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.

 Vulcan wrote:

meatybtz wrote:
Interesting points brought up and here I am just hoping pp keeps their painta available because I have taken a serious liking to what they are doing in that department.

Good point! I've got to stock up on the colors of theirs I use just in case...

they released some new colors today, I grabbed eldritch, boiler black, and deathless metal

This thread has been interesting.
One point I would like to raise is the meta and indeed theme change for every faction. Units that used to be good and builds that used to be powerful where removed and replaced with a completely thrown meta, forcing players to rebuild their armies from practically the ground up. This, coupled with the model bloat and the poorly designed rule set and dropping of the PR units led to the game drop into a rapid decline with many older players including myself just hanging our stuff up and accepting we where not going to play any more. Invalidating the stat cards was icing on the cake for me.

As a Cryx player the above really hit hard as well. Thanks to the whining from certain factions the once counter-meta Cryx where reduced into a nerfed version of other factions, retaining the crappy durability but losing the edge on Defense. Coupled with the nerfs to other casters and units and it felt like a real kick in the teeth from PP.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Units that used to be good and builds that used to be powerful where removed and replaced with a completely thrown meta, forcing players to rebuild their armies from practically the ground up.

Why is this a bad thing?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Units that used to be good and builds that used to be powerful where removed and replaced with a completely thrown meta, forcing players to rebuild their armies from practically the ground up.

Why is this a bad thing?

This practice works in games like League of Legends, where players can easily afford to change their vehicle of play.
But in Tabletop games, it might as well render the value of your purchases moot.
You now need to buy a whole new army. And for PP, that's pretty outrageous.
A solid PP army isn't that expensive - certainly less than most 40K armies.
But being forced to shelf your list and fork out another fistful of cash because your army is no longer competitive in a game that is designed around always taking the best options and reinforcing that mindset through its events, players and rules?
Yeah, why is that a bad thing?
/sarcasm

In actuality, this just encourages players to turn to E-bay and get cheap armies or borrow entire armies for events.
Neither of which help the game, community or FLGS at all.

1) I think you are exaggerating. I don't think you need to "buy a whole new army". Maybe a few new models, but you don't have to replace everything (unless your entire army is 30x of the same model,which is putting all your eggs in one basket).

2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.

3) The majority of the hobby is making lists and buying/painting models. If having to make new lists and buy/paint new models is that big of a problem, maybe there is a more appropriate hobby out there for you.

4) Most WMH players I've seen don't even paint their models and proxy half of them, so they aren't nearly as affected by this as you are suggesting. Only tournament players really do it, and only because they have to, and given the costs associated with travel and tournaments, I doubt the army is the most expensive part.

5) WMH isn't designed around always taking the best option (if you go by all the material they put in No Quarter that no WMH players actually read). That is an expectation created by a community that, unfortunately, let its most competitive and abusive players lead the pack for too long. WMH can be played casually, narrative, and openly, but the community is uninterested in that and is only interested in whatever the current tournament meta is - even people who don't actually play in tournaments. That's why ou think you need to buy a whole new army all the time - you are chasing a worthless meta and ruining the entire game experience for yourself. Frankly, if WMH comes out with a casual-focused Mk4, it will be the smartest and most healthy decision that PP has ever made.

 Sqorgar wrote:
1) I think you are exaggerating. I don't think you need to "buy a whole new army". Maybe a few new models, but you don't have to replace everything (unless your entire army is 30x of the same model,which is putting all your eggs in one basket).

2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.

3) The majority of the hobby is making lists and buying/painting models. If having to make new lists and buy/paint new models is that big of a problem, maybe there is a more appropriate hobby out there for you.

4) Most WMH players I've seen don't even paint their models and proxy half of them, so they aren't nearly as affected by this as you are suggesting. Only tournament players really do it, and only because they have to, and given the costs associated with travel and tournaments, I doubt the army is the most expensive part.

