|
Post by Aegis on Aug 18, 2017 20:17:46 GMT
I don't understand why they would make themes that combine two separate elements. If Cygnar ends up with a Trencher theme, and a Trencher + Gun Mage theme, and a Trencher + Storm Guy theme, and all the other combinations, what the hell is the point of themes? Just pick the one that fits the army you were going to make anyway. Themes are the primary way to play; that sucks, but whatever. Either they make themes that encompass all possible combinations of models (in which case, why not just not have themes), or you can't effectively play parts of your collection together. How the hell is Heavy Metal supposed to be a generic faction theme? It is an explicitly limited selection of models, grouped for a specific purpose ("besiege fixed positions or to meet concentrations of enemy armor and heavy infantry"). It even says in the description of the theme, "Cygnar generally prefers a combined-arms approach to conflict". So this group of models, which is not in line with the conventional approach of the Cygnaran army, is the generic faction theme? I see them release something for Mercenaries which alleviates most of my problems with theme forces, and then they say "Don't worry, we aren't going to do that for any other faction". In fact the big error was/is to make playing out of theme practically impossible. If themed armies were as viable as un-themed armies, we wouldn't have all these problems. Sure, making a "generic" theme that lets you play anything inside "solves" the problem, but is a really ankward way to do so... It's like if PP one day came up and said "every model gets +5 ARM", then realizes that the change would unbalance the game, and so "resolves" the issue it just created herself by saying "but every damage roll gets a +5 bonus", instead of removing the original inbalance...
|
|
|
Post by nightdragon on Aug 18, 2017 21:24:21 GMT
In fact the big error was/is to make playing out of theme practically impossible. If themed armies were as viable as un-themed armies, we wouldn't have all these problems. Sure, making a "generic" theme that lets you play anything inside "solves" the problem, but is a really ankward way to do so... It's like if PP one day came up and said "every model gets +5 ARM", then realizes that the change would unbalance the game, and so "resolves" the issue it just created herself by saying "but every damage roll gets a +5 bonus", instead of removing the original inbalance... I agree, but it's pretty obvious that theme forces are here to stay. I'd rather have an awkward imperfect fix than no fix at all. Unfortunately seems like that won't be coming.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 18, 2017 21:27:35 GMT
We also have to remember that the game can never be finished. It may seem pointless to say that every model gets +5 ARM, and then later gets +5 damage. But those things are new rules for the game. PP have to keep releasing new rules for the game in order to keep fans interested. Maybe they have decided that just new models aren't enough. That's why they made themes, so they have new rules that they can just keep pumping out endlessly. And these are rules we will be talking about and that will keep interest in the game alive. I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 18, 2017 21:27:53 GMT
What thematic justification? The entire basis of this thread was someone talking to Will Hungerford about stuff and said that they make theme decisions more based off fluff than mechanics... I've been calling bullshit with this example for awhile now and finally someone showed me this screen grab text from a Iron Kingdom text that proves my point that there's no thematic reason why Bokur is not in the irregular theme. Try to keep up. Chill, bubba. I never saw any thematic justification, which is why I asked. The bokur's fluff isn't anything new. The only thing from PP I've seen so far is that they want character solos, for whatever reason.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 18, 2017 22:14:01 GMT
The entire basis of this thread was someone talking to Will Hungerford about stuff and said that they make theme decisions more based off fluff than mechanics... I've been calling bullshit with this example for awhile now and finally someone showed me this screen grab text from a Iron Kingdom text that proves my point that there's no thematic reason why Bokur is not in the irregular theme. Try to keep up. Chill, bubba. I never saw any thematic justification, which is why I asked. The bokur's fluff isn't anything new. The only thing from PP I've seen so far is that they want character solos, for whatever reason. The bokur's fluff basically says he'd work for literally any of those character solos though. Maybe make it so he can only be the client of a character solo and not a caster for this list?
|
|
doopsie
Junior Strategist
Posts: 341
|
Post by doopsie on Aug 18, 2017 22:58:27 GMT
What we have been calling "Jack Themes" Will Called a "generic theme" because to him, it represent the "Generic" Force that a faction may send out against an opponent without a specific target in mind (The massive battle scenes of Fluff don't accurately represent this), a patrol force for example. And this again makes sense. Just the Iron Kingdoms are known for employing Warjacks and would likely employ the mobile tanks that are warjacks+Common stuff to quickly quell problems that may be in their nation. Remember that to us, we only witness Equal sized battles, when employing a larger force to quell a smaller insurrection with decisive force with minimal casualties is a strategy on its own, and thats easier to rally with just some coal in a burner and a warcaster as opposed to Infantry forces that require way more logistsics, and likely to take more casualties and less intimidating. This to me explains the Cryx "Jack Force" Despite it not being dependant on Jacks for free stuff. Its not a "Jack Force" its a GENERIC force from Cryx. Same for all the other "Jack" themes. And when thinking about it, it made sense in my mind of what a Faction would regularly deploy to deal with its own "Generic" issues and how each "Generic" theme changes depending on the internal faction logic. So this is the part I have the biggest problem with. To my recollection, pretty much every faction with warjacks considers them a precious resource, not to be squandered. Khador has enough trouble making cortexes that they have restricted themselves to only making heavy warjacks to decrease the chances of losing a cortex in battle, Protectorate has to smuggle cortexes in because they simply can't, or don't, make them, and Retribution only has, to my knowledge, two houses that make cortexes, out of about 12 militant houses. As such, warjacks aren't just sitting around at a garrison, but constantly moving to the front lines. Warcasters are the same. However, infantry is VERY common. Protectorate has zealots freaking everywhere, Khador has a winterguard garrison in every town, Steelheads are known to have a chapter in every major town, and Retribution has every house fielding a houseguard compliment. So when something occurs that requires a military response, it seems far more likely that the initial response will be comprised of the militia-level infantry, as those are the ones on site. The warjacks and warcasters would have to be redirected, as they are to precious to sit around waiting and far too few to be present in every town, which would take time. For an fluff-example, when Skorne took down whatever gate it was they took down by dropping a mammoth on it when attacking Ios, the defenders were primarily Houseguard, with a smattering of Stormfall Archers, a few warjacks, and a low-level warcaster. Neither the defenders, nor the follow-up, was a force comprised solely of Shyeel warjacks, lead by Shyeel mages (which is the Ret "jack theme," which is apparently supposed to be considered the generic force?), as they had no reason to be near the gate and don't have the numbers to be everywhere at once. For a real-world comparison, if (random country choice #5) were to invade St. George's Island (30-45 min from Tallahassee, FL), the immediate response would not be a full-blown army division with M1A1-Abrams, stealth fighters and a 5-star general commanding, it'd be the troops and 1-2 APC from the National Guard Armory in Tallahassee. As such, I am of the opinion that, if the intent of a "generic" list is to represent the immediate military response to an incursion, it should be the light infantry-based (Winterguard, Houseguard, Zealots, Longgunners/Trenchers, Steelheads) theme.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 18, 2017 23:18:07 GMT
To my recollection, pretty much every faction with warjacks considers them a precious resource, not to be squandered. The warjacks and warcasters would have to be redirected, as they are to precious to sit around waiting and far too few to be present in every town, which would take time. I feel like the one exception to this is mercenaries (particularly dwarves and pirates), where the combat jacks also serve as laborjacks. They're certainly still expensive and not to be tossed away, but because of said expense they need to keep pulling their weight outside of combat. At least in the pirate/human merc cases they'd be nearly constantly with their warband (just remove the saddlebags and they're ready for combat), and the dwarves would just need to call them from the nearest dig site.
|
|
|
Post by skittles on Aug 18, 2017 23:22:58 GMT
The "standard" engagement in the IK wouldn't have a warcaster either.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Aug 18, 2017 23:46:02 GMT
The "standard" engagement in the IK wouldn't have a warcaster either. You are correct. And the standard engagement with a Warcaster involved would include a good number of Jacks.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 19, 2017 0:02:32 GMT
Chill, bubba. I never saw any thematic justification, which is why I asked. The bokur's fluff isn't anything new. The only thing from PP I've seen so far is that they want character solos, for whatever reason. The bokur's fluff basically says he'd work for literally any of those character solos though. Maybe make it so he can only be the client of a character solo and not a caster for this list? Then we're back to changing the theme force. Which I'm all for, but without knowing why PP wants a "character solos only" restriction, be it fluff or otherwise, I don't see what arguments we can use. I don't see how it could be fluff, so I doubt a fluff argument would carry any weight.
|
|
|
Post by gobber on Aug 19, 2017 0:27:36 GMT
The bokur's fluff basically says he'd work for literally any of those character solos though. Maybe make it so he can only be the client of a character solo and not a caster for this list? Then we're back to changing the theme force. Which I'm all for, but without knowing why PP wants a "character solos only" restriction, be it fluff or otherwise, I don't see what arguments we can use. I don't see how it could be fluff, so I doubt a fluff argument would carry any weight. Then we argue for inclusion of the Bokur in the specifically-named list like the Tinker. Maybe they're planning powerful non-character buff solos for Rhul and steelheads?
