Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 198
  1. #41
    Annihilator Sykes7710's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ypsilanti, MI
    Posts
    963

    Default

    I'd also prefer alternating activations to the current set up. With that said, there's a lot of legacy built up around what kind of game this is. It'd be a core identity change involving (among other things) a real rethinking of how all the timings in the game worked.

    However, there's a lot of mitigations available for the problems of whole-army activations. The balance team has shown a willingness lately to dole out interactive rules (Elara has Field Marshal:Retaliatory Strike, a couple people know Battle Charged which is group Counter-Charge). I would love to see more and more reactive stuff creep into the game.

    I'm, as ever, very skeptical about the rampant imbalance and would for sure question the sorting mechanism that only judges units on how they interact with assassination. It just doesn't ring true- but I feel like the thread has got those in hand.

  2. #42
    Destroyer of Worlds RocketSurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    I disagree with essentially every point but the suggestion of adding helpful tables to the rulebooks and starter material.

    I prefer the system the game is built with to the more alternating games. I spend my entire opponent's turn furiously engaged in figuring out how my strategy might need to be adjusted or is being furthered by their actions. If anything, I'd rather be rolling and counter-acting less during their turns so I can be more prepared for my turn. I enjoy all the nuance of resources in this game. That's a very distinct thing from the viability of an assassination or win conditions in general. Scenarios have always been a major component of the game for me.

    Seems to me these days theres a mini game for everybody, you just have to find yours. While there are things I play for the people more than for the game itself(slinging cardboard when no wargamers are around), Warmachine is definitely more for me. There's always room for improvement, though. My pet issue right now is loss of faction identity with mk3. Always looking forward to the next errata.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJM View Post
    RocketSurgeon... using BrainScience.

  3. #43
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    175

    Default

    I agree with lots of these points. I think the rules are in the best state they have been in for over 10 years... but not by much. Gameplay is basically the same as MK 1, with some of the superfluous rules removed. I (and a lot of people who used to play) expected more from MK III than just scrambling model points values and abilities. There really hasn't been much evolution from the core rules.

    I think the gameplay works better with fewer models, and the game is quite boring with "serious business" Hordesmachine without a clock. Including the clock is only there to punish people who have learning disabilities or day jobs: get rid of it, and you will get more players, but then you will realize that the ruleset actually isn't really engaging at ~750 points.

    Edit: note that I'm not saying alternating activations is the way to go: you can still do it with activating your whole army... its just since we're going model on model like 2nd edition 40K it doesn't scale well at the reinforced platoon / company level.

  4. #44
    Destroyer of Worlds Malkav13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    So, pretty much everything that I was going to say already had been said. Instead, I would like to focus on a different background thing here. I am curious how much individual, local meets influence these sort of opinions. For example, in my local meta games are won by a large variety of conditions. For us, scenariobis just as important as assassination or time. We also see a large variety in lists. No one is afraid to try something new or crazy.
    I've been in the game since MKI, and boy had it grown and improved. Things have become so much more balanced over time,and are still becoming better. Again, we see the effect of local metas. PP has one, just like anywhere else. That local metainfluences new models and perceived value of a rule. And what is great, is that PP has seen this and is working to expand their "meta" through more playtest groups, more feedback, and errata. It's evolving and working.
    As to the turn order thing, that is really a personal preference rather than a design thing. MKI had tons of our of activation stuff, and man it made for some long, crazygames. Yeah, sometimes something really cool happened, but it also made for some extremely lopsided games. It also really falls apart in larger games. You said to try out alterating activations in a smaller game, I would challenge you to try it in a larger one. Try it into heavy jack/beast lists, infantry spam, solo spam, double Collasals, etc. Unless you both have the same number of pieces, it can become highly one sided. Besides, I've never felt that there wasn't something for me to do on my opponents turn, unkesd they are in the tank for a while. I'm always making and adjusting plans, answer questions, making damage, removing a model, etc. Or, I'm talking and joking with my opponent.
    QUOTE (poeticruse @ Mar 27 2009, 02:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    So please, think of the goats. Don't demand official answers.
    QUOTE (poeticruse @ Apr 16 2009, 08:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    "fruitbatbananacoated"

  5. #45
    Moderator Mod_Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Back home in Caspia
    Posts
    12,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyel View Post
    Actually, the multiplayer battles in mk3 also have alternating activations, as described in the main rulebook.
    Actually, it does not describe that.

    Prime mk3, page 41 (hardcover edition) - "The game will work just like a standard two-person game of WARMACHINE except instead of one army taking a turn, only one player will take a turn..."

    It does not not say players alternate individual activations. It says player's alternate taking turns, rather than "sides" comprised of players on the same team taking a unified turn.

    If you go on to read it, it describes how teams roll a d6, and highest decides who's team gets the first player to go, then the opposing team picks a player, and alternating until all team members have established an order. This is the "turn order" for the game.
    Last edited by Mod_Haight; 01-08-2017 at 09:09 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmike View Post
    Haight, you are the hero Cygnar deserves.
    "The objective is to win, the point is to have fun." -- Not Dice
    Former Infernal, 2008 - 2012.

