WarCry is (too) unpredictable

[tom_gore]

The fact that there is a relatively low number of dice being rolled in the game, combined with the fact that rolling sixes is super important to do well, makes the game quite unpredictable. Which of course might be befitting for a game about Chaos warbands duking it out, but still.

Anyone else think rolling 6s in this game is a bit too important? Calculating "average damage" for an attack is pretty useless, since in most cases the curve is so heavily skewed towards rolling those sweet sixes. Many models have a damage profile of 1/4, which means you'll be doing a whopping 4x damage on a crit. Your normal hits might as well just not be there.

I'm not complaining. The game is still fun, but I doubt its viability in the competitive scene because of the unpredictability.

 

[RaiderX]

Most 2/X fighters can still taking out fighters without crit.

For 1/X fighters yes they had to crit if they want to kill

Crit was there as a compromise for the simpler combat rule.

I'd say its fair game and is not the only unpredictable mechanic in this game, the battleplan cards themselves is random and also influence your chance to win.

[tom_gore]

11 minutes ago, RaiderX said:

Most 2/X fighters can still taking out fighters without crit.

For 1/X fighters yes they had to crit if they want to kill

Crit was there as a compromise for the simpler combat rule.

I'd say its fair game and is not the only unpredictable mechanic in this game, the battleplan cards themselves is random and also influence your chance to win.

Yes it's definitely not the only unpredictable part. Hence I was considering the competitive side. Matched Play games don't use the battleplan cards, which takes that out of the equation, but the reliance on 6s still remains something that you cannot really predict.

[RaiderX]

As long as GW keep making new content and sponsoring those tournament with big prize there will be a scene for this game.

Crit is also a things in WU, alongside the unpredictable in drawing cards. For WC you at least don't have to worry about a bad draw.

Edited August 7, 2019 by RaiderX

[Kramer]

42 minutes ago, tom_gore said:

Yes it's definitely not the only unpredictable part. Hence I was considering the competitive side. Matched Play games don't use the battleplan cards, which takes that out of the equation, but the reliance on 6s still remains something that you cannot really predict.

But is it really more impactful than good rolls on initiative? That’s only three rolls unless you tie. 

[Hannibal]

1 hour ago, tom_gore said:

Anyone else think rolling 6s in this game is a bit too important? Calculating "average damage" for an attack is pretty useless, since in most cases the curve is so heavily skewed towards rolling those sweet sixes. Many models have a damage profile of 1/4, which means you'll be doing a whopping 4x damage on a crit. Your normal hits might as well just not be there.

The unpredictable results is one thing that thrills me regarding Warcry. In fact IMO it is the reason why this game is a GAME and not a competition. Look at it as if it were a board game. You need less than an hour to play the game, therefore you can play several games per evening. Who cares about prediction if each player coincidencely wins some of these?

The "need" for "competition" somewhat decreased the fun playing tabletop games for me. I highly enjoy all of these random happenings in Warcry. For me it´s more like a story told by the dice than any kind of player based competition.

[gabbi]

I'm not very versed in competitive/tournament play.
This said, evaluation of a game's unpredictability is -to me- never an isolated aspect, but something I  compare to other aspects.
I mean, the same amount of "randomness" could make one game more fun to me, and bother me to no end in another game.
It all depends on the scope of the game and the complexity of its rulebook. Without making names, to avoid discussions on specific games, if a ruleset is more complex (thus demanding more focus from the player) I want it's unpredictability to be low, same if a game it's more focused on competitive play and its ruleset has low to no room for "flavor play". To the other hand, I enjoy a higher degree of unpredictability in games mainly focused on narrative play.

[Kasper]

7 minutes ago, Hannibal said:

The unpredictable results is one thing that thrills me regarding Warcry. In fact IMO it is the reason why this game is a GAME and not a competition. Look at it as if it were a board game. You need less than an hour to play the game, therefore you can play several games per evening. Who cares about prediction if each player coincidencely wins some of these?

The "need" for "competition" somewhat decreased the fun playing tabletop games for me. I highly enjoy all of these random happenings in Warcry. For me it´s more like a story told by the dice than any kind of player based competition.

It sounds like you enjoy the casual aspect of Warcry, but OP specifically created this thread with the focus on the competitive aspect being dilluted by 6s creating too many swingy situations.

