I was going to post this in the 'Where did Everyone Go' thread, but the last post thee was in August so I figured I'd just start a new discussion...


Warning: opinion follows...

I had an interesting experience at my FLGS and to me, it perfectly sums up what perhaps my biggest issue is with state of Warmahordes.

On Monday I was hanging out at my FLGS and very surprisingly, there were actually a couple of Warmachine players going at it! Now, I do love me some Warmachine and while I don't actively play anymore, it is a bit sad to see a great game go downhill like WM/H has. I know there are a lot of opinions as to what caused this, and most of those would probably have at least a little truth to them, but for me the biggest issues for why I don't play anymore are actually summed up by what was on display to me Monday.

The issues that I saw on this particular day were pretty obvious petty quickly. The game looked to be a standard (maybe?) 75 points, and while that's all well and good 75 points gets you a lot of stuff in Warmachine these days, so there were lots of models on the table. The table size, however, hasn't grown with the increased army size and so this game was being played on a 4x4 table, which caused the models to all be smashed together in the middle in what can only be disguised as a giant cluster.

Combine this with the fact that only about half the models total were painted (no single force was completely painted, and this is certainly NOT a problem native to Warmahordes), PLUS the tournament-standard 2D 'terrain' that was present on the too-small board and the overall visual effect of the game was pretty awful. It just didn't look like any fun. Now if you're a new player and you walked into the store and saw this, you're not exactly going to be super-intrigued and want to know more about the game. Even if you're an old player (like me) who has the minis and the rules, you're not going to want to run home and dust off your giant, steam-powered murderbots, and that's a shame.

In my opinion, Privateer Press would go a long way by either decreasing the sizes of the armies (which of course they don't want to do as you wouldn't have to buy as much and they're a business, and I totally get that) OR by increasing the size of the table to a 6x4 instead of a 4x4, which would grant more tactical options during play and have the added benefit of adding to the spectacle. I'd also like to see more 3D terrain instead of the 2D stuff typically seen in a Warmachine tournament or event, although I understand that this aspect may be a bit more localized.

I don't know. I've honestly thought about making these changes myself locally and see if that increases participation and interest. Anyway, I thought of Dakka when I saw this and I figured it would be worth discussing.

The game's issues are almost entirely a problem of drawing in new players. There's a whole bunch of reasons for this, some due to the rules, some due to the way its played and some just due to the state of the market and industry, but the end result is that the majority of people playing are the same ones playing a decade ago and no matter how good your retention is, without new blood entropy will take its toll.

Personally, I don't consider the crowded nature of it a problem. One of the game's biggest strengths is the American football "scrum" nature of its conflicts. Some of that is a result of the warcaster system itself and in my experience attempts to widen the game really drain some of its unique appeal.

Personally, the #1 thing I think it needs is some changes to terrain. The current rules just don't interact well with 3D terrain and are often even excessively punishing with area terrain. I also agree smaller game sizes would help. PP actually flirted with the idea recently, but the hardcore tourney crowd that pretty much defines their playerbase revolted. Personally, I've found the game plays poorly at lower points, but almost entirely because the scenarios are designed around larger armies. Smaller game scenarios would be a huge help, but again, the playerbase refuses to try them.

The BIG challenge PP faces is shelf space. Their SKU count is simply impossible to manage and there's just so much bloat across the model line its impossible to stock. They need to get back their retail presence but that is going to require some pretty big shakeups to both the game and its packaging. Part of the problem is just that, while they've totally got their modelling groove back since they mastered resin, resin itself doesn't work super well for large units. Games like MonPoc and Riot Quest fit the company's current strengths a lot better unfortunately.

In any case, its still a great game I play regularly. Just not one I've been able to sell half as successfully as other games lately.

Warmachine matches look like somebody dropped a box of old, unfinished models and bitz on the table. If it weren't for printed game mats at least giving the ground some color and form, you wouldn't even know it was a miniatures game from a distance.

None of the cities I have been to in Germany are selling Warmachine at all any more, all thier space is going to Dungeons and Dragons miniatures and GW stuff now. I have repaired my stuff and actually painted an entire gatorman force, but nobody seems to be playing around here any more. Probably there is a group somewhere in the city, but honestly getting back into the game is also just intimidating at this stage.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Warmachine matches look like somebody dropped a box of old, unfinished models and bitz on the table. If it weren't for printed game mats at least giving the ground some color and form, you wouldn't even know it was a miniatures game from a distance.

There's people at our shop that only play on a large sheet of brown high density cardboard with solid color felt cutouts. We have mats and real terrain but.... nope.

Sku bloat is part of the problem, but not enough considering how much space their skus take up versus how much each GW sku takes up. Aside from the army boxes, cavalry, and Huge bases, they can all be pegged reliably.

I think Steamroller is the problem, indirectly. Too many of the people are focused on it as the end game (I was told at my old LGS that "we only play Steamroller here"). That defines the army sizes, the game spaces, and scenarios being run.

I was able to get 3 games in a few months ago one night. Because I have zero practice in the game (despite collecting for years), and the guys at my LGS allowed me to run at 25 points with Theme. We still played Steamroller scenarios, though. At that point level, you can usually fit about 2 units in and a couple solos if you don't go crazy with your 'jacks/'beasts. We probably should have went with a Journeyman scenario of Trial by Fire.

It was hard to get any level of coverage of the zones with that table size and the usual 2 zone set up. And as I saw form their 75 point matches, it was the exact opposite. Finding room to manuver was the real challenge.

The hard part would be to convince the players to expand their scenarios to consider something more than a farmhouse and sport scoring zone and to try and put it in to a village of say, 4x6, but with the same level of scoring, just much farther apart.

As it so happens I never jumped on WM/H when it came out or even in MKII, it wasn't until we had a regular employee at the FLGS who's main game was WM/H before I finally broke down and built an army. just as MKIII came out.

It is one of many games I bring with me to game night just in case somebody wants to play. my 75 point list all fits into a nice little carrying case. with between 10 to 14 minis depending on which list I want to run.
But I can always make smaller lists as need be.

As for table size even with "larger" armies I don't see this as a real problem since the weapons ranges and movement are quite small compared to other 28mm games. with 14" being long range and 8-12" being average for most guns. I also play khador where most of my stuff moves 4" so a 4X4 table works just fine.

Most of the regulars I play with are pretty casual, however I got a rare Friday night off from work and came in to the shop since I was told it was the big WM/H night. I got in one game with my friend but could not seem to get the other group interested in a game. the all seemed.....I don't think snobbish is the right word, but kind of locked into their regular group. they just played game after game on the same table using 2d terrain. since I am in the area where the company is located one of the regulars actually works for PP so they may be a bit more on the hardcore side of the game.

I don't see anything wrong with the game play itself for MKIII, either just battling it out or using objectives is just fine with me. but I do love a good looking table. (kinda sad they removed elevation from the game). so I always use 3d terrain.

this is what one of my tables looks like-



or this-

From the center of europe my impression of why WarmaHordes is struggling right now has several reasons:

1) it is hard to get into the hobby, since the "Starter Battlegroups" are not interesting at all. Most of them have maximum 1 Caster/Lock and maybe 1 Beast/Jack that will probably be used later in bigger games. Rest of the miniatures are doomed to sit on a shelf forever.
And if you want to get one or two full lists at a time, there are too many alternatives that are more appealing in a financial point of view. (e.g. if I want to get into warmahordes competitively I'd guess ONE LIST - that will be changed frequently - is around 200 to 300 euro; here in europe many former warmahordes players switched to guild ball, where you get a whole guild with all miniatures incl. tokens, dice etc. for 200 euro)
So therefore new players are being disencouraged by the sheer amount of models they have to buy and paint and the amount of money it will cost.

2) I don't know how hard it is to get miniatures in the states, but here in europe most shops get a batch of miniatures that were released and they will be sold out in maximum a few days later. All of the unlucky hobbyists that couldn't get their hands on the hot stuff need to wait months until the stores are able to get a restock. This combined by the fact that PP releases miniatures cross-faction right now and also because MOST of the new miniatures are slightly OP - Archons *cough* - lead to the fact that those miniatures are even faster sold out than ever.
In europe this and the introduction of some overpriced BAHI models lead to the #BAHIeurope-philosophy (even if those proxis aren't for BAHI models) And since PP doesn't even care about smaller tournaments at all most TOs also won't even mind such proxies if they are clearly recognizable

3) Of course PP is a miniature company that needs to focus on selling stuff, and we all understand it. But since a lot of "neccessary erratas" right now are solved in point decreases, armys are growing - as godswildcard was already mentioning.
And this leads again to my point #1 -> scary for newer players.

4) PP is following the 2000sGW-Path of Powercreep Deluxe. This pissed off a lot of people in my meta, and also some other communities I've spoken to.

5) PP is putting a lot of energy into other game systems (riot quest, monsterpocalypse, etc) that isn't being accepted by - at least some part of - the community. I know there are some folks in the states that are playing MonPoc, but here in middle europe nobody plays it and also the few stores that still offer PP stuff don't have it in stock. Riot Quest miniatures are only sold because of their WarmaHordes factor for existing players.

6) there is too much competition with other games. (WH40k, WHAoS, Malifaux, Guild Ball, Star Wars X-Wing, Star Wars Legion, Marvel: Crisis Protocol,.....) What I have witnessed is, that a lot of people are being more attracted to skirmish games than to big army games because of money, time the paintjob needs, etc. And even if I am one of the people who still loves WarmaHordes, since it is a great game. Those other games are also great. But they're easier to get into.

7) the quality of the standard PP miniatures compared to other companies is really really bad. If you don't believe me - give a PP Starter Box and any GW Box to a possible new player and let them tell you what felt more annoying when building.

7a) for existing players..... how can a company still exist in 2020 when they offer 10 men squads with 4 different sculpts or 5 man squads with 3 different sculpts without a proper possibility to change poses, equipment and so on? yes, 1 single miniature for itself is great, but those units or 2 solos you need in an army that have absolutly the same pose.... come on...

8) what PP does wrong at the moment GW does right now - which lead to the fact that I lost 80% of my warmachine meta to 40k since end of 2018/the beginning of 2019.


So, i think that might be the points I make responsible for the fact that my local meta went down from 20 WM/Ho players to the 4 people we are right now. And it seems like at least all over europe it is the same.
And also the application for the 10 WTC spots (2 teams of 5 people) went down so we can put all applicants in there it seems.


Nationwide we got some players back again in the last 2 months by scaling down to 50 points with the restriction of no jack/beast/unit more then twice and no huge bases, because everybody found it interesting.
Maybe trying something new is the way to go to encourage people to step back into the game.

Wow sounds as bad as getting stuff in Australia, I am right here where PP is from so we have no problem getting stuff, and it is generally pretty reasonable price wise unless you want some big units. but then again I play a small army with mostly solos and jacks.

I also only play it as a one of many games so I don't invest in it as my "go to" game. currently I am a much bigger fan of DUST for 28mm games followed by 30K but I also run a 40k list because that is prevalent everywhere.

Like you pointed out in the end, building a community for gamers is just as important as the systems you play.

Honestly people keep talking about having armies where every model has a unique pose, yet I don't see many companies ever offering it. It seems to be a bit of a unicorn in the market in that gamers would like every infantry model to be unique - either with unique poses (which means every box you get would have the same unique poses - aka like the Warcry sets); or with fully poseable models; which are highly complicated and often very fiddly to put together so can raise the entry bar. I've also noticed that when you DO have models that you can free pose the number of poses you're likely to actually use is often limited anyway. Both with the mechanics of where things can sit and in what the unit looks like its doing - the differences are often minor arm adjustments rather than all out changes.



As for PP what they really need is to get their whole Press-Ganger system going again in some form. They also need to do what GW has done and have a massive program of outreach. In a very short span of time they shut their magazine, closed most of their forum chatter and then split that in half opening a second forum their their live rules updating; then they also shut their PG system. The result was a reduction in uptake and stating up games because now the local game club no longer has at least one person with a vested interest in promoting the game. For basically any company that isn't GW (who have their own stores to push sales) this isn'ta good move.

I really hope that their new CEO can start to make changes; there's no reason that PP can't return to the time when it was the second biggest in the market.

I have to agree to your post, Overreads.

Shutting down the PG program, closing the official forums etc. wasn't the smartest move since those "stations" where probably the main source of information for newer players as well.


Concerning different poses: What is the reason why PP can't come up with plasic sprues like GW? Yes, additional Parts are maybe a little more expensive when designed, but I think only a few more arms/heads would bring a solution.
Also I'm wondering why they still bring out the majority of their miniatures in this strange plastik/resin mix or in metal instead of plastic sprues. I wonder if it is a financial issue, becaus if that was the official reason, I'd point out that Atomic Mass Games are also able to get this job done although they are a new company.

They did try plastics - but their recipe wasn't that good. I know that I disliked working with their plastic, it was tough but odd and didn't hold fine detail quite that well.

I can't recall if they did it in house or overseas, either way could be an issue for them (overseas can have issues with quality control and such whilst inhouse can have extreme costs in setup).

I think they've pushed away form the plastic toward resin and metal partly because of pushback on their plastics.

 Overread wrote:
They did try plastics - but their recipe wasn't that good. I know that I disliked working with their plastic, it was tough but odd and didn't hold fine detail quite that well.

Hmmm, that's quite a suprise for me. I personally really loved the Rager/Mad Dog/Berserker Kit and so on, but that's a personal preference maybe.

What I think to know is that they have a resin casting company in the states and a metal casting company in europe, which leads to bringing out some miniatures in resin in america and the same miniatures made of metal in europe.

 raghnath wrote:
7) the quality of the standard PP miniatures compared to other companies is really really bad. If you don't believe me - give a PP Starter Box and any GW Box to a possible new player and let them tell you what felt more annoying when building.

7a) for existing players..... how can a company still exist in 2020 when they offer 10 men squads with 4 different sculpts or 5 man squads with 3 different sculpts without a proper possibility to change poses, equipment and so on? yes, 1 single miniature for itself is great, but those units or 2 solos you need in an army that have absolutly the same pose.... come on...

I always feel bad for mini companies when their plastics inevitably get compared to Citadel plastics. GW has the best multi-part plastic wargaming minis on the market, and they've worked hard and invested an enormous amount of money to get to that place. So yea, nobody can really match them, nor is it sensible to expect them too. This is also why I, as a person who buys minis from many manufacturers, don't get too incensed by GW's increasingly high prices. Y'all buying a boutique product here, the best of the best - you should probably pay for it. The problem is when GeeDub makes a game that requires 40 of a thing that it sells in boxes of 10 to make up a squad ... and then wants you to buy three of those squads. Oof.

That isn't to take away from your point, PP's stuff rarely compares entirely favorably against its competitors. I've come to really like PP's style and there are some minis I genuinely like, and a lot I've come to like in a sort of 90s throwback way (the shoulder pads!) I primarily play Kings of War, and I'm overjoyed when people use WMH minis in KOW. Spoiler: I've been amassing Skorne infantry (!!) to make my own Kings of Skorne army, because I really love the Skorne faction but just don't want to retrofit my dudes and play WMH MK3 with them after a long run in MK2.

Anyway, I'll echo PP's plastic woes as well - I bought Convergence when they came out, then sold them when I realized I couldn't deal with the plastic recipe PP went with ... and keep wanting to speedpaint some COC up, but know the material will kill it for me. I also think their pricing is kind of too high, comparing their product against competitors, and is one of the reasons that I've always disliked the two list format. I ... don't really have the time or money to make a second WMH army! Although I get it, second list can involved just a handful of changes and play totally differently. Still not a fan.

I guess a final thought is that I find I miss WMH quite a bit these days, particularly with the art book KS about to ship. I recently discovered a 50 pt Arkadius crew mostly build in a box (!), I'm going to try to Contrast paint that thing up and test the local waters. What's the worst that could happen?

 raghnath wrote:

Concerning different poses: What is the reason why PP can't come up with plasic sprues like GW? Yes, additional Parts are maybe a little more expensive when designed, but I think only a few more arms/heads would bring a solution.
Also I'm wondering why they still bring out the majority of their miniatures in this strange plastik/resin mix or in metal instead of plastic sprues. I wonder if it is a financial issue, becaus if that was the official reason, I'd point out that Atomic Mass Games are also able to get this job done although they are a new company.

Atomic Mass Games has the financial backing of Asmodee. They're a new development branch under one of the biggest companies in the business. It's no coincidence that Marvel came out in sprue plastic about the same time Star Wars Legion started using it.

The main thing is that PP can't afford their own machinery and has to outsource plastics to China. This created a number of major problems for them when they tried it. Their "skipped leg day" aesthetic doesn't translate to sprue very cleanly. As much as we like to treat it as the ultimate material, the undercut limit on sprues is a pretty massive drawback for PP. A lot of their models styles don't translate well; particularly things like their love of textured cloth, runestones, satchels and other little details as well as the super bulky upper torsos. It's not impossible, but without the expertise that comes from printing the models in house (GW's biggest advantage by far), you end up with something more along the lines of Malifaux's part count.

The other thing is just control over timelines. There was a 5 year gap between the resin prototype colossals and from what I've heard a lot of that time was a production nightmare. This is pretty much true of all the plastics. The plastic jack kits in general got delayed for years and were a big part of PP abandoning their book release model as they just didn't have a way to guarantee the outsourced models would be available in a timely manner. The straw that broke is definitely the Desert Hydra. As I've heard, they went through dozens of attempts and the one we got is kind of a cut our losses compromise that's still a million little parts due to undercutting woes. Since then, they've switched to resin/metal as its a material for pretty much everything they can do in house that fits their style well. The models have really improved dramatically, but its too expensive of a material for 10 man units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick note: PP has tried plastic twice.

At the start of MK2 they jumped on the PVC craze that gutted a lot of early kickstarters. The battleboxes were the big push and initially did pretty well at making the game affordable and easy to get into and despite having some wonky details, significantly larger than the metal counterparts. Pretty much the whole line of units got redone in PVC and while the quality wasn't there, the metals were still widely available for people who cared and the centerpiece models were still mostly metal or increasingly resin. This really hit the wall when Convergence came out, as there were only PVC and the style really flopped with the soft detail of the material.

This is also when they started to mess with sprue plastic. Whether it was already in the pipes or a result of the complaints, the Convergence Battle Engine was the first done and while it came out nice it was also a couple years late. This essentially the story for the rest of the models. Khador got left BEGGING for the Rager as a patch for their MK2 woes for so long they never got to play it, instead coming out a few months into MK3.

I am still a huge fan of WM/H as a game system. However, I am now quite critical of PP as a company. I don’t really thing Dakka is a great place to talk about WM/H as most of the traffic is 40K/AOS related. But I think if I was to sum up the current state of the game it would be like this:

The Good

•The GAME itself in terms of rules, armies, scenario packet, competitive format and narrative options are in very good shape. The rule set is tight, consistent and issues are corrected swiftly and made available to everyone who has the War Room app. This to me is the MOST important thing and why I love playing. The game is great.

•The model quality for a lot of the new stuff is pretty good IMO. While I little infuriated that they still tend to use a range of material on one single model (metal, plastic and resin in one model……) from a hobbying and painting PoV I am very satisfied and have enjoyed painting PP products very much.

•If you have a good community then there is always something going on. Comps, conversation, banter etc.

•CID has now slowed to a manageable pace, so the game feels stable compared to the start of the CID process. New models are CID’ed in small batches which allows for a better product at the end.

•PP has set out its future range of models inc RiotQuest (cross over to WM/H), MonstaPoc and their new game NeoMechanica. We also know which factions are going to be getting CID love in the next 6 months. We now know what is coming.

The Neutral – UK PoV

• If you want to get into the game, its actually very cheap as people are putting up models for pennies on the pound of their value. This had made it easy for us to get player back/into the game as it’s a low investment for most things. Plus PP’s HQ move resulting in several rounds of Mystery Boxes has flooded the online 2nd hard market with NIB items for cut price. However, it’s not a good look if you can only really get product from ebay (see “the bad) below). That’s why I have put this as a neutral. Depends how you see it.

• The game IS and CAN be a fun casual game but that depend on the crowd you’re playing with. Also, there is a drive in many areas of the community to move away from 2D terrain and to use good, 3D terrain as much as possible. The rise of 3D printing means that you can now get 3D terrain with exact dimension for WM/H walls etc.

• There are a lot of amazing painters and modelers who paint and play WM/H and make it look amazing. For some reason however this does not seem to filter through to the general view of the WM/H community

• PP’s competition support, social media game and Youtube game is strong.

• PP went through a lot of changes of staff last year. I am neutral on this personally as this was aligned to their HQ move and some long term staff took it as time to move on. It depends how you want to read it. If you anti PP or only looking for DOOM then you say “everyone is leaving PP it’s a sinking ship”. If you positive you say “people have moved on, their positions have been filled, things have continued as normal”. I must point out however that one ex employee wrote a very long and scathing review of PP as a company and what that person saw as the poor management and decision making going on in the company. Again, im neutral on this. Id rather judge PP by their deeds and outputs than by a rant of Glassdoor. But it didn’t make good reading

The Bad – UK PoV

• Distribution of product to the UK is a total joke and for all but the big online/B&M shops like Wayland, Firestorm etc PP has burn all their bridges with retailers. Their effort to go direct order with stores went down like a lead balloon. I have been to many LFGS as I travel the UK who now are of the opinion “Frack PP and all it stands for”. They are happy to give table space, but not to stock the product. Additionally, getting hold of any of the new releases can be virtually impossible or take a very long time to arrive due to the distribution issues. For balance I should say that PP have publicly acknowledged the issues with distribution outside of the US and are looking to improve things. The proof will be in the pudding. However other companies like Wyrd, while sharing some issues with distribution seem to have handled the situation much better. I have no problem getting Malifaux models here in the UK

• Cost of many PP products, especially newer items are so laughably expensive. Northkin Raiders for example are £82 for 10 plastic models on 40mm bases (Source: Firestorm Games). That is ridiculous for models with no customisable options.

• The community CAN be a total dumpster fire in terms of online discourse and their attitude towards things like painting, hobbying etc which pains me a lot. I have seen people roll to a local SR and literally pour their range of un/poorly painted models out of a shoebox and not think anything is wrong as I set up my well painted Trollbloods opposite. PP has done some work to push narrative campaigns each year and the new Oblivion Campaign pack is not perfect but it’s a fun narrative escalation campaign you can play with friends over several weeks and month. But the public perception of WM/H player and PP as a company out there in the general wargaming community is still very poor and PP has done nothing to advertise, push back help grow the communities here in the UK. The amount of time is have played in a shop/club and had a passer by say something like “oh I thought PP and/or WM/H folded years ago, you guys still playing?” or “wow iv never seen WM/H models painted before”. We need to change the perception of the game as part of attracting new players.

• We only seem to measure success in WM/H by how many people attend national con, SR, Iron Gauntlet, National Champions, ITC, ETC etc. What we should focus on is growing the local scene and basement players.

Sunno wrote:
I have seen people roll to a local SR and literally pour their range of un/poorly painted models out of a shoebox and not think anything is wrong as I set up my well painted Trollbloods opposite.

FWIW one of the reasons I stopped playing WMH was because nobody but me and my hobby-centric friends actually painted our gak. While I don't on principle have a problem with 2D terrain, and I appreciate how it helps the technical aspects of a very technical game, I'm also kind of happy I got out before it became so universal.

Also wanted to give a shoutout to PP's resin, I've enjoyed working with it from time to time. Resin + metal combos is on the other hand a bit strange to me, like my gator boilmaster dude with a resin body + metal tail, but I assume there's a reason for the two materials

 Boss Salvage wrote:

Also wanted to give a shoutout to PP's resin, I've enjoyed working with it from time to time. Resin + metal combos is on the other hand a bit strange to me, like my gator boilmaster dude with a resin body + metal tail, but I assume there's a reason for the two materials

Resin works best on large chunks. When you make thinner stuff out of it, it can get brittle and snap or develop bubbles that compromise the piece. Making extremities metal removes a ton of these problems without sacrificing detail or part counts. As a weird side effect, I find Metal bonds to Resin better than Resin to Resin or Metal to Metal and makes assembly easier. Knight Models, for example, would benefit IMMENSELY from using metal for some of their bits, though I haven't gotten a chance to work with their new resin/plastic hybrid they're promoting for 3rd Ed.

PP is successful despite PP.

I could go on and on about PP, but I'll just hit a few points people have brought up.

Army Size: PP makes money by selling models. They sell models to new players, and they have to make new models for old players to buy. To make players buy more models, they expand the standard game size. To make players buy models, they change the Steamroller scenarios and themes to favor different models on a rotational basis. This was exacerbated by the CiD- the single biggest sham PP ever pulled on it's players.

Model availability: PP made many, many distributors and brick and mortar stores when they issued the "Anti Third Party Sellers" proclamation. Couple things here about how models arrive at your FLGS: Let's say PP makes a solo. It costs them maybe $2-$3 to make in bulk (like 100+). They then sell it to a distributor, because it's expensive to hold onto product (storage space), ship it to a bunch of stores, and manage inventory. They'll sell it to a distributor for $5-$6- a 100% profit mark up. So the distributor has to make money, because they store the models, sell them to a LGS, and then ship them. Distributors make money by selling in bulk. so they sell the model for $9 to the LGS. Now it finally arrives at the LGS that sells the model at MSRP: $12. See how the profit margin shrinks the further along the supply chain it goes? Well, PP looked at all that and decided to sell directly to LGS's for $9, and forcing the LGS to sell the model for $12. That alienated a lot of distributors that immediately dropped PP products. PP did NOT have the personnel, experience, or infrastructure to sell directly to LGS's all over the world... It was a mess. Combine that with trying to shift to plastic (disaster!), early resin (again, disaster!)... The new models PP makes today are great, and has a lot to do with the talents of the 3D artists and resin casters. The reason why you don't see the product in your LGS? Because Distributors don't want to carry PP products, so an LGS has to buy directly from PP, which still has shipping problems.

Crisis Protocol: Was commissioned by Asmodee Games and developed by Privateer Press. Lot's of stuff went on behind the scenes, a good chunk of PP personnel left the company and started Atomic Mass Games and under license from Asmodee, pushed out Crisis Protocol. Much like Pacific Rim, don't ever mention Crisis Protocol to Matt Wilson.

There is so much behind the scenes, soap opera, backstory, behind the curtain shenanigans at PP (indeed, most game companies) that its amazing they are still in business, and it's a testament to the dedication of their staff and player base that they are still around despite what PP does.

 LunarSol wrote:
Resin works best on large chunks. When you make thinner stuff out of it, it can get brittle and snap or develop bubbles that compromise the piece. Making extremities metal removes a ton of these problems without sacrificing detail or part counts. As a weird side effect, I find Metal bonds to Resin better than Resin to Resin or Metal to Metal and makes assembly easier. Knight Models, for example, would benefit IMMENSELY from using metal for some of their bits, though I haven't gotten a chance to work with their new resin/plastic hybrid they're promoting for 3rd Ed.

That makes sense from my experience with resin. Maybe I'm more surprised that all these resin producers I buy from don't do similar part-metal for the reasons you've listed? Except that they almost assuredly have been all resin from the start up, without the tools or experience or desire to do metal as well. Vs PP who were metal first, then started adding resin for chonk.

I've never had problems with resin or metals form PP - heck I enjoy putting their metal models together in general. I love my archangel model (even though I've still got to finish it off even though I was one of the early people to grab one when they hit the uk)

Sadly its fallen off my playlist, we've only got 3 players (including me) locally and real life commitments prevent me travelling, bit of a shame as its picking up again slightly further away

Fingers crossed Neo-Mek has a low(ish) buy in and model count, and even then trustining PP's fup awfully non-US logistics is a big ask

 Overread wrote:
I've never had problems with resin or metals form PP - heck I enjoy putting their metal models together in general.

Do you mean just putting them together? Most are Ok, but I remember a few real stinkers (the blind floating Menoth girl was pretty crazy, requiring a lot of pins and the flat join for the flag was mostly made out of hope and spite). The 'plastics' were often terrible, not just for soft details, but they consistently had mould lines in the worst places- across raised areas of fur and in recessed but detailed areas. (Gears on Cyriss models)

But the biggest problem I had with PP models was their packing QA was terrible for years. I had to request replacements for missing bits upwards of 20 times.
Even during the worst of times with GW that was never an issue. A missing base once (for a large model that had a base I didn't have dozens of in a box), and a bitz order (back in the day) where they screwed it up twice, apparently because labels were switched. And that's over a period twice as long.

---
As for the game itself, 3rd killed it for me, as did driving an hour in hopes of getting a game in.

I have Nyss Hunters that I put together.

That was 'fun".

Not having anyone buying the game much so it's reduced to an end cap an my LGS may kill it for me. But we have a few stores in the metropolis, and my kids and brother-in-law like their models. I have a nephew who is just getting in to steam punk that showed some interest in my Mercenary Warjacks. Too bad that one is an hour and a half away.

Hmm well in my area people are starting to drop 40k. Seems ITC only tournaments are driving them off along with various other things.
So we've gone from 2 WH players to 5 in a week. More are curious, and considering making the switch or simply starting WH in addition to 40k.

Privateer has a lot of problems - they've completely shed all their casual players (I think the return of 40k with 8th edition had a lot to do with it, to a lesser extent perhaps also AoS 2.0) and the only ones left are basically the competitive crew. They tried (or are trying) to draw back in the casual crowd or open up the competitive gamers to casual play (Oblivion book/campaign), but as far as I can tell it hasn't worked very well and the standard game type you will find being played, even on open gaming days, are tournament steamroller scenarios as opposed to the more casual book scenarios. I think the only real way forward here for PP is to find a way to make the competitive scenarios feel more casual/trick competitive players into playing casual/narrative scenarios OR bite the bullet, take the pain, and piss off the competitive community by doing away with steamroller or making significant changes to it to make gameplay and the community more casual - in truth, it probably won't really hurt them that much to alienate their remaining customers, because they aren't really buying very much of their product anymore anyway as they mostly have been playing for 10+ years at this point and have most of what they need aside from the occasional new release.

With regards to table size and everything being crushed in at the center of the table, that has nothing to do with the table size, even on a 6x4 table you would see them same thing occurring. What really needs to happen is for caster control and spell ranges to be doubled (or perhaps even tripled) so that people spread out their army more rather than clustering everything in as tightly as possible in order to ensure that everything is within range of buffs/support. Of course this may require heavy tweaking to a lot of abilities which have a "within control range" size effect. In truth though, I think this is more of a "you" problem than it is a game problem.

With regards to 3D terrain, the Warmachine/Hordes terrain rules need a complete overhaul plus the creation and release of "designed for Warmachine/Hordes" style terrain which is meant to function with those rules in order to make 3d terrain usable. The main issue stopping it, that I have seen, comes down to the ability to place models on terrain features - the importance of precision of maneuver makes this less than ideal for playing the game. What the rules need to do is basically clearly state that if you can't fit your entire models base within the terrain feature, or on a certain level of the terrain feature, then you can't enter it, and if you cant sit the models base flat on the terrain feature, you can't enter it (no "wobbly model syndrome" allowed), and if you don't have enough movement to fit the entire models base within the terrain feature then you can't enter it either (i.e. go "all or nothing", no more "toeing" as that is where a lot of issues come from). The game will need some cleaned up rules for attacking and moving vertically (IMO - adopt a standard "height" for attacks depending on base size, i.e. 30mm bases can attack anything standing at or below 1" of elevation as long as its within their melee range, 40mm = 2", 50mm = 3" etc), and the addition of certain unit rules that also interact with 3d terrain features better (which opens up some design space) - I though up a bunch of these, for example "assault climber" which allows you to make attacks against a model greater than your allowed attack height, and if the model is destroyed by the attack your model gets to "climb up" onto the terrain feature and take its place (this is necessary because in the past people would place their models on tops of hills etc. in a way that basically made it impossible for them to be attacked in melee as a result of your inability to place a model anywhere near close enough to reach it, etc. The ability to circumvent this in some manner is thus necessary). In large part I think the main reason for the shift towards 2d terrain in the community was mainly due to the use of homemade terrain which is inconsistent in its construction from venue to venue and tends to be more oriented towards ease of construction/availability of materials as opposed to considerations for playability (the typical homemade 40k terrain from 10-20 years ago might as well be thrown in the trash if you're trying to use it for WMHD's, it just doesn't work, although the more recent building kits are much more playable). The creation of "terrain standards" that ensure uniform construction with an eye towards playability would do a lot to improve on that.

Ironically enough, most of what I just stated are things that the former-PP staff behind Marvel Crisis Protocol have implemented in some manner with that game, and thus far it seems they have been successful.

Bringing back the Press Ganger programs in a new less-abusive format would also help them out a long way, though at that point its kind of like hiring salesmen to sell broken cars - the game itself will need a revamp as I don't believe the game is currently in a state that the majority of the market will find appealing given the other options on the market. As tight and as solid as the rules are mechanically, the majority of the marketplace is represented by casuals who do not or will not regularly play tabletop games in a competitive manner - and owing to the rules and the community, playing the game "casually" isn't entirely possible, as there is a huge gulf of skill between competitive and non-competitive players of the game.

PP went through a lot of changes of staff last year. I am neutral on this personally as this was aligned to their HQ move and some long term staff took it as time to move on. It depends how you want to read it. If you anti PP or only looking for DOOM then you say “everyone is leaving PP it’s a sinking ship”. If you positive you say “people have moved on, their positions have been filled, things have continued as normal”

What we've been told by insiders indicates this isn't entirely true. PP went from about ~100 staff down to 30, the vast majority of those departures are personnel who will not be replaced in the forseeable future, and the company itself is struggling financially (not in a "we're going out of business way, but rather a "we are operating on tighter margins and slimmer revenue" kind of way) - which is the reason for the slowdown in the release schedule and CID, they don't have the capital or the playerbase to support that anymore.

In any case, even though I don't actively play anymore, I have been enjoying the periodic sales that occur at major online WMHD's retailers, nothing like picking up $300+ worth of minis for $50.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Hmm well in my area people are starting to drop 40k. Seems ITC only tournaments are driving them off along with various other things.
So we've gone from 2 WH players to 5 in a week. More are curious, and considering making the switch or simply starting WH in addition to 40k.

I don't see 40K getting hurt that much at my FLGS but you are right there does seem to be an obsession with ITC and competition play/deck building which means I am more than happy to point people to other systems I find to have better core game mechanics and/or less disproportionate rules like DUST, and yes even WM/H- I may miss some rules like elevation giving a +2 DEF but game play wise I don't see why people are so down on MKIII it seems most of the anger at PP is more focused on the companies behavior with model quality, retail sales and general community support.

chaos0xomega wrote:
With regards to table size and everything being crushed in at the center of the table, that has nothing to do with the table size, even on a 6x4 table you would see them same thing occurring. What really needs to happen is for caster control and spell ranges to be doubled (or perhaps even tripled) so that people spread out their army more rather than clustering everything in as tightly as possible in order to ensure that everything is within range of buffs/support. Of course this may require heavy tweaking to a lot of abilities which have a "within control range" size effect. In truth though, I think this is more of a "you" problem than it is a game problem.

It's a combination of table size and how scenarios are run. It is not hard for a unit to shoot from one zone they control to another one. It's also not hard for a unit to charge across the same distance. The zones are large (either 6"x12" or 12" diameter), and rarely more than 12" apart. Put that in 48" and things get very tight very quickly. The scenarios start on page 15 of the Steamroller rules. And those scenarios are what are ruling WarmaHordes. Even when I was played at 25 points this last year, we used those scenarios.

Though, I have to agree, control range is a factor. Part of that is also a self-limitation. Almost nobody runs games beyond the 75 points of Steamroller, and trying to get people to separate themselves from Steamroller scenarios is like asking them to pull their own healthy teeth. Such as 25 points, but 2 Warcasters. What a shocking concept!

 Charistoph wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
With regards to table size and everything being crushed in at the center of the table, that has nothing to do with the table size, even on a 6x4 table you would see them same thing occurring. What really needs to happen is for caster control and spell ranges to be doubled (or perhaps even tripled) so that people spread out their army more rather than clustering everything in as tightly as possible in order to ensure that everything is within range of buffs/support. Of course this may require heavy tweaking to a lot of abilities which have a "within control range" size effect. In truth though, I think this is more of a "you" problem than it is a game problem.

It's a combination of table size and how scenarios are run. It is not hard for a unit to shoot from one zone they control to another one. It's also not hard for a unit to charge across the same distance. The zones are large (either 6"x12" or 12" diameter), and rarely more than 12" apart. Put that in 48" and things get very tight very quickly. The scenarios start on page 15 of the Steamroller rules. And those scenarios are what are ruling WarmaHordes. Even when I was played at 25 points this last year, we used those scenarios.

Though, I have to agree, control range is a factor. Part of that is also a self-limitation. Almost nobody runs games beyond the 75 points of Steamroller, and trying to get people to separate themselves from Steamroller scenarios is like asking them to pull their own healthy teeth. Such as 25 points, but 2 Warcasters. What a shocking concept!

A lot of it comes down to the fact the game is VERY exploitable with more than one warcaster or without a scenario. After you've played Steamroller a while, you really notice how many things you intentionally have to not due to avoid breaking the experience. I'd love to see lower point scenarios, but there's no communal faith in them to ever get them going in my experience. Personally though, I find the central cluster part of the game's appeal. It's very American Football, with a clash of lines in the center trying to make holes to get to the quarterback. It's something unique Warmachine does well and taking it away would make the game lose a lot of what makes it unique and interesting. The game just needs a better way to play smaller games, as its current scale is just not at all appealing to new players.

A terrain overhaul is the other big one as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't need a ton, but it really needs to modernize to be a little less punishing (a flat -2" rough terrain penalty would go a looooooong way) with pathfinder being less of a all purpose cure for the problem. That and something to cut down on the SKU bloat. A lot of casters versions could be cut with the remaining revamped into more fully featured ideas of the character (see Madrak1) and done well, with the cut versions working as valid alt sculpts. It's a great game that's just bloated from years of success that's in need of some modernization, mostly of the way its sold. We just don't live in an era where an endless backlog works the way it used to, and PP has suffered probably more than any other company from the change.

 LunarSol wrote:
A lot of it comes down to the fact the game is VERY exploitable with more than one warcaster or without a scenario. After you've played Steamroller a while, you really notice how many things you intentionally have to not due to avoid breaking the experience. I'd love to see lower point scenarios, but there's no communal faith in them to ever get them going in my experience. Personally though, I find the central cluster part of the game's appeal. It's very American Football, with a clash of lines in the center trying to make holes to get to the quarterback. It's something unique Warmachine does well and taking it away would make the game lose a lot of what makes it unique and interesting. The game just needs a better way to play smaller games, as its current scale is just not at all appealing to new players.

A lack of communal faith represents a fear of what would happen with its lack. There is such a fear of separating from Steamroller than many of the community thought Company of Iron wasn't supported, even with numerous scenarios being put out in No Quarter. The really odd thing here is that GW's Warhammer is far less stringent on things, and I find it far easier to find a game that is not a tournament standard than I do in WarmaHordes. In the community discussions, it is almost always Steamroller. If it isn't Steamroller, it's Champions (a more restrictive format for those who aren't aware).

Yet, also oddly enough, there was a lot of interest in doing a Who's the Boss event, but because of another WMH tournament and a SWL tournament happening at the same time, there were few who could play (I brought models, but I had developed such a headache, it literally would have hurt to play). The fact this happened at all is because someone didn't wait for permission from a company with no local interest to step up and get something different to play.

We don't NEED PGs or the PG program in order to have fun events. Nor do we need to focus on Steamroller to be a thing in order to enjoy the game. I honestly think that if we were able to take time and explore different formats, it would make the overall game experience more interesting.

I think Who's the Boss really benefits from the raw appeal of Warcaster variety and in part works because you go in looking to explore that knowing that control of what you have and what you face is taken from you. The "what you face" is actually quite important as one of the things that has always been a problem for the game is oppressive casters in the meta. There's always SOMETHING in the meta that really punishes casual play and its a layered enough problem that fixing the top doesn't always improve what lies below.

That's an area I think Champions is really alluring in, but my main issue is just that its not really an improvement. If PP would take that idea of 4-5 casters and really launch a season with that group rebalanced to be interesting a varied tools against one another I think it would make for a super interesting format. As is, I like it, but it feels like a restricted format that's just restricting things without using that smaller pool to make for a better format.

 LunarSol wrote:

That and something to cut down on the SKU bloat. A lot of casters versions could be cut with the remaining revamped into more fully featured ideas of the character (see Madrak1) and done well, with the cut versions working as valid alt sculpts. It's a great game that's just bloated from years of success that's in need of some modernization, mostly of the way its sold. We just don't live in an era where an endless backlog works the way it used to, and PP has suffered probably more than any other company from the change.

I agree. I think the 'burden of knowledge' stemming from the huge back catalogue, and the thousands of interactions that come from this are a huge contribution to the 'too high a barrier' for a lot of people to get into the game. Mk2 was probably the perfect 'size' of game to dive into - mk3 is just sooooo much bigger.

That said, I would go further than you. It's not just a lot of the former caster versions that can be retired - I think a lot of the units could be consolidated, modernised and tidied up as well. Or just cut.

To be honest though with games like this, sorting the back catalogue, while great for us, won't work for pp. new stuff is what sells. Not old. They've made their money on the khador range for example. They could cut it all, and probably not lose a huge chunk and that probably where I see them going - 'maintenance' of WMH, no huge investments, keep it on life support and gradually wind down support while they develop new games and ips. I'd argue There's only so much more development they can do with WMH Since it's such a 'mature' system. Gw did this with warhammer fantasy, and I think pp will ultimately go down this road, and maybe I'm being a cŷnic, but I see it sooner rather than later.

 LunarSol wrote:


We don't NEED PGs or the PG program in order to have fun events. Nor do we need to focus on Steamroller to be a thing in order to enjoy the game. I honestly think that if we were able to take time and explore different formats, it would make the overall game experience more interesting.

If the game (and the company behind it) isn't going to commit to some substantial changes to the game and community, then you do need the PG program - the PG program is what helped the game succeed in spite of its community as PG's needed to run events other than Steamrollers or SR format games in order to max out their credit with PP, this in turn forced at least a segment of the games community to come out from behind their Steamroller packets once in a blue moon and made he game more accessible and enjoyable for casuals.

The infernals certainly has an end times vibe, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think they'd drop the line entirely though, but rebooting it post apocalypse similar to Sigmar isn't out of the realm of possibility, particularly if that reboot comes with a new release structure.

Mostly just an excuse to forget about kits though. I mean, Nyss have managed to be irrelevant for years now and no one is truly sad, even everyone who owns them. Khador is one of their big draws still, but that doesn't mean there's not a wise way to keep models that make sense around while culling all the bloat.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


We don't NEED PGs or the PG program in order to have fun events. Nor do we need to focus on Steamroller to be a thing in order to enjoy the game. I honestly think that if we were able to take time and explore different formats, it would make the overall game experience more interesting.

If the game (and the company behind it) isn't going to commit to some substantial changes to the game and community, then you do need the PG program - the PG program is what helped the game succeed in spite of its community as PG's needed to run events other than Steamrollers or SR format games in order to max out their credit with PP, this in turn forced at least a segment of the games community to come out from behind their Steamroller packets once in a blue moon and made he game more accessible and enjoyable for casuals.

The problem with that is suggesting that groups cannot do it on their own. People became dependent on the PGs with WMH, so when they dropped, a lot of that dropped, too. As bad as GW's system is, it never made a system like PGs. Maybe that is why the casual meta in Warhammer never took the hits that WMH had when things went wonky.

But no, the metas need to survive without PGs, or find someone who is willing to organize with the LGS in order to get back up and running. But I guess I'm just asking too much, right?

Edit: Missed a word.

The theme lists basically scream "SKU bloat." Outside of the mixed faction forces opening up more buying, I mean, options, a lot of theme forces basically divide armies into pretty neat subfactions.

Nobody wants to lose rules for models in hand, but I don't see how else to fix the game from a massive learning curve.

Themes are great, but they've also shown how limited PPs ability to review them all is. 3-5 themes per faction is great until you realize that 1 theme gets reviewed every 2-3 years or so.

I'd almost favor if they boiled each faction down to one theme. Make it big, include some iconic units, but just rip the bandaid off. Cygnar is all storm division, Khador is all winter guard, etc.

The models go to direct only, and they have rules for legacy casual play, but competitive play gets pruned down to a manageable workload. Then you can resculpt and rejigger the units and reintroduce them, primaris style.

That is, essentially what the upcoming WARCASTER game is.

Ditch all the baggage of Mk3, try something new. (And probably sell the company if it fails.)

You can't ditch half the model line and in the same breath say "everything is going good". The FIRST thing everyone would assume is that the company is heading for a disaster of a death and would jump ship (gamers don't like to invest into games and companies that don't appear to have a good few years life in them).

Their plan of a new game using the original models/characters that takes things to a new direction is far more sensible. They've not lost anything old; the old game is still there; they just introduce a new mode of play.

That way they are achieving the same result, but there's no hint of things going bad or a panic model stripping.




Another option is shifting to a new material; if PP could shift to a really good "GW style" plastic then they could start to strip out more models and release combined kits. Eg take three or four light warbeasts off market, but re-release them at the same time in a single combined "small warbeast" pack of plastic sculpts.
Again its achieving the end result, but again its not going down that panic path of stripping models from their inventory and sales.

I admit, I'm concerned for my meta, at least. At this point it's me and one-and-a-half other players. I haven't been able to get a game in in six months, and whenever I did, people would stop and ask, "Do people still play Warmachine?"

That's not a great comment on the strength of the game. When combined with some of the decisions and personnel changes at PP HQ, I've certainly asked more than one person if the game was dying.

Just keep buying and playing! If nothing else, build some terrain and get those models painted. Be friendly and welcoming to anyone who shows any interest. Try to have a good time.

 Overread wrote:

Another option is shifting to a new material; if PP could shift to a really good "GW style" plastic then they could start to strip out more models and release combined kits. Eg take three or four light warbeasts off market, but re-release them at the same time in a single combined "small warbeast" pack of plastic sculpts.
Again its achieving the end result, but again its not going down that panic path of stripping models from their inventory and sales.

Sprue plastic really isn't a great fit for the kind of models they like to design. It's far from impossible to translate, but without the ability to do the tooling themselves, most of their style would either be lost or turn into Malifaux levels of fiddly. I think they've found their groove with Resin, but its really not a good fit for large units simply due to price. I'm actually curious if one solution is to just generally make unit sizes smaller in a revamped version of the game as a way to keep old stuff valid while revamping things in a way that works better as a modern product.

I think most of us who have been around for ten or more years realize that we don't use 60-80% of our collections on a regular basis, and 30-40% (conservatively) probably never see any use. If this is the case, shouldn't we be okay with large swathes of the line being discontinued, or "no longer considered for competitive play?" The Oblivion crisis might be a good time to do this culling narratively as well.

 Bloviator wrote:
I think most of us who have been around for ten or more years realize that we don't use 60-80% of our collections on a regular basis, and 30-40% (conservatively) probably never see any use. If this is the case, shouldn't we be okay with large swathes of the line being discontinued, or "no longer considered for competitive play?" The Oblivion crisis might be a good time to do this culling narratively as well.

There's a big difference between having a choice of using one of your toys and being told flat out that you cannot use the model and that furthermore it will no longer be sold.

Plus this assumes that everyone is using and wanting to use the same models in your percentages. Chances are whilst multiple people might only use 40% of their models, they might well be using different models to each other. Therefor removing models might affect some more than others.


Again if you turn around and say "That Everblight Angelus is not the most cost efficient choice to take" then I, the player, can make the choice to take it or not. I can even choose to buy it purely to build and paint. But if the company turns around and says "That Angelus we are removing it from sale and making it non-legal in all games from henceforth." Now I've got a negative connection to the game and company.

GW gets away with this typically because whilst they remove models, they also tend to add them as well, or the model can slip into a counts-as (such as many of the flavoured removed Imperial Guard forces). If PP were to start just removing models then they end up in Age of Sigmar territory and that was NOT popular in general. In fact that combined with rules problems almost sank the whole game at launch and its not helped it when GW has dropped things like large swathes of the elf and human models.

Warmachine was huge at my LGS for the first 12-18 months following MK3 release. But 40k 8th came along and the simplicity of learning 8th, the getting started boxes kind of spelled the doom of Warmahordes in my area.

The stores owner had made the choice to liquidate all PP inventory and focus on 40k which was a smart choice for him. Instead of the 4 normal WMH players that existed there are now over a dozen 40k players and there are more starting up every month. He sold maybe a dozen WMH products per month, now he sells dozens of 40k products per week.

FYI my town is tiny so while 13 players might seem small to some on these forums it's quite large in a town of 13k people.

 Overread wrote:

GW gets away with this typically because whilst they remove models, they also tend to add them as well, or the model can slip into a counts-as (such as many of the flavoured removed Imperial Guard forces). If PP were to start just removing models then they end up in Age of Sigmar territory and that was NOT popular in general. In fact that combined with rules problems almost sank the whole game at launch and its not helped it when GW has dropped things like large swathes of the elf and human models.

I think they'd just need to be smart about grandfathering in rules. The easy example is Warcasters, simply because every alt sculpt just doesn't need its own set of rules; to a degree, they've actually done this already, particularly with MiniCrate. By the same token, there's a lot of solos and such that could be merged up with units to count as a leader model or something similar. Plenty of options really; it just depends on what they look to do. I agree though, an AoS "everything you love is DEAD" is probably a bad idea; particularly if combined with some early AOS rules...

They could certainly retire warcasters down to having 1 version of each character based on base size. So the 4 or so versions of Lylith for Everblight would just drop to two - her regular infantry version (of which there's at least two or three different forms) and then one for the sledge version.

That would instantly drop the number of warcasters for each faction by over half and yet by making them the same caster the old models still count and players can just choose which they'd like to use at the time.

Solos I agree could be teamed up and such or made default additions to existing infantry parties etc... There are indeed ways they can scale things down without stripping any models.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think they'd just need to be smart about grandfathering in rules. The easy example is Warcasters, simply because every alt sculpt just doesn't need its own set of rules; to a degree, they've actually done this already, particularly with MiniCrate. By the same token, there's a lot of solos and such that could be merged up with units to count as a leader model or something similar. Plenty of options really; it just depends on what they look to do. I agree though, an AoS "everything you love is DEAD" is probably a bad idea; particularly if combined with some early AOS rules...

So, the question is, how do you grandfather them in? For some of them it is rather easy, but for others it can start to be a challenge. Would Stryker, Xerxis, Vlad, and Kreoss have Dragoon options, or just have an upgrade to Cavalry? Morghoul and Makeda get really interesting since they change weapons as they change versions as well as adding retinues.

 Charistoph wrote:
As bad as GW's system is, it never made a system like PGs.

If by "never made" you mean "created". The Pressganger program was modeled on GW's Outrider program, which was then briefly replaced by the Kommando program, as well as the more store-oriented Rogue Trader program, before that was all killed in the early 2000s The Pressganger program was in many ways identical (and was in fact based directly on it, I know this because I am friends with one of the people who was involved with/consulted on the creation of both GWs and PPs organized play programs). Just like with the loss of PGs, the termination of the Outrider/Kommando program had a negative impact on the community but it was less noticeable because GW stores continued to have staff members organize events and do the community stuff through their own stores (a luxury which PP does not have) and GW itself continued to run their own events (which they then later scaled back, which also had a negative impact on the community as well until a handful of larger organizations backed by retail stores, like Frontline Games, stepped in to fill the void with independently organized events), but many independent stores suffered as a result of the programs being killed - my own store, for example, used to have a vibrant community of a couple dozen guys in playing two days a week, after the Outrider/Kommando and Rogue Trader programs were terminated a lot of those guys slowly dwindled away and disappeared. We've had a couple of brief renaissances when someone steps up to run community events, etc. and some of those guys come out of the woodwork again, but invariably that only lasts for a few months at a clip until the organizers decide its taking up too much of their time and money to keep up with it.

But I guess I'm just asking too much, right?

I think so, yes. I used to do a lot of community organization type stuff at my local store. Its a lot of work, and I, as an individual, had to pay for a lot of things out of pocket to make it happen. Its a thankless, time consuming, and financially burdensome thing to do, and at the end of the day you are really doing it for someone elses monetary benefit - you absolutely should be getting compensated for doing it. Active communities sell games, they drive sales to existing customers and are the #1 marketing tool for bringing in new customers who happen to wander by and get curious as to what people are doing pushing toy soldiers about on a table, whether it be your local store compensating you or GW itself - surprise, surprise, the only stores locally with active GW playerbases are the ones that have people on payroll to organize events or offer some form of compensation to community organizers to make it worth their while.

I'd almost favor if they boiled each faction down to one theme. Make it big, include some iconic units, but just rip the bandaid off. Cygnar is all storm division, Khador is all winter guard, etc.

So, basically just do away with themes and let the factions be factions again?

That is, essentially what the upcoming WARCASTER game is.

Ditch all the baggage of Mk3, try something new. (And probably sell the company if it fails.)

We don't really know much about WARCASTER yet though? There could still well be theme lists, what we do know is that its a smaller game set in the same universe but not the same setting (different planet, different factions), and that Warcasters won't be "fixed" characters but instead will be "build your own", etc.

Another option is shifting to a new material; if PP could shift to a really good "GW style" plastic then they could start to strip out more models and release combined kits.

Really good "GW style" plastic kits aren't really an option, nobody can touch their quality, its basically their baked-in competitive advantage. The closest you're going to get is sourcing your production from the same guys that do the plastics for Malifaux, Marvel: Crisis Protocol, etc. Its a more brittle plastic and the part divisions are insane (hope you enjoy having to attach someones moustache as a separate piece to their face, which is in turn a separate piece to their head, to which you also have to attach the bottom half of their left ear as a separate piece) for a number of reasons (but it basically boils down to a lack of expertise on the designers end for designing miniatures for production via injection molds, and a lack of expertise/understanding on the manufacturers end for designing kits to be more robust and more easily assembled for wargaming purposes (the plastics manufacturers being sourced for wargames minis in china sprung out of the fine scale model industry which has very different considerations in terms of the design and assembly of kits).

 Charistoph wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think they'd just need to be smart about grandfathering in rules. The easy example is Warcasters, simply because every alt sculpt just doesn't need its own set of rules; to a degree, they've actually done this already, particularly with MiniCrate. By the same token, there's a lot of solos and such that could be merged up with units to count as a leader model or something similar. Plenty of options really; it just depends on what they look to do. I agree though, an AoS "everything you love is DEAD" is probably a bad idea; particularly if combined with some early AOS rules...

So, the question is, how do you grandfather them in? For some of them it is rather easy, but for others it can start to be a challenge. Would Stryker, Xerxis, Vlad, and Kreoss have Dragoon options, or just have an upgrade to Cavalry? Morghoul and Makeda get really interesting since they change weapons as they change versions as well as adding retinues.

