Objectives vs. Caster Kill

[whitestar333]

So at my LGS tonight a few of us were chatting about Warmachine/Hordes, in particular one 'veteran' who's been playing games for years and started Warmachine back in the early days. We were talking about what has been keeping us from getting interested in the system (this is not a bash thread so don't worry!) when someone mentioned that in the original Warmachine Prime book (Mk I), there really was only one scenario where killing the caster resulted in an automatic win. We compared this to the new scenarios in Mk II, and while the scenarios varied deployment and sometimes threw in some objectives, every one that we saw would end if the caster died.

So I started thinking: is the "kill the caster" mentality a boon for the game or not? The same bunch of us who were chatting decided that we're going to start playing WM/H again but focus less on killing the caster in our little circle (instead of the big bunch of competitive players). Granted, the mechanic of killing a caster would still limit the effectiveness of jacks and beasts once dead, but I'm curious what kind of a game it would be if one was less focused on killing the enemy caster. Would a greater focus on various kinds of objectives ruin the game?

[Herr Wiggles]

That is certainly an interesting idea. I personally play much more geared towards assassination and not so fond on the missions, though that is mainly due to is often having annoying set ups. I will certainly need to try some game where the only thing that would happen if the caster died is jacks went inert or beasts went wild.

[mazgier]

I'm curious what kind of a game it would be if one was less focused on killing the enemy caster. Would a greater focus on various kinds of objectives ruin the game?
The answer is very simple. If you eliminate the casterkill form the game all the armylists will be 95% solos/units. You'll take the lone warjack that your caster's bouns points grant (because it's free anyway) and fill the rest with the best troops/solos your army has to offer. The final result will be the return of the infamous "infantrymachine" that was so much disliked by many players back in the Mk. I times. And, ofc. it'll also elliminate all of the "jack casters" from the game. The choice is yours.

[FastEd]

The answer is very simple. If you eliminate the casterkill form the game all the armylists will be 95% solos/units. You'll take the lone warjack that your caster's bouns points grant (because it's free anyway) and fill the rest with the best troops/solos your army has to offer. The final result will be the return of the infamous "infantrymachine" that was so much disliked by many players back in the Mk. I times. And, ofc. it'll also elliminate all of the "jack casters" from the game. The choice is yours.

While I don't entirely disagree, and I do see where your coming from (though I also don't entirely agree), generally when somebody, such as yourself, posits a series of statements it helps to explain why you feel that they are the case. This is especially true, though rather counter-intuitively, when prefaced with the statement "the answer is very simple". So, I would request of you that you explain why you feel it is so cut and dry, and black and white so that I may better understand your viewpoint.

[whitestar333]

The answer is very simple. If you eliminate the casterkill form the game all the armylists will be 95% solos/units. You'll take the lone warjack that your caster's bouns points grant (because it's free anyway) and fill the rest with the best troops/solos your army has to offer. The final result will be the return of the infamous "infantrymachine" that was so much disliked by many players back in the Mk. I times. And, ofc. it'll also elliminate all of the "jack casters" from the game. The choice is yours.

Not necessarily true. Someone could still build a powerful list with 'jacks in hopes of taking down the infantry en-masse, or in some cases, one could re-activate 'jacks (can't 'jack marshalls do this? I haven't played the game much to remember). Additionally, I think the reason why "infantrymachine" was so popular was because of the survivability (or lack thereof) of 'jacks. It was really easy to destroy, let alone cripple, a warjack but that is not the case anymore. Mk II seems to have balanced things out rather nicely, so perhaps there would be just as much of a reason to take 'jacks to kill off hordes of infantry to keep them off of objectives. In either case, objective-based-scenarios would likely add variety and purpose to some of the units and lists which might not seem as good for various reasons. It would add another level of strategy to the game, and I personally think it would add to the popularity of the game rather than detract from it, but I could be wrong.

I think that more options are better, and there are those of us out there who like to think about games for reasons other than "kill the leader," and that's why a bunch of us will start playing more with objectives. Again, in Mk I there was only one mission where killing the enemy caster resulted in a victory, but the whole game has just evolved into caster killing, with little other variety. Sure, some of the new scenarios have other "objectives", but it doesn't matter when all you have to do is kill the caster anyway. It just seems to me that there's room for more depth to the game, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Hjelmen]

The following is probably quite long-winded, and is naturally purely my own views, and is mostly observations on the format of Warmachine in a competitive environment.