[Hannibal]

1 minute ago, Kasper said:

It sounds like you enjoy the casual aspect of Warcry, but OP specifically created this thread with the focus on the competitive aspect being dilluted by 6s creating too many swingy situations.

You´re right, but I just wanted to point out that not each and every tabletop should be rated based on competetive playstyle. I think Warcry is not created for competetive games.

 

[marke]

22 minutes ago, Hannibal said:

The unpredictable results is one thing that thrills me regarding Warcry. In fact IMO it is the reason why this game is a GAME and not a competition. Look at it as if it were a board game. You need less than an hour to play the game, therefore you can play several games per evening. Who cares about prediction if each player coincidencely wins some of these?

The "need" for "competition" somewhat decreased the fun playing tabletop games for me. I highly enjoy all of these random happenings in Warcry. For me it´s more like a story told by the dice than any kind of player based competition.

Game is a game when there are meaningful and impactful decisions to be made. Throwing dice to see what happens is more akin to a (non-hollywood) movie you've never seen before. Not saying it can't be enjoyed, but it is what it is.

Edited August 7, 2019 by marke

[Hannibal]

Ok, to point out why I don´t think Warcry can be seen as a competetive game:

 

Any serious tabletop with small number of models that uses the "I go – you go" mechanic of any kind has some rules to prevent that the player with more bodies on the table certainly gets the last activation(s) in a round. That is called "to out-activate your opponent" and means that you can savely hold back your strong fighters to activate them last while your opponent is not able to react.

Such a rule is NOT EXISTANT in Warcry and therefore I think Warcry in the current state will never be competetive. Out activation is just too huge.

 

The question wether the dice are too meaningful or not is just not relevant IMO as long as out-activation exists.

 

(Note: I do know that you can just activate a fighter and let him "wait" (don´t know the engish word for that rule where a fighter waits to reactivated later), but you loos activations doing so and so might your opponent react.)

[Kaleun]

Because of the critical hit mechanic the game might favor Horde Warbands instead of more elite Warbands. Warcry seems to be a lot about objectives and controling the right areas of the gaming field at the right time. 

However I do not agree with the statement that calculation of "average damage" is useless. The calculation lets you get a feeling which units are more combat effective then others. 

Statistics are getting ever more accurate the more games you play. The analytics behind it are true for a infinite number of games. 

[tom_gore]

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

But is it really more impactful than good rolls on initiative? That’s only three rolls unless you tie. 

In my opinion, there are not so much "good" or "bad" initiative rolls. You either have high initiative or high amount of abilities. Of course if you roll six 1s it's a bad roll unless you have a godly Quad ability that doesn't care about the value. Add in the Wild Dice with the ability to save them and the initiative roll becomes much less unpredictable and much more tactical.

The point is, you can both influence the initiative roll and get an advantage on some part of the game no matter how you roll, so it doesn't really compare of either doing wacky amounts of damage or not doing anything meaningful at all.

23 minutes ago, Hannibal said:

You´re right, but I just wanted to point out that not each and every tabletop should be rated based on competetive playstyle. I think Warcry is not created for competetive games.

 

Yet it has Matched Play and tournament rules right in the Core Book.

 

4 minutes ago, Hannibal said:

Ok, to point out why I don´t think Warcry can be seen as a competetive game:

 

Any serious tabletop with small number of models that uses the "I go – you go" mechanic of any kind has some rules to prevent that the player with more bodies on the table certainly gets the last activation(s) in a round. That is called "to out-activate your opponent" and means that you can savely hold back your strong fighters to activate them last while your opponent is not able to react.

Such a rule is NOT EXISTANT in Warcry and therefore I think Warcry in the current state will never be competetive. Out activation is just too huge.

 

The question wether the dice are too meaningful or not is just not relevant IMO as long as out-activation exists.

 

(Note: I do know that you can just activate a fighter and let him "wait" (don´t know the engish word for that rule where a fighter waits to reactivated later), but you loos activations doing so and so might your opponent react.)

The beasts are the mitigating factor in some scenarios/twists, although of course if you're unlucky you'll only worsen the situation and they are not present in all games. I do agree there could be some other mechanics in place, too.

