|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 20:06:01 GMT
If they want to do so, then they should sacrifice precision for raw force. What I don't like is that lists that spam jacks can win on scenario. That shouldn't be possible. We can discuss what, if anything, should be done all day long. We've done so many, many times already. My point is that the game is designed the way it is, and how it's played is a direct consequence of that. You may not like it, but there's no reason why all-jack lists should be at a disadvantage vs more balanced lists as the game currently stands. AS good. Not better, AS GOOD. that's the key difference. Jack spam is a skew, just like infantry spam, which means that while it should wreck certain lists, it should also have counters, and it should be disadvantaged when it runs into those counters. If I run an infantry-spam list and I play someone running a bunch of Manticores, or a list running a bunch of infantry-clearing tech, I will be at a severe disadvantage. If someone chooses to run Harkevich +10 Marauders, they should be at a disadvantage if/when they run into a list designed to crack armor. They should NOT be able to play into the best armor-cracking a faction can offer and retain a 50-50 chance of winning, which is about where the list is at right now. There are some factions which cannot muster enough armor cracking to get through 10 Marauders before those marauders kill them. Circle can't do it. Legion can't do it (neither Carnivean-chassis nor Warpwolves can trade 2 for 1 with Marauders.) I've played into it with my Ret armor-cracking list (Elara2) and it struggles as well. That's a game balance problem, not an army flavor problem. Skew is part of the game, but a key feature of acceptable skew is the existence of counters within each faction. If factions don't have workable counters for a given skew, and the scenario forces that faction to play the game the skew wants to play, then that's a serious issue.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 20:12:30 GMT
OK Im brought back because my Husbando Harkevitch Kun has been brought up:
How do people play against him? Do they just rush all their armor cracking options at his feat turn and hope for the best?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 20:50:26 GMT
OK Im brought back because my Husbando Harkevitch Kun has been brought up: How do people play against him? Do they just rush all their armor cracking options at his feat turn and hope for the best? Seriously, you need to quit with the ad hominems and straw-manning. I am not brain-dead. I attempt to force Harkevich to feat defensively, or failing that, use a two-wave approach to draw out the feat. I find that regardless of my play, it nearly always comes down to assassination, as I don't have the ability to chew through that many boxes with the lists I am able to build. My Elara list works (when it works) because it has enough indirect threats that I can exploit poor positioning to get an Imperatus onto Harkevich, but if I try to fight the list head on, I simply lose, unless my opponent is playing incredibly poorly. It's worse with Circle, because they don't have same number of indirect threats, they rely on beasts for armor cracking (which marauders LOVE to see) and their armor crackers cost literally twice what a marauder costs, while being unable to kill two marauders, and being killable by a single marauder (if my opponent doesn't just ignore the primalled warpwolf and kill my other stuff.)
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 21:07:12 GMT
It's worse with Circle, because they don't have same number of indirect threats, they rely on beasts for armor cracking (which marauders LOVE to see) and their armor crackers cost literally twice what a marauder costs, while being unable to kill two marauders, and being killable by a single marauder (if my opponent doesn't just ignore the primalled warpwolf and kill my other stuff.) The odds of a Warpwolf (That's not defensive) Dying to a Maurader with 3 Focus that didn't use any to charge is 18% (2% with armor) (But killing a Maurader is 4 Percent Unprimaled, Strengh Boosting Feral, that uses 1 fury to charge, 56% on a Primaled). Im not saying that you couldn't have issues (With Frenzy and all), but like where is this hyperbole coming from?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 21:21:19 GMT
You are quite correct, and I omitted that the optimal order of operations involves two marauders, 1 of which knocks down the wolf with combo smite, the other of which kills it (5 attacks at straight dice, auto-hitting, kills it easily.) The Harkevich player will have 2-2.5 times as many marauders as I have warpwolves, so they almost always have the resources for it, even after absorbing an alpha (which I'm not guaranteed to get, as mobility-ed marauders have the same threat as a feral)
However, most of the time, the opponent doesn't need to kill the warpwolf - they can either combo-smite it out of melee range, and let it frenzy (if primalled) or combo-smite it out of control.
In any case, from the numbers you've posted, an unbuffed marauder has a higher likelihood of one-rounding an unbuffed feral than the feral has of one-rounding it, despite costing 8 points less. That alone should demonstrate a problem with the relative costs of the models in question.
