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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...Understand that in US culture the sentiment is often the opposite--the goal is to win, the only way to have fun is to be winning, and losing reflects badly not just on you as a player but you as a person. Now this isn't some mantra chanted by the crowds, but it is a very broad and very consistent subtext across almost everything that can be defined as competitive.

I don't think that's the case. Even in very competitive environments I find players who try and help each other play better; some of the most positive experiences I've had playing Warmachine were with opponents who stomped me into the dust and talked me through what was going on and how to do better in the future during/after the game.

 Charistoph wrote:

BUT, I still stand by the fact that Themes do help for focusing an army's build through that Theme and do it better than what we had before. While not quite as characterful as the Mk 2 Themes, they are now more consistent across the Themes.

The main issue is just that they made too many themes that stretched the game thin, both in the sense that too many of them didn't have enough options to be a fleshed out army without spamming one unit and that they just have more than they can effectively manage. The latter issue is probably the one that really demands consolidation. I think getting everyone down to 3-4 tops would go a long way towards finding a middle ground where we can have the benefits themes provide while being easier for both PP and players to manage.

For example, Khador has 7 themes curently? It would be pretty easy to reduce that to 4:

Winter Guard Kommand+Jaws of the Wolf
Legion of Steel+Warriors of the Old Faith
Armored Korps
Wolves of Winter+Flames in the Darkness

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

BUT, I still stand by the fact that Themes do help for focusing an army's build through that Theme and do it better than what we had before. While not quite as characterful as the Mk 2 Themes, they are now more consistent across the Themes.

The main issue is just that they made too many themes that stretched the game thin, both in the sense that too many of them didn't have enough options to be a fleshed out army without spamming one unit and that they just have more than they can effectively manage. The latter issue is probably the one that really demands consolidation. I think getting everyone down to 3-4 tops would go a long way towards finding a middle ground where we can have the benefits themes provide while being easier for both PP and players to manage.

For example, Khador has 7 themes curently? It would be pretty easy to reduce that to 4:

Winter Guard Kommand+Jaws of the Wolf
Legion of Steel+Warriors of the Old Faith
Armored Korps
Wolves of Winter+Flames in the Darkness

You can't actually merge Warriors or Flames with anything, they're theme forces available to multiple factions. I think you could pretty reasonably merge WGK and Armored Korps and Legion with Jaws though. Wolves is pretty hard to justify merging with anything.

 LoS_Jaden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

BUT, I still stand by the fact that Themes do help for focusing an army's build through that Theme and do it better than what we had before. While not quite as characterful as the Mk 2 Themes, they are now more consistent across the Themes.

The main issue is just that they made too many themes that stretched the game thin, both in the sense that too many of them didn't have enough options to be a fleshed out army without spamming one unit and that they just have more than they can effectively manage. The latter issue is probably the one that really demands consolidation. I think getting everyone down to 3-4 tops would go a long way towards finding a middle ground where we can have the benefits themes provide while being easier for both PP and players to manage.

For example, Khador has 7 themes curently? It would be pretty easy to reduce that to 4:

Winter Guard Kommand+Jaws of the Wolf
Legion of Steel+Warriors of the Old Faith
Armored Korps
Wolves of Winter+Flames in the Darkness

You can't actually merge Warriors or Flames with anything, they're theme forces available to multiple factions. I think you could pretty reasonably merge WGK and Armored Korps and Legion with Jaws though. Wolves is pretty hard to justify merging with anything.

Sure you could. Add Iron Fang to Warriors and cut Legion of Steel. Likewise, I'd probably say remove Flames from Khador but incorporate the Mercenary elements of it into Wolves.

 LunarSol wrote:

 LoS_Jaden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

BUT, I still stand by the fact that Themes do help for focusing an army's build through that Theme and do it better than what we had before. While not quite as characterful as the Mk 2 Themes, they are now more consistent across the Themes.

The main issue is just that they made too many themes that stretched the game thin, both in the sense that too many of them didn't have enough options to be a fleshed out army without spamming one unit and that they just have more than they can effectively manage. The latter issue is probably the one that really demands consolidation. I think getting everyone down to 3-4 tops would go a long way towards finding a middle ground where we can have the benefits themes provide while being easier for both PP and players to manage.

