bundeez
Junior Strategist
Posts: 325
|
Post by bundeez on Jan 25, 2019 15:11:43 GMT
I like the idea.
But instead of banning casters you could change each OP one individually. Just like the fanbased restrictive army selection system they have in 40k for example. With Buthcer 3, that might be to just remove/exchange his Impending Doom spell. Stryker2: Overload. etc.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Jan 25, 2019 15:16:27 GMT
I must admit that im not a fan of the concept.
Seems like they are into the same track as the fail Company of Iron. Keeping to much of the main rules and model blout.
And there seems to be tons of new balances issues. Like who will be on caster ban list. And the feat rule; casters are designed and balanced with their total package. Some may have a really strong ability, field marshall, spell list but weak feat, other is the oposite. Seems like a slippery slope.
Shure game could be trimmed a little in points. But if you want to make a warmahordes with really small game points etc., I think you have to start from the bottom and build up - Dramaticly cut available models and units - Even easier core rules - The model/unit/jack stats needs to be look at.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jan 25, 2019 15:21:39 GMT
I would also ban Butcher2 and literally every other caster than can solo kill a heavy despite them not being very competitive currently. They banned a lot, but missed some like ... Kozlov. I get the idea, but I think banning battlebox casters would be a problem. If you're meant to be running a more introductory format, removing the caster that comes with an accessible entry point to the faction seems contrary to that. You have a point. Battlebox casters are underpowered anyway in my opinion so probably it's okay to not touch them.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 25, 2019 15:35:14 GMT
Regardless of the parameters of this new format, I am very excited for it. Any option below 75 points would be welcome. I hope it becomes a viable and commonly-played competitive format. If this leads to a 50 point version of those restrictions that allows feats, I would probably never play anything else.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jan 25, 2019 15:57:09 GMT
IMO, No feats is a bad idea... Feats are very central to the game, to casters and BGs. Removing them turns a game into something else that is not simpler WMH.
Banning some casters and some pieces is probably a good idea but don't mess with the feats.
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Jan 25, 2019 16:22:20 GMT
This sounds Amazing.
I love 75 points, but sometimes nice to play smaller. Company of Iron went too small.
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Jan 25, 2019 16:30:32 GMT
Fix WM/H? Ok.
-Remove themes -Remove premeasuring -Drop point costs of certain solos -Make it 50pts -Add a scenario element where each model (even a bad one) can be usable, such as interaction/dropping markers/traps etc. -Make assassination only give a ton of points (instead of directly losing the game, but so close that it'd often mean the same). -Replace binary abilities with non-binary, for example Incorporeal gives impervious flesh unless for magic weapons
Done. You're welcome.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Jan 25, 2019 16:54:33 GMT
Maybe I’m the only one thinking this, but current 50 points no theme is pretty beginner friendly and all it takes is the community to not be “wanna be hard core meta gamers” all the time to stay fun. And if you want a smaller game I feel like riot quest might be the true answer to that. But I guess we have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jan 25, 2019 17:35:57 GMT
I just find it deeply ironic that this format was what MKI offered vs the "big" games of the time like 40k and Fantasy.
It really shows how bloated and out of its original core design the way has gone.
Hope it catches up thou, I've been trying to get people in my community to play smaller games and haven't had any luck.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 25, 2019 18:00:24 GMT
That is not very beginner friendly, and largely not that big in a lot of the different games, as far as I can recall.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Jan 25, 2019 18:16:06 GMT
Playing without feats seems weird. A lot of casters would not be very interesting to play / competitive without their feat. Between this and banning casters i don't think it is good for the game. The warcaster/warlock are what makes this game unique and interesting. Without them its just another war game. Also banning is a slippery slope once you start banning then you just make the A tier casters OP instead of the S tier and you will still have only certian casters played. The format is for introducing new players. Not for veterans to play each other. It is not supposed to be competitive, it's not supposed to be super one sided. Butcher at 25 points would dominate a lot of matches. They are not doing this in competitive formats. This is not a competitive format.
|
|
|
Post by P'tit Nico on Jan 25, 2019 18:27:01 GMT
Between this and banning casters i don't think it is good for the game. The warcaster/warlock are what makes this game unique and interesting. Without them its just another war game. Also banning is a slippery slope once you start banning then you just make the A tier casters OP instead of the S tier and you will still have only certian casters played. The format is for introducing new players. Not for veterans to play each other. It is not supposed to be competitive, it's not supposed to be super one sided. Butcher at 25 points would dominate a lot of matches. They are not doing this in competitive formats. This is not a competitive format. PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. Emphasis mine.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 25, 2019 18:33:32 GMT
Between this and banning casters i don't think it is good for the game. The warcaster/warlock are what makes this game unique and interesting. Without them its just another war game. Also banning is a slippery slope once you start banning then you just make the A tier casters OP instead of the S tier and you will still have only certian casters played. The format is for introducing new players. Not for veterans to play each other. It is not supposed to be competitive, it's not supposed to be super one sided. Butcher at 25 points would dominate a lot of matches. They are not doing this in competitive formats. This is not a competitive format. Ummm... it kinda is PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. Anyway... As much as I love the concept, I'm too much of a cynic to believe it will achieve much more traction than Rumble, CoI, or even Champions. The sad truth is that if it's not played by the WMW Circuit it's dead in the water. With that in mind, I would like to ask what sets this format apart? Why would anyone want to play this instead of a 75 point Masters? (would just like to avoid situations like that year an IG Qualifier at Gencon went for 2 rounds only ) Also, why not build the faction roster from the ground up instead of managing a banned list? The 25 point Army initiative from the Discord group looks great for example. Seems like it would be easier to balance the rules around a known quantity than stress testing each possible combination. Not to mention that new releases will have to be vetted in order to decide if it's banned or not.
