|
Post by leotherat on Jan 2, 2018 20:56:02 GMT
Recursion means returning or adding units to play during a game. In this instance it refers to the Siege Crawler's returning dwarf infantry to play each maintenance phase.
|
|
Whiskie
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by Whiskie on Jan 2, 2018 21:22:32 GMT
This may be a dumb dumb question, but I've been away for a while and google didn't help much here... The term recursion is getting thrown around a lot and I'm not sure I'm following what you guys mean by that. Are you simply implying that the list has a high level of mechanical redundancy, as to prevent hinging on a small number of models? Is it a game specific term that I missed? Loving the Hammerstrike lists BTW. Will be looking into a siege crawler or two and play testing this in time for CaptainCon in a month. It means bringing dead models back to life.
|
|
|
Post by fallenexile on Jan 13, 2018 18:16:00 GMT
So are 2 Crawlers / 2 Units of Dorge Guard necessary?
I'm going with a base of Ossrum, 1 crawler, 1 forge guard, 2 artillery, 4 gunners, 2 blasters, 1 bokur... but is there a general consensus on what the rest of the list SHOULD look like? TAC or no? Thor and an avalancher or no? 2 drillers or no? An extra unit of forge guard and another crawler?
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 4:24:48 GMT
So are 2 Crawlers / 2 Units of Dorge Guard necessary? I'm going with a base of Ossrum, 1 crawler, 1 forge guard, 2 artillery, 4 gunners, 2 blasters, 1 bokur... but is there a general consensus on what the rest of the list SHOULD look like? TAC or no? Thor and an avalancher or no? 2 drillers or no? An extra unit of forge guard and another crawler? Yes or playing Irregulars is better. I already posted the only version of Ossrum Hammer Strike that gets max solos and max theme benefits one page back so as to even have an argument for taking it over Irregulars where you don't have to give up armor debuffs, Eilish, Orin, Eiryss1 and magic weapon. It's one page back.
|
|
|
Post by fallenexile on Jan 14, 2018 5:06:03 GMT
So are 2 Crawlers / 2 Units of Dorge Guard necessary? I'm going with a base of Ossrum, 1 crawler, 1 forge guard, 2 artillery, 4 gunners, 2 blasters, 1 bokur... but is there a general consensus on what the rest of the list SHOULD look like? TAC or no? Thor and an avalancher or no? 2 drillers or no? An extra unit of forge guard and another crawler? Yes or playing Irregulars is better. I already posted the only version of Ossrum Hammer Strike that gets max solos and max theme benefits one page back so as to even have an argument for taking it over Irregulars where you don't have to give up armor debuffs, Eilish, Orin, Eiryss1 and magic weapon. It's one page back. I'm of the camp that purely maximizing free solos =/= better list. I'm not considering Ossrum for anything other than Hammerstrike. Otherwise, why bother playing him at all?
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 6:08:49 GMT
Yes or playing Irregulars is better. I already posted the only version of Ossrum Hammer Strike that gets max solos and max theme benefits one page back so as to even have an argument for taking it over Irregulars where you don't have to give up armor debuffs, Eilish, Orin, Eiryss1 and magic weapon. It's one page back. I'm of the camp that purely maximizing free solos =/= better list. I'm not considering Ossrum for anything other than Hammerstrike. Otherwise, why bother playing him at all? Really? So Eilish granting a nearly 75% chance to stagger a battle engine or colossal, Orin protecting your Crawler from incoming spells, Snipe on Eiryss, the ability to take lots of Gunners for no penalty, ARM debuffs, magic weapon, anti-cloud tech, and access to Kayazy Eliminators that can freely traverse the battlefield don't register? At all? Dwarf players, man...
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 7:14:18 GMT
Look, there is a very rational way of making a Hammer Strike list. You start from the premise, "Why the hell would I give up everything I have access to in Irregulars to use this theme?" and if you're not a Dwarf nutter, the answer is, "Well I get tough warrior models, no penalty for Crawlers and Repo 3 on my heavies so I'd better take full advantage of those things or I'd be better off in Irregulars".
