princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on May 9, 2017 16:10:15 GMT
Honestly the problem is a combination of things. Sure you could fix the issue by adding restrictions to Power Up but if you ask me the real focus should be on points costs (and probably FA but PP won't touch that). 1 or 2 point bumps to the efficient budget jacks should be enough to bring down the power of the lists spamming them without destroying them completely.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 9, 2017 16:26:37 GMT
Honestly the problem is a combination of things. Sure you could fix the issue by adding restrictions to Power Up but if you ask me the real focus should be on points costs (and probably FA but PP won't touch that). 1 or 2 point bumps to the efficient budget jacks should be enough to bring down the power of the lists spamming them without destroying them completely. Just many jacks are good or bad only at their points ratio. If the maurader was 1 point more expensive, why not take a Jugg? If the Juggs raised by 1 point why not a Kodiak? And so fourth.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 9, 2017 16:54:08 GMT
Just many jacks are good or bad only at their points ratio. If the maurader was 1 point more expensive, why not take a Jugg? If the Juggs raised by 1 point why not a Kodiak? And so fourth. Because a Marauder, Juggernaut, and Kodiak should all fill distinctly different roles/utilities. You take a Marauder because you want siege. You take a Kodiak because you want a smoke cloud. Or so on and so forth. If the model does not have sufficient rules to be distinct from another model in a similar point cost, then model simply needs new rules. That is not a problem of power-up, nor of point cost, but a fault of design.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on May 9, 2017 16:59:34 GMT
Honestly the problem is a combination of things. Sure you could fix the issue by adding restrictions to Power Up but if you ask me the real focus should be on points costs (and probably FA but PP won't touch that). 1 or 2 point bumps to the efficient budget jacks should be enough to bring down the power of the lists spamming them without destroying them completely. Just many jacks are good or bad only at their points ratio. If the maurader was 1 point more expensive, why not take a Jugg? If the Juggs raised by 1 point why not a Kodiak? And so fourth. You're also proving the point that jacks are across the board under costed. Yes a Marauder and Jugg should be cheaper than a Kodiak but then the Kodiak should be more expensive as well. This is probably the better solution than reducing the cost of beasts as it would bring jacks more in line with in faction infantry options at the same time as balancing them out with warbeasts. Any touch should be really minor though as things are actually pretty good despite some very vocal whining to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 9, 2017 16:59:39 GMT
The marauder needs 1 of 2 things to be in a balanced place. It either needs to stay 10 points and lose siege to solidify it as a cheap spammable jack. Or it needs to increase by a point or 2 and possibly gain an ability to solidify it as a anti huge based model. Honestly the worst part of them for me is siege on their fists. Its just a silly rule on a 10 point model.
I think juggy and kodiak are appropriately costed for their base rules. They offer different benefits and specialize in different situations. Obviously a kodiak with a caster like Harkevitch loses value and mobility makes it natively having pathfinder less attractive to spd 6 pathfinder juggernauts who hit harder and threat the same.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on May 9, 2017 17:31:47 GMT
The marauder needs 1 of 2 things to be in a balanced place. It either needs to stay 10 points and lose siege to solidify it as a cheap spammable jack. Or it needs to increase by a point or 2 and possibly gain an ability to solidify it as a anti huge based model. Honestly the worst part of them for me is siege on their fists. Its just a silly rule on a 10 point model. I think juggy and kodiak are appropriately costed for their base rules. They offer different benefits and specialize in different situations. Obviously a kodiak with a caster like Harkevitch loses value and mobility makes it natively having pathfinder less attractive to spd 6 pathfinder juggernauts who hit harder and threat the same. I agree. You can't really spam kodiaks or juggernauts before reaching an overload where each one added doesn't do anything. A marauder however can set up crazy damage combos between slam damage and siege weapon.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 9, 2017 17:38:47 GMT
You're also proving the point that jacks are across the board under costed. Yes a Marauder and Jugg should be cheaper than a Kodiak but then the Kodiak should be more expensive as well. This is probably the better solution than reducing the cost of beasts as it would bring jacks more in line with in faction infantry options at the same time as balancing them out with warbeasts.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 9, 2017 17:46:07 GMT
Wouldn't that just be reverting to MKII? It takes more then just slapping a point on a Warjack. And most Warjack Options are not over or Under costed. Nobody complains about Cygnarian Jacks for instance?
