First, and most significantly, we have errata with actual nerfs/buffs:
- Shake Effects: Blind and Shadow Bind have been added to the effects that you can shake with a focus or fury.
Sizable nerf to Gorman, whose "piece trade" stock was just completely
off the charts as you could trade his activation for a
Gargossal/Heavy activation almost ad infinitum. No longer -
now you just trade it for -1 focus or fury on those things. Still a
really excellent 3pt solo for 2pts, all things considered.
This also nerfs Morghoul2, and is therefore my favourite errata of the lot.
The second effect shake is a nerf to Cryx, specifically Denny2 and the War Witch. Still a
superb feat, although almost entirely removes that 'insta scenario win'
potential. Brings her down a good notch.
-Pack Fury: Brings
the warbeast packs in line with warbeasts to prevent you from gaining
fury from killing warbeast pack models with friendly model.
I have never seen warbeast packs played in person but I assume this is an actual errata. Neat.
- Major Victoria Haley (Haley2): Changed Major Haley’s feat so that the Haley player no longer chooses the order of activations for models/units.
Probably
the most significant nerf in here. I agree it addressed the core problem of
player agency, but I don't know if I would have gone that far as to
remove that part of the feat entirely. I assume they playtested the shit
out of multiple alternatives though and ended up with this, so we shall
see how it pans out.
Either way, this will change the meta a lot, which is what I like to see.
- Major Prime Victoria Haley (Haley3): Changed
the wording of Temporal Flux to clarify that it grants the unit and
friendly FACTION models within 5" of one or more models in the unit +2 DEF. Changed Time Projection to clarify how Haley Past and Haley Future can allocate focus and use arc nodes.
Mostly a nerf to Acosta, who looked cocoa butter bananas with that +2 DEF. Haley3 is one of the few Cygnar casters that loves Cygnar infantry due to Revive + the smoke wall so the nerf isn't as much a nerf to her gameplan as it is to all the OP 2pt Merc solos that would hang out near her.
The other stuff is actual clarification that we've known about for a while.
- Flank: Fixed Flank on Trench Buster and Sergeant Nicolas Verendrye to prevent them from flanking with themselves.
Another actual errata. Neat.
- Bone Shaker: Asphyxious
the Hellbringer (Asphyxious3) and Calaban the Grave Walker have been
updated so the wording of Bone Shaker is consistent across all models.
Holy balls, did Calaban just get a BUFF? It seems that when you kill a guy with Bone Shaker during feat, if that zombie dude kills a guy while zombie dude is in Calaban's control area, then Calaban gets a fury from the dead target (still doesn't get one from zombie dude, who gets RFPed at 'boxed')
Still not enough to make him worth playing (getting fury on the feat has never really been a problem), but it's a minor reduction in Skornergy. At this rate, he should playable by 2022.
- Pistol Wraith: Death Chill was changed to stationary to allow a model with Focus: Shake Effect or Fury: Shake Effect to remove the effect.
Another nerf to Cryx. I approve in principle. Pistol Wraiths don't see play so much anymore though, but they should. Or should have, prior to this nerf. 3pts is hefty. Still better than the Brigand UA though.
- Thyron Sword of Truth: Added duration to the feat.
- Mountain King: Gained Assault.
Most impressive. I think this is the first time a model has gained a full, entirely new rule (Rhyas gained reach, but that's a property of the weapon *technicality*). This opens the door to more aggressive errata in the future, I hope.
Does this make the Mountain King playable? I think it does. Does it make him good? We will see. It's an interesting change for sure and changes his dynamics.
- Siege Animantarax: Rage Tokens can be gained from friendly attacks. Rage Tokens can be used to boost any attack or damage roll.
Sweet buff. This makes the model not as bad, but perhaps still bad. Will this become significant for the developing Skorne ranged game? It could be like a different (and overall crappier) version of the Sacral Vault.
- Archangel: Draconic Aura changed from Righteous Flames to causing Continuous Fire to enemy models within 2”
Cool, the model now has an animus. Situationally good if you can get like 8+ guys on fire for 2 fury.
Also Grotesques renamed, meaning we get more Grotesques in the future! Legion players everywhere rejoice/fall to your knees and weep!
If there's anything that can be learned, it's that if you complain
enough, eventually you will get what you want. A valuable lesson for
everyone in life.
Notice how the buffs are all to huge based, really impressive looking models? The ones that look cool and you WANT to play them, but then get frustrated when you do because their rules are bad? Then you go on the forums and bitch for 2-3 years about how your huge-based centerpiece isn't even useful as a paper weight because you live in a high wind turbulence area and the resin/plastic components fall over in the face of a strong breeze? Size matters, folks. Maybe when they release a terrible Manowar Battle Engine, things will happen in that department.
The extra shakeable effects is also a systemic buff to jacks and beasts, which I like to see.
I guess this is the first step towards a "living rulebook", and makes sense all things considered. The business model has caught up, at least partially.
My favourite part of the article, except for the fact that it is written by Jason Soles, is that it includes the quote: " We do not like to make changes during or right before a major convention or an organized play season."
on a document released literally one day after World Team Championship (probably the biggest, highest profile Warmahordes tournament in the world) lists are locked and released to the public. Pure class.
Hopefully now when I talk about my greatest inspiration, or use my Soul tokens, people will know who I am talking about. Hopefully.
The Farrow Brigand Warlord was just released at Gencon, and with it followed a wave of emotions (mostly positive for myself personally as a Gator player who does not play Pigs at all, but as a player of the game, a little more sombre).
This was the first thing released to the interwebs, posted on Twitter by Will Shick before the Gencon shop opened.
Reactions were mixed: on one side, Gang and Reform are both really good abilities for any unit with some melee capability, and Prowl is also useful on a (potentially) Pathfinder unit.
On the other side, these abilities don't particularly synergize with Brigands, who are at base a pretty weak unit. Reform breaks Dig-In, Prowl more or less depends on a forest being on the table (since Pigs have no cloud creation available), Gang is good but not great on a non-reach unit without melee focus. I mean, there are great synergies with Carver - reform is awesome with Quagmire, and Gang is great with Overtake + Weapon Master. But giving them CRA alone already made them decent with Carver, so they really needed to be more useful with other warlocks thatn even better with Carver.
Overall, at this point my opinion of the UA coincided with Immortan Joe's:
There was some discussion about whether he would be worth it for 2pts, and probably a good option for the unit at 1pt. Then 12 hours later, we got the front of the card:
On the positive side, he is a pretty decent model with good stats, 2 RNG:10 POW12 gunshots at RAT 6, Gunfighter for 3 POW12 attacks and some decent options with all his abilities and access to Prayers. If he had everything he had with the unit, minus the unit, he'd be a good 2pt combat solo.
On the side of reality, there is no reason for this guy to cost 3pts as a UA. He brings the unit up to 1pt per model and doesn't really provide them with a specific use. Sure, it makes them even better with Carver and as noted previously, the abilities he grants are not bad. They are just not the right abilities. It makes them relatively worse with everyone else in Pigs. It is not what the Brigands needed to be useful or interesting. It makes them bad Trenchers, a different kind of mediocre.
Much like the Razor Boar's animus, this is wasted design space.
What stings the most (other than the inexplicable 3pts) is not what is there, but what isn't.
Why is this a UA? A UA is supposed to either improve or redefine a unit.
For example the Legion Warspear UA (2pts AND a better model, trololol) makes them a lot more numerically efficient and gives Relentless Charge, both issues the unit previously had compared to other Legion options (and Gatormans). He brings a previously underpowered unit up to par.
On the redefinition side. Tyrant Vorkesh (Cetrati UA) is a model than make the unit better in some lists and worst in others, depending on its intended purpose and matchups. He allows you to use an already good unit differently, in different lists, against different matchups.
The Warlord neither improves nor redefines Brigands. He gives them more tactical options, for quite a few more points. Unfortunately, Brigands are an underpowered, ill-defined unit that needed improvement, or could have done with some redefinition.
Much like the Farrow, this release lacks focus.
Nobody really knows what the design of Farrow is supposed to be. Some say chaos, some say combined arms, some say Mad Max, some say cool models, some even say just being bad.
It's like they designed this sweet mini-Carver solo, and attached him to a unit as an afterthought. There is no particular synergy between the two.
He's a pretty bad ass fighter, but his best two abilities are Granted rather than Tactics, so you really don't want to get him sniped (and he is a pretty good target to snipe out) therefore keep him back (reducing his combat potential until after engagement).
He has gunfighter, but it doesn't stack with gang
The more you think about it, the more you focus on what isn't there,
rather than what is there. That is the sign of missed opportunities, and it probably all comes back to 'it's probably too good with Carver'.
TL;DR
Pigs are the joke that keeps on giving. Except the joke is more of a Comedian / Joker style of joke, or Rorschach's Palliaci joke.
Sorry, Farrow players. I understand your loss.
But then again, I just don't understand why you keep at it. Just on the other side of the pond, we just got Croak Raiders - who are better than Brigands with the UA, for less points, for every other faction in Hordes. GG.
Yes, I am still alive. In terms of WM/H, I've mostly been playing bright pink Skorne. It's like Gators that get shot but have beasts that do lots of work. Otherwise been doing summer stuff like drinking, running, beaches and playing games.
I decided to write this blog post so I don't flood forums and boards with Minion talk which nobody really wants to hear anyway but I wanted to get it off my chest.
Disclaimer: I will probably never play in a Masters event since as far as I am aware we don't use the pack in NZ and even if we did, chances are I wouldn't be able to travel to wherever the event is. So the Masters format will probably have ZERO impact on me directly, except that ADR could be applied to regular SR events - we get no PP support so we do whatever we want.
So the 2015 tournament packs were just released. Just like last year, most of the changes are relatively minor.
Hardcore 2015 is more or less the same as Hardcore 2014. It has its ups and downs, but it fulfills its purpose as being the most basic version of the game - one list, one scenario, heavy focus on assassination and the new meta element of screwing everything up by tanking with ARM and winning on time!
Iron Gauntlet 2015 is also the same as before - 3 lists with the 75pts Gauntlet rounds at the end.
Steamroller 2015 has had some more polishing, and continues just providing a tighter competitive experience rather than trying to shift the meta. Some notable changes include:
Trimming down to 8 scenarios.
Objectives are no longer defined by the scenario but included in your army list.
Deathclock turns are 15 seconds minimum (this is in the Masters pack)
Terrain placement defined a bit better.
The main thing is here is choosing the type of objective you want in your list. For example, if you take light artillery in your list, you can take the Objective that grants light artillery boosted damage rolls and have it in EVERY scenario that features an objective (5 of the 8).
For Blindwater, a few are almost totally useless (Armory, Effigy of Valor). I think the most useful ones will be the Arcane Wonder (-1 cost to your first upkeep spell is pretty good on Barnabas and Rask) and Stockpile (stuff nearby gets up for free if KD). Otherwise you just default to the one that has Impervious Flesh so it is harder to kill.
Masters is now basically Steamroller with Deathclock baseline (although I haven't attended a timed-turns Steamroller in years) - 2 lists, same scenarios, same deal. But it also features the biggest meta-shift element - Active Duty Roster.
Active Duty Roster
The ADR is part of the Masters format. It is basically a list of 4-casters per faction updated every 6 months, and if your list pair includes only casters on this list, you get the Vanguard bonus. This bonus allows you to take 20 points of Specialists for each list. Essentially, you can fully customize and netdeck against your opponent (they might even be doing the same).
If you look at the list of casters, it is quite obvious that most of the casters on the list are of the crappier variety. For example:
Khador: Zerkova / Harkevich / Strakhov / Butcher1
Mercs: Fiona / Magnus2 / Ossrum / Shae
Minions: Arkadius / Midas / Barnabas / Maelok
Ret: Rahn / Garryth / Kaelyssa / Vyros1
Skorne: Morg2 / Hexeris1/ Mordikaar / Naaresh
PoM: Reznik2 / Thyra / Testament / Sevvy2
Trolls: Doomshaper2 / Gunnbjorn / Grim2 / Jarl
CoC: Not Lucant.
According to Hungerford, the roster is populated by uncommon casters from previous year's Masters events. So while you might see a baller like Rahn on the list, it's likely the rest of the list will be populated with stuff considered craptacular to "balance it".
It's a novel idea. It serves as a pretty big buff to underplayed casters - perhaps not enough of a buff to some, but significant nevertheless.
I do have some issues with it however:
1) Faction imbalance
Some factions benefit from a 20pt sideboard much more than others. Ret for example loves teching against specific casters and systems. Put MHSF + UA in your sideboard that you can sub-in vs squishy casters and you're home free. Sub anti-Hordes models like Moros in and out of your list depending on the matchup... winner.
Likewise, a faction like Cygnar can also bring boatloads of specific mercs to sub in for their other boatload of mercs in order to deal with whatever problem happens to be prominent. Fortunately character restrictions will throttle this a bit.
Minions and CoC on the other hand, probably aren't going to bring shit. I mean, in Gators you can probably bring a Sacral Vault and a handful of solos (Thrullgs, primarily) to sub in for beasts or whatever. But you're not getting 20pts of efficiency compared to other factions, for sure.
Looking at this season's ADR, you're probably playing Arkadius in tier (since it's the only good ARM cracking of the 3 and Midas is not good with current releases) and one of the Gator casters. Your specialists for the Arkadius list is probably something like a War Hog (to sub in for a Road Hog if there is lot of ARM), and some Slaughterhousers (for anti-tough). Cool, but not too many options.
Your opponent on the other hand gets to tech against Gators/Pigs (specialist selection happens after list selection so he will know what you're bringing) and gets a lot more use out of his 20pts than you do. Remove some of that anti-infantry from his list, add in some weapon master infantry... gg.
TBH, I don't think it's enough of an incentive to not play Rask given what we have available at the moment, if you're playing to win.
Secondly, some armies like Trolls, Skorne, PoM are much less reliant on casters than Cryx, Minions, or Cygnar since their armies more or less operate by themselves with some caster flavor added. These factions benefit from 20pts of Specialists a lot more than others, and they lose a lot less locking themselves into "weaker" casters.
TL;DR - some factions benefit from it more than others. A lot more.
2) Just make some goddamn errata!
I wish they would just buff crap casters. Even a little bit. Slowly. This Masters format essentially recognizes that some casters are weaker than others, by giving you a significant leg up if you take a pairing of crappier casters. Please bite the bullet and do some errata. Even if you don't nerf anything, just buff crap stuff. There is plenty of data available to make an informed decision.
If you're going to "fix" crap casters this way, it should probably just be baseline for Steamroller every year. There is nothing specific about ADR that demonstrates faction mastery or high-level play (that distinction belongs to the Iron Gauntlet format).
Anyway that's my rant. I think ADR is an interesting idea but it's not really balanced. If this is the way they are going to make crappier casters more viable, I wish this would just be baseline for Steamroller every year.
The Masters packet is basically just a standard Steamroller with the ADR modification and Iron Gauntlet is the "elite" format which actually demonstrates faction mastery.
I took a look at the new Iron Gauntlet videos posted on Privateer Press' youtube channel, together with the community's approach to the 2013 and 2014 WTC (when the Americans got involved) and was quite impressed with the production value and seriousness of the whole thing. It made me wonder whether PP really do take their game seriously as a balanced, top-shelf competitive wargame that you could feasibly play for money (the ultimate test of game balance), or whether the company-sponsored big tournament hype with an international invitational event is just marketing hype.
In any case, it brings up some (more) thoughts about game balance and how different companies go about achieving and maintaining it.
http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/737/comments
The WoW (Blizzard) way - what I believe is the least fun way to balance your game by far. Did you enjoy investing 80 hours in grinding that character? Sweet, because that toon will suck in 4 months time and you'll have to do it again if you want to be competitive in PvP/not get benched in hardmode raids. Blizzard messes with abilities and stats scalings seemingly at random, sometimes fundamentally changing how a class or spec works,for no real reason other than to change things.
I guess it keeps the game fluid (when you aren't in the 1+ year lull between expansions) but it f*cking sucks to have it happen to you, and not all too fun to have it happen to friends you play with often then quit the game or get sidelined.
The DotA (Valve) way - the best way to balance your game IMO, since everyone feels powerful, and feeling powerful is good. As long as you can handle getting totally blown up when you make mistakes, of course. One of the things that was difficult for me to believe (coming from tabletop and card games) when I started following DotA is that there are very, very few "really bad" heroes (ie. the ones that only get picked once in 1000 pro games) - there are probably 2-3 out of ~105 at this stage.
Usually in DotA when something gets nerfed, they leave a hero's strengths and focus on accenting its weaknesses.
For example, Keeper of the Light (aka. Kotl) is a support hero whose is really good early on the in game due to a huge (non-scaling) damage nuke spell he has, and can give your team a big early momentum advantage by setting up ganks and pushing lanes. So much so that at some point, he became an extremely common pick in pro games.
How did Valve nerf him? They reduced his starting HP by a little bit as well as his HP gain.
Since he is easier to kill early on, it is riskier to expose yourself to cast your big light beam, so you are forced to play safer. Thus enemy heroes are less threatened and can level up relatively faster so are in less immediate danger. Boom, systematic balance - hero still feels strong and isn't such a kick in the dick to play against.
And, as the cartoon suggests, when a hero gets buffed, they just get to do what they do better and leave their weaknesses as they are.
For example, Night Stalker is a hero that sucks bad during the day but becomes a fast melee monster at night (day and night cycle every few minutes in the game, with a few abilities to manipulate them). Basically all of Night Stalker's buffs in recent memory have been on improving his strengths at night - giving him access to items that give him total map vision at night, improving his stuns and snares at night, etc. But he still does and always will suck balls during the daytime. That is what Night Stalker is about. He is not a very common pick at present but he does what he does very well and is respected for it.
The LoL (Riot) way - I haven't played LoL, but from what I have seen and heard, the game as a whole is a LOT more forgiving than WM and DotA. Riot's balancing usually focuses on taking what exactly a champion is too good at and reduce the numbers so they aren't as good at it anymore, and the reverse for buffs. Nobody really feels OP for too long, but it is balanced out because neither does your opponent, nobody gets totally stomped for slight mistakes (not by the game, anyway), your nerves are steadier, the learning curve is flatter, the bruises aren't as deep and you sleep better at night.
The PP way?
The Privateer Press way - void.
Basically, they don't do shit in terms of model balance adjustments.
To their credit, they are pretty quick to pump out an errata when there is an actual error that really obviously affects game balance in an extreme way (like the Kaelyssa theme force printed a few months ago that allowed an 18 focus Hydra to one-shot basically anything in the game on the table on Turn 2), or when there is a general rule that is written in a way that causes serious games system malfunction (like Raeks arm-locking Colossals), or when something is just written poorly (ie. Kara Sloan's feat, Explosivo, Witch Hound, Backswing).
Here is a list of actual model balance changes in Mk2 (straight buffs/nerfs), as far as I remember:
Gaspy2 has been nerfed 2-3 times - all changes to his feat (changing the returned models from Incorporeal to Ghostly, and then from any models to grunts only). Legit nerf. Still one of the best casters in the game.
Rhyas got reach. Legit buff.
Taryn di la Rovissi's Shadow Fire ability was changed out of nowhere so that all models ignore the affected model for LoS purposes. Legit buff, but apparently in response to a systematic issue that we haven't seen yet.
Armored Shell on the two Khador shell jacks allowing them to stay closed after a trample or slam. Legit buff.
Entropic Aura on the Blood Hag was nerfed pre model release because forum rage decreed that denying Hordes warlocks transfers just by having a model standing within 8" was OP as all hell. Legit nerf, because that was indeed total BS.
You could argue the change to Side Step (triggering only off enemy models) was a nerf largely aimed at Molik Karn. Not a strong argument, but it has some merit. Likewise the Blackhide Wrastler's animus was 'friendly models' before people found out you could do the Flying Pegasus trick on Molik Karn and the 18pts you spent to do so made it a pretty good deal since Molik was really stupid with Makeda2 before the Side Step change (now just plain stupid).
You could argue that that most recent change to spell/ability targeting for friendly units might be a nerf to units and a buff to warjacks, but really it's just changing one very rare, very douchy negative play experience for another, less rare, less douchy negative play experience, and will have little effect on troop swarms being more efficient than warjacks in the vast majority of instances.
So over the last 4+ years of MkII, we have had SIX instances of targeted model balancing (some of which are arguably to avoid janky rules interpretations rather than actual power shifts).
So why this apprehension to changing models on PP's parts?
It's the GW effect: back in the day, when Warhammer and 40k were taken seriously as a competitive tabletop wargames (1), many people bought GW models on account of their rules above anything else. Then a new edition would come out, and their favourite model/unit/monster/vehicle was very likely to have been nerfed into the ground or even removed entirely from the game (!!!!). Yes, GW practiced the Blizzard way of doing things, except with a much bigger price tag attached and a lot more heartache. Needless to say, if you were one of those people who played WHFB/40k primarily for the game rather than the story or sweet models, you got really pissed off that these game pieces were now invalid and you had to spend another large wad of cash, time and effort to paint new models up. Not much fun, if you didn't like that side of things (2).
Some of the people who were pissed off ended up making a game called Warmachine, and made the solemn promise that they would never do such a thing to their players. To their credit, every Warmachine model is still tournament legal, and I respect them greatly for sticking to that. In my opinion however, there should be a middle ground between the GW Effect and game balance. We should not be afraid to change things for the better. There is a lot of design space between 'making models obsolete' and 'balance tweaking' (see: the entire MkII process as an example of the latter).
The Counterargument
The strongest argument commonly presented in PP's defense is that they balance the game with new releases - they balance list blocks rather than models within those lists. For example, a new model might allow a new type of list which would be counter to a current power list or opening up an entirely new playstyle within a given faction - take for example the Sacral Vault being a pretty hard counter to Cryx infantry spam (thereby weakening Cryx in the greater scheme of things) or eMorvahna introducing a highly effective attrition, infantry-based playstyle to Circle (making that faction stronger in multi-list tournament play).
This is the most common perception on balancing in the game and changing the meta, and to be honest I think it can be a valid way of doing thing - if you don't mind having models you paid a decent chunk of money for and spend time assembling and painting sitting on the shelf, gathering dust on account of being underpowered or unfavored in the current meta (3).... and if you don't mind waiting a pretty damn long time for those new things to come out in the first place!
It's been working OK for PP so far, since people keep playing, and sometimes you get 'that' release that solves a problem or advances a strength and you can now make really sweet lists and that keeps you going for a few months.
Good examples of this are Butcher3, who basically just Khadors harder (and more reliably) than the other Butchers, giving Khador a strongly thematic and powerful list, or something like the Gator Battle Engine, which IMO seriously ups the Gator game against a lot of the current Cryx BS out there and is available to all Gator, Legion or Circle lists (not that the latter two needed help vs Cryx).
The biggest problem with this approach however is model bloat, and consequentially each faction maintaining its identity and uniqueness within the greater game. Every model released makes it that much harder for the next release to not invalidate something else, and is also an opportunity for something else to sit on the shelf and do nothing. Another downside is that if the new releases fail to stimulate the meta (often they do), "subpar" models remain unused and things remain stale.
Imperfect Balance
Ideally, the most balanced PvP system is the mirror match like Chess, where every player has exactly the same options available to them, and the only difference is really who gets first turn.
Failing that, the best system is a 100% open model pool, where anyone can use anything and has relatively easy access to everything (like the more popular MOBAs, or arguably Fantasy Flight's Living Card Game model). This results in what is currently referred to as 'imperfect balance'.
However, given the army/faction system deeply embedded in the game system of Warmachine, that is not and likely will never be a possibility in Warmahordes, so you have a "packaged" version of imperfect balance instead, where the "best" things at any given time are a group of models (lists) rather than single things - except one where you don't have the benefit of regular patches (ala. PC games) or cycles (ala. Magic the Gathering) to switch the balance around when the meta start solidifying. As a result, you have more or less the same approximate lists on top year in, year out, with boredom and the occasional new super-powered piece as the primary meta shift engine.
The next best thing for Warmahordes is thus to have multiple balanced model pools ("factions"), which are not only balanced against each other for competitive reasons but balanced within themselves for "metagaming" reasons (ie. having fun with building interesting lists).This is hard, and requires A LOT of playtesting over a long period of time to get right, which means it requires a lot of small changes and tweaks over the same period of time. I think this is where PP's "no changes - ever (with a few exceptions)" approach to model balance hurts the metagame.
I've been of the opinion that annual/semiannual "balance" patches
MOBA-style would do wonders for the game and meta. The current release
cycle is a new book per game every ~16 months or so (4). So having one
balance patch in between each release would be huge to keep things
fresh. Each patch could have ~2 or so changes per faction and/or some larger systematic changes,
together with a set of NQ/War Room cards with the changes to model. It would
stimulate the meta and sales quite a bit, and would be a good
justification for smaller number of releases by adding new viability to models that either were underpowered during playtesting, or have been excluded from the meta for a long time. They already release errata at this rate, so the timing can't be better!
Some arguments against this -
1) I believe the game is perfectly balanced as is! Yay butterflies and unicorns! (which I would
argue is incorrect since perfect balance is never possible in an
imperfect balance asymmetrical system. That's kinda the point, and imperfect balance systems are kept balanced and alive in the long term through continuous subtle balance changes which trigger meta opinion shifts).
2) Changes are confusing, the cards I have will be inaccurate. (we are far past this point in MK2 already with all the existing errata. Implementation is not difficult.
With War Room and the internet, they have the infrastructure to do it
easily so that shouldn't be any bigger a deal than 2 erratas a year.)
3) I believe that PP will mess up the game, I'd rather the devil I know. (even I don't believe they
would screw it up given the huge amount of playtest data currently available these
days. Lich2 nerfs have been very reasonable so far, for example. And besides, if they destroy the game, you can always just go play something else, or make your own tournament system like Hacksaw did before he started officially contracting for PP!)
The only reason I can think why it is not happening is that PP is terrified of the backlash from changing things people have already "paid
for". Nerds get overly defensive about stuff like that. As far as I am
concerned, as long as they do not delete models from the game GW-style,
they aren't breaking any promises.
TL;DR: In an imperfect balance system, regular small changes must take place in order to maintain interest and actively rotate the meta. New releases are one way to do this, but each game only gets an expansion once every 18 months. In between, PP should make non-release changes in the form of errata/rules changes/balance changes and continuously strive for that unachievable perfection. The journey matters more than the destination.
P.S. - Jaga-Jaga article coming up in a week or so. I've played a bunch of games with her, just waiting for my model to arrive and get painted.
---------------
(1) Mostly out of lack of alternatives, and because they had the largest
player base of any board game outside the most competitive,
strategically-intensive and balanced tabletop wargame of all time:
chess. (2) Much like a lot of people these days don't like spending hours painting models but are pushed to do so by 'fully-painted only' events! But that's another topic for another rant I will probably not write.
(3) Keeping in mind that the 'meta' in Warmachine changes really damn slow, like 8-18months type slow.
(4) Gargantuans came out March 2013, Exigence October 2014.
MkIII has been a recurring topic of discussion amongst the community for a good half year now. Like many people, I don't think a brand new edition is really required as the core rules of the game are still in a relatively good state, unlike the late- MKI rule which were bloated with errata, clunky in wording and kinda ridiculous in interpretation at times. However, like many, I also believe the meta has become a bit stale and the top pieces are staying where they are and the bottom pieces are too. A few careful nerfs are in order if we are to keep things vibrant, along many buffs/redesigns to highly maligned models.
Being a game that is best played from a competitive mindset, I can understand why people take the best stuff they can, but at the same time a stagnating meta leads to stagnating challenge. On the other hand, I think the number of OP models and the number of total garbage models is really small. There is a lot of stuff around the "pretty damn crap" bracket which could use a little sheen though.
Here are 5 things, outside individual model power balance changes, I feel should be addressed going forward.
1.Tough spam
So anyone who has read any other article on this blog knows I think tough spam is a major issue in the game. In fact they are probably tired of me whining about it (1).I think it's one of the few things in this game that I dislike more than Gargossals, but where I feel Gargossals simply reduce the potential for excellent playing experiences, tough spam can and usually does create negative play experiences for both the spammer and the guy on the bottom.
The main culprits here are the Piper and the Witch Doctor. These can grant tough to ANY UNIT IN THE LIST. If that doesn't cockblock design space, I don't know what does. I think neither of them should grant tough at all. The Witch Doctor can just make something Undead (which is a REALLY good buff in itself) and the Piper can just make something fearless (being able to give Dirge and Pathfinder is already quite legit). Straight "nerfs" to both, still good models.
Secondary culprits are Terminus and Irusk2 with their giant FU auras of tough. These types of auras should be removed because they are just stupid. They're on all the time and you don't have to sacrifice anything to get them. If they were tied into a feat or similar it wouldn't be so bad, but they aren't. Remove those entirely, still good models.
Tertiary culprits are 4+ tough things like Irusk1's feat, Doc Killingsworth, Boomhowlers and so on. These aren't so bad because they exist in a vacuum - you know from now until the next edition what exactly can be affected by these things and when. Irusk1's feat lasts for one turn, Doc can only be taken in a specific list and can be sniped out with a little luck (and isn't 4+ tough himself). Boomhowlers are a bit OP but it's not just because of the 4+ tough (which, again, is a competing alternative with 2 other really good effects after initial engagement). These don't bother me as much as the primary and secondary culprits which are the equivalent to rolling your face on a keyboard in terms of game skill and strategic brilliance.
I don't mind tough granting models in the style of Kovnik Joe because he only does it for a specific unit and it is at the sacrifice of making that specific unit have "normal" damage output that turn rather than calling down half-naked, steel-clad valkyries to skewer your opponent on spikes (metaphorically speaking).
I don't mind Trolls either. They are still a bit frustrating but usually
more frustrating to the Troll player than not, and their limitations as
a faction (bricky and not too sneaky) don't allow them to take
advantage of tough spam like other factions can. It almost feels... you
know, balanced.
The Skorne Minion Task Master "UA" on the other hand is kinda dumb in that it will apply to ANY MINION UNIT EVER MADE, which is just another thing new Minion units will have to be balanced around. Unless the unit doesn't work for Skorne, but the fluffers on the PP staff will probably never let that happen. At present it's not a big deal because there are only 4 combat minion units - Gators, Slaughterhousers, Brigands and Bog Trogs. These all have low DEF stats so no drama with No Sleeping on the Job. Slaughterhousers are already tough, Brigands are overcosted, Bog Trogs should be ambushing so will be too far out and Tough on Gators isn't a big deal because they are only a 5man unit (at 2pts each). Whether Shamblers + Task Master becomes annoying/OP or not remains to be seen. In the end, the Task Master probably means Minions will never get a high DEF unit.
Basically, any ability than can grant tough without restriction and on a large scale is stupid and should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
2. Efficiency of focus when spent on warjacks relative to when spent or camped by caster
Basically, the problem with warjacks is that each point of focus is usually spent more effectively on either camping or casting spells, and therefore warjacks are less resource efficient than a competing choice after warjack points have been spent. There are two exceptions to this: CoC and PoM.
CoC gets around this problem via the focus induction mechanic. Basically, this means that the first focus spent on each warjack each turn is worth TWICE as much as a focus point spent elsewhere, because that focus point will replicate itself on another warjack. This allows you to do amazing things like running your entire battlegroup for one focus on turn 1, and is 100% based on your ability to plan ahead and activate things in the right order. This rule makes me want to high-five DC and buy him a beer or eight.
PoM gets around this problem by making warjacks mostly independent from the warcaster's focus pool. They do this by having a large range of support models that buff warjacks offensively and defensively such as Choir, Vassal and Reclaimers, as well as warjacks that pretty much run themselves like Sanctifiers and the Avatar. If a warcaster chooses to give a warjack a focus, they are getting a really high quality, high polish attack out of it. Ultimately, PoM uses Army Points as a warjack resource.
Khador, Cryx, Cygnar, Ret and Mercs don't have anything like that.
Each has a few casters with amazing battlegroup buffs , but still have a limited focus pool which is more efficiently spent camping for ARM or buffing infantry units. There are of course exceptions to this observation, like Mortenebra's all-in Rube Goldberg assassination machine or eVyros Synergy griffon spam. Or Stormwall being a god amongst titans.
Even PoM or CoC do not run all warjack lists. The lists are pretty
balanced on average looking at every caster. These two factions usually
run lists a bit more like Hordes lists. There is still only so many
resources to go out, even in PoM and CoC, just like there are only so
many beasts you can run before they all go crazy. For the most part, you're looking at 0 - 20% of non-WJ points spent on jacks in competitive lists. I would say Hordes is closer to 50% on average, with a much larger deviation depending on faction and warlock. Someone like Madrak might just take a single Dire Troll Mauler, whereas someone like Vayl puts up to 80% of her army points into beasts (the other 20% being beast support pieces).
Quick suggestions to get an idea of what I am suggesting, paraphrasing what I wrote previously:
Khador: All jacks have innate Powerful Attack (boost attack and damage rolls for 1 focus per attack) and Mechanics grant free Pathfinder charges or free power attacks to warjacks as a special action (thus Mechanics become like a Khador Choir).
Cryx: Warcasters can "heal" helljacks (not bonejacks, because healing arc nodes is stupid) during their activations like warlocks heal warbeasts, and all helljacks/bonejacks have Cull Souls which counts towards their focus allocation.
Cygnar: All warjacks have a Grenadier/Stormclad-like ability that grants them a buff if they positioned a certain way from a unit type, ie. Cyclone gets boosted attack rolls when shooting at model/unit previously hit by Long Gunner models that turn.
Retribution: Something to do with power fields, like every focus spent by the jack heals d6 from the field irrelevant of the generator system. Unspent focus on jacks could also add to ARM while the generator is online. This gives them something tanky they otherwise don't have to tarpit and hold zones.
Mercs: Maybe just way better jack marshall options, or the equivalent of Minion Lesser Warlocks (where you get a lesser warcaster/super jack marshall and character jack combo).
In order for warjacks to become a more competitive choice in list building, each focus point spent on warjacks has to be at least as efficient as a focus point spent elsewhere, all things considered. The release of the new journeyman warcasters will probably lead to slightly more warjacks being put on the table by increasing the supply of focus on the table. That's nice I guess, but it doesn't really solve the core problem.
Everyone knows it's stupid but hey, it's completely legal. Why not do it? I would if I played an asshat faction with asshat models.
The main problem with this is primarily with full unit recursion, because any mechanic this powerful that is uncounterable is not really interesting games design. You reduce Morvahna's feat and Regrowth by fully wiping out a unit, the same way you deal with Maelok's Revive, or the Revenant Crew of the Atramentous (who are vastly underrated). But that is almost impossible when one model from that unit is sitting 5" behind the enemy caster, feigning distress. So I suggest this asshattery be dealt with by adding the following rules to Units:
1) Models out of formation when the current unit leader model is destroyed cannot be field promoted. 2) If no model can be field promoted while no Officer models are part of the unit, the unit is removed from play. If an Officer model leaves play and the unit does not have a Leader model, remove the unit from play.
Something like that anyway. This can represent the unit collapsing from lack of leadership and scattering to the winds or whatever, makes it that if you kill an entire unit and one guy is rubberbanding, then the unit goes pop.
The second issue is the exagerated Khador arc node. The Khador arc node is basically leaving a single model in the unit as far away from the leader model as possible while maintaining formation, so that he can be within range of those RNG 6 buff spells. This is perfectly fine in my opinion.
The exaggerated version of this is to leave a model from the unit standing next to your warcaster, way out of formation and running 0" toward its leader every turn. Any unit buff spells targetting him will affect the whole unit. This is stupid, and Privateer Press also seems to think it is stupid since they errata-ed the Bane Thrall standard bearer to not grant his buff while not in formation. Which brings up the question of why it hasn't been errata-ed yet. One would think it's not as simple as these 3 rules I made up in 10 seconds seem to indicate. Or that they in fact are totally cool with Pendrake/Bloodtracker/Croctor parties in the backfield so they can sell all the Morvahnas. Then again, it did take them a long ass time to errata the Shield Guard/Cover/LoS thing.
3) Any spells targeting friendly models not currently in formation automatically miss / Friendly models cannot be targeted by friendly spells while outside formation / something to that effect.
And now people can have a chance at killing your entire unit of Bloodtrackers before you feat them back. It's not easy, but not easy is better than impossible.
4. Spells are spells, animi are animi.
The 'spell vs animi' thing can be annoying to keep track of. It means for example that I always have to cast Spiny Growth on my warlock with my Snapper if I want MHSF to not ignore it. Is that really a decision I have to make (ie. skill), or just something annoying? At least in my lists, it is the latter.
Have animi be animi, and spells be spells plox. If a warlock casts an animi, it can be cast just like a spell as it currently is, but is still an animi in effect.
There are probably some unintended consequences here that will break open the game, like Wrongeye's dual faction allegiance having some supposedly unintended consequences with Galleon.
5. Water re-examined as a terrain piece
I play Blindwater so one would think I shouldn't care, but shallow water is very negative towards warjacks to the point where I never see it on the table except for Swamp Pits and the almost entirely inconsequential Blindwater Pact templates. Therefore it is not only bad for terrain diversity, it is bad for me.
Shallow water could be considered rough terrain (as present) and non-amphibious models who are knocked down or made stationary in shallow water cannot shake. That basically makes throwing beasts, warcasters and warjacks into water reasonably sweet while not completely hosing warjacks (the few that I see these days, anyway). It smooths out the effects across the board, makes water not the worst thing of all time for Warmachine, and makes amphibious more than just shitty pathfinder.
Deep water can remain as is and will continue to never see table time as it completely screws anyone and anything that is not amphibious.
-----------------------------------------
Aside from individual models and the above rules, the only thing I really dislike about the game at present are Gargossals and the way they flatten the tactical depth of the game. I don't think there is really a way around it. The main issue I have with them is their general invulnerability to the majority of game effects, with a handful of exceptions like attack damage, Black Oil and a small handful of special rules and effects (ie. Backlash, Voltaic Snare, etc.) But they are pretty balanced for what they are, just not really tactically interesting in the greater scheme of the game.
I have a 35 pt event coming up in about 2 weeks, but SR 35pts is kinda stupid after you've played a lot of 50pts so I'll probably just bring stupid lists and hope to outstupid my opponent's list. Using skill, of course. Look for the write-up of me losing my first round then.
(1) This is the best reason for it to be #1 on the list.
So the holiday period is over and I am back, about as neutral about the game of Warmachine as one can be. I think I managed to get in one game over the holidays, Barnabas vs an Arkadius list that resulted in a reasonably close game in which I manage to come out the victor thanks to favourable dice and no thanks to a Slaughterhouser making 5 tough saves in a row to deny me control points and making things hard for me (I never did manage to kill him and he lived to the end).
This game, specifically effective use of Arkadius' feat, brought to mind a frequent "request" I hear on behalf of Minion players to fill a serious design gap in the Pacts: fury management. I don't really agree that this is a design gap. I argue that this would make little difference to our competitive power, because our warbeasts are pretty crappy so being able to manage fury better wouldn't really change things all that much - Gators would take the same amount
WHAT IS FURY MANAGEMENT
Fury management is a term used to refer to models, abilities or spells that can directly or indirectly add or remove fury from friendly warbeasts.
Examples of this include Paingiver Beast Handlers' Condition ability, Kaya1's Soothing Song spell, or the Comfort Food ability on Troll Whelps.
All Hordes armies have fury management built into their warlock's fury leeching ability and fury stat. Warlocks with a low fury stat of 5 can "manage" fury on warbeasts less effectively than warlocks with a higher fury stat of 7 or 8. Looking at that stat alone, one can conclude that warlocks with a higher fury stat can run more warbeasts safely (where safely means less chance of frenzy) because they can leech off more fury than those with a lower stat, thereby leaving less fury on your warbeasts.
Nasum fits everywhere.
WHAT FURY MANAGEMENT ACTUALLY DOES
What fury management does is allow you to run more warbeasts safely, where "safely" is used to mean "lower chance of frenzy".
That's about it. If you have good fury management, you can run more beasts, and beasts can run hotter than they would otherwise, either by generating more attacks, running more models first turn, casting support animi, etc. It provides a higher artificial fury cap for your list.
It's a bit like a reverse of 'focus multiplication', a term used for spells in Warmachine like Terminal Velocity, Guided Fire or Full Throttle where the effect is relatively greater the more models make use of them. For example, spending 3 focus to cast Full Throttle in Khador is efficient if you intend to charge with a jack and make at least 3 attacks with either jacks or warcaster. However, if you have 3 Juggernauts in your list with one focus each for additional attacks, then you are getting 3 charges and 9 to-hit boosts (effectively 9 focus), making that 3 focus expenditure very efficient.
Fury management is like focus multiplication in the sense that it allows you to get more out of your points investment in warnouns by making better use of the resource, in the Hordes case that means being able to do more things with more beasts (go to your fury cap) without the downside (frenzy risk).
WHY FURY MANAGEMENT WOULDN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING FOR GATORMANS
The short answer is beasts in Blindwater are only taken to generate fury, provide animi, and provide high P+S numbers. If Gatorman Posse could do those things, then you probably wouldn't see beasts at all, because Gatormans are freaking sweet. So unless the meta changes to a ridiculous number of 20+ ARM targets in each list, you will only want a moderate number of Gator warbeasts in any given list.
The long answer is that our beasts aren't really that good. We don't have beasts that we actually want to take many of,
except perhaps the Bull Snapper - which, while quite capable for a 3pt
beast, doesn't really deliver the volume or quality of attacks required
to kill things and doesn't have a lot of health. Coincidentally, this is also the only Minion warbeast
with any fury management via the Torpor rule that removes a fury from it
and ends its activation immediately after destroying a living model,
a.k.a. "free boost". Bull Snapper - one of the best designed models in the game.
Spitters
are the only heavy of which you might want three in a specific type of
list, but even then you're probably only boosting hit rolls and a few
direct damage hits. Since the AoE causes Corrosion, you don't usually
end up boosting the blast damage rolls when fury is a concern. Fury
management would basically allow you to boost all the blast damage rolls
in exchange for a couple of points. Worth it? I wouldn't say so in the
majority of situations.
Wrastlers can have a good and
unpredictable threat with their animus but don't hit hard enough to be a
super serious threat in themselves, and also lack reach or movement
shtick (you can give them reach with Elasticity, but then you lose a lot
of flexibility in making a Rise Missile happen). Dual Wrastler lists can do some cool stuff, but again I think this is something that gets taken due to lack of options, not because it's really THAT sweet.
Swamp Horrors could also be taken in multiples as they hit hard-ish and have lots of reach initials so can deal with multiple targets and heavy targets. Unfortunately they are squishy as shit in melee and die to charging mechaniks.
Boneswarms are just crap at everything.
In terms of specific battlegroup-wide buffs, we have Warpath. And
Admonition and Flesh Eater at a stretch, I guess. Everything else
probably gets more out of it when used in conjunction with Gatorman
Posse. That isn't much of an incentive to bring warbeasts, let me tell
you.
Let's have a look at other factions for comparison's sake:
Legion and Skorne have the best fury
management in the game in Paingivers, Sheperds and Forsaken. This
allows them to run lots of beasts, specifically heavies. This is fine by
them because they have access to amazing heavies that they want to take a lot of by
choice, rather than by necessity.
On the Legion side of things,
you have Archangels, Ravagores, Scytheans, and Typhon. These beasts are
quite versatile in that they can not only do sizable melee damage, but
are also versatile enough to handle infantry well with abilities like
Overtake, Bloodbath, Slaughterhouse (takedown), Scather/AoEs and sprays. Sweet animi, sweet stats, sweet abilities, sweet weapons.
Skorne has the likes of Gladiators, Bronzebacks,
Tiberion and Molik Karn, along with excellent lights like Brutes, Drakes and Kreas. Similar to Legion, these beasts have great
secondary use and sweet animi (or are just really tanky as shit). The Holy Skorne Trinity of Molik, Gladiator and Bronzeback can deal with almost anything, from troop masses to high ARM to rough terrain to Crippling Grasp (ok, maybe not that last one).
Not
only are the beasts really sweet, but a good number of their casters
support the beast heavy playstyle through feats, abilities and spells, making beasts even more attractive. Have a look at Vayls, Makedas, Saeryn, Lylyth2, Hexeris2, Morghoul1, Rasheth, Naaresh, Xerxis, etc..
Lylyth2 is a great example - Fury 5, no real fury management to speak of and all about increasing attacks. With a few Shepards and Forsaken however, those 3 Ravagore/2 Angel lists are destroying everything on feat turn and then acting totally cool the next rather than flipping out and killing each other. Morghoul1 is in the same boat - with 5 fury and a tendency to die, without Paingivers he would really really suck.
Circle
and Trolls don't have as much in terms of general fury management.
Shifting Stones can remove fury from friendly warbeasts within 1" during
your control phase (an ability that was not present in Mk1 but was
thrown in last minute in the field test to appease Circle players who
felt heavily crippled by the lack of fury management - lolz). This fury
management is not that great for Circle because of its highly limited
range, and as we all know Circle likes mobility, especially on their
Warpwolf Stalkers which you see in every list. Besides, these Stalkers
are usually going to be Primaled so will frenzy next turn anyway,
resulting in effective fury management. They do however have a few warlocks that do very well running warbeast heavy (Kromac, Kaya, Baldur2 tier) due to great support buffs, built-in fury control, construct warbeasts that don't frenzy and models like the Druid Wilder that get animi out.
Trolls have
Whelps, who I don't usually see on the table very often despite what I
consider to be pretty strong rules (2pts for 5 solos, who can either be a
MAT/RAT debuff, alternate source of beast healing or fury management -
seems good). I attribute this to Troll beasts being a heavily synergistic faction, and as a result their beasts are bad to average for their
high costs (outside of Mulg), so they always try to max on troops and the
beasts are primarily taken for animi/support and to be a "cog in the fleshy blue machine", besides Bombers and maybe
Earthborns.
They also have a couple of fury and frenzy management abilities on some casters, like Calandra and Hoarluks.
The main point is that fury
management is only a really useful tool IF you have really good
warbeasts of which you want to take more than your warlock can handle by
itself. Minions do not have this issue because our warbeasts are good
at best and mediocre at other times.
WHY IT COULD CHANGE THINGS FOR PIGS, BUT PROBABLY WON'T
On the flipside of BG buffs, you have Farrow, whose casters are shitting out amazing battlegroup buffs with alarming consistency:
Carver: Mobility, Batten Down the Hatches, [Hog Heaven feat is arguably just as useful for melee heavies as it is for troops]
S&D: Watcher, Killing Ground, Goad, Pack Hunters, [Vision is also best for battlegroup]
Midas: Butchery, Pet Cemetary feat
To make up for these super sweet buffs however, they have some terrible beasts. Like, really bad beasts that only manage to do anything sweet because their casters are so baller.
War Hogs, Road Hogs and Gun Boars all share pretty crappy stats (the Gun Boar is quite tanky for a light though) and relatively high points costs, and only become respectable in any degree when they combine their "pain activated" abilities with their warlocks' super sweet BG buffs.
The only beast that is actually pretty sweet for its cost is the 2pt Razor Boar, perspectives of which will forever be cursed by its unexplainedly 100% overcosted Friendly Faction animus*. However a respectable tanky 2pt solo with boosts that you can spam and benefits from your sweet BG buffs is hard to overlook.
Pigs have access to 4 infantry units (all FA:2, 3 in Thornfall):
Brigands - good with Carver due to fearless + CRA (a big deal), not good with anyone else.
Slaughterhousers - all around excellent melee unit. Their special rules (Take Down, Finisher, Reach, Powerful Charge, Fearless, Tough) make up for their mediocre victim stats in spades. If Minions were one faction rather than two, I would definitely take a unit of these in many lists.
Bone Grinders - good support unit and very cheap. Craptacular damage output though, despite having a nice RNG 12 POW 11 nuke.
Razorback Crew - one of the better light artillery pieces in the game, but still light artillery.
The average 50pts Pig list will contain 1 unit of Bone Grinders and 1-2 units of Slaughterhousers. The rest will be filled with beasts, usually 2-3 War Hogs, 0-2 Road Hogs, 4-6 Razorboars and 0-2 Gun Boars, along with Saxon Orrik and other solos not as good as Saxon Orrik.
This is partially out of necessity (not too many options available), and partially because of the aforementioned amazing battlegroup buffs. War Hogs tend to be the most common in my experience (I almost always see 2 at 50pts) and it is pretty bad as far as melee heavies go.
With that in mind, would fury management make a big difference to Pigs? I sure as hell don't know. Probably. They are taking list made up primarily of beasts anyway, so I can't see how being able to manage fury better would be a negative. It would make spamming the Razor Boar animus easier for one, which could be neat.
I'm not convinced the lack of fury management in Pigs is a design gap though. I always thought the best approach to fury management in Pigs should be frenzy. Give Pig players every incentive to just go crazy all the time. It would be both fun and unique, require pretty good decision making skills and familiarity with the frenzy rules to maximize efficiency and not get stuck in the regimented "order of activation uber alles" playstyle of Skorne and PoM.
HOW TO MANAGE FURY WITHOUT SPENDING POINTS
One of the nice things, in my opinion, about Gators is the
lack of fury management forces you to get good at the fundamentals of
the game. You can't go balls out with fury on any given turn, and then
cover your ass by spending points on fury control models. I also feel in building lists that the balance between infantry and warnouns is exactly where I would like it to be for Warmachine and other Hordes factions - I need to take a certain number of warbeasts in order to generate fury for my warlock AND also provide a decent number of transfer for safety. That usually ends up being 2 heavies and a light at all points levels, a proposition that makes Khador soil itself with envy.
If I take less, I make my caster more vulnerable by having lower fury generation (meaning I might have to cut for fury regularly) and by reducing the number of potential transfer targets (not only will there be less on the table, but the ones that are there are more likely to be fill up on fury).
If I take more, I use my points less efficiently than I could otherwise (on infantry or solos) and will probably have more fury than I can handle if I want my beasts to function effectively.
Here are some pro-tips (or at least, "tips"):
The fundamentals of fury management are planning and estimating.
The most important factor in planning is to know what your caster will be doing that turn, specifically how much fury you want to spend and how much you want to hold onto. The difference between there two is ideally how much you want to have on the table at the end of your opponent's next turn.
If you expect a beast do die next turn, such as a beast used in a Rask Missile or Rise Missile, then max it out on fury and don't reave it if it'll bring you over cap. Better to cut for 1 or 2 damage to get the missing fury (if needed) than have a warbeast frenzy and do nothing on top of killing your own stuff. If it somehow lives, then you're likely to get a free fully boosted attack out of it when it frenzies.
Very rarely will I aim to have more fury on that table than what my caster can handle. However, if I am able to go completely overboard and put your opponent in a really really bad position by maxing out your beasts, then it's probably worth the risk. Better to risk frenzy to kill an enemy heavy than to have it kill you next turn.
Fury management also takes place during your turn, since that's when transfers are likely to take place. You can think of a transfer as costing you one point of life, since that's what it cost to make up a lost fury. If you reasonably expect your caster to take a few hits, having an extra fury or two on your beasts can save you cutting yourself next turn. In my experience however, if you do a good job at protecting your caster, most experienced players won't even try to kill it without some top-level assassination tech.
The wonders of nature
ACTUAL DESIGN GAPS
Fury management is a non-issue in my opinion. I think the actual design gaps for Gators are:
Lack of anti-tough - the increasing prominence of tough (no thanks to the Witch Doctor!) is one of the bigger contemporary design issues in the game in my opinion. There has also been quite a bit of discussion about it on the forums in the last few months, with a lot of arguments thrown both ways. My stance on the matter is that Tough as a rule, namely a single 5+ unmodifiable dice roll to survive (almost) any attack, is fine in itself. It adds a lot of character and a bit of depth into the game strategy. The issue I have with it is that it is everywhere, with the Piper, Kovnik Joe, huge FU caster auras like Terminus and Irusk and Tough is no longer a special unique rule with character but is turning things into 40k Roll to Hit -> Roll to Damage -> Roll to Save.
And the worse part of it is that Gators cannot do ANYTHING about it at all, except getting that crit consume on Barnabas' bite (I will almost always roll to hit on KD tough models to get that crit). So either fix the game (lots of work), or give me easily accessible anti-tough tech. Shit, I'd take Slaughterhousers. Thanks.
Lack of magical attacks - outside caster melee and ranged weapons, and some magical nukes we have the following things: Thrullg's 3 melee weapons, Pendrake's sword, Croctor's Sacral Blade and Sacrificial Strike. Not to best to deal with those rogue incorporeal zone contest solos, or Cryx ghost infantry BS.
Low number of ranged attacks - less of an issue for me than in the past, but I've fortunately managed to avoid hard control casters like Haley, Denny, Old Witch, etc. If I played those more often I would most likely rage about not being able to play a lot of the time. Obviously Gators, like Cryx or Skorne, are supposed to be heavily melee oriented, but even Cryx has some of the offensive spell toolboxes in the game, and Skorne has a decent number of ranged options and/or magical attacks for those bad matchups too so they aren't 100% boned (just 85%).
Dealing with armor without Rask - not a huge deal, but having +1 POW on Barnabas' cleaver and Maelok's Bite would be a big help. Having to cup my balls and hold my breath when I charge into a slightly damaged heavy might be exciting if I succeed, but it'd be nice to push the odds a little bit in my favour and maybe leave me with 1 fury at the end of my attacks.
The middle two issues could be fixed by making Specialists more baseline. If I see a shitload of magic users and Blackbanes on the other side, I can sub in a Thrullg. If I come up against some hardcore control BS, I can put in 2 Croak Hunters and some Bog Trogs to have something to do on enemy feat turns. It's probably still not enough to patch up those weaknesses, but at least we have something there.
On the flipside, I can't do anything about tough, and will always have to play Rask against heavy armor unless there is an errata on Barnabas/Maelok/Calaban, or some stuff gets released that specifically does not work for Rask (like a warbeast affinity).
Well, that was ranty. Maybe I'll have another equally ranty post in the near future, probably also about how tough spam is retarded. Or whatever the flavour of the month is. Until then, relish being the underdog!
* Seriously, wtf. It can ONLY work on Pig warbeasts and it's not that strong an ability in itself. I'd understand if it could work on things that weren't warbeasts since Rorsch could cast it on almost anything in the game. The only explanations I can come up with are 'DC hates Pigs' or 'future fury management incoming'.
Play at least three games a month (not counting tournaments)
Play in at least three tournaments
Keep writing on this blog every once in a while
Let people know I stole the title of this blog from a CARCASS song
So how did I do? Pretty well, I think.
1. Despite a few weeks early on where I was quite upset at only getting two releases this cycle and intent on playing Skorne, I have in fact been playing Barnabas, Maelok and Rask for the vast majority of my games. I had a couple of lull moments in the year where I borrowed other people's models to keep my interest up on weekly game nights, playing some Khador, Pigmans, Protectorate, CoC, Skorne, and yes, even some Calaban (enough to keep the hate meter full). I still do not own any Skorne models.
2. Easy - I put Thursday evenings aside for Warmachine and try to get a game every time. I also played on Tuesdays for a while since X-Factor was on TV and I made a conscious decision to get the hell out of the house.
3. Achieved:
Ides of March - 25/37
Beermachine 2013A - 12/12 - I was playing Skorne and rage drank the rest of the event after rolling snakes 3 attacks in a row with a Bronzeback (1 in 46,656 odds). That is what we call "snakes from the divine".
Wolfcry - 4/16
Who's the Boss - 1/16
eChoptober - 3/16
Rallypoint - 9/24
There was another Beermachine in there but I drank too much delicious cinnamon liquor and decided to scoop my last two games so no idea what else happened. Pretty sure I didn't come last.
I don't travel much for events so I am really happy to see the number of local tournaments go up (especially 1 dayers!). I am also fortunate to belong to a community with a lot of really cool guys that I never get to see outside Warmachine tournaments but always have a great time playing against no matter the outcome and hanging out with between rounds.
Again a special shoutout to the NZ WM community people who gave up their time and opportunity to play so I could play in tournaments this year: Dave Stent, Chris Russell, Luke Brimblecombe, Damian Caulfield and Daniel Conlon.
4. I'm still here? Very surprising, to be honest. Who else could have written this many posts in a year with almost no releases? Probably anyone with a Cryx blog.
5. This is true. CARCASS reformed and put out a new album this year. It's not Necroticism or Heartwork, but it's pretty good.
How did your gaming resolutions go? I hope nobody made a resolution to play Calaban all year.
Playing the same list for a year straight
Overall, I've had a good time playing Gators. I like the feeling of being so familiar with my models and their abilities that I know exactly what they are capable of and what they aren't so can spend my games reacting to my opponent and setting up for my next turns rather than getting frustrated because I forgot some ability. For instance, I've become eerily familiar with the distances of 10.5"and 12" and have an intuitive sense for how much punishment my stuff can dish out and how much punishment it can take (statistically speaking).The only things I somethings forget at this stage are Snacking on the Wrastler and Girded on the Spitter (both of which hardly come into play). (1)
I know most of my good matchups, and most of my bad ones, and wish they weren't so skewy. I know Rask beats Ret really easily in any scenario game, and I can outgrind most generic Troll lists without issue. On the flipside, I know that I can demonstrably play better than Cryx opponents and still have it end up in a really, really close game that can go either way, or I can get slightly outplayed by a Cryx player and just get completely steamrolled with little chance for retaliation. If I see a Colossal across the table, the odds of killing it or winning in a single-zone scenario without Rask are minuscule. I can't do anything against multiple incorporeal models, and get hosed in the piece-trade game vs weapon master swarms. From this, I also realize that my placing in a tournament can have almost as much do to with my draw as my play.
I like that after I lose a game, I can usually analyze the game and know how I would play that match-up better next time with the range of tools I have rather than feeling like I should buy a unit of Kayazy or Boomhowlers or Gorman or whatever OP merc models and then have a much easier time of winning (2). I also accept that because I play Minions, there's just some games where I am way undergeared and have the odds stacked against me irrelevant of my play.
But that's ok, and it comes with the territory.
Gators are fun. I am really familiar with them and love playing them for their strengths and weaknesses rather than in spite of them. It makes every win more rewarding and softens the blow of every loss. They don't cost me much money at all, which as a married man is super awesome. It is probably the first time in 15+ years of playing miniature tactical wargames that I can say that this particular army has really been worth the time and money investment relative to actual play time - I've always gotten the most out of the hobby through painting in the past.
I look forward to playing them again for another year of not getting releases and doing my best against mostly unfavorable match-ups in a competitive setting.
Afterword
I'm putting this up a little early since I don't foresee too much happening around Warmachine in my life for a month or two. Shamblers aren't being officially released for at least another 4 months, the next tournament I have lined up is mid-February (35pts using almost the exactly same lists I would have played February last year), and the next Hordes releases are probably quite a ways away. And summer is the best time to hang out, drink beer, travel, go camping, and so on.
Here is a pic of the Shamblers in case anyone missed it (sold for 75 USD at the con, if that's any indication):
That's a lot of metal.
Those won't be available to the general public for quite a few months anyway it seems, but at least they exist!
All I have to look forward to in the near future are the sweet, sweet tears of the Ret forum when they get more well-balanced models rather than the OP shit they crave desperately (I do really like the Houseguard Thane for them - still makes no difference against Rask but certainly gives them another situational tool in the proverbial box).
(1)It's a lot like how I felt when I played eButcher (still probably my
favourite caster in the game) until it came to light that no matter how
well you play it, running multiple Khador jacks has way too high an
opportunity cost. If they improve the warjack/focus benefit for Khador, it's the one thing might make me start another faction. Fortunately, I am probably safe from that happening for a really long time as it would require some pretty fundamental changes.
(2) What I now like to call 'the Diablo 3 effect', to which I am especially sensitive.
There have been a lot of threads recently (last couple of months) about the desire for Mk 3 or Mk 2.5 or some kind of balancing errata so that the meta game can get shaken up a bit and we can maybe play without the absolute certainty that your Cryx opponent will be packing a list with Tartarus and a shitload of Banes, and your Cygnar opponent won't have a Haley list with Stormwall or whatever for a couple of months before the new superpowers settle on their thrones high above and the cycle beings anew. All we know is that Minions will remain the worst faction in the game.
So I decided to think out loud (in written form) and put together a little article about what changes I would put forward for Blindwater under such an update patch. Hopefully this at worst will give people a perspective of how I play Gators and what the meta around here is like. Here are the fruits of my mental labour.
A little theory to kick things off....
There are a few ways to balance things in games.
Numbers change - you can make something relatively better or worse in some specific regard by increasing or decreasing a particular stat.
This is the most common type of change in a game 'patch'. Numbers (or stats) represent relative things in an absolute way so that we can compare to other similar things in the system. The more stats you have, the more there is to tweak (and also more complicated and detailed gameplay).
For example, there is a sizable degree of difference between MAT 5 (Titan Sentry), MAT 6 (Assault Kommando), MAT 7 (Doom Reaver) and MAT 9 (Vilmon). In relative/descriptive terms, we can say the Sentry is 'competent' in melee combat, the AK is 'trained', the Doom Reaver is 'highly skilled' and Vilmon is 'one of the best in the entire world'. We can encapsulate these differences by assigning those numbers to their MAT, and this will play out in the game via the exciting realm of dice and probability. Thus changing a number makes something better or worse in that regard.
Points Cost is probably the single most important stat because it determines the relative total value of any given model to another potential option. Points are one of the most important resources in Warmachine, and changing the PC of a model (especially in the lower 1-5pt bracket) can make a huge difference to the power of a model.
Mechanics change - changing one mechanic on a model can change its effectiveness.
Take for example the change to Side Step so that the 2" move no longer triggered upon hitting a friendly model. This reduced the effectiveness of the eMakeda Molik Karn Bullet list slightly so that it became easier for the opponent to not get killed bottom of two.
Another example of this would be the multiple changes to Lich2's feat, from changing the returned models from 'Incorporeal' to 'Ghostly', or changing valid feat targets from 'warrior models' to 'grunts'. The feat does essentially the same thing as it did before - bringing back a bunch of ethereal banes to kill half your army - but certain mechanics of the ability were changed to reduce its power.
Redesign - some models do not work on the table as intended, or have a role or purpose already fulfilled by a competitive option.
For example, nobody plays Drudges in a competitive setting because Mechanithralls do a very similar thing (potentially hard hitting tarpit) at a much lower cost, greater efficiency and without the weakness of being tied to its Officer to function. Therefore Drudges would need more than just a mechanics change (they don't have many to begin with) or a simple stats change (McThralls are still better at 3/5 PC) but something a bit more involved.
I'd also put Calaban as a candidate for redesign, as anyone who has read pretty much any article on here knows how I feel about playing him, as well as his validity in a competitive setting post-Rask.
Finally, a disclaimer - balance is in the eye of the beholder, much like power. Everything takes place within a complicated interconnected system where changing one small thing can have trigger a chain of events further down the line. Some people have a good sense for this type of thing, while the average player in a game does not. This is why balance decisions are best when they occur as the result of careful statistical analysis and systemic thinking combined with consensus-based discussions of subjective perspectives and values.
In my opinion, Privateer Press has a mixed record on game balancing in Mk2. I like how they have approached Lich2 nerfs with gradual tweaking rather than huge sweeping nerfs (as game companies like Blizzard are wont to do) and have done a pretty good job of quickly fixing core mechanic issues that have popped up like the Shield Guard, headlocks from behind, Cover LoS, Sloan's feat, Backswing, etc. but have been almost entirely non-committal on rebalancing the game in terms of power levels or fixing units that are just plain unattractive (with occasional exceptions like Asphyxious, the Blood Hag or more recently Taryn).
I think there is a lot to gain if a large balance errata were released. It would stimulate the metagame for the better part of 6 months to a year (far more than a handful of new releases), thus getting current players more excited about the game and buying new stuff. There is always the issue that your netdecked list won't be playable anymore exactly as is, or that your beloved OP models won't be as broken anymore, but as long as they don't nerf anything into the ground or make really dramatic changes to models that people currently use regularly, then everyone wins.
On the Gatormans!
---------------------------------------------
Warlocks
Our warlocks are pretty strong on the whole. Rask is probably a little on the powerful side, and Calaban is a little on the never-gets-played-because-he-is-annoying-to-use-and-pretty-much-inferior-to-Rask-in-every-way side.
Bloody Barnabas
+ 1 POW on Bone Cleaver
This just adds a little more warjack/warbeast killing power to Barnabas himself. Too often I charge an average heavy like an Ironclad, Harrower, Banshee, Scythean etc. and fall short of killing it by a few boxes despite charging and spending all my fury. It's a bit of a downer for a Gatorman tank, and I think this change will make a noticeable difference in smoothing out his crippling difficulty with ARM 20+.
I think Blood-Quenched would be an amazing rule on eBarnabas :)
Maelok, the Dreadbound
No change.
I would perhaps make Malediction 'target model in this model's battlegroup' rather than 'RNG: Self', but that would probably make him a bit too strong since it's like giving Gators +2 MAT and POW vs any given large target, thereby almost removing the need to take heavy warbeasts and giving a lot more power to the Maelok + 3 Snappers list (it'd be like Dark Shroud on crack).
I love this artwork.
Rask
-1 WB point.
He is obviously better than the other Gator warlocks. 1 less WB points usually means you don't get those Swamp Gobbers to give him concealment or a Feralgeist to annoyingly contest zones. I considered also removing his Energy Siphon attack since it's just icing on the cake that can potentially win games for no real reason, but it's not really a huge deal. As long as Gators remain super weak in ranged combat, Rask will refrain from being broken as balls and just remain really strong.
Calaban, the Grave Walker
Heavy redesign.
Rask has taken this guy's previous niche of ARM cracking and just does it way more efficiently and safely. I would like a redesign to emphasize his manipulative voodoo asshole persona, focusing on denial, spell assassination and debuffs. Think of spells like Bad Blood, Breath Stealer and Shadowmancer, or douchy abilities like Harrow (pMorv) and Talion (pVayl). I like the idea of Shadowmancer a lot more than Parasite + Occultation since it gives you an incentive to NOT take 3 full Posse at 50pts, as they will get shot up. Gameplay wise, he could also be designed to do well vs hard-hitting infantry swarms so that Gators can have a 50/50 against it.
Either way he goes, his arc node mechanic (if kept) needs to be less clunky, like straight-up making Spell Martyr equivalent models that can activate that turn (which will only be really strong on his feat turn), or anything I've written on at length previously.
Warbeasts
Blindwater warbeasts are very average. They don't have great stats, are a little pricey, but do come with some neato abilities make all the difference in using them.
Blackhide Wrastler
Change Snacking so that the RFP effect is not conditional upon the heal effect.
I just think it's really annoying and janky to try and get a point of damage on your beast so that you can RFP if you want to. Just have it RFP all the time as the thing gets eaten or ripped up good. This would be a 'buff' to Dire Trolls too... and Shredders (although Shredders should probably lose Snacking altogether).
+1 POW on the claws would be nice but not necessary. The Wrastler isn't great in the scheme of things but does his job well enough if you know how to use him.
Ironback Spitter
New animus.
The Spitter sucks pretty bad in melee, is slow and not particularly hard to kill for something covered almost entirely in a hard shell. Fine, because it has a sweet AoE gun and RAT 5 with 4 fury. That alone is almost worth the admission. However, in well over 100 games with Blindwater, I have never cast the Ornery animus. It is, for all intents and purposes, a total waste of card space for the Spitter.
I assume Ornery is supposed to symbolize the tendency of snapper turtles to ferociously bite down on things in self-defense (since they are too big to fully retreat into their shell), but in gameplay it fails.
I think Locker (from the Titan Sentry) would be an adequate replacement. Counterblast is the next most logical option since it is Ornery but better, however that animus is also pretty crap.
Or allow it to Stoneform as an animus. That would be sweet and probably not too strong on any caster all things considered (since it doesn't stack with Spiny Growth). Maelok could be ARM 23 for a turn at worse.
Swamp Horror
No change.
They are neat because they have lots of attack and don't die to shooting (but die to everything else). I wish this had been the Gargantuan though, basically the same thing with bigger numbers and an automatic crit.
Bull Snapper
No change.
They are squishy support beasts that can missile out and kill a thing sometimes. Basically the same deal as a Shredder or Gorax, just more Gatory.
Boneswarm
Redesign.
This thing sucks. I have seen it be decent in Midas' tier list when it starts with 3 bone tokens because it is then quite tanky at DEF 13 ARM 18 (just like a dirged Gator! For twice the cost!), so you park it on a flag somewhere and it kills 1-2 models a turn, healing itself and such. Or it does some decent damage to an enemy heavy at POW 15 and then lives long enough to be annoying. Decent - not great. Basically it needs a sense of purpose which it does not currently have.
Units
We have three units, one of which won't be released until 2017. Gatormans are one of the best units in the Hordes (almost said 'the game'... then remembered Warmachine units) and are the backbone of Blindwater and will probably remain so for as long as the Pact exists.
Gatorman Posse
No change.
Prior to the release of the Warspear and Skinwalker UAs, I'd have said that they needed something to make them less attractive to other factions, but now I don't see Legion or Circle players use Gatormans all that much... or at all. They are still super good but still die rather handily if you know how to do it and have the tools (weapon masters, smart use of heavies, control, etc.).
Bog Trog Ambushers
No change.
They are kind of costly for their poor base stats really but are a finesse unit with quite a few special rules.
Gatorman Bokor and Swamp Shamblers
Change their status to 'released'.
Amazing game-changing buff. I still think they will relatively be much better outside Blindwater than within it, unlike the two above units.
Swamp Gobbers
No change.
1pt for a cloud seems ok, especially considering they do nothing else and die to incidental blast damage.
Solos
We have two distinct Gatorman solos, the Croaks and Croctor, and then have a couple of more general Minion solos to go with the legendary Wrong Eye.
Gatorman Witch Doctor
No change.
I am a little bummed that these guys cost 3pts in general but only 2pts in Maelok's tier list, where they are precisely at their most powerful for Gators, which signifies a Minion tax. However I can suck it up since they are pretty good anyways.
Totem Hunter
No change.
No surprise.
Croak Hunter
Gain + 1 DEF, lose Vitriol
Ah Croaks.... I have never even seen them played outside Blindwater since they are so mediocre. I have barely seen them played within Blindwater since they are so mediocre. They have done ok for me purely because they allow me to clear single-models here and there without activating a whole unit of Gators or a beast.
My first thought was that Jump will allow them to do this even better. Plus it is incredily froggy. The only issue is that they basically become crappy Totem Hunters for 1pt less, and we don't really want that... or do we.....?
Secondary thought was to make them blow up when they die like Bloat Thralls, because that'd be hilarious. But then they would just run/jam and kill heaps of infantry for nothing and then I realized this would be way too faceroll / Cryxian.
Tertiary thought was to just buff their DEF by 1 so they are less prone to death after they fail to hit something with their spears, and just went with that.
I just took Vitriol off the card because it does nothing and it's just some fluffy ability for fluffers.
Viktor Pendrake
Bow becomes Magical.
This is the most minor change ever and is only a real deal for Blindwater since we are starved for magic attacks. Makes sense though, no? That bow has to be lucky for a reason (and that reason is MAGIC).
Wrong Eye + Snapjaw
No change.
These guys are great and don't really bust anything in the game outside putting Spiny Growth on Galleon. You could make them 2-3pts more and that wouldn't change though - a hard skew is a hard skew and I am 99% sure this is just something that wasn't picked up in playtesting. Would need a subtype change perhaps, or a change with how lesser warlocks work.
Total changes:
Barnabas - Increase POW of melee weapon 'Bone Cleaver' from '5' to '6'. (or just give him Dark Shroud, that's probably better :P )
Rask - Reduce WB points from '+6' to '+5'.
Calaban - redesign.
Wrastler -replace the text of Snacking with: 'When this model boxes a living model with a melee attack, the boxed model is removed from play and this model can heal d3 damage points'.
Spitter - replace 'Ornery' animus with something I will cast at least once in 100 games.Or not.
Croak Hunter - Increase DEF stat from '13' to '14'. Remove rule 'Vitriol'.
All in all, very small balance changes since I feel Blindwater is in a good place other than the lack of options leading to really bad matchups vs things like weapon master swarms (need some guns/scathers/A2A-type infantry clear) and incorporeal spam (magical weapons).
I would have like to have more nerfs to give the impression that I can have a balanced mindset about things, but to be honest I only view Rask and Gatormans on the really high part of the curve.... this is still Minions we're talking about!
The redesign are for two models I never use because other models within the same faction do similar things in much more effective and well-designed ways. For a thought exercise, Boneswarms at 3pts are still much less appealing than Snappers, and Calaban at +7WB points is still as irritating as groin chaffing and worse than Rask at everything except throwing out POW 12 nukes (mostly because Rask has no offensive spells). This indicates to me that the models just don't really work so need some deeper changes. Some may disagree of course.
In the greater scheme of the game, I think that several models could use small-tweaks in cost or ability use in order to level out power inequalities or obstacles to player engagement. Little changes like:
Making eMorvahna's rerolls in her CMD rather than CTRL to force her to play a bit more forward, or at least consider order of activations a bit more.
Smoothing out uber-crippling feats that literally stop you playing the game, like pDenny (ie. remove the -2 FOC and 'no running') or eHaley's.
Making Assault Kommandos cheaper so they might have a place as meat shields with Strakhov and Vlads.
Reducing the amount of tough rolls in an average game, or changing the mechanic if they want to keep it at that scale so it doesn't feel like I'm playing 40k.
Changing Excarnate to basically be Revive attached to a POW 13 nuke - place the model within 3" of its unit rather than the caster and in this model's CTRL (nerf Lich, buff Scaverous = everyone wins).
Others, like Drudges, need some serious redesign. I think they have the data and expertise to do such a 'patch' justice (much more than I ever could anyway), and besides it'd probably only impact 5-10% of the models currently out.
Alas, we will wait and see what happens. I know it's way cheaper for me to play Minions when I know Pigs are really bad and don't bring anything better to the table so there's no reason to buy a Pig list other than lolz :) I will keep playing the same lists for another year or three if need be.