I think people overvalue the appearance of weapons. If you haven't figured out which Makeda you're playing against before it matters whether she's got one big sword or a pair of katanas, you've already lost this game. Overall, Warcaster weapons just don't matter the way they once did, but even when they do there's probably value in some of the different versions; just that a lot of them lacked a meaningful distinctions. Butcher has something like 8 models at this point that are all more or less the same thing. That one time he has a pair of puppies and maybe the definitive version has puppies or maybe they make it so the retinues cost points that you can choose to include or not. Dragoons could be cool for sure. It's also possible to just make certain casters legal alts for others. If for example, Irusk would die in the fluff and be succeeded by Malakov who has always felt like a successor to his mechanics; Irusk could make a fine alt for that set of rules.

Mostly though I'd just like to see casters get a modern redesign that really captures what they're all about. So many modern casters have uninspiring feats because they already did something amazing on a prior version or just come across diluted. Madrak1 is such a great example of a modern, all encompassing ideal of what Madrak represents that even happens to have one of the newer sculpts. I think that ethos would do wonders for the game. I love what themes do for the game in taking groups of models and defining a playstyle for the list as a whole. I think the same idea very much applies to casters. PP has shown the ability to make some really modern mechanics with their casters in the last 5 years or so. If every caster was as interesting as the likes of Butcher3, Haley3, Gearhart, Borka2, and a lot of the others that have gotten really thoughtful designs since the waning days of MK2, I think it would be a vastly more exciting game.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
As bad as GW's system is, it never made a system like PGs.

If by "never made" you mean "created". The Pressganger program was modeled on GW's Outrider program, which was then briefly replaced by the Kommando program, as well as the more store-oriented Rogue Trader program, before that was all killed in the early 2000s The Pressganger program was in many ways identical (and was in fact based directly on it, I know this because I am friends with one of the people who was involved with/consulted on the creation of both GWs and PPs organized play programs). Just like with the loss of PGs, the termination of the Outrider/Kommando program had a negative impact on the community but it was less noticeable because GW stores continued to have staff members organize events and do the community stuff through their own stores (a luxury which PP does not have) and GW itself continued to run their own events (which they then later scaled back, which also had a negative impact on the community as well until a handful of larger organizations backed by retail stores, like Frontline Games, stepped in to fill the void with independently organized events), but many independent stores suffered as a result of the programs being killed - my own store, for example, used to have a vibrant community of a couple dozen guys in playing two days a week, after the Outrider/Kommando and Rogue Trader programs were terminated a lot of those guys slowly dwindled away and disappeared. We've had a couple of brief renaissances when someone steps up to run community events, etc. and some of those guys come out of the woodwork again, but invariably that only lasts for a few months at a clip until the organizers decide its taking up too much of their time and money to keep up with it.

First I have heard of this. Learn something new every day. Interesting how nobody mentions it any more, though.

chaos0xomega wrote:

But I guess I'm just asking too much, right?

I think so, yes. I used to do a lot of community organization type stuff at my local store. Its a lot of work, and I, as an individual, had to pay for a lot of things out of pocket to make it happen. Its a thankless, time consuming, and financially burdensome thing to do, and at the end of the day you are really doing it for someone elses monetary benefit - you absolutely should be getting compensated for doing it. Active communities sell games, they drive sales to existing customers and are the #1 marketing tool for bringing in new customers who happen to wander by and get curious as to what people are doing pushing toy soldiers about on a table, whether it be your local store compensating you or GW itself - surprise, surprise, the only stores locally with active GW playerbases are the ones that have people on payroll to organize events or offer some form of compensation to community organizers to make it worth their while.

Way to take it out of context. No, I'm not suggesting someone take up a financial burden of being a PG. What I'm suggesting is that metas take responsibility in staging events and encouraging new players. Did you know that Warhammer hasn't had that much problem staying ahead in most areas without their equivalent of PG? People took up the responsibility to run them for Warhammer. However, people just keep moaning about the loss of PGs when it comes to WMH.

LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I think they'd just need to be smart about grandfathering in rules. The easy example is Warcasters, simply because every alt sculpt just doesn't need its own set of rules; to a degree, they've actually done this already, particularly with MiniCrate. By the same token, there's a lot of solos and such that could be merged up with units to count as a leader model or something similar. Plenty of options really; it just depends on what they look to do. I agree though, an AoS "everything you love is DEAD" is probably a bad idea; particularly if combined with some early AOS rules...

So, the question is, how do you grandfather them in? For some of them it is rather easy, but for others it can start to be a challenge. Would Stryker, Xerxis, Vlad, and Kreoss have Dragoon options, or just have an upgrade to Cavalry? Morghoul and Makeda get really interesting since they change weapons as they change versions as well as adding retinues.

I think people overvalue the appearance of weapons. If you haven't figured out which Makeda you're playing against before it matters whether she's got one big sword or a pair of katanas, you've already lost this game. Overall, Warcaster weapons just don't matter the way they once did, but even when they do there's probably value in some of the different versions; just that a lot of them lacked a meaningful distinctions. Butcher has something like 8 models at this point that are all more or less the same thing. That one time he has a pair of puppies and maybe the definitive version has puppies or maybe they make it so the retinues cost points that you can choose to include or not. Dragoons could be cool for sure. It's also possible to just make certain casters legal alts for others. If for example, Irusk would die in the fluff and be succeeded by Malakov who has always felt like a successor to his mechanics; Irusk could make a fine alt for that set of rules.

My point was how to keep them "grandfathered" in while still keeping them relevant. One way is to treat them all the same, but that falls flat. The point I was making about weapons was that unlike the Butcher, who only lost Lola in his Riot Quest version and is no longer a Warcaster, Some weapons change all around, with Morghoul having 3 different loadouts across his iterations, and not including his entourage. Makeda isn't very dissimilar. Then there's Thagrosh whose almost a Dragonsapwn in his second iteration. Of course, this is attacking it from a Neo-Mechanika and Warhammer angle. It's a totally different case if you're attacking it from a retirement angle so that the latest version of a model (except for Riot Quest) is considered the only viable option so the likes like Vlad, Stryker, and Kreoss are no longer off their horse, no matter their protests, and Butcher, Makeda, and Morgoul will carry on with their entourages. What could be interesting, though this won't address sku bloat, would be to consider every version the same when it comes to spell list and Feat, the only thing that really changes is weapon, mount, and entourage, and that part is consistent with the number (which I believe you were getting at in the next paragraph), which would make the likes of Madrak 1 & 2, Makeda 1 & 2, and Butcher 1 & 2, basically resculpts for all intents and purposes.

In order to reduce sku bloat effectively, though, the units and solos need to be reduced as well and be able to make multi-kits for every version thereof, ala Infinity. That won't work for everything, though, as a Merc player the number of solos I can do that with is extremely minimal, and what multi-kits could be done pretty much are (except for the Steelhead artillery).

 Charistoph wrote:
What could be interesting, though this won't address sku bloat, would be to consider every version the same when it comes to spell list and Feat, the only thing that really changes is weapon, mount, and entourage, and that part is consistent with the number (which I believe you were getting at in the next paragraph), which would make the likes of Madrak 1 & 2, Makeda 1 & 2, and Butcher 1 & 2, basically resculpts for all intents and purposes.

Yeah, this is what I meant. Sure, they're technically different, but Lola and Fell Lola are close enough that if the game went to having only one version of Butcher, either works fine. I mean, you can technically swap it out with candy cane Lola as a legal resculpt now as is. It's harder with more extreme variations in caster base size, but most of those have a little stronger case for being different versions. If for example though, Grim2 was the only Grim but I really liked the Grim1 model for some reason.... well, it makes a fine alt sculpt I suppose.

I think something similar could be done with other models, but it depends on how you go about it and what kind of sales model and game style you're revamping into. Malifaux 3rd Ed is a good example of a system that repackaged its existing content in line with a totally new way of selling the game. I think Warmachine could do something similar, but its got to be a little more willing to reorganize things along the way.

Way to take it out of context. No, I'm not suggesting someone take up a financial burden of being a PG. What I'm suggesting is that metas take responsibility in staging events and encouraging new players. Did you know that Warhammer hasn't had that much problem staying ahead in most areas without their equivalent of PG? People took up the responsibility to run them for Warhammer. However, people just keep moaning about the loss of PGs when it comes to WMH.

But thats not really true. GW stores exist, the staff at GWs stores function in the same way as PGs dis (with more direct responsibilities for sales on top). Thats where the most active communities for the game continue to exist, I have encountered very few independent stores that have thriving communities, and theres a reason for that.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Way to take it out of context. No, I'm not suggesting someone take up a financial burden of being a PG. What I'm suggesting is that metas take responsibility in staging events and encouraging new players. Did you know that Warhammer hasn't had that much problem staying ahead in most areas without their equivalent of PG? People took up the responsibility to run them for Warhammer. However, people just keep moaning about the loss of PGs when it comes to WMH.

But thats not really true. GW stores exist, the staff at GWs stores function in the same way as PGs dis (with more direct responsibilities for sales on top). Thats where the most active communities for the game continue to exist, I have encountered very few independent stores that have thriving communities, and theres a reason for that.

Not quite. You're not dealing with a volunteer doing it for random prizes in a brick & mortar store. In a B&M you're dealing with paychecks, rents, and expectations that the volunteer PG group did not have to.

Which is irrelevant, because at the end of the day what we are discussing is someone who has the responsibility for running demo games and organizing community events such as tournaments, mega battles, etc. GW staff still fulfill this function at their own stores. Period, end of.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Which is irrelevant, because at the end of the day what we are discussing is someone who has the responsibility for running demo games and organizing community events such as tournaments, mega battles, etc. GW staff still fulfill this function at their own stores. Period, end of.

But you're the one who brought up financial responsibility, so I guess it is relevant. I know plenty of LGS which organize their own tournaments for multiple systems. In our meta for WMH we have had one or two people directing events for several LGS so they don't overlap, and I don't think he's employed by any of the stores.

The simple fact is that organising and running events and doing demos and getting new people involved; advertising the group and game etc..... These things all involve costs in time and money.

That person running demo games each week - they are sacrificing regular game time to run demos to get new people involved. That person paying out of their own pocket to rent the venue that's money going out for the group etc...


Now there are ways to combat this. A Press Ganger system can provide rewards and support. This might mean they provide some event organising material; some posters and banners to help advertise and might even give those donating their time a store discount or even limited edition product to basically provide a compensation for the time and energy put into the program. Of course some will abuse the system, but many won't.

A store is no different its just a more direct and formal contract that comes with a lot more increased compensation (pay); but with vastly increased time demands.



Both serve a similar funciton, the store is just a more direct system that also blends in retail support direct to the community.


Also a PG system is just like a volunteer system; it requires someone at the top to organise it. Without PP doing it on their own the system quickly falls apart. The compensation is lost, but also the motivation, unity, organisation, support etc.... In very rare situations a community can rally around and restore some functionality; but this is very hard over large geographical territories and even harder internationally*.
Even if PP was only doing a token handthrow amount of support for a PG system, it still helps keep it running.







* it can be done, the Bloodbowl system was running on such a setup for quite a while. It even had added pressure that for many years there were no more models being produced and even when production did return it was a good while before it was from GW.

Press Gang won't return unless PP moves out of Seattle.

My biggest problems with Warmahordes (outside of the poor management of their production and distribution) is the scenarios themselves.

Caster Kill always wins a game even if that is not the scenario. I've had games where my opponent had not taken out a single of my models but then they assassinate the caster. Now if the scenario was caster kill, that would be OK, but the scenario was one of the flag scenarios. If the scenario is that you need to take an objective, the army isn't going to throw down their arms and run away if the caster is killed. The scenarios become almost meaningless. Caster kill should only win a game in a caster kill scenario. The caster is a powerful character and hurts if killed, but it shouldn't end the game. Because of this, the game is boring.

Azeroth wrote:
Caster Kill always wins a game even if that is not the scenario. I've had games where my opponent had not taken out a single of my models but then they assassinate the caster. Now if the scenario was caster kill, that would be OK, but the scenario was one of the flag scenarios.

I was recently thinking how I'd enjoy WMH a little more if the game didn't end if your caster is killed, outside of an Assassinate style mission. I feel like you'd be better incentivized to really push your caster - especially all those frontline combat casters who I assume very rarely see play, due to being constantly at risk of assassination and never tough enough to just tank damage (everything in this game can be one-rounded) - as well as not be penalized for having diligently and intelligently played to the scenario. And I say this as a player who has gotten FAR more unlikely caster kills off to steal a game away than he has had games stolen from him

I mean, losing your caster sucks and puts you on a serious back footing, not to mention all the beasts and jacks which are now shut down or eating grass or whatever. Would the meta push harder towards units again / more? I guess, but that just makes incentivizing battlegroup bonuses all the more important.

PP has gotten a lot better about combat casters in general. I think its an important aspect of the game that keeps things in check in an IGOUGO game. I don't think making the game more like other games is the way to make it stand out. I do think its something that would be better at the 50 point game with proper scenarios. At that level casters can safely play a little more aggressively but also have less to hide behind.

Overread wrote:The simple fact is that organising and running events and doing demos and getting new people involved; advertising the group and game etc..... These things all involve costs in time and money.

Time, yes, money, not so much. Most of the events around here are self-funded with prizes coming out of the registration fee. Advertisement is on Facebook and other social media options, and this applies to the Warhammers, X-Wing, and SWLegion, as well as WarmaHordes. We even have a local Battletech group (which happens to meet on the wrong side of town for me) that does the same thing and is 100% volunteer. The desire to build up the meta is what one needs in order to do this, not financial compensation.

Boss Salvage wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
Caster Kill always wins a game even if that is not the scenario. I've had games where my opponent had not taken out a single of my models but then they assassinate the caster. Now if the scenario was caster kill, that would be OK, but the scenario was one of the flag scenarios.

I was recently thinking how I'd enjoy WMH a little more if the game didn't end if your caster is killed, outside of an Assassinate style mission. I feel like you'd be better incentivized to really push your caster - especially all those frontline combat casters who I assume very rarely see play, due to being constantly at risk of assassination and never tough enough to just tank damage (everything in this game can be one-rounded) - as well as not be penalized for having diligently and intelligently played to the scenario. And I say this as a player who has gotten FAR more unlikely caster kills off to steal a game away than he has had games stolen from him

I mean, losing your caster sucks and puts you on a serious back footing, not to mention all the beasts and jacks which are now shut down or eating grass or whatever. Would the meta push harder towards units again / more? I guess, but that just makes incentivizing battlegroup bonuses all the more important.

One more reason to consider multi-caster under 125 points now, isn't it? This requires killing both casters in order to get the full win in this method. Of course, even proposing any alteration to some of these scenarios that doesn't have the PP copyright on it seems to get bite back from a lot of groups.

I like caster kill as a win condition.

It gives an "outplayed" player a hail-Mary play to try to pull off a win. Better than knowing you've lost with no outs... and having to keep playing out the game. Go full aggro and take that 10% shot... better than 0%.

In-Universe... yeah... if your caster drops you bolt. Your Jacks go down, you've got no support, and their caster is going to do *something bad* to you. It stems from the RPG roots. These people are monumentally important to the setting of the game / world. They don't want you casually throwing them away like any old model. They're the King in Chess. All else is expendable, except for this model.

It keeps tension in the game. Always. It creates genuine tactical decisions. Is the reward worth the risk? I love that element.

 LunarSol wrote:
Press Gang won't return unless PP moves out of Seattle.

Technically, they're not in Seattle, they're in Bellevue. Also, why would that have any effect on them re-launching a PG program? Thing is, it is illegal to have volunteers for a for-profit company by US Law (specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)). So unless they moved out of the USA, they still could not have a true volunteer program.

Serious question:

I'm tempted by Infernals. Are they any good/fun?

Now, I don't know a whole lot about this game... but are there multiple ways to play using the miniatures? I thought there was a skirmish version or something.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Serious question:

I'm tempted by Infernals. Are they any good/fun?

Now, I don't know a whole lot about this game... but are there multiple ways to play using the miniatures? I thought there was a skirmish version or something.

There's Company of Iron, but that's questionable as to how easy you could get a game of it right now. It uses a lot of cards to do special things, from what I understand.

There's also Riot Quest, but that's more of it comes with its own set of models which can be used in WMH rather than using your WMH models in Riot Quest.

Then there's Iron Kingdoms RPG, and that will largely depend on your GM more than anything.

That's not including the numerous ways to play WMH that have fallen by the wayside because of the hyper-focus on Steamroller, such as the Journeyman League and the narrative campaigns like Oblivion or the seasonal Rampages.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I like caster kill as a win condition.

It gives an "outplayed" player a hail-Mary play to try to pull off a win. Better than knowing you've lost with no outs... and having to keep playing out the game. Go full aggro and take that 10% shot... better than 0%.

In-Universe... yeah... if your caster drops you bolt. Your Jacks go down, you've got no support, and their caster is going to do *something bad* to you. It stems from the RPG roots. These people are monumentally important to the setting of the game / world. They don't want you casually throwing them away like any old model. They're the King in Chess. All else is expendable, except for this model.

It keeps tension in the game. Always. It creates genuine tactical decisions. Is the reward worth the risk? I love that element.

That is the point, caster kill becomes the only scenario. The other scenarios don’t matter which is what makes the game boring. If your opponent has outplayed you the whole game, then you should lose. If you build your army only to assassinate the enemy caster, then you should lose most scenarios. That is the point of a tactical game. The objective is whatever the scenario is. This is one of the reasons 40k and Legion are so much more appealing. Scenario is everything. Taking out one piece in the board should not win a tactical army game unless that was the objective. The fact that warmahordes is dying out in a lot of areas and participation at cons has dropped dramatically means that this game has some major problems. Those problems stem from the fact that this is an assassination only game. It is repetitive and boring.

So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

Positioning. The game has far less long range shooting than others and better LoS rules.

 Eldarain wrote:
Positioning. The game has far less long range shooting than others and better LoS rules.

Still, seems like the focus on the game is 'sack the quarterback' but with dice and monsters and steampunk mechs.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Positioning. The game has far less long range shooting than others and better LoS rules.

Still, seems like the focus on the game is 'sack the quarterback' but with dice and monsters and steampunk mechs.

It is. Its a lot combos and exploits to create an opening (or if the key enemy pieces don't have anti-knockdown abilities, its simply bowling- knockdown negates the LOS blocking).

One of the big draws is the system mastery required discourages net-listing. If you don't know how all the individual abilities, spells and whatnot work together, the game is going to go badly for you.

In my very limited experience, scenario was generally the win condition. Caster kill was rare, and tended to be the already losing side over-stretching on their hail-Mary.

I’d say caster kill that overcame scenario loss represents less than 10% of games... but 100% of games had the exciting tension of the possibility of it happening. That’s what I like.

Compared to 40k, for example, where I can see the writing on the wall at the bottom of turn 2, WMH has less of that, in my experience, and the possibility of caster kill keeps that uncertainty to a much later point in the game.

Compared to 40k, for example, where I can see the writing on the wall at the bottom of turn 2, WMH has less of that, in my experience, and the possibility of caster kill keeps that uncertainty to a much later point in the game

That is especially true with 8th edition given the explosive increase in the amount of shooting in this edition without lots of LOS blocking terrain

INFINITY is skirmish scale but adds complete reaction actions to the IG/YG system

DUST uses alternating activation but also includes a limited range reactive mechanic between 16-24" depending on unit type. as well as cammo/stealth limiting the range those units can be shot at to 12" or less

WM/H requires so much in the way of order of unit activation that it doesn't lend itself to alpha strike

So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

standard games are on a 4X4 table and the objective zones are HUGE since you have to have units fully in them to cap them. very few models have base long range shooting attacks longer than 14-16" range (most are 12 or less) the ones that do are special models akin to titans in 40K and still you are only talking 20" for the longest ranges. models are also generally quite a bit slower. the fastest models are cavalry that can move a huge 8" but the fixed charge range is movement + 3" and if you run you double move but cannot charge..

then add that in to the fact that the casters have a control range to affect all their troops. the one I use has a 14" bubble so he can sit back well behind the front lines of effective return fire in relative safety (often behind cover of some sort) while buffing his troops and controlling his jacks.

caster kills are the quickest way to win, but definitely not made to be easy unless you screw up in your activations somewhere.


As for infernals-it's a totally new faction I have never played against them them but the thing about WM/H armies is every caster has a very specific style of play-what units they works best with. so every faction has something in the way of casters that allows you to build armies around the style you like to play. there are ones for jacks/beasts, cavalry, infantry hordes, long range shooters, scouts, more melee focus etc...

In more positive news the artbook kickstarted they did is now shipping. The digital versions have also gone out today - soo much really good and fantastic artwork! I can't wait for the print version to arrive (probably a good few weeks to make it over to the UK; get sorted and posted out).

Makes me really hope that they stick around - I've always loved their vision on designs for Hordes (barring their really odd choices with how they did griffins....). I'd love to put together an Infernals army someday (they'd look good next to Everbilght)

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

it seems harsh at first but there are a fair few ways to protect them, and it can be a risky play as if it fails you've spent a turn wailing on one model whilst the opposing army scores objectives and/or puts a big dent in the opposing army

 Overread wrote:
In more positive news the artbook kickstarted they did is now shipping. The digital versions have also gone out today - soo much really good and fantastic artwork! I can't wait for the print version to arrive (probably a good few weeks to make it over to the UK; get sorted and posted out).

Happily downloaded my stuff today, love the art style and unit design sheets PP uses to develop their minis. Infernals have so many cool designs - around Black Friday I picked up Omodamos to shove into some game, simply because he's huge and looks awesome!

Related Aside: Wow Howlers are expensive models. 5x 30mm models for $80 is heavy, even for a person who buys boutique European resin on the usual

 LunarSol wrote:
Malifaux 3rd Ed is a good example of a system that repackaged its existing content in line with a totally new way of selling the game.

I'd hardly consider Malifaux 3rd edition as a good example. They stripped most dual-faction Masters down to a single faction. To me, on the receiving end of a now TT-only Lynch, the fact to finding myself with my collection split in two (Lynch and a few 'core' models in TT, the rest of my Neverborn without a Master since Lynch is no more) made me so sour that I decided to not move to M3E (and so probably stopping playing Malifaux altogether, since most people did make the move).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

Lots of things. Positioning is the big one; casters can also hold their magic points to reduce incoming damage and generally are really hard to hit and damage without boostable attacks, which are mostly reserved to the robots and other casters.

In practice, I find both scenario and caster kill both primarily exist to drive combat and winning either is usually just a way to declare victory without having to play out a tabling. To get a caster kill you generally need to do something to force your opponent to feel the need to bring their caster out of safety, which is often taking down a unit with a key buff or doing something that requires them to contribute more. Likewise, scenario is often a result of just not having enough to meaningfully contest the zones due to attrition losses.

Of course, when you're first starting, you can lose to either of these simply due to lack of experience. Put your caster too close and you can lose them. Try to stay out of an opponent's range and they can flood the zones to keep you out. Common new player mistakes that are pretty easy to learn from that gives the game a sense of push and pull on the scrum that stands out compared to other large unit games, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gabbi wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Malifaux 3rd Ed is a good example of a system that repackaged its existing content in line with a totally new way of selling the game.

I'd hardly consider Malifaux 3rd edition as a good example. They stripped most dual-faction Masters down to a single faction. To me, on the receiving end of a now TT-only Lynch, the fact to finding myself with my collection split in two (Lynch and a few 'core' models in TT, the rest of my Neverborn without a Master since Lynch is no more) made me so sour that I decided to not move to M3E (and so probably stopping playing Malifaux altogether, since most people did make the move).

I'm not sure why they gutted Neverborn as hard as they did, but honestly the game is so playable now from a master specific POV I don't feel like I really "lost" anybody. I have orphaned masters in my collection, but when I want to play them I just play them. Generally speaking M3E makes me far more interested in having a master or two from each faction that I find most compelling rather than focusing on any one faction.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

The average ranged weapon is about 10-12", with only some rare infantry reaching to 14" and artillery being longer. Charge range averages out at 8-9", and it is very easy to disrupt positioning to get such a strike in. Average solo infantry runs at about 5 "wounds", while the "Boss" averages at about 16. Battlegroup controllers (which all "Bosses" qualify as) also have ways of mitigating damage from increasing their Armor (basically toughness/damage reduction) to transferring the taken damage to one of their controlled Beasts.

So, unless you expose your "Boss", your opponent has to pound all the interference out of the way, like Chess. That is one of the reasons why scenario play is a good change as it offers an alternative way that can actually be easier to succeed in.

Boss Salvage wrote:Related Aside: Wow Howlers are expensive models. 5x 30mm models for $80 is heavy, even for a person who buys boutique European resin on the usual

I thought that they were 40mm, much like most of the medium-based heavy infantry out there. Still, Cataphracts and heavy Exemplars aren't that much, though I've heard that the new Morrowan units will also carry the same price tag as the Howlers (a 5x40mm and 10x30mm)..

 Charistoph wrote:
I thought that they were 40mm, much like most of the medium-based heavy infantry out there.

Just going by this:



I mean, they look huge! EDIT: And do appear to be 'medium' based 3/5 infantry in game. I don't know, price comment still stands tho.

 Charistoph wrote:

Boss Salvage wrote:Related Aside: Wow Howlers are expensive models. 5x 30mm models for $80 is heavy, even for a person who buys boutique European resin on the usual

I thought that they were 40mm, much like most of the medium-based heavy infantry out there. Still, Cataphracts and heavy Exemplars aren't that much, though I've heard that the new Morrowan units will also carry the same price tag as the Howlers (a 5x40mm and 10x30mm)..

Howlers are very large 40 mm models. The difference compared to things like Cataphracts is material. Those things are made out of PVC. The Howlers and new releases in general are all Resin with some metal components. It's a much pricier material that ramps up the cost on larger boxes to a pretty uncompetitive price, IMO. The new models are absolutely fantasic in terms of sculpting and detail, but I have no idea how to sell the game at that price point.

It takes a bit for me to balk at price, as I'm a working adult who understands these are luxury products that are far cheaper than many luxury goods / other hobbies, but the Howler price is high enough that I start looking at other resin manufacturers, like Mierce. Who also have sales that are far more significant than anything I've seen from PP.

And that's before considering that you'll likely want / need multiples of these big expensive units, since we're playing an army game here. He said firmly looking at GeeDub as well, even if boutique plastic kits kind of do deserve boutique pricing.

Anyway, my intent isn't to rag on PP too hard for their pricing (and weak discounting), but it definitely isn't doing them many favors when it comes to starting fresh with new, sexy sculpts.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
It takes a bit for me to balk at price

Ditto, which is exactly how I know its worryingly high.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Boss Salvage wrote:Related Aside: Wow Howlers are expensive models. 5x 30mm models for $80 is heavy, even for a person who buys boutique European resin on the usual

I thought that they were 40mm, much like most of the medium-based heavy infantry out there. Still, Cataphracts and heavy Exemplars aren't that much, though I've heard that the new Morrowan units will also carry the same price tag as the Howlers (a 5x40mm and 10x30mm)..

Howlers are very large 40 mm models. The difference compared to things like Cataphracts is material. Those things are made out of PVC. The Howlers and new releases in general are all Resin with some metal components. It's a much pricier material that ramps up the cost on larger boxes to a pretty uncompetitive price, IMO. The new models are absolutely fantasic in terms of sculpting and detail, but I have no idea how to sell the game at that price point.

Not really when you consider that Cataphracts and Exemplar Bastions were first released in white metal, and when they transitioned to the new material, went up in price. Admittedly, part of that increase in price was because they went from a 3 man box to a 5 man box, and the cost did go down over all. I believe that the Legion's Ogruns also have a lower price point than the Howlers as well.

