Point Cost Shifting and Model Redemption

Warmachine is at a dangerous place in it's release cycle: a new Hordes book has been released and is shaking up the meta a bit, while all the Warmachine armies sit unchanged since the last book update (note: this happens for Hordes as well, just on the opposite cycle.)

This phenomenon will naturally be resolved when new releases start flowing again, so it's not like the game is in any danger of imploding. What I find most interesting is that it is almost always during this period of time that talks of "Mk. 3", "Mk. 2 Remix", significant errata, etc, start cropping up.

The obvious explanation for this desire is that players get burned out on playing with and against the "same 'ol stuff", and thus seek to shake the system up in the most explicit way possible. While I do think this is part of it, I think there is an thought process which leads to that conclusion, and examining that thought process yields the root of the problem.

My guess is that the average negative player experience during a release lull is something like this:

1. Player gets bored with current lists.
2. Player then attempts to change those lists using previously unused army choices.
3. Player gets discouraged when newly introduced elements "aren't as good" as what they were using before.
4. Player returns to the tried and true list elements.
5. Player laments stagnation.
6. Player demands emancipation via Mk. 3/Mk. 2 Remix/new releases/etc.

Steps 2 and 3 are the most important and illuminating. Step 2 is a natural choice in a game as soaked in options as Warmachine/Hordes - why not try out some of those models I never use?

Step 3 is where the wheels come of the bus and it can happen for a number of different reasons. Some choice reasons being: player expectations, match up issues, scenario issues, bad dice, and of course there sometimes are legitimate model rule quality issues. For whatever reason, the player decides at Step 3 some variant of "these models suck, no wonder why I/no one uses them."

These are generalizations - plenty of players go back to the model well and feel like they strike gold -but I think it's representative of how players can end up feeling like they're stuck with using the same models over and over. And that kind of naturally leads to the desire for those disappointing models to, well, not be disappointing.

This puts PP in a weird spot, and for the most part I agree with how they've handled it. The last model rewrite was rough enough; with what's been added to the game since then it may be almost impossible. So its much more feasible to fix things by moving forward: new UAs, solos, and warcasters can do a lot for previously benched models.

One idea I had never considered came up during one of those rewrite discussions felt like the most likely of the unlikely: what of, instead of a full on model review, PP instead remixed point values (I.e. point costs and warjack/warbeast points.)

That would still be a big undertaking. And there are some models that need more help than even that. But I was surprised by how many models felt well better off with just that minor adjustment.

You can even possibly extend this approach to warjack/warbeast points as a way of shaking up 'casters/'locks a bit - by taking away or adding a point or two you can change what lists those 'casters/'locks can run.

Just for fun, let's see what just a point change would do for some of the models I find don't make the cut very often:

 - Man-o-War Shocktroopers and Demo Corps: shaving a point off of these guys would be a solid help. Both units would still probably need something like a UA or a solo to really hit its stride, but they definitely get more palatable at 5/8.

 - Assault Kommandos: These guys have output issues that make them only work in very specific situations. At 4/6 they'd be cheap enough to possibly just throw in for irritation, bodies, and the WAs. I do think this unit more needs to be worth 5/8 than to just be cheap. Especially since they feel like a strong candidate for a UA at some point and that could help them a lot.

 - Greylord Ternion: I actually love the Ternion, but I feel like they were victims of early Mk 2 conservative inclinations. They're a very useful unit, and they actually feel like they're supposed to be a backbone unit for Khador, but they feel too expensive at 4 points. They'd be spot on at 3.

 - Man-o-War Bombardiers: This is a unit that feels way beyond a point adjustment. They'd need to drop down to 5/8 under their current rules for me to consider them, and even then they're so low impact (at least in the current meta) that they probably still wouldn't make the cut then. If the other MoW are theoretically worth 5/8 then these guys should target for 6/10. Which would probably involve some level of rules revision.

 - Kossite Woodsmen: I used to love these guys, but it feels like the meta has left them in the dust. Still, I'd certainly consider them more at 3/5. at that cost they're cheap enough to just throw at the enemy and hope for the best (or run in for a one turn jam/speed bump.)

 - Gun Carriage: I actually still like this model, but I feel like its a victim of the "all for one price" phenomenon that came up a couple of times in those early Mk 2 books (most egregious with the Domination character beasts and the Gargantuans.) The GC has issues, but it also has some solid upsides even as the meta keeps evolving. An 8 point cost might help it make the cut more often.

 - Lots of warjacks: This is something I feel you can make a case for across a lot of factions, at least for the early Mk 2 warjacks. I don't know if anything will ever shake off the domination of colossals and character warjacks, but making most Khador warjacks one point cheaper may help. Though for Khador I'd consider that reduction even for their colossal and pretty much all of their character 'jacks.

 - Lots of 'casters: I liked the idea of warjack points when PP mentioned it during the Mk 2 transition. However, I've been kind of disappointed in how its been implemented. In a lot of cases, that value is either +5 or 6, and it seems to be pretty arbitrary as o when its higher or lower. I'd love to see those values get revisited to makes them more intuitive (especially as the game HSS evolved,) and possibly have a more significant variance introduced.

------

As mentioned, I don't think any kind of rewrite is very likely. Any effort like that is going to be put off as long as possible by PP, if for no other reason than to avoid the headache of it all.

But it is fun to speculate isn't it? And it can also be interesting to look at your own faction to see how much of a difference just tweaking some points can make. I focused on the models that would be better as a result, but this could also bring some more potent models in check with a higher cost (though I'm more in favor of buffing the floor versus nerfing the ceiling.)