Switch Theme:

Any chance of a Mk4? What would you want to see?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





You don't need points for list building to be a thing. Technically all games have points. MonPoc (and by extension, Warcaster) for example is a 20 point game where every model is worth 1 point. There's a lot of thought that can go into what models make the list. For example, I currently own 32 destroyer units and have to leave 12 at home for a game. Deciding those 12 depends a lot on what monsters I want to run and other factors same as a game reliant on points.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Exalted Daemon





Albany, NY

AOS taught me that I personally absolutely need a value-driven balancing system to scaffold army construction on Without one no real world work happens for me, which means no tabletop happens because I play only-painted 95% of the time *gestures to Arena Rex, a game he would love to play and has owned since it existed, but 'build 3-5 gladiators' just isn't all the engrossing of a hobby goal*

Despite serious efforts, AOS (again, sorry) failed to launch as a hobby for me. It's certainly a game, like MonPoc is a game, but it didn't have the crunch to hold my interest off the tabletop - which means no planning, no buying, no building, no painting, no playing. So like the only way I can maintain interest in MonPoc, for a PP example, is by going 'ok Salvage, collect and paint all of the things for this sub-faction you like' ... which hasn't worked game-wise because that's very few minis in most cases.

It seems super weird that WMH would go that route, after so many years of being crunchy af, but hey, maybe that's the future and I'm a dinosaur who still believes in TAC and the insane balancing act that requires. Sideboard has often read to me as 'it was hard to balance everything, y'all, so bring some counter picks maybe?' but more often as 'buy the entire faction (but especially multiples of the most efficient choices)' *looks at MFX mk2 again*

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/22 18:48:14


KOW BATREPS: BLOODFIRE
INSTAGRAM: @boss_salvage 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





A lot of it is just a matter of trying to view these newer games the same way you view older ones. Newer rules still have significant crunch; just not necessarily points. It's all about identifying your limited resource and designing to maximize it. Until recently, points were the primary resource, particularly in IGOUGO systems.

Alternating activation games are an easy example. In those systems, point cost has a weird secondary effect due to the strength of having more activations and being able to remove retaliation to key models by activating them after your opponent has run out of what is actually the system's limited resource. Infinity is a really interesting example of a system where different resources compete to be maximized in ways that aren't initially as straightforward as they seem. I don't find any of them less crunchy and honestly part of the appeal is that they challenge my perception of what crunch really is.
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Honestly, I felt the same way Savage, and found I was giving myself arbitrary force construction goals when considering Warcaster. With the huge number of units in WMH, having no points / value mechanism attached to weight / balance them somewhat seems very unlikely.

But if there wasn't any it would definitely turn me off, too...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/22 22:29:15


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

I find game systems with no points and no unit limits are very hard to envision how to build an army. It's basically choice paralysis by too much choice. You end up in a situation where making basic choices for a generic army is very hard because you've no real basis on what to make the choices with.

Imposing some limits and values actually makes choices easier and armies are easier to envision what goes into them.


Even something as simple as AoS's limits work. You know that a 2K army only has 6 slots for leaders and 4 for behemoths and artillery; you know you must take 3 battleline and 1 leader. Now you've already got four portions of the army pre-chosen for you. You still get to choose what models they are, but the limits have already started to guide your army construction from the onset.

Plus its easier to see how to potentially build other armies, even without study of their rules.



Not limits is also, as noted, much harder to balance because the variety of potential lists is mindboggling. Either you have to make things all very similar and identical so that choice is basically just a visual thing; or you have to run the risk of high imbalance.



The only real bonus to no limits is the marketing and sales department thinking it will encourage random purchasing splurges on models because people aren't limited. Because that big super huge super expensive model isn't limited to "1 per army" which translates to "1 per customer on average, at best"
However as AoS showed at launch (Granted the rules were utterly rubbish back then too); sometimes no limits just results in stifled growth and a confused playerbase

   
Made in us
Man O' War





washington state USA

I was around when WM/H was a new game. i din't care all that much for it at first, but....i actually really like MKIII for gameplay with 2 specifications- both mentioned by others

1. 50 points or less to make the game manageable

2. 3d terrain rules (and more of it) i hate the flat 2d terrain. i am a veteran gamer, i think we can all figure out how to correctly use 3d terrain in the game.


This is how my WM/H tables look-

Spoiler:


Spoiler:


If they try to re-launch it in the manner of warcaster i will never play it in such an edition. warcaster tries to combine to many different systems that clog the game and make it something that is not warmachine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 06:34:23


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 aphyon wrote:


2. 3d terrain rules (and more of it) i hate the flat 2d terrain. i am a veteran gamer, i think we can all figure out how to correctly use 3d terrain in the game.



