Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Jul 11, 2017 21:42:02 GMT
You missed some if you were going for "all" but I get the point. What we don't get - Saxxon, Pendrake, Dahlia, Hutchuck, Alten, Brun, Lanyssa (duh), Orrin, Raluk, Efaarit Scouts, River raiders (though does that one even matter?), Cylena, Dannon and bull, Geygore, and Lynus+Edrea. Some of those are huge game changers. Yes the BEs are better now and they do have a niche to fill. The non character solos do have some use but not nearly as powerful as the characters. The units are passable. I'm not saying we can't find something in minions. But the powerhouses are denied to us. Saxxon making swordsmen pathfinder. Would you not like have that tool in the tool set? I could list my distaste for everything we do have access to in minions. I have tons of fun running them with Gators but few have any place in my Legion lists. I will use the Bokor, but that's not because he is great. It's because our in faction shield guard option is too expensive. Yea and we don't get Rhupert or Gorman or Eiryss either, but I don't worry about what I don't have and instead look at what I do have. In legion's case it's not a whole lot. WE&SJ and maybe Brigands? Little else is really a big deal. I'd personally like it if it wasn't restricted by number of options, because then I could take a pair of gremlin swarms again, but that's not the case.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jul 11, 2017 21:50:47 GMT
Well i don't agree that sub-declining pieces into bite sized balanced "themes" is the only solution, but as i lack a better one to proffer, and its the direction the game is going in, then it is what it is. As i mentioned, my opinion hardly matters anymore as i'm no longer the target audience.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 21:57:45 GMT
Themes could do all they're meant to do without being so good as to eclipse non-themed lists. That's my personal gripe: I see no benefit whatsoever to wanting themes to be the dominant to the point of being the default way of building lists. I don't mind theme forces as a concept, in fact I think they could be good for the game. The current implementation makes that wishful thinking, however. I think I didn't explain my point. PP HAS to push towards Themes because UNLESS they're willing to rotate old stuff out (which I don't think they are, not just yet) balancing around Non-Themes is/will be unmanageable. At least this is my working hypothesis I disagree. Very little of what's broken as the result of a combo (the only thing themes can even fix) is even remotely complex, so catching these problems doesn't involve complicated balancing mechanisms; just fix one or two of the broken models involved. Most of it has to do with a caster or warlock too, and those are 99% unrestricted with regards to themes so far. So at the top end, themes don't help keep things from getting out of hand. And at the bottom end, if PP wants to make models that get competed out of the rotation by other, better models interesting by using themes as a sort of demarcation line it doesn't matter if themes are default way of building lists. What matters is that every theme is valid enough to be up for consideration. A bar that PP fails to clear so far, if I even need to point that out. Let me put it another way: in a year or two we'll probably be looking at 2-digit numbers of theme forces for each faction. At that point each faction effectively has 10+ themes competing with each other, and with vanilla lists. Two points. First, this means that aside from model balance PP now also has to worry about theme balance especially if vanilla is not supposed to be valid. Any models not corresponding to a valid theme will effectively be benched permanently, whereas they could otherwise still have a chance in vanilla. Second, if vanilla is competing with 10+ theme forces and everything is roughly equally competitive, vanilla lists likely won't make up a very large percentage of what gets played on average anyway: there's no need to push vanilla over theme anyway if there are so many valid themes to choose from. People will choose if they want to play a theme and which one based on the models they want to play.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 11, 2017 22:27:12 GMT
I think I didn't explain my point. PP HAS to push towards Themes because UNLESS they're willing to rotate old stuff out (which I don't think they are, not just yet) balancing around Non-Themes is/will be unmanageable. At least this is my working hypothesis I disagree. Very little of what's broken as the result of a combo (the only thing themes can even fix) is even remotely complex, so catching these problems doesn't involve complicated balancing mechanisms; just fix one or two of the broken models involved. Most of it has to do with a caster or warlock too, and those are 99% unrestricted with regards to themes so far. So at the top end, themes don't help keep things from getting out of hand. And at the bottom end, if PP wants to make models that get competed out of the rotation by other, better models interesting by using themes as a sort of demarcation line it doesn't matter if themes are default way of building lists. What matters is that every theme is valid enough to be up for consideration. A bar that PP fails to clear so far, if I even need to point that out. Let me put it another way: in a year or two we'll probably be looking at 2-digit numbers of theme forces for each faction. At that point each faction effectively has 10+ themes competing with each other, and with vanilla lists. Two points. First, this means that aside from model balance PP now also has to worry about theme balance especially if vanilla is not supposed to be valid. Any models not corresponding to a valid theme will effectively be benched permanently, whereas they could otherwise still have a chance in vanilla. Second, if vanilla is competing with 10+ theme forces and everything is roughly equally competitive, vanilla lists likely won't make up a very large percentage of what gets played on average anyway: there's no need to push vanilla over theme anyway if there are so many valid themes to choose from. People will choose if they want to play a theme and which one based on the models they want to play. If there's 10+ themes per faction, there won't be any models without a theme.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 22:45:33 GMT
