Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 8, 2017 3:11:14 GMT
I've had issues with a lot of the Storm Lance talk because a lot of bad arguments are used to argue that they are overpowered. If they are truly OP I don't think we should need to resort to making points that don't actually mean anything.
The few which get my goat are:
Storm Lances are OP because they were overrepresented at the Smogcon masters:
This argument isn't actually relating to the power of Storm Lances, it is used as part of the idea that good players only play models that are traditionally seen as good, this is false. Good players win because they play very well. Army choice is part of that but only taking "good things" doesn't make a good army and sometimes you find the good in less traditional places. Look at Tom Guan winning with Storm Raptor or Chris Davies crushing people with things like Vlad 2 (this edition) and Irusk 2 (last edition.). Just because a player wins with something, isn't grounds for looking for nerfs otherwise Tharn would be on the chopping block.
Storm Lances are OP because they are in almost all Cygnar lists
Almost every Cygnar player will admit that our non-jack options are very thin upon the ground. The fact that lots of players use one of the only playable parts of an entire facet of a faction isn't necessarily because it is overpowered, there is more at work here. This argument fails the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test, to me. If Cygnars other troops were brought up (with all other melee troops who are also underpowered in general) then we might find that Storm lances disappear.
Storm Lances are OP because Storm Division gives them so many free points.
This one is actually true, but misses the point imo. Theme forces are here to stay, Cygnar is lucky in that we are an early faction to receive some strong ones. Cygnar is doing very well not just because of powerful pieces but also because we are often playing points up vs enemy armies due to Storm Division, but this is merely a temporary thing. Other factions are quickly getting their own themes and we will then see where the balance lands. The argument of whether a Theme force is OP vs a non-theme force is a very relevant one, but that isn't "Storm Lances are OP" that is "Theme forces are OP vs non Theme Forces", which just isn't a good argument to nerf a single unit.
Storm Lances are OP because they DO EVERYTHING
This is just a part of a hyperbole argument. Storm Lances are extreme generalists, able to do a lot when you give them they support they need. But the fact is that that support is needed. There are moving parts around here and elite, mobile armies are always living on the edge. If your opponent is able to apply enough force to your Storm Lances then they go down. Just because a unit is capable at most facets of the game isn't a reason for it to be nerfed if it is paying for those abilities. Storm lances are very expensive and their benefits are ignorable. Anti Shooting Tech is effective against them, boostable guns is good against them, backline counter-chargers is good against them, etc.
Storm Lances are OP because they are better than Steelhead Cav
If we want to argue from a competitive standpoint, we don't want to knock a unit out of competitive play. We want units to be balanced and still effective. Comparing Storm Lances to a unit that is patently underperforming is simply a recipe for disaster. Comparing good units to bad units isn't a good way to ingratiate yourself with the people you are talking with. Not many Cygnar players will say that underperforming enemy units don't deserve a boost, and if Storm Lances became Steel heads and Steelheads then got buffed then we would have underperforming steelheads.
All of these arguments obfuscate the real one. If Storm Lances are overpowered then it should be provable without the other factors clouding things. If you want to say that something is overpowered then you need to spend some time and care making a case for it. Compare to other powerful things and contrast. Is one unit simply more effective? Is the cost difference appropriate? Is faction balance involved? Is some availability of buffs considered reasonable? Is it OK to include a firefly into a Storm Lance charge calculation? Storm Strider? Rangers?
Now that the game seems to be in an extremely healthy competitive state compared to most games and most of warmachine history, balance arguments are harder. They are by consequence of balance being so good already.
My personal view on Storm Lances is this:
- Storm Lances are extremely strong with access to their level of reasonable support.
- Storm Lances are probably one of the strongest units in the game at their best.
- This does not indicate that they are OP.
- We have to wait until the Command Books are released before we can do more serious balance of units that already have a theme to see what happens in the future.
- I would prefer to see meaningful buffs happening to the less playable parts of the factions to see what happens to pieces like Storm lances.
The few which get my goat are:
Storm Lances are OP because they were overrepresented at the Smogcon masters:
This argument isn't actually relating to the power of Storm Lances, it is used as part of the idea that good players only play models that are traditionally seen as good, this is false. Good players win because they play very well. Army choice is part of that but only taking "good things" doesn't make a good army and sometimes you find the good in less traditional places. Look at Tom Guan winning with Storm Raptor or Chris Davies crushing people with things like Vlad 2 (this edition) and Irusk 2 (last edition.). Just because a player wins with something, isn't grounds for looking for nerfs otherwise Tharn would be on the chopping block.
Storm Lances are OP because they are in almost all Cygnar lists
Almost every Cygnar player will admit that our non-jack options are very thin upon the ground. The fact that lots of players use one of the only playable parts of an entire facet of a faction isn't necessarily because it is overpowered, there is more at work here. This argument fails the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test, to me. If Cygnars other troops were brought up (with all other melee troops who are also underpowered in general) then we might find that Storm lances disappear.
Storm Lances are OP because Storm Division gives them so many free points.
This one is actually true, but misses the point imo. Theme forces are here to stay, Cygnar is lucky in that we are an early faction to receive some strong ones. Cygnar is doing very well not just because of powerful pieces but also because we are often playing points up vs enemy armies due to Storm Division, but this is merely a temporary thing. Other factions are quickly getting their own themes and we will then see where the balance lands. The argument of whether a Theme force is OP vs a non-theme force is a very relevant one, but that isn't "Storm Lances are OP" that is "Theme forces are OP vs non Theme Forces", which just isn't a good argument to nerf a single unit.
Storm Lances are OP because they DO EVERYTHING
This is just a part of a hyperbole argument. Storm Lances are extreme generalists, able to do a lot when you give them they support they need. But the fact is that that support is needed. There are moving parts around here and elite, mobile armies are always living on the edge. If your opponent is able to apply enough force to your Storm Lances then they go down. Just because a unit is capable at most facets of the game isn't a reason for it to be nerfed if it is paying for those abilities. Storm lances are very expensive and their benefits are ignorable. Anti Shooting Tech is effective against them, boostable guns is good against them, backline counter-chargers is good against them, etc.
Storm Lances are OP because they are better than Steelhead Cav
If we want to argue from a competitive standpoint, we don't want to knock a unit out of competitive play. We want units to be balanced and still effective. Comparing Storm Lances to a unit that is patently underperforming is simply a recipe for disaster. Comparing good units to bad units isn't a good way to ingratiate yourself with the people you are talking with. Not many Cygnar players will say that underperforming enemy units don't deserve a boost, and if Storm Lances became Steel heads and Steelheads then got buffed then we would have underperforming steelheads.
All of these arguments obfuscate the real one. If Storm Lances are overpowered then it should be provable without the other factors clouding things. If you want to say that something is overpowered then you need to spend some time and care making a case for it. Compare to other powerful things and contrast. Is one unit simply more effective? Is the cost difference appropriate? Is faction balance involved? Is some availability of buffs considered reasonable? Is it OK to include a firefly into a Storm Lance charge calculation? Storm Strider? Rangers?
Now that the game seems to be in an extremely healthy competitive state compared to most games and most of warmachine history, balance arguments are harder. They are by consequence of balance being so good already.
My personal view on Storm Lances is this:
- Storm Lances are extremely strong with access to their level of reasonable support.
- Storm Lances are probably one of the strongest units in the game at their best.
- This does not indicate that they are OP.
- We have to wait until the Command Books are released before we can do more serious balance of units that already have a theme to see what happens in the future.
- I would prefer to see meaningful buffs happening to the less playable parts of the factions to see what happens to pieces like Storm lances.