|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 8:13:01 GMT
They might have tilted the field too much toward jacks (not beasts) at the beginning of Mk3, but now I feel like jacks have been pushed away again. Yes, jacks and beasts are literally most of the point of playing this game as opposed to any other. (I'm sure there are other games that are competitive and aggressive with clean rules.) If you want tons of models in huge engagements there are no doubt many games that do that much better than an engine that is actually more like a skirmish game with too many models.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Dec 27, 2018 9:50:40 GMT
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. This argument works the other way, too. An army of 'two of this unit, one of that, add seasoning to taste' is pretty much 75% of the infantry field these days. Just skimming Discount Games, Menoth EI with double Cinerator + Venger, Devourer's Host with Double Ravager + Wolf Rider, Dark Host with double Banes + Riders, Legion of Steel with double iron fang + Uhlans... It may ruin the experience if you only have steak, but nothing but mashed potatoes isn't great either. Nor is having mashed potatoes with chips. Basically, both infantry spam and jack spam are not much fun to play, and themes don't help by actively promoting spam.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 27, 2018 10:42:20 GMT
75 is alright, though the deathclock can be annoying with some lists then. They should add a FA limit of 2-3 to everything.
Or then 65 points (haven't played but might make for more hard choices).
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 27, 2018 11:51:34 GMT
They might have tilted the field too much toward jacks (not beasts) at the beginning of Mk3, but now I feel like jacks have been pushed away again. Yes, jacks and beasts are literally most of the point of playing this game as opposed to any other. (I'm sure there are other games that are competitive and aggressive with clean rules.) If you want tons of models in huge engagements there are no doubt many games that do that much better than an engine that is actually more like a skirmish game with too many models. I think it has more to do with most jack themes being old and some of them offering trash benefits.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Dec 27, 2018 12:12:10 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. This is not my experience with bigger games at all. Twice the points usually plays out in twice the time, as expected, and doesn't become a mess or breaks out of control (and we don't play Unbound, just bigger, multiplayer games). Requires a bigger table, though.
When it comes to balance and tactical challenge, I think the bigger, the better (regardless of the wargame), as the impact of single stupid mistakes/an OP model/lucky or unlucky dice streak get watered down by the size of the game.
But as a compromise between size/number of options and time schedule/space/transport/accessibility requirements for an event, or even a regular gaming night, I'd say 50-75pts are pretty close to be optimal.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 14:46:32 GMT
Cyel I would like to see different sizes of games more often, but if it's easier to keep that down to two then 50 and 75 seem the obvious choices.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Dec 27, 2018 15:09:55 GMT
For events and pick-up games - absolutely yes! A bigger game requires extra planning even for a casual afternoon with a few friends, let alone a tournament.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Dec 28, 2018 0:31:53 GMT
This game needs to be more than a bunch of robots. I can totally understand wanting the "full wargame experience" to be more than just jacks and beasts. But for a focused Warmachine/Hordes "skirmish game experience", just jacks and beasts would make sense as a separate smaller format. Especially if the scenarios somehow incentivize extensive use of throws, slams, and headbutts.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Dec 28, 2018 0:40:53 GMT
Two groups of 6-10 robots each smashing into each other is boring. That's the typical size of WH40K Kill Team, which appears to be doing quite well. And Infinity. So there's an audience out for the speed and accessibility of smaller-scale games. But yeah, the scenarios would have to be more than straight smashing into each other in the middle of the board.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 28, 2018 10:29:50 GMT
Two groups of 6-10 robots each smashing into each other is boring. That's the typical size of WH40K Kill Team, which appears to be doing quite well. And Infinity. So there's an audience out for the speed and accessibility of smaller-scale games. But yeah, the scenarios would have to be more than straight smashing into each other in the middle of the board.