I disagree. Very little of what's broken as the result of a combo (the only thing themes can even fix) is even remotely complex, so catching these problems doesn't involve complicated balancing mechanisms; just fix one or two of the broken models involved. Most of it has to do with a caster or warlock too, and those are 99% unrestricted with regards to themes so far. So at the top end, themes don't help keep things from getting out of hand. And at the bottom end, if PP wants to make models that get competed out of the rotation by other, better models interesting by using themes as a sort of demarcation line it doesn't matter if themes are default way of building lists. What matters is that every theme is valid enough to be up for consideration. A bar that PP fails to clear so far, if I even need to point that out. Let me put it another way: in a year or two we'll probably be looking at 2-digit numbers of theme forces for each faction. At that point each faction effectively has 10+ themes competing with each other, and with vanilla lists. Two points. First, this means that aside from model balance PP now also has to worry about theme balance especially if vanilla is not supposed to be valid. Any models not corresponding to a valid theme will effectively be benched permanently, whereas they could otherwise still have a chance in vanilla. Second, if vanilla is competing with 10+ theme forces and everything is roughly equally competitive, vanilla lists likely won't make up a very large percentage of what gets played on average anyway: there's no need to push vanilla over theme anyway if there are so many valid themes to choose from. People will choose if they want to play a theme and which one based on the models they want to play. If there's 10+ themes per faction, there won't be any models without a theme. Valid theme. As in, competitively relevant. PP will need to balance 10 themes within a faction, as well as against every theme in every other faction. Models in themes that are not up to snuff will otherwise not get played. I don't think this will make the whole balancing act any simpler than it otherwise would be.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 11, 2017 22:55:37 GMT
If there's 10+ themes per faction, there won't be any models without a theme. Valid theme. As in, competitively relevant. PP will need to balance 10 themes within a faction, as well as against every theme in every other faction. Models in themes that are not up to snuff will otherwise not get played. I don't think this will make the whole balancing act any simpler than it otherwise would be. If the models aren't "valid" in theme, they probably weren't so out of theme.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 11, 2017 23:25:22 GMT
PP will need to balance 10 themes within a faction, as well as against every theme in every other faction. Models in themes that are not up to snuff will otherwise not get played. I don't think this will make the whole balancing act any simpler than it otherwise would be. In two more years each faction should have around 10 more entries, 2 more casters and a small contingent of merc options. The thing is, balancing 10 themes against each other is way easier than balancing 10+ new models in the most relevant permutation that they can be taken. That's my point, it may not be a problem now, but it will be a problem eventually (extrapolating from other games that do need to rotate stuff out to maintain a healthy meta). PP is future proofing the game somewhat by basing the game balance on a macro-level around themes instead of a micro-level around the hundreds of ways each individual model could be abused. Admittedly pure conjecture on my part (about PPs intentions), but I can definitely see the benefit going forward on pushing for 100% themes if maintaining an eternal SKU list is a goal. Ironically, of anything ever gets nerfed in the future it's because it broke the game outside of theme
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 11, 2017 23:30:41 GMT
I definitely like their most recent version. Each theme will have its own parameters on what merc models can be included. By the look of it, most themes will have the option to include one merc/minion unit, solo, and BE. But in some cases it will be more/less restrictive.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 23:41:39 GMT
Valid theme. As in, competitively relevant. PP will need to balance 10 themes within a faction, as well as against every theme in every other faction. Models in themes that are not up to snuff will otherwise not get played. I don't think this will make the whole balancing act any simpler than it otherwise would be. If the models aren't "valid" in theme, they probably weren't so out of theme. It's the theme that needs to be valid in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Jul 11, 2017 23:41:50 GMT
