|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 2, 2019 12:49:50 GMT
I can see how there are differences between Gunfighter and Point-Blank, I just don't think the distinction is worthwhile. They should be consolidated.
|
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 2, 2019 13:50:38 GMT
Agreed. I really think just reducing it to Point Blank would be fine. You could write a special rule onto the melee profile of the ranged weapon in question for certain units like "Well-Trained: This model gains +2 to melee attack rolls when making a melee attack with this weapon." For some models like Gun Mages who might be unfairly penalized by losing Gunfighter for the current Point Blank rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 2, 2019 14:44:13 GMT
Agreed. I really think just reducing it to Point Blank would be fine. You could write a special rule onto the melee profile of the ranged weapon in question for certain units like "Well-Trained: This model gains +2 to melee attack rolls when making a melee attack with this weapon." For some models like Gun Mages who might be unfairly penalized by losing Gunfighter for the current Point Blank rule. The implications of this are more far-reaching though. Right now the Gun Mages also have a (mostly useless) sword. When making attacks in melee they must choose to use their gun with Gun Fighter or their sword regularly. If they just gained Point Blank, they would effectively gain a second melee attack. I do agree that Gunfighter is the more confusing rule, but note that the reverse would also be "strange" for inexperienced players: as soon as you decide to make 1 Point Blank/melee attack, you can't use your potential other shots at range anymore, because you chose to make initial melee attacks. Just saying, it could be beneficial to stream line this, but it's not as simple as saying "give everyone one or the other". |
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685 
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 2, 2019 22:14:29 GMT
The distinction exists exactly because it adds depth, though I do agree that for many players it's mostly just confusing. For me if a rule in a game doesn't let players make interesting and meaningful decisions I don't call it depth, it's just complication and as such it isn't needed in the rules. |
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 2, 2019 22:33:17 GMT
If you had to pick one thing about Warmachine/Hordes to streamline or simplify, what would it be? And exactly one thing- not two or zero. One thing that I think would help the game, and that I believe counts as simplifying is this: Remove the Feat mechanic. Seriously, if there's one thing that players get got the most is by Feats, not to mention that most NPEs are originated by Feats. It would require an entire revamp of spell lists though, but you could in theory replace Feats with a spell that had a waterdown version of the effect that wasn't so ball busting, or even a Field Marshall or an Elite Cadre ability. Things that you can maintain constant turn by turn and not have the game devolve into explosive second turn Feats that demoralize the newer players. In all seriousness though, one thing that irks me is that some abilities are Icons on the front of the card and others are Text blocks on the back. In the age of War Room I think they should do away with all icons and just fully write all abilities on the back, if the programers are clever they'll even make the text Collapsable. |
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jan 2, 2019 23:40:18 GMT
Exhibit A: War Room 1
Exhibit B: War Room 2
Maybe if they got someone else to do it...
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jan 3, 2019 14:42:24 GMT
Agreed. I really think just reducing it to Point Blank would be fine. You could write a special rule onto the melee profile of the ranged weapon in question for certain units like "Well-Trained: This model gains +2 to melee attack rolls when making a melee attack with this weapon." For some models like Gun Mages who might be unfairly penalized by losing Gunfighter for the current Point Blank rule. It would also destroy the really cool (and really complicated) interaction between warspears, zuriel and Lylyth2's feat  |
|
tomw
Junior Strategist
Posts: 128
|
Post by tomw on Jan 3, 2019 16:04:07 GMT
I think with point blank/gunfighter (and most of the other suggested changes to be honest), it’s a given that they’d need to revisit all of the models that rely on those rules. Like, sure, give all models that currently have gunfighter point blank, then you might have to up gun mage rat to 6 or 7, for example. Since we’re wishlisting, this doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch!
|
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 4, 2019 19:14:31 GMT
If you had to pick one thing about Warmachine/Hordes to streamline or simplify, what would it be? And exactly one thing- not two or zero. One thing that I think would help the game, and that I believe counts as simplifying is this: Remove the Feat mechanic. Seriously, if there's one thing that players get got the most is by Feats, not to mention that most NPEs are originated by Feats. It would require an entire revamp of spell lists though, but you could in theory replace Feats with a spell that had a waterdown version of the effect that wasn't so ball busting, or even a Field Marshall or an Elite Cadre ability. Things that you can maintain constant turn by turn and not have the game devolve into explosive second turn Feats that demoralize the newer players. In all seriousness though, one thing that irks me is that some abilities are Icons on the front of the card and others are Text blocks on the back. In the age of War Room I think they should do away with all icons and just fully write all abilities on the back, if the programers are clever they'll even make the text Collapsable. That's got to be one of the worst suggestions for the game I've ever seen. Why don't ditch focus/fury while we're at it? Or "streamline" the 2D6 system to a 1D6 like warhammer while we're at it. |
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 4, 2019 20:00:51 GMT
One thing that I think would help the game, and that I believe counts as simplifying is this: Remove the Feat mechanic. Seriously, if there's one thing that players get got the most is by Feats, not to mention that most NPEs are originated by Feats. It would require an entire revamp of spell lists though, but you could in theory replace Feats with a spell that had a waterdown version of the effect that wasn't so ball busting, or even a Field Marshall or an Elite Cadre ability. Things that you can maintain constant turn by turn and not have the game devolve into explosive second turn Feats that demoralize the newer players. In all seriousness though, one thing that irks me is that some abilities are Icons on the front of the card and others are Text blocks on the back. In the age of War Room I think they should do away with all icons and just fully write all abilities on the back, if the programers are clever they'll even make the text Collapsable. That's got to be one of the worst suggestions for the game I've ever seen. Why don't ditch focus/fury while we're at it? Or "streamline" the 2D6 system to a 1D6 like warhammer while we're at it. Do you want to discuss why you feel that way? I don't think Feats are a defining aspect of the game, so much so that Grymkin largely works without them, and there are also examples of Casters with low impact feats and great spell lists. I believe the game will benefit from not having Explosive turns that catch new players off guard, and instead double down on a key aspect that makes WM/H such a great game, Consistency and Mitigation of Randomness (which, spoiler, the Focus and 2d6 system are a part of). |
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Jan 4, 2019 20:53:23 GMT
One thing that I think would help the game, and that I believe counts as simplifying is this: Remove the Feat mechanic. Feats are a lot like "Ults" in MOBAs and Overwatch and probably other video games. Yeah, they add complexity, but so does having a large roster of named characters that each have their own special abilities and play style (again like MOBAs and Overwatch). That style of game seems to be doing well in general. I doubt it's a big barrier-to-entry for WarmaHordes.
What about combining Jack Marshals and other Battlegroup Controller solos? Do we really need two different types of solos with jacks?
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 4, 2019 21:24:53 GMT
One thing that I think would help the game, and that I believe counts as simplifying is this: Remove the Feat mechanic. Feats are a lot like "Ults" in MOBAs and Overwatch and probably other video games. Yeah, they add complexity, but so does having a large roster of named characters that each have their own special abilities and play style (again like MOBAs and Overwatch). That style of game seems to be doing well in general. I doubt it's a big barrier-to-entry for WarmaHordes. What about combining Jack Marshals and other Battlegroup Controller solos? Do we really need two different types of solos with jacks?
I actually do enjoy Feats, but it would be a thing I would consider changing if I wanted to make the game more Newb Friendly. I think if you spread out the Impact feats have during one explosive turn over 2 or 3 turns of game time, new players will be more engaged. It's about lessening the importance of the second or third turn feat, and extending the Cool stuff you get to do over 5 to 6 turns a normal game should take. I'm advocating for doing Cool Stuff but spread over many turns. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 5, 2019 15:17:23 GMT
I thought you were joking about feats. They can be a source of trouble, but they are just too much a part of the game at a very basic level to be removed and most of the worst ones have been toned down at least somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 5, 2019 17:30:55 GMT
As a mechanic in and of itself I am fairly neutral about feats. I see nothing wrong with their design, though. They are interesting, powerful, often flavorful, and they are a near universal in the game (besides Grymkin and I'd argue that while Arcana are fun and interesting I'd say that they were a mistake. Feats are one thing that ties the entire game together. A universal mechanic between Warmachine, Hordes, every single faction and every warlock). There are other mechanics that could do what feats do in a different way, sure, but I don't see any benefit to changing to something else. Certainly I think wiping feats off everyone's card and tacking on an extra spell that has mediocre watered down version of their feat (this wouldn't even work for many of them) seems neither fun and interesting nor mechanically sound and balanced. Feats are such an integral mechanic that you could not remove them from the game without changing everything else in the game around them. In short, a re-write of the game at least in terms of the changes from Mk1 to Mk2 would probably be required.
Of all the complains I've heard leveraged about Warmachine and Hordes I have never heard someone complain about feats as a mechanic that exists (though this is the second time I've heard someone suggest they be removed from the game to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist). Not sure why we would go through the monumental task of rewriting and rebalancing the game that wouldn't do much besides provide change for the sake of change.
The mechanic I personally most often see turnoff newcomers or keep people from starting in the first place is assassination. That can definitely lead to negative play experiences. Once you learn the game it does become a fundamental part of the gameplay experience and I think is much of the thrill for the people who enjoy (how much can I risk for this payoff? Do I position the warlock aggressively and/or go on a small camp for a big swooping play? Do I play conservatively and wait out my opponent and force him to expose for suboptimal payoff? etc) but for plenty of new players it's "Oops. I left a model 1/4" in the wrong direction. Game's over now."
The problem is that even without assassination as a win condition it would be a defacto wincon in most games anyway for the amount of power the warlock provides to a list. There are a minority of matchups or lists where this might be the case, but I don't think it would greatly change the outcome of most games. I think unfortunately assassination as a mechanic is too baked in to the system to remove and it is a hurtle that new players must overcome. Alternatively (and I think this could be a great move for PP) is to really get creative with scenarios or scenario play. They could, perhaps, create scenarios that don't USE warlocks and have alternate rules for handling beasts and jacks. They could they could remove assassination as a wincon and instead use it as a tiebreaker or source of scenario points while at the same time radically changing scenarios so that other models could have a bigger impact on the table. Check out ITS for some examples of really in depth missions that ensure a plethora of different models are important to the game.
The other thing I see that turns a lot of people off the pitch of the game is lack of customization. Having never really been a Warhammer player I don't really understand this criticism, but it's one that gets brought up a lot. People don't like playing named characters or something like that. I actually kind of think PP should double down on this idea. The characters should be a draw to the game, but in order to do this well they ought to provide plenty of lore and stories for the characters to flesh them out more and get people interested in them. The fluff has always been kind of difficult to access and since Mk3 they basically cancelled all of it. Wouldn't be opposed to them cutting down on the cast some, either, and focusing on a more core group from each faction to develop character and identity (or introducing a rotating format/league that only allowed certain groups of casters and focused on their stories interacting and coming together more). This is kinda the opposite of streamlining, though. Just a complaint I often see about the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 5, 2019 18:42:20 GMT
The other thing I see that turns a lot of people off the pitch of the game is lack of customization. Having never really been a Warhammer player I don't really understand this criticism, but it's one that gets brought up a lot. People don't like playing named characters or something like that. The Warhammers are the biggest tabletop game franchises, and is presented as a modeler's game, as opposed to WMH's gamer's game. This aspect, along with very few Unique/FA:C models, encouraged you to make the leaders YOURS and to represent you or your ideal on the battlefield. For much of its history, it required the permission of your opponent just to field anything that wasn't generic, and those characters were even in their own section of the book. That personalization is what brings the modeler to the game and a lot of people enjoy employing that hobby.
WMH started out much differently. They saw that Warhammer Characters were a bit broken, which is why they were limited. Privateer Press took this concept and turned it up to 11 and tried to make it so that everything was broken with the idea that "if everything is broken, nothing is". It also eased in those lesser-hobbyists by not having to worry about such modeling antics and get to playing the game.
Of course, Warhammer's customization has absolutely nothing on a game called Battletech. You can literally design any unit above Infantry any way you want, from the infantry's transport all the way up to battleships, and there are balancing mechanisms for that (though with that much granularity, preciseness in balance isn't as strong). It was my first tabletop game, and I loved it. I would spend hours designing different vehicles, mechs, and fighters, even before the Mechwarrior games came out. Imagine how constrained I feel in WMH!
I actually kind of think PP should double down on this idea. The characters should be a draw to the game, but in order to do this well they ought to provide plenty of lore and stories for the characters to flesh them out more and get people interested in them. The fluff has always been kind of difficult to access and since Mk3 they basically cancelled all of it. Wouldn't be opposed to them cutting down on the cast some, either, and focusing on a more core group from each faction to develop character and identity (or introducing a rotating format/league that only allowed certain groups of casters and focused on their stories interacting and coming together more). This is kinda the opposite of streamlining, though. Just a complaint I often see about the game. An interesting idea. It's also one you can easily replicate in a number of ways. You could try building a list so that it is FA:1, and give little sub-names to every model. Alternatively, play Irregulars using only FA:C models and applying FA:1 to the Jacks. In fact, I think there is a format for this called "Highlander", with several variations. The game would be better set up for this, though, if we pushed smaller point tallies, and reduced 'Jack and 'Beast Points to make it heavier than Company of Iron/Kill Team, but more skirmishier than 40K.
Of course, that is part of WMH's problem. It is not as much a squad game as Infinity or Malifaux, but it isn't as model-heavy as the Warhammers. In this, it is probably better focused on actual skirmishes of small forces than most other games provide, but therein lies its weakness as well. It uses model interactions with units, which slows the game down, yet you cannot take some models without running them in whole gangs. It used to be where you could take a unit from 6 up to 10 in single lots, but that went away with Warjack Points.
|
|
