|
Post by challenger on Jan 22, 2019 14:03:37 GMT
Hey there,
Feats are a funny thing in a lot of games that use them. They seem to simultaneously cause some really cool moments, like buffing the damage output of your army to overcome the enemy defense and do a whole lot of damage in one go. But they are also linked with a lot of the worst negative play experiences, especially on the control side which has seen the most nerfs (Wurmwood, Haley2 etc)
Do you think they make the game better for having them, or do they are a net negative? why?
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Jan 22, 2019 14:06:09 GMT
They are the game. Is the baseball glove good or bad for baseball? Seems a weird question.
|
|
privvy
Junior Strategist
Formerly The Nomad on PP's forums
Posts: 317
|
Post by privvy on Jan 22, 2019 14:28:01 GMT
They are a net positive and add a ton of flavor and decision making.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 22, 2019 15:29:57 GMT
I am not a big fan, especially in smaller games. I prefer methodical approach to building advantage in games, not "the Big Red Panic Button" which turns things upside down.
They are fine in bigger games (100pts+) though as they have lesser impact compared to the size of the battlefield and armies.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Jan 22, 2019 15:33:37 GMT
huh... it would probably be a pain but I wonder what the impact would be if Feats scaled for smaller games (25 / 50 / 75 / 100). I would be a nightmare to balance and too much work... but its a thought.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 22, 2019 18:53:57 GMT
So........
This is a really interesting question (but sort of beside the point as I think feats are, as mrtuna pointed out, at the core of what WM/H is).
How I would frame this is that _NON-OBVIOUS_ fears interactions really need to be considered and thought about....not because they are not "cool" but because they can lead to NPEs.
My favorite, I guess, is Doc Ark's feat. It is a great one (and iconic) but if you are facing it (especially it its latest version) you BEST understand fury and frenzy mechanics to get a good handle on what, when, and why it is a great feat). At the other end of the spectrum, Butcher1's feat - which is pretty obvious - especially if you point out to your opponent that it impacts ranged attack damage as well.
Here, in formula fashion, is something I have been musing about for a while.
I go/you go Game's fun = your OPPONENT's gotcha impact and strength of combos/time to set up and play
This remains a critical challenge with WM/H compared to its origins (remember, Wilson worked for WoC as an artist). MtG can have all those crazy non-interactive cards and combos because, baring certain instances, when your opponent pulls them on you it is OVER quickly. It maybe took you all of 3 minutes to take your deck out and shuffle before you got rolled by some crazy white deck with ultra rare artifacts. You say GG, ask to play against another deck and shuffle back up. Even if you lose in organized play you can play for fun till the round runs out.
But WM/H has to be VERY careful here because the time to play is significant. EVEN BEST CASE it probably is a 30 minute investment for a game that ends top of 2. That is Best case - and it probably between setting up, unpacking, deploying, and first turn moves is more like an hour.
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Jan 22, 2019 19:01:33 GMT
But WM/H has to be VERY careful here because the time to play is significant. EVEN BEST CASE it probably is a 30 minute investment for a game that ends top of 2. That is Best case - and it probably between setting up, unpacking, deploying, and first turn moves is more like an hour. How many top of 2 feat victories can you not somehow prevent? Grymkin has a crazy feat where all their crap gets an extra Fury. Leads to a 20 attack alpha. So you do things to limit it, like guns, or taunting the alpha with 1-2 pieces. Not a huge difference if they FEAT for a billion damage, or just charge 20 models for a billion damage. If you are taking out FEAT, then you need to talk out ALPHA strikes... make all models slowly walk forward in a line (like the revolutionary war), and trade dice rolls. war machine would be a SUPER boring game, if the entire game was to walk up to each other at speed 4-5, and roll 2-3 d6 until the other side was dead. There is explosion all over. Giant feat to smash you? Assassination to kill your caster? Grab 4 objective points in one turn? Without the explosion, you lose excitement. Every argument you made for why feat should be shut or tamed down, would also apply to assassination. So no more feats, no more assassination. Are you proposing the game is changed to risk with painted models?
