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





 LunarSol wrote:
...if we were a practical people, we'd be happy to play with cardboard tokens .
Most of the people I played Warmachine with were... They'd make wreck markers by cutting out circles from the Amazon boxes their models came in.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
That being said, most people are looking at games they can enjoy with small model counts, currently. X-Wing is a big hit, but I've rarely seen a game over 7 models on both sides. Infinity is noted for taking a couple small squads and going at it. Warcry and Kill Team are having some large successes, even. I would also the new hero games of Batman and Marvel Crisis Protocol, or even the MonPoc someone mentioned, to those lists as well.
There's a lot of reasons to prefer small model counts - table size, storage needs for hundreds of models, quickness of play, amount of painting, cost, etc. But I think most of those can be achieved by simply using a smaller scale. Going 10mm or 15mm can allow you to have that huge scale without all the consequences of having many models. Going by Joan of Arc's 15mm models, the quality can be quite good and paint up real nice.


Yes and no. I've gotten into Team Yankee (15mm Flames of War derivative) lately, and it really isn't that much easier to transport or quick to play/paint than 28mm games I've played. You could make a smaller game by making the models smaller, but you also need to keep the model count under control.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:

Yes and no. I've gotten into Team Yankee (15mm Flames of War derivative) lately, and it really isn't that much easier to transport or quick to play/paint than 28mm games I've played. You could make a smaller game by making the models smaller, but you also need to keep the model count under control.
Yes, but 15mm is so adorable. I'd totally play a 15mm Warmachine.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'd like to add a suggestion: neoprene mats. Both MonPoc and Riot Quest have neoprene maps that fundamentally change the nature of the game you play. The Riot Quest ones are really thematic and wonderful to look at (the Hullgrinder map is 100% why I ordered Riot Quest). WMH might put too much into the hands of the players, who are all too happy to play on barren tables with one or two terrain features set up on the side, out of the way. Creating thematic "levels" with terrain combinations you don't typically see would go a long way to making WMH look nicer on the table and more varied to play again. I also wouldn't complain if terrain was made a first order participant in the game, like buildings are in MonPoc, being part of your army building and strategy.

This is a great suggestion. Occasionally I've wondered why GW doesn't make its terrain more like the Monsterpocalypse buildings where they're an active part of the game like the other miniatures players bring. I think that's a great idea. Plus the mats bring a certain colour and quality to the game.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Nurglitch wrote:
Occasionally I've wondered why GW doesn't make its terrain more like the Monsterpocalypse buildings where they're an active part of the game like the other miniatures players bring.
GW didn't really make terrain until a few years ago. I think the reason why 40k is getting better terrain rules in 9th is because GW now sells terrain. Since they started making terrain, they have made it more and more fundamental to the games: faction terrain, killzones, and Warcry has terrain as a fundamental gameplay element. They even tried neoprene mats (briefly) before settling on the hard boards that KillTeam and Warcry use. I think "smart" terrain is where GW is really going with their games, and I think AoS 3.0 will probably make it a first order participant.

But I think, getting back on Warmachine, that Warcaster is getting a neoprene mat as a Kickstarter stretch goal. With MonPoc, RiotQuest, and Warcaster getting mats (and PP making mats an increasing part of their games, and their business), I think WMH Mk4 has a pretty good chance of seeing them. They may not be integrated into the game directly, but we'll probably see a few. If not, we can probably just play on the RiotQuest mats anyway.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Yes and no. I've gotten into Team Yankee (15mm Flames of War derivative) lately, and it really isn't that much easier to transport or quick to play/paint than 28mm games I've played. You could make a smaller game by making the models smaller, but you also need to keep the model count under control.
Yes, but 15mm is so adorable. I'd totally play a 15mm Warmachine.


Now I kind of want to hybridize this suggestion with the people suggesting an Adeptus Titanicus-scale version of Imperial Knight Renegade up in that thread. 3d-print some 15mm-scale Warhammer Knights and adapt the Warmachine rules to let them throw each other around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sqorgar wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Occasionally I've wondered why GW doesn't make its terrain more like the Monsterpocalypse buildings where they're an active part of the game like the other miniatures players bring.
GW didn't really make terrain until a few years ago. I think the reason why 40k is getting better terrain rules in 9th is because GW now sells terrain. Since they started making terrain, they have made it more and more fundamental to the games: faction terrain, killzones, and Warcry has terrain as a fundamental gameplay element. They even tried neoprene mats (briefly) before settling on the hard boards that KillTeam and Warcry use. I think "smart" terrain is where GW is really going with their games, and I think AoS 3.0 will probably make it a first order participant...