But then, that's is also why I referenced the new Morrowan models as well to provide a current price point perspective rather than an old rebuilt model line alone. All being said, that is a huge price jump going from one generation of models to the next.

 Charistoph wrote:

Adeptus Doritos wrote:So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

The average ranged weapon is about 10-12", with only some rare infantry reaching to 14" and artillery being longer. Charge range averages out at 8-9", and it is very easy to disrupt positioning to get such a strike in.

For base values, this is true. But you're leaving out move and shoot entirely (which puts ranged threat around 16-18" without move or range buffs, let alone both) and with the right units with the right buffs, threat ranges can hit 20" for melee units.

Telling people range in WM/H is about 14" and charge is about 9" is really deceptive. That's often the starting point, but the game is built around combos. There are a lot of abilities out there (and UA abilities, solo effects and spells combined nicely), and even experienced players can get surprised at things that can nuke them in their deployment areas on turn 1. Its not as common as getting overrun on turn 2, but I've seen it happen (and done it)

Voss wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Adeptus Doritos wrote:So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

The average ranged weapon is about 10-12", with only some rare infantry reaching to 14" and artillery being longer. Charge range averages out at 8-9", and it is very easy to disrupt positioning to get such a strike in.

For base values, this is true. But you're leaving out move and shoot entirely (which puts ranged threat around 16-18" without move or range buffs, let alone both) and with the right units with the right buffs, threat ranges can hit 20" for melee units.

Telling people range in WM/H is about 14" and charge is about 9" is really deceptive. That's often the starting point, but the game is built around combos. There are a lot of abilities out there (and UA abilities, solo effects and spells combined nicely), and even experienced players can get surprised at things that can nuke them in their deployment areas on turn 1. Its not as common as getting overrun on turn 2, but I've seen it happen (and done it)

It was answering the question regarding why someone just doesn't snipe "The Boss". I was saying it was averaged and about because not everyone has access to range or movement buffs at all times, and one needs to consider all of the factions in this. With the right setup, I can easily get one of my 'Jack's range up to 22", however in order to do that, it can not move. While movement can extend the range of that shot from the start of the Turn (and usually does to make it even possible), it moves the same shooter in to the easy Charge range of what is screening "The Boss". Yes, a lot of those combos can set up those situations, but they also have to take in to consideration enemy placement and synergies as well.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Boss Salvage wrote:
It takes a bit for me to balk at price

Ditto, which is exactly how I know its worryingly high.

The price of new models is very very high. However, if you were starting off WM/H and wanted to play one of the standard, non limited factions then the cost of new or good second had models you can get of ebay makes entry to the game very reasonable. 90% of all my trollbloods have come from the second hand market. So has most of my friend Khador.


But yes, lots of the new models can be very expensive.

 Charistoph wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Adeptus Doritos wrote:So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?

Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

The average ranged weapon is about 10-12", with only some rare infantry reaching to 14" and artillery being longer. Charge range averages out at 8-9", and it is very easy to disrupt positioning to get such a strike in.

For base values, this is true. But you're leaving out move and shoot entirely (which puts ranged threat around 16-18" without move or range buffs, let alone both) and with the right units with the right buffs, threat ranges can hit 20" for melee units.

Telling people range in WM/H is about 14" and charge is about 9" is really deceptive. That's often the starting point, but the game is built around combos. There are a lot of abilities out there (and UA abilities, solo effects and spells combined nicely), and even experienced players can get surprised at things that can nuke them in their deployment areas on turn 1. Its not as common as getting overrun on turn 2, but I've seen it happen (and done it)

It was answering the question regarding why someone just doesn't snipe "The Boss". I was saying it was averaged and about because not everyone has access to range or movement buffs at all times, and one needs to consider all of the factions in this. With the right setup, I can easily get one of my 'Jack's range up to 22", however in order to do that, it can not move. While movement can extend the range of that shot from the start of the Turn (and usually does to make it even possible), it moves the same shooter in to the easy Charge range of what is screening "The Boss". Yes, a lot of those combos can set up those situations, but they also have to take in to consideration enemy placement and synergies as well.

The important distinction between the range of the shot and total threat range is that the opposing caster isn't out front and you can't shoot in your opponent's melee range, so its often a case of "the caster is in my threat range if I could walk through his army", which is what makes the armies actually interact.

Also worth mentioning that most guns just aren't very good at killing casters. They're often at 25% chance to hit and not tremendously capable of doing a ton of damage. That changes if you can debuff that caster, but that's the premise of an assassination run.

I'm an ex-player of Warmachine. The concept of brawling giant robots really caught my imagination, and I liked the aesthetics, but there were a number of things that put me off:

* Caster kill instantly ending the game: Like Adeptus Doritos above, this just struck me as a huge limiting factor. I can absolutely get behind the idea for certain scenarios, but for every game to include this just seemed a weird choice. It discouraged getting your Warcaster involved.
* Set group of characters: Being used to creating my own stories and characters in pretty much every other game I've played, it felt hugely limiting to have such a small, set group from which to pick. Worse, building a force really revolved around how particular 'Casters worked with other models in the faction – so it felt like you were hamstringing yourself if you picked up models that you liked; or if you wanted to play a certain way, you had to take a Warcaster that you felt no connection to.
* Cost vs quality: The quality of PP's figures is hugely variable. Some of the later Warcasters were beautiful figures – amongst the best I've seen – but they were often accompanied by dreadful sculpts, produced in some of the least user-friendly materials.

It's a shame, because I liked the clarity of the rules, the setting, and a lot of the mechanics. Just wish they could have found some way to allow players to create their own Warcasters, and to put the focus more on the giant robots than the infantry and wizards.

Privateer Press models have always been over priced, what saved them was knowing that whatever models I picked up, I could probably use pretty easily in my lists and the idea that a single warlock could change my playstyle significantly. It was all about the game. But they were always poor value for money, often the sculpts were ugly or badly proportioned, and sometimes the materials were really bad.

The move to theme heavy play sort of eliminated that, but it was inevitable. The sprawl of the game needed to be curtailed somehow.

PP pushed their luck too far and seems to have responded poorly to their first badly recieved major decision. It is a shame. I really loved the game in Mk2 and I have three largish hordes armies sitting gathering dust.

Azeroth wrote:
That is the point, caster kill becomes the only scenario. The other scenarios don’t matter which is what makes the game boring. If your opponent has outplayed you the whole game, then you should lose. If you build your army only to assassinate the enemy caster, then you should lose most scenarios. That is the point of a tactical game. The objective is whatever the scenario is. This is one of the reasons 40k and Legion are so much more appealing. Scenario is everything. Taking out one piece in the board should not win a tactical army game unless that was the objective. The fact that warmahordes is dying out in a lot of areas and participation at cons has dropped dramatically means that this game has some major problems. Those problems stem from the fact that this is an assassination only game. It is repetitive and boring.

I strongly disagree. Caster kill isn't the only scenario. And with respect, the perception that the game revolves almost solely around caster kill is a bit of a misconception, and one often stemming from newer players. First thing people were taught in my experience was learning to protect your caster. In my experience, in the hands of veteran players, caster kill could never be ruled out, but generally, not keeping an eye on the scenario or ignoring it just had you walking into a loss. Historically speaking, some of the strongest and most notorious casters in the game were control casters who utterly dominated in the scenario game. While there were assassination casters like Caine, and Kromac, you had scenario masters like the Haleys, deneghras, gaspies, old witch, irusk, etc. With respect, Saying it's an assassination only game is, in my opinion, not seeing the bigger picture.

I agree with you however that warmahordes is dying out in a lot of areas and that there is a drop in participation, and the game has some major issues - I disagree strongly that this stems from the assassination condition.

The multiple win conditions was always a feature - it meant you were never out of the game, and even if you were ahead, you could never sit back and relax either. It put an 'edge' and a 'tension' into the game that I found always kept me engaged when I played.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:So, if your boss wizard dies... game over?
Like, what stops someone from sniping him? That just seems... pointless.

It's kind of hard to do that.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Still, seems like the focus on the game is 'sack the quarterback' but with dice and monsters and steampunk mechs.

Essentially yes. Also queue comparisons with 'kill the king' in chess.

Apologist wrote:I'm an ex-player of Warmachine. The concept of brawling giant robots really caught my imagination, and I liked the aesthetics, but there were a number of things that put me off:
* Caster kill instantly ending the game: Like Adeptus Doritos above, this just struck me as a huge limiting factor. I can absolutely get behind the idea for certain scenarios, but for every game to include this just seemed a weird choice. It discouraged getting your Warcaster involved.

I disagree. Your warcaster was always involved, especially with spells and feats. And you could get involved physically with them, toy just have to be careful in protecting them from the counter attack. I often found comparisons with boxing to be more favourable than not.

Apologist wrote:
* Set group of characters: Being used to creating my own stories and characters in pretty much every other game I've played, it felt hugely limiting to have such a small, set group from which to pick. Worse, building a force really revolved around how particular 'Casters worked with other models in the faction – so it felt like you were hamstringing yourself if you picked up models that you liked; or if you wanted to play a certain way, you had to take a Warcaster that you felt no connection to.

I never found the set characters to be something that limited my ability to create my own stories or characters. It made sense, considering the setting to have named warcasters. In fairness to 40k it's a setting of millions of worlds and you can easily get lost in the sheer epic scale. Immoren was a bit smaller than western Europe - cygnar is a bit smaller than medieval France. In terms of warcasters, this was a setting where there were dozens of them, st most, at any one time. For me, I never felt it was appropriate to allow everyone to have their own unique caster. The world was far too small for that.

That said, there were more than a handful of people (including myself) that converted theirs from an existing caster. Can't remember who, but there was someone here who posted whose caster was 'Riza 'hawkeye' caine' and used his rules. For me, I did a female version of vlad 3 (Vladimir-Mira based on a daughter of the flame) and yes, the love story with sorscha was still better than twilight. I also did a female fenris using blood tracker bits (fem-ris). did you ever feel this was an appropriate route to try, if creating your own stories and characters was important to you?

Another thought, and again, something I did myself, was to steer clear of the warcaster as my 'character'. In the lore these are larger than life characters that turn up, demand whatever resources they need and march off, and the army's job is to accommodate this. To me, I could almost imagine warcasters as being like an albatross - lot of people tend to die when they turn up. To me, my focus was less on them, and more on the common infantry who get swept up in this. These were the characters that wrote the letters and notes that defined the 'gavin Kyle files' you'd read in no quarter. My 'characters' were the sergeants in a named regiment of the fifth border legion. It had its officers, it had its particular place on the front, it had its victories and defeats and it had its orders. Again - would this be something that could scratch your itch to write your own characters and stories?

Apologist wrote:
* Cost vs quality: The quality of PP's figures is hugely variable. Some of the later Warcasters were beautiful figures – amongst the best I've seen – but they were often accompanied by dreadful sculpts, produced in some of the least user-friendly materials.

It's a shame, because I liked the clarity of the rules, the setting, and a lot of the mechanics. Just wish they could have found some way to allow players to create their own Warcasters, and to put the focus more on the giant robots than the infantry and wizards.

The quality was... variable. I found it ranged from 'ok' to 'yeah, pretty good' with the occasional 'this is terrible' thrown in. The sculpts, looking back could be a bit all over the place, especially in terms of their proportions - the 'new' irusk1 resculpt for example was completely out of proportion when you compared the scale above the waist to the legs.

The rules clarity was great, the setting was/is amazing, but I was happy with the focus on warcaster characters. The focus system was a bit of a failure really, in terms of how it showcased the jacks. It took until the convergence of cyriss and ultimately mk3's power up rule to really make jacks have some presence..

For me what turned me off the game was I came back tovit after a period of playing more, shall we say 'interactive' games like gw's old lotr sbg and Corvus belli's infinity. It was jarring to go back to old school 'igoyougo' and felt completely disconnected to the game.

yep irusk II is my caster and he is very much an army support caster he burns all his focus keeping the army alive and fighting, he doesn't have time focus on caster assassination....now if my opponent walks into it I am not going to pass up the opportunity.

For me what turned me off the game was I came back tovit after a period of playing more, shall we say 'interactive' games like gw's old lotr sbg and Corvus belli's infinity. It was jarring to go back to old school 'igoyougo' and felt completely disconnected to the game.

Yes I totally get that, it is why I play so many different games, the feel of the games between classic battletech, heavy gear, infinity, DUST, 40K, warmachine, victory at sea, monster apocalypse, and B5 wars are all so different. it is good to have that variety so you appreciate each system for it's own style.

So, me and like, 4 friends started this game near the end of like, 7th edition. We really liked it. i only played MK3 but they played mk2 a bit. We loved the rules, the models and lore. but when we got to Steamrollers, it seemed like all fun was taken out of the game, there was no "Casual" people we could play with, even journeymen turned into "Im gonna make this into the best steamroller list i can"
And then themes came out, and the prices from the models in the themes came out, and we gave up. like really gave up.
Its such a cool game doing SO MUCH WRONG.
Ill never forget seeing my friend run into a cygnar list, then have Caine(Not sure which one) just snipe is caster across the board.

Nobody is making you play steamroller, I never have, I just play social pickup games. it's just one option in my kit when the regular group wants to play.

 aphyon wrote:
Nobody is making you play steamroller, I never have, I just play social pickup games. it's just one option in my kit when the regular group wants to play.

you sir then, is an oddity, cause steam roller is always the default in groups, and that seems to be the standard from what i hear across the interwebs.

 aphyon wrote:
Nobody is making you play steamroller, I never have, I just play social pickup games. it's just one option in my kit when the regular group wants to play.

They can "make" you play Steamroller by simply not agreeing to play anything but Steamroller. I seriously had someone say to me at one of the LGS in my meta, "We only play Steamroller here." He said he didn't have his list here, and I had suggested that you could just play a smaller gamer. That was his response. I was rather flabbergasted that he would dare say something to someone who was building Nyss Hunters right across from him (or, at least, trying to).

 Charistoph wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Nobody is making you play steamroller, I never have, I just play social pickup games. it's just one option in my kit when the regular group wants to play.

They can "make" you play Steamroller by simply not agreeing to play anything but Steamroller. I seriously had someone say to me at one of the LGS in my meta, "We only play Steamroller here." He said he didn't have his list here, and I had suggested that you could just play a smaller gamer. That was his response. I was rather flabbergasted that he would dare say something to someone who was building Nyss Hunters right across from him (or, at least, trying to).

Honestly i think that is the biggest and most damning thing of the game. the Perception of the community is that in essence, its full of tryhards. ITs full of only tournament people that only play hardcore. Whether that is true or not doesnt matter, it is the perception.

Fun, perhaps it is because WM/H is like all the other games I play I select my faction and minis based on how they look or the lore not on competitive performance.,

with WM/H I play khador specifically because I wanted the clam jacks and gun carriage. I use irusk II as my caster because a veteran player told me he would be best used with the carriage.

it would be better from a competition perspective to use khador mechanics in my force but I use a gobber tinkerer instead because I love the mini.

Also it isn't my only game or my main game it is just one of many I play. of all the miniature games I play classic battletech is my first and longest played game going all the way back to the late 1980s when I was still in highschool. perhaps that lends itself the mindset of the Saturday gaming group where magic, 40K, star wars, and flames of war tend to be the most common games with a smattering of things like WM/H bolt action, DUST, AOS and others showing up from time to time.

Without a hardcore scene steamroller isn't a thing here the day I am at the shop(and I play at a FLGS that is like an hour away from PP HQ by car). I will parse my force down to play any point level as need be to play against anyone who wants a game. but I only have a max sized 75 point force.

Hi, I've never actually played a game of Warmahordes, but I did at one point back in 2016/2017 tried to start a Khador army. That was around the time I had started seriously building a 40K SW army, too.

So this is why I quit Warmachine: the kits themselves are really bad. I had the Khador starter box at the time, with two Warjacks and Sorscha. I even bought a box of Man-o-Wars and a mortar to go with it. I think I even bought three (different versions of) Sorschas. And I gotta say working with the resin of their Warjacks and Man-o-Wars were a chore. The warjack arms were heavy to glue on and the surface of the models were rather rough to paint on. As recall the resin were also more brittle than finecast, not that I've ever liked resin to begin with. I was afraid to handle Sorscha's scythe because I thought it was going to break. Overall the quality of the kits are lower than GWs.

Now obviously GW has their game up when it comes to product qualities. But I just couldn't stand the level of quality on offer here. I had been painting 1/72 plastic military models since I was about 14 before taking up this hobby and I must say the quality and materials of PP's range were quite underwhelming in comparison to all my previous experiences. I don't know if they've improved now, I've gone back to look at the products on offer on their website from time to time, and for Warmachine at least there are only 38/899 kits that are plastic. Of course I konw it's bloody expensive to get plastic kits made because of the multi-million dollar hardware that are needed, and resin and metal are best for small-batched productions. As it stands, however, I find resin and pewter kits always absolute struggles to work with and not enjoyable at all.

Meanwhile take Perry's miniatures for example: their kits look on-par with GW's aesthetically and detail-wise, and mostly come in plastic. Sure it takes a bit of work to get them off their stupid pre-cast bases but the plastic they use has good elasticity so they don't snap and break like PP's resin when I tried to cut them off. Perry kits have numbers and a decent amount of variations, and it's really not that expensive. And their website looked like it came out in the early 2000s.

What I'm trying to say is that, for me at least, PP needs to make their transition to quality plastic kits. Pewter and resin simply aren't beginner-friendly and casting with them are often worse than using plastic. If even Perry can produce large quantity of plastic kits of 40+ miniatures at £20, I don't see why PP can't produce plastic kits of around 12 small infantry figures priced at $45US.

I don't mind metal, apart from the price. Metal miniatures last longer and resell better. But metal was a strange choice for PP at first, because their huge heavy miniature designs really don't do well in metal. That said, some of my heavy warbeasts are among my favourite miniatures of all time. I figure they just did not have the investment capital to get plastic production up and running from the start, and now they are doing poorly financially I can't see it happening.

the redesigned kits are much better now but they do still use multi-material.

I got a new kit version of the behemoth and compared to the old one it is a fantastic improvement.

Honestly i think that is the biggest and most damning thing of the game. the Perception of the community is that in essence, its full of tryhards. ITs full of only tournament people that only play hardcore. Whether that is true or not doesnt matter, it is the perception.

That has always been both its strong point and weak point.

The tournament competitive players flocked to WM/H for that very reason and the casuals avoided it like the plague for that very reason.

 aphyon wrote:
Nobody is making you play steamroller, I never have, I just play social pickup games. it's just one option in my kit when the regular group wants to play.

Actually, I just tried to start an Oblivion campaign, and when people started to talk lists they were all focused on high performance, steamroller-level. lists. When I pointed out that maybe they're trying too hard I was being told to relax, that's casual play, so who cares if you win or lose?
So, apparently, at tournaments, you try your best because it's a tournament and winning is all it's about, on casual play you try your best because even if the opponent loose, he should not care...

Now, let me say that I do not very much care of winning. I care about having fun.
I honestly prefer to lose a close game, than winning a very one-sided game.
The problem with Warmachine is that when you lose, you'll often lose VERY BADLY. To the point that's is not fun. It has, at his core, some kind of rock-paper-scissor balance that makes balanced, close and tight games very rare.

Deadnight wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
That is the point, caster kill becomes the only scenario. The other scenarios don’t matter which is what makes the game boring. If your opponent has outplayed you the whole game, then you should lose. If you build your army only to assassinate the enemy caster, then you should lose most scenarios. That is the point of a tactical game. The objective is whatever the scenario is. This is one of the reasons 40k and Legion are so much more appealing. Scenario is everything. Taking out one piece in the board should not win a tactical army game unless that was the objective. The fact that warmahordes is dying out in a lot of areas and participation at cons has dropped dramatically means that this game has some major problems. Those problems stem from the fact that this is an assassination only game. It is repetitive and boring.

I strongly disagree. Caster kill isn't the only scenario. And with respect, the perception that the game revolves almost solely around caster kill is a bit of a misconception, and one often stemming from newer players. First thing people were taught in my experience was learning to protect your caster. In my experience, in the hands of veteran players, caster kill could never be ruled out, but generally, not keeping an eye on the scenario or ignoring it just had you walking into a loss. Historically speaking, some of the strongest and most notorious casters in the game were control casters who utterly dominated in the scenario game. While there were assassination casters like Caine, and Kromac, you had scenario masters like the Haleys, deneghras, gaspies, old witch, irusk, etc. With respect, Saying it's an assassination only game is, in my opinion, not seeing the bigger picture.

I agree with you however that warmahordes is dying out in a lot of areas and that there is a drop in participation, and the game has some major issues - I disagree strongly that this stems from the assassination condition.

The multiple win conditions was always a feature - it meant you were never out of the game, and even if you were ahead, you could never sit back and relax either. It put an 'edge' and a 'tension' into the game that I found always kept me engaged when I played.

No, caster kill isn't the only scenario, but you can win the game with caster kill in every game. That means you can tailor a list for caster assassination in every game no matter what the scenario that is active. If you try and build a balanced list so that you can win the flag scenario or controlling territory scenarios, you'll lose to assassination every time. They should change the rule that caster assassination ends the game in non-assassination scenarios. Killing the caster would still be devastating to someone's list, but it shouldn't end the game.

This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players. Look at the events at Adepticon for example. The casual player gets Open play which is no different than pickup games which is basically meaningless unless you really want more dice. Everything else requires you to be an expert in the game. The events they are having are Champions (which still isn't even at half capacity out of 64), masters, narrative, and the team tournament (only masters is at capacity and that is only 64 people). All require massive time commitments, all require you to be an expert in the game.

Lastly, I think the game suffers because a 4x4 table is too small for the number of models on the table. They should really expand it to 6x4.

Azeroth wrote:
If you try and build a balanced list so that you can win the flag scenario or controlling territory scenarios, you'll lose to assassination every time.

This is completely untrue. I've been playing for over a decade and its never been true.

I do believe that casterkill is a double edges sword, I have won games with it, but it is also kinda......well frusterating.
I once saw a guy, in a hail mary to win, throw bombs at their opponents caster and boost all damage. He killed the caster with really lucky rolls, This was while she was surrounded by beasts.
While it was a coner case, i can see it being frusterating to have your entire army there, then lose cause one singular model died

Drawing a distinction between a game and it's community is the sort of thing that's correct but completely irrelevant to an end user. Warmachine doesn't switch too well to casual simply because it's such a mechanic heavy, information heavy game. You can't just play paying minimal attention without losing fast.

LunarSol wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
If you try and build a balanced list so that you can win the flag scenario or controlling territory scenarios, you'll lose to assassination every time.

This is completely untrue. I've been playing for over a decade and its never been true.

So, in the broader sense that for newer players, it seems like the enemy can win out of nowhere, this experience really rings true.

In the specific sense that most (or even many) tournament games end in assassination? Not really. Even when you see games end in assassination, a lot of those are simply the counterstrike after a failed assassination run.

Azeroth wrote:This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players. Look at the events at Adepticon for example. The casual player gets Open play which is no different than pickup games which is basically meaningless unless you really want more dice. Everything else requires you to be an expert in the game. The events they are having are Champions (which still isn't even at half capacity out of 64), masters, narrative, and the team tournament (only masters is at capacity and that is only 64 people). All require massive time commitments, all require you to be an expert in the game.

I rather disagree. They were putting out all sorts of stuff for casual/narrative players for a long time (and still do), but unless you can get your local meta to buy in to them, then good luck being able to use them.

Polonius wrote:Drawing a distinction between a game and it's community is the sort of thing that's correct but completely irrelevant to an end user. Warmachine doesn't switch too well to casual simply because it's such a mechanic heavy, information heavy game. You can't just play paying minimal attention without losing fast.

I'll tell my Battletech group that they are playing the game wrong because they are playing too casually.

Polonius wrote:So, in the broader sense that for newer players, it seems like the enemy can win out of nowhere, this experience really rings true.

A lot depends on introduction and the experiences of the new player. If the new player has any experience with chess, then they understand the concept of protecting a key piece. When they find out that key piece also has the value of the Queen as well as the target of a King, I usually see a brightness in their eyes at the thought . It's also one of the reasons why the Battlebox is the standard starting point, to introduce all those concepts which set WMH apart, such as Assassination.

You can't lose your king to luck.

Azeroth wrote:

No, caster kill isn't the only scenario, but you can win the game with caster kill in every game. That means you can tailor a list for caster assassination in every game no matter what the scenario that is active.

Indeed, you can play assassination themed lists - the game allows for the kind of variety. It's not a silver bullet though. if you don't play with an eye on, or at least consider the scenario implications, there will be every chance a control caster will simply shut you down and walk you into a loss.

Azeroth wrote:

If you try and build a balanced list so that you can win the flag scenario or controlling territory scenarios, you'll lose to assassination every time. .

This is false. Some of the best, and most notorious casters of each edition have been control casters, who excelled in controlling, and winning scenarios. For every story about Caine 2 gunning down your caster there's a dozen of Haley 2 or deneghra simply shutting down your army and wa.king away with the scenario. Saying you will lose to assassination every time shows a lack of understanding of the merit and value of scenario.

Azeroth wrote:

They should change the rule that caster assassination ends the game in non-assassination scenarios. Killing the caster would still be devastating to someone's list, but it shouldn't end the game.
.

I disagree, but at this point we are walking in circles but to me, assassination is akin to checkmate in chess. The multiple winning conditions was always one of the big parts of the fame that helped contribute to its better balance.

Azeroth wrote:

This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players. Look at the events at Adepticon for example. The casual player gets Open play which is no different than pickup games which is basically meaningless unless you really want more dice. Everything else requires you to be an expert in the game. The events they are having are Champions (which still isn't even at half capacity out of 64), masters, narrative, and the team tournament (only masters is at capacity and that is only 64 people). All require massive time commitments, all require you to be an expert in the game.
.

I agree and disagree. To be fair to pp, throughout the years, they produced no end of content for casual players and narrative scenarios, and goofy one off 'fun' games. Thing was it wasn't picked up The problem wasn't that they weren't trying to attract casuals, the problem was that, especially towards the end of mk2, casual players stopped being drawn to warmachine. Whether that was the nature of the game itself or the reputation of the nature of the game itself. Or the community that was previously drawn to the game, or the community that remained after everyone else left, or whether the community had anything to do with it I said also up for debate. Pp made a lot of anti-retailer and anti-newbie decisions at the start of mk3 and basically raised the bar to getting in. I don't think it was entirely intentional though. The consequence was they haemmoragged players and were left with a small ultra-hardcore group around which they had to retrench. And at the end of the day, they are a business. You give your customers what they want. If pp's remaining customers are ultra-hardcore, that's what get produced.

Thing is, this can't work for the long term. It wouldn't surprise me to see pp keep WMH on life support, and with their new games, seek to draw in a new audience. The 'competitive scene' arguably, may be mined out.

Azeroth wrote:

Lastly, I think the game suffers because a 4x4 table is too small for the number of models on the table. They should really expand it to 6x4.

I don't think this will do anything. The game Will still revolve around that scrum in the middle of the board, with measurement counted by small numbers of inches, and as long as all the interactions take place within a 12-14 inch bubble around your caster, as long as the ranged ability of the game stays where it is, there is simply no use for any more space. Ironically, it would make more sense to shrink the size of the game to a 3 by 3 board, as all everyone does in turn one anyway is run forward 12 inches. Might as well just start forward.

 Charistoph wrote:

Azeroth wrote:This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players. Look at the events at Adepticon for example. The casual player gets Open play which is no different than pickup games which is basically meaningless unless you really want more dice. Everything else requires you to be an expert in the game. The events they are having are Champions (which still isn't even at half capacity out of 64), masters, narrative, and the team tournament (only masters is at capacity and that is only 64 people). All require massive time commitments, all require you to be an expert in the game.

