|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 17:39:59 GMT
well I have played SR2017 and there really is no arguing about the loss of unique and flavorful game play when it comes to scenario. The scenarios are very dead and don't really play much of a part int he games until your opponent has nothing really left anyway. If you are winning by the mercy rule or losing to the mercy rule that's not any indicator of the scenario being live and dynamic, that's an indicator that you or your opponent are either making some big tactical mistakes or playing a horrible match up. It shows in the bat reps in SR2017.
The developers intent is for scenario to be a mercy and a tie breaker, scenario wins should not be exceptionally common Based on Dev intent
Guys just face it, we lost something with the shift to attrition. Now the question is will this shift be better for the game or worse? Its too early to tell. But I can honestly say the current packet (IME) does not encourage risky and aggressive play. It favors more passive and defensive play which can make battlefields and games take longer and feel more stale.
guys stop accusing people of not playing. It doesn't help your argument and you have no evidence to support your games its all assumptions. Lets keep it civil and not due psuedo personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 8, 2017 17:52:12 GMT
I agree with your fist point, no argument that some styles of play have suffered. I just think that overall my games have been much more enjoyable, and therefore I think the game is better off. Other people may not find the longer games more enjoyable, and that's fine. But to argue that there is very little tactical depth now and it's just mashing things in the middle is disingenuous.
I think there is more tactical depth now that I don't need to focus as heavily on adequately contesting zones every turn to keep from losing immediately. I can now choose to collapse a flank on one side to bolster the other and give up a few points and gamble on making it to the endgame and win on attrition.
As far as the games things go, I know it's a non-starter, because anyone can just say they play games, but the point there is that playing the scenarios and reading the scenarios are hugely different.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 18:26:55 GMT
I agree completely about playing vs reading. Some of the better things in the game don't really seem great on paper its their impact on the table that really shown them for what they are. To me, the scenario is what gave the game tactical depth. But I also played casters like krueger 2 and Mohsar. All of which have some unique and creative plays in thier toolbox to win on scenario and reward risky, creative game play in their own way. I come from a background of a lot of 40K and fantasy, I am pretty used to playing grindy attrition games (I played orks, nids, skaven, and fantasy orcs) One of the big draws for me to Warmachine was scenario. It was dynamic, rewarding, and challenging to win on scenario (as long as your opponent knew what he was doing or it wasn't a bad match up) I don't mind making it harder for a scenario win, but I also feel like its incredibly detrimental to play specifically for scenario in SR2017 which just doesn't sit right with me. While attrition play opens up a lateral shift in battlefield strategy it does not necessarily encourage very dynamic and aggressive game play. Something I loved about SR2016 was how rewarding it was to commit to a strong aggressive plan. In SR2017 I am much better off backing off, staying passive and slowly grinding down my opponent. Most of the issue is my faction preference. Circle cant play attrition the right and proper way so I cannot be as aggressive as I used to be without losing the attrition games because my heavies just don't trade well. Also I want to note I am undefeated with my Mohsar build for SR2017 and am going to start experimenting with Krueger 2 some more. I haven't given up i spent too much money to quit but I certainly would like to see the game shift back more to increasing scenario pressure. I play a lot of khador and trolls (and warmachine in general) that might be part of my whole "every game is the same" issue. Ill be honest though I have played into ret and mercs and cyrgnar in SR2017 and those games are pretty dag gone similar too. That just bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 8, 2017 18:33:38 GMT
"SR2017 is less tactical!" "If you're losing on scenario you probably made a tactical error."
Well which is it?