So basically bring back the Mangled Metal / Tooth & Claw format (secondary win condition is destroying the battle group instead of the caster), make a special scenario, or maybe just play Recon II (caster camps flag, zones are scorable by battle group)? I guess some casters could get in fury/focus trouble, but maybe that's the intention. PS: I mean this as a proposed answer, not as being snarky.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Dec 28, 2018 11:30:05 GMT
Mangled Metal, whilst awesome fun, could do with updating. The absolute no-units rule really messed up Menoth and Skorne a lot of the time.
I feel like allowing Junior Warcasters, Warcaster attachments, and Jack Marshal solos would help iron out a lot of kinks; you'd have to be careful how much you delegated because of the secondary win condition. And then let each faction have a support unit; Mechanics in Khador/Cygnar, Necrotech in Cryx, Choir in Menoth, PGBH in Skorne... Not sure about others. Shifting Stones, Krielstone, Optifex, Shepard?
Just to give a small amount of flexibility whilst not detracting from the overall wall of pain theme
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 28, 2018 11:54:13 GMT
Mangled Metal, whilst awesome fun, could do with updating. The absolute no-units rule really messed up Menoth and Skorne a lot of the time. I feel like allowing Junior Warcasters, Warcaster attachments, and Jack Marshal solos would help iron out a lot of kinks; you'd have to be careful how much you delegated because of the secondary win condition. And then let each faction have a support unit; Mechanics in Khador/Cygnar, Necrotech in Cryx, Choir in Menoth, PGBH in Skorne... Not sure about others. Shifting Stones, Krielstone, Optifex, Shepard? Just to give a small amount of flexibility whilst not detracting from the overall wall of pain theme Isn't that basically: Cryx plays Black Industries, Khador Jaws, Circle plays Bones, Trolls, Power of Dhunia, etc.? Some of those themes might be a bit overly restrictive, such as the Circle one in this case, but it does sound very similar? How about a kind of ADR: 1 list only with a limited selection of casters and theme forces (the jack/beast themes above)?
|
|
|
Post by onijet01 on Dec 28, 2018 12:46:08 GMT
Mangled Metal, whilst awesome fun, could do with updating. The absolute no-units rule really messed up Menoth and Skorne a lot of the time. I feel like allowing Junior Warcasters, Warcaster attachments, and Jack Marshal solos would help iron out a lot of kinks; you'd have to be careful how much you delegated because of the secondary win condition. And then let each faction have a support unit; Mechanics in Khador/Cygnar, Necrotech in Cryx, Choir in Menoth, PGBH in Skorne... Not sure about others. Shifting Stones, Krielstone, Optifex, Shepard? Just to give a small amount of flexibility whilst not detracting from the overall wall of pain theme Isn't that basically: Cryx plays Black Industries, Khador Jaws, Circle plays Bones, Trolls, Power of Dhunia, etc.? Some of those themes might be a bit overly restrictive, such as the Circle one in this case, but it does sound very similar? How about a kind of ADR: 1 list only with a limited selection of casters and theme forces (the jack/beast themes above)? Sounds good but what if you flip the coin. Take any caster and theme (adr style) but limit the points avalible to units/solos to 30? Example in wolves of winter (cid) you can take two reavers (20pts i think) a ternion (7pts), wardog (3pts) and a free solo Not a optimized list but fits a battlegroup theme. Offering chaf support and infantry.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Dec 28, 2018 12:53:33 GMT
No, I meant unique and highly restrictive option sets. And no free points or theme benefits.
If you go with themes then you open the door to lists like the Irusk2 Kayazy Jaws lists, or Heavy Metal with Sword Knights and Long Gunners. Those lists might not be strong in an unrestricted format, but they'd be a nightmare for jack-heavy lists and completely out of keeping with the idea of Mangled Metal.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Dec 28, 2018 13:43:19 GMT
Two groups of 6-10 robots each smashing into each other is boring. That's the typical size of WH40K Kill Team, which appears to be doing quite well. And Infinity. So there's an audience out for the speed and accessibility of smaller-scale games. But yeah, the scenarios would have to be more than straight smashing into each other in the middle of the board.
Which is what terrain is for. This game needs a lot more of it, but generally a WFB table has more terrain on it. It's embarrassing.
|
|