|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 25, 2017 18:46:56 GMT
No, your example is just an isolated anecdote about two players (who's understanding of the game and capacity for logic are unknown to anyone who doesn't know them) who had opinions about something. It has literally zero persuasive merit. Second, neither tyranny in your earlier post is preferable; both are equally deplorable. We should aspire to a logic based system in which decisions are made based upon what is best, not upon what more people say they want. As for all of your statements about "me" (as in " you are not the expert... you are not the majority....until you become...etc); this is not about me. Frankly, you know nothing about me but what I write here; in fact, you have no idea whether I'm "the" expert (whatever that means), do you? You speak about the "sheer volume of evidence to outweigh the community," but what evidence are you speaking about? Your 2 friends who play Cygnar? This is my point; most of the complaining is unvalidated beyond "I didn't have fun." That is not evidence that a model needs to be changed, period (or, at least, it should not be). Furthermore, I do not want to be a part of PP's design team. I just want a good game to play that isn't constantly nerfing my favorite models to play. I want some degree of consistency, some sense of stability. I, for one, hate having to worry about whether, after putting countless hours into building, painting, list-building, playing, revising, playing, and perfecting a list, the core models in that list will be "dynamically updated" into a state where they are either no longer strong enough to play competitively or no longer interesting to play. The increasing whine to win culture in this game, while I don't believe it drives the development team's decision-making, is an ancillary reminder of the new mercurial nature of Warmachine models. I don't like it. You can disagree and say that you do like it. That's fine, opinions are personal things. That is an opinion you are completely entitled to have. Just like I think it's fine that they are willing to change models that need it, good or bad. It keeps things from growing stale. But seeing as how not a single point I try to make gets through as intend... The fact that every word, in any order that I put forth, get construed in your replies; I see no reason in debating your points. Escalating effort to a dying cause is the antithesis of progress.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 25, 2017 18:52:51 GMT
If we're changing Haley's feat, just change it to the equivalent of everyone in her control area gains the equivalent of Defensive Strike, except they can use it on ranged attacks to make ranged attacks as well. Fluffy and keeps her control element. I don't think that would go over well... I still think it could be brought in line with something like Skarre(s) feat(s). Either she can spend health to target or she can roll dice to give a set maximum of targets. With something like 2d3+3 you'd get 5-9 models. That's more than enough to shut down most all jacks/beast, and caster, in an army. When the complaint arises that it doesn't stop infantry; you can easily mitigate or outright kill them. You have e-leaps for heavens sake. Every feat/spell/model should not be an efficient tool to shut down every single thing on the table.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on May 25, 2017 19:07:31 GMT
If we're changing Haley's feat, just change it to the equivalent of everyone in her control area gains the equivalent of Defensive Strike, except they can use it on ranged attacks to make ranged attacks as well. Fluffy and keeps her control element. I don't think that would go over well... I still think it could be brought in line with something like Skarre(s) feat(s). Either she can spend health to target or she can roll dice to give a set maximum of targets. With something like 2d3+3 you'd get 5-9 models. That's more than enough to shut down most all jacks/beast, and caster, in an army. When the complaint arises that it doesn't stop infantry; you can easily mitigate or outright kill them. You have e-leaps for heavens sake. Every feat/spell/model should not be an efficient tool to shut down every single thing on the table. I'm not sure how you got that impression? It would only work once for one, and how does it shut down things if they got shot? It only encourages you use weapons with longer range that the guys you're attacking.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on May 25, 2017 19:07:55 GMT
If we're changing Haley's feat, just change it to the equivalent of everyone in her control area gains the equivalent of Defensive Strike, except they can use it on ranged attacks to make ranged attacks as well. Fluffy and keeps her control element. I don't think that would go over well... I still think it could be brought in line with something like Skarre(s) feat(s). Either she can spend health to target or she can roll dice to give a set maximum of targets. With something like 2d3+3 you'd get 5-9 models. That's more than enough to shut down most all jacks/beast, and caster, in an army. When the complaint arises that it doesn't stop infantry; you can easily mitigate or outright kill them. You have e-leaps for heavens sake. Every feat/spell/model should not be an efficient tool to shut down every single thing on the table. Ya can't kill 60 drudges before they get to you.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on May 25, 2017 19:21:23 GMT