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 18:42:58 GMT
"SR2017 is less tactical!" "If you're losing on scenario you probably made a tactical error." Well which is it? *sigh* Just because people can make tactical errors in SR2017 that doesn't mean the the game isn't less tactical than SR2016. contesting doesn't require much tactical diversity. SCORING does require tactical uniqueness and diversity. However there is little to no reward or gain in SR2017 for trying top score on scenario other than fulfilling a tie breaker. Pressure on scenario typically doesn't even become a thing until turn 4 or 5.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 8, 2017 19:00:42 GMT
"SR2017 is less tactical!" "If you're losing on scenario you probably made a tactical error." Well which is it? *sigh* Just because people can make tactical errors in SR2017 that doesn't mean the the game isn't less tactical than SR2016. contesting doesn't require much tactical diversity. SCORING does require tactical uniqueness and diversity. However there is little to no reward or gain in SR2017 for trying top score on scenario other than fulfilling a tie breaker. Pressure on scenario typically doesn't even become a thing until turn 4 or 5. And when turn 4 or 5 rolls around, how many points you have scored up until then absolutely is relevant. Going into turn 5 0-0 is vastly different than 2-0, and opens up new tactical options. Sure, the race to 5 tactics are gone. But now the majority points by 7 tactics exist, so there are new strategies born out of that. I had a game that would have most likely a loss in 2016, but since I could shoot for most by 7 instead of straight 5 I was able to win (I would have won the other way too it turned out, but in the middle of the game that became the strategy). Bottom line: I think we have gained as least as much as we have lost, and I think the game is better for it. To say that the game is less tactical is to ignore the new options that evolve based on how scoring works, as well as the new layout of scenarios, and thus I think is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 19:10:11 GMT
And I am saying that every game I have played scenario was not relevant as attrition is the focus. Playing actively for scenario puts you at a disadvantage. Normally the reason there is scenario pressure by turn 4 or 5 is because most of someones army is dead. But this is all my personal experience. Like I said I play circle and dabble in protectorate. I don't know what factions you all play but I'm sure part of our opinions about SR2017 stems form that
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on May 8, 2017 19:21:17 GMT
And I am saying that every game I have played scenario was not relevant as attrition is the focus. Playing actively for scenario puts you at a disadvantage. Normally the reason there is scenario pressure by turn 4 or 5 is because most of someones army is dead. But this is all my personal experience. Like I said I play circle and dabble in protectorate. I don't know what factions you all play but I'm sure part of our opinions about SR2017 stems form that That makes sense to me. I can appreciate that position. I just think the attrition battle itself has lots of tactical depth, and so I think that by allowing attrition to go on longer by making it much more difficult to win on scenario SR 17 has opened up more tactical options. Does that make sense? I think we just place different values on the same things, and that is where our views conflict.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 8, 2017 19:42:41 GMT
And I am saying that every game I have played scenario was not relevant as attrition is the focus. Playing actively for scenario puts you at a disadvantage. Normally the reason there is scenario pressure by turn 4 or 5 is because most of someones army is dead. But this is all my personal experience. Like I said I play circle and dabble in protectorate. I don't know what factions you all play but I'm sure part of our opinions about SR2017 stems form that That makes sense to me. I can appreciate that position. I just think the attrition battle itself has lots of tactical depth, and so I think that by allowing attrition to go on longer by making it much more difficult to win on scenario SR 17 has opened up more tactical options. Does that make sense? I think we just place different values on the same things, and that is where our views conflict. pretty much. I understand your point. I think its just a preference thing. Like I said I will suck it up and play attrition for a while (may go more in on protectorate for 2017 *gasp*) after all it will just change in a year anyway haha
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 8, 2017 19:47:01 GMT
That makes sense to me. I can appreciate that position. I just think the attrition battle itself has lots of tactical depth, and so I think that by allowing attrition to go on longer by making it much more difficult to win on scenario SR 17 has opened up more tactical options. Does that make sense? I think we just place different values on the same things, and that is where our views conflict. pretty much. I understand your point. I think its just a preference thing. Like I said I will suck it up and play attrition for a while (may go more in on protectorate for 2017 *gasp*) after all it will just change in a year anyway haha You should ask Grey Templar what he thinks of Mk3 Protectorate. He's generally pretty quiet on the subject though.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on May 8, 2017 20:19:14 GMT
