|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jun 19, 2017 14:47:34 GMT
Don't worry, they still have time to repent and fall back in line Do you know what the Polish are like? I know they like Skol and Zubr
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 19, 2017 15:06:23 GMT
Do you know what the Polish are like? I know they like Skol and Zubr Not particularly repentant, is what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jun 19, 2017 15:40:31 GMT
Because it's still good? Don't kinda forget what you're actually making. Overstuffing a list with models you won't be able to support properly OR won't work well with your caster will always be 20 times worse than a free solo or even two. Maximizing Free points is fools gold. Maximizing Free points is fools gold.
fixed that for you
The problems with Heavy Metal are 1) Your 17 free points are all efficient stuff that you were going to take anyway, 2) You can take 100 points of jacks no sweat, which most factions can't match, 3) We still see Haley 2 piloting it as opposed to actual BG casters. FWIW, Rowdy does have a point in that there will be times when it is better to pass up the 4th or even 3rd free solo in favor of something else. Dark Host and Gravediggers, in particular, come to mind, but I've done that even in POD.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jun 19, 2017 16:18:23 GMT
I will say again that MK3 theme design is completely superior to MK2 themes in every way, even if that's not saying much. And I do think that the game overall is better off with most tourney lists in theme, simply because that makes playtesting and balancing factions easier for the Devs and metagame analysis and tourney prep easier for us.
I can understand differences of opinion on this, but I actually find list building in-theme easier, at least in Khador. Otherwise, it's easy to feel overwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Jun 19, 2017 23:10:06 GMT
I will say again that MK3 theme design is completely superior to MK2 themes in every way, even if that's not saying much. And I do think that the game overall is better off with most tourney lists in theme, simply because that makes playtesting and balancing factions easier for the Devs and metagame analysis and tourney prep easier for us. I can understand differences of opinion on this, but I actually find list building in-theme easier, at least in Khador. Otherwise, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. Eh, Mk3 themes avoid the utter degeneracy of Elementary Evolution or Wold War, but I think too many of them are now on the same lines of Machinations of Shadow, where you take an already very effective list, and get random free models and rules showered upon it. I know the cat's out the bag, and everyone will now fight tooth and nail to retain their Totally Balanced And Fluffy No Really 90pt lists in 75pt games that spam the best infantry, but I still feel Mk3 should have just done away entirely with the notion of free points by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jun 19, 2017 23:25:13 GMT
Again, those free points are in solos, CA, and weapon crews that tend to be over-costed otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 23:26:04 GMT
Maximizing Free points is fools gold.
fixed that for you
The problems with Heavy Metal are 1) Your 17 free points are all efficient stuff that you were going to take anyway, 2) You can take 100 points of jacks no sweat, which most factions can't match, 3) We still see Haley 2 piloting it as opposed to actual BG casters. FWIW, Rowdy does have a point in that there will be times when it is better to pass up the 4th or even 3rd free solo in favor of something else. Dark Host and Gravediggers, in particular, come to mind, but I've done that even in POD. Haley 2 has a Field Marshal and all of her abilities affect single models and battlegroup models. She's 100% a Battlegroup Caster. Also, in general the 4th Solo in Heavy Metal usually isn't valuable. It goes: - Squire - Junior - Arlan -...Jakes? Or Trencher Junior? Or Runewood? A lot of casters who play Heavy Metal want to keep their jacks in battlegroup so Jakes and Trencher Junior are sometimes there, but usually not. So that means you could run 75 points of Jacks without losing too much and that gives you access to...Sword Knights. Sword Knights are terrible, guys. They are really really bad. Here is the problem, though, a pair of Sword Knight units is 26 points...exactly 1 point over the threshold of 75 points (as there are no Cygnar casters with more than +30 WJP) meaning that to run 2 units of Sword Knights you need to lose 2 Free Solos which is no Bueno. Also, if you want to run Sword Knights...the Solo you often want to bring is Runewood, which is the solo you are bringing units to avoid taking. You could choose to lose...Arlan? But Arlan is really good with the 75 points of warjacks you are bringing. So Sword Knights are bad and their free points math is bad. If Heavy Metal had non-battlegroup models worth a damn then taking less free points for them I could see, but it just isn't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 19, 2017 23:56:33 GMT
Atleast it has non-bg units that aren't choir
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 19, 2017 23:59:58 GMT
Atleast it has non-bg units that aren't choir You get freaking Rhoven and Co, though, and its not like its a huge sacrifice playing Choir
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jun 20, 2017 0:43:58 GMT
Atleast it has non-bg units that aren't choir You get freaking Rhoven and Co, though, and its not like its a huge sacrifice playing Choir It becomes much more of an issue when we can only score an entire scenario's worth of zones with choir and a single FA:C MND: 6 unit :^) Not to say that heavy metal doesn't have similar issues, mostly because you can't take 2 units of sword knights and 3 free solos (1 point off for them would prolly fix this issue,) But it's still not great.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 20, 2017 0:51:00 GMT
You get freaking Rhoven and Co, though, and its not like its a huge sacrifice playing Choir It becomes much more of an issue when we can only score an entire scenario's worth of zones with choir and a single FA:C MND: 6 unit :^) Not to say that heavy metal doesn't have similar issues, mostly because you can't take 2 units of sword knights and 3 free solos (1 point off for them would prolly fix this issue,) But it's still not great. Its a weakness, but its not the worst. Just use your caster, its what I do. Also, a point off Sword Knights isn't enough imo. Their UA granting nothing of value to the unit is pretty egregious too.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jun 20, 2017 1:11:33 GMT
Themes as a concept aren't the problem. The problem is how themes have been designed, and how PP has stated they want themes to be featured.
The main issue is that the themes are still suffering from the design problems they did in Mk2. The quality of themes is all over the place. Some are crap. Some are middle of the road. And some are freaking OP.
Combine this problem with how themes now work, instead of being 1 warcaster it's now any warcaster. Which means more potential for a theme to be bonkers OP, while at least in mk2 it was only 1 caster so you were really pigeonholed into a particular style. Of course there were still problems with certain themes, but it was a little more limited.
And finally, you have PP saying they want a large chunk of games to be played in theme. They want themes to be the rule and not the exception. In theory, this isn't an issue as long as all themes are fair and balanced vs each other. But of course the variable quality of themes released makes this a big problem. The factions which have received very powerful themes are heavily advantaged vs factions which haven't. Doesn't help that the strongest factions also got the strongest themes...
Using themes as fixes for underperforming units is another problem. Instead of actually fixing the problems, they side step it with a lazy patch. This doesn't actually solve any problems. Because why would I play a theme that just patches the problem of an underperforming set of units when I could take a theme that buffs up what is currently already good? Or even just not play in theme with stuff that is good. It also doesn't help the underperformers see play outside of theme with potential synergies that exist outside of that restrictive theme.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 20, 2017 1:59:52 GMT
Not sure what you guys mean about not being able to take 2 units of them and getting 3 free solos. Here's my Stryker2 list:
eStryker 28* -Ol' Rowdy 18 -Ironclad 12 -Lancer 10 -Lancer 10 -Charger 9 -Charger 9 -Squire 0 Journeyman 0 -Charger 9 Sword Knights 13 Sword Knights 13 Archduke Alain Runewood 0
Bam, 75 points. Count em. 77/103 are jacks.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 20, 2017 2:48:51 GMT
Not sure what you guys mean about not being able to take 2 units of them and getting 3 free solos. Here's my Stryker2 list: eStryker 28* -Ol' Rowdy 18 -Ironclad 12 -Lancer 10 -Lancer 10 -Charger 9 -Charger 9 -Squire 0 Journeyman 0 -Charger 9 Sword Knights 13 Sword Knights 13 Archduke Alain Runewood 0 Bam, 75 points. Count em. 77/103 are jacks. You're right. I miscounted. That was my bad. I've been designing a bunch of Haley 2 and Haley 3 lists recently and my mind was stuck on 100 as the top number, not 105. My major problem has always been that I don't think Sword Knights are very good, but you can certainly bring that list (although Stryker 2 is one of the casters who can run Jakes well because none of his stuff is battlegroup focused).
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 20, 2017 5:33:17 GMT
The problems with Heavy Metal are 1) Your 17 free points are all efficient stuff that you were going to take anyway, 2) You can take 100 points of jacks no sweat, which most factions can't match, 3) We still see Haley 2 piloting it as opposed to actual BG casters. FWIW, Rowdy does have a point in that there will be times when it is better to pass up the 4th or even 3rd free solo in favor of something else. Dark Host and Gravediggers, in particular, come to mind, but I've done that even in POD. Haley 2 has a Field Marshal and all of her abilities affect single models and battlegroup models. She's 100% a Battlegroup Caster. Also, in general the 4th Solo in Heavy Metal usually isn't valuable. It goes: - Squire - Junior - Arlan -...Jakes? Or Trencher Junior? Or Runewood? A lot of casters who play Heavy Metal want to keep their jacks in battlegroup so Jakes and Trencher Junior are sometimes there, but usually not. So that means you could run 75 points of Jacks without losing too much and that gives you access to...Sword Knights. Sword Knights are terrible, guys. They are really really bad. Here is the problem, though, a pair of Sword Knight units is 26 points...exactly 1 point over the threshold of 75 points (as there are no Cygnar casters with more than +30 WJP) meaning that to run 2 units of Sword Knights you need to lose 2 Free Solos which is no Bueno. Also, if you want to run Sword Knights...the Solo you often want to bring is Runewood, which is the solo you are bringing units to avoid taking. You could choose to lose...Arlan? But Arlan is really good with the 75 points of warjacks you are bringing. So Sword Knights are bad and their free points math is bad. If Heavy Metal had non-battlegroup models worth a damn then taking less free points for them I could see, but it just isn't worth it. by what metric are sword knights bad? I've used them to great effect (not two units, usually, I'll admit, but still.) They have Mat 6 (8 if they're flanking, which is ludicrously easy to set up in heavy metal.) They're conditional weaponmasters (again, with an easy to set up condition.) They have defensive line, which makes them a pain to shift in melee. They have one weakness, which is that they're relatively easy to shoot (though Def 13 isn't nothing) and if you play them with either Rhupert (admittedly, out of theme) or a caster with blur or deflection, they're reasonably hard to shift. They're an excellent screen for a warjack heavy list, because they represent a difficult to remove (except by shooting, if you haven't closed that weakness) unit that can blunt an alpha against lower model count lists, fill zones, and keep enemy models off your shooting units. They also can't be ignored, because with flank they become a credible threat against almost any target in the game.
The problem I see (and I think many Cygnar players suffer from) is twofold: 1. You're expecting way, way, waaaaay too much from an 8/13 unit. 2. They aren't Stormlances. If they have an issue I'd like to see fixed, it's that their CA doesn't do a ton for them, but the core unit is a very effective package for providing heavy metal with a credible scenario presence and upping the body count. But by no metric are sword knights an objectively bad unit.
|
|