Are two caster games dead?

[UnderWood]

I love 1000 point games I truly love them the amount of models you have the spell interactions and the complex tactics that evolve from having two casters really tickle my pleasure centers.

When MKII warmachine landed I went and dusted off my filthy menoth and started setting things on fire and smashing things with weaponmasters again.

After a few weeks I decided I wanted to play a two caster game and noticed that you could only play them at 100 points. I was fine with this it would be a big game but it would be fun so I went and looked for an opponent.

I could find none, literally every single person I asked turned me down because the game size was "to big" it was "to much stuff" it was "insane" some of the people sat down and worked out they didn't even own enough models to play 100 points.

I thought I would leave it be for a while and wait till people had played more and after a while someone would give me a game.

From the day MKII started till now I have successfully only managed to play 1 game at 100 points it took 4 and a half hours. My opponent said he will play me again at 100 points but when playing socially we can play 2-3 games in the same time so we have never done it again.

Now neither of us are the fastest players in the world we both like to plot our turns out and counter our opponents options which is increadibly hard to do with 100 points on the table.


So I thought I would start this thread to see if anyone else has had trouble playing two caster games since MKII dropped.

Are two caster games dead or is it just my playgroup?

[Darvanus]

Well if its just for fun, i have seen most people drop the points to 75 for 2 caster games. At that points lv it might be easier to find people to play and still keep the 2 caster feel to the game. I think 100 pts is a bit large myself though it would be fun to do.

[Writer@Large]

I don't think they're "dead," but I do think MKII has moved away from them.

In my experience, only a small minority of WM/H players ever went for two-caster games. Not only are they a huge time commitment, but the combos and interactions could really be TOO over the top or TOO unpredictable. Frankly, in a standard "game night" format, they're just not enjoyable for the average player.

Nothing in MKII has changed that.

--W@L

[maxxev]

yeah we've not done one yet in our group but we've already talked about dropping it to 75pts when we do.

[Shinobiwolf1980]

Yeah, a 100 point list is massive and I can understand why people wouldn't want to play. I've only got a little over 50 points worth of units, but I'll be building it up. Some people even backed away from me when I suggested a 50 point game the other night.

[cultofjay]

My regular opponent and I have played a long Cygnar vs Cryx campaign - we finished it earlier in the year. It occurred to me the other day that neither of us have ever played a two caster game, so we are planning one for the Xmas holidays to put a final cap on our Mki campaign (and a final cap on Mki full stop, 'cos it will be our last game using the old rules). I always found even 750pt games a little big, so gotta say I'm a little apprehensive - I don't like heavy, bogged-down games, I just want to kill stuff, not spend half my turn working out which caster to activate first. We tend to play for fun and theme, not necessarily to pull off really complicated tactics. That said it would be a shame if you never had the option to play two caster, if only because the rules might not really support it. I've played Warmachine for about a million years now and always felt it was balanced best at 500pts. A 100pt game in Mkii feels to me closer to 1250 in the old system. I think for our purposes we'd shrink it a bit, but I'd be happy to hear an argument against that....
I tend to live and play by the old maxim K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid. Interaction of effects can be complicated enough without another caster in the mix, but that said, the streamlining in Mkii will help with that, so....?
The other consideration is time - we want games we can play in an hour or so, I don't want to spend all afternoon playing two turns and then quitting out of sheer brain-fail. I play fast (like, hardcore, don't stop to think, whaddya mean there's no time-limit fast) but my opponent likes to think it through, and hasn't been playing as long as me, so if we are playing two caster games I might have time to go get a full manicure and sack-crack-and-back wax between turns. Not that I would.
Long post, sorry. I'm feeling conflicted.:o

[BENDER]

To me, two caster games are only really for special occasions. My LGS ran a 2 caster tournament the other week and some of the combos were.... surprising to say the least. However to me they just boiled down to ganging up on one caster, and then watching as 1/2 the jacks switched off. Games that size need a disproportionate amount of infantry to really stand a chance.

[Virgil38]

I recently played a 150 point game. Insane and fun, but also headache inducing and will not be repeated for a long, long, time.

[Devilsquid]

I've only played one two-caster game, and it was against a good friend of mine, and we had arranged for it beforehand.

I'm not against two caster games, but it's a huge time commitment, and it's not something that I would want to get into with Random Player Of Unknown Skill. Having two casters change the mechanics of the game a lot, and if people are unfamiliar with it, it drags the game out waaaaaaay too long.

Same thing with big multi-player games. If I know the players, and know they're good at the game, then I have no problems doing multi player. Against unknowns, i'm very hesitant to settle in for something that may take as much time as 2-3 games.

[therajai]

I think two caster games will start to pick up more when more people are comfortable with the rules and when the cards come out. I don't really care to flip through a stack of papers to find the exact wording on the rules. It takes up a lot of time unlike the cards. I think by February 100 pt. games will start to be way more common as faction cards will be out and people are comfortable with the rules of their stuff and their opponents as well. As of right now, I still have to ask what does that spell/feat exactly do. I have a 100pt. lined up for next week and I have to say I do look forward to playing it.

[Magonus]

While 1000 pt games weren't the norm for my FLGS, they were still fairly common, especially during league play. I agree 75 points is closer to the old 1000 as far as the number of models on the table. The 750 list I played in the Flashpoint tourney yesterday comes out to 53 points in MK2. Kicking it up to 100 points brings the total to 1468 in MK1, at which point I have a third caster.

