Jump to content
Baphomet69

Request for a minute of Reaper's time

Recommended Posts

 

The more I think about it, I wonder if Reaper might be smarter to go with less ambitious Kickstarters for Warlord?

Rather than some monster one that focuses on the entire game with all the resulting stretch goals, why not ones that only focus on one or two factions at a time?

the KS could focus on a book for that faction, and a variety of models in both Bones and metal for it.

No, they're not going to appeal to everyone, and be the wildly successful campaign Reaper is finishing up. But the more focused approach could be better for Reaper, the players and the game over all because doing it that way won't overwhelm anyone, financially or resources.

 

A few years back I had a discussion with Ed about how the GW codex/ Faction model completely failed for them. The model of releasing a book with a fistful of factions and complete rules seems to work better for them.
And for standard distribution, that will probably remain true for a long while to come. But KS changes the dynamic quite a bit, and for a Warlord KS, it may be better to break it up by faction.

 

One thing I would do would be to have each faction book have a copy of the rules, similar to the way Savage North does. That combines the Reaper model with the GW model. Also, if doing it this way, I would not use the KS to add any more than 1-2 data cards, if any, to any given faction, and instead have it concentrate on adding sculpts to the ranges, particularly alternate sculpts for the grunts.

 

I am throwing this out there because after consideration, I am not convinced that a KS aimed at the entirety of Warlord would be successful enough to keep from alienating those it needs to reach.

 

Look how hard it was to keep the Bones KS backers happy with the right mix of PCs, monsters, Pathfinder, Chronoscope, etc. With the 18+ factions currently in Warlord, one KS is going to need to be pretty ambitious and/or successful to keep everyone happy.

 

Smaller kick starter campaigns focusing on one or two factions at a time might not be as successful in terms of number of backers and dollars raised, but the could very well be more successful for the game itself, in terms of exposure, and overall model count, and even in terms of the resources Reaper could commit to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmm, wow. a 2d6 move would change a lot of tactics. Talk about nail-biting. Can I make the charge to that row of archers?

Lesser Defensive Strikes sounds like a move back to 1st Ed to me. I fielded entire armies of Warmaster ability to get around that. But I can see where you're coming from. Active player gets an advantage. Makes that card flip in your favor really important!

What's the problem in your opinion with the ranged attack rules? I don't field many archers so I don't see it.

 

2d6 would smooth some of the swinginess in this game and would improve and/or change tactics. I also just don't like how the d10 mechanic works in practice. I can't plan around the the die type because it's too swingy, so I take a small subset of troops to mitigate and make the die irrelevant which has basically made 50% of the models I own useless. Now I do understand how the d10 does makes one-hit-one-wound mechanic work, but as I said it makes the game a little more swingy than I like.

 

Lesser defensive strikes is about how I loathe out of sequence activations. It rewards lazy play and makes paying attention to the game optional. Currently full strikes back makes stand and wait as viable a tactic as hunt them down, and I am no fan of encouraging people to not engage in playing a game. This is slightly less of an issue with missions, but point me to a repository of missions. It doesn't exist.

 

The ranged rules have a few problems. First the troops are overpriced for what they can do. At their cost I can get better melee troops who can more reliably damage my opponent. Second defensive shots make it so no one shoots at other missile troops unless they have no other targets so it's a wasted ability. Third missile troops are useful only in turn 1 and depending on the draw turn 2 thus not justifying the points cost. This is how I play against missile. Deny shooting on turn 1 and be in melee on turn 2 thus making your missile troops overpriced underpowered melee troops.

 

I understand wanting to favor the aggressor. The mechanic handles this by the attacker getting all of the models in position and stacking the odds with numbers and reach attacks, plus all of the other things like spells. 2d6? I don't know if the bell curve would improve the game, but I do think that the archers getting defensive shots is a little wonky. It seems like you would never shoot at the archers to give them additional attacks. The way to resolve this would be to have a wait action, or hold, where they can shoot later, but as it stands, it's not a deal breaker for me.

 

Not really. If it was plus 1 for every group of number x in b2b then yes. As it stands taking a melee beat stick that costs what 3 basic troops cost is typically far superior than the 3 warriors. The MAV that beat-stick has is better than the +1 three models in b2b would get. Yes you'll get more attacks but usually those beat-sticks have abilities that are better (read damage causing abilities not requiring a roll.)

