|
Post by Charistoph on Nov 13, 2018 16:47:40 GMT
From a design space perspective, it seems that Privateer Press either doesn't want to have Weapon Attachments or doesn't know how to progress them. They are not very common to Warmachine units and about as rare as an Everblight apology in Hordes.
Command Attachments seem to be doing fine, but let's face it, they are a mini-feat, an additional rule to the unit, and usually a Banner alongside them. The design space isn't quite as challenged as adding a whole different weapon to the unit to balance it around, apparently.
So, was adding in Weapon Attachments to the game a mistake by Privateer Press that they now regret, or do you think it is a design space that has more opportunities that should be explored?
Should they start looking at providing different Weapon Attachments to units that already have them, or forever leave off where they are at now?
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Nov 13, 2018 17:08:20 GMT
I think they are more common than you think. Cryx has two that I can think of, the Brute thrall and the revenant rifle man, both of which can be taken 3 times on a unit and they add a lot to the unit. The Brute Thrall brings cheap shield guards and hit like a ton of bricks, while the revenant crew brings a respectable (for cryx) ranged presence and extra recursion for the unit. So as far as are any more weapon attachments necessary or needed or useful. Definitely not necessary, anything that brings variety can be useful.
Anything that adds to the size of a unit runs into two things. One: it makes the unit bigger and now you are struggling with a limited command area for dude placement. Two: more dudes means more attacks and more clock time - which is fine, that is why I would take them, for the more attacks, more bang for my buck. I guess command attachments work similar, they just bring extra rules.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Nov 13, 2018 18:31:39 GMT
Out of roughly 177 units that are not Character or Artillery-style units, There are roughly 72 Command Attachments and 14 Weapon Attachments. That's about 40% having Command Attachments and 8% having Weapon Attachments. Now a couple WAs have stronger advantages than others by not being restricted to a single unit, such as the Minion Void Leech, but that doesn't change the fact that the absolute number is incredibly low when compared to the number of Command Attachments, much less the number of units available. And a couple of the more recent ones don't do much, weapon-wise, but improve the unit against specific types of targets.
The problem is that they haven't used this option very much, so are they considering the concept a mistake because they don't use it much? Or is it because they lack the imagination or design space to implement it more often?
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Nov 13, 2018 18:54:32 GMT
They just did one for CG. Guess it's down to inspiration...
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Nov 13, 2018 19:33:46 GMT
It's inspiration. Most "non-conventional-military" units have little inspiration for one. There are "special weapons" guys in most military platoons, which is what Weapon Attachments mostly represent. Only what would a special weapons guy look like in an Archer formation? In a line of spearmen? So forth. That's why there are so few.
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Nov 13, 2018 20:54:15 GMT
sounds liek room for future expassion!!
|
|
|
Post by sludgeogre on Nov 13, 2018 21:37:57 GMT
I find that units with weapon attachments make them more versatile to run as min units with full weapon attachment load and CA. I often do this with Trencher Commandos. Makes a lot of sense for that unit and turns them into a different kind of unit where the 6 dudes screen for the gunners and then the gunners get bonkers work done usually on one turn.
I really don't think weapon attachments make sense on most units, especially ones that have a singular purpose or are meant to just jam, but on certain kinds of units, they offer an interesting playstyle and more versatility in how to put a list together, which is something we need with themes being such a big thing.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 13, 2018 23:11:21 GMT
It's inspiration. Most "non-conventional-military" units have little inspiration for one. There are "special weapons" guys in most military platoons, which is what Weapon Attachments mostly represent. Only what would a special weapons guy look like in an Archer formation? In a line of spearmen? So forth. That's why there are so few. a ballista, for both those units.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Nov 14, 2018 1:10:11 GMT
The way units are done is definitely a mistake. You either have spammable unit without attachments or a unit that is worthless without attachments. The whole deal makes the option of attachments a non-option. Then themes on top of it make attachments into a legitimate 20-25% discount on every unit.
In the ideal world units should come with everything included at a fixed cost.
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Nov 14, 2018 7:50:43 GMT
I don't think they are a mistake - it is good to give a little customisation for units, even if just to fill an odd number of points. To use metrics about proportion of units that have one is a mistake - it is irrelevant since each faction's 'core' combat unit has one and it isn't suitable for every unit (especially 2-6 man support units).
However, I don't think some were thought through. Especially things like Sea Dog or Revenant riflemen - you have a unit of jammers / short range melee combatants with a long range weapon. Most turns they'll want to press forward, but that wastes the Weapon Attachment. But then you have a 2pt weapon attachment slowing down a 16pt unit. The same models as a 5/10pt 3/6 man unit would be interesting, but attaching a ranged model to a melee unit is awkward. (I say this in full acknowledgement of how broken riflemen were in ghost fleet as an opportunistic assassination- doesn't change the awkward feel of it)
I do like the Brute Thralls being in mechanithralls though - big stompys with some utility intermingled with the little guys worked beautifully, and sharing buffs & 'tactics' or 'granted' or 'battle plan' style abilities gets some extra utility from it. Likewise things like grenadiers or flamers in mostly ranged units make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Nov 14, 2018 7:59:20 GMT
WA are design gold. They're an easy way to shift the meta without creating a million units that tread on each others sphere of influence.
|
|
|
Post by deathbymelancholy on Nov 14, 2018 12:27:59 GMT
I think they're are a unique flex space for PP to utilize, I don't think it's always done well. The Kriel Warrior caber thrower for instance.
1. It's called a caber thrower and has no ranged attack. Making it even a rng 6 or 8 POW 13 momentum gun would make it way more likely to be taken, I say let it be used against large bases too, but maybe that's too much. At any rate, the would add flexibility and appeal to a unit that is generally very vanilla. (Also, I like vanilla as a flavour and feel it gets a real bad reputation as bland).
2. Sometimes you get really good attachments connected to less than ideal units, which means you won't see them either. The Khador assault kommandos (?). Those spray attachments are really good, to bad they're shackled to a unit nobody is going to put on the table. They might have made a better solo.
|
|
|
Post by P'tit Nico on Nov 14, 2018 12:55:50 GMT
The Khador assault kommandos (?). Those spray attachments are really good, to bad they're shackled to a unit nobody is going to put on the table. They might have made a better solo. This is mostly because of the Themes though. If they counted towards free points in Winter Guard Kommand, I'm sure you'd see them way more often on the table!
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Nov 14, 2018 13:02:45 GMT
Seems like WAs COULD be a cool way to change the flavor of a unit. Instead of replacing an entire unit, swap the WAs for a different flavor.
Instead, we get min winter guards with 3 rocketeers. The winter guard are literally a holder for rocketeers, if they could be dropped for another rocketeer people would.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Nov 14, 2018 13:26:57 GMT
It's inspiration. Most "non-conventional-military" units have little inspiration for one. There are "special weapons" guys in most military platoons, which is what Weapon Attachments mostly represent. Only what would a special weapons guy look like in an Archer formation? In a line of spearmen? So forth. That's why there are so few. a ballista, for both those units. Those are artillery units. They are separate. And hardly mobile like the rest of the unit.
|
|