[barrel]

Temple Con's Midnight Madness is a 75pt 2 caster/lock tournament. I would not be surprised to see for tournaments 75pt being the level used for 2 casters.

[Gargathor]

In four years of gaming in my city (Madison, WI), two-caster games have been quite rare. We game weekly, with a group that has fluctuated between eight and sixteen people. The weekly scene, whether league or otherwise is easily over 80% one-caster games, probably over 90%.

The tri-city (Madison/Milwaukee/Chicago-land) Press Gangers run about eight to ten tournies per year (total, not per city). I can only recall about one of those tournaments per year being 1000 points.

I think one thing people need to do to make two-caster games more palatable is to set army limits, heavily favoring jacks/beasts. Does anyone really want to see sixty mechanithralls and sixty bile thralls across the table? Limiting the infantry horde will also cut down on the time needed to play. I've mulled two-caster games for Mk II, and have made a personal rule not to play unless my opponent has dedicated at LEAST half of his points to jacks or beasts. Luckily our play group is pretty tightly knit and friendly, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Just my two koku.

[Khador247]

I think that two caster games should be reduced to 75 points. 100 is just simply too much.

[Raven Abaddon]

I'm planning a 150pt game in a couple of months' time.
The reason being I need to go find the good money to buy the stuffs necessary to play a decent game.

In other words, you need to be rich to play 2 caster games now it seems.:o

[PuppetRebel]

My brother an I had amassed at one point enough models to run 4 casters each and would spend an entire Saturday playing. We hardly ever played with less than 2 casters so it was wierd to me at our LGS when people looked at us like we had 3 heads when we wanted to play 1000+ games.

[Deadman]

I haven't actually done any mark II yet but, I can easily field 100 points of khador. Of course I've been collecting since PP/Warmachine started up. ;)

[Lee T]

My playgroup favored 1000pts game for a while (we've played the whole Escalation campaign). We're currently playing Apotheosis and we've agreed to convert the theatre of war scale this way: 35/500, 50/750, and 75/1000 once we start using MK2 (we're waiting for the new Prime book and the cards). The 75pt 2 casters seems a lot closer to the 1000pt feel.

[WhiteDwarf1000]

I like to play alot of team games (2 vs 2). This was we can play two casters per side regardless of the point level. I find if each player brings 25-35 pts. it works out pretty well. So if you have 3 friends and 3-4 hours give it a try. Having a partner can also help you remember key rules or even help catch yourself from walking into a trap or making that vital mistake etc,etc.

[Kaptain Von]

I've only played one two-caster game, and it was against a good friend of mine, and we had arranged for it beforehand.

I'm not against two caster games, but it's a huge time commitment, and it's not something that I would want to get into with Random Player Of Unknown Skill. Having two casters change the mechanics of the game a lot, and if people are unfamiliar with it, it drags the game out waaaaaaay too long.

Same thing with big multi-player games. If I know the players, and know they're good at the game, then I have no problems doing multi player. Against unknowns, i'm very hesitant to settle in for something that may take as much time as 2-3 games.

Word. I'm not going to say that two-caster games don't work, but they contain a different set of strategic challenges and introduce a whole new learning curve. I've played a few, all of which have devolved into a messy, confusing pile-up that collapses under the weight of its own rules. I imagine that it would become cleaner and more functional if it were done a lot, but people don't do them often enough to learn how they work, possibly because they're such a long, confusing experience, and people think "that's not fun - why would I do that again?" If you're like me and already a bit tired and cranky and not fully compost mental in the evenings, you don't want to do something that's more difficult and probably not going to be as much fun on your regular game night.

[Sevwall]

I hope they are dead. I hate that format.

[Laserbees]

We have done a 50 pt. Mangled metal with two casters. That got pretty out of control rather quick with the combos, but it was really fun!

[PPS_Mod:Polar_Bear]

Like most have stated above, I've never been horribly excited about 2-caster games. I think I've played maybe 5 total games of 2+ casters in the 6+ years I've played Warmachine... maybe. Probably fewer, maybe as little as 3... The game just sort of starts to feel a little out-of-control. The rules set for the game are just a bit too detailed for large-scale games. Sure, you can play a game that big, but when you're having to make attack & damage rolls for each, and, ever, single, attack, every, single, trooper, makes... you're gonna be at it for a while.

Now, if you know that ahead of time and plan for it, sure, go for it. But it's really something you need to set up ahead of time.

PB

[Soulblighter]

Two caster games should be 70 points not 100 points.

[Duckboy]

Two Caster games can get pretty OP in certain situations. I think they are pretty fun but there are some casters when you combine their feats, it is pretty impossible to win unless somehow they roll badly.

[Askew37]

100 point games can get a little crazy, especially running mercs. I know running 100 points with two casters is possible for Searforge, but it's also a PAIN.

I'm not even sure running Magnus's Agenda is possible...

[thecsharian]

Blah Blah Blah
As far as I can tell underwood, such large games are all but dead in our area... at least for the moment. People are playtesting small, or overcome by new armies, so don't have the models on hand.

I prefer small games, but if I still had two casters in either of my factions I'd give you a game (I've got the points, just not the casters).
...in fact, pencil it in, once I have two casters again, I will give you a game.


Oh, and early next year there will be a '100pt two caster tournament (http://www.cityguard.co.nz/forum/index.php/topic,2074.msg21275.html#msg21275)'.
;)

[Askew37]

Two caster TEAM games however are still well and alive. We have limited active players around here so we always like pairing up and playing.

