|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 10, 2018 5:22:43 GMT
So, here’s my theory. 1. Typically, they want to include the new stuff in the most recent ADR because it’s fresh and shiny 2. Because of CID, the new stuff generally ends up being top tier or close to it. So, is it any surprise that the likes of Skarre3, Kolgrimma, and Iona are all new, powerful, and on ADR? And that other new (or fresh out of CID) power casters like Anamag and Maelok were just on the last ADR? I mean, I’m fine with a couple of new and powerful things being in ADR. Not every roster needs to be 4 B-C list Casters. At the same time having your entire roster consist of 4 of a faction’s Top 5 is lame. That circle roster is basically the same as Cryx getting a roster of: Skarre1 Skarre3 Asphyxious3 Deneghra2 Slaughter Fleet Infernal Machines or Trolls getting: Kolgrimma Borka2 Madrak1 Calandra Band of Heroes Power of Dhunia Literally the only way to make that Circle Roster better is to drop Secret Masters for Bones. The pair that just won WMW was Iona DH & Kreuger2 SM. Some of the best players out there, could pick from any caster/theme and that’s the pair that won. Why is that exact caster/theme pair now included in the limited format? I mean, sure. But just...please have a coherent way of determining ADR rotations? Either go with a bunch of casters that don't see tournament play (because seriously, otherwise why not Masters?) and try to create an interesting limited metagame by taking out some of the main predators/gear checks on list building...or lean into the 'this is basically limited Masters' and give everyone their best stuff. Like, I'm going to be riding this Circle ADR for the next 6 months, but it's not exactly fair to players of other factions not to have access to a comparably powerful ADR. Especially if it's going to be the Iron Gauntlet format.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 10, 2018 1:33:52 GMT
At least I'm not the only one who thinks it's actually pretty awful. The bottom line for me is that I just don't see any point in making a separate format that limits the casters and themes we can play to... basically what we're already playing anyway. And it's even worse when that's only true for half of us and the other factions are a whole rung (or two) lower on the ladder. It's funny that you mention the Merc roster specifically because IMO that is the best of them all in terms of what a Champions roster should be. Craft the rosters in such a way that makes for its own balanced metagame, yes, but get us playing something different. And don't put any of it on autopilot. If a theme or caster needs to leave the roster after only one season, then do that. The limited factions are their own mess. It's basically impossible to give them a balanced roster unless they never change it, and maybe not even then. I almost wish it were possible to exclude them. I'd love a format where I wouldn't have to play against Grymkin, CG, and COC, and I'm sure that Infernals will be an unholy pain in the ass too. Pun intended. I say all of this knowing that the only way the Trollbloods roster could be stronger is if Grissel 2 swapped out for Madrak 1, and she's no slouch herself. Oh, I agree. If everything was of a similar power level to mercs that'd be interesting, but I don't think that gels with their desire to have each faction's new caster/theme coming out of CID in the rotation. Like, any Circle roster with Iona/Devhost was going to be a silly ADR season. Personally, I was hoping for some more moderate-strong DevHost casters (Morv1, Baldur1) and some decent CoTW casters (Mac1? I'd love an excuse to play him again). That'd give me an excuse to play some things I might otherwise not have played. This seems like the worst of both worlds, though, where some factions get 'interesting' ADR lineups that force them off their standard masters pairs, and other just...get the 2 best lists in their faction?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 9, 2018 23:38:47 GMT
See also: Reasons why models/major changes to the rules should not be released without CID.
For instance, that Circle roster is absurd. arguably the 4 best non-bones casters in the faction, with the only weakness being having to play secret masters (not like a DevHost/SM pairing has won anything recently...)
Legion gets one of their strongest lists, Trolls get one of their strongest pairings (in Bearka/Kolgrimma), but...
Mercs get a bunch of B-list casters, Grymkin gets (arguably) their 3 worst casters, and Minions get 4 warlocks that all want to play WWFF.
Seems balanced, all right.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 5, 2018 2:27:19 GMT
Former pro lvl magic player 3 month newb to warma in my first league. Massive clock panic. Debating quitting league to just play casual. Clocks are no problem in magic. As a new player ran red green aggro till I knew a meta. What’s the equivalent here? A 6 heavy warjack list? Try playing soft clock until you can get used to it. Use the clock, but don't end the game when the clock runs out, just make a note of it in your head and try to get better/faster each game until you're ready to use the clock for real. As for simpler lists...anything that asks a hard question is going to be easier to play than a more flexible 'answer' list. Fewer pieces are also easier than more pieces, and some casters are more 'simple' in game plan than others. In terms of the factions I play, a 'simple' list would be something like Bradigus or Baldur2 Bones of Orboros; Maelok the Dreadbouind/Barnabas2 in Minions, or Elara2 in Legions of Dawn for retribution. Simple, relatively straightforward game plans that don't change a great deal based on what the opponent is playing. The downside to these lists is that they're inflexible, and tend to have hard counters they cannot play well into, but...that's kinda the nature of the beast with those sorts of lists.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 4, 2018 21:49:26 GMT
I mean, no one forces you to play on clock. I should have been more clear. I meant in tournaments. If you're playing in a tournament, isn't that the quintessence of a competitive event? I mean, I get it, the learning curve of the game makes clocks a drag to get used to, but I don't see what casual players' preference has to do with tournaments, full stop.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 4, 2018 21:13:32 GMT
I'm genuinely curious - why do you think that competitive games are not played with a friendly and relaxed atmosphere? I've played top 8s in about a dozen events in the last year, and every single one of them has been full of extremely fun, relaxed, interesting games with people who are also fun, relaxed, and interesting. For many intermediate players, games on the clock are never a "relaxed atmosphere." Nothing to do with the people at the table. Every opponent might be a paragon of sportsmanship, but the clock prevents relaxation. I know we've powered through clock issues with grit and practice, but it's not fun -- and not everyone makes it to the other side. And because "clock management" also means "knowing a lot of stats -- yours and theirs -- by heart," frequent stat changes means your clock management skills go bye-bye if you take a break from the game. When we look around our community, we naturally see the survivors and not those who drifted away for one reason or another. It's easy to spot -- and cherish -- the people who've stuck around because of WMH's competitive mindset. Whether you're a PP marketeer or a community organizer, though, it's a lot harder to spot the potential customers/potential opponents we lost along the way. Far be it from me to say nice things about 40k, but one place where they get it right is enabling people to go all hardcore on 40k -- but manifest that hardcore in different ways. Competitive? No prob. Narrative play -- no prob. Lore -- no prob. Painting/modeling -- no prob. 'Cuz the opposite of casual isn't "competitive." It's "hardcore." Those narrative, lore, and paint/model guys are as eyes-ablaze hardcore as any WTC-level WMH player. (And relevant to PP, they all spend money like it.) I worry that we're accidentally chasing them away. If we grab some of those dudes, too, they'll buy sweet war dollies and all us competitive types will benefit. I mean, no one forces you to play on clock. That being said, if you want to get more than one game in a night, it's usually a good idea. My last game, I played without a clock, and (though both myself and my opponent are usually okay with clock), the game ran over 3 hours long, because there was no reason to play faster.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 4, 2018 18:43:51 GMT
There are matchups that are so laughably one-sided that they are no fun for either player. I don't know if this makes me competitive or casual but I really dislike playing games that I reasonably can not lose or can not win. If victory was won at list selection (read a true 80%-20% match up) I just don't really want to play anymore. I have seen this in other game systems I hope it is not prevalent in WMH.
To be clear I have not found this in my meta unless I really messed up list building.
I don't think many people (competitive or casual) love super one-sided games...however, IMO it is the competitive elements in the game which help avoid these kinds of matchups. 2 lists, steamroller, a healthy metagame...it's all geared towards having games that are decided by skill, not list selection.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 4, 2018 10:51:39 GMT
Okay. So.
