|
Post by TTGuilds on May 30, 2019 12:48:07 GMT
I would really like to see a Gobber army. Part of the reason I want to play Cygnar is for the gobbers. Well it's not official, and it's not done yet, but you're welcome to take a look at my attempt at a Gobber Mercenary Faction. I will check that out thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by TTGuilds on May 30, 2019 12:51:01 GMT
I hope that they use 2020 to increase the reach of the game, make it more accessible and appealing to new players, directing and assisting the community more, as well as being more active in pushing the hobby and painting side of the things to attract those sorts of gamers as well. Just banging out another faction is not going to help things I can agree with that 100%. Having come back to the game after for being away for about 7 years there is a huge learning curve for everything, I can't image how hard it would be for a completely new player.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on May 30, 2019 16:34:30 GMT
MK4, anything else is a waste of time.
No theme forces (replaced by subfactions), updated abstracted rules to support 100 pts armies (I don't see PP rolling down WM/H to a skirmish game), more dynamic scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by MacGuffin on May 30, 2019 17:17:42 GMT
MK4, anything else is a waste of time. No theme forces (replaced by subfactions), updated abstracted rules to support 100 pts armies (I don't see PP rolling down WM/H to a skirmish game), more dynamic scenarios. If we wish to attract newer players, we should hope for smaller games/armies, not larger ones. Our heavy emphasis on 75 point armies (with an additional 10-15 free points in theme) creates a formidable barrier to entry, both in time needed to play and in material needed to buy. It also dilutes the game's focus/fury mechanics -- and therefore its unique appeal -- by requiring tons of non-battlegroup models. I say this as a relatively new player myself. I would be playing 40k if I wanted larger armies.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on May 30, 2019 18:49:09 GMT
I'm with MacGuffin. I'd prefer a move to a smaller game. There's plenty of room between Skirmish and Pitched Battle, and whilst I can only speak from my own experience I would happily play 50 points over 75 all the time if people were willing.
Problem is that such a shift is basically impossible whilst the competitive circuit runs 75 points
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 30, 2019 19:18:35 GMT
Playing at the 10 to 20 point level is an amazing time for newbies and veterans alike. People need to see it as a valid end goal and not a waypoint they ought to blaze through on their way to 75 pts.
Mark my words, if low point games become a thing there will be a massive increase in new players.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 30, 2019 19:27:46 GMT
MK4, anything else is a waste of time. No theme forces (replaced by subfactions), updated abstracted rules to support 100 pts armies (I don't see PP rolling down WM/H to a skirmish game), more dynamic scenarios. You will be holding your breath for a very long time for this, in the age of no printed cards and War Room and CID...
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on May 30, 2019 19:49:42 GMT
MK4, anything else is a waste of time. No theme forces (replaced by subfactions), updated abstracted rules to support 100 pts armies (I don't see PP rolling down WM/H to a skirmish game), more dynamic scenarios. If we wish to attract newer players, we should hope for smaller games/armies, not larger ones. Our heavy emphasis on 75 point armies (with an additional 10-15 free points in theme) creates a formidable barrier to entry, both in time needed to play and in material needed to buy. It also dilutes the game's focus/fury mechanics -- and therefore its unique appeal -- by requiring tons of non-battlegroup models. I say this as a relatively new player myself. I would be playing 40k if I wanted larger armies.
The only people currently stopping you from playing small army games are your meta.
That being said, having Warcasters/Warlocks that are optimized for small games, such as the Battlebox ones, and setting up Organized Play rules specifically for small format games would help get some people to unpeel their eyes off SR.
|
|
juckto
Junior Strategist
Posts: 124
|
Post by juckto on May 30, 2019 20:04:10 GMT
The last game I played was 35 points and I had a blast.
|
|
|
Post by TTGuilds on May 30, 2019 20:22:02 GMT
I will agree with hocestbellum if PP would start to push lower point games at the big events or even come up with a 35-50 point event that stores can run it would help bring in new players.
I played 40k for years and I watched GW influence the game by going from smaller 1,000 point games up to larger 2,000 points games, they then started back to lower point games. The local store I played really pushed small 1,000 point events and it really helps new players.
