|
Post by gobber on Jul 20, 2017 21:59:03 GMT
just confirmed that trollkin Sorcerers, their WA, can have wounds passed to them through the bond (and is a known and entirely purposeful part of why they think sanguine bond will help the unit.) I'm obviously missing something, how does passing wounds onto the Sorcerer help the unit? I mean besides eating shots meant for a Champion. I think that's it. More tough models to pass wounds to potentially multiple times. ...If you really want to abandon logic, you can attach three sorcerers & skaldi to a unit at which point it is 48hp/9 models/30pts?
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Jul 20, 2017 22:11:26 GMT
You can have up to 15 non important wounds per unit, for 6 extra points.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Jul 20, 2017 22:23:22 GMT
*9 points, 3 points per sorc.
|
|
|
Post by dmorktry on Jul 20, 2017 22:54:31 GMT
Wait, could you explain further? I think I have a vague idea as to what you're explaining but I really only paid attention to PPS statements during the MK3 faction insiders. Trying to isolate the quote broke it, the statement on them not respecting each other's playtest rules and Soles' bush comment
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jul 20, 2017 23:03:31 GMT
Wait, could you explain further? I think I have a vague idea as to what you're explaining but I really only paid attention to PPS statements during the MK3 faction insiders. there was a whole thread about it here, but to recap very quickly: Jason Soles wrote the no quarter entry for the exemplar theme. It was 1 1/2 pages about how great double vengers under kreoss 3 are when put in a forest and then given battle driven by an opponent that failed to actually kill more than one or two. Bastions and Cinerators were addressed as awesome under VOJ in the last 3 sentences and IIRC no other exemplar, tactic, warcaster, theme benefit, combo, or model was even addressed. It left a sour taste in our mouths for sure. The thread got locked, I think, for attacking Soles after a few pages, but my personal issue was this: given how it was written, someone at PP, when facing double vengers in forests, gave them battle driven instead of hanging outside their vastly reduced range and scoring or something, and this tactic was apparently reliable enough that it was the only thing worth writing about instead of being a gotcha that only happens once or twice, or with a particularly lucky terrain setup and opposing army. EDIT: went looking for the thread, here it is: lormahordes.freeforums.net/thread/1218/exemplar-theme-force-strategy-writtenTurns out a lot of that stuff WAS addressed, upon re-reading the NQ, but the article was really about the Vengers, so much so that I honestly forgot the rest. Lets not get hung up on all that here.
|
|
|
Post by dmorktry on Jul 21, 2017 0:03:13 GMT
Ohhhhkay, that's making more sense. As much as the CID helps this, I wonder if PP's vision for the game is just too separated from where people who play WM/H competitively want the game to be. CID players can offer as many suggestions as they want but if they don't line up with the visions, goals, or egos of the staff then it's useless. It's still early on but from my observation, CID just prevents things from being stupid broken, not necessarily well or cohesively designed.
It would be really interesting if the Champions kept SB and the Sorcerer "band-aid" fix, it'd basically just be telling us SB by itself is pretty useless. The exemplar theme is eventually actually going through CID, correct? I thought I heard that somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Jul 21, 2017 2:06:49 GMT
Snaquine bond is theoretically useful on Champions against jacks. Taking a pow 19 they can use Sanguine Bond and survive on a 7 or less. It's like having to kill a third Troll when swinging at 2 that they would normally kill on a 4. Throw in Def 14, Tough, and Steady and it could be very hard to properly allocate focus against them. Sure, they could both pop against a jack with only a Power Up focus, or they could both survive. Certiainly a boost in survival. Bastions clearly need help without all the extrarules.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jul 21, 2017 3:24:30 GMT
Just the fact that champions have one more def and tough make them greatly more survivable than bastions.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jul 21, 2017 3:45:01 GMT
Ohhhhkay, that's making more sense. As much as the CID helps this, I wonder if PP's vision for the game is just too separated from where people who play WM/H competitively want the game to be. CID players can offer as many suggestions as they want but if they don't line up with the visions, goals, or egos of the staff then it's useless. It's still early on but from my observation, CID just prevents things from being stupid broken, not necessarily well or cohesively designed. It would be really interesting if the Champions kept SB and the Sorcerer "band-aid" fix, it'd basically just be telling us SB by itself is pretty useless. The exemplar theme is eventually actually going through CID, correct? I thought I heard that somewhere. Yes, exemplars will hit cid. Not for several months at least though and the exact timeline was not specified. IIRC it was rumored late fall, but i don't know where that idea came from.
|
|
Alealexi
BattleBox Champ
Burning heritecs and wracking as always... it's a personal hobby.
