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.

Hey guys,

So this occurred to me, after mulling over what wasn't gelling with me about joining in with the local group to start up playing Hordes again. And it's that I think they really just do need to re-boot. Mk3 clearly lost a ton of fans, but there's a chance to win those same fans back with a new edition, and maybe also make an easier way for folks to start.

The reason this hit me, too, was thinking about Warcaster. Obviously, starting a new game gets it out from some of the problems of the old (namely, no design space left for new releases!). But in the end, it would end up in the very same place, imo. And to be completely honest, I've got a really awesome Hordes minions army converted and painted, and would like to use at least part of it!

What do you think, is there any chance of a Mk4 on the horizon? What would it take to get folks to try out Warmachine and Hordes?

Cheers for any thoughts / ideas

Seems likely, but the how is kind of up in the air. I think they're aware of the need to shrink the game and retire old models, but haven't totally figured out how to pull that off.

They're in a really weird position. Most of the game is in PVC that nobody wants and realistically 10 man units just aren't terribly viable in today's market. I don't think its entirely unreasonable to do a Sigmar level relaunch at this point, but it feels a little ways off.

I think the more likely direction is to try to revamp the standard format. Focus on 50 pt scenarios, with a limited selection of casters and themes, not all the different from Champions, but with more of a long term outlook. Less a rotation trying to encompass the whole game over time and more of a Modern format focused more on newer releases.

they could use the oblivion campaign as a good kick off point for retiring stuff, it could be used to create a clear divide to a sort of legacy era that still allows all the old stuff, and the brave new world for modern releases

could even fit for the fluff of "why don't X army use Y unit anymore " they all died off in the infernals war, or were retired for newer, better equipment, with maybe some units, jacks, whatever that are more popular being kept in a limited fashion as merc units

I do agree that 50 points would be a good place to settle on, and it would fit well with the 35 point army boxes they already sell

My hope would be a reboot that streamlines the game into unit vs unit rules, instead of model vs model.

I personally dislike having to resolve one attack, followed by the next, and each time needing to check range and LOS. For me, it really bogs the game down.

I would also hope to lower the entry level, rules wise, so I could get my garage group into it.

I expect that Warcaster is a test-case for potential future updates to Warmachine/Hordes

Simple.
Get rid as much math as possible with this damn game. Bonuses, buffs, debuffs, adding dice rolls togtgher, factoring all this stuff together, no matter how good you are, just no...lets get rid of that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
My hope would be a reboot that streamlines the game into unit vs unit rules, instead of model vs model.

I personally dislike having to resolve one attack, followed by the next, and each time needing to check range and LOS. For me, it really bogs the game down.

I would also hope to lower the entry level, rules wise, so I could get my garage group into it.

It depends on what the end goal of the size of the game one wants to look at. The current 75 points and larger, yeah, start making it resolve more on a unit by unit basis.

However, if you want to keep it at the current 25 or 50 point level number of models, then model by model is fine.

Think of the differences between 40K and Kill Team as a rough approximation of what your target is.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Simple.
Get rid as much math as possible with this damn game. Bonuses, buffs, debuffs, adding dice rolls togtgher, factoring all this stuff together, no matter how good you are, just no...lets get rid of that.

I'm honestly not sure what's left of the game if you get rid of all that, aside from pages of rules about throws and slams.

The core of the game is adding dice rolls together while layering buffs, debuffs and additional dice. Take that out and the core gameplay is...?

Resolved with d12 + modifiers. Instead of boosting, allow a reroll of the d12.

After that effects like, roll an additional die and discard the lowest get translated into a +1 modifier. Additional die rules just add +3 instead, or whatever.

Yes, it flattens a curve, but resolves much more quickly and multiple attacks at a time.

Interestingly I discussed this with some friends last night.

