|
|
Post by jest on May 19, 2017 18:43:03 GMT
I will say as a primarily circle player I think #5 fits best for us. We just don't have the tolls to deal with more than 7 or 8 jacks at a time, those extra 2 jacks really push it over the edge for us as a faction. Its always going to be a rough one when I see harky with 10 jacks staring me down. My menites tend to not have the same issue but I'm still convinced the maurader is slightly under costed. I will say that at the higher level there way worse boogeymen than jack spam though. That and I think players at that level can really abuse the predicatability of the jack list which is something I am still working on developing myself. Sorry meant to say #3, #4, OR #5. Glad that you are working on developing that skill as I think that type of approach can turn a bad matchup into a winnable one, or maybe you'll have an aha! moment, crack the puzzle and marauder spam will be ez mode for you! I will admit I am a little biased since I relish in trying to figure out the tough matchups and may be blind to blatant imbalance. |
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 19, 2017 18:46:38 GMT
Sorry meant to say #3, #4, OR #5. Glad that you are working on developing that skill as I think that type of approach can turn a bad matchup into a winnable one, or maybe you'll have an aha! moment, crack the puzzle and marauder spam will be ez mode for you! I will admit I am a little biased since I relish in trying to figure out the tough matchups and may be blind to blatant imbalance. I figured out how to beat 8 jacks with Mohsar its getting the extra 2 that I'm trying to wrap my head around now  I love tough match ups too they make me a better player  doesn't mean I'm not going to think something may need a rules shift even if its a baby step I don't think its blatant imbalance I just think there is a points cost discrepancy. |
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 19, 2017 18:59:24 GMT
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. They already do this indirectly so why not do it directly when it's actually a good idea? My 8 Scarsfell Griffons are invalidated now. If you owned 5 Journeyman Warcasters for Siege's theme in MKII then 4 of them are invalidated now. There's plenty of precedent for it, so it's not an excuse. Right now those are exceptions. Things like Doom Reavers became FA U because of MK II's Dogs of War theme, for instance. A uniform FA 3 or whatever for all non-character jacks and beasts would have a much bigger impact. |
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685 
|
Post by Lanz on May 19, 2017 19:09:28 GMT
They already do this indirectly so why not do it directly when it's actually a good idea? My 8 Scarsfell Griffons are invalidated now. If you owned 5 Journeyman Warcasters for Siege's theme in MKII then 4 of them are invalidated now. There's plenty of precedent for it, so it's not an excuse. Right now those are exceptions. Things like Doom Reavers became FA U because of MK II's Dogs of War theme, for instance. A uniform FA 3 or whatever for all non-character jacks and beasts would have a much bigger impact. When they nerf something into uselessness, or break a critical combo or list build, it's so close to invalidated that the discrepancy is almost meaningless. Sure, the players who purchased a ton of mad dogs haven't had their purchases 'invalidated', but they'll likely still never use them all again just the same. What does it matter to have a bunch of stuff you can't use, vs having a bunch of stuff you won't use? It's the same end result. |
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on May 19, 2017 19:38:14 GMT
Right now those are exceptions. Things like Doom Reavers became FA U because of MK II's Dogs of War theme, for instance. A uniform FA 3 or whatever for all non-character jacks and beasts would have a much bigger impact. When they nerf something into uselessness, or break a critical combo or list build, it's so close to invalidated that the discrepancy is almost meaningless. Sure, the players who purchased a ton of mad dogs haven't had their purchases 'invalidated', but they'll likely still never use them all again just the same. What does it matter to have a bunch of stuff you can't use, vs having a bunch of stuff you won't use? It's the same end result. I'm assuming PP didn't and doesn't deliberately makes models useless. I agree they apparently didn't try very hard to make everything at least moderately useful, but for me there's a difference. More to the point, there currently are several models with FA U that some players use 4+ of. Most of those cases are not problematic at all. Restricting their FA a year into a new edition, not even changing their rules as part of an edition change, would be painful. |
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 19, 2017 19:43:22 GMT
Well one argument I would make is that if you look at top tournament lists, Marauder spam isn't very popular, and it isn't in the most popular Khador lists. Here's my source (http://www.discountgamesinc.com/tournaments/tournaments/search/s:Khador) Going back to October I found 1 Marauder spam list (4 Marauders) and 1 Jack spam list that included 3 Marauders. I didn't go back further since that would be pre-Mad Dog nerf. I believe this means: 1) It's OP but winning high level players don't use it (unlikely) 2) It's OP but doesn't win at the high-level because it's a must-counter - high-level players have to devote a counter to the list (armor-cracking lists are a thing but they aren't just for Marauders so not a "Marauder OP" problem) 3) It's OP but not at the high-level (Tier 2+ players don't have the skill/lists to counter) 4) It's OP against your experience (either your lists are bad against it, or you/your meta hasn't figured it out) 5) It's OP against your faction but since it's bad in high-level play against other factions my data doesn't show it. I believe #3 or #4 are most likely because I have heard high-level players say they don't run it because it is very predictable to a good player. Would you be willing to entertain the fact that since this isn't an issue at the highest level it might be and issue with whatever level you are playing at, or an issue with your lists/skill? It could be your faction, but I will say that Circle has a decent showing in tournament placing (but maybe they didn't run into jack spam). I just want to help get to the root of the problem so we aren't screaming