Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824 
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 6, 2017 21:57:50 GMT
It seemed to be the most appropriate first forum post. Hopefully this will be a worthwhile new home for our deep and abiding...affection...for high shields.
|
|
|
|
Post by faehrmann on Mar 7, 2017 0:34:55 GMT
True happinies will fill me seeing a closed box of these. The truth is out there !
|
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Mar 7, 2017 7:58:58 GMT
Starting off with clickbait? Somehow that feels strangely appropriate for Mercenaries...
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 7, 2017 13:53:46 GMT
Gotta get that mone....them clicks?
|
|
faultie
Baby's First Wargame
Adrift with everyone else...
Posts: 6
|
Post by faultie on Mar 7, 2017 15:54:08 GMT
The more things change...
|
|
eathotlead
Junior Strategist
PP forumite since 2004
Posts: 259
|
Post by eathotlead on Mar 7, 2017 19:33:30 GMT
This thread is particularly amusing because in the (now gone) big PP thread regarding CID, where many sub-par models were getting air time with the developers, I mentioned the TAC and Highshields... and was told by another formuite that "PP cannot fix EVERY model or unit that players simply want buffed!". Hoo boy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Mar 7, 2017 21:56:02 GMT
I know I trashed them fairly regularly on the PP forums, but I took a unit of Tactical Arcanists (to push my infantry count in a Hammerstrike theme over 40), and they're....surprisingly not bad. When I had enough threats to occupy the enemy fire and let them survive unmolested, they got work done. Screened Ossrum with clouds, cleared out Mannikins, set a Lancer on fire one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackdog on Mar 8, 2017 10:35:09 GMT
TAC are still playable. Much weaker than in MKII but they still do their things. I own two units and surprisingly I don't feel bad fielding both in the same list. But the highshields are still in the shelf.
Don't know if they can fit in a rhulic list but I even prefer the ogres than the dwarves with the shotguns....
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 8, 2017 14:22:52 GMT
I think the TACs are benefiting from the their reputation. People think they are bad, so no one targets them, but if you don't put in the relatively trivial amount of effort it takes to remove them, they can ruin your day pretty quickly.
That being said, Grymkin get 2 14 box shield guard beasts for the same cost, so clearly what used to be 7 pts worth of value and what is now considered 7 points worth of value is not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Mar 8, 2017 15:07:47 GMT
That being said, Grymkin get 2 14 box shield guard beasts for the same cost, so clearly what used to be 7 pts worth of value and what is now considered 7 points worth of value is not the same thing. I don't think we can compare things that simply; different factions should have more cost-effective options in some places than others, as that's part of what makes them play differently. Besides, aren't Grymkin still currently being tested, meaning we don't know what the final costs/stats/abilities will be? |
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 8, 2017 16:51:28 GMT
Totally fair on both counts. I'm just saying that the trend on what PP thinks 7 points should get you is different than what it used to be. 28 boxes of shield guard beast synergy is worth more than 3 boxes of slightly techy dorf synergy. Sure, they might go up in cost and they are totally different factions, but even if we compare the crabbits to a vanguard, I'm coming up a little sad at the difference.
I guess the take home here is that it feels like a lot of our models get penalized for having so many rules on the cards, even if they don't add much on the table (Stannis, High Shields, TACs, Alexia2, etc.). Not saying that they aren't playable or that a 1 to 1 comparison, but Merc's identity seems to be becoming "expensive toolkit" not only in model selection, but in actual model design.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 9, 2017 3:40:07 GMT
High shields are a black hole of terrible shittyness, with an event horizon of suck.
Too bad the sculpts are awesome (I dig the WWI Doughboy vibe they have).
I hope if CID looks at old models that they get a look.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lost Lamb on Mar 9, 2017 4:09:52 GMT
I read this thread and my face melted like I'd opened the ark of the covenant.
|
|
faultie
Baby's First Wargame
Adrift with everyone else...
Posts: 6
|
Post by faultie on Mar 9, 2017 16:15:21 GMT
Basically this. Love the models, have hated the rules for 3 editions now. As I said on the now-defunct PP forums, I just don't see them changing. Someone somewhere at the top of the dev team thinks that they totally work, and have totally worked, for like 10+ years and they're fine and don't need buffing. That sort of brain bug doesn't just stop being a thing. High shields are a black hole of terrible shittyness, with an event horizon of suck. Too bad the sculpts are awesome (I dig the WWI Doughboy vibe they have). I hope if CID looks at old models that they get a look. |
|
|
|
Post by John Spencer on Mar 11, 2017 21:07:45 GMT
C'mon guys, they're not that bad. I feel like i'm going to have to use them extensively when I'm done with my foray into Minions. I've gotten good use out of them more often than not. They just suffer from a bit of Skornegy.
|
|
