|
Post by warriorofiron on Apr 24, 2017 17:40:25 GMT
So I'm curious now, after playing a few games with sr 2017 would finding a way to bump it down to something like 5 more points than your opponent change anything drastically, but make it a hair easier to win by scenario?
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Apr 25, 2017 3:50:29 GMT
Witch Coven could conceivably win Spread the Net in one turn at 5 more points.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 25, 2017 4:08:24 GMT
Getting 6 points up tends to not to happen unless one side has a big edge on attrition anyway, but that is a feature, not a bug. Oh its definitely a bug. I get that it maybe was intentional, but its a bug that needs to be squashed. Scenario needs to be a clear and present win condition, because there are many casters and lists whose only real choice is to win on scenario. They have no gameplan for assassinating an enemy caster. All they do is get points and hope they get enough before they get assassinated. Why should only assassination casters have the choice to end the game early? And no, needing a 6 point margin is not a choice. Its too difficult to the point where it's not going to happen very often. Maybe 1 in every 5 games, when it really should be in a more equal ratio with assassination.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 25, 2017 12:16:14 GMT
Getting 6 points up tends to not to happen unless one side has a big edge on attrition anyway, but that is a feature, not a bug. Oh its definitely a bug. I get that it maybe was intentional, but its a bug that needs to be squashed. Scenario needs to be a clear and present win condition, because there are many casters and lists whose only real choice is to win on scenario. They have no gameplan for assassinating an enemy caster. All they do is get points and hope they get enough before they get assassinated. Why should only assassination casters have the choice to end the game early? And no, needing a 6 point margin is not a choice. Its too difficult to the point where it's not going to happen very often. Maybe 1 in every 5 games, when it really should be in a more equal ratio with assassination. First of all, people are already figuring out how to win on scenario more consistently. The players who have always been better at that than I have figured out how to do it faster than I did. Go figure. Second, you're making the same mistake I often make, about arguing intents and preferences. We know their intents insofar as they tell us, and no more, but we can look to the history of the game to make an educated guess.As for preferences, they have to accommodate the different preferences of different players and not just mine or yours. For that matter, what about people who want to play different lists in different ways at different times? Isn't that exactly what makes for a more robust game that can appeal to a larger player base? As for preferences, they have to accommodate the different preferences of different players and not just mine or yours. For that matter, what about people who want to play different lists in different ways at different times? Isn't that exactly what makes for a more robust game that can appeal to a larger player base? You are stating your own personal preference as The Way It All Must Be For Everyone Always. You know how it is for me? Frankly, I think the SR 2016 scenario system sucks. At best, it is played out and stale. The scenarios DIScourage engagement and racing to 5 is not exactly inherently interactive. It's too easy to shut out the opponent on turn 2 especially if you're not really engaging them or interacting with them in any meaningful way. It's like playing Monopoly, where it takes 20 minutes to win and 2 hours to lose. And most gamers hate Monopoly. It's like playing Monopoly, where it takes 20 minutes to win and 2 hours to lose, and there are basically no meaningful choices for anyone. That's why most gamers hate Monopoly. Maybe we should cut the turns down to 6. Maybe we could even cut the margin down to 5, though that would mean removing the objectives from Standoff goes from "maybe" to "must." I really don't think so, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 25, 2017 12:27:46 GMT
Apart from the obvious answer of Linebreaker (which I never saw actually played locally, the consensus was "okay, let's reroll an actual scenario"), which parts of SR2016 do you think discouraged engagement, and why do you think that?
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 25, 2017 19:27:45 GMT
Really? You think SR16 discouraged engagement? No, just no. The SR16 was very good at forcing you to commit to the scenario because you could indeed lose in 2 player turns. If you gave up even a single big round of scoring to your opponent you were in trouble. it was a very active and live scenario packet with only Linebreaker as an exception, and no tournaments ever used Linebreaker as far I experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 26, 2017 2:17:45 GMT
THAT is exactly the problem. You had to commit to THE SCENARIO, not to actually fighting your opponent. All too often the scenario combined with the Race to 5 system wouldn't allow one player to effectively do both.
I wish I had a Slag Troll for every time I've found myself at 2-1 at the end of my third turn against an opponent who was hiding his caster and four support models in a zone on the other side of the board and I simply did not have time to dig him out of his spider hole before he "won on scenario quickly." And if I did go after scenario at that point, all I could do was lose 5-4 instead, just because of the way the scoring system worked. It always felt arbitrary and unfair. those are the times when I least felt like I was really playing the game.
And all those games that ended just when things were getting interesting, only because of Race to 5, on oh say... Incursion. Travesty.
Could I instead build my list around the all-important Turn 2 push? Worry even more about deployment and Turn 1 because if I make a mistake at that point I probably won't be able to recover? Sit on my ass on that stupid flag in The Pit all game because it's basically first to move loses? /sigh
All these problems are only more obvious with The Pit and Line Breaker. Recon can be dull on a bad day but it at least makes you fight. The other 2016 scenarios?