I rather disagree. They were putting out all sorts of stuff for casual/narrative players for a long time (and still do), but unless you can get your local meta to buy in to them, then good luck being able to use them.

What are they putting out for the casual player? Under the assumption that you can actually find a local game store that carries Warmachine, what is attracting the local player? PP killed their forum, they killed the pressganger program, their con events are only for people that wish to spend at least 14 hours of the day playing nothing but warmachine - non of these are attracting casual players or attracting new ones.

On top of all this, they completely screw up their distribution and production so badly that stores can't even get in new product. ON TOP OF THAT, they constantly dump product in those mystery boxes that screws over local gaming shops. Basically they've devalued the product in local gaming stores to the point where it is almost worthless and almost no new product is flowing.

Also, as I understand it, PP used to have almost 100 employees and now they have around 30. Almost all the original core people have left.

Things are rotten in the state of Warmachine.

Azeroth wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Azeroth wrote:This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players. Look at the events at Adepticon for example. The casual player gets Open play which is no different than pickup games which is basically meaningless unless you really want more dice. Everything else requires you to be an expert in the game. The events they are having are Champions (which still isn't even at half capacity out of 64), masters, narrative, and the team tournament (only masters is at capacity and that is only 64 people). All require massive time commitments, all require you to be an expert in the game.

I rather disagree. They were putting out all sorts of stuff for casual/narrative players for a long time (and still do), but unless you can get your local meta to buy in to them, then good luck being able to use them.

What are they putting out for the casual player? Under the assumption that you can actually find a local game store that carries Warmachine, what is attracting the local player? PP killed their forum, they killed the pressganger program, their con events are only for people that wish to spend at least 14 hours of the day playing nothing but warmachine - non of these are attracting casual players or attracting new ones.

On top of all this, they completely screw up their distribution and production so badly that stores can't even get in new product. ON TOP OF THAT, they constantly dump product in those mystery boxes that screws over local gaming shops. Basically they've devalued the product in local gaming stores to the point where it is almost worthless and almost no new product is flowing.

Also, as I understand it, PP used to have almost 100 employees and now they have around 30. Almost all the original core people have left.

Things are rotten in the state of Warmachine.

All of this is true. Pp have made a never ending serious of absolutely spectacularly boneheaded decisions these last few years. Such s shame, considering at the start of the decade they were basically the movers and shakers in the industry.

However I don't thinkthough that looking at the current state of play is a fair reflection of how pp have treated in the past. Remember, pp have run narrative campaigns through their books (escalation, for example), as well as frequently presenting casual and narrative scenarios through no quarter. They also staged events throughout the year (I vaguely remember a Halloween one where you had a couple of casters and an unending horde of spawning zombies and had to survive until dawn or something - I wanted to run butcher 2 into that horde! ). Through their pressgangers they also frequently pushed for escalation leagues etc.

I think it's fair to say that PP did reach out to casual players. This was just not something that was ultimately embraced by the community. Gw also getting itself into shape was also probably a factor when you look st the bigger picture.

I will say, part of the problem, and I say this as someone who's played for a decade and still plays, part of the problem, is that Warmachine... kinda... sucks... "casually".

I still kind of hate that label. I don't really play "competitively" either; I'm of the mindset you can be totally casual in a competitive game; but the ideas generally applied to the idea of casual just don't result in a fun game of Warmachine. A lot of it is just because at its heart its a game about constantly learning, and while you can step back on complications like the size of the game or scenario, you can't really unlearn the game itself. You may try to play with just a pencil, but you still know a million ways to kill a man with it and have to actively.... not do any of those things in a "casual" setting. It feels very hollow.

The competitive scenario and point limit essentially work together to rein in a lot of things, but they also make it hard to play smaller games. That's not to say the system can't support smaller games, just that currently, the scenarios really just don't. A 50 pt scenario packet would really make my day personally, but the facebook crowd for the game isn't likely to allow it.

Azeroth wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I rather disagree. They were putting out all sorts of stuff for casual/narrative players for a long time (and still do), but unless you can get your local meta to buy in to them, then good luck being able to use them.

What are they putting out for the casual player? Under the assumption that you can actually find a local game store that carries Warmachine, what is attracting the local player? PP killed their forum, they killed the pressganger program, their con events are only for people that wish to spend at least 14 hours of the day playing nothing but warmachine - non of these are attracting casual players or attracting new ones.

Keep in mind that I was putting this towards the more narrative casual player than the casual player that only shows up once or twice a year at the store (which applies to me right now).

To that end, the Rampages and Oblivion are two examples of this. No Quarter released stuff at least once a quarter when it was monthly, then a little more than every other one when they went quarterly. Not a lot of people bought No Quarter, and few of those were doing so for the narrative scenarios that they included, which also included Company of Iron scenarios. Since No Quarter was dropped, they've had to figure out how to do so, and those narrative campaigns I mentioned were the outlet for that.

LunarSol wrote:I will say, part of the problem, and I say this as someone who's played for a decade and still plays, part of the problem, is that Warmachine... kinda... sucks... "casually".
...
The competitive scenario and point limit essentially work together to rein in a lot of things, but they also make it hard to play smaller games. That's not to say the system can't support smaller games, just that currently, the scenarios really just don't. A 50 pt scenario packet would really make my day personally, but the facebook crowd for the game isn't likely to allow it.

It's just as rules exacting as 40K 7th Edition was, but better built. It's not even as complicated as Battletech can be, yet, that is nothing but a casual game.

WMH can be played casually so long as the group of people playing it are willing to play it casually. Instead there are more people who are the type who push 40K into a hard competitive game.

I like the core of WMH... but I have never been invested to the point I was “good” at it. There are just soooo many interactions and special rules and wonky super combos.

I would personally like a version of the game that runs on d12’s instead of 2d6 as the primary. I wish it was quicker, and allowed multiple simultaneous attacks. Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I like the core of WMH... but I have never been invested to the point I was “good” at it. There are just soooo many interactions and special rules and wonky super combos.

I would personally like a version of the game that runs on d12’s instead of 2d6 as the primary. I wish it was quicker, and allowed multiple simultaneous attacks. Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

How would you handle boosting with the d12? Keep it as just adding a d6 to the d12? What about Weapon Masters? If you are like the Butcher and have both Weapon Master and Boost, do you go straight to 2d12, or is it 1d12+2D6? How would you handle Critical Hits which currently rely on doubles to succeed?

Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

Yeah, I think that might be a good approach to solve a couple of problems – keep the current WM as the Warcaster-focussed, high-intensity game it is, and release a 'lighter' version version that allows for larger games; perhaps themed around the larger, non-Warcaster, battles that are mentioned in the background.

I'm picturing three or four officers per side as make-your-own characters from a set of faction archetypes; each with three or four Warjacks/units. With special rules stripped back to the bare stats, you'd have a very different sort of game that would complement 'proper' Warmachine, and allow people to field their whole collection.

If nothing else, it'd provide PP with a blank canvas to work on, while attracting back ex-players with big collections.

 Charistoph wrote:

LunarSol wrote:I will say, part of the problem, and I say this as someone who's played for a decade and still plays, part of the problem, is that Warmachine... kinda... sucks... "casually".
...
The competitive scenario and point limit essentially work together to rein in a lot of things, but they also make it hard to play smaller games. That's not to say the system can't support smaller games, just that currently, the scenarios really just don't. A 50 pt scenario packet would really make my day personally, but the facebook crowd for the game isn't likely to allow it.

It's just as rules exacting as 40K 7th Edition was, but better built. It's not even as complicated as Battletech can be, yet, that is nothing but a casual game.

WMH can be played casually so long as the group of people playing it are willing to play it casually. Instead there are more people who are the type who push 40K into a hard competitive game.

I really disagree with this. Warmachine is actually a really great game for competitive play, because the combos are so deep, and the mechanics allow for a lot of rich options. The problem, as Lunar Sol alluded to, is that once you learn all the ways a unit can be used, you can't just "unlearn" that. I played Cyngar in MkII, not at a super high level, but I could win a few steam roller matches. Even a basic unit like Gun Mages have a ton of tricks, that once you learn, you can't really unlearn. Usually when we talk about casual play, we mean that players are either learning the game, or playing mostly subconsciously, using muscle memory. 40k is a great game to play casually, because there's enough luck built in, and if you play a maelstrom or other scenario which favors reacting, the game comes down to who adapts better. In Warmachine, a slightly better player can play casually while the slightly worse player gives it his all, and the worse player would still likely lose. It's just a game that really, really rewards player skill.

Playing good warmachine players in casual games reminded me of the time I played in one of those simultaneous chess games where the top player players like, 10 people at once, and still wins nearly all of the games.

 Polonius wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

LunarSol wrote:I will say, part of the problem, and I say this as someone who's played for a decade and still plays, part of the problem, is that Warmachine... kinda... sucks... "casually".
...
The competitive scenario and point limit essentially work together to rein in a lot of things, but they also make it hard to play smaller games. That's not to say the system can't support smaller games, just that currently, the scenarios really just don't. A 50 pt scenario packet would really make my day personally, but the facebook crowd for the game isn't likely to allow it.

It's just as rules exacting as 40K 7th Edition was, but better built. It's not even as complicated as Battletech can be, yet, that is nothing but a casual game.

WMH can be played casually so long as the group of people playing it are willing to play it casually. Instead there are more people who are the type who push 40K into a hard competitive game.

I really disagree with this. Warmachine is actually a really great game for competitive play, because the combos are so deep, and the mechanics allow for a lot of rich options. The problem, as Lunar Sol alluded to, is that once you learn all the ways a unit can be used, you can't just "unlearn" that. I played Cyngar in MkII, not at a super high level, but I could win a few steam roller matches. Even a basic unit like Gun Mages have a ton of tricks, that once you learn, you can't really unlearn. Usually when we talk about casual play, we mean that players are either learning the game, or playing mostly subconsciously, using muscle memory. 40k is a great game to play casually, because there's enough luck built in, and if you play a maelstrom or other scenario which favors reacting, the game comes down to who adapts better. In Warmachine, a slightly better player can play casually while the slightly worse player gives it his all, and the worse player would still likely lose. It's just a game that really, really rewards player skill.

Playing good warmachine players in casual games reminded me of the time I played in one of those simultaneous chess games where the top player players like, 10 people at once, and still wins nearly all of the games.

Then you misunderstand what I said. I did not say that Warmachine cannot be played competitively, or is even worse played competitively, I'm just saying that competitively is not the only way to play it. There are many games that are played competitively but are also played casually, such as basketball. All you need are people willing to play just as casually, and that is the hard part in most metas right now.

Da Boss wrote:But metal was a strange choice for PP at first, because their huge heavy miniature designs really don't do well in metal.

I can proudly say that I successfully bridged The Khador Gap twice back in MK1, when I built two marauders for Vlad1 ... then never played the game and eventually sold those hunks of metal and putty and pins to my brother or a clubmate or something Another highlight of my hobby career was sculpting the butt cleavage on a trollkin blitzer, as the old metal model had a huge gap where back met belt. That model I've held onto tho, and vastly prefer the sculpt to the boring plastic multi-kit that replaced it (same goes for all of the troll beasts).

Apologist wrote:

Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

Yeah, I think that might be a good approach to solve a couple of problems – keep the current WM as the Warcaster-focussed, high-intensity game it is, and release a 'lighter' version version that allows for larger games; perhaps themed around the larger, non-Warcaster, battles that are mentioned in the background.

I'm distinctly reminded of The Other Side, the larger army version of Malifaux. Which I was immensely excited about, as MFX hurts my head and I like army games over skirmish ones, and KSed hundreds into ... for it to utterly bomb on the market, AFAIK. I don't really know the story there, but my local stores were burned repeatedly by Wyrd and locals (including me) had moved on from MFX in general. Seems like a familiar plot ...

Polonius wrote:Warmachine is actually a really great game for competitive play, because the combos are so deep, and the mechanics allow for a lot of rich options. The problem, as Lunar Sol alluded to, is that once you learn all the ways a unit can be used, you can't just "unlearn" that. I played Cyngar in MkII, not at a super high level, but I could win a few steam roller matches. Even a basic unit like Gun Mages have a ton of tricks, that once you learn, you can't really unlearn. Usually when we talk about casual play, we mean that players are either learning the game, or playing mostly subconsciously, using muscle memory. 40k is a great game to play casually, because there's enough luck built in, and if you play a maelstrom or other scenario which favors reacting, the game comes down to who adapts better. In Warmachine, a slightly better player can play casually while the slightly worse player gives it his all, and the worse player would still likely lose. It's just a game that really, really rewards player skill.

Maybe the first mind-blowing difference for me when I started playing WMH was that you could target your own dudes. This was like a fundamental shift from years of GW games (and one shared by MFX, the other intensely deep game I've played), and helped me understand the lateral thinking the game rewarded, as opposed to the pretty straight forward application or resistance of force that 40k is built on. It was also made clear to me when I started that if I didn't want to be caught out constantly by other armies' tricks, then I'd need to do my research or be prepared to take a hit and adapt on the fly - obviously the answer was a bit of both. It seems clear that this learning curve has been interpreted as a failing of the game, and I suppose ease of access was never a thing WMH advertised back when it told us to play like we've got a pair

Also, for me 'casual play' means less optimized armies more than anything. But that's coming from a viewpoint that army comp / the meta are a huge part of game performance, which might be rather GW-centric of me, although all the complaining I hear about clockatrice spam or the hermit's preeminence makes me think it's very much an MK3 boogeyman as well.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Maybe the first mind-blowing difference for me when I started playing WMH was that you could target your own dudes. This was like a fundamental shift from years of GW games (and one shared by MFX, the other intensely deep game I've played), and helped me understand the lateral thinking the game rewarded, as opposed to the pretty straight forward application or resistance of force that 40k is built on. It was also made clear to me when I started that if I didn't want to be caught out constantly by other armies' tricks, then I'd need to do my research or be prepared to take a hit and adapt on the fly - obviously the answer was a bit of both. It seems clear that this learning curve has been interpreted as a failing of the game, and I suppose ease of access was never a thing WMH advertised back when it told us to play like we've got a pair

I don't think the learning curve is a failing, it's part of what makes the game so rewarding. It just makes the game very much a game of skill, closer to Chess than to 40k, which has plenty of skill, but a lot comes down to terrain and dice as well.

Also, for me 'casual play' means less optimized armies more than anything. But that's coming from a viewpoint that army comp / the meta are a huge part of game performance, which might be rather GW-centric of me, although all the complaining I hear about clockatrice spam or the hermit's preeminence makes me think it's very much an MK3 boogeyman as well.

See, I view casual as that, but also the idea of how hard each player is trying. Look at the NBA all-star game: the best shooters still score tons of points, because no matter how little you're trying, your body knows how to shoot with a sweet stroke. Defense goes out the window, because that's very effort dependent. A really skilled WMH player could crush a middling player without any thought, simply because they know the game and it's techniques so well.

I collected trollbloods before getting into 40k that I even fully painted, but I only played a few games with them. I love the fact that every thing has a base and a set height that makes line of sight and measuring range a breeze, something that 40k really needs ( I hate people clamming line of sight to my models because they see the tip of the flag I added to it). I only stopped because of the lack of players.

Polonius wrote:I don't think the learning curve is a failing, it's part of what makes the game so rewarding.

FWIW I don't either, I expect to take my licks when starting a new game, I was more commenting on what I hear people saying are reasons WMH bad.

Jimbobbyish wrote:I love the fact that every thing has a base and a set height that makes line of sight and measuring range a breeze, something that 40k really needs ( I hate people clamming line of sight to my models because they see the tip of the flag I added to it).

Personally, I find the minigames with strong levels of abstraction are also the best (WMH, KOW, etc.), both when it comes to hobbying and actually playing them ...

I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

I would say the same.

If people talk about just the battle box intros in a vacuum, then sure, that is a good way to learn... except that it's not a good representation of how the game is played by most dedicated warmachine groups.

With this addition of Streamroller, various meta altering things for the tournament scene, and constant balance updates means most players just hit and bounce right off the step up to 50 points, let alone the de facto standard of 75. Even the army composition changes at its core, going from a game where you thought was a manageable few warjacks/beasts to a giant mass battle that's somehow using skirmish rules.

So still a failure.

 Vertrucio wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

I would say the same.

If people talk about just the battle box intros in a vacuum, then sure, that is a good way to learn... except that it's not a good representation of how the game is played by most dedicated warmachine groups.

With this addition of Streamroller, various meta altering things for the tournament scene, and constant balance updates means most players just hit and bounce right off the step up to 50 points, let alone the de facto standard of 75. Even the army composition changes at its core, going from a game where you thought was a manageable few warjacks/beasts to a giant mass battle that's somehow using skirmish rules.

So still a failure.

Yeah, the last time we tried a JML here locally it died after the first couple runs, as far as I could tell. Luckily, I was able to scare up a few 25 point games a few months back. While I have collected for a long time, I've never had much game time. It gets really bad when the "We only play Steamroller" crowd is out in force.

this directly relates to a post I made in another forum about building social gaming communities when games are more or less popular but have the possibility of turning off new players because of the attitudes of the players already in the hobby-


As a war game there is always a competitive part of the game. somebody has to win and somebody has to loose. however it is also social activity. I don't go to the shop with all the minis I have taken to time to build and carefully paint to play a game I don't get enjoyment out of. if I didn't want to enjoy it as such I could just stay home and play videogames online instead.

I actually do not enjoy games where I just steamroll my opponent. even being on the winning side it isn't fun, there is no risk, there is no challenge, there is no mutual enjoyment. the game needs to give both players the opportunity to win under a clear rules set and a proper player attitude towards the game. it is one of the reasons why I avoid the tournament like scenes as I find it brings out the worst kind of players or the worst attitudes in people that are detrimental to the community.

On the topic of caster kill, the one place where Steamroller shines is that it makes caster kill less relevant, you can (or at least could - Im out of the loop a few years, not sure if they changed it) kill your opponents caster and still lose the game on scenario because your opponent scored more points from objectives before you offed them. It made for an interesting dynamic where it wasn't enough to just kill your opponents caster, you had a window of opportunity you needed to do it in.

The tournament competitive players flocked to WM/H for that very reason and the casuals avoided it like the plague for that very reason.

In the days of Mk1 and the early days of Mk2, this was not the case. It wasn't really until mid/late 5th/early 6th of 40k that the WMHDs community took a hard bend towards being pure Steamroller. Up until then I was able to enjoy WMHDs casually with my group, after that, the casual players all became tourney players or quit the game.

This isn't the only reason that warmahordes is circling the drain. I think another big reason is that PP seems focused on only their elite players. They seem not to care about casual players.

I disagree, but I think PP is trying to have their cake and eat it too - they are trying to woo casuals back into the game (the Oblivion campaign book is proof of this) without alienating the established competitive player base. I understand *why* they are doing it, because the competitive player base is the only thing keeping them in business, but I don't think its possible for them to bring in a casual community while the competitive community remains so firmly entrenched - basically they need to piss off some existing players and take a risk if they want to have a chance at bringing in new blood. Pretty much, I don't think PP can have a casual community unless they rework steamroller to be a slightly more "narrative" type experience that feels more casual in its playstyle, if not outright kill steamroller entirely. While steamroller continues to exist it will be the soup-du-jour of the community which repels any casual-minded players, and theres no getting around that.

I'll tell my Battletech group that they are playing the game wrong because they are playing too casually.

Agreeing with this statement, I think Polonius has the wrong of it when he says mechanic/info heavy is what makes WMHDs a competitive game. Historically, when you look at the super-crunchy mechanically complex wargames like Battletech, Starfleet Battles, Battlegroup Kursk & co, Mustangs & Messerschmitts, Chef de bataillon, etc. you find that they are basically *only* played casually because they are too complex and take too long to play for competitive play to really work. Warmachine/Hordes is actually a fairly simple and streamlined game, it falls into the category of "easy to learn, difficult to master" (unlike the other games which I listed which are "difficult to learn, impossible to master") and *that* is what makes WMHDs a competitively popular ruleset.

I would personally like a version of the game that runs on d12’s instead of 2d6 as the primary. I wish it was quicker, and allowed multiple simultaneous attacks.

1d12 is not the same as 2d6 - those are two entirely different wholly incomparable probability distributions - 1d12 has more in common with 1d6 than it does with 2d6, at that point you really might as well just be playing with 1d6 instead. Warmachine as a game *is* a 2d6 probability curve, if you replace it with 1d12 then you've created a completely different game.

Essentially, Id like a “battle game” instead of a very large skirmish game.

Then play a different game - thats not what this is. You're basically saying "I want to play Chess, but I want it to be more like Risk". Just play Risk and let Chess be Chess.

Yeah, I think that might be a good approach to solve a couple of problems – keep the current WM as the Warcaster-focussed, high-intensity game it is, and release a 'lighter' version version that allows for larger games; perhaps themed around the larger, non-Warcaster, battles that are mentioned in the background.

They already did that. Its called Unbound. Nobody played it, because it wasn't Steamroller.

I'm distinctly reminded of The Other Side, the larger army version of Malifaux. Which I was immensely excited about, as MFX hurts my head and I like army games over skirmish ones, and KSed hundreds into ... for it to utterly bomb on the market, AFAIK. I don't really know the story there, but my local stores were burned repeatedly by Wyrd and locals (including me) had moved on from MFX in general. Seems like a familiar plot ...

Basically long story short, the demand for the game wasn't actually there in the first place (Wyrd struggled to attract backers to the Kickstarter and unlocked only a fraction of the stretch goals they expected to, even after realigning the stretch goals to make them easier to reach and provide better content/value return to backers). Most of the market demand for the game was filled during the kickstarter itself, leaving retailers post-Kickstarter very little opportunity to sell more product as everyone that was interested in the game already had it. Worse still though, was that the market shifted in the time between Kickstarting the game and delivering it, so by the time people got it they were no longer really interested in it as a lot of people had moved on from Malifaux and similar games with the resurgence of 40k and AoS 2nd edition.

I think somebody’s got their poopedy-pants on.

I’m aware of the probability curve difference between d12 and 2d6. Did you know it also introduces the possibility of rolling a 1 !?! I’d accept spikier results for quicker gameplay. It tends to balance anyhow. Low Def, High Armour is more likely to be missed, and more likely to be damaged by a hit. High Def, low Arm is more likely to be hit, and more likely to have 0 damage after being hit. The “inverse” nature of Def and Arm for most units neutralizes the individual probability changes.

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

Other people may like that, but given the “dying” concerns many have about WMH, it may be a concern others have, especially newcomers, that could be lessened by a game system more suited to the number of models and interactions on the table.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Agreeing with this statement, I think Polonius has the wrong of it when he says mechanic/info heavy is what makes WMHDs a competitive game. Historically, when you look at the super-crunchy mechanically complex wargames like Battletech, Starfleet Battles, Battlegroup Kursk & co, Mustangs & Messerschmitts, Chef de bataillon, etc. you find that they are basically *only* played casually because they are too complex and take too long to play for competitive play to really work. Warmachine/Hordes is actually a fairly simple and streamlined game, it falls into the category of "easy to learn, difficult to master" (unlike the other games which I listed which are "difficult to learn, impossible to master") and *that* is what makes WMHDs a competitively popular ruleset

Yeah, I think I used the term "casually" too, well, casually. I meant that it's tough to be play WMH at a low level of effort, or while distracted, unless the two players have very similar skill levels. Or maybe it's just that way for me. Obviously more complex, simulation style games are only played to see what happens, with no expectation of coin flip level balance.

Some of that comes down to how you approach the game. There was a whole era of "clean play" that's great, even vital for tournaments, but for most people the harshness of charge lanes and activation order make a punishing game more punishing than it needs to be. Personally, I'd be happy to see units be able to move through other members of the same unit as a general rule. I think things like that are the kind of things that make the game challenging to play without necessarily adding a lot of strategic value.

 greatbigtree wrote:

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

You're entitled to your opinion, but this is just wrong. The reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because of the normal distribution that results from using 2d6 - luck is a significantly reduced factor as a result as you have a weighed likelihood of making your rolls, and knowing how to mitigate the remaining luck (via boosting, etc) is a key aspect of gameplay. Another major reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because it emphasizes maneuver over attrition, the games tactical depth is reliant upon the precision of movement (and measurement in general). You're basically asking fo WMHDs to be a game other than WMHDs - at that point just go play something else (like, say, 40k - since that seems to be the exact thing you're looking for) and let Warmachine be Warmachine.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:

And yes, I do want WMH to be simpler. It doesn’t make it any less strategic or tactical... both Chess and Checkers have depth despite being simple to play. Making it more of a battle game just speeds up play, and loosens the 1/16th of an inch deciding games factor a bit. Again, a sacrifice I’d gladly make. If a game needs you to be more precise than 1” in movement, that’s just fiddly gak to me, and detracts from my enjoyment.

You're entitled to your opinion, but this is just wrong. The reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because of the normal distribution that results from using 2d6 - luck is a significantly reduced factor as a result as you have a weighed likelihood of making your rolls, and knowing how to mitigate the remaining luck (via boosting, etc) is a key aspect of gameplay. Another major reason why WMHDs is such a tactical game is precisely because it emphasizes maneuver over attrition, the games tactical depth is reliant upon the precision of movement (and measurement in general). You're basically asking fo WMHDs to be a game other than WMHDs - at that point just go play something else (like, say, 40k - since that seems to be the exact thing you're looking for) and let Warmachine be Warmachine.

The problem is Warmachine being Warmachine got it in this problem in the first place. The "Highly Tactical Measurements and Placing" really scares away new players.
The game needs to change significantly to remain competitive. It needs to be easy to pick up, play and then enjoy
Warmachine thrived when it was the game people picked up to play on the side cause it was easy to understand. But now with Bloat of the line and GW stepping up their side game rules......it aint competing.
It needs to go down in scale, Caster, Warjacks, unit and a solo or two. It needs to be a simplier game to pick up both from a rules perspective and model perspecting.

You can't really talk about tactical when the game is blobs at 75 points mashing into each other, but still rolling individually.

Warmachine was tactical, now it's mass battle that's trying to pretend to be small, but still get all the sales benefits of being big.

A big example was for a while, WM was over reliant on a wide variety of rulers and measuring devices placed all over to simulate moves. They literally had to curtail that with rules limiting things to one measuring device.

Honestly, part of the reason why newer players don't stick around is the slog that games become to be that tacticool.

I'd love for the original Warmachine rules to stay as they are, but focus back on 50 points and lower skirmish. 75 or above become a new game more suited to that. Best of both worlds similar to how GW is handling and being successful at doing.

Instead of that, PP focuses in on random minis in crates instead of updating their lines.

Yeah, I would say that’s my point. It’s not easy to get into the game in its current state. The micro-measuring and wombo-combos are not fun to play into. And yeah, it’s a rough learning curve but the sharpest part is being 1/16 of an inch outside of range, or putting yourself 1/16 of an inch inside somebody’s wombo-combo 20” surprise assassination.

And speeding up combat is needed at 75 points. Rolling out 1 unit’s worth of ranged attacks, after lining up each model’s micro-measured individual LOS, and rolling the back guys first so your front guys are in range... and then losing out on one shot for the 1/16” range... it’s not tactical, just taxing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, I would say that’s my point. It’s not easy to get into the game in its current state. The micro-measuring and wombo-combos are not fun to play into. And yeah, it’s a rough learning curve but the sharpest part is being 1/16 of an inch outside of range, or putting yourself 1/16 of an inch inside somebody’s wombo-combo 20” surprise assassination.

