|
Post by NephMakes on Jan 5, 2019 21:36:16 GMT
The other thing I see that turns a lot of people off the pitch of the game is lack of customization. I'm way into the modelling and converting side of things, but I think from a matched/competitive-play standpoint the way Warhammer implements customization is pretty terrible.
GW has a lot of multi-part kits that let you build units with this heavy weapon, say, and that special weapon. Or build this or that that troop type. Those choices are a big part of the unit's battlefield role, and some of them are just downright bad for competitive play. But a player assembling their first models doesn't necessarily know that, and the rules are volatile enough that what's good now won't be good in the future. There are never enough parts in a kit to build all the options at once, so you're forced to choose. The result is that a player can fail competitively just at the mini-assembly stage. And even if you did know the best competitive choice, it's often best to double-down on it---but the kits never have more than one of any special/heavy weapon. In the end, you're left with a bunch of leftover parts you don't want while still being unable to build everything you do want.
Much better, I think, would be a system where kits have fewer loadout options but enough parts to build all of them simultaneously. Then you just choose which models you want to field and leave a couple in the bag. But that would require thinking about gameplay before you make the models, which GW deliberately doesn't do.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 6, 2019 6:32:40 GMT
Yeah, that's the thing I don't really get. I did dabble in Warhammer Fantasy (8th edition,I really liked WHFB and miss it) and I did juuuust dip my toe in 40k at some point (hated it). The "customization" thing seemed to be just empty words. There are some options you could take, but usually there was one good/optimal loadout for a unit and the rest were disregarded. If you were fielding that unit you just spammed that equipment. No real customization or thought going into it. Kitting out your lords and heroes in Fantasy with magic items could be fun, especially since your opponent didn't necessarily know what you had. There was definitely more choice here and room to kit a hero for a specific role, but no one played WHFB anyway so it is what it is.
Warmachine effectively HAS a level of customization, but it's presented to the player differently. Rather than paying points for a warjack and paying points to give it a different loadout, there is just a specific name for a jack with every loadout. This is often even true with warrior models, though maybe a little less so. We have things like Winterguard Infantry and Winterguard Riflecorps, for example. This is functionally the same as "Pay x points: Each model in this unit can replace it's blunderbuss with a military rifle." WarmaHordes just gives each of these units their own names.
The pre-set named character complaint I can kind of see I guess. I wouldn't mind rules for build-your-own warcaster like in the RPG or a different format where this was the norm for gameplay. As I understand PP was actually developing a game with this basis, but it was left on the cutting room floor for Company of Iron, MonPoc, and Riot Quest. Speaking of, I'd love to see more ways to play the game. More scenarios, leagues, game modes, optional rules for models, terrain. There's a lot of unexplored design space here for WarmaHordes I think.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Jan 7, 2019 3:30:38 GMT
The customization thing wasn’t so much “what was good” load out but more the pose ability of the models. I could make my Tau battle suit flame-throwing a space marine, and it’d be a legal model, or I could make a bunch of thriller dancing zombies. Heck if I wanted I could even change the basic look of a Tau battle suit and it can still be a “legal” model. Meanwhile to much of a pose change, or if I make a weapon look to different I now have to pass it by a TO. Also the kits for warhammer give options to do these kind of conversions, where warmachine does not.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 7, 2019 4:46:42 GMT
The customization thing wasn’t so much “what was good” load out but more the pose ability of the models. I could make my Tau battle suit flame-throwing a space marine, and it’d be a legal model, or I could make a bunch of thriller dancing zombies. Heck if I wanted I could even change the basic look of a Tau battle suit and it can still be a “legal” model. Meanwhile to much of a pose change, or if I make a weapon look to different I now have to pass it by a TO. Also the kits for warhammer give options to do these kind of conversions, where warmachine does not. Or even use a completely different model as the base to work from that has no relationship to the original.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jan 11, 2019 7:14:45 GMT
The customization thing wasn’t so much “what was good” load out but more the pose ability of the models. I could make my Tau battle suit flame-throwing a space marine, and it’d be a legal model, or I could make a bunch of thriller dancing zombies. Heck if I wanted I could even change the basic look of a Tau battle suit and it can still be a “legal” model. Meanwhile to much of a pose change, or if I make a weapon look to different I now have to pass it by a TO. Also the kits for warhammer give options to do these kind of conversions, where warmachine does not. The WMH conversion standards got a lot looser several years ago. It used to be you had to use 50% of the original model. Now it just has to be 50% a PP miniature(and must be recognizable as what its supposed to be), which is pretty close to what GW's official conversion policy was(back when GW tournaments mattered).
You can be quite clever with WMH conversions.
My all time favorite is still Yuri the Axe!
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Jan 11, 2019 11:19:19 GMT
The PP conversion guidlines are perfectly acceptable.
Furthermore they are only enforced in Oficial PP events meaning that events like the WTC are off limits.
Also i'm not sure how can anyone refuse play against for example the bio mechanical Legion army that features mostly warjack parts and a lot of plasticard...one of the most beautifull things i have ever seen in thid game imho.
So i dont see it as a big issue tbh.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Jan 11, 2019 12:20:55 GMT
Whoever made this is my hero.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Jan 11, 2019 17:05:47 GMT
Whoever made this is my hero. Praise be the axe!
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Jan 11, 2019 18:28:17 GMT
I think the only real streamlining you could do to deviation is remove deviation in its entirety. If you miss you just do blast damage where it lies. You'd still have the blast templates, but no longer waste time rolling and putting in the effort of being precise while moving the template.
This adds the problem of not being able to fail to kill lots of models that rely on a favorable deviation to survive. I'm not sure how this would be remedied, but it certainly would make the game more accurate and clean. Maybe an edit to stealth that grants a tough roll against blast damage?
|
|
|
Post by heckler on Jan 14, 2019 2:34:07 GMT
Power attacks haven't really been too much on my radar since shake off became a rule. I used to slam and throw a lot but once you could shake, getting the extra damage in is more important. I really only throw if it will end the game at this point as majority of the time it will do something decent, it's not too much of a tactical advantage over just killing what I was attacking anyway.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Jan 14, 2019 19:20:16 GMT
Power attacks is probably mine too. I'd probably drop the focus/fury cost entirely. Agreed power attacks are one the best parts of the game and it would be cool to see something like push/headbutt/throw be more of a *attack useable whenever you spend the 1 focus for a charge move/action and then treat and special move action power attacks (charge, slam, trample) cost the 1 focus.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Jan 14, 2019 19:24:20 GMT
Getting rid of templates was an awful idea in 40k and its a worse idea for WMH. Templates reduce bad randomness. Plus they make the game ‘feel’ more realistic. It enhances the game experience and is more balanced than just rolling dice. It also makes your placement of your models matter. In 40k now positioning of your dudes doesn’t matter at all. The game is worse off for it. I agree, I didn't like the change for that exact reason. The player has even fewer things to think about in a game of WH40K now, as another aspect was taken away from him and relegated to blind luck. No more considering if it's better to bunch up in cover/to be more effective in close combat but risk being hit by templates. And as a competitor it is never a good idea to be exactly like the market leader. The goal isn't for PP to try to get the people who love 8th but the players who want something other than. This is the reason why Mantic's Deadzone does better than Warpath. If people wanted to play 40k they would just play 40k.
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Jan 14, 2019 19:41:54 GMT
On the subject of conversion rules, I feel like they are mostly reasonable, though I feel there should be exceptions for things like cavalry models if you want to swap out to a different mount.
Still, I think there is a bit of a barrier towards conversions in WMH. It feels like a lot of the time (at least, before BAHI-EU became a thing and all of Europe stopped caring), when someone shows off a cool conversion online, someone will invariably say “nice, but is it tournament legal?” And there is also a minority of players out there who say they don’t like playing against converted armies because of overhang on the model and the basing, or because they are concerned with mistaking the converted model for something else during a game, or the like. I feel like these attitudes discourage conversions more than the actual rules, which, aside from cavalry, are mostly reasonable.
|
|