|
rantmo posted:I had a feeling the Warcaster unit movement rules would be a problem with Warmachine-sized squads. It's got nothing to do with size, the units top out at 6.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
zerofiend posted:It's got nothing to do with size, the units top out at 6. Yeah, that's twice the standard size of a Warcaster squad without an attachment, which seems much trickier to make work with the 2" formation rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
rantmo posted:Yeah, that's twice the standard size of a Warcaster squad without an attachment, which seems much trickier to make work with the 2" formation rule. The formation rule is not the problem. Being able to threaten parts of the table 32" across from each other with a 3 man cavalry unit is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
zerofiend posted:The formation rule is not the problem. Being able to threaten parts of the table 32" across from each other with a 3 man cavalry unit is the problem. Uhhh, how does that work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:Different Jack heads coming with different abilities sounds really bad for "glance value" 😬 I've seen a few people say this, but to me this seems kinda redundant as a criticism. I've been playing since quite early Mk.II and I still don't know what a SINGLE Trollbloods model is from looking at it. I know what 'some' of their warbeasts look like, but I'm still often surprised that something is or isn't a warbeast. The main guy I play against and the guy I learnt with plays Trollbloods. Also I play Cephalyx and I painted my mind slaver units gold and my mind bender units green, and still never expect anyone to know which is which, explaining every single game. And still there's usually a feelbad moment where someone didn't know which was which, and I can't say I blame them. This just isn't a new problem, at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Who's saying it's a new problem? I'm just saying it's an added point of possible confusion, that's all. It's objectively better to be able to discern A from B without needing to lean over the table for a close look or ask for clarification, which is why I don't care about swappable arms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:Uhhh, how does that work? Bane riders walk up 7, reposition 3, then on top of two you can charge any one of them out covering an enormous table space - specifically the outside riders could be in range of targets that would be 32" apart from each other. So you can collapse in any direction and there's gently caress all your opponent can do about it other than just not being in range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Am I getting this right? Bane rider leader (I know they don't exist anymore) moves 7, then the rest move to be within 2. But there's nothing stopping models from being placed ahead of him, so the effect is move 9. Then reposition 3 to get to 12. I had been thinking that's fast, and broad. Because the unit leader and his 60mm base is 2.4 inches across. The wings have to be within 2 inches of that, so add four inches. They each have 2.4 inch bases themselves. That creates a (2.4 + 4 + 2.4x2) = 11.2 inch spread. But I'm not actually seeing what in reposition requires that models stay in coherency. So with the reposition, it's even broader. It's actually +3 +3, so 17.2 inch spread, and as far as 12 inches forward from way they started. And then the next move, a model anywhere in the line can charge and they all converge on him, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Edit: never mind, I’m bad at math
head58 fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Hard to have any faith in PP being able to deliver on the premise of a slimmed-down, more approachable Mk4. Stuff like the Warcaster unit movement sounds simpler, but it's pretty easy to see that it actually creates pretty unintuitive situations. From lurking a couple discords, it sounds like they were NOT receptive to negative feedback. I'll be very interested to see whether any kind of competitive scene survives the transition. Legacy armies not getting access to spell racks seems like it's going to put them behind on matchup flexibility, but it's certainly plausible that the balance will be good enough to care about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of the changes feel like they take the a lot of competitive edge from the game, honestly- which, i think, was warmahordes' selling point, imo. We'll see how well it does now that the theme is more of the draw. I'm sure some of the core units will return and the lower model count is probably a good thing(though honestly, i think i would've tried lower model counts with the old movement). It's not the mk4 i would've made, but maybe it'll work out. The customization will probably be a bit of the draw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
I do t understand the complaint about movement, it looks fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
They should take another look at unit movement - there was nothing wrong with the leader system and it's something Star Wars Legion still uses to its benefit. I think one of the main "bugs" is Reposition doesn't state units need to stay in coherency when making the reposition move, unless there's some rules thing I'm missing there. I'm still caustiously optimistic, but we definitely have a way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:. From lurking a couple discords, it sounds like they were NOT receptive to negative feedback. They were very receptive to negative feedback. The LOS guys were just entitled and gave lovely feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Yeah, unit movement is the part that sticks out as the most awkward to me, having finally had a chance to sit down and really read the rules. Unit charge attacks in particular read off to me, at least when charging other units though maybe on the table it's not so bad. Overall I'm pretty happy with this as a baseline, it's still the same game just with less poo poo to fiddle with and remember, which I'm not mad about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:I think one of the main "bugs" is Reposition doesn't state units need to stay in coherency when making the reposition move, unless there's some rules thing I'm missing there. There's no such thing as coherency anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:There's no such thing as coherency anymore. This seems bad imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
I really wish we had more beta cards to work with and I hope they release more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:There's no such thing as coherency anymore. This seems like a huge red flag unless they want to reduce the game down to Infinity/Malifaux sizes for the number of models
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Movement feels weird to me because a unit will always move faster than a solo model with the same speed on an equivalent sized base.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:This seems bad imo. Why? They've almost entirely eliminated out of activation movement, and with the way that units move you can't willingly leave "coherency" during a unit's activation, apart from something relatively small like reposition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Friendly Fire posted:Movement feels weird to me because a unit will always move faster than a solo model with the same speed on an equivalent sized base. Yeah a single designated unit leader that's always the one you measure and move with seems like such an obvious fix. I can't imagine the simplicity of not having to designate a leader could possibly make up for the weird gameplay this system will allow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:Why? You're describing coherency, you had me worried for a second but this just seems like some semantic bs
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:You're describing coherency, you had me worried for a second but this just seems like some semantic bs It's not semantics. The Mk3 coherency rules effected attacking, receiving orders, being targetable by friendly spells, etc. All of that is gone now. The current movement rules still ensure models don't just spread out willy nilly, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:It's not semantics. More games than WMH have coherency and its not even the first thing I think of when I hear the term. When you say "no coherency" I immediately think of units being turned into a handful of solos that can move independently, not "coherency but firmer".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:Why? We've just had someone post a situation where a unit of Bane Riders can spread out in a weird way that causes them to threaten an incredible amount of the board. Intnetional or not, that feels incredibly negative and unintuitive and shows the "relatively small" benefit of reposition can in fact be massive. I'm willing to wait and see if it's as big an issue as its being protrayed as or not, but at face value it seems like PP are walking into a problem that's already been solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:They should take another look at unit movement - there was nothing wrong with the leader system and it's something Star Wars Legion still uses to its benefit. I think one of the main "bugs" is Reposition doesn't state units need to stay in coherency when making the reposition move, unless there's some rules thing I'm missing there. This honestly reads to me like only one model in a unit is supposed to actually reposition and everyone else still just gets placed around them. Feels like it's just a clarity issue in a beta document to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
S.J. posted:This honestly reads to me like only one model in a unit is supposed to actually reposition and everyone else still just gets placed around them. Feels like it's just a clarity issue in a beta document to me. That... might be worse, honestly. Cav model moves 7", places pal ~4" in front, that pal repositions 3", places original model ~4" ahead of that. Massive scoot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:That... might be worse, honestly. Cav model moves 7", places pal ~4" in front, that pal repositions 3", places original model ~4" ahead of that. Massive scoot. Actually I went to check after I posted and I was wrong, unit movement doesn't apply when a unit is moving outside of its Normal Movement during its activation. Still, the Bane example... doesn't seem all that bad?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Still, the Bane example... doesn't seem all that bad? It isn't. Yes, it threatens a lot of tablespace, but that's what units are supposed to do now. They specifically called out in the changes log that units are supposed to "move like quicksilver". In exchange, warjacks get 5-7 attacks and theoretically are wiping out entire units in a single activation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Also the unit is 3 models and if they aren't all attacking the model or unit the initial mover charged they don't get charge attacks anyways. So uhhh And it looks like Jacks generally picked up a few boxes across the board?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
S.J. posted:And it looks like Jacks generally picked up a few boxes across the board? Huh? The Stryker seems to have the boxes of an Ironclad, the Courser a Charger - and the Protectorate jacks look pretty much unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Huh? The Stryker seems to have the boxes of an Ironclad, the Courser a Charger - and the Protectorate jacks look pretty much unchanged. I could've been wrong, I wasn't comparing them directly
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Actually I went to check after I posted and I was wrong, unit movement doesn't apply when a unit is moving outside of its Normal Movement during its activation. Good or bad will require the full game. The person pointing it out called it janky and that's a fair assessment. A model with 7" move, 10" on the charge, has a maximum effective charge distance of 27" without buffs. Reposition having the same 2" coherency rules as the rest of the movement abilities seems like a reasonable correction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
looking back on the thing that drew to this thread the Orgoth aesthetic design makes a lot more sense in a world where Cryx and Skorne aren't in the game
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Cryx got rules yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Also it makes sense that Cryx would owe some of its aesthetic to the Orgoth since that's where they got War Witches from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:It isn't. It sounds like we have very different narrative expectations for our wargames, which is of course fine, but it's a little strange for warmachine to make the change, and I'm sure you can see how some existing players will be put off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
Yeah, as far as cognitive load goes, I find it much easier to understand that X guy is speed Y, therefore he can go up to here. Rather than say, any one guy in the unit can go Y and then teleport every other guy Y+2 inches. Although it might be a moot point, WMH basically died in my meta. Hipster Occultist fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jul 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 03:48
|
|