But tell me, since you seem so intent on dismissing my experience fighting Harkevich + 10 marauders, about some of your experience losing on attrition to Circle or Legion with him? Since you seem to thing that things are so balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 21:35:43 GMT
In any case, from the numbers you've posted, an unbuffed marauder has a higher likelihood of one-rounding an unbuffed feral than the feral has of one-rounding it, despite costing 8 points less. That alone should demonstrate a problem with the relative costs of the models in question. Im a guy who never spams more than 5 jacks at a time, and actually plays Harkevitch with his Ranged Toolkit. I just hate Hyperbole As does this. Point cost generally does not correlate to damage dealt. It takes about 3 Furied (So about 3-1 Focus) Iron Fangs (Which might be a good unit, but In this case Im referring to something with about 13 POW, Not that much) to cripple a Maurader. For instance, an optimal Spriggain (3 Fury no need to charge) has 0% odds of killing a Maurader. So does a Freebooter. But a Freebooter goes up to 8% with a Bucaneer for Knockdown. I agree that the Maurader should loose siege weapon. Makes it too versatile for its points cost. But just generally measuring survivability or Damage directly by points is a fools errand.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 21:56:36 GMT
In any case, from the numbers you've posted, an unbuffed marauder has a higher likelihood of one-rounding an unbuffed feral than the feral has of one-rounding it, despite costing 8 points less. That alone should demonstrate a problem with the relative costs of the models in question. Im a guy who never spams more than 5 jacks at a time, and actually plays Harkevitch with his Ranged Toolkit. I just hate Hyperbole As does this. Point cost generally does not correlate to damage dealt. It takes about 3 Furied (So about 3-1 Focus) Iron Fangs (Which might be a good unit, but In this case Im referring to something with about 13 POW, Not that much) to cripple a Maurader. For instance, an optimal Spriggain (3 Fury no need to charge) has 0% odds of killing a Maurader. So does a Freebooter. But a Freebooter goes up to 8% with a Bucaneer for Knockdown. I agree that the Maurader should loose siege weapon. Makes it too versatile for its points cost. But just generally measuring survivability or Damage directly by points is a fools errand. damage is not the only measure of the appropriateness of point cost, which is why I was talking about my experiences going up against Harkevich previously. HOWEVER, there is a point where a model has too much durability and/or killing power for it's points cost. The fact that there is not list in Circle or Ret which can reliably out-attrition Harkevich marauder spam is a problem. Siege weapon should go, it's so far beyond stupid that a 10 point model can trash colossals and BEs (not to mention huge based caster.) But that wouldn't solve the Marauder issue, because it is simply too cheap for the level of utility (combo smite is an absurdly powerful ability) killing power (Hordes would kill for a 10 point model with PS 16 initials) and durability (Arm 20 34 boxes.)
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 22:11:18 GMT
HOWEVER, there is a point where a model has too much durability and/or killing power for it's points cost. As defined by you? What you define as rediculous or not seems purely of your own personal experience. Of course I guess when you know your own faction you know its own weaknesses the best =P
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 11, 2017 22:17:03 GMT
We can discuss what, if anything, should be done all day long. We've done so many, many times already. My point is that the game is designed the way it is, and how it's played is a direct consequence of that. You may not like it, but there's no reason why all-jack lists should be at a disadvantage vs more balanced lists as the game currently stands. AS good. Not better, AS GOOD. that's the key difference. Jack spam is a skew, just like infantry spam, which means that while it should wreck certain lists, it should also have counters, and it should be disadvantaged when it runs into those counters. If I run an infantry-spam list and I play someone running a bunch of Manticores, or a list running a bunch of infantry-clearing tech, I will be at a severe disadvantage. If someone chooses to run Harkevich +10 Marauders, they should be at a disadvantage if/when they run into a list designed to crack armor. They should NOT be able to play into the best armor-cracking a faction can offer and retain a 50-50 chance of winning, which is about where the list is at right now. There are some factions which cannot muster enough armor cracking to get through 10 Marauders before those marauders kill them. Circle can't do it. Legion can't do it (neither Carnivean-chassis nor Warpwolves can trade 2 for 1 with Marauders.) I've played into it with my Ret armor-cracking list (Elara2) and it struggles as well. That's a game balance problem, not an army flavor problem. Skew is part of the game, but a key feature of acceptable skew is the existence of counters within each faction. If factions don't have workable counters for a given skew, and the scenario forces that faction to play the game the skew wants to play, then that's a serious issue. So are we back to Harkevich and Marauders being too good, or are we going at jack spam in general again? That aside, the post I responded to didn't mention "as good". It mentioned "disadvantage".