Im 100% with you. We also use mostly 3d or at least 2.5d (forest with removable trees for example). Im not against the use of 2d terrain as such. It has its place but id prefer it to be the exception rather than the norm. It isn't that difficult to find and use 3d terrain and with 3d printing you can order or make things to a set dimension to still allow for accuracy. Its just with the inherent overhang of many models in WM/H its hard to gain the level of accuracy you need sometimes without resorting to proxy bases or 2d outlines

Ever tried standing Mulg next to.....anything? Sadly for models like that you end up with a proxy base almost as soon as the game starts.

But as with many of the issues with WM/H, its more a community and players issue than a PP issue. However if PP produced and sold terrain via general retail, that might encourage more 3d terrain. Iv seen quite a few of the trenches they made a few years back. they get used because they are "official". Maybe if PP produced a set of official building, walls, forests etc, they may get played more?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The terrain thing infuriates me. I get how it got there, but it looks terrible. Locally, we have players that won't even play with a mat. It's just felt on a brown sheet of particleboard.

I think the biggest thing the game could do to improve terrain is to make it matter less so it can matter more. Right now, rough terrain is absolutely crippling to anything without pathfinder, to the point where everything just has pathfinder. They really need to introduce something akin to GB where your movement is reduced by 2" if you move through rough terrain during the movement. It greatly speeds things up while still significantly affecting the game and lets them cut pathfinder from a ton of models.

If I were really to go all out on a complete revamp, I think destructable terrain would be a big part of it. Might just be my love of MonPoc and Marvel at the moment, but Warmachine always felt like a game that wanted its models to Kool-Aid Man into battle anyway. I think we're past the point where designing terrain rules that work on train sets and dioramas makes sense. The idea that people these days are playing with terrain fixed into the table rather than set on a neoprene mat is woefully out of date. I want a power attack that lets me plow right through that wall in my way.
   
Made in us
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps




But as with many of the issues with WM/H, its more a community and players issue than a PP issue.

No it isn't. PP managed almost two full editions with 3d terrain. 2D was pushed hard by PP's steamroller rules, and encouraged further by the pressgangers who were convinced (by PP) that steamroller was THE way to play.

Somewhat before the end of mark 2 (long enough after cephalyx for someone to have a full army of them), the store I was playing in went from full 3D to full 2D despite still having the same terrain closet. Not coincidentally, this happened at the same time a PG showed up to train folks how to 'properly' play for steamroller (and for tournaments in another store, which I thought was poor taste).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/23 14:08:04


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Steamroller didn't demand 2D terrain at all. That was entirely a community driven thing. The major conventions started using it for convenience/cost/clean play reasons and a good chunk of the more zealous players decided that was the only way to play the game.
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




First, facing needs to go.

I think what we really need is a Mk.3 -- Mk.3 felt more like Mk.2.5, and we're up to about Mk.2.7 at the moment.

I'm not convinced that we need to invalidate people's models, because I don't think a huge back-catalogue is actually making that much of a difference to the learning curve -- would eliminating Kossite Woodsmen, Assault Kommandos, and Black Dragon Pikemen from the game really reduce the frustration and NPEs that a new player might experience and flatten the learning curve? Or is that new player more likely to be frustrated when they smash their face against Clockatrices and pre-nerf Lord of the Feast? I think it's the latter.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Exalted Daemon





Albany, NY

crimsyn wrote:
First, facing needs to go.
That would feel so good and speed up my own gameplay enormously.

KOW BATREPS: BLOODFIRE
INSTAGRAM: @boss_salvage 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I really like facing as a general concept in games, but I'm not sure if Warmachine really needs it anymore. The only problem I've found when games remove it is just that free strikes get weird, particularly with longer engagement ranges.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
But as with many of the issues with WM/H, its more a community and players issue than a PP issue.

No it isn't. PP managed almost two full editions with 3d terrain. 2D was pushed hard by PP's steamroller rules, and encouraged further by the pressgangers who were convinced (by PP) that steamroller was THE way to play.

Somewhat before the end of mark 2 (long enough after cephalyx for someone to have a full army of them), the store I was playing in went from full 3D to full 2D despite still having the same terrain closet. Not coincidentally, this happened at the same time a PG showed up to train folks how to 'properly' play for steamroller (and for tournaments in another store, which I thought was poor taste).


Not taking shots but im not sure thats true.

