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.

Was there any word if the Centaur was unlocked for free in the Nature Mega Army?

 NTRabbit wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
That's not the reason we don't have a beta at all. There's a clear hierarchy - rules committee made a list of suggestions, Alessio says "yes", "no", "I have a better idea to handle the problem".

What I've read over there strongly suggests otherwise.

I guess being on the committee gives me a different perspective

 Baragash wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
That's not the reason we don't have a beta at all. There's a clear hierarchy - rules committee made a list of suggestions, Alessio says "yes", "no", "I have a better idea to handle the problem".

What I've read over there strongly suggests otherwise.

I guess being on the committee gives me a different perspective

So what is your perspective on why there is no beta?

The problems I've seen raised with current rules edition tend to look more like army selection/army list issues versus mechanics of the game.

While I appreciate the work Rules Committee has put in, much of the proposed change seems unnecessary to me. Hoping that AC does have the veto in case he thinks the game is getting too complicated or otherwise going off course.

privateer4hire wrote:
The problems I've seen raised with current rules edition tend to look more like army selection/army list issues versus mechanics of the game.

While I appreciate the work Rules Committee has put in, much of the proposed change seems unnecessary to me. Hoping that AC does have the veto in case he thinks the game is getting too complicated or otherwise going off course.

I'm really hoping it's the other way around from what I've read, because it doesn't sound like the Rules Committee is the one taking the game off course.

Which of the changes do you feel are unnecessary? The ones on the sheet are either tweaks for balance (ranged modifiers), necessary overhauls (Line of Sight) or regularly requested from the community (additional spells).

Not a fan of heights, for one instance.
Artillery nerf also looks like it will take arty from a viable option that sometimes lucks you good results to barely worth taking.

I understand costing of the units needs to be redone and that falls in line with my view that list building/army units are what primarily need tweaks---not the core rules so much.

Mantic are going to do whatever they plan to do but I think the core is solid enough to not require huge overhaul. It's the army construction/units that are key to fixing balance IMO. YMMV.

Are they going to be shipping existing product right away?

Any shipping dates for the waves?

 Alex C wrote:
Are they going to be shipping existing product right away?

Any shipping dates for the waves?

According to the kickstarter page they were planning three waves. The first wave will be existing box merchandise. The second was rule books and the 'planned' new minis. The third was the catch all of new materials that were unlocked but not expected by them to get unlocked during the KS. I haven't seen any dates, but would assume the first wave will be in July as stated in the kickstarter, although they might actually get the pre existing stuff out the door quicker than that and do wave two in July.

privateer4hire wrote:
Not a fan of heights, for one instance.
Artillery nerf also looks like it will take arty from a viable option that sometimes lucks you good results to barely worth taking.

I understand costing of the units needs to be redone and that falls in line with my view that list building/army units are what primarily need tweaks---not the core rules so much.

Mantic are going to do whatever they plan to do but I think the core is solid enough to not require huge overhaul. It's the army construction/units that are key to fixing balance IMO. YMMV.

I don't think it needs a huge overhaul, but TLOS is an awful mechanic for shooting in an openly-proxy-friendly game based on Element basing. Artillery hasn't been a huge issue in my local games, but that's because I make the lists and don't spam artillery. If I did so, they'd rule the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rulebooks are Wave 2? Righto - I can ignore this PM entirely then until the next one.

Should also bear in mind that the artillery rules have changed since then, and even so - the damage from one is more than twice that of the average ranged unit. In the first few rounds of internal betas, Alessio actually buffed artillery from 1st ed. The committee were able to convince him that it was already overpowered before and needed to be brought down a notch.

When you say 1st ed, do you mean the old 2011(?) era flyers, or the hardcover book from KS1?

The hardback is officially called 1st ed.

AFAIK the arty changes are now needing to turn or fire, right? Does it get a 90 degree fire arc or anything?

Yes, but the big one is reduction in blast damage.

 Azazelx wrote:
AFAIK the arty changes are now needing to turn or fire, right? Does it get a 90 degree fire arc or anything?