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 9, 2017 17:54:33 GMT
Wouldn't that just be reverting to MKII? It takes more then just slapping a point on a Warjack. And most Warjack Options are not over or Under costed. Nobody complains about Cygnarian Jacks for instance? ol'Rowdy is BS! [edit: i just noticed your name. I mean the Cygnar character jack] Because power up exists it will never be "reverting" to MKII. Also, a single point here to there does not revert and entire edition change. I still believe it's just the fact that beasts cost too much. But I literally can't argue with the fact that; due to how cheap certain jacks are, they tarnish the appeal of infantry options. And Cynar and Ret don't really have this exact problem (that I know of). Their problem for them is different so a different fix is in order. This has really devolved into Khador jacks just being too cheap for what they do and thus they get "spammed" beyond what people believe is reasonable. I'm sure gun bunnies could be looked at the same way. Just because one fix for certain models is being talked about doesn't mean every single related model has to go through the same change.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 9, 2017 17:57:37 GMT
Wouldn't that just be reverting to MKII? It takes more then just slapping a point on a Warjack. And most Warjack Options are not over or Under costed. Nobody complains about Cygnarian Jacks for instance? I never said anything about cygnar jacks. My issue is just about explicitly with Khador Marauders. Honestly it's really just them at this point. They are just too darn cheap. Well them and Harkevitch giving everything Spd 6 and pathfinder but that's mostly because I'm circle lol
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 9, 2017 18:17:20 GMT
Because power up exists it will never be "reverting" to MKII. Powerup Alone did not change the meta It was change by 1,000 Papercuts. Not by Powerup. Id say powerup was a very minor change in the scheme of it. What killed off Infantry was Pre-measuring. That had 20 times more to do with a loss of appeal of Infantry options then a Change in Warjacks. Pre measuring meant ranged options got allot better. With Superior, Ranged Capabilities meant that Universalist Weaponmaster infantry was going away. With Weaponmaster infantry going away, Warjacks who where immune to mass Pow 10 Shooting Made a Comeback. I never said anything about cygnar jacks. My issue is just about explicitly with Khador Marauders. Honestly it's really just them at this point. They are just too darn cheap. Well them and Harkevitch giving everything Spd 6 and pathfinder but that's mostly because I'm circle lol Touch up Mauraders, but leave Harkevitch Untouched. The Maurader isn't really all that Hot Stuff either. Its Like the most minimal of what a Heavy Jack can do. People complain about Siege weapon, but that's only really hyper situational.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 9, 2017 18:22:08 GMT
Oh I don't want Harky changed! I just was saying the combo of cheap scannable jacks AND Mobility. Happy we can agree on mauraders
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on May 9, 2017 18:32:17 GMT
Oh I don't want Harky changed! I just was saying the combo of cheap scannable jacks AND Mobility. Happy we can agree on mauraders Sorta? Changes to Mauraders hurt a guy like me most of all because I don't spam Warjacks. I bought 2 Mad dogs when they came out for use as light warjack Esque stalling. Hard nerfs on them and the like ALSO impact my balanced lists. I feel like maurders are fine in moderation.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on May 9, 2017 18:36:23 GMT
Oh I don't want Harky changed! I just was saying the combo of cheap scannable jacks AND Mobility. Happy we can agree on mauraders Sorta? Changes to Mauraders hurt a guy like me most of all because I don't spam Warjacks. I bought 2 Mad dogs when they came out for use as light warjack Esque stalling. Hard nerfs on them and the like ALSO impact my balanced lists. I feel like maurders are fine in moderation. Well that's the issue. Scarsfells were fine in moderation too...so we're mad dogs. I'm not asking for a drastic change. You said yourself Siege is situational at best. All I'm asking is to take it away. Let them stall on Arm 20 Huge based models. You'll still take 2 and their impact only changes marginally for most games. They are still great slam bots.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 9, 2017 18:41:53 GMT
Meh.
increase the points on jacks that are undercosted (mostly in Khador.) Give (most) beasts a 2 point decrease, and I think we'd be most of the way there.
|
|