I think the fact that "bland terrain rules" was possibly the most complained-about part of 8e could have something to do with it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 16:42:48


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
I think the fact that "bland terrain rules" was possibly the most complained-about part of 8e could have something to do with it.
I’d sooner believe that GW did something to sell more product than them actually listening to their customers. If they really listened to their customers, they would lower prices rather than increasing them by 20% multiple times a year.

(I think Privateer Press’ prices are too high too)
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
I think the fact that "bland terrain rules" was possibly the most complained-about part of 8e could have something to do with it.
I’d sooner believe that GW did something to sell more product than them actually listening to their customers. If they really listened to their customers, they would lower prices rather than increasing them by 20% multiple times a year.

(I think Privateer Press’ prices are too high too)


My general impression of 8e is that GW is listening to complaints from the fanbase to figure out what the problems are, but they're ass at fixing them and end up overcorrecting/brute-forcing things in ways that cause more problems than they solve. As opposed to PP, who in Mk.3 seems to not be paying that much attention to complaints from the fanbase but puts out competent fixes for the problems they do notice.
   
Made in us
Kovnik





washington state USA

Well they are listening to a degree with the CID since it was a huge fix for almost all the battle engines. however the problem with the game lays more with the toxic mindset/behavior of the hardcore players and not with MK 3.


To me aside from theme list shoehorning the players into certain list builds the actual mechanics are better than in previous editions. it went from MK 1 where i wasn't even interested in playing the game to MK 3 where i have enough model to field 2 different 50 point variant lists.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It dawns on me that I haven’t even played mk3 yet (which makes discussing mk4 a bit premature). What makes mk3 such a huge upgrade compared to mk2? Is it just better balance through CID, or are there significant gameplay changes?
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







The theme force changes are what stopped me playing, really. I played a lot in Mk.2, and I liked both the variety of lists I could build and the fact that I could buy just one thing and adjust lists to accommodate the tweak, but in Mk.3 I have one army build I can sometimes swap the caster out in, and if I want to do anything other than the mono-build I need to go spend $300+ on a completely different selection of infantry/solos that don't overlap with what I was using.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

Sunno wrote:Id agree with your last bit that many people are looking for smaller games these days. Due to time, investment etc but for companies, unless your established its actaully pretty hard to put out and support a large scale/model wargame in a world where GW exists. TBH i think the only companies that could do it would be the likes of FFG and Asmode.

Sqorgar wrote:There's a lot of reasons to prefer small model counts - table size, storage needs for hundreds of models, quickness of play, amount of painting, cost, etc. But I think most of those can be achieved by simply using a smaller scale. Going 10mm or 15mm can allow you to have that huge scale without all the consequences of having many models. Going by Joan of Arc's 15mm models, the quality can be quite good and paint up real nice.

I was merely noting a trend.

I do think that time as well as investment level on the player's part are the largest contributing factors in this trend.

I do think that WMH could be a larger model count game than it is, but in order for it to do so, it needs to look in to how other unit-based games go and focus more on having units interact as units instead of disparate models. This has applied to so many other systems and is the only way to not go to Apocalypse time level with half of 40K's model count. As it is, I think WMH's expected model count for a 75 point game is right on the edge of too much with its mechanics system.

Battletech is a game which has a high level of rules complexity, but is only expected to run up to about 8 models total for an average game length. Of course, it's still largely running with the ruleset it had in the mid-90s, but it is also about the expectation of the number of models in the game.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Charistoph wrote:
...I do think that WMH could be a larger model count game than it is, but in order for it to do so, it needs to look in to how other unit-based games go and focus more on having units interact as units instead of disparate models. This has applied to so many other systems and is the only way to not go to Apocalypse time level with half of 40K's model count. As it is, I think WMH's expected model count for a 75 point game is right on the edge of too much with its mechanics system...