I don't think that would go over well... I still think it could be brought in line with something like Skarre(s) feat(s). Either she can spend health to target or she can roll dice to give a set maximum of targets. With something like 2d3+3 you'd get 5-9 models. That's more than enough to shut down most all jacks/beast, and caster, in an army. When the complaint arises that it doesn't stop infantry; you can easily mitigate or outright kill them. You have e-leaps for heavens sake. Every feat/spell/model should not be an efficient tool to shut down every single thing on the table. Ya can't kill 60 drudges before they get to you. I don't see how that's relevant? You CAN kill 60 drudges before they get to you if you build your list to handle infantry - drudges aren't a fan of covering fire, for instance. Defensive strike for ranged weapons would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention it would very likely be overpowered. The main reason why it might not see play would be the fact that it would eat up the Cygnar player's clock incredibly effectively. Can you imagine gun mages with defensive strike on their guns? out of activation push/knockdown shots? Not to mention that with the sheer amount of ranged firepower such a list could put out out of activation, you wouldn't be able to move your caster forward AT ALL during feat turn, for fear of getting randomly assassinated by a barrage of defensive strikes. Also, saying that the feat would encourage players to take longer-ranged weapons than the cygnar player can bring is completely disingenuous, given that Cygnar is THE ranged faction. If Cygnar techs for range, there really isn't another faction that outranges them. I favor the random/limited models affected change to Haley's feat. Alternatively, make like Harbinger and reduce the range to command (and if it isn't already, make her CMD 10.) Wurmwood shows that it's not always a terrible change, she would (with good positioning) still be safe against melee elements, but she'd be much more vulnerable to being shot off the table on feat turn...as she should be on feat turn.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on May 25, 2017 19:34:56 GMT
Ya can't kill 60 drudges before they get to you. I don't see how that's relevant? You CAN kill 60 drudges before they get to you if you build your list to handle infantry - drudges aren't a fan of covering fire, for instance. Defensive strike for ranged weapons would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention it would very likely be overpowered. The main reason why it might not see play would be the fact that it would eat up the Cygnar player's clock incredibly effectively. Can you imagine gun mages with defensive strike on their guns? out of activation push/knockdown shots? Not to mention that with the sheer amount of ranged firepower such a list could put out out of activation, you wouldn't be able to move your caster forward AT ALL during feat turn, for fear of getting randomly assassinated by a barrage of defensive strikes. Also, saying that the feat would encourage players to take longer-ranged weapons than the cygnar player can bring is completely disingenuous, given that Cygnar is THE ranged faction. If Cygnar techs for range, there really isn't another faction that outranges them. I favor the random/limited models affected change to Haley's feat. Alternatively, make like Harbinger and reduce the range to command (and if it isn't already, make her CMD 10.) Wurmwood shows that it's not always a terrible change, she would (with good positioning) still be safe against melee elements, but she'd be much more vulnerable to being shot off the table on feat turn...as she should be on feat turn. I'm not the guy who advocated defensive strike, so bear that in mind. Swapping it to Command would be ridiculous. Wurmwood survived that nerf because he's still pretty well protected inside of a 10" forest. Haley's feat provides no protection from shooting at all, and she'd have little hope of protecting anything with it at that range. You would have to be way too close to the enemy's army to use a feat of that range, and there are tons of melee users who out threaten 10". No, I really don't like that idea. It's too harsh, and would kill her. The random model count is preferable, but I still think it would become too weak. First off, random values in feats are awful, have always been awful, and will always be awful. That aside, it would cover way too few models. I'd consider it if something else were added. Like, you also pick a number of friendly models to get an extra attack, or +2 movement, or something in line with that. There needs to be some sort of counterbalance if a change that big is to be made.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on May 25, 2017 19:44:33 GMT
Instead of defensive strike, command range only, or on a random number of models, would spending focus to cause an attack roll coming from inside her control area to automatically miss be preferable?