In the danish Warmachine community there has been a lot of discussion about this topic. The community started out playing without casterkills at all, mostly because the driving forces behind the community at that time did not like it. I wasn't part of the community at that time, but the arguments have gone from it being unfair to certain armies, to leading to unfortunate cutthroat behaviour. The focus lasted a long time; playing only on scenario wins in extremely long games (most scenarios required an army to take and hold scenarios and last for 6 rounds (!) to be able to win at all). I can safely say that this sort of scenario focus is detrimental to the game. It heavily favours a certain type of army that not all factions are able to build and be effective, for instance Legion of Everblight, Circle Orboros and, to an extent, Cryx.

So, I have "lived with" a competitive environment where the was an extreme focus on scenario objective as the only way of playing, and I can tell you now, it is not fun for those that play a faction that cannot brick up and hold an objective for a long time, since they will feel like they are playing sub-par lists in order to compete. This is not sour grapes, it is an objective (as objective as possible, naturally) viewpoint, taken over several tournaments and games.

There is an option in the (admirable, but ultimately unnecessary) Steamroller 2010 appendix for removing assassination as a victory condition in a tournament. I will admit that I have not tried the Steamroller 2010 scenarios without casterkills, but my experiences with competitive Warmachine in the environment described above leads me to believe that choosing this option will change the balance of the game significantly.
This belief is further strengthened by the interview that Focus & Fury had with David Carl (PPS_DC on the big boards), wherein he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that everything in Warmachine (and Hordes naturally) is balanced up against assassination as a core game-mechanic. This, to me, says that removing this as a victory condition, severely changes the balance of the game. Which in turn means that some factions will be weaker, meaning that they will just be "sorted out". This is a detriment to the game as a whole, and a negative experience for the players that will feel forced to play "lesser" lists in order to compete.

What I have played a lot lately, is the new Steamroller 2010 (SR2010) scenarios with the bog-standard baseline ruleset. Let me start with saying that this is by no means a perfect tournament format, but it is damned good! For those of you that are not familiar with this format, it is objective based, but with assassination as the other primary victory condition. Most of the scenarios (bar ... three out of ten, I think it is) allow players to score points in each turn (as opposed to each round), meaning that you can lock down and win the scenario over one round. This might sound harsh, but it means that it favors aggression. Very generally said: speed-based armies can win by assassination, and durable armies can win by scenario.
My experiences with SR2010 are that everyone can contend; maybe 70% of our local games are won on scenario now (which speaks heavily in favor for the objective-based way of playing warmachine), but the last of the games are won on assassination; someone makes a mistake in turn 2 and is punished for it, or maybe you have both held the scenario locked down, and worn each other so thin that assassination becomes a real possibility in turn 4-5 (meaning that assassination is still a possibility, but not the only way to effectively win).

All in all, this boils down to the point that assassination-based and objective-based games are not mutually exclusive, and that the inclusion of both makes for a much better game.

I have a very strong conviction that removing assassination from the game, breaks the game competitively. The new SR2010 is a great format for both competitive play and casual play, because it lets everyone contend on a footing where every strength an army is good at can be brought to bear, and not just favor one specific style of play/list. This is also why we have choses SR2010 for the next Danish Masters; because we (the TO's) felt that it was the best way of playing the game in a way that meant that everyone could be a contender, despite their faction.

[whitestar333]

All in all, this boils down to the point that assassination-based and objective-based games are not mutually exclusive, and that the inclusion of both makes for a much better game.

I have a very strong conviction that removing assassination from the game, breaks the game competitively. The new SR2010 is a great format for both competitive play and casual play, because it lets everyone contend on a footing where every strength an army is good at can be brought to bear, and not just favor one specific style of play/list. This is also why we have choses SR2010 for the next Danish Masters; because we (the TO's) felt that it was the best way of playing the game in a way that meant that everyone could be a contender, despite their faction.

I guess I wasn't clear with my point of discussion but you seem to have answered it for me! I will have to find these scenarios you speak of because I think that they will be worth playing at my LGS in light of our conversation yesterday.

