WL System Discussion (Split from Karkarions)

[MiniCannuck]

Morning all (or afternoon/evening - depending on when you read this post).

 

I just spent the last 1/2 hour catching up on this thread. I appreciate what the different viewpoints are saying about whether the system is good/bad and what is stopping Warlord from being more popular.

 

Part of my hobby passion is collecting (and reading) various miniature games from the small, self published games I find at conventions to the mainstream games we all know and love/hate.

 

In my humble opinion, the Warlord rule system is fine. Is it perfect? No, but it delivers a fun little game. The purpose of this post is not to give my opinion on the rules. Everyone will have their own preference on how they like the game to play. Ultimately, I really don't think that the rule set makes or breaks a game's success in the market. From what I see, it is the investment in the game world that keeps a game alive.

 

Let's take a look at some of the top selling miniature games from 2012: Warhammer 40k, Fantasy, Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux and HeroClix. These games span the range of rule systems with some being more complex and others being very simple and leaving a lot to chance. What they all have in common is that they have either developed a strong world identity, cohesive model design or have piggybacked on a know IP from another medium. People can be part of "team space marine" or "team resurrectionists" and proudly carry that banner to their games. The people invest themselves in a faction and this allows rivalries to develop.

 

Warlord doesn't seem to develop the same sort of fan following for a faction.

 

Are the factions in Warlord unique and colorfull? Sure. Many of the factions are pretty generic fantasy fodder but there are missed opportunities to really develop a "feel" for these factions. There is no sense of timeline to the game and very little fluff to bring the characters alive. The world is static and it is hard to keep a person's attention when you are not invested in the game world. It is a miniature version of "Groundhog's Day".

 

The other limitation is the closed faction rule that once a faction is written, there will be no additions to the faction - EVER.

 

I understand that this limitation is meant to avoid power creep but, again, it really hurts a person who wants to follow a certain faction. Many people like to collect armies. Often we complain when new rules or models come out for our faction that may limit the use of some of our existing models and make us want to buy the new "hotness". Funny thing is, most of us buy them anyway because we are still invested in our part of their world. With Warlord, there are over 600 models represented in 20+ factions - that A LOT OF MODELS!!!! The problem that we come against is that we get our models for our faction, build our lists for 1000 point games and... we are done. We have nothing else to buy unless we start another faction. We have been told that Reaper is a miniature company, not a gaming company. So, doesn't it make sense that Warlord should encourage us to buy more figures? Not only would new models for factions drive up sales but it would also keep people invested in an evolving faction.

 

The other challenge that the game has is that Reaper has a lot of amazing artists working for them, each with their own style. Though each model by itself is often a work of art, there is no overlying aesthetic for the game. Like the setting, it is a hodge podge of common fantasy themes. Some people may like this approach - personally, I follow a number of artists and collect their miniatures. Other people who are more gamer than modeler may be put off by this approach.

 

Bottom line is Warlord "is what it is". It is up to Reaper to decide how they want to handle this IP to best suit them and their future goals. After that decision is made, each of us have to decide whether we want to invest in that future and whether our friends will come along for the ride. We play miniature games because we love games. No matter how much you love a game, it is hard to get excited about a game system if you can't find anyone to play with.

 

Tomorrow is a new year - I have faith in Reaper as a company and look forward to what they have in store for 2013. So, here's hoping that Warlord will get some love and we will see 2013 be the year Warlord really makes an impact on all our gaming clubs.

 

Happy new year everyone!

 

Kevin

[wildger]

Rick Priestley, the designer of WHFB and 40K, has picked D10 and D100 for the new game, Beyond the Gates of Antares. Check Kickstarter and the corresponding website.

 

The previous comment of a D10 system being bad is beyond reasoning.

 

To the moderator:

I request that this thread be locked and buried. It serves no purpose for the game. Besides, psyberwolf1 is here simply arguing rather than having any meaningful discussion. Besides, when looking over his correspondence, one can find that he is contraindicating himself.

[Qwyksilver]

Sorry but i fail to see a need for such an action. Dissenting opinions are not moderated. If you do not wish to participate, or cannot stop yourself from responding, stop reading the thread. Nothing has violated Board Rules of Conduct warranting the thread to be locked at this point.

 

Psywolfe made a comment, and was asked to expand on it. He's entitled to those opinions.

 

If you want a thread to die. Stop paying attention to it.

