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.

Well, despite some of my grousing, I did enjoy a lot of WM/H (or I wouldn't have been so deep into it and agreed to become an Infernal ). I felt, though, as you stripped away the fluffy stuff and looked at just the mechanics, it suffered a lot from a creaky core, and lots of patches onto that to make it more interesting.

On the subject of tokens, I don't mind a few for tracking things (heck, even if a game doesn't necessarily recommend/require them, I'll often still use some just to jog my own memory). I don't like token clutter, as others have pointed out, partially because then it's a mess to remember what all those things are and all the special modifiers, etc., but also because then there is more junk that isn't cool models on the table.

Warmachine is one of those games I hate to love, or love to hate (not sure which). I'm deeply invested into the game financially (though I haven't played in a few years now) and really enjoyed it, but there are aspects of the game that never really sat right with me, mainly in that the game never played the way I really wanted it to or felt that it should. Like the game itself didn't really play very much the way it was advertised and felt less like "full metal fantasy" and more like advanced competitive Mouse Trap.

Bloat though never really felt like an issue to me, I never really felt like I was obligated to know every single ability and rule that a model or faction had access to in order to play a good game (mind you, I lost a lot more than I won). Often a quick pregame review of a warcasters card was sufficient for me to grasp 80% of what to expect, and I'd simply just ask about specific unit capabilities as I played (or use War Room to look them up), often in a more general sense as I recognized potential weak points in my position (I.E. - Does this unit here have anything that gives it a movement buff, aside from the warcasters ability to cast boundless charge?"). I still got taken by surprise quite often, but to me that was part of the fun of the game.

 Valander wrote:
The system as it was inevitably broke down into trying to create a Rube Goldberg machine to pull of your caster assassination; only when that wasn't an opening did people bother trying to play to the scenario.

Interestingly it's directly opposite to my experience. Most players I play against (solid tournament players, including WTC team members) don't go for assassination unless they have no other choice or it's a sure thing. It's just too luck-reliant. It's scenario/attrition play all the time here and I got used to thinking of assassination as a n inexperienced player's way out, little more.

Maybe it's like with MTG, you do combo decks for fun once in a while, but to get consistent wins you play reliable control.

chaos0xomega wrote:Warmachine is one of those games I hate to love, or love to hate (not sure which). I'm deeply invested into the game financially (though I haven't played in a few years now) and really enjoyed it, but there are aspects of the game that never really sat right with me, mainly in that the game never played the way I really wanted it to or felt that it should. Like the game itself didn't really play very much the way it was advertised and felt less like "full metal fantasy" and more like advanced competitive Mouse Trap.

Yeah, pretty much the same here. I have sooooo many models for it, and a great amount of them painted. But I haven't played since the end of Mk II really; partly because I just got tired of it (doing Infernal work, I definitely saw the worst side of both the community and the game), and partly because it pretty much died around here. And the "competitive Mouse Trap" is all too accurate, LOL.

Cyel wrote:

 Valander wrote:
The system as it was inevitably broke down into trying to create a Rube Goldberg machine to pull of your caster assassination; only when that wasn't an opening did people bother trying to play to the scenario.

Interestingly it's directly opposite to my experience. Most players I play against (solid tournament players, including WTC team members) don't go for assassination unless they have no other choice or it's a sure thing. It's just too luck-reliant. It's scenario/attrition play all the time here and I got used to thinking of assassination as a n inexperienced player's way out, little more.

Maybe it's like with MTG, you do combo decks for fun once in a while, but to get consistent wins you play reliable control.

Yeah, I think that's a very US-meta centric kind of thing. I remember seeing a good amount of differences between US players and, well, everyone else, at various Lock & Load conventions I did judging at. I'm sure that varies even within US areas, but definitely around the Seattle area, the emphasis was all on caster kills, while also only ever really playing Steamroller "practice", and lots of jerks loving to just curb stomp new players. Probably one of the reasons the community around here dried up.

Edited to add:
Also, I will actually sit and watch this video so I can comment on it, rather than random tangents.

The Steamroller practice obsession seems to be ubiquitous across the states, starting around late Mk1 ot early Mk2 Im pretty sure my local meta only ever played Steamroller scenarios. Part of why the game lost ifs luster for me

Since this is the game design forum, I would think that reference cards should be deigned so that the important elements (such as defensive stats, damage taken, etc) should be visible from across a table. X-Wing, Wartmachine and Hordes cards seem awfully cluttered, and half the card space is wasted by artwork. Additionally, if they can be designed so that counters can be placed next to the cards rather than on them, it makes it easier to hand the card to the opponent if they need to inspect it more closely.

Of course, this means you need to avoid adding lots of rules text to a stat card, but that's a bonus, IMO.

Making stat cards visible from across the table isn't really feasible, reading upside down from 4+ feet away across a table where models and terrain may obstruct your view isn't really an achievable design goal and would end up being to the detriment of the controlling player who needs them most. The artwork - for example - is there so the controlling player can quickly identify the card that they are looking for in order to reference it. By removing the artwork you're making it that much harder for that player to find it - akd if he can't find it from 1 ft away then his opponent definitely isnt going to find it from the other side of the table.