I read that some warmachines that are more 'spray and pray' will not have reload, the 2 examples were war trombone and some firebelcher?

Those are essentially the man-portable ones, though, aren't they? Or the one-man-with-a-gun-on-a-stick ones? Warpfire Throwers and Jezzails?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:
Yes, but the big one is reduction in blast damage.

90 degree arc?

 Azazelx wrote:
Those are essentially the man-portable ones, though, aren't they? Or the one-man-with-a-gun-on-a-stick ones? Warpfire Throwers and Jezzails?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:
Yes, but the big one is reduction in blast damage.

90 degree arc?

Yes 90 degree arc limits their targets somewhat (you can still cover most of the board by putting them at a 45 degree angle), but the Blast(n) value going down is the big reduction. The previous average of (2D6) was reduced originally to (D3+3) (or rather the committee playtested with D3+3 - Alessio felt that it should be D3+6). We spent several hours discussing and evaluating each solution, to come up with a list of blast values that made war engines viable but well balanced versus regular shooting units.

Which Alessio then discarded and put his own values down anyway.

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
AFAIK the arty changes are now needing to turn or fire, right? Does it get a 90 degree fire arc or anything?

I read that some warmachines that are more 'spray and pray' will not have reload, the 2 examples were war trombone and some firebelcher?

The WE that use Breath don't have Reload.

Models with Reload can only fire if they have a Halt order in the movement phase, so correct, pivot or fire.

And Ogre Blunderbusses no longer have Reload, is that right? (I read it somewhere). That would take them from completely useless in practical terms to potentially decent (though they'll still only ever get one round of shooting in due to melee and disuption).

I mean, I'm far from WAAC, but even I found myself thinking "Why did I take these guys again?"

Correct.

I have a question about the pledge manager, this is my first kickstarter so I'm not sure how it works. I'm happy with my pledge for the rulebook only, do I still need to use the pledge manager? The email makes it sounds like I have to use it but shouldn't Kickstarter have my delivery address and all that?

Yes, you still need to complete it.

Thanks, think I managed to complete it successfully. Having to choose what I'd previously chosen again, then add it to the cart and go through checkout threw me for a bit.

 Daedleh wrote:

Which Alessio then discarded and put his own values down anyway.

But you convinced him otherwise in the end, right? Right?

 judgedoug wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

Which Alessio then discarded and put his own values down anyway.

But you convinced him otherwise in the end, right? Right?

It took us a month of arguing and going over his head to Ronnie to convince him not to remove Regeneration, and then the same thing again to convince him not to make all large infantry armies illegal. There were much more pressing matters to fix/revert when I finally quit the team.

 Daedleh wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

Which Alessio then discarded and put his own values down anyway.

But you convinced him otherwise in the end, right? Right?

It took us a month of arguing and going over his head to Ronnie to convince him not to remove Regeneration, and then the same thing again to convince him not to make all large infantry armies illegal. There were much more pressing matters to fix/revert when I finally quit the team.

When one of the main lists with Mantic models are Ogres, that must have taken some thinking from Alessio !

That doesn't seem like the best relationship between two parties that are supposed to help each other?

See this is what I was talking about when I said the things I'd been reading made me think the Rules Committee weren't the ones responsible for the delays, or the ones taking the rules in the wrong direction

Mymearan wrote:
That doesn't seem like the best relationship between two parties that are supposed to help each other?

Not really. Me and Alessio in particular didn't get along because I'm blunt with my feedback and have an extremely high standard of quality for rules. I wanted to make sure that 2nd was as tight and well written as Warmachine (I know the style of game is not to everyones taste but the quality of rules is second to none), while Alessio is much more of a "gentlemans" gamer and believes that any disputes should be resolved by the players, rather than by clarity of the rules. My constant picking over exact wording and bluntness didn't go down well.

I should clarify that when I say all large infantry armies, I mean all existing collections. The changes would have made nearly all existing armies illegal and would have put LI armies at a significant disadvantage in general.