I really enjoy large games with lots of models on the table but those take longer to play, longer to setup and plan out so I like to keep those for games with friends. I would call buddies all the time and say hi lets play a huge game this weekend and they almost always where up for the big game. But if you want just show up at the store, hang out all day I would much rather play 3 or 4 small games.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 30, 2019 20:41:31 GMT
Really, PP doesn't need to push anything. This is 100% on the players to make this happen.
Play a few 10 pt games with some veterans on your next game night. Use 8 pieces of terrain within a 24x24 area in the center and make sure to use buildings and forests to block los, play with a 12" killbox (the kind that kills your caster dead). No scenario yet, Theme if you want.
Trust me, it's a blast. Sell it as taking a quarter of the time to play a 75 pt game so what have they got to lose?
An important component is the unfettered listbuilding and arms race. Butcher3 ruining your day? Lose in 5 minutes and pick a caster that ruins his day and re-rack. Not having to setup/teardown 75 points for a 2 hour game is a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by TTGuilds on May 30, 2019 21:00:08 GMT
Really, PP doesn't need to push anything. This is 100% on the players to make this happen. Play a few 10 pt games with some veterans on your next game night. Use 8 pieces of terrain within a 24x24 area in the center and make sure to use buildings and forests to block los, play with a 12" killbox (the kind that kills your caster dead). No scenario yet, Theme if you want. Trust me, it's a blast. Sell it as taking a quarter of the time to play a 75 pt game so what have they got to lose? An important component is the unfettered listbuilding and arms race. Butcher3 ruining your day? Lose in 5 minutes and pick a caster that ruins his day and re-rack. Not having to setup/teardown 75 points for a 2 hour game is a big deal. I agree with you it will can be great fun if PP would encourage small games it would help get them going. And it will help grow the players how many of us wouldn't drop $75-100 to get some cool minis and be playing a fun game at a level many people already play? It is hard to talk people into spending $100 on a game to start playing when all the local players are playing with $600+ armies every week. Just saying it is a hard sale for many people. I'm teaching my son and his friends to play 25 point games and supplying the minis this weekend. My sons friends are welcome to us my minis as long as they wants just want them all playing because if they enjoy it they will spend money on it.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on May 30, 2019 22:27:51 GMT
MK4, anything else is a waste of time. No theme forces (replaced by subfactions), updated abstracted rules to support 100 pts armies (I don't see PP rolling down WM/H to a skirmish game), more dynamic scenarios. If we wish to attract newer players, we should hope for smaller games/armies, not larger ones. Our heavy emphasis on 75 point armies (with an additional 10-15 free points in theme) creates a formidable barrier to entry, both in time needed to play and in material needed to buy. It also dilutes the game's focus/fury mechanics -- and therefore its unique appeal -- by requiring tons of non-battlegroup models. I say this as a relatively new player myself. I would be playing 40k if I wanted larger armies.
I totally agree with you. WM/H was originally a skirmish game and I picked it up because of it, that's why I said "rolling down".
It's not a meta problem also, and smaller points armies are not viable enough for a meta. This is because the product PP has been designing in the past 3 years are 75-pt armies. This goes into the designs of the units, the designs of the scenarios and the rules balancing that has been done. The game has been adapted for 75 pts, and things like warnouns and character solos are not designed for smaller armies.
But there's also another problem, the core fundamental rules (unit activations, rolls, etc) are designed for a skirmish game. The bloat and the theme forces extra points pushed a game designed for 50 pt armies into a 100 pt army game.
But I don't see PP rolling down to smaller army sizes. The popularity of colossals, battle engines and all the design they have been doing around heavy infantry in the past year shows that PP wants to turn WM/H into a army game.
|
|
|
Post by MacGuffin on May 30, 2019 23:05:40 GMT
My bad, I misunderstood your post. I agree with everything you've said here, particularly regarding recent design trends.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on May 30, 2019 23:45:51 GMT
So as far as PP supporting smaller point games... what if they did 50 point team tournaments? where you and another person each get a 50 point list and you enter as a tournament pair. You would each deploy your models on the same table, and use the rules found in the No Quarter Prime for those bigger games. That way if you're new, you could pair with a buddy, or a veteran, and only need 50 point entry? Maybe make it so there are no themes for that format as well so newbies could literally bring what they have / want?
|
|