5) WMH isn't designed around always taking the best option (if you go by all the material they put in No Quarter that no WMH players actually read). That is an expectation created by a community that, unfortunately, let its most competitive and abusive players lead the pack for too long. WMH can be played casually, narrative, and openly, but the community is uninterested in that and is only interested in whatever the current tournament meta is - even people who don't actually play in tournaments. That's why ou think you need to buy a whole new army all the time - you are chasing a worthless meta and ruining the entire game experience for yourself. Frankly, if WMH comes out with a casual-focused Mk4, it will be the smartest and most healthy decision that PP has ever made.

Same thing as above could be said about WH40K. In fact, the exact same thing. From chasing meta to "following" tournament meta and then complaining, even if they don't do tournaments. Same goes for buying and painting models, list changes, etc. Aka, powergaming and min/maxxing only the uber is worth at all, spam all the cans, etc, be it on the table top (pen and paper RPG or wargames) or on the computer tends to be very toxic to the community.

Though I can throw a stone at 40K for "re-rolls for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!", utter trash gaming.

meatybtz wrote:
Same thing as above could be said about WH40K. In fact, the exact same thing. From chasing meta to "following" tournament meta and then complaining, even if they don't do tournaments. Same goes for buying and painting models, list changes, etc. Aka, powergaming and min/maxxing only the uber is worth at all, spam all the cans, etc, be it on the table top (pen and paper RPG or wargames) or on the computer tends to be very toxic to the community.

Though I can throw a stone at 40K for "re-rolls for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!", utter trash gaming.

I don't play WH40k, but I'm sure my opinion would be much different there. At the very least, I do appreciate the GW goes out of their way to make competitive 40k look like a niche segment of the game, rather than the core demographic.

As near as I can tell, competitive gamers just like to go around and talk about how miserable they are with their current game - how the company is screwing them, how the game is screwing them, how everything seems to be this big, frustrating obstacle to their true happiness - while all the non-competitive gamers are going around talking about how miserable the competitive gamers are making them. Competitive gamers only seem to be happy when they are with other competitive gamers, and they are winning. I'm not saying there is a right way to enjoy playing miniature games, but it really doesn't feel to me that they are enjoying it at all.

And the thing is, they are ruining games like WMH. They will blame everybody else for why it is dead, and never take responsibility for their own nasty behavior.

Why doesn't WMH have more new players? Obviously, it is because PP killed the press ganger program and the game is too challenging for new players to grasp - it can't possibly be because they are abusive and unaccommodating to potential new players. There's no way that the fact that the typical WMH table, with a bunch of flat terrain, brass rings, and a horde of unpainted models looks like the wargame equivalent of vomit, is preventing people from becoming interested in the game.

Why is WMH losing players? Obviously, it is theme lists ruining everything, not the fickle and self centered competitive attitude that is preventing them from enjoying a game unless they can dominate the table with the same list they did last year. No, people are abandoning WMH because Mk3 - which is not appreciably different from Mk2 - is oh so wrong in everything it does.

Why are WMH models so terribly made? Obviously, it is because PP is cutting corners and producing shoddy work, and not because competitive WMH doesn't give a gak about the model quality and so they'll pay top dollar for substandard models that they won't even care enough to fully assemble or paint anyway. When the majority of your playerbase is happy to just play with empty bases, why would you bother to improve your models?

Sqorgar wrote:1)
2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.
3) The majority of the hobby is making lists and buying/painting models. If having to make new lists and buy/paint new models is that big of a problem, maybe there is a more appropriate hobby out there for you.
4) Most WMH players I've seen don't even paint their models and proxy half of them, so they aren't nearly as affected by this as you are suggesting. Only tournament players really do it, and only because they have to, and given the costs associated with travel and tournaments, I doubt the army is the most expensive part.

(2)Changing a models spell list/feat/abilities can 'render the value of purchases moot' or in practical terms can also entirely change the purpose/function of a specific model. This can have an effect when the army suddenly functions in a completely different way to one you enjoy based on a whim of a designer.

(3) there is a different between making new lists and buying/painting new stuff and being made to make new lists, and buy/pant stuff because of a cynical game choice make by games designers to invalidate current builds and force the purchase of the new shiny. That just sticks in your craw. Example being the old 'nidzilla' lists of forth and fifth edition 40k.

