|
Post by Charistoph on Nov 14, 2018 14:27:55 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). Skorne, Legion, Convergence, Protectorate, and Circle are all asking where their WA's are.
Why you don't consider the Steelhead, Rhulic, Cephalyx, and Farrow units "core"? 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) And that's part of why I am proposing that the concept may be considered a mistake from a design space idea. Too much inflexibility in some areas, lack of coordination in another, and a lot of missed opportunities for even more. Oddly enough, some Command Attachments are hidden Weapon Attachments at the same time, such as the Pyg Bushwacker's Mortar and the Trencher Infantry's Sniper.
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. I'm not against paying for buffs on a unit, but like the Void Leech, I wonder at using a WEAPON Attachment that doesn't do much actual "weaponing" to accomplish this. 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. With 40K being my second Tabletop game and with having Tau and the two Marine factions as my first three of four armies built (Necrons being the fourth), I can support the concept of how much adding certain models can change the character of a unit. For Tau it was Drones, either carbine equipped or Markerlight, and with Marines they had a light gunner and heavy gunner (or melee for my Crusaders). This often changed how I used the unit. My ranged Troops would be set up with Plasma (High POW) and Heavy Bolter (better RoF), and my melee Troops would be set up with Flamer (Spray) and Power Sword (ignored certain armor levels).
|
|
|
Post by deathbymelancholy on Nov 14, 2018 15:01:31 GMT
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! Isn't that part of the problem too though? To get that flex or design space you have to eat up theme slots. It seems like some of these are just perfect storms of "meh" that lead to them not being played rather than the WAs being actively bad.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 19, 2018 19:09:53 GMT
As a Legion of Everblight player, weapon attachments are a cool idea I'd love to see in-faction. Command attachments are usually required to make the unit functional (also, we only have one mini-feat, so...). I personally would love to see more weapon attachments, I find them to be a very intriguing idea. I think they actually have a lot more flexibility than unit attachments/command attachments, and should give PP a lot more design space.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Nov 20, 2018 21:41:34 GMT
As a Legion of Everblight player, weapon attachments are a cool idea I'd love to see in-faction. Command attachments are usually required to make the unit functional (also, we only have one mini-feat, so...). I personally would love to see more weapon attachments, I find them to be a very intriguing idea. I think they actually have a lot more flexibility than unit attachments/command attachments, and should give PP a lot more design space. I guess even the Legion players don't remember Farilor anymore
|
|
|
Post by ComboSmiteNick on Nov 21, 2018 1:47:49 GMT
WAs are certainly underutilized by PP but most of them provide interesting options to their parent units and see play.
I'm thinking of Rocketperson Gunners, Trencher Grenadiers, Cryx Pirate Rifles, Khador Rocketeers.
It doesn't mean there aren't some stinkers but they are generally well designed and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mallios on Nov 21, 2018 3:25:43 GMT
As a Legion of Everblight player, weapon attachments are a cool idea I'd love to see in-faction. Command attachments are usually required to make the unit functional (also, we only have one mini-feat, so...). I personally would love to see more weapon attachments, I find them to be a very intriguing idea. I think they actually have a lot more flexibility than unit attachments/command attachments, and should give PP a lot more design space. I guess even the Legion players don't remember Farilor anymore Farilor is a CA. Legion doesn't have WA's.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 21, 2018 5:21:37 GMT
As a Legion of Everblight player, weapon attachments are a cool idea I'd love to see in-faction. Command attachments are usually required to make the unit functional (also, we only have one mini-feat, so...). I personally would love to see more weapon attachments, I find them to be a very intriguing idea. I think they actually have a lot more flexibility than unit attachments/command attachments, and should give PP a lot more design space. I guess even the Legion players don't remember Farilor anymore Actually I WAS thinking about him, who I actually forgot about was Gorag. XD
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 21, 2018 5:22:10 GMT
I guess even the Legion players don't remember Farilor anymore Farilor is a CA. Legion doesn't have WA's. I believe he was referring to the minifeat comment
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Nov 21, 2018 6:27:30 GMT
Yeah, I over-quoted out of laziness... one mini-feat for the table, one for the shelf.
|
|
|
Post by deathbymelancholy on Nov 26, 2018 13:01:35 GMT
Yeah, I over-quoted out of laziness... one mini-feat for the table, one for the shelf. There's got to be a way to turn this into a variation on the One Ring inscription......
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Nov 27, 2018 8:48:42 GMT
Yeah, I over-quoted out of laziness... one mini-feat for the table, one for the shelf. There's got to be a way to turn this into a variation on the One Ring inscription...... One mini-feat for the table One mini-feat for the shelf One mini-feat for Farilor But out of laziness, over-quote him Am I doing it right?
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Nov 27, 2018 9:34:24 GMT
6 feats for the elven kings, under the scy(rah) 7 for the swanlords, in their halls of vanilla 5 for khador men, doomed to die 1 for the clock god on his throne in the iron kingdoms, where creativity dies
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Dec 13, 2018 15:47:12 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?
Most of the design space since late Mk.2 - 3 has been about giving the core armies different takes on playing the same strategy (ranged vs. melee, attrition vs armor, etc.). I think the design space moving forward is going to be about giving expanding Theme forces to help veteran and new players navigate the gallery of PP models. After MK.III though I wouldn't be surprised to see PP focus on each unit having different kinds of WAs and UAs.
|
|