/wmg/ - Warmachine/Hordes general

Oh, and here's the document.

do we know anything about the changes to battle engines yet?

Is there a link for the individual no quarter pdf?

>>scenarios still dead
The most egregious ones are going to be Dev Talk'd, which will probably help.

>>measuring still fucked up
You were an idiot to think you'd get Proxymachine back.

>>objectives still totally imbalanced
Now that we're down to 3, I imagine that they'll be tuned and refined for Week 3

Pronoun assignment

>You were an idiot to think you'd get Proxymachine back.
We still have it. It just takes unnecessary amounts of manual dexterity and slows games to a crawl if you want any semblance of precision.

And I don't want proxymachine. But the thing we have now is the other end of the spectrum. Just being allowed to measure how I can keep my charging beast in control is currently not allowed. That's insane.

>Just being allowed to measure how I can keep my charging beast in control is currently not allowed.
My English derped, but you know what I mean.

No I don't because you can still measure that. I'm 100% sure as a beast-heavy Circle/Legion player I can measure distances to keep my beasts in control the same way I did before.

The rules are allowing you to do TK moves, trencher walls, etc. but stop short of letting you X-Wing your entire turn with all of your models.

The CID isn't for thr devs to listen to every complaint and suggestion. Its for them to let us ramble on and make sure stuff js working how THEY want it to work and if the community comes to a consesus on an issue they might MIGHT consider it.

For the most part, any input that isn't a battle report is ignored.

Rules.

One one hand, I don't like the drama.

On the other hand, Cryx has suffered enough.

>and the gripping hand, we need to get these people hooked back onto their banez-jones before they start putting ghost fleet on the table in a major way

They explicitly stated that as an example of what they do not want. You can not - for example - place a proxy 6" from your warlock and one 9" from your warbeast and measure 12" (your example control range) between the two.

Just to make my point clear: I haven't encountered any case of extreme proxy base clutter in the dozens of games I played, watched and read about. The most I've seen is 3-4. Therefor I don't really see a need to limit these bases at all. But if people are saying it's an issue I am fine with a compromise between the two extremes. Just going to 3 proxies in total on the table at any time would be enough, but the current 1.5 is too little.

I'm sure you're right, I'm just not sure that's a good idea.

Is Grymkin CID over?

What happened to the two additional modes they tested for Old Witch 2/3, did they make it in?

>any input that isn't a battle report is ignored
Yet the biggest complaints about people not being able to precisely place trencher walls, TK moves, and the like has been adjusted just slightly, so that now you can place a second marker on the table for a moment.

>They explicitly stated that as an example of what they do not want. You can not - for example - place a proxy 6" from your warlock and one 9" from your warbeast and measure 12" (your example control range) between the two.

>place proxy for warlock
>hold tape measure end at that point
>remove marker
>place warbeast proxy at 12"
???

>Hungerford: To be clear the intent is that you could place one, measure a distance, place your second and before you do anything else (including anymore measurements) pick up the original one.
You just have to adjust how you do things. If you're clocking yourself a few seconds every game then git gud.

I see. It works if you do it in that order, but also only in that order. Don't you find that needlessly restrictive?

People were complaining in battle reports. Illustrations and context tend to go over better than whinge-posting in a thread.

We don't know yet. They might change grymkin completly before release.

I also said they'll listen if the community comes to a large enough consensus.

I find it better than "no second marker at all" and better than "infinite proxies". The only reason it has to be needlessly restrictive and rules lawyered is because of the tourney autists who got us into this mess in the first place.

Another thing you cannot measure is charge distance partially through a forest. That requires three measurement proxies.

I agree with you there, but wouldn't something like "3 markers, no more" be easier to word right, easier to follow and still be pretty enough for PP streaming tables?

In a game where a half-inch difference was always intended to decide everything, and a half-millimeter difference always *could*, the guy that eats his peas with a knife and fork was always destined to kick ass at the tourney.

This isn't over user, they'll hunt out another advantage.

>because of the tourney autists
I don't get the bile towards top tournament players. They just realized that precision tools help with clean play which is a requirement for fair competition. And I agree with that.

>Another thing you cannot measure is charge distance partially through a forest. That requires three measurement proxies.
Really? Is it too hard for people to do a times-2 multiplication on a charge? I never used them before the change.

>place base at start of forest
>measure to base
>move base to end of forest
>measure to base (double the distance)
>measure remaining distance
>place base
>replace base with model

That's incredibly imprecise though. You cannot even ensure a straight charge lane that way.

>You cannot even ensure a straight charge lane that way
Is your tape measure bending? Are you using an unallowed non-rigid measuring device? All you are doing is seeing how much movement is in the forest. That's all.

In Chess... the line between the guy that wins tourneys and not is seeing moves ahead (at all) or enough more than your opponent. In WM, people realized that Proxies could be like having a prosthetic brain and, being smart enough to want to effectively be a genius, they did it.

I suppose it's sort of like when the first tailless ground-monkey made a spear and became a wolf. I thought it was cool to do (really, it was like having a prosthetic brain), but I suppose that's not what the devs want to see.