Honestly I don’t think we will hear anything about a Mk4 for another year. WM/H is pretty much in live service/maintenance mode with small releases and bug fixes but nothing drastic for the next year while PP stabilises (hopefully) and sees where Warcaster etc take them. But I am pretty certain the new game Warcaster is something of a test bed for PP in terms of rules and company strategy. Will Hungerford has already dropped some hints in several podcasts recently that a MK4 will streamline a lot of elements currently in the game. I love the game but one of the issues that WM/H has is that it is so big model wise and the mechanics are quite old that its hard to implement some of the modern trends in wargaming without a complete overhaul of the system. That overhaul will be a huge risk for PP as those moves WILL alienate some players, but it could also attract many new people or bring old players back. But its not clear if those new players would equal or exceed the number of players who would leave.

Things that Mk4 must have from my PoV:
1. The core ruleset must be just a tight and balanced as it is now.
2. The tight rule set must suit both competition play and casual play equally
3. Must be balanced and fair ON RELAESE. If we have “another Mk3” in terms of release, most of our gaming group will just walk from the game for good.
4. Evolution of the SR scenario packet. Id even be looking for 2 separate pack to support both comp and casual play. So a pack of SR style scenarios and an pack of Oblivion style scenarios.

What I think Mk4 may well include:
1. Reduction in some SKU’s. Not a wholesale cutting but maybe trimming 10%
2. Porting over of the Warcaster terrain rules - Hungerford has already stated this is his wish
3. Removal of facing and front/back arcs – Hungerford has already stated this is his wish
4. Moving to an alternating activation system of play?
5. Use of the Kickstarter for pre-releases and pre-orders for any new releases.

I also hope that PP:

1. Does any and all beta testing/CID’s behind closed doors. Drop the public CID’s
2. Sorts out supply and relationships with stores outside of the US
3. Moves away from metal to full time plastic and sprues
4. Creation of better starter boxes

I think they can abandon the idea of retiring models and instead approach the idea of resculpting. That allows them to release new and shiny updated models (its been over ten years for many of the early models) and sell them much in the same way as GW has managed to keep Marines going for decades with the same core block of models.

I think that is better than telling the "old guard" that half their collection is now worthless in one big swoop. If you're going to remove do it in small stages - one or two models here and there - alongside resculpts and releasing new models. If you take someone's toys all away they lose faith; if you remove one or two and replace and update they are more likely to remain and invest further.




They'd started this with their plastic shift, but it backfired as their plastics were just not popular and not suitable. Right now I think they wish they'd got GW's machines in-house; but that's not likely to happen.

 Overread wrote:
I think they can abandon the idea of retiring models and instead approach the idea of resculpting.

I don't see why it cant be both. IMO I don't think that PP can afford the output to resculp lots and lots of models and bring them over into plastic. Also, the sheer volume of SKU's is one of the reasons why physical B&M stores here in the UL have all but stopped carrying PP products. Id be all for core models and character getting new models. If fairly certain that now iv painted Mulg that PP are BOUND to release a new sculpt for him!! If PP wants to continue to develop WM/H and adding new SKU's something is going to have to go from the range.

Any change of direction or new edition is going to annoy a tranche of players. You might as well drop some SKU's at that point as well.

Another option would be to look at Wyrd and Malifaux where in the last edition change they removed some models from the game. They have rules and cards, you just cant use them in anything other than a special tournament or by agreement in casual games. They are removed from all campaigns and tournament play. You could retire some SKU's from production but give them legacy rules?

Mk4 would effectively be post the events of oblivion. So in a fluff stand point if certain places and citnes have been destroyed, you would have some fluff reasons to stop certain units from existing.

Just some thoughts

SKUs can be changed by repackaging. Instead of selling all the solos in individual packs put them together in to a single pack - like they've been doing up till now. Then use their website to direct sell individual models.

Smaller SKU for the store - website able to cope with individual orders for people wanting specific things.



