|
Post by Soul Samurai on Feb 28, 2020 3:44:52 GMT
I do have a soft spot for customizable weapon loadouts, so that sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 28, 2020 19:23:26 GMT
Furthermore!
There are continuous effects, like Fire and Corrosion, but they do much different things than WM/H. Fire makes the model on Fire suffer -1 MAT and RAT.
There are other continuous effects too, but they haven’t been disclosed.
|
|
|
Post by anoddman on Mar 3, 2020 0:38:05 GMT
LOS blocking terrain gets in between the scoring zones, if not actually IN the zones, and can be hard to fit in the space there. I'm not the one setting up those zones or terrain, so I don't know why they are so self-limiting. Maybe it is because the zones are quite large and they don't want to cover it up as much or to be able to quickly transition between the zones? I mean, I should probably start a different thread on this instead of taking this tangent, buuuuuuuut... Why are they afraid of putting LOS-blocking terrain in the zones? Each zone should absolutely have 1-2 pieces of terrain in it/touching it since those are the most relevant portions of the table. I know players can be finicky, but anything you can do to encourage better terrain spreads makes the game demonstrably better.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2020 2:23:07 GMT
Hurrah! The Kickstarter launches on Wednesday!
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 3, 2020 6:01:15 GMT
LOS blocking terrain gets in between the scoring zones, if not actually IN the zones, and can be hard to fit in the space there. I'm not the one setting up those zones or terrain, so I don't know why they are so self-limiting. Maybe it is because the zones are quite large and they don't want to cover it up as much or to be able to quickly transition between the zones? I mean, I should probably start a different thread on this instead of taking this tangent, buuuuuuuut... Why are they afraid of putting LOS-blocking terrain in the zones? Each zone should absolutely have 1-2 pieces of terrain in it/touching it since those are the most relevant portions of the table. I know players can be finicky, but anything you can do to encourage better terrain spreads makes the game demonstrably better. For the most part, if a model cannot see another model they cannot Charge or Shoot it, I think. I'm not exactly sure why as they never bothered to explain it to me, but that's how it is usually arranged. It's set up to block LoS on approach (sometimes), but not between the zones.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Mar 3, 2020 7:45:23 GMT
I mean, I should probably start a different thread on this instead of taking this tangent, buuuuuuuut... Why are they afraid of putting LOS-blocking terrain in the zones? Each zone should absolutely have 1-2 pieces of terrain in it/touching it since those are the most relevant portions of the table. I know players can be finicky, but anything you can do to encourage better terrain spreads makes the game demonstrably better. Once, back in MkII, in one of my early games, in my first ever tournament, I was playing against a Protectorate player. There were two round zones. One had a house in it. I ran Kell behind the house, such that he was in the zone. My opponent had a Judicator try to control that zone, at which point I told him about Kell (look, I was new to the game, there was a lot going on, it didn't occur to me that he couldn't see Kell). I suppose he could have spent the next couple of turns running the Judicator to try to get LOS to Kell, but basically that would have put him in a position to lose his most expensive piece to try to dislodge one of my cheapest. The way it actually worked out was that the Judicator did nothing at all that game. He won the game of course (I was running Khador Jackspam under S1... in Mk2... I had lost before I even woke up that morning). So all's well that ends well. The point is that it seems to me from experience that having LOS-blocking terrain in zones could potentially make it too easy to contest under some circumstances, functionally removing the possibility of winning on scenario from games when that happens.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Mar 3, 2020 8:33:45 GMT
Hurrah! The Kickstarter launches on Wednesday! Hurrah!
or
OMFG! Are they kidding me!?
...depending on the price .
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Mar 3, 2020 9:58:11 GMT
Out of interest has anyone been able to convince their LFGS etc to do a retail pledge? Because that will be the real indication around the take up of this game. If stores want to stock it.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2020 16:35:59 GMT
I mean, I should probably start a different thread on this instead of taking this tangent, buuuuuuuut... Why are they afraid of putting LOS-blocking terrain in the zones? Each zone should absolutely have 1-2 pieces of terrain in it/touching it since those are the most relevant portions of the table. I know players can be finicky, but anything you can do to encourage better terrain spreads makes the game demonstrably better. Once, back in MkII, in one of my early games, in my first ever tournament, I was playing against a Protectorate player. There were two round zones. One had a house in it. I ran Kell behind the house, such that he was in the zone. My opponent had a Judicator try to control that zone, at which point I told him about Kell (look, I was new to the game, there was a lot going on, it didn't occur to me that he couldn't see Kell). I suppose he could have spent the next couple of turns running the Judicator to try to get LOS to Kell, but basically that would have put him in a position to lose his most expensive piece to try to dislodge one of my cheapest. The way it actually worked out was that the Judicator did nothing at all that game. He won the game of course (I was running Khador Jackspam under S1... in Mk2... I had lost before I even woke up that morning). So all's well that ends well. The point is that it seems to me from experience that having LOS-blocking terrain in zones could potentially make it too easy to contest under some circumstances, functionally removing the possibility of winning on scenario from games when that happens. I would counter with “That’s the exact reason WHY LOS-blocking terrain should be present. The game should not devolve into ‘who brought the biggest guns’.”
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2020 16:48:07 GMT
Out of interest has anyone been able to convince their LFGS etc to do a retail pledge? Because that will be the real indication around the take up of this game. If stores want to stock it. I don’t think any sensible game store is absolutely going to commit without actually seeing the KS deal, which is reasonable! But that being said, my LGS is planning to back as long as enough players express interest.
|
|
|
Post by shiza on Mar 4, 2020 19:21:23 GMT
as for me it looks so bad and overpriced, that i started to suspect insincerity of others, who find this attractive... just to compare with recent kickstarter - obsidian protocol.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Mar 4, 2020 19:45:30 GMT
Mhh. So PP says that future expansions for Warcaster will be founded with new kickstarters.... That will make it even harder to get the flag into it
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Mar 4, 2020 20:02:55 GMT
I've kinda soured on the game since the faction fluff reveal and watching the gameplay. I think MonPoc looks a lot more fun, if I decide to buy into a new wargame.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Mar 5, 2020 7:54:55 GMT
as for me it looks so bad and overpriced, that i started to suspect insincerity of others, who find this attractive... just to compare with recent kickstarter - obsidian protocol. That's correct. 70$ for just a handful of models and accessories is a lot (+ most likely costly delivery to Europe), and stretch goals so far are a total cheapskate.
It pales in comparison with my previous Kickstarter - /description - which provided me with a ton of models for comparable price (139$ for core+ 2 expansions IIRC), with Stretch Goals of even more and more HUGE models and cool stuff.
And here we get... wallpapers XD XD XD
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Mar 5, 2020 8:33:24 GMT
As for the "KS each wave of the game" that seems to be going on. Is this any different to Fantasy Flight or Asmode or Steamforged and almost every boardgame etc that they have produced in recent times? Darks Souls, Zombicide, many of the Star Wars games etc etc. It seems that the only company not using kickstarter in some form is GW (currently)
As much as a HATE it, it seems to be the direction that every company is going in. It reduces risk and helps to maximise profits. Can you blame PP for doing what everyone else is doing? With the KS funded in under 30 mins, it proves that there is an appetite and market for PP
As a WM/H player, if it keep the money flowing into the company, im happy tbh. NeoMec might bring new players to PP games so hopefully it will help drime a slightly more casual friendly attitude in WM/H players.
|
|