[admanb]

I would not be surprised if we never see another official two-caster tournament again. I think the purpose of the change was to make it so big tournaments could run at 75 points (equivalent to 1000) without running two casters. The game is not even remotely balanced around two casters.

I'm sure we'll see unoffical "rules-breaking" tournaments with two casters at 75 points, but I wouldn't expect to see them at Nationals.

[CT GAMER]

I've never been horribly excited about 2-caster games.
PB

+1

I'd rather play two smaller games.

I do like the occasional 2 vs. 2 team game, but only play a few a year...

[Lord of Death]

I would not be surprised if we never see another official two-caster tournament again. I think the purpose of the change was to make it so big tournaments could run at 75 points (equivalent to 1000) without running two casters. The game is not even remotely balanced around two casters.

I'm sure we'll see unoffical "rules-breaking" tournaments with two casters at 75 points, but I wouldn't expect to see them at Nationals.


I'm not sure about mark 2 but Mark 1 was considerably more balanced at 1000 points. Unless you play spamming ******bags or someother gits like that.

If 1000 had have caught on as the normal play level the nerfs to Warcasters (Ie. Haley and Sorshca) would never had been needed.

I (and my gaming group at the time) was playing only 1000 point games before escalation was released. Sure they require a better familiarity with the rules than smaller games or they can take a while, but I've never understood the logic of, "I can get more games in if I play the smaller battles!" So why don't you only play 350 point games then? Bah!

I've never viewed having to understand the rules well and know your army and being able to plan on the fly as bad things in a gaming system or players. I'd rather play one or two really epic games with the momemtum swinging back and forth than a bunch of games were somebody simply does a Bonejack assassin run and ends the game on turn 3. But I've always prefered quality over quantity.

That said I still greatly enjoy 500/25 or 30 point games a hell of a lot and that seems to be what my current gaming group plays the most. Nothing wrong with them at all, I just don't get all the hate on having to be a compentent player...?

[Blarg D Impaler]

Point #1 is me blathering about how cool 2+ caster games are. Point #2 is some potentially insightful commentary.

1) When I was living down in Houston I was gaming at Asgard Games, and I would play lots of 1000+ point games. They were AWSOME!!!! When we were doing league games I refused to play any games under 1000 points. The Glen and I played a couple of 2500 point games - the first one he scenario won after minimal losses on my part (I brain barfed on the set-up) and the second one was a gory, bloody game that came down to the wire. (While Winter Guard were chasing Caine my Uhlan leader missed an impact attack on Stryker, preventing me from moving on to run down another guy for the win.)

Yes, 2-3 caster games can be time consuming, but if you know your rules and what you are doing then they go quick and are a blast to play. The folks playing down at Asgard Games are a really great bunch that will always give you a hard run for your money, so running 2-3 caster games was not that big of a deal.

2) I think that 2 caster games will become a thing of the past if the Retribution book is any indicator. Take a good, long look at the theme army rules - they are all based upon the idea of 1 caster only. Assuming that they replicate the same thing in the other army books when they come out nobody will want to play 2+ caster games because they will loose out on all of the cool theme army bonuses. Big armies are out, theme armies will be in.

[lastspartacus]

i find 2 caster games to be a fun divergence, but at 75 points.

[aterdaeus]

Played a 2500 pt game as a send off for Mark I. I'm sure craziness will happen for MKII.

2 caster games are dead. 4 casters is where it starts to get good. :)

[Prime]

It's amazing how many people hove come in and added nothing more than "I didn't play 1000pts so who cares?" For shame :P

I'm part or Underwood's play group and we used to really enjoy our 1000pts. I've even played a few 1500 pt's.We played 1000 quite often and could get a game done in like 2hr. I loved the combos and at that point's cost things change. Some "useless" units and casters shined with so much on the table. As useless as people insisted jacks where in mkI, at the end of turn 4 in a 1000 pt game often only the jacks where still on the table. The infantry having long been culled.

100pt's is considerably more than 1000pts used to be. As people have said we'll probably just play 75 pts with two casters. It's not like anyone can stop us, I just think it wouldn't hurt to officially make 75 points playable with two casters. Where's the harm? It's there something I'm not seeing where two casters at 75 pts will ruin the game and destroy game balance or something?

[Sobek]

Temple Con's Midnight Madness is a 75pt 2 caster/lock tournament. I would not be surprised to see for tournaments 75pt being the level used for 2 casters.

I noticed this as well.

[yankeefan]

i always have a soft spot for two caster games. though a friend and i did play a 3000 pt game once about 2 years ago...now THAT was a headache. took most of the day. but at least we had fun.

[Zenassassin]

I can't believe so many people don't do 2 caster games. I played them a LOT, about 1/3 the time. Didn't take that much longer, and not longer at all if you made sure one of the casters per side was a standard choice you know real well.

I could play 2 caster in Hardcore without missing a beat. The game has definitely moved away from that (PP has said so outright). Going to be playing 2 casters, 75 points real often for sure around here.

That said, you do manage to get in a lot more models now with one caster, in the same length game, as before. So the draw of 2 casters is pretty much exclusively the extra caster, not really to have a lot of models.

[Galleon]

I've played in several two caster mk1 games and 1 mk2 game at 100 points. If you cant find a game that big that some one wants to play you can do like i did for a few of the games , including the mk2 one. We played a team match 2 people per team , one caster a piece with the total army points spent between you at 100 points or less. Broke down like this;

Rules
1. There are 2 teams of 2
2. each team has 100 points to spend and 1 caster per player
3. Casters must be of the same faction or a merc that will work for that faction

worked really well and was alot of fun. Most of the guys i play with have aleast 50 points of mutiple factions so it worked out nicely. My mk2 game was me playing magnus and my team member playing eIrusk vs. eStryker and Siege.