 

2d6 would improve the game. CAV:SO is already playing better because of it. It makes me not feel like I was yet again screwed by the swingy nature of the d10.

 

One of the ways to resolve why defensive shots suck is that if anything shoots in LOS of a missile troop they can shoot back, but then that ability would be too good.

 

I laugh every time I hear someone at GW say they are a miniatures company, not a game company. In Reaper's case, though, that would be an accurate statement. They do not have any full time game developers on staff. They do not have any part time game developers. Gus is more interested in the Asylum and Magic than any of Reaper's game systems. Here are my answers to DanyBoy's questions.

 

1. No (add CAV, Reich, etc.)

2. No

 

I've got no problem with them answering in this way. Again, Reaper is a mini company, not a game company. I don't think Reaper sees Warlord as any different from Cowboys and Gunslingers. They released a game into the wild, and are happy to see it flourish or flounder. They provide a space and prize support for the annual ReaperCon tourney, but otherwise do not support in any official capacity. If they did, there would have been a PDF release of the rules along with the Kickstarter. Instead, they provided copies of other company's game systems.

 

A million times this. Releasing a PDF of another company's rules when the D&D 1st ed rules it uses are free online already (OSRIC) was silly. Giving people access to the 2nd ed Warlord rules would've been the better move. But hey as you said they're not a game company. With a few hours work I could make a pretty decent Dungeon Crawl game using the Warlord rules and the D&D Tiles.

 

 

Ok, been a long time since I was on here but much hasn't changed about Warlord since then heheh.

 

Warlord works off of a d10 system for a reason. It may seem swingy but in actuality it's statistically very stable. I know this because a statistical fanatic helped put the system together. I may be missing the point on the 2d6 train of thought but I can tell you that working in increments of 10% is very stable and easy to modulate. Any game with dice and chance will be somewhat swingy but in Warlord each faction has the ability to negate much of the swing if you build to that purpose. Whether through massive number of attacks, massive MAV's, buffs, a combination, etc. Also I should point out I have no idea how to cut up and multi quote stuff so this is going to be alittle ramshackle approach to the message I am delivering.

 

On the subject of defensive strikes - During playtesting we tried a ton of different ways to do defensive strikes from allowing ALL strikes against any opponents in b2b to 0 allowed. We found that for speed of play allowing the full number of attacks to be used defensively was the best choice. The combat to me seems like a real fight where every moment people are trying to kill each other as opposed to "You tried to kill me and when I get to go next I will try and stab you back. .. if I am still alive".

 

Initating a charge vs receiving - There is a HUGE advantage to being the aggressor in a melee situation in Warlord. One of the very most famous instances of this is when 7 Bondslave survivors rushed Rauthoros and brought him down in one melee. This was when we tested the much dreaded Darkspawn Daisy Chain tactic.The charge plus support bonuses gave them a fighting chance against the monster to which they succeeded brilliantly, unfortunately they didn't receive those because they were under the effects of a spell that made them mindless but it did give them Martyr so they still got +2 but had to die afterwards. If they had RECEIVED a charge from Rauthoros, even all 7 of them at once, it's unlikely any would have scored a hit because they would have had only a 10% chance to hit instead of a 50%. The long and short is that the game rewards for aggressive play. 3 units charging one unit usually results in the charged unit's death and a wound or two possibly on the aggressors. Some SA's make charging a unit unpalatable (FIrst Strike/Pike) but the advantage is still to the attacker as they get to dictate who takes a spear in the eye. Setting up a good charge and maximizing support and #MA is one of the things I like best about Warlord. If you don't believe me on this I would be glad to take you on anytime and show you the difference in receiving the charges or giving them :)

 

Ranged units - Ranged units are pricey for a reason you are right. That was something else that was tested extensively. Since Warlord is a melee skirmish game I believe the intent was to err on underpowered archers versus over powered. That being said though, archery units are far from underpowered. Just like if you choose to make melee a focus for your list so to must you build your list to accomodate for archers particular strengths and weaknesses. There are builds for each faction that can quite effectively highlight the brutal power of ranged attacks. One of the favored is the Ivy Crown archers for the crusaders. With Lady Jehanne in command of 10 archers and an elite for bless you now have a unit that will consistently put out 10 RAV 6 shots or RAV 5 at long range. That's pretty fierce and will make short work of many soldiers. Couple them with Lady Devona and you now have access to Whirlwind to keep enemies in disarray and unable to approach. Throw in a couple of troops for a picket line (like wardogs with their Short SA) and you now have a very defensible firebase from which to black out the sky.

