|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 20:04:03 GMT
You might be assuming bias here where there isn't actually one. Fair enough. I was proven wrong. Im not an expert at hordes, so that's partly why I'm getting into Grymkin (Also because OW crosses over there). I can't accurately discuss the legitimacy of Infantry based theme lists and how easy it is to keep em in points costs. But I'm not sure why 17 Points is "Balanced" though.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 22, 2017 20:26:46 GMT
Fore every 30 points of in theme models in the list, one solo or CA can be brought for free. No specification on beast or infantry. Just as long as they are in theme. Then Every theme list will get exactly 3 in theme solos for free. No more, no less. Then each theme will be able to specify exactly which solo/CA is allowed to be taken for free; small based, character/noncharacter, large base cav, etc.
You then restrict beasts/jacks and infantry down to a very fine number of models. No Oracles bring all the beasts. Specify souless, Or Parthfinder, Or ranged attack capable. Whatever needs to do to not just be able to take the entire stable.
Ta-freaking-da
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 20:28:33 GMT
And then nobody touches it with a 10-foot pole unless it's the optimal options already and then people complain more anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jun 22, 2017 20:34:01 GMT
And then nobody touches it with a 10-foot pole unless it's the optimal options already and then people complain more anyway. that is their choice but you can't get more balanced then "everyone gets the exact same toy allotment "
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 22, 2017 20:40:18 GMT
that is their choice but you can't get more balanced than "everyone gets the exact same toy allotment " Allotment of what? All you did was have a theme list give extra points literally now. Removing nearly all restrictions except the free points given, except for the Beasts/Jacks that you completly overpenalize. And thats not really a theme list at all. Anyway this threads been going round and round in circles.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jun 22, 2017 20:46:09 GMT
Fore every 30 points of in theme models in the list, one solo or CA can be brought for free. No specification on beast or infantry. Just as long as they are in theme. Then Every theme list will get exactly 3 in theme solos for free. No more, no less. Then each theme will be able to specify exactly which solo/CA is allowed to be taken for free; small based, character/noncharacter, large base cav, etc. You then restrict beasts/jacks and infantry down to a very fine number of models. No Oracles bring all the beasts. Specify souless, Or Parthfinder, Or ranged attack capable. Whatever needs to do to not just be able to take the entire stable. Ta-freaking-da I kinda like this idea, but they'd have to make the benefits much more focused unless they want a repeat of Winterguard Kommand jack lists. Control exactly what you can get for free and what can be allowed in the theme. The problem that develops is how that warjacks don't really have enough differentiation between them to start limiting what you can and can't take in a theme.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 22, 2017 21:24:04 GMT
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. What balances out Forges of War is the unit restrictions. Not what little jack support you miss out on, nor the Shyeel restriction on Myrmidons. Creator's Might isn't really missing out in the jack support department either, and it's still balanced. Turns out quite a few jack casters still appreciate having a good unit present as well. That's the real issue: some factions lack a convincing infantry unit that's affordable enough to be a real option in a jack-heavy list. There's a bit of discussion regarding Sword Knights in Heavy Metal now at least, but that's still an in-theme option. Stormknights are not affordable enough and the other Cygnaran units (or even their merc options) aren't good enough in general and/or not complimentary enough with large battlegroup to be a consideration. With beasts there's the extra complication that warlocks need and are powered by their battlegroup, but even there a good case can be made for Fyanna having reasons to want the Swordsmen she can't have in Oracles. She just wants the benefits of Oracles more, but that says as much about Swordsmen (despite being one of the better units in Legion) as about the theme. This is still an oversimplification, but it's a start for a slightly more in-depth argument.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jun 23, 2017 9:16:08 GMT
The problem that develops is how that warjacks don't really have enough differentiation between them to start limiting what you can and can't take in a theme. I'm not taking a particular side here, but I'm sure every faction could find something. Speaking just for Cryx, certain limitations could be: - Jacks with the Amphybious advantage (this is basically the crab jacks + colossals) as well as Jacks with the Arc Node advantage
- Jacks without the Amphybious advantage (bi-pedal jacks + lights)
- Light Warjacks
- Jacks with a ranged weapon
- Jacks with at least one Open Fist as well as Jacks with the Arc Node advantage
Specified the arc nodes where they wouldn't automatically be included by a former requirement, because in the fluff really no caster leaves home without a few. I'm sure other factions could find similar options.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 23, 2017 10:25:13 GMT
You can always find ways to differenciate them, some factions have that as a concept and while fluff and uniqueness is cool it can't be a tool for faction imbalance (up or down).
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 23, 2017 10:45:10 GMT
You can always find ways to differenciate them, some factions have that as a concept and while fluff and uniqueness is cool it can't be a tool for faction imbalance (up or down). It actually can be depending on the releases that PP is planning. If for instance the next circle thing added a crap ton of rock monsters, then suddenly being limited only to them isn't as crippling. But if your only limited to 2 jacks or beasts thats a whole lot of pain. It all depends on what PP wants to release for each faction, and I believe thats what their attempting to do by making each faction more different. Cygnar didn't get any new Jacks, but trollkin are already being given a new Beast for instance.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 23, 2017 10:56:49 GMT
You can always find ways to differenciate them, some factions have that as a concept and while fluff and uniqueness is cool it can't be a tool for faction imbalance (up or down). It actually can be depending on the releases that PP is planning. If for instance the next circle thing added a crap ton of rock monsters, then suddenly being limited only to them isn't as crippling. But if your only limited to 2 jacks or beasts thats a whole lot of pain. It all depends on what PP wants to release for each faction, and I believe thats what their attempting to do by making each faction more different. Cygnar didn't get any new Jacks, but trollkin are already being given a new Beast for instance.
This is a tired excuse. Blaming/Using the future as a justification is a cop out. If that was the case they could have just made a generic beast theme aiming for mid-power and be done with it.
We have 2 Lights, 2 Heavies, 1 Character and 1 Gargantuan. While not enough to make a vibrant theme the problem lies with the 2 heavies that are, at best, below par... It occurs to me that if a theme is very limited in models perhaps a theme that allows for warjacks/units to get free points could work. Having Druids in bones (as is, not counting for free points) would at least open the options as they bring insta synergy with the WWrath andthe BE (eventually).
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 23, 2017 11:09:09 GMT
This is a tired excuse. Blaming/Using the future as a justification is a cop out. And "Just Use 3 jacks and deal with it!" isn't a good one either. Im not saying I know Circle very well or that its well designed and balanced, but I am saying imposing this sort of restrictiveness that makes playing it pretty miserable won't create a positive sort of game balance.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jun 23, 2017 11:30:20 GMT
Sons of the Tempest has a 'ranged jacks only' restriction and its a contributing factor to Sons of the Tempest being the literal worst.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 23, 2017 11:35:08 GMT
It actually can be depending on the releases that PP is planning. If for instance the next circle thing added a crap ton of rock monsters, then suddenly being limited only to them isn't as crippling. But if your only limited to 2 jacks or beasts thats a whole lot of pain. It all depends on what PP wants to release for each faction, and I believe thats what their attempting to do by making each faction more different. Cygnar didn't get any new Jacks, but trollkin are already being given a new Beast for instance.
This is a tired excuse. Blaming/Using the future as a justification is a cop out. If that was the case they could have just made a generic beast theme aiming for mid-power and be done with it.
We have 2 Lights, 2 Heavies, 1 Character and 1 Gargantuan. While not enough to make a vibrant theme the problem lies with the 2 heavies that are, at best, below par... It occurs to me that if a theme is very limited in models perhaps a theme that allows for warjacks/units to get free points could work. Having Druids in bones (as is, not counting for free points) would at least open the options as they bring insta synergy with the WWrath andthe BE (eventually).
I'd find that more convincing if it weren't extremely unlikely that the exact problem you point at, both construct heavies being underwhelming, will get addressed at any time in the foreseeable future. It *is* a problem for that type of list, and a theme and/or a new release are really the only plausible solutions we can expect in a timeframe that still makes some sense.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 23, 2017 11:44:13 GMT
Sons of the Tempest has a 'ranged jacks only' restriction and its a contributing factor to Sons of the Tempest being the literal worst. No restriction helps, of course, but as far as contributing factors go it doesn't seem like it's anywhere near the biggest one. You basically miss out on 3 things: cheap melee heavies, arc nodes, and the Centurion tank. Not insignificant, but the mediocrity of the Arcane Tempest models (the actual focus) feels like a much weightier anchor around the neck of the theme.
|
|