spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Nov 12, 2017 8:54:56 GMT
I rwlly wish CoI had a progression campaign. Like you pick a small bunch of grunts and they got better as time got on. Starting off as WInter Guard. Progressing to a rifleman or a Widowmaker or maybe a doom reaver. The problem I have with that is snowballing. One series of crap rolls for your progression (at least the way it was done in Necromunda or Mordhiem) and that's it, you're out. Or one short series of good rolls and you seem to get everything. Don't get me wrong, I love Necromunda to bits, it was the first war-game I played, but I always felt that was it's biggest weakness. I do think that a better implemented progression system could help scratch that gang-warfare itch I get from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by plungingforward on Nov 13, 2017 23:43:59 GMT
I rwlly wish CoI had a progression campaign. Like you pick a small bunch of grunts and they got better as time got on. Starting off as WInter Guard. Progressing to a rifleman or a Widowmaker or maybe a doom reaver. The problem I have with that is snowballing. One series of crap rolls for your progression (at least the way it was done in Necromunda or Mordhiem) and that's it, you're out. Or one short series of good rolls and you seem to get everything. That's Campaign Game Problem, Part 1. Campaign Game Problem, Part 2 is that after my witch hunters win a few and my skaven lose a few, the witch hunters get better and better, the skaven get worse and worse, and the whole thing becomes an uncomfortable snowball. I have found most underdog fixes unsatisfactory in this regard. FrostGrave discusses this problem, but I'm not sure even that game actually goes far enough to fix the problem (I've not played a campaign yet.) I'd rather have a bunch of little "upgrades" like tough, weapon master MAT or RAT bump, or something that I could add to a model or two for a small cost, or maybe that cost me a model from the unit. That way, models that do good things for me can earn a reward, while the ones that keep getting killed or under-performing ... well, maybe the sawbones couldn't save those guys.
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Nov 14, 2017 1:58:33 GMT
The problem I have with that is snowballing. One series of crap rolls for your progression (at least the way it was done in Necromunda or Mordhiem) and that's it, you're out. Or one short series of good rolls and you seem to get everything. That's Campaign Game Problem, Part 1. Campaign Game Problem, Part 2 is that after my witch hunters win a few and my skaven lose a few, the witch hunters get better and better, the skaven get worse and worse, and the whole thing becomes an uncomfortable snowball. I have found most underdog fixes unsatisfactory in this regard. FrostGrave discusses this problem, but I'm not sure even that game actually goes far enough to fix the problem (I've not played a campaign yet.) I'd rather have a bunch of little "upgrades" like tough, weapon master MAT or RAT bump, or something that I could add to a model or two for a small cost, or maybe that cost me a model from the unit. That way, models that do good things for me can earn a reward, while the ones that keep getting killed or under-performing ... well, maybe the sawbones couldn't save those guys. The only guy that advances in Frostgrave is the Wizard (and by extension, the Apprentice. Also the Captain if you're using those optional rules) so it's not that big of a problem. The changes also aren't quite as big as they were in Necromunda/Mordheim either, given the difference in the system (+1 WS in Mordheim is a very big deal, +1 Fight in Frostgrave not so much.)
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 14, 2017 5:34:23 GMT
That's kind of a problem with frost grave. Progression is very slow and game is very random.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 14, 2017 5:45:00 GMT
I think you need to have a somewhat flexible narrative in mind when setting up the game to accomodate for the differences in powerlevel that appear. When half the wargang lost a leg and an eye it's not realistic to play according to the standard scenery rule. It would make sense for that wargang to bunker up, maybe have a load of granades at their disposal, mive some scenery around, stuff like that. Similarly a gang that is doing well can be expected to invade the other gangs territory and all the disadvantage that brings with it.
Should all of that he covered in the rules? Maybe, but even more than in warhammer you can't expect campaigns like this to balance out. The warhammer universe is a messy place and we just have to deal. Games like this have a strong roleplaying element to them which I think you shouldn't want to math your way through, but needs the touch of a dungeonmaster to decide what's fair. And maybe there comes a point where it's just game over.