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:19:22 GMT
HOWEVER, there is a point where a model has too much durability and/or killing power for it's points cost. As defined by you? What you define as rediculous or not seems purely of your own personal experience. Of course I guess when you know your own faction you know its own weaknesses the best =P Not just me, no. I'm hardly the first person to point out the issue of Marauder spam. I would also think that the community's experience with MMM in Mk2 and Mad dogs of War at the beginning of Mk3, there would be a bit more self-reflection on the part of players playing box-spam lists that their lists may in fact be problematic. You are welcome to refute my points, as opposed to simply attacking me for relying on personal experience (I'm not, it's being used to support a broader argument) or for not playing your faction. As it stands, I've heard very little in terms of justification as to why the Marauder is NOT a problem. If you see 'weaknesses' to the list, please do share them. As it stands the totality of your argumentation has been the internet equivalent of standing there yelling ' NUH-UH!' every time someone point out an issue with Khador jacks(pam).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:23:52 GMT
AS good. Not better, AS GOOD. that's the key difference. Jack spam is a skew, just like infantry spam, which means that while it should wreck certain lists, it should also have counters, and it should be disadvantaged when it runs into those counters. If I run an infantry-spam list and I play someone running a bunch of Manticores, or a list running a bunch of infantry-clearing tech, I will be at a severe disadvantage. If someone chooses to run Harkevich +10 Marauders, they should be at a disadvantage if/when they run into a list designed to crack armor. They should NOT be able to play into the best armor-cracking a faction can offer and retain a 50-50 chance of winning, which is about where the list is at right now. There are some factions which cannot muster enough armor cracking to get through 10 Marauders before those marauders kill them. Circle can't do it. Legion can't do it (neither Carnivean-chassis nor Warpwolves can trade 2 for 1 with Marauders.) I've played into it with my Ret armor-cracking list (Elara2) and it struggles as well. That's a game balance problem, not an army flavor problem. Skew is part of the game, but a key feature of acceptable skew is the existence of counters within each faction. If factions don't have workable counters for a given skew, and the scenario forces that faction to play the game the skew wants to play, then that's a serious issue. So are we back to Harkevich and Marauders being too good, or are we going at jack spam in general again? That aside, the post I responded to didn't mention "as good". It mentioned "disadvantage". I take the post you were responding to to mean 'disadvantage' insofar as playing any kind of skew should expose some weaknesses in your list, which can be exploited. If your skew has a 70-30 matchup against lists that it wants to see, it should not have a 50-50 matchup against lists that supposedly counter it. I have no intrinsic issues with jack-heavy or jack-only lists, but they can't be so capable of attrition that they can walk into the best anti-armor lists another faction can field, and still win with relative ease. Harkevich + Marauders does this, so it is a problem. I have not experienced any other problematic spam lists where he problem is identifiably the jack, not just the caster, but I'm open to hearing suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 22:35:15 GMT
Not just me, no. I'm hardly the first person to point out the issue of Marauder spam. "Argumentum ad populum" isn't necessarily a good argument either. I'm not refuting your arguments because I don't know your games. I don't know what lists you run. I don't know what you do or how you do it. I don't know how Harkevitch is Positioning his Jacks or attacks without having Jacks Ending up outside his control range, or how the Mechanics keep up, or the like. I certainly think Harkevitch is great, but I think really hyper amplifying a number of jacks he runs really leaves him vulnerable to attack. He does want infantry for a Flank, or otherwise your left spread dead eagle. I have had him Assassinated plenty of times even with him Hugging a Warjacks Busom of having Sac Pawns.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 22:45:52 GMT
Not just me, no. I'm hardly the first person to point out the issue of Marauder spam. "Argumentum ad populum" isn't necessarily a good argument either. I'm not refuting your arguments because I don't know your games. I don't know what lists you run. I don't know what you do or how you do it. I don't know how Harkevitch is Positioning his Jacks or attacks without having Jacks Ending up outside his control range, or how the Mechanics keep up, or the like. I certainly think Harkevitch is great, but I think really hyper amplifying a number of jacks he runs really leaves him vulnerable to attack. He does want infantry for a Flank, or otherwise your left spread dead eagle. I have had him Assassinated plenty of times even with him Hugging a Warjacks Busom of having Sac Pawns. No, but it's a decent refutation to someone who's accusing you of making spurious arguments based solely on your own experience... Harkevich positioning his jacks so as not to end up outside the control range is fairly simple. You're not playing Hordes, or anything, where your beasts have to remain within control at all times. The current scenarios in SR2017 do not encourage spreading