|
Post by DanX on Jun 6, 2017 23:08:26 GMT
I play a little bit of memory, and alot of legion.
Tristan Durant, is one of menoths best hander out of Focus. With 7 jack's his battlegroup can be fully loaded at 21 focus and he can spend 7 focus on spells/camping on his feat turn. 28 focus. It's pretty epic. With a herophant, wracks and vassels it's over 30.
My Fyanna 2 list, can spend 32 any turn it likes, though it can only manage 13-15 safely. Many other beast heavy lists get more peak performance than Durant does on his feat turn. Then if you manage wisely, your opponent removes the beasts that might frenzy rather than the ones you removed fury on, and you gain a massive advantage. It's alot of power.
In exchange warbeasts are expensive and lower power.
They get to heal nice and easily, and have less boxes.
Oh and to not have your caster up front and central requires shepherds. Which is ok if your legion. I think it's pretty well balanced.
I'm not sure why khador jack's are MAT7. That seemed unneeded, and some are a point or two too cheap, but not by much imo.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 6, 2017 23:26:28 GMT
I'm not sure why khador jack's are MAT7. That seemed unneeded, and some are a point or two too cheap, but not by much imo. Why not? Their Ranged attacks are inaccurate and weak. Getting them up to a decent speed requires spending focus (If your caster even has a battlegroup speeding up spell). Whilst the Juggernaught is awesome its pretty much the only real beatstick in the Khadoran stable at the less then elite price point. For that I say, at least let Khador have Mat 7. We don't hit as hard as Menoth, we don't have as much doodads as Cygnar, were not as expertly designed as COC, cheap as mercs or fast as Cryx. So let Khador be reliable.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 6, 2017 23:39:37 GMT
The Kodiak and Marauder (especially the marauder) take offense to that claim.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 7, 2017 0:43:31 GMT
The Kodiak and Marauder (especially the marauder) take offense to that claim. I would advocate point increases to the main offenders (and point decreases for the underused jacks) before seeing them nerf the Mat of Khador jacks. As every circle player knows, Mat 6 lets you down waaaaay too often to built your battle plan around.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Jun 7, 2017 1:21:37 GMT
If it was up to me, every main combat heavy and (few of the lights) would have MAT 7.
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Jun 7, 2017 2:03:24 GMT
I'm not sure why khador jack's are MAT7. That seemed unneeded, and some are a point or two too cheap, but not by much imo. Why not? Their Ranged attacks are inaccurate and weak. I can see inaccurate, but I'm not sure how you can argue weak when a lot of them are range 14 or so with pow 14 or 15. That seems pretty good to me.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 7, 2017 4:58:14 GMT
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. So basically only the rare non-SELF animi? (And Slipstream which is only technically SELF) If it was up to me, every main combat heavy and (few of the lights) would have MAT 7. Yes please give me MAT 7 Carniveans and Angelii.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 7, 2017 5:46:29 GMT
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. So basically only the rare non-SELF animi? (And Slipstream which is only technically SELF)If it was up to me, every main combat heavy and (few of the lights) would have MAT 7. Yes please give me MAT 7 Carniveans and Angelii. The perspective of Warmachine players everywhere. How about if all of your jacks went up 2 points, but gained a randomly determined imprint, ranging from potentially useful to utterly useless? Would you still be so enthusiastic about it then?
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 7, 2017 6:21:42 GMT
So basically only the rare non-SELF animi? (And Slipstream which is only technically SELF)Yes please give me MAT 7 Carniveans and Angelii. The perspective of Warmachine players everywhere. How about if all of your jacks went up 2 points, but gained a randomly determined imprint, ranging from potentially useful to utterly useless? Would you still be so enthusiastic about it then? I think you underestimate how powerful having those abilities on a stick are.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 7, 2017 6:36:23 GMT
The perspective of Warmachine players everywhere. How about if all of your jacks went up 2 points, but gained a randomly determined imprint, ranging from potentially useful to utterly useless? Would you still be so enthusiastic about it then? I think you underestimate how powerful having those abilities on a stick are. The good ones, sure. But there are many more bad animi than there are good.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 7, 2017 6:36:57 GMT
I think you underestimate how powerful having those abilities on a stick are. The good ones, sure. But there are many more bad animi than there are good. So don't take bad models? Since when is that a factor?
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Jun 7, 2017 6:42:19 GMT
There are plenty of bad animi on good models.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 7, 2017 6:51:34 GMT
There are plenty of bad animi on good models. Then take the good models? Jesus, this is freaking list building 101. If you are a beast which has good rules and a good animus. Awesome. Take the cool beast. If you are a good beast with a bad animus, well thats fine. You can take a good beast. If you are a bad beast with a bad animus then noone will take you. No loss. The only real issue is when you have a bad beast with a good animus, like the seraph who is only OK but who's animus is freaking incredible, that you might have problems with whether its worth taking. It becomes dependent on list.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 7, 2017 7:12:28 GMT
There are plenty of bad animi on good models. Then take the good models? Jesus, this is freaking list building 101. If you are a beast which has good rules and a good animus. Awesome. Take the cool beast. If you are a good beast with a bad animus, well thats fine. You can take a good beast. If you are a bad beast with a bad animus then noone will take you. No loss. The only real issue is when you have a bad beast with a good animus, like the seraph who is only OK but who's animus is freaking incredible, that you might have problems with whether its worth taking. It becomes dependent on list. Or, y'know, when an otherwise decent beast is overcosted by two points because it gets the 'benefit' of an animus. Or when the entire faction is balanced around your having access to one of the good animi, but you get no points reduction for the fact that you have to find a way to include it in every list? Rage, Rush, Primal...all of the beasts in their respective factions are stat'ed around having access to those buffs every game, making them a tax WM does not need to pay for their much better base stats. Or when a good animus is on a beast that has a large portion of it's value tied up in it's melee stats, but you can't risk losing the beast for fear of losing access to it's animus, thus neutering it's combat potential? Or how about the fact that EVERY beast pays the premium for having an animus, but the player gets diminishing returns for taking multiples of the same beast? Take 10 Marauders, and you get 10 extra focus. Take 8 Satyrs, and you have access to 1 animus (and you probably can't even run all of them without risking frenzy.)
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 7, 2017 7:18:38 GMT
Then take the good models? Jesus, this is freaking list building 101. If you are a beast which has good rules and a good animus. Awesome. Take the cool beast. If you are a good beast with a bad animus, well thats fine. You can take a good beast. If you are a bad beast with a bad animus then noone will take you. No loss. The only real issue is when you have a bad beast with a good animus, like the seraph who is only OK but who's animus is freaking incredible, that you might have problems with whether its worth taking. It becomes dependent on list. Or, y'know, when an otherwise decent beast is overcosted by two points because it gets the 'benefit' of an animus. Or when the entire faction is balanced around your having access to one of the good animi, but you get no points reduction for the fact that you have to find a way to include it in every list? Rage, Rush, Primal...all of the beasts in their respective factions are stat'ed around having access to those buffs every game, making them a tax WM does not need to pay for their much better base stats. Or when a good animus is on a beast that has a large portion of it's value tied up in it's melee stats, but you can't risk losing the beast for fear of losing access to it's animus, thus neutering it's combat potential? Or how about the fact that EVERY beast pays the premium for having an animus, but the player gets diminishing returns for taking multiples of the same beast? Take 10 Marauders, and you get 10 extra focus. Take 8 Satyrs, and you have access to 1 animus (and you probably can't even run all of them without risking frenzy.) You don't *need* to include a beast into every list with utility animi, you *get* to. I've always said that I would love for cheap beasts with terrible or no animi that could compete with cheap jacks, just like I would love some jacks to compete with the utility of good beasts. Make the Rhinodon into a Crusader by removing spiny growth and making its melee really strong. That's cool! I'd love a jack to grant +2" Mv and Pathfinder to other jacks, though. Its not like you aren't getting a good benefit from these animi, they are often exceptionally powerful.
|
|