[Verjigorm]

I've played a 150pt game in MK2, and while it took a while, it wasn't as tedious or slow as I thought it would be.

[Galleon]

I've played a 150pt game in MK2, and while it took a while, it wasn't as tedious or slow as I thought it would be.

This is true , once you take your 2 turns or whatever to get to melee everything starts to die suprisingly fast.

[jandrese]

I've always found 2 caster games to be fun personally, but they tend to be a lot shorter than people would expect because the combos available really make the game high powered.

A quick note about Mk I point values (IMHO):

350: A caster dominated game. Too often it was "he with the better feat wins" though.
500: A decent size, your caster is still a major part of the battle and if you have a trick there's a decent chance the other guy has no counter for it.
750: A full size game. The caster's relative importance is diminished here as he is somewhat dwarfed by his army. Things like single unit/model upkeeps are at their weakest since you will likely have 3 or 4 good places to put it.
1000: Casters are brought back to the forefront of the battle as comboing their spells and abilites in new and interesting ways is the name of the game.
> 1000: Too big to comfortably play in WM.

Mk II is similar, except that instead of the 2 caster game at 75, you instead have a game where the caster is almost completely lost in the middle of his huge army, and at 100 points you have a game that is so big that it really strains the WM rules.

A 2 caster game at 75 would be a lot like the old 1000 point battles, where you're playing with the caster combos but not completely dwarfed by the rest of the army, and I think it is a shame that it is not a standard format in Mk II.

Edit: At my LGS we did have people play around with 2000 point games, and it just did not work well. The combos get to be so crazy that there was pretty much always a caster kill or two on Turn 2 (sometimes on Turn 1) and the bulk of the army was literally just deadweight while your superfast ultra-buffed assassins did the work.

[Clutch]

I have ran a 1000pt tourney at Warmachine Weekend every year, but one...and that year the biggest complaint I had was focused on the lack of it.

I think the issue with people not playing 2 caster games is the perceived length of the game. When coming over from other mini games, the norm was that a game was supposed to last anywhere from 1 1/2 hours (for really quick games) to sometimes 4 hrs (for longer games). After playing Warmachine one of the advantages was the fact you can get in multiple games in the same amount of time. I think its just another thing to chalk up to the ADDing of society.

I think the 2 caster game adds so much more to the tactics and combos, that you really have to put yourself in the mindset to build an army for it and to play it. But the same can be said for a Mangled Metal/Tooth & Claw format as well.

I will always champion it as a great way to play the game, as far as the points...I think for tourney levels 75 makes more sense, but I think it might just take a bit of time for people to get comfortable w/ 100 pts. We shall see, but one way or another there will always be a 2 caster tourney (in one form or another) at Warmachine Weekend.

[cultofjay]

When coming over from other mini games, the norm was that a game was supposed to last anywhere from 1 1/2 hours (for really quick games) to sometimes 4 hrs (for longer games). After playing Warmachine one of the advantages was the fact you can get in multiple games in the same amount of time. I think its just another thing to chalk up to the ADDing of society.

I don't really agree that 4 hours was the norm in other systems - my perspective has always been that a wargame should be playable in about 1-2 hours. I've played about 10 different systems or so. Thing is, for me I've got to spend what little free time I've got choosing between game systems, or reading, or playing the xbox, or writing, or painting the huge backlog of miniatures I've got... not to mention spending time with my wife and children! It's not ADD - it's a cost vs benefit assessment. If I can get a really enjoyable, fluffy, fun game into an hour, that doesn't feel like I might as well have flipped a coin because my opponent went first (hello, 40k fans!) then I'll choose that over one that takes all day. The choices you have to make in Warmachine in the space of one hour make the game more interesting for me than other systems, without being so complicated or drawn out that it takes the fun out of it.
Also, I've done a caster-kill in less than ten minutes in a tournament. Poor little Circle player, he really didn't know what hit him... now that's entertainment!

[Saerko]

I hope they are dead. I hate that format.

Sums up my opinion. Like everyone else, for me they're too much time spent with too many ridiculous combos to ever be fun. I'd rather play a 75 point Skirmish if I want a large game, which has the same feel as 1000 points, but minus the crap.

[otakud00d]

Considering how much everything costs point-wise and the amount of 'Jack points each caster has, 75 points is a lot closer to a 1,000 point game if you look at the amount of models thrown around. 100 is more like 1250 points. 35 points is definitely the way to go if you want something more like a 500 point game.

[dboeren]

Word. I'm not going to say that two-caster games don't work, but they contain a different set of strategic challenges and introduce a whole new learning curve. I've played a few, all of which have devolved into a messy, confusing pile-up that collapses under the weight of its own rules.

Pretty much matches my opinion on the subject. Too much weird stuff goes on in 2-caster games and I'm glad that we can play larger games now in a standardized format without having to put up with such crazyness.

Personally, I'd rather fit in more 35 or 50 point games anyhow - that seems to maximize the fun per hour pretty well.

[Snakeman]

I would not be surprised if we never see another official two-caster tournament again. I think the purpose of the change was to make it so big tournaments could run at 75 points (equivalent to 1000) without running two casters. The game is not even remotely balanced around two casters.

