Jump to content

Warlord: What Annoys You?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think losing scrye shot is a viable option. As Qwyk said, there are only a couple of models out of the entire Warlord list that actually have the SA. Hopefully, when the stats on the rumored Elven Archer Warlord "of Doom" get posted the fig with have the SA and the Dwarves will no longer have the most expensive Warlord, which should make them happy.

Re: future Elven Warlord, I hope it doesn't come out that expensive, points-wise. I can't possibly be the only poor schlub who decided early on that Dwarves and Elves were both cool, and invested in some models for both factions. Screwing up the Elves' warlord to balance those of the Dwarves would not make me happy. It would be like trying to cure my headache by smacking my thumb with a hammer. The idea might be to distract me from the pain in my head, but it doesn't work. I end up with a worse headache and a sore thumb, to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: future Elven Warlord, I hope it doesn't come out that expensive, points-wise. I can't possibly be the only poor schlub who decided early on that Dwarves and Elves were both cool, and invested in some models for both factions. Screwing up the Elves' warlord to balance those of the Dwarves would not make me happy. It would be like trying to cure my headache by smacking my thumb with a hammer. The idea might be to distract me from the pain in my head, but it doesn't work. I end up with a worse headache and a sore thumb, to boot.



You'd still have Danithal at 260 points.


I agree with Ranzadule (essentially I agree with anything that makes Thorgram cheaper :D


btw Ranzadule, Derf is a racial epithet. :devil: My dwarves demand restitution! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me? Two fundamental things that are interrelated.


1) The product development model that Reaper uses. The game suffers because it is being developed piecemeal, rather than being produced as a complete & tested product before it is released. Essentially, the patrons of this game are beta-testers. Piecemeal development makes it impossible to playtest each element against the whole.


2) Playbalance. There are some significant flaws in the way Reaper assigns point costs to troops. I think Reaper is using a quantitative formula to calculate points for models. There are hints of that in the back of the main rulebook, in the "Generic Cards" section, and other indications when Reaper post 2-point modifications for a 200+ point model. A formula for point costs, in itself, is a good thing... or rather, would be, if the formula properly valued everything. But the final step of any complex calculation is to stop and ask if the answer is right, to check your work, and consider whether the answer is at least reasonbly useful. That is a critical step that Reaper is either missing or has abrogated to its customer beta-testers. Previous posters have cited examples of troops with inappropriate point costs, and I agree with those citations. The formula needs some fixing. When it doesn't generate reasonable results, when it's answer doesn't meet the common sense results of playtesting, it needs to be modified to produce a good outcome. The formula shouldn't make the game. The game should make the formula.


Bottom line: Reaper needs better long-range planning, and a revision of the rules when sufficient time has been invested to get the product right.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, and this is part opinion and part experience, that the issues here are not beta-testing or scrye shot or which factions are more loved than the next. Reaper is NOT one of these game companies that can't survive without the game. They are already established as the big boys in the role-playing mini dept. and are rapidly becoming the bar in paint as well. The games were the result of the creation of a great game system. The whole approch Reaper took on both CAV and warlord was to allow the fans as much input and participation in the games creation as possible. We are in the unique position to not only guide the evolution of Warlord, but we witnessed a game made as much by the fan base as it was by the company. Since day one, Reaper has given us what we wanted and given us the freedom to express ourselves no matter how much we whine and put them down.


Whaat really annoys me, is the appaling amount of cynicism that has erupted on these boards. Nobody is perfect. This time last year there was alot of crying about how changes, updates, Faction books, and models were not coming out fast enough. Now there is complaints that warlord has been rushed and is flawed. Reaper is doing everything right. I don't know if it is too many have given up on the idea of having a good game but this abysmal bout if sniveling needs supressed.


The only answers I am seeing from most of these threads are that a vrey loud minority is trying to stir the pot because there is finally a game that takes more than the ability to crack the formula. If you want to play a formulaic, boring game, you are in the wrong place. Lets try and give these guys some credit and show a little support. If you really believe that the game needs more developers, then in the end it will end up costing as much as those other games out there and be every bit as lousy.


Sorry if I pushed this a little to far, but I had to get this off my chest.


Dr. J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to remember is Warlord is meant to work from 500 points to 2000+. That means there MUST be models that are simply unfieldable in an "average" game, or bigger games become just several batches of the 500 point build lined up side-by-side. Having models that are "usually not worth it" is also a symptom of having a variety of specialists...


There are lots of game developers out there, and Reaper COULD have teamed up with one of them, but then Reaper would not be in control of their own product. I'm increasingly inclined to think that the complexity and liability involved in such an approach would be bad business.


