bacon
Junior Strategist
Posts: 134
|
Post by bacon on Dec 26, 2018 7:27:03 GMT
I still don't see how karn and the bronzeback are army surfing as the person I quoted said. Sidestep on triggers on initials only so Karn only gets to move twice and only on his first two attacks, and the bronzeback cannot move outside of his normal movement unless he is hitting something that he isn't killing outright, and even then he can only move straight towards a model he his pushing straight away form him. Neither Karn nor the bronzeback are attacking models they wouldn't already be able to get to without Mak 3's current feat or spells, the only difference between feat turn and non feat turn is that they would leave the turn with less fury.
That leaves Mak 3's personal output on her feat turn. She can hypothetically mulch an entire army of infantry the same way Madrak 2 could, but Madrak has berserk and grievous wounds innately over makeda and don't forget that he gave other models in his army berserk and overtake as well while in Makeda's army only Makeda is overtaking.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Dec 26, 2018 14:17:20 GMT
Can anybody understand what happened there? Why do they nerv something to give it to others? Madrak2 was nerfed because he had insane offensive output in the ability to solo kill entire armies on his Feat Turn, while also being the single hardest to assassinate Warlock in the game between Grim Salvation and the ability to camp a mountain of fury. Makeda3 has a similar personal output, same base stats, but goes a little higher thanks to Incite. At the same time Makeda needs to cast Deathbringers if she wants Grevious & she doesn’t get free Attacks like Madrak2 did, so after 4-6 failures (depending on if you spent Fury on DB) to one shot something Mekada’s done attacking. The only way to stop Madrak’s Surf was for Madrak to run out of models. On top of that Madrak2 gave literally every other model in his army the ability to surf through everything as well provided they could one shot things. Mekada is the only thing in her army with the ability to Pac-Man. A Mekada3 with Bulwark up & sitting on a 1-2 camp is nowhere near as difficult to assassinate as a Madrak2 with 5 Grim Salvation Targets under the Stone Aura & a 15 camp. Mekada3 is not power creep when compared to prenerf Madrak2, she’s more comparable to where he is now. Mekada has better personal output but is much easier to kill, while Madrak2’s army does significantly more damage.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Dec 26, 2018 20:09:10 GMT
There is no power creep, except possibly in terms of huge based/BAHI models. Models are released, the community loses their shit for a few months over how OP it is, and then the meta adjusts. Once in awhile, something actually absurd is released (or more likely, a new release unlocks something that was absurd before) and it needs to be nerfed, but that's not power creep. Players whined about Grymkin when they were released...then they adapted. Players whined about Kolgrimma when she was released...then they adapted. Players whined about Anamag when she was released...then they adapted. Players are currently whining about Tharn...they will adapt. Some things have been released that may be actively bad for the game (the proliferation of anti-healing tech, anti-place tech, and arcane vortex everywhere is a profoundly uninteractive trend that incentivizes people to just smash models together in the centre of the table), but that's not the same thing as power creep. The problem is....look at just about any "how do I deal with X?" thread in a faction forum. The vast majority of the answers are "bring a list tailored to fight it (and if you haven't got the models, be ready to shell out)", rather than "use the list you have like this". You can see a bundle of examples in this same thread, it's a really bad habit of the community. And the reason everyone gets the same stuff is pretty simple--because a lot of the time, if you don't have the ability to say "no" ready to go, some matchups drop to 80/20 or worse, and most of the time there is no workaround other than flat-out saying "no". The sheer unadultered hyper-fun of Harbinger without GW. Wacky "wake me up when you win" Rahn assassinations and Stranglehold stunlocking a colossal for half the game without antimagic. Empty cloudwalls without a Guidance dispenser. Busted buffing solos if you didn't bring character sniping. This is why gear checks and hard counters are bad--whether it's countered or not, someone's going to get frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Dec 26, 2018 20:21:35 GMT
All this "X wins to Y" actually shows me one of the biggest problems I see with the current WM/H. You need specific builds for specific armies and you need to juggle all that information to even play a casual game (because people do bring these types of armies for "casual" game); armies for which to you might even don't have the models avaialble becuase you brought your light infantry army to a gun bunnie figth (just to name an example). While this Penny Arcade comic is still true, I think WM/H would still have a problem: goo.gl/images/QAyLP4
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 26, 2018 21:40:18 GMT
There is no power creep, except possibly in terms of huge based/BAHI models. Models are released, the community loses their shit for a few months over how OP it is, and then the meta adjusts. Once in awhile, something actually absurd is released (or more likely, a new release unlocks something that was absurd before) and it needs to be nerfed, but that's not power creep. Players whined about Grymkin when they were released...then they adapted. Players whined about Kolgrimma when she was released...then they adapted. Players whined about Anamag when she was released...then they adapted. Players are currently whining about Tharn...they will adapt. Some things have been released that may be actively bad for the game (the proliferation of anti-healing tech, anti-place tech, and arcane vortex everywhere is a profoundly uninteractive trend that incentivizes people to just smash models together in the centre of the table), but that's not the same thing as power creep. The problem is....look at just about any "how do I deal with X?" thread in a faction forum. The vast majority of the answers are "bring a list tailored to fight it", rather than "use the list you have like this". You can see a bundle of examples in this same thread. And the reason everyone gets the same stuff is pretty simple--because a lot of the time, if you don't have the ability to say "no" ready to go, some matchups drop to 80/20 or worse. The sheer unadultered hyper-fun of Harbinger without GW. Wacky "wake me up when you win" Rahn assassinations and Stranglehold stunlocking a colossal for half the game without antimagic. Empty cloudwalls without a Guidance dispenser. This is why gear checks and hard counters are bad--whether it's countered or not, someone's going to get frustrated. The game has always had the potential to be won or lost in the list-building phase, and honestly? It's better now than it's been in the past, because the most egregiously tuned lists out there are big 'ol stat bricks, not control lists that stop you playing the game. At least it's possible to outplay a bad matchup against Iona or Anamag. With Haley2, it was a case of 'see if the opponent can win their game of solitaire without clocking themselves. In any case 'bring tools to fight X isn't the same as saying 'bring list X tailored to fight list Y'. If I want to play Anamag, I can't rely on my models surviving getting hit, and I need an answer to hellmouths. There are several ways I could go about building a list that accomplishes those goals, though - I could run chaff infantry that don't care about your fancy stats (hooray, you're Mat stupid PS stupid, I'm Def 12 Arm 14. go nuts.). I could run a strong gunline that can remove the blightbringer at range/sandpaper off chosen/warmongers faster than they can kill me. I can play for assassination (not a great idea on it's own, but a solid backup plan). I can play control. I can out-threat warmongers and get up on attrition before they get to start hitting me with their stupid high stats. I can bring tools that make it easier to kill chosen and warmongers (anti-healing tech). Basically, there are ways I can build a list that make the matchup easier, but generally speaking, they don't boil down to 'must bring X caster in Y build'. That's internet monoculture speaking there. An answer to a meta list doesn't have to auto-win into it, it just has to be able to play the game, and there are usually lots of ways to do that. Now, there are definitely gear checks in the game (and these are, and have always been, bad game design). Cloudwalls if you don't have an out, Incorporeal and no magic weapons, recursion and no RFP are big ones. But all of these gear checks are still less bad than they've been in the past, in that the answers are more widespread, more available, and easier to include in lists without them having to be a 'silver bullet'. And when there are meta threats out there that do require highly specific answers just to play the game (Haley2, Nemo3, Una2, Wurmwood, Karchev)... they get nerfed. That's not a sign of an unhealthy competitive meta, or power creep. In point of fact, it's notable that only 1 new release caster has been nerfed thus far in Mk3 (Una2), and the others are all holdovers from Mk2. The game is slowly getting more balanced.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Dec 27, 2018 9:58:47 GMT
I don't think newbies are attracted/discouraged by in-depth talk about balance issues, erratas etc. They are mostly unaware of those things. In my opinion PP are a very weird beast in today's tabletop gaming environment.
They and their approach to design/business model stayed mostly the same, while around them a huge gaming revolution happened, with the golden age of board gaming including modern, streamlined, "less-is-more" design, great prices for excellent production value of board games, kickstarters, good quality miniatures becoming more and more common in board gaming.
They seem to only now notice how the landscape changed around them, with their awkward moves to try to keep up, like failed attempts to make WM&H more elegant and streamlined in design or to produce a viable gateway board game. I can easily believe that several designers left the company because PP sent a job offer to much more efficient, modern ones. "Please come and make WM&H as deep and engaging with 1/3 of current rules, because we know that you can achieve this, unlike our old designers set in their old ways"
Now WM&H is an unappealing proposition for anyone who wants a non-video game. -It is incredibly expensive. One miniature (and you can't do anything with one miniature, really) can cost the equivalent of an entire box of a board game with dozens of miniatures, often of comparable quality, like CMON games. In addition the cost of a board game can be shared between a group of players. -With the price doesn't come the epicness and visual spectacle associated with expenisve miniature games. -It is unnecessarily complicated, competing with fine-tuned, state-of-the art streamlined mechanics of games which offer comparable intellectual challenge sometimes with just a few pages of rules. (or, like Concordia, with one sentence ;D)
It's easy to see why such a game isn't the first thing someone wants to pick up - it's neither well designed, affordable or good looking. It has a lot of merits (and that's why I love it!) but those things require a lot of time and effort to be found.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Dec 27, 2018 10:00:46 GMT
I don't think newbies are attracted/discouraged by in-depth talk about balance issues, erratas etc. They are mostly unaware of those things. In my opinion PP are a very weird beast in today's tabletop gaming environment. They and their approach to design/business model stayed mostly the same, while around them a huge gaming revolution happened, with the golden age of board gaming including modern, streamlined, "less-is-more" design, great prices for excellent production value of board games, kickstarters, good quality miniatures becoming more and more common in board gaming. They seem to only now notice how the landscape changed around them, with their awkward moves to try to keep up, like failed attempts to make WM&H more elegant and streamlined in design or to produce a viable gateway board game. I can easily believe that several designers left the company because PP sent a job offer to much more efficient, modern ones. "Please come and make WM&H as deep and engaging with 1/3 of current rules, because we know that you can achieve this, unlike our old designers set in their old ways" Now WM&H is an unappealing proposition for anyone who wants a non-video game. -It is incredibly expensive. One miniature (and you can't do anything with one miniature, really) can cost the equivalent of an entire box of a board game with dozens of miniatures, often of comparable quality, like CMON games. In addition the cost of a board game can be shared between a group of players. -With the price doesn't come the epicness and visual spectacle associated with expenisve miniature games. -It is unnecessarily complicated, competing with fine-tuned, state-of-the art streamlined mechanics of games which offer comparable intellectual challenge sometimes with just a few pages of rules. (or, like Concordia, with one sentence ;D) It's easy to see why such a game isn't the first thing someone wants to pick up - it's neither well designed, affordable or good looking. It has a lot of merits (and that's why I love it!) but those things require a lot of time and effort to be found.
This.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 15:19:17 GMT
Cyel You have some very good points but they need to get new players in and returning players back somehow. I do think there is still room for some streamlining in the rules. They could also look at bundling old SKUs to move them as well as whether there might be more cost-effective materials and production to use for minis in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2018 16:35:40 GMT
I don't think newbies are attracted/discouraged by in-depth talk about balance issues, erratas etc. They are mostly unaware of those things. In my opinion PP are a very weird beast in today's tabletop gaming environment. They and their approach to design/business model stayed mostly the same, while around them a huge gaming revolution happened, with the golden age of board gaming including modern, streamlined, "less-is-more" design, great prices for excellent production value of board games, kickstarters, good quality miniatures becoming more and more common in board gaming. That's only part of it. The other part is how the group works, too. I was at my old LGS yesterday afternoon building some models while people meandered in.
One person was hesitant to start a game because he didn't bring his standard list in. I suggested that one didn't always need to play their standard list, and he said, "We only play 75 points here."
Another person who used to be strong in the game said he would have played it more, but he can think of only 4 people in which he could get a friendly game with in our metropolis.
