|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 30, 2019 1:18:26 GMT
I thonk Iona will be like Asphyxious 3 with 10 slayers or Anamag. It is a huge problem, but the meta will adapt. I do not think she will be our ossrum because she is not very much better than our other casters. The problem for mercs is not that ossrum/magnus are too good, but that the rest of the casters are avsolute trash. I agree. She's a big dumb stats caster, but with better side tech (dodge, phantasm) and worse numbers (pretty much just feat) than Anamag. Wurmwood will almost certainly be more long-lived in the meta, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 27, 2019 2:28:27 GMT
What do you mean by not the best its ever been? Honest question I literally was saying that this is the best the game has ever been until Circle and Skorne blew up in our faces. Yes, they are that bad. Though perhaps this is more galling because for quite a while there we had no more overpowered things than usual. Probably fewer. But right now, for all practical purposes of what sees tournament play, two entire factions are completely broken. Circle and skorne are not 'completely broken. The meta always loses it's shit after a CID...then it adapts. There are maybe 3 broken models that came out of those two CIDs, and it's no more than we've seen previously.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 25, 2019 0:53:28 GMT
Off the top of my head, potential banned Casters that we will test for inclusion in the format before formalizing anything: Butcher 3 Butcher 1 Makeda 3 Kromac 2 Borka 2 Stryker 2 Vlad 1 Thagrosh 2 Karchev Xerxis 2 Child Harbinger Reznik 2 Reznik 1 Siege 2 Caine 2 Terminus Skarre 3 Thyron If the criteria is along the lines of 'casters which have a disproportionate personal impact on the table', I would suggest that Skarre1 and Barnabas2 should likely also be tested. Skarre1's personal damage output is one of the highest of any caster's in the game, and Barnabas2 straight up dominates the field if the appropriate tools to deal with him are not brought.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 25, 2019 0:49:22 GMT
I'll give you the bullet points: 25 points 5-6 pieces of terrain 4 scenarios, all super central ALA mark 2 destruction No huge based non-casters Incorporeal models cannot contest or control things Zones and flags controllable by basically everything Win by 3, not by 5 No Feats or Arcana FA 1 (except WAs) Themes don't give you deployment bonuses (no Ambush, Advanced Move, +2 deploy, +1 to go first) Deploy off the clock, 35 minute deathclock (for tournaments only) out of curiosity, are any of these rules being tested for inclusion in the core game (as I believe happened with lightning immunity in COI?) Some of those rules target a few of my main issues with the current SR packet (incorporeal models controlling/contesting, deployment bonuses - particularly +1 to go first - having a disproportionate impact on the game; etc. I will say that I'm not sure how I feel about no feats. They feel very integral to how the game is balanced and to the 'flow' of the game in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 24, 2019 20:01:01 GMT
So...alienate your core player base in the hopes of more closely mimicking your largest competitor, who has...more resources, better models (seriously, it's not even a competition); better brand recognition, and a larger player base (making it easier to pick up and play wherever). In the immortal words of Tony Stark...not a great plan. Stop trying to make WMH something it is not (and has never been). Warmachine has ALWAYS been marketed as the game for competitive gamers - an alternative for people who are fed up with GW's crap rulesets. It is not a casual game. It has never been a casual game. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone could look at a game where mm-precise placements win or lose games and try to play it 'casually'. Much less that they would try to force their conception of a 'casual game' on the rest of community through core rules changes to introduce 'fun' concepts like added randomness (hey, remember how much community pushback ROF d3 guns get? And you want to introduce something like random charge distances?) and unpredictability. Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. PP needs to be better about marketing the game, developing intro products, and aggressively promoting new player recruitment. (the fact that there has been no attempt to replace the PG program with something like this is problematic). They certainly need a better intro format than journeyman leagues (which are just...the worst...in terms of new player development). They do not need to fundamentally alter what WMH is in a deluded attempt to appeal to the casual crowd. Ganso has made this point and I think there is something to this......