While we can gripe, and Reaper has the remarkable generosity to host threads on their forum that consist entirely of complaints, it'd be silly to forget that Reaper has been in business since the early 90's in an industry where the average company has a lifespan measured in months. That suggests to me that their business is onto a working paradigm, and like they say in Shadowrun, "if you did it and lived, you probably did it right".


I mean, I can say what I like, but in the end "I should know! I'm a..... well, I'm a farmhand...." isn't exactly a argument clincher. Nevertheless, out of nothin' but respect to me as their customer, and an unrepresentative one at that, Reaper staff accept, consider, and discuss with me my opinions on their paint line, their sculptors, their miniatures, and their games.... and now I've actually heard people complain about it! They listen too much! They're too willing to try out solutions we suggest to problems we perceive! They're too responsive! Oh for the good old days when a broken rule would stay that way until the new edition, five years down the track.


In short, I see strengths and I see limitations, but I see very little abject stupidity and NO usery whatsoever. Reaper produce exceptional value-for-money miniatures and if I were to venture a guess I would say they were very likely sticking like glue to a business model that ensured a continued ability to do so. I know several people have said they'd gladly pay $5, $50 or $200 extra for some particular extra thing, but I am not one of those people. I'm here for the remarkable balance of affordability and quality in metal miniatures, without which I would not- and could not- be in the fantasy miniatures hobby any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrJ - I also mostly agree with you.


Here are my quick viewpoints. I find that many wargame companies are either 1) Good at miniatures or 2) Good at game development. This is to say that there are miniature companies out there who feel the need to release a game to support their lines, and that there are game companies out there who feel they need to release miniatures to support their game. Very few can do both, well.


Case in point, GW - who is the BigBoy and has a rather large dedicated staff to work on each of their product lines release quite a few really high quality miniatures (thought they may not appeal to everyone aestetically). However, their games are for the most part, so-so. They aren't bad - and they've had 15-20 years to really develop their core games, but they aren't stellar either. The ironic part is that GW's best games are those that are developed as a spur, and then become "Specialist" games - such as Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl etc.. Warmaster is considered one of the best small scale mass combat games out. Factor in their historical games (Warhammer Ancients, Warmaster Ancient, Warhammer Old West etc..) and there is some decent stuff here - but it's not part of the core package.


Majestic 12 has some really good games out, but no models assigned to those games - which is fine. They can dedicate theirselves to development of their games and leave the miniatures to someone else.


Most other smaller companies can only dedicate the resources to one or the other. Minis, or games.


I reckon Reaper isn't that big of a company when it comes to people working there - and it seems like many people are cross trained to fill in on other duties as needed. That said, they have a stunning array of miniatures available. I'm someone who typically is indifferent towards fantasy, but there is something in the Reaper line that really gets me fired up. Part of it is the diversity. There is something for everyone, really. Some of the models are manga inspired, other are more realistic. There are pretty much any type of adventurer and monster one can imagine. As a miniature company, Reaper is really top notch. I also really like the CAV models for 6 and 10mm sci-fi gaming.


The fact that they are trying to cross the divide and also become a game company is impressive, especially considering the manpower they have to dedicate to development. Lord knows I have my qualms about Warlord (especially the changes) and CAV development - but given the resources, they aren't doing too terrible - and it really taes time to fully refine and streamline a game system. Look at how long D&D has been in development. Some of the games my wargaming club plays are older than I am (and I'm not that young). Reaper definately could have done some things better, but this is a company that will learn from it's mistakes and refine it's product into a finely polished gem - given the time and resources. For what it is, Warlord isn't bad - but it's still experiencing growing pains.


What I'd love to see would be outsourcing of the game development to a company with a strong track record of solid development. That would free the staff up to really sit down and plot out the fluff, looks and feel of the game and the models associated with it without having to get all bogged down with the nuts and bolts of fine tuning the mechanics.


I disagree that such a relationship would be a liability, but rather more of a synergistic relationship where each can feed off one another. I know when we contract outside sources here for a project well tell them exactly what we want that product to do - and regularly monitor it's progress as it develops to maintain control. Sometimes, scenarious and ideals come up that we hadn't initially thought of, often that are of a great benefit and the end result is that much better. The liability is that you are dependant on another team for the end result - and sometimes this leads to frustration through delays or miscommunication - but going with a reliable 3'rd party and making sure that everyone is involved in the process usually helps eliminate these things.


I admit that I'm rather frustrated with the current state of Warlord - but it doesn't stop me from grabbing a friend and a fist full of models and just playing a battle using only the core rules. It's Fast, furious and most of all Fun - and for that I am very happy. Over time, I think the problems with the game will shake themselves out and will be fine tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add my two cents....



In my trowling about the the forums of any other game system, you find this exact same thread, just replace the name of the game and the individual models.


I think that there needs to be some perspective to this, so...


WH40K ( agame that be around what 15-20 years) has errata not only for the rules but every army book, and some of those are into the 4th edition of the errata! I think that the same will be true of the new book coming out for WH. As I recall, many GW players complain about army books with new rules that make their armies of another faction absolete.


Warmachine has several pages of errata and questions posted online, and many players argue that certain models are overpower or under priced.


Confrontation has a multiple page errata as well as errata listed in the main rulebook, an additional multiple page FAQ document. In the Confrontation forums, many players as well as Rackham's player demo team say that the rule book is porrly edited, compiled, and translated.


But despite all these issues, these games are still popular. It is not because they advertize in game magazines more than Reaper, they all have their own magazines. It is because the fan support is there, and even with the inherent flaws of those games, those players still attract new players to the game.


The epithet of 'grognard' really applies to gamers as a whole. The popularity of these games (CAV and Warlord) does not solely rest with Reaper and the Black Lightening Team, it as much the responsiblity of the players.


Finally, it could be alot worse. There was a game company that released a second edition of a game which was a total revision all models got new stats. And because they said it was so expensive to publish the army books, they would not work on an army book before the models for that are started selling more -- buy the models you don't have rules for and then we'll give you the rules. Yes, this company is out of business now.


I don't mean to offend anyone, but we are as much to blame as anyone else.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to offend anyone, but we are as much to blame as anyone else


GW, Confrontation and Warmachine have a large fan base to sustain the games. Unfortunately, Warlord has not reached this stage and it is still far from it. Most of the players there like to support the game but there is only so much we can do. It is much easier to convince a new person to play a particular game if there are already a group of players than introducing one which no one has heard about. The three companies spend a lot of effort and money in advertisment and in promotion. I do not see that Reaper puts in that amount of effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rather new in my experience with Reaper products so I don't expect my post to carry much weight, and though this is an annoys thread I'm not really annoyed with Warlord.


I never really seen any of the reaper products, (well I did but did not know who made them) until Gencon. I got to demo Cav and Warlord and was really excited about the games. So I've been buying a little bit at a time into both games. I don't have much as of yet and almost no experience with getting to play the game.


Now, I've played other games for a time, (Warhammer, Battletech, and Warmachine from it's launch), I don't play any of those but battletech anymore. The reasons I don't play the others, cost is one but, originality is another. Warlord looks cool because you can play small games or big games with a good range of figures. From what I've seen I've not ran into any flavor of the month/year armies that everyone has the same thing. Rules changes are for the game it seems and not for making money. I don't mind a rule broken or in need or work thats all part of the learning process, no matter how much you play test, someone will come up with something new that was unforseen and change things it happens. No one can totaly predict how a new figure will affect play with every other figure in the line unless there are only a very few to choose from. I think that a work in progress game is far better than an established one where changes in points value or rules for figures only are there to sell new models.


As for the advertising issue. Sure, I never seen warlord. Our local hobby shop does not carry any reaper products. Still though if you are making money, and building a player base, even slowly, you can hold off and then advertise when you get the product closer to the way you want it, more refined as such. When PP released warmachine, it was pumped huge I thought. The local hobby shop and the one in the next two big cities around here sold everything they got in stock. But PP dropped the ball and could not keep up with the demand they created and no one else could get product around here. It really hurt the game. Other than myself I've not seen a game played at the local hobby shop in about a year or better. I know people with figures still, but they don't play and mostly it is just people who bought the starters and got tired of throwing one starter at another.


If warlord keeps growing to a point where it is a very solid game rules wise, with a wide range of figures and books, and then gets a massive advertising push I think it would go over huge.


The only thing I've found from reading through the core rule book I really don't care for much is the los system and figure bases. As far as the figure bases go, I think comes more from a hobby and modeling standpoint as I just like the round bases better. No big gripe really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well its not exactly Warlord that get my goat but the balance of power on ReaperGames and they way it seem to function very poorly . While I accept that points can be sent from other player in other provinces I real dislike when some racks up a whole lot of cheap little 300 or 400 points games in a day and therefore scewing the Balance Of Power and their own rankings . Why should someone how like to play a bigger size game be disadvantaged ? How can little 300 point skirmishes be more contributing than a 2000 point massive rumble ? (grumble,grumble) . :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...