|
Post by GumbaFish on Nov 7, 2017 12:41:08 GMT
The problem is I think it is really clear that PP intends for themes to be the way most people play. I miss the early part of the edition before themes made their way back in but they seem to be here to stay so I'm resigned to deal with it I guess.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 7, 2017 13:04:57 GMT
I like this idea. Themes have destroyed so many beautifull synergies it makes me sad, and with a rule like this you can get some of that back without opening the floodgates alltogether.
|
|
|
Post by HubertJFarnsworth on Nov 7, 2017 14:38:52 GMT
zich That's fair, and the impact definitely varies by faction. I haven't felt that constrained in Ret for example so it certainly hasn't hurt my list building all that much outside of character jacks. That said I've also just accepted that that's the way it has to be for releases to keep working so there's a certain amount of acceptance in play. Hopefully moving forward PP can work towards a middle ground that satisfies more people without hamstringing their future releases. I do like the idea of Elite Cadre functioning like a Bond. Again it would probably require wording in the Theme Force that prevents non-theme models brought in from getting benefits just in case; if Vyros had Elite Cadre [Sentinals] we probably wouldn't want Sentinals gaining anti-Tough and RFP.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Nov 8, 2017 1:46:05 GMT
Well with introduction of mercs PP did break their word about "themes not changing FA". Technically themes have a FA 1 on a merc or partisan unit and solo. What if we take this logic further and say FA 1 of something else is possible in themes. And to keep things in check we can say that themes have a primary and secondary model section. The primary one is full FA that gets bonus, the secondary one is no bonus FA 1 that is assigned individually to each theme like mercs currently are. There are already themes that allow units with no bonus, so this makes a usable general template for those.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 8, 2017 7:50:20 GMT
I've had a similar idea. But really, all of these are just workarounds and the entire issue would be solved by getting rid of those damn free points and reassessing the cost of solos and CAs (-1 cost to almost all of them will definitely not break the game).
Edit: Another, probably more interesting way of handling it would be the following. Every theme gets a list of core, regular and irregular models/units.
Core models/units grant a free thing (CA, solo, etc) per 15p with a maximum of 1 per 25p of army size. In Heavy Metal these would be warjacks and BEs. Regular models/units do nothing special. In Heavy Metal these would be Sword Knights, etc. Irregular models/units are restricted to 1 model/unit per 25p of army size. In Heavy Metal these would be a selection of Mercs and Cygnar models.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Nov 10, 2017 13:51:10 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. I might be reading the OP incorrectly, or interpreting it wrong, but by "non-faction" choice, i interpreted it as out-of-faction ? Perhaps some clarification from the OP as to what he meant? I wouldn't mind an in-faction out of theme malleable choice, though at that point one needs to ask "Why themes in the first place then?". Out of faction would literally mule kick in the doors of balance issues they are attempting to curtail by going full theme to the extreme. Edit: Ah, i see, OP in the second paragraph clarified what he meant not as "non-faction", but rather in faction out of theme choice. I definitely missed the nuance of that second statement. My fault! In that case, isn't that a step closer towards list malleability, exactly opposite of what they're trying to do ? I'm not against it, I hate themes and how they've taken over the game ( balance your damn game, or if you can't, slow down existing faction releases and figure out another profit stream, don't give up the Firetrucking ghost and make mini-factions within factions), but its sort of a step in the opposite direction of their entire strategy for MK3.
|
|
|
Post by thewaspinator on Nov 11, 2017 0:35:51 GMT
It is slightly goofy that it's easier for me to include a Farrow unit in my Legion beast list than it is to include many actual Legion units.
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Nov 11, 2017 3:49:18 GMT
It is slightly goofy that it's easier for me to include a Farrow unit in my Legion beast list than it is to include many actual Legion units. Tangential to topic, but I've always found the comparison of Mercenaries in Warmachine to Minions in Hordes odd. Many Warmachine factions have Merc units being integral to function, whereas Hordes units tend to see niche use with a warlock or two per faction, if at all. We don't have an A+H, