|
Post by coolguyclay on Aug 14, 2019 19:54:08 GMT
Exactly how I read it. It makes sense: this isn't an expansion where they introduce another faction who has a spotlight moment then back to Khador and Cygnar pawing at each other while Cryx twirls its moustache, Protectorate protectorates, and all of the Hordes factions gain and lose ground in some weird version of parity. This expansion is a dramatic tonal shift for the game's fiction overall and whatever comes next will not be as it has been before. I think you have to read between the lines pretty liberally to translate a send-off to a setting that previously existed into a send-off to the game system as a whole. That's a cool take. If the fiction is changing because of this, it opens the doors to change at the game level and manufacturing/distributor level too. Maybe a lot of existing stock is transformed into "counts as" models, still viable, but allows new rules to be written and models to be produced. Example: that theme where calvary can be Khador or Protectorate? Why not reduce cards and SKUs for some kind of duel-use calvary. Previous and new models all count as "Infernal Bashing Riders", new looks are produced for sales, existing ones are retired (only "old timers" will have the older models, which are still event legal). I'm not sure if that was the intent of this letter, but it sure is getting us thinking!
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Aug 14, 2019 21:51:22 GMT
Exactly how I read it. It makes sense: this isn't an expansion where they introduce another faction who has a spotlight moment then back to Khador and Cygnar pawing at each other while Cryx twirls its moustache, Protectorate protectorates, and all of the Hordes factions gain and lose ground in some weird version of parity. This expansion is a dramatic tonal shift for the game's fiction overall and whatever comes next will not be as it has been before. I think you have to read between the lines pretty liberally to translate a send-off to a setting that previously existed into a send-off to the game system as a whole. This, there's only so many times you can do that without the setting devolving into a "forever war"-setting where neither side ever really gets the upper hand.
There probably needs to be a few more bordering countries to make perpetual brush wars believable.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 14, 2019 23:51:30 GMT
It’s too bad that they didn’t recently introduce some technology that will forever alter the world of the Iron Kindgoms or anything like that.
OH WAIT.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Aug 15, 2019 0:15:39 GMT
Exactly how I read it. It makes sense: this isn't an expansion where they introduce another faction who has a spotlight moment then back to Khador and Cygnar pawing at each other while Cryx twirls its moustache, Protectorate protectorates, and all of the Hordes factions gain and lose ground in some weird version of parity. This expansion is a dramatic tonal shift for the game's fiction overall and whatever comes next will not be as it has been before. I think you have to read between the lines pretty liberally to translate a send-off to a setting that previously existed into a send-off to the game system as a whole. This, there's only so many times you can do that without the setting devolving into a "forever war"-setting where neither side ever really gets the upper hand. There probably needs to be a few more bordering countries to make perpetual brush wars believable.
Legend of the Five Rings ran into that problem, that game suffered a few Time Jumps in its lifespan under AEG, and there was always Yet Another Big Bad to defeat. Eventually when FFG bought out the IP they just rebooted the entire setting to a Cold War state. I frankly wouldn't mind a couple of Time Jumps to new Eras for the Iron Kingdoms, as long as the Steampunk/Heavy Metal Fantasy flavor stays true. After that though, a setting reboot may be necessary before a Perpetual Warring Nation/States just stops making sense. WH40K and Battletech work with very little story progression because Space is enormous and you can always make up conflicts on a smaller scale (in galactic terms anyway). But the Iron Kingdoms are in one continent, eventually war will just stop making sense. Unless of course PP hires Blizzard's awful World of Warcraft writers to pull another FINAL RAID BOSS from their asses :-P
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Aug 15, 2019 0:42:26 GMT
Battletech has had quite a bit of progression, though they did a reset because war was becoming something out of the scope of the original game; when every story revolves around taking planets with divisions of mechs it kind of makes the plucky lance mattering at all a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by LoS Jaden on Aug 15, 2019 3:31:16 GMT
Nah, 100% read this as an introduction to a work of fiction. You've seen these kinds of things in dozens of novels - nothing to worry about here, just hyping the book up.
|
|
Miafan
Junior Strategist
Eater of Brains
Posts: 130
|
Post by Miafan on Aug 15, 2019 11:35:50 GMT
Turn off the alarms.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Aug 15, 2019 15:50:33 GMT
This, there's only so many times you can do that without the setting devolving into a "forever war"-setting where neither side ever really gets the upper hand. There probably needs to be a few more bordering countries to make perpetual brush wars believable.
Legend of the Five Rings ran into that problem, that game suffered a few Time Jumps in its lifespan under AEG, and there was always Yet Another Big Bad to defeat. Eventually when FFG bought out the IP they just rebooted the entire setting to a Cold War state. I frankly wouldn't mind a couple of Time Jumps to new Eras for the Iron Kingdoms, as long as the Steampunk/Heavy Metal Fantasy flavor stays true. After that though, a setting reboot may be necessary before a Perpetual Warring Nation/States just stops making sense. WH40K and Battletech work with very little story progression because Space is enormous and you can always make up conflicts on a smaller scale (in galactic terms anyway). But the Iron Kingdoms are in one continent, eventually war will just stop making sense. Unless of course PP hires Blizzard's awful World of Warcraft writers to pull another FINAL RAID BOSS from their asses :-P Yeah - it is a box they have written themselves into (and will be interesting to see how they try to write themselves out of it). PP "works" if the various factions are in a state of perpetual cold war. That way little 75 point skirmishes here and there make sense. But that TENDS to make the "meta world" static...because you can't have plot points that advance away from that state. But even a reboot doesn't REALLY help that....or at least I am not creative enough to see how you reboot and still make it make sense for everyone to always have a chance to be fighting against everyone (including INTERNAL conflicts so mirrors "make fluff sense" ;-)
|
|
bacon
Junior Strategist
Posts: 134
|
Post by bacon on Aug 15, 2019 17:07:20 GMT
Nothing is really stopping them from just saying that games between allied factions are not "canon." I dont recall in the lore that skorne ever fought Cryx or Khador but you can in the game itself, so it is not without precedent.