Posts: 55
|
Post by Alealexi on Jul 21, 2017 5:47:16 GMT
Ohhhhkay, that's making more sense. As much as the CID helps this, I wonder if PP's vision for the game is just too separated from where people who play WM/H competitively want the game to be. CID players can offer as many suggestions as they want but if they don't line up with the visions, goals, or egos of the staff then it's useless. It's still early on but from my observation, CID just prevents things from being stupid broken, not necessarily well or cohesively designed. It would be really interesting if the Champions kept SB and the Sorcerer "band-aid" fix, it'd basically just be telling us SB by itself is pretty useless. The exemplar theme is eventually actually going through CID, correct? I thought I heard that somewhere. Yes, exemplars will hit cid. Not for several months at least though and the exact timeline was not specified. IIRC it was rumored late fall, but i don't know where that idea came from. I will have a guess and say that our CID will not happen till next year for exemplar or Zealots/deliverers.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Jul 21, 2017 7:12:00 GMT
I am sorry to hear that.... Although I was hate Bastions in MKII, but they don't deserve such fate. Isn't the nerfs they are already suffered enough for them? And simply make a better unit in the game? Huh?
The funny thing is Trollkin Champions are not so good unit either.
|
|
|
Post by dicebedamned on Jul 21, 2017 12:52:57 GMT
It all comes back to the same point; the issue with heavy infantry is they (mostly) only have 5 boxes... None of our heal mechanics work well on them because they are dead before we get a chance to heal. 8 boxes wasn't what made for MMM lists, the interactions with the rules did.
PP, just call a heavy inf CID already, give them all 8 wounds (those who had 8 in MK3 can get 10 or something), then clap yourself on the back for 'listening to the community'.
|
|
|
Post by gargs454 on Jul 21, 2017 14:45:54 GMT
Yeah I don't think the devs have quite yet figured out the issues with healing mechanics. I think they thought, for instance, that the Vessel getting a heal mechanic would suddenly make Cinnies and Bastions playable, but if that were the case, you'd already have been seeing them played with Tristan2. They haven't quite figured out that the real issue is that the models are dead before they can be healed. If Sanguine Bond simply prevented damage, as opposed to spreading it out, it could, in theory, work -- assuming it prevented enough damage, but a three inch range damage spread just isn't likely to help all that much. I still feel they need to re-inspect how they, themselves paly the game. Time and again it seems to me as though they don't respect each other's rules in playtesting and so easy to avoid gotchas start taxing units or even entire themes/factions (see: Jason Soles' exemplar theme tactics thread: put the horses in the bushes). I think that its perhaps a bit simpler than merely "not respecting each other's rules". Personally, I think that there are two things at play here. 1). They simply don't have enough play testers available for all the models and rules interactions in the game. With a limited number of testers, there's only so much testing that can actually be done. This is what lead to the whole #ThreeYearsofPlaytesting outcry. I think they probably did, technically, play test for three years. But look at what they had to play test. 12 factions (13 if you assume Grymkin were in development already). Plus how many models within each faction -- keeping in mind many models which were released in the last year were no doubt included in said testing. There was just no way they were going to get the necessary table time internally to fully test each model. Rather, they likely envisioned a particular use for said model and ran a few games with it in said use, but didn't consider "Hey, Errants seem ok in this particular set up, but would Idrians be better?" This leads to the second point which is that the problem with having Devs do the playtesting is that they likely already have an idea for how they think a particular model is supposed to be used, so they tend to just merely look at that particular use and not look at "Would something else work better? Or better yet, will something else pretty much always work better?" I think we saw this with the VoJ and Cinnies/Bastions. In the final update in CID they asked us to specifically test the VoJ with Cinnies/Bastions. They didn't go so far as to ask us to also test it with Harby, but I kind of think that may have been the underlying issue. "Dude, you kept nuking my Bastions, I spread some of the damage around, then Harby martyred the dead ones back. Then on my turn VoJ healed them and the Bastion Senny healed them and Dude, they are all at full health! Take that!" What they failed to realize was that at that point it didn't really matter if they had 5 boxes or just 1. They were only alive because Harby said so, and Harby didn't really care about overflow damage. But, it fit their "vision" of how these models would work and they seemed to be working really well because they were all still at full health, even though the real issue was Harby, not the VoJ or the Cinnies/Bastions. You even saw it in the VoJ thread on CID. People were saying the heal was over powered because the Bastions/Cinnies kept coming. But in every case, the caster was Harby and they