The big risk with a new edition removing models is that when companies not GW do it they end up doing the removal at the same time as releasing the full edition rules (because most companies other than GW balance the whole game at once). The result is you get a huge instant negative backlash as soon as the new edition launches. It's not delayed or spread out its one big angry block of people who just got told a big portion of their collection is invalid all in one go. Plus they might only be able to release a small number of new models at that time so there's very little to dull the blow.

I think after MKIII and without a local PG or similar program in place a bigger bloated SKU is better than a huge portion of their remaining fanbase being upset at them for removing models.



Legacy rules are fine, but at the same time for a game that is very much dominated by competitive approaches it basically is the same as no rules because the bulk of games for existing fans will be competitive which will not include legacy by default.






A bloated SKU is only a worry for stores taking on their game - so do more combined boxed sets for those stores and use the increased internet direct purchasing to keep things going. I really think PP has to keep its fans happy with MKIV. It's the edition that they should be using to try and boost moral, boost popularity and reinforce their core market and restablish themselves. Rather than one where they clean house and create a mess. Let them retire models during an edition at the same time as adding models to the range - spreading it out so that only one army at a time is losing a couple of models whilst gaining others (which isn't actually reducing model count, just maintaining). That spreads it out - now you've got 1 or 2 armies worth of people a little disgruntled, but also happy at the same time. Something was lost but also something gained in at least equal measure (though if they followed GW's lead they'd update/add more than they remove).


It's improtant to remember how invested fans are and how important existing fans are in recruitment, especially for a company which no loner operates a local rep system and which has no stores of their own. They are totally reliant on fans to promote their game in a market that is far more chock full of games than it was when they got started. They are still a good sized fish but they are not the only fish in the sea any more.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Simple.
Get rid as much math as possible with this damn game. Bonuses, buffs, debuffs, adding dice rolls togtgher, factoring all this stuff together, no matter how good you are, just no...lets get rid of that.

So change the game entirely and make it into a bland dice-chukker like 40k?

Resolved with d12 + modifiers. Instead of boosting, allow a reroll of the d12.

After that effects like, roll an additional die and discard the lowest get translated into a +1 modifier. Additional die rules just add +3 instead, or whatever.

Yes, it flattens a curve, but resolves much more quickly and multiple attacks at a time.

The probability distribution of 1d12 is completely unlike the probability distribution of 2+xd6. I know it *seems* like it would simplify the game, but you are fundamentally altering the entirety of the game by doing this, you are no longer playing warmachine, you're playing another game entirely.

4. Evolution of the SR scenario packet. Id even be looking for 2 separate pack to support both comp and casual play. So a pack of SR style scenarios and an pack of Oblivion style scenarios.

They need to kill SR entirely. Do away with it and any other comp format. The game should be competitively playable "out of the box" with scenarios that appeal to casual/narrative players and competitive players alike. At this point the SR packet is a crutch keeping them on life support, its the reason casual players don't want to play the game and its what enables the competitive base to continue alienating them.

1. Reduction in some SKU’s. Not a wholesale cutting but maybe trimming 10%

I think this will be more than achievable by bundling solos and support pieces together into packs. Combine 5-6 SKUs (or more) into 1 rather than have them all as individual kits. I mean, honestly I think they could go a step further and probably bundle a few unit boxes together into "theme packs" or something similar to the theme boxes, figure ~$100 MSRP each, so instead of buying units individually you buy 2-4 of them together at once.

2. Porting over of the Warcaster terrain rules - Hungerford has already stated this is his wish

It would be nice if Warmachine had any terrain rules at all... >.> Speaking of which, what are the Warcaster terrian rules? I haven't really dug into the rules of the new game, I'm curious as to how they "fixed" the issues there and what they have done to prevent the playerbase from forcing Warcaster back into the realm of 2d cutouts.

3. Removal of facing and front/back arcs – Hungerford has already stated this is his wish

Mixed feelings on this one - conceptually I like the idea of facings, in practical terms facings in Mk3 feel like they are barely relevant at this point and I'm not sure the game really loses very much by eliminating them.

4. Moving to an IGUG system of play?

Its already IGOUGO...?

5. Use of the Kickstarter for pre-releases and pre-orders for any new releases.

Please... no....

3. Moves away from metal to full time plastic and sprues

I dont see this happening, PP has been pretty clear as to the issues with plastic and why they aren't using it anymore through the Warcaster campaign.

Right now I think they wish they'd got GW's machines in-house; but that's not likely to happen.

They need more than machines, they need engineers, toolmakers, etc. too, and a lot of skills, training, and knowledge that you can't really find in the US currently. Almost everyone with the expertise in designing models like these for plastic injection molding is in the UK or Japan/China (and even then, only GW really knows how to design robust kits that are ideal for wargaming and don't require you to assemble a 28mm scale models face from 5 pieces), so they would actually have to go out and actively try to poach people (read: $$$) to develop the in-house knowledge to successfully be able to do the same.

Its already IGOUGO...?

I meant alternating activations! I move a model/unit, you move a model/unit. My bad. Not enough/too much coffee today! I will correct my original post.

It would be nice if Warmachine had any terrain rules at all... >.> Speaking of which, what are the Warcaster terrian rules? I haven't really dug into the rules of the new game, I'm curious as to how they "fixed" the issues there and what they have done to prevent the playerbase from forcing Warcaster back into the realm of 2d cutouts.

WM/H does have terrain rules, IMO the issue is how the community chooses to implement them. I am always frustrated when I wee "other people" playing WM/H with hardly any terrain. Just almost symmetrical terrain set up, 2 x fences and a building. We use lots and lots of buildings, forests etc etc. Our boards are full of terrain.

From what i have seen, Warcaster terrain seems to work on the basis of 1) can i see you model 2) is the base obsured 3) is you base elevated. with set bonuses etc dependant on that. Plus a set of movement rules. What that seems to alow you to do is use almost any terrain you want as long as you both agree what the bonuses etc are when you start playing. It seems ot be a halfway house between Malifaux and WM/H. But for balance i have to say i have only watched 2 of the PP demo videos. But i do know Hungerford stated on a few podcasts that he would like to implement a number of the element of Warcaster terrain etc into WM/H if there is a Mk4. Which im pretty certain is code of "its going to happen".

They need to kill SR entirely. Do away with it and any other comp format. The game should be competitively playable "out of the box" with scenarios that appeal to casual/narrative players and competitive players alike. At this point the SR packet is a crutch keeping them on life support, its the reason casual players don't want to play the game and its what enables the competitive base to continue alienating them.

Personally, Im not in violent disagreement with you. If there were two scenario packs "comp" and "narrative" you would find our basement group palying "narrative" 90% of the time. But we are not most WM/H players. If you removed the comp element of WM/H i think you would kill it. I want to develop a less comp scene of narrative and campagin play alongside the comp scene.

Sunno wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I think they can abandon the idea of retiring models and instead approach the idea of resculpting.

I don't see why it cant be both. IMO I don't think that PP can afford the output to resculp lots and lots of models and bring them over into plastic.

They shouldn't anyway. They crapped the bed with a lot of their plastic attempts, to the point that I think a lot of their audience would walk if they announced a major overhaul to plastic.

Personally, if they could do it right, it'd be preferable, but I suspect a large chunk of their audience wouldn't agree.

The probability distribution matters very little, because PP tends to link low Def to high Arm, and High Def to low Arm.

As such, between the two rolls, you still generate a spike-smoothing effect. Instead of 5+ on 2d6 (83%) to hit and 10+ to inflict damage (17%) = 14% of attacks generate damage.

Vs 5+ on a d12 (67%) to hit and 10+ to damage (25%) = 17% of attacks generate damage. There is precious little change in outcome by changing the basic resolution... even without tweaking, and that would allow 40k-style speed rolling for units or multi-attack models to roll their attacks all at once.