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Aug 19, 2017 7:39:41 GMT
Someone in the Merc forums has found evidence that completely blows their "thematic" justification out the window for not allowing the bokur. Your move PP... I could work round this fairly easily. I don't think the Bokur fluff is quite so simple as: While some Ogrun will serve anyone (and the need to serve appears to be biological, at least according to the Thagrosh book), there are also warnings about serving dishonorable masters (Gudrun's fluff describes him as being used as a warning to other Ogrun). The Irregulars theme force includes a fair number of disreputable characters, ranging from casters (Madhammer and Magnus) through units (Croe's, Alexia1) and solos (Midwinter, Kell Bailoch, Ragman, Alexia2). It isn't an horrendous stretch to present this theme force as one which most Ogrun seeking a Korune would avoid, as there are too many potentially bad masters/Korune - even if not looking for a Korune, it might not be a good step in impressing a desirable Korune to say "yes, I was a bodyguard for that notorious Inquisitor, torturer and supporter of a tyrant, Orin Midwinter" or "Sure, I worked for a probably insane Necromaner. But who hasn't?". While some Ogrun will work for such employers, most will take warnings to heart and not do so. As a theme force meant to represent a more 'typical' merc force made up of unusual characters, Ogrun might avoid it.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 19, 2017 11:11:38 GMT
Someone in the Merc forums has found evidence that completely blows their "thematic" justification out the window for not allowing the bokur. Your move PP... I could work round this fairly easily. I don't think the Bokur fluff is quite so simple as: While some Ogrun will serve anyone (and the need to serve appears to be biological, at least according to the Thagrosh book), there are also warnings about serving dishonorable masters (Gudrun's fluff describes him as being used as a warning to other Ogrun). The Irregulars theme force includes a fair number of disreputable characters, ranging from casters (Madhammer and Magnus) through units (Croe's, Alexia1) and solos (Midwinter, Kell Bailoch, Ragman, Alexia2). It isn't an horrendous stretch to present this theme force as one which most Ogrun seeking a Korune would avoid, as there are too many potentially bad masters/Korune - even if not looking for a Korune, it might not be a good step in impressing a desirable Korune to say "yes, I was a bodyguard for that notorious Inquisitor, torturer and supporter of a tyrant, Orin Midwinter" or "Sure, I worked for a probably insane Necromaner. But who hasn't?". While some Ogrun will work for such employers, most will take warnings to heart and not do so. As a theme force meant to represent a more 'typical' merc force made up of unusual characters, Ogrun might avoid it. They work for cryx so.... everything you just said is invalid. They'll literally work for undead necromancers trying to destroy the world.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Aug 19, 2017 12:19:22 GMT
They work for cryx so.... everything you just said is invalid. They'll literally work for undead necromancers trying to destroy the world. Massive over-simplification of the fluff. Cryx has its own society of Ogrun from the Scharde islands in the Black Ogrun (a point explicitly noted in the Bokur fluff that was posted earlier). Those are not the same (at least culturally, which is what is important here) as the Ogrun wandering around western Immoren, who will have closer ties to Rhul (either directly or via the Rhulic enclaves) and are those likely to be represented in an army of Western Immorese mercenaries as seen in the Irregular theme force. But acknowledging that would make a theme force, I don't know, thematic, rather than fitting into a list you want to build.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 19, 2017 13:54:54 GMT
Someone in the Merc forums has found evidence that completely blows their "thematic" justification out the window for not allowing the bokur. Your move PP... I could work round this fairly easily. I don't think the Bokur fluff is quite so simple as: While some Ogrun will serve anyone (and the need to serve appears to be biological, at least according to the Thagrosh book), there are also warnings about serving dishonorable masters (Gudrun's fluff describes him as being used as a warning to other Ogrun). The Irregulars theme force includes a fair number of disreputable characters, ranging from casters (Madhammer and Magnus) through units (Croe's, Alexia1) and solos (Midwinter, Kell Bailoch, Ragman, Alexia2). It isn't an horrendous stretch to present this theme force as one which most Ogrun seeking a Korune would avoid, as there are too many potentially bad masters/Korune - even if not looking for a Korune, it might not be a good step in impressing a desirable Korune to say "yes, I was a bodyguard for that notorious Inquisitor, torturer and supporter of a tyrant, Orin Midwinter" or "Sure, I worked for a probably insane Necromaner. But who hasn't?". While some Ogrun will work for such employers, most will take warnings to heart and not do so. As a theme force meant to represent a more 'typical' merc force made up of unusual characters, Ogrun might avoid it. The Black River Irregulars book features a continental Ogrun that has chosen as a Korune a fallen Thorn Gun Mage that had become the leader of a gang of the Undercity, a gang that made his affairs in a quite bloody way, often through the hands of the Ogrun itself (that was presented as quite sadistic). I would call this as quite telling that your point about Ogruns only serving reputable and good masters is quite wrong. Not including the Ogrun into the list is another of the various arbitrary decisions that doesn't make any fluff sense that PP is doing quite often lately. That said, mercenary players have no ground to complain... The whole theme list doesn't make any fluff sense, complaining about the fluff of the only decision that disadvantages you is quite funny, when you silently gladly accept to be able to play things like Croe's gang and Precursor Knights toghether.
|
|