 

All in all a ton of testing went into the various ways Warlord could be configured. I won't speak to CAV or Reich as those games both have dynamics I am unfamiliar with but I can tell you that the deeper you dig into Warlord, the more elegant it seems to become. I've only found one broken list in this new edition and believe me I excel at finding the broken in game systems. . .well most systems in general. And even though it's a broken list it's still not entirely broken, it has to be played the right way or it's defeatable as easily as any other list. Even after years of playing it with no revisions or anything I am STILL finding new and interesting builds and combinations for the factions. Just wish I had more time to test my theory crafting for practicality ha!

 

I hope that addressed properly the points you rose. If it didn't please let me know and I am more than glad to expand upon my notions or even make them more succinct as I see I have typed a bit. . .

 

Cheers!

 

I haven't gotten to chat about Warlord in a long time so I'm a bit rusty as to everything and why, plus I wrote this past midnight and nothing good happens past midnight if you are over 30.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents. If they were to do a KS for warlord I would rather see it as one instead if a bunch of small ones that focus on a few factions. A problem would be is if they were to do just a few factions at first what ones would they choose that would get enough people interested that it would be successful.

 

One way they could do it is to do select people from each faction to start and then go from there to flush out all the factions. So that each faction gets a 1000 point list each, and add on to there the more they raise. With their other KS already having a few of the models made as bones it could help them flush out more lists faster and cheaper.

 

I know if it was not for Mordheim I probably would not have ever gotten into Reapers great models. I think half my lists ended up mostly reapers models and a fair number of other people who played in my group was the same way.

 

If they were to do it around late December I don't think that would work very well, a fair number of people find that just to inconvenient. I would say a better time is around April after people have had a chance to deal with the debt from the holidays and they have gotten their tax dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for standard distribution, that will probably remain true for a long while to come. But KS changes the dynamic quite a bit, and for a Warlord KS, it may be better to break it up by faction.

One thing I would do would be to have each faction book have a copy of the rules, similar to the way Savage North does. That combines the Reaper model with the GW model. Also, if doing it this way, I would not use the KS to add any more than 1-2 data cards, if any, to any given faction, and instead have it concentrate on adding sculpts to the ranges, particularly alternate sculpts for the grunts.

 

I am throwing this out there because after consideration, I am not convinced that a KS aimed at the entirety of Warlord would be successful enough to keep from alienating those it needs to reach.

 

Look how hard it was to keep the Bones KS backers happy with the right mix of PCs, monsters, Pathfinder, Chronoscope, etc. With the 18+ factions currently in Warlord, one KS is going to need to be pretty ambitious and/or successful to keep everyone happy.

 

Smaller kick starter campaigns focusing on one or two factions at a time might not be as successful in terms of number of backers and dollars raised, but the could very well be more successful for the game itself, in terms of exposure, and overall model count, and even in terms of the resources Reaper could commit to them.

 

 

There will always be conflicts over what should be made and people clamouring for their favourite thing, so the clamouring in the KS for different things shouldn't be seen as anything but excitement for the project.

 

 

Warlord 2E & Savage North have a lot of elves, dwarves and humans that are great for use as PCs, a number of which have already made it to Bones - the problem (from a Warlord perspective) is they are mostly character models. In addition to the PCs races there are many monsters through the factions as well, for some factions there is already a reasonable selection in Bones thanks to KS1. The only 2 factions that really stand out as hard to sell to most fantasy RPG gamers are Bloostone and Koborlas as they are quite distinct in their style.

 

You can get some more Chronoscope in there by putting out models to support Cowboys & Gunslingers and you can pay someone to develop a "Marines & Bulkheads" game based off the C&G rules, to support the more sic-fi models that are in the Chronoscope line.