Warmachine/Hordes isn't a casual game. It is, in fact, uniquely bad as a ruleset to be a casual game, and it has been since Mk2 (I didn't play Mk1, but from I hear it was so wildly unbalanced that it pretty much qualified as a casual game). The rules are simply not oriented towards two players playing a random game with whatever they have on hand.
There are rules that straight up Firetruck you if you don't know about them. There are models that straight up Firetruck you if you don't know about them. There are matchups that are so laughably one-sided that they are no fun for either player. The game has an extremely high level of complexity (the core rules are the simplest they've ever been, but the learning curve is still stupid)
None of these aspects of the game are conducive to casual play. In fact, competitive play curbs some of the worst aspects of the game with the pairing system, scenarios that encourage a certain style of play, and a (reasonably) healthy competitive meta that keeps things fresh and has the capacity to answer a lot of the most egregious things that the system throws out there.
Also, pretty much the entire competitive scene/competitive packet? Community driven. Steamroller, list pairs, etc...it all originated from the community, and the game has (pretty much from the start) had a very competitive focus to it (largely to distinguish itself from GW). This isn't a case of the company pushing competitive play at the expense of 'casual' players, it's a case of the players (by and large) wanting a competitive game, and PP catering to that.
All of this is to say that warmachine isn't a good casual game. Your two local random casuals are as likely to run warpwolves into Sloan and lose at deployment, or Tharn in steelheads for the same result, as they are to have a fun and engaging game. Pushing this aspect of the game would be a mistake.
All of this is beside the point, however, because it's almost never a good idea to balance or design for the casual crowd.
The casual crowd doesn't have the knowledge or experience to tell when a model/list is good, bad, or game-breakingly overpowered. They don't understand, or care to understand, the game to a sufficient depth to be able to balance it. I've seen casual players make some absolutely ludicrous statements about balance over the years (I recall being called 'cheesy' for playing Caine1 in Mk2 at one point). As a consequence, each casual player has their own standard of what is and is not an acceptable power level to play the game at, and they rarely agree. I saw this all the time in Warhammer - for some players, gunlines are cheesy and unfun and un-casual. For others, more than one of any model/unit is min-maxing. Other players have different ideas, and generally speaking, it's a huge bother to enforce an acceptably 'casual' event on a group of wargamers.
Furthermore, balancing for the competitive crowd has absolutely no impact on the casual crowd's ability to enjoy the game...assuming that the 'casual crowd' is at least a plurality (I'm not at all convinced they are). Nothing is stopping anyone from having a 'casual game', except for difficulty in finding opponents that want to play casual games. And if it is that case that most players want to play competitive games...that's not an issue on PP's end. That's an issue with 'fit' between the casual player and their meta.
Now, there are legitimate concerns with the game, especially in terms of attracting new players. It's got a super steep learning curve, and it's getting worse, not better with the continuing release of new models and factions. BAHI doesn't help new players get into the game (especially outside the states), and the cost of armies has been going steadily upwards. To cap it off, PP does an absolute dogshit job of advertising themes on their websites, so new players tend to show up to the game store with a random assortment of models that they can't actually play together in anything resembling a coherent list.
