|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 22, 2017 16:40:06 GMT
Stormsmith Dropout Well, I pay 13+8+9+4+5+6 for my sword knights, sentinel, charger, junior, squire and finn... That's 45pts but 17 come from my wjp so... People who make lists without using army builder can multiply 17 a few times... *gasp*. I had no idea that people could multiply 17! This is ground breaking! Obviously, people CAN do it. But it is more pleasant, aesthetically and mentally, to use numbers divisible by 5 and/or 2. That's why we have point levels 0, 10, 15, 25, 35, 50, 65, 75, 100, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 22, 2017 16:55:09 GMT
It's one thing to have nice numbers to use as formats, it's quite another to do so in the minutia of a theme list or model costs. When you are trying to reach thresholds with all kinds of numbers ranging from 1(Gobber Chef) to 42(Sea King) makes no sense not to adjust points because some numbers are "prettier" than others.
You said harder to calculate and I replied with that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 17:01:37 GMT
Actually it is. There is a thing as mental ease of comprehension. 10s and 5s are some of the easiest numbers to use. You mentioned how "Complex" the other models point costs are, well maybe your right. But at least you FIT these puzzle pieces into a box. And that box is easy to comprehend numbers that are multiples of 5. Theme bonuses are like smaller boxes in that. 25 or 15 fit pretty nicely into most point sizes with often very few margins of leftovers. 17 doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 22, 2017 17:09:46 GMT
I think JSidro has hit it on the head. We're seeing a lot of lists outside of themes while many factions have poor themes. When all factions have compelling themes, anyone playing outside of themes is going to be intentionally hamstringing herself. -und_ed Ret has good themes you can take or not take as you see fit. Neither option is clearly superior, and both can compete with other factions.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 22, 2017 18:52:04 GMT
You did not begin the statement with an "I think that", as you have here in your second comment. That's literally ALL it could ever be. We don't begin every statement and comment with "I think that". It's a really personal pet peeve of mine that people take every comment all personally unless you say "It's my opinion". Literally, everything you ever say can only be your opinion. Yep ... starting to think we live in crazy land sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 22, 2017 18:54:55 GMT
Actually it is. There is a thing as mental ease of comprehension. 10s and 5s are some of the easiest numbers to use. You mentioned how "Complex" the other models point costs are, well maybe your right. But at least you FIT these puzzle pieces into a box. And that box is easy to comprehend numbers that are multiples of 5. Theme bonuses are like smaller boxes in that. 25 or 15 fit pretty nicely into most point sizes with often very few margins of leftovers. 17 doesn't. It's a monster of PP's own making though. If the balance doesn't work out at an even 20 then the balance doesn't work out. You'd never want to make it 15 as then it becomes far too easy to work in 4 free solos into every theme. I've done the math for 75 point games and 17 seems to be the sweet spot. 20pts to get free models using infantry is just far too punishing to hordes list that also need a decent amount of beasts to function. Warmachine doesn't have this problem.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 19:12:19 GMT
I think JSidro has hit it on the head. We're seeing a lot of lists outside of themes while many factions have poor themes. When all factions have compelling themes, anyone playing outside of themes is going to be intentionally hamstringing herself. -und_ed Ret has good themes you can take or not take as you see fit. Neither option is clearly superior, and both can compete with other factions. Ret is also the most balanced faction, by FAR. They have no real auto-includes, and their worst models are more 'below average' or 'confused role' than actively bad. It's much easier to build a balanced theme in that environment. Even so, I think it's telling that Ret doesn't have either: a. an unrestricted jack theme - Forges doesn't let you take Vyre Jacks, nor does it let you take Elara (who is awesome,) or some of our other jack support, unlike, say, Heavy Metal. or b. a theme that allows sentinels to be taken/rewards you for taking them. Sentinels aren't OP, but they ARE Ret's best all-around infantry choice, and a theme that gives free points for taking them/a benefit that helps them could easily end up being over the top. We'll have to see how it develops, but Ret's not exactly a generalizable example.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 19:19:31 GMT
It's a monster of PP's own making though. No it isn't. It's a monster of reality. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice some stuff for ease of use. 17 isn't easy to use. You got into a whole other thing with Beasts vs Warmachine, which goes into your personal preference as opposed to "What I think should be done".
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 22, 2017 19:19:43 GMT
Actually it is. There is a thing as mental ease of comprehension. 10s and 5s are some of the easiest numbers to use. You mentioned how "Complex" the other models point costs are, well maybe your right. But at least you FIT these puzzle pieces into a box. And that box is easy to comprehend numbers that are multiples of 5. Theme bonuses are like smaller boxes in that. 25 or 15 fit pretty nicely into most point sizes with often very few margins of leftovers. 17 doesn't. It's a monster of PP's own making though. If the balance doesn't work out at an even 20 then the balance doesn't work out. You'd never want to make it 15 as then it becomes far too easy to work in 4 free solos into every theme. I've done the math for 75 point games and 17 seems to be the sweet spot. 20pts to get free models using infantry is just far too punishing to hordes list that also need a decent amount of beasts to function. Warmachine doesn't have this problem. What math did you do? And what prevents these themes from taking 4 solos?
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 22, 2017 19:26:29 GMT
Ret has good themes you can take or not take as you see fit. Neither option is clearly superior, and both can compete with other factions. Ret is also the most balanced faction, by FAR. They have no real auto-includes, and their worst models are more 'below average' or 'confused role' than actively bad. It's much easier to build a balanced theme in that environment. Even so, I think it's telling that Ret doesn't have either: a. an unrestricted jack theme - Forges doesn't let you take Vyre Jacks, nor does it let you take Elara (who is awesome,) or some of our other jack support, unlike, say, Heavy Metal. or b. a theme that allows sentinels to be taken/rewards you for taking them. Sentinels aren't OP, but they ARE Ret's best all-around infantry choice, and a theme that gives free points for taking them/a benefit that helps them could easily end up being over the top. We'll have to see how it develops, but Ret's not exactly a generalizable example. So other factions should be more like Ret. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying getting themes balanced out right is not an impossible task. We've seen plenty arguments to support that some themes are not balanced enough, sure. I certainly haven't seen any arguments to support the notion that there is a systemic issue with themes in general or jack/beast themes in particular. Creator's Mights is just fine in my book as well.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 19:35:54 GMT
Ret is also the most balanced faction, by FAR. They have no real auto-includes, and their worst models are more 'below average' or 'confused role' than actively bad. It's much easier to build a balanced theme in that environment. Even so, I think it's telling that Ret doesn't have either: a. an unrestricted jack theme - Forges doesn't let you take Vyre Jacks, nor does it let you take Elara (who is awesome,) or some of our other jack support, unlike, say, Heavy Metal. or b. a theme that allows sentinels to be taken/rewards you for taking them. Sentinels aren't OP, but they ARE Ret's best all-around infantry choice, and a theme that gives free points for taking them/a benefit that helps them could easily end up being over the top. We'll have to see how it develops, but Ret's not exactly a generalizable example. So other factions should be more like Ret. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying getting themes balanced out right is not an impossible task. We've seen plenty arguments to support that some themes are not balanced enough, sure. I certainly haven't seen any arguments to support the notion that there is a systemic issue with themes in general or jack/beast themes in particular. Creator's Mights is just fine in my book as well. Themes aren't impossible to balance, but they DO add another level of complexity to the process of balancing. They're NOT a good tool for handling inter or intra-faction balance issues, because of how easy it is to get it wrong/make it impossible to adjust models in the future without breaking a given theme's balance. There's also the fact that most factions are NOT ret, and are unlikely to achieve ret-level balance in fewer than 2-3 years (which is about how long it will take to see most of the problem models go through CID, especially in the less well-balanced factions) And I'd argue that while jack/beast themes are not inherently a problem, insufficiently restrictive jack/beast themes ARE. if a theme lets you take all of the non-character jack/beasts, and all of their support, then it's a problem, because there is no real decision-making process between playing in or out of theme.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 19:40:57 GMT
And I'd argue that while jack/beast themes are not inherently a problem, insufficiently restrictive jack/beast themes ARE. if a theme lets you take all of the non-character jack/beasts, and all of their support, then it's a problem, because there is no real decision-making process between playing in or out of theme. But what if Im playing say a WGI list, should I not be allowed to for instance bring Joe because it doesn't make the thought process for support instant?
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 22, 2017 19:49:00 GMT
It's a monster of PP's own making though. If the balance doesn't work out at an even 20 then the balance doesn't work out. You'd never want to make it 15 as then it becomes far too easy to work in 4 free solos into every theme. I've done the math for 75 point games and 17 seems to be the sweet spot. 20pts to get free models using infantry is just far too punishing to hordes list that also need a decent amount of beasts to function. Warmachine doesn't have this problem. What math did you do? And what prevents these themes from taking 4 solos? Nothing ... but you have to jam pack it with just the required models to generate the 4 free solos. I said previously though that I think there should be a hard cap at 3 free models though. At four you get the ridiculousness of things like 20 free pts in Oracles. 10 to 15pts of free stuff results in a nice incentive to be in theme without completely tilting the equation against non-theme forces. 20pts is an oppressive deficit to overcome. Just so we're clear ... that's in my opinion ... since this needs to be stated now. The math I did (and yes you can say its not actually math) is looking at various lists and what it would take in available points for a warlock to have a battle group that doesn't force them to sacrifice fury loading while still generating 3 free solos in theme.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jun 22, 2017 19:55:03 GMT
It's a monster of PP's own making though. No it isn't. It's a monster of reality. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice some stuff for ease of use. 17 isn't easy to use. You got into a whole other thing with Beasts vs Warmachine, which goes into your personal preference as opposed to "What I think should be done". You might be assuming bias here where there isn't actually one. I play four factions, Cygnar, Protectorate, Trolls and Circle. I've been building theme lists for all four and have found infantry based theme lists to be at a disadvantage against beast/jack themes in terms of the amount of free points they can generate while remaining functional. I've found this to be particularly pronounced on the hordes side for the previously stated reasons. If you've got a counter point to make here I'm all ears and would enjoy the discussion. Also it is of their own making by how they designed the game and the realities of the requirements of game balance. I mean you can enjoy round numbers all you want but if they result in skewed results for certain list archetypes then the designers should be open to modifying them.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 22, 2017 20:02:47 GMT
What math did you do? And what prevents these themes from taking 4 solos? Nothing ... but you have to jam pack it with just the required models to generate the 4 free solos. I said previously though that I think there should be a hard cap at 3 free models though. At four you get the ridiculousness of things like 20 free pts in Oracles. The math I did (and yes you can say its not actually math) is looking at various lists and what it would take in available points for a warlock to have a battle group that doesn't force them to sacrifice fury loading while still generating 3 free solos in theme. Okay. If someone is willing to take 60 points of something to get 3 free solos, they're willing to take 68 points of something to get 4. There is no consensus that Oracles is ridiculous. If there is a hard cap of three solos at 75 points how will that be scaled for different point levels? And yes, that explanation for your "math" does not seem particularly rigorous.
|
|