|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 17, 2017 23:58:05 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot.
Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities.
PP is smart to not nerf bat them with a dynamic update. (What happened to Una2 and the Mad Dog was excessive. I would gladly see them redesigned. )
Dynamic updates were brought into use before the CID was in use. It should now only be used for absolute emergencies (Some game breaking model combo made it through CID without being noticed). Now we should use the CID as a way to test out new model designs without knee-jerk 2-in-1 nerfs on the dynamic update.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517 
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Jul 18, 2017 5:24:45 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot. Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities. One might think this would be a good way to use battlegroup points. Adjusting stronger casters to simply get less stuff in their army without changing them seems completely reasonable to me. How would it affect the powerhouses of the game to lose 5 points? How would it affect the weakest casters to see 5 more? 10 more? On the other hand, Pp has never done anything that even remotely sounds like they can do this deftly. Wargroup points are given out almost randomly it seems. Also... I'm not sure we really need wargroup specific points anyway. Seems that a general level of parity has been reached that you would take something in most lists regardless. You can always specify a rule like Jr's have. You MUST take s jack/beast. |
|
benkei
Junior Strategist
Posts: 244
|
Post by benkei on Jul 18, 2017 6:43:21 GMT
Since the release of mk3 I get the feeling PP has been improvising its way forward and this kind of decisions only cement that opinion, they really don't seem to have a clear view of what they want to do with their game, and half their decisions seem half assed patches with a faint odor of desperation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jul 18, 2017 6:49:49 GMT
One might think this would be a good way to use battlegroup points. Adjusting stronger casters to simply get less stuff in their army without changing them seems completely reasonable to me. How would it affect the powerhouses of the game to lose 5 points? How would it affect the weakest casters to see 5 more? 10 more? On the other hand, Pp has never done anything that even remotely sounds like they can do this deftly. Wargroup points are given out almost randomly it seems. Also... I'm not sure we really need wargroup specific points anyway. Seems that a general level of parity has been reached that you would take something in most lists regardless. You can always specify a rule like Jr's have. You MUST take s jack/beast. Denny 1 has just enough WJ points for 2 nodes and 2 Stalkers or 1 Leviathan which is pretty perfect for her to then take exactly 60 points of pirates and a Wraith Engine. If she were to lose 1 WJ point I think it would shake up her list a bit, but it would settle down rather quickly. For instance, you could just take a Desecrator or Inflictor (making it harder to assassinate her) for a heavy or go with 1 Stalker and a third arc node. She could also choose to lose the third solo or the Wraith Engine, though I think the most tweaking will be in the battle group. Having Haley 2 lose 1 point would make her lose the fourth solo in heavy metal. I'm not sure how much she would mind that, because the fourth one is usually "because I can" in my experience. It's worth noting that this would only affect both these casters' current popular builds and might break something else, so it's not to be advised. On the topic of random WJ points, I don't really understand why Karchev has 30 while literally being a (powerful) heavy himself, but oh well. Stormsmith Dropout FWIW, I think Haley 3 is indeed well designed as a caster, though maybe slightly too strong. +2 DEF for everything, making the two Incorporeal projections DEF 18 while also being able to overboost the power field on top of projecting -2 DEF to everything, is very hard for some lists to deal with, at least on a turn to turn basis, because you really need to kill them each turn. And that's not even taking the +2 DEF on all the other stuff into account. I agree it would be difficult to get her just right if she were up for a rebalance though, so it's probably better to leave her as is. Also, I agree that we shouldn't be haggling about nerfs here, it doesn't serve any purpose, PP is not reading this and literally just said that they will likely not nerf anything else for a while. Since the release of mk3 I get the feeling PP has been improvising its way forward and this kind of decisions only cement that opinion, they really don't seem to have a clear view of what they want to do with their game, and half their decisions seem half assed patches with a faint odor of desperation. They definitely know where they want to go with the game, they're just not sure what the best way to get there is, so they are adjusting as they go. There's a big difference. It's not that they're not thinking things through, it's that they keep coming up with better ideas based on how the public reacts to them. Would it really be better to stick with a bad idea just because you said so? Command books would've been horrible for instance and would feel like pure money grabbing if there was nothing in them but pretty pictures and some ret-conned fluff, so they did away with them to fit more into the dynamic nature of the current game. |
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jul 18, 2017 6:58:38 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot. Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities. PP is smart to not nerf bat them with a dynamic update. (What happened to Una2 and the Mad Dog was excessive. I would gladly see them redesigned. ) Dynamic updates were brought into use before the CID was in use. It should now only be used for absolute emergencies (Some game breaking model combo made it through CID without being noticed). Now we should use the CID as a way to test out new model designs without knee-jerk 2-in-1 nerfs on the dynamic update. That's really not true, at least insofar as Haley2 goes. She could have her feat gain a caveat (LOS, shakeable, etc,) she could swap TK for a spell that gives a 3" push on an enemy model...lots of things. |
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Jul 18, 2017 7:44:41 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot. Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities. One might think this would be a good way to use battlegroup points. Adjusting stronger casters to simply get less stuff in their army without changing them seems completely reasonable to me. How would it affect the powerhouses of the game to lose 5 points? How would it affect the weakest casters to see 5 more? 10 more? On the other hand, Pp has never done anything that even remotely sounds like they can do this deftly. Wargroup points are given out almost randomly it seems. Also... I'm not sure we really need wargroup specific points anyway. Seems that a general level of parity has been reached that you would take something in most lists regardless. You can always specify a rule like Jr's have. You MUST take s jack/beast. Well yes, dropping Haley2 by 1 Battle group point is such an elegant fix.
