|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 3, 2017 23:33:11 GMT
How can either of you claim how op she while not playing her? Lol.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Jun 3, 2017 23:37:29 GMT
How can either of you claim how op she while not playing her? Lol. I said I don't think she is... and I think she is losing more power in SR17
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 3, 2017 23:49:07 GMT
How can either of you claim how op she while not playing her? Lol. I have played her, though not extensively, as I don't enjoy crutching on power casters to win (case in point, I never played pre-nerf wurmwood.) I've played AGAINST her extensively, however, which i would say places my experience on par with your own, but without the pro-cygnar bias you consistently display.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 4, 2017 0:22:17 GMT
How can either of you claim how op she while not playing her? Lol. I have played her, though not extensively, as I don't enjoy crutching on power casters to win (case in point, I never played pre-nerf wurmwood.) I've played AGAINST her extensively, however, which i would say places my experience on par with your own, but without the pro-cygnar bias you consistently display. I play powerful stuff and there is no morality about it. Or "crutching" or whatever it is that players justify not using good things. You have no idea about my experience level. Pro cygnar bias? Lol. Won't bother arguing that passive aggressive nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 4, 2017 0:33:14 GMT
How can either of you claim how op she while not playing her? Lol. I have played her, though not extensively, as I don't enjoy crutching on power casters to win (case in point, I never played pre-nerf wurmwood.) I've played AGAINST her extensively, however, which i would say places my experience on par with your own, but without the pro-cygnar bias you consistently display. Yeah, man, you don't sound biased at all. I'll always be hesitant about nerfing anything, because it's really easy to ruin a model, and really hard to find a good and reasonable change.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 4, 2017 1:12:44 GMT
I have played her, though not extensively, as I don't enjoy crutching on power casters to win (case in point, I never played pre-nerf wurmwood.) I've played AGAINST her extensively, however, which i would say places my experience on par with your own, but without the pro-cygnar bias you consistently display. Yeah, man, you don't sound biased at all. I'll always be hesitant about nerfing anything, because it's really easy to ruin a model, and really hard to find a good and reasonable change. Curious as to where you're drawing an inference of bias from. I play Cygnar, Retribution, and Circle. At various times, I've called out models from both Circle and Cygnar as being OP, and in need of a nerf, as well as models from other factions. On the old forums, I was one of the earliest players calling for a nerf to wurmwood, I was vocally onboard about the nerfs to Una (though less so, because I didn't buy into her spam, and I'm the only Circle player in my area, so it wasn't a problem in my meta) and I've continued to call out Haley and Storm Lances as in need of a nerf, in addition to calling out Heavy Metal (and Jaws) as being a poorly designed theme. By all means, disagree with what I'm saying, but there is no reasonable metric by which you could call me 'biased.' In contrast, in the year that Mk3 has been out, I've seen OctaviusMaximus comment on model power level in 3 circumstances: 1. Cygnar model X is too weak, needs a buff (see Cygnar CID thread running at the moment) 2. Cygnar model X is fine, does not need a nerf (Storm Lances, Haley 2) 3. Other faction model X is OP, needs a nerf (Karchev, most recently.) THAT is what bias looks like, and I'm calling it out accordingly. As to nerfs being necessarily over the top, I disagree. That has been PP's pattern in the past, but with CID up and running, I think we could reasonably see some measured, well-thought out nerfs to problem models that leave them playable, but not OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 4, 2017 1:34:29 GMT
Yeah, man, you don't sound biased at all. I'll always be hesitant about nerfing anything, because it's really easy to ruin a model, and really hard to find a good and reasonable change. Curious as to where you're drawing an inference of bias from. I play Cygnar, Retribution, and Circle. At various times, I've called out models from both Circle and Cygnar as being OP, and in need of a nerf, as well as models from other factions. On the old forums, I was one of the earliest players calling for a nerf to wurmwood, I was vocally onboard about the nerfs to Una (though less so, because I didn't buy into her spam, and I'm the only Circle player in my area, so it wasn't a problem in my meta) and I've continued to call out Haley and Storm Lances as in need of a nerf, in addition to calling out Heavy Metal (and Jaws) as being a poorly designed theme. By all means, disagree with what I'm saying, but there is no reasonable metric by which you could call me 'biased.' In contrast, in the year that Mk3 has been out, I've seen OctaviusMaximus comment on model power level in 3 circumstances: 1. Cygnar model X is too weak, needs a buff (see Cygnar CID thread running at the moment) 2. Cygnar model X is fine, does not need a nerf (Storm Lances, Haley 2) 3. Other faction model X is OP, needs a nerf (Karchev, most recently.) THAT