The big issue here is the asymmetry that it introduces. I made a big post on this in CID, but to whit: - it's more of a buff to WM than Hordes, because Mercs and better than Minions (and especially Merc solos are better than Minion Solos) - it's more of a buff to factions with good access to mercs and minions than ones that don't (so Khador and Cygnar benefit most of all...yay.) - it's more of a buff to factions with multiple good theme lists than ones with 1 or 0 good themes - it's more of a buff to themes that key off of units for free points than 'keyword X models/units' which is weird and arbitrary. Feels like a case of the rich getting richer, and the poor staying dirt poor. It could be a surprise, but this time I totally agree with you. The change is bonkers for some lists, adds disparity (ex. Convergence will get 0 from this, Cygnar, Khador and Menoth a lot), and some models will outright break some lists (WE&SJ I'm looking at you). It will also be the final and definitive death of any out of theme option, despite what they wrote. If they wanted a theme centric meta with very very few out-of-theme armies around, we already had it. Now with mercs included into themes the option of building out of theme is totally death, decomposed, and dispersed to the wind. Finally, I find weird to be able to put Sylis or Gallant in every list, but I can't put a GMCA or Ol'Rowdy. Isn't it weird? At this point, they could as well just say "One non-theme model/unit (mercs included) is allowed" and call it a day... I don't see why I should see more Precursors and Steelheads into a Trencher list than Gun Mages or Storm Knights... And for the final insult, you know who can't take Mercenaries and Minions that would normally be forbidden in their theme forces? dogganm Mercenaries and Minions, that's who. I mean, a sudden and near-total release drought to go with the start of Mk3, and now this. Troll and Protectorate players pay attention, this is what it looks like when PP actually does hate your faction.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 11, 2017 23:47:12 GMT
PP will need to balance 10 themes within a faction, as well as against every theme in every other faction. Models in themes that are not up to snuff will otherwise not get played. I don't think this will make the whole balancing act any simpler than it otherwise would be. In two more years each faction should have around 10 more entries, 2 more casters and a small contingent of merc options. The thing is, balancing 10 themes against each other is way easier than balancing 10+ new models in the most relevant permutation that they can be taken. That's my point, it may not be a problem now, but it will be a problem eventually (extrapolating from other games that do need to rotate stuff out to maintain a healthy meta). PP is future proofing the game somewhat by basing the game balance on a macro-level around themes instead of a micro-level around the hundreds of ways each individual model could be abused. Admittedly pure conjecture on my part (about PPs intentions), but I can definitely see the benefit going forward on pushing for 100% themes if maintaining an eternal SKU list is a goal. Ironically, of anything ever gets nerfed in the future it's because it broke the game outside of theme Either I'm not getting you, or I disagree again. I suppose it starts with what level of balance we're talking about. Is this about game balance to keep the factions competitively matched? Or model balance in function of keeping everything sellable? I don't think I'll agree with you either way, but it helps to know we're in the same discussion.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 12, 2017 0:37:29 GMT
Either I'm not getting you, or I disagree again. I suppose it starts with what level of balance we're talking about. Is this about game balance to keep the factions competitively matched? Or model balance in function of keeping everything sellable? I don't think I'll agree with you either way, but it helps to know we're in the same discussion. Ok, good question. Let me see if I can try to explain. In the long run it's about giving each model a place in lists while keeping Factions competitively matched without the need of going into the micro-level of balancing each model. If that makes sense. For example imagine that some day we get a second junior with Dead Eye as a spell, but instead of being typed as a Winter Guard he is typed as a Greylord for the Greylord theme. Suddenly we have a pretty cool new guy to play with that we don't have to worry about in WGK, and who cares if he's a bit bonkers in vanilla lists anyway? If you couldn't subdivide the factions into Themes the Greylord Junior wouldn't be able get made because of #designspace limitations and certain interactions would be very hard to foresee. Eventually, in order to make new stuff, you have to take old stuff out. You wouldn't want Joe running around in the same list as the Greylord Junior for example, so you either encourage players to pick a Theme (assuming the Theme is on par or better than any permutation of Dead Eye + Joe) or rotate Joe out of standard play. By making Theme lists the Primary (and eventually default way) of making and balancing lists, you can have interesting models with new abilities that are just limited to a subset of the faction and still keep old ones relevant.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 12, 2017 1:33:54 GMT
