Welp, you guys do love the game. WMHordes are facing some serious player loss, btw. Would like to know the reasons.. They simpled up the rules, aye?
Because it's the magic the gathering of miniatures games. I dropped out after SmogCon 2016, having placed in the top 20 of 128. There is too much netlisting, and flavor-of-the-month stuff since they rotate out what is OP from one month to the next to promote people buying a ton of minis (often multiples of the same sculpt). That's pretty much why. As for the bolt apologists - They have a lot of bloat that is not needed and situationally helpful at best. PS: bioimmunity still means you have to rolls saves vs shock and viral, and doctoring someones is often a waste of orders.
A ruleset that is tactically deep but is acessible is what we've mostly arguing for. The issue at the moment is that much of the rules don't actually add much tactical depth, but a extremely difficult to parse (a lot of this problem is how the rules are presented and kept up to date, and not with the rules themselves). The core of the rules (order expenditure sequence, AROs, FTF and attack profiles) is actually really accessible while allowing for a lot of depth. There's just a lot of crud cludged together that hangs off that framework. The only reason the game is at all playable is because that core is so good.
Whether they are or not is debatable, and has been debated numerous times. Possible reasons for people to being dropping out, assuming that's the case: 1) Removal of Press Ganger system (think WarCors), likely as a result of the Magic the Gathering's Judge's lawsuit 2) Mature/Over developed system. Lots and lots of stuff, resulting in a very complex system, which is largely masked by the way the rules are presented. I have no doubt that WMHordes has more rules, on more models, with more variety, than Infinity. However, Infinity front loads a lot of it's complexity. Despite all this complexity, it feels on some level that the design space is filled/exhausted, yet Privateer Press has had a long standing policy to not remove models in the same manner that GW and Corvus Belli do. 3) Major play style shift with the emphasis on Themes. Either you like playing in that system or you do not, but you no no longer have a choice, like you did before the edition change. 4) Removal of their faction specific forums, likely decreasing player engagement. 5) Addition of the CID system, which results in a system of ongoing tweaks. Either you like that, (better balance), or you do not (more effort to "keep up") 6) Large scale removal of the fluff, which decreases player engagement for fluff players (yes there are some like that in WMHordes). As for simplifying their system, no 3rd edition was more errata changes than a great simplifying. Some things did get removed, or streamlined, but almost all the rules that really matter are not in the main rulebook in the same manner that they are for Infinity. While they also adjusted the models themselves, and removed some rules, a greater simplification was not the goal.
WM 3rd started out great as a system, then got horribly fucked by all the reasons just mentioned. Nothing related to simplifying the game tho.
The issue here is that Mimetism is still too damn good for how much it costs. And it makes the user better at attack and defense because of how Infinity's rules work. And of course volume of orders is still king.
The good thing is, if the basis is good it's actualy easier to resolve the issues ! Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
Mimetism is costed fine. And volume of orders isn't King, otherwise you'd never be able to beat someone with more orders than you, and you absolutely can.
Mimetism is worth like 80% of a burst statistically, but applies to all of your weapons, dodging, etc. Look at a Q-Drone fighting any other TR bot and tell me that 1 point should make it as much better as it is. Volume of orders is king -- you are confusing "being a better player" with "one strategy being better than another." If your argument is always going to be about players, rather than the underlying strategies that rise out of the game, then you can't also make a claim about the costing of mimetism, since that's a statement about mechanic, and good play should beat mimetism, right? Either player skill is incorporated into the discussion and there is no point to be made of actual balance differences among armies -- because "MO won interplanetario after all," right? Or alternatively, we can decide to have a more intelligent conversation where we assume all players are playing their armies and lists to the highest level possible, or if people aren't imaginative enough for that, at least at the same level. You can't counter an argument made in one paradigm by switching to the other only when it suits you.
No, it isn't it! It is undercosted like hell. As a skill who buffs offensive and defensive it should be much more expensive.
Don't know what terrain abilities cost, but if you compare the Varuna Machinist it can't be more then 2 Points. And I think, on him it is only one point too. Which unit do you mean has this 3 point cost?
Yeah, you're right. 2 points seem to be the norm. Heh, and here I was thinking that at 3 it was a tad underpriced...
It's more valuable on better gunfighters. I don't agree with the current scheme, but Mimetism on a BS14 unit is much scarier than on a BS11 unit, as the gap it creates is stronger when you start at a higher BS than your opponent, mathematically. The costing just makes a lot less sense on units that can artificially boost their BS with things like Assisted Fire or Jumper LvZ .
Point for point, a link of Dakinis outshoots almost any other link of basic line troopers in the game. The only ones who are close are maybe Unidrons (also REMs, but V:Dogged will result in more consistent performance for shooting.) How many line troopers get to regularly shoot on 16s/17s in their good range and pack Mimetism? I never said they were OP, I am just saying Mimetism feels too cheap on them. I wasn't specifically referring to Dakinis BTW, just pointing out ways of giving REMs higher effective BS .
