|
Post by Tekanan on May 7, 2017 1:54:26 GMT
I did not want to digress another thread, so I created this just to voice out some thoughts I have, thinking it'd be a great point of discussion.
Power Up is not broken and is a great boon in making warjacks work. However, there are some parts of the community that wishes the Power Up ability is restricted. Despite PP claiming the game is where they want to be now, there are alot of benefits in putting limitations to Power Up.
Option 1: Limiting Power Up up to focus stat of warcasters
- Spam lists of >6-7 warjacks are not encouraged anymore.
- Less deep dive fixes using Errata/Steamroller/Theme Forces required on models. Alot of models feel either undercosted or not attractive enough now. i.e. "Although it seems perfectly fine and balanced, why should you take this model? You can just add 1 more warjack instead for more more HP and it does pretty much the same thing".
- More in line with Hordes Mk3. Hordes revolves around risk management and Warmachine around resource management. Unlike Mk2, managing your focus resource isn't as challenging anymore as managing your fury risk in Mk3. Let's not forget there's more incentive to spam in WM compared to Hordes now. Hordes took 1 step back to be on level terms but Warmachine took 2 steps forward. I'm not saying Hordes is unplayable; it's just the Power Up rule is too efficient now.
- In line with the fluff. You never see warcasters controlling massive amounts of warjacks. When you do, only a few selected ones are efficient.
- The game stays the same. If you are not playing spam lists, how many warjacks are you playing now? 4? 5? Your game does not change.
Option 2: Limiting Power Up up to 1/2 the focus stat of warcasters (rounded up)
Pretty much all the points above with the following additions:
- Games will generally revolve around 3-4 warjacks. If you play 4 warjacks on average now, your game stays the same.
- There will be a strong reason to play Jack Marshals and/or Jr. Warcasters. You can still play more warjacks, but you are now encouraged to play things like Jack Marshals and Jr. Warcasters.
- Since additional warjacks beyond the Power Up limitation becomes not so attractive anymore, other current so-so models become more attractive. Current model and unit points will be more justified.
With the amount of models that need tweaks now, there's a possibility that PP are forced to fix models that isn't broken. Despite PP saying Power Up is working as intended, it is my firm belief that Power Up will eventually go into CID and get revised. Most of the issues now can be sorted by just reducing the efficiency level of Power Up.
Perhaps test with Option 1 first, then test Option 2 and see how public receives it. If it fails, go back to Option 1.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 7, 2017 1:57:47 GMT
Honestly, I already have no issue with Version 1. I play Khador and balance around a Maximum of 6 jacks including those brought by jack marshals.
I dislike spam as a concept, and I would be fine with the limitation suggested.
edit:
Also Nerfing awesome options never made so so options good.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 7, 2017 2:05:03 GMT
Hmmm.
If we're looking to equalize the power level of warmachine and Hordes, number 2 is the better option - 3/4 is about the maximum number of heavy beasts you can run in most hordes lists, due to both fury/point cost issues.
However, I personally enjoy lists that focus more jacks/beasts than on infantry, so I would prefer version 1. Not too restrictive, and if a list REALLY wants to run 10 jacks, it can use a journeyman or marshals.
Hordes beasts' points costs still need to get looked at, though. While I'll concede the flexibility of Fury/animi is worth some premium, I don't accept that it's worth a 50% increase in cost.
In short, good change, won't affect many lists I'd cry to see gone, but not the only thing needed to balance warmachine and hordes.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 3:43:29 GMT
Neither. Option 1 penalises playing anything but High Focus casters in factions based around using Warjacks. Option 2 just makes it untenable.