Every list should have two solos and two units at minimum to threaten scoring credibly in all scenarios. I can only get a maximum of 3 solos in the army period. All of the units except Forge Guard and HAC are below average or worse, so I'm compelled to bring 20 Forge Guard, which handles the ARM cracking needs of the list quite well and also gives me two clients for my 2 Bokurs so they can play forward and get the clieng bonus. I am allowed to bring a maximum of 43 points worth of Warjacks without getting penalized. The downer is, with that many Forge Guard I don't need as many Drillers, but Gunners don't get repo 3 so I'm missing out on the theme benefit if I don't bring heavies. If I'm missing out on that benefit, why am I wasting my time with Hammer Strike again?
If I'm bringing double Forge Guard for 20 tough bodies, why the hell wouldn't I bring 2 Crawlers to add more models back to the unit and increase the power of the combo? It would be stupid not to. Well that's 68 points right there. I have maximized free solos, tough units, recursion and the ability to take 2 Crawlers and get bonus points with this decision. 35 points to spend. I could downgrade one unit of FG to 6 and have 41 points. Maybe that's worth a Gunner.
The Avalancher is overpriced garbage (yes it is a dumb idea to spend 21 points marshalling it with Thor because that costs 21 points for one shot per turn and Thor will die). The Rockram is overpriced and redundant with the Driller, worse than the Driller in some ways. That leaves the Driller and Basher as my heavy options.
With 35 points, my options are 3 Drillers, Bokur, free Bokur, 2 free Artillery; 2 Drillers, Basher, Gunner or Blaster, 2 free Bokurs and 1 free artillery, 5 Gunners/Blasters, 1 Bokur, 1 free Bokur and 2 free artillery or something to that effect. Pick one. Since I have 2 Crawlers either the first or second options seem sensible. I think 2 Drillers, Basher, Blaster, 2 Bokurs and 1 Artillery makes the most sense since you don't need 3 Drillers if you have 20 Forge Guard and 2 Bokurs, and the Basher and Blaster add excellent utility.
When all is said and done, I have 20 tough Forge Guard with recursion, 3 repositioning Heavies, max free selections and 2 solos to score flags. I have maximized everything the theme has to offer without compromising what Ossrum can do. It's a great list. I can still make a stronger one in Irregulars.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Jan 14, 2018 7:56:23 GMT
Play what I play or you will suck! I'm not sure why I play mercs since I'm only interested in trolling and min-maxing, but here's some trolly narrow minded advice... Hmmm... but I play things different then pretty much any of your suggestions shoe... and they seem to do alright or amazing... weird...
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jan 14, 2018 14:27:43 GMT
This is one of the macro-issues with themes, and on a long enough time line, how they'll ultimately be viewed as bad for the game. My personal opinion is that we're going to (eventually, will probably take a while) see what we now knows as "themes" evolve into basically Mini factions. For an imperfect examples, look at 40K ; technically Spehs Mureens, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, etc., are all space marines, but they are mini factions within a faction to do things slightly differently.
I could totally see, using Cygnar as an example, Trenchers becomes a mini cygnaran faction, Storm Brigade being another, etc. However, we're not there yet. PP is struggling to balance a game with a business model of semi-perpetual release schedule (note: this was a HUGE strength early on - a big GW criticism, when PP was actively trying to take market share from them, was that your army could go years without an update, where in WM you were basically guaranteed in MK1 that you'd get new stuff each year).
Now more than a decade and a half later, they're straining under that same model a little. So they're subcompiling the factions into more manageable groups. This will eventually, too, end up not achieving the fully desired goal, at which point we're likely to see a Factions-Within-Factions model and probably an allies matrix of some sort. We're a long way off from that.
That said, Themes the way they are propose a balance issue of a different sort ; namely that some are stronger than others. Some are much stronger than others. Some are so ludicrously good that they overshadow some, most or just about all others. Irregulars is one such.
Look, no one is saying you can't make, play and have good success with a Hammerstrike list, or an out of theme list, or whatever. I think many people would agree that a good player can make sub-optimal jank work pretty well as long as there's at least a foundation of concept. However i think we need to be honest that if your goal is competitive optimization, then there are themes that are better or worse out there. Irregulars is an incredibly permissive theme (there are few model restrictions) with some excellent benefits, including a free-solo/attachment benefit that is threshold achieved by units and jacks (i.e. - easy threshold boundary to achieve 75-100% benefit from).
