Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 26, 2019 0:17:19 GMT
My take on the latter point would be that players who currently enjoy the game on a regular basis are likely to do so because of the strength of the game itself, not because of themes. Themes are just an extra layer on the core game. I don't feel it's an integral one. I have never seen Themes more than an artifact for the Devs to make Balance and new Releases manageable, along with simplifying the entry point for new players. I agree that at its most basic it is not integral to the game. Which is why I think PP will eventually stop dicking around and implement a true Limited format (by cutting Legacy models).
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Jan 26, 2019 0:44:40 GMT
I’m very intrigued by an attempt to reboot a smaller format.
I understand the banned “super solo” casters list, but less comfortable with no feats. I feel that is such a key part of the game and balancing point of the casters. Some might scale weird (goreshade1 is always the one who will break a small format), but most wouldn’t work that differently.
Anyway, proof is in the pudding and will definitely play when it’s ready
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jan 26, 2019 0:51:44 GMT
I am excited and appreciate PP's focus on making a format that is generated and geared towards the newer player. I hope there is a lot more brain power put behind this and marketing to make this a viable product. (imagine starter boxes, with a caster, battlegroup, unit, and some solos that all are prebuilt specifically for this format, and are marketed as the "Vanguard <insert faction here> force" and sold for about 65% of their retail cost for components).
Where I have concerns with this, is that while its a noticeable step forward than the non-existing effort PP has been putting into it, this, JML, and Battlebox games, is that it does nothing to prepare the player for how the game actually is. removing critical components like a feat, or not playing with troops (like in the battle box games) just cuts out so much of the game. If they really feel like this is the right way to go, then i think this should probably just become CoI v2.0 and try to reinvigorate that game.
I also would add that it would be easier to have a list of casters that are approved for this format, and everyone else is going. This would allow players to play with everything that makes the game, well, the game, but it would prevent hyper abusable stuff like B3 in a battlebox, or denny1 in a battlebox.
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 26, 2019 17:23:58 GMT
I understand this is being pitched as an "alternative competitive format". But really, who would want to play this? As it is pitched, this is just truncated Warmachine. You take Warmachine, apply a ban list for warlocks, remove feats from the game and remove theme bonuses and restrict army sizes to a smaller level. Is there an audience for "Warmachine, but with a bunch of the cool stuff removed."?
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 26, 2019 17:46:04 GMT
I believe that Feat removal is right decision. We were playing "Battlegroup Royale" which was our custom format for 0 points (so BG only). There were no Feats allowed because their impact is far to large for such small points and it's another layer of complexity for new players. No Feats for 25 points seems like the only sane decision.
Also - I'm not sure it's envisioned to be "competitive" in a way most WarmaHordes players understand this term, rather a skill based skirmish game that is fast to play and palatable to non-munchkins. Some players might advance into "real 75 points hardcore BS themes and casters only" format, but for it to succeed it should also create more casual enviroment for players who doesn't see steamroller tournament as their end goal.
At least I see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 26, 2019 18:01:16 GMT
I can see it as a good use for week night tournaments, or where a lot of people turn up for a huge event, but time is at a premium, and everyone is looking for a high number of opponents, rather than the 2-4 in a day format.
Still, if we can use a mechanic in Battlebox games, there is no reason to exclude the same mechanic in this smaller format.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Jan 26, 2019 18:22:33 GMT
No feats is... I don't know. They are kind of iconic.
Easily fixed with an optional ruleset depending on how new your players are, have a option with restrictions in play for the newest players (No feats), maybe an intermediary level that gives everyone a feat along the lines of "cast a spell costing 3 or less for free" so they can get acquainted with the once-per-game nature?
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 26, 2019 19:05:19 GMT
I understand this is being pitched as an "alternative competitive format". But really, who would want to play this? As it is pitched, this is just truncated Warmachine. You take Warmachine, apply a ban list for warlocks, remove feats from the game and remove theme bonuses and restrict army sizes to a smaller level. Is there an audience for "Warmachine, but with a bunch of the cool stuff removed."? Several of us have already said that we want to play it. It's a matter of perspective. I could just as easily call 75 Points Steamroller "Bloated Warmachine."
