|
Post by jisidro on Jun 30, 2017 9:02:15 GMT
That case-by-case approach is all well and good if something can't/shouldn't be changed. But it can. A lot of models where invalidated from MK2 to MK3 and a lot more from the erratas. Even assuming they needed to de brought down, they didn't need to be removed from the table wholesale. Especially when the same errata that made the Mad Dog FA 0 told people people the Marauder was the next go-to warjack.
My issue with FA U has nothing to do with skews (10 warjacks, 75 infantry lists, all solo lists) but with spams (the same 10 warjacks, the same unit repeated as much as possible, the same solo). It narrows down choices by players and by the design team. I'll try to give an exemple, let's imagine a rhulic warjack CID. The issue would, ofc, be to make the other rhulic warjacks compete with gunbunnies. With FA U the competition is absolute, with FA 2/3/4 what you need to have is a suite of warjacks that can skew to keep the BG lists alive but don't have to compete directly as casters have diferente 1st picks.
I have yet to see an upside to FA U. What exactly is so reat about it?
Can someone pretend there isn't FA U that jacks/beasts are FA X instead and defend FA U as a better baseline? I'd like too see that argument.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Jun 30, 2017 12:09:55 GMT
Because with FA:U you won't see the less-efficient jacks taken, we will just see people bring less jacks. Happened when I tested it. And I find it funny how everyone hates on GW for invalidating armies while pushing PP to do the same....
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 30, 2017 12:41:35 GMT
That case-by-case approach is all well and good if something can't/shouldn't be changed. But it can. A lot of models where invalidated from MK2 to MK3 and a lot more from the erratas. Even assuming they needed to de brought down, they didn't need to be removed from the table wholesale. Especially when the same errata that made the Mad Dog FA 0 told people people the Marauder was the next go-to warjack. My issue with FA U has nothing to do with skews (10 warjacks, 75 infantry lists, all solo lists) but with spams (the same 10 warjacks, the same unit repeated as much as possible, the same solo). It narrows down choices by players and by the design team. I'll try to give an exemple, let's imagine a rhulic warjack CID. The issue would, ofc, be to make the other rhulic warjacks compete with gunbunnies. With FA U the competition is absolute, with FA 2/3/4 what you need to have is a suite of warjacks that can skew to keep the BG lists alive but don't have to compete directly as casters have diferente 1st picks. I have yet to see an upside to FA U. What exactly is so reat about it? Can someone pretend there isn't FA U that jacks/beasts are FA X instead and defend FA U as a better baseline? I'd like too see that argument. Again, false complexity. It's still competition with a single best outcome. We could keep the number of options low and pretend that the fact that people choosing several of them in large battlegroup lists indicates balance and variety, but that wouldn't make it true. You're basically saying it's ok things aren't created equal because you're making people play all of them regardless. It appears that on the one hand players crave list variety, but on the other they don't want that variety to include the option of playing uniform spam. Uniform jack/beast spam works - when it works, which is not frequent in terms of list composition - because of two reasons: the game doesn't require or reward balanced lists enough, and there's a particular synergy between the caster or lock and that battlegroup that's out of proportion. There are underlying causes for these, but that's the essence. And neither has anything to do with FA.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jun 30, 2017 14:12:42 GMT
Well FA rewards balanced composition by making unidimensional lists suffer from diminishing returns... You're saying it's a bad thing.
Ofc a caster with Mobility wants as big of a BG as he can get, it's one thing to spend 3(?) focus/fury to give 2 jacks +2SPD and quite another to send the same ammount of resources to give 8 jacks the same benefit. Where do you balance Mobility? Where do you balance Karchev's Feat? Or Una2's Feat? Or Absylonnia's?
Do you defend FA U for everything? If not, why not? How about character restrictions? Why just 1 Joe? One Imperatus? Only 1 Molik Arn? I'm sure they can beef up a few more Cyclops in the Skorne Empire...
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jun 30, 2017 16:20:05 GMT
I don't have any strong objections against FA U for most things. FA C (or FA 1, as the case may be) could still have a balance function for certain abilities that are too strong to allow redundancy for or for models that are allowed to be a little bit over the curve for coolness' sake, which can be acceptable if strictly limited. Even regardless of contributing to balance, FA C allows for unique models and characters. That's a plus in my book. FA 2 or 3 for run-of-the-mill jacks or beasts doesn't feel right. Why would a caster or lock, especially one with a particular synergy with specific warnouns, always choose to take a varied battlegroup? That doesn't make sense to me. At any given time they might absolutely have their pick of the arsenal, no holds barred, but for game purposes they'd always choose to not request more than two of what are essentially mass-produced or mass-bred resources?
Battlegroup-wide (or potentially even control area-wide) effects are inherently risky. So are cumulative effects without limitation (the exact reason Synergy got a cap). Rather than balancing them as they are, I'd look at keeping the effects but restricting how much they can be applied to - if there's a problem in the first place, that's not always the case either.
|
|