And speeding up combat is needed at 75 points. Rolling out 1 unit’s worth of ranged attacks, after lining up each model’s micro-measured individual LOS, and rolling the back guys first so your front guys are in range... and then losing out on one shot for the 1/16” range... it’s not tactical, just taxing.

I fully agree with this, but I also think this is only one part of the problem.

This all also feeds into the 'burden of knowledge' required to play the game. There is so much to know and so much going on and so many combos to keep track of that the on-the-go-bookkeeping is similarly extreme. All of that feeds into a not-so-fun experience in my opinion.

I feel WMH is in warhammer fantasy battle territory. It's an old tired game that has become bloated, working on old tired mechanics, and is a game that is unattractive to start, or continue playing. And that has lost a lot of players, and they cannot attract new players or replace those that leave. Those People that still play have their stuff already and are not regally buying.

Pp could attempt to fix/change the rules and try to make a 'great' game for the dozens that still play, but is it worth it? Those folks will just keep playing with what they have. What pp face is gw's dilemma. What sells in this industry is 'new' stuff. Hence the 'wave' release nature of our hobby. The back catalogue isn't worth a huge amount - it's essentially dead weight, Bar a handful of things. Gw said as much of their stuff during the chapter house case. Hence pp not really bothering with the older factions any more. Those mines have been mined out. All they can do Is sell 'new' stuff. Hence order of the golden crucible last year, and infernals this year. But the game is already bloated, you can't only add so much more weight in terms of factions. The game has only so much design space and only so many ways in which the game can be 'changed'. This is what gw faced. An old game, tired mechanics, disinterest in the community at large, only limited changes they could make and only limited things that could be added and arguably, for a negligible return on investment of resources. There comes a point where you have to burn it all to the ground and start again. Their decision was to see off the old world in a blaze of glory and bring in Aos, which after a few years is thriving, not to reboot the game as it was. Did it annoy a lot of the older fans. Yes. But gw was ok with this. from gw's perspective they weren't buying anyway. From a business POV they were not losing anything by taking wfb out back. Investing in those players who were not buying, and this old game that was not selling simply wasn't worth the return. they made a ruthless business-focused decision not to try and draw them (or rather, to cut them out!) in with the game they were invested in, and try and build a new game for a new market, and bring in and develop a fresh community that would buy into a new ip. It was ruthless, but from a purely business perspective, they were not necessarily wrong. In the long term, I cannot fault them.

Pp are in exactly the same position. The parallels are very interesting.

essentially have to sell 'new' stuff. All of the WMH back catalogue is irrelevant. Forget about it. Hence monpoc. Hence riotquest. Hence neo-mechanika. They're probsbly viewing WMH as something to maintain, and feed with limited releases, but to hold big projects and big development while the other ips and communities/sales are developed. And then they'll turn from maintenance to archive.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

The issue is biggest for people like me who might get like 2-3 game a month plus occasional tournament once in a while. I remember late mk1, early mk2 after playing like a year it was still running into yet another new combo I had never ran into before that gave opponent easy caster kill.

Then came new stuff...I couldn't learn all the combo's fast enough to keep up with new ones let alone catch up with old ones.

Felt like unless I can play several games a week it's going to be hopeless.

Well Warmachine was marketed at the more "professional gamer" that took their game very seriously, at least back in the Mk1 and earlier Mk2 days (page 5 page 5 page 5!!!!) before I got out of it, so that makes sense.

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I would say if the learning curve is keeping people away from the game, it is failing.

The issue is biggest for people like me who might get like 2-3 game a month plus occasional tournament once in a while. I remember late mk1, early mk2 after playing like a year it was still running into yet another new combo I had never ran into before that gave opponent easy caster kill.

Then came new stuff...I couldn't learn all the combo's fast enough to keep up with new ones let alone catch up with old ones.

Felt like unless I can play several games a week it's going to be hopeless.

You know, you are not wrong.

I remember when i played, and I was decent, and could have been good (even took a few scalps of folks who went on to win nationals :p) but I definitely noticed the same thing.

Warmachine was intense. You really had to put effort into it, and play a lot of games, both to get good and to stay good. There was always something new, or a here to unknown combo. It was extremely exciting and rewarding, if you were into that kind of thing. There was a time when I absolutely loved it.

Thing is, it took time. To be that good, you had to be playing several games a week, and at least every other day.

So when I started seeing the lady who is now my wife, when I started hitting the pavement and training for marathons, or hitting the gym, or getting serious about weights, or holidays or kids or whatever. Warmachine for me took a backseat. Looking back, probsbly around the time colossals came out.

And to be fair, when you were current, stating current was a tough slog. When you stepped back, it just got harder and harder. For me, i stepped back enough that when i came back a year or two after, it just wasn't the same. The burden of knowledge had increased significantly to the point where I saw it as an obstacle. And I just wasn't interested in investing that amount of time just to get up to par, if I was lucky! I can only imagine how you felt from your perspective.

You know what's interesting, 40K and Fantasy Battles were equally rule-intensive, yet most units only had 1 or 2 unique rules at most, with anything else being rather universal. While some rules in WMH are rather wide spread (Grevious Wounds as an example), there are a lot of completely unique rules that run around, and pure unit count can be quite intimidating from the outset.

However, both 40K and AoS have more factions over all, even if most have fewer models to work with individually.

To me, it's the stacking of abilities. I'm rather rusty, but let's say I'm playing Ret, and I want to send a Heavy Jack into someone else. I want to buff it twice with an Arcanist (both buffs?) then put a de-buff on my target (Let's say, Helena) plus I want to put a buff on that Jack, and then remember to load it up with focus, but attack the target a couple of times with dudes that can pull the target 2" closer so I can save the focus for a charge and instead take an extra attack, but also keep a clean path, and also don't block the other duders that are needing to shoot...

Do I need to feat? Is the target immune to Pushing? Should my Manticore spend focus to increase power, or take an extra attack? Should I use my initial attack as a combined attack for bonus damage at a loss of an attack?


That's what I can recall from a single "decision" made a year ago, on whether or not to charge. That was even before calculating worst-case damage.

There is just too much going on in what should be simple decisions. It's too daunting for casual players running into "professionals".

 greatbigtree wrote:
To me, it's the stacking of abilities. I'm rather rusty, but let's say I'm playing Ret, and I want to send a Heavy Jack into someone else. I want to buff it twice with an Arcanist (both buffs?) then put a de-buff on my target (Let's say, Helena) plus I want to put a buff on that Jack, and then remember to load it up with focus, but attack the target a couple of times with dudes that can pull the target 2" closer so I can save the focus for a charge and instead take an extra attack, but also keep a clean path, and also don't block the other duders that are needing to shoot...

Do I need to feat? Is the target immune to Pushing? Should my Manticore spend focus to increase power, or take an extra attack? Should I use my initial attack as a combined attack for bonus damage at a loss of an attack?


That's what I can recall from a single "decision" made a year ago, on whether or not to charge. That was even before calculating worst-case damage.

There is just too much going on in what should be simple decisions. It's too daunting for casual players running into "professionals".

I rather disagree. The only time that comes in to issue when compared to 40K or AoS, asides from being new, is when you start building up the scale to competitive levels.

Think about how many units either Warhammers field, and compare against how many units WMH fields. Then look at the number of Monsters and Vehicles the Warhammers field, then look at the the number of Jacks, Beasts, and Battle Engines they field. Then, probably the most key point out of this, how many individual Infantry and Cavalry models the average list has between Warhammers and WarmaHordes. Most of those buffs and interactions are supplied by those sole models (though there are a few buffing units out there like the Beast Handlers and Choir).

Next sense of scale to consider is that the Warhammers are designed for unit interactions while WMH is designed around model interactions. A horde of models in WMH usually only tallies in at around 40 models, with smaller numbers as you go more elite. That is around what you're looking at as the minimum for most of the elite armies in Warhammer (aside from the Knights). Yet the games take just as long. A game of 100 models in WMH is the equivalent of Apocalypse because of that scale of interaction. Warhammer games would be unwieldy if you had to operate every interaction on a model by model basis. Unfortunately,, because you have to have a pair in order to do most WMH interactions, there is almost no way to reduce it to WMH scale without really cheapening the whole set up. That level of interaction is what causes you to consider those challenges you talk about and multiply out as you approach the competitive point level, which isn't as bad at the lower Requisition levels.

I have to flat out disagree with your assertion.

I’m describing a “single” decision about charging one model (40k unit) into another model (40k unit).

Like, If I were to charge a Dreadnought into another Dreadnought in 40k. How many actions / active decisions do I make? There are aura buffs... but that’s not a decision. I have Chapter Traits, but again, not a decision. I’ve already shot my ranged weapons, so don’t need to worry about order of activation. There is *almost certainly* not anything remotely in my way of charging.

Hypothetically, I *might* have cast a buffing psychic power in the psychic phase, and I might have had a Mechanic repair a couple of wounds.

But in the decision of whether or not to charge, there’s not a lot to factor. Arguably, too little to factor... will I roll enough distance? Is again not even that much of a decision other than odds of making it.

For me, the WMH scenario has a lot of micromanaging going into me smashing my big robot into your big robot.
1: Focus Allocation to Jacks / Hellena
2: Coordinating order of activation - 2 Arcanists to provide buffs
3: Order of activation - Move Hellena within range, while attempting counter- charges against her (good game design)
4: Hellena to cast debuff on target
5: Have Hellena attack and *choose* to push model closer, instead of damaging
6: Have Hellena cast buff spell on Manticore.
7: Manticore is within “walk-in” range. Decide not to charge, to conserve Focus for more attacks. Move into attack range, micro-managing to avoid being attacked and not block LOS from other units on my team.
8: Decide whether 4 attacks with bonus damage is better than 5 attacks without.
9: Decide if 1 initial attack with bonus damage is better than 2 initial attacks without.
10: Should I use power attacks? Headbutts? Slam? I don’t even remember what those do!
11: Roll each attack separately, discarding the lowest die for the buff, randomly allocate damage location... did I immobilize you? If so your Def drops to 5, right?
12: Basically auto-hit now that you’re immobilized, probably destroy your Jack with remaining attacks.
13: Use Rythym of War buff to move 3” back to clear lanes for other units to do their thing.

Vs:

1: Librarian casts Spell of Doom on Dreadnought.

2: Techpriest is nearby, so repairs a point of damage.

3: Dreadnought moves and shoots target, target survives.

4: roll 2d6, hopefully be within range to charge.


I mean, I’m on the 40k is too shallow for its own good train. But 13 *active* decisions being made, one of which is the crucial focus allocation to, for all intents and purposes, charge one Dreadnought into another.

WMH isn’t more tactical because I take Arcanists whose only job is to buff jacks. I could pay 1 more point per Jack and just have better stats... my tactical options are the he same. Casting a debuff on a target, and a buff on the attacker (2 spells) is no more tactically brilliant than a single spell that could be just as effective.

The notion of micromanaging the Manticore’s initial attack as either one combined attack or 2 individual attacks is a triviality. There are so few situations where the combined attack was *mathematically* better, to a minor degree, that it was usually a waste of time to consider. Using a focus for more damage but 1 less attack generally came down to whether or not the Manticore had a full 3 focus. Even then, the average outcomes were often close enough that using the special ability was often a hindrance.

40k has too few meaningful decisions.

WMH has too many “trap” decisions. I love that there are many meaningful decisions, but dislike that minutiae can so easily cost a game. When a decision isn’t tactical, it’s just burdensome. Gotcha! Isn’t great play, it’s just Gotcha!

If I suddenly put a blindfold on my opponent, and kept playing the game, would it really be a victory? Surprise! You didn’t see me move my whole army into assassination range while your weren’t able to see, now I charge with everything. Gotcha! That’s something that I think is strongly pushing me out of WMH. I love the game, but there’s too much for me to know in my available time to commit to playing.

Warhammer also has very few situations where you can be doing fine then suddenly lose. Warmahordes you could be playing a great game, accidentally leave a model a few inches out of place, then suddenly blam-caster kill-auto lose. The only comparable element would be a double turn in AoS.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I have to flat out disagree with your assertion.

Probably because you don't understand what I'm saying. The level new players are to be operating at will not have the resources to go through all those numbers of models for those decisions. It's only if you're going through at 50 points or above that you will even have the capacity to really put all that in to one decision.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Like, If I were to charge a Dreadnought into another Dreadnought in 40k. How many actions / active decisions do I make? There are aura buffs... but that’s not a decision. I have Chapter Traits, but again, not a decision. I’ve already shot my ranged weapons, so don’t need to worry about order of activation. There is *almost certainly* not anything remotely in my way of charging.

Those aura buffs are part of an earlier decisions, such as model placement, but even then, there are not very models in a Warhammer army capable of even providing those buffs as opposed to WMH where solos are set up to buff/debuff or be a hammer.

This illustrates my point:

 greatbigtree wrote:
For me, the WMH scenario has a lot of micromanaging going into me smashing my big robot into your big robot.
1: Focus Allocation to Jacks / Hellena
2: Coordinating order of activation - 2 Arcanists to provide buffs
3: Order of activation - Move Hellena within range, while attempting counter- charges against her (good game design)
4: Hellena to cast debuff on target
5: Have Hellena attack and *choose* to push model closer, instead of damaging
6: Have Hellena cast buff spell on Manticore.
7: Manticore is within “walk-in” range. Decide not to charge, to conserve Focus for more attacks. Move into attack range, micro-managing to avoid being attacked and not block LOS from other units on my team.
8: Decide whether 4 attacks with bonus damage is better than 5 attacks without.
9: Decide if 1 initial attack with bonus damage is better than 2 initial attacks without.
10: Should I use power attacks? Headbutts? Slam? I don’t even remember what those do!
11: Roll each attack separately, discarding the lowest die for the buff, randomly allocate damage location... did I immobilize you? If so your Def drops to 5, right?
12: Basically auto-hit now that you’re immobilized, probably destroy your Jack with remaining attacks.
13: Use Rythym of War buff to move 3” back to clear lanes for other units to do their thing.

Vs:

1: Librarian casts Spell of Doom on Dreadnought.

2: Techpriest is nearby, so repairs a point of damage.

3: Dreadnought moves and shoots target, target survives.

4: roll 2d6, hopefully be within range to charge.

And that is part of the scales of which I'm talking about. How many of those steps are you going to take in a Battlebox game? 15 points? 25? There is a reason why JMLs are set up to grow up. Oddly enough, that ramp up of complexity doesn't exist in Warhammer that much, but you can be drowned by the number of models in to a little indecision.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I mean, I’m on the 40k is too shallow for its own good train. But 13 *active* decisions being made, one of which is the crucial focus allocation to, for all intents and purposes, charge one Dreadnought into another.

WMH isn’t more tactical because I take Arcanists whose only job is to buff jacks. I could pay 1 more point per Jack and just have better stats... my tactical options are the he same. Casting a debuff on a target, and a buff on the attacker (2 spells) is no more tactically brilliant than a single spell that could be just as effective.

I didn't say it was more tactical because of that. I just said that WMH allows/encourages you to set up your army to set up a decision stream like the one you mentioned above because it uses a far lower number of units (as well as models) and the decision-making is more focused on the model than the unit. Those Arcanists in 40K would either be taking up a Wizard's slot or an Elite's slot, while you are only limited in points and their own Field Allowance in WMH. Meanwhile, you'd also be throwing out 4-6 other units to cover and support whatever those Arcanists are doing, instead of using a single unit to screen them or jam a unit that would threaten them. This is the other part of the scale of which I speak.

WMH is about decisions about the model, while Warhammer is about the unit. Sometimes WMH is asking how to get one model to one point, sometimes it is about removing them. It has always been this way. The current competitive track has pushed the number of models higher and higher all the time, and this Requisition setup, while simpler, has enhanced this.

I could literally create this scenario in a 5 point game. It’s 4 models. Hypothetically, those Arcanists could be free in a theme, for a “0” point game. At least they hypothetically could have... not sure about the current themes.

And, in context, yes. I was playing 50 or 75 point games. I was comfortable with that amount of models. Your pointing out that with fewer points there are fewer models? I mean, no gak? Of course there are fewer models? That has nothing to do with my point that, seemingly, each action in WMH is a Rube Goldberg machine of needlessly interconnected complications that could be streamlined for convenience, speed of play, and accessibility to newer players?

I feel the game is needlessly complex, and could remain a deep and satisfying game to play even if it was made less cluttered by the multitude of interlocking pieces. Sometimes, a +2 to hit and damage is sufficient to say, that unit is buffed, now go smash that other robot.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I could literally create this scenario in a 5 point game. It’s 4 models. Hypothetically, those Arcanists could be free in a theme, for a “0” point game. At least they hypothetically could have... not sure about the current themes.

And, in context, yes. I was playing 50 or 75 point games. I was comfortable with that amount of models. Your pointing out that with fewer points there are fewer models? I mean, no gak? Of course there are fewer models? That has nothing to do with my point that, seemingly, each action in WMH is a Rube Goldberg machine of needlessly interconnected complications that could be streamlined for convenience, speed of play, and accessibility to newer players?

I feel the game is needlessly complex, and could remain a deep and satisfying game to play even if it was made less cluttered by the multitude of interlocking pieces. Sometimes, a +2 to hit and damage is sufficient to say, that unit is buffed, now go smash that other robot.

My assertion was that much of it is due to scale, and you did not prove me wrong, yet you disagreed.

No, Arcanists cannot be taken for free in a 5 point game right now because the Requisition system is based on army size (every 25 points), not model types (ex: 30 points of Warjacks), unless you set it up with your opponent before hand.

As for "needlessly", that is up to debate and part of the other aspect of scale I was speaking of that you do not seem to want to address. Warhammer does not include many support units in an army. You have the wizard, sometimes a banner bearer, and sometimes a technician/engineer, and that's it per army. This generally leads to few decisions in army making and running and only focus on the damage they can make versus the base ability to avoid damage, which leads to herding ants on the table. For some this is boring, while the WMH provides the ability to set up interesting decisions such as what you are describing? Is it "needless"? Well, I suppose that it is not needed in an absolute sense, but it is the game design that was desired, so it is needed in that specific sense.

Ok, so even not in a theme. As soon as I have 4 points available, plus the Battlegroup.

Literally the first thing Ret players are told to get, for use in all themes, is a pair of Arcanists.

The very, immediately practical, step beyond the Battle box is to get 2 Arcanists so you can buff your Manticore.

This has nothing to do with scale. It is the VERY FIRST STEP past Battle Box. And yes, that's the majority of that turn. The rough equivalent of, I don't know, 500 points of 40k? In which I *might* have 4 units to play with... just like WMH...

This isn't so much interesting decisions, as remembering a formula. Once the formula is mastered... It's just making sure all the pieces of the chain are there. There's never a "bad" time to buff your Robots with an Arcanist. In 40k terms, it's like having 4 little deathstar units cruising the board, all needing their many layers of buffs and curses and assorted goodies... but it's the same activation, once you know it.

The trick, is knowing everyone else's chains of activation. if you don't know the chains, you can't know your odds. If you don't know your odds, you aren't making informed decisions. Yes, you have to make decisions, and yes, they have consequences, but if I don't know what my opponent can do, because it's a case of 4 models all interacting together to pull a miracle out of their arse… it always feels like a cheap shot. Fewer layers makes it easier for your opponent to make informed decisions, which makes for a more interesting game for both players.

It avoids the Gotcha. And Gotcha exists at all point values in WMH, moreso than other games, I've found. I still like the game. It's just too knowledge intensive. If you don't know how all the units in your opponent's army intermesh, you can't know the potentials.

The issue I had with this game is that it feels a lot like

Set up; Set up; Set up.

Plan Status: Green

Push "I win" button.

Game over.

It's dull and boring. The models are mostly metal from what I can tell and steam punk never really excited me all that much. There were far more people playing 40K in my area that I chose to enter that IP instead. I think a lot of people look at it this way.

Today, GW is even more of a power house. I can't think of a single other miniature game company that has anywhere near the presence that GW currently has. That alone is probably the biggest knock on other companies games.

It is hard to say concretely what the state of the game is without inside information like sales numbers, as we’re pretty much basing any analysis on a lot of speculation, anecdotes, etc. I think it is fair to say that the number of people playing and sales are likely down from the peak, but it’s probably not as grim as some of the doom and gloom crowd seems to think.

PP seems to be focusing in diversifying, which is good because having the fate of the company tied to the health of one game isn’t a great situation. Releases for Warmachine are slowing down as they are going to be interspersed with releases for Riot Quest, Monsterpocalypse, and Warcaster: Neomechanika, which is probably not a bad thing.

The game itself, from a pure rules perspective, is probably in a fairly health state. It’s not perfectly balanced, but no game is and balance doesn’t feel too bad overall (aside from some concerns about the CID process and power creep).

I think a lot of critiques leveled at Warmachine in this thread are more matters of opinion. Things like igougo, caster kill, 2d6, theme forces, armies engaging in the center, etc., are all there for a reason; you might disagree with them, but they aren’t necessarily bad mechanics.
- igougo is seen as old-fashioned, but I don’t think Warmachine would work with alternating activations or something like that
- 2d6 makes for a more bell-curve shaped probability distribution, which, when you combine it with resource allocation mechanics like boosting, buffs, etc., makes the math really engaging as you try to allocate resources to mitigate luck and maximize your chance of success.
- Without some sort of catchup mechanic, a lot of games struggle with a situation where if one player gets ahead on attrition early on, the other player has little hope of winning. As you fall behind on attrition, it becomes harder and harder to both stay on top of the scenario and make up for that attrition deficit because you have fewer models remaining to do so. This can create situations where the game is more or less decided early on, but one player still has to play from behind for a couple hours with little hope of turning things around. Caster kill means that you can be down, but you are never out because it is always possible for an opponent to get too confident, overextend, and give you an opportunity to win the game (even if it is a hail mary).
- Theme forces have their advantages. For new players, you can see what subset of their faction they are most attracted to and that theme force can be their shopping list. Theme armies can look better on the tabletop than pikemen in plate armour standing next to dudes with rifles and trench coats. Finally, they can encourage diversity because if you have one model that is so good he is an auto-include, the fact that he isn’t available in all themes means that you won’t see him every time and he won’t crowd out all the other models in the faction.
- Armies do tend to engage in the center, but that doesn’t preclude flanking plays. Also, some of the new scenarios go right to the edge, so that encourages armies to spread out a bit more. Additionally, I’m not sure how engaging to the center is any worse or less of a tactical challenge than armies standing across the table from each other and barely leaving their deployment areas as they pop shots at each other.

Also, when we are talking about Mk.III, let’s not forget all the problems of Mk.II. Balance was no better, and Mk.II had the problem of new players being sold a game called Warmachine with big smashy robots but in actuality the robots sucked and you were playing Iron Kingdoms Infantry Battles. Mk.III fixed that.

I think really, the main issue that Warmachine struggles with is that it is a weird in-between of a skirmish and army game. You are doing most of your activations model by model, targeting individual models like a skirmish game, and even have to worry about facing on individual models, like you might in a skirmish game, but at 75 points the sheer size of the game makes it more of an army game. I feel like 75 points is a little overgrown, and prefer to play at points levels like 35 or 50.

The other issue is the community. It’s really a double-edged sword, in that I’ve met some really good people playing Warmachine, and I’ve had some experiences with people that made me want to ditch my army and go play 40K instead. The Warmachine internet is, with few exceptions, pretty horrible and negative.

Finally, it does feel like competitive play has crowded out a lot of things – narrative play, casual play, hobbying, etc., to the point that it is hard to keep people who are not competitively-focused around. That said, I know people who still buy models and play basement games and have fun playing casually; you just don’t see them around a lot because they don’t play in stores, don’t go to tournaments, and don’t post online.

Model quality is very hit and miss, depending on the age of the model and the material that particular model is made with. I don’t think anyone has the ability to do hard plastic to the same ability as GW, but PP has been steadily improving their resin and resin/metal game.

I have a feeling we will see some changes in the future, perhaps with things like limited formats, etc., which could make it less intimidating for a new player whose first reaction is “wait, I have to memorize 1200 cards to not die?” – the lead designer was on a podcast recently and talked about some of the conversations they’ve been having internally, so I'm sure Warmachine will evolve. I wonder if perhaps it could use a Mk.IV which involves a serious redesign, as Mk.III felt a lot like Mk. 2.5.

All that is to say, I think Warmachine is doing okay. It has some problems and is probably down from its peak, but it’s not a bad game. It is great that PP is diversifying though, because having the health of the company so intimately tied to one flagship product is a very difficult situation.

crimsyn wrote:
I think really, the main issue that Warmachine struggles with is that it is a weird in-between of a skirmish and army game. You are doing most of your activations model by model, targeting individual models like a skirmish game, and even have to worry about facing on individual models, like you might in a skirmish game, but at 75 points the sheer size of the game makes it more of an army game. I feel like 75 points is a little overgrown, and prefer to play at points levels like 35 or 50.

This is one of the levels of play I was speaking of, and how it influences everything in the game so much. Warmachine may have started out as a skirmish game, but now it's more of a Company or Platoon game, but still everything operates like it was a skirmish game.

crimsyn wrote:
The other issue is the community. It’s really a double-edged sword, in that I’ve met some really good people playing Warmachine, and I’ve had some experiences with people that made me want to ditch my army and go play 40K instead. The Warmachine internet is, with few exceptions, pretty horrible and negative.

Finally, it does feel like competitive play has crowded out a lot of things – narrative play, casual play, hobbying, etc., to the point that it is hard to keep people who are not competitively-focused around. That said, I know people who still buy models and play basement games and have fun playing casually; you just don’t see them around a lot because they don’t play in stores, don’t go to tournaments, and don’t post online.

I think the biggest problem that Warmachine has right now is exactly this, so much of the community is focused on the Steamroller. Do you know how many people are not even aware that there is anything else in the game besides Steamroller? It seems like most of them as they seem to be completely unaware of anything else when they bemone the loss of the casual and narrative events. Meanwhile, there's that group that is always saying, "We only play Steamroller here."

People talk about a limited format as something new, seeming not to even consider that 3 different versions of limited format already exist in JML, Champions, and Company of Iron, but people are only playing Steamroller. Even when I got in a few 25 point games (because my play time is so limited that even though I've followed and collection for years, I've had little play time), they still played them in a Steamroller format.

 Togusa wrote:
The issue I had with this game is that it feels a lot like

There were far more people playing 40K in my area that I chose to enter that IP instead. I think a lot of people look at it this way.

Today, GW is even more of a power house. I can't think of a single other miniature game company that has anywhere near the presence that GW currently has. That alone is probably the biggest knock on other companies games.

Thats directly a "you/ your local group" problem. everybody has to learn the game somehow, we all did. i have taught and hooked many players on games like classic battletech, the B5 wars system converted for use with star trek attack wing and star wars armada miniatures. i always have with me 3 dust armies (axis/allies/SSU) that i actively demo games with to teach people about the system with good experiences, same goes for infinity and victory at sea.

GW is only a powerhouse because it is actively promoted through players, dedicated retail locations, and media. quite honestly 8th ed 40K is a terrible system, and one of my least favorite incarnations after 6th, when compared to the game mechanics of some of theses other games. GW is so large and the lore is so loved they get a pass over and over again whenever they screw up.