So you have access to most pieces in your stable, 2 incredible and easily achieved benefits, and another corner-case one which is the cherry on sunday (meaning some people like marachino cherries, some don't, and its definitely not the best part of the package).
shoe is operating from the mindset of a highly competitive player. Optimization and having answers for various threats is crucial to the mindset of that kind of player, and to not engage in the best list build of 1/2 your pair is self-hinderance to this type of player. There's nothing wrong with this, because unless you're absolutely just in love with Rhulic, its really hard to make a cogent argument that stands up to examination and counter-point that Hammerstrike is more viable than Irregulars in a competitive SR2017 environment. Its even harder to make the same argument that Hammerstrike has a wider depth of variability and variance to achieve competitive validity that half a pairing needs in the SR2017 environment when compared and contrasted to Irregulars.
He might be saying it in a way that is blunt, and some might find that offputting, but essentially at the end of the day the argument is not ultimately "Irregulars > Hammerstrike in SR2017 environment" (though that is a micro-point of the macro-point), but rather not all themes are created equal, and they are not all balanced contrasted against one another.
Which is ironic, as their whole raison d'etre is to make the game easier to balance.
Irregulars is such a good theme that, as someone that fully and freely admits to being biased and absolutely loathing themes in general, I use it and it doesn't feel intrusive or restrictive to me at all. Irregulars is so good, its a theme that people who hate themes like, and is why i'm focusing on my Mercs rather than any other army in WM/H. Because i can play in theme, feel like i'm not playing a theme, and not feel like i'm handicapping myself.
That's why irregulars is so good and why its superior to Hammerstrike. It's a theme that basically doesn't restrict you, and gives you theme benefits. Basically all the benefit and none of the trade off that themes represent.
That all said, its entirely possible that someone could make a Hammerstrike list with success in SR2017. I just think its hard to argue that doing so is not inherently more difficult than doing the same thing with Irregulars in most situations.
Hell you can make Irregulars lists that are not 100% optimized ; as i posted in the Gaston thread, i have a Gastone2 list that doesn't have steelheads and has a Crawler in it. Optimized ? Nope. Fun, and a bit of a curveball for opponents, and something i've managed some success with ? Yep. But that's strictly anecdotal.
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 15:09:10 GMT
Play what I play or you will suck! I'm not sure why I play mercs since I'm only interested in trolling and min-maxing, but here's some trolly narrow minded advice... Hmmm... but I play things different then pretty much any of your suggestions shoe... and they seem to do alright or amazing... weird... thx crow! love the avatar!
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 15:11:03 GMT
This is one of the macro-issues with themes, and on a long enough time line, how they'll ultimately be viewed as bad for the game. My personal opinion is that we're going to (eventually, will probably take a while) see what we now knows as "themes" evolve into basically Mini factions. For an imperfect examples, look at 40K ; technically Spehs Mureens, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, etc., are all space marines, but they are mini factions within a faction to do things slightly differently. I could totally see, using Cygnar as an example, Trenchers becomes a mini cygnaran faction, Storm Brigade being another, etc. However, we're not there yet. PP is struggling to balance a game with a business model of semi-perpetual release schedule (note: this was a HUGE strength early on - a big GW criticism, when PP was actively trying to take market share from them, was that your army could go years without an update, where in WM you were basically guaranteed in MK1 that you'd get new stuff each year). Now more than a decade and a half later, they're straining under that same model a little. So they're subcompiling the factions into more manageable groups. This will eventually, too, end up not achieving the fully desired goal, at which point we're likely to see a Factions-Within-Factions model and probably an allies matrix of some sort. We're a long way off from that. That said, Themes the way they are propose a balance issue of a different sort ; namely that some are stronger than others. Some are much stronger than others. Some are so ludicrously good that they overshadow some, most or just about all others. Irregulars is one such. Look, no one is saying you can't make, play and have good success with a Hammerstrike list, or an out of theme list, or whatever. I think many people would agree that a good player can make sub-optimal jank work pretty well as long as there's at least a foundation of concept. However i think we need to be honest that if your goal is competitive optimization, then there are themes that are better or worse out there. Irregulars is an incredibly permissive theme (there are few model restrictions) with some excellent