Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 198
  1. #81
    Conqueror rajcze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brno, Czech republic
    Posts
    228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sideshow Lucifer View Post
    ... 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....
    This is my biggest pet-peeve too, honestly. I'd love to see more to the scenarios than "these are the zones, in which your models must be able to do more damage, and have more boxes, then the other ones". The thing is, we are all so used to it, that when PP tried to do a gunline-friendly scenario, it gets removed from all the tournaments I've been to, and is hated almost unanimously.

    Problem is, I don't really have many great ideas myself - I know I'd want non-symetric scenarios, or something like attacker/defender, but that would end up with me needing to traveli with even more models, I guess. Maybe if there were some of the "achievement" tasks like there are on the release-party-days. Although it would have to be less janky than "kill enemy warcaster with slam power attack collateral damage" style they usually do (because it's for the fun of it)... I don't know. The thing is I really also like the steamroller way, it just annoys me, that the recipe there is pretty obvious (ARM+boxes, sprinkle no push on top), and anything even remotely control-based is now called NPE...

    Do you guys have any ideas about what would be more interesting scenarios? Or is it just OK for you?
    Perfect is the enemy of good!

  2. #82

    Default

    The thing I do not like much in mk3 is the premeasuring. It does take away some of the thrill, and make the game more booring because you can't do wrong. Just proxy your model to the correct position and repeat...without it, the game would be 10/10 when compared to the half a dosen other game systems I've played.

    One thing would certainly make for a varied scenario would be to implement a second caster in smaller games too, this would most likely open up for those duels . They would share the wjp.

    There could also be a simple "who gets the most points" scenario, that would not end even if the caster dies, he would only give points as much as her wjp.
    Last edited by Mr.Human; 01-09-2017 at 02:31 AM.

  3. #83
    Destroyer of Worlds Spideredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Above a Bakery, England
    Posts
    2,336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Human View Post
    The thing I do not like much in mk3 is the premeasuring. It does take away some of the thrill, and make the game more booring because you can't do wrong. Just proxy your model to the correct position and repeat...without it, the game would be 10/10 when compared to the half a dosen other game systems I've played.
    Premeasuring has been a part of the game since day one. I just don't have to do trig in my head to do it anymore.
    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!"

  4. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spideredd View Post
    Premeasuring has been a part of the game since day one. I just don't have to do trig in my head to do it anymore.
    Ofc, but it is not the same, not wanting to derail much more, but I have found premeasuring to make a game fundamentally different in every y aspect, meta and gameplay.

  5. #85
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,802

    Default

    Well I think premeassurement keeps the game accessable. Comming from the days where nothing was pre-meassured I also have to say that the hobby was cheaper back then (not only Warmachine) and as a result still accesable even for newer gamers, the learning barrier was high but the price was doable. The kids from the 90's will know what I mean .

    As the price of both plastic and white metal products drastically increased over the years the barrier to enter this game got higher by year. To lower this barrier we globally see wargames with increasingly easier rules to play and increasingly easier tactics applied. This trend started some 15 years ago (not even kidding!)

    What we also have to remember is that Warmachine and Hordes have their roots in RPG. Which is why we have models walking around with 34+ wounds but also why damage is done by the eyes of the dice and not only the outcome of 2D6 'hit' and 'kill' as is more commonly seen. Because of this it's very difficult to have Warjacks (34 box) and Warrior (1-5 box) models 'balanced out' against each other. We saw PP fail to do this for Warjacks in Mk 2 and now perhaps overdone it in Mk 3. However the prime reason why I am not bothered about it is because I feel the main draw for Warmachine and Hordes should indeed be the Warjacks and Warbeasts not so much the Warriors. So in that aspect PP succeeded much more as the previous edition. Despite a lot of players liking Infantrymachine and Infantryhordes.

    Warmachine and Hordes are not bad designed this edition but does lack some overall consistancy. I personally believe this comes from the switched members in the design teams. It's very difficult to crawl in somebodies skin and replicate the exact mindset someone had for different factions.
    It's very likely that PrivateerPress should re-evaluate the norms again for this edition. By large because a lot of it seems to lean slightly too heavy on the Mk 2 design. Even something as 'simple' as re-adjusting Warjacks and Warbeasts globally is something that has to be drawn into a bigger picture.

    If you want to have a faction function then go for the same top-down design as you would in character.
    - Set a finite WJP/WBP base for a faction.
    - Set a baseline for 'chasis models' and add cost+ability.
    - Set a baseline for 'regular infantry' and add cost+ability or try to design them so that their cost will always remain comparable.
    - Decide of how of a factor Solo's should play in this game.
    - Re-evaluate every piece on baseline and do an overal last comparison.

    If the baseline is applied game-wide you'll end up with a reasonable balance and imbalance that allows for the game to be played slightly better as it is now. However everyone who thinks WarmaHordes is totally unbalanced isn't really paying attention... WarmaHordes is decently balanced, there are just a few factions who stick out and most of those factions stick out with just 1-2 pieces.
    Last edited by JDAntoine; 01-09-2017 at 04:13 AM.

  6. #86
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,302

    Default

    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.
    First, "The importance of one resource" simply isn't true. Yes, your warcaster/warlock is important - but declaring them the only thing that matters makes only slightly more sense than declaring the king to be the only piece that matters in a game of chess. If you lose your warcaster when three quarters of your army is on the table then you screwed up or your opponent completely blindsided you. Victory by assassination mostly allows the hail mary passes to have a chance of success and puts a lot more risk/reward into the game and thus keeps the game much more interesting. It actively makes the game better.

    But the IGOUGO mechanics I agree with you about ... in theory. I'd also say both that WM/H has the single best implementation of IGOUGO I am aware of in tabletop wargaming and in passing that the recent MK3 errata has taken some of that away. Fundamentally alternate activations make for a directly faster game - but with alternate activations handled the way they are in WM/H (rather than in WFB/WH40K) and an array of ways of moving other models I can make grandiose plans to unfold my army like a great machine in ways that are incredibly likely to come to fruition in a more rapid fire game (and simply wouldn't work with game phases so everyone moved together). No I'm not a Convergence player but that sort of play is simply done better by IGOUGO than it is by other methods (I also miss the old Wrastler Rise animus for this sort of shenanigans). A less than impressive idea implemented well beats a good idea with poor implementation nine times out of ten - and the WM/H turn sequence is just such a mediocre idea implemented well.

    One of the issues around model balance is the metagame. To take one example from Skorne, in Mk2 Nihilators were some of the best infantry around. Decent speed, reach, enough hitting power to destroy single wound infantry, and berserk so they can lawnmower single wound infantry - while not paying extra to be anti-heavy tools. In the changeover to Mk3 Nihilators got cheaper - but right now no one uses them. As for the complaints that the points system is black box? Seriously? I remember the days when WFB had transparent points way back in the early days. It ... didn't help. Battletech's points system works only because it is so stable and has had so many eyes for so long.

    Changing the subject slightly, most warcasters have a spell like Arcane Bolt as a metagame issue - almost every warcaster has a ranged zap spell that is poor value but allows them to shoot incorporeal models. This is a matter of ensuring people don't get locked out of the game.

  7. #87
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neonchameleon View Post
    I'd also say both that WM/H has the single best implementation of IGOUGO I am aware of in tabletop wargaming
    You should try Infinity.

    I'm not suggesting that it's system be adopted for Warmachine - that'd make the game absolutely unplayable - but it's the single best implementation of alternating turns I've ever seen, and directly addresses and fixes many of the problems inherent in the concept of "it's not my turn".

  8. #88
    Destroyer of Worlds Ereshkigal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,147

    Default

    Infinity is so bad in my opinion. Well, imho bad doesn't even approach to describe how frustrating is to play that game.
    The ORA (or ARO, depending on language) is just renaming some dice roll and they applied the concept of both opponents rolling for melee combat in the same turn (like in warhammer) to the shooting phase too. Full stop.

    Then there is the matter of luck of the crits, variance of the dice, 1 man army that uses all the orders provided by the cheap chaffs, weapons that instakill big models with a single shot, every faction that feels the same and much more.

    Imho infinity is even worse than warhammer. But hey, if you like it i don't want to convince you otherwise, it's just that i find it to be one of the worst implementations of the IGOUGO.
    I'm a skorne player, as such i'm unwilling to try different models within my faction and i'm stuck at mk2 list building by definition.

    My painting page: https://www.facebook.com/fullmoonworkshop

  9. #89

    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
    This is more or less what one of my friends said when he stopped playing. As for people saying just use that time to plan your next turn. The board state of this game is in too much flux to make any concrete plans till my opponents are down to the last couple activations.
    Never make friends with a Cryx player...they cheat.

  10. #90
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rajcze View Post
    This is my biggest pet-peeve too, honestly. I'd love to see more to the scenarios than "these are the zones, in which your models must be able to do more damage, and have more boxes, then the other ones". The thing is, we are all so used to it, that when PP tried to do a gunline-friendly scenario, it gets removed from all the tournaments I've been to, and is hated almost unanimously.

    Problem is, I don't really have many great ideas myself - I know I'd want non-symetric scenarios, or something like attacker/defender, but that would end up with me needing to traveli with even more models, I guess. Maybe if there were some of the "achievement" tasks like there are on the release-party-days. Although it would have to be less janky than "kill enemy warcaster with slam power attack collateral damage" style they usually do (because it's for the fun of it)... I don't know. The thing is I really also like the steamroller way, it just annoys me, that the recipe there is pretty obvious (ARM+boxes, sprinkle no push on top), and anything even remotely control-based is now called NPE...
    ..
    Do you guys have any ideas about what would be more interesting scenarios? Or is it just OK for you?
    I don't want to hijack the thread...but I will hijack the thread.

    I think a core problem with the rule set PLUS SR PLUS tournament format is that it doesn't enraouge for Defender/Attacker alternating. THAT would offer real interest and be fun....but the way things are structured with both the game point levels and the length of time it becomes problematic.

    Consider, for example, the current narrative scenario in NQ. THAT is a wonderfully fun idea - with big blasts going off randomly, the attackers needing to move the supply chache and the defender needing to stop them. It is a blast (pun intended) especially if the players switch after their first go round. No more "Well I threw that model a 1/4 inch more than needed away from some flag. GG"

    Now nothjing is STOPPING PP or groups from playing those.......except the basic way in which at conventions PP supports and operates. Prize supporrt and kudos are for swiss rule 4 round tie breaker slog to the top 3 tables with bling/prize support. And then they wonder why people drop after round one.....

    So here is my pitch if the moderators are reading.....

    Make a BIG deal of an alternate format at L&L. You have scenarios from nearly 10 years of NQ. Not every issue but a lot of them. Set it up. Random pairings. 4 rounds. Could be even more cause some scenarios are shorter. Each round you randomly are paired against someone. Two games. First one you are the attacker and second you defend. Report results. Best records go to some sort of tie breaker. Medals given out.

    That would immediately change the scene in a positive way.

    It gets to the OP's second point - the way that SR rules are written are bereft of narrative meaning and largely similar.. Who hasn't had to remember which scenario "Outlast" is ("oh yeah, the one with 2 circular zones") . Mixing things up - AND SUPPORTING IT AT THE TOP CONVENTIONS AND THUS THE CONVERSATIONS THAT FLOW would do wonders for the game.

    (and least you doubt that - look at the extent to with the "World Team Championship" team format moved from an excuse for the Euros to drink beer and team up to a format now being copied and used).

    PS. And yeah - your list constructions would radically change toward much more "all comers" and "all roles". I tend to thing that it would be much more balanced and razor edged. Yeah - you COULD bring 8 Scarsfells to the table.....which would work until you found out that in one scenario you needed to defend the castle door on a map filled with smoke clouds and multiple deployment zones.
    Last edited by Sand20go; 01-09-2017 at 07:18 AM.

  11. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sand20go View Post
    I don't want to hijack the thread...but I will hijack the thread.

    I think a core problem with the rule set PLUS SR PLUS tournament format is that it doesn't enraouge for Defender/Attacker alternating. THAT would offer real interest and be fun....but the way things are structured with both the game point levels and the length of time it becomes problematic.

    Consider, for example, the current narrative scenario in NQ. THAT is a wonderfully fun idea - with big blasts going off randomly, the attackers needing to move the supply chache and the defender needing to stop them. It is a blast (pun intended) especially if the players switch after their first go round. No more "Well I threw that model a 1/4 inch more than needed away from some flag. GG"

    Now nothjing is STOPPING PP or groups from playing those.......except the basic way in which at conventions PP supports and operates. Prize supporrt and kudos are for swiss rule 4 round tie breaker slog to the top 3 tables with bling/prize support. And then they wonder why people drop after round one.....

    So here is my pitch if the moderators are reading.....

    Make a BIG deal of an alternate format at L&L. You have scenarios from nearly 10 years of NQ. Not every issue but a lot of them. Set it up. Random pairings. 4 rounds. Could be even more cause some scenarios are shorter. Each round you randomly are paired against someone. Two games. First one you are the attacker and second you defend. Report results. Best records go to some sort of tie breaker. Medals given out.

    That would immediately change the scene in a positive way.

    It gets to the OP's second point - the way that SR rules are written are bereft of narrative meaning and largely similar.. Who hasn't had to remember which scenario "Outlast" is ("oh yeah, the one with 2 circular zones") . Mixing things up - AND SUPPORTING IT AT THE TOP CONVENTIONS AND THUS THE CONVERSATIONS THAT FLOW would do wonders for the game.

    (and least you doubt that - look at the extent to with the "World Team Championship" team format moved from an excuse for the Euros to drink beer and team up to a format now being copied and used).

    PS. And yeah - your list constructions would radically change toward much more "all comers" and "all roles". I tend to thing that it would be much more balanced and razor edged. Yeah - you COULD bring 8 Scarsfells to the table.....which would work until you found out that in one scenario you needed to defend the castle door on a map filled with smoke clouds and multiple deployment zones.
    They already have scenario tables at L&L this would just move that people that play them from the iron arena to the tournament hall....

  12. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ereshkigal View Post
    Infinity is so bad in my opinion. Well, imho bad doesn't even approach to describe how frustrating is to play that game.
    The ORA (or ARO, depending on language) is just renaming some dice roll and they applied the concept of both opponents rolling for melee combat in the same turn (like in warhammer) to the shooting phase too. Full stop.

    Then there is the matter of luck of the crits, variance of the dice, 1 man army that uses all the orders provided by the cheap chaffs, weapons that instakill big models with a single shot, every faction that feels the same and much more.

    Imho infinity is even worse than warhammer. But hey, if you like it i don't want to convince you otherwise, it's just that i find it to be one of the worst implementations of the IGOUGO.

    There are no "phases" in Infinity like a GW game. The actions available to ARO are not simply shoot back. Models can shoot, dodge, engage, discover, use a hacking program, alert other models, place a mine, etc. There are many options available in ARO to any model and those options only increase based on the individual kit of the model. Furthermore, any model can make AROs, not just the particular model being targeted by the ability or attack of the active model. It's really nothing at all like "both opponents rolling for melee combat in the same turn" except in certain scenarios. Even then the fact that AROs are generally ranged abilities mean they fundamentally alter the tactics and positioning of a game.

    I don't really agree that the factions feel homogenous. I think WM/H suffers from that more than Infinity, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

    The crit system in Infinity is pretty lame and I dislike it (the overall dice system in Infinity is no more or less random than other wargames out there, though), but I also hate it in WM/H too. Too many games of WM/H come down to a completely lucky Crit Dev/Crit Freeze/Crit Decap or whatever. It's a crap mechanic and should be removed from most games as far as I'm concerned so I guess we can agree there.

    Infinity shares a lot of the same design problems as WM/H in my opinion despite the fact that they are drastically different games. The extreme importance of getting first turn, special rules bloat, individual models that stick out like a sore thumb on the power curve. That kind of thing. Whether you like the gameplay of Infinity or Warmachine better is pretty subjective and up to opinion. They provide a different experience. Warmachine feels more "Magic the Gathering" where you build combos and synergy into your list and play out a much more abstract game that "feels" much more arcade-y or game-y. Infinity feels more like some kind of tacitcal/small scale strategy game about leveraging advantageous positions, surprising your opponent, and going after objectives rather than straight up killing. Both provide pretty fun experiences.

    For what it's worth, I think Infinity has potential to stay more exciting for longer due to mechanics like airborne deployment, parachuting, hidden deployment and camouflage. The hidden elements of listbuilding keep the game feeling fresh and exciting, but I can also see players feeling stung by the many potential "Gotchya!" moments that this will create.

    PP could learn a few things from Corvus Belli, though, when it comes to supporting their game. Corvus Belli has had free game rules and model rules for a long time as well as a free army builder that now has a free mobile app and a rules wiki that can be accessed right from their army builder. I also think ITS is more interesting than Steamroller due to the variation, but a lot of that is probably more due to the fundamental gameplay differences of the systems.
    Last edited by Mod_Donaldbain; 01-28-2017 at 11:16 AM.

  13. #93
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,088

    Default

    You can rename posts now?
    Quote Originally Posted by sathoon View Post
    I'm starting to see proteus as the golden retriever/collie cross of the legion beast 'vean' family: he's very loyal if a little soft round the edges at times, likes to herd other dragonspawn, and is always dragging things back to his warlock's army line looking for praise.

  14. #94
    Destroyer of Worlds Ereshkigal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnifaSnail View Post
    For what it's worth, I think Infinity has potential to stay more exciting for longer due to mechanics like airborne deployment, parachuting, hidden deployment and camouflage. The hidden elements of listbuilding keep the game feeling fresh and exciting, but I can also see players feeling stung by the many potential "Gotchya!" moments that this will create.
    Given that in my country infinity is already dying, i'm not so sure about that either.
    Last edited by Mod_Donaldbain; 01-28-2017 at 11:16 AM.
    I'm a skorne player, as such i'm unwilling to try different models within my faction and i'm stuck at mk2 list building by definition.

    My painting page: https://www.facebook.com/fullmoonworkshop

  15. #95
    Annihilator netdragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Madrid, España
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnifaSnail View Post
    There are no "phases" in Infinity like a GW game. The actions available to ARO are not simply shoot back. Models can shoot, dodge, engage, discover, use a hacking program, alert other models, place a mine, etc. There are many options available in ARO to any model and those options only increase based on the individual kit of the model. Furthermore, any model can make AROs, not just the particular model being targeted by the ability or attack of the active model. It's really nothing at all like "both opponents rolling for melee combat in the same turn" except in certain scenarios. Even then the fact that AROs are generally ranged abilities mean they fundamentally alter the tactics and positioning of a game.

    I don't really agree that the factions feel homogenous. I think WM/H suffers from that more than Infinity, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

    The crit system in Infinity is pretty lame and I dislike it (the overall dice system in Infinity is no more or less random than other wargames out there, though), but I also hate it in WM/H too. Too many games of WM/H come down to a completely lucky Crit Dev/Crit Freeze/Crit Decap or whatever. It's a crap mechanic and should be removed from most games as far as I'm concerned so I guess we can agree there.

    Infinity shares a lot of the same design problems as WM/H in my opinion despite the fact that they are drastically different games. The extreme importance of getting first turn, special rules bloat, individual models that stick out like a sore thumb on the power curve. That kind of thing. Whether you like the gameplay of Infinity or Warmachine better is pretty subjective and up to opinion. They provide a different experience. Warmachine feels more "Magic the Gathering" where you build combos and synergy into your list and play out a much more abstract game that "feels" much more arcade-y or game-y. Infinity feels more like some kind of tacitcal/small scale strategy game about leveraging advantageous positions, surprising your opponent, and going after objectives rather than straight up killing. Both provide pretty fun experiences.

    For what it's worth, I think Infinity has potential to stay more exciting for longer due to mechanics like airborne deployment, parachuting, hidden deployment and camouflage. The hidden elements of listbuilding keep the game feeling fresh and exciting, but I can also see players feeling stung by the many potential "Gotchya!" moments that this will create.

    PP could learn a few things from Corvus Belli, though, when it comes to supporting their game. Corvus Belli has had free game rules and model rules for a long time as well as a free army builder that now has a free mobile app and a rules wiki that can be accessed right from their army builder. I also think ITS is more interesting than Steamroller due to the variation, but a lot of that is probably more due to the fundamental gameplay differences of the systems.
    Infinity has a very nice, innovative core rules but ultimately fails when it comes to rounding out abilities. I tried playing it twice (1st ed and 3rd ed) and both times I quit over totally unbalanced and badly-written rules (Ariadna comes to mind). That and the horrible referencing experience (you have to look a multiple table when wanting to make an attack or try to hack something) made me sell al my nomads.

    Still I totally agree that WM/H could include more alternate deployment mechanics not only found on Infinity, but also on games like 40k. Trying to get off the line vs line design of the original in smaller games could be very interesting.
    Last edited by Mod_Donaldbain; 01-28-2017 at 11:17 AM.

  16. #96
    Destroyer of Worlds Grey Templar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Umbrey, wracking Heretics while Vlad's not looking
    Posts
    11,359

    Default

    Umm, well. Infinity isn't that badly balanced. Ariadna isn't OP like you claim. The various factions are fairly well balanced vs each other.

    But I do agree with you that their ruleset is badly laid out and the internal references and wording inconsistencies are awful. Its balanced, but there is way too much need to use handwavium to work over a rule that failed to get across the language barrier properly.
    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!

  17. #97
    Destroyer of Worlds Malkav13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,365

    Default

    See, this is another extremely interesting instance of personal tastes and styles. People can perceive the same experience in different ways, based on their own preferences.
    2 people, preferring two different games for different reasons.

    The final conclusion of all of this is that regardless of how a game is designed or done, there will be someone who likes it and others who don't.
    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"

  18. #98

    Default

    Arguing about Infinity's warrant as a game aside and going a bit back to the topic. I think one thing that infinity does really well that I would love to see PP copy in the next Steamroller packet is the "mission" types for tournaments. For anyone who doesnt know Infinity ITS (basically steamroller) has 3 Tournament types that the TO chooses ahead of time. Direct Action (This is similar to the traditional steamroller scenarios, you will need to control board areas and with a focus on killing the enemy and attrition), Special Operations (these scenarios are very objective focused and tend to have more complicated objectives that doesn't necessarily require any killing, an example would be something like a capture the flag scenario where you need to bring it back to your DZ from the enemies) and Joint Operations (in the middle of Direct Action and Special Operations).

    So the TO posting the tournament would say something like this will be a 300 pt direct action ITS, and people would make their lists accordingly.

    It accomplishes various things:

    1) The missions are more varied tournament to tournament but they are grouped so you don't have too many vastly different missions in one tourney to make it hard to cover with 2 lists.
    2) You see a lot more variety of models and lists since models that are good at direct action games are not necessarily good a specialist operations.

    The drawback for Warmachine is it's a bigger game and there are no loadouts so it makes it harder to have the models for the various tournament types for newbies, since there will not be 1 "list" that you can take to every tournament.

  19. #99

    Default

    I understand the OPs points and not everyone will like every game system. As someone who goes out of their way to at least be conversant in every game I understand that some just don't fit. I do have a bit of commentary, not so much a response but a summary of why I don't have a problem with much the above?

    The turn structure as is allows for much more interesting combos. Yes I would like more options to interact in my opponents turn but the game is designed around not doing this. There are many successful alternating activation games that all share one major point, there is very little synergy or combos. I play guildball, infinity, dropzone etc and the more contained activation are far less interesting than a full table puzzle. Plus how long is it really that you are waiting? Maybe 10 minutes? Plus I use that time to plan my turn out so I am hardly doing nothing.

    The only important resource comment is interesting. Yes you caster is your best tool and biggest weakness but I think the OPs comment of scenario not mattering in full games is not consistent with the majority experience. I would say less than half of my games end in caster deaths and while that may imply that the casters are not contributing I can assure you that is not the case. While I would appreciate more avenues to win the game the biggest plus to warmachine for me is the play to win style of the victory conditions. Want to know whats more boring than the worst igougo turn? Seeing your opponent get 1pt and then hide the whole game while you chase them. They win at the end of the turn limit so they just have to hold on and to me thats not very fun.

    The imbalance point also stems from the caster point. No offense but this point and the caster point are often expressed by new players who dont play too much scenario. Once they go out and play in stores or events and mature as players the scenario becomes a powerful tool. If you complain about imbalance due only assassination play I think you are missing a good chunk of the game. I thought so too at at one point but once I saw the power of scenarios my tunnel vision on caster kill died off fast.

    The point system and filling gaps is a near universal complaint right now. Its an artifact of the past edition that hasn't had time to iron itself out yet. However a 1pt deficit is hardly an appreciable game play advantage.

    Every system has special rules and with over 700 entries in the game its hard not to have a lot in this one. Warmachine has the advantage of simple special rules that are available readily. Yes there is a lot and yes it sucks to forget something but every system has that.