Either I'm not getting you, or I disagree again. I suppose it starts with what level of balance we're talking about. Is this about game balance to keep the factions competitively matched? Or model balance in function of keeping everything sellable? I don't think I'll agree with you either way, but it helps to know we're in the same discussion. Ok, good question. Let me see if I can try to explain. In the long run it's about giving each model a place in lists while keeping Factions competitively matched without the need of going into the micro-level of balancing each model. If that makes sense. For example imagine that some day we get a second junior with Dead Eye as a spell, but instead of being typed as a Winter Guard he is typed as a Greylord for the Greylord theme. Suddenly we have a pretty cool new guy to play with that we don't have to worry about in WGK, and who cares if he's a bit bonkers in vanilla lists anyway? If you couldn't subdivide the factions into Themes the Greylord Junior wouldn't be able get made because of #designspace limitations and certain interactions would be very hard to foresee. Eventually, in order to make new stuff, you have to take old stuff out. You wouldn't want Joe running around in the same list as the Greylord Junior for example, so you either encourage players to pick a Theme (assuming the Theme is on par or better than any permutation of Dead Eye + Joe) or rotate Joe out of standard play. By making Theme lists the Primary (and eventually default way) of making and balancing lists, you can have interesting models with new abilities that are just limited to a subset of the faction and still keep old ones relevant. Ok. Here's the thing: in order for WG Joe to stay relevant and for GL Joe to be relevant, there's no need for theme forces in general to be 95% of the lists played. What's needed is that the theme forces they are in are both competitively relevant. PP doesn't have to artificially make theme forces a 95% option: if all of them are roughly equal as well as equal with vanilla, they will all get played roughly equally frequently (the player's decision becomes based on preference and probably on pairing requirements). If we have 9 themes and vanilla, that probably means about 10% for each, though in such an evenly balanced utopia maybe vanilla gets played a bit more. Vanilla will not overshadow themes in that situation though, unless everything also gets balanced on a per model basis: with the more spotty balance between models players who want to play models that need a theme boost will play in theme. Designspace is not a concern as long as themes are competitively valid, they don't have to be the (vastly) prefered option for this. The possibility of overpowered combos (in this case having both Joes in the same list) is a more interesting topic, but the first thing to remark is that PP has explicitly said theme forces should never be required. Vanilla has to exist as an option, so if such a combo is a bit bonkers in vanilla PP apparently should care anyway. There are other solutions than pushing themes to keep the Joes from teaming up though: an Animosity-like restriction on New Joe, for instance. Or a Deadeye version that doesn't stack with speeches, so you can take them both but they couldn't buff the same unit at the same time. Either way, no need to artificially push for 95% theme force acceptance. Aside from the above, there's the issue of warnouns. Themes tend to allow all non-characters or at least all non-characters with some kind of common quality, but usually no characters unless bonded: that runs counter to the whole designspace goal. The non-characters will fit in many themes, even more so if they are similar in function, so giving two similar jacks each a theme to give them both a place in lists doesn't really work. At the same time characters, if vanilla is not an option, get tied to a specific caster or warlock which is bad for their sales. Trying to push out vanilla is simply a bad practice in this regard. Again, I have no problem with theme forces in concept (although I have some issues with the current implementation) and I agree they can help create designspace. What I disagree is the notion that vanilla needs to disappear for that to work. Furthermore, taking vanilla out of the equation requires theme balance to be spot on or the models associated with the lesser themes will be all but useless competitively. Vanilla lists might give them a second chance (though obviously no guarantee). Vanilla is a design buffer.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Jul 12, 2017 2:56:53 GMT
It could be a surprise, but this time I totally agree with you. The change is bonkers for some lists, adds disparity (ex. Convergence will get 0 from this, Cygnar, Khador and Menoth a lot), and some models will outright break some lists (WE&SJ I'm looking at you). It will also be the final and definitive death of any out of theme option, despite what they wrote. If they wanted a theme centric meta with very very few out-of-theme armies around, we already had it. Now with mercs included into themes the option of building out of theme is totally death, decomposed, and dispersed to the wind. Finally, I find weird to be able to put Sylis or Gallant in every list, but I can't put a GMCA or Ol'Rowdy. Isn't it weird? At this point, they could as well just say "One non-theme model/unit (mercs included) is allowed" and call it a day... I don't see why I should see more Precursors and Steelheads into a Trencher list than Gun Mages or Storm Knights... And for the final insult, you know who can't take Mercenaries and Minions that would normally be forbidden in their theme forces? dogganm Mercenaries and Minions, that's who. I mean, a sudden and near-total release drought to go with the start of Mk3, and now this. Troll and Protectorate players pay attention, this is what it looks like when PP actually does hate your faction. I'll call giving another faction full access to all your units and beasts IN THEME is even worse... Minions beat Mercs by far on being hated, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jul 12, 2017 4:15:55 GMT
Skorne gets Rage and Primal animi in theme and in "faction" with the Blackhide Wrastler and Battle Boar. Yeah I totally want to see that in their book of spells. But it does at least force another choice between that and Rush. That animus is still a thorn in their sides. But who the heck counts as a "paingiver" warlock? I mean I expect Xekaar but is this a situation where they have to go in and edit the warlocks to add said keyword that's not there? [side note: pissed off again. As a Minion player this time though. Though think of the destruction possible with those animi in Legion ]
|
|