I think the biggest barrier to this happening is the $60-100 infantry units of ten models that are four different single poses (three each of three troopers and one unit leader, if you're lucky you also get one pose worth of weapon attachments). The infantry are priced like 40k models (Primaris units benchmark at $60/10 models) but aren't as well-made, have no built-in customizability, and are a lot harder to work with. Plastic models coming off a sprue require some cleaning of mould lines and a basic knowledge of glue, PP resin often requires heat-bending and they still do mixed metal/resin models that are incredibly fragile and require pinning.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
The theme force changes are what stopped me playing, really. I played a lot in Mk.2, and I liked both the variety of lists I could build and the fact that I could buy just one thing and adjust lists to accommodate the tweak, but in Mk.3 I have one army build I can sometimes swap the caster out in, and if I want to do anything other than the mono-build I need to go spend $300+ on a completely different selection of infantry/solos that don't overlap with what I was using.
I've heard of the complaints about theme lists before, but can't you just, like, not use them? That is, you and your opponent choose to not use theme benefits (even if his list is otherwise theme appropriate), thus not suffering from the imbalance of themes getting extra models?
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
...I do think that WMH could be a larger model count game than it is, but in order for it to do so, it needs to look in to how other unit-based games go and focus more on having units interact as units instead of disparate models. This has applied to so many other systems and is the only way to not go to Apocalypse time level with half of 40K's model count. As it is, I think WMH's expected model count for a 75 point game is right on the edge of too much with its mechanics system...


I think the biggest barrier to this happening is the $60-100 infantry units of ten models that are four different single poses (three each of three troopers and one unit leader, if you're lucky you also get one pose worth of weapon attachments). The infantry are priced like 40k models (Primaris units benchmark at $60/10 models) but aren't as well-made, have no built-in customizability, and are a lot harder to work with. Plastic models coming off a sprue require some cleaning of mould lines and a basic knowledge of glue, PP resin often requires heat-bending and they still do mixed metal/resin models that are incredibly fragile and require pinning.
One of my first experiences with PP, during the first edition of Warmachine when I played it for a summer with pals, was with a Khador Behemoth.

How on earth they thought that was an intelligent model design, or that your average gamer had the modeling patience and skill to actually make work, is beyond me.

I mean, the model was awesome looking, and the new one looks infinitely better thought out, but boy was that first one a stupidly designed model as far as gaming pieces go
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Sqorgar wrote:
It dawns on me that I haven’t even played mk3 yet (which makes discussing mk4 a bit premature). What makes mk3 such a huge upgrade compared to mk2? Is it just better balance through CID, or are there significant gameplay changes?


Warjacks are good and fun to play and that alone makes it a far superior edition than any before it, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
One of my first experiences with PP, during the first edition of Warmachine when I played it for a summer with pals, was with a Khador Behemoth.

How on earth they thought that was an intelligent model design, or that your average gamer had the modeling patience and skill to actually make work, is beyond me.

I mean, the model was awesome looking, and the new one looks infinitely better thought out, but boy was that first one a stupidly designed model as far as gaming pieces go


It can't be THAT bad. It was like, one of the first 10 model kits I ever bought alongside the starter, Vlad1, some Widowmakers/Greylords/Winter Guard when I first got into the hobby and turned out fine.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 20:26:26


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
The theme force changes are what stopped me playing, really. I played a lot in Mk.2, and I liked both the variety of lists I could build and the fact that I could buy just one thing and adjust lists to accommodate the tweak, but in Mk.3 I have one army build I can sometimes swap the caster out in, and if I want to do anything other than the mono-build I need to go spend $300+ on a completely different selection of infantry/solos that don't overlap with what I was using.
I've heard of the complaints about theme lists before, but can't you just, like, not use them? That is, you and your opponent choose to not use theme benefits (even if his list is otherwise theme appropriate), thus not suffering from the imbalance of themes getting extra models?


You can, but then you wander into the 40k problem of needing to sit down and negotiate what variant of the rules you're using before playing a game. What if my opponent doesn't think their list will work without the free models? What if the only models they have in their bag are one of the Oblivion mixed-faction theme forces that would be illegal outside of that theme? Suddenly I can't just play an as-written pick-up game anymore.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Sqorgar wrote:
I've heard of the complaints about theme lists before, but can't you just, like, not use them? That is, you and your opponent choose to not use theme benefits (even if his list is otherwise theme appropriate), thus not suffering from the imbalance of themes getting extra models?


You can if your opponent is okay with it, but honestly, most people that play like them, and honestly I do find they make armies feel more narratively interesting and look less like a magic deck. I do think the changes to the way themes work in Oblivion removed a lot of my issues with them. It's a lot easier to play a mix of jacks and units in theme now and the whole system is a lot easier to work with.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
It dawns on me that I haven’t even played mk3 yet (which makes discussing mk4 a bit premature). What makes mk3 such a huge upgrade compared to mk2? Is it just better balance through CID, or are there significant gameplay changes?