They also bungled the Mk3 release, and their approach to themes has (IMO) turned a lot of players off the game entirely (seeing your Mk2 collection get split up into unplayable chunks will do that to a player. There are definitely concrete issues to point fingers at regarding the game...but a failure to cater to casual players isn't their issue.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 3, 2018 7:22:05 GMT
Careful considerations would have to be taken to see what gets cut. You would have to weigh the actual development costs of updating the rules, maintaining the old molds, availability of prime materials, printing new boxes, etc. Versus the opportunity costs of just investing all those development resources into producing brand new stuff. Yes, people would throw fits, that's very clear to me. But it is very unreasonable to maintain the level of balance Warmachine players expect with an evergreen catalogue. Not to mention that PP is notorious for their supply chain troubles. Cut the amount of merchandise they have to move, both in the States and abroad, and you'll mitigate a lot of the current frustrations. The overall health of the game and company is what's needed, and I for one am willing to sacrifice my AKs on that alter (for example). The moment SKUs start getting cut, and models start getting rotated out of the game, I'm like...90% sure my meta just dies. And my meta contains a considerable number of the top players in the country, and is also (to my knowledge) one of the largest metas in the country. If that's at all generalizable, it's not any kind of route to go.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 1, 2018 0:44:39 GMT
The timing does seem strange. I'm not gonna cry doom and gloom, but if this was a planned move, I imagine that almost any other time would be better for it. Add in the various indicia that the company might not be doing so hot (2 mystery box sales moving large amounts of product at deep discounts; devs cautioning us about CID slowing down, CIDs that have had echoes of GW-esque newstuff pushing, etc) and there might be some cause for concern.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 28, 2018 23:53:04 GMT
the thing I'm giving side-eye to is sac pawn. I'm much less concerned about grievous wounds when there's counterplay, but when the CA is (essentially) untargetable by ranged attacks, and literally untargetable with magic attacks, that stands out as egregious to me.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 15, 2018 16:57:27 GMT
Man I'd take Iona in the ADR. Pair her with like...Kaya 3 CotW and that seems really good. It seems likely. It's not like there haven't been extremely strong casters in ADR before (and especially recently). See also: Anamag, Bearka, etc. Personally I have mixed feelings about it. I'd like a reason to run Morv1, and I have a feeling that Iona likely beats her out of the pairing (though Morv1 is likely a decent counter to Iona/Tharn, so there's that).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 15, 2018 0:24:10 GMT
Let's not have Champions rotate for another 6 months. I want to enjoy having a functional Circle roster for a little while longer before we lose Bones, mmkay?
For the next Circle roster, I suspect we'll keep Morv1 and Kaya3, lose Wurmwood and Krueger2, and pick up Iona and...hmmm. Kromac1. With CoTW replacing Bones of Orboros.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 8, 2018 18:32:23 GMT
I was actually wondering if it would be worth it to swap over to CotW for more free things and +1 to go first...and free animi on birb. But the second unit of Valkyries seems to be the main reason to play it in SM. 3 additional shieldguards can be huge in some match ups. Re: MacDaddy On the other hand, I do think Call of the Wild is a bad theme and should feel bad. This is just, like, my opinion, man, but I really dislike call of the wild even after all the points discounts and living warbeast buffs. The free animi is fine, and +1 to go first is obviously amazing - but the free points have almost no value. It's important to remember that the free circle solos (outside of Dev host) are complete and total garbage, barely worth a point or two if you had to pay for them. And you're asking me to give up on geomancy and 14 point p+s 18 heavies for that? Yuck, no thanks. Finally, another Circle player that agrees with me on this. CoTW feels like you're giving up all of the incidental tech that you get in Bones, just to get slightly faster (but less points-for-damage-efficient) heavies. If I play Bones, I have access to RFP, shield guards, continuous fire, good guns, geomancy, and magic weapons everywhere, on models that are already acceptable in terms of points-to-attrition value. If I play CoTW, the only way to access those things is by making sacrifices in terms of heavies that actually attrition well (ie,picking up a pureblood or mist speaker for magic weapons, picking up valkyries for shield guard)...and even then, some tech just isn't available in theme (RFP is notably absent), and the theme has serious problems with being out-threatened, shot, and out-maneuvered on scenario because everything is BG models (and Circle has no long-leash models to handle widely-spread scenarios.) The living heavies are mostly fine, but IMO CoTW is still a bit of a dumpster fire.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Nov 7, 2018 1:51:08 GMT
Stryker2 is really, really bad into Krueger. He has no tools to mitigate TK. He (typically) has no outs for rebuke (the merc slot is nearly always piper). Decel is...not enough to keep storm lances alive to Bones shooting. And his personal output is neutered by krueger2's assassination threat. I've played this matchup, and it's not good. God help the stryker player if the take any lightning based synergy pieces into Krueger2, also, because those points are almost completely wasted. Storm Strider's aren't exactly made for stomping. -3 range makes you more likely to have to come into windstorm to shoot the storm raptor. Krueger2's not scared of range 14 or less guns, and guess what? -3 range on range 16 guns makes them less than range 14. The bird just has to not play too far forward, and boom - if you want to shoot it, you're at -8 range. And that's without getting into the fact that trying to skirt windstorm with a gunline is typically a recipe for losing on scenario, as krueger proceeds to move up, feat on most of your army, then score unconstested for 3 straight turns. I've found the matchup not bad for Stryker simply because a lot of Krueger's tricks run into efficiency problems. As long as you aren't dumb and put Arcane Shield on the table, you can play the game. At some point Stryker is going to get his list hitting Kruegers list and its going to hurt a lot. The last game I played against Stryker2, the Stryker player was only able to get attacks on me by running and feating (then losing Stryker on the following turn, though the viable alternative was to just kill most of his stuff. The game before that, he made less than 5 melee attacks, and was picked apart over the course of several turns. It is by no means a guarantee that a low model count melee list like stryker actually gets to effectively alpha Krueger2, ever. In point of fact, against such lists, the 'can't touch this' gameplan is typically in full effect.'