For those unaware she would have a total of 99 points available meaning she loses out on 1 free solo in heavy metal.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Jul 18, 2017 7:45:54 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot. Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities. PP is smart to not nerf bat them with a dynamic update. (What happened to Una2 and the Mad Dog was excessive. I would gladly see them redesigned. ) Dynamic updates were brought into use before the CID was in use. It should now only be used for absolute emergencies (Some game breaking model combo made it through CID without being noticed). Now we should use the CID as a way to test out new model designs without knee-jerk 2-in-1 nerfs on the dynamic update. That's really not true, at least insofar as Haley2 goes. She could have her feat gain a caveat (LOS, shakeable, etc,) she could swap TK for a spell that gives a 3" push on an enemy model...lots of things. I very much agree with you. Solutions seem really obvious and simple.
I'd personally get rid of Field Marshall: Future Sight and I'd have a serious look at Thorn who is half the problem in my humble opinion.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Jul 18, 2017 7:58:12 GMT
One might think this would be a good way to use battlegroup points. Adjusting stronger casters to simply get less stuff in their army without changing them seems completely reasonable to me. How would it affect the powerhouses of the game to lose 5 points? How would it affect the weakest casters to see 5 more? 10 more? On the other hand, Pp has never done anything that even remotely sounds like they can do this deftly. Wargroup points are given out almost randomly it seems. Also... I'm not sure we really need wargroup specific points anyway. Seems that a general level of parity has been reached that you would take something in most lists regardless. You can always specify a rule like Jr's have. You MUST take s jack/beast. Denny 1 has just enough WJ points for 2 nodes and 2 Stalkers or 1 Leviathan which is pretty perfect for her to then take exactly 60 points of pirates and a Wraith Engine. If she were to lose 1 WJ point I think it would shake up her list a bit, but it would settle down rather quickly. For instance, you could just take a Desecrator or Inflictor (making it harder to assassinate her) for a heavy or go with 1 Stalker and a third arc node. She could also choose to lose the third solo or the Wraith Engine, though I think the most tweaking will be in the battle group. Having Haley 2 lose 1 point would make her lose the fourth solo in heavy metal. I'm not sure how much she would mind that, because the fourth one is usually "because I can" in my experience. It's worth noting that this would only affect both these casters' current popular builds and might break something else, so it's not to be advised. On the topic of random WJ points, I don't really understand why Karchev has 30 while literally being a (powerful) heavy himself. You're talking about a point or two here or there. I'm saying that if we're attempting to balance casters, then WJP can be a stronger tool than it currently is. For instance; Haley2 has 25 WJP and is considered quite strong. Sturgis1 has 30. This supposedly balances some of the deficit in strength between them. But 5 more points barely moves the scale between them. So say H2 moved to 20 WJP and Sturgis1 to 35. Now how do you feel about it? He's literally bringing another heavy to the field vs what she does. Suddenly they're not soo unevenly comparable. Those are the sort of changes I am imagining. What's better, that sort of thing could be easily addressed through CiD where all you were testing was the changing WJP values. |
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jul 18, 2017 8:58:02 GMT
I cannot agree.
A warcaster unit that has 2 incorporeal models that buffs itself to DEF 18 and can stack an upkeep on top of that is not reasonable. On top of that those models contest and come into play as incorporeal DEF 16+ ARM14 with 4 focus and can be brought into play at will.
While the idea of time based recursion is cool the implementation is not good. The recursion aspect failed in mk3 so the central concept is a dud. The DEF buff/debuff is hugely powerful spell, the lists focus on DEF stack, Assassination with not 1 but 2 Force hammers arced at MA 6 and 10 (with reroll) plus whatever can be brought to bear namely 4 shots from within the unit... Repudiate and domination just to make sure control is there and a pesky upkeep cannot be brought to bear. Cramming enought to tools to make playing a caster a player challenge is not enough to make me think good design.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jul 18, 2017 9:16:18 GMT
I cannot agree.
A warcaster unit that has 2 incorporeal models that buffs itself to DEF 18 and can stack an upkeep on top of that is not reasonable. On top of that those models contest and come into play as incorporeal DEF 16+ ARM14 with 4 focus and can be brought into play at will.
While the idea of time based recursion is cool the implementation is not good. The recursion aspect failed in mk3 so the central concept is a dud. The DEF buff/debuff is hugely powerful spell, the lists focus on DEF stack, Assassination with not 1 but 2 Force hammers arced at MA 6 and 10 (with reroll) plus whatever can be brought to bear namely 4 shots from within the unit... Repudiate and domination just to make sure control is there and a pesky upkeep cannot be brought to bear. Cramming enought to tools to make playing a caster a player challenge is not enough to make me think good design.
If you think Def 18 arm 17 is not reasonable as a defensive stat, then have a go at Karchev, arm 19 against ranged, 21 against melee, with 34 boxes. Haley 3 is fine, strong, but fine, stop complaining, or must everything in this game be different shades of meh and vanilla? |
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Jul 18, 2017 9:20:35 GMT
Incorporeal contesting Echos with effective 18/22 are an issue. Other than that she's a very well designed caster.
|
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Jul 18, 2017 9:49:30 GMT
If you think Def 18 arm 17 is not reasonable as a defensive stat, then have a go at Karchev, arm 19 against ranged, 21 against melee, with 34 boxes. Haley 3 is fine, strong, but fine, stop complaining, or must everything in this game be different shades of meh and vanilla?
DEF is a stat that goes from useless to broken very very fast. Needing 18 (RAT + DICE) to hit before terrain with most ranged attacks on a recursing incorporeal model is not reasonable, needing a POW+Dice of 24 (ARM 24+5 life+1 focus) is also not trivial. Must everything revolve around KD?
Haley3 is very interesting, the time recursion is cool and the echoes are a bit too anime for me but they are a good idea. Unfortunately, on the table what all I see is lucricous stats, no recursion and thorn running around throwing force hammers around. Very inventive, very new.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jul 18, 2017 11:18:37 GMT
If you think Def 18 arm 17 is not reasonable as a defensive stat, then have a go at Karchev, arm 19 against ranged, 21 against melee, with 34 boxes. Haley 3 is fine, strong, but fine, stop complaining, or must everything in this game be different shades of meh and vanilla?
DEF is a stat that goes from useless to broken very very fast. Needing 18 (RAT + DICE) to hit before terrain with most ranged attacks on a recursing incorporeal model is not reasonable, needing a POW+Dice of 24 (ARM 24+5 life+1 focus) is also not trivial. Must everything revolve around KD?
Haley3 is very interesting, the time recursion is cool and the echoes are a bit too anime for me but they are a good idea. Unfortunately, on the table what all I see is lucricous stats, no recursion and thorn running around throwing force hammers around. Very inventive, very new.
I guess I just don't see a warcaster unit being hard to kill as a problem, like I said, we could make everything vanilla, but that is not fun.
I agree that Haley 3 does not utilise recursion that often, but that is because Revive is still Cost 3 for some inexplicable reason!
edit: just wanted to expand on the point of being hard to shoot, should Barnabas lose swamp pit? should Winter Guard Command lose Sac Pawn? this things exist, you just have to deal with them |
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 18, 2017 11:19:40 GMT
Haley2 being reduced in power level (without becoming trash) at this point would require her being torn down and rebuilt completely. I am not opposed to that, but it will require a concerted effort from PP, and a CID cycle to boot. Haley3 is one of the best designed casters PP has ever put out. Similar to H2, any change in power level for her should be accomplished with a complete overhaul of abilities. PP is smart to not nerf bat them with a dynamic update. (What happened to Una2 and the Mad Dog was excessive. I would gladly see them redesigned. ) Dynamic updates were brought into use before the CID was in use. It should now only be used for absolute emergencies (Some game breaking model combo made it through CID without being noticed). Now we should use the CID as a way to test out new model designs without knee-jerk 2-in-1 nerfs on the dynamic update. That's really not true, at least insofar as Haley2 goes. She could have her feat gain a caveat (LOS, shakeable, etc,) she could swap TK for a spell that gives a 3" push on an enemy model...lots of things. I think all of those suggestions, which I have seen before, are very poor fixes. As I said, I want a full redesign. Haley2's feat will never be weakened enough to not be complained about. It should just be changed to something entirely different. |
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jul 18, 2017 11:20:27 GMT
Other than making (some) of the models with Ghost Shot free, Ghost Fleet does nothing for Ghost Shot. The theme makes the list better of course, but you can play a similar list with just as much Ghost Shots out if theme if you want. So... why is this combo overdue for a change? Not specifically Fleet + Ghost shot. Just Ghost shot. It isn't played anywhere else except Fleet because why do that, but it's still a stupid ability. They nerfed Eyeless sight exactly because it ignored too many rule pages for free and Reclaimer got nerfed exactly because his assassination was ridiculously long and potent. Ghost shot combines both of those. Make it non-warcaster so pirate rifleman still can ping away solos and UAs and be done with it. |
|
