Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 RiTides wrote:
Well, I think we agree about the path forward at least . My experience with the start of Mk3 was different, though - with things like the throw rules absurdly broken. Funny that they broke Battle Engines later, though I didn't know that!

And to be honest, if the community has issues (with which I could agree), then they Really shouldn't use them for CID rules development

Valander - Makes total sense! I too started in Mk2 so missed all that.

Oh, I played a lot of Mk 1. I just wasn't an infernal until Mk 2.

 RiTides wrote:
Well, I think we agree about the path forward at least . My experience with the start of Mk3 was different, though - with things like the throw rules absurdly broken. Funny that they broke Battle Engines later, though I didn't know that!

And to be honest, if the community has issues (with which I could agree), then they Really shouldn't use them for CID rules development

Valander - Makes total sense! I too started in Mk2 so missed all that.

So my experiance was that Mk3 was great right until faction themese came along and i saw that you had to pretty much own everything in triplicate in some ways.
The whole two lists thing is insane too.
I have said it before, if your game requires two lists because you can run into something that is such a hard counter to your list.....its broken
And things being worse than GW pricing made it bad..

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Well, I think we agree about the path forward at least . My experience with the start of Mk3 was different, though - with things like the throw rules absurdly broken. Funny that they broke Battle Engines later, though I didn't know that!

And to be honest, if the community has issues (with which I could agree), then they Really shouldn't use them for CID rules development

Valander - Makes total sense! I too started in Mk2 so missed all that.

So my experiance was that Mk3 was great right until faction themese came along and i saw that you had to pretty much own everything in triplicate in some ways.
The whole two lists thing is insane too.
I have said it before, if your game requires two lists because you can run into something that is such a hard counter to your list.....its broken
And things being worse than GW pricing made it bad..

Yeah that's a steamroller thing. i don't play steamroller or tournaments. i have 2 lists because i have more than enough points to play 50. so i swap out a few things but that.s more for fun than a requirement.

Funny that they broke Battle Engines later, though

Actually they didn't, they just made them worth taking for their points/money costs by giving them a bit more life and punch considering how easy they are to hit/hurt the only one that got shafted was the cygnar one... but it's cygnar so i am not really feeling any pity for them.

Am I the only one here thinking Mk 4 will come after another company picks up the rights from PP's bankruptcy?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Am I the only one here thinking Mk 4 will come after another company picks up the rights from PP's bankruptcy?

Yeah, PP was trying to set itself up as the cool indie game compnany that goes against the establishment(GW) and is all hardcore and stuff. With Brushes and paints too.
They need to come up with their own identity now, like right now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Am I the only one here thinking Mk 4 will come after another company picks up the rights from PP's bankruptcy?

PP demise and ruination has been predicted from Mk1. 10-15 odd years later it is still here and releasing new and exciting games that seem to be doing fairly well (although personally i don't play RQ and have no interested in Warcaster). I wouldn't expect it to go out of business any time soon. That is not to say it doesn't have issues. But "the sky is falling" has associated doom mongering been a topic year in year out. I know because I have been a doom monger in the past. Im still here and playing.

This seems a particularly precarious time as they seemed to be rather in flux and utilizing Kickstarter more often before the pandemic.

 Eldarain wrote:
This seems a particularly precarious time as they seemed to be rather in flux and utilizing Kickstarter more often before the pandemic.

So far they've used it twice for wargames - once for an artbook and once for launching a new game.

The artbook is just the sort of thing KS was made for. Something that the company can do, but which comes with a big cost and a risk so having a pre-order through KS generates a big lump sum to pay for it.


Meanwhile Warmaster they are basically ready to go. The KS is providing much needed money, but its clear that even without it they would have tooled up and been ready to launch come the mid-year. If they were strapped for cash in a really bad way then it would have had a year or more to deliver.

I agree that their use of it independently doesn't spell doom. Just not sure that they're in a great place to weather thus particular storm.

Still KS allows them to be holden to players with an interest in the game instead of be holden to share holders who only see PP as a ticker number as the big game runner has done.

 Eldarain wrote:
I agree that their use of it independently doesn't spell doom. Just not sure that they're in a great place to weather thus particular storm.