(4) irrelevant. It's the principle, more than anything. always cheeky as hell to force someone to purchase a new thing for no other reason than you wrecked their old thing. How would feel if the car dealership made you buy a new car because they removed the engine block from your current one? Sure, you can walk or,cycle, but sometimes you need that damned car.

Sqorgar wrote:
As near as I can tell, competitive gamers just like to go around and talk about how miserable they are with their current game - how the company is screwing them, how the game is screwing them, how everything seems to be this big, frustrating obstacle to their true happiness - while all the non-competitive gamers are going around talking about how miserable the competitive gamers are making them. Competitive gamers only seem to be happy when they are with other competitive gamers, and they are winning. I'm not saying there is a right way to enjoy playing miniature games, but it really doesn't feel to me that they are enjoying it at all.

Competitive is a spectrum. Anyeay, what you describe is WAAC. There is a difference. Not that you seem willing to appreciate it. And You've made that error before (remember when you used 'tournament player' as a derogatory term)?

Sqorgar wrote:
And the thing is, they are ruining games like WMH. They will blame everybody else for why it is dead, and never take responsibility for their own nasty behavior.

It's almost what you say is predjudiced. Or,are you saying no competitive players are decent folks that can be a pleasure to play against, or game with?

And again - Waac. There is a difference.

Sqorgar wrote:
Why doesn't WMH have more new players? Obviously, it is because PP killed the press ganger program and the game is too challenging for new players to grasp - it can't possibly be because they are abusive and unaccommodating to potential new players. There's no way that the fact that the typical WMH table, with a bunch of flat terrain, brass rings, and a horde of unpainted models looks like the wargame equivalent of vomit, is preventing people from becoming interested in the game.

So are you saying it has nothing to do with pp axing the pressganer programme and the game being too daunting to grasp in terms of its knowledge burden and bloat?

And I take it you know for a fact that all competitive players are abusing and unaccomadating? Predjudiced much? Never mind that thread that you claimed 'proved this' despite your proof being six posts out of 11 pages, one of which was obviously sarcasm and another being selectively edited. Or and no examples of quite a few that were there of players being accommodating and helpful. Almost like you are twisting facts to fit your predjudice.
And I take it you've seen all the WMH tables. Most that I've seen have had 3D terrain. And as I've pointed out, plenty are painted. Or will I point you to the grey legions of Aos and 40k?

Sqorgar wrote:
Why is WMH losing players? Obviously, it is theme lists ruining everything, not the fickle and self centered competitive attitude that is preventing them from enjoying a game unless they can dominate the table with the same list they did last year. No, people are abandoning WMH because Mk3 - which is not appreciably different from Mk2 - is oh so wrong in everything it does.

So are you saying that theme lists have had no impact on the state of the game? Or that there were no errors in the introduction of mk3 that drove a lot of people away?

And again, what you describe as the 'competitive attitude' is Waac. Competitive can also be both welcoming and empowering. But hey, why have nuance when you can have predjudice.

Sqorgar wrote:
Why are WMH models so terribly made? Obviously, it is because PP is cutting corners and producing shoddy work, and not because competitive WMH doesn't give a gak about the model quality and so they'll pay top dollar for substandard models that they won't even care enough to fully assemble or paint anyway. When the majority of your playerbase is happy to just play with empty bases, why would you bother to improve your models?

So are you saying pp don't cut corners and produce some absolute howlers with dodgy QC? And that their model quality has nothing to do with people not being interested in Getting involved

And how do you know for a fact that competitive people don't give a damn about model quality? Plenty people have posted about leaving, or having issues with the game for precisely this reason.

And can you prove that the majority of the player base is happy to play with empty basic or is this just your predjudice again? I call 'fake news' on you. Because in steamroller, you need to have the damned model to play it. And there's plenty people, across all spectrums or Wargame playing, from casual to competitive that would refuse, simply on principle the idea of playing empty bases.

Let me put this another way:
I had a good and fun to play Cryx army in MK2. In MK3 only my Bonejacks remain (barely - thanks Cygnar/Khador whiners) relevant, My Bile Thralls have been nerfed into the dirt, my Bloat Thrall somehow managed to get worse, my Helljack lost a chunk of his stuff and my casters changed radically so I dont know what to do with them anymore. My Mechanic will always be useful, and my Pitol Wraith still seems to be good, but that is it.
I dont have loads of free income, and I do not have the capacity to just rebuy everything. Even my current units are unplayable unless I fork out for the cards. Why should I keep playing?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why should I keep playing?

1)Cards are free online
2) it’s cheaper then a bad heroin habit

Deadnight wrote:
(2)Changing a models spell list/feat/abilities can 'render the value of purchases moot' or in practical terms can also entirely change the purpose/function of a specific model. This can have an effect when the army suddenly functions in a completely different way to one you enjoy based on a whim of a designer.

And this happens all the time. Seriously, 40k is on the 8th edition. There isn't a single model more than a year old that hasn't been changed significantly. Things need to change over time in response to new releases, balance imperfections, and direction changes. It happens in every game to every model. If you are buying a model for a very narrowly defined, specific purpose that you know will one day be nerfed, removed, enhanced, modified, or otherwise changed, isn't it your fault for having absolutely unrealistic expectations of an ongoing game system?

(3) there is a different between making new lists and buying/painting new stuff and being made to make new lists, and buy/pant stuff because of a cynical game choice make by games designers to invalidate current builds and force the purchase of the new shiny. That just sticks in your craw. Example being the old 'nidzilla' lists of forth and fifth edition 40k.

Cynical? If anything, game designers are optimists. They think all the changes they make are for the greater good of the game and that whatever sacrifice is being asked of the players is ultimately worth it. It's the players who are cynical.

(4) irrelevant. It's the principle, more than anything. always cheeky as hell to force someone to purchase a new thing for no other reason than you wrecked their old thing. How would feel if the car dealership made you buy a new car because they removed the engine block from your current one? Sure, you can walk or,cycle, but sometimes you need that damned car.

Probably the same way I'd feel when the new iPhone doesn't have a headphone jack, my computer no longer runs DOS games, or when the guy I didn't vote for gets elected into office. Sometimes, things change, and not always for the better, and being able to adapt to change is the mark of maturity.

Competitive is a spectrum. Anyeay, what you describe is WAAC. There is a difference. Not that you seem willing to appreciate it. And You've made that error before (remember when you used 'tournament player' as a derogatory term)?

Competitive is not a spectrum. There's a wide variety of different personality types that enjoy competition, but they do not enjoy it for the same reason. I don't call all of them competitive players. I define "competitive player" as someone for whom the game ceases to be worthwhile without the promise (threat?) of competition. Like, for example, a WMH player who won't play Battle Box games with new players. Those aren't WAAC players, but their behavior may have just as high a cost.

WAAC is someone who will literally "win at all cost". They'll cheat, whine, exploit, manipulate, throw fits, and generally use any action available to them in order to chase victory. Competitive players are a different breed. They aren't trying to win at all cost, they are trying to compete at all cost. They may desire fair competition, and generally be decent opponents to play against, but the only thing they care about is their selfish desire to make all games into a competition of skill, willpower, and intelligence. The Necromunda player mentioned earlier in this thread is a good example. They aren't a WAAC player, but they are trying to make a game competitive that really isn't designed for it.

So are you saying it has nothing to do with pp axing the pressganer programme and the game being too daunting to grasp in terms of its knowledge burden and bloat?

Yes. I don't think you need an official program for players to act as ambassadors for it, and if you need some sort of badge or reward or else you won't do it, then the problem isn't the with the program stopping. And WMH's bloat is most felt when played in a very specific way. There's plenty of opportunities to play the game in a less bloated manner (playing journeyman leagues, battle box games, company of iron, heavy metal games, narrative games) which are much more welcoming to new players. But if you only play 75 pt Steamroller games with the intent of winning against every single overpowered combo in every single faction across Warmachine and Hordes, then yeah, it's a bit bloated.

Someone more up to date on WMH that I should intentionally create a newbie-friendly subset of models - maybe one or two casters, a couple jacks, and a couple units per faction (equivalent to the initial release of mk1) - which doesn't include any curbstomp combos or the trickiest caster spells or any of the bloat. Something where a new player can pick any combination of any faction's models and just play it against any combination of another faction's models and have a game that will last at least 3 turns.