|
|
marke
Junior Strategist
Posts: 187
|
Post by marke on Jan 25, 2019 18:53:23 GMT
That is not very beginner friendly, and largely not that big in a lot of the different games, as far as I can recall. Well I guess it depends. IME premeasuring helped good players even more and widened the gap, but I get how intuition would say otherwise. It's just that good players are pretty fast these days to measure what is going to happen in the next two turns, and that can be sometimes overwhelming for the beginner. It was (almost) possible earlier too, but now it's not even a clock restraint.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 25, 2019 19:02:51 GMT
The format is for introducing new players. Not for veterans to play each other. It is not supposed to be competitive, it's not supposed to be super one sided. Butcher at 25 points would dominate a lot of matches. They are not doing this in competitive formats. This is not a competitive format. Ummm... it kinda is PPS_Jeff and I are working on a smaller format game size for competitive play and introducing the game to newer players. He might be showing it off at lock and load this year. Anyway... As much as I love the concept, I'm too much of a cynic to believe it will achieve much more traction than Rumble, CoI, or even Champions. The sad truth is that if it's not played by the WMW Circuit it's dead in the water. With that in mind, I would like to ask what sets this format apart? Why would anyone want to play this instead of a 75 point Masters? (would just like to avoid situations like that year an IG Qualifier at Gencon went for 2 rounds only ) Also, why not build the faction roster from the ground up instead of managing a banned list? Seems like it would be easier to balance the rules around a known quantity than stress testing each possible combination. Not to mention that new releases will have to be vetted in order to decide if it's banned or not. I am SO with Gonso on this. Here is where I would start my thinking.....
A) Why is WM/H such a high barrier to entry and a steep learning curve?
If we are honest (and you really have to be and get your own gosh darn ego out of the way when you proclaim you "got good" in like a week) it is because to excel at this game you MUST know YOUR models AND your opponents. You also really need to understand how the rules on the back of the card interact with OTHER rules....and what they mean.
I am an example kind of guy so let me give this one. I KNOW the kodiak rules WELL. Many of by opponents do not because they are odd ball. Once they play a 1/2 dozen times against the kodiak they get that a jack can do that without a star action or an attack or something else. But the first few time? Oey! They can make some crushingly awful mistakes that make coming back difficult.
So What we want to do is not limit the rules on the the "FRONT" of the card (because that just dumbs down warmachine) but limit how many rules on the "BACK" of the card (yours and theirs) you have to know. We still want just as complicated a game.
And if you like other examples here is one - imagine yourself as a green Warmachine player, having dropped several hundred dollars in the game. You are happy. Hell, you have traveled to your first big con and you have taken a vaction day (or three) from work to play. But your local meta is small. You have never played against Circle. And suddenly someone advance deployes Lord of the feast opposite you. Hmmm....I think we have the definition of a likely NPE ;-)
2) Is there a way to reduce the Back of the Card issues and keep having fun?
To me it is to limit the number of models and interactions of models you have to understand. This is doubly true for the experiential learners in the house <raises hand>. To really "get" how things work I NEED to see them in action. I can't read the rules and combos and paint in my minds eye how that all comes to together. I doubt I am the only one. A limited play list helps that.
3) Is there a way that this reduces the cost to entry
Near as I can tell getting into 75 point warmachine at this point is about $1000. Someone should do that exercise - coming up with a decent 2 list pair that would be competitive for each faction and pricing retail.
Folks - a $1,000 to pay a game is a HUGE investment. And BTW - that hurts on the back and front end - because once you make that buy you are going to try to limit how much more you continue to invest. You will buy models but in some sinces the curve levels off and your future purchases are used, discounted, on sale, etc. A least it did for me.
4) But is there a way to Monetize it among existing base.
The problem with limited format could be that people already have the models. Thus they don't have to make an investment.
But say that you built 2 lists for the 2020 (cause realistically that is where we are) season of Vanguard and one of the models was Vlad1. Well guess what. Vlad1 variation 1 could be a mini-crate model. Hmmm....I guess I will subscribe this year. Vlad1 variation 2 could be a con exclusive. Ditto. Vlad1 variation 3 could be a mid-year release. Now we all MIGHT be happy with our circa 2004 Vlad1 pose but my guess is not - and now I have sold about $40 in product and a new mini-crate subscription.
|
|