Biggest changes are that non-Cyriss warjacks generate a point of Focus every turn on their own, warcasters' bonus warjack/warbeast points are a larger percentage of the total, and infantry are proportionately more expensive, so you see a lot more warjacks on the table than you used to.

There are plenty of subtle details that change how the game plays; keywords/weapon stats have been reorganized (ex. melee weapons have a range and "reach" isn't a keyword, plenty of warjacks have 1" melee range where they used to have 0.5"), morale is gone, you only get defensive benefits in terrain if you're completely within it, and Steamroller terrain guidelines require a lot more terrain than it used to. Also speed debuffs no longer prevent you from charging so things like Krueger2 aren't as dominant as they used to be.

Main factions now have ~4-7 theme forces total (mini-factions have 2-3) instead of one per warcaster/warlock. Theme forces tend to divide the faction into several groups of models and have very little overlap (ex. Cygnar has the Trencher theme, the Sword Knights/Long Gunners theme, the Storm Knights theme, and the Arcane Tempest theme, but all of them but the Trenchers get Journeymen and the Squire), but they have one set of requirements and give you the full bonus once you meet it rather than the four-tiered limitations of Mk.II. Most Warmachine theme forces don't restrict your non-character warjacks much but some Hordes theme forces do (ex. Circle themes might be only stone beasts or only living beasts), and most theme forces let you have a Merc/Minion unit and solo.

And of course some factions have tweaks that alter what the go-to staples of old do. Circle was my tournament army back in Mk.II so I'm more familiar with the subtle details there, big ones are that the Gorax isn't the staple he used to be since the Feral now has Primal, and the addition of the Stoneshaper (mechanic solo for stone beasts) means stone beasts can see a lot more play with casters who aren't Baldur or Bradigus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LunarSol wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
I've heard of the complaints about theme lists before, but can't you just, like, not use them? That is, you and your opponent choose to not use theme benefits (even if his list is otherwise theme appropriate), thus not suffering from the imbalance of themes getting extra models?


You can if your opponent is okay with it, but honestly, most people that play like them, and honestly I do find they make armies feel more narratively interesting and look less like a magic deck. I do think the changes to the way themes work in Oblivion removed a lot of my issues with them. It's a lot easier to play a mix of jacks and units in theme now and the whole system is a lot easier to work with.


The rebalancing of the free units is nice, but there's still almost no overlap between themes. I used to be able to use Tharn and Druids or Skinwalkers and Druids in the same list in Mk.II, but in Mk.III since I only have one unit of Bloodtrackers and one unit of Skinwalkers I can't use either of them in a theme list unless I'm prepared to go buy a bunch more Tharn or a bunch of Reeves/Wolves, and since I don't have any Minions I don't get anything out of Secret Masters, so my options are either Bones of Orboros or a Kaya living-beast-spam list.

I'd love it if they applied as a global rule "instead of taking your mercenary/minion unit/solo you may take a faction unit/solo from outside the theme list", it'd add a huge amount of list-building freedom.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/28 21:04:41


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





LunarSol wrote:I do think the changes to the way themes work in Oblivion removed a lot of my issues with them.
Is Oblivion worth it? Does anyone actually play the campaign in it or is it still SR-only? And can the Oblivion campaign be played with only two participants?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I'd love it if they applied as a global rule "instead of taking your mercenary/minion unit/solo you may take a faction unit/solo from outside the theme list", it'd add a huge amount of list-building freedom.
Isn't that already the trade-off that themes use? You get extra models for being in-theme, and out-of-theme you have access to the full faction model set?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 AnomanderRake wrote:

The rebalancing of the free units is nice, but there's still almost no overlap between themes. I used to be able to use Tharn and Druids or Skinwalkers and Druids in the same list in Mk.II, but in Mk.III since I only have one unit of Bloodtrackers and one unit of Skinwalkers I can't use either of them in a theme list unless I'm prepared to go buy a bunch more Tharn or a bunch of Reeves/Wolves, and since I don't have any Minions I don't get anything out of Secret Masters, so my options are either Bones of Orboros or a Kaya living-beast-spam list.

I'd love it if they applied as a global rule "instead of taking your mercenary/minion unit/solo you may take a faction unit/solo from outside the theme list", it'd add a huge amount of list-building freedom.