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Nov 14, 2017 15:20:47 GMT
That's kind of a problem with frost grave. Progression is very slow and game is very random. Really? I had the opposite problem, progression was incredibly fast. I mean, cast a spell, take down a dude, and recover just one treasure token and BAM new level (even before scenario specific feats). Which you then use to Improve Spell, so you can cast more Spells, so you get more XP. And since leftover XP carries over... As for the randomness....meh. It's no more or less random than your usual d20 game, but I guess if you're used to WM/H it could be jarring.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 14, 2017 15:54:09 GMT
That's kind of a problem with frost grave. Progression is very slow and game is very random. Really? I had the opposite problem, progression was incredibly fast. I mean, cast a spell, take down a dude, and recover just one treasure token and BAM new level (even before scenario specific feats). Which you then use to Improve Spell, so you can cast more Spells, so you get more XP. And since leftover XP carries over... As for the randomness....meh. It's no more or less random than your usual d20 game, but I guess if you're used to WM/H it could be jarring. Yeah but a level is more meaningless. You only get 5% better. And its a d20 system that can to strange games. Where a dude with an arrow can roll a 20 on your wizard and you accidentally rolled a one and suddenly your caster is off the table.
|
|
|
Post by galrohir on Nov 14, 2017 16:38:31 GMT
Really? I had the opposite problem, progression was incredibly fast. I mean, cast a spell, take down a dude, and recover just one treasure token and BAM new level (even before scenario specific feats). Which you then use to Improve Spell, so you can cast more Spells, so you get more XP. And since leftover XP carries over... As for the randomness....meh. It's no more or less random than your usual d20 game, but I guess if you're used to WM/H it could be jarring. Yeah but a level is more meaningless. You only get 5% better. And its a d20 system that can to strange games. Where a dude with an arrow can roll a 20 on your wizard and you accidentally rolled a one and suddenly your caster is off the table. I mean, that can happen omly if you want it to happen, since it's an optional rule. Without it, it's actually impossible for any figure to take out even your bog standard starting wizard at full health (though he can be left on one health, which is pretty much a death sentence). But to bring this back on topic, if you wanted a fairer comparison between GW and PP in skirmish games, it'd be CoI vs Shadow War: Armaggeddon. Both are basically just adaptations of the bigger wargame to let you play with a much smaller number of models you already own, and both bill themselves as "Narrative Games". The main differences are that SW:A actually has a built in narrative progression system and way more customisation; whereas CoI does not, but CoI is a much tighter, more balanced ruleset as a result. It all really depends on what kind of experience you're looking for.
|
|
|
Post by plungingforward on Nov 14, 2017 23:50:04 GMT
1) Frostgrave is hilariously swingy anyway, so I'm not sure how much a few "levels" actually get you. Looking at soldiers, you pay a lot more for a little more effectiveness in general. It actually seems like a decent "balancing factor" in such a swingy game.
2) How is Shadow War: Armaggeddon? I'm just not even keeping up these days...
3) Personally, I think PP should just play to their strengths and keep tightening CoI until it plays as smoothly as Warmachine. With digital cards and a "living" rules set, it should be possible, eventually, to have two sets of rules on whatever models might need them.
While you might find some "cultural" pressure against doing so, you can always house rule some fun terrain or narrative, play-test your own "for fun" creations or make your own campaign rules. Mr. Soles and his goons (both named Will) aren't going thrash you for not playing strictly by the book - but at the same time, now that I've played the game, I think the best thing they can do is offer it as well-built as possible. I can tinker with it and/or break it on my own.