is what bias looks like, and I'm calling it out accordingly. As to nerfs being necessarily over the top, I disagree. That has been PP's pattern in the past, but with CID up and running, I think we could reasonably see some measured, well-thought out nerfs to problem models that leave them playable, but not OP. No one can be without bias. And if you don't play H2 as much as you play against her, then you must be biased. Now, that's literally unavoidable and I'm not trying to shame you. I'm biased as well. It's just a thing. As for the CID, I'll believe in it's balancing power after PP releases the final rule sets of the first few cycles. I have no reason to believe they will leave everything as it was at the end of the Grymkin cycle (which ended pretty well tbh). It could very easily get messed up, and PP has not had a great track record with rule adjustment. I'm hesitantly optimistic about the CID. About H2: I'm willing to entertain the idea that she is overpowered and in need of adjustment. If that is the case, then what is the smallest possible change that couls be made to bring her "in line"? Again, it's really easy to overshoot and make a caster too weak, imo.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 4, 2017 1:50:22 GMT
Yeah, man, you don't sound biased at all. I'll always be hesitant about nerfing anything, because it's really easy to ruin a model, and really hard to find a good and reasonable change. Curious as to where you're drawing an inference of bias from. I play Cygnar, Retribution, and Circle. At various times, I've called out models from both Circle and Cygnar as being OP, and in need of a nerf, as well as models from other factions. On the old forums, I was one of the earliest players calling for a nerf to wurmwood, I was vocally onboard about the nerfs to Una (though less so, because I didn't buy into her spam, and I'm the only Circle player in my area, so it wasn't a problem in my meta) and I've continued to call out Haley and Storm Lances as in need of a nerf, in addition to calling out Heavy Metal (and Jaws) as being a poorly designed theme. By all means, disagree with what I'm saying, but there is no reasonable metric by which you could call me 'biased.' In contrast, in the year that Mk3 has been out, I've seen OctaviusMaximus comment on model power level in 3 circumstances: 1. Cygnar model X is too weak, needs a buff (see Cygnar CID thread running at the moment) 2. Cygnar model X is fine, does not need a nerf (Storm Lances, Haley 2) 3. Other faction model X is OP, needs a nerf (Karchev, most recently.) THAT is what bias looks like, and I'm calling it out accordingly. As to nerfs being necessarily over the top, I disagree. That has been PP's pattern in the past, but with CID up and running, I think we could reasonably see some measured, well-thought out nerfs to problem models that leave them playable, but not OP. I'm a fan of models being looked at and needing nerfs. I would be fine with putting Storm Lances or Haley 2 up on CID but what I really *don't* like is witch hunts based on feelings. I don't say that Storm Lances are fine or Haley 2 is fine unless i'm trolling for some fun. What I do is i try to add context to things that people say. When someone says "Storm Lances kill all heavies", then I will tell them why that's wrong. If they say "Storm Lances kill all my infantry" then I can comment on how you can mitigate how much infantry dies to Storm Lances (which is a lot and might be the crux on why people think Storm Lances are OP". If they say "Haley 2 has enough focus to do anything she wants while killing my battlegroup" I will add the context that she has a large focus pool with an expensive set of spells that she likes to cast. Its not bias, its trying to add more nuance to a discussion which always ends up the same damn way "Haley is OP and she would be fine if she didn't have TK, her feat, etc" with people who then say that they don't play competitively and often have a problem with models being good in general. If you want to say Haley is OP because of X and the X that you use is a terrible argument I will tell you its a terrible argument. Is that being biased? I'd rather think that I'm trying to get the discussion out of dumb rhetoric and into something approaching a real discussion about the why's and how's.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 4, 2017 1:53:58 GMT
inherent bias is not expressed bias and...there's really no point in continuing this argument. Suffice to say I believe that I make reasonable efforts to control for my own faction bias, and that I am relatively successful in doing so.
As to Haley2, I would ideally want to see how she plays in SR2017 for a good month or so, as an SR change can easily shake up a caster enough to balance (or unbalance) them. Failing that, my options would be:
1. change her feat to be either shakeable, OR to have some other restriction on targeting (LOS, raise her CMD to 12 and make it CMD, etc.) Comparable control feats (Sorscha1, Denny2's old feat, etc.) all have similar restrictions. It would make her have to play further back, as well, meaning the potential area to avoid would be less. Since those feats also have additional benefits (mostly to hit buffs,) I could also see layering on an additional effect (maybe -2 speed) on affected models as a way to ameliorate the change, if it turns out to be too much. I would test it without the added benefit first, though - the other control casters don't have Haley2's incredibly deep spell list, for the most part.