In my mind, the bulk of the overlap is the battlegroup and core support models. Making it easier for those models to make up more of the points in theme was easily the biggest improvement in the system, IMO. I think they really need to consolidate some themes still as if nothing else we've seen they have more themes than the resources to give them attention. I'm not too fond of opening them up too much, but I'd really like to see PP retire a few of the model lines that just don't make any sense anymore. (Looking at you Cygnar: Heavy Metal Units).
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sqorgar wrote:
LunarSol wrote:I do think the changes to the way themes work in Oblivion removed a lot of my issues with them.
Is Oblivion worth it? Does anyone actually play the campaign in it or is it still SR-only? And can the Oblivion campaign be played with only two participants?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I'd love it if they applied as a global rule "instead of taking your mercenary/minion unit/solo you may take a faction unit/solo from outside the theme list", it'd add a huge amount of list-building freedom.
Isn't that already the trade-off that themes use? You get extra models for being in-theme, and out-of-theme you have access to the full faction model set?


Yeah, but the limited number of theme forces by comparison to Mk.II means that if I want to change theme forces I have to go out and buy 100% new infantry models, and the theme force restrictions often force you into really narrow mono-builds. Technically I could use almost any caster in any theme, but the nature of the caster's interaction with the units available means that a lot of the time there are only a couple of casters you ever see in theme.

I own every caster in Circle because in Mk.II I could slightly rejigger lists to get some use out of them and I could maneuver things into a tier 1-3 list for a lot of them, but in Mk.III since I haven't gone and bought two each of every Tharn model, thirty Wolves of Orboros, or a Minions army I've only got the models to play Bones of Orboros, which means I only ever use Baldur or Bradigus.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Kovnik





washington state USA

I don't see the need for the theme forces either. i play with the minis i want to play because they look cool not because they give me free units.

I only have Irusk 2 as my caster and he works just fine with the minis in my collection.

like sqogar said, just choose not to use them.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I've been here since Age of Sigmar first launched, and it seems like the one unifying behavior that belongs to all miniature game fans is that they all feel trapped into playing games in a way they don't like, and won't stop.

Trying to just say "well, why don't you just not do that thing you hate?" sometimes feels like a scene from Spinal Tap. "Why don't you just make 10 louder?" ... *confused stare* "But this one goes to 11".
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

AnomanderRake wrote:I think the biggest barrier to this happening is the $60-100 infantry units of ten models that are four different single poses (three each of three troopers and one unit leader, if you're lucky you also get one pose worth of weapon attachments). The infantry are priced like 40k models (Primaris units benchmark at $60/10 models) but aren't as well-made, have no built-in customizability, and are a lot harder to work with. Plastic models coming off a sprue require some cleaning of mould lines and a basic knowledge of glue, PP resin often requires heat-bending and they still do mixed metal/resin models that are incredibly fragile and require pinning.

No and yes. WarmaHordes tendency to focus on model interactions actually slows things down precipitously. A 2 'Caster/Lock game in WMH takes a considerable amount of time to play right now, and can take as long as a 3500 point 40K game because of that interaction level. I haven't even heard of people wanting to play a game big enough to justify taking 2 Battlegroup Controllers locally the entire time I've followed the game (forums are a different story). Meanwhile, there's one guy who would get a game that took half the tables up and filled the deployment zone with Imperial Guard once or twice a year (and they're all painted, too).

Now, don't get me wrong, the pricing issue does present issues in wanting people to buy above a certain minimum for a Theme, but there doesn't seem to be a desire to even try to play above the minimum in any form at all. Of course, I do think that part of it is Steamroller and most of the people left are either die-hards who haven't gotten in to something else or the hyper-competitives who get their fill in WMH more than 40K.

AnomanderRake wrote:Yeah, but the limited number of theme forces by comparison to Mk.II means that if I want to change theme forces I have to go out and buy 100% new infantry models, and the theme force restrictions often force you into really narrow mono-builds. Technically I could use almost any caster in any theme, but the nature of the caster's interaction with the units available means that a lot of the time there are only a couple of casters you ever see in theme.

I own every caster in Circle because in Mk.II I could slightly rejigger lists to get some use out of them and I could maneuver things into a tier 1-3 list for a lot of them, but in Mk.III since I haven't gone and bought two each of every Tharn model, thirty Wolves of Orboros, or a Minions army I've only got the models to play Bones of Orboros, which means I only ever use Baldur or Bradigus.