 

[tom_gore]

1 minute ago, Kaleun said:

Because of the critical hit mechanic the game might favor Horde Warbands instead of more elite Warbands. Warcry seems to be a lot about objectives and controling the right areas of the gaming field at the right time. 

However I do not agree with the statement that calculation of "average damage" is useless. The calculation lets you get a feeling which units are more combat effective then others. 

Statistics are getting ever more accurate the more games you play. The analytics behind it are true for a infinite number of games. 

I get what you mean, but in-game you will often need to be able to judge if a model will be able to finish off another model or not. That calculation is almost pure guesswork with the crit mechanics swinging the outcome so much. The maximum damage is so far off the average damage the calculation is just meaningless.

Analytics behind for an infinite number of games don't really apply when you're playing a single game and need to judge the outcome of just handful of dice.

For example, let's say you roll 8 attacks total with a damage profile of 1/4 against lower T. This means that you will do between 0 and 32 points of damage, with the average being only 9,33! Change that to a profile of 2/3 and it becomes a maximum of 24, with an average of 12. Do you see what I mean?

[Moonlightwolf]

If you want an extremely balanced game you've got Underworlds (shadespire/nightvault/beastgrave) warcry is more balanced than necromunda but even reading the book narrative is still clearly the game's focus, the design isn't focused on balance as much as making the game compelling. Crits are compelling.

[InSaint]

Gambling is even more unpredictable but there are addicts and casinos everywhere.

I wonder why 🤣

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by InSaint

[tyler1906]

5 hours ago, tom_gore said:

Yes it's definitely not the only unpredictable part. Hence I was considering the competitive side. Matched Play games don't use the battleplan cards, which takes that out of the equation, but the reliance on 6s still remains something that you cannot really predict.

I thought match play does use battleplan cards just the ones that are symmetrical. Also,  I play the objective. To many people I play against have been trying to go for kills and not playbthe objective. When I sense it I just dictate the battle and take obj. ( I play cypher lords) now 4-0 with them..lol

Edited August 7, 2019 by tyler1906

[tyler1906]

Also I am hearing some people talk about horde warbands. I am a firm believer in this game u should not go all horde nor all elite but a mixture of each. I played against a horde LoN, and I wiped out three skellies in one turn. Much like you suggested he tried to keep his elite back but I started getting objectives and he could not keep up. Also one thing that kind of goes against the horde advantage is the dagger shield and hammer placement. Yes it can work, but the horde players I played and watch are not doing to well in my store, but on the flip side neither are the all elite warbands.

[Stealth_Hobo]

3 hours ago, marke said:

Game is a game when there are meaningful and impactful decisions to be made. Throwing dice to see what happens is more akin to a (non-hollywood) movie you've never seen before. Not saying it can't be enjoyed, but it is what it is.

I agree that meaningful decisions is what makes a good game and I think you still make those in WarCry. In every phase of the game from deployment to initiative and from movement to activations.

Critical rolls might have that feel bad moment when you are on the receiving end of it, but I think crit rolls are there to make combat feel more dangerous. You have to give some respect to lone chaff fighter who can still put a dent on your more elite fighter. In this type of game combat should have some unpredictability.

[marke]

I didn't say one doesn't make those decisions in Warcry.  However, those tactical decisions for deployment, movement, activations etc. are included in every skirmish miniature game.

[Stealth_Hobo]

8 minutes ago, marke said:

I didn't say one doesn't make those decisions in Warcry.  However, those tactical decisions for deployment, movement, activations etc. are included in every skirmish miniature game.

You didn't make that accusation, but I thought it was relevant to the topic at hand.  Some of those other games also have similar critical hits. I remember in Frostgrave crits can be quite lethal, for example. Some games also have additional tests, like when you try to climb ladder, jump over ledge etc. In WarCry fighters can't fail in those mundane tasks.  And I know some people hate that about the game.  

I don't think WarCry is too unpredictable.  The unpredictability the game has is mostly in the right places. For example, I really like the cards to generate battles with!

[El_Commi]

*edit: Spreadsheet error, see my next post for clarification*

13 hours ago, Hannibal said:

Ok, to point out why I don´t think Warcry can be seen as a competetive game:

 

Any serious tabletop with small number of models that uses the "I go – you go" mechanic of any kind has some rules to prevent that the player with more bodies on the table certainly gets the last activation(s) in a round. That is called "to out-activate your opponent" and means that you can savely hold back your strong fighters to activate them last while your opponent is not able to react.

