Skip to main content

Steamroller 2017 enters Community Integrated Development.

      Steamroller 2017, the newest edition of the Warmachine and Hordes organized play, has been opened to community play testing via Privateer Press' CID forums. CID, or Community Integrated Development, is a new tool recently debuted by Privateer Press to allow feedback from players in regards to upcoming changes to the rules of the game. Early access to the SR2017 rule set was opened Wednesday, and the changes proposed, are simply put, earthshaking. Due to the nature of CID and testing, we urge readers to remember that all following information is subject to change.

Scoring

      One massive change to the Steamroller formula is the change to scoring. Simply put, warrior models can only control on circular zones, warbeasts, warjacks and battle engines can only control on rectangles, and warcasters and warlocks can control on both types of zones, in addition to flags. Scoring can be prevented by contesting a zone. A zone is considered contested if a player has one or more models in the zone, with the exception of inert warjacks, wild warbeasts, out of formation warrior models, and warlocks/warcasters. The concept of "Dominate for Two" has been removed from Steamroller entirely.  

     Instead of "First to Five" to win on scenario, tournament games will now conclude when one player has a lead of six or more points on his opponent. To facilitate this, most of the new scenarios have more scoring potential. In addition, all scenarios now include the "Killbox" rule, which is a penalty given when a warcaster or warlock is too far back. In the current edition, killbox is 14 inches, however, in SR 2017 all Killboxes have been shortened to ten inches. 

      Timothy Baer, (Of the Storm Chamber fame) cautions that "spam" lists may be negatively impacted by these changes, saying: "I think some of the static, spam builds will change. For Cygnar this probably means many current Heavy metal lists might be unplayable. Convergence gets the best of all worlds since servitors are solo warrior models that can score and they're free." This change may lead to a prevalance of theme lists that contain more durable or plentiful solos, rather than the few support solos favored by factions such as Cygnar or Retribution. 

      Tim Banky (a current Privateer Press judge) feels that list construction won't change radically, however this change may bring more viability to lists that have been historically more centered on assassination or attrition, stating: "Lists focused hard on control and positioning, real control casters, will probably want to include a few warrior models if they weren't already, but even a list playing nothing but jacks can still contest everything. Scenario isn't the urgent win condition in this version of the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if lists that focus on attrition or assassination see more play." 

Scenarios

      With the exception of Recon, all of the current scenarios have been replaced with either entirely new scenarios, or sequels to previous versions. For the sake of brevity, this article will not contain a rundown of each scenario. The recurring theme, however, is a higher incidence of scoring elements, both offensively, and defensively to facilitate the "Lead by six" version of scenario wins. When questioned about the specific scenarios, Trevor Attridge (Way Of The Swan, and The Storm Chamber) replied: "It seems to me that the scenarios that allow more defensive scoring like Standoff and Spread The Net have the opportunity to be the most live.  These ones encourage aggressive play with fast units to push bad guys off the center scenario elements to get ahead."

Objectives

      Another major change in SR 2017 is the change to Steamroller objectives. A few, remained mostly unchagned, such as Armory and Stockpile, while others such as Bunker (Changing to "-2 inches on ranged attacks targeting this model") and Fuel cache (Granting Cont; Fire to one model.) have changed dramatically. When questioned about the changes to objectives, Banky replied: "I'd argue that bunker got worse, although maybe not as much as people think on first impressions.  Fuel is the clear winner, and it remains to the testing process to determine if it's too good.  I'd hesitate to argue anything isn't good enough for play without more focused testing.  Generally I can think of a reason to play each, and I'm excited to provide feedback on their respective performance."

Terrain

      One very exciting change in SR2017 is the new terrain rules, with three new terrain placement guidelines. Again, for the sake of brevity, this article will not go into detail, however a recurring theme is that terrain placement be relevant to scoring zones, rather than haphazard placement throughout the table. This change may be a positive impact to factions and lists that have struggled into the gun-line heavy meta that accompanied MKIII. On the changes to terrain, Attridge states "The prevalence of forests and other LOS blocking doohickies in the middle of the table is going to help break up fire lanes a lot.  Cryx is especially going to be in an interesting place since most of their guns ignore all those terrain pieces."

     Not all response to this terrain change have been entirely positive, with some claiming that a systematic approach may lead to homogenization on the tabletop. Baer articulates this point, stating: "I'm not real certain if I like a real process to setting up terrain because I like diversity. Our LGS is blessed to have good EOs that set up tables *differently*. Some are wide open and great for gunlines, others have loads of rough terrain toward one table side, and others have lots of obstructions. At our events tables and side choice are very clearly something our EOs think about. Tables do not look all the same, each provides a different experience."