Entrenched- Two rectangles (smaller than circles) 8 inches apart and each skewed toward one player. No Kill Box. You could sit your caster in your DZ all game with a big CTRL area, plenty of those in Menoth. Either I go after you and probably don't get there until you've set up your defenses, or I go set up my own. Every model that I leave behind to contest that zone is a model that isn't attacking you and vice versa. And what happens if we both decide to turtle up? You win just because you went second?
Take & Hold- Nothing but kill-box and two flags. Are you kidding me? I keep forgetting this scenario exists it's so boring.
Extraction- Better, but let's face it, this is basically just Recon without the zone, and all that does is allow you to not commit anything to the center, or anywhere really, if you have enough guns and the terrain is bad.
Incursion- Wow, three flags now. So much better. Race you to the middle of the table. Or play Who Brought More Guns?
Outlast- Again, the zones are just too far apart. I think that adding the flags will help, but we shall see.
Now that I think about it, a lot of the problems really did come from the way that zones were too far apart, just that right there. That's much better for gun lines and high speed, and if you don't play with good terrain setups then yeah, you're going to have a hell of a time with Sloan & Co.
Okay, so we need more engaging scenarios, obviously, because these are at best stale. But if all the new scenarios are super live, how do we keep a Race to 5 or (even 10 depending on the scale) from being over before it begins? By throwing it in the trash where it belongs. It is MUCH better to make the players compete with each other in ways that are fundamentally more interactive.
This is what I hate about Dominion- in the original game with no expansions (and entirely too many of the deck building games that followed) It literally doesn't matter what your opponents are doing unless they buy out a card that you want. That's it. That's the closest thing to any interaction that game had. Once the players figure that out, there's nothing to the game but a race to get the most VP, and you don't even know who is ahead! You might as well not have any opponents, in fact, many deck builders do have solitaire variants.
It really does sound like you're just not adapting. You can't just camp on the safest flag and win in two turns anymore. Now your opponents are free to be in your face and you have to either hold out much longer than two turns or fight back more aggressively and you're not used to that. It might even feel like you have to learn to play a new game, and in a sense you do. So be patient with it.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Apr 26, 2017 2:47:07 GMT
A Freakin Men Trolly.
I agree with this completly. Heck Maybe shorten the distance to 5.
In fact this is what makes SMALLER games freaking aggravating. Sure the effect is somewhat less noticeable with 75+ points, but at smaller games, all it takes is a teleport and bam you loose.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 26, 2017 2:55:38 GMT
See, troll, I agree somewhat. But I also never played the sit back and wait game (except on the pit because not doing so loses you the game,) and I've not found these scenarios any more live than before. i honestly think that 6 up might be too much, and that 5 up would be fine. Yeah, sure the coven has a chance to win the whole game in 1 turn... if you have no models in any zone or near any flag, and you have no points, AND they can do it without needing to do anything with the entire coven. Outside of that though, 5 seems like a better sweet spot. Plenty of ways to get ahead, and still possible for the control casters to do their job (albeit more aggressively than before,) and without throwing legion out of the scenario game entirely.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 26, 2017 3:27:41 GMT
THAT is exactly the problem. You had to commit to THE SCENARIO, not to actually fighting your opponent. All too often the scenario combined with the Race to 5 system wouldn't allow one player to effectively do both. I wish I had a Slag Troll for every time I've found myself at 2-1 at the end of my third turn against an opponent who was hiding his caster and four support models in a zone on the other side of the board and I simply did not have time to dig him out of his spider hole before he "won on scenario quickly." And if I did go after scenario at that point, all I could do was lose 5-4 instead, just because of the way the scoring system worked. It always felt arbitrary and unfair. those are the times when I least felt like I was really playing the game. Is it any more arbitrary or unfair if that same person in that same situation pulls out a hail mary assassination run and kills your caster when all he has left on the field is a support solo and has caster? That's kinda one of the great thing about this game. You can always come from behind and yank a victory out from under your opponent. But its also important that every type of list have this option, be it a scenario victory or an assassination victory. If you can engineer a victory when you're losing the attrition war, its a perfectly valid win. Weather it's with assassination or by scenario. the problem with things as they are is that its not possible to eeek out a scenario victory, while it is still possible to do a long bomb assassination. Yet you somehow see the scenario victory like that to be somehow cheap, but I expect you are ok with an assassination in the same situation. Which makes no sense. And no, committing to the scenario does in fact mean fighting your opponent. Assuming he is also committing to the scenario. You're both fighting over a win condition. It's not just a game of kill the other guy's stuff, that's both boring and an unbalanced way of running a game. At least its unbalanced in terms of how this game functions. The various factions and units are not balanced around purely killing each other.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 26, 2017 11:34:07 GMT