    What I play: Cygnar, Circle, Minions, Mercs (Ceph, Rhul), Retribution, & Skorne.

    Mod Voice.

  6. #46
    Destroyer of Worlds Cyel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    1,350

    Default

    Yes, but a "side" still activates only part of its forces instead of entire armies, alternating it with the opposing side. It may not be a unit-by-unit alternation, but still it's an alternating activation, not IGUG.

    As in mk2 I used to play multiplayer battles with standard "evrything belonging to one side ctivates before the turn is handed to the other side" it's quite a difference. I guess that's because in larger battles the downtime can be more visible and painful (it isn't in my opinion but I've only played battles up to 150mk2 points)
    Last edited by Cyel; 01-08-2017 at 09:55 AM.
    There's no such faction as "Menoth". You can't "play Menoth"

    There's the Protectorate.

  7. #47

    Default

    I've played Malifaux and Infinity somewhat. At low model count games like Battlebox vs. Battlebox I agree their system is better. But tournament Warmachine is wargame, not a skirmish. Their systems will not work with Warmachine's 75 pts scale. You also would have to completely redesign the game from ground up with no guarantee that it would be better.

    Personally I play Warmachine almost always with Deathclock so I don't encounter the problem of long turns. If someone takes too long to make turns he loses. I can see the problem existing in non-Deathclock games.

    I can agree on special rules overload and ways of presenting them in rulebook. Basically untill you play something on the table you have absolutely no idea how all those heaps of special rules will interact. Though all wargames I've played have this problem.

    I disagree on resources management. If anything I'd like to see less resources, like maybe make infantry orders, feats, minifeats and focus/fury somehow tied together in one resource. I think it will balance out the power level between casters.
    Last edited by Smooth Criminal; 01-08-2017 at 09:59 AM.

  8. #48
    Moderator Mod_Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Back home in Caspia
    Posts
    12,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyel View Post
    Yes, but a "side" still activates only part of its forces instead of entire armies, alternating it with the opposing side. It may not be a unit-by-unit alternation, but still it's an alternating activation, not IGUG.

    As in mk2 I used to play multiplayer battles with standard "evrything belonging to one side ctivates before the turn is handed to the other side" it's quite a difference. I guess that's because in larger battles the downtime can be more visible and painful (it isn't in my opinion but I've only played battles up to 150mk2 points)
    This wouldn't strictly be considered alternating activations though. AA is side one activations one entity, the opposing side activates an entity, until all such entities are activated in a single game turn, turn ends, whatever trigger mechanism is in place to "decide" whom starts activating entites (whether its established turn order like multi-player games in WM, or initiative roll at top of the turn, etc).

    So Team Play in WM is a hybrid but on the pendulum its echelons closer to UGIG than AA. Players are still getting full activation out of their respective armies without disturance or interruption, though "teams" are not.


    If you accept "Team WM play" as alternating activations, then technically a two player game is too: all the "players" on a team get to take their turn uninterrupted until it is the other team's turn. In a two player game this is just normal UGIG. In a 4 player game its just that players on opposite sides of the teams alternate, but each player is still activating their whole payload of models before its the next guys turn to go ... just like in a 2 player game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmike View Post
    Haight, you are the hero Cygnar deserves.
    "The objective is to win, the point is to have fun." -- Not Dice
    Former Infernal, 2008 - 2012.

    What I play: Cygnar, Circle, Minions, Mercs (Ceph, Rhul), Retribution, & Skorne.

    Mod Voice.

  9. #49

    Default

    Well I've played a "I activate you activate" game and the "ini sinks" are a huge problem in the meta because you can simply out initiate your opponent, then move your big guns in and blast away. Depending on the turn system you might even be able to activate your big guns again and blast away.

    I also agree that you simply can't sit afk when your opponent activates, you plan your moves then, and check his actions.

    The 1 hour game clock sees to these things.

  10. #50

    Default

    Alternating activation definitely has some advantages, as a paradigm, over IGOUGO. I wouldn't call it strictly superior though.

    There is definitely pleasure to be had in constructing an elaborate plan and knowing that you'll be able to carry it out (and even in seeing my opponent carry out a particularly elaborate and clever plan against me). The sort of detailed plans you can do in WM wouldn't be possible under IGOUGO.

    Also, making WMH into alternate-activation would almost amount to creating an entirely new game. I think that if PP attempted to do this, it would have at least doubled the development time of Mark 3. There are so many effects whose effectiveness or style would drastically change under alternate activation... for an easy example, look at all the debuffs (Breath Stealer, etc etc). In order to have any effect, a debuff would need to be cast BEFORE the intended target gets to activate, which is guaranteed in IGOUGO but a very dicey proposition in alternate activation...

  11. #51

    Default

    I'm not the biggest fan of alternating activations. I find they tend to create a very disjointed experience in terms of putting my tactics into play.