But I also would say that it isn't clear that market research really bares this out (or at least that it is a slam dunk and - I would point out - Tony Stark is a comic book character).....
Nearly every growing hobby game (table top or "independent" board game) has been trying to MINIMIZE complexity and barriers to entry. Indeed, one of the more amazing stories in the industry is the ability to move a $150 dollar game (Gloomhaven) which is tactically very rich but whose core rules are amazingly elegant and streamlined. D&D has worked hard to minimize complexity. Game of the year Scrye can be explained relatively quickly. etc. etc. etc.
Now an interesting game which bares out BOTH of our arguments is Pathfinder. Pretty clear that a lot of players are NOT happy with the more streamlined new rules. But they were getting killed by the bigger fish (D&D) who, with WoTC support, was growing like gangbusters with a much more accessible rule set. Doubling down on complexity would have appeals but it wasn't clear was going to "grow the game".
But again, I think that if you go for competitive than you go whole hog. Ranked play, handicapping, seeding and cons and tournaments.
I think EITHER approach is worth trying....but I do believe the status quo is not sustainable for PP (we will still all play and I wouldn't be at all surprised to start seeing community organized CIDs to justify our several thousand dollar investments ;-)
Something to note about most board games is that they (typically) represent a mid-sized to large one-time purchase, with limited added follow-up (barring expansions etc). Now, obviously you want your board games to be fun (otherwise bad reviews and word of mouth will kill your game), but they don't necessarily have to sustain the kind of dedicated fan base that you see in wargames. To take your example of Gloomhaven, the game is reasonably fun and has some depth, but the core game lacks variety and (at least for my group) failed to sustain interest in the long-term, because of the predictable nature of monster AI, lack of tactical depth, the veeeeery thin line between crushing victory and defeat encouraged by the cards-as-HP system, and the repetitive nature of most of the scenarios (and when they weren't repetitive, they were aggravating a la the escort missions). Was it a fun game? Sure. Did we get $150 worth of value from it? Probably. But is it the kind of game that's going to hold our interest for more than 6 months to a year of weekly sessions? Probably not. And for a product like Gloomhaven, that's probably enough. For something like WMH, which relies on getting committed players to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into their product over a period of years, it's not enough to just be a 'moderately engaging product' that holds interest for a couple of months. You need to provide an engaging, ongoing experience which keeps player interest over years (or provide some other hook, like very nice models/aggressive marketing that makes players liable to invest in your product before they hear about any others, a la GW.) And that, at least IMO, means providing a level of complexity and depth to the game which makes it possible to stay engaged (which, at least for the players I know, means learning, developing, and discovering new interactions/strategies). Going all-in on ranked play is interesting, and I think I would support that. Another thing which helps accessibility is flattening the power curve between models, so that there's less of a 'pay to win/oops you bought the wrong thing' issue (CID is helping with this, slowly). And...I'll say again...a new player format which does not rely on Journeyman leagues would be a massive boon in terms of generating investment in the game.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 24, 2019 19:20:25 GMT
And this is my biggest reason to say "f* off" to people who insist "WM/H is a competitive game" all the time and want to play only SR and such, with clock and minimal terrain and all that.
Basicaly, I agree that due to the kind of ruleset WM/H has (precise rules, high level of interaction between models' rules, etc.) it is understandable it attracts competitive players. What I don't like is that those players tend to "take over" the local meta and scene, driving out everyone else, who want to play more relaxed games, communicating that their is the only way to play the game.
I'm Hungarian, so right now, due to PP's lack of support in Europe I'm waiting for what 2019 will bring to the company. However, if I'm seeing it doing okay and the availability of the game growing a bit, I decided I will dedicate at least half of my participation in wargaming to (re)build a local community around WM/H, which is pointedly aimed at narrative play, lagues and just relaxed gaming. I don't want to wage any wars with the local competitive scenes and I'll encourage participating in both, if the interest is there, but I like this game and I want to have alternative avenues to playing it.
Also, I have the firm oppinion that yes, it is the community's "fault" that it got this competitive focused which decreases how approachable it is to new players and not competitive-minded people, which will (and already is) hamstring the scenes themselves as they are becoming more and more closed. It is bad to the company too, financially.
In PP's place, I'll leave the precise rules and the combination-based gameplay in place, but would push the fluff and casual modes of play even more and more visibly because this needs to change and while surely there are people like me out there, PP could shape this much more effectively.
Had a LONG discussion with an LGS owner on this who has been around the industry for 25 years and I disagree (and do have a fix) The reason that multiple metas have this issue _IS_ the rule set. For a variety of reasons the game LENDS itself to a devolution to really complex chess. It just does. The rules are so tight and hinge on = or >< a precise amount of space that the game encourages that kind of precise placement. For example, There is a REASON that many (most?) WM/H players go out and buy 3rd party widgets for blast damage and, at most SR and competitive events, get them out not to determine who is hit but rather to space their models out to minimize Blast damage. Ditto measuring sticks. Ditto Flat terrain. Etc. etc. etc. To quote the GS owner "If a game requires a protractor and a laser tool I am out. That isn't a game". The fix? Much as it will generate hate it is randomizing certain aspects of the game which will, because we have now introduced more "luck" frustrate those who want to use WM/H to demonstrate, even if just internally to themselves, their smarts. So for example, what 8th edition does - charge ranges are randomized with a D3 or give out wounds and saves like that "bad" game. The complex chess crowd will move on - returning to magic, picking up guildball, or finding some other niche company to appeal to that play style.I wish you luck. But I think you should look at the rule set and think - "if I want to keep people around for NARRATIVE play what house rules will I encourage to be introduced to make it less appealing as complex chess." So...alienate your core player base in the hopes of more closely mimicking your largest competitor, who has...more resources, better models (seriously, it's not even a competition); better brand recognition, and a larger player base (making it easier to pick up and play wherever). In the immortal words of Tony Stark...not a great plan. Stop trying to make WMH something it is not (and has never been). Warmachine has ALWAYS been marketed as the game for competitive gamers - an alternative for people who are fed up with GW's crap rulesets. It is not a casual game. It has never been a casual game. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone could look at a game where mm-precise placements win or lose games and try to play it 'casually'. Much less that they would try to force their conception of a 'casual game' on the rest of community through core rules changes to introduce 'fun' concepts like added randomness (hey, remember how much community pushback ROF d3 guns get? And you want to introduce something like random charge distances?) and unpredictability. Does the game need to be more accessible to new players? Yes. PP needs to be better about marketing the game, developing intro products, and aggressively promoting new player recruitment. (the fact that there has been no attempt to replace the PG program with something like this is problematic). They certainly need a better intro format than journeyman leagues (which are just...the worst...in terms of new player development). They do not need to fundamentally alter what WMH is in a deluded attempt to appeal to the casual crowd.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 23, 2019 18:46:01 GMT
I think you're banking on there being a lot of forests on tables pretty hard. Wurmwood does have game into gun lines but if there isn't good LOS block terrain then he's quite limited in that capacity on every turn except one. Also not every gun line cares about forests. Siege1, Caine3, Kaelyssa or Severius2 will ruin Wurmwood's day. I'm sure there are others but those are the standouts. You have a distinct lack of anti cloudwall tech in your lists. High reclaimer, Goreshade4, Haley3, Kolgrimma, Zaadesh, King of Nothing, and Zerkova1 will all present problems for you. Wurmwood can maybe get his spells through but that's your only real saving grace. Consider trying to work in Lynus and Edrea or a mist speaker into one of your lists. The last problem I see is that you've decided to go double DH. This means that both of your lists bring similar weaknesses. How do you plan on dealing with an opponent that plays trolls Band of Heroes, Retribution Shadows or a Skorne Masters of War players? Anybody that can turn off stealth or tough starts to chew through your armies pretty quick (note your heavy reliance on shamans for tough no knockdown trickery). Like you said you're not into changing lists so you're in it either way for this con but in the future working a different theme like Bones, SM or CotW into your list can at least make your opponent think twice about which list to drop. Where you're strong: - good against infantry spam - good into armor with Iona - Reasonably potent assassination threat with Wurmwood should keep opposing casters honest and threaten the squishier ones. (Lynus and Edrea would help even more here as would a wild argus) - Good answers for stealth Good luck at the event and let us know how it goes. None of those themes are particularly bad matchups for (non-Morv1) DH. They are infantry-based themes, with their only real anti-DH tech being anti-tough (and Tharn should not rely on tough. There are never enough Tharn to make tough a reliable game plan.) There are some builds in those themes which are problematic (G4 in Shadows is an issue, but it's strictly because of his feat + cloudwall, and he's still very playable with wurmwood) As for gunlines...the only one that you listed that is concerning is Sevvy2, because he ignores forests en masse, and can bring a judicator (which puts WW on notice). Mage Sight covers too small an area to be super concerning (it's something you have to play around, not something you can't play into), and WW should be Arm 23 most turns, so typically I am QUITE happy if the opponent is dropping attacks into him instead of my other stuff. Also, if you're routinely playing on tables without LOS-blocking terrain in the centre, you probably want to talk to your TO, as SR2018 specifies at least 1 piece of LOS-blocking terrain touching the centre of the table.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 18, 2019 6:30:27 GMT
I will neither confirm nor deny that I've been low-key waiting for this for several years now...
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 9, 2019 23:20:27 GMT
The real problem with ornery is that it is:
A) useless on warlocks, as your gameplan should typically not involve letting your warlock get hit (and if that is your plan, another transfer/a better defensive animus like spiny growth or elusive is almost always a better plan, given the weedy nature of most warlocks
and
B) At BEST, as good as buying another attack. Typically, because of the availability of in-activation buffs, it will actually be worse than buying an attack, particularly as your opponent has the chance to knock out an aspect before you get to make it. So the only situation where you want to cast it is when you've ended your activation with fury to spare and no further targets in your melee range, AND you don't plan to use the beast in question as a transfer target. I suppose you can also use it when you're planning to receive an alpha, but that never feels like a good plan to bank on.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 9, 2019 18:49:08 GMT
Thinking more about it... Why? Just for the sac pawn for cassius? Other than that it is almost like playing non-theme, right? I think Jaden is being hyperbolic re: best list in the faction, but access to geomancers and living models/units does synergize very well with what wurmwood wants to do (and he's one of like...two casters I would consider druids with), and everything Wurmwood brings is faction-agnostic, so he doesn't mind having to bring a bunch of minions. He would definitely be one of the best casters to run SM if he could play it, and I strongly suspect we'd seem WW SM/Iona devhost as the default Champions pairing if this was an option. Considering that the biggest shortcoming of WW Bones is a lack of souls, and the biggest issue with WW DevHost is the lack of geomancers, I can see how having access to both in one list (even lacking the other advantages of those theme) could be very strong.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2019 18:53:47 GMT
I think that while PP has obviously got a profit motive, I don't think it's actually broken anything other than huge bases. That, plus the high-cost/high investment nature of BAHI models, leads me to believe that there is an overt drive to ensure that BAHI models are models that players will purchase, despite the high cost/costs of importation, because they are extremely strong (or just necessary to be competitive).
To me, there were likely two components to this decision - first, you had the BE CID, which proved to PP that players were in fact willing to drop 200 bucks on double turtles/storm striders/etc, if they were sufficiently pushed to make the purchase worthwhile. Then, you saw what were likely less than satisfactory sales of things like the Hooch Hauler (I've seen ONE HH on the table, and most of the Troll players I know have said that it's because while the model is strong, it's not SO strong that you can't get by without it, and...it's expensive.) So essentially, you end up in a scenario where huge bases need to be pushed to sell in large numbers for the prices PP wants to charge, AND where players will demonstrably pay those prices to double up on over-the-top huge base models (every Skorne player in my meta, including those that just jumped on the skorne bandwagon post-CID, have 2 supreme guardians despite the fact that - as they're all Canadians - they're running at 130+ a pop.)
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2019 3:50:29 GMT
On the other hand, TK is an extremely valuable tool for increasing the threat radius of the LOTF - not only do you increase his threat range, you also get to increase the 'doom radius' around low-def models from a little over 3" to a little over 5". I don't know what I'd change in that list, but I'd be inclined to find room for him.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 7, 2019 19:54:37 GMT
sand20go - don't forget that: - Whining does appear to work, at least in certain cases. Which in turn incentivizes more whining. Both Skorne CIDs were masterclasses in Female Doging loudly (without table time) and playing with the intention of proving a point (herp derp I let my SG get charged by a unit of champions and it died, needs moar buffs plz). Particularly when the model in question is new and expensive, there seems to be a strong bias to err on the side of releasing a broken model, rather than risk creating something that doesn't sell. Maybe the lack of sales of the Hooch Hauler was a wakeup call, that these BAHI models needed to be aggressively overtuned to see the kinds of sales they want to see. - PP is selectively deaf when it comes to evaluating and implementing suggestions, especially late in the CID. Case in point: early in the Tharn CID, I suggested that the corpse benefit be changed to give every model with heart eater a corpse. I also suggested that Tharn Ravagers should probably get a points increase if that happened. PP implemented one element of the suggested changes, but not the other. Same goes for the LoTF - most people wanted him to get blood reaper, but most of the circle players I know also expected him to lose some of the kit he'd picked up before that (and said as much). Again, PP went with the late-game kitchen sink approach, rather than iterating on a concept (and resetting when substantial changes are made). This, in turn, creates the potential for even good feedback to produce models which are above the curve. I'd rather have CID than be stuck in the shithole that was early Mk3 balance (honestly, I probably would be gone by this point, as would my meta), but they really should up their game in terms of evaluating feedback. The game is turning in BAHImachine, and it's not a good look for the game.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 29, 2018 21:30:05 GMT
Meh, in my area WMH is doing fine, and attendance at all of the cons I've attended recently has been very high (I don't think I've attended a major tournament that wasn't at capacity.) So that's probably where the 'everything is fine' mentality is coming from - at a very high level of play, the game IS booming. However, I do think that the loss of the press-gangers (without a viable replacement strategy) has hurt new player development, as have the added barriers to entry in Mk3 with themes, increased army sizes, and a fairly unstable competitive meta. Azuresun - this is also true. With board games offering a high level of tactical depth for a fraction of the price (and with being easier to pick up and play) and increased competition from cheaper/sleeker miniatures games, I think there's an argument that the market space for PP is narrowing (I see a lot of chatter about Judgement, for instance). It's a great game if you have everything needed to play, but I think that there's a lot of competing products out there for players that might previously have been funnelled into WMH.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Dec 28, 2018 20:18:22 GMT
This isn't a game problem, this is a player problem. All of these things have counters and people that run them choose to net list instead of innovate. This is 100% a PP problem. Gamers arent suppose to balance the game. That's the developers job. Gamers are supposed to play the game and if the object is to win, gamers will use whatever tools at their disposal to do so. So if the parent company doesnt stop someone from spamming a model, it's really hard to blame the gamer for doing what they can to win. The problem is with PP because they didnt do their homework/testing/development/whatever to find those broken points. Now, sometimes things get through. Thats fine, they should be dealt with quickly and eagerly, not 6 months after the broken interaction is discovered and they have conspicuously sold out of karchev and mad dogs, or una 2s and griffons, or revenant crew.... Except that kind of reactionary nerfing leads to unnecessary nerfs, when the meta could just...shift to accommodate the new list. Gaspy3, Anamag, Mak2, Haley3 would all have been nerfed if this model were followed. Unnecessary nerds are worse than well thought out, delayed nerfs.
|
|