OR
2. Replace Telekinesis with something else. I'm honestly not 100% sure what, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a 3" enemy-only push effect, similar to Helynna's redirection blast or Helios' drag gun. TK is arguably the best control spell in the game, and layering it on top of an unchanged Haley2 feat gives her too many options to come forward and be totally safe on feat turn (by turning shooting threats around,) on top of the other uses of TK for threat extension, clearing charge lanes, etc.
Whatever spell that replaces TK should be reasonably powerful and versatile, but not on the same level as TK.
Test one of the two options and go from there.
Part of the problem with fixing Haley2 is that so many parts of her kit are almost certainly seen by PP staff as 'iconic' and thus are not going anywhere, and that includes most of the less-important levers you could tweak to change her kit - field marshal future sight, time bomb, temporal acceleration and domination are almost certainly here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 4, 2017 2:27:16 GMT
inherent bias is not expressed bias and...there's really no point in continuing this argument. Suffice to say I believe that I make reasonable efforts to control for my own faction bias, and that I am relatively successful in doing so. As to Haley2, I would ideally want to see how she plays in SR2017 for a good month or so, as an SR change can easily shake up a caster enough to balance (or unbalance) them. Failing that, my options would be: 1. change her feat to be either shakeable, OR to have some other restriction on targeting (LOS, raise her CMD to 12 and make it CMD, etc.) Comparable control feats (Sorscha1, Denny2's old feat, etc.) all have similar restrictions. It would make her have to play further back, as well, meaning the potential area to avoid would be less. Since those feats also have additional benefits (mostly to hit buffs,) I could also see layering on an additional effect (maybe -2 speed) on affected models as a way to ameliorate the change, if it turns out to be too much. I would test it without the added benefit first, though - the other control casters don't have Haley2's incredibly deep spell list, for the most part. OR 2. Replace Telekinesis with something else. I'm honestly not 100% sure what, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a 3" enemy-only push effect, similar to Helynna's redirection blast or Helios' drag gun. TK is arguably the best control spell in the game, and layering it on top of an unchanged Haley2 feat gives her too many options to come forward and be totally safe on feat turn (by turning shooting threats around,) on top of the other uses of TK for threat extension, clearing charge lanes, etc. Whatever spell that replaces TK should be reasonably powerful and versatile, but not on the same level as TK. Test one of the two options and go from there. Part of the problem with fixing Haley2 is that so many parts of her kit are almost certainly seen by PP staff as 'iconic' and thus are not going anywhere, and that includes most of the less-important levers you could tweak to change her kit - field marshal future sight, time bomb, temporal acceleration and domination are almost certainly here to stay. Cool. I'm of similar mind. We really do need to watch what happens with sr17, although I'd give it more like 2-3 months. Making her feat shakable might be okay, although it will certainly make Haley much more vulnerable during feat turn to assassination. Now, that might be the goal, but we would need to determine if this takes it too far. The problem with command range is that its a fluff rule. Haley will never get a high command because command represents the chqracter's ability to lead an army. Irusk has a high command because that's one of his things. Haley isn't like that. I don't see PP giving her cmd 12. What I would like is a change to feat range that is neither cmd or cntrl. In CID, make her feat range 16 (not control, so no squire bonus) and see what happens. And I'd be careful with the tk change. By making it enemy only, it decreases her threat ranges by 1, and even more in rough terrain, stops her from changing their facing, and really does drop down her power. H2 really is a difficult caster to change, because PP clearly has things they are set on keeping.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 4, 2017 4:01:32 GMT
inherent bias is not expressed bias and...there's really no point in continuing this argument. Suffice to say I believe that I make reasonable efforts to control for my own faction bias, and that I am relatively successful in doing so. As to Haley2, I would ideally want to see how she plays in SR2017 for a good month or so, as an SR change can easily shake up a caster enough to balance (or unbalance) them. Failing that, my options would be: 1. change her feat to be either shakeable, OR to have some other restriction on targeting (LOS, raise her CMD to 12 and make it CMD, etc.) Comparable control feats (Sorscha1, Denny2's old feat, etc.) all have similar restrictions. It would make her have to play further back, as well, meaning the potential area to avoid would be less. Since those feats also have additional benefits (mostly to hit buffs,) I could also see layering on an additional effect (maybe -2 speed) on affected models as a way to ameliorate the change, if it turns out to be too much. I would test it without the added benefit first, though - the other control casters don't have Haley2's incredibly deep spell list, for the most part. OR 2. Replace Telekinesis with something else. I'm