    As for the tables and general editing, yes better, really any, reference tables would be so good. The overall book is kinda hard to read and needs some editing.

    No system is perfect and of all the ones I've played warmachine is the best game in its scale catagory. No game with this size stable of models is anywhere near as good. Even the ones with less stuff have more issues. You want a horrendous rulebook and homogeneous factions? Give Heavy Gear blitz a read. Want horrible 1 sided balance? Check out 40k. You want a game where only one resource matters (per faction)? Halo fleet battles. Every one of these games is 10x worse than warmachine in various areas, and almost always more than one.

  20. #100
    Moderator Mod_Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Back home in Caspia
    Posts
    12,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vaildin View Post
    You can rename posts now?
    Moderators can.
    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.

  21. #101

    Default

    So we had a new player that was spectating my last game. It was nice because my opponent and I could talk a little about what we were doing and thinking and not have to pull punches so to speak.

    He did ask about having alternate activations, which I really didn't have a solid answer to. Thinking about it more though, I agree with some of the counter points here: the structure of the game and models would have to completely change to switch.

    I also think that always having an assassination condition is a good thing. It allows those last minute gambit plays, and gives a losing player some hope after devastating turns.

    For the point system and special rules, I think it's a case of not being able to make everyone happy. Right now, 75 points let you play pretty much whatever army you want (all jacks/beasts, all infantry, all solos, mix of whatever) and still feel a little tight (not everything you want). The special rules are pretty compiled, and interact cleanly for the most part.

    I enjoy Infinity too, but ITS seems like a bad comparison. I read/see a lot of complaints about how it shapes the meta into cheap specialist models and order spam. Almost to the point where points extentive beater models, and centerpiece (TAGs) models are a liability.

    For Malifaux, the system of see enemy faction, see/pick objectives, build army is pretty awesome. But the model count and faction range in WarmaHordes would make that expensive to replicate. I think specialists is a good rule in a similar vein. Heck, even Giuldball has specialists built in, with having three bench players you can swap in to change things up before a game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamoron View Post
    Madelyn Corbeau can lend him an intrigue, and unlike Terminus she can actually hang around him without peeing herself since he only causes Terror.

  22. #102
    Destroyer of Worlds Cannotcope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    5,369

    Default

    NOTE: I do enjoy this game, alot. There are just some areas I wonder about (some having more effect on games than others).

    I’d like to add one more “area” within the rules that I personally don’t understand and see no remaining reason for its existence.
    Why does this game continue to have a “maximum points unspent” limit?
    (and as a side note, why is this limit different between the base game and the tournament pack?)

    I understand that once upon a time, models had an associated VP score that you gained for killing them, and before the appearance of proper steamroller scenarios, VP sniping was a thing. Taking just a few snipers and not spending all your points could give you a big advantage back then.
    I also understand that at one point, army points killed was a tie-breaker situated higher in the tie breaking hierarchy.
    VP sniping is no longer a thing, and army points killed is the 4th tie breaker. To get to the 4th tie breaker, a game needs to not end due to Deathclock and not end due to Scenario or Assassination victory. Then it needs to end with the following things being equal between both players:
    Control Points
    Army points remaining, with models in zones or b2b with flags counting double.
    If all of that happens, then you finally go down to army points killed.

    If an army is short a significant number of points (more than 5) and it manages to:
    Not lose by Scenario/Assassination
    Not lose by clock
    Not lose by having fewer CP
    And (most importantly) not lose by having fewer Army Points remaining & scenario presence…
    …Then it gets the dubious benefit of having fewer kill points to give up…

    I mean, in my view, if a player is playing with a point handicap and managed to still tie his opponents all the way down to the 4th tie breaker, then he kind of has outplayed his opponent (by drawing despite having lesser resources) and probably deserves the tie break benefit of having few points to kill.

    Now, I do understand the idea of fair play and hoping to have all your opponents bring their A-game, but if anyone wants to play with an effective handicap they really just need to bring a unit like Deliverers or bring a cheap solo and hide it in the corner or kill it themselves. To me, the only thing the points spent requirement does is DQ a player if any one of the following happens:
    1) A model breaks and they are unable to repair it to a playable state (especially in a painting required format)
    2) They forgot to pack a model or two
    3) Errata changed points on a model (or few) and they had to cut a model to not go over points.
    4) Errata changed points on a model (or few) and they didn’t bring any extra models to fill points.
    5) They brought a conversion without a backup model, and didn’t check with the TO ahead of time and it wasn’t allowed. (this last one is more player fault, but as TOs are final arbiter, one TO might allow a model another would not and the player can get stuck with the difference)

    I’ll survive the point limit being in place (if I want the challenge of a points handicap I’ll take Deliverers , but I do wonder why this restriction still exists…
    The Original Girls of Warmachine Calendar (not mine, but check it out)
    Quote Originally Posted by jdeckert View Post
    Exactly my thoughts.

    Sturgis1: 12-1-1 overall, 6-0-1 mk2, 6-1-0 mk3 (W-D-L)

  23. #103

    Default

    Oh, and I technically should have been DQ'd from that game because I was playing 6 points down. I was running a min unit but had paid for a max unit, didn't notice till the next day.

    So yeah, I agree that having a 'min points to spend' is maybe kinda useless now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamoron View Post
    Madelyn Corbeau can lend him an intrigue, and unlike Terminus she can actually hang around him without peeing herself since he only causes Terror.

  24. #104
    Destroyer of Worlds Sideshow Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    3,102

    Default

    I think a lot of balance can be achieved through the SR packs. Making certain objectives only able to be controlled or captured by certain model types would cause a bit more list diversity which would be good for the game. So much work goes in to the competition side of things, bland scenarios and symmetric terrain layout too commonly, take away from the fun of the game. Yeah, balance is good, but just like the models and factions, not every scenario has to be a perfect balance. This is a game for fun.

  25. #105
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,781

    Default

    In IGOYOUGO systems it allows for larger synergy chains to come into the game undisturbed (in general) and it allows players to control their pieces interactions in a more comprehensive manner.
    Yeah and thats mostly a bad thing when the other player has to sit on their hands and watch their army get completely destroyed and theres nothing they can do about it. Ive seen a lot of new players we tried to recruit just give up because of it and go back to playing x-wing.

    You can have IGOYOUGO and still have reaction moves and reaction attacks. Warmachine just never made the effort to include anything like that in the standard rules. Theres a very small subset of spells/abilities like retaliation/countercharge that grant out-of-turn attacks but theyre not very prolific.
    Last edited by Soulblighter; 01-09-2017 at 08:39 PM.

  26. #106

    Default

    Well, I've been spending the last few days prepping and painting (Ragman from WM, Widow Weaver and a Doppleganger from Malifaux, a Dragonborn for my D&D collection) and staying away from the thread, looking to see what a general consensus emerging as.

    First, the general positive response to IGOUGO seems to be "It allows me as a player to set up and execute complicated combos without worrying about my opponent interfering."

    Isn't the point of a game to execute a plan despite the opponent's interference? No offense intended here (really! Honestly!) but preferring a game where you don't risk that interference seems like a flaw on the part of the player as well as the game. If I want a game where I can execute fancy combos without being afraid of them being interrupted, I'd play single player Street Fighter V in the practice mode where the AI just stands there, not online against real live players.

    It's a valid point that WM/H is at a size where IGOUGO is almost tolerable in time of turns taken, but really it's the lack of interactivity that bugs me most.

    The more I think about it, the 'one resource matters' and the lack of balance in warnouns is close to the same thing. Some warnouns are simply worse in competitive play because they're designed to be up-front brawlers, but lose against warnouns that can hide back and send their minions out to die for them - it's risk/reward, but imbalanced. Hiders have low risk/high reward, brawlers have high risk/low reward unless they're one of the rare few that can actually dish out enough damage in one turn to reliably end a hider. Even then it's only become high risk/high reward because the assassin can die to the hider's minions!

    Those really are my two biggest problems with the game. The special rules I can personally deal with, even though I think it's a problem for beginners. The lack of tables just means that fans have to create them, and that I could probably re-edit the rulebook into 2/3 of its current size... it's a challenge I almost want to undertake.

    But it adds up to an adequate game. Compared to others which are above adequate... man, I've had more fun losing in Alpha Strike or Blood Bowl than I've had winning Warmachine.

  27. #107
    Destroyer of Worlds Lord Azathoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    1,430

    Default

    So I've read all these posts and I want to say that in general I think the OP makes a well-thought out argument for many points, although there is a tendency to state some opinions as if they were facts.

    I think the IGOUGO vs. Alternating Activations benefits greatly depend on the game. In some games such as Imperial Assault and Guild Ball where defensive tech may be set up or lost based on when a unit activates alternating activations can be very important. In a game like 1st edition Warzone where lopsided numbers of remaining units was not addressed well it could be less ideal. As a rule, I think one method vs. the other is only as superior as the game's rules allow it to be.

    I definitely agree with some things I've heard here like too many abilities, not enough scenario variety, etc. There is nothing wrong with having some baseline units with only one ability like pathfinder or tough, and less units with several abilities. Save the multiple abilities for solos that cost more or elite character units that can't be spammed.

    Regarding scenarios, how does everyone feel about the old Escalation book? Too limited in scope or would it be fun to see something like that released again?

  28. #108
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    Well, I've been spending the last few days prepping and painting (Ragman from WM, Widow Weaver and a Doppleganger from Malifaux, a Dragonborn for my D&D collection) and staying away from the thread, looking to see what a general consensus emerging as.

    First, the general positive response to IGOUGO seems to be "It allows me as a player to set up and execute complicated combos without worrying about my opponent interfering."

    Isn't the point of a game to execute a plan despite the opponent's interference? No offense intended here (really! Honestly!) but preferring a game where you don't risk that interference seems like a flaw on the part of the player as well as the game. If I want a game where I can execute fancy combos without being afraid of them being interrupted, I'd play single player Street Fighter V in the practice mode where the AI just stands there, not online against real live players.

    It's a valid point that WM/H is at a size where IGOUGO is almost tolerable in time of turns taken, but really it's the lack of interactivity that bugs me most.
    Ultimately, I'm sad to say that Warmachine is probably just not the game for you. It's always regrettable to find that out after you've spent money on a system, but the fact is that one game can't please anyone. Particularly, say, anyone who considers the Warmachine turn system equivalent to whaling on a dead AI.

    I hope I don't need to actually make the point that there is a difference. The game presents itself to me like a series of cascading puzzles, in which each side has the chance to present a puzzle to their opponent at the same time as solving the puzzle formed the previous turn by their opponent's actions. That's not something you can replicate very easily with alternating activations, the fact is that it becomes basically impossible to predict each potential disruption to the puzzle and so prevents such intricate board states from forming.

    I like Warmachine's steady, difficulty-free turns. That's not because I'm a bad strategist. That's purely because I enjoy, on a visceral/emotional level, that kind of play experience. You enjoy another one. There's no better or worse in this scenario. There's just the (almost certain at this point) fact that this really isn't a game you will ever enjoy as much as others on the market.

  29. #109
    Destroyer of Worlds Angry Norway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Not Norway
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    I've had more fun losing in Alpha Strike or Blood Bowl than I've had winning Warmachine.
    You'd be happier in every game if the outcome mattered less to you.

    I'm an avid tracker of my games and stats (Going first/scenario/opponent/faction played/versed warcaster used/versed and so forth), the best thing I ever did was stop tracking wins/losses and seeing that the point is fun generated on the way.

    That and Blood Bowl filled me with rage and irritation (Just need to land a three on a re-rolled dice to pick the ball up and we are good to go for awesomeness! Oh....I failed.....Not even a turn for me then.....).

    But really, what is stopping you from trying to make the games you prefer the alpha game for the people you enjoying playing with?
    I support non-image bloated signatures. My sense of humour is deficient.
    Post count equates time spent typing online and nothing more.
    My r̶a̶n̶d̶o̶m̶ extremely specific batreps

  30. #110
    Conqueror BlackOpsElf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    No offense intended here (really! Honestly!) but preferring a game where you don't risk that interference seems like a flaw on the part of the player as well as the game.
    It's a flaw on the part of the player who lets themselves get combo-ed. In order to best explain what I mean by that, we should take a look at a Privateer Press game from a few years back called Monsterpocalypse.

    Monsterpocalypse was different from Warmachine/Hordes in a lot of important ways, but at its core it took Warmachine's resource management and Hordes' risk management systems and distilled them into a cohesive but extremely unforgiving package. At the height of the game's popularity, I was playing in three Monsterpocalypse tournaments a week, and it became immediately clear to me that the game's "I go, you go" turn structure led to a game where a single over-extension or misplacement of a critical piece would immediately open a player up to a game loss. Most of the time when I combo-ed off and eliminated one of my opponent's forms in a single turn, it was due to a single mistake on the part of my opponent that let it happen.

    Rather than making a small move and then seeing how your opponent reacts to it, Monsterpocalypse, Warmachine, and Hordes let you take bold actions with your entire army, and then dare your opponent to come at you with everything they have, hoping that you haven't left yourself wide open to a crippling blow. On the other hand, if you make a mistake in an alternate activation game like Alpha Strike, your opponent only gets to capitalize on it with a portion of their army before you have a chance to correct your error. This leads to games where plays are more incremental, but it removes a lot of the big smash-y wins and losses that are traditionally associated with Privateer Press' traditional "page five" aesthetic.

    You seem to prefer a game that feels like two sword fighters circling each other, parrying and riposting each other's moves, but Warmachine and Hordes are more like a game where two madmen take turns hitting each other in the head with hammers.

  31. #111
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackOpsElf View Post
    You seem to prefer a game that feels like two sword fighters circling each other, parrying and riposting each other's moves, but Warmachine and Hordes are more like a game where two madmen take turns hitting each other in the head with hammers.
    Warmachine is a lot more fun than you make it sound here.

  32. #112
    Destroyer of Worlds doomedtorepeatit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kjata View Post
    Warmachine is a lot more fun than you make it sound here.
    As someone who traditionally loves playing dwarves in D&D, I must say that I found the "madmen with hammers" analogy quite apt and appealing, actually.


    You will never see me on Vassal again. Ever.

  33. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doomedtorepeatit View Post
    As someone who traditionally loves playing dwarves in D&D, I must say that I found the "madmen with hammers" analogy quite apt and appealing, actually.
    It's certainly one of the things that I've laughed at in this thread!


    And winning or losing isn't as important as having fun or simply being invested. In (to take another example) X-Wing, I'm on tenterhooks every time my opponent flips over a dial, because his moves could easily interfere with mine, and my entire game plan might hinge on that one moment.

    In Warmachine, you hardly need to spend time thinking about the options, because you don't KNOW what those options are until the opponent's turn has ended - why waste my time thinking about what my Stormlances might do when a lucky shot turns half of them into slag despite the odds being against it? Or regretting that I didn't foresee Lynyssa making a model vulnerable to a charge when there's nothing I could do to recover from that?

    If your only chance to influence the gamestate is on your turn, then your attention is only really required on those turns.


    And I need to reiterate: Warmachine isn't bad, it just could be better, and this just after a major rules revision. It's average, and this is coming from 25 years of wargaming experience - which I know a lot of you have too, and it's led some of y'all to different conclusions than I. It's certainly not the worst or most boring wargame I've ever played, but it has all the elements OF those games, and none of the ones I found most enjoyable.

    And I'll definitely be keeping my army around; like I said in the OP, the company you keep is more important than the games you play.

  34. #114
    Destroyer of Worlds Angry Norway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Not Norway
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    And winning or losing isn't as important as having fun or simply being invested.
    They why draw a comparison on how you feel losing in X game versus winning in this one?
    I support non-image bloated signatures. My sense of humour is deficient.
    Post count equates time spent typing online and nothing more.
    My r̶a̶n̶d̶o̶m̶ extremely specific batreps

  35. #115
    Destroyer of Worlds Donesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtyswan9844 View Post
    The point system and filling gaps is a near universal complaint right now. Its an artifact of the past edition that hasn't had time to iron itself out yet. However a 1pt deficit is hardly an appreciable game play advantage.
    A points dump, like Soul Stones in Malifaux, would be great. Being able to spend 1-3 points for up to three free focus damage reducers woudl be great.

  36. #116
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamfanboy View Post
    First, the general positive response to IGOUGO seems to be "It allows me as a player to set up and execute complicated combos without worrying about my opponent interfering."

    Isn't the point of a game to execute a plan despite the opponent's interference? No offense intended here (really! Honestly!) but preferring a game where you don't risk that interference seems like a flaw on the part of the player as well as the game. If I want a game where I can execute fancy combos without being afraid of them being interrupted, I'd play single player Street Fighter V in the practice mode where the AI just stands there, not online against real live players.

    It's a valid point that WM/H is at a size where IGOUGO is almost tolerable in time of turns taken, but really it's the lack of interactivity that bugs me most.
    Far too black and white. Some of the strongest combos in Guild Ball, a game with alternating activations of single models, can't really be prevented: you deal with them by positioning, limiting their effectiveness and optimising your reaction. The most valued quality in a GB captain is having a potential 6-point activation, where you gain half the points you need to win the game essentially without your opponent getting to do anything to stop you. It's a great game, I love playing it, but let's not pretend it's all about being able to stop big combos.

    WM/H on the other hand isn't even about the big combos either in many cases. Most of them are 2- or 3-step synergies aside from attempts to kill the opposing caster and when that's the goal it's perfectly fine that you're doing it via a potentially elaborate setup. It's not like your opponent doesn't know he should try to protect his caster after all, if he has even the remotest understanding of how to play.

    I get it, you feel like too often you're sitting on your hands for 15 mins. That's understandable, but it's not primarily caused by how the game deals with complicated combos. It's game size and limited reactivity in the rules that dictate this.

  37. #117
    Destroyer of Worlds azoxystrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bouhet city, near la Rochelle, France, Europe
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    I agree with Ereshkigal.
    Privateer giveth, and Privateer taketh away.

  38. #118
    Destroyer of Worlds Ereshkigal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    4,147

    Default

    Are you familiar with the concept of "slippery slope"? The alternating turn systems use this concept: you gain small advantages to build on and win the game. Each advantage you get, you snowball harder and harder until you win.
    This is a fine concept (i play MOBAs where the slippery slope design is at its peak) but it's not the only way to play games. There are a lot of games with a light slope or even a negative one (the ones that gives you advantages when you are losing).

    Now warmachine, like Magic the gathering, has a very light slope where you gain some advantage killing enemy models, but ultimately you don't win that way and you could lose with a single move from your opponent. In an alternating activation game there isn't the concept of piece trading because you usually lose the trade if you start losing your pieces early, that's why many of those games are better played using cheap models instead of expensive ones (i mean cheap in game). In warmachine you usually set up pieces for the sole purpose to make them die to gain a positioning advantage somewhere, in an AA game you usually don't do that (chess and go being very notable exceptions).

    In the end it's more about slippery slope than turn sequence. For example Warhammer 40k is a game where you have a huge slippery slope (the more you kill, the easier is to kill again and win the game without fearing some turn of events) while having a IGOUGO system. Warmachine has a mild slippery slope with a IGOUGO system leading to surprising turns of events. Infinity has a huge slippery slope while being on a AA system: the more you kill the less resources your opponent has to fight back (not only models, but orders too) leading to games where the outcome is decided early but you still have to play it out.
    I'm a skorne player, as such i'm unwilling to try different models within my faction and i'm stuck at mk2 list building by definition.

    My painting page: https://www.facebook.com/fullmoonworkshop

  39. #119
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ereshkigal View Post
    Infinity is so bad in my opinion. Well, imho bad doesn't even approach to describe how frustrating is to play that game.
    The ORA (or ARO, depending on language) is just renaming some dice roll and they applied the concept of both opponents rolling for melee combat in the same turn (like in warhammer) to the shooting phase too. Full stop.

    Then there is the matter of luck of the crits, variance of the dice, 1 man army that uses all the orders provided by the cheap chaffs, weapons that instakill big models with a single shot, every faction that feels the same and much more.

    Imho infinity is even worse than warhammer. But hey, if you like it i don't want to convince you otherwise, it's just that i find it to be one of the worst implementations of the IGOUGO.
    You really should play a couple of games more before judging, and understand that the dice variance is actually not a big issue in Infinity. You can google if you like, but there are several well articulated discussions on corvus belli forums about this, and I'm not going to repeat what someone else said better.

    Basically, you achieve objectives and try doing so avoiding most confrontation. Secondly, when you have to have the confrontation, you can choose when, where and how. It's about creating a favorable situation for yourself before shooting (try to achieve maximum modifiers and provide negative modifiers for your opponent) instead of "tactically" bashing a higher threat range and power model(s) to a lesser one, like in WM/H, without any chance of reaction. Just like in chess, but in WM/H the dice play a role and you can never really know if the bishop will eat the knight that was accidently moved at bishop's threat - you only have an educated guess.

    I see how it seems random, and it will, especially for new players. The more you play, however, you'll soon realize what it's all about. I'm not saying it is the best wargame ever, but winning in that game has way less to do with luck than in WM/H.

    Your comment would basically equal me saying WM/H is only about list chicken. It is not.

    EDIT: Not meant for Ereshkigal, but I somehow get the feeling most WM/H players writing here haven't played much games themselves (maybe Warhammer refugees mostly? Then every comparison is only based on that) and only repeat some arguments they've seen online, or write on a feeling.

    I really recommend broadening your horizons. Your universe can fit more games than WM/H. They are not better, nor worse (they might subjectively be, but not objectively). Just different. IMO it's better to embrace that than take sides all the time. World has closed circles way too much, and we certainly don't need more in our marginal hobby of miniature wargames.
    Last edited by marke; 01-10-2017 at 02:14 AM.

  40. #120

    Default

    I have played more Alternating Activation tabletop games than Igoyougo. To name a few, Anima Tactics, Infinity 2nd and 3rd, Relic Knights, X-Wing, Ninja All-Stars, Imperial Assault, Malifaux and a few minor ones (Dropzone etc.) on the AA side, and both Warhammers, Warmahordes and Flames of War plus a few smaller games on the Igoyougo side.

    I can honestly say I dont think there is a definite advantage or disadvantage to either system, as long as the two major pitfalls of each are adressed: AA suffers, universally pretty much, from the "its always best to remove a non-activated model" because all of these games really become about snowballing an activation advantage more than ANY other consideration. Maybe not at the beginner level, but at tournament levels, this is the mainstay tactic, and it leads to metas where, if the game allows it, unkillable models, one-shot kills and stacking equipment/abilities/customization options onto a few models is the norm. Sometimes a company manages to hit a sweet spot, but most of the time they dont, or quickly lose it again. Turretwing, cerci speed lists, unkillable Anima squads say hello.
    Infinity games at high level, especially in the current edition, are won and lost early on in the game. Same goes for many other AAs, because of a simple flaw: If you lose trades early, you lose the only relevant ressource (provided you brought a good list), that is: number of activations.
    Relic Knights was different, but due to its complete predictability (no dice!) and focus on not fighting each other, it became a static puzzle to solve most scenarios, because you just built a list that would achieve victory in X turns, and whoever had a lower X would win unless the opponent tried some hail-mary-move.

    Igoyougo has the issue of turn time, which seems to annoy some players both because of its non-interactive nature, and because of, well, sheer downtime. That is why I only play with Deathclock in ANY game that is IGOYOUGO, and I think that DC alleviates the issue to a point where its fine.

    Now, aside from that, combo play is something people like, or they dont. AAs usually only have combos when you are up so many activations you essentially get half a turn to your own (making it IGOYOUGO in essence), or if the system has special rules (linked teams, interrupts, extra activations) that allow for combo play within the AA structure. As a general rule, AA games are easier to grasp because more rests on the individual power level of a model (since it has to be activated in a vaccuum, very often) than its synergies, so less knowledge about said synergies is required.
    IGOYOUGO require a much larger amount of knowledge and understanding about your opponents plans, models and rules. This, in my book, is a major disadvantage when it comes to starting a game. However, it is rewarded by more unique play experiences, because it creates a more complex metagame, and unless there are cookie-cutter lists dominating to a ridiculous degree, the gameplay experiences on a tournament, for example, are more varied.

    As a comparison, I attended an N3 Infinity and a Warmahordes tournament in the last month (I am lucky to still have Infinity players in my town, though its dwindling fast), and I can honestly say while the N3 tournament games felt more breezy, I kinda forgot half of them already, because they come down to similar situations every time, and its always about the same 2 or 3 plans of action. Warmahordes still manages to deliver more memorable unique "board state puzzles" to me, depending on what pieces are there, which ones you managed to eliminate, what it cost you etc.

    I think at high level with most AA games, you can comfortably predict the winner after turn 2, barring massive dice luck (hello, x-wing!). In Warmahordes, lategame upsets are possible entirely due to the IGOYOUGO structure, and that is why I think for high level play, AA is the inferior system, whereas for low-level/entry level play, its more fun.

Page 3 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
  •