[kristof65]

The other limitation is the closed faction rule that once a faction is written, there will be no additions to the faction - EVER. I understand that this limitation is meant to avoid power creep but, again, it really hurts a person who wants to follow a certain faction. Many people like to collect armies. Often we complain when new rules or models come out for our faction that may limit the use of some of our existing models and make us want to buy the new "hotness". Funny thing is, most of us buy them anyway because we are still invested in our part of their world. With Warlord, there are over 600 models represented in 20+ factions - that A LOT OF MODELS!!!! The problem that we come against is that we get our models for our faction, build our lists for 1000 point games and... we are done. We have nothing else to buy unless we start another faction. We have been told that Reaper is a miniature company, not a gaming company. So, doesn't it make sense that Warlord should encourage us to buy more figures? Not only would new models for factions drive up sales but it would also keep people invested in an evolving faction.

 

Let me present another viewpoint. Certain game systems have convinced us that a faction MUST be able to infinitely expand. But there is another alternative. And that is the continual introduction of new factions.

 

If a faction only has 20-30 models, it's not a big deal to finish one faction and start another one. In fact, I propose that it might be better off for a game system long term to do things this way.

 

- one, how many gamers really only stick with one faction in any game system? Less than half, I'd say, and I'd guess that most of those do so simply because of the financial aspects of collecting armies for the more expensive games.

 

- two, by encouraging multiple faction ownership, you actually give more gamers the tools to introduce the game to friends. I can't tell you how many people my best friend and I introduced to GW games by loaning them one of our many armies for a night.

 

Consider for a moment the history of Warhammer 40k, how it progressed to where it is now, and how different things could have been. First - how it has progressed for GW - they released the game, and several factions. After a point, the game was revised, and all factions were re-released. This has pretty much been the case for 6 editions now. While a couple of editions have dropped a faction and/or added a new one, we're some 25 years into 40k now, and hope for any new factions is pretty much gone. It's all about new models now.

 

But think about how it could have been - I'm not contesting the need for a couple of new editions in there - while 1st and 2nd editions were fun, they did need some definite rule cleanup. But consider for a minute if GW had decided on a different strategy, say with third edition.

 

The 40k fluff states there are tens of thousands of Imperial Guard units, a thousand Space Marine chapters and hundreds of Eldar CraftWorlds and Ork hordes. What if instead of retiring and re-releasing rules all those times, GW had instead concentrated on keeping the rule set fixed, and just kept releasing new factions, and retiring old ones? By releasing and retiring one new faction for each of the major powers each year, the system and universe would simply keep getting larger, and larger. Say they had done this with 3rd edition, which came out in 1998. Here in 2013, we would now be seeing the release of only the 18th or 19th new Space Marine chapter, leaving a mere 980 or so to go before they ran out. Even at three new chapters a year, we'd still have over 900 left to go.

 

Owning older factions would be considered a status symbol. Older players would still be playing, and still be buying, not feeling forced to rebuy much of the same stuff they already own. Long term, I think it would have had a healthier impact on the game, though the growth curve would have been slower. How many of people out there would have been unable to resist buying a new faction every 2-3 years, but like me, have been able to resist buying a new edition? Currently, I have four 40k editions (1st thru 4th), and four 40k armies, but my 40k buying dropped with each edition after 2nd, until it petered out completely after 4th edition. I haven't purchased anything new for 40k since 4th first came out. However, I can honestly say that I would have picked up a new army every 2-3 years years had the rules stayed the same.

 

I contend that we've become conditioned to accept that a faction must continually grow. But the truth of the matter is that our need as gamers (and possibly as humans) is to actually be able to consistently buy newer, shinier things. A new faction with new models to buy and play with is still just as new and shiny as new models for an old faction. Plus it gives a sense of completeness - "I have completed my Faction X, so it's ok for me to start buying Faction Y now."

 

So one could say that Warlord is poised to be handled in that fashion (and would actually work better than 40k or WFB would). IF Reaper really wanted to make a go of it that way, they could. Honestly, if Warlord were to get 2-6 new single faction books filled with faction specific fluff, rules and modeling guides every year, it would go a long way towards making Warlord more popular.

 

But I don't think Reaper feels that promoting and expanding Warlord is the best use of their resources right now, and while it disappoints me as a gamer, I understand it as a business person, and so I will deal with it.

 

Overall, IMO, no game system is perfect. And frankly, the differences among the best ones really come down to personal choices. Choices like aesthetics, die type(s), turn activations, flavor (sci-fi, sci-fantasy, fantasy, historical), and flaws you can live with, etc.