Im happy to be corrected but as far as im aware at no point has the SR rules ever said anything about a requirements for 2D terrain. 2D was adopted by the community probably to deal with the issues of pin point accuracy and storage. However looking back quickly through (and i did only dip sample) PP's coverage of the big tournaments, most of them are using 3d or 2.5d terrain.

However, I do agree with a point that i think you making that the push to be "SR only" has driven lots of people toward 2d terrain because, mm of measurement means a lot in this game. But again, the lack of take up by the community for the narrative content that PP put out every year was a community decisions as the community chose to focus on "SR or nothing". Apart from our basement group who preferred narrative stuff. But we are an oddity.
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

I did experience a similar shift, though - all of us used to play on 3D terrain (wobbly models and all ) and then almost everyone switched to 2D. It was definitely a turnoff... not sure of the causes, but PP should be pushing for 3D terrain if they want a good tabletop experience, like most miniatures games.
   
Made in us
Dipping With Wood Stain




Seattle, WA USA

I think a big reason 2D terrain started becoming the thing for Warmachine/Hordes was in fact the Steamroller variant for playing and the extremely heavy emphasis on micro-measurements the system itself was built around. 2mm mis-measurement really makes a difference in this system, so for "accuracy" a lot of the tournament players went to flat terrain markers (especially for the various zones that most SR scenarios are built around), to min-max the measuring aspect. IMO, at the cost of the aesthetics of the game (and detriment to the community overall, and part of why I retired as an Infernal, but that's a different story).

There was, as of late Mk II, massive bloat in the game and the emphasis on power-combos to one shot things led to pretty boring game play, IMO. It was also a massive barrier to getting new players in (as has been discussed in other threads). So, I think if there was to be a Mk 4, it would need to be much less reliant on mega-combo-building (which won't happen; that's part of the design ethos at PP) and streamlined enough that new players could actually learn without being immediately curb stomped (but not too streamlined since the "crunch" is one of the often cited appeals of the system).

I'm not sure what it would take, honestly, for me to consider getting back into WM/H with a Mk 4. I do still have a boat load of painted models that I'd like to do something with, but I hadn't had "fun" in a WM/H game for a long time before I dropped it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/23 19:03:11


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I feel like MK3 launched with a pretty massive reduction in mega-combos and the playerbase absolutely revolted.
   
Made in us
Dipping With Wood Stain




Seattle, WA USA

 LunarSol wrote:
I feel like MK3 launched with a pretty massive reduction in mega-combos and the playerbase absolutely revolted.
That's quite possible. I did drop out right before the launch of Mk 3, which was actually a surprise when it came out 3 months or so later since that was the first I'd heard of it. And from what I heard, the Skorne players had every right to revolt, and not just because some combos were removed.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the most vocal playerbase, which would have been the tournament tryhards, did indeed get up in arms about not being able to club baby seals anymore and having their crazy wombo combos removed. I think an ongoing problem that lead do a lot of the issues with that game was listening a bit too much to the tournament crowd at the expense of having a, you know, fun game, over a game that emphasized gotcha's with both measurement and unforeseen-combo "tactics."

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I really enjoyed MK3 at launch. Outside of a couple exploits that mostly seemed to come from the impression that it looks like there was probably a rule against targeting friendly models with attacks for the majority of playtesting, I thought it was the game at its best. My biggest gripe was that solos and attachments were grossly overcosted, which seemed to be intentional once their design space was moved to themes.

I think the biggest sin of MK3 was rolling out more advanced rules in a similar manner to codexes to a community that was not accustomed to codexes. The Warmachine community is not really okay with "we'll fix you in 6 months" the way GW's playerbase seems to be.
   
Made in us
Dangerous Outrider






What I would hope for in a new edition is model count lowered, like Kill-team the model count is low and not too many models to paint. Also, have better-looking table setups, many tables of WM/H look barren and with unpainted models, it doesn't look
that interest in a game or not much care was taken beforehand.

Early on I always liked it when war machines where decent models and I could do different actions besides move and shoot. I think that is what got me into the game originally but now you have gigantic models and gigantic forces covering the table

 
   
Made in us
Man O' War





washington state USA

LunarSol wrote:I feel like MK3 launched with a pretty massive reduction in mega-combos and the playerbase absolutely revolted.


Both are actually true, well at least the tryhards kinda revolted. to me both things were better for overall gameplay experience especially for casual gamers coming from other systems.


Genoside07 wrote:What I would hope for in a new edition is model count lowered, like Kill-team the model count is low and not too many models to paint. Also, have better-looking table setups, many tables of WM/H look barren and with unpainted models, it doesn't look
that interest in a game or not much care was taken beforehand.