    For me, igoyuogo, whilst certainly not my favourite turn order has its place, especially in games where building synergies is a crucial aspect of the game. I also like how I can set my whole army in potion during my turn. Personally, I prefer the 'it's always your turn' system of infinity, but thst is very much a system for small scale skirmish gsmes and breaks down beyond a dozen models. Thst said, there are ways around both. I'm a big fan of gw's lotr sbg system (seriously under rated and under appreciated system), and find its turn structure - I move, you move, I shoot, you shoot, we all fight to act very well in terms of both allowing you to do stuff, allowing you to cOunter stuff, and gives the feel of putting your whole army into play. Similarly starship troopers had a pretty decent reaction system that operated on a squad level, but thst gsme never really took hold.

    Tilde, igoyougo has its place. It's not better, or worse. It just allows for a specific kind of game. And it works for warmachine

  12. #52
    Combatant
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    26

    Default

    I'm not bored when it's not my turn in timed games because I'm trying to figure out what I want to do before my turn starts.

    I'm not bored in "friendly" games because you can sit and talk strategy with your opponent and you can both help with each other's strategy and learn about how other armies work and what they can do. (Think the running commentary dubbed over an Advanced Maneuvers (love you guys!) video, but as a discussion while playing.)

  13. #53
    Destroyer of Worlds Big Fat Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    1,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Embier View Post
    I'm not bored when it's not my turn in timed games because I'm trying to figure out what I want to do before my turn starts.

    I'm not bored in "friendly" games because you can sit and talk strategy with your opponent and you can both help with each other's strategy and learn about how other armies work and what they can do. (Think the running commentary dubbed over an Advanced Maneuvers (love you guys!) video, but as a discussion while playing.)
    Agreed. I need all the time to think I can get, and how your opponent handles activations can provide valuable information.
    "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
    -Karl Popper



  14. #54
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada BC
    Posts
    1,835

    Default

    I go you go games are not something I enjoy for most army based games. Got 5 dudes on the table and it's great. Got 50 and the having to react to each move makes the game take way to long. This also leads to boredom.

    As for the warcasters being to pivotal... Well it works for chess and I think it's one of the best parts of this game.

  15. #55
    Annihilator netdragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Madrid, España
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Many great point the game could use to expand in the future instead of looking it as critique.

    The Warmachine Tactics videogame needs BADLY a UGIG system. Sitting in front of a human for 10-20 minutes is bearable, on a computer is just overkill.

    I love smaller, faster games. I just hope they could be better supported.

    I love the Malifaux analogy that can certainly be included in new game formats. I also usually compare Warmachine to Magic: the Gathering, which also includes alternate win conditions with venom tokens and special cards. Imagine a caster with a feat where he wins the game if a condition is met in X turns?

    Regarding the point systems, a format like highlander where restrictions come from a unit/model allowance more than points could be great.

    The "too many rules" sadly comes from MonPoc. The extended use of icons is something that has grown from MKI to MKIII and it's really not helping the game. PP is just standarizing complex rules and I doesn't help the rules build-up as commented.

    As for too many "bad models", I suggested in another thread that having multiple ways to play could lead to different metas where different units could be tailored to be relevant. The idea of "simple" or "newbie-friendly" units is a moot that only leads to unused units in the future (PP, please stop selling stormguards on starter sets), having formats where they are useful could go a long way.

    Nice thread and great replies.

  16. #56
    Destroyer of Worlds tutenkharnage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Crawling through the Undercity with the BRI
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    As an aside, CMON redesigned Rum & Bones from IGOUGO to AA. This was fairly easy to accomplish because each side in the second season has four "blocks" it can activate: three heroes, plus a combination of mooks and a gun. The first set of rules introduced a lot of dead time (and it was the one of the things my daughters and I didn't like at all), but the second set looks like it will produce a much more fluid game.

    That said, Warmachine isn't designed for AA. It could be, but there are other games that do this already. If you find yourself frustrated with the game's IGOUGO format, find another game whose mechanics you like more and give that game a spin. Who knows? You might love it.

  17. #57

    Default

    This is a cool thread. A very interesting OP.

    My position on assassination as a victory condition has evolved a lot over time. I was a bit leery of it when I started playing, but came to see that one really cool thing about it was it meant often one side was still able to bring back a victory even when they're really on the back foot. Unfortunately, I've also seen a lot of games (and I feel like this is especially true recently) where someone will have an assassination that looks OK, go for it, fail, and subsequently lose the game. I have also seen quite a few games end on an assassination the opponent didn't see coming, and it just feels like robbing both players of a good game. On the balance, I don't think I like it?

    There are a couple of things I really don't like about the game system that weren't touched on in the OP. I've mentioned them elsewhere, but:

    Model activations are very uninteractive. This is sort of like the IGo-YouGo vs various other methods thing, but on a smaller scale. When my model charges your model and kills it and you don't get to do anything at all, that's an example of this problem. It's especially dumb with things that can buy multiple attacks, like casters and beasts, e.g. my caster charges yours and hits them seven times while they stand there and then die, or my Gladiator charges your Stalker and punches it 6 times while it stands there and dies, but it's silly with stuff like infantry too. My unit is in range to charge, so you don't get to hit me back until they've all gone? Okay.

    It really bothers me because it's both unfun and it breaks from any pretense of representing the battles that are meant to be taking place. Where are the huge beasts laying into each other in dramatic duels? Where are the warcasters facing off in the middle of the battlefield? They don't really happen. We even have a neat word for it: piece trading. Piece trading is awful.

    But one of the things that's really exacerbated by this is that the game rules require inhuman accuracy in positioning.. So if my model is within range to charge here, and then sidestep here, I win the game. Now let's break out the calipers and the laser pointer and wave them around on the table until we've bumped enough models that we have no idea if I was in range before we started measuring. Then on top of that, almost every model in the game overhangs its base by some amount, some by such a degree that they can almost never be placed correctly on the board. This is a terrible shortcoming of the rules. If the game is going to use these models, either the models should be designed to work with the game or the game should be designed to work with the models. But again, the reason it's such a big deal is model activations are so uninteractive.

    The gold standard for interactive activations, as far as I'm concerned, is the Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game (which A_Bionic_Labrat mentions above!), but pretty much every game you can think of probably has more interactive activations than Warmachine. The unforgiving measurement combined with the non-interactive activations make a grievous flaw that really saps fun from the game.

    That's my opinion.

  18. #58
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malkav13 View Post
    So, pretty much everything that I was going to say already had been said. Instead, I would like to focus on a different background thing here. I am curious how much individual, local meets influence these sort of opinions. For example, in my local meta games are won by a large variety of conditions. For us, scenariobis just as important as assassination or time. We also see a large variety in lists. No one is afraid to try something new or crazy.
    From what I can tell, attrition power is what everybody wants. Makes sense, since attrition is what gives you an advantage in any matchup regardless of the win condition you pursue. The rest is a matter of caster preference. Some of the absolute best casters in the game thrive on scenario pressure, others put you on notice that one wrong move means they'll be going for the throat. Some metas will lean more towards one than the other, but again that comes down to preference. Whatever the better players favour is whatever captures the most attention.

  19. #59
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,794

    Default

    I'm just going to note that posting a detailed rebuttal to someone who is unlikely to ever read, let alone respond to your thoughts is probably not going to be particularly impactful. I'd wait to see if OP is actually interested in discussion before going any further with this.
    An Empire Unacquainted with Defeat

  20. #60
    Destroyer of Worlds BarskeMannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Sundsvall, Sweden
    Posts
    2,101

    Default

    I really don't like alternating activations. The inability to execute complex plans by having an opponent who, with perfect information, is poised to counteract every form of strategy that requires more than one piece to move in succession makes it so that only simple, straightforward tactics or mostly uninteractive moves will win the day.
    My tin dudes can take your tin dudes.

    PbP characters: Vys Elyntheir (IWC)

  21. #61
    Moderator Mod_Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Back home in Caspia
    Posts
    12,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeRaids View Post
    I'm just going to note that posting a detailed rebuttal to someone who is unlikely to ever read, let alone respond to your thoughts is probably not going to be particularly impactful. I'd wait to see if OP is actually interested in discussion before going any further with this.
    Plenty of people seem interested in talking about it, even if OP doesn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmike View Post
    Haight, you are the hero Cygnar deserves.
    "The objective is to win, the point is to have fun." -- Not Dice
    Former Infernal, 2008 - 2012.

    What I play: Cygnar, Circle, Minions, Mercs (Ceph, Rhul), Retribution, & Skorne.

    Mod Voice.

  22. #62
    Destroyer of Worlds Spideredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Above a Bakery, England
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarskeMannen View Post
    I really don't like alternating activations. The inability to execute complex plans by having an opponent who, with perfect information, is poised to counteract every form of strategy that requires more than one piece to move in succession makes it so that only simple, straightforward tactics or mostly uninteractive moves will win the day.
    I tried alternating activations way back and to be honest what it takes away on the one hand, it pretty much adds something else with another.
    It just tends to favour more numerous armies over better quality armies, and that is the biggest downside as far as I am concerned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Other_Mike View Post
    The good thing about WM/H is there's always another chance.
    Quote Originally Posted by jdeckert View Post
    It's a game it should always be enjoyable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domo View Post
    "Yes. Let us play toy soldiers like grown men!"

  23. #63
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,802

    Default

    Good write up, well put but also compairing apples to oranges .

    First of all let me say that I too am slightly dissapointed in Mk 3. Not because of it's core rules (also that Power Attack part still feels odd) because they are rather fine but the simple inconsistancy between faction overlap design. It took me 7 months to figure out what's good and bad but the worst thing in Warmachine and Hordes currently is that it very much seems like Cryx, Skorne and to some extend Trollbloods where designed by different 'head designers' even Legion is full of inconsistent approaches and as a result some factions just feel odd.

    I decided to cut into your great post to keep this one from having a massive wall of text. So in responce:
    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    I dislike almost everything about the gameplay of Warmachine. It has multiple aspects of game design that I regard as useless, archaic, annoying, and BAD. The IGOUGO turn sequence, the importance of only one resource, the huge lack of model balance, the plethora of special rules in a big-army battle game, and the averageness of the rulebook editing all grate upon me.

    THE BASIC TURN SEQUENCE
    The basic turn sequence is 95% non-interactive; on your opponent's turn, it's almost guaranteed that you won't be doing anything to influence the board state.

    ONLY ONE RESOURCE MATTERS
    Your Warcaster or Warlock is the only piece that actually matters in the game. You can lose literally every other piece you have and it won't matter as long as you take out the other Warnoun.

    Compare that to Malifaux. Even setting aside the Story Encounters (one takes place at a fancy party where you wield poison and bad puns instead of guns!), the basic (Gaining Grounds tournament) rules have five different possible goals for both sides that vary from dragging an informant into your deployment zone to collecting enemy model's heads; also, they have a brilliant sub-strategy system where each side has two hidden goals chosen from five random ones at the start. This means that no two games are ever likely to be the same. Yes, there are killing goals, but there are also non-killing goals - it allows for a much larger design space.

    MODEL DESIGN IMBALANCE
    No game has perfect balance, and SHOULD NOT. Having some models be better/easier and other models be worse/harder gives noobs room to pick the good stuff to ease learning the game and vets room to pick the bad stuff in order to humiliate their opponent.

    Bloodbowl...

    THE POINTS SYSTEM
    This is a simple one: the points system is anything but straightforward, and filling holes is complicated.

    Compare that to X-Wing...

    Compare such systems to Battletech...

    TOO MANY SPECIAL RULES
    So Malifaux...

    Going on the subject of clarity and simplicity...

    WHY NO LISTS OR TABLES?
    I don't ask for much in a rulebook, really. Clear rules with as little cognitive dissonance as possible. An index that can at least point me in the right direction. A comprehensive table of all modifiers that can apply to an attack roll if it's that sort of game. A simple checklist outline to follow step-by-step so new players and old can make sure they don't accidentally miss something important.

    Warmachine, at least the little rulebook I have, scores on the index and that's it. The rulebook doesn't have any unified table anywhere.

    IN CONCLUSION
    The only huge issue I have with Warmachine is the IGOUGO turn structure, and aside from that it's... adequate.

    For a while I thought the problem might be playing at too low of a point value, not seeing the 'real' game at 10, 25, or even 50 points, but 75 point games are even worse. It's getting harder and harder for me to smile as I belly up to the table and roll for first/second player.
    Starting from design and your general responces I can see that an Army game might not be 'it' for you. I too play or have played all the games you have listed and there are pro's and cons to every point you made, which is always the truth for every product and every game. I think the following is important to keep in mind:

    1. The turn by turn sequence of the game allows it to be played on a clock. This is otherwise impossible to do or generally would generate a disadvantage in playing more models as your opponent. It's one of the strongest assets of this game, not found elsewhere (unfortunatly)

    2. I cannot agree with you that in Warmachine or Hordes only one resource matters. It's the same in Malifaux and most other games. The option to generate more resources is always a strong option. Warmachine does not only function around focus, boxes apply, CRA's and CMA's apply and in general I think you also misunderstand how a game with 8-10 models compares to a game with 30+ models. A skirmish game has the option to go deep because the choices are less deep. Compare the quantity of Warcasters and Warlocks to Malifaux Masters and you'll understand what I mean.

    3. Balance or imbalance is not really a requirement for any game (I've found). What is very important is the level of pros and cons applied to factions. There is no need for cross compairable costs if these pros and cons are clear and clearly have a defined norm.
    Some choices are worse, sometimes this is so because else the faction would have no significant con to work with. The current factions with the least cons also are the most powerful. Giving Khador as the previous example, the con to Khador used to be that they did not have 'Lights' or 'Fast Warjacks', a disruption of this was Mad Dog. You see what happend there...

    4. I cannot agree with you that the point system in Warmachine or Hordes is complicated or does not allow you to fill holes. You can compair it but I don't see the issue.

    5. In it's core I do not think Warmachine and Hordes have too many rules. They do have some rules who could have been the same but what those additional rules allow you to do is add some nice flavour. Malifaux easily has as many if not more rules.

    6. Warmachine and Hordes has rather simple, clear and straightforward rules honestly. That's why I like it still.

    7. Try something else aswell. The prime advantage of Warmachine and Hordes is that you have a nice dice game with a lot of Machines and Monsters models who decide the outcome of a game. It really is that clearcut simple.

    If someone at PP is willing to make the game more consistent amongst all factions I think we could see a fantastic game with a really deep pool of models.
    Consistancy will not lead to every model being playable ergo competative but it will lead to a sence of 'fairness' because the overlap can become slightly clearer.
    Honestly though aside from Cryx and Skorne there isn't too much which you can point towards and say it's massively flawed. Even the post errata meta had something going on for it. It's just that the december 2016 Errata was a 'quicky', it shows and I believe the PrivateerPress design/rules team knows this aswell. I can't blame them too much.

    Ideally every faction will be on that upper competative level. Two of the oppertunities to do this have allready missed their optional mark.
    - What I mean by this is that there are couple factions in need of 'better stuff' but they don't recieve it. Those being Cryx, Trollbloods, Skorne and to some extend Minions. Making things like Una 2 design/releases all the more "hated".