True, but that's the same of almost any company that isn't sitting on no debt and recent high volume sales. That siad hobbies tend to do well in bad times and right now the miniatures market is going pretty good if you can keep your factories and mail order running. Thsoe with government pay-outs or work from home are still earning. Plus people can't go out - fuel, restaurants, trips out e tc.... are all not happening. The customers are stuck at home so if anything its almost an ideal time for a "stay at home hobby" (at least for build and painting phases).

It's less about the money and more about distribution from what I've seen. Quite a few companies have been struggling with getting their products in stores in recent years and have tried to shift customers and stores to more direct distribution. This new small kickstarter model seems to be using the platform for similar purposes. I think the measure of its success will have less to do with how many players backed it and how many retail pledges they sold.

As @LunarSol said, the KS was about getting around the supply chain. However, im seeing quite a bit comments on the cost of postage and shipping for the packages for Warcaster.

In terms of retail, 32 people/stores backed the retail sample pack and 53 people/stores backed the main retail pack on the KS so that 85 stores that were willing to take the plunge to the level of stocking Warcaster out the gate.

Im certain that PP and other companies will use KS as a distro method for releases to mitigate some of the financial risks for new products. Whether they would use that approach for any Mk4 releases? Time will tell.

Sunno wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Am I the only one here thinking Mk 4 will come after another company picks up the rights from PP's bankruptcy?

PP demise and ruination has been predicted from Mk1. 10-15 odd years later it is still here and releasing new and exciting games that seem to be doing fairly well (although personally i don't play RQ and have no interested in Warcaster). I wouldn't expect it to go out of business any time soon. That is not to say it doesn't have issues. But "the sky is falling" has associated doom mongering been a topic year in year out. I know because I have been a doom monger in the past. Im still here and playing.

The difference for me is that people I know with expertise in the market are now saying it, before mk 3 they never did.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Sunno wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Am I the only one here thinking Mk 4 will come after another company picks up the rights from PP's bankruptcy?

PP demise and ruination has been predicted from Mk1. 10-15 odd years later it is still here and releasing new and exciting games that seem to be doing fairly well (although personally i don't play RQ and have no interested in Warcaster). I wouldn't expect it to go out of business any time soon. That is not to say it doesn't have issues. But "the sky is falling" has associated doom mongering been a topic year in year out. I know because I have been a doom monger in the past. Im still here and playing.

The difference for me is that people I know with expertise in the market are now saying it, before mk 3 they never did.

Genuinely interested, what have they been saying?

(also aware that saying "genuinely interested" makes it sound like your anything but. But I am genuinely making that enquiry)

At some point I'd like to get back to talking about Mk4 but I do think the KS of Warcaster right before the pandemic hit can, in hindsight, only be a good thing for the company - brought in a ton of preorders right before everything closed down.

I'm very hopeful they'll stay healthy, and put out a sweet Mk4...

If anything, Warcaster shows that they can do more with metal/resin/restic in-house than outsourcing for "meh" plastics.

From the sounds of things, they have been able to condense waves 1-4 into effectively waves 1 and 2? Haven't been following much beyond Warjack Wednesdays to be honest.

In house production has always been their strong suit. I still maintain their resin is my favorite in the business and really helps them capture the exaggerated, larger than life art style. The main problem is that its just prohibitively expensive for 10 man units.

I think Riot Quest, Minicrate and MonPoc have really helped the company find its niche again. Big, fun, larger than life characters that are downright burdened with bits and details. Their main challenge is figuring out what to do with Warmachine, which is a great game with a rabid fanbase in a fantastic world that.... just doesn't play to the strengths of the company or even the industry as a whole. In many ways its stuck in the same place WHFB was. Nobody wants it to change, most of all the people playing, but nobody wants to really buy anything for it anymore either.

My gut says the game needs to be smaller, even if the option to play games at the current size still exist. It's just a matter of finding a way to get everyone to downsize.

 RiTides wrote:
At some point I'd like to get back to talking about Mk4 but I do think the KS of Warcaster right before the pandemic hit can, in hindsight, only be a good thing for the company - brought in a ton of preorders right before everything closed down.

I'm very hopeful they'll stay healthy, and put out a sweet Mk4...

It wouldn't surprise me to see Mk 4 looking at KS, but a lot depends on where they are going to take it and if new models/starters will be brought in the game.

