|
Post by pangurban on Jul 7, 2017 11:33:31 GMT
I wasn't defending the Marauder so much as I was passive-aggressively expressing my extreme displeasure at this constant haggling over points coming from someone whose normal line of thought is that players should try to get better first and foremost. Especially when, when it comes to Cygnar, the argumentations seemingly are the reverse of those made against the Marauder. You're right. That was really passive aggressive. You seem to be taking this more personally than I am. I don't have to take it personally to find it annoying. I play Ret, Legion and occasionally Cryx. I have no real stake in all of this. But when the debate devolves into non-arguments and different standards are applied to different factions, it's annoying.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 7, 2017 11:45:53 GMT
You're right. That was really passive aggressive. You seem to be taking this more personally than I am. I don't have to take it personally to find it annoying. I play Ret, Legion and occasionally Cryx. I have no real stake in all of this. But when the debate devolves into non-arguments and different standards are applied to different factions, it's annoying. Then state that rather than beating around the bush and muddying up the discussion with nonessential stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 7, 2017 13:25:50 GMT
I don't have to take it personally to find it annoying. I play Ret, Legion and occasionally Cryx. I have no real stake in all of this. But when the debate devolves into non-arguments and different standards are applied to different factions, it's annoying. Then state that rather than beating around the bush and muddying up the discussion with nonessential stuff. Ok. Can I then ask that we 1) forget meaningless cross-faction comparisons, because Khador apparently being meant to do lots of damage to Huge bases is no indication any other given faction is meant to be able to do the same; 2) dispense with the senseless "this is out of line for a model of that cost" arguments since lots of models (including a certain journeyman) have abilities few or no others of similar cost have; and 3) instead of quibbling about cost and haggling over points talk about value - arguing that 10 Marauders in a list is too much but 9 is acceptable is a much more meaningful argument than "this is worth x amount of points pretty much because I say so" - instead?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jul 7, 2017 13:46:43 GMT
I think a point worth remembering is that PPs design approach appears to be a fairly 'holistic' in a lot of instances, whereas us as players love to drill down into the very nitty gritty number crunching. I think the former is fine for designing a game, and if PP perceive 10 Marauder lists becoming a problem (like the Kharchev Mad Dog lists) then they will address it.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jul 7, 2017 13:59:39 GMT
I think a point worth remembering is that PPs design approach appears to be a fairly 'holistic' in a lot of instances, whereas us as players love to drill down into the very nitty gritty number crunching. I think the former is fine for designing a game, and if PP perceive 10 Marauder lists becoming a problem (like the Kharchev Mad Dog lists) then they will address it.
I listened to an interview Pagani gave soon after starting to work at PP and he said that he got to explore massive Excell sheets with a lot of number crunching. Not sure which podcast it was...
Just to make the point that the final decisions seem to be holistic but at some point in time design includes number crunching.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jul 7, 2017 14:03:32 GMT
I think a point worth remembering is that PPs design approach appears to be a fairly 'holistic' in a lot of instances, whereas us as players love to drill down into the very nitty gritty number crunching. I think the former is fine for designing a game, and if PP perceive 10 Marauder lists becoming a problem (like the Kharchev Mad Dog lists) then they will address it.
I listened to an interview Pagani gave soon after starting to work at PP and he said that he got to explore massive Excell sheets with a lot of number crunching. Not sure which podcast it was...
Just to make the point that the final decisions seem to be holistic but at some point in time design includes number crunching.
Too bad they could not number crunch that:
105/7 = 15 15*31 = 465 465 + 34 = Probably too many!!!!
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 7, 2017 14:18:03 GMT
Then state that rather than beating around the bush and muddying up the discussion with nonessential stuff. Ok. Can I then ask that we 1) forget meaningless cross-faction comparisons, because Khador apparently being meant to do lots of damage to Huge bases is no indication any other given faction is meant to be able to do the same; 2) dispense with the senseless "this is out of line for a model of that cost" arguments since lots of models (including a certain journeyman) have abilities few or no others of similar cost have; and 3) instead of quibbling about cost and haggling over points talk about value - arguing that 10 Marauders in a list is too much but 9 is acceptable is a much more meaningful argument than "this is worth x amount of points pretty much because I say so" - instead? 1. I haven't made any meaningless cross faction comparisons. I have made meaningful cross faction comparisons. Since every faction uses the same resource then you can compare models in a nuanced way across faction. So far the Marauders weakness of 'being slow' is very easily compensated for in the Khadoran faction. 2. "This is out of line for a model of its cost" isn't senseless at all and that cost combines points as well as other factors such as availability. Junior is powerful, but at least there can only be one of him. 3. I don't get your last point at all. I don't care about lists that spam 10 marauders because those lists are garbage. I care about lists which try to be balanced but the marauder is simply the best choice over and over again. You are trying to stop debate by saying that you don't like certain arguments and then trying to make fun of them. Just stop. Anyway, mods should probably nuke this thread. Everything that needs to be said has been said.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 7, 2017 14:25:48 GMT
1. I haven't made any meaningless cross faction comparisons. I have made meaningful cross faction comparisons. Since every faction uses the same resource then you can compare models in a nuanced way across faction. So far the Marauders weakness of 'being slow' is very easily compensated for in the Khadoran faction. That's pretty arbitrary of you since I could also say something like "Well Cygnars flaw of being Fragile is compensated by being Cygnar, so please nerf!". I consider your arguments pretty arbitrary and based on if its cygnarian or not.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Jul 7, 2017 14:28:36 GMT