benefits, including a free-solo/attachment benefit that is threshold achieved by units and jacks (i.e. - easy threshold boundary to achieve 75-100% benefit from). So you have access to most pieces in your stable, 2 incredible and easily achieved benefits, and another corner-case one which is the cherry on sunday (meaning some people like marachino cherries, some don't, and its definitely not the best part of the package). shoe is operating from the mindset of a highly competitive player. Optimization and having answers for various threats is crucial to the mindset of that kind of player, and to not engage in the best list build of 1/2 your pair is self-hinderance to this type of player. There's nothing wrong with this, because unless you're absolutely just in love with Rhulic, its really hard to make a cogent argument that stands up to examination and counter-point that Hammerstrike is more viable than Irregulars in a competitive SR2017 environment. Its even harder to make the same argument that Hammerstrike has a wider depth of variability and variance to achieve competitive validity that half a pairing needs in the SR2017 environment when compared and contrasted to Irregulars. He might be saying it in a way that is blunt, and some might find that offputting, but essentially at the end of the day the argument is not ultimately "Irregulars > Hammerstrike in SR2017 environment" (though that is a micro-point of the macro-point), but rather not all themes are created equal, and they are not all balanced contrasted against one another. Which is ironic, as their whole raison d'etre is to make the game easier to balance. Irregulars is such a good theme that, as someone that fully and freely admits to being biased and absolutely loathing themes in general, I use it and it doesn't feel intrusive or restrictive to me at all. Irregulars is so good, its a theme that people who hate themes like, and is why i'm focusing on my Mercs rather than any other army in WM/H. Because i can play in theme, feel like i'm not playing a theme, and not feel like i'm handicapping myself. That's why irregulars is so good and why its superior to Hammerstrike. It's a theme that basically doesn't restrict you, and gives you theme benefits. Basically all the benefit and none of the trade off that themes represent. That all said, its entirely possible that someone could make a Hammerstrike list with success in SR2017. I just think its hard to argue that doing so is not inherently more difficult than doing the same thing with Irregulars in most situations. Hell you can make Irregulars lists that are not 100% optimized ; as i posted in the Gaston thread, i have a Gastone2 list that doesn't have steelheads and has a Crawler in it. Optimized ? Nope. Fun, and a bit of a curveball for opponents, and something i've managed some success with ? Yep. But that's strictly anecdotal. I made a Crosse2 list with a Crawer and Forge Guard. Like every Crosse2 list I've ever made, it wasn't that great. He's waiting for something to come out that makes him neato.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jan 14, 2018 15:53:48 GMT
Note that 100% optimized could be interpreted as a euphemism for "not that great", especially if optimization is your definition of making a good to great list or pairing. Agreed though on crosse2 ; right now he's really fun to play, but lacks a certain something that springboards him into "great" territory. Still a lot more fun than to play him in Irregulars than most other casters played in narrow stable themes in my opinion.
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Jan 14, 2018 16:10:49 GMT
I actually think he's better behind the Llaelese cloud wall having tried a bazillion different things with him. That was the least unsatisfactory. He's my favorite caster and I have a bit of a personal attachment because I gave a lot of input in his development and getting them to fix Lifebound, but he's hard to make work right.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Jan 14, 2018 17:53:15 GMT
I actually think he's better behind the Llaelese cloud wall having tried a bazillion different things with him. That was the least unsatisfactory. He's my favorite caster and I have a bit of a personal attachment because I gave a lot of input in his development and getting them to fix Lifebound, but he's hard to make work right. I don't disagree, but after playing cygnar since escalation, id rather drink turpentine and piss on a bonfire than play another game of rolling smoke. Haha. Just very boring for me. In a game that i'm struggling to keep my interest in, the last thing i want is something that feels rote and boring to me. But i would agree that Trenchers and LR would probably serve him very, very well.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Jan 18, 2018 15:25:34 GMT
Prospective Dorf player here. Is there a consensus on if Gorten is playable in SR17 and does he appreciate Hammerfall more than Irregulars? I imagine he might, but I'm coming from the hordes side of things and low Fury isn't quite the same as low Focus.
I'm not asking if he's optimal, he isn't, but he's the caster that tickles my fancy just now. I might pair him with Ossrum in Irregulars, or someone else, not sure. Just looking at whether following this flight of fancy will be more pain than it's worth.
|
|