So are you saying that theme lists have had no impact on the state of the game? Or that there were no errors in the introduction of mk3 that drove a lot of people away?

I think people who would drop a game and sell all their models after investing hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the better part of a decade over temporary balance issues are mentally ill.

And can you prove that the majority of the player base is happy to play with empty basic or is this just your predjudice again?

Of course I can't prove that. That would require a survey sent out to every single WMH player out there. But it happens enough that I've seen it multiple times, from different people in different places. It's like those stupid brass rings. Even though they look awful on the table, there's a certain amount of ubiquitous minimalism going on in the WMH community that seems closer to laziness than utilitarianism.

I call 'fake news' on you.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

I would guess that the activity in the second hand market is an indicator on the health of a game. Based on all the armies on trade sites that are not selling even at deep discounts, I think the game is in a steep decline.

 Illumini wrote:
I would guess that the activity in the second hand market is an indicator on the health of a game. Based on all the armies on trade sites that are not selling even at deep discounts, I think the game is in a steep decline.

A fair assumption, but part of it is some models just won't shift because they aren't part of a theme list or because they have to compete for slots against similar priced, both in money and points, models with far better stats, eg Circle Orboros have 3 Griffon options but only 1 really sells

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
I would guess that the activity in the second hand market is an indicator on the health of a game. Based on all the armies on trade sites that are not selling even at deep discounts, I think the game is in a steep decline.

A fair assumption, but part of it is some models just won't shift because they aren't part of a theme list or because they have to compete for slots against similar priced, both in money and points, models with far better stats, eg Circle Orboros have 3 Griffon options but only 1 really sells

That's not really good either! When you are trying to shift stock but they are that bad that nobody really wants them.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
I would guess that the activity in the second hand market is an indicator on the health of a game. Based on all the armies on trade sites that are not selling even at deep discounts, I think the game is in a steep decline.

A fair assumption, but part of it is some models just won't shift because they aren't part of a theme list or because they have to compete for slots against similar priced, both in money and points, models with far better stats, eg Circle Orboros have 3 Griffon options but only 1 really sells

That's not really good either! When you are trying to shift stock but they are that bad that nobody really wants them.

Indeed but nearly all games have models that are like that

 Turnip Jedi wrote:


Indeed but nearly all games have models that are like that

But other games don't aim to be or advertise to be that awesome, finely balanced competitive game to gloss over the fact that the miniatures themselves are both expensive and poor in quality.

And other games at least sell their miniatures for their aesthetical value alone...

Apart from my other points I think another issue PP has is the massive variable in quality across the range with some models matching GW and others being shoddy beyond belief

Hearthgut Hooch Hauler, only available through the Privateer Press online store "Black Anchor Heavy Industries", $164.99. You'll never be able to get it at a discounted price as it's not available outside of the PP webstore. $164.99. Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking almost Forge World prices for resin and some metal with nowhere near the detail of Forge World. And yes, PP made the rules for the Hearthgut Hooch Hauler very attractive to Trollblood players.

Don't be looking at this topic from a strictly gaming perspective, but from a $$ perspective. The game was competitively priced against all it's competitors with the advantage of far fewer models on the table. The CiD revolves around new models and making new themes and rules for older models that don't sell well. Example: Cygnar Longgunners. Worst unit in the game IMHO. When the Cygnar CiD game around, instead of addressing this issue, they released an almost identical unit: Trencher Longgunners. WTF. Two units of Longguuners, one with the additional keyword "Trencher" and Tough. Mind boggling.

Rules bloat, model bloat, and $$ bloat. This is what is killing WarmaHordes.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Hearthgut Hooch Hauler, only available through the Privateer Press online store "Black Anchor Heavy Industries", $164.99. You'll never be able to get it at a discounted price as it's not available outside of the PP webstore. $164.99. Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking almost Forge World prices for resin and some metal with nowhere near the detail of Forge World. And yes, PP made the rules for the Hearthgut Hooch Hauler very attractive to Trollblood players.

We're talking a large resin and metal model that you'll never get discounted from PP, vs a large resin model from FW that you'll never get discounted and there's a distinction where?