  24. #64
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybrid View Post
    I totally agree with part of your position on the IGoUGo. One of the big flaws in this game is that you are pretty much doing nothing in your opponents turn. The problem becomes even worse when you play against people that take 20+ minutes a turn. This more than anything else has caused more people to quit the game in my meta. I think PP realized this was a problem as well when they introduced the Steam Roller format. If you read through the packets it states that 10 minute timed turns are the standard which I find vastly superior deathclock. Unfortunately deathclock has become the norm in all official PP events so everyone else wants to do deathclock as well. Long story short give us a timed turn official event like the old hardcore format PP.
    Didn't it happen the other way around? The community opted to switch towards Deathclocks, using the optional format rules in the Steamroller documents, and PP events followed suite.

    I don't actually know one way or the other, but that was my understanding of how it went down.

  25. #65
    Destroyer of Worlds doomedtorepeatit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BarskeMannen View Post
    I really don't like alternating activations. The inability to execute complex plans by having an opponent who, with perfect information, is poised to counteract every form of strategy that requires more than one piece to move in succession makes it so that only simple, straightforward tactics or mostly uninteractive moves will win the day.
    The only alternating-activation games I've seriously played are BattleTech and Dystopian Wars, and I must say that there are ways to make complex tactics work in that kind of a system. BattleTech maintains different phases like Warhammer and Flames of War, so a lot of the timing issues that I ran into with Dystopian Wars -- ie, I've got a good set up to kill some enemy models and then my opponent does the unexpected and interrupts my perfect plan -- don't come into play. But with DW, it was infuriating when you're caught out by a gotcha-rule or a particular tactics card and it turns out that you've got no answer to tactical problem in front of you. That's one of the reasons why I eventually switched from a battleship-led to a fleet to a carrier fleet for my DW French, because at least then I could employ a reusable, rebuildable resource (torpedo bombers) to keep the enemy at arm's length and avoid a lot of those problems.

    I honestly don't mind IGOUGO systems. Its easier to set up combinations, as well as to defend against them. Alternating systems are more involving, keeping both players more focused on the game, which is a great thing on the whole "a game isn't supposed to be boring" front. They both have their benefits and drawbacks.


    You will never see me on Vassal again. Ever.

  26. #66
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azahul View Post
    Didn't it happen the other way around? The community opted to switch towards Deathclocks, using the optional format rules in the Steamroller documents, and PP events followed suite.

    I don't actually know one way or the other, but that was my understanding of how it went down.
    Not sure it matters. The overwhelming majority of the playerbase prefers Deathclock, as far as I can tell. That's really all there's to it. If it was the other way around, TOs would use timed turns more.

  27. #67
    Destroyer of Worlds Spideredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Above a Bakery, England
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    I think that steamroller still recommends timed turns as the default, but everybody uses deathclock.
    Quote Originally Posted by Other_Mike View Post
    The good thing about WM/H is there's always another chance.
    Quote Originally Posted by jdeckert View Post
    It's a game it should always be enjoyable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domo View Post
    "Yes. Let us play toy soldiers like grown men!"

  28. #68
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pangur Ban View Post
    Not sure it matters. The overwhelming majority of the playerbase prefers Deathclock, as far as I can tell. That's really all there's to it. If it was the other way around, TOs would use timed turns more.
    It doesn't matter to me at all. I can see some in the community, particularly anyone who dislikes Deathclock format (I love it) having an added negative view of it if they see it as something PP "pushed" on the community or if it was something PP adopted as a consequence of overwhelming public support though. I doubt it's a deal breaker either way for anyone, mind you, and a pretty minor issue in the context of this thread.

  29. #69
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spideredd View Post
    I think that steamroller still recommends timed turns as the default, but everybody uses deathclock.
    Which is a problem that should be solved. It should recommend Deathclock and have timed turns available as a alternative. One which the document should stress is not recommended.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesoe View Post
    I have touched this man's Durst. I can tell you it is legit.
    The Protectorate's Official Cheer
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyalas View Post
    Make 'em run! Make 'em burn!
    Make 'em wracks until they learn!
    Proooooo-tectorate!

  30. #70

    Default

    I don't have much experience outside of my meta but death clock was definitely pushed on it. We had a decent amount of people that wanted to go to big events like lock and load where they use death clock so we in turn started using death clock. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much death clock is better than no clock. It just doesn't fix the issue of having huge dead times in some games. Its not common but I have won games where my opponent clocked themselves and I still have 40ish minutes left on my clock. Sure I won but games like that are not fun. Lets not even get into the slow players that don't like using clocks at all and turn a game that should be an hour and a half into a five hour spectacle. Again rare but I've had it happen more than a few times. Hell I've even been that player a couple times as I'm sure we all have once or twice.

    As I also said in my previous post this problem is responsible for the majority of the people I know that don't play the game any more. Either way though I definitely think the game could use more abilities such as counter charge and retaliatory strike. Make it so I can do something and throw monkey wrenches into my opponents plans. No other miniatures game that I have played has had this problem. In both Warhammers I am rolling lots of dice on my opponents turn and making attacks in melee on both turns once I get into melee so I always feel like I am doing something. In Xwing, Armada, and guild ball you have alternating activation so it always feels like I am at least doing something. At the end of the day its not a huge problem because most times my opponents turn doesn't go longer than 10-15 minutes anyways. Its just something that can crop up and I have seen people quit over.
    Last edited by Cybrid; 01-08-2017 at 05:41 PM.
    Never make friends with a Cryx player...they cheat.

