princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 6, 2017 5:01:45 GMT
Eye of truth is also 20 points. A naga is nowhere near that expensive. ..... i hope Well of course not, it's a light beast. A Pureblood Warpwolf, however, is 17 points.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 6, 2017 5:37:28 GMT
Eye of truth is also 20 points. A naga is nowhere near that expensive. ..... i hope Well of course not, it's a light beast. A Pureblood Warpwolf, however, is 17 points. It's also P+S 18 vs. P+S 16, doesn't have to use resources to provide it's aura (to multiple targets, no less) is 21 ARM vs 17, and has Oracular Vision and Ashen Veil. While we're on the topic of self vs. targetted animi, it's important to remember that casting an animus on a beast with your warlock has a fury cost associated with it, just like allocating focus to a warjack. just because the cost is displaced to the warlock doesn't mean it's free, and the added flexibility is balanced out by the fact that the animus is lost if the beast dies.
|
|
joedj
Junior Strategist
Posts: 513
|
Post by joedj on Jun 6, 2017 6:07:11 GMT
In MK2, clearly warbeasts outshone warjacks in tactical and destructive value.
In MK3, the tactical/destructive value appears to be mildly more favorable on the warjack side, a welcome improvement over MK2. The stagnant warjack/warbeast pool apparent in our venue, and in army lists on this site and others, suggests that the overall catalog of 'success-enhancing' warjack/warbeast models is sadly limited.
Infantry is another interesting conundrum, as it appears Theme lists for Warmachine have made more infantry re-appear as a successful strategy. Alas, this appears less apparent for Hordes.
A meta-data study of models inclusive in tournament placing/winning armies would provide significant more insight(s) into 'power level' of the various warjack/warbeast/infantry offerings.
(I do appreciate the concept, as suggested in an earlier post, of 'Pass the Threshold check => reduce Fury on warbeast by 1" as a sort of reverse Power Up.)
|
|
|
Post by kineath on Jun 6, 2017 9:40:30 GMT
In MK2, clearly warbeasts outshone warjacks in tactical and destructive value. In MK3, the tactical/destructive value appears to be mildly more favorable on the warjack side, a welcome improvement over MK2. The stagnant warjack/warbeast pool apparent in our venue, and in army lists on this site and others, suggests that the overall catalog of 'success-enhancing' warjack/warbeast models is sadly limited. Infantry is another interesting conundrum, as it appears Theme lists for Warmachine have made more infantry re-appear as a successful strategy. Alas, this appears less apparent for Hordes. A meta-data study of models inclusive in tournament placing/winning armies would provide significant more insight(s) into 'power level' of the various warjack/warbeast/infantry offerings. (I do appreciate the concept, as suggested in an earlier post, of 'Pass the Threshold check => reduce Fury on warbeast by 1" as a sort of reverse Power Up.)
I completely agree.
But I will say this. I felt that MK2 warmachine infantry made up for the lack of jack-power.
MK3 Hordes infantry feels overcosted to me, as do warbeasts One can not look at 1 aspect of the game to make a point about balance. We need to look at the complete factions. Support and all.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 6, 2017 11:35:06 GMT
I agree 100% with phoenix forger. Just comparing damage leaves a skewed representation of what the game is as it lessens a warbeasts advantage. Warjacks are damage dealers, nothing more (outside of specific utility) while warbeasts often bring animis. This is reductive to the point of bad faith. You bypass all the utility, buffs/debuffs presente in jacks and put all animus in the same bag. Ashen Veil, Vent Steam, Girded, Roadblock, Ionization, Shield Guard, etc... etc... are not just damage dealing abilites. Warjacks and Warbeasts are the same kind of model, they serve the same purpose in an army. The way they interact within the BG is different and that's it. Warbeast healing is awesome. It is often said around here that the stormclad isn't worth it often as it only has 8 boxes (meaning 8 damage takes out its fighting arm). Not to mention that a beasts spirit can be healed and it can be used that turn, while a damaged cortex is only useful if you have access to mechaniks as well as empowers. Healing is awesome so is beeing able to propel your warjack outside your Control área having 1 free focus... Not to mention that because almost all warbeasts have more initials, damage buffs are more effective on them than they are on warjacks in general (especially because buffing as well as allocating might be a casters whole turn). More initials and usually less POW... A lot of Cryx jacks have 3 initials and noone is praising them.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jun 6, 2017 12:03:55 GMT
How does obligatory support i.e. choir/beastmaster/krielstone/mauler animus/whatever else I forgot figures in these calculations? Because pow 18 Crusader or pow 16 Mauler is not what actually happesn on the table.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 6, 2017 15:12:15 GMT
How does obligatory support i.e. choir/beastmaster/krielstone/mauler animus/whatever else I forgot figures in these calculations? Because pow 18 Crusader or pow 16 Mauler is not what actually happesn on the table. Because it is near impossible to account for every possible table interation. By removing these inconsistent variables you are able to analyze the model and put specific numbers out as understandable data. You are creating a "control" group or a baseline. As a basic understanding of the difference in value I applaud the work. but it has to be understood that this is done in a vacuum and as many are saying; not representative of the full potential of the models. Another thing that could be done is the average out the stat block. What stats can you get for points? total up SPD, STR, MAT, RAT, DEF, ARM then divide by the points. Again just to see what basic value comes out of beasts vs warjacks. I think you'll find a similar result. Though after you have those numbers maybe we could derive what % point increase comes from being a beast instead of a 'jack. Or it might be too inconsistent...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jun 6, 2017 15:17:42 GMT