The "detail" argument has been done to death and is a complete non-starter. Extra skulls don't miraculously make a model better value. What you're actually saying is "I don't like the aesthetics of the model enough to pay the price asked" which is totally fine, but don't try and present it as some sort of objective argument. To my eye it fits in just fine both with the WMH aesthetic broadly and the Trollblood one more specifically.

So, it's a large resin model that costs quite a lot, in a world where large resin models are generally expensive, and it's a centerpiece model that has good rules? Well good. I can't think of anything worse than paying a bunch of cash for something to use in a game and finding out it sucks.

I can't see any specific criticism of PP here that any other number of companies that are near completely identical in their approach aren't just as guilty of. In fact, "big model that has high production costs that costs a lot but has good rules" isn't really a criticism. Your only valid point is that you don't appear to like it, which is perfectly valid but not PP's fault.

 Chute82 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Why should I keep playing?

1)Cards are free online

Well, that is something I guess, but it feels like too little too late

2) it’s cheaper then a bad heroin habit

Sometimes I look at my sprawling collection and wonder

2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.

Play Cryx and then the 5% change is a severe understatement.

Edit: Never mind.

 wuestenfux wrote:

2) Changing a model's MAT by 1 and increasing its cost a little doesn't "render the value of your purchases moot". Competitive gamers are weird. A difference of 5% chance to hit can be the difference between best model ever and irredeemable trash.

Play Cryx and then the 5% change is a severe understatement.

This. Cryx relied on that 5%, they lived and died on it. Cryx units have piss all armour and less hit boxes than any equivalent unit in any other faction. All that kept them alive was a good DEF and not being hit. The new edition brought both buffs to the MAT of many unit and a colossal nerf to the DEF of most Cryx units.

 master of ordinance wrote:
This. Cryx relied on that 5%, they lived and died on it.

Not sure you understand how statistics work. A 5% difference wouldn't change a single game. It means that if you were to take hundreds, or even thousands of dice rolls, the difference in rolls would approach an average of a 5% increase (law of really big numbers). So each roll would have a 1 in 20 chance of rolling slightly better - remember, this isn't a 5% increase in successes, but in the increase of roll value - which may be meaningless if you already have a very high or very low chance already. A 5% is better than a 0%, and a 95% is better that a 90%, but they are, for all intents and purposes, identical tactically (you aren't going to decide to hit on a 5% or not hit on a 90%). So, it is only in the less common circumstances where a 5% increase is functionally important - a success where one was not before. Getting a 6 when a 5 would do doesn't change the outcome. This will happen far less than 1 in 20 rolls. Similarly, randomness only averages out over a large number of rolls. You might, for example, only get that boost from 1 in 40 rolls or get it 1 in 5 rolls. This means that Cryx will, on average over a great number of games, be slightly better, but means absolutely nothing for predicting the outcome of a single match. So that 5% difference probably won't affect the overall win rate of Cryx in any appreciable way. It would probably be something like 0.02%, but no doubt the mental effect on wargaming nerds is much more profound.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
Hearthgut Hooch Hauler, only available through the Privateer Press online store "Black Anchor Heavy Industries", $164.99. You'll never be able to get it at a discounted price as it's not available outside of the PP webstore. $164.99. Let that sink in for a moment. We're talking almost Forge World prices for resin and some metal with nowhere near the detail of Forge World. And yes, PP made the rules for the Hearthgut Hooch Hauler very attractive to Trollblood players.

We're talking a large resin and metal model that you'll never get discounted from PP, vs a large resin model from FW that you'll never get discounted and there's a distinction where?

The "detail" argument has been done to death and is a complete non-starter. Extra skulls don't miraculously make a model better value. What you're actually saying is "I don't like the aesthetics of the model enough to pay the price asked" which is totally fine, but don't try and present it as some sort of objective argument. To my eye it fits in just fine both with the WMH aesthetic broadly and the Trollblood one more specifically.

So, it's a large resin model that costs quite a lot, in a world where large resin models are generally expensive, and it's a centerpiece model that has good rules? Well good. I can't think of anything worse than paying a bunch of cash for something to use in a game and finding out it sucks.