 

What I find disheartening is the number of people who find flaws in a game, and will use those flaws as an excuse not to play it. Yes, there are games that have so many flaws they are pretty much unplayable. But I'm not talking about those games - I'm talking about the ones that are playable, and can still be fun with the right mindset. But way too many people will find a couple of flaws** and use those as an excuse not to play at all.

 

Because, frankly, you name a popular game system, and I* can find a flaw in it to use as an excuse. But I'd much rather play games - any games - than find flaws in them. And the lower the entry cost of a game, the more likely I'm going to buy into it.

 

 

----------------

*assuming I'm familiar with it, or can find enough info on it online.

 

** There is a difference between simply finding flaws and flaws that cause you not to enjoy a game at all. Not everyone can live with the same flaws, so yes, a flaw can be a valid excuse. But many flaws can be overlooked with the right mindset.

 

EDIT: Grr - for those of you who saw the big wall of text, I don't know why, but went I went to edit one thing, it messed everything up. Hopefully this fixed is

Edited January 2, 2013 by kristof65

[joshuaslater]

I think the original post has been answered. The success of Bones will have either no affect on Warlord, or be positive in that it will let people buy into it at a lower price.

[wildbill]

After spending more than 30 minutes reading through this entire thing, I have come to two conclusions (which are of course 100% correct ):

 

* No one is going to be able to convince psyber to change his mind, no matter how valid the argument.

* psyber is not going to be able to convince anyone to come to his side, no matter how valid the argument.

 

So, I propose this as a truce and peace offering: Let your dice and armies do the talking for you.

 

What is that, WB? Are you insane? Probably, but that's not the point.

 

So, on Side One you would have Shak + wildger + ???. On the Side Two would be psyber. Each player on Side One would field a 1,000 point army. psyber would field an army equal in size to all of his opponents combined. For example, if only Shak and wildger can attend, then psyber would have a 2,000 point army. (I only state this example in case my previous wording was vague!) Now, depending on how creative you guys want to be with this battle, psyber can do his army 1 of 2 ways:

 

1) He fields a coherent 2,000 point force of the faction of his choice.

 

2) He fields two 1,000 point forces from two different factions.

 

There are pros and cons to both of these. I have never personally tried Option 2), but it does sound very fun to me. Anyways, what does the winning side of the battle get out of all of this? They get to declare that their arguments are the only valid ones and the other side was wrong. The losing side has to acknowledge this, of course.

 

Does this realistically change anyone's viewpoint? Of course not. Does it lead to some good natured ribbing for the losing side? Absolutely. That's the point.

 

Wild Bill

[psyberwolfe1]

After spending more than 30 minutes reading through this entire thing, I have come to two conclusions (which are of course 100% correct ):

 

* No one is going to be able to convince psyber to change his mind, no matter how valid the argument.

* psyber is not going to be able to convince anyone to come to his side, no matter how valid the argument.

 

So, I propose this as a truce and peace offering: Let your dice and armies do the talking for you.

WB it's the internet. We get to be 100% intractably right because we can.

 

[MiniCannuck]

Hi Kristof. I really enjoyed reading your post. However, the model you were presenting wasn't what I had in mind.

 

I detest change for change sake. My suggestion of a living faction list was more of a progression of time and events. Think of heroes and units of renown from different ages in the world. If there was more of a world view, you could have heroes and units from different ages fight "what if" battles or recreate scenarios from points in the world history. Again, this is to develop faction identity and loyalty.

 

Though I am the type to collect different factions for games, I've found that I'm more the exception than the rule. Most of my game club and people I've met at conventions have their "home team" and don't stray too far from that.

 

Either way, the world is full of different styles of collectors. Here's hoping that everyone finds what they want and enjoy the game.

[kristof65]

MiniCannuck - My big point was that you can keep a system fresh without actually requiring a re-release of the rules like GW does, and a redoing of all the factions over and over again. I was also talking over a long term period - for example, with 40k, in the 15 years since 40k 3rd edition was released, had they followed the model I laid out, what new players to 40k saw would look tremendously different than what older players bought into, but would still be fundamentally the same. Furthermore, under such a system, player attrition would be more organic, instead of the inevitable turn over that happens with each new edition. But I digress

 

I think that we're actually on a similar train of thought, at least for what Warlord could do. I can imagine a model similar to what Battletech did with advancing timelines would work well. Under such a timeline you could keep "old" factions viable and fresh by introducing new characters and promoting old ones periodically. New factions could be introduced in a variety of ways, such as splitting an existing faction in two with internal strife, etc. If you wanted to risk player alienation, you could actually "kill off" characters as needed under such a system, too.

 

This could be done without having to constantly issue a new stream of rules and minis, and, I think would work well for Warlord.

[MiniCannuck]

Exactly Kristof. In a dynamic world system, factions would rise and fall with new warlords rising to the top. The rules don't need to change, there just needs to be some evolution of the world.

 

Besides Battletech, other games that do this well are Warmachine, Malifaux and Lord of the Rings. The old factions are still playable but you have the option of using models from further in the storyline.

[ObsidianCrane]

Culling factions that have built loyalty is always bad.

 

Warlord is likely to stagnate unless Reaper lets someone develop it as a dedicated game system where Reaper provides the miniatures.

 

In short a tight consistent setting needs to be developed with strong faction identities based on the current product lines; say 10 factions. These factions can be drawn from the existing lines just fine with the unused models rolled over to being mercenary forces so as to not be entirely invalidated.

 

From there you have the scope to run tournaments; Warlord Battles are tournaments with no effect on the game they can have a ranking system etc if desired. Legend Tournaments would then be at big cons like ReaperCon, Pax and Gencon and be about changing the story of the game. Legends tournaments would do things like create new figures for forces and "level up" models and so on expanding the story of the setting and giving players a reason to invest in that story.

 

However all of that requires something very different to Reaper's current business plan around Warlord.

 

Doing the above facilitates a review of the rules as well incidentally for clarity and matching things up.

[joshuaslater]

I sent a pm to Gus Landt about statting out the Snakeman Champion for the Reptus, 'cause I thought it would be cool to play. He was very polite, and suggested an alternate card to use from the Karkarion faction if I so desired that was close.

 

The game designers might consider letting someone in the testing community release data cards for other Reaper models to continually add more flavor. It wouldn't require a retooling of the game, just a few cards in a given year.

 

Would this be a cool addition or a waste of time and energy?

[kristof65]

Culling factions that have built loyalty is always bad.

I would say usually bad. Sometimes a culling is necessary - look to Magic the Gathering, for example, where powerful cards are typically removed from tournament play.

 

I wouldn't cull any card or faction without careful consideration, but I can see some circumstances where it might be a better option for the health of the game over all, even if it might upset a few people.

 

Example #1:

Leader Q of Faction X is somewhat broken, and becomes one of those minis that a faction ALWAYS fields and exploits. In the background, you "kill" the character off, and introduce a couple of new characters (and uber cool minis) in his place.

 

Example #2:

Over the months/years after it's release, it becomes obvious that Faction X has really built two completely divergent styles of play amongst it's fans, and could be better at them by adding just one or two more unit types. But there is a big controversy among it's fans about which direction to go. Solution is for Faction X to have internal split that happens to align with the feelings of the players, and replace X with Factions Y & Z, each being optimized for the style of play that fits it's players.

 

Example #3:

Over the years, Faction M has pretty much been a non-starter, selling only a fraction of the minis the other factions sell, and basically, no one plays it. Retire Faction M minis from distribution to the Boneyard, and write the background so that faction is known to be reclusive and seldom seen. For sales and distribution purposes, introduce a new faction to take it's place. Since the rules aren't changing constantly, the faction doesn't become unplayable, it's just acknowledging the place it's actually earned in the game.

 

 

One thing I would definitely NOT do is cull a faction in any sort of way that would render it's models useless to a player for a current version of the game, such as GW has done several times in their revisions. And that's going to be a lot easier to do when you're not constantly changing the rules.

[psyberwolfe1]

Kristoff not bad ideas. I like the direction War Machine has taken along these lines where they really haven't disposed of characters but they've moved the timeline forward with advancements etc. Once again why I wished I had the capital to buy their game design section from them outright.

[ObsidianCrane]

I've played CCG's where factions have been removed and it always causes negative impacts, even when the players decide who is removed. Also do a search for Squats, GW removed them back in 2E 40K and yet people still want them.

 

Magic retiring cards is in no way analogous to removing a faction, it is more like retiring models/stat cards. This is actually pretty simple and more than doable in a mini based game as well, in fact CMGs do it. Of course in a game with units those don't change but the characters can change.

 

The main thing is you can mess with force size as well as composition rules. Warlord for example could add both characters and units developing from a skirmish game to a full fledged wargame (this is an advantage of square bases).