Yeah, this is both the benefit and the curse of the Themes. Really the only carryovers are the Battlegroups (though some don't cross Themes well, or simply can't in case of Mercs and Minions) and signature units like The Choir or Beasthandlers.

Sqorgar wrote:I've been here since Age of Sigmar first launched, and it seems like the one unifying behavior that belongs to all miniature game fans is that they all feel trapped into playing games in a way they don't like, and won't stop.

Trying to just say "well, why don't you just not do that thing you hate?" sometimes feels like a scene from Spinal Tap. "Why don't you just make 10 louder?" ... *confused stare* "But this one goes to 11".

Part of it is the local meta. If there are enough people in it, then you can usually find a one-off game. The smaller the WMH group you meet with, though, they are more likely to be the hyper-competitive Steamroller-only group. And that applies to many of the games that have local tournament scenes. I usually don't have to worry about it for Battletech, because they're a small group and it isn't competitive, but I've literally been told by one WMH group that "they only play Steamroller here", and have had situations where I couldn't get a 40K game because I didn't have a collection that was 1750 points (tournament standard of the time).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Charistoph wrote:

Part of it is the local meta. If there are enough people in it, then you can usually find a one-off game. The smaller the WMH group you meet with, though, they are more likely to be the hyper-competitive Steamroller-only group. And that applies to many of the games that have local tournament scenes. I usually don't have to worry about it for Battletech, because they're a small group and it isn't competitive, but I've literally been told by one WMH group that "they only play Steamroller here", and have had situations where I couldn't get a 40K game because I didn't have a collection that was 1750 points (tournament standard of the time).
That was my experience back towards the end of Mk2, and I've always thought WMH's competitive mindset was the biggest obstacle for game. I've seen them stick new players with a full tournament army playing Steamroller for their first game. It's great that they are willing to teach new players how to play and even allow them use of an army (unpainted), but it's not exactly a beginner experience. I once brought in a battle box when I first started playing again (I was an early 1.0 adopter, but was new to Mk2) and saw the other players literally arguing over who would be forced to play me.

But like I said earlier, I've kind of moved past my animosity with WMH, and I think I'd like to give it another try (been there since 1.0 - first miniatures I ever painted were the original all metal Cryx battle box). The rigid competitiveness might still be an obstacle, but maybe there is a way to create a new player experience that even grognards would enjoy playing.

I think that more than anything else, a Mk4 version of WMH needs to move away from rigid competitive play. Being a well balanced game doesn't mean that the game has to only have a presence as a tournament system. Maybe Oblivion's release shows that PP wants to move away from that now?
   
Made in us
Kovnik





washington state USA

The rigid competitiveness might still be an obstacle, but maybe there is a way to create a new player experience that even grognards would enjoy playing.

In my experience it is. one time i attempted to come in on an off day when i was told most WM/H players came in to play. got there early, played a quick game with the guy i usually game with on the other day..and then got completely ignored by the tryhard group. i had a table set up and armies out and they all felt content to huddle around the same table and watch each other play several games with 2d terrain even after i offered them games.

I find that bringing new players into to a group with a friendlier mindset helps the game be enjoyable. it's comparable to what the press gangers did but without the focus on hardcore steamroller play. find models you think would be fun to play/look cool. then find a caster(s) that work well with them, and roll some dice. no worried about theme, tier lists etc...

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Maybe what WMH needs isn't a Mk4, but a few small adjustments to Mk3. I'm thinking primarily focusing on the new player experience.

1) Redesign the battle boxes. While they make good first steps into the game, they have the crappy restic models that are a nightmare to work with and have poor detail. Actually redesign any of the restic models. I don't say this often, but I'd rather work with resin.

2) A Battle Box game. I think you should be able to get about 10 games out of a battle box before you feel like you need to buy any more models - you'll do it anyway because you want models, but it is a complete game unto itself rather than feeling like, how fast can you get up to 75 pts so you can really play? It might be a challenge to get 10 games out of 3-4 models a side, but maybe you can get there with scenarios or a mini-campaign. If you build something around a group of 4 people, all with battle boxes, you can have a lot more variety in the games (6 different matchups, not including three or four player games). Maybe go the full CodeOne. The newbie experience needs desperate help - hell, it needs to exist, period.