For example, Khador has 7 themes curently? It would be pretty easy to reduce that to 4:

Winter Guard Kommand+Jaws of the Wolf
Legion of Steel+Warriors of the Old Faith
Armored Korps
Wolves of Winter+Flames in the Darkness

You can't actually merge Warriors or Flames with anything, they're theme forces available to multiple factions. I think you could pretty reasonably merge WGK and Armored Korps and Legion with Jaws though. Wolves is pretty hard to justify merging with anything.

Sure you could. Add Iron Fang to Warriors and cut Legion of Steel. Likewise, I'd probably say remove Flames from Khador but incorporate the Mercenary elements of it into Wolves.

Aside from the fact that iron fangs make no sense at all in warriors, you'd then have to test them in both factions extensively. Removing a theme force from a faction is a highly dangerous thing to do short of making an entirely new edition, and honostly the morrowan and thamarite priests and church working with the insane depraved inmates chained to orgothian relics doesn't work either.

I think you're understating 1) how much balance testing would be required to make this okay and 2) how big of a no go this would be from a lore perspective.

Warriors already has Iron Fangs. Specifically the ones on horses, but Iron Fangs. It would make more sense to add Pikemen than it does having Fenris and arguably the Drakkun in there. Iron Fangs really have zero chance of breaking Warriors. That theme is completely dominated by Menoth options (it's my #1 Khador list) and pikemen are kind of terrible. Nothing lore wise stopping it either really, not to mention the lore was created for the theme (though admitted Vlad, Champion of Menoth is a very long standing aspect of the game).

Flames is a lot weaker of an argument, I just find its Khador implementation redundant and kind of tacked on. I'd rather it just be Cygnar/Mercs and let them play with Zerkova for all it matters.

And yes, consolidating theme forces doesn't "just happen"; I just think it "should happen". There's way too many of them for PP to manage. It's not some precarious balance in place; there's just like maybe 10 across the whole game that see play the rest are hoping they might get a CID in the next 5 years to see play.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

BUT, I still stand by the fact that Themes do help for focusing an army's build through that Theme and do it better than what we had before. While not quite as characterful as the Mk 2 Themes, they are now more consistent across the Themes.

The main issue is just that they made too many themes that stretched the game thin, both in the sense that too many of them didn't have enough options to be a fleshed out army without spamming one unit and that they just have more than they can effectively manage. The latter issue is probably the one that really demands consolidation. I think getting everyone down to 3-4 tops would go a long way towards finding a middle ground where we can have the benefits themes provide while being easier for both PP and players to manage.

Well they used to before Oblivion came about. With Oblivion came the cross-faction Themes. If you cut out those, you have most of what you're asking for. Keep in mind that one of my armies was Skorne. They have a Theme that only can take 2 units, one of which is the ubiquitous Beast Handlers (who are kind of needed everywhere due to how the Warbeasts are set up). The only thing to change with that Theme has been the addition of 2 Warlocks to the faction and a Battle Engine, and yet it is now the strongest Theme for Skorne.

 LunarSol wrote:
For example, Khador has 7 themes curently? It would be pretty easy to reduce that to 4:

Winter Guard Kommand+Jaws of the Wolf
Legion of Steel+Warriors of the Old Faith
Armored Korps
Wolves of Winter+Flames in the Darkness

Cut out the cross-faction Themes and how many do you have?

For my Mercenaries, I have NINE Themes to work with. NONE of them allow all of the Warcasters in the "faction" and all of them have a limited list to use. Mercenaries also have 3 different types of Warcasters who cannot use the other types of Warjacks or Monstrosities. Of the 9 Themes, 4 include units from other factions (2 of which are classic), and 2 of those stop being Mercenary Themes if another non-Mercenary Warcaster is put in charge of it. And I haven't even started talking about how much Riot Quest has been affecting these Themes.

So if you want to talk about confusing the customer, Khador is easy mode by comparison.

But even with all that, I can still pick a Theme, and have my shopping list taken from EVERYTHING down to a small list that is much more focused in what it does. Could the Themes be paired down, especially the cross-faction Oblivion Themes? Maybe, but as a Mercenary player I find the concepts fun.

The other theme that needs to be cut for everyone is the Jack/Warbeast theme. Those all made sense back when you needed to put points into specific things, but now they're largely redundant and capable of being removed as far as I'm concerned.

Mercenaries are a bit of a special case of course, since they've always been the "limited faction faction" since before PP decided to release limited factions. They're one of my favorites, but I think they could still use some trimming. Llael, Steelhead, Flames, Irregulars and Kingmakers have a LOT of overlap. Smushing them into one probably wouldn't work, but I bet it could be two easy enough. I also think it would have made a lot more sense had Strange Bedfellows crossed with Cephalyx, fwiw. Particularly since those two factions have sort of a yin/yang in the fluff.

And yes, I build a lot of Skorne armies for a friend and as cool as Immortals are, I wish it wasn't just.... take immortals and Guardians go.

 LunarSol wrote:
The other theme that needs to be cut for everyone is the Jack/Warbeast theme. Those all made sense back when you needed to put points into specific things, but now they're largely redundant and capable of being removed as far as I'm concerned.

Funnily enough, both Mercs and Skorne had theirs changed.

Irregulars was always a combined arms Theme, but it made it less punishing with the Requisition change. It still likes Jack Marshals a little too much, though.

Skorne lost theirs and it was shifted to Disciples of Agony, which became really interesting when their Warlocks could take Minion 'Beasts. It is still capable of being the Minion Theme for Skorne, though.

 LunarSol wrote:
Mercenaries are a bit of a special case of course, since they've always been the "limited faction faction" since before PP decided to release limited factions. They're one of my favorites, but I think they could still use some trimming. Llael, Steelhead, Flames, Irregulars and Kingmakers have a LOT of overlap. Smushing them into one probably wouldn't work, but I bet it could be two easy enough. I also think it would have made a lot more sense had Strange Bedfellows crossed with Cephalyx, fwiw. Particularly since those two factions have sort of a yin/yang in the fluff.

I was kind of surprised that Cryx could work in Bedfellows, but not Cephalyx. The real sad part is that most of Cephalyx just can't be used anywhere by their Operating Theater. I honestly think that they and the Rhuls would be better served by being converted to Limited Factions and let run.

Currently Soldiers and Kingmakers have the closest associations, as you can literally play the same list and only the Theme's benefits would really change. However, Trenchers is what makes it interesting, especially if you don't have a lot of Llael models for Resistance, and the ability for the Resistance to take Khadoran or Crucible units definitely makes it have an interesting flair.

Most of Irregulars overlap with any faction is the solos, though the Precursors are the only "common" unit it shares with any Merc Theme since Steelheads were taken out. As annoying as Irregulars losing the Steelheads is, it was the right call to make when Soldiers did the job of bringing Steelheads in and Kingmakers is still a possible (though not always the most effective) option.

I've just seen Death Archon and rules on PP website. What a disgusting, cynical piece of power-creep for cash :( I hope players will vote with their wallets against contaminating the game like this.

Cyel wrote:
I've just seen Death Archon and rules on PP website. What a disgusting, cynical piece of power-creep for cash :( I hope players will vote with their wallets against contaminating the game like this.

Comp players will vote with their wallet and buy the FA for the Death Archon upon release....

Cyel wrote:
I've just seen Death Archon and rules on PP website. What a disgusting, cynical piece of power-creep for cash :( I hope players will vote with their wallets against contaminating the game like this.

I'm reasonably certain the death archon is either the second or third worst of the bunch actually.

 LoS_Jaden wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I've just seen Death Archon and rules on PP website. What a disgusting, cynical piece of power-creep for cash :( I hope players will vote with their wallets against contaminating the game like this.

I'm reasonably certain the death archon is either the second or third worst of the bunch actually.

I'm comparing it to solos I alrady own for PoM and Cryx - Darrag Wrathe (9pts), Tartarus (7pts), Gravus (8pts), Vilmon (6 pts). I don't compare it to Archons, as I haven't bought any - they are the epitome of disgusting powercreep that has been plaguing the game for some time and I have no intention of supporting or encouraging this process.

Honing my skills with a friend, can't wait to start doing Brawlmachine with Wartable support during the weekday and Brawl Machine on the tables at the hobby store.

[https://www.facebook.com/InhospitableGround/posts/2418391211618936]

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What do we mean exactly by the social contract?
Not being a dick about the game or what?

Loosely. In this context I'd interpret it as "if you find a thing that breaks the game/renders it unfun don't play that thing".

So. Much. This.
That’s all that it requires and all that it takes.

Understand that in US culture the sentiment is often the opposite--the goal is to win, the only way to have fun is to be winning, and losing reflects badly not just on you as a player but you as a person. Now this isn't some mantra chanted by the crowds, but it is a very broad and very consistent subtext across almost everything that can be defined as competitive.

US and Canadian culture aren’t that different my friend.
We are much the same, except with a lot more apathy from Canadians.
I was also a PG for many years. I promoted the painting and hobby aspect the most.
I ran regular learn to play and paint days every week. I encouraged casuals and ran monthly events for them.
And you know what happened once the competitive crowd came in?
I had a great thing going with a regular influx of new players, with a community that had 20+ players showing up for any given event. On paint and play days I would normally get 3-5 new players every week.
Once the focus was lost on the casual scene and the hobby, it died.
So whether or not you think this is a cultural thing or not, my anecdotal evidence supports the fact that a healthy casual crowd is what keeps a company sustainable. Focusing on the whales and the competition is what kills the game.
Hyper-competitive attitudes do not help grow or expand a player base.

 Ghool wrote:
US and Canadian culture aren’t that different my friend.
We are much the same, except with a lot more apathy from Canadians.
I was also a PG for many years. I promoted the painting and hobby aspect the most.
I ran regular learn to play and paint days every week. I encouraged casuals and ran monthly events for them.
And you know what happened once the competitive crowd came in?
I had a great thing going with a regular influx of new players, with a community that had 20+ players showing up for any given event. On paint and play days I would normally get 3-5 new players every week.
Once the focus was lost on the casual scene and the hobby, it died.
So whether or not you think this is a cultural thing or not, my anecdotal evidence supports the fact that a healthy casual crowd is what keeps a company sustainable. Focusing on the whales and the competition is what kills the game.
Hyper-competitive attitudes do not help grow or expand a player base.

Being competitive and being hyper-competitive are not the same thing. I always thought MK 2's Page 5 listed it the best. Basically bring the best game you could, but don't a donkey's anus about it.

When a casual player can't get a game because "we only play Steamroller here", it is a good way to kill the chances of any decent community being developed. Even as a casual player, I try to win as best I can, because that is what brings a good game. I only hold off in situations where I know someone is brand new to the game and still getting their feet wet.

 Ghool wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
What do we mean exactly by the social contract?
Not being a dick about the game or what?

Loosely. In this context I'd interpret it as "if you find a thing that breaks the game/renders it unfun don't play that thing".

So. Much. This.
That’s all that it requires and all that it takes.

Understand that in US culture the sentiment is often the opposite--the goal is to win, the only way to have fun is to be winning, and losing reflects badly not just on you as a player but you as a person. Now this isn't some mantra chanted by the crowds, but it is a very broad and very consistent subtext across almost everything that can be defined as competitive.

US and Canadian culture aren’t that different my friend.
We are much the same, except with a lot more apathy from Canadians.
I was also a PG for many years. I promoted the painting and hobby aspect the most.
I ran regular learn to play and paint days every week. I encouraged casuals and ran monthly events for them.
And you know what happened once the competitive crowd came in?
I had a great thing going with a regular influx of new players, with a community that had 20+ players showing up for any given event. On paint and play days I would normally get 3-5 new players every week.
Once the focus was lost on the casual scene and the hobby, it died.
So whether or not you think this is a cultural thing or not, my anecdotal evidence supports the fact that a healthy casual crowd is what keeps a company sustainable. Focusing on the whales and the competition is what kills the game.
Hyper-competitive attitudes do not help grow or expand a player base.

OMG Ghool! You're still alive? What ya been up to buddy?!?!

My experience as a PG has been much the same. Started up four groups, and every time the Win At All Costs competitive crowd rolled in, it killed the group. Phase One: New players and vets getting together, playing battle box games, painting, playing wild, wacky lists. Phase Two: Start running the occasional tournament or League. One or two competitive players creep in looking for fresh meat and to win tournaments (even the tournaments with no prizes) and sweeping Leagues but never painting anything or adding terrain to the League (Yeah, that used to be a thing!). Phase Three: Start losing new players ("Game is too hard!", "I never win", "I don't want to be curb stomped all the time by XXXX", "I really don't want to buy models X, Y, and Z and play a warcaster/warlock that I hate just to win a game", "All they want to play is Steamroller"), but more competitive players, vets from wherever that stopped playing, come back. No more Leagues. Steamrollers all the time, every time. Phase Four: All the fresh meat is gone, what's left are a bunch of jaded, competitive players that endlessly talk about PP and the game in general.

We play games to have fun, and if you are not having fun, what's the point? I've never understood the WAAC crowd or the hyper intense competitive crowd. Winning != fun.

My current local scene? Well, before the Pandemic that is... Anyways, current local scene is 4-8 guys, show up every other Tuesday at an out of the way FLGS, and play Steamroller. Barely any paint, and what is painted, is "painted" in the loosest of terms. Like "This tournament requires painted models, so..." All the terrain is neoprene or paper cut outs. I stopped playing when two things happened: #1. Guy argued with me about 1/4". And another guy said "Nice looking army, too bad its not competitive and you'd get smashed in a Steamroller".

I have to say I tried out a local MTG group one time when I had a random moment of wanting to get back into it. Sadly it turned out that the basic game evening was scripted around a big competitive event each week. Basically mini-tournaments each week.

Thing is if you're not at the top end your'e at the bottom end where its less fun because you're mostly there because you're losing. Thing is whilst you can learn and improve there's a time and investment aspect and - like you say - sometimes you just don't want that in every game you engage with.


Plus I think that its not just a case people don't want to learn or improve, its the disparity and amount they have to improve by. That is to say if you take a group with the same level of experience and gradually encourage them to learn they will all advance their game; some slower and some faster, but they'll all generally improve somewhat.
However when you inject some very experienced people on top they can dominate because the difference in skill and understanding is very big; which leads to a huge disparity. The skilled can't easily "dumb down" and the less skilled can't just speed up their learning.


In the end the best thing is big groups that can soak the competitive and the casual into their own sub-groups.



With wargames I'd say the main issue is that the games take so long its hard to keep both subgroups (accepting many will cross over both) happy and content when you might only get one core focus each week. So yep I can well see that if tournament style play took over as popular for a while it can dominate and drive out the newbies.








I also have to say that, not in person but online, I've seen communities get key skilled individuals who are exceptionally hostile to new people. Even when they want more people to take part they resent/dislike newbies looking "for a free ride" or "wanting to be told it all" etc... This is "more" an internet than in person thing but it can happen and its painful when its a skilled person who, in theory, should bring value to a group.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...Understand that in US culture the sentiment is often the opposite--the goal is to win, the only way to have fun is to be winning, and losing reflects badly not just on you as a player but you as a person. Now this isn't some mantra chanted by the crowds, but it is a very broad and very consistent subtext across almost everything that can be defined as competitive.

I don't think that's the case. Even in very competitive environments I find players who try and help each other play better; some of the most positive experiences I've had playing Warmachine were with opponents who stomped me into the dust and talked me through what was going on and how to do better in the future during/after the game.

It is absolutely a sentiment and a trend, not a rule. Individuals cannot be defined by the highest point on a bell curve, and I want to be very clear that I am not expressing otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghool wrote:
US and Canadian culture aren’t that different my friend.
We are much the same, except with a lot more apathy from Canadians.

Oh I don't mean to say the US is unique or that other places to not also struggle in the same way, I just won't speak for other cultures because I do not know them well enough. I feel that being aware of a cultural push towards toxic competitiveness is a key part of fighting it. To narrow on WMH specifically, PP should have known that the "play like you got a pair" page (5?) would not be interpreted as 'real competitors aren't donkey-caves' but rather 'real competitors can be donkey-caves'.

I was also a PG for many years. I promoted the painting and hobby aspect the most.
I ran regular learn to play and paint days every week. I encouraged casuals and ran monthly events for them.
And you know what happened once the competitive crowd came in?
I had a great thing going with a regular influx of new players, with a community that had 20+ players showing up for any given event. On paint and play days I would normally get 3-5 new players every week.
Once the focus was lost on the casual scene and the hobby, it died.
So whether or not you think this is a cultural thing or not, my anecdotal evidence supports the fact that a healthy casual crowd is what keeps a company sustainable. Focusing on the whales and the competition is what kills the game.
Hyper-competitive attitudes do not help grow or expand a player base.

Yeah. It sucks to see it happen real-time too.

Page 5, it really did attempt to set the tone for the game and i feel like that hamstrung them more than it helped them TBH.

deleted

In my own personal experience, I tended to play with a local group that had a war machine as a side game. Most of us were casual players and rarely played at the FLGS.
The times I would go into the store to play, I would ask around and get a game set up on the normal nights they played. Most would be classified as hyper-competitive.
I would do okay in the games until the magical "gotta" moment and normally ended with me getting curb stomped. The other player acted like he needed a cigarette afterwards.
I'm not a win at all cost type player and my lists usually experiments in motion. But it's no fun when you have trouble remembering certain rules, while the store players
is reciting his chain attack verbatim from the rule book.
This was multiple players at the store, no all was that way. The PG was a great guy but he was usually off hosting painting or something else on the games nights. Never
discussed his feelings on the local meta. Moved on to Kill Team, it still had a few "speed bump" players. You played them and got past the game and forgot about it. But It wasn't every week with them.
At this point, I am not sure what Privateer Press could do to bring me back. Once the pandemic passes they need to go full steam in getting players interested in playing again.

I honestly think they need to AOS their game almost.
With how few players are left and how hard it is, they need to rethink the entire game

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I honestly think they need to AOS their game almost.
With how few players are left and how hard it is, they need to rethink the entire game

I'd rather they Code One their game (release a stripped-back intro version with a subset of the content) than burn it down and release a terrible replacement with all-new minis that has nothing to do with the old one except that the stats are still named the same things.

Having GW-level prices for not-GW-level miniatures is crippling. GW gets away with it because they have the immense momentum of being the biggest name (by a huge margin). When GW was at its worst it was pricing less model for more money than PP and with much worse rules quality to boot. Warmahordes did well. But that was the early 2010s, which feels like it was about 20 years ago in more ways than one.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Having GW-level prices for not-GW-level miniatures is crippling. GW gets away with it because they have the immense momentum of being the biggest name (by a huge margin). When GW was at its worst it was pricing less model for more money than PP and with much worse rules quality to boot. Warmahordes did well. But that was the early 2010s, which feels like it was about 20 years ago in more ways than one.

PP's always been more expensive per model for most of the small stuff (though since GW started doing $50/5 models kits and $30-40 blisters the pendulum has swung back again), the advantage has been that you could have a full army ready to go for ~$200 instead of $600-1000.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Having GW-level prices for not-GW-level miniatures is crippling. GW gets away with it because they have the immense momentum of being the biggest name (by a huge margin). When GW was at its worst it was pricing less model for more money than PP and with much worse rules quality to boot. Warmahordes did well. But that was the early 2010s, which feels like it was about 20 years ago in more ways than one.

The counter i would give to that is that for 40K you need rulebooks, about 5 different faction and army supplements, objective and strategy cards, buckets and buckets of dice all of which are sold at premium GW prices. At least, in theory, all the rules and cards etc that you need to play WM/H are available for free.

However in practice, cost is a real issue. Im looking at what id need to buy to bring my army up to a level where its worth putting on the table in anything other than a friendly kick about with friends and its stomach turning. And for the cost of one model I can get a whole crew for something like Malifaux which is my other game, and probably going to be my main going forward.

WM/H used to be able to boast superior rules as a counter to some of its issues with model quality. But to be honest, it can't do that any more when there are so many other games on the market with good and tight rules. WM/H today just seems like "push it all into the central zones and the persons with the most recent CID and/or expensive models tends to win". The game and mechanics are old compared to things like Malifaux, infinity, Wild West Exodus, Moonstone etc etc.

its like a really nice stately home or castle here in the UK. Great for a visit with friends to marvel at it and appreciate it and its history. But i wouldn't want to live in it or have to maintain it without a complete and total gutting/overhaul/modernisation. Sadly, it doesn't look like it will be continuing much at our club post lock down.

Tamwulf, I’m still around and never went anywhere!
I just moved my hobby scene to YouTube instead.
Once they killed Hand Cannon I didn’t really have anywhere to post stuff so I started making videos instead.
Mostly it’s board games and stuff and the occasional PP model. Still using P3 as long as I can find it (and that seems to be changing around here as well).

IDK how you can poaint with P3, I can never get a good solid basecoat with mine.
But they aibrush like no ones business so i do love them for that.

 Ghool wrote:
Tamwulf, I’m still around and never went anywhere!
I just moved my hobby scene to YouTube instead.
Once they killed Hand Cannon I didn’t really have anywhere to post stuff so I started making videos instead.
Mostly it’s board games and stuff and the occasional PP model. Still using P3 as long as I can find it (and that seems to be changing around here as well).

I had no idea that you'd been stranded when Omnus deleted HCO - we would love to host any articles you're interested in writing, I've been a huge admirer of your content for years.