Early on I always liked it when war machines where decent models and I could do different actions besides move and shoot. I think that is what got me into the game originally but now you have gigantic models and gigantic forces covering the table



Sounds like you are an infniity player

Swimming, climbing, crawling, lifting objects, opening doors etc....

With a force that averages 10 minis.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 07:43:44


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Abel





Washington State

With the Oblivion release last year, we kind of got Mk 3.5. The movement of the company to new digs, a huge hiring spat followed by the Coronavirus lock down, and the maybe release of Warcaster this year means we probably won't see MK IV until maybe 2022. Maybe an announcement in 2021? I was fully expecting some kind of news about the end of Oblivion and the future of Warmachine/Hordes at Lock and Load this year.

The Coronavirus is really wrecking a lot of the hobby and game industry. Yeah, lots of people are painting and planning armies, but the companies are basically shut down. That means no new products, and no production to replace stocks from prior to the virus. Everything is getting pushed further and further into 2020, if not 2021 or 2022. If Governor Inslee (Washington state governor) extends the stay at home order past May 4th to something like June 1st, I expect PP to announce that Warcaster will be delayed until late fall/winter 2020.

One of the unfortunate casualties of all this will be the FLGS. How many will reopen after having a couple months of no income?

Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I was certainly looking forward to seeing how they wrapped up Oblivion at LnL. They've been doing a fantastic job with the huge narrative games at the event the last couple of years and with the Hengehold Scrolls they really seemed to find a way to get players involved in the fluff again.

For those not aware, PP has been running a huge themed narrative games at LnL for the last couple of years and incorporating memorable moments from those games into the fluff. My understanding is that the final battle at Hengehold was supposed to be this year's event that would have really shaped the world going forward.
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

 Valander wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I feel like MK3 launched with a pretty massive reduction in mega-combos and the playerbase absolutely revolted.
That's quite possible. I did drop out right before the launch of Mk 3, which was actually a surprise when it came out 3 months or so later since that was the first I'd heard of it. And from what I heard, the Skorne players had every right to revolt, and not just because some combos were removed.

Very interesting that as an Infernal you hadn't heard of MK3 just three months before launch (even if you were retiring at the time). I definitely recognize you from the forums, thank you very much for chiming in here!

I honestly don't know what went wrong, other than being massively rushed, but the end of Mk2 definitely saw the game struggling, but the solution was in many ways worse than the problem. I hope they take their time with Mk4 and get it right.

Public CID development is the opposite of what I want from a game company, to be honest. Take feedback, but develop rules independently and give them to us when they're ready. Not doing so prior to Mk3 launch didn't necessitate the cumbersome solution they've settled on now and it's a huge turnoff to every casual player I've talked to about it (I'm strictly a casual player, myself, but it was my and my gaming group's main game for years - almost all as casual play).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I think MK3 has been a massive improvement over Mk2 in every regard with the exception of how the playerbase reacted to it.
   
Made in us
Dipping With Wood Stain




Seattle, WA USA

 RiTides wrote:
 Valander wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I feel like MK3 launched with a pretty massive reduction in mega-combos and the playerbase absolutely revolted.
That's quite possible. I did drop out right before the launch of Mk 3, which was actually a surprise when it came out 3 months or so later since that was the first I'd heard of it. And from what I heard, the Skorne players had every right to revolt, and not just because some combos were removed.

Very interesting that as an Infernal you hadn't heard of MK3 just three months before launch (even if you were retiring at the time). I definitely recognize you from the forums, thank you very much for chiming in here!
Honestly, it may have been more than 3 months, I don't remember the exact time line. I do remember a buddy who was still into it asking me "how come you didn't let me know it was coming?" when it released, and I told him "because I hadn't heard of it. Besides, even if I had I wouldn't have been able to tell you." It's possible they weren't telling any outsiders (all Infernals were volunteers, not company employees), but the Infernal group was really tight knit (there were 3 of us when I retired), and I know that no leak ever came from one of the Infernals. Different story with some of the PT groups, though.