out, allow harkevich to monopolize the centre of the board without worrying about losing on scenario (Spread the Net is the one exception to this) and let him play the game exactly the way he wants to. As I mentioned, Harkevich can be assassinated. But it's utter crap to look at a matchup which by all rights should be a favorable one (my anti-armor list against their armor) and know pretty much from the start that my only chance is going to be assassination. Anyways, I am not asking you to tell me how to play. you claim Harkevich has weaknesses, beyond assassination (not that 16/18, no knockdown, small based is particularly vulnerable to assassination.) Those weaknesses should translate to specific, applicable advice to playing against him, not just to me. If you have this advice, you should share it, because you're not actually supporting your own point in the context of this discussion - you're just denying (not even refuting) mine.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 11, 2017 23:01:28 GMT
No, but it's a decent refutation to someone who's accusing you of making spurious arguments based solely on your own experience... You answered an accusation of one logical fallacy with another logical fallacy. Nothing decent about it. But your core argument is that in an armor cracking list, you should be able to play against a Specifically armor list? I mean I understand that but I think that's going about it the wrong way really. I mean if you send the best armor cracker against the best armor then all your left with is mediocrity. You're relying on a feat to cancel out another feat. But that's not necessarily the best way to play. You're just demanding you overpower your targets strengths with your own, as opposed to exploiting his weaknesses. You have a play report with pictures or the like so I can give suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 11, 2017 23:21:13 GMT
No, but it's a decent refutation to someone who's accusing you of making spurious arguments based solely on your own experience... You answered an accusation of one logical fallacy with another logical fallacy. Nothing decent about it. But your core argument is that in an armor cracking list, you should be able to play against a Specifically armor list? I mean I understand that but I think that's going about it the wrong way really. I mean if you send the best armor cracker against the best armor then all your left with is mediocrity. You're relying on a feat to cancel out another feat. But that's not necessarily the best way to play. You're just demanding you overpower your targets strengths with your own, as opposed to exploiting his weaknesses. You have a play report with pictures or the like so I can give suggestions? Would you stop butchering logic? That's not how fallacies (or argumentation) works. You initially accused me of relying overmuch on my own experience. I pointed to other players with the same experience. You claim that this is also a fallacy. You are (technically) correct, in that it's not scientific proof of anything, much less imbalance, but it's a strong indication that there is an issue to be investigated. I'm not claiming to have logically 'proven' imbalance, I'm claiming that the evidence supports an inference of imbalance. It's called a plurality of evidence, and I'm honestly uncertain as to what standard of evidence would serve as 'proof' in the sense you seem to be demanding it. If you're reading what I'm saying and concluding that I'm 'using a feat to cancel out a feat,' you have not been reading my posts - I specifically call out forcing him to feat defensively in order to avoid doing this, or using multi-wave tactics to do so. The game has 3 victory conditions - scenario, attrition, and assassination. With SR2017, PP is removing Scenario largely from consideration. If one faction is capable of putting down an army which another faction (any other faction) cannot defeat in attrition, it's a problem, because assassination is (1) not a reliable victory condition and (2) works best when there is attrition pressure, which forces the opponent to overexpose their caster to stay ahead on attrition. If attrition is a foregone conclusion, Harkevich doesn't need to come forward, can camp more focus, and otherwise make himself harder to kill, which reduces the viability of assassination-based win conditions. And yes, I wholly believe that the best armor list should lose to the best anti-armor list, all things being equal. The armor list, by skewing armor, gains a number of advantages, including virtual immunity to small arms fire and light infantry. This means that they will have a greater proportion of good matchups. Consequently, they should be counterbalanced by having a similar number of bad matchups. This is list-building and balance 101. If the best armor list has a good matchup against it's counter, why should anyone play anything else? It's the same problem the S-tier casters had in Mk2 - you had to drop the right things into them just to play the game, but they had decent game even into their worst matchups. It's intrinsically toxic for game balance. Finally, I'm not looking for personal advice. I know how to play, I win well over half my games, even with my Circle (not against Harkevich, admittedly) and I'm not looking for personal advice or a tutorial. What I would like to know, in more than vague generalities like 'weak to assassination' or 'don't run into his feat,' what Harkevich + 10 marauders actually has a problem with. I can think of a few casters that would give him a hard time, but not every faction has access to them. What do you fear, when playing Harkevich into Circle?
|
|