Attitudes of the group will do more to kill a local meta than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 27, 2018 22:01:31 GMT
This is pretty much it. Wargames have always had single models that cost as much as an entire board game. Wargames have always had relatively complicated rulesets. If these super streamlined low rules count games were so popular why didn't they take over the game community? AOS tried it and shit the bed and died then GW had to quickly introduce a tighter ruleset.
Attitudes of the community are what keep warmachine from being casual.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 27, 2018 23:16:37 GMT
This is pretty much it. Wargames have always had single models that cost as much as an entire board game. Wargames have always had relatively complicated rulesets. If these super streamlined low rules count games were so popular why didn't they take over the game community? AOS tried it and shit the bed and died then GW had to quickly introduce a tighter ruleset. Attitudes of the community are what keep warmachine from being casual. From what I understand, the only thing that really changed in AoS was army building.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Dec 28, 2018 1:31:01 GMT
This is pretty much it. Wargames have always had single models that cost as much as an entire board game. Wargames have always had relatively complicated rulesets. If these super streamlined low rules count games were so popular why didn't they take over the game community? AOS tried it and shit the bed and died then GW had to quickly introduce a tighter ruleset. Attitudes of the community are what keep warmachine from being casual. Ruleset stayed the same. They just added book with scenarios, point costs and armybuilding, but also campaign play and free play. Now there is second edition or smth, but AFAIK they just added some scenic spells and redacted stuff. Nothing major. Core ruleset is really tight and easy IMHO, GW designers did top-notch job within specification (better than creators of MK3 tbh). It was hindered by idiots in marketing, worldbuilding and managements. It's not a coincidence that GW CEO lost his job. They couldn't risk those same cretins shooting 40K in the foot. While Fantasy Battle was red haired step child of GW for years Space Mahrunez are the main source of income. Also 8ed of 40K use slightly modified AoS ruleset. No one's complaining, it's currently killing PP's profits and getting tons of players, so they must be into something. Oh, they also have their own Company of Iron, it's called Kill Team, the only difference is it's not dead. Generally speaking - GW made a comeback after trainwreck that was AoS at the begining while PP managed to kill all hype for MK3 year after it's release. Which is shame, since I don't play AoS...
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 28, 2018 2:20:54 GMT
You have access to their profits?
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Dec 28, 2018 8:11:45 GMT
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Dec 28, 2018 8:23:39 GMT
This is pretty much it. Wargames have always had single models that cost as much as an entire board game. Wargames have always had relatively complicated rulesets. No, not like this, they haven't. Maybe 20+ years ago, the division was clearly visible. The choice was between nerdy, supercomplicated games (like wargames) and casual, shallow and random family games, like Risk or Monopoly. And if you wanted cheaper than wargames, but as complex, you probably got some niche nerdy game with fugly thin board, even fuglier tokens and rules that required a week to read and a year to understand.
I wonder what board games you play, if the example of modern design you give is AoS, the Snakes and Ladders of wargaming. I was rather mentioning modern board games like Dominant Species, Food Chain Magnate, Blood Rage/Rising Sun, Brass, The Edge, Gloomhaven, Civ:Through the Ages, Agricola/Caverna, Scythe, Terraforming Mars, Concordia and more.
With those games the streamlined, smart, finely tuned rules do not mean simplified, shallow gameplay. The "less is more" design keeps them very deep, challenging, the perfect competition for WM&H in the "I want deep, intelectual competition with my friends" category. Most of those games look stunning too, not really worse than WM&H with unpainted models, on flat terrain and with a trash bin worth of tokens. It's hard to find an area where WM&H has advantage over those games.
All of my friends, who once were a group of 10+ casual WM&H players left for board games. The "community stayed the same, so it's not them who discouraged each other from playing. They get the kicks of having a brain-boiling intelectual challenge and great looking tabletop presence from games that cost 1/10 of WM&H price and rules that require 1/10 of the time to read and understand (and -shock! - provide as deep and complex situations/decisions during games!).
Yeah, in those games you can actually start winning right from the start (well, maybe your 2nd game) because you just need to be smarter than your opponents, not spend more time studying the intricacies of the rules.
As for GW profits and stock prices :
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-4501980
|
|