I can't see any specific criticism of PP here that any other number of companies that are near completely identical in their approach aren't just as guilty of. In fact, "big model that has high production costs that costs a lot but has good rules" isn't really a criticism. Your only valid point is that you don't appear to like it, which is perfectly valid but not PP's fault.

I don’t mean to speak for Tamwolf, but the distinction lies in the quality.

The quality of the Privateer Press minis I have is downright appalling. They are so bad, they sapped my enthusiasm for the game and undermined my confidence in the hobby. And at least I knew enough to know there was something wrong with them. Could you imagine what someone new to the hobby would think!

Someone in this thread made a Comment along the lines of “privateer press knows that their player-base doesn’t care about their miniatures “, Based on my own experiences I would tend to agree with that statement. It is pretty much agreed that the starter box minis are the worst quality they have. So the question I have is why? Why would a company make what is likely to be someone’s first encounter with their products, such substandard quality? You have to assume the company wants to attract and retain players. So why are the minis crap? The only possible answer is because they think it doesn’t matter to the gamers who buy the game.

Forgeworld now being the pinnacle of quality?

I lolled.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
This. Cryx relied on that 5%, they lived and died on it.

Not sure you understand how statistics work. A 5% difference wouldn't change a single game. It means that if you were to take hundreds, or even thousands of dice rolls, the difference in rolls would approach an average of a 5% increase (law of really big numbers). So each roll would have a 1 in 20 chance of rolling slightly better - remember, this isn't a 5% increase in successes, but in the increase of roll value - which may be meaningless if you already have a very high or very low chance already. A 5% is better than a 0%, and a 95% is better that a 90%, but they are, for all intents and purposes, identical tactically (you aren't going to decide to hit on a 5% or not hit on a 90%). So, it is only in the less common circumstances where a 5% increase is functionally important - a success where one was not before. Getting a 6 when a 5 would do doesn't change the outcome. This will happen far less than 1 in 20 rolls. Similarly, randomness only averages out over a large number of rolls. You might, for example, only get that boost from 1 in 40 rolls or get it 1 in 5 rolls. This means that Cryx will, on average over a great number of games, be slightly better, but means absolutely nothing for predicting the outcome of a single match. So that 5% difference probably won't affect the overall win rate of Cryx in any appreciable way. It would probably be something like 0.02%, but no doubt the mental effect on wargaming nerds is much more profound.

Whilst its too early for precise maths im assuming the 5% is more of a ballpark, and is a guesstimate of how a stat going up or down by 1 may change things, but in Cryx's case a model losing say 2 off its defensive stats and opponents forces picking up 2 on the offensive stats is quite the swing especially given how squishy they are

Not sure you understand how statistics work.

I gave a class about algebraic statistics several times.
My feeling is that with my beloved casters the percentage is about 20% or so.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Whilst its too early for precise maths im assuming the 5% is more of a ballpark, and is a guesstimate of how a stat going up or down by 1 may change things, but in Cryx's case a model losing say 2 off its defensive stats and opponents forces picking up 2 on the offensive stats is quite the swing especially given how squishy they are

Generally speaking, these changes aren't made in isolation. PP isn't going to raise the MAT by 1 and leave it at that. As such, the relative balance of the game after a group of changes will swing considerably because many of those changes will affect each other, compound their effects, or interact with other parts of the game differently.

I'm specifically talking about how I see competitive gamers discuss individual models. Despite the fact that probability is an abstract science that breaks down at the individual level (it isn't likely you roll all 1s in a single game, but it is possible that you just roll 1s on a few important rolls and the fact that it is unlikely doesn't mean anything for the game in which you do). I see competitive gamers use probability as a hammer when factoring in the worth of units, and almost every time, they seem to get it wrong. I've seen a number of threads where people declare certain units to be trash while simultaneously see those same units decried as being overpowered and broken in another.

You can not use probability to declare the absolute value of a unit based on stats alone. Most likely, that small difference in chance to hit will be less important to the game than proper use of cover, the unit you are fighting against, which buffs you have available, what kind of terrain is in play, who you are playing against, or even whether the dice you used are perfectly balanced or not. Playing a game on the table is not laboratory conditions, so the abstract value of a unit is rarely as relevant as mathhammer nerds would suggest.