If the opponent gets to roll dice against krueger, you're already playing a game Krueger2 does not want to be playing. Your maths on Wind Storm predicates the game as working in Straight lines and ignores the reality that the Wind Storm is a circle. You can often avoid wind Storm by moving to the sides where the Bird is placed and getting longer range shots in then. Similarly, Krueger can place himself between the storm raptor and the heaviest concentration of shooting, letting it play further forward. Also, there is no reason for the Storm Raptor to play forward in that matchup. It's role is likely to toe a zone, threaten anything that comes into it with melee, and put assassination pressure on Sloan herself while taking shots into targets of opportunity. It's range 14 with 3" reposition, it doesn't need to play super far forward in every matchup.Skirting Wind Storm doesn't mean you are suddenly winning on Scenario, its not like that Krueger list has much scenario trash to throw into opponents zones. Wind Storm is always far stronger on the Dojo than it is on the table. If the scenario is live, it sure does. Typical play sees Krueger score 2-3 points on standoff, mirage, recon II, and Spread the Net on feat turn (less likely on invasion, and only if the opponent is a potato on Pit II) and contest all enemy elements. Next turn sees typically sees the enemy score a point, but also fail to contest all of krueger's zones (-2 speed is a hell of a drug, especially combined with rebuke). Krueger player then mops up next turn and scores the 2-3 scenario points they need to win. This is fairly typical krueger2 play into gunlines.
As for scenario trash...shifting stones are all you need. Especially since there's not much in need of 'porting in this list, no real fury issues, and you don't need to worry about blocking charge lanes. It's probably better in Bones, but Shifting Stones are one of the best contesting pieces in the game. Things like Rebuking a unit of Storm Lances is inherently pretty hopeful and misses some of the point. Not only is it a 3 focus commitment from Krueger (with a not unreasonable chance of failure due to Def 15 being quite easily attainable for lances) and that list lacks arc nodes so it has to be Krueger himself doing it but the secret is that a rebuked unit can still do quite a lot of damage and needs to be dealt with. Rebuked Lances can still walk 10" and put out a bunch of Pow 15 pokes. Rebuked Storm Blades are very sad, but they still hang around being jerks that your Infantry Clearing raptor can't deal with. I have not played Krueger2 without an arc node, which I suspect colors my opinion here (nor would I, IMO the lack of arc node neuters his status as a pivot). However, I do think you're not giving rebuke enough credit here. Like I said, I can see the Raptor build being strong into Gravediggers + Some kind of Storm Strider list but I think it might be slightly hopeful when facing other forms of Cygnar. Vs Tharn you probably have a reasonably good game unless its either (maybe)Krueger1, 2 or Wurmwood, but since everyone seems to be all in on Iona that might be less of a concern. Krueger 2 bones looks like it should beat Krueger 2 Secret Masters and probably has a reasonable game vs Iona.
|
|