THAT is exactly the problem. You had to commit to THE SCENARIO, not to actually fighting your opponent. All too often the scenario combined with the Race to 5 system wouldn't allow one player to effectively do both. I wish I had a Slag Troll for every time I've found myself at 2-1 at the end of my third turn against an opponent who was hiding his caster and four support models in a zone on the other side of the board and I simply did not have time to dig him out of his spider hole before he "won on scenario quickly." And if I did go after scenario at that point, all I could do was lose 5-4 instead, just because of the way the scoring system worked. It always felt arbitrary and unfair. those are the times when I least felt like I was really playing the game. Is it any more arbitrary or unfair if that same person in that same situation pulls out a hail mary assassination run and kills your caster when all he has left on the field is a support solo and has caster? That's kinda one of the great thing about this game. You can always come from behind and yank a victory out from under your opponent. But its also important that every type of list have this option, be it a scenario victory or an assassination victory. If you can engineer a victory when you're losing the attrition war, its a perfectly valid win. Weather it's with assassination or by scenario. the problem with things as they are is that its not possible to eeek out a scenario victory, while it is still possible to do a long bomb assassination. Yet you somehow see the scenario victory like that to be somehow cheap, but I expect you are ok with an assassination in the same situation. Which makes no sense. And no, committing to the scenario does in fact mean fighting your opponent. Assuming he is also committing to the scenario. You're both fighting over a win condition. It's not just a game of kill the other guy's stuff, that's both boring and an unbalanced way of running a game. At least its unbalanced in terms of how this game functions. The various factions and units are not balanced around purely killing each other. Seriously, everything you're saying here is completely wrong. I don't even know where to start. How about here? Many newer players hate assassination victory. They think it's dumb that you lose the whole game when one guy dies, even if you were otherwise winning. What they don't realize is how essential this mechanic is to the game at the most fundamental level, and not just to balance the tremendous power of the casters, but the armies as a whole. That is what gives you the out against Khador armor, and that built-in catch-up mechanism keeps games interesting when they otherwise wouldn't be. Assassination victory is a big part of this game's identity. Letting you turtle in your corner runs counter to that. Punishing me for going after you only makes it worse. Stop saying that winning on scenario is impossible when literally dozens of players are doing it all the time. In fact, some are worried that it's too easy, at least in some circumstances. You're only undermining your own credibility and calling attention to everything else you have bass-ackward. On that last point, you do realize that this is a wargame right? Fighting the opponent and killing their stuff IS the point. The old scenarios and Race to 5 got in the way of that and gave you a system that you could game to avoid fighting. Like I said, that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Apr 26, 2017 11:45:46 GMT
THAT is exactly the problem. You had to commit to THE SCENARIO, not to actually fighting your opponent. All too often the scenario combined with the Race to 5 system wouldn't allow one player to effectively do both. I wish I had a Slag Troll for every time I've found myself at 2-1 at the end of my third turn against an opponent who was hiding his caster and four support models in a zone on the other side of the board and I simply did not have time to dig him out of his spider hole before he "won on scenario quickly." And if I did go after scenario at that point, all I could do was lose 5-4 instead, just because of the way the scoring system worked. It always felt arbitrary and unfair. those are the times when I least felt like I was really playing the game. Is it any more arbitrary or unfair if that same person in that same situation pulls out a hail mary assassination run and kills your caster when all he has left on the field is a support solo and has caster? That's kinda one of the great thing about this game. You can always come from behind and yank a victory out from under your opponent. But its also important that every type of list have this option, be it a scenario victory or an assassination victory. If you can engineer a victory when you're losing the attrition war, its a perfectly valid win. Weather it's with assassination or by scenario. the problem with things as they are is that its not possible to eeek out a scenario victory, while it is still possible to do a long bomb assassination. Yet you somehow see the scenario victory like that to be somehow cheap, but I expect you are ok with an assassination in the same situation. Which makes no sense. And no, committing to the scenario does in fact mean fighting your opponent. Assuming he is also committing to the scenario. You're both fighting over a win condition. It's not just a game of kill the other guy's stuff, that's both boring and an unbalanced way of running a game. At least its unbalanced in terms of how this game functions. The various factions and units are not balanced around purely killing each other. Scenario is a cheap victory, eeking out a scenario victory is a very cheap victory in my opinion, and pulling off a last minute assassination with just your caster and his buddy "Other Last Guy Standing" is just fine.
Steamroller has not been around since the beginning of Warmachine. Before there was Steamroller *all* Warmachine games were caster kill. All of them. It was a lot like chess, but instead of going for checkmate you were going for the caster kill. Then Steamroller comes along with all of these abstract scenarios, and I can't tell you how many Steamroller games I "lost" because just before I can deliver the deathblow of the game my opponent tells me that they win on points.
Points?!?!? Points?!?!?
"Hey Mr. Big Bad Guy, I know you were just about to kill me and enslave what's left of my army, but you can't now because I achieved all of my scenario points. Hey, it was great fighting you, but you have to leave now."
"Wow, that was a close battle guys! It's a good thing that we got these scenario points, right?"
I won't go off on some rant about how much Steamroller has ruined Warmachine (because I really want to) but I will tell you what scenarios should be in the next Steamroller packet:
1) Kill *That* One 2) Trash The Place 3) Smash and Grab 4) Napalm In The Morning 5) Kill, Pillage, Burn - Repeat As Necessary 6) Land Grab 7) Eviction Notice 8) Go "Old School" On Them
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Apr 26, 2017 12:36:13 GMT
Blargyboy, I disagree with your opinion about scenario (and the way you are arguing it) but I would love to play the scenarios you named so I am conflicted.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Apr 26, 2017 15:52:35 GMT
Blargyboy, I disagree with your opinion about scenario (and the way you are arguing it) but I would love to play the scenarios you named so I am conflicted. My biggest disagreement with SR is that the scenarios aren't scenarios, they are abstract templates laid over your terrain board that dictate how you should fight. The system that SR operates under is excellent for tournaments because of its standardization, but it makes for craptacular games in my opinion.
Warmachine is a war game, and in war you don't fight over ghost flags or geometric shapes in the middle of fields. You have objectives that either need to be killed, destroyed, captured, stolen, reconned, or delivered to. In war there are no scenario points that stop the fight, you fight till death or the other guys stop fighting you.
The scenarios should reflect a reasonable situation that an army can encounter in the course of their deployment: meeting engagement, recon in force, assault an objective, assassinate leadership, prisoner extraction, destroy a village, deny passage to the enemy, etc.
I haven't seen the SR CID document, but it sounds like they have put in defined rules for putting a robust amount of terrain on the board for the game. That's great, but the objectives should be an integrated subset of the terrain, not something placed in addition to the other.
If PP made the scenarios reflective of real military operations and integrated terrain and objectives together I think that the SR would be a lot of fun that made sense. Right now any discussions about points victories are like arguing over which superhero is more powerful - not applicable to real life and rooted in a setting of fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 26, 2017 15:52:38 GMT
Is it any more arbitrary or unfair if that same person in that same situation pulls out a hail mary assassination run and kills your caster when all he has left on the field is a support solo and has caster? That's kinda one of the great thing about this game. You can always come from behind and yank a victory out from under your opponent. But its also important that every type of list have this option, be it a scenario victory or an assassination victory. If you can engineer a victory when you're losing the attrition war, its a perfectly valid win. Weather it's with assassination or by scenario. the problem with things as they are is that its not possible to eeek out a scenario victory, while it is still possible to do a long bomb assassination. Yet you somehow see the scenario victory like that to be somehow cheap, but I expect you are ok with an assassination in the same situation. Which makes no sense. And no, committing to the scenario does in fact mean fighting your opponent. Assuming he is also committing to the scenario. You're both fighting over a win condition. It's not just a game of kill the other guy's stuff, that's both boring and an unbalanced way of running a game. At least its unbalanced in terms of how this game functions. The various factions and units are not balanced around purely killing each other. Scenario is a cheap victory, eeking out a scenario victory is a very cheap victory in my opinion, and pulling off a last minute assassination with just your caster and his buddy "Other Last Guy Standing" is just fine.
Steamroller has not been around since the beginning of Warmachine. Before there was Steamroller *all* Warmachine games were caster kill. All of them. It was a lot like chess, but instead of going for checkmate you were going for the caster kill. Then Steamroller comes along with all of these abstract scenarios, and I can't tell you how many Steamroller games I "lost" because just before I can deliver the deathblow of the game my opponent tells me that they win on points.
Points?!?!? Points?!?!?
"Hey Mr. Big Bad Guy, I know you were just about to kill me and enslave what's left of my army, but you can't now because I achieved all of my scenario points. Hey, it was great fighting you, but you have to leave now."
"Wow, that was a close battle guys! It's a good thing that we got these scenario points, right?"
I won't go off on some rant about how much Steamroller has ruined Warmachine (because I really want to) but I will tell you what scenarios should be in the next Steamroller packet:
1) Kill *That* One 2) Trash The Place 3) Smash and Grab 4) Napalm In The Morning 5) Kill, Pillage, Burn - Repeat As Necessary 6) Land Grab 7) Eviction Notice 8) Go "Old School" On Them
Umm, yeah. Steamroller has not been around since the beginning. And it was added because the game was hideously unbalanced without scenarios. Just caster kill was an awful game. It leaves out a good 2/3 of the units in the game because they're not optimized for just assassination.
|
|