 

Having a lot of small things is a bad plan. Start with the core 2E factions and look at what sells and what benefits from Bones (e.g. cavalry and large base things benefit from Bones) and populate the initial options with those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks!

 

This thread has been a fascinating read with the diversions to earlier discussions not the least interesting bits. As a result of my read I have learned quite a bit more of the history of the Warlord Rules. The most interesting bit for me though is knowledge that the out-of-print Apocalypse books contain lots of background on the various original factions!

 

I've done a quick search and can find only vague references and empty estore shelves.

 

So, as this thread was originally started to let Reaper know what at least the Warlord playing community would be interested in seeing, I'm going to float the possibility of a PDF reprint of the original, or god forbid a newly typeset, if not revamped (I know, not likely), books!

 

To go even further, as I understand that the Warlord Community seems to have helped get W2 done, and I assume Savage North, and not knowing how I might help, I am willing to do just about anything within my capabilities to help it happen.

 

Anyway . . . just a thought.

Edited by Maredudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just so that I can get it out of the way, this is my 100th post on the Reaper Forums . . .

 

Yeah, not much of an accomplishment, but hey, we gotta take them where we find them! ::P:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the fluff in the Reaper Apocolypse game box set. Played it at Pentacon and had to buy it. They were also demoing a new Angels and Demon game that appered to never get released...a shame as it was fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maredudd, if you're looking for fluff, try reading the novels. Warlord Rising and Warlord Revenge. Available where everywhere fine quality literature is sold! Also Amazon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Warwick,

 

Maredudd, if you're looking for fluff, try reading the novels. Warlord Rising and Warlord Revenge. Available where everywhere fine quality literature is sold! Also Amazon.

 

I've got Warlord Rising but haven't had time to read it yet, but even once I do finish the book I expect I will still be looking for copies of the Apocalypse material. ::):

Edited by Maredudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd support a Warlord ks as long as it is very broad in scope and not limited to four or six factions. Though this comes from wanting to see Reptus supported and I use plenty of Warlord for RPG use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread, someone mentioned that there are 18 factions. While there may be technically that many factions, there are quite a few that are essentially duplicates. Yeah yeah yeah. They have different units blah blah blah. But, there is a Dwarf faction in the Core Rulebook and a Dwarf faction in the Savage North Rulebook. ::P:

 

You could create KS projects based upon natural pairings this way. I feel that if you make the KS too broad in scope, then it will be a big grab bag of random models that you can not make an army with, as well as offering a ton of models that I wouldn't want to own. The only alternative would be to essentially offer evreything and have TONS of pledge levels where you can essentially get each faction for the same price. Then offer pledge levels where you can order multiple factions at a discount. However, I feel this would be incredibly lengthy and very time consuming to manage. I wouldn't want to do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread, someone mentioned that there are 18 factions. While there may be technically that many factions, there are quite a few that are essentially duplicates. Yeah yeah yeah. They have different units blah blah blah. But, there is a Dwarf faction in the Core Rulebook and a Dwarf faction in the Savage North Rulebook. ::P:

 

You could create KS projects based upon natural pairings this way. I feel that if you make the KS too broad in scope, then it will be a big grab bag of random models that you can not make an army with, as well as offering a ton of models that I wouldn't want to own. The only alternative would be to essentially offer evreything and have TONS of pledge levels where you can essentially get each faction for the same price. Then offer pledge levels where you can order multiple factions at a discount. However, I feel this would be incredibly lengthy and very time consuming to manage. I wouldn't want to do it.

 

I like the pairings idea, one thing I would say is perhaps lead with just the core rulebook and not include Savage North. It would seem like a good idea to lead with the start off, then if it works out well, they can move to a KS Savage North, or skip the KS and just produce the expansion.

 

As for managment/reward levels you would just have to do a limit on backers. Go unlimited for up to two factions (assuming you didn't do a pairing off system), then say 150 for 3, 75 for 4, and 5 for the whole deal or something akin to that. Though to be fair I'm not a buisness/finance/logistics guy so for all I know my idea is worth less than tp.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...