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on May 25, 2017 19:50:33 GMT
Instead of defensive strike, command range only, or on a random number of models, would spending focus to cause an attack roll coming from inside her control area to automatically miss be preferable? I mean, I like the creativity. But it would be kinda counterproductive. She already only has 1-2 focus left at the end of the turn. So, she'd either have the world's most unimpressive feat that blocks 1-2 attacks. Or, she'd have a decent feat during a turn where she can't cast any spells or fuel any jacks.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on May 25, 2017 20:25:28 GMT
Instead of defensive strike, command range only, or on a random number of models, would spending focus to cause an attack roll coming from inside her control area to automatically miss be preferable? I think you're getting closer to a blanket application of counter blast. Which if restricted to one CB per model, might not get that over board. But it completely rehashes Haley's original way of controlling the board. but I don't know fluff so idk if it's thematic. Variables can be bad, but all-inclusive is at this point in time my concern. I'm not sure how to make the effect "big" enough without it being a blanket. Maybe based on her focus value? so 8 models guaranteed. If it gets an additional rule to buff friendly models then you are getting terribly close to Skarre 2's feat. Which, maybe, wouldn't be so bad. "Choose 8 models currently in Haley's control range. Each enemy model selected must forfeit either it's movement or combat action. Allied models selected can immediately be placed up to 4" and gets one additional melee/ranged attack during it's activation this turn." So it can give a super TK or the standard control effect. It gives the feat a new utility that can be leveraged without relying on getting the enemy army in control range.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on May 25, 2017 20:27:54 GMT
Command range for offensive control effect is just a dumb mechanic that shouldn't have been introduced in the game at all (I look at you Haley1...).
Defensive things can survive with being just CMD range, since you just need to get YOUR models into the area to have an effective effect, but trying to control (aka limitate) enemy models by putting your caster into charge range of them, and usually also into charge range of things that happen to be just outside of your CMD (like at 8,1" away) isn't an interesting feat, is an interesting way to add a suicide button.
Try to think twice before making wrong comparisons... Wurmwood (and to a lesser extent Harby) just need to cover their models with the feat, Haley has to reach enemies at the start of their activation to do something... To make it somewhat different from just plain useless suicide while reducing her feat to CMD it would have to change into a defensive feat, like "Every model that enters her CMD range immediatly stops his activation and terminates it". That way you would probably keep the anti-melee and time stop flavour while keeping the shooting vulnerability, but a change like that would have a lot of repercussions that would have to be carefully tought off.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on May 25, 2017 20:58:21 GMT
Instead of defensive strike, command range only, or on a random number of models, would spending focus to cause an attack roll coming from inside her control area to automatically miss be preferable? Replenishes all her focus and that effect and suddenly you have a really decent feat. Also I'm a real fan of nerfing her feat to command range. That way when my cygnar friends complain about it I'll be like "its fine" and make up for them waving me away when i complained about the rediculous Harby nerf
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on May 25, 2017 21:11:50 GMT
Instead of defensive strike, command range only, or on a random number of models, would spending focus to cause an attack roll coming from inside her control area to automatically miss be preferable? Replenishes all her focus and that effect and suddenly you have a really decent feat. Also I'm a real fan of nerfing her feat to command range. That way when my cygnar friends complain about it I'll be like "its fine" and make up for them waving me away when i complained about the ridiculous Harby nerf So they should ruin a caster in the game for everyone just to let you feel better about your faction?
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on May 25, 2017 21:28:37 GMT
Replenishes all her focus and that effect and suddenly you have a really decent feat. Also I'm a real fan of nerfing her feat to command range. That way when my cygnar friends complain about it I'll be like "its fine" and make up for them waving me away when i complained about the ridiculous Harby nerf So they should ruin a caster in the game for everyone just to let you feel better about your faction? Pretty sure that was a joke. At least I hope it was. My heart goes out to you, Harbinger.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on May 25, 2017 21:35:01 GMT
So they should ruin a caster in the game for everyone just to let you feel better about your faction? Pretty sure that was a joke. At least I hope it was. My heart goes out to you, Harbinger. She's actually still quite strong, especially with new vessels of judgement
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on May 25, 2017 22:01:42 GMT
I dont play cygnar anymore and when i did i never played haley2. I like to play casters that interest me more than a power caster... at the same time i feel that i am able to compete and beat power casters. With casters i enjoy and am well practiced with. I think unless your trying to win the IG ininvitational or are regularly playing against the top players in the world you can probably commit yourself to any reasonable pairing with competent lists and have a good chance at winning local SRs... on top of that youll probably enjoy the game more playing the casters you want over the the ones you feel you "need" to play to be competitive. As far as those top tournaments go... haley2 isn't dominating the scene to the point that she needs to be severely changed. Also as i have previously stated... SR17 is going to further balance her.
|
|