Power up is fine.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 7, 2017 3:45:05 GMT
Neither. Option 1 penalises playing anything but High Focus casters in factions based around using Warjacks. Option 2 just makes it untenable. Power up is fine. Hmm. I get that Octavius but how to get around the Jack Spam Issue? I dislike the "10 Mauraders" thing even though I like playing Khador and a Maurader isn't exactly amazing with only 1 or even 2 or them.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 3:48:19 GMT
Neither. Option 1 penalises playing anything but High Focus casters in factions based around using Warjacks. Option 2 just makes it untenable. Power up is fine. Hmm. I get that Octavius but how to get around the Jack Spam Issue? I dislike the "10 Mauraders" thing even though I like playing Khador and a Maurader isn't exactly amazing with only 1 or even 2 or them. Fix the marauder. Jack spamming is only a problem if a single of the same Jack is the correct choice. Marauders are effective with low focus, are effective vs a range of options and are cheap. This is why they are spammed. Either revising their rules or putting a FA cap on models that can be abused like this would fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 7, 2017 3:50:00 GMT
Fix the marauder. Jack spamming is only a problem if a single of the same Jack is the correct choice. Marauders are effective with low focus, are effective vs a range of options and are cheap. This is why they are spammed. Either revising their rules or putting a FA cap on models that can be abused like this would fix it. Well PP can't do a FA Cap by this point, but what about the Maurader? It's more resilient then powerful.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 3:59:46 GMT
Fix the marauder. Jack spamming is only a problem if a single of the same Jack is the correct choice. Marauders are effective with low focus, are effective vs a range of options and are cheap. This is why they are spammed. Either revising their rules or putting a FA cap on models that can be abused like this would fix it. Well PP can't do a FA Cap by this point, but what about the Maurader? It's more resilient then powerful. PP sure can do an FA cap. It would annoy me a hell of a lot less than Premeasuring changes because I know its for the good of the game In general, spamming isn't that powerful. In a meta it generally dominates for a while and then pulls back as people find answers to it. The spam generally has to diversify as a result and becomes a better list. I don't think lists with all beasts/jacks are that powerful. They are very strong, but not OP. The marauder just needs to lose Siege weapons. It was ridiculous it got that rule in the first place. But Hunters, Griffons, any of this would be avoided partially by nerfs to long leash and FA cap of 3. Then at least you can have some models be over the curve in how cheap they are without having that problem scale to absurdity. I think appropriate FA caps help. Keep them high, but reasonable. FA 4 bunnies for instance. But In general I think unit and caster rules do more than the spam itself.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 7, 2017 4:06:29 GMT
PP sure can do an FA cap. It would annoy me a hell of a lot less than Premeasuring changes because I know its for the good of the game Nobody likes having their purchases Invalidated. I don't even have 3 Mauraders (I have 4 Maurader Limbs and 2 heads) and players would hate on PP for that reason forever. Not that I don't think it could be a good idea just...Like not killing all the Wolves that Hunted Dears would have been a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 7, 2017 4:14:29 GMT
I actually agree with Octavius my issue isn't really power up anymore. It's dealing with 10 Arm 20 32 box jacks with pathfinder sod 6 and reposition 3. Murauders lise siege weapon and suddenly thief hitting power plummets. It's a silly rule on a 10 point model. I can handle almost any other factions Jack Spam (it's normally light warjacks from other factions) I struggle horribly against Khador Jack Spam (granted I now have Mohsar teched out just for Khador) It's always an uphill battle. Some factions deal with it better than others. I think troll and skorne beasts are actually pretty well costed. It's legion and circle that pay a premium for lots of special rules that don't always come into play. Another issue is the abundance of Mat7 on jacks compared to Mat 6 on beasts. It really is a big jump between Mat 6 and 7. Most beasts need to boost to hit or risk missing whereas the 12 or so point jacks get Mat 7 and don't need to boost to hit as much (and are cheaper than beasts still) In a perfect world where every war beast has a usefull and applicable animus and a meaningful Fury stat that balance is way better. But some beasts pay a premium for worthless or clunky animi (eg: wold guardian) or seem to lack just 1 extra Fury that would put them to a point where they meet thier points value in battlefield effectiveness. Rowdy: Tell that to all the MK2 Bradigus players who owned woldwatchers, and the people who bought 10 mad dogs and the people who owned 10 scarsfells In my opinion if you buy into Spam your increasing the risk of your purchase becoming invalidated by the game because your investing into a gimmick (at least I consider Spam a gimmick) and into one model. If the mauraders ever does lose siege weapon. I bet people will start taking less of them and then a bunch of people are gonna have a handful of extra marauders. I still have 5 woldwatchers that just sit on my shelf collecting dust hoping that one day PP will give them decent rules.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 7, 2017 4:18:01 GMT
