Game play:
I believe
you should value a game for what it is—not what you want it to be. Put differently, it is unfair to complain
about how little variety there is in tick tack toe VS. Chess because they are
fundamentally different games that happen to share a board design. There is value in the comparison from an analytical
point of view but not from the standpoint of personal preference. I mention this because I am going to compare
warmachine to several board games in the following article. That comparison is not meant to say that one
game is better than another—just that different systems have different
strengths and weaknesses. My opinions
are just that—the preferences I have gained through 20 years pushing around tiny
combatants.
Warmachine
is what I call a tactical game. Tactical
games are micro systems in which each element (trooper, jack, caster…etc.) has
multiple ways to affect the board state.
The order of activation, the particular action chosen, and your
opponent’s response create complex decision matrices. In contrast, 40k is a strategic game. The focus is less on the individual model and
more on the macro impact of the entire force.
Many strategic games are decided at deployment—who has the weight of
momentum and the benefit of terrain.
Model actions are batched into single large rolls for unit shooting,
magic, and hand-to-hand. Dice tend to be
rolled by the handful. I love strategic
games for the sheer scale of the combat.
Over here a tank takes out a unit from across the board. Over there a unit of monsters overruns a
strongpoint. The narrative is as
compelling as the competition. I love tactical
games because the “skirmish” rubric lends the experience an intimate atmosphere. When you roll for twenty models at a time
there is a distancing affect. When each
roll signifies one model’s survival I am personally vested in every
outcome. The competition feels more
skill-based than many larger games.
By that
definition, MKIII warmachine is one of the best tactical rule sets in distribution.
The power up mechanic makes it possible
to utilize jacks without resource starving casters. Losing the psychology rules cut a rarely used
and inconvenient element. Removing skill
tests simplifies activations while making models more reliable. Game-wide premeasurement eliminates a huge
level of uncertainty. Small changes like
the use of “control range” underpin the rules with an easily intuited
lexicon. Even the recent change limiting
power attacks to target enemy models was a step up. These simplifications make game play
considerably more vibrant.
Part of
that vibrancy stems from PP’s design consistency. Unlike every-other-game-in my portfolio,
warmachine has made an effort to maintain a consistent ambience throughout its
iterations. I play with the same models
as in the primitive days of MKI—occasionally updated for materials and
esthetics. Sorscha still freezes her
enemies with her icy gaze. I still roll
a couple d6 for my checks. That being
said, MKIII represents the first time PP has broken me out of that feeling. At issue is the end of physical stat
cards. I know, I know, you can get them
in PDF. You can get them through war
room. Unless you do not have a smart
phone that can handle the app or you do not want to have to arts-and-crafts
your way into physical cards after each update.
I understand Privateer Press’s desire to simplify production. In theory cutting the physical cards
eliminates confusion. In practice I have
found the opposite. People do not read
war room as closely as they should—they just assume the stats have not
changed. People use whatever printed
materials they have on hand—even if it is out of date. I am willing to pay a couple bucks per card
if it means getting useable reference materials but as of now…no dice. Some units are just fine using the original
MKIII cards. Others like the gun
carriage have been rewritten such that the original card is useless. This is one of those small details that chafes
my nether parts. What, now I have to
keep an extra battery charger for my phone or hall a bunch of binder sheets
around to keep track of my models? It
just feels weird and inconsistent and generally beneath PP’s execution
standards.
My only
major complaint with MKIII game play is the continued reliance on steamroller
tournament rules. I have played many
tournaments using a variety of systems over the years. I was most active back in fifth edition 40k
when I took several first place trophies around the state. Now a days, I catch a magic pre-release or
FNM occasionally—nothing regular. I
appreciate a good competitive system that lends itself equally to high level and
casual play. The best competitive games
in my experience are based on a rock solid mechanical foundation with a little
extra clarification for the given format.
If you play in a magic tournament the basic rules, victory conditions,
and restrictions apply plus some deck construction tweaks for EDH, draft,
standard…etc. The same is true of the
bloodbowl living rulebook. Your roster
might change depending on league but the basic game remains the same.
These
systems have precise rule sets that set the tone regardless of how the
landscape alters. The fundamental
victory conditions do not change. I
think Privateer Press intended warmachine to operate under the same model. Unfortunately steamroller has become a
balancing tool and design limiter. Each
year PP revises the tournament rules to account for new material and
competitive trends. The community spends
the following year optimizing around that format until the process renews with
the subsequent year’s SR update. Outside
of battle box and journeyman leagues—both of which are. Precursors to larger
games—the hobby defaults to steamroller.
Take the SR 2017 rule set. PP
wanted to encourage lists with a balance of jacks, solos, and units. They changed the rules so that only certain
models could score on certain objectives.
They published theme lists that reward well rounded rosters. If you are a regular tournament player there
is no issue. If, however, you are a
casual player just getting into the game, you read the base rules. You read the sample scenarios. You get to your LGS and everyone is playing
with the SR rules—which are objectively different than those in the main
book. You have to go back and rethink
your lists because models have different value in the new format.
Further,
the game has defaulted to 75-point lists.
I know, the designers always intended that to be the case. My challenge is that many casual players do
not have the resources and time to operate at this level. I honestly prefer playing around 50
points. That is the level of complexity
and time commitment that best fits my needs.
Unfortunately, the SR format’s gravitational pull has warped the
perception such that anything other than 75-point lists is not taken seriously.
I am not
saying that steamroller is bad. I am saying
that with an already complex base rule set, model stats changing constantly due
to CID, and the yearly changes of tournament rules, there is a material bar to
community play for a lot of us less hardcore players. Warmachine is dead in my area in large part
because of these barriers. I wish PP had
picked three or four tested scenarios and stuck with them for competitive play
save narrative campaigns. The constantly
changing landscape is harming the community even as it seeks to restore
balance.
In
summary, I like playing games in MKIII.
This edition is a straight up improvement over past offerings. However the inconsistency of the larger play
experience and the need to constantly check online references is
disappointing. My impression is that even
though PP had three years to put project egg roll together, the final product
needed more playtesting. My next and
final article will focus on the community relations and design aspects of this
edition. Until then, stand firm my
brethren.
No comments:
Post a Comment