You need to place the markers in a precisely straight line. Which you cannot do if you pick up half of them along the way.

I've personally seen a game where someone used 15 proxy markers, denoted an entire turn. After the other guy stood there while this dude played out 3 different ways to place those 15 proxies, he said "Well, just roll and see if you killed that, cleared your lane then roll to see if you kill my caster"

He did and no models were moved. It looked like ass and both players said after it didn't feel exciting or that fun doing that.

But hooboy it was precise!

Vassalmachine 2017

What are you trying to say?

Dunno about you, but now I want to make a spear and become a wolf.

And wouldn't a hard limit to 3 or 5 bases have prevented that?

This can't measure through a forest precise argument is getting old.

Somehow in MK 2, we were able to measure to a forest, figure out what we had left in a charge, then place our base that distance in a forest without needing 3 Official (Insert your Company Here) markers.

One marker is enough to figure shit out. Shit gets pushed around on the FAT mats and other mousepad mats all the time for 'precise' gameplay.

Just talking out loud and telling your opponent what you're doing is enough without turning the board into a neon marker graveyard.

Aye, as would 1.

We did it the same way in Mk2. The only difference is that you had to commit before measuring.

As would not playing at all. But both of those are overreactions.

>aye
this fucking guy

>But both of those are overreactions.

According to you.

According to the Devs, they don't like the way it presents their game. Which I happen to agree with.

One base is more than enough to figure out intentions and placement, even with a forest or Impact attack.

>One base is more than enough to figure out intentions and placement, even with a forest or Impact attack.
Measuring three different spots with one proxy base? Sure thing m80.

Proxy spam is a tool that a smart gamer can use to play like he was a genius gamer. But it's ugly as sin.

The analogy is how equipping a spear turned humans into apex-predators, specifically better at being wolves than wolves were.

As far from true as possible. Have you seen some top-level games? Have you played against top-level players at all? I can assure you that you need more than proxy bases to beat them.

But you see user, another poster can come along and say they need to place those bases to determine charge lanes later in their turn and really it's just a static measuring tool and who are you to say they can't constantly measure that area during their turn with a widget.

It's a slippery slope. I think limit to one marker is a mountain from a molehill. Big fucking deal, git gud at visualizing your army on the board.

Your proxy bases need to be marked anyways, there's a straight line for the front arc. Now, line that up with your tape measure.

Jesus christ, did you just get on board with MK3? Because we somehow managed for 13 years in MK1 and MK2.

Why are you need to measure three spots? Explain to me how you can't pull a fucking laser out, put your base where you want to end up, laser the side to make sure it's a good charge, then measure from your base...to the forest--subtract that from your charge movement...and see if you have enough left to clear the rest of your charge?

Is math that difficult for you?

I think I'll stand by my statement, but concede it isn't quite the real thing.

No shit user.

Again, everyone plays 2d terrain on mousepad mats. I guarantee slippage of models on those mats account for more imprecise game play than only using one marker.

I AM good at that. What I want is to clearly communicate with my opponent and achieve measurements that we can both agree upon. That just requires precision. I don't need or want Premeasuring / Proxying as an advantage over my opponent and it hardly is an advantage in that way. I want premeasuring as a means to reach consent with my opponent on measurements. I've done this since Mk3 launched and games have become a lot more cooperative with fewer disagreements. I don't want to lose that.

I will not explain that geometric problem to you. Not purely in text form. No offense.

Wanting your scenarios to matter even less then some of them already do is insanity. Hard gunlines are gonna come back hardcore in sr2017. They have even less scenario pressure on them then they do now.

It's gonna look like 40k oh lawd

>I will not explain that geometric problem to you
Everyone's calling you a retard. And you'll remain one. You don't need three proxy bases to achieve precise measurements through forests and there's plenty of ways to make straight charge lanes to measure.

>because yeah, I have and where I'd reach for the proxy-stack, he starts twiddling his fingers and sucking on his lips and you can just see the dust-trail of that mental go-cart your mind
>then there's what *he* can do with proxies

Enough bitching about markers. Battle Engine CID is up.

All you basically said there could be achieved with on proxy base. "I plan on charging here at max reach, looks like that's within my charge distance and doesn't get a free strike. Agreed?"

"Looks like it's 6 inches to the forest, that leaves me 1.5 inches to move in and that's within reach of your heavy. Agreed?"

You can hide behind "I can't explain geometry" all you want but it doesn't help your argument.

this shit was handled in Mk 2 BEFORE premeasuring and somehow people came to an agreement over intent and distances.

Almost ever argument I've ever seen over movement wouldn't be solved over 20 proxy bases. Because either the model was knocked over, slipped on a mousepad mat or someone moved their original model without getting agreement.

That's just sloppy play, not fixed by Vassalmachine. They could limit proxy bases to 1 tomorrow and guess what? Tournament play would just keep on trucking and outside of the above scenarios, no one would give a shit.

Ah I see what our misunderstanding is now. The example I mean is when your charge just clips a forest. Or in other words you enter the forest (or rubble) and leave it again. You need a base at your destination, one where you enter the forest and one where you leave it. Otherwise you are right, two suffice.

