|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 26, 2018 18:14:37 GMT
TBH my format idea in the 50 vs 75 points thread is not just one of those "let's do something different just for funsies" larks. I am starting to think that I might prefer the tournament standard to be set at 50 points but with more BG points across the board. Not only would that encourage more jacks and beasts, but there would be more granularity in BG points among casters, which would allow for more fine-tuning of their power curve.
And yes, instead of assigning wjp/wbp at random and then tweaking a point or two from there, the number would be gauged first upon how powerful the caster is on his/her own. How strong they are at the level of their entire army would come second to how menacing they are with little to no support. So Skarre 3, Karchev, and Borka 2 would only gain a few BG points while Harkevitch and Madrak 3 would hit the new top of the scale at 42. Again, it's not just, "Too weak? Moar Pointz! Problem solved." It's just that some casters depend upon the rest of the army a lot more and they do need more stuff on the table.
Of course, some buffing/support casters like Skarre 1, Madrak 1, and Vlad 1 & 2 are so strong that they would not go nearly that high, more like the mid to low-30s.
Another benefit of this change (though it is quite sweeping) is that it would afford an opportunity to rebalance casters in general. I'm sure there are potential problems that I haven't anticipated, and that others will point those out.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317 
|
Post by privvy on Dec 26, 2018 20:44:03 GMT
I think that ~100 points should be the standard, where it's the army points plus the warjack/warbeast points equaling 100. I like how that's basically true now and I'd like to keep it that way if any changes are made to tournament standards and warnoun points.
One thing this does, though, is open the jack and beast themes to allow for more free support models with less upfront cost. 50 warjack points means 2 free solos with 0 points needed outside of it, but that is also very strong for some factions, like Skorne, while it's just pretty good for a faction like Menoth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 27, 2018 0:47:10 GMT
At the same time, I think there would definitely still be a place for 75-point games. Even with the rules we have now, I would like to see 50-point tournaments more often, and even if this change were made, I would still want to see both, even at major tourneys.
However, at 50 points with more BG points, especially if we still had 3 freebies as per the other thread, I think we would still have a decent model count and room for support yet games would play faster and barriers to entry would be lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Dec 28, 2018 6:55:18 GMT
I'd be all for this. I've often thought one way PP could help keep things fresh and keep more models in the lineup viable is by creating and encouraging more ways to play the game competitively.
A "full sized" game that emphasizes battlegroup seems fun and like a cool idea. Like a Mangled Metal/Tooth and Claw + format. It might be a bit of work to go through and balance every caster around a new number of beast points just for the format, though. It would certainly be easier to just say "This format is played with a 50 point army and every Warlock has an additional 25 warbeast points to spend." Or something like that. Even better if there are unique scenarios made for the unique format. Similarly, I think it could be possible to play "No Themes" as a tournament variation for those players who really seem to dislike themes. I imagine a meta where the game was the same as is, except theme bonuses/restrictions and free points did not exist would look incredibly different.
I'd also like to see PP push the envelope with steamroller a little more. Some more aggressive/creative changes to design philosophy and missions could really open up list design and philosophy; maybe even re imagining the way tournaments are meant to be prepped for and played. (For example, in ITS missions are comparatively rather complicated and in depth with lots of variation in design and goal and with what units are needed while Steamroller tends to just be variations on jockying for boardspace and avoiding assassination. ITS also introduces temporary changes to model types season by season and announces the 4 or so missions that will played in a tournament well ahead of time so players can craft list pairs that meet the mission requirements and hopefully address the meta as well).
Totally like the idea of fresh formats and scenarios for the game, though. A lot of people are drawn in by the battlegroup models and centerpiece type sculpts and crafting a format that emphasizes those minis and gets Warmachine back to some of its lower model count/skirmish routes could be really fun. Maybe some special scenarios or a gameplay format that introduces a new set of power attacks for warnouns and such, or on table scenario elements that interact with battlegroup models (adding/removing focus/fury, provoking threshold tests or disruption).
