|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 11, 2019 17:16:38 GMT
What about the older CoI? The one that came with set model selections. Drop the model selections in favor of your own list...
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jun 13, 2019 19:39:03 GMT
Just wanted to pop in here and offer my perspective.
I've recently gotten up to 50 point games with my Crucible Guard. It's taken me six months from my first purchase to now. I like to play painted and dislike being pushed up to higher point levels. My community is awesome, but when I mentioned that I wanted to stay at 50 points for a good while until I felt comfortable, I got (polite, reasoned) pushback from the main organizer in the community. He encouraged me to get to 75 points sooner rather than later, as that's what the community plays and that's what Steamroller events they run, full stop.
I'll get there, I said. Gimme a couple more months.
But after a couple more months of playing 50pt games, I realize that I don't *want* to play bigger games. I realize that I don't want to even be playing at *fifty* points! The game is too big, it takes too long, it's too fiddly, and it requires too much rote memorization. I remembered that I only came back to Warmachine because I got interested in MonPoc, but last fall there was no MonPoc group in town. Guess what game is growing in my local area right now? Guess who just bought enough models for a full army -- with all the tokens and measurement tools one needs -- for $175? Guess what game is colorful and full of 3d terrain that catches the eye of passersby?
Now I'm sitting here, having played a game of Warmachine this week, asking myself, "why?" The game offers a good tactical territory-capturing-battle-game experience, but what it asks of a player is flat-out UNREASONABLE, and I do not want to keep giving myself to a game that doesn't respect my time or energy.
All that to say: I think I would be done with Warmachine right now if it weren't for this amazing idea of the LPG. I really want to play a bunch of 10 point games. I'd love to help with scenario design -- let me know what you've all been thinking.
Now I just have to drum up the courage to actually ask people for games in this format. I think if I came with something that was a little more defined, like "here's the format: you do X terrain with Y board (some of this has already been discussed), with Z scenarios", I might be able to get people in like that, positioning myself as a champion of a new format locally. I can feel the pushback and disinterest coming already, though! People want their bloated muddly 95pt two-list format. It's too much, and I've resolved that I'm not going to go that way.
So it's either we make the LPG a thing, or I don't have a place in Warmachine.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jun 14, 2019 6:26:53 GMT
Vassal should be an ideal match for a bunch of low point games. The 75 point games are often slow and tiresome, getting bogged down in ragequits and rules disputes (this is a game where even players who consider themselves experts routinely get the rules wrong).
A lower point game would be playable in a much shorter time, and would only get quicker as people gain experience with it. Also, no-one's limited by just the models they have available, meaning you can go crazy with the listbuilding. The only thing that's really missing are people interested in playing small games. The vassal community is almost extinct, pretty much down to people who wouldn't give the time of day to such an idea.
So the question is, of the people expressing interest in this, are there any interested in trying it out online?
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jun 14, 2019 6:47:10 GMT
So the question is, of the people expressing interest in this, are there any interested in trying it out online? Absolutely. I only used Vassal years ago and would have to get up to speed on it again, but that shouldn't take too long. There is a discord for WMH vassal -- discord.gg/K5qPuP -- and it's fairly active. So I'd recommend going over there and we can maybe play some games and start discussing over there. In any case, let's connect and play some games. What timezone are you in? I'm in US Pacific Standard Time. I'd love to start out with 10 point games and go from there!
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jun 14, 2019 6:54:52 GMT
I was thinking to get an indication of interest and if there was much, start a new discord server specifically for lower point games. The existing server is active but not super receptive to smaller games, and it's feeling like there's not a lot of overlap between 75 enthusiasts and LPGers. Of course, anyone interested in both could join both, but it would avoid mismatches when asking for a game (and also give a better indication of the number of people specifically with this interest).
|
|
|
Post by peemster on Jun 14, 2019 7:13:10 GMT
Do it! I'll be the first to join. And I'll re-educate myself on Vassal this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jun 14, 2019 8:58:06 GMT
Fair enough! Here's a non-expiring link for anyone who wants to join in: discord.gg/STsdKsPI'm happy to give people a quick rundown of how to use the module, and will see about writing up a pin with the most useful info.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 14, 2019 9:19:11 GMT
Ok, Im not in this game for an online experience, but I guess it's a cool way to test a rulesset.
One question that immediately comes to mind and is very relevant for low point games and enabling all choices, is how to deal with battlegroup points. At such low point values casters that focus on units over beasts/jacks will be severely punished, and if it's the goal to enable this format for as many choices as possible, we might need to review the idea of battlegroup points.
Back in mk1 there was no such thing, so the easiest way to do anything about this is to just add the BGP to the gamesize and use those points to do whatever you want with them.
Is this a rules suggestion that's even on the table? Or will this completely invalidate beast/jacks lists? Back in the day units were extremely oppressive to jacks, if memory serves.
At the same time it just doesn't make a lot of sense to choose a unit dependent caster over a battlegroup caster in a 10- pt game.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 14, 2019 10:20:21 GMT
Fair enough! Here's a non-expiring link for anyone who wants to join in: discord.gg/STsdKsPI'm happy to give people a quick rundown of how to use the module, and will see about writing up a pin with the most useful info. I didn't even think of Vassal, and you are totally right! It's the perfect venue for it! I myself have never been interested in vassal because of the monster time commitment at 75 pts, but LPGs should be infinitely more manageable. Wow that's a great point! I am going to have to give that a try, too.
