There was a thread today on the Facebook General group asking about Legacy Prime armies’ cadres and what we can expect to see going forward.
An “official” answer was given indicating that all the models that are currently in the Legacy Prime armies are what they’re going to have (plus some selection of colossal/gargantuan models once they’re released).
The thread has since been deleted. Since further discussion there is impossible, I wanted to ask here whether the answer given is still accurate?
If so, has the “design philosophy” of Legacy cadres changed significantly from what was described in the “Cadres & Mercenaries” Insider from September of last year? The inclusions of some models (e.g. Retribution’s Chimera and Aspis) don’t seem to match up with the “primary support models” theme, and the specific example given for Legion is almost completely different than what was released - Only 1 of the listed models is in both armies, and the other non-huge-based entry (Spawning Vessel) doesn’t have rules at all, and will presumably exist only in Unlimited.
Did things change during the design process or testing?
Was there insufficient bandwidth (time, people) to do that?
Did problems come up that couldn’t be solved in a timely manner show up?
Did other priorities (such as the impending move) affect things?
I’ll be honest: after decades of playing games (hell, even commercial software or operating systems), reading previews, reading reviews, etc? Anything said before I have it in my hand is a goal, an aim, something that they’re hoping for.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve got models not covered in my Prime lists that I wish I could use. Be great if I could! But I think there are bigger fish to fry right now. I hope to see them all in Unlimited. Be nice to see them in Prime provided they don’t cause problems.
This has kind of been my view on most of this launch tbh. I’ve actually kinda been enjoying it as a window into the development process. They’ve got some cool ideas and I’ve always found the process of what gets through to the end to be fascinating. That’s how most of my creative/technical projects have been through the years
Yeah, same here. It’s not like video games where you can find unused assets of things that got cut (lest removing it cause problems elsewhere - programming seems like quite the house of cards!). I really applaud Privateer on how transparent they’ve been trying to be, but this is one of the things that can happen. Really, it’s got to be difficult to gauge how much to say or not say. It’s “DOOOOM” if you don’t say enough, then “LIIIIIIAAAAARS!” if you accidentally say too much.
God, I would love to pick the brains of concept artists for this company. Between wnm and the new mk4 warmachine I’ve seen some references I’ve guessed at, and I’d just love to talk with them about what inspired some of their design choices. I’ve actually had the idea rattling around in my head for a podcast just in the hopes I’d get the chance to talk with them about it, as creatives
Right? Or the devs for game mechanic ideas they’d love to do but would either wreck the game or past conventions/rules limit them. I mean, honestly, imagine if they could magically say, “don’t abuse this please” and that happened? All the nice, interesting things we could have?
On top of that balancing for different skill levels: in fighting games what’s broken at a beginner’s level isn’t at higher levels.
I kind of think it’s a fool’s errand myself. You do your best but low level and high level are opposite extremes. My current ideal for design in that genre is low barrier to entry, high skill ceiling.
IIRC the major Go associations are still looking at komi (?). That game is how many thousands of years old and they’re still balancing it?
Yeah. I think it’s an instance where they kind of have to be to the point versus elaborative. No explanation is going to be satisfactory to it’s most vocal detractors. And since the internet (particularly social media) is where voices get the loudest…?
Honestly though: for the time being I look forward to seeing how my Legacy Prime armies do and how they get tweaked in the future.
It has a feeling of a project starting one way, and then something either being forgotten or them moving in another direction. As if they said hey this would be a good idea, and then forgot where it was heading.
I suppose we see some of this with companies trying to make a skirmish level game and an army level game work with the same minis. But yeah, if you can just swap out digital model stats it streamlines this
I don’t know how the plans changed turn-by-turn (personally I think some apparent changes are to do with the specifics of app/UI development more than with game development).
But the specific question was whether the following is still accurate:
… the models that are currently in the Legacy Prime armies are [all] they’re going to have (plus some selection of colossal/gargantuan models once they’re released).
I think this is definitely accurate and has been communicates like this for a while. Is there any indication that it isn’t accurate any more?
I do wonder if the cadres as a concept were slightly redundant. While it is cool to have them ‘packaged’ as a group, equally they can just name models that work for 2 armies and not need new ‘rules’. We’ve seen a few examples of models working for 2 armies, which fulfils the same role
Hopefully the gargantuans and colossals will be available for all eligible armies. I wonder now if the ‘cadre’ models will include only gargossals and models specifically that work with them: eg mechanithralls included to work with the sepulchre in both armies.
In the example information for Legion, from the Insider, there were models mentioned which do not appear in both Armies, or at all. Retribution has only two warjacks shared between its armies.
So, that’s where the disconnect is coming from. They said one thing and then did something completely different.
This. I’ve not examined anything outside what I play but my Protectorate armies have Vassals and Choirs. Now, this doesn’t explain the Legion examples in the original post, only why legacy cadres might not have appeared.
I suspect the concept started with Mk4 Armies where they make a lot of sense and were envisioned to be adapted to Legacy before either realizing they were redundant or realizing that the Legacy Prime Armies would be out before the Cadre functionality existed in the app.
As for the specific contents, my feelings generally are that any sorts of rules teasers we see before they are officially released are subject to change. PP could have done a better job communicating that. This is the cost the community has to deal with if we want the devs to tell us stuff ahead of time though; stuff may have to change between the teaser and the final product. The alternative is that they don’t tell us anything until it’s done.
Yeah, I agree that they make the most sense for MKIV Armies, as those are still coming out. The Legacy ones should just have been their own things without any mention of Cadres as those weren’t needed.
Yeah. It’s a bit of a catch 22 so if anything I prefer the route they went with. I just wish we players were a bit better at tempering expectations.
I think it made sense then from the standpoint of consistency. New and Legacy armies functioning the same in that regard is very sensible IMO. Just didn’t work out for whatever reasons, redundancy being among them. And I’d imagine redundancy is tied to costs (time, money, human effort).
I’d say it isn’t tempering expectations though. People may have made purchases based on that information, and now those purchases aren’t useable here. The Insider specifically calls out the Spawning Vessel, yet it doesn’t appear in either army.