Now my case may be a bit more extreme than some people as miniature gaming has been my main hobby for nearly 2 decades and i have a dedicated day i spend running game night once a week at the FLGS as a volunteer employee for 12+ hours. promoting the community is one of my main goals along with the "fun" social activity side of things,

I had yesterday glued my 25 point Retribution of Scyrah army. That alone made me to want to quit the game. I had purchased box of Houseguard Halberdiers. 10 of them cost 50 bucks, quite expensive. Yet the quality of those miniatures were absolutely dreadful. NOTHING was right with them. Mould lines everywhere and they were absolutely massive. They were poorly made and some had details which I simply could not attach. Materials are taken from garbage bin. This kind of plastic doesn't react with plastic glue and super glue are very, very iffy in gluing this stuff. Sometimes it glues perfectly, sometimes it doesn't at all. Then level of detail is bad. Miniatures are small and lacking in detail compared to warhammer more recent in offerings. I'm being extremely generous here, lacking is an understatement. They look to me more like those toy soldiers which you can buy for cents rather than real miniatures.

Then there was missing parts from my command squad. An entire body is missing. Now who is going to fix me this issue? I ordered Ghost solos. My local hobby shop was unable to order them, because privateer is too incompetent to have few of them lying around and each time they need to open mass production. So, I have tournament coming and have to borrow miniatures which I had ordered month prior. Also again with bases. They make ridiculous points of attachments while providing generic bases. GW finally had learned to pre-drill their holes in advance, but with privateer I have to do such basic thing myself.

Privateer has insane prices for some of its miniatures. Howlers are not even the worst. You need to pay around 100 bucks for 5 knights! I wouldn't be so pissed off if company would bother fixing their own mistakes and would provide miniatures made not out of crappy plastic which is impossible to glue with. Their more recent miniatures like Garryth 2 is quite good. Simple to glue, made out metal. You actually feel that you are getting something good. Yet, their older lines... I'm also pissed that they don't include cards with their miniatures anymore nor bother printing decks. Like, what? It is like playing warhammer without any unit cards. Some of them are even sent me in german. Like, how incompetent this company can be? Just assembling my army pissed me off immensely and wanted me to quit game all together. All of these things are coming just out of one evening of assembling.

As for mechanics, so far I hate buying attack nonsense. It makes game too focused on alpha and warjacks hits way too hard. It also makes their weapons kinda obsolete. There is no such thing as taking light blades to deal with light units, because it is cheaper and they are better against such targets. All that matters is highest POW or other interactions in making POW bigger indirectly. Then going up to target and purchasing million attacks. It feels cheap. Also, tables are very small and movement and fire ranges are massive. This game has absolutely no room for maneuver, especially with capture points. Movement only matters at how much you can walk while being in combat rather than having any genuine mobility problem. Last tournament I had a problem. My opponent went first. He of course ran with all his models and with 5 inch deployment bonus and full advance, he had covered 60% of a map in his first turn. Then I was in a position where I could not effectively reach enemy on my first turn, only take some random shots. I also did not had ground to set up or otherwise I will be defending my very map edge. Game is absolutely broken in that regard.


As for state of a game, it does great in my local hobby shop. Shop clerks play that game primary so they do lion's share of heavy lifting. Making discounts for starter sets, spending time in showing demos to anyone who is interested, making tournaments designed for new guys, etc. In tabletop no game survives without community managers, hobbyist or professionals. We had in Lithuania similar case with Star Wars Legion, you know miniature game with models on a ground. When someone took initiative and started showing demos, interest in game skyrocketed by 100-200%. On the other hand, W40k and Age of Sigmar is kinda dead in our hobby shop. Why? We have quite competitive players in W40k tabletop who are only interested in tournament play and exploiting meta. So they play among themselves and we hardly see them. Age of Sigmar is more casual, but you almost see nobody playing. They play in the corner or at home. So both games are considered dead while Warmachine is most popular miniature game out there. The only difference is that Warhammer does not have anyone to act as community manager and nobody bothers making public events or attracting new players. Even Infinity started to kick Warhammer's ass, because someone bothered to gather new guys and community grew by 100-200% last year. Solution to all Warmachine's problems are as easy as solution to any game's problems. It is actually bothering in introducing new people into the game. When someone does that, game prospers. When nobody does, any games dies. Simple as that. There is no need for pointless discussions about meta or other stuff.

Ernestas

That post proves my point-building communities helps games survive.. no matter how great the models look you are not going to buy them for more than a single display model unless you have a desire to use them in a game.

I think we have all had our share of horror stories of kits that were done badly (FW storm eagle...shudders... or the old armor cast models) from various companies.

If there is a game you love it's up to you to share/demo it and promote it

I have a heavy gear force because a fellow gamer was really into it and got me to build a force. not exactly the most popular of games

i don't like ti as much as classic battletech but it is fun to play.

The market can get a bit over saturated considering how limited the audience is, and many fine games have gone away and will continue to fade without support from the players.

the state of warmachine is currently tied to the same problem-the player base above all else

It can be super toxic in some places because of the players attitudes and thats a shame considering how much fun i have with it in a very casual setting.

 Ernestas wrote:

Then there was missing parts from my command squad. An entire body is missing. Now who is going to fix me this issue?

http://mispack.privateerpress.com/

PP has one of the most reliable customer support systems I've worked with outside of a few months last summer when they were moving the warehouse.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

Then there was missing parts from my command squad. An entire body is missing. Now who is going to fix me this issue?

http://mispack.privateerpress.com/

PP has one of the most reliable customer support systems I've worked with outside of a few months last summer when they were moving the warehouse.

Thank you. I had asked for help in my hobby store and they told me that privateer will help me out. Hopefully everything will solve itself out, because I had purchased it through hobby store and my hobby store do not give me receipt. Well, it gave me receipt, but it is one of a crappy kind where you can only see how much you spent, but there is no name what you were buying.

In our hobby store warmachine is actually the main game, because of amazing community. Veterans are super friendly. I can easily borrow models which privateer did not printed for tournament. Today guy who were ought to borrow me ghost sniper had only one, but I need two for requisition bonus. So I asked if it is fine if I just use houseguard rifleman model and that was cool. I also use different standard bearer to fix that issue with my missing model. It is warhammer who is under the rug, because nobody takes initiative to organize stuff on frequent basis. We yesterday had a post in our city's facebook group about people wanting to prove that Age of Sigmar is not dead and started registration for tournament. Its total numbers are similar to what we gather to Warmachine, but with a lot less certainty and frequency, there are a lot of ifs in their list while Warmachine gets same amount of members without those doubts. Where we have tournament at least every two months and smaller, casual evenings at least once per month to my knowledge, I can't see anything like that happening with warhammer. It is just some dudes agreeing together to play with each other and it just feels and looks pretty dead game, despite GW being so good at what it does that every Warmachine player to whom I talked agrees that Warhammer miniatures are far superior to anything that privateer produces.

I also had encountered this issue. Buying Warmachine figures can be extremely expensive. For example, I want 25 point Menoth army for my starter army. So, I need Choir, Wracks, Covenant, Holy Zealots, Monolith, Sunburst Deliverer for my initial faithful masses army. It costs over 100 euros easily. Just Holy Zealots would cost me 50 euros if purchased directly from privateer while wayland has them at 32 euros. I'm bringing this point, because when I buy stuff from ebay it is just ridiculous. I saw few days ago 30-50 euros brand new heavy warjacks/beasts going for under 10 euros! I had purchased bunch of stuff from auction for different armies, because they cost me just like 20-30% of their full value. Even far less if you want to buy entire armies off at once. I'm awaiting now my brand new Hyperion kit which I won at the auction for 40 euros. There were absolutely no other takers... I had grabbed Ryssovass Defenders for 20 euros and two light jacks for symbolic price of 1.50 euros. I had outbidded a guy who wanted to take them for 1 euro and I just bought them, because I have to pay a hefty percent for postage anyways, so I was just buying all the stuff guy had which I sorta needed. Second hand market for this stuff is insane. I see absolutely no reason to buy new stuff from privateer, because I can get all of it even assembled and quite well painted for fraction of a cost. I only purchased and keep purchasing my armies directly, because I sorta need to have army which I want here and now. Though, all other armies I will definitely just randomly accumulate from ebay and buy from privateer model or two which I will be missing. I'm dreading a day when I will want to make cavalry army and will have to pay 20 euros for a single crappy plastic knight toy...

 Ernestas wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Ernestas wrote:

Then there was missing parts from my command squad. An entire body is missing. Now who is going to fix me this issue?

http://mispack.privateerpress.com/

PP has one of the most reliable customer support systems I've worked with outside of a few months last summer when they were moving the warehouse.

Thank you. I had asked for help in my hobby store and they told me that privateer will help me out. Hopefully everything will solve itself out, because I had purchased it through hobby store and my hobby store do not give me receipt. Well, it gave me receipt, but it is one of a crappy kind where you can only see how much you spent, but there is no name what you were buying.

They don't ask for a receipt, don't worry about it. PP is incredibly good about replacement parts. I've never had an issue that they didn't go above and beyond to fix with basically no demands from me on the issue.

That gives me a lot more confidence in a company then.

Yeah PP has always had good customer service.

I think GW has only shifted to requiring receipts because they deal mostly in plastics now so replacement parts are whole models rather than bits. So its more tempting for some to try and abuse the system. Proof of purchase allows GW to keep track of things and also allows them to monitor if people are claiming for secondhand goods not new purchases.

IT might also come down to a country level too, some countries can have more of a "scam" culture in the consumer sector. I recall watching a small documentary on GOG (alebit made by gog) which said that one big problem in the Polish market was that rip-off CD's of games were so rife and common that many markets were selling products "as good" in packaging and such as the official yet they were ripped off. To the point where many customers didn't even know what they were buying was a rip-off.

PP did have some issues with fulfilling mispacks last year when they moved locations (they really didn't sort their packing well enough), but that seems to have been taken care of in the last few months.

 Ernestas wrote:
This kind of plastic doesn't react with plastic glue and super glue are very, very iffy in gluing this stuff.

Did you wash them before you tried to assemble them? Resins require mold release agents that GW-style plastics don't, if you don't apply some soap and water to get rid of the release agent it will play h--- with superglue. GW finecast has the same problem.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah PP has always had good customer service.

These days they do. There were periods where press gangers had to explain to players how to title and phrase their email so it would be noticed and handled, without that it could take weeks for a response, let alone the part. That did eventually clear up, however.

The real downside of their good customer service is their mispack rates were really high. I know I had 30-40 mispacks with privateer products over the course of about 8 years. With GW, its been maybe 5 mispacks in 30 years (and two of those were mislabeled bits orders back in the day).

Azeroth wrote:
My biggest problems with Warmahordes (outside of the poor management of their production and distribution) is the scenarios themselves.

Caster Kill always wins a game even if that is not the scenario. I've had games where my opponent had not taken out a single of my models but then they assassinate the caster. Now if the scenario was caster kill, that would be OK, but the scenario was one of the flag scenarios. If the scenario is that you need to take an objective, the army isn't going to throw down their arms and run away if the caster is killed. The scenarios become almost meaningless. Caster kill should only win a game in a caster kill scenario. The caster is a powerful character and hurts if killed, but it shouldn't end the game. Because of this, the game is boring.

Not a fan of chess?

marxlives wrote:


Not a fan of chess?

I know this forum doesn't get much traffic. But check the time stamps before replying with snarky one liners.

Also, not being able to see the differences between Chess' simplicity, grid movement, alternating pieces, and exactly mirrored setup and Warmachine is the kind of difference that makes his point.

Warmachine isn't Chess. Warmachine is like if Chess was played on a board with 1/8 inch grid across a 4x4 table, with pieces that can capture each other from across the board, and every single piece from a single side gets to go all at once before the other side does. Oh, and the pieces all get 5 different moves it can make, and some pieces can give stronger moves to pieces, or take away moves. And let's double, nay quadruple, the number of pieces on top of all that.

 Vertrucio wrote:

marxlives wrote:

Not a fan of chess?

I know this forum doesn't get much traffic. But check the time stamps before replying with snarky one liners.

Also, not being able to see the differences between Chess' simplicity, grid movement, alternating pieces, and exactly mirrored setup and Warmachine is the kind of difference that makes his point.

Warmachine isn't Chess. Warmachine is like if Chess was played on a board with 1/8 inch grid across a 4x4 table, with pieces that can capture each other from across the board, and every single piece from a single side gets to go all at once before the other side does. Oh, and the pieces all get 5 different moves it can make, and some pieces can give stronger moves to pieces, or take away moves. And let's double, nay quadruple, the number of pieces on top of all that.

I think they were more referencing that the loss of a certain piece ends the game which is the primary win condition of Chess.

Though it is a little off, as Chess' King can't move like a Knight or Queen (or have the pawns do so) and be an obnoxious annoyance to the enemy.

I agree with the general principle that Caster Kill being 'always on' is a limiting factor. Having at least some scenarios where the army can fight on without a Caster would, at the very least, give more options.

You'd still be in dire trouble, but it'd certainly be interesting. I remember reading the rules for what happened to Warjacks when their Warcaster died, and my imagination being filled with cool visions of an allied or enemy Warcaster taking them over... only to find out that the rules mechanics would only come into effect in a handful of edge cases, or huge games that were way out of our gaming group's scope.

Always having been much more interested in the visuals of groups of models rather than individual characters, such scenarios would be a great deal more appealing. I suspect it'd also give a shot in the arm to some of the less-used Warcasters/Warlocks, for various reasons specific to the model.

 Vertrucio wrote:

marxlives wrote:


Not a fan of chess?

I know this forum doesn't get much traffic. But check the time stamps before replying with snarky one liners.

Also, not being able to see the differences between Chess' simplicity, grid movement, alternating pieces, and exactly mirrored setup and Warmachine is the kind of difference that makes his point.

Warmachine isn't Chess. Warmachine is like if Chess was played on a board with 1/8 inch grid across a 4x4 table, with pieces that can capture each other from across the board, and every single piece from a single side gets to go all at once before the other side does. Oh, and the pieces all get 5 different moves it can make, and some pieces can give stronger moves to pieces, or take away moves. And let's double, nay quadruple, the number of pieces on top of all that.

Still not a fan of chess?

You're embarrassing yourself mate...

In other news, I've been buying some retribution of scyrahvand steelheads for a modelling project. Half tempted to get some trenchers and winter guard.

Going for the more 'modern' stuff. And pikeys. Always pikeys.

Third edition really killed my desire to play. I got my favorite caster and battlegroup for Legion of Everblight painted up and third edition completely changed how the caster (Bethayne) plays and the great majority of my models stopped working well as an army with her. Then the theme forces dictate what to take and if that isn't what you want to use puts you at a large disadvantage. I don't know if it's still this way but I think i'll wait until Forth Edition to try the game again, provided it gets a Forth. Otherwise I may try talking my group into playing second again.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Third edition really killed my desire to play. I got my favorite caster and battlegroup for Legion of Everblight painted up and third edition completely changed how the caster (Bethayne) plays and the great majority of my models stopped working well as an army with her. Then the theme forces dictate what to take and if that isn't what you want to use puts you at a large disadvantage. I don't know if it's still this way but I think i'll wait until Forth Edition to try the game again, provided it gets a Forth. Otherwise I may try talking my group into playing second again.

I'll be controversial and say I don't think wmh needed MK3. It needed MK2 reboot.

MK2 was fairly solid but it had its outliers.Cryx had a lot of silly. As did cygnar and they skewed the game.

Play MK2 as it was, include power up and some of the obvious nerfs required (knock a point of Def of gun mages and satyxis), get rid of some of the Mini feats, look a bit at cryx recursion shenanigans.

And politely ignore some of the sillier casters like the haleys.

I think you'd have the makings of a good game.

Deadnight wrote:

Play MK2 as it was, include power up and some of the obvious nerfs required (knock a point of Def of gun mages and satyxis), get rid of some of the Mini feats, look a bit at cryx recursion shenanigans.

This is basically all MK3 actually is.

 LunarSol wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Play MK2 as it was, include power up and some of the obvious nerfs required (knock a point of Def of gun mages and satyxis), get rid of some of the Mini feats, look a bit at cryx recursion shenanigans.

This is basically all MK3 actually is.

Putting aside the toxic "steamroller all the time" players and using PP theme lists i think MKIII the actual game rules/mechanics themselves are the best the game has ever been.

It is great fun to play in a casual setting at the 50 point level where the game thrives.

marxlives wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:

marxlives wrote:


Not a fan of chess?

I know this forum doesn't get much traffic. But check the time stamps before replying with snarky one liners.

Also, not being able to see the differences between Chess' simplicity, grid movement, alternating pieces, and exactly mirrored setup and Warmachine is the kind of difference that makes his point.

Warmachine isn't Chess. Warmachine is like if Chess was played on a board with 1/8 inch grid across a 4x4 table, with pieces that can capture each other from across the board, and every single piece from a single side gets to go all at once before the other side does. Oh, and the pieces all get 5 different moves it can make, and some pieces can give stronger moves to pieces, or take away moves. And let's double, nay quadruple, the number of pieces on top of all that.

Still not a fan of chess?

The problem with Warmahordes is that beginners don’t know how to protect their caster/lock. They don’t know the threat ranges, what is a sizable threat vs is not, the gotchas between multiple units that extend the threat ranges, and then have to learn their own army on top of that. It’s like teaching chess to a new player, but you only explain what the pieces do one at a time, but don’t explain the piece until after you use the piece for the first time and also seal the game with a checkmate.

The problem, slow, is you then expect that other player to go “That was fun. Can you shove a progressively larger dildo up my ass for the next fifty times?” Instead of, “That was a terrible gaming experience, I’d like to never do that again.”

That sounds more like it's a community problem, if they(players) treat learning/new players like veterans then of course it will drive them away. That is true of any game system.

I think its also an issue you get when you have a competitive game (even at pure casual its still a competition) and you have a huge skill gap. Warhamhordes has the issue of a mature and experienced playerbase with low recruitment for several years. So they've lost a lot of the middle ground players.

This is bad because it means good players have to start throwing matches to give the new players some wins - and not everyone thinks that way. They need to repopulate the middle ground which should, in a healthy system, be the greatest body of players. The middling group who are good enough to lose to beginners without throwing matches; who are often eager without being at the competitive top.

The other issue is the longer you sit like this the older your pros get and the older they get the greater the potential generation gap is with newbies who will typically be younger.

 LunarSol wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Play MK2 as it was, include power up and some of the obvious nerfs required (knock a point of Def of gun mages and satyxis), get rid of some of the Mini feats, look a bit at cryx recursion shenanigans.

This is basically all MK3 actually is.

Disagree. There were a lot of other minor changes, like how reposition got handed out (unnecessarily) like candy to everything, how tough/anti tough tech got farmed out in a similar manner to almost everythimg. Fundamentally a lot more 'cards' were ultimately 'changed' for sake of it, rather than focusing on the dozen or so real outliers in the game that really needed fixing and skewed the game poorly that were realistically necessary.

Then there's the wholesale change to themes.

Mk2 remix would have been enough.

Truth is, as I see it, pp were haemorrhaging cash. MK3, despite what they say, was a short term cash grab, not a long term strategy.

I think the biggest mistake of MK3 was taking away the idea of building an army and instead presenting the idea of theme forces.

You shifted the entier game from one of "collect and build an army" to one of "buy X only".

Yes that's a VERY simplified view to it, but its roughly what happened. Instead of getting the fun of building your own force around a leader, you instead could only select certain models for certain leaders. This means that a whole segment of your fluffy/casual/new/not top meta players were being pushed out somewhat. Existing players who had collections that perhaps didn't perfectly fit themes felt pushed out.

On its own it wasn't as huge an issue; but coupled to other elements it did add up. It doesn't help tha theme-force battle sets are very expensive by default which is fine for a game that has a mature; growing and active community (as GW regularly shows); but its not the direction you want when you are bleeding and looking to swell a gamerbase.


I can get the idea that PP had issues around the launch of MK3; there was the expensive offices and operating site; there was the loss of their PG program; the loss of their forums as a community hub (yes they kept them but they gutted them at the same time). They quickly lost their "cards in the box" model only half a year or so into the game as they couldn't envision a way to keep supplying people with updated cards each year; there was a supply issue in getting models to stores/customers.


I think there was also an issue that warmachine got stuck between being a skirmish game and being an army game. PP couldn't secure good enough plastics to make going for a large scale wargame work; and yet their army diversity and collections are big enough that a full skirmish game wasn't quite what a lot of the established crowd wanted (because when you've got a big collection you want to use it not just 5 models each week and let the rest gather dust).

I think the game was in its best shape a few months after mk3 launch, when PP balanced the worst outliers (Karchev Mad Dog spam, Una+ Griffons, High Reclaimer).

After that it was a downward spiral with Themepocalypse butchering variety, CiD powercreep and rulescreep, overcomplicated new models/factions with buckets of special rules to remember (despite promises of heavy streamlining at the start of mk3), prices getting absurd...

I keep seeing the complaint about theme forces in MKIII as if somehow this prevents you from building an army your way. it doesn't, it is a direct give to the steamroller optimized players just like 9th edition 40K is a give directly to the tournament player mindset in 40K. neither in my opinion are good for the games in question. but then i walked away from that toxic scene over a decade ago with 40K

You can still build and play whatever you like without the odd free unit/model in a theme force and still be viable and effective as an army in the game in MKIII.

The other big thing is that 75 point armies should never have become a thing for a "normal" sized game. the mechanics do not support it. it is designed as a skirmish system and breaks down above the optimal 50 point level.

 aphyon wrote:

The other big thing is that 75 point armies should never have become a thing for a "normal" sized game. the mechanics do not support it. it is designed as a skirmish system and breaks down above the optimal 50 point level.

75 in MK3 is essentially the same size game as 50 was in MK2. At the start of MK3 it was actually a hair smaller. Price reductions have done more to bloat the army size over MK3 than anything else. Requisition makes it technically a little larger, but where its mostly adding solos you wouldn't take otherwise it doesn't have a huge impact on game size.

Cyel wrote:
I think the game was in its best shape a few months after mk3 launch, when PP balanced the worst outliers (Karchev Mad Dog spam, Una+ Griffons, High Reclaimer).

After that it was a downward spiral with Themepocalypse butchering variety, CiD powercreep and rulescreep, overcomplicated new models/factions with buckets of special rules to remember (despite promises of heavy streamlining at the start of mk3), prices getting absurd...

As much as I love Warmachine and Privateer Press, they broke me from really wanting to play because of three things:

-Themes
-Quality control/customer service
-Constant CID

The themes made the game so much more expensive and time consuming to expand an army. Before I could swap a single unit in a list to change it up or give it a solution to problems like Incorporeal, or Tough spam. To try new stuff with an army, I often have to buy into an entirely new theme. Makes it difficult for newer players as well, as they will be stuck with one theme, giving them limited options against players with larger collections. The theme also hand out free models... and the game is more than large enough as is.

The quality control from Privateer Press feels like it has taken a nosedive, and the poor communication from their customer service reps have made me not want to buy anything new. I have had FAR more miscasts and missing parts with newer items recently than I ever have since I started buying their stuff in Mk. I. I tend to order a lot of bits for conversions from their parts section of the online store, and recently have gotten a lot of wrong parts sent to me, repeatedly sent wrong parts after filling out replacement tickets, and had replacement tickets for miscast models closed on me without them sending the replacement parts. Been trying for close to a year just to get a few small parts I have ordered to finish a few conversions, that were missing from the package when it arrived. The packaging itself has taken a dive as well. They used to send parts in a blister pack with small pieces of foam to protect them in a shipping envelope, or in a small box... now? They put parts in a plastic bag and mail them in an envelope, letting them get smashed up.

The constant CID schedule has created a revolving door of rules to remember. Now, I don't mind models that aren't working as intended getting some help or being nerfed a bit to create more variety in lists... but the CID schedule has been plagued with power creep and factions of players sabotaging the system to get their army to be stronger, or make others worse off. A lot of the time models are released into the CID cycle with obviously broken rules as well... which is an absolute waste of time. The CID cycle is too short to start off with clearly broken rules and try to adjust it down to something more balanced in just two weeks time. Makes me feel like the in house play testing is severely lacking of late.

-Themes
-Quality control/customer service
-Constant CID

On themes, i don't see that as an issue. just continue to use and play with what minis you like, nobody is making you use a theme list.

Quality control-not surprising given some of the things i have heard about their facilities from people who have visited the main office(i only live a couple hours away by car)

CID has not really been something i noticed aside from the much needed re-work of battle engines to make them worth using (the signar one is still lackluster and could use some improved rules)

In the casual setting i play in i would just use whichever version of the rules for MKIII you like rather it be pre/post CID.

I strongly disagree with your repeated notion that a theme vs non-theme army game is in any way fair or interesting. There's a reason nobody does that.

Nobody in my group plays "theme" VS "non theme" in the sense of the required list builds set down by PP to get free units. and the games are just fine.

We play theme in the sense it is an army built around certain models we like.

Our circle orbos player runs kaya with warp wolves and skin walkers with a few other occasional units like shifting stones because he loves wolves and wanted to do a werewolf "themed" list.

Of course in a close group you may self-regulate the "power level", something that my casual wh40k group used to do in 6th ed for example (I'd love to have a nice comp in WM&H now! I loved Swedish Comp for 40k!). With a like-minded group like this you may set any limitations you want in fact, for example "let's not play with casters whose names start with a vowel".

If you play in a bigger, varied group, with strangers or with people who prefer Themes to be a thing, you have to be prepared to face Themes and part of it is using a Theme Force yourself. If you don't, you risk wasting time on very one-sided matches. Which is a pity IMO

We are right back to the major problem with the game at the moment-the toxic core community.

Our group plays many different game systems we all want a good fun game with a good fight since this is social activity even though everybody likes a win.

Just like any other game system i will play anybody once, but if your a giant jackwagon don't expect another game with me. several 40K players have been put on my "banned" list over the last 20 years. i am not playing for the sake of frustration

Well, in this case it's the system's fault. You can't blame players for wanting to play with themes, or with Horde factions, or with Mercenaries, or with Infernals, or with Structures, or with cavalry warcasters, or with shooty warjacks, or with Cygnar, or with Pathfinder models, or with Tough models etc.

Otherwise everybody will stick to their list of pet peeves and never play anyone, because they will consider them "jackwagons" for wanting to play with an Agoniser or Kreoss or junior warcasters or whatever models they like playing with.

i think your twisting what i said a bit. their is quite a difference between playing cygnar or any other army the way you want like my orobos example and playing a list forced upon the player by PP. requiring them to use models they may not want, to get free perks. especially if it makes the game less enjoyable for both players.

Nobody wants a one sided game (outside of possibly tournament WAAC players) in a general casual game scene.

Well, I am quite sure that many players would prefer Infernals or Battle Engines to be banned in their gaming group (casual or competitive), instead of Theme Forces.

I am not a fan of current Theme Forces, I'd prefer them gone. I just don't think expecting players not to use them just because I dislike them is reasonable. Especially at events where I just meet random people.

The more i think about it, MKIII theme forces are PPs version of 40Ks 7th edition debacle that was formations. giving game breaking perks for taking certain models.


As for infernals, not sure the problem there i never did battle against them.
i have experience against
.circle
.cygnar
.menoth
.legion
.convergence
.rhulic
.crucible guard

 aphyon wrote:
The more i think about it, MKIII theme forces are PPs version of 40Ks 7th edition debacle that was formations. giving game breaking perks for taking certain models.

I always saw them more like 40k codices than formations. 'cygnar' is a range of models with codex:trenchers etc. Just my thoughts mind.

 aphyon wrote:

As for infernals, not sure the problem there i never did battle against them.
i have experience against
.circle
.cygnar
.menoth
.legion
.convergence
.rhulic
.crucible guard

Pretty sure they can do ridiculous things based on summoning by sacrificing their own models. I think its like swap a solo in game for a heavy 'jack'/'horror'. And unless it changed there is no limit to this. Can't remember all the details; haven't played in a while. Plus their casters are insane. From what I heard from my mates that still play, They upended the meta.

