|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 20, 2017 20:05:02 GMT
I feel that, like usual, people are being a little impetuous on suggestions for changes before we have seen the whole picture. We should wait until the full complement of command books are out before changing a formula.
There are implications this direction, certainly, but we are viewing it through an inequal lens for now.
|
|
|
Post by heckler on Mar 20, 2017 20:06:42 GMT
I made a thread or 2 about this direction and was told that I was crazy and theme forces are bad, so good to see more people take up the tin foil crown. So the thing that I am finding is that all themes all the time is an interesting way to go but it does have some downsides as people here have said, but it also has upsides. It is a lot easier to balance certain models against each other (exemplars and errants) than balancing models with similar roles but very different approaches (errands and idrians). It does mean that if a character jack isn't good with its parent caster it is very unlikely to be taken. Brickhouse has some interesting play with people such as Kraye, Darius and Nemo 2, but it will never be worth breaking theme for the dubious perk of paying points for brickhouse. For characters to be taken they either need to be: Made better with their respective casters (brickhouse is just made to be more powerful and synergistic with Maddox's gameplan). Allowed to be taken in themes (heavy metal includes Brickhouse) Or just be made generally stronger to allow reasons to not be played in theme (brickhouse becomes a better centurion, like thorn is a better lancer). The same applies for Mercenary options, except for caster synergies. They either need to be allowed in themes (which some are, granted), or provide a compelling reason to play out of theme (which some do like rhupert. But most dont). The problem with the idea of making characters better in general, is that this just rewards the themes that can already bring them more than playing them out of theme. Realistically, characters, mercs, and things out of themes at the moment can't be made better because doing so makes the instances within the themes and perhaps future themes far more powerful, especially when free models are granted for their inclusion. We have already hit the designspace limitation of this dynamic in a swifter pace than actual game balance and power creep.
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Mar 20, 2017 20:08:28 GMT
I agree with the OP, and I feel that moving forwards in the next few years, we will see themes becoming like subfactions within the faction, with whole bunches of the armies being mutually exclusive and never intended to be played together. PP implied at last Lock 'n Load that the theme books would contain not only new theme lists, but also new models exclusive to that theme list. Meaning they could have 2 theme lists that each have models that will never be on the table at the same time outside of something like a team game, and can be balanced around that. There could come a point where, not unlike the old merc charters and minion pacts, where you don't necessarily play "cygnar" anymore, you play "gravediggers" instead, or something. Now is this a BAD thing? Not necessarily. I don't see how PP will keep releasing new stuff and not be forced to adopt some method like this. If the factions get way too big, then breaking them down into smaller factions is definitely one way to help with a lot of balance issues.
As for some theme lists being too powerful, obviously there's potential for some theme lists to just be legitimately too good or too bad. On the legion side of things, I would definitely say that Oracles of Annihilation is a strong theme list, one of the ones that you have to find reasons NOT to play, while Children of The Dragon is an awful theme list that requires jumping through hoops to justify. These are issues that need to see adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 20, 2017 20:26:11 GMT
I made a thread or 2 about this direction and was told that I was crazy and theme forces are bad, so good to see more people take up the tin foil crown. So the thing that I am finding is that all themes all the time is an interesting way to go but it does have some downsides as people here have said, but it also has upsides. It is a lot easier to balance certain models against each other (exemplars and errants) than balancing models with similar roles but very different approaches (errands and idrians). It does mean that if a character jack isn't good with its parent caster it is very unlikely to be taken. Brickhouse has some interesting play with people such as Kraye, Darius and Nemo 2, but it will never be worth breaking theme for the dubious perk of paying points for brickhouse. For characters to be taken they either need to be: Made better with their respective casters (brickhouse is just made to be more powerful and synergistic with Maddox's gameplan). Allowed to be taken in themes (heavy metal includes Brickhouse) Or just be made generally stronger to allow reasons to not be played in theme (brickhouse becomes a better centurion, like thorn is a better lancer). The same applies for Mercenary options, except for caster synergies. They either need to be allowed in themes (which some are, granted), or provide a compelling reason to play out of theme (which some do like rhupert. But most dont). The problem with the idea of making characters better in general, is that this just rewards the themes that can already bring them more than playing them out of theme. Realistically, characters, mercs, and things out of themes at the moment can't be made better because doing so makes the instances within the themes and perhaps future themes far more powerful, especially when free models are granted for their inclusion. We have already hit the designspace limitation of this dynamic in a swifter pace than actual game balance and power creep. Which is why you need to pick whether to balance around theme limitations or balance around theme and not theme.
|
|
|
Post by javaman21011 on Mar 20, 2017 20:30:08 GMT
From my biased perspective the CoC theme force is quite strong; you just need jacks and the battle engine to satisfy it and you get so much awesome stuff: free support solos you already want to take, but couldn't justify the cost in a normal list, shield guard for all of em, and +2" of deployment. It's a no brainer and gives us 20 pts or so of support solos that can shield guard.
The only real downside i see is that it disallows infantry, but since they neutered recursion (our big deal in Mk2) it's not really a loss imo.
My primary suspicion was that PP wanted to sell more solo models to us. Or get us ready for other themes coming down the line... but i hear what other people are saying. It feels like the insane Mk2 themes are making a subtle creeping reappearance. Meanwhile some casters get a massive boost by taking advantage of models they already want to bring, whereas other casters are left in the bin because the combos you can bring are just too strong.