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jan 20, 2019 1:27:36 GMT
I'd be all for this. I've often thought one way PP could help keep things fresh and keep more models in the lineup viable is by creating and encouraging more ways to play the game competitively. A "full sized" game that emphasizes battlegroup seems fun and like a cool idea. Like a Mangled Metal/Tooth and Claw + format. It might be a bit of work to go through and balance every caster around a new number of beast points just for the format, though. It would certainly be easier to just say "This format is played with a 50 point army and every Warlock has an additional 25 warbeast points to spend." Or something like that. Even better if there are unique scenarios made for the unique format. Similarly, I think it could be possible to play "No Themes" as a tournament variation for those players who really seem to dislike themes. I imagine a meta where the game was the same as is, except theme bonuses/restrictions and free points did not exist would look incredibly different. I'd also like to see PP push the envelope with steamroller a little more. Some more aggressive/creative changes to design philosophy and missions could really open up list design and philosophy; maybe even re imagining the way tournaments are meant to be prepped for and played. (For example, in ITS missions are comparatively rather complicated and in depth with lots of variation in design and goal and with what units are needed while Steamroller tends to just be variations on jockying for boardspace and avoiding assassination. ITS also introduces temporary changes to model types season by season and announces the 4 or so missions that will played in a tournament well ahead of time so players can craft list pairs that meet the mission requirements and hopefully address the meta as well). Totally like the idea of fresh formats and scenarios for the game, though. A lot of people are drawn in by the battlegroup models and centerpiece type sculpts and crafting a format that emphasizes those minis and gets Warmachine back to some of its lower model count/skirmish routes could be really fun. Maybe some special scenarios or a gameplay format that introduces a new set of power attacks for warnouns and such, or on table scenario elements that interact with battlegroup models (adding/removing focus/fury, provoking threshold tests or disruption). I would love to see volatile objectives, that can score while on the table or destroyed for a slight vp points bump. Also, Objectives with areas of effect that prevent things from working, or give penalties to models in that area. It would be a great way to give SR a bump and not be so dogganmed repetitive. I would also like to see a-symmetrical missions built into a steamroller packet sometime too. I would love to see zones give elevation bonuses, or zones having special rules, like everything in this zone counts as difficult terrain, or everything in this zone looses incorpreal while in the zone, or everything in this zone is -1 movment, just, stuff like that, something that could make the zone a bit more interesting other than "hey yo, lets fight here. we dont know why we are fighting here, but lets fight here, and whoever is here the most, and doesnt leave, they win. cool?" |
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Jan 20, 2019 2:49:48 GMT
I would love to see volatile objectives, that can score while on the table or destroyed for a slight vp points bump. Also, Objectives with areas of effect that prevent things from working, or give penalties to models in that area. It would be a great way to give SR a bump and not be so dogganmed repetitive. I would also like to see a-symmetrical missions built into a steamroller packet sometime too. I would love to see zones give elevation bonuses, or zones having special rules, like everything in this zone counts as difficult terrain, or everything in this zone looses incorpreal while in the zone, or everything in this zone is -1 movment, just, stuff like that, something that could make the zone a bit more interesting other than "hey yo, lets fight here. we dont know why we are fighting here, but lets fight here, and whoever is here the most, and doesnt leave, they win. cool?" Have you considered playing one of the many narrative scenarios PP has released over the years? I've seen almost every one of the ideas you mention implemented in one scenario or another. A-symmetrical scenarios are basically impossible to balance so I'm happy for them to focus on Steamrollers being generic and their narrative scenarios to have, well, narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 24, 2019 15:48:26 GMT
As to how many points to add, I overshot, but I think I have a better idea now: Start with the casters who don't do much for jacks and beasts and don't really want them beyond filling the "Battlegroup Points." (Also, why not use one term here instead of two?) The Irusks are great examples. So give them exactly X-1 Battlegroup points, where X is the cost of their faction's cheapest colossal or gargantuan. That way, there is an actual case to be made for 2 or 3 heavies instead, even if those casters would usually rather just say, "Judicator, done. Now, what units do I want?"
Anyway, do that first, then adjust from there. Casters would gain fewer BGP in the adjustment if they are more powerful overall like Kolgrima or if they just have a really big presence on their own, like Borka 2. They would make bigger gains if they are less powerful overall or if they need their armies to actually kill anything, like Calandra and Grissel 1.
Grim 1 and Madrak 1 are very powerful but do need their heavy hitters, so they would gain a moderate amount. I'm thinking 4 for Grim and 3 for Madrak, as Madrak can kill a heavy on his own. I'm thinking of a scale from 3 to 7 points gained for each caster, with a few exceptions.
Lastly, just because a caster is in a unit does not mean that they should be docked several points. Look instead at the criteria above. If that unit has a huge impact on the table on their own like Butcher 3, then they gain less, but casters like Doomy 3 would gain more.
(I'm just using Trollblood warlocks as examples because that's who I'm familiar with.)
|
|