|
|
|
Post by marxlives on Aug 17, 2019 20:52:03 GMT
Soooo, WM&H gets limited releases but still supported. Majority of the focus shifts to the new game. With the amount of model bloat in the current game, this seems reasonable to me. Hell, after the release of Convergence, I was always annoyed that they kept releasing new armies, instead of fine tuning stuff that wasn't working. If WM&H gets more balance adjustments while the new game is selling, and becomes a better game. I'd be fine with it. Amen. I think people who clamor for a MORE aggressive model expansion are market tone death. I think PP SKU rivals or exceeds 40k's SKU. More models is not the answer. If they slow down or filter some of their releases through Riot Quest, capitalize on the Riot Quest GenCon splash, and keep Monsterpocalypse growing they will be okay as a company. While Battletech is doing redesigns right now, most of their growth and sustainable core was through campaign materials. And this is how I see Warmachine future until some of their other IPs gain traction. They should focus on for Warmachine: 1. Keep balancing through a light application of CID. 2. Keep investing in the tournament scene. 3. Expand their narrative weight with campaigns, compilations, and setting materials (using KS if necessary due to book sells needing to be more targeted) 4. Work with partners to expand the games foot print outside of tabletop (small indie titles for video games and graphic novels). A more aggressive model release is WAY low on this list.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Aug 17, 2019 22:57:36 GMT
While Battletech is definitely an example of how a decent game can perpetuate, a couple of the things in its favor are: models are not really faction-fixed and specific models are not needed to represent specific units. When you combine that with a "design your own" mechanic in which you can take a future unit and downgrade it to a previous era if you really want that model to represent that unit, and you have the opportunity of longevity without locking it in to crazy time/multi-verse shenanigans for narrative events like Cain3 versus Stryker1.
|
|
joedj
Junior Strategist
Posts: 513
|
Post by joedj on Aug 18, 2019 0:18:49 GMT
20 years is a long time for a warrior to survive and maintain fitness for the battlefield. Time for some heroes to die, souls harvested by Infernals, and be retired to 'Legacy' status (historical Champion format/events/leagues?), along with their faithful companion warrior units/solos/character Jacks.
I see a separate format system (Format:Legacy and Format:Present) being annoying, but probably beneficial and harmful at the same time. Beneficial as reducing total model choices in Format:Present allows easier new player integration, and easier Faction balance control. Harmful in potentially splitting already small gaming groups/communities.
Exciting because New Heroes can arise, with new warrior/unit/jack technology (buy/boost for the majority, Tharn/Immortal warriors mechanic for example).
CID for historical figures could still be done, Warroom/card database makes ongoing changes reasonable, as well as exciting for long term players.
Speculative and hopeful! And in for the long haul!
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Aug 18, 2019 9:45:11 GMT
While Battletech is definitely an example of how a decent game can perpetuate, a couple of the things in its favor are: models are not really faction-fixed and specific models are not needed to represent specific units. When you combine that with a "design your own" mechanic in which you can take a future unit and downgrade it to a previous era if you really want that model to represent that unit, and you have the opportunity of longevity without locking it in to crazy time/multi-verse shenanigans for narrative events like Cain3 versus Stryker1. Some things however, should not be in Battletech.
Like C³ linked Alacorns.
Then again, that's what the Geneva Ares Conventions are for :v
|
|
Miafan
Junior Strategist
Eater of Brains
Posts: 130
|
Post by Miafan on Aug 18, 2019 16:06:41 GMT
20 years is a long time for a warrior to survive and maintain fitness for the battlefield. Time for some heroes to die, souls harvested by Infernals, and be retired to 'Legacy' status (historical Champion format/events/leagues?), along with their faithful companion warrior units/solos/character Jacks. I see a separate format system (Format:Legacy and Format:Present) being annoying, but probably beneficial and harmful at the same time. Beneficial as reducing total model choices in Format:Present allows easier new player integration, and easier Faction balance control. Harmful in potentially splitting already small gaming groups/communities. Exciting because New Heroes can arise, with new warrior/unit/jack technology (buy/boost for the majority, Tharn/Immortal warriors mechanic for example). CID for historical figures could still be done, Warroom/card database makes ongoing changes reasonable, as well as exciting for long term players. Speculative and hopeful! And in for the long haul! Sorry, what did I just read? Is it a new information piece confirmed? Or just someone's speculative wishlisting? Wyrd tried it with Dead Man's Hand, so far I see all Malifaux communities outright ban it because of complete imbalance.
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Aug 18, 2019 18:13:12 GMT
Wyrd was very clear from the outset that Dead Mans Hand Masters (Malifauxs version of a warcaster (but not really)) set is only meant to be played in a non competitive environment for fun. The reason why many of those master were killed of was because they couldn't balance them without totally destroying their flavour. So they killed them in the full and game (or they have gone missing....). In my book this was a great move my Wyrd. One of the reason im liking M3E so much atm.
|
|