Personally I like the idea of extra rules that are applied in-theme, like shield guard or deployment extension, but free pts was kind of shocking.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Mar 21, 2017 6:56:13 GMT
Only PP themselves can say if it's intended or not. Given that their goal is to sell models after all said and done, I'd bet that it was intended.
And no matter if it's intended or not, it is clearly happening.
I don't agree on themes being clearly superior over non-themes in general. For some lists they are, some require non bond jack/beast + caster combination, some require specific mercs, a lot of models aren't covered by theme at all yet. Even with free points lacking some critical piece may lead to list not working. Yes, playing themed models out of theme is worse than playing them in theme, but that's kinda the whole point of themes.
|
|
|
Post by sideshowlucifer on Mar 21, 2017 9:44:45 GMT
I say make themes subfactions. Limit certain models to the themes they make sense to be in and create new models for specific themes. Give themes some neat abilities rather than free points.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Mar 21, 2017 10:14:59 GMT
But adding abilities to models is the same as giving extra points. The value of models goes up when they receive extra stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Mar 21, 2017 10:51:34 GMT
Yes but abilities aren't worth that much points, expecially the ones usually given into theme forces.
An ability given to an unit is hardly worth more than 1-2 points, so it unbalances a lot less than 10-20 points of free models.
|
|
|
Post by sideshowlucifer on Mar 21, 2017 10:58:53 GMT
Also, abilities help make themes feel unique. Legion has the "No AD" theme and a couple themes grant ambush to a unit and the Cryx one improves recursion. They just feel like a theme bonus rather than free points or free solos. The do these when they have league models and a lot of people love those.
Also, models being restricted TO specific themes makes each more thematic and opens up some neat model options without having to balance around every theme and the entire faction. It's also a decent way to deal with models ahead of the curve right now. For instance, what if things like Sentry Stones were limited to a specific theme or two. We would see less of them as new themes opened up and gave different competitive options. Same with some of the storm stuff. If they were limited to themes that made sense for knights and nobles and storm models, they wouldn't be an issue in so many places.
This last part really allows a lot of specialization which I think would be amazing. Themes could shine as sub-factions or restrictive specializations.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Mar 21, 2017 11:25:02 GMT
Another advantage is it would be easier to tweak themes using Dynamic Update and Errata, unlike changing a individual model where you have to worry about every possible conceivable interaction of that model with every other model in that faction, you are only dealing with a limited pool, it is therefor easier to see whether giving something like repo 3 to all solos or ambush would be too good or too little.
As others have pointed out it also allows new rules to be added to existing models, in the Grymkin Dark Menagerie theme for example, Gremlin Swarms gain Serenity, this effectively increases the number of models in the faction, without physically increasing the number of models. Adding new ways to play existing models like this help keep stuff fresh and spicy
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Mar 21, 2017 12:02:17 GMT
Then, the argument isn't against the principle of free points for theme restrictions. Maybe people 'feel' like an interesting extra rule isn't the same, but it is. If the number of points is the issue, then I suggest we wait to see more of the themes. We haven't even seen half of them. Sure, heavy metal allows for ~17points of free stuff. But that's to make up for one of the weaknesses of an all jacks list. 4 of the 5 solos allowed are focus batteries with a couple of other abilities like a good upkeep or repair.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Mar 21, 2017 12:12:04 GMT
Then, the argument isn't against the principle of free points for theme restrictions. Maybe people 'feel' like an interesting extra rule isn't the same, but it is. If the number of points is the issue, then I suggest we wait to see more of the themes. We haven't even seen half of them. Sure, heavy metal allows for ~17points of free stuff. But that's to make up for one of the weaknesses of an all jacks list. 4 of the 5 solos allowed are focus batteries with a couple of other abilities like a good upkeep or repair. The 17 points of free solos is interesting because the 4th one is runewood or Jakes 1, both way more niche in most lists that want to take more jacks except for certain casters. This is a cool thing because it makes certain interactions more desirable. Its like how storm division made Maddox better because pathfinder.
|
|
|
Post by jansuza on Mar 21, 2017 12:24:39 GMT
My tin hat is also somewhat lodged on my head for now. If you want to be competitive right now, it's very unlikely you would play out of theme unless you don't have access to yours yet.
It just seems absolutely mad to not play with the 16-odd extra points when everybody else surely will. Very seldom will the flexibility of selecting any model overcome the points deficit, and that just means that we will start seeing a lot less character heavies and infantry variety.
Perhaps its still too early to tell and we all need to relax a bit, but with my legion, my favourite models of swordsmen and Proteus seem to be an endangered species!
|
|
|
Post by dicebedamned on Mar 21, 2017 13:06:24 GMT
I agree that PP want to go down the '90% played in theme' route, and to be honest I am happy with that, so long as the themes stay interesting.
Sure being 17pts down at the moment sucks, if you do not have a comparable theme, but choosing to play non-theme against a theme and then being upset that your opponent had the advantage from the off is no different to playing your fav caster into a bad matchup - you are sacrificing ease of winning for getting to take what you want.
Warmachine and Hordes has always had an element of list chicken to it, you can certainly lose before you even get to the table, themes are just a continuation of that.
|
|