|
|
Post by tarviche on Feb 22, 2018 0:07:21 GMT
Maybe the scenario elements should just be 1" or 2" closer to the second player, though that would be kind of ugly.
If the terrain rules more explicitly favored the second player--letting them add one or two pieces as they see fit, maybe fun thematic pieces included in the list like SR objectives--it could also go a long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkshroud on Feb 22, 2018 13:53:54 GMT
Maybe the scenario elements should just be 1" or 2" closer to the second player, though that would be kind of ugly. If the terrain rules more explicitly favored the second player--letting them add one or two pieces as they see fit, maybe fun thematic pieces included in the list like SR objectives--it could also go a long way. "Event organizers hate this one trick." casual play, that seems easy. but in a tourney its usually predetermined. so unless you got a base set up, then got to add to the table after you got there. then a judge would have to confirm that things are placed correctly. meh. the scenario shifting would be easier. |
|
juckto
Junior Strategist
Posts: 124 
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 23, 2018 4:44:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by juckto on Feb 23, 2018 4:44:51 GMT
Maybe you guys should play with more lopsided terrain layouts, such that table side choice is more meaningful.
|
|
|
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 23, 2018 7:33:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by W0lfBane on Feb 23, 2018 7:33:35 GMT
Maybe you guys should play with more lopsided terrain layouts, such that table side choice is more meaningful. We've had trouble making tables that are balanced. Its always picking side doesn't matter or picking side decides the game. |
|
Hjard
Junior Strategist
Posts: 123
|
Post by Hjard on Feb 23, 2018 7:54:29 GMT
Maybe you guys should play with more lopsided terrain layouts, such that table side choice is more meaningful. We've had trouble making tables that are balanced. Its always picking side doesn't matter or picking side decides the game. Got some pictures of example tables? Maybe there is something "wrong" with your (choice of) terrain? I often see people building a table that they think is good and has enough terrain, that is still essentially a parking lot. On the other hand you have the problem that some tables are empty for some kind of army, while completely inaccessible for others. So you also have to consider the setup of a table over multiple games with completely different armies. |
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Feb 23, 2018 8:11:45 GMT
I often tend to loosely use the quadrant method (the others are too much hassle), making sure there are 2 pieces in each quadrant with one LoS blocking one touching the middle. I usually skew slightly more rough terrain or obstructions to one side as well. I have pretty big terrain pieces though, from Broken Egg.
|
|
|
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 23, 2018 9:02:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by W0lfBane on Feb 23, 2018 9:02:16 GMT
We've had trouble making tables that are balanced. Its always picking side doesn't matter or picking side decides the game. Got some pictures of example tables? Maybe there is something "wrong" with your (choice of) terrain? I often see people building a table that they think is good and has enough terrain, that is still essentially a parking lot. On the other hand you have the problem that some tables are empty for some kind of army, while completely inaccessible for others. So you also have to consider the setup of a table over multiple games with completely different armies. I wasn't pleading for help. I was just saying that making a lopsided table that is also balanced is not necessarily the easiest thing |
|
|
|
Post by flamigant on Feb 23, 2018 9:42:57 GMT
You could say that one side of the table should always contain a piece of adverse terrain like burning earth or acid bath.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkshroud on Feb 23, 2018 15:26:29 GMT
Got some pictures of example tables? Maybe there is something "wrong" with your (choice of) terrain? I often see people building a table that they think is good and has enough terrain, that is still essentially a parking lot. On the other hand you have the problem that some tables are empty for some kind of army, while completely inaccessible for others. So you also have to consider the setup of a table over multiple games with completely different armies. I wasn't pleading for help. I was just saying that making a lopsided table that is also balanced is not necessarily the easiest thing but if its intentionally lopsided, it cant then also be balanced. thats the whole point of trying to make going second more appealing, right? |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 23, 2018 15:28:55 GMT
Got some pictures of example tables? Maybe there is something "wrong" with your (choice of) terrain? I often see people building a table that they think is good and has enough terrain, that is still essentially a parking lot. On the other hand you have the problem that some tables are empty for some kind of army, while completely inaccessible for others. So you also have to consider the setup of a table over multiple games with completely different armies. I wasn't pleading for help. I was just saying that making a lopsided table that is also balanced is not necessarily the easiest thing I don't know if you can have a lopsided table that is balanced, my understanding is that they are meant to be un-balanced, so there is potentially an advantage to choosing to go second, other than getting to counter-deploy and score first. |
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Feb 23, 2018 15:42:47 GMT
I think it is also important to remember that balance can be in the eye of the beholder. I might see a building as an annoying piece of terrain I don't want my list to have to navigate around and my opponent might see it as a place to shelter their caster from my strong assassination threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamigant on Feb 23, 2018 19:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Feb 23, 2018 20:36:52 GMT
I've always liked the idea of Champions, would be neat to see it turn in to more of a focused limited format. Looking forward to this.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Feb 23, 2018 21:03:00 GMT
This should be fun. Champions is already an interesting format, in my opinion, and I’m please to see it get some attention and refinement.
As for Steamroller - I’m curious to see which scenarios get replaced. The “favorite” and “least favorite” scenario polls were all over the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by minmaximus on Feb 23, 2018 21:17:27 GMT
A focused, accessible limited format would be incredible for giving newer players an on-ramp to competitive play. Champions hasn't lived up to it quite yet and I'm hoping these changes make it work better and push it more. I think what Warmachine would desperately need for such a thing however is a sort of proxy rule. A large part of what makes many successful limited formats such as Magic's Draft work is a mix of having to use cards you would ordinarily overlook and having a pre-existing collection not provide an advantage.
Without some way to at least partially level the playing field between a newer player and someones who has everything in triplicate, I'm not sure how successful limited-format Warmachine will be.
|
|