For me, realistically, consolidation/reduction in sku's and the sheer volume of profiles:

a) retire the 'legacy/older' versions of casters. With respect, the 'current' version of that caster should be playable, not what they were ten years ago. It's... jarring seeing thagrosh 2 fighting deneghra 1.
B) consolidation/reduction in unit profiles for factions. There's too many in my opinion. Too many releases over too long a time have encroached on the design space of too many factions. Classic complaint is khador' men o war. Once they were a unique 'heavy' infantry type, as khador didn't do light jacks. Now, everyone does light Jacks, AND has multi wound heavy infantry. In my opinion, for example, a lot of the super heavy exemplars could go. Similarly, I don't see why kossites, idrians etc need to have unique profiles. Just have a generic 'irregular infantry' merc unit, arguably with faction specific ca's.

It won't happen. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle. Too many of these things will drive the current players away, regardless of what you do.

Unfortunately, and for a very unpopular opinion, which I fully expect to be greeted with various shades of hostility - What I Think actually needs to happen is an 'aos'ing of Warmachine/hordes. The nuclear option.

I could see them retiring characters with specific forms where the old and new form have the same base size. At that point they've no so much removed a character as just consolidated them so that you could use either model.

Legion of Everblight there's 3 or so versions of Lylith that are all hard with a bow on a base that could easily just be one version then have her on her sledge as a second; that's cut the casters in half already for her.




It's a nice way to "remove" a model without actually invalidating the old sculpt. You're just changing its relationship and use in the game itself.

LunarSol - I totally agree on 50 points being a more appropriate "size" for a game. Things really start to go off the rails after a certain size, imo, and 75 is just a bit too cumbersome. Hopefully they target a slightly smaller game size in the future (a la Warcaster).

Sunno - I agree with your list of points so, so much! Where are you hearing what Hungerford is thinking, is that through Twitter or some sort of stream? Nice to see it's at least on their radar. Makes me hopeful, and want to hang onto my stuff just in case this really could happen in a year or two.

Likely Hungerford's stuff was coming up during the Warcaster Hang out & Paint deals. They showed off some rules through that.

 RiTides wrote:


Sunno - I agree with your list of points so, so much! Where are you hearing what Hungerford is thinking, is that through Twitter or some sort of stream? Nice to see it's at least on their radar. Makes me hopeful, and want to hang onto my stuff just in case this really could happen in a year or two.

Hungerford has been on a number of podcasts over the last few months. Most notably his comments on Chain Attack and The Meta relate to this.

 Overread wrote:
I could see them retiring characters with specific forms where the old and new form have the same base size. At that point they've no so much removed a character as just consolidated them so that you could use either model.

Legion of Everblight there's 3 or so versions of Lylith that are all hard with a bow on a base that could easily just be one version then have her on her sledge as a second; that's cut the casters in half already for her.




It's a nice way to "remove" a model without actually invalidating the old sculpt. You're just changing its relationship and use in the game itself.

They've already kind of done this. Madrak1 currently has the most recent rules and the second most recent sculpt of the 3 Madrak iterations. His rules are a bit of blend of all 3 versions and does a good job representing what Madrak is as character in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
I think they can abandon the idea of retiring models and instead approach the idea of resculpting. That allows them to release new and shiny updated models (its been over ten years for many of the early models) and sell them much in the same way as GW has managed to keep Marines going for decades with the same core block of models.

I think that is better than telling the "old guard" that half their collection is now worthless in one big swoop. If you're going to remove do it in small stages - one or two models here and there - alongside resculpts and releasing new models. If you take someone's toys all away they lose faith; if you remove one or two and replace and update they are more likely to remain and invest further.




They'd started this with their plastic shift, but it backfired as their plastics were just not popular and not suitable. Right now I think they wish they'd got GW's machines in-house; but that's not likely to happen.