1. I haven't made any meaningless cross faction comparisons. I have made meaningful cross faction comparisons. Since every faction uses the same resource then you can compare models in a nuanced way across faction. So far the Marauders weakness of 'being slow' is very easily compensated for in the Khadoran faction. That's pretty arbitrary of you since I could also say something like "Well Cygnars flaw of being Fragile is compensated by being Cygnar, so please nerf!". I consider your arguments pretty arbitrary and based on if its cygnarian or not. No need to make it personal, of course. Saying "Khador Jack's weakness is that they are slow and require focus" while ignoring that all but 3 Khadoran casters and the Khadoran Junior have threat extenders (some of which stack) and the faction has access to 2 Empowers is not a nuanced statement. It is about reasonableness.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jul 7, 2017 15:19:18 GMT
No need to make it personal, of course. Saying "Khador Jack's weakness is that they are slow and require focus" while ignoring that all but 3 Khadoran casters and the Khadoran Junior have threat extenders (some of which stack) and the faction has access to 2 Empowers is not a nuanced statement. It is about reasonableness. 1) I think every faction has, to some degree, lost the flaws we (audience) see as their flaw. I for a while though Khador's flaw was meant to be slow. I have since learned the lesson this is not the case. We cannot clear definely the role and weakness of the factions at this point since there are so many diverse models and casters than in one way or another break said molds. 2) minor thing. " that all but 3 Khadoran casters and the Khadoran Junior have threat extenders" Andrei 1 has redline which is +2 str and spd. That's a threat extension. 3) I'ma refrain from flipping out but you guys told me that you can't compare Junior and cygnar jacks to other factions because it wasn't fair because it's cross faction and this and that don't line up. But now it's all that you want to do? I'm not calling you out. It's not my business. but still...Da'fuq.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 7, 2017 15:31:26 GMT
Saying "Khador Jack's weakness is that they are slow and require focus" while ignoring that all but 3 Khadoran casters and the Khadoran Junior have threat extenders (some of which stack) and the faction has access to 2 Empowers is not a nuanced statement. It is about reasonableness. And then discussing singular Warjacks and then bringing Warcasters into the equation is not reasonable. It's then also not nuanced to not talk about how different factions DO get better deals on stuff when they give up other things. Then its also not reasonable to say stuff is balanced because it has counters, and then asking for those counters to be removed.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Jul 7, 2017 19:02:34 GMT
I haven't made any meaningless cross faction comparisons. I have made meaningful cross faction comparisons. There are very few cross-faction comparisons that are actually meaningful. I can't think of any off of the top of my head, but none have come up here so far (Yes, I've read all 32 pages). Most cross-faction comparisons are 'grass is greener' syndrome, they only see the best that a particular model has to offer and often ignore the drawbacks.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 7, 2017 19:14:15 GMT
I haven't made any meaningless cross faction comparisons. I have made meaningful cross faction comparisons. There are very few cross-faction comparisons that are actually meaningful. I can't think of any off of the top of my head, but none have come up here so far (Yes, I've read all 32 pages). Most cross-faction comparisons are 'grass is greener' syndrome, they only see the best that a particular model has to offer and often ignore the drawbacks. I completely disagree. Comparing cross-faction isn't just a matter of straight one to one comparison, it's definitely a holistic exercise in assessing the tools a faction brings to the table along with the models in question, but by and large it's perfectly possible to do. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to identify relative power levels across factions at all. If Grymkin are released, and it turns out S+M is a P+S 19 ARM 20 beast with SPD 7 and bone picker for 14 points, but it's balanced against the cage rager and the other Grymkin options, you'd have no basis for calling it OP (though it absolutely would be.) sometimes the best comparison that can be made is between two choices with similar roles in different factions. Comparing the Marauder to other cheap beaters is a perfectly fair way to analyse the marauder's effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jul 7, 2017 19:15:06 GMT
Personally, I think cross-faction comparisons are good to get conversation going. It's good that the unforeseen drawbacks are brought into the discussion to find out if they are actually meaningful or actually do little to hinder operation of a model or rule.
At this point, as someone else has already stated, most everything that would be worth discussing has been discussed, so I think we can just let this thread rest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 7, 2017 19:17:59 GMT
Saying "Khador Jack's weakness is that they are slow and require focus" while ignoring that all but 3 Khadoran casters and the Khadoran Junior have threat extenders (some of which stack) and the faction has access to 2 Empowers is not a nuanced statement. It is about reasonableness. And then discussing singular Warjacks and then bringing Warcasters into the equation is not reasonable. It's then also not nuanced to not talk about how different factions DO get better deals on stuff when they give up other things. Then its also not reasonable to say stuff is balanced because it has counters, and then asking for those counters to be removed. Look, I'm totally with you on Octavius' tendency towards flagrant Cygnar-centric bias, but I feel like you tend to be the same towards Khador stuff. Would Juggernauts not be taken at 13 points? Would Marauders not be taken at 11 without siege weapon? I doubt it. They'd be a bit less spammable, and in the case of the Marauder, they wouldn't have the ability to hit WAAAY above their weight class (please remember that AS Stormwall/Hurricane is right at the top-end of huge base survivability, and it's just as egregious when a 10 point jack can delete a Storm Raptor, a Hyperion, or a Hydra.)
|
|