|
Post by NephMakes on Dec 28, 2018 14:26:12 GMT
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. But Black Industries also prevents Cryx jacks from losing their arms on the way in. So perhaps you'd need themes specific to Mangled Metal that would include jacks/beasts, jack/beast support solos and units, restricted caster choice, and whatever other benefits needed to tweak balance.
I like dirtyharrypotter 's idea of more terrain, too. Without colossals, terrain elements could be denser without creating problems.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Dec 28, 2018 14:58:12 GMT
But Black Industries also prevents Cryx jacks from losing their arms on the way in. So perhaps you'd need themes specific to Mangled Metal that would include jacks/beasts, jack/beast support solos and units, restricted caster choice, and whatever other benefits needed to tweak balance. I like dirtyharrypotter 's idea of more terrain, too. Without colossals, terrain elements could be denser without creating problems. It would be better to stick to the 'jacks-only' rule than to import a theme and then tweak it. Black Industries has two very relevant theme benefits for all-jack armies. PoD, Jaws, Creator's, Heavy Metal... none of these benefit the warjacks. So starting from themes as a base already disadvantages certain factions. All this is pretty moot, though; PP hasn't shown the slightest interest in MM in Mk3.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 28, 2018 18:36:18 GMT
At least, not outside JML, any rate.
On the converse side, WE are the ones who decide the games we play. WE don't have to limit ourselves to Steamroller or Masters or Champions. WE are not reliant on PP putting something on NQ/Insider/Front Page in order to play it.
The only limit to playing a type of game is the willingness of another player, that's it. PP has zero things to do with it whatsoever, aside from providing suggestions on how to format your game.
|
|
|
Post by MacGuffin on Dec 29, 2018 3:31:52 GMT
Good input from everyone, thank you. I do hope that PP is aware of some of these opinions and considers them for future tournament formats. I recognize that we control our own metas but PP indisputably exercises some influence on how the game is played. For my part, I will ask around my local meta for players willing to play at 50 points or lower. Maybe someday it will also be a competitive option.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Jan 24, 2019 13:31:58 GMT
I think PP is considering some kind of more-official support for a 50 pt game format:
- Hungerford has mentioned 50 pt games in a couple recent streams (here for example)
- Hungerford likes how they're friendlier to newer players and don't take as much time to play
- Hungerford mentioned how a lot of the focus on 75 pt games is because of official support (Masters and Champions)
- Hungerford recommended that players try out 50 pt games
- Olsen mentioned "workshopping" something with Hungerford at 50 pts
- Hungerford will be playing 50 pt games at LVO
So, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 24, 2019 13:52:14 GMT
Oh, that's super interesting! I'd be good to see if anything comes from that.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 24, 2019 15:05:00 GMT
I still think that they should increase warjack/warbeast points across the board and rebalance casters while they're at it, especially if there is a "Mk 3.5" after all. Then shifting the standard to 50 points or even just pushing it as another popular format might be more palatable to more people. We'd see more jacks and beasts, which pushes the "unique selling proposition" of this game, and one barrier to entry would be a little lower.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Jan 24, 2019 15:25:42 GMT
We'd see more jacks and beasts, which pushes the "unique selling proposition" of this game, and one barrier to entry would be a little lower. Jacks and beasts can also be used in any theme, so having the smaller format be battlegroup-heavy would still let players expand in a bunch of directions. I mean, that's how battleboxes work already, but journeyman leagues start funneling you into a theme pretty early.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 24, 2019 15:57:08 GMT
We'd see more jacks and beasts, which pushes the "unique selling proposition" of this game, and one barrier to entry would be a little lower. Jacks and beasts can also be used in any theme, so having the smaller format be battlegroup-heavy would still let players expand in a bunch of directions. I mean, that's how battleboxes work already, but journeyman leagues start funneling you into a theme pretty early. Some Themes less than others, like Operating Theater, Hammer Strike, or Children of the Dragon (and formerly Masters of War).
|
|
martini
Junior Strategist
Posts: 119
|
Post by martini on Jan 28, 2019 18:19:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phantomsig on Jan 29, 2019 3:25:31 GMT
Would removing the free solos available to themes not reduce the point values anyway?
So instead of 50 point, keep playing 75 points, and remove any free solo perks in themes?
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 29, 2019 8:22:42 GMT
Would removing the free solos available to themes not reduce the point values anyway? So instead of 50 point, keep playing 75 points, and remove any free solo perks in themes? Potentially. The issue that might crop up there is that some themes don't actually have worthwhile benefits; why would anyone play Jaws of the Wolf over non theme? You'd be restricting your list for no actual benefit. Given that PP is pushing hard for themes, they might be wary of that. But that's an issue with individual themes, not your suggestion. It would be interesting to try, at the very least
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Jan 29, 2019 17:30:36 GMT
I can see the argument for wanting to play with less points, less time, more streamlined, but honestly, I have too many toys and want to play with more of them at a time. 100 points for me.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 29, 2019 20:25:30 GMT
I can see the argument for wanting to play with less points, less time, more streamlined, but honestly, I have too many toys and want to play with more of them at a time. 100 points for me. The problem with that is you have to find another person willing to play it.
|
|
|
Post by cygnarstronk on Jan 29, 2019 20:28:13 GMT
I think the opposite, 75 points is not enough
|
|