. If your players aren't playing it that's their problem, pp are doing plenty.
40k next edition rules look like an old pig in new makeup. Wow, look, they removed the problem with being unable to shoot in melee by making you able to walk out of melee and then shoot them. Such innovation. They removed the idiotic vehicle rules like they should have done 3 editions ago, how intelligent their designers are to have removed such an obvious problem with their rules.
40k gets a giant 'meh' from me so far.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on May 15, 2017 0:18:29 GMT
Can break the rules is different from need. The idea that there is a rule in Warmachine that stops you from breaking the rules gave me a good laugh I think what is being compared here (or at least what Tomorrow is talking about) isn't actually the quality of the game rules. It's the attitude that the players have towards the game. Tomorrow was saying, as I read it, that when he plays 40k, the attitude he and his opponents adopt is that it's OK to be flexible and inaccurate when it comes to the rules if you feel like that makes the game slash narrative slash experience more fun (not "required to" - but "OK to"). And that this attitude isn't found when he and his opponents play WM. It's undoubtedly a player attitude, but I can't help but feel that the reason Warmachine players tend to be rigid about the rules is because the rules work. I can recall so, so many instances of rule interactions being just outright non-functional in GW games way back in the day when I played them. A game where you're already forced to make up your own rules (or at least your own rulings on interactions) is always going to be one where making up your own rules is part of the game. If you think "It should never be OK to be flexible about the rules! The game becomes totally unfun if you don't follow them ridigly!", then that's cool, then you just have a "rigirules" attitude. And if you think "Forge the narrative and follow your heart, that's so much fun!" then you have a "flexirules" attitude. These two attitudes tend to belong to WM and 40k respectively, and I do think the game writers intend to push the games themselves in those directions, but that's incidental in a sense - it's ultimately the players that choose to have those attitudes. For the most part, the people I play Warmachine with are people I only play Warmachine with. I'm not really friends with them outside of the game, and as awesome and friendly as they are, I like that I don't need to negotiate personalities and preferences to play Warmachine with them. That's something I'd prefer to reserve for people I actually know well. Breaking rules for the sake of the story is something I'm much more inclined to do when I run roleplaying games anyway. At least there you don't have to balance the competing priorities of it being ostensibly a competitive game with a winner versus telling a narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on May 15, 2017 1:03:31 GMT
Mk 3 has better balance now than mk 2 ever did. I don't think I've ever agreed with you more, and we've had our arguments.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 15, 2017 1:24:22 GMT
Pp makes a shed load of narrative play. They do narrative leagues every year and often include points for doing fun stuff. If your players aren't playing it that's their problem, pp are doing plenty. Yeah i just wish they had all the scenerarios for those in one handy place rather then me have to deal with their organized play website.and look up all the league rules individually
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on May 15, 2017 1:33:38 GMT
There really is no debate. Hordes beasts are overcosted, and their in-faction list diversity is worse than WM (my Circle, for instance, only EVER makes use of 4 different units, and 2 of them are highly specialized.) With SR2017 forcing things into a grindfest in the centre of the table, 'tricksy' approaches (which got worse in the transition to Mk3) become nearly irrelevant. Virtually everyone in my meta who has a WM faction has switched to it, because the uphill battles against WM are utterly unfun. I've said it before, will say it again. The game feels like they released it ahead of schedule - after balancing most of the WM factions, but before balancing most of the Hordes factions. The fact that it endlessly gets debate seems to put the idea that there is no debate to bed. Warmachine factions in general seem better than Hordes factions in general, but this seems more due to individual factions powers, not anything innate to Warmachine or Hordes. I think you all have good points here. For example, a Mauler is, overall, just plain superior to a Juggernaut in a way that can only be accounted for by a higher point cost. Yet, the fact that it does cost more changes the dynamics in important ways. And I am also inclined to think that Power Up etc is just a red herring. Cygnar is strong because they have some of the best casters in the game, and Lances, Stormwall, etc. Khador is just plain good- basic but in a way that is accessible and reliable. They are popular because they're fun, and yes, easier, to play. The elves are running smoothly now and actually look really good. Yet look at Menoth and Cryx. Playing against Menoth had to stop feeling like a root canal for the sake of well, player retention, and they aren't what I'd call weak, but did they lose too much of their flavor in the bargain? There's genuine debate there, largely Yet look at Menoth and Cryx. Playing against Menoth had to stop feeling like a root canal for the sake of well, player retention. They aren't what I'd call weak, but it's fair to say that their denial is probably more fair. Yet did they lose too much of their flavor in the bargain? There's genuine debate there, largely because that question is subjective. Cryx badly needed to be taken down a peg, but PP oversteered a bit. By the time the Bane theme is officially released, I think they'll be just fine and in some ways more fun than ever. Legion is really starting to gel now. Circle will mount a comeback as soon as they figure out what Tanith + Loki can really do and they get the upgrade to the Fulcrum, and so on. And when the Skorne get their themes, watch out. Aren't they beasts & Prats? Yeah, there's a dozen different ways that could be really nasty, and only two of them are called Makeda. And every time the meta is panicking over the latest boogeyman, the Trolls come along with a counter, probably using a warlock you'd forgotten was there. So no, it's not just "Warmachine is better."
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on May 15, 2017 6:51:35 GMT
WM&H is no euro game, it's system is as flexible and open to adding creative, personalised stuff like custom scenarios, models or campaigns as wh40k or WFB is. It's just not that popular so it must be something players CHOOSE not to do.
Just see how rarely people want to play non-tournament-standard size games or how PP had to actualy force players to use relevant terrain because they were used to playing on open tables and proper terrain was seen as fancy and not "serious".
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on May 15, 2017 11:57:33 GMT
Breaking rules for the sake of the story is something I'm much more inclined to do when I run roleplaying games anyway. At least there you don't have to balance the competing priorities of it being ostensibly a competitive game with a winner versus telling a narrative. I completely agree that this is the inherent conflict that exists within the wargames genre, and that the reason 40k and WM are seen as so different boils down to competitive vs. narrative, or to put it differently, chess vs. D&D. To me, there is nothing competitive about 40k. Me and my opponent used to write our own rules for it. Points are just a rough guideline, because we made up the points values ourselves. It's basically like AoS. Put some stuff down, roll some dice, see what happens. There is no real winner or loser, any more than there is in a RPG fight between a PC and an NPC. It's just part of a feeling of a story. Wonderful fun. WM is different because it is much more designed with a chess, or MtG, competitive attitude. But... it is still a wargame. It still has a narrative core that something like a CCG or chess don't have. For example, terrain. Placing terrain is not part of the competition. It's meant to be something the players do together, cooperatively, to support the story. Just like me and my opponent making up points in 40k. If it was chess or MtG, then there would either be no terrain, or placing terrain would be its own competitive mini-game. Setting up terrain and choosing a scenario is related to the role of a GM in a roleplaying game, in my view. That's how we can see the narrative core inside the wargame genre. GW games tend to embrace the non-competitive and RPG-like side of these games more (original AOS and Inquisitor being the prime examples), whereas PP tends to embrace the competitive and chess-like side of the games more. But I'm really glad that both kinds of wargames exist.
|
|