Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 19, 2017 23:22:27 GMT
I've heard a couple of times that a Madhammer list with 3 OAC stomps Cryx. I don't know if I want to invest that much cash to see if it's true. Problem with that though is there's a lot of stuff in Mercs that stomps similar cryx builds that OAC + Madhammer does without resorting to buying an expensive shitty unit.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 20, 2017 13:15:19 GMT
I've heard a couple of times that a Madhammer list with 3 OAC stomps Cryx. I don't know if I want to invest that much cash to see if it's true. Problem with that though is there's a lot of stuff in Mercs that stomps similar cryx builds that OAC + Madhammer does without resorting to buying an expensive shitty unit. Good thing you added the context! "expensive shitty unit" could be the description tag on probably 30% of our units.
|
|
faultie
Baby's First Wargame
Adrift with everyone else...
Posts: 6
|
Post by faultie on Mar 20, 2017 14:07:06 GMT
To be fair, we have some expensive units, and some shitty units, but I think our "expensive shitty units" list is actually fairly short. Maybe I'm just an optimist.
|
|
Tucker
Junior Strategist
Posts: 103
|
Post by Tucker on Mar 20, 2017 21:23:34 GMT
Are there bad Mercenary units other than Highshields? I haven't played with the OAC but they don't look horrible on paper. Steelhead Cavalry and Precursor Knights bizarrely got worse in MKIII but they're still usable. Boomhowler's unit is much worse but he has a home with armies that can leverage his fell calls, which are pretty snazzy.
Those are the only units that jump out to me looking at my collection.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 20, 2017 22:45:24 GMT
My issue with oac is the cost to survivability ratio. They are not very survivable in that they are a low body count, high cost (ish) unit. By contrast, most medium pow shots have a good chance to solitaire them, like single wound infantry, but there's half of them. So the economy of attacks they can absorb isn't fantastic.
The power is decent, particularly if you can buff it, but it's also strictly average. The cra buff to the blast damage is mitigated, if you use it, by the low blast pow initially.
So they absorb attacks poorly, output attacks relatively averagely, and are sort of high costed. They aren't horrible. But there are often better options that will do what they do as well if not better for comparable points and better casualty economy.
There's worse units in the game, but there's a lot more ones that are strictly better than strictly worse.
On top of this, monetarily, they aren't cheap. My days of buying expensive mediocre stuff are over.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 21, 2017 13:54:59 GMT
Are there bad Mercenary units other than Highshields? I haven't played with the OAC but they don't look horrible on paper. Steelhead Cavalry and Precursor Knights bizarrely got worse in MKIII but they're still usable. Boomhowler's unit is much worse but he has a home with armies that can leverage his fell calls, which are pretty snazzy. Those are the only units that jump out to me looking at my collection. The following are just "like my opinion, man": Devil Dogs: Expensive at 1.8-2 per model, useless against 50%+ of armies Nyss Hunters: Expensive at 1.9-2 per model, not bad, but very overcosted in current jack heavy meta (too good at killing troopers, not good enough at killing jacks/beasts). No real place for them Boomhowler: Relatively expensive at 1.7-1.83 per model, 5-9 1 box tough units with a couple decent tricks. Acceptable troop killing potential, but more expensive and less good than Halberdiers + Rhupert. Slightly usable in Kingmaker due to limited selection and Ambush High Shields: Average cost at 1.6-1.66 per model, slow, low pow, low threat range, easy to kill, no external benefits Idrians: Cheap at 1.5 per model, useless without UA, making them relatively expensive at 1.66-1.75 and situational (great against prey target, pretty useless elsewhere) OAC: Exceedingly expensive at 3.16-3.33 per model (though they are 5 box models), relatively good threat range, but lowish pow and no tricks. Difficult to deliver and unlikely to recoup points Steelhead Cavalry: Excessively expensive at 3.6-3.66(though they are 5 box models), barely acceptable threat range for cavalry, low pow, lots of skornergy, restrictive list building, and low survivability TAC: Very expensive at 2.33 per model, victim stats, low threat range, wants to be in melee and is difficult to deliver.
|
|
Tucker
Junior Strategist
Posts: 103
|
Post by Tucker on Mar 21, 2017 15:52:42 GMT
Having played with the Devil Dogs a lot I would not call them a bad unit. They're a little bit niche because there are some armies that don't care about knockdown or Dismantle, and they're a little worse off if they don't get both of their abilities on and popping, but the nets are so strong that they can carry the unit all by themselves. I would probably drop the Devil Dogs' cost by a couple of points but otherwise they're good.
Boomhowler & Co. vex me. On the one hand, Boomhowler himself is quite useful. On the other hand, his unit doesn't do much. They don't kill much and they're not very good at getting in the way. If Privateer Press doesn't want them to be a good tar baby they should at least be good at killing stuff. I would give them CRA and be done with it.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Mar 21, 2017 19:42:46 GMT
Agreed on devil dogs, they have a nice spot in mk3.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 21, 2017 20:02:36 GMT
I'm not saying they're terrible, but unless I'm making one of my lists "Construct Circle/Warmachine" and the other "Hordes", I can't imagine a scenario where they don't ride the bench for Steelheads/Croes/I decide to play kingmakers instead.
|
|
Tucker
Junior Strategist
Posts: 103
|
Post by Tucker on Mar 22, 2017 1:19:20 GMT
Most of a model's value comes from the context you place it in. If it doesn't fit your army or your play style it's not going to work for you.
Some models are just plain bad, but most can find a place to excel. That's why I'm reluctant to judge something until I've played with it a lot, and even then I try to remember that other players can have different experiences and get different value out of the same piece. The true value of a model can only be judged in the context of the army and the player.
|
|
|
Post by StJason on Mar 22, 2017 5:54:33 GMT
The true value of a model can only be judged in the context of the army and the player. Nonsense. Why are there so many "easy button" armies? Why are certain units (such as High Shields) considered rubbish? Is it that there are really that many poor players who just can't use High Shields correctly?
|
|
|
Post by xc18 on Mar 22, 2017 6:53:50 GMT
"Easy button" armies are just this : easy to play. On the other side of the spectrum, some units are overcosted or difficult to play or niche. Does it mean they are "bad" ? They have cons, no one missed that, but also pros, and one has to work harder to get results with them. Tucker is right. Playstyle can provide the niche that those units need. (Guys, mercs were famous for thinking out of the box, let's keep it that way.) Personally, I plan to test the high shield with Ashlynn & quicken. spd6 def 13 arm19 ought to be descent. They now walk like normal humans, while still laughing at electroleaps and blast damage. It's a stupid idea but if I don't try it I'll never know
|
|
Tucker
Junior Strategist
Posts: 103
|
Post by Tucker on Mar 22, 2017 12:55:12 GMT
The true value of a model can only be judged in the context of the army and the player. Nonsense. Why are there so many "easy button" armies? Why are certain units (such as High Shields) considered rubbish? Is it that there are really that many poor players who just can't use High Shields correctly? You will notice that I said, in the post quoted, that some models are just plain bad. I don't really have an opinion on Highshields since I haven't played with them since early MKII. But for most models their value can be realized only in context. This should be self-evident just from a simple abstract exercise. Let's say the Nomad is a good model (it is!). Does that mean that an entire army of Nomads would be good? Would an all-Nomad army be better under MacBain or Blaize? Would the all-Nomad army be better if it was half Nomads, half Steelhead halberdiers? Would an entire army of Rhuperts be a good thing, or would we rather just have one? How many units should we take for Rhupert to support? etc. Player skill and army composition far outweigh the quality of individual model's rules as factors in determining the outcome of games. However, since we are so accustomed to thoughtful army composition we tend to overlook it completely when assessing a model's relative value, and simply assume it will be used optimally in an optimal context. This blinds us to how the game is actually played and how we actually get value out of models, so it is useful to step back on occasion and look at the game from a wider view.
|
|
Xintas
Junior Strategist
Posts: 824
|
Post by Xintas on Mar 22, 2017 13:29:29 GMT
There are valid points in both thoughts. Tucker is completely right in saying that some units find homes with different people due to playstyle/meta/personality differences. Similarly, StJason is right in saying that some units are objectively speaking worse than others. I prefaced my original assessment with it being my opinion, hardly "factual", but to both of your points, it is a spectrum.
Idrians are 100% my opinion. Some people believe they are the best unit in Mercs (and have bat reps to prove it!)
High Shields are objectively worse than the vast majority of units at nearly any task.
|
|