WL System Discussion (Split from Karkarions)

[Shakandara]

Thanks for posting that. I appreciate you taking the time to compile that feedback. I'd disagree with the assessment that any of those things mean that the game has "bad rules"; by the same token, neither would I characterize the game as perfect. I'm not going to address any of those points specifically, as I believe the majority of it is sheerly based on preference and familiarity.

 

~v

Edited December 27, 2012 by Shakandara

[ObsidianCrane]

There are big difficulties with "personal preference" and perception of "game balance" or "good rules".

 

The absence of a significant competitive tournament system means that "personal preference" is something that can dominate design choices. However if the game were to be developed as a way of actively selling miniatures then "game balance" and "good rules" needs to take precedence.

[wildger]

By no way is this exhaustive, and I may not have this all correct. Most of these criticisms aren't mine, but have been brought to me over time.

 

I am glad that these are not your ideas. Some of these comments appear to be brought forward by those who get so used to the other game systems, like 40K or WHFB, and that they never tried to learn Warlord in the first place.

 

To someone, D10 may be horrible but it does not make Warlord into a bad game. D6 has its limitation as well and sometimes being too simplistic. At least, Warlord stays with one type of dice.

 

Whoever feels that the initiation deck is a problem is acutally not learning to play the game at all. He is simply grunting. Part of the fun is to build a balanced army with spy and tacticians. If someone doesn't want to do that, tell him to play another game.

 

I don't like models that have multiple wound and that their stats never change with damages.

 

I don't believe that shooting is an issue. It was a problem for the first edition.

 

I am not going to comment on defensive strikes.

 

The interaction of spell casting and movement range is complicated and one has to look at the overall picture rather than narrowing into a specific part of the game. The two example you used are not a good choice to illustrate your points. How do you expect the Witch Queen to defend herself with only a MAV 3 / DV 10? And she moves slowly at 6? Besides, Domination is a unique (ie once per game) spell with a range of 18". If your opponent does not know what the Queen is capable of doing, he deserves to lose. If you can alpha strike her in turn 1, do so.

 

Teleport is an Arcane spell that cost 5 points to cast. I played Necropolis. Only Naomi and Tharian have access to it. I don't even field the latter. Moreover, every fraction has access to it. Instead of hiding a powerful melee asset, it is also used as a saver for your important model. Right here is a good illustration that you need your models to support one another. Meanwhile, you should try to take out enemy casters at every opportunity. Any spell users who can use 5 SP spells are powerful. Don't just focus on the melee model alone.

 

In both examples, your friends lost because they were being outplayed by a much more experienced player like you. They complained because they did not know the mechanics of the game well. These do not mean that Warlord is a bad game. Thus, I fail to see the issues you raised.

 

Finally, if you ever want to demo another game with your Witch Queen, please kindly ask your opponent to consider Nefsofar.

Edited December 27, 2012 by wildger

[smokingwreckage]

The unexpected is always produces anxiety. You might give the newb the Teleport set-up and tell him outright you're going to try to kill his caster.

 

It's always a big problem, introducing people to the basics so they don't get overwhelmed, but with enough of the bling that they don't decide the game doesn't have enough Kewl Powerz.... although this is from my experience with other games.

[psyberwolfe1]

Ok the quote system is not working like it used to so my comments are in bold.

 

Thanks for posting that. I appreciate you taking the time to compile that feedback. I'd disagree with the assessment that any of those things mean that the game has "bad rules"; by the same token, neither would I characterize the game as perfect. I'm not going to address any of those points specifically, as I believe the majority of it is sheerly based on preference and familiarity.

 

~v

 

No worries Vince. The one really badly written rule is shot corridor and cover. It is not well defined in the book. The book doesn’t convey intent. The bad rule is walls and shooting. It breaks the well defined wargame paradigm of the golden rule of shooting. Get your hands on War Machine/ Hordes and you will understand where this is coming from. That game, in my opinion is quite possibly one of the best “wargames” ever written. That is when it comes to rules.

 

 

I am glad that these are not your ideas. Some of these comments appear to be brought forward by those who get so used to the other game systems, like 40K or WHFB, and that they never tried to learn Warlord in the first place.

 

Actually the criticisms come from people who hate GW games. They play War Machine/Hordes.

 

To someone, D10 may be horrible but it does not make Warlord into a bad game. D6 has its limitation as well and sometimes being too simplistic. At least, Warlord stays with one type of dice.

This one is mine. I really hate the d10. The two treatises I posted scratch the surface of why it is in general a bad idea. There are mathematical reasons why I hate it too. I’ve been exchanging the d10 with 2d6 and I love the results it gives. Now there are reasons why d10 is good. Mainly you’re less likely to flip the die on to the previous result. I deal with it, but I feel strongly this is bad design. It doesn’t make the game bad, but it isn’t optimum.

 

Whoever feels that the initiation deck is a problem is acutally not learning to play the game at all. He is simply grunting. Part of the fun is to build a balanced army with spy and tacticians. If someone doesn't want to do that, tell him to play another game.

 

This one is also mine. Here’s why. I’ve learned from years of Chess play that people feel that going first imparts magical winning. It doesn’t and the prevalence of Tacticians in the game allows me to give my opponent a false sense of winning. You see I’m dictating the combat, and my opponents typically don’t realize what I’m doing until it’s too late. Furthermore the game is I-go-U-go with the occasional interruption. So let’s make the game honest instead of maintaining the pretense that activations are interleaved. It’s a needless extra step that really doesn’t produce the results it is aiming for. Does this make it a bad game? Nope, but it is bad design.

 

I don't like models that have multiple wound and that their stats never change with damages.

 

Fair enough. But damage tracks are a barrier to learning the game because there is too much to keep in mind.

 

I don't believe that shooting is an issue. It was a problem for the first edition.

 

Shooting isn’t. Ranges are. It’s the same problem GW games have. You are engaged by shooting/magic on turn one and so movement becomes irrelevant.

 

I am not going to comment on defensive strikes.

 

The interaction of spell casting and movement range is complicated and one has to look at the overall picture rather than narrowing into a specific part of the game. The two example you used are not a good choice to illustrate your points. How do you expect the Witch Queen to defend herself with only a MAV 3 / DV 10? And she moves slowly at 6? Besides, Domination is a unique (ie once per game) spell with a range of 18". If your opponent does not know what the Queen is capable of doing, he deserves to lose. If you can alpha strike her in turn 1, do so.

 

Ok I’m going to have to correct you on Dominate. The affect is unique but that doesn’t mean once per game. As long as I have spell points I can cast it all day long. Who is casting it is irrelevant. What is relevant is I cast it and now we’re playing “Quit Hitting Yourself.” That game wasn’t fun when adults did it to us as kids and it is not fun now. I deal with this, but I can see the problems with the spell.

 

Teleport is an Arcane spell that cost 5 points to cast. I played Necropolis. Only Naomi and Tharian have access to it. I don't even field the latter. Moreover, every fraction has access to it. Instead of hiding a powerful melee asset, it is also used as a saver for your important model. Right here is a good illustration that you need your models to support one another. Meanwhile, you should try to take out enemy casters at every opportunity. Any spell users who can use 5 SP spells are powerful. Don't just focus on the melee model alone.

 

Yes they are. The problem is Teleport is amazingly powerful compared with the other 5SP spells. Where ever teleport happens that is where the combat happens. In effect you have given your melee masters a 38” charge range (12” pick-up+18” delivery + 8” charge=38” which doesn’t figure in base size.) I think the spell needs to cost more.

 

In both examples, your friends lost because they were being outplayed by a much more experienced player like you. They complained because they did not know the mechanics of the game well. These do not mean that Warlord is a bad game. Thus, I fail to see the issues you raised.

 

You’re right. However I have taught this game a lot down here and the fact I can’t get a player base does in fact make a game bad. If the game was good more people would play. Warlord faces the problem of try to attract players who are spoiled for choice. War Machine is a better written game. Malifaux is pretty. Warhammer … speaks for itself. With Confrontation coming back … who knows?

 

Finally, if you ever want to demo another game with your Witch Queen, please kindly ask your opponent to consider Nefsofar.

I never demo with the Witch Queen. She is a recipe for not encouraging people to play.

As I’ve said: I enjoy Warlord for what it is. I think this game really needs an official FAQ and rules errata. Not to the scope of the Rage Chronicles but more to fix the fiddly bits.

[Shakandara]

Ok I’m going to have to correct you on Dominate. The affect is unique but that doesn’t mean once per game.

 

This is incorrect. Unique does in fact mean just that; a given caster can use it only once per game, period. If you have multiple casters with access to the spell, then you may cast it more than once (but still only once for each model).

 

There are a number of Unique spells in the game; they all function this way.

 

~v

edited for clarity

Edited December 27, 2012 by Shakandara

[herzogbrian]

If you don't like the movement rates and don't want to fight turn 1, play on a 6' table and eliminate the 5 turn limit. This will allow a few more tactical moves.

 

If you think Ranges are too long, PLAY WITH TERRAIN. Not just 6-8 on your 16 sq ft table, but 6-8 PER square foot.

[wildger]

Psyberwolf1, if you don't understand what a unique spell means, I am quite certain that you played a lot of your games wrong and felt frustrated.

 

You really need to design your troops well in order to use Teleport the way you intended. I emphasized the cost of 5 points not because it is under or over-valued. The fact is that not many wizards can cast that arcane spell at such cost. You need to move your caster forward either with special abilities or by the help of another caster before it can put on the spell on the melee figure and it has to be in the same troop as your caster for it to be activated right away. Besides, you are putting your caster at risk. Usually, enemy caster is my prime target.

 

Teleport is NO way as bad as Daisy Chain. It is like a kid vs a giant. It is also not comparable to Nefsokar's cavalry charge. I did not recall that Gus' powerful crimson knight army ever bothered to field a caster for this spell. I am very surprised that you did not even mention that. In a sense, these unique fraction specific tactics function similar to Warmachine where each fraction has a trick under their sleeve and each fraction in WM is considered broken.

 

I usually do not compare WL to WM because they are two very different theme and concept. Many more people do like giant robots than dragon though.

 

Every WL players should know how to design an army to encounter a single strong melee figure.

 

So far, all the posts you made imply that your opponents were not aware of the mechanics of the game. And if you were demonstrating any game, you were not telling them what to watch out and how to encounter.

[psyberwolfe1]

I've never used or had Dominate used wrong against me. It makes it less bad but doesn't cure it.

 

As for Teleport. I know exactly how to use it. I beat my opponents over the head with that spell again and again. I specifically use it for assassination runs against enemy casters or to tie up forces for awhile.

 

So far, all the posts you made imply that your opponents were not aware of the mechanics of the game. And if you were demonstrating any game, you were not telling them what to watch out and how to encounter.

 

This is so off the mark it isn't even funny. They are so aware that they just hate the mechanics. They dislike the mechanics so much, I can't even get them to come here and post for themselves. The truth is they have beat me more than I have beat them, and they still have problems with the game. Second until I demo a game for you Wildger I would appreciate it if you kept your assumptions to yourself.

[ObsidianCrane]

As a general guideline when feedback is requested on a game and given its generally bad to tell the person "your opinion is wrong". Ensuring they are using the rules correctly is good (eg Unique spells 1/game/caster), telling them they are wrong or biased or incompetent is not conducive to feedback.

 

So far this thread has made me less inclined to invest in Warlord and more inclined to invest in Hordes. The one thing that ensures I'll still buy at least Savage North to look at is that I'll have a good start on 3 or more forces thanks to the Bones KS and my existing Reaper models.

 

Right now my concerns are based on abstract matters such as base sizing and shape. Square bases are not a single dimension and 25mm, 40mm, 50mm gives an odd array with the diagonal distance on a 40mm base being larger than the side length on a 50mm. This makes the difference in size between Large and Giant models negligible on the table for example depending on how the models contact.

[psyberwolfe1]

Right now my concerns are based on abstract matters such as base sizing and shape. Square bases are not a single dimension and 25mm, 40mm, 50mm gives an odd array with the diagonal distance on a 40mm base being larger than the side length on a 50mm. This makes the difference in size between Large and Giant models negligible on the table for example depending on how the models contact.

Oh I've thought about the shenanigans one can squeeze out using the base shape. I think round is better but there are specific rules that need square. So my current solution is to base round, magnetize, and place on steel square bases.

 

ObsidianCrane I would say Warlord is fun. The Confrontation players I've introduced to the game feel the mechanics are close to Confrontation and see it as a viable pure fantasy skirmish game. WL is fighting an uphill battle. It's rules are better than Warhammer but not as tight and well written as War Machine/Hordes. Its models are better than War Machine but Warhammer has amazing plastics (granted there is a lot of opinion thrown in here too.) WL is very affordable, but very few play it. I can get an opponent for Warhammer or WM any day of the week where I live.

And yes the Bones KS has an amazing selection of figures for Warlord.

[Shakandara]

Square bases are not a single dimension and 25mm, 40mm, 50mm gives an odd array with the diagonal distance on a 40mm base being larger than the side length on a 50mm. This makes the difference in size between Large and Giant models negligible on the table for example depending on how the models contact.

 

Why are you concerned about this?

 

~v

[Shakandara]

As a general guideline when feedback is requested on a game and given its generally bad to tell the person "your opinion is wrong". Ensuring they are using the rules correctly is good (eg Unique spells 1/game/caster), telling them they are wrong or biased or incompetent is not conducive to feedback.

 

I agree. Seeing as I was the one (and not wildger or anyone else) that asked psyberwolf1 to share those comments with me (privately, I might add), do you think that my response was inappropriate?

 

~v

[ObsidianCrane]

Shakandara nope you were good.

 

Its a concern because I need to read the rules and be sure of a few things, but in principle there are issues with diagonal vs side length creating inconsistencies in the distances between miniatures according to what is facing where.

[kristof65]

To someone, D10 may be horrible but it does not make Warlord into a bad game. D6 has its limitation as well and sometimes being too simplistic. At least, Warlord stays with one type of dice.

 

This one is mine. I really hate the d10. The two treatises I posted scratch the surface of why it is in general a bad idea. There are mathematical reasons why I hate it too. I’ve been exchanging the d10 with 2d6 and I love the results it gives. Now there are reasons why d10 is good. Mainly you’re less likely to flip the die on to the previous result. I deal with it, but I feel strongly this is bad design. It doesn’t make the game bad, but it isn’t optimum.

I have to take issue with this.

 

I have no problem with your opinion that you hate the d10. But to roll your opinion over into the argument that it is bad design just because a game chooses to use d10s is going a bit too far.

 

I read the treatise's you linked to, expecting to see the d10 crucified. But I didn't come away with that impression. While a couple of legitimate concerns about non-d6 were raised, they appeared to me to be no more than yet another one of the things that a game designer must take into account when designing a game. None of which actually make for bad design in and of themselves. Furthermore, the writer of those treatise's seems to be focused strictly on large scale miniatures games that are primarily sold in a more piece meal fashion, rather than all games.

 

There are a lot of reasons why a d10 - or any non-d6 die - may provide advantages for a particular game that outweigh the aforementioned disadvantages. It is up to the game designer to decide this, and a series of poor decisions along with the die choice can (and often does) lead to bad design. But this can happen with d6 as well as any other die type.

 

You don't like d10s. I get it, and I can respect that as a personal opinion. I can't respect it as a simple label of "bad design" without more concrete examples of why you think the math and actual usage of them is bad. And I got the impression that your dislike of the d10 gave you a different impression of the treatises you linked to.

 

Personally, I don't like Fantasy Flight Games method of using lots of dice with custom icons for their games. It annoys me to no end. But I also understand their reasons for using them, and would never accuse them of "bad design" simply because they use them. I would classify it more as a marketing or design decision I dislike. But it doesn't make it bad design.