I'm sure we'll see unoffical "rules-breaking" tournaments with two casters at 75 points, but I wouldn't expect to see them at Nationals.

It depends on what you're looking for in a tournament. I run some events where the purpose of the tournament is explicitly to test each player's skill against the others in the room and the fun is the challenge and the thinking involved. I've run other events where the fun comes from things being goofy and over the top so as to inspire a laugh from both the person dealing the damage and the person taking it.

Both are very valid format for organized play in my mind. However, I think that 2-caster games belong firmly in the second category and not the first. The reason being that 2-casters make a lot more mental work which can cause "stress" in a more "serious" event and because some of the balance issues get a little screwy with two casters. However, they're great fun everyone in the room agrees that there's nothing more on the line than a fun time and some good smack talk. Thus, I tend to run these events as free or low entry fee with minimal prizes.

All that said, for those who want their 2-caster fix, check out Midnight Madness: Deadly Duos at TempleCon 2010 where the gaming is into the small hours of the morning and things are bound to get silly with 2 casters at 75 points. For those who don't like that format, TempleCon 2010 will have 5 other single caster tournaments and casual play. That's about the proportion I expect to see in the general community of organized play (at least in my area) going forward with MK2.

[Haight]

I doubt two caster games are dead. Frankly one of my favorite formats is still "High point level - 2 caster / warlock Mangled Metal" games.

[Jack Spratt]

I prefer 2 caster games my self and was a little sad to see the 100 pts. minimum for 2 caster games. My usual opponent and I are gonna reduce that amount to 75 pts i imagine.

[worldsdeadliestcomposer]

I played quite a few 1.000 pt. games in mk1. I even played a 1500 pt. game once, which was fun, but not something I'd want to do every week. It took us over 2 hours to get to round 3.

Last week I tried to play a 100 pt. game, thinking that it would be about the same as a 1000 pt. mk1 game. We ended up reducing it to 75 after we realized that I would have to use everything I had but 1 unit and my opponent didn't even have enough points.

So, I don't know if 2-caster games are dead, but they're certainly going to be less frequent. I wouldn't mind playing a 100 pts., but it would have to be more of an all-day thing than just a regular game night. I like the idea of 2-caster 75. Maybe I'll try it this week.

[Nuriochi_sol]

I used to have a standing 1000pt game twice a month, rotating factions/casters through my and my opponent's collections. It was great fun and really pushed us. I am a little concerned that 100pts is needed now, just like a lot of comment here. 75 seems more apt.

I played one three-caster game - 1500pts - was a LOT of fun, but very challenging. Took forever. I doubt I'll play one in Mk2.

[Shinobiwolf1980]

Sorry to be a smart alec... but I certainly hope you won't be playing a 1500 point game in Mk.II. The scope of that battle would be amazing.

[talonhawk01]

I might just be stupid, but I played 4500 point game in MK 1 a few years ago. It was great...amazing stupid, but great. Now one of the guys at the LGS and I have been talking about doing 200 points or more. The only hesitance to a game that size is I play Mercs, and more than 4 casters requires me to break contract. Granted at that size, the
"balance" of the contracts might not matter, lol.

Point being, I still have plans to play big. :D

[Shinobiwolf1980]

Nah... not stupid. Ten years ago when I played 40K with my friends, we would all field our forces. It would be an Ork, Space Marine, Eldar, Tyranid and Chaos battle. With two chapters of Space Marines fielded. The Space Marines and Eldar would unit to take on Chaos, Tyranids and Orks. It would take all day. Ahhh being young and having that time....

We almost did the same thing last Sunday with Warmachine, it was going to be a Khador, Retribution and Cygnar 50 point free for all. But one of us couldn't make it.

[Atrix]

Not to be a hater, but I despise 2 caster games both in principle and practice. They favor people who buy multiples of FAs, take too long, and require a lot of practice time to get comfortable with 2 casters (time better spent playing REAL WM).

Here's hoping 2010 masters ditches the two caster final round.

[carnage4u]

Temple Con's Midnight Madness is a 75pt 2 caster/lock tournament. I would not be surprised to see for tournaments 75pt being the level used for 2 casters.


I also think 75pts may be just fine for 2 casters as well.

[Clutch]

Not to be a hater, but I despise 2 caster games both in principle and practice. They favor people who buy multiples of FAs, take too long, and require a lot of practice time to get comfortable with 2 casters (time better spent playing REAL WM).

Here's hoping 2010 masters ditches the two caster final round.

I don't think this is the case at all. The synergies and combos between 2 casters are what tend to cause the length of matches. If you have people that are unfamiliar with the format it naturally can take longer, but I think you are a bit off suggesting that its not "REAL WM".

[WMPlayer]

When I first saw 100 pts as the minimum for a two-caster game, I put in feedback - that many points is simply too much. Personally, I'm kinda glad they didn't change it. I never liked the format and the games tended to go the same way. There would be two or three painfully long turns moving the armies around only to have one side pop both feats and win via crazy, unexpected broken interaction.

[thecsharian]

I don't see the time issue.

If you find they take to long, add a time restriction to each turn. The games will go quicker and it'll add an extra element of fun.

[SoulReclaimer]

This is a skirmish game first and foremost. My preferred game size is 35 pts but I never see myself playing a 100 pt game. I think that is the issue the OP is having. Most people, I did say most, don't want to play a large battle with WM. There are other systems that support these kinds of battles.

I would not call them dead however, just hard to come by. If 100 is your preferred size game you may need to rethink if WM/Hordes is a game for you.

