|
Post by Havock on Dec 26, 2018 15:52:58 GMT
Is that 10 extra wjp or 10 total?
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 26, 2018 16:47:49 GMT
Is that 10 extra wjp or 10 total? Only warjack/warbeast points.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Dec 26, 2018 17:02:48 GMT
Biggest issue I see are the differences between casters, some have little personal power and others have imense. Does anyone think Skarre3 or B3 were designed with small games in mind?
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 26, 2018 17:22:07 GMT
Would you guys like a format where you play 50-point games but you have +10 warjack/warbeast points? Why? Just to incentivize smaller games with larger Battle groups? Possible concern: +10 warjack points would allow most casters to take a Colossal without dipping into the points allowed for infantry. Most infantry casters usually only want 1 Jack anyway, so this might benefit those casters more than you intended.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 26, 2018 17:39:02 GMT
Biggest issue I see are the differences between casters, some have little personal power and others have imense. Does anyone think Skarre3 or B3 were designed with small games in mind? I'm going to break this out into a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 26, 2018 19:01:02 GMT
Is that 10 extra wjp or 10 total? Only warjack/warbeast points. I meant if it was 10 extra or a flat 10 WJP/WBP? Honestly, mk3 promotes bigger battlegroups anyway, it probably does not need it. The actual points sweet spot might be something like 60 points...
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Dec 26, 2018 20:56:01 GMT
If anything, 75 is too small. The issue is that the game is too battlegroup heavy. Many casters who want very few jacks/beasts are forced to spend upwards of 1/3 of their total points on stuff they don’t want or need. #MakeInfantryGreatAgain
100 points would be better imo. You could have more infantry while still being able to take a sizable battlegroup. This game needs to be more than a bunch of robots.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 26, 2018 21:50:43 GMT
I agree with Havock and GreyTemplar, 100pt would be better then 75. Maybe that would allow for all-commers lists. I still think 50pt is better as well, 75 just sits right in that spot where I want to expand from 50 and things don't click (for me)
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Dec 26, 2018 22:46:25 GMT
As an experienced troll player I find anything under 75 an immense challenge to list-building as we are such a support-heavy faction. The Krielstone may not be a fury drain now, but it still takes typically 9-12 points for third-wave desperation models that the rest of our army is balanced around.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 0:34:32 GMT
I agree with Ask Barker at GMG that Warmachine does not scale up well at all if only because models move and attack one at a time and positioning is so demanding. If you have +100 models on a 4x4 table between two players, the very engine of the game breaks down at a fundamental level. Games get bogged down in a mess and feel incomplete when they're decided by the clock. I for one do not want to see Infantrymachine become as awful as it was in Mk2 ever again.
I guess Unbound will never be hugely popular, but that could theoretically be used to mitigate some of these issues at the 100-point level and higher if anyone comes up with some rules to do it. Maybe not putting units in trays, but I'm sure someone could think of something.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 0:37:42 GMT
As an experienced troll player I find anything under 75 an immense challenge to list-building as we are such a support-heavy faction. The Krielstone may not be a fury drain now, but it still takes typically 9-12 points for third-wave desperation models that the rest of our army is balanced around. It's doable. Some of our warlocks have an easier time of it than others. I like the Borkas, Grims, and Madraks, who have a big personal impact and Madrak 3 can save points by not running the Krielstone.
|
|
|
Post by MacGuffin on Dec 27, 2018 3:10:55 GMT
This game needs to be more than a bunch of robots. This is a surprising opinion! I got into this game precisely because of the focus on battlegroups, the resource allocation mechanics that accompany them, and the big stompy robots/frankenpigs. I knew about the game in MK2 but refrained from buying in because of #infantrymachine. Although I can see why you would like bigger games if infantry is your thing.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 27, 2018 3:14:35 GMT
Even so, if it was just battlegroups it would get stale fast, mk3 has nailed combined arms pretty well, although exceptions do occur. For example, my Legion of Steel list has all of three warjacks in it, and why would it have more?
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Dec 27, 2018 4:55:29 GMT
The issue is they swung too hard away from infantry-machine. Effectively, they went from a minimum of 6/56 of your points in jacks to 32/107 of your points in jacks. The % of points you could spend on non-jacks shrunk. Which really hurt all the casters who do nothing for jacks.
Plus as I have said before, this is supposed to be a “War-game”. Not a “Reznikandhisbrosgobeatupthekidsdowntheblock-game”
A wargame needs an army. Jacks are cool, they’re the equivalent of tanks in the iron kingdoms. But tanks lose their cool factor if they’re the only thing on the field. You need some regular dudes to have an enjoyable experience. Two groups of 6-10 robots each smashing into each other is boring. It’s like a nice steak dinner, but without the mashed potatoes, salad, and bread. It ruins the experience if you only have the steak.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Dec 27, 2018 7:41:19 GMT
The issue is they swung too hard away from infantry-machine. Effectively, they went from a minimum of 6/56 of your points in jacks to 32/107 of your points in jacks. The % of points you could spend on non-jacks shrunk. Which really hurt all the casters who do nothing for jacks. Plus as I have said before, this is supposed to be a “War-game”. Not a “Reznikandhisbrosgobeatupthekidsdowntheblock-game” A wargame needs an army. Jacks are cool, they’re the equivalent of tanks in the iron kingdoms. But tanks lose their cool factor if they’re the only thing on the field. You need some regular dudes to have an enjoyable experience. Two groups of 6-10 robots each smashing into each other is boring. It’s like a nice steak dinner, but without the mashed potatoes, salad, and bread. It ruins the experience if you only have the steak. Yes, but one quarter of your army being warjacks/beasts is not really "too much" is it? You can easily have two jacks and four infantry units on the table. Personally I like the increased WJP of MkIII, because it means lists are a bit more predictable. I much prefer knowing that my opponent will have at least two jacks/a colossal, than not knowing if he's going to be running a 100% jack list or a 100% infantry list. It makes lists more balanced overall and slightly reduces the chance/severity of running into a situation where you brought scissors and your opponent brought rock. Obviously I'm speaking from a casual gaming perspective. As always, things are different from a "two list tournament" and a "I brought a single list to the club for a casual game" perspective. As I'm not a competitive player I don't really know how ~30WJP really affects tournament players, but I would suspect that it's not so bad there either as even with two lists it's probably still useful not to have to worry about quite as much variety in possible opponent lists as you might face if WJP didn't exist/were much lower? Also, warjacks/beasts and how they interact with your caster are a large part of this game's Unique Selling Point; without that there's a lot less difference between Warmahordes and a lot of other wargames out there where you can run an infantry horde (or even a bunch of tanks or monsters).
|
|