3) Neoprene mats. I went into detail about this earlier, but I really think they desperately need to up the look on the table of the game. I think mats will have other uses, such as speeding up setup and giving explicit, set game experiences that maybe take rigid players out of their comfort zone. How awesome would it be to just pull out a mat and two battle boxes and be instantly ready to play with a potential new player? But part of the new player experience is getting new players interested in it, and an ugly game isn't going to draw any interest.

4) Better card/token/template management. Even if you get a nice map and paint your models, you still end up with a lot of visual clutter from things like brass rings, tokens everywhere, or the cards. If you change the playing area to be a foot shorter (only 3' instead of 4'), then each player gets a 6 inch space outside of the game to put their cards and unused tokens. We played on a table that was 8x4, with two games side by side, which meant our "stash" area was also our deployment zone. So our models started right next to the cards, unused tokens, extra dice, and so on. More offensively, they'd actually roll the dice on the table, next to (and into) the models. That isn't Warmachine's fault, but cleaning up the player areas is worthy goal. Maybe streamline token use so that it isn't as prevalent (or move the tokens off the table, onto the unit cards).

5) Cards and Books. I'm not even sure what's going on with the cards anymore. Do they still include them in the packages for the models? Why does War Room 2 still force you to buy card packs when the cards are available online for free? Is it possible to still purchase physical cards? Bring back the books that had the unit stats in them, along with some pretty pictures and unit fluff. There are models that don't have any flavor to them except their name. Tournament players don't care about fluff and are fine with using War Room exclusively, but new players need these things to get a feel for the world and their armies.

6) The website. The old website wasn't great, but it was better than what's there now. The new site has nothing and still links back to the old site half the time. I'm not even sure where to find the release schedule anymore, and the card database is linked from something, somewhere, but I can never remember where and always have trouble finding it again. And get the forum back to non-sucky condition. It takes time and effort to run a forum, but you can't just outsource discussion to private Facebook groups - not everybody has Facebook and can see private groups.The webstore doesn't even send you a confirmation email when you make purchases. I don't think I've seen a company with a worse website experience since the blink tag was depreciated.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

Sqorgar wrote:I think that more than anything else, a Mk4 version of WMH needs to move away from rigid competitive play. Being a well balanced game doesn't mean that the game has to only have a presence as a tournament system. Maybe Oblivion's release shows that PP wants to move away from that now?

The odd thing is, Privateer Press has supported non-competitive avenues of play. There has been numerous narrative campaigns, including one where the development of a single solo was determined by the players. From what I understand, the Oblivion campaign even has a developing campaign which was very good.

The problem was to get people to play it. Most of the ones who would have played it regularly in my meta have moved on to other games and left WMH behind.

Sqorgar wrote:1) Redesign the battle boxes. While they make good first steps into the game, they have the crappy restic models that are a nightmare to work with and have poor detail. Actually redesign any of the restic models. I don't say this often, but I'd rather work with resin.

They're not resin, but plastic. They are quite a different material from the restic you'll find in some of the new kits.

Sqorgar wrote:2) A Battle Box game. I think you should be able to get about 10 games out of a battle box before you feel like you need to buy any more models - you'll do it anyway because you want models, but it is a complete game unto itself rather than feeling like, how fast can you get up to 75 pts so you can really play? It might be a challenge to get 10 games out of 3-4 models a side, but maybe you can get there with scenarios or a mini-campaign. If you build something around a group of 4 people, all with battle boxes, you can have a lot more variety in the games (6 different matchups, not including three or four player games). Maybe go the full CodeOne. The newbie experience needs desperate help - hell, it needs to exist, period.

It exists. But in order to play it, you need willing participants. Also consider that there is the Journeyman League which is an option to run.

Sqorgar wrote:3) Neoprene mats. I went into detail about this earlier, but I really think they desperately need to up the look on the table of the game. I think mats will have other uses, such as speeding up setup and giving explicit, set game experiences that maybe take rigid players out of their comfort zone. How awesome would it be to just pull out a mat and two battle boxes and be instantly ready to play with a potential new player? But part of the new player experience is getting new players interested in it, and an ugly game isn't going to draw any interest.

This wouldn't hurt, but I don't know how much it would help unless it matched the scenarios in the game at present. A lot of people complain about the lack of 3D terrain in general, as it is. Neoprene mats wouldn't help on this front.

