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.

malfred wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:Let's see...

-Skorne gets a T-Rex. Simple as that.

Word. Though I'm one of the few that like the Anklyosaur.

malfred wrote:

AduroT wrote:I'd say make TWO UAs for every unit, and make them share the same FA or be otherwise mutually exclusive.

UAs are already mutually exclusive. If a Sea Dogs have Mr. Walls, they can't have
a Ranking Officer, for example.

I mean so you can't have one unit with UA1, and another unit with UA2 in the same list.

AduroT wrote:

malfred wrote:

AduroT wrote:I'd say make TWO UAs for every unit, and make them share the same FA or be otherwise mutually exclusive.

UAs are already mutually exclusive. If a Sea Dogs have Mr. Walls, they can't have
a Ranking Officer, for example.

I mean so you can't have one unit with UA1, and another unit with UA2 in the same list.

Really? It's not like having a Black Dragon Pike unit and a standard one in the same list breaks the game currently. Or even 2 Black Dragon units(the Black Dragon UA is FA2 unlike the standard one).

It's not about breaking it, it's about getting people to take more different things. You have your extra good unit that you always take and put the UA on, like Bane Thralls or Errants, ect, and then you take another unit. Well now if you have two UAs for that extra good unit, you just take two units of them with UAs.

malfred wrote:

But the point is, there will still only be one or two "worth the
price" 'casters. That's not how this game works. The game is
balanced and balanced well around templates and characters.

What you saying there aren't already casters that are genrally better or worse in this game already? For every eGaspy and eHaley, there's a Darius or Zherkova. But for all that they're still all beatable and/or geneerally competitive, and that's all they would need to shoot for.

CorvidMP wrote:

malfred wrote:

But the point is, there will still only be one or two "worth the
price" 'casters. That's not how this game works. The game is
balanced and balanced well around templates and characters.

What you saying there aren't already casters that are genrally better or worse in this game already? For every eGaspy and eHaley, there's a Darius or Zherkova. But for all that they're still all beatable and/or geneerally competitive, and that's all they would need to shoot for.

And that's fine. I guess I'm okay that that balance exists around characters
rather than custom builds.

I am to ultimately, as WM/H is not only soaking up all my wargaming hobby money, but has pretty much eaten up all my computer game and table top rpg funds as well lol.

Nonetheless I think that PP is missing out on a bit of opprotunity here. Not being able to add that personal touch to their commander is one of the most common complaints I here about the game from 40k/WHFB players, and its a very understandable one. The ability to express oursevles through the modeling, painting, and back stories of our armies are a big part of the reason why most of us even play table top wargames instead of say...starcraft, or historical wargaming (which is focused on historical accuracy instead of personal artistic flair).

Seriously I wrote a ten page research paper on wargamer culture- that incidentally managed to get sucked into the whole wargaming thing in the first place. Long story short-my contact in the local santeria community fell through at the last minute, so I had to come up with a back up research proposal for my anthropology field reseach requiremnts in like- a day. Was a roleplayer, who picked up the occasional whitewolf book from our FLGS, and was alway curious what all the people in the back were up to with all the pretty miniatures, seemed like an insular enough group get a paper out of, I spent the next 4-5 months frequenting the various gaming shops and tournaments bugging/interviewing people about the ins and outs of war gaming culture.
When I asked why people played there was, of course, a huge variety of answers, but there was one thread that kept cropping up in all the interviews- self expression. It's a vital part of the hobby- that feeling that your army, your lists, and your hq, represent you, your personality, and your way of tackling problems( especially since alot of people in the modern western culture may feel that indivuality constrained and repressed in thier professional lives). Wound up being the central theme to the paper, actually

It's something I think GW has understood for a very long time, and I think the HQ's of their game, as well as their plastic kits reflect this. Something as simple as customizable warcasters could really help WM/H tap into this self expressive need, and close the gap a bit with GW's games when comes to being able to develop that sense of personal ownership of your army.

CorvidMP wrote:

Nonetheless I think that PP is missing out on a bit of opprotunity here. Not being able to add that personal touch to their commander is one of the most common complaints I here about the game from 40k/WHFB players, and its a very understandable one. The ability to express oursevles through the modeling, painting, and back stories of our armies are a big part of the reason why most of us even play table top wargames instead of say...starcraft, or historical wargaming (which is focused on historical accuracy instead of personal artistic flair).

Seriously I wrote a ten page research paper on wargamer culture- that incidentally managed to get sucked into the whole wargaming thing in the first place. Long story short-my contact in the local santeria community fell through at the last minute, so I had to come up with a back up research proposal for my anthropology field reseach requiremnts in like- a day. Was a roleplayer, who picked up the occasional whitewolf book from our FLGS, and was alway curious what all the people in the back were up to with all the pretty miniatures, seemed like an insular enough group get a paper out of, I spent the next 4-5 months frequenting the various gaming shops and tournaments bugging/interviewing people about the ins and outs of war gaming culture.
When I asked why people played there was, of course, a huge variety of answers, but there was one thread that kept cropping up in all the interviews- self expression. It's a vital part of the hobby- that feeling that your army, your lists, and your hq, represent you, your personality, and your way of tackling problems( especially since alot of people in the modern western culture may feel that indivuality constrained and repressed in thier professional lives). Wound up being the central theme to the paper, actually

It's something I think GW has understood for a very long time, and I think the HQ's of their game, as well as their plastic kits reflect this. Something as simple as customizable warcasters could really help WM/H tap into this self expressive need, and close the gap a bit with GW's games when comes to being able to develop that sense of personal ownership of your army.