were only healed because Harby had martyred. You see this a lot in RPGs too. Devs release a new item or ability and within minutes, somebody has "broken" it on the internet because the devs had not considered said item or ability when combined with several other items and abilities. Rather, it was considered in light of its "intended" function. Its really just a matter of numbers. There is actually also a final consideration. The devs, who also do a lot of the playtesting, are constantly working under a variety of rules variations as models are continually looked at and new rules/editions are developed. This leads them to often times get the rules mixed up or simply forget a rule (perhaps because they are currently working on a version of said model that doesn't have the current rule, etc.). On top of this, they are also likely far from the greatest players of the game skill wise simply because they don't get enough table time in. I could see this being how Soles' hide your vengers in a forest trick ended up working. He does it (either intentionally or not) and then his opponent forgot, or simply didn't know, the rule and suddenly Soles has a great "Gotcha!" moment. This is "great" in groups where you don't play often, but if you have a weekly group or club, its simply not going to get you very far. Maybe you win a game once because of it, but that's going to be about it.
|
|
Alealexi
BattleBox Champ
Burning heritecs and wracking as always... it's a personal hobby.
Posts: 55
|
Post by Alealexi on Jul 21, 2017 15:44:57 GMT
I still feel they need to re-inspect how they, themselves paly the game. Time and again it seems to me as though they don't respect each other's rules in playtesting and so easy to avoid gotchas start taxing units or even entire themes/factions (see: Jason Soles' exemplar theme tactics thread: put the horses in the bushes). I think that its perhaps a bit simpler than merely "not respecting each other's rules". Personally, I think that there are two things at play here. 1). They simply don't have enough play testers available for all the models and rules interactions in the game. With a limited number of testers, there's only so much testing that can actually be done. This is what lead to the whole #ThreeYearsofPlaytesting outcry. I think they probably did, technically, play test for three years. But look at what they had to play test. 12 factions (13 if you assume Grymkin were in development already). Plus how many models within each faction -- keeping in mind many models which were released in the last year were no doubt included in said testing. There was just no way they were going to get the necessary table time internally to fully test each model. Rather, they likely envisioned a particular use for said model and ran a few games with it in said use, but didn't consider "Hey, Errants seem ok in this particular set up, but would Idrians be better?" This leads to the second point which is that the problem with having Devs do the playtesting is that they likely already have an idea for how they think a particular model is supposed to be used, so they tend to just merely look at that particular use and not look at "Would something else work better? Or better yet, will something else pretty much always work better?" I think we saw this with the VoJ and Cinnies/Bastions. In the final update in CID they asked us to specifically test the VoJ with Cinnies/Bastions. They didn't go so far as to ask us to also test it with Harby, but I kind of think that may have been the underlying issue. "Dude, you kept nuking my Bastions, I spread some of the damage around, then Harby martyred the dead ones back. Then on my turn VoJ healed them and the Bastion Senny healed them and Dude, they are all at full health! Take that!" What they failed to realize was that at that point it didn't really matter if they had 5 boxes or just 1. They were only alive because Harby said so, and Harby didn't really care about overflow damage. But, it fit their "vision" of how these models would work and they seemed to be working really well because they were all still at full health, even though the real issue was Harby, not the VoJ or the Cinnies/Bastions. You even saw it in the VoJ thread on CID. People were saying the heal was over powered because the Bastions/Cinnies kept coming. But in every case, the caster was Harby and they were only healed because Harby had martyred. You see this a lot in RPGs too. Devs release a new item or ability and within minutes, somebody has "broken" it on the internet because the devs had not considered said item or ability when combined with several other items and abilities. Rather, it was considered in light of its "intended" function. Its really just a matter of numbers. There is actually also a final consideration. The devs, who also do a lot of the playtesting, are constantly working under a variety of rules variations as models are continually looked at and new rules/editions are developed. This leads them to often times get the rules mixed up or simply forget a rule (perhaps because they are currently working on a version of said model that doesn't have the current rule, etc.). On top of this, they are also likely far from the greatest players of the game skill wise simply because they don't get enough table time in. I could see this being how Soles' hide your vengers in a forest trick ended up working. He does it (either intentionally or not) and then his opponent forgot, or simply didn't know, the rule and suddenly Soles has a great "Gotcha!" moment. This is "great" in groups where you don't play often, but if you have a weekly group or club, its simply not going to get you very far. Maybe you win a game once because of it, but that's going to be about it. I actually mentioned this very same thing about how everyone was only running harby with the bastions during the CID. I asked everyone to run it without her and many said they never would because they will just die without engaging the enemy models. No one even tried to run the bastions/cinerators with the VoJ with another caster. As you said, many called the healing overpowered when you can do the same with out the battle engine under harby.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jul 21, 2017 15:48:04 GMT
I think that its perhaps a bit simpler than merely "not respecting each other's rules". Personally, I think that there are two things at play here. 1). They simply don't have enough play testers available for all the models and rules interactions in the game. With a limited number of testers, there's only so much testing that can actually be done. This is what lead to the whole #ThreeYearsofPlaytesting outcry. I think they probably did, technically, play test for three years. But look at what they had to play test. 12 factions (13 if you assume Grymkin were in development already). Plus how many models within each faction -- keeping in mind many models which were released in the last year were no doubt included in said testing. There was just no way they were going to get the necessary table time internally to fully test each model. Rather, they likely envisioned a particular use for said model and ran a few games with it in said use, but didn't consider "Hey, Errants seem ok in this particular set up, but would Idrians be better?" This leads to the second point which is that the problem with having Devs do the playtesting is that they likely already have an idea for how they think a particular model is supposed to be used, so they tend to just merely look at that particular use and not look at "Would something else work better? Or better yet, will something else pretty much always work better?" I think we saw this with the VoJ and Cinnies/Bastions. In the final update in CID they asked us to specifically test the VoJ with Cinnies/Bastions. They didn't go so far as to ask us to also test it with Harby, but I kind of think that may have been the underlying issue. "Dude, you kept nuking my Bastions, I spread some of the damage around, then Harby martyred the dead ones back. Then on my turn VoJ healed them and the Bastion Senny healed them and Dude, they are all at full health! Take that!" What they failed to realize was that at that point it didn't really matter if they had 5 boxes or just 1. They were only alive because Harby said so, and Harby didn't really care about overflow damage. But, it fit their "vision" of how these models would work and they seemed to be working really well because they were all still at full health, even though the real issue was Harby, not the VoJ or the Cinnies/Bastions. You even saw it in the VoJ thread on CID. People were saying the heal was over powered because the Bastions/Cinnies kept coming. But in every case, the caster was Harby and they were only healed because Harby had martyred. You see this a lot in RPGs too. Devs release a new item or ability and within minutes, somebody has "broken" it on the internet because the devs had not considered said item or ability when combined with several other items and abilities. Rather, it was considered in light of its "intended" function. Its really just a matter of numbers. There is actually also a final consideration. The devs, who also do a lot of the playtesting, are constantly working under a variety of rules variations as models are continually looked at and new rules/editions are developed. This leads them to often times get the rules mixed up or simply forget a rule (perhaps because they are currently working on a version of said model that doesn't have the current rule, etc.). On top of this, they are also likely far from the greatest players of the game skill wise simply because they don't get enough table time in. I could see this being how Soles' hide your vengers in a forest trick ended up working. He does it (either intentionally or not) and then his opponent forgot, or simply didn't know, the rule and suddenly Soles has a great "Gotcha!" moment. This is "great" in groups where you don't play often, but if you have a weekly group or club, its simply not going to get you very far. Maybe you win a game once because of it, but that's going to be about it. I actually mentioned this very same thing about how everyone was only running harby with the bastions during the CID. I asked everyone to run it without her and many said they never would because they will just die without engaging the enemy models. No one even tried to run the bastions/cinerators with the VoJ with another caster. As you said, many called the healing overpowered when you can do the same with out the battle engine under harby. Not quite: the "full HP reset" actually matters once the bastions are stuck into non-weaponmaster troops. it's rather unlikely to have to martyr them much after that. Of course, that still restricts their use heavily, but now that ghost fleet and trenchers are a thing it does work.
|
|