     In addition, some players feel that these rules are too complex, and take far too long for a tournament organizer to efficiently set up tables. When asked about the new rules, Trevor Christensen (Of Chain Attack) replied: "I think they are too complex and most TO's will not use them. They don't want to measure out that much terrain placement. Or roll deviations just to set up a table. It breaks down at the functionality level even before it makes it to the tournament. Especially at big tournaments where someone has to set up 16-32 (or more) tables."

Measurement

     The most hotly debated change in SR2017 is the change to "Measurement Markers". Until this point, premeasuring was used to carefully assess distances, and then markers were placed with impunity to preserve these measurements, whether of threat ranges, line of sight, or a complicated series of movements that accompanied certain activations or rules, such as side-step or locomotion. The change to measurement, put simply, is that only one measurement marker may be left on the table at a time. The player may still use multiple measurements, however, when they are resolved, only one marker may be left in place. This change has been put in place because Privateer Press believes that an overabundance of measurement bases causes players to spend far more time planning the game, and less playing it. In addition, they also feel that the aesthetic of the board is diminished by the huge number of markers and empty bases left on the board. 

     This decision has left the community in uproar, with fierce argumentation, both pro and con, taking place in formal settings, such as the CID forums, and in less formal ones such as faction chat groups. The proposed rule change is believed to remove a level of cleanliness to play that has been a staple of MK3.  Certain plays that can be easily checked with multiple measurement bases, are made far more difficult with the inability to preserve certain measurements. This is especially highlighted in situations where multiple model/units are activating to reach a certain goal. 

Attridge is very vocal in his opposition to this change, stating: "...the proposed rule (and let's be clear, it's still very much in beta and we don't know if it'll make it into SR looking even remotely the same) is really dumb.  Like, just pointlessly, aimlessly stupid.  It doesn't really *stop* anyone from doing anything since they can measure out their plans ahead of time, just makes the process needlessly obtuse and complex..." 

Various players are in agreeance with the rule. The arguments for the proposed change usually involve the fact that watching an opponent plan their entire turn on proxy bases and then execute it is a very boring experience, and negatively affects their play. Some, however, view the extensive planning as a form of "Pre-activation" and that the current ruleset is trying to move the rules-as-written closer to the rules-as-intended. Detractors to this argument view a proxy base, when used as a measurement marker, as a measurement of space and nothing more.

     Baer defends this point with an example: "I also had a guy tell me he wanted to move his colossal later in the activation. So he measures the 5" move and puts down a 120mm proxy base. He says he wants to leave it there so he can remember to not put models in that space. It's just one marker. To me, leaving the marker in play isn't legal. That model hadn't moved yet, it hadn't activated. But what he wants to do is essentially put an illegal model on the table, a sort of "pre-activation" using a proxy base to solidify where his model will be in the future, even though it's not there yet. In effect, he wants to "pre-change" the game state." 

     This change has more impact on some play styles than others. Highly complex warcasters and warlocks will become far more diffcult to play optimally, as will lists with very large numbers of models on the board.  Attridge illustrates this point by saying: "...but very complex casters like Haley2-3 are gonna suffer a bit.  Building complex bricks with Haley3 becomes much more difficult without the use of proxies and Haley2 usually facilitates super weird turns via out-of-activation movement and TKs and things that gets way harder to do."

      In addition, this change brings certain unique challenges to judges and tournament organizers. When asked about this, Banky replied by saying: "As a judge, my ability to enforce this rule will rely a lot on the support of a community of players who remain unconvinced.  If the rule as it stands makes it to publication but no one wants to adhere to it, my role as an adjudicator becomes complicated... I'm also a bit concerned about the difference implied between theoretical movement and practical movement.  Asking a judge to demonstrate a movement instead of being able to demonstrate it yourself is a tax on EO resources, but the alternative of not allowing judges to use more than the measurement options available to players impacts my ability to perform my role."

    At the end of the day, this change will have far reaching consequences for Warmachine and Hordes play at the competitive level. Those with feelings about this change, either pro or con, are urged to apply for the Community Integrated Development forums, and post battle reports that defend their point. Actual, tangible data from battle reports makes a more compelling argument than "Theory-Machine" ever will. 

"Probably the answer at this stage is just play games.  Privateer is going to ignore reactionary feedback that isn't backed up by games played, so we need to build a data set.  Data set built, one of two things will happen -- either we'll become convinced of their vision after testing it out, or we'll provide enough negative feedback to change their minds." -Tim Banky.

In conclusion, all of the changes to SR2017 promise to change the way that competitive Warmachine and Hordes is played. While the community is very divided on several of the changes, we urge players to try the new rule set for themselves and provide feedback to Privateer Press, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments over the internet. This is a very exciting time, and one that will allow players to make their voices heard, shaping the fate of Warmachine and Hordes.

Comments