[itcamefromthedeep]

I picked up barely enough models to play 1000pts MkI.

That army comes to exactly 50pts MkII.

I doubt I'll ever play a 2-caster match now. It's not worth the money on all the infantry I would need to fill out the force to 100pts. If I wanted to play with that many infantry I would find a system that handle large groups of infantry better. 1 attack with 2 or 3 steps to each side takes too long for my liking.

[DarkLegacy]

I'm hoping to play some two caster games. I have enough to play some 3 or 4 caster games as well, so I'm going to try to convince some of my store to play in them.

[CT GAMER]

If 100 is your preferred size game you may need to rethink if WM/Hordes is a game for you.

That is until PP releases the Warhordapocalypse!!! mega-battle expansion book...

P.S. if it happens please shoot me...

[Fryerdan]

Just this week I played a 6 player game with about 4 40 point armies against a split perhaps 150 point cygnar force with two casters. Starting at 1:00 PM it lasted until closing time 5:00 PM and about 4 models had been killed in the whole time. This game was much too big for the venue lol.

[bouncymischa]

Not to be a hater, but I despise 2 caster games both in principle and practice. They favor people who buy multiples of FAs, take too long, and require a lot of practice time to get comfortable with 2 casters (time better spent playing REAL WM).


You do sound pretty bitter with that "real WM" comment. XD

I used to play a fair number of 1000 point games at my LGS. A 500 point game usually took us about 3 hours, leaving insufficient time for a second game before the store closed, but I've seen 1000 points games that ended fairly dramatically, with back-and-forth trades of warlocks/warcasters, that were completed within 5 hours. So if we were going to get in only one game in an evening, it was usually 750 points or 1000 points.

I've played one 100 point game, and it took a lot longer than a 25 point or 35 point battle -- but that's to be expected, since it's over twice as big. It was entertaining, though, and I wouldn't turn down another chance to have one.

Oddly, I didn't feel that the battle was too big, list-wise. As it was, I was having a hard time fitting everything I wanted into my list. But I'm the sort of person that has a hard time getting everything in in 35 points, and feel a lot more comfortable at 50.

[Nafael]

My current 1058 points mkI comes up to 67 points mkII. The actual army I would field in 1000 points comes to 61-62 points mkII

Please privateer... lower it to 75 for 2 casters officially. Don't be like they who shall not be named. Please.

We beg you.

[moorg]

I might just be stupid, but I played 4500 point game in MK 1 a few years ago. It was great...amazing stupid, but great. Now one of the guys at the LGS and I have been talking about doing 200 points or more. The only hesitance to a game that size is I play Mercs, and more than 4 casters requires me to break contract. Granted at that size, the
"balance" of the contracts might not matter, lol.

Point being, I still have plans to play big. :D

You mean 5 right?

2 Dwarves, 2 Pirates and either Magnus or Ashlynn

[Kaptain Von]

My current 1058 points mkI comes up to 67 points mkII. The actual army I would field in 1000 points comes to 61-62 points mkII

Please privateer... lower it to 75 for 2 casters officially. Don't be like they who shall not be named. Please.

We beg you.

Why do you need the Privateer Press stamp of approval? You want to play 75 point two-caster games, your noble adversary wants to play 75 point two-caster games, you go ahead and do it. Jason Soles isn't going to come around your house and force you to buy 25 points of extra minis and feed you to the Press Gang if you don't.

[Nafael]

Oh, I assure you among friends, we will be doing many things not within regulations. Haley and Deneghra vs another Cryx/khador army? Good times.

However, when it comes to more official tournaments, etc, it would be nice if we could play in formats requiring 2v2 warcasters, etc, without quite so many units... and without my wallet growing a lot lighter.

[Cloud-Gatherer]

A 500 point game usually took us about 3 hours...
Good lord, why? Were you taking a break to watch a movie in the middle or something? That's a REALLY long time for that points level.

[Zenassassin]

Ah, I remember when it was just a universal given that a wargame was an all-day affair and the idea of playing 2 games in one day was out of the question unless someone got punked first turn by some fluke and you just racked 'em up for a do-over.

WHFB in the late 80's...good times. If a 4 hour game is "too long"....time for less caffine and sugar. It's like the switch from showing music videos, to showing clips shows that just have the "highlights" of the song. Because a 5 minute music video is just too long to sit through lol.

One of the strongest points of WM has always been that it plays like a real complex wargame but does so in a faster, smoother way that allows for more to happen on the table without it taking twice as long. Mk II moved further in that direction...it will be even easier to do multiple caster games now and there are even less issues with it than before (and there were basically none, realisitically).

[Pydracor]

I really like 2 Caster games and I'm sure, we will play those games in our community, but I agree wholeheartedly with those who think, that it should be dropped to 75 points.

I would be disappointed to see those games vanish, as we have played many 1000 point games and it has always been fun. Also, we played the first season of the campaign from Escalation and those were almost all 1000 point games.
True, it can take a LOT of time, but the combos, that many here complain about are just what makes these games fun for me.

[69Lazarus]

Although I have played a bunch of 2 caster games I much prefer only using 1 of them. It's hard to find opponents who want to sit through the power abuse I can do at that level. (lol)

[Anubys]

I love multiple caster games. When I had the time and a willing opponent, I would always push for it. Why? Because I like how it introduces new and weird game situations into play. I accepted a new job in a different state than where I used to live about a year ago. As a send off I played my last game with a good friend at the old place with 4 casters. He whooped me bad, but I still had a lot of fun. 1 of my casters was Magnus2 (and 3 cryx casters). I took 4 Renegades because that is all I owned. But, I would have taken more if I could have. Ah good times.