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jun 14, 2019 11:12:14 GMT
One question that immediately comes to mind and is very relevant for low point games and enabling all choices, is how to deal with battlegroup points. At such low point values casters that focus on units over beasts/jacks will be severely punished, and if it's the goal to enable this format for as many choices as possible, we might need to review the idea of battlegroup points. If we get a few players, my thought would be: start with the least amount of preconceptions possible. Maybe an infantry caster would do better than we expect with a battlegroup at small scale? Try things as they are, chime in on Discord with any thoughts about games you play. Do full battle reports, or quick one-off comments, whatever you like. If it turns out there's a need to adjust things, adventurous souls can try that out and report whether it worked better. I have very little experience with games this size, and honestly with the lack of games in mk3 and the constant churn of CID, I might as well consider myself a complete noob now. That said, treating BG points as ordinary points does sound pretty reasonable, especially at the very low points levels like 10 where most max units (and even some min units) don't even fit. I'm not sure what limits if any need to exist. I could see a ban on huge bases, or most things/everything being FA:1, but wouldn't want to rush into anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 14, 2019 11:41:34 GMT
One question that immediately comes to mind and is very relevant for low point games and enabling all choices, is how to deal with battlegroup points. At such low point values casters that focus on units over beasts/jacks will be severely punished, and if it's the goal to enable this format for as many choices as possible, we might need to review the idea of battlegroup points. If we get a few players, my thought would be: start with the least amount of preconceptions possible. Maybe an infantry caster would do better than we expect with a battlegroup at small scale? Try things as they are, chime in on Discord with any thoughts about games you play. Do full battle reports, or quick one-off comments, whatever you like. If it turns out there's a need to adjust things, adventurous souls can try that out and report whether it worked better. I have very little experience with games this size, and honestly with the lack of games in mk3 and the constant churn of CID, I might as well consider myself a complete noob now. That said, treating BG points as ordinary points does sound pretty reasonable, especially at the very low points levels like 10 where most max units (and even some min units) don't even fit. I'm not sure what limits if any need to exist. I could see a ban on huge bases, or most things/everything being FA:1, but wouldn't want to rush into anything like that. You and I think alike here. Ne need to rush to judgement on things like balance, let's just play it out and see how things go. Trying to make too many changes before we even have any experience is unwise, I think. I don't know anything about discord, so if you want to get that started please do!
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Jun 14, 2019 12:01:07 GMT
For Discord, you can use it in a browser - just visit the link (http://discord.gg/STsdKsP) and pick a name. They have "native" clients for just about everything as well, and those tend to work better if you want to use discord for voice chat while on Vassal. I'll add a couple of voice channels for games, and I've added a getting started channel for basic info and help getting Vassal running. Feel free to post any questions there.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 14, 2019 12:13:41 GMT
If we get a few players, my thought would be: start with the least amount of preconceptions possible. Maybe an infantry caster would do better than we expect with a battlegroup at small scale? Try things as they are, chime in on Discord with any thoughts about games you play. Do full battle reports, or quick one-off comments, whatever you like. If it turns out there's a need to adjust things, adventurous souls can try that out and report whether it worked better. I have very little experience with games this size, and honestly with the lack of games in mk3 and the constant churn of CID, I might as well consider myself a complete noob now. That said, treating BG points as ordinary points does sound pretty reasonable, especially at the very low points levels like 10 where most max units (and even some min units) don't even fit. I'm not sure what limits if any need to exist. I could see a ban on huge bases, or most things/everything being FA:1, but wouldn't want to rush into anything like that. You and I think alike here. Ne need to rush to judgement on things like balance, let's just play it out and see how things go. Trying to make too many changes before we even have any experience is unwise, I think. I don't know anything about discord, so if you want to get that started please do! I do agree, but also I don't. There's some things you can see coming from a mile away. Say we play a 0-pt game; casters like kallus1, Bethany and anamag suddenly play without a feat. Not necessarily a bad thing balancewise, but you don't need to play test anything to know playing without a feat is a disadvantage. That's why asked if the suggestion was worth looking at. Not whether it should be implemented, but whether others see immediate reason to make it a consideration. Because I agree, the least we change the better. Preferably all will be solved through terrain and scenario rules. Edit: when people predict no huge bases, does that include casters?
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 14, 2019 12:51:47 GMT
You and I think alike here. Ne need to rush to judgement on things like balance, let's just play it out and see how things go. Trying to make too many changes before we even have any experience is unwise, I think. I don't know anything about discord, so if you want to get that started please do! I do agree, but also I don't. There's some things you can see coming from a mile away. Say we play a 0-pt game; casters like kallus1, Bethany and anamag suddenly play without a feat. Not necessarily a bad thing balancewise, but you don't need to play test anything to know playing without a feat is a disadvantage. That's why asked if the suggestion was worth looking at. Not whether it should be implemented, but whether others see immediate reason to make it a consideration. Because I agree, the least we change the better. Preferably all will be solved through terrain and scenario rules. Edit: when people predict no huge bases, does that include casters? I agree about 0 point games for sure, I think those are less interesting because non-battlegroup elements are such a big part of the game that it seems a shame to cut them all out. And hey, everything is worth looking at. We just have to actually try it out, and that means actually playing the games. We should play some games with some of the predicted most egregious balance issues and see how that goes. I for one am probably going to proxy (if my opponents don't bring it themselves) Goreshade1 and Skarre1, for example, just to see how nuts they really are.
|
|
snoozer
Junior Strategist
Posts: 467
|
Post by snoozer on Jun 18, 2019 18:12:56 GMT
I think it wouldn't even be that much of a deal if some casters units and combos are bad in low point games. The main problem is overpowered. If you lack a few option because they are bad, that is sad but not game breaking. Also: casters with more battle group points profit much more in small games. This might actually help them a lot!
|
|