|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 17, 2017 14:39:47 GMT
On the Cygnar themes: Storm Division has actually become reasonably diverse. Storm Blades actually show up in lists now. And the Storm Strider is doing great. If Storm Smiths and Storm Guard got some fixes, it would be a really diverse theme force. It is taken pretty exclusively for the free points. Advance move on the blades is nice, and electric immunity for a handful of models is fun, but those are not enough to make people play the theme. Heavy Metal is diverse. People take different load outs of jacks. You can use a variety of strong colossals, heavies, lights, and a Battle Engine. Sword Knights show up rarely because they die like flies. Giving up the fourth free solo is not the issue with them. It's that jacks are better than fragile infantry. Their stock might be going up with the new scenario rules, of course. The bonuses of Heavy Metal are very nice. Extra deployment is super good, and repo 3 on solos has really impressed me. Sons of the Tempest is not diverse because there are like only 3 arcane tempest units and a tiny handful of solos. That's also why it's pretty weak. Gravediggers should have lots of good builds to match with casters. The bonuses are solid. I think the free points in Cygnar's themes are their main draw. But I don't think the problem with units that don't show up is having to give up some points. Dropping a single solo to make the list more versatile is usually acceptable. The main issue has been that those options are kinda weak. Storm division is one of the best designed themes in this regard. It gives bonuses to the models it wants to promote while leaving the window open for as diverse a selection from that subset as possible. I'll strongly disagree that sword knights are a fragile infantry. Especially if we now get Ruhpert available to them. Two full units staggered with Ruhpert and Jr. giving the lead group tough and +3 arm and Maddox doing the same for the second would be a completely viable list build if it wasn't for the fact you'd be giving up about 8 points of free models to do so. That makes the entire package way over costed. Individual model power is a completely separate issue from over all theme mechanics though. Try to look at it this way though, how much worse does sons of the tempest look when you have to give up one of your free solos just to be able to include the hammer dwarves you need for armor cracking. Isn't that even worse than just being able to say "well I can do all that in HM while still getting +16 free points so why would I even consider Sons?" Son's can actually have play. It just takes a bigger jack load out to do so. Too bad that costs the theme its biggest benefit. Sword knights are fragile. If they need +3 arm and tough to have a chance at getting down field, they're fragile. I use them regularly, but they need a lot of support, and jacks are more durable and reliable. SotT is too restrictive. I wouldn't need to give up a solo to bring hammer dwarves though. Running 40 points of gun mages is plenty. 60 would be ludicrous. You'd need Tempest Blazers, 2 units of pistoleers, B13, 2 Adepts. And the most you get is 2 riflemen and a CA. And, weirdly, you actually can squeeze 2 units of Sword Knights and Rhupert into a Maddox heavy metal list, and still get 3 free solos. After the 30 points on those guys, you have exactly 75 points for jacks. I see your point, but those aren't the best examples. Some themes should be opened up regarding which models count for free points, and which models can be free. But I think it's a matter of individual theme balancing.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jul 17, 2017 14:47:03 GMT
maximize my free points from the theme force - Free points are the main selling factor of themes over vanilla lists These two bits are you're problem. 1 - Maximizing free points should, by design, restrict your list building capability. That's how the theme is balanced. The biggest complaint right now is the few theme lists that allow "maximum free points" when taking the "models you want to take anyways". It's seen as unbalanced because the theme does not restrict the choices "appropriately" enough when building a list. 2 - Nowhere has it ever been stated that the selling point of themes is free points. Look at Jaws; the free points are far less important that the enemy AD removal. WGK at release was more powerful because of the advanced move. Tracker in Wild Hunt is far more valuable than a free reeve hunter. And so on. in short - If you are playing themes solely for free points; you're going to have a bad time.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Jul 17, 2017 15:26:17 GMT
And then there are Cygnar themes with free Squire, Strangeways and Junior (yes, not in SotT, I know, but nobody plays it). It depends on the theme.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jul 17, 2017 16:11:40 GMT
Do you not in any way see how denying a list points for deviating from the standard norm as being actively discouraging to experimentation though? A disclaimer: I think building to maximize free stuff is a very mediocre way of building lists. Instead of getting the most free stuff, we should be looking at meaningful interactions between our choices, which is why I think the many flavors of WGK and Jaws lists work. Ultimately I think it boils down to a player's attitude, perception and expectations. Anybody that builds to maximize points is expecting an advantage just by virtue of the amount of free stuff he gets. The only problem I see is when some model choices don't count towards free points when they should, like Fenblades for example (this of course, in my opinion). And certainly the point already mentioned of "Reward you for taking stuff you were going to take anyway".