I think it would be interesting to see the game reduce its unit sizes down to 4-6 instead of 6-10. They could resculpt and relaunch units this way to help modernize the game and reduce the number of rolls without losing the strategy inherent in model specific targeting.

Deadnight wrote:
Once they were a unique 'heavy' infantry type, as khador didn't do light jacks. Now, everyone does light Jacks, AND has multi wound heavy infantry

Khador still doesn't have light jacks.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I expect that Warcaster is a test-case for potential future updates to Warmachine/Hordes

Yep, you wrote almost word-for-word what I was going to post.

I think if Warcaster does quite well over the medium-to-long term they'll pluck what they can from it and go forward with that in mind. If it's an horrendous flop then- well, things ill be more up in the air. Of course it could also flop and still have a largely positive reception to the rules. Thus far I've heard only positive things about the ruleset (not so much the design of the models however) so who knows, they might take from Warcaster even if it doesn't last.

Man I'd love to see unit sizes reduced, like LuarSol mentions. Infantrymachine always drove me crazy

Maybe four things kept me from early-adopting Warcaster:

1) Incomplete model lines - I tend to hold off picking up new games that are model-based and not rules-based, as the early metas tend to be pretty boring thanks to restricted unit pools. I'll check back when the heavy jacks release.
2) Yet another sci-fi game setting - I really like the Iron Kingdoms setting, like a lot, and am not interested in investing in another damn sci-fi world.
3) No lists - I'm not wrong, right? There's no pre-game army lists, you are simply limited to 4 of each unit and I think 1 of each hero? And you spawn them in as needed? I really like list building, and I really dislike sideboard games (it's a reason I never got deep into MFX).
4) Custom dice - man, I hate proprietary dice, let me use my own set with probabilities I understand, colors that match my army, etc.

I can't see WMH mk4 really failing at 1 or 2, but I'm vaguely concerned that 3 + 4 could become a sad reality. Otherwise I too would like to play WMH again - but I'll point out that I don't know if mk3 is keeping me from that, more the raging hard on for 75 pt matches and lack of local opponents, tho I'm told there are several slumming it among the hard core 40k players

There are benefits to "no lists"approaches in so much as it allows you to adapt to your opponent and the situation. One issue with lists is that its possible to have an opponent build a counter list to your own or even to have things you can't counter.


A great example was the old way super-heavies used to work in that they required very specific counter units to hurt them at all. Dedicated flying units were the same. So as soon as you didn't have counter units (either didn't take them or they are destroyed) your opponent has "untouchable" units on the field.

Being able to react to a changing gameplay state means that there's more potential for drafting in a counter or such that you need in that moment. Plus you can bet having a pre-defined bring-in list will be a thing.

You have lists, but currently there aren't really enough unit options to compete for design space in lists. More releases and you'll see people putting more thought into what they leave on the shelf.

The system is similar to Crisis Protocol and VERY similar to Monsterpocalypse and you're seeing those games start to enter a period of "list building" despite their sideboard nature. Both have grown to the point where there are enough options to where the sideboard nature does not preclude list building as a concept.

 LunarSol wrote:
The system is similar to Crisis Protocol and VERY similar to Monsterpocalypse and you're seeing those games start to enter a period of "list building" despite their sideboard nature. Both have grown to the point where there are enough options to where the sideboard nature does not preclude list building as a concept.

That's heartening. MonPoc I am endlessly attracted to but turned off by sideboards (and that I want to field all my dudes from the same sub-faction, and that has only been possible for a small number of factions released early on -- OR to be honest, I just want to run all Savage Swarm ) I also recall this was why Age of Sigmar never stuck for me at all before there were points: I simply struggle to build and paint an army of miniatures when there aren't rules to support army construction in the abstract. Here's hoping WMH doesn't float in the same big brain, game of counters world (for long anyway).