Sounds like the old MKI deathjack swap that used to be a big thing.

 aphyon wrote:
Sounds like the old MKI deathjack swap that used to be a big thing.

There is only one deathjack though. (Need to get that kit!)

Now imagine every solo can be swapped out for a heavy.

Apparently infernal.armies canned up.costimg close to £1000. (UK prices here, thank you brexit and the exchange rate).

Gotta love that VAT tax


My FLGS is only like an hour away from the PP main office. so getting a hold of stuff is actually easy for me. sometimes some of the staff stop in and drop us off bits. we got an infernal summoning cauldron thing they gave us for store terrain. i think it was a test model.

Deadnight wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
The more i think about it, MKIII theme forces are PPs version of 40Ks 7th edition debacle that was formations. giving game breaking perks for taking certain models.

I always saw them more like 40k codices than formations. 'cygnar' is a range of models with codex:trenchers etc. Just my thoughts mind.

Themes aren't quite codices, closer to supplements combined with Formation benefits. Mk2 Themes were far more restrictive of what went in them since they were tied to specific Warcasters and Warlocks, so in a way they were closer to 40K Formations, but they weren't quite as overboard on the free models as the Mk3 Themes have gone with. At least Requisition made it a little more balanced in setup.

deleted

 Mr. Grey wrote:

3. Miniature quality. PP does good resin/pewter, but most of their plastics blow, and they have for years. I don't like the weird pvc material they use, it's a huge pain to clean mold lines off of and assemble. And since most core units are plastic now, it means that the most enjoyable part of the hobby for me - painting and modelling - is no longer so enjoyable. I'd honestly pay more to just have everything in resin or back in pewter.

On this topic: from what I gather, Privateer Press has been experiencing a lot of stock issues, and many, many people are getting extremely frustrated by this. You can't expect to run a miniatures-based wargame company well with constant supply and demand issues. I hear rumors that they're having issues with the manufacturer of their plastics in China. Well... that needs to get fixed, and ASAP. I think that PP has always been a "rules first, miniatures second" company. Great rules are great, but the minis are what sell the game when you're in a game store and see a game in progress.

These two things essentially go hand in hand. Those awful PVC were years in the making with years of backlog even after their lack of quality was apparent. At this point, PP seems to have stopped making them, but hasn't found a suitable alternative or if they have, it's going to be a bit before they're ready for market. I suspect they're mostly just letting MK3 coast until they have a working product to use to relaunch the game for MK4.

deleted

I haven't played really since MK2, always more of a fan of the setting then the core game itself, but I'm curious if all the people complaining about Theme forces have looked at the changes to those rules that came out with Oblivion and if they made any difference?

I think for me it's purely a case of there not being a convient group for me. Closest one is a fair few suburbs over and only really plays on Thursdays after work. Sadly just not the ideal time for me. Besides that the gaming group was pretty healthy. Decent enough people. And I enjoyed most of the models, though I will agree the casting of plastics could be better.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
I haven't played really since MK2, always more of a fan of the setting then the core game itself, but I'm curious if all the people complaining about Theme forces have looked at the changes to those rules that came out with Oblivion and if they made any difference?

Those changes really did help a lot. I think there's still a few too many themes for PP to effectively manage, but removing the points requirements and opening up mercenary options adds a lot of options, particularly for casters that want a large battlegroup.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Monkeysloth wrote:
I haven't played really since MK2, always more of a fan of the setting then the core game itself, but I'm curious if all the people complaining about Theme forces have looked at the changes to those rules that came out with Oblivion and if they made any difference?

Those changes really did help a lot. I think there's still a few too many themes for PP to effectively manage, but removing the points requirements and opening up mercenary options adds a lot of options, particularly for casters that want a large battlegroup.

Aye, the current themes are much less daunting than the ones earlier in MK3. Those ones really did make me feel like my old armies were priced out and that I had to play a theme or not play (I ultimately chose to not play). The new ones much less so - though with all the free solos and whatever, the new themes make me wonder why not just say you're playing 90 pt games and get that over with? And also make me want to play 50 all the more (which is really ~60 with themes).

But really, my problem with MK3 themes is that I loved MK2 themes. For the first time ever, I was playing a game that rewarded me for playing less optimized units and/or running disadvantageous skew lists that did cool unique things.* I had never experienced this before, especially as a player breaking away from GW's games, where min/maxing obviously better stuff has always been the way to Do It Right, and taking obviously worse stuff is for filthy casuals. So my personal angst over MK3 themes is how far they've fallen from MK2's more evocative and rewarding themes.

*This was my own experience, I'm sure the meta had a small handful of hyper-broken themes making it bad for everybody, not just the derpy ones I built around and towards

 Boss Salvage wrote:

*This was my own experience, I'm sure the meta had a small handful of hyper-broken themes making it bad for everybody, not just the derpy ones I built around and towards

This.... entirely this. There was a short window in MK2 where playing against Denegra2 meant "don't move your caster or auto lose the game". There were... lots of others... but that one was definitely the worst of the worst.

I think people vastly overestimate the value of free solos simply because solos aren't really worth their points. In a lot of ways the REQ system is like the solo/attachment version of WJPs. A side currency for forced variety. Outside of a couple of REALLY dump REQ options (Initiates....) it doesn't really bulk the game up the same way adding 15+ points of additional units or jacks would.

This feels liked when GW wasn't listening to its customers, as so many of us agree... themes and CID were huge turnoffs to me in Mk3, for all the reasons listed.

Maybe PP will eventually listen, like GW mostly did! They would make a lot more money, for the same reason. Could someone connected point them to this thread for reference?

deleted

PP can, but they don't have the money to pull as big or as sudden of a turnaround as GW did.

But Warcaster is a good step as many of its rules are changes to directly address issues in Warmachine. It's new enough that it doesn't have the same stigma to the distributors, retailers, and players.

And... if they're smart about the IP, they can push the setting more than they did IK.

That and it's not steampunk, which can still be cool, but it definitely out of favor in terms of genre. If WM rebooted a came back they may update the tech in the setting.

 Vertrucio wrote:
PP can, but they don't have the money to pull as big or as sudden of a turnaround as GW did.

An edition change is largely easy compared to the model line change up that GW did. Outside the developers, the cost of development lies in putting the new edition in to the hands of the customer. PDF rules aren't difficult to deploy, but for those who like books and setting up a War Room 3, that will present the largest investing costs.

GW had big bucks, and they still haven't put all of their 40K line in plastic even after the last decade that they've been pushing this change. GW's getting there, but several armies still have a large amounts of resin that aren't Characters. Privateer Press is WAY behind on this front and I'm wondering if they will ever make that development leap. And unless there is a reason to go big or they really revamp their unit structures, rebuilding units is a waste at this point considering the second hand market.

 Vertrucio wrote:
But Warcaster is a good step as many of its rules are changes to directly address issues in Warmachine. It's new enough that it doesn't have the same stigma to the distributors, retailers, and players.

Something I thought back in the early days of Warcaster is that they could be using it to test out concepts and ideas to put in to Warmachine Mk IV, much like GW did with Age of Sigmar before attacking 40K's 7th Edition.

 Vertrucio wrote:
PP can, but they don't have the money to pull as big or as sudden of a turnaround as GW did.

But Warcaster is a good step as many of its rules are changes to directly address issues in Warmachine. It's new enough that it doesn't have the same stigma to the distributors, retailers, and players.

And... if they're smart about the IP, they can push the setting more than they did IK.

That and it's not steampunk, which can still be cool, but it definitely out of favor in terms of genre. If WM rebooted a came back they may update the tech in the setting.

After reviewing warcaster i found the rules quite un-appealing , in fact aside from some of the models looks it already has a direct competitor in a better more established cyberpunk setting game that is infinity.

As we talked about before the mechanics of the game for the most part are not the problem. in fact many of the games that PP make are quite good. i enjoy the hell out of their version of monpoc almost all of the hatred is about the behavior of the company in production/retail, materials and the themes restriction changes, then of course the behavior of toxic "hardcore" players that make up a core part of the community are not going to be altered by a reboot.

I really enjoy the setting and the game because it is different than the other games i play but at this point i doubt anybody would not get crushed by the juggernaught that GW has created unless they do something as bad as 6th edition again that turns off their own player base. rather than trying to change warmachine they went with what is probably their best option of just releasing an entirely new game with new rules that sort of follows the ideas of warmachines caster/jack/infantry army layout.

GW does bounce ideas from AoS, refine them, and put them in 40k. They also bounce ideas back from 40k, refine them, and put them in AoS. IMO that back-and-forth dynamic has led to some of their best rule developments.

If PP can get a mainstream deal from a company like Milton Bradley in the late 80’s, early 90’s like GW did, I’m sure we’d see a massive uptick in their sales and fandom.
The whole reason GW is a juggernaut that it is, is because of those deals made with major mainstream game publishers.

How many kids were introduced to GW and their style through those games? HeroQuest, Space Crusade and Battle Masters.
I’m fairly certain that if GW didn’t get those massive injections of mainstream cash and marketing, they wouldn’t be in the position they are today.

These days no corporation will take any risks at all and try something new. This is why we see endless reboots, and stuff like HQ making a comeback on Hasbro Pulse. Nostalgia makes bank. It makes me wonder wheat will happen in 40 more years with nothing but remakes, reboots, and rehashes of everything over the past 40 years? I’m not sure how long preying on nostalgia will last.

But ultimately if PP wants to upgrade to compete with GW, they have a long hard road ahead.

I think PP needs one thing to really up their game - plastics.

They need to get a good plastic either from a 3rd party or in house. Heck plastics are coming down it seems, I've noticed that Warcradle are now doing Dystopian Wars in plastic and they've not had that on sale for years.

If PP could source some really good and better plastics then they could get warmachine and hordes back on the market with some big starting sets at more affordable prices; then keep metals and resins for support models sold in fewer numbers per customer.

If they could do that then they can ramp up production and marketing to meet a rising demand. I think that was their plan, but they fumbled with a plastic material that wasn't well received and then fumbled a few more times with other bad choices/situations in a snowball situation.

So they need to snowball the other way.



That said they might just need a few years smaller scale production to refine processes/materials and to steady their own ship. Warcaster might well be a good game for them to work with, improve ideas, test new things and also to give them a steady income to settle into.
IT also gives them time to steadily grow and find/train staff for new roles and to have an eye for the future.


PP doesn't have the resources GW does to make a snap change and a sudden vast investment in expansion. Their real risk is that they simply end up sinking down and never getting their head up above other brands. Lets face it when PP got big the first time they were in a bubble that was quite empty of competition save for GW. Today we've got quite a few other firms and companies on the up. The market is busier and perhaps the best we can hope is that PP stabilizes and becomes a strong brand rather than the second strongest.

The main issue they face is just that sprue plastic isn't great for their "skipped leg day" style. The jack kits they did were pretty great, but I don't see things like Dire Trolls turning out without losing a lot of skin texture or muscle definition. GW are masters of the art, but there's a reason Troggoths are comparatively scrawny. The hydra seemed to really break them. Beautiful sculpt, but translating it into hard plastic was a total flop.

Ghool wrote:If PP can get a mainstream deal from a company like Milton Bradley in the late 80’s, early 90’s like GW did, I’m sure we’d see a massive uptick in their sales and fandom.
The whole reason GW is a juggernaut that it is, is because of those deals made with major mainstream game publishers.

Different era though, different rules.

Turn it round - why would any company invest in a partnership with w tiny company with an IP no one's heard of for an already saturated market? Bear in mind, Matt Wilson is also notoriously controlling and pp don't have the best of reputations.

If you want a mainstream deal, and you want to put out a board game or video game, you go to gw and you build one of those ten a penny mobile games. Name recognition is a thing.They're the ones to do business with.

Overread wrote:I .

If they could do that then they can ramp up production and marketing to meet a rising demand. I think that was their plan, but they fumbled with a plastic material that wasn't well received and then fumbled a few more times with other bad choices/situations in a snowball situation.

That said they might just need a few years smaller scale production to refine processes/materials and to steady their own ship. Warcaster might well be a good game for them to work with, improve ideas, test new things and also to give them a steady income to settle into.
IT also gives them time to steadily grow and find/train staff for new roles and to have an eye for the future.

There were a lot of other things contributing to wmh decline than just poor plastics. While I don't wish to rain on the parade (I'd like pp to do well) the realistic and cynical view is that you're counting your chickens and already banking on massively riding demand. I don't think the demand is there.

As to waiting for a few years, my personal.suspicion is by then it will be too late. Wmh is no longer Pp's breadwinner. It wouldn't surprise me to see them finish off the iron kingdoms like gw did wmh. Except instead of going out in a blaze of glory with campaign books and awesome models, I suspect we'll get a Twitter vignette.

LunarSol wrote:The main issue they face is just that sprue plastic isn't great for their "skipped leg day" style. The jack kits they did were pretty great, but I don't see things like Dire Trolls turning out without losing a lot of skin texture or muscle definition. GW are masters of the art, but there's a reason Troggoths are comparatively scrawny. The hydra seemed to really break them. Beautiful sculpt, but translating it into hard plastic was a total flop.

To be fair, some of the recent sprue units were pretty damned good too. I picked up some house ellowyr swordsmen for a project recently and they're solid as anything. Tempted to get some trenxher long gunners too. Then again I got some riflemen and halberdiers as well recently. Same project. Metals are great. Plastic riflemen are shocking (resin). About half of what I got was unsalvageable with mould lines.

While I think PP as a company have a lot to sort out, the biggest issue facing the (re)growth of the game here in the UK seems to be the prevalence and attitude of the “competitive” crowed. Which, let’s be honest is the driving force of the WM/H base.

We have been lucky here in the UK that we have, in some areas, been able to do some social distanced and covid secure gaming. During this time my friends have started a wargaming and boardgaming club in our local town which has been very successful and iv made a few posts about it on this thread. We are situated on the outskirts of a major UK city. We have been successful, until recently in getting new players into the game with friendly laid back play, narrative scenarios, teaching, 3D terrain etc. However, we now have players from "the wider meta” starting to attend the club and quite frankly, its ruining it.

We don’t want to turn players away but these players are treating each and every game like they are preparing for the finals of the Iron Gauntlet and basically rudely rofflestomping everything in sight. Iv played for many years but im not a high level player at all. Sitting across the table from a person who doesn’t want to engage socially and want to drop their most highly tuned list into somebody who hasn’t played properly for a while due to covid or is a very new player, smashing them off the table turn 2 is not what people want and it doesn’t grow the community. The reverse in fact, it drives people away.

Iv always been aware of such things happening. But until recently we have only played in our friends group. Now we are involved in a club, trying to grow a community im starting this issue right in the face. I’m sure we can manage it and ensure that new players only play each other, but it gives a very bad impression of the game to people if “that’s what the community is like”.

PP need to continue to fix things. But we need to look at ourselves and ask, “is this the community we want”.

Community development within clubs is an issue and whilst I think PP's game shows an extreme element its by no means alone.

I think there are multiple elements including the fact that many clubs advertise and focus on growth far too little. The players are poor at welcoming new people to the fold because they are so unpractised at it.They don't realise their own attitude problems nor that culture they create. Likely because its something they never had to focus upon.

It's likely worse because that was likely the role the Press Ganger took; and if they were good at it they likely managed to support a modest core of beginners and intermediates who kept within themselves. Losing that buffer I think likely left many groups just with their experienced pro players. People who likely don't have the experience and skill set to welcome new people or to play outside of the competitive box.


I don't think there's anything wrong with competition, but the way I see it the best solutions to it are education; awareness; focus on growth of groups and spreading awareness. If you can sustain growth of a group then you create an influx of new people.

Sunno good call. giving a new player a bad game is never the way to build community.

One of our basic rules is "don't be a jerk"
The tournament scene tends to be toxic no matter where or in what system i have seen it. WM/H magnified it with the old page 5 rule. for some people with this mind set winning/crushing your opponent is the only thing they think is fun because it is a competitive wargame.

After many games where i had fun i thanked my opponent for soundly kicking my behind.

Actually playing the game should be fun for most casual players because why would we want to spend the time to play otherwise? sure everybody wants to win but the battle to get there should be just as important.

We have several players that know they are not welcome on our game night because they have that kind of super tourney player attitude(or have been caught cheating to win). unless they bring their own friends they know they will not get a game so they don't show up much.

 Overread wrote:


I don't think there's anything wrong with competition,

For the record, neither do I. Its more about attitude of those individuals. What is it that, when they are presented with a new or inexperienced player, makes them go "i'll drop my Iron gauntlet, highly teched lists and rofflestop this chad noob in 5 minutes". And then proceed to do so while being unfriendly about it?

I also have no issues with experienced players stomping new players. Hell, even I end up stomping a new player from time to time. And there is not issue in that as long as its done in a friendly way and you explain whats going on, offer tips etc and make the stomping an enjoyable and informative experience. Review the game with them afterwards if they want and if its really bad, buy them dinner and a beer afterwards.....

Its all about personal attitude. And PP can't really fix that unless they are going to come out with explicit statements or, god forbid, start a community programme (insert well trodden pressganger conversation here)

Sunno wrote:


We have been lucky here in the UK that we have, in some areas, been able to do some social distanced and covid secure gaming. During this time my friends have started a wargaming and boardgaming club in our local town which has been very successful and iv made a few posts about it on this thread. We are situated on the outskirts of a major UK city. We have been successful, until recently in getting new players into the game with friendly laid back play, narrative scenarios, teaching, 3D terrain etc. However, we now have players from "the wider meta” starting to attend the club and quite frankly, its ruining it.

How do you plan to deal with that?

Maybe newer players should be made more aware of the situation, so that they are better equiped to decide whether they want to play a game against a certain person or not?

To refuse someone you first need to know that their attitude is going to make the game a miserable experience.

Cyel wrote:

Sunno wrote:


We have been lucky here in the UK that we have, in some areas, been able to do some social distanced and covid secure gaming. During this time my friends have started a wargaming and boardgaming club in our local town which has been very successful and iv made a few posts about it on this thread. We are situated on the outskirts of a major UK city. We have been successful, until recently in getting new players into the game with friendly laid back play, narrative scenarios, teaching, 3D terrain etc. However, we now have players from "the wider meta” starting to attend the club and quite frankly, its ruining it.

How do you plan to deal with that?

Maybe newer players should be made more aware of the situation, so that they are better equiped to decide whether they want to play a game against a certain person or not?

To refuse someone you first need to know that their attitude is going to make the game a miserable experience.

In all honesty, we don’t know right now. We are in full lockdown again so we have some time to think about it.

While we knew that for some games we were pairing up experienced and newbs, we checked with both parties that they were both ok with that. We just naively thought that the experienced players would take it into account and be good about it. On the plus side i think we have identified one of the more experienced players who is happy to coach and develop new players but the majority of them just want to crush face.

So we will prob have to keep the two parties separate as we want to ensure that the tables are filled on games nights etc. We won’t turn people away, if they want a table to practice for the UKTC or whatever they can have it with our blessing. Hopefully as the new players develop (and I also get better) we can also grow the casual or more relaxed player base. We also focus a lot on hobby, painting etc so its two different interests that again don’t seem to overlap with many of the comp players.

I think we can accommodate both. Its just annoying that we will prob have to “keep the two apart”. Its not a good look. It’s a balance between making all parties welcome but also having the atmosphere that we want as a club. We don't mind hardcore/competition play and smashing face. But we want community growth and friendly attitudes first and foremost.

 Overread wrote:

It's likely worse because that was likely the role the Press Ganger took; and if they were good at it they likely managed to support a modest core of beginners and intermediates who kept within themselves. Losing that buffer I think likely left many groups just with their experienced pro players. People who likely don't have the experience and skill set to welcome new people or to play outside of the competitive box.

I mean... its not like the Press Gangers went away. We're still all people in our communities whether we have a fancy shirt or not. Most of us were Press Gangers before we got the title and if the program going away changed that, you were probably in it for the wrong reasons.

The competitive mindset is tough for me to come to terms with, largely because I agree with it, but also see it as something of a dead end. The core "Page 5" of a competitive mindset, "don't blame the player, blame the game", "put in the effort and earn your wins", etc has always resonated with me since I played fighters in the arcade. The main problem is that when that becomes your only goal, it's easy to get disconnected from what drew you in initially. It can also be really hard to turn off. It's hard to engage in a puzzle you know the solution to in the same way.

I think in Warmachine's case, part of the problem is simply game size. There's so much stuff to bring already its very hard to have room for a "fun" list. There's also a general problem to where a lot of the less competitive stuff, just isn't very fun and engaging. I think one of the big problems with the new batch of starter Warcasters is they're "kinder" but also just kind of boring. Like I get they were going with less complicated, but those bombastic feats of Sorscha, Stryker, Denny, Kreoss, etc are huge appeals for new players. Winning and losing are less important than unique and memorable moments. I think one of the big faults PP has had is reacting to the competitive community by making things more "even" without necessarily being more engaging. For example, Throws are probably something that rather than being game winning, but hard to set up, need to be less decisive and more common. The game needs to really embrace its original, untamed soul, even if it has to cut a lot of stuff to make its core options really work again.

 Overread wrote:
Community development within clubs is an issue and whilst I think PP's game shows an extreme element its by no means alone.

I think there are multiple elements including the fact that many clubs advertise and focus on growth far too little. The players are poor at welcoming new people to the fold because they are so unpractised at it.They don't realise their own attitude problems nor that culture they create. Likely because its something they never had to focus upon.

It's likely worse because that was likely the role the Press Ganger took; and if they were good at it they likely managed to support a modest core of beginners and intermediates who kept within themselves. Losing that buffer I think likely left many groups just with their experienced pro players. People who likely don't have the experience and skill set to welcome new people or to play outside of the competitive box.


I don't think there's anything wrong with competition, but the way I see it the best solutions to it are education; awareness; focus on growth of groups and spreading awareness. If you can sustain growth of a group then you create an influx of new people.

I would say at this point. PP being located in Seattle is killing it. They also need to bring back the Press Ganger program. At this point the absence of the program is doing more damage than good to the hobby. Especially with them having 3 lines of games right now. It is time. Heck, I would say expanding the PG program to include a retailer variant would be a solid move.

marxlives wrote:


I would say at this point. PP being located in Seattle is killing it. They also need to bring back the Press Ganger program. At this point the absence of the program is doing more damage than good to the hobby. Especially with them having 3 lines of games right now. It is time. Heck, I would say expanding the PG program to include a retailer variant would be a solid move.

I'll bite, how is being in Seattle killing PP (which, also, for the record, they're not in Seattle proper but Kirkland)?

I would agree that some kind of Press Gang program would be helpful, but after the WotC fiasco and the realization that it is technically illegal for a for-profit company to have volunteers, lots of game companies got very gunshy with their programs. That's not to say something can't be figured out (and should be; even if it's a simple 1099 kinda thing), and doing so would likely help.

Cost of living is pretty high for what they're willing to compensate employees is probably the biggest issue with their location.

 LunarSol wrote:
Cost of living is pretty high for what they're willing to compensate employees is probably the biggest issue with their location.

Cost of living is a bit high, but from all my friends who previously worked there, the other part of the issue is that PP pays well below average rates. When someone can take a job working retail and make more than they did as a "middle level manager" at PP, or get paid more to literally flip burgers at a fast food place or deliver pizza than work in the production facilities, well...

And is moving the company even an option, really? Besides the fact that Matt Wilson lives down in California (which is even more expensive), so is remote anyway, do you think the majority of PP's current employees, especially management, would want to relocate for just above minimum wage? So moving would likely wind up with a big workforce turnover, not to mention the move costs. I think it's pretty clear they don't have the capital to do that, and it's unclear if that would be a wise thing in the long term.

Is labor/facilities costs an issue? Sure, I'm not going to say it isn't. But frankly, it would be regardless of where they were anyway, since if they're struggling to pay just above minimum wage, they'd have that struggle anyway.

deleted

 Mr. Grey wrote:
TBF we as consumers don't know if they're struggling to pay just above minimum wage or if that's a deliberate choice on PP's part.

What does Matt Wilson even do for the company anymore? I know a few years back he had big aspirations to do short films or something, but does he even still play a role in the daily running of the company?

True, we have no inside info on their financials, so we can only guess. Which puts even further doubt, honestly, on the effect of being in a higher cost of living area is, in fact, part of their problem. /shrug

I have no inside info on what Wilson does these days, but I do know that he was still fairly actively involved in trying to run day-to-day stuff even after he moved to California for at least until a couple years ago.

Didn't they just move the company HQ a few months/year ago?

 Overread wrote:
Didn't they just move the company HQ a few months/year ago?

Yeah, from Bellevue (which is even higher cost of living, but had slightly better business tax incentives than Seattle) up to Kirkland. That's just kind of an "across town" move though, really, something like 10 miles or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironically, PP's original office was less than 2 miles from my house, down in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle proper. Don't recall when they moved to Bellevue, but I think they had 2 different locations there over the years.

 Valander wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Didn't they just move the company HQ a few months/year ago?

Yeah, from Bellevue (which is even higher cost of living, but had slightly better business tax incentives than Seattle) up to Kirkland. That's just kind of an "across town" move though, really, something like 10 miles or so.

Even further than that. They are up in Maltby.

Matt stepped down as CEO a couple years ago. I think he's still something like CCO or something. His wife I believe is still the CFO?

 Robert Facepalmer wrote:

 Valander wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Didn't they just move the company HQ a few months/year ago?

Yeah, from Bellevue (which is even higher cost of living, but had slightly better business tax incentives than Seattle) up to Kirkland. That's just kind of an "across town" move though, really, something like 10 miles or so.

Even further than that. They are up in Maltby.

Their website lists Woodinville, (my bad memory thinking Kirkland) but yeah mapping that looks to be in the Maltby neighborhood. Either way, Bellevue to there isn't a "huge" move, still being less than 20 miles. Not enough that the majority of employees who were working there pre-move and still working there would have likewise had to move (and thus, change their cost of living). Add some to commutes, sure, but it's just a big metro area pretty much between Everett and Tacoma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Matt stepped down as CEO a couple years ago. I think he's still something like CCO or something. His wife I believe is still the CFO?

Oh right, I think I remember hearing something about him going to CCO or something like that. AFAIK Sherry Yeary is still President.

I do know that he had a reputation for wanting to micromanage despite being in another state. How much that's changed I can't say, as I no longer have any friends who work there that can share any gossip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZjqUltEC4

The last few parts of the interview (time stamped) are about WM&H and it's future.

As expected, small games are the way to go. The "75pts only crowd" is going to be relegated to playing "an unofficial" format.

Cyel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZjqUltEC4

The last few parts of the interview (time stamped) are about WM&H and it's future.

As expected, small games are the way to go. The "75pts only crowd" is going to be relegated to playing "an unofficial" format.

I didn't catch that part from the last 10 minutes I listened to. It would be great if it were true, but mostly he talked about how he considered making 50 standard and Facebook rioted. ==

Yeah, I am trying too hard to read between the lines. It was my impression that he would like small formats to be the way to go with the game, and was not too happy with the opposition. But you're absolutely right, no such information appears in what he was saying.

Pushing smaller formats is often a good tactic for growing a game community - smaller games = less time between buying models and playing.

GW did a smart move by not outright forcing smaller games en-mass, but instead segregates its marketing into distinct blocks and promotes at least one major smaller game format - killteam/warcry.

That way you make the smaller game sound really important and entertaining to engage with rather than trying to push the game to only one format size. Because if you push for small you make it welcoming to newbies, but rather off putting to long term customers who have more models; whilst the other way around and you end up with what contributed toward the death of Old World Warhammer - big armies played by established customers and new customers often burning out before they'd got their army built to play