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jul 17, 2017 16:36:11 GMT
Do you not in any way see how denying a list points for deviating from the standard norm as being actively discouraging to experimentation though? A disclaimer: I think building to maximize free stuff is a very mediocre way of building lists. Instead of getting the most free stuff, we should be looking at meaningful interactions between our choices, which is why I think the many flavors of WGK and Jaws lists work. You're correct that is a mediocre way of building lists, BUT the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can build lists that maximize free points while building meaningful interactions in many of the theme forces. Removing the specific model requirement for free points allows the others to do that as well thus leveling the playing field. Seems like Khador and to a lesser extent Cygnar are the outliers here though. Probably because they have at least two very functional theme forces each. In Khador's case the third, Legion of Steel, practically builds it self with the free model generating stuff you want anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 17, 2017 16:44:03 GMT
Seems like Khador and to a lesser extent Cygnar are the outliers here though. Probably because they have at least two very functional theme forces each. In Khador's case the third, Legion of Steel, practically builds it self with the free model generating stuff you want anyway. Also Retribution. Imbalanced themes has more to do with the choices inside the themes, not the themes themselves.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 17, 2017 17:01:00 GMT
Seems like Khador and to a lesser extent Cygnar are the outliers here though. Probably because they have at least two very functional theme forces each. In Khador's case the third, Legion of Steel, practically builds it self with the free model generating stuff you want anyway. Also Retribution. Imbalanced themes has more to do with the choices inside the themes, not the themes themselves. I'm not sure I see any real problems with Ret themes, unless the notion is that they should be stronger than going vanilla.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 17, 2017 17:09:58 GMT
Also Retribution. Imbalanced themes has more to do with the choices inside the themes, not the themes themselves. I'm not sure I see any real problems with Ret themes, unless the notion is that they should be stronger than going vanilla. I don't either. I meant to say that its not just such a limited time to work.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jul 17, 2017 20:21:16 GMT
Rhoven certainly has his place in the Creator's Might armies. In fact I think he adds a lot of value wherever a vulnerable caster runs a warjack gunline. I consider those 9pts well spent in those cases.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Jul 18, 2017 4:28:34 GMT
When posting responses please remember a couple of assumptions: - Themes are the defacto way to play the game and there needs to be a benefit to push them over vanilla lists - Free points are the main selling factor of themes over vanilla lists - The point is to try and allow some lesser used models shine in their respective themes even if they're not the main focus of those themes - List diversity is a good thing I'm afraid that like several other people, I think your assumptions are wrong. If we accept the free points assumption, your proposal is perhaps sensible. But that assumption is not sound. I think that the free points might be the main benefit in some themes, but definitely not all. Going from themes I know relatively well: Winterguard Kommand - I've happily run this with 28 points of WG models, which gives 4 free points, rather than the maximum, and I frequently don't take Mortars as the free points, despite that being the route to maximisation. I like the Advance Move rule more (Khador jacks are slow!), and the sac pawn benefit can be useful for some casters, although it's harder to use with some casters than you might think. I'd probably run the theme without the free points. Legion of Steel - with some casters, I actually find I struggle to use the free points, as they end up conflicting with the FA of the possible free models. I still run the list, taking the Advance Move and especially the counter-charge. Kingmaker - depends on the caster. With Damiano I see opponents trying to maximise free points, sometimes playing with the list to do that - but Damiano is a units focused caster in any case. But with Magnus2 the choice to go in theme seems much more dependent on whether an opponent wants a cloud wall (which I think is a good benefit for Magnus2, against some lists). What is clear is that for both these casters, the availability of Trencher Infantry (a good and flexible unit) is seen as a major theme benefit. Hammerstrike - Ossrum only, and rarely maximising free points. The benefits are really increasing the speed of Rhulic jacks via reposition and the increased deployment. By contrast, I generally do take Jaws of the Wolf with an eye to the free points. Often only 2 solos though - going to 75 points of jacks is too restrictive with some casters. Removing AD can be very powerful against some lists, but against others it has no effect at all (same sort of issue as lightning immunity from Storm Division) - taking the theme for that benefit isn't enough in itself. If the proposal proceeds from flawed assumptions, it will be flawed. The real issue is that some themes don't provide very useful benefits other than free solos/UAs. That might be OK, provided they can get those free models more easily than some themes which also provide good benefits. A blanket proposal therefore doesn't really work. The concern here is really just that some themes are better designed than others. Maximising free points for all themes doesn't solve that, but it might exacerbate the difference between the theme forces with good alternative benefits (which would also get the maximised free points) and those without (who still lack benefits compared to better designed themes). This proposal doesn't address that discrepancy at all. As for using lesser-used models, WM/Hordes has always had that problem. I'm a big advocate of WGI (without rockets!) in WGK with some casters. I've seen nasty things done with Sword Knights in Heavy Metal with Stryker2, especially against opponents who don't plan for much infantry in a jack/beast-heavy meta. One or two MAT10 POW12 Weapon Masters can make a big difference. SR2017 might make a difference to this (one reason the game needs to be thought of as a whole, rather than separating list-building rules from it). Finally, in terms of themes being the de facto way to play the game, that looks increasingly so. But only with casters who work well in themes. I still wheel out a Kozlov list I'm happy with that isn't themed at all. It works fairly well. Not A+, but solid and reliable - the type of list I think has game into pretty much anything (other than incorporeal heavy). I don't think Kozlov has yet got a really good theme. I also start to wonder if having two theme lists in a pair might become an issue - one reason Ghost Fleet has been such an issue is that many theme lists really struggle to handle incorporeal models. If other kinds of themes appear which many opposing themes cannot handle, it may become more sensible to have one theme list and one non-themed list in a pair, with the non-themed built to handle the weaknesses of a faction's themes. Alternatively, as more themes emerge, it may be that lesser-used models will find a better place in a second theme - a Morrowan theme list might give nice buffs to Sword Knights, for example (Blessed and/or magical Weapons? Can take the Precursor UA?). At present we haven't seen all the themes, which makes it difficult to predict how this will pan out.
|
|
kaos
Junior Strategist
Posts: 268
|
Post by kaos on Jul 18, 2017 7:51:22 GMT
I don't like the free point perk in theme armies. In wh40k they had this and was a utterly disaster. I like it more when I get some cool rules to counterbalance the fact my choices are more limited. Infact some themes like jaws are a bit disappointing because what you usually get is a +8 points on your list in form of greylord solos (points you will never spend if they were not free).
I was expecting some cool wj abilities and instead got this. Mehhhhh.
|
|