|
Post by Tom_Bombadil_ on Oct 4, 2017 13:49:49 GMT
I kinda wanna see Barnie swap Warpath for Battle Charged (battlegroup gains Countercharge in control area). While I think battle charged would be cool, I really like the aggressive nature and unpredictable threat ranges given by warpath.
|
|
|
Post by albertairish on Oct 4, 2017 14:27:03 GMT
Some of the people on the CID forums are f****** morons. "Did you TRY eBarnabus into 'jack spam?! If you didn't, you're not allowed to say the Execration is weak against constructs." B*****, nobody has the time to give up 4+ hours of their life to prove that eBarny cannot be a frontline caster against Warmachine jack spam. Stop asking people to waste their time proving things that are obvious just from reading the f****** card.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Oct 4, 2017 15:08:07 GMT
I kinda wanna see Barnie swap Warpath for Battle Charged (battlegroup gains Countercharge in control area). That would be pretty thematic and interesting. I could get behind that. I am pretty excited for the Magic Cauldron. It seems like it is gonna be a good addition to anyones army thanks to the ranged drag and puppet master. Seems like a great addition to my circle lists. particularly krueger 2. I also think Long chops may be missing something. I think he should get dismember on his gun. Give him an additional die of damage against beasts and jacks so he can be a finisher instead of a random dude hunter. Ambushers probably need a speed increase. Speed 6 would be nice on them. Kroaks still need something. I don't see much of a reason for them at thier cost The croak hunter is also kind of underwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Oct 4, 2017 15:39:07 GMT
Some of the people on the CID forums are f****** morons. "Did you TRY eBarnabus into 'jack spam?! If you didn't, you're not allowed to say the Execration is weak against constructs." B*****, nobody has the time to give up 4+ hours of their life to prove that eBarny cannot be a frontline caster against Warmachine jack spam. Stop asking people to waste their time proving things that are obvious just from reading the f****** card. PP has been pretty clear on needing playtest backup. Given like 70% of people play WM, I imagine it should not be a difficult point to demonstrate.
|
|
|
Post by albertairish on Oct 4, 2017 16:17:41 GMT
Some of the people on the CID forums are f****** morons. "Did you TRY eBarnabus into 'jack spam?! If you didn't, you're not allowed to say the Execration is weak against constructs." B*****, nobody has the time to give up 4+ hours of their life to prove that eBarny cannot be a frontline caster against Warmachine jack spam. Stop asking people to waste their time proving things that are obvious just from reading the f****** card. PP has been pretty clear on needing playtest backup. Given like 70% of people play WM, I imagine it should not be a difficult point to demonstrate. Sure, if you have evenings that you enjoy wasting. Make sure you take all of the Minion stuff that only works on living models to hammer home the point.
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Oct 4, 2017 16:37:50 GMT
I don't consider playing wasting an evening. You can also look at it as an evening now, or all Barnabus games later if you like.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Oct 4, 2017 17:38:10 GMT
I'm at a loss as to how "this spell that is his primary defensive and doesn't even work on constructs makes him weak as a front line caster against the 70-100 points of construct lists we've seen about" is in any way a controversial statement requiring tabletime testing.
|
|
|
Post by Gaston on Oct 4, 2017 18:12:58 GMT
I'm at a loss as to how "this spell that is his primary defensive and doesn't even work on constructs makes him weak as a front line caster against the 70-100 points of construct lists we've seen about" is in any way a controversial statement requiring tabletime testing. According to PP it is? It will be very sad if they cannot be convinced to change it.
|
|
|
Post by danfromchicago on Oct 4, 2017 18:28:01 GMT
I'm at a loss as to how "this spell that is his primary defensive and doesn't even work on constructs makes him weak as a front line caster against the 70-100 points of construct lists we've seen about" is in any way a controversial statement requiring tabletime testing. Prove it is always a reasonable response to a hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Oct 4, 2017 18:44:00 GMT
I'm at a loss as to how "this spell that is his primary defensive and doesn't even work on constructs makes him weak as a front line caster against the 70-100 points of construct lists we've seen about" is in any way a controversial statement requiring tabletime testing. Prove it is always a reasonable response to a hypothesis. Easily done, find any battle report where B3 frontlined against 5+ marauders + some kodiaks.
|
|
|
Post by albertairish on Oct 4, 2017 18:45:10 GMT
I'm at a loss as to how "this spell that is his primary defensive and doesn't even work on constructs makes him weak as a front line caster against the 70-100 points of construct lists we've seen about" is in any way a controversial statement requiring tabletime testing. Prove it is always a reasonable response to a hypothesis. Sure, just like the stupid kids that need to stick a fork in an outlet before they'll believe that that's how electricity works. It flat out does not work against Jacks. It's written right there on the card. It doesn't need "real world" proof.
|
|
|
Post by danfromchicago on Oct 6, 2017 3:13:22 GMT
What requires testing is whether or not:
1. It can be worked around 2. That one particular weakness justifies a change
PP knows there's jack spam, they know the spell doesn't work against constructs. Asserting that it makes the caster useless isn't going to go far.
|
|
crow
Junior Strategist
Posts: 310
|
Post by crow on Oct 6, 2017 11:45:03 GMT
They could be wondering that, even with said spell, is it possible the rest of his kit still allows him to be playable and competitive. If he is, then they don't need to change the spell. If he's not, then they may need to reconsider this spell, or other parts of his kit... doesn't seem to un-reasonable to me, I just don't have anyone who play warmachine enough / don't have people that allow me to proxy, that I could test this out for them :/
|
|
|
Post by ankiseth on Oct 9, 2017 20:34:31 GMT
Week 3 starts today and there’s a Dev Talk on Witch Doc’s Zombify spell. They seem pretty directionless with the Doc...
* Mist Speaker and Boilmaster lose Friendly Faction restrictions. * Croak Hunter becomes PC 3, M/RAT 6, loses Poison for Weaken (living target -2 DEF and SPD). Gains Gangfighter. Dunno why you’d use a one-weapon, RAT 6 model to lower a high-DEF target’s defense. * Lynus & Edrea get a B2B heal and a Cloud-dispersal spell. * Dracodile -> ARM 20. * Some solos will work for more factions.
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Oct 9, 2017 22:04:20 GMT
Which solos have broadened eligibility? I'd love to get me Lanyssa in Skorne. Hunter's Mark will just be bonkers good.
|
|