Sqorgar wrote:4) Better card/token/template management. Even if you get a nice map and paint your models, you still end up with a lot of visual clutter from things like brass rings, tokens everywhere, or the cards. If you change the playing area to be a foot shorter (only 3' instead of 4'), then each player gets a 6 inch space outside of the game to put their cards and unused tokens. We played on a table that was 8x4, with two games side by side, which meant our "stash" area was also our deployment zone. So our models started right next to the cards, unused tokens, extra dice, and so on. More offensively, they'd actually roll the dice on the table, next to (and into) the models. That isn't Warmachine's fault, but cleaning up the player areas is worthy goal. Maybe streamline token use so that it isn't as prevalent (or move the tokens off the table, onto the unit cards).

True. Maybe some enterprising individual could looking in to developing a product line precisely for that?

Sqorgar wrote:5) Cards and Books. I'm not even sure what's going on with the cards anymore. Do they still include them in the packages for the models? Why does War Room 2 still force you to buy card packs when the cards are available online for free? Is it possible to still purchase physical cards? Bring back the books that had the unit stats in them, along with some pretty pictures and unit fluff. There are models that don't have any flavor to them except their name. Tournament players don't care about fluff and are fine with using War Room exclusively, but new players need these things to get a feel for the world and their armies.

New boxes and blisters do not contain cards. The War Room 2 costs cover the cost and development of the program, but does allow for the Prime units to be used for free, along with the old as well as current Battlebox models.

And while you can download the PDFs of the cards for free, the printing will cost you, one way or the other.

Sqorgar wrote:6) The website. The old website wasn't great, but it was better than what's there now. The new site has nothing and still links back to the old site half the time. I'm not even sure where to find the release schedule anymore, and the card database is linked from something, somewhere, but I can never remember where and always have trouble finding it again. And get the forum back to non-sucky condition. It takes time and effort to run a forum, but you can't just outsource discussion to private Facebook groups - not everybody has Facebook and can see private groups.The webstore doesn't even send you a confirmation email when you make purchases. I don't think I've seen a company with a worse website experience since the blink tag was depreciated.

This is very true.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Charistoph wrote:

The odd thing is, Privateer Press has supported non-competitive avenues of play... The problem was to get people to play it.

I think non-competitive play needs to start from the new player experience. Once a norm becomes entrenched, you can't look to the people who standardized it for help supplant it.

It exists. But in order to play it, you need willing participants. Also consider that there is the Journeyman League which is an option to run.

What is the battle box new player experience? My past experiences with the game were nothing but pressures to build up to a SR full tournament army as soon as humanly possible. That's also the message that Journeyman Leagues send across. "We'll play small games for a bit, but only as long as you are working towards the REAL game".

My personal preference is that I LOVE starter sets. More than anything else. I'd rather have small forces from five or six armies than one static tournament army. In fact, I generally don't work towards tournament level games and instead buy models I like across the whole range and, if I end up sticking with the games long enough, eventually build a full army almost by accident. And it is never tournament competitive, since there was no rhyme or reason to it.

Warmachine doesn't support this style of collection and exploration AT ALL. Not in the rules, not in the products released, and not in the way the players actually engage with the game. It's not enough to simply support small games, small games have to be fun to play and feel worthwhile when you are done. The thing I hate the most are starter sets which don't even let you play the game. If your starter set just has "quick play rules" and two scenarios designed to teach movement and combat, see the $40 rulebook for how to actually play, then I will most likely never move beyond the starter set. My other turn off is $290 starter boxes, so I recognize that sacrifices have to be made - but there's no reason why a starter experience can't be a representative sample of the full game.

A lot of people complain about the lack of 3D terrain in general, as it is. Neoprene mats wouldn't help on this front.
My suggestions were largely about changing Mk3's new player experience. Since the game doesn't really have any 3D terrain rules (I hear Oblivion even removed hills), making the game 3D would probably require a Mk4 rewrite of a lot of the rules.

The War Room 2 costs cover the cost and development of the program, but does allow for the Prime units to be used for free, along with the old as well as current Battlebox models.
War Room charges like $100 to get access to all the cards. I'm not sure how much it cost to develop the program, but given how ubiquitous the program is, I'm sure they could recoup their costs easily for a tenth of the cost. Multiple other games, like Song of Ice and Fire, Infinity, Age of Sigmar, soon 40k 9th, and so on all have free apps with no additional cost for army building and model rules.

Edit: I'm not sure if the Warhammer 40k app will incur no additional costs. It is Games Workshop, after all. But they did say that buying physical books will give you digital versions for free, which is uncharacteristically generous for them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/30 20:18:08


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