Self-expression doesn't have to be "make the commander like me." There are
many fans of things like Magic:The Gathering and self-expression is still a part
of the game. Simply building an army is a form of self-expression and how
you play that army is another form of self-expression.

malfred wrote:

CorvidMP wrote:

Nonetheless I think that PP is missing out on a bit of opprotunity here. Not being able to add that personal touch to their commander is one of the most common complaints I here about the game from 40k/WHFB players, and its a very understandable one. The ability to express oursevles through the modeling, painting, and back stories of our armies are a big part of the reason why most of us even play table top wargames instead of say...starcraft, or historical wargaming (which is focused on historical accuracy instead of personal artistic flair).

Seriously I wrote a ten page research paper on wargamer culture- that incidentally managed to get sucked into the whole wargaming thing in the first place. Long story short-my contact in the local santeria community fell through at the last minute, so I had to come up with a back up research proposal for my anthropology field reseach requiremnts in like- a day. Was a roleplayer, who picked up the occasional whitewolf book from our FLGS, and was alway curious what all the people in the back were up to with all the pretty miniatures, seemed like an insular enough group get a paper out of, I spent the next 4-5 months frequenting the various gaming shops and tournaments bugging/interviewing people about the ins and outs of war gaming culture.
When I asked why people played there was, of course, a huge variety of answers, but there was one thread that kept cropping up in all the interviews- self expression. It's a vital part of the hobby- that feeling that your army, your lists, and your hq, represent you, your personality, and your way of tackling problems( especially since alot of people in the modern western culture may feel that indivuality constrained and repressed in thier professional lives). Wound up being the central theme to the paper, actually

It's something I think GW has understood for a very long time, and I think the HQ's of their game, as well as their plastic kits reflect this. Something as simple as customizable warcasters could really help WM/H tap into this self expressive need, and close the gap a bit with GW's games when comes to being able to develop that sense of personal ownership of your army.

Self-expression doesn't have to be "make the commander like me." There are
many fans of things like Magic:The Gathering and self-expression is still a part
of the game. Simply building an army is a form of self-expression and how
you play that army is another form of self-expression.

Also, several players have simply used the current warcasters/characters as templates for converting their own and writing fluff around them. Self-expression shouldn't be the company's responsibility.

How about customizable Jacks? with weapon options and a power list for each force.

I prefer the idea of customized jacks more than customized casters, especially for menoth and mercs as they salvage (at least I think the protectorate still do) warjacks so not all will be the same.

The only problem with "custom" jacks is that there will be some combos of options that will be more powerful than others. And people will always end up choosing those.

Give a Cygnar player the option to replace the Shock Hammer on his pet Defender with a Tremor Hammer and he will. Know any Khador players that wouldn't trade a point of armor for a point of speed on a Spriggan?

I think a jack salvage game would have to be its own thing, like mechwarrior2

Anyone else think that someone (Skorne Maybe?) should get some kind of Tigerman?

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Anyone else think that someone (Skorne Maybe?) should get some kind of Tigerman?

No, not really.

But if we must have furries, save it for a previously unknown Zu race.

I simply would like to know what the heck is going to happen to Karchev from the Wraith book, along with if he is going to be a Khador caster or Cryx caster.

I feel it would be both sucky and awesome to make him an epic Cryx caster and have Cryx give him a body back. Awesome because it would really give players a feeling of a evolving story line, that Casters are not "static" and would be used in either / or similar to how you can have Gun Mages in some Merc contracts.

Why would it be sucky? Because i'd just have to go start Cryx as he's one of my favorite models / characters in the game.

Similarly, how flames of war has "early war" i'd like to see early versions of warcasters who can only be used with certain Jacks / units. Like a early version of Stryker who can only be used with pNemo and restricts your army choices but functions as a journeyman warcaster. Or have young version of Karchev in early version of his armor. They would explore the roots of Vlad, and some of the more dynamic story lines.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:I'd release a Mercenary Contract for the Cepahalax. Cepahalax would get Warbeasts and Warlocks rather than Warjacks and Warcasters. Their beasts would be Vodgt (sp) type things straight out of Vampire the Masquerade and they'd also be able to use certain Cryx Warjacks such as Seethers and Desecrators (anything that auto generates focus) which their Warlocks would use as Jack Marshalled Warjacks.

I have no idea who the Cepahalax are.

These guys: http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/cryx/units/cephalyx-overlords http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/cryx/units/cephalyx-slaver-and-drudge-mind-slaves Which are Cryx ally units who currently cannot be used in any Merc contracts AFAIK.

Platuan4th wrote:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Anyone else think that someone (Skorne Maybe?) should get some kind of Tigerman?

No, not really.

But if we must have furries, save it for a previously unknown Zu race.

Zu should be giant insects and carnivorous plants IMO, the 2 motifs that have yet to be tapped in Hordes.