>Celestial Fulcrum
>limited application because only 1 fury per turn
>can now be allocated fury from the warlock
>can leech fury from construct warbeasts

Regarding my factions:

>VoJ remains on the shelf
>Wraith Engine aura has a lot of potential
>War Wagon goes down a point and gains a fuckload of hp, time to see if it can outperform a bomber

Surprised that Wraith Engine didn't go up in points. It's pretty much an obligatory model for Cryx armies now.

Only if your bane spam needs more protection from ranged.

>Derp Turtle
>it has more boxes
Well that's all I wanted. Kind of weird that the guy blowing his horn up top doesn't actually do anything though.

Yeah, the Gun Carriage CLEARLY needed 38 fucking boxes. Way to go PP.

>War Wagon gets more boxes, one point cheaper
>No help for offensive output

Ok, maybe this will make it durable enough to get two alphas with Grissel and not get shot to death.

>Gun Carriage gets 38 boxes too

The Gun Carriage remains superior in every way

Well otherwise it would have to get by on only ARM20 like those fragile Khador jacks.

Every army in the game needs protection from ranged in Mk3 and Cryx so far has had none.

You can do that without any proxy bases user.

Yeah man, those Satyxis Raiders are sure gonna benefit lots from that Wraith Engine!

Not every Cryx list contains tons of undead infantry.

Cryx lists that don't contain tons of undead infantry aren't real Cryx lists and their players should play Cygnar instead.

>saying Satyxis Raiders need help vs. ranged
fucking what?

That's literally the opposite of what I was saying.

Not if you want to determine the precise distance that you spend in the forest. You would be right if bases were point-shaped instead of circular.

That doesn't make any sense, then.

That guy is saying Cryx needs the help (specifically vs. ranged/magic) and your comment comes across as "well, that doesn't help my Satyxis"

No, the guy said the Wraith Engine is an auto-take now (because it provides ranged protection for undead, aka for Banes). It clearly isn't since you can run lists that either don't need it (Witch Coven for example) or don't run lots of undead for it to protect.

Ah, sorry. I certainly see a place for it in more areas than Ghost Fleet/Skarre1 now, for sure -- but it's hardly an auto-include.

>use a laser
>Determine what portions of the forest you clip in
>Double that, subtract from your charge distance

Just like we handled in Mk 2. It's magic.

That's not correct. If you move through 1 inch of forest that costs you more than 1 inch of movement, because your base is inside of the forest for more than 1" of the way.

I'm one year into mk3 & chill and I still have no idea how to deal with Satyxis.

>Stormstrider aims and gets power tokens
>Has 30 HPs

Ok!

Yes user, I am aware. You should get out some terrain and think about "If I absolutely had to handle this without a proxy using those rules how would I do it"

RATE MY EBIN LIST

conflictchamber.com/#b81b_-0p5C4Qcng4g4g45e5eaGaG

Circle Army - 75 / 75 points
[Theme] The Bones of Orboros

(Baldur 2) Baldur the Stonesoul [+30]
- Megalith [20]
- Woldwrath [37]
Celestial Fulcrum [19]
Celestial Fulcrum [19]
Sentry Stone & Mannikins [5]
Sentry Stone & Mannikins [5]
Blackclad Stoneshaper [0(3)]
Blackclad Stoneshaper [0(3)]
Blackclad Stoneshaper [0(3)]

>Literally 0 changes for the TEP

Look, I know it's already a good model, but not even some more boxes? It now has the lowest amount of health out of all battle engines.

>Gun Carriage is already a pain to remove
>goes up to 38 boxes

I'm cool with this.

>AFG
>+2 damage while aiming
>-1 ARM
>+4 ARM vs shooting
>+1 cost
That's okay I guess

>shut the fuck up about proxy base bullshit already

AFG was already decent. Now it's straight-up good.

Which casters work well with it, though?
Kaelyssa and Garryth have obvious synergy, but Garry isn't exactly a star player. And doesn't Ossyan usually want ranged units to multiply the number of dice you're getting out of his feat?

Rahn. It already has Polarity Field, so there's *less* stuff on the board the other guy can charge, and he can TK it around since it wants to aim every turn.

>the Gun Carriage is has more guns, more armor, and is faster than the War Wagon
>only costs one point more
For fucks sake
Are we getting shafted because SYNERGY again

I like that the Hammerfall Siege Crawler now has clown car tactics with reinforcements

Issyria for Ancilliary Attack. Also she can hide behind it.

>muh disabilities
unless you are missing an arm what is so disabling that you NEED proxies to play the game??

I have a severe phobia of the undead and will require all undead models to be proxied with hello kitty figurines.

>doesn't specify physical disability
I swear to god if it's ADD I'm going to be really disappointed in humanity

Is the Bane stuff actually happening today or is it just happening sometime during the cycle?
Cause this just says
>In addition to testing battle engines, the Battle Engine CID cycle will feature a few other models that we want to put under the lens. The largest group will be Cryx’s Bane models.
"the Battle Engine CID cycle" could mean any time during the testing.

It's probably (self-diagnosed) autism with the explanation that they can't visualize moves in their head or something similar