That having been said, I do love the paragraph I quoted earlier about making it your own. That aspect of gaming should be aggressively touted, even as the rules set remains as tight and balanced as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Nov 15, 2017 1:55:34 GMT
The problem I have with that is snowballing. One series of crap rolls for your progression (at least the way it was done in Necromunda or Mordhiem) and that's it, you're out. Or one short series of good rolls and you seem to get everything. That's Campaign Game Problem, Part 1. Campaign Game Problem, Part 2 is that after my witch hunters win a few and my skaven lose a few, the witch hunters get better and better, the skaven get worse and worse, and the whole thing becomes an uncomfortable snowball. I have found most underdog fixes unsatisfactory in this regard. FrostGrave discusses this problem, but I'm not sure even that game actually goes far enough to fix the problem (I've not played a campaign yet.) I'd rather have a bunch of little "upgrades" like tough, weapon master MAT or RAT bump, or something that I could add to a model or two for a small cost, or maybe that cost me a model from the unit. That way, models that do good things for me can earn a reward, while the ones that keep getting killed or under-performing ... well, maybe the sawbones couldn't save those guys. Campaign games for sure have the problem of the winning team snowballing and the losing team becoming worse and worse in loop, and even if it gets fixed, there is always the problem that you require a fixed gaming group that meets the same number of times and plays the same number of games, otherwise the people that play more games get stronger than the ones with less free time... What I think a skirmish game like CoI could get of good from a campaign game is customization, instead. That doesn't require multiple games. They could put in place a system to customize more your single members of the company, so that they could have different equipment or abilities within the same unit. Someting like "Pay 2 points to add ability X to one of your unit members" or something like that. For sure, that would require a little bit of balancing, and probably that should work only for not-character models, but I think with some efforts it could be feasible and would add a lot to the game, both in terms of variety, encouragement to convert models and to make it feel like a real "unique" company.
|
|
|
Post by tjhairball on Nov 26, 2017 14:19:38 GMT
While I agree that a very vocal part of the community is very focused on tournaments, that really should only matter to your friend if they're, well, planning to engage with the community. If all they want is a game to play together than it doesn't really matter what the community thinks, they should pick the game that interests them the most. Personally I find Warmachine more fun because of the number of interesting interactions available; where 40k to my experience is largely about pushing a block of guys into position and then rolling fistfuls of dice at each other, I enjoy that each turn of Warmachine is like a little puzzle of trying to find the right pieces to move where to achieve my goals. If that's the sort of thing they find interesting then I suspect they would enjoy Warmachine more, if not then they may enjoy the grandeur of scores of men, women, and aliens fighting towering mechs and monsters even if the results come down to different sized fistfulls of dice. If they do want to spend time at a game store with a community than they should definitely find out what nights are set aside for each game and try to get there and meet people. Try to talk to people about the games, see what they talk about, and try to get demos from players or the store itself. If it seems like the community lines up with what they want then pick that game; if both of them line up pick the game that they like the models for the most. I think the two most important things to look for in a hobby are: Models/Fluff/Rules that grab you, excite you, and keep you interested depending on your preference for such things, and people you enjoy engaging in the hobby with. I think this is the best way to make sure the hobby stays interesting and fun for years to come. I started Warmachine with friends. I'm not really generally a go-out-to-the-game-store-for-pickup-games kind of guy, which is a big reason why I haven't played much after I moved. Most of the time I went to game stores, it was going along with friends. The thing about all this talk about the communities - it's really hit-and-miss and variable depending on where you are, and if you're building your own community, as it were (mostly playing with friends and family) then it doesn't really matter much. The best choice may be another miniatures game entirely, for that matter. There are a lot of them out there, many of them with highly competitive pricing on their models and supplements. I think the biggest reason to go for Warmachine or WH40K is the ability to find pick-up games easily, whereas with other miniatures games, you have to either really look or actively recruit. In many cases, you really will need to maintain two factions / armies so you can have a "loaner" army for friends to play - IME, most people are much less willing to invest money into a miniatures game. This also holds if you want your friends / family to play you in Warmachine or WH40K.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Nov 26, 2017 17:16:42 GMT
I don't know about your area, but I've joined a few groups on social media for the handful of FLGS in my state and I'm not having trouble finding games except for the occasional tournament or new release from another game.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Nov 27, 2017 11:55:00 GMT
The thing about all this talk about the communities - it's really hit-and-miss and variable depending on where you are, and if you're building your own community, as it were (mostly playing with friends and family) then it doesn't really matter much. This is my perspective too. Depending on your circumstances and preferences, you can enjoy a game for the game itself just fine, without ever having to interact with any community. And a question like "which game is better?" is always too subjective to be a good question. Which is why most people answering have instead focused on what the differing features of each game are.
|
|