Regardless of all that, I still feel the focus on tournament play and uber-competitiveness is what drove down the adoption of the game overall. So for a Mk 4, I would like to see it be a lot less "this is professional sports/masters level chess" and more of a, you know, fun game. In the final days I was playing, "fun" was only had when I was playing with close friends, which would've had fun regardless of what we were playing. Pick up games with random (or even semi-random) players at the LGS were distinctly non-fun for me, as games inevitably boiled down to micro-management of movement, and nit-picking of rules to try to eek out the way to do the wombo combo one shot to win. That is what would need to change in Mk 4 to re-interest me, and I think a lot of other people might feel the same. Of course, there are also many quite happy with how it is, and that's cool; people are free to like different things. It's also ok to not like a thing.
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Makes sense! Like I said, really appreciate you contributing here . To be one of only three Infernals near the end of MK2 is a pretty big deal lol.

LunarSol, I've had friends who still play tell me similar things (although to be fair, they're also the most competitively minded, and the only ones I personally know who stuck with the game). The problem with that is, I actually Did play at the start of MK3, for almost a year. And I don't think you can explain away the problems by something like "In beta testing you probably couldn't target your own models". It's insane how non-working some of the interactions were (throwing in particular) and the debacle of the Skorne rules is well documented.

Maybe they arrived at a good place... but it was far too late, and far too public of a playtesting process to get there. I really hope they take almost the opposite approach to Mk4 development...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 17:34:25


 
   
Made in us
Dipping With Wood Stain




Seattle, WA USA

 RiTides wrote:
I really hope they take almost the opposite approach to Mk4 development...

I doubt they'd do as big of an open playtest as they did for Mk 2. I heard absolute horror stories for that (I became an Infernal juuuust after Mk 2 release). That said, I do think the playtest group for Mk 3 was clearly too insulated, given the large amount of immediate errata needed. In some ways I think their CID kind of works, but unfortunately it also gives the strongest voices to the hardcore players, IMO to the detriment of the game overall.

Open playtesting is really hard. You get so much variance in feedback, and the number of conflicting opinions on the same rule/model is pretty crazy. At the same time, too closed and you wind up with an internal bias that gets overlooked since it's easy for a small group to know "the intent" of a rule, and overlook how it's actually worded, thus missing some crazy interaction that gets spotted very quickly once released to thousands more eyes (and to be fair, this is not just a PP problem; every game has that issue). Anyway, kind of going off topic.

Edited to add:
To be clear, I have no ill will or anything like that towards PP. I retired as an Infernal more to pursue some of my own things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 18:40:37


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 RiTides wrote:
Makes sense! Like I said, really appreciate you contributing here . To be one of only three Infernals near the end of MK2 is a pretty big deal lol.

LunarSol, I've had friends who still play tell me similar things (although to be fair, they're also the most competitively minded, and the only ones I personally know who stuck with the game). The problem with that is, I actually Did play at the start of MK3, for almost a year. And I don't think you can explain away the problems by something like "In beta testing you probably couldn't target your own models". It's insane how non-working some of the interactions were (throwing in particular) and the debacle of the Skorne rules is well documented.

Maybe they arrived at a good place... but it was far too late, and far too public of a playtesting process to get there. I really hope they take almost the opposite approach to Mk4 development...



Honestly, I never thought Skorne was that bad off; it was just totally different. Hordes in general lost too much fury economy, and Skorne really suffered as for most MK2 players they expected to play a beast herd and ignore the infantry. Early MK3 Karax were fairly crazy for their cost and really shined with with certain casters. It was just all stuff that wasn't popular in MK2. That said, I think the Skorne update was a great improvement; I just didn't think it was as bad as the community made it out to be either. For me, the big stinker of MK3 was the Battle Engine errata. They just cranked those things to such a ridiculous level of speed and damage that recreated the worst of the "enter the zone and lose your army or stay out and lose the game" style of play the game.

I really felt a lot of that first year felt like screaming over things that just weren't what they were in MK2. Banes weren't as absurdly powerful, you could advance out of your deployment zone without being shot off the board against Legion; stuff like that. There were new problems but PP was fixing them way faster than the total failure to ever really fix Haley or Gaspy in MK2. It was frustrating that it wasn't perfect, but by the standards people held MK3 to, MK2 wasn't really any better. It's mostly just that people had invested heavily in the MK2 version of that stuff. Honestly, the speed at which the community stopped complaining as soon as they broke Cryx again kend of soured me on the community as a whole.
   
Made in ca
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

Well, I think we agree about the path forward at least . My experience with the start of Mk3 was different, though - with things like the throw rules absurdly broken. Funny that they broke Battle Engines later, though I didn't know that!

And to be honest, if the community has issues (with which I could agree), then they Really shouldn't use them for CID rules development

Valander - Makes total sense! I too started in Mk2 so missed all that.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/04/24 22:12:05


 
   
 
Forum Index » Privateer Press Miniature Games (Warmachine & Hordes)
Go to: