|
Post by JJDM on Jun 29, 2017 15:59:13 GMT
Seems like a great thing if you were a WM player, but the attendance at my FLGS each week says otherwise
Are people leaving because of that? Or because of the huge ill-explained badly presented over the knee sweeping changes? A lot of it was good or proven good but the communication was a mess from the first pic they showed.
I wish I knew for sure the reason, probably a combination of things. I do know there is a lot of soul searching locally after you show up to play a game and your opponent has 10+ warjacks that all power up every turn in the battlegroups of casters with 6 focus and never have to allocate any of it.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 29, 2017 16:08:54 GMT
I wish I knew for sure the reason, probably a combination of things. I do know there is a lot of soul searching locally after you show up to play a game and your opponent has 10+ warjacks that all power up every turn in the battlegroups of casters with 6 focus and never have to allocate any of it. ...But they can only CHARGE for that focus! Whats up with people always dropping that aspect! 1 Focus is enough for a Jack to charge. Jacks are no longer such a burden that them performing the basic task of a charge requires an allocation of resources or extra points to allocate that focus.
|
|
|
Post by JJDM on Jun 29, 2017 16:17:14 GMT
Exactly, so you can run a list that is literally entirely warjacks and they can all do work. In mk2 you had to run more combined arms because you had jacks that couldn't be fueled. Playing against a list that is entirely high ARM warjacks requires a special counter list for most factions, and I think it's getting tiresome
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 29, 2017 16:23:31 GMT
The FA that should not be mentioned rears it's ugly head again!
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 29, 2017 16:40:27 GMT
The FA that should not be mentioned rears it's ugly head again! So seeing nine jacks of three different types instead of ten identical ones would fix the issue? FA restrictions are ineffective bandaids for an often misunderstood issue.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 29, 2017 16:53:54 GMT
The FA that should not be mentioned rears it's ugly head again! So seeing nine jacks of three different types instead of ten identical ones would fix the issue? FA restrictions are ineffective bandaids for an often misunderstood issue.
I think so, yes. The problem with FA U is that it reduces models to best and non-best. Any discrepancy of power, absulute or Meta driven, is magnified as much as possible.
- It's one thing to see 3(3 as an example) Marauder, 3 Juggernauts and something else probably not as good as those 2 and seing 9/10 Marauders. When model choice starts to dip in effectiveness people tend to look elsewhere for options as a list can break down.
- Imagine Una pre-nerf with 9 griffons but only 3 of each. Not the same thing, suddenly it's not a full stealth BG, suddenly only 3 birds have 3 initials... Suddenly gunlines have targets and she dips in power as both players struggle to get the max of the relative strenght of the models they have in play.
IMO, it's ok to have similar warjacks if FA matters. It's a way to make more models, a way to get custumization and personal preferences for abilities and aesthetics. IMO, it's not a bandaid, it's a good design choice that gives extra-breathing room to devs. It's a relic of achoice madein MKI and not abandoned god knows why...
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 29, 2017 16:58:14 GMT
We must reduce all field allowences to zero! Then every list will be perfectly balanced!
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 29, 2017 17:18:17 GMT
Exactly, so you can run a list that is literally entirely warjacks and they can all do work. In mk2 you had to run more combined arms because you had jacks that couldn't be fueled. Playing against a list that is entirely high ARM warjacks requires a special counter list for most factions, and I think it's getting tiresome Oh my just like fighting against mrk2 hordes lists. How strange.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 29, 2017 17:20:39 GMT
Also I'd totes be down for FA 3 for jacks/beasts and FA 1 for collosals cause i hate collosals.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 29, 2017 17:23:42 GMT
So seeing nine jacks of three different types instead of ten identical ones would fix the issue? FA restrictions are ineffective bandaids for an often misunderstood issue.
I think so, yes. The problem with FA U is that it reduces models to best and non-best. Any discrepancy of power, absulute or Meta driven, is magnified as much as possible.
- It's one thing to see 3(3 as an example) Marauder, 3 Juggernauts and something else probably not as good as those 2 and seing 9/10 Marauders. When model choice starts to dip in effectiveness people tend to look elsewhere for options as a list can break down.
- Imagine Una pre-nerf with 9 griffons but only 3 of each. Not the same thing, suddenly it's not a full stealth BG, suddenly only 3 birds have 3 initials... Suddenly gunlines have targets and she dips in power as both players struggle to get the max of the relative strenght of the models they have in play.
IMO, it's ok to have similar warjacks if FA matters. It's a way to make more models, a way to get custumization and personal preferences for abilities and aesthetics. IMO, it's not a bandaid, it's a good design choice that gives extra-breathing room to devs. It's a relic of achoice madein MKI and not abandoned god knows why...
With FA restrictions you still get best vs non-best. It's just best 3 (or whatever) vs anything else. It's false complexity. It doesn't solve the fundamental problem that there is something that's an arguably objective best setup for a broad set of matchups. It also means that releasing 3 good, cheap jacks for Khador makes the FA restriction largely pointless from the standpoint of balance. A lot of lists currently considered spam would barely notice it if FA 3 would be enforced either, IMO. Certainly the Synergy-based ones won't. By applying a specific FA on non-character warnouns you're basically sticking a list diversity and list balance bandaid on a model balance and matchup diversity problem.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 29, 2017 17:31:02 GMT
I don't FA 3. It screws over small factions. Grymkin, abd Cephalyx would lose out.
Not to mention, lots of jacks are sold in packs of 2. Bonejacks and gunbunnies.
It's just too late in the game to make that kind of change.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 29, 2017 18:27:48 GMT
The top khadoran warjack lists are like 6 jacks. Juggers mauraders and kodiaks under kharchev with wg support.
People complain anyway.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Jun 29, 2017 18:32:15 GMT
Seems like a great thing if you were a WM player, but the attendance at my FLGS each week says otherwise
Are people leaving because of that? Or because of the huge ill-explained badly presented over the knee sweeping changes? A lot of it was good or proven good but the communication was a mess from the first pic they showed.
Around here at least people left because they took tournaments too seriously and suddenly realized that PP didn't. On topic though, I don't think it would change much of my lists, I always liked having a couple heavies anyway. I don't think it would be a great idea though for a lot of the points already mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jun 29, 2017 18:46:43 GMT
I don't FA 3. It screws over small factions. Grymkin, abd Cephalyx would lose out. Not to mention, lots of jacks are sold in packs of 2. Bonejacks and gunbunnies. It's just too late in the game to make that kind of change. When's the last time you saw more than 3 monstrosities in a cephalyx list.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jun 29, 2017 19:10:37 GMT
I don't FA 3. It screws over small factions. Grymkin, abd Cephalyx would lose out. Not to mention, lots of jacks are sold in packs of 2. Bonejacks and gunbunnies. It's just too late in the game to make that kind of change. When's the last time you saw more than 3 monstrosities in a cephalyx list. I've played into Cyphon with 5 Wreckers. He does pretty well with lots of heavies. There isn't much customization to do in Cephalyx. I just wouldn't like to see those options that do exist removed.
|
|