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Jan 22, 2019 19:09:18 GMT
huh... it would probably be a pain but I wonder what the impact would be if Feats scaled for smaller games (25 / 50 / 75 / 100). I would be a nightmare to balance and too much work... but its a thought. Lots of things don't scale well. For example - Trollblood needs a lot of support to do well. They kinda suck at 15 points, but they do great at 75. Feats are totally OP on the small scale, something like a vlad2 feat makes a 25 point game stupid (vlad2 feat into demo corps -> go destroy all 3 warjacks of your enemy, GG). I think this is part of why we don't see a ton of official support for 25/50 point games. All kinds of things fall apart. I would think you would want an entirely new point cost sheet for smaller games, that yes would include things like scaled or changed feats.
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jan 22, 2019 19:26:42 GMT
Feats are absolutely core to not only the game system, but the very identity of the game itself. They are clearly an element that has made the game into the success it is today.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Jan 22, 2019 19:32:09 GMT
But WM/H has to be VERY careful here because the time to play is significant. EVEN BEST CASE it probably is a 30 minute investment for a game that ends top of 2. That is Best case - and it probably between setting up, unpacking, deploying, and first turn moves is more like an hour. How many top of 2 feat victories can you not somehow prevent? Grymkin has a crazy feat where all their crap gets an extra Fury. Leads to a 20 attack alpha. So you do things to limit it, like guns, or taunting the alpha with 1-2 pieces. Not a huge difference if they FEAT for a billion damage, or just charge 20 models for a billion damage. If you are taking out FEAT, then you need to talk out ALPHA strikes... make all models slowly walk forward in a line (like the revolutionary war), and trade dice rolls. war machine would be a SUPER boring game, if the entire game was to walk up to each other at speed 4-5, and roll 2-3 d6 until the other side was dead. There is explosion all over. Giant feat to smash you? Assassination to kill your caster? Grab 4 objective points in one turn? Without the explosion, you lose excitement. Every argument you made for why feat should be shut or tamed down, would also apply to assassination. So no more feats, no more assassination. Are you proposing the game is changed to risk with painted models? Well.....(and I am going to assume you don't play skorne)
Do you _ON PAPER_ understand Mordikar and 7 archidon's win condition when he feats bottom of 1.
Go.
Edit
PS - I mean on paper by just looking at the lists and not seeing it played (yet) so you figure out what he is trying to do to you.
PPS. You know it the second time but again, the first time you have just invested 1 hour in packing and set up to get killed top of 2.
PPPS. Feat specific we could also say double outriders, A&H+Valachev and Zerkova2. Give yourself 7 minutes on paper and let me know how far you can safely move a non-cold immune caster out of kill box bottom of 1.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 22, 2019 20:22:51 GMT
They are the game. Is the baseball glove good or bad for baseball? Seems a weird question. I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way when they moved the Goal Posts from the front of the End Zone to the Back. I actually don't think Feats are a Core part of the game. I think Focus/Fury, 2d6, Buy/Boost mechanic, with cool spell lists, unique Battlegroups, along with Caster Assassination do more for WM/H identity than Feats. That said, even though I enjoy them, I would personally look to minimize their impact in the game (or outright eliminate them) in order to make the Learning Curve for newer players less steep.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jan 23, 2019 10:20:19 GMT
huh... it would probably be a pain but I wonder what the impact would be if Feats scaled for smaller games (25 / 50 / 75 / 100). I would be a nightmare to balance and too much work... but its a thought.
Not only feats, but I think it would be interesting to have whole models designed differently for different army sizes.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Jan 23, 2019 10:46:51 GMT
Caster and feats are unique to warmachine. Will the game survive without it, sure, but it would sure as heck leave it with less identity.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Jan 23, 2019 12:23:30 GMT
Feats are part of the game, but they look like being the hardest part to balance. They add depth which is good, but I suspect they make game design more difficult.
I have to say that I much prefer feats to the Grymkin Arcana though (at least playing against them). It might be because watching out for one feat is easier than multiple smaller but still significant effects.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jan 23, 2019 14:36:14 GMT
The Grymkin style of multiple minifeats instead of 1 big feat is certainly better.
|
|