  31. #71
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybrid View Post
    I don't have much experience outside of my meta but death clock was definitely pushed on it. We had a decent amount of people that wanted to go to big events like lock and load where they use death clock so we in turn started using death clock. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter that much death clock is better than no clock. It just doesn't fix the issue of having huge dead times in some games. Its not common but I have won games where my opponent clocked themselves and I still have 40ish minutes left on my clock. Sure I won but games like that are not fun. Lets not even get into the slow players that don't like using clocks at all and turn a game that should be an hour and a half into a five hour spectacle. Again rare but I've had it happen more than a few times. Hell I've even been that player a couple times as I'm sure we all have once or twice.

    As I also said in my previous post this problem is responsible for the majority of the people I know that don't play the game any more. Either way though I definitely think the game could use more abilities such as counter charge and retaliatory strike. Make it so I can do something and throw monkey wrenches into my opponents plans. No other miniatures game that I have played has had this problem. In both Warhammers I am rolling lots of dice on my opponents turn and making attacks in melee on both turns once I get into melee so I always feel like I am doing something. In Xwing, Armada, and guild ball you have alternating activation so it always feels like I am at least doing something. At the end of the day its not a huge problem because most times my opponents turn doesn't go longer than 10-15 minutes anyways. Its just something that can crop up and I have seen people quit over.
    I think fundamentally that's just the opposite of what a lot of Warmachine players actually want from the game. It's one of its selling points over other games. You play Malifaux or Guild Ball if you want to interrupt your opponent's strategy.

    From from GW, one of the things I adored about the Warmachine system was that I no longer needed to worry about being in a worse position at the end of my turn than I was when I started. I mean, I can absolutely ruin myself with some bad moves, but in the old Warhammer systems I could cast a spell, miscast, blow my general off the board, charge some units into melee, and have my opponent kill more of my models than I kill of his. That felt pretty damned terrible, though I'm sure it felt great for the opponent.

    In Warmachine instead I have the luxury of knowing that, special rules excepted, by the end of my turn I will, at worst, have wasted my turn. I won't have seen my army be torn apart while I'm ostensibly in control of the situation. I hardly ever even need to account for my opponent rolling dice. Even with Tough into account, I'd say a near majority of games can be played without me ever needing to account for my opponent rolling some lucky dice. You don't like that. I do.

    As for the time problems you describe, I can't even imagine a game going for five hours. The longest by far, and it was freaking interminable (combination of slow players and slow attrition grind) went three and a half hours. The vast majority, even without clocks, are under two. Sometimes your opponent goes into the tank and thinks for twenty minutes. If that happens frequently, ask them if you can play on clock in future. If it's a one-off, that's not a problem with the game. That's a feature. The ability to spend twenty minutes concocting a plan for victory, then pulling it off, is awesome. It's one of the game's assets. Even being on the receiving end of it doesn't usually create boredom in me. Instead it tends to build tension, as I worry increasingly that I missed something in my opponent's set-up that is giving them a good, if elaborate, shot at assassination.

  32. #72
    Annihilator Reuben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybrid View Post
    I totally agree with part of your position on the IGoUGo. One of the big flaws in this game is that you are pretty much doing nothing in your opponents turn. The problem becomes even worse when you play against people that take 20+ minutes a turn. This more than anything else has caused more people to quit the game in my meta. I think PP realized this was a problem as well when they introduced the Steam Roller format. If you read through the packets it states that 10 minute timed turns are the standard which I find vastly superior deathclock. Unfortunately deathclock has become the norm in all official PP events so everyone else wants to do deathclock as well. Long story short give us a timed turn official event like the old hardcore format PP.
    I have no issue with my opponent spending 20 mins on a turn in Deathclock.

  33. #73
    Destroyer of Worlds permanent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,667

    Default

    the real problem with igoyougo is how many of its proponents think "this is the only way to make my opponent sit still while i play solitaire and synergy up" is a compelling experience for the other side

    Alternating activation is more compelling as an actual game for two players who get to act and react rather than losing and it taking you 30 minutes for your opponent to actually assassinate you because he goes through the motion of his entire turn

  34. #74
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    432

    Default

    have to disagree with op....by far the best minature game ive played and this is coming from a cryx player thats playing with crap...even then i still have fun
    Quote Originally Posted by dchadpage View Post
    Cryx is a noob-stomping faction. If they're stomping you, you're probably a noob.

  35. #75
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by permanent View Post
    the real problem with igoyougo is how many of its proponents think "this is the only way to make my opponent sit still while i play solitaire and synergy up" is a compelling experience for the other side

    Alternating activation is more compelling as an actual game for two players who get to act and react rather than losing and it taking you 30 minutes for your opponent to actually assassinate you because he goes through the motion of his entire turn
    It's compelling for the other side because while that's going on they can begin planning their response. Or, if they lose the game, then in some future game they will have the chance to do the same.

    I and many others am ok with experiencing some level of non-interactivity in order to allow all players of the game to have the Warmachine-specific experience of chaining together complex synergies or model activations in order to achieve an end result.