The only suggestion I have seen of note in this entire thread (and all the similar threads that have come before) is the removing a fury if you pass a threshold check, still has an aspect of risk, however your beast can then operate at better efficiency if the risk pays off.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 6, 2017 15:22:44 GMT
The only suggestion I have seen of note in this entire thread (and all the similar threads that have come before) is the removing a fury if you pass a threshold check, still has an aspect of risk, however your beast can then operate at better efficiency if the risk pays off. With maybe a few rebalancing kinks, I think it would actually motivate people to maybe leave beasts hot, so actually encouraging some level of risk reward. Sounds alright to me.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jun 6, 2017 17:26:37 GMT
How does obligatory support i.e. choir/beastmaster/krielstone/mauler animus/whatever else I forgot figures in these calculations? Because pow 18 Crusader or pow 16 Mauler is not what actually happesn on the table. Because it is near impossible to account for every possible table interation. By removing these inconsistent variables you are able to analyze the model and put specific numbers out as understandable data. You are creating a "control" group or a baseline. As a basic understanding of the difference in value I applaud the work. but it has to be understood that this is done in a vacuum and as many are saying; not representative of the full potential of the models. Another thing that could be done is the average out the stat block. What stats can you get for points? total up SPD, STR, MAT, RAT, DEF, ARM then divide by the points. Again just to see what basic value comes out of beasts vs warjacks. I think you'll find a similar result. Though after you have those numbers maybe we could derive what % point increase comes from being a beast instead of a 'jack. Or it might be too inconsistent... in a year of playing I have sent a crusader in without battle about 3 times. ever. Once because I was taking a massive risk that involved a choir making an attack, once because it was a Cygnar light and I wanted passage still, and once because the choir was dead. Sometimes, you really can and should assume a buff or two, particularly when the faction is designed around them. NOT doing so is actually disingenuous and will lead to flawed analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 6, 2017 17:29:34 GMT
Because it is near impossible to account for every possible table interation. By removing these inconsistent variables you are able to analyze the model and put specific numbers out as understandable data. You are creating a "control" group or a baseline. As a basic understanding of the difference in value I applaud the work. but it has to be understood that this is done in a vacuum and as many are saying; not representative of the full potential of the models. Another thing that could be done is the average out the stat block. What stats can you get for points? total up SPD, STR, MAT, RAT, DEF, ARM then divide by the points. Again just to see what basic value comes out of beasts vs warjacks. I think you'll find a similar result. Though after you have those numbers maybe we could derive what % point increase comes from being a beast instead of a 'jack. Or it might be too inconsistent... in a year of playing I have sent a crusader in without battle about 3 times. ever. Once because I was taking a massive risk that involved a choir making an attack, once because it was a Cygnar light and I wanted passage still, and once because the choir was dead. Sometimes, you really can and should assume a buff or two, particularly when the faction is designed around them. NOT doing so is actually disingenuous and will lead to flawed analysis. You're correct, but then the question rises: "do you include the support point cost?"
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jun 6, 2017 18:44:56 GMT
Just to reiterate to the thread as the OP, I'm aware that this analysis was largely made in a vacuum. However, moving off of it, how many other factions would welcome with a statline similar to the Juggernaut or Crusader? Conversely, would the WM factions take something like a Gladiator or Feral for access to their animi?(assuming everything was properly converted over.)
As for the notion of faction buffs, part of the reason I left them out was for simplicity sake of remembering and applying all the applicable buffs. Secondly, at least in my experience playing and reading, when someone brings up support models, someone will always bring up their counters. For example, Passage makes my jacks immune to gunlines. But then my opponent just brings someone with Arcane Ammo or Wraithbane. Then it devolves into a hypothetical super list that brings the entire faction roster. For what its worth, I included Rage and Warp Strength in my calculations because they were self-contained within the model itself, assuming it could be forced.
Finally some for those who have been following this thread:
1) In the case of Hordes, how often do you run your beasts hot, with the expectation that some of them will die/frenzy next turn? 1a) Does it end up mattering if the beasts die/frenzy the turn afterward? Or are you far enough ahead in attrition, scenario or assassination that it doesn't matter?