Such a rule is NOT EXISTANT in Warcry and therefore I think Warcry in the current state will never be competetive. Out activation is just too huge.

 

 

Malifaux M2E didn't have anything to prevent out-activations, (I can't speak for M3E), and the out activation strategy was integral to some aspects of the game, smaller model count lists have their own advantages and disadvantages, same as in any game. 
So I don't really see this as a major concern for Warcry tbh.  What matters is how you react to the evolving game. 

13 hours ago, tom_gore said:

I get what you mean, but in-game you will often need to be able to judge if a model will be able to finish off another model or not. That calculation is almost pure guesswork with the crit mechanics swinging the outcome so much. The maximum damage is so far off the average damage the calculation is just meaningless.

Analytics behind for an infinite number of games don't really apply when you're playing a single game and need to judge the outcome of just handful of dice.

For example, let's say you roll 8 attacks total with a damage profile of 1/4 against lower T. This means that you will do between 0 and 32 points of damage, with the average being only 9,33! Change that to a profile of 2/3 and it becomes a maximum of 24, with an average of 12. Do you see what I mean?

I'm not sure of your math here. I'm getting 9.664470895 and 16.55482363 when I run the numbers.  If you look at the graph below, I don't think this is as big an issue as you suggest. Grey line represents probability of 6's on that many die. Bounded to 0 and 8.  The probability of at least one 6 is 0.53. 
The blue and orange lines represent damage. Each of these damage outputs maps on to a probabilistic outcome (assuming the dice is perfect). We can see that the most likely outcomes here show 2/3 as having higher damage. 
 

 
I mean, you are right in saying that the damage curve for 1/4 is much steeper than 2/3.  However, the probability of hitting those higher damage values is quite slim. (The above assumes 8 attacks which all hit). But, once you factor in the probability the 2/3 has a much higher overall damage curve. 

And whilst minimizing the range of output matters for balance in a competitive setting ( I made similar arguments for competitive wow arena back in the day), in a game those... "oh Sh**" moments are what make it fun to play- provided they are not too common:which the probability damage curves above suggest they are not. 

In  addition to discounting the probabilistic outcomes, your perspective discounts unit specific abilities that may hinder/mitigate crits and damage output which could further smooth out damage.  (Although, I concede this does go both ways and it can enhance it)

Edited August 7, 2019 by El_Commi

[El_Commi]

Edit: Spreadsheet error. Will clarify. 

[Hannibal]

52 minutes ago, El_Commi said:

 

Malifaux M2E didn't have anything to prevent out-activations, (I can't speak for M3E), and the out activation strategy was integral to some aspects of the game, smaller model count lists have their own advantages and disadvantages, same as in any game. 
So I don't really see this as a major concern for Warcry tbh.  What matters is how you react to the evolving game. 

 

If I remember correctly, in M2E you could only count on outactivating with one model. You were allowed to skip a certain number of activations if you were fielding less models.

M1E didn´t have such a rule as well as offered an unlimited number of chain activations which made shooty alpha strikes pretty lethal in the right cicumstances. This was addressed by M2E.

[soak314]

I don't think a game's swinginess and unpredictability has much of any bearing on its worth as a competitive format.

Underworlds has a similar crits mechanic, and it's by and large one of GW's best tourney games by a wide margin.

Consider the case of Infinity: it has a hideously lethal system and dice rolling + a focus on removing the strict pre-fight knowledge transparency the meta for competitive GW games seems to be obsessed over. You don't show your opponent your entire list, and if you have things that are hidden, they are hidden in every sense. Those AHA! moments GW tourney players hate so much are just part of the show for Infinity games, and you're expected to be able to prepare and react to them accordingly. But given all this, Infinity is still miles ahead of pretty much all of GW's attempts at competitive organisation both in terms of format support, and the usability of models across the range.  

All that said! I don't think Warcry was made for matched play primarily in mind. It certainly has the tools for it, and I think it's pretty tight given you play in the prescribed format, but I also think it's fairly boring in matched play. Unless you draw a really cool twist or play on a very vertical board (and i betcha cash most tourneyheads will want those twists gone and the terrain standardized anyway).