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 26, 2019 20:03:07 GMT
I understand this is being pitched as an "alternative competitive format". But really, who would want to play this? As it is pitched, this is just truncated Warmachine. You take Warmachine, apply a ban list for warlocks, remove feats from the game and remove theme bonuses and restrict army sizes to a smaller level. Is there an audience for "Warmachine, but with a bunch of the cool stuff removed."? It might not be for you, I will play it but most important thing is that it could be fun for people who are not interested in current WMH. Game is fun outside 75 points tourney circuit, maybe not for you but it is crucial to open up for other players with different needs. Personally I dislike Themes, OP casters and tend to agree that game became bloated.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 26, 2019 20:50:51 GMT
The "Vanguard" name for the smaller version of a bigger miniatures game is already taken by Kings of War, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 26, 2019 21:04:02 GMT
Well, it's not like something like that can be copyrighted.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 27, 2019 1:24:35 GMT
The "Vanguard" name for the smaller version of a bigger miniatures game is already taken by Kings of War, I'm afraid. Oh well, it was a placeholder anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Jan 27, 2019 1:30:48 GMT
I understand this is being pitched as an "alternative competitive format". But really, who would want to play this? As it is pitched, this is just truncated Warmachine. You take Warmachine, apply a ban list for warlocks, remove feats from the game and remove theme bonuses and restrict army sizes to a smaller level. Is there an audience for "Warmachine, but with a bunch of the cool stuff removed."? I’d like to play it at a tournament where I can play 6 casual games instead of the usual 3. Also for learning positioning on a new caster, where you can wipe out in half the time and reset instead of losing a whole night. If they can keep the fun feel of the game in smaller size, there’s a lot to recommend it!
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Jan 27, 2019 8:44:07 GMT
I understand this is being pitched as an "alternative competitive format". But really, who would want to play this? As it is pitched, this is just truncated Warmachine. You take Warmachine, apply a ban list for warlocks, remove feats from the game and remove theme bonuses and restrict army sizes to a smaller level. Is there an audience for "Warmachine, but with a bunch of the cool stuff removed."? Several of us have already said that we want to play it. It's a matter of perspective. I could just as easily call 75 Points Steamroller "Bloated Warmachine." You could call it that, but you would be definitively wrong. 75 points warmahordes is the point level suggested by the creators and developers. You don't have to like it and smaller point games are totally viable for play despite the lack of attention they get. This is not just smaller points warmachine, though. It's a nipping a community idea to push as some alternative competitive format that is fewer points less a bunch of other stuff. Not to mention that crafting a format that caters towards competition AND brand new players creates goals that necessarily work against one another. This game already has a fantastic competitive format (albeit with uninspired missions). What it lacks is a popular casual format. Axing feats is also just stupid. Mechanically feats are very simple to understand. The individual function of a feat differs wildly in complexity from warlock to warlock as does the power level and scalable effect. Feats as a "class" of ability are mechanically simpler even than casting a spell. The effects of some feats are even just as simple some spells. Canning them outright makes no sense and is totally arbitrary. It destroys any semblance of balance thus making it a poor competitive format at conception and it conceals a core game mechanic from new players that is one of the most crucial things about the game to learn thus teaching them how to play a different game than WarmaHordes as such (this I think obviously makes it a bad format to introduce players to the game with especially since no one has a problem using feats in battlebox games).
|
|
|
Post by gedditoffme on Jan 27, 2019 9:26:58 GMT
Several of us have already said that we want to play it. It's a matter of perspective. I could just as easily call 75 Points Steamroller "Bloated Warmachine." You could call it that, but you would be definitively wrong. 75 points warmahordes is the point level suggested by the creators and developers. You don't have to like it and smaller point games are totally viable for play despite the lack of attention they get. This is not just smaller points warmachine, though. It's a nipping a community idea to push as some alternative competitive format that is fewer points less a bunch of other stuff. Not to mention that crafting a format that caters towards competition AND brand new players creates goals that necessarily work against one another. This game already has a fantastic competitive format (albeit with uninspired missions). What it lacks is a popular casual format. Axing feats is also just stupid. Mechanically feats are very simple to understand. The individual function of a feat differs wildly in complexity from warlock to warlock as does the power level and scalable effect. Feats as a "class" of ability are mechanically simpler even than casting a spell. The effects of some feats are even just as simple some spells. Canning them outright makes no sense and is totally arbitrary. It destroys any semblance of balance thus making it a poor competitive format at conception and it conceals a core game mechanic from new players that is one of the most crucial things about the game to learn thus teaching them how to play a different game than WarmaHordes as such (this I think obviously makes it a bad format to introduce players to the game with especially since no one has a problem using feats in battlebox games). It’s clear you’re against this from a paragraph of early test rules. I’m more optimistic, but nothing will change your view. I should point out it isn’t unsupported, considering it is developed by the lead CID developer...
|
|