PP sure can do an FA cap. It would annoy me a hell of a lot less than Premeasuring changes because I know its for the good of the game Nobody likes having their purchases Invalidated. I don't even have 3 Mauraders (I have 4 Maurader Limbs and 2 heads) and players would hate on PP for that reason forever. Not that I don't think it could be a good idea just...Like not killing all the Wolves that Hunted Dears would have been a great idea. So here is the thing, though. Think of things that limit placement of models into a list as a gate. A single gate is points. What happens is that everything that a model needs to be represented by points and points alone, and in a system with the complexities of warmachine there are things that points aren't robust enough for. FA is the second gate, it can pick up for balance problems left by points. It can allow for models who aren't able to be points costed easily due to strange rules (or for their niche to literally be 'cheap') to be balanced because the scope of their efficiency is limited by the second gate when they are let in through the first. FA doesn't need to apply to every model, but there are a lot of models who it probably should apply too. Rules like Long Leash, Marauders, Mad Dogs, Hunters, etc all have their time in the sun with dumb lists. Would Una 2 need to be nerfed if she could only take 3-4 of each griffon? Would Mad dogs need to be nerfed if they were FA 3? Mad Dogs are close to impossible to balance correctly in their current niche, but if their FA was limited then you could actually keep them strong without instantly handing people the keys to 14 of them. You can even look at the reverse. Currently in the game, as Theme forces are the norm to play there is a massive contraction in the use of Character Jacks/beasts because of their limited use in lists with casters. FA *should* allow you to actually make characters much stronger than their points would seem while allowing them in themes because their natural limitation of 1 is very meaningful. It is a much better way to balance things. It takes work, but it works well as long if well managed.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 7, 2017 4:21:21 GMT
It is a much better way to balance things. It takes work, but it works well as long if well managed. And am I saying that I wanted Wolves Hunter to Near Extinction? Im saying I think your ideas are utterly correct. In fact I would suffer the least from FA Limitations (My highest model count is a potential for 4 Juggernauts). I think its just a case of cat out of the bag =P
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 7, 2017 6:12:50 GMT
Mad Dogs were fine except with Karchev. Mad Dog spam wasn't even too good with Vlad1, and they weren't taken with any of the other casters. How many casters like to get 10 Marauders? How many casters like Hunter spam? Griffon (either one) spam? Charger spam?
It's not the jacks being too good in large numbers. It's certain casters having abilities that are essentially unrestricted in how many models they can affect. Theme forces exacerbate this. The solution is not to put a cap on the number of models that can go in a list, it's to cap the effectiveness of battlegroup- or control-wide abilities. Look at Synergy. While that still affects the entire battlegroup, its effect can't go up indefinitely anymore. As a result players still want a lot of jacks, but not necessarily as many jacks as they can possibly take: instead of double-digit quantities of Griffons I see handfulls now.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on May 7, 2017 6:53:03 GMT
As the one who brought up the idea in the other thread, I have to say that in a perfect world I'd agree with Octaviusmaximus and company and just rebalance everything with FA in mind. However the cynic in me thinks a much easier, and some would say lazier route, would be to make a general sweeping change that "solves" the problem, although a few unforseen issues end up appearing later down the road.
On the whole Fury/Focus debate, I feel that mechanically the systems offer benefits and drawbacks on each side that it is difficult to unequivocally declare one superior to the other. Once again, I feel that the power balance is thrown off by the models themselves. Perhaps PP went a bit overboard in the Mk3 transition and overtuned some jacks when they were trying to buff them. As a Menite, I personally don't think so, at least prior to the Eye of Truth being introduced, but then again, we were arguably at the head of the pack in Mk2.
Also, it seems in my last half a decade of gaming, be it digital or tabletop, developers think that nerfing something will make other options more popular. Personally, I've seldom felt that this has worked and it mostly just pisses off the playerbase.
|
|
|
Post by Tekanan on May 7, 2017 8:57:01 GMT
Option 1 penalises playing anything but High Focus casters in factions based around using Warjacks. I'd love to see your thoughts on this. Can you explain more? For Option 1: FOC 5 casters can Power Up 5 warjacks for free. FOC 6 casters can Power Up 6 warjacks for free. FOC 7 casters can Power Up 7 warjacks for free. FOC 8 casters can Power Up 8 warjacks for free. I only find it penalising if you intend to play a 7+ warjack list. Then yes, the restriction voids playing FOC 5 and FOC 6 warcasters. However, it seems like majority of the sane people don't play more than 6. For Option 2: FOC 5 casters can Power Up 3 warjacks for free. FOC 6 casters can Power Up 3 warjacks for free. FOC 7 casters can Power Up 4 warjacks for free. FOC 8 casters can Power Up 4 warjacks for free. You can power up one warjack extra for having FOC 7. This is a huge boost but for FOC 5-6 warcasters, it only means they need to be creative in their list building and tactics. Is also ties in to the fluff that warcasters with a higher sense of arcane magic can do more things.
|
|