You're right, I don't think that the complete removal of the caster kill mechanic is warranted, but rather that the addition of scenario special rules (of which you speak) provides additional opportunities if X list cannot kill Y list's caster. Warmachine, and other wargames too, love the 'rock-paper-scissors' style of balance, where one unit/list is good at killing one other, but then another is good at killing it, etc. Naturally, sometimes you will be paired up against someone who is designed to kill you, and it would be nice to have another way of winning. Some tournaments circumvent this by allowing for a "sideboard" of units/casters, but I think offering an alternative to killing the enemy caster in each scenario would be greatly beneficial to the health of the game, and your observations seem to support that discussion I had.

Thanks!

[Hjelmen]

I guess I wasn't clear with my point of discussion but you seem to have answered it for me! I will have to find these scenarios you speak of because I think that they will be worth playing at my LGS in light of our conversation yesterday.

You're right, I don't think that the complete removal of the caster kill mechanic is warranted, but rather that the addition of scenario special rules (of which you speak) provides additional opportunities if X list cannot kill Y list's caster. Warmachine, and other wargames too, love the 'rock-paper-scissors' style of balance, where one unit/list is good at killing one other, but then another is good at killing it, etc. Naturally, sometimes you will be paired up against someone who is designed to kill you, and it would be nice to have another way of winning. Some tournaments circumvent this by allowing for a "sideboard" of units/casters, but I think offering an alternative to killing the enemy caster in each scenario would be greatly beneficial to the health of the game, and your observations seem to support that discussion I had.

Thanks!
Oh, you were clear, but I felt that I needed to properly establish my position before I could make my point :)

The Steamroller rules and scenarios are on Privateer Press' website.
Or you can find them here:
Steamroller 2010 (http://privateerpress.com/files/Steamroller_2010_v2%283%29.pdf)
Steamroller 2010 Appendix (http://privateerpress.com/files/SR2010%20Appendix.pdf)

[Nickster8414]

I my experience when playing is that I try to go for the scenario win, but then I end up finding a path to their caster. I usually play an assassination caster to it is hard for me not to think about that when playing.

For example I was just recently playing king of the hill. Either kill the casters or have your caster on the hill for three turns. There was a forest on top of the hill so that provided great coverage buy when you have eSorscha and her cyclone spell you can easily get within reach of the other casters. I lost in the end because I had stupidly put two focus on my Spriggian instead of eSorscha for those additional hits. My excuse was that the store was closing and we had to finish up.

[tonyzahn]

This is a great thread.

Scenarios are a fun addition to the game when you need a change of pace, but I agree that Warmachine just wouldn't be the same if caster kill was removed as an option.

Not just because of balance issues, but because IMHO one of the big draws to the game is that even when you're losing, you still have a chance to pull out a win if you can engineer a risky caster kill. That keeps it fun for both players because it's not just one guy completely steamrolling over the other. We've all had games where one site is completely crushing the other, but then the dominate players makes a small mistake, and the other guys manages to get to his caster and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

[whitestar333]

I also realized something else the other day watching a game. On turn 2 eNemo was a little close to some trolls and the troll player went for the assassination by using the impaler's animus to increase the range of the dire troll bomber, who then proceeded to own eNemo.

The two were only playing for 15 minutes, as both armies basically advanced first turn and then the assassination occurred. "It wasn't my fault Nemo was so close" explained the Troll player. I loudly retorted "But it's your fault the game ended! You didn't HAVE to kill him, and you could have explained to your opponent what you COULD do, and just choose not to do it." I then played against the eNemo kid and we played a long game where it was one giant slugfest where our two casters were in combat for two rounds and I just barely survived long enough to take him down. It was a really fun game!

I realized that it really is a choice to go for an assasination run, and when you're just trying to have fun, you should do that. It's really only certain people who make such assassinations early in the game not fun. What did he have to prove? "Sure, you saw how you could win, but you knew that it would end the game. No, you chose to kill him and then pack it away. You might as well have not even started playing."

My problem with WM/H is not the scenarios nor casterkill, but the same problem that exists in other games: players wanting to win without caring about who has fun. I remembered why I was drawn to gaming (firstly computer gaming) when I was much younger: I never liked playing sports because everyone was so competitive. When did all the jocks show up to play games?