honestly not 100% sure what, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a 3" enemy-only push effect, similar to Helynna's redirection blast or Helios' drag gun. TK is arguably the best control spell in the game, and layering it on top of an unchanged Haley2 feat gives her too many options to come forward and be totally safe on feat turn (by turning shooting threats around,) on top of the other uses of TK for threat extension, clearing charge lanes, etc. Whatever spell that replaces TK should be reasonably powerful and versatile, but not on the same level as TK. Test one of the two options and go from there. Part of the problem with fixing Haley2 is that so many parts of her kit are almost certainly seen by PP staff as 'iconic' and thus are not going anywhere, and that includes most of the less-important levers you could tweak to change her kit - field marshal future sight, time bomb, temporal acceleration and domination are almost certainly here to stay. Cool. I'm of similar mind. We really do need to watch what happens with sr17, although I'd give it more like 2-3 months. Making her feat shakable might be okay, although it will certainly make Haley much more vulnerable during feat turn to assassination. Now, that might be the goal, but we would need to determine if this takes it too far. The problem with command range is that its a fluff rule. Haley will never get a high command because command represents the chqracter's ability to lead an army. Irusk has a high command because that's one of his things. Haley isn't like that. I don't see PP giving her cmd 12. What I would like is a change to feat range that is neither cmd or cntrl. In CID, make her feat range 16 (not control, so no squire bonus) and see what happens. And I'd be careful with the tk change. By making it enemy only, it decreases her threat ranges by 1, and even more in rough terrain, stops her from changing their facing, and really does drop down her power. H2 really is a difficult caster to change, because PP clearly has things they are set on keeping. I have to say, the fluffy requirements/preconceptions PP has about certain models is a source of continual frustration to me. Too many times the community will be telling them (even on the CID - see Khador Gun Carriage, Grymkin Scary Tree etc.) that their idea is not working, and they'll insist on sticking to their concept regardless. Anyways, enough griping about PP, more (constructive) griping about Haley2! I could see making it a static range, though my inclination is that 16" is still too high. If we're not tying it to her CTRL, why not 14"? why not 12"? at least to start, then find the break point and go from there. Regardless, I feel like making it shakeable is the more 'elegant' solution, if only because it fits with established PP practice. It would give her some bad matchups (which she doesn't have many of now) into ranged lists (and particularly ranged jack-heavy lists) and I don't see that as a bad thing, either. She covers too many matchups too well at the moment, IMO. As to the loss of TK, I fully understand the implications of losing it (I play Rahn and Krueger2, and DANG do I love that spell.) I don't think that it would be a power reduction that renders her unplayable, or even bad, though - it'd be a 2 cost spell, so she can still cast it on two different targets for threat extension/control, and she can still use it to deny ranged attacks by shoving them out of range/behind terrain. In select situations, it might even be better, by letting her push jacks and beasts out of control. There would just be more counterplay to it, in terms of putting your stuff behind walls/other models/in terrain. She'd still be able to swing threat extensions of 5" with temporal acceleration and Force Grip, but she WOULDN'T be able to swing a 6" non-linear threat extension with the back strike bonus built in. I dunno, it would honestly be my preferred option for fixing her, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's still thematically similar to TK, and it's very much a 'TK but less so' sort of spell that preserves her ability to do most of the things she could do before, but makes them a little less strong, a little harder to pull off, and a little harder to play around. It's definitely what I'd do for my first swing at a fix.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 4, 2017 5:01:19 GMT
Cool. I'm of similar mind. We really do need to watch what happens with sr17, although I'd give it more like 2-3 months. Making her feat shakable might be okay, although it will certainly make Haley much more vulnerable during feat turn to assassination. Now, that might be the goal, but we would need to determine if this takes it too far. The problem with command range is that its a fluff rule. Haley will never get a high command because command represents the chqracter's ability to lead an army. Irusk has a high command because that's one of his things. Haley isn't like that. I don't see PP giving her cmd 12. What I would like is a change to feat range that is neither cmd or cntrl. In CID, make her feat range 16 (not control, so no squire bonus) and see what happens. And I'd be careful with the tk change. By making it enemy only, it decreases her threat ranges by 1, and even more in rough terrain, stops her from changing their facing, and really does drop down her power. H2 really is a difficult caster to change, because PP clearly has things they are set on keeping. I have to say, the fluffy requirements/preconceptions PP has about certain models is a source of continual frustration to me. Too many times