  36. #76
    Annihilator Terminal_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Duxbury, VT
    Posts
    980

    Default

    i-go-you-go isn't a bad mechanic by default, nor is alternating activations the pinnacle of gaming.

    Can you imagine how much it would such to waste your first alternating activation on a lowly support model? I find WM's greatest strength to be model syngeries, which mostly wouldn't work in an alternating format.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragesmith:
    "Internet" of course coming from the ancient Babylonian word for "complaining loudly and constantly about a minor grievance."

  37. #77
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Darkest Canberra
    Posts
    4,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomThoughts View Post
    Let's see:

    THE BASIC TURN SEQUENCE

    I enjoy that. It allows for the kind of complex turns where you can line up all kinds of shenanigans.

    And yes, I've tried things like Malifaux, but I didn't see what is so great about alternate turns.

    ONLY ONE RESOURCE MATTERS

    I have to disagree. Scenario is life in most of our games, and assassinations usually happen when a player gets hard pressed to defend their scenario and come too far forward with their caster.

    MODEL DESIGN IMBALANCE

    I agree that there are still gaps that need closing, but I also think the gaps are a lot smaller than many forumites make it sound.

    THE POINTS SYSTEM

    Same thing as model balance, some things are not quite there where they should be, but it's a lot closer than many people say.

    Also, with the finer scale, I'm perfectly happy leaving a point unspent now, just like 1000 points MK1 armies often enough came in at 997 points or whatever.

    TOO MANY SPECIAL RULES

    Perhaps it's just not your kind of game then? Sure, some special rules could go adding more hassle than worth to the game, but overall it's a game that gains complexity through special rules, I'm fine with that.

    WHY NO LISTS OR TABLES?

    Yeah, would be nice, but it'S easy enough to make for yourself it's enough of a concern, or just build one once for the community and post it somewhere where it becomes a community resource.

    IN CONCLUSION

    I like the IGOUGO structure of the game, it is what it is. You might also argue that chess would be more like checkers if all the pieces moved in the same way...
    Came to say this, going away happy. +1.

    Err, and I should also add +1 to the igougo thing with timed turns: I spend my opponent's turn frantically planning and revising those plans as the turn progresses. I am rarely bored (that is, I'm only a bit bored if everything they do it what I was expecting).

  38. #78
    Destroyer of Worlds Sideshow Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,118

    Default

    I've been playing this game since I got my first models from PP in plain cardboard boxes. It used to just be pure assassination in the beginning. Then, they added scenarios to try and add something else. The problem was all the scenarios were run to this place and kill each other. Sadly, their scenarios have not improved overly much since then. They are all pretty much designed to control where you fight, but there is no real depth or reasoning to them.
    They have gotten better through the years, but they are far from good IMO.

    Balance between factions bothers me a lot less than the balance within factions currently. I hate having so many models that will not see the table now a days. I miss infantry being part of the game though I do love the way MKIII made Warjacks more appealing. I wish that Hordes had a way to compete there as their special mechanic kinda blows compared to power up.

    The other thing I dislike is that the game went to multiple lists. It allows people to create scalpel lists rather than forcing an all comers list. This has been a problem since MKII for me.

    Like every edition, MKIII has some issues, but it also has some improvements. If they can get balance within factions settled a bit better and iron out a few really weird things, it could be great. Scenarios that require different types of models to hold or capture or something more interactive than run here and fight would be great too.

  39. #79
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    396

    Default

    I think it should be noted, before we get too far into this, that Battletech's turn structure has a massive, massive issue with swarm armies and the huge amount of advantages they give a player, to the point that they're often outright banned because of how powerful they are.

    So understand that swarm style tactics would become even more powerful, rather than less powerful.

  40. #80
    Destroyer of Worlds The Captain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kouvola, Finland
    Posts
    5,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisBatson View Post
    I am an old man who has played mini games since the pieces were made of lead. MK3 is easily in the top 3 hottest messes ever made.

    Core rules, turns, basics... I'm good with. But the imbalance is just crazy bad and rarely are nerfs good. They way over do them. And the theme forces are uninventive and dull.

    but man, my local meta is full of awesome people and friends.
    I've been around the hobby for almost 30 years myself, and let's not kid ourselves, as far as game balance problems go, we can list just about every edition of Warhammer Fantasy and 40K before any edition of Warmachine/Hordes. Battlefleet Gothic and Mordheim are pretty broken balance-wise, too.

    So maybe Mk3 isn't perfectly balanced, but it's in the "Top-3 hottest messes" only in the context of Warmachine/Hordes editions.


    @the OP: I can understand your points, but I disagree with you about one thing - that those points make WM/H a badly designed game. Those features are not features you prefer in a wargame, but that's not the same as errors made in design. It's just not a game designed for you, specifically. Other people prefer the mechanics presented in WM/H to the alternatives you suggest as superior. They're not any more right or wrong than you, they lust like different things. Personally, I'd rather see people discuss opinions and respect each other's point of views, than try to present their opinion as the only right one.
    It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment. -Sherlock Holmes
    (Doyle, A. C. 1887: A Study in Scarlet)

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •