|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Nov 6, 2017 18:53:32 GMT
This is a shower thought that I had when thinking about the recent addition of Mercs/Minions into theme forces.
If Mercs/Minions are allowed into all themes, would it be too much to allow non-theme choices? The way I see it, you would have the current options of 1 Merc/Mnion unit and solo, or you could take a single faction, non-theme model/unit.
What does the forum think about this?
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690 
|
Post by zich on Nov 6, 2017 20:05:57 GMT
I really wish this actually happens. Would really help in playing armies that make sense from a composition standpoint again.
|
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 6, 2017 20:18:32 GMT
I really wish this actually happens. Would really help in playing armies that make sense from a composition standpoint again. I really want to drag this off-topic, but I'm very curious what this statement is supposed to mean. I'd be curious to discuss it in another PM or another thread. As for the OP; I don't think I'd be okay with this, but I'm also not okay with each theme just being allowed to pick from any available Merc. I think this opens up a lot of potential interactions that can't possibly be tested when one of the implicate goals of themes was supposed to be to cut down on those. I would have much preferred it if they had gone through and picked specific Merc choices to allow in each theme like some MkII themes (and some MkIII themes. Did you know that some Ret theme specifically allow Sylys but it doesn't matter cause you can just shove him in any of them?) had so that we can be sure it wasn't going to create more issues down the road. Being allowed to just add any in-faction model to a theme list has the same potential issues. If I can take Trencher Long Gunners in any theme list why would I ever take Long Gunners? If I can take Sentinals in Forges of War doesn't that defeat the purpose of the jack theme? I do appreciate the dislike of themes, though I maintain that there simply isn't a better option for releases going forward, but I'm not sure this doesn't create more problems than it solves. |
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Nov 6, 2017 20:46:05 GMT
Being allowed to just add any in-faction model to a theme list has the same potential issues. If I can take Trencher Long Gunners in any theme list why would I ever take Long Gunners? If I can take Sentinals in Forges of War doesn't that defeat the purpose of the jack theme? I do appreciate the dislike of themes, though I maintain that there simply isn't a better option for releases going forward, but I'm not sure this doesn't create more problems than it solves. Personally, I like the themes of Mk2, and it would've been nice just to see them open up to other casters. However, PP intends for themes to be a staple, so I was just trying to work with that mindset. As to redundancy and covering too many bases, there is still the issue that only get there benefits from and give them to a specific set of models. Perhaps those restriction could be tightened, and probably should be on the off chance my suggestion comes true. I will concede that some benefits would be universal, but for example, if I could take a Blighted Nyss Warlord in Oracles, in wouldn't benefit from Apparition and wouldn't contribute to free points. A slight change to my original idea could be a theme benefit that says: You get free models for Xpts of select models Or You can take 1 Merc/Minion unit and Solo Or You can take 1 non-theme friendly faction model/unit The problem I see with this change is that this would probably just take it back to before the addition of Mercs/Minions for some lists where the free selections were compelling and easily reached. |
|
|
|
Post by GumbaFish on Nov 6, 2017 21:26:45 GMT
I think the more flexibility you build into themes then the less reason I see to have themes in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 6, 2017 21:34:20 GMT
Being allowed to just add any in-faction model to a theme list has the same potential issues. If I can take Trencher Long Gunners in any theme list why would I ever take Long Gunners? If I can take Sentinals in Forges of War doesn't that defeat the purpose of the jack theme? I do appreciate the dislike of themes, though I maintain that there simply isn't a better option for releases going forward, but I'm not sure this doesn't create more problems than it solves. Personally, I like the themes of Mk2, and it would've been nice just to see them open up to other casters. However, PP intends for themes to be a staple, so I was just trying to work with that mindset. As to redundancy and covering too many bases, there is still the issue that only get there benefits from and give them to a specific set of models. Perhaps those restriction could be tightened, and probably should be on the off chance my suggestion comes true. I will concede that some benefits would be universal, but for example, if I could take a Blighted Nyss Warlord in Oracles, in wouldn't benefit from Apparition and wouldn't contribute to free points. A slight change to my original idea could be a theme benefit that says: You get free models for Xpts of select models Or You can take 1 Merc/Minion unit and Solo Or You can take 1 non-theme friendly faction model/unit The problem I see with this change is that this would probably just take it back to before the addition of Mercs/Minions for some lists where the free selections were compelling and easily reached. I could see maybe saying One Merc/Minions/Non-theme Faction unit and one M/M/ntF solo and specifically making them exempt from any bonuses or being free. It creates some weird situations in Ret off the top of my head with the number of Partisan solos (Eiryss, Sylys, Lanyssa) but I don't think it's the end of the world. |
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Nov 7, 2017 0:19:29 GMT
It's a neat idea but my suspicion is the "true" reason behind "theme-machine" is condensing the game into more easily managed bubbles to balance. Allowing out of faction choices in themes (especially an open ended choice) would effectively torpedo that.
Also, there's sort of the whole immersion / sense making thing: For instance, what is the logical impetus (beyond "it would be cool!") that would explain Stryker2 controlling a Reaper ? A lot of it would be just bizarre choices for the sake of allowing things heretofore unallowed. Or if it was a narrow band of "out of faction" choices, ok, but wouldn't you rather have an in-faction choice (say, in my above example, the cygnar equivalent of a Reaper) rather than "close off that design space" (tongue sort of in cheek....) to what a Cygnaran Reaper equivalent could look like one day ?
I dunno, i get the thought, but i think implementing and balancing this would be far more tricky than it was ultimately worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogganmguest on Nov 7, 2017 1:01:39 GMT
I thought the proposal was to allow something from your faction, but outside of the theme's restrictions? Like a unit of gators in a pig theme, or one character beast that's not bonded to your warlock.
|
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Nov 7, 2017 2:15:29 GMT
I thought the proposal was to allow something from your faction, but outside of the theme's restrictions? Like a unit of gators in a pig theme, or one character beast that's not bonded to your warlock. Yeah thats how i read it too. I really want them to ease up on the character restrictions for example you cant even play chiron in skorne except with 1 caster. |
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 7, 2017 3:13:08 GMT
Grumble this topic has me rilled up. Theme machine needs to go die in a fire
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 7, 2017 9:21:29 GMT
HubertJFarnsworth: I agree it's probably a bad idea to derail the thread for this, but I can give a brief explanation of what I meant with my somewhat agitated post. I am going to use my own faction as an example, because that is what I know best. The Skorne army is pretty much geared towards specialists working together so each can apply their strengths while covering each other's weaknesses. Kind of like an actual army. Armies consisting of ONLY Reivers or ONLY Cataphracts should be the exception, not the rule. I have no problem with them existing, in fact it's pretty cool. But they should not exist at the exclusion of balanced/mixed forces. I'm not going to complain about the power of our themes. They are extremely strong. But they make little sense and restict list design massively. GumbaFish: That is true. I think PP have written themselves into a bit of a corner here and I hope they reconsider. Themes not invalidating out-of-theme can work. Infinity has just that with Sectorials. Making non-theme forces viable would solve all of these issues elegantly, but instead we are getting work-arounds that are simply not sufficient. W0lfBane: It just might. But as much as I hate this trend, I prefer thememachine over no Warmachine at all. A possibly interesting idea would be to make Elite Cadre work like Bonds. So a Warlock/Warcaster with Elite Cadre [x] could bring [x] in any theme force. Morghoul2 could bring Bloodrunners (including PGBRMT) and Nemo2 could bring Stormcallers for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by shortsleeve on Nov 7, 2017 9:36:03 GMT
you shoud be able to use at least your character warjack/warbeast with everyone in theme because behemoth have no bond so if i dont play jaw i cant play him
|
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Nov 7, 2017 10:50:45 GMT
HubertJFarnsworth : I agree it's probably a bad idea to derail the thread for this, but I can give a brief explanation of what I meant with my somewhat agitated post. I am going to use my own faction as an example, because that is what I know best. The Skorne army is pretty much geared towards specialists working together so each can apply their strengths while covering each other's weaknesses. Kind of like an actual army. Armies consisting of ONLY Reivers or ONLY Cataphracts should be the exception, not the rule. I have no problem with them existing, in fact it's pretty cool. But they should not exist at the exclusion of balanced/mixed forces. I'm not going to complain about the power of our themes. They are extremely strong. But they make little sense and restict list design massively. GumbaFish : That is true. I think PP have written themselves into a bit of a corner here and I hope they reconsider. Themes not invalidating out-of-theme can work. Infinity has just that with Sectorials. Making non-theme forces viable would solve all of these issues elegantly, but instead we are getting work-arounds that are simply not sufficient. W0lfBane : It just might. But as much as I hate this trend, I prefer thememachine over no Warmachine at all. A possibly interesting idea would be to make Elite Cadre work like Bonds. So a Warlock/Warcaster with Elite Cadre [x] could bring [x] in any theme force. Morghoul2 could bring Bloodrunners (including PGBRMT) and Nemo2 could bring Stormcallers for example. Elite Cadre working like bonds would make mordikaar the happiest void seer. i fully support this! |
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Nov 7, 2017 12:06:38 GMT
I don't like this idea because it can create a lot of disparity. Some things works as 1 choice, some require support solos, some themes can become too good with that 1 off-theme choice, etc.
I think they just need to give free stuff in non-theme armies so themes won't be obligatory anymore.
Elite cadre working like bond is a good idea.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 7, 2017 12:13:18 GMT
I think they just need to give free stuff in non-theme armies so themes won't be obligatory anymore. I think a lot of people would like that, but we are beyond hoping for that and instead looking for less-bad solutions. |
|