I sort of feel that the 9Ed of 40K will force many companies to do something in the next month or so as all the Gaming media will be focused on the new GW hotness.

Whether PP has the resources or ability to respond to this will be interesting to watch. Will there be any interest in Warcaster beyond the initial KS backers now there is going to be an unending flurry of new 40K stuff will be interesting to see.

Is there really that much overlap between people that play 40k and people that play other games?

Locally, i have seen quite a large percentage of WM/H players move from WM/H to 40K, AoS or other games since Mk3. Or picking up those games alongside WM/H.

We have seen some come the other way as well. A few 40K player pick up WM/h and really like it, despite the various issues that have been discussed over the course of this thread.

But thats one guy talking about one local view. Is it a wider trend? I dont know.

Nurglitch wrote:
Is there really that much overlap between people that play 40k and people that play other games?

Newer players? probably not since 40K is such a money drain, as well as the fact the other systems/companies do not have the advertising reach GW does.

Most people who have been playing for more than 5 years have enough of a collection that they start branching out into other games. of course it also helps if those alternate options are promoted at the FLGS. it is one of the reasons why press gangers worked so well.

I actually started out with classic battletech and B5 wars, which i still play, played 40K pretty heavy and exclusive from 3rd -5th and then started getting into other systems. i was an early adopter of infinity, in the last couple years i have gone heavy into DUST and WM/H but i also have about 7 other systems not mentioned that i have forces and rules for.

Most of the regulars at the FLGS are the same with a mix of systems they like to play.

As an outspoken critic of Warmachine, Privateer Press has earned itself back into my good graces with Monsterpocalypse. I even ordered Riot Quest and I think I'll be on board with Warcaster. At this point, if PP can fix the competitive mindset problem and the restic crap models, I don't think it would be impossible for me to come back (I admit, I was tempted with the Infernals army box). Just wanted to comment on a few things brought up in this thread:

- Getting rid of models - Against. I think Warmachine has really amazing looking models that I've had a lot of fun painting, and I'd hate for models to disappear. SKU bloat is a real problem, but with resin, PP can make models to order and there's no reason why they can't move a majority of their catalog to their web store while keeping a core set of items available at retail. Of course, they'd need to remake a bunch of old crappy restic models.

- Side boards - For. In MonPoc, you get 20 units, and since you rarely use all 20 simultaneously, it allows you to keep specialized units in the pocket for situational use. This allows models that are used very rarely to retain their value and use, giving a larger number of models a reason to exist. Amphibious units would have value if you could choose them after you saw what table you were playing on, for example. For me, bringing out the right model at just the right time is as exciting as pulling off a combo. I think it would fit well into the appeal of WMH, though a spawning mechanic would fundamentally change the game (although, doesn't Warcaster use it?)

- Few models on the board - Absolutely for. The most fun I have playing WMH is battlebox+ games. All the WMH players I played with would absolutely disagree, but I think the game works better with fewer models on the table. And as a personal preference, I hate painting large units but love painting warjacks.

- Remove facing - For. The way WMH is typically played, with minimal terrain and objectives in the middle, the armies generally only clash face on. For me, facing really only came into play while one model occupied my guy while another walked around him and hit from the back. Minutia in facing felt too important, tactically, and generally speaking, I feel like minutia should never be game winning (I'm also against toeing forest lines).

- Streamlining the rules - Neither for or against. I don't think the challenge of WMH is necessarily the rules, but instead the institutional knowledge necessary to set up combos (and defend against them). I think new players can pick up WMH fairly quickly, but they drop the game the second their opponent caster kills them in the first round ("clubbing baby seals", I think someone said).

- I'd like to add a suggestion: neoprene mats. Both MonPoc and Riot Quest have neoprene maps that fundamentally change the nature of the game you play. The Riot Quest ones are really thematic and wonderful to look at (the Hullgrinder map is 100% why I ordered Riot Quest). WMH might put too much into the hands of the players, who are all too happy to play on barren tables with one or two terrain features set up on the side, out of the way. Creating thematic "levels" with terrain combinations you don't typically see would go a long way to making WMH look nicer on the table and more varied to play again. I also wouldn't complain if terrain was made a first order participant in the game, like buildings are in MonPoc, being part of your army building and strategy.