That's really a poor analogy. Having to think critically about how to score points added a great deal to the game, not like some stupid irrelevance about singing. Yes, not everything adds good depth. But the more live scenario play in SR16 was 100% good depth. It gave an actual chance to playstyles who couldn't go toe to toe with heavy armored brawlers. SR17 however basically forced everything to fight toe to toe in the middle, and that puts the advantage squarely in the factions and playstyles built around putting as many beefy jacks/beasts into the middle. Unless you can go into the ring with a Juggernaut you're just going to lose, and many factions simply lose. Well this is just blatantly false. All but one of the scenarios edges are in the killbox which is considered the edge of the table. In fact, 4 of the scenarios have the edges of zones 6" from the table edge. So either you're wrong about the whole game taking place in the middle of the table or reality is a lie. Or more likely you just decided you didn't like SR2017 and haven't actually played/looked/thought about it much. Coming in as a player and not a mod here, because I have a free moment: Killbox is only from your own table edge in the current packet. The issue has come up that the opposite of what Grey is saying happens; one caster skits around the board edge singing "can't touch this" until turn 7, without really committing in any meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on May 8, 2017 20:47:18 GMT
Well this is just blatantly false. All but one of the scenarios edges are in the killbox which is considered the edge of the table. In fact, 4 of the scenarios have the edges of zones 6" from the table edge. So either you're wrong about the whole game taking place in the middle of the table or reality is a lie. Or more likely you just decided you didn't like SR2017 and haven't actually played/looked/thought about it much. Coming in as a player and not a mod here, because I have a free moment: Killbox is only from your own table edge in the current packet. The issue has come up that the opposite of what Grey is saying happens; one caster skits around the board edge singing "can't touch this" until turn 7, without really committing in any meaningful way. So my point is even more relevant? Yay!
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 8, 2017 20:51:05 GMT
Well this is just blatantly false. All but one of the scenarios edges are in the killbox which is considered the edge of the table. In fact, 4 of the scenarios have the edges of zones 6" from the table edge. So either you're wrong about the whole game taking place in the middle of the table or reality is a lie. Or more likely you just decided you didn't like SR2017 and haven't actually played/looked/thought about it much. Coming in as a player and not a mod here, because I have a free moment: Killbox is only from your own table edge in the current packet. The issue has come up that the opposite of what Grey is saying happens; one caster skits around the board edge singing "can't touch this" until turn 7, without really committing in any meaningful way. It bugged me that it took this long for people in the argument to notice this. Although casters sitting on one side shifts their battlegroup too which is certainly a downside to camping the flanks
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on May 8, 2017 21:19:15 GMT
I played sr 2017 once, I won on scenario by 6 point margin b3 vs. haley2. Opponent's army was destroyed before that. I don't participate in cid, so didn't continue testing sr 2017 since it will change anyway. Seems to be typical sr 2017 game.
Today we played sr 2016 Doomie 3 vs. Vlad 1 heavy spams. Game was about killing sacrifical solos, tip-toeing around each other charge ranges, throwing and pushing to score points. I lost 4-5 on scenario because opponent got to my objective first (ignoring the rest of my heavies that is). I think about 2 heavies total was killed that game, took about 1.5 hours. Seems to be typical sr 2016 game.
tl;dr sr 2017 can't come soon enough. I like my wargame being about two armies beating each other to death, things dying and stuffs actually happening. Even if it will be broken unbalanced stuff, at least they would be more exciting.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 8, 2017 21:26:45 GMT
I played sr 2017 once, I won on scenario by 6 point margin b3 vs. haley2. Opponent's army was destroyed before that. I don't participate in cid, so didn't continue testing sr 2017 since it will change anyway. Seems to be typical sr 2017 game. Today we played sr 2016 Doomie 3 vs. Vlad 1 heavy spams. Game was about killing sacrifical solos, tip-toeing around each other charge ranges, throwing and pushing to score points. I lost 4-5 on scenario because opponent got to my objective first (ignoring the rest of my heavies that is). I think about 2 heavies total was killed that game, took about 1.5 hours. Seems to be typical sr 2016 game. tl;dr sr 2017 can't come soon enough. I like my wargame being about two armies beating each other to death, things dying and stuffs actually happening. Even if it will be broken unbalanced stuff, at least they would be more exciting. There will be more tip toeing than ever because you can score to deny enemies points.
|
|