[notsoevil]

I think the local standard in many places will push multi-caster games to be at the 75pt level. It doesn't matter what PP wants, it how the players want to do it. That'll become the standard.

[bouncymischa]

Good lord, why? Were you taking a break to watch a movie in the middle or something? That's a REALLY long time for that points level.


Probably just inexperience. I've only been playing for a couple of years, and typically I'd bring a different army list each week (often switching between factions), so I never honed my skills with any particular list. So I've spent a lot of time in my maintenance steps trying to plan out things like focus allocation and the order of activations I wanted for the round.

I suspect that the more veteran players at the LGS could get a 500 point game done more quickly, but I rarely saw them play 2 games in a night either.

[DarkLegacy]

Probably just inexperience. I've only been playing for a couple of years, and typically I'd bring a different army list each week (often switching between factions), so I never honed my skills with any particular list. So I've spent a lot of time in my maintenance steps trying to plan out things like focus allocation and the order of activations I wanted for the round.

I suspect that the more veteran players at the LGS could get a 500 point game done more quickly, but I rarely saw them play 2 games in a night either.

I've normally seen games take between 1 hour and 3 hours, depending on how bloody the game is. I've had 750 point games take 3 hours and every model on the table was damaged in some way.

Oh, and getting asked questions every 10 minutes at my store slows me down a bit too :(. I like answering the questions, so I don't mind as long as my opponent is ok with it.

[bouncymischa]

I've normally seen games take between 1 hour and 3 hours, depending on how bloody the game is. I've had 750 point games take 3 hours and every model on the table was damaged in some way.

Oh, and getting asked questions every 10 minutes at my store slows me down a bit too :(. I like answering the questions, so I don't mind as long as my opponent is ok with it.

I suspect I might be including some factors from outside of the game in my estimate too. Normally our game night is from 7 PM to midnight, but usually some people wouldn't arrive until around 7:30, and then we'd have to put together lists, pull out all the models and get terrain set up, so we wouldn't get started to 8. So if we finish around 10, it seems like a 3 hour game, and there isn't enough time for another game in the evening.

Probably why we shifted to the bigger games.

[DarkLegacy]

I suspect I might be including some factors from outside of the game in my estimate too. Normally our game night is from 7 PM to midnight, but usually some people wouldn't arrive until around 7:30, and then we'd have to put together lists, pull out all the models and get terrain set up, so we wouldn't get started to 8. So if we finish around 10, it seems like a 3 hour game, and there isn't enough time for another game in the evening.

Probably why we shifted to the bigger games.

Yeah, I understand. I've had the same thing with people showing up at different times makes games feel really, really long.

[frazerpenman]

I do have fond memories of watching eButcher carve his way through a circle army thanks to boundless charge and signs and portents. I have enjoyed most of the 1,000 point games I've played, though tragically I'm pretty sure one of my most regular opponents would struggle to finish a 1,000 pointer in less than 6 hours (I wish I was kidding). They certainly are a different challenge to a single caster game since so many new possibilties exisit which makes for an interesting change of pace, but I wouldn't want to play them all the time. I will also agree that the current 100 point 2 caster game is too big being closer to what a 2 caster 1500 point game would have looked like in mk1 (at least that is what my troll list came out to be). Though from my experience the game definitly falls apart at 8,000 points since me and another Khador player took on someones entire Cygnar collection one year, got to first meaningful contact when we had to pack up.

[Peregrine]

I think multicaster games are a blast. I've played up to 1500 points before, although only 2 or 3 of them. In a typical time at my store, I can usually get a 1000 point game every other week or so. At the LGS the store usually opens at 10 AM on Saturday and closes around midnight, though...

[Peregrine]

I do have fond memories of watching eButcher carve his way through a circle army thanks to boundless charge and signs and portents. I have enjoyed most of the 1,000 point games I've played, though tragically I'm pretty sure one of my most regular opponents would struggle to finish a 1,000 pointer in less than 6 hours (I wish I was kidding). They certainly are a different challenge to a single caster game since so many new possibilties exisit which makes for an interesting change of pace, but I wouldn't want to play them all the time. I will also agree that the current 100 point 2 caster game is too big being closer to what a 2 caster 1500 point game would have looked like in mk1 (at least that is what my troll list came out to be). Though from my experience the game definitly falls apart at 8,000 points since me and another Khador player took on someones entire Cygnar collection one year, got to first meaningful contact when we had to pack up.

It's those game that Feora and Caine shine in. eHaley would be such a PAIN for that, though. eButcher would have a hell of a time and I bet Gaspy would even kill a few things with his feat in there. XD

[CallmeMerry]

Well, I never play two caster games since I have one friend left that still plays (the others went away to college), and when we can get together, we only have 2-3 hours since we both work. If I had the chance, I would love to play a game that large. I'm one of those people that don't have enough models for that since I really only get to play it once a week, with 50 point games at most, and a lot of those we don't even finish.

[paddyalexander]

I only get to play warmachine/hoardes once every 6 weeks or so & we try to make the best of that time.
I only ever played a two caster/warlock game once but to keep it managable we kept the points down to 800. We where both able to feild large armies and ended up having a blast of a game.

My recommendation is if you find 100 points too large then simply pick a smaller level to play at that suits both players. In the above example the 800 points was arrived at because it was the sum of all the models my opponent had brought with him.