2) Do people fully commit to the destruction of heavies in melee? This would impact the usefulness of healing since it was brought up as a advantage of Hordes.
3)Mostly out of curiosity, what are the current top tournament factions vs the general perceived strength of the factions?
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jun 6, 2017 20:40:35 GMT
-snip- Finally some for those who have been following this thread: 1) In the case of Hordes, how often do you run your beasts hot, with the expectation that some of them will die/frenzy next turn? 1a) Does it end up mattering if the beasts die/frenzy the turn afterward? Or are you far enough ahead in attrition, scenario or assassination that it doesn't matter? 2) Do people fully commit to the destruction of heavies in melee? This would impact the usefulness of healing since it was brought up as a advantage of Hordes. 3)Mostly out of curiosity, what are the current top tournament factions vs the general perceived strength of the factions? 1) I'm a Menite, but I invariably see this tactic once per game at least vs hordes. 1a)it only matters in my games if I've been able to pull some Menoth trick that neuters this particular tactic. Otherwise, the dead beast is fine. 2)I absolutely must vs hordes. if I fail, I usually might as well shake right there. Into Warmachine, it's more situation dependent. I can reduce a slayer to a walking movement system, then let it site there for a turn or two if I have better things to focus and he has no mechanics....not so with the ad-hoc fury system and healing. 3) I can only list my perceptions, but.... tier 1: Khador, Cygnar, Retribution tier 2: Cryx(optimally played), Circle, Skorne tier 3: Protectorate, Cryx (generally played), Legion Tier 4: Trolls The rest don't regularly show up enough to get a ranking from me. Note that only cryx crosses any tiers for playstyle: ghost fleet probably a tad OP, the new bane list as an anti-"all jacks" list is a meta bender of its own accord, and the new mcthrall boat might have legs, but the rest of cryx doesn't feel overpowering to me.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 6, 2017 20:59:01 GMT
1. As a Circle player, it's a strange paradigm, because if I'm running hot, I tend to use primal on one of my beasts, in order to ameliorate the fury burden. There are downsides to that, in that if the beast isn't engaging anything important, the opponent can just ignore it, but I think I've had to take frenzy CHECKS all of once in all of Mk3. But I also tend not to run so many beasts that I'm risking frenzy on a turn-by-turn basis (not hard, when the absolute highest number of heavies I can run is 5, and usually it's 4.) However, something gets primalled almost every game I play, and if it survives, it frenzies.
1a. I primal for attrition/fury management purposes about as often as I do to go for assassination. against competent opponents, the the beast tends to get ignored if possible (Stalkers are the best way to avoid this.) It rarely puts me enough up on attrition to win straight out, unless of course it's an assassination run.
2. My beasts die if they get hit, so they aren't often left alive with crippled aspects. On the rare occasions that they are, it bears mention that the 1-2 fury cost to heal a crippled beast is non-negligible, especially given the relatively lower fury values of Hordes Warlocks.
3. My tiers:
Tier 1: Khador, Cygnar Tier 2: Circle (top 10-15% of the faction only); Cryx (played well); Retribution; Skorne Tier 3: Legion, Protectorate, Minions Tier 4: Trolls
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 6, 2017 22:12:45 GMT
Just to reiterate to the thread as the OP, I'm aware that this analysis was largely made in a vacuum. However, moving off of it, how many other factions would welcome with a statline similar to the Juggernaut or Crusader? Conversely, would the WM factions take something like a Gladiator or Feral for access to their animi?(assuming everything was properly converted over.) As for the notion of faction buffs, part of the reason I left them out was for simplicity sake of remembering and applying all the applicable buffs. Secondly, at least in my experience playing and reading, when someone brings up support models, someone will always bring up their counters. For example, Passage makes my jacks immune to gunlines. But then my opponent just brings someone with Arcane Ammo or Wraithbane. Then it devolves into a hypothetical super list that brings the entire faction roster. For what its worth, I included Rage and Warp Strength in my calculations because they were self-contained within the model itself, assuming it could be forced. Finally some for those who have been following this thread: 1) In the case of Hordes, how often do you run your beasts hot, with the expectation that some of them will die/frenzy next turn? 1a) Does it end up mattering if the beasts die/frenzy the turn afterward? Or are you far enough ahead in attrition, scenario or assassination that it doesn't matter? 2) Do people fully commit to the destruction of heavies in melee? This would impact the usefulness of healing since it was brought up as a advantage of Hordes. 3)Mostly out of curiosity, what are the current top tournament factions vs the general perceived strength of the factions? I'd take the shit out of a jack that gave +2 spd and pathfinder or blessed and magic, or +3 str to other jacks, or a 2" place. That would be freaking awesome.
|
|