the community will be telling them (even on the CID - see Khador Gun Carriage, Grymkin Scary Tree etc.) that their idea is not working, and they'll insist on sticking to their concept regardless. Anyways, enough griping about PP, more (constructive) griping about Haley2! I could see making it a static range, though my inclination is that 16" is still too high. If we're not tying it to her CTRL, why not 14"? why not 12"? at least to start, then find the break point and go from there. Regardless, I feel like making it shakeable is the more 'elegant' solution, if only because it fits with established PP practice. It would give her some bad matchups (which she doesn't have many of now) into ranged lists (and particularly ranged jack-heavy lists) and I don't see that as a bad thing, either. She covers too many matchups too well at the moment, IMO. As to the loss of TK, I fully understand the implications of losing it (I play Rahn and Krueger2, and DANG do I love that spell.) I don't think that it would be a power reduction that renders her unplayable, or even bad, though - it'd be a 2 cost spell, so she can still cast it on two different targets for threat extension/control, and she can still use it to deny ranged attacks by shoving them out of range/behind terrain. In select situations, it might even be better, by letting her push jacks and beasts out of control. There would just be more counterplay to it, in terms of putting your stuff behind walls/other models/in terrain. She'd still be able to swing threat extensions of 5" with temporal acceleration and Force Grip, but she WOULDN'T be able to swing a 6" non-linear threat extension with the back strike bonus built in. I dunno, it would honestly be my preferred option for fixing her, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's still thematically similar to TK, and it's very much a 'TK but less so' sort of spell that preserves her ability to do most of the things she could do before, but makes them a little less strong, a little harder to pull off, and a little harder to play around. It's definitely what I'd do for my first swing at a fix. The real argument is that if TK is so powerful then why is it too powerful on Haley 2 and not on Rahn or Krueger?
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 4, 2017 5:49:09 GMT
The real argument is that if TK is so powerful then why is it too powerful on Haley 2 and not on Rahn or Krueger? ...because a caster's power level is an aggregate of their spells, feat, abilities, and stats, in addition to how well those elements come together on the table, and the availability of counterplay? This is basic stuff. TK is a strong spell. It's arguably the best spell in the game, and PROBABLY the best non-signature spell. There's a reason TK casters consistently rank among the best in their factions. Of itself, however, it does not make a caster overpowered. Slap TK on Kaya1, and I probably still wouldn't play her (though she'd actually be worth a look at that point.) Slap it on Wurmwood and it would be broken as all get out. Rahn and Krueger2 are not broken either because the other elements of their kit do not make them overpowered, and/or because of the number of bad matchups they have/ability for them to be countered. Krueger's spell list and feat has nowhere near the control/tempo potential of Haley2. Rahn's spell list and feat make him a rather impressive control caster, who can assassinate from a million miles away with unpredictable angles, but he has serious bad matchups against any kind of anti-magic tech (psychic vampire wrecks him hard,) any kind of anti-push tech (Nemo3) or any caster that can out-attrition him while keeping themselves safe (any warlock with access to earth's blessing, any caster with inviolable resolve.) Neither of them have the combination of attrition, control, scenario, and assassination potential that Haley2 does, all the while having very few truly bad matchups.
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Jun 4, 2017 5:49:20 GMT
Also if Cygnar players are forced to use Haley 2, that's fine, but other players being forced to counter her is bad? I never said It was fine (Nor from what I understand is she forced). Something being so good you have to build against it IS bad. You could not be more wrong if you tried. You have to build your lists against things all the time. To fight haley you need guns (there are other ways that one is just her most pronounced weakness) is that so different than needing high value attacks to fight Vyros2? Oh no you need more than pow 10's to kill vyros' stuff, he must be overpowered as well. That really irks me as I was super stoked about my long gunner sentinel army. God forbid you ever play against a unit of black banes you might have to include a magic attack of some sort, the horror. It isn't like haley is asking you for something extreme just some method of feasibly threatening haley any playable two list pair should be able to easily do so. If you actually think you can just bring whatever, flop it on the table and expect to have the tools necessary to win every matchup you are going to be sorely disappointed. With as many models there are in the game they cannot and will not ever be able to do that. List building is a binary process, "Did you bring the tools necessary to feasibly mitigate what they want to do? Yes or no" Yes? Cool, you try and use the tools important to the match to succeed they do the same. No? well you didn't bring the tools necessary to win the fight, that was a poor choice. You either need to better prepare for the matchup or try and dodge.
|
|