[Wafflebob]

IMO if you want to 2 a two caster game and 100 points is too much just treat it like a team game with each player controlling 2 teams. It's not quite the same, but should still be fun and interesting and then you can do whatever point value you like.

[W0lf]

Just because the rulebook says 100 pts dosnt mean you cant do 75 pt 2 caster games....

Personally as a Hordes only player who has never played a multi-caster game i dont care ether way. With the introduction of Hordes battle groups i cba to play 2 caster games. Rather then Caster A + xx pts and Caster B + xxpts, id rather 2 seperate games.

[saxondog]

After reading the OP, I quickly banged out a 100pt list. Model wise I had no problem and was surprised what I had left out. As a one on one match I have never actually played a game that size. Looking at all that, I don't think I want too. Kind of strange really when I think about it, but I don't mind playing in team games that size.

SFK

[n0valoco]

I donno, 2+ caster games seemed pretty normal here in St Louis. I've always preferred not having FA limit the units too badly. Heck, even the Supermendous four-way battles were entertaining if not more exhausting than a day playing Hardcore.

As far as the "favors players with multiple FAs worth of troops", I guess it's nice to play in an area that has folks that are nice enough to lend you units that you need if you run short.

YMMV.

[UBomb]

Looking to do much more pCaine+Siege= GG. 100Pts for the win.

[frostaxe]

I really like the two caster games and I don?t find that there are crazy combo?s they break anything. Also I find that most armies have casters that tend to be better used as a support (secondary) caster.

[furbs178]

2 caster games were common place at my lgs in MK1 and I even played a 2500 point game at one point (i think I have to many mercs...) but I had just enough skorne to make a 1000 point army and now it only comes out to be about 90 points, so I agree that 75 points should/will become the new 2 caster size.

Since both field tests we've stayed away from 2 caster games due to getting used to the new rules and cards and not wanting to shuffle through tons of paper (as a previous poster said).

However our current size for hordes testing has always been 50 points, i think our upcoming mk fieldtest tourny will also be 50 points, this seems like a 750 size list for me and is what most of us at our lgs are used to.

[1911gunmage]

Around here things have been kind of slow as far as Warmachine and hordes are concerned but people seem to be waiting for actual cards tp start playing MK 2 .

I personally like multicastor games for a couple reasons. One it get the stuff out that I dobn't use as often. It also creates all new combos (espcially between casters) than you normally have.

I was discussing the possiblity of a 2 (or more) catsre game with one of the regulars tonight...well see if it happpnes. In MK 1 though 750 was probably the most common game size. Time being on consideration and some players own fewer models. however I've seen some really long and really short games at all levels depending on senario, player experience and cvhnaces for in quick win....

[Blockbuster]

i was going to post a rant/my 2 cents about 1000point/100point games but instead.
i agree with Lord of Death, Prime & other such fine people not posting anti large point games.

@ Clutch great avatar! i agree with your posts too :)

If I can get a really enjoyable, fluffy, fun game into an hour, that doesn't feel like I might as well have flipped a coin because my opponent went first (hello, 40k fans!)... sick burn!! :p

@ darklegacy if i was in your area i would totally play you a 3-4 or even 6 caster game!

That is until PP releases the Warhordapocalypse!!! mega-battle expansion book...
i am totally be up for an APOCALYPSE eqivavlent Warmachine rules book .. even thought its not needed.

@ Atrix sounds like your h8ing to me :p

@ UBomb i used the same casters in the army i made up in responce to this thread .. playing them in 2 hours when my opponent gets here brisbane as as caster and caine as a helpful solo w/focus :) & dang near everyone else with jack marshal

it should be 75 points officially. and @ Underwood 2 caster games aren't dead ... just few and far between.

@ everone last year we played an everyone vs me game @ my LGS
i had 2000 points Circle (4 casters) & the 8 other players that showed up had a total of 4300 points.
the game took 6 1/2 hours w/ 2 new players in the game (got thier armys for Christmas & we played new years day)
9 players, over 6k in points only 6.5 hours .. my point is .. what takes you so long to play?

[DarkLegacy]

i was going to post a rant/my 2 cents about
@ darklegacy if i was in your area i would totally play you a 3-4 or even 6 caster game!

@ everone last year we played an everyone vs me game @ my LGS
i had 2000 points Circle (4 casters) & the 8 other players that showed up had a total of 4300 points.
the game took 6 1/2 hours w/ 2 new players in the game (got thier armys for Christmas & we played new years day)
9 players, over 6k in points only 6.5 hours .. my point is .. what takes you so long to play?

Anytime you're in Milwaukee, let me know.

Also, Madison, WI, had a big game with 5+ players per team, all 4 main factions in representation, everyone bringing 500 points. The game lasted 12 hours on timed turns with over 8000 points on the table. It was pretty epic.

[Kaptain Von]

9 players, over 6k in points only 6.5 hours .. my point is .. what takes you so long to play?

Let me turn that one around: why do you feel you have to play so fast?

*insert tired, boring rant about the excessive pace of modern life, kids these days and the price of ale*

[Jeh313]

If it's just a game for fun why not just set your own levels? 2 casters, 25 points each for a 50 point total...2 @ 75. 3 @ 35 each. As long as you agree beforehand it shouldn't matter. Creating custom scenarios and objectives etc keeps it more interesting too.... Defender with 50 pts & one caster, attacker with 2 casters and 30 points, tring to take the defenders position...get creative