Nurglitch wrote:
Is there really that much overlap between people that play 40k and people that play other games?

I think at my local club almost all the 'other' game players 40k'd at some point and a fair few still could slap an army on the table if that was the only game in town

 Sqorgar wrote:
- Few models on the board - Absolutely for. The most fun I have playing WMH is battlebox+ games. All the WMH players I played with would absolutely disagree, but I think the game works better with fewer models on the table. And as a personal preference, I hate painting large units but love painting warjacks.

- Streamlining the rules - Neither for or against. I don't think the challenge of WMH is necessarily the rules, but instead the institutional knowledge necessary to set up combos (and defend against them). I think new players can pick up WMH fairly quickly, but they drop the game the second their opponent caster kills them in the first round ("clubbing baby seals", I think someone said).

As a note, the rules won't need a lot of streamlining if there are few models on the board. Where it starts bogging down is once you pass the 50 point marker, and even the 50 point marker is straining the edges of the system. Not saying the game can't be epic, but if they want to keep the model count at the current 75 point level, or go larger, than streamlining the rules will need to happen.

That being said, most people are looking at games they can enjoy with small model counts, currently. X-Wing is a big hit, but I've rarely seen a game over 7 models on both sides. Infinity is noted for taking a couple small squads and going at it. Warcry and Kill Team are having some large successes, even. I would also the new hero games of Batman and Marvel Crisis Protocol, or even the MonPoc someone mentioned, to those lists as well.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
- Few models on the board - Absolutely for. The most fun I have playing WMH is battlebox+ games. All the WMH players I played with would absolutely disagree, but I think the game works better with fewer models on the table. And as a personal preference, I hate painting large units but love painting warjacks.

- Streamlining the rules - Neither for or against. I don't think the challenge of WMH is necessarily the rules, but instead the institutional knowledge necessary to set up combos (and defend against them). I think new players can pick up WMH fairly quickly, but they drop the game the second their opponent caster kills them in the first round ("clubbing baby seals", I think someone said).

As a note, the rules won't need a lot of streamlining if there are few models on the board. Where it starts bogging down is once you pass the 50 point marker, and even the 50 point marker is straining the edges of the system. Not saying the game can't be epic, but if they want to keep the model count at the current 75 point level, or go larger, than streamlining the rules will need to happen.

That being said, most people are looking at games they can enjoy with small model counts, currently. X-Wing is a big hit, but I've rarely seen a game over 7 models on both sides. Infinity is noted for taking a couple small squads and going at it. Warcry and Kill Team are having some large successes, even. I would also the new hero games of Batman and Marvel Crisis Protocol, or even the MonPoc someone mentioned, to those lists as well.

Id agree with your last bit that many people are looking for smaller games these days. Due to time, investment etc but for companies, unless your established its actaully pretty hard to put out and support a large scale/model wargame in a world where GW exists. TBH i think the only companies that could do it would be the likes of FFG and Asmode.

WM/H is my large scale game. Malifaux is my small scale game. 54mm Inq is my side passion......

i would add mantic and warlord games to that list

Both do lines in complete plastic than run the gambit from large to small scale games. the minis may not be as crazy detailed as GWs but the quality is still very good and they are fantastically easy to assemble. not to mention the pricing is far less than GW charges for similar. 3 custodus jet bikes were $66 last time i looked but i can get 4 warpath jet bikes from mantic for $20

 Charistoph wrote:
That being said, most people are looking at games they can enjoy with small model counts, currently. X-Wing is a big hit, but I've rarely seen a game over 7 models on both sides. Infinity is noted for taking a couple small squads and going at it. Warcry and Kill Team are having some large successes, even. I would also the new hero games of Batman and Marvel Crisis Protocol, or even the MonPoc someone mentioned, to those lists as well.

There's a lot of reasons to prefer small model counts - table size, storage needs for hundreds of models, quickness of play, amount of painting, cost, etc. But I think most of those can be achieved by simply using a smaller scale. Going 10mm or 15mm can allow you to have that huge scale without all the consequences of having many models. Going by Joan of Arc's 15mm models, the quality can be quite good and paint up real nice.

Small scale games lack the cool toy factor though and lets be honest, if we were a practical people, we'd be happy to play with cardboard tokens .