to nerf things that won't solve the problem for you (e.g. "I can beat Khador because of power up + jack spam" but the actual reason Khador is winning a lot is troop spam, for example, and we nerf jack spam and you still end up not having fun matchups). I would suggest it's more #5 that 3 or 4, but I'd expand it to 'good against Hordes factions in general, poor against WM factions.' WM factions can generally access better tools for dealing with jack spam than Hordes can - they can match it with their own spam, they can use hard-hitting weaponmasters (which most Hordes factions don't have access to) etc. There are downsides to the Harkevich list, for sure, but in SR2017 (for which there are no tournament results as yet) the dead nature of most of the scenarios ameliorates most of them. I have beaten the Harkevich list, in several different flavors. With hordes, the attrition game is typically not possible, so assassination is the way to do it, but Hordes factions (or at least Circle) lack ways to pressure the Harkevich list in order to get Harkevich to expose himself. A smart Harkevich player can largely hunker down, covering 2 of the 3 zones, and force the Circle player to start trading (unfavorably.) In SR 2016, the Circle player often had the tools to clear zones and score fast enough to reach 5 points, despite losing on attrition, but in SR 2017 that's no longer a viable possibility most of the time. I strongly suspect we'll see more of this kind of list when SR2017 hits. |
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on May 19, 2017 20:32:08 GMT
When they nerf something into uselessness, or break a critical combo or list build, it's so close to invalidated that the discrepancy is almost meaningless. Sure, the players who purchased a ton of mad dogs haven't had their purchases 'invalidated', but they'll likely still never use them all again just the same. What does it matter to have a bunch of stuff you can't use, vs having a bunch of stuff you won't use? It's the same end result. I'm assuming PP didn't and doesn't deliberately makes models useless. I agree they apparently didn't try very hard to make everything at least moderately useful, but for me there's a difference. More to the point, there currently are several models with FA U that some players use 4+ of. Most of those cases are not problematic at all. Restricting their FA a year into a new edition, not even changing their rules as part of an edition change, would be painful. I'm sure they don't, but even if they made it useful in limited numbers, that would still be the same result (and ultimately the same as having an FA anyhow). The fact of the matter is that uniform FAU is always going to be asking for trouble. If not innately by the model itself, then by future releases. No one was complaining about griffon spam until Una2 came out, etc. No one was spamming Neraphs until Oracles/Fyanna2. So long as they stubbornly insist on keeping it, they are always leaving themselves open to a problem cropping up. The mistrust comes from the fact that this doesn't hurt them so much as the players who suffer for it when they invest into it only for PP to strike it down with a later nerf. It has happened way too many times for PP not to learn from it, and it's really hard to give them any credit in that area any longer. Exploiting spammable options is going to keep happening until they either get so good at balance that they can predict every possible variable and exploit prior to release (perhaps CID will help with this), or until they put a cap on it and it stops being exploitable altogether. The former might work, the latter definitely will work. And if the only real argument against it is that players who invest into purchases find themselves unable to realistically use those purchases anymore, that's happening either way. The only way to stop that is to stop them from investing into it in the first place. |
|
Juris
Junior Strategist
Posts: 578
|
Post by Juris on May 19, 2017 20:57:38 GMT
They already do this indirectly so why not do it directly when it's actually a good idea? My 8 Scarsfell Griffons are invalidated now. If you owned 5 Journeyman Warcasters for Siege's theme in MKII then 4 of them are invalidated now. There's plenty of precedent for it, so it's not an excuse. Right now those are exceptions. Things like Doom Reavers became FA U because of MK II's Dogs of War theme, for instance. A uniform FA 3 or whatever for all non-character jacks and beasts would have a much bigger impact. What difference does it make whether they are exceptions? They either Do, or Do Not invalidate FA:U purchases. The simple, real, undeniable fact is that they do invalidate them sometimes. (Although, strictly speaking, you always have the option, practical or not, to play huge point level games with multiple warcasters, because Field Allowance is a "per warcaster" allowance.) Also, those were only some examples. Want more? Rangers had a theme force that made them FA:U in MKII; they are still FA: 2 in MKIII. Precursor Knights had a theme force that made them FA:U in MKII; they are still FA:2 in MKIII. Arcane Tempest Gun Mages had a theme force that made them FA:U in MKII; they are still FA:2 in MKIII. Are these still exceptions? Obviously not. |
|
Ryilan
Guild Master 
Fighting heretics with vindaloo curry. Taste my spicy wrath!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Ryilan on May 19, 2017 21:23:05 GMT
Unfortenatly this thread continues to go off-topic, despite two mods giving people a friendly poke. To make it clear, i understand the arguments people have brought before us that it is not in fact off-topic, that it is merely a different aspect of the issue that is being discussed. The fact of the matter is however that the question of restricting power-up is no longer being discussed. Rather it's the balance of the game/certain factions that is being discussed currently. While that is certainly worthy of discussion, this thread is not the spot for it. Since the discussion has shifted we can assume that the original discussion is concluded. That is why i am locking the thread.
Please feel free to continue the discussion in a new thread. If people wish for it posts from this thread that pertain to that discussion can be moved there, just ask for it through a PM.
Ryilan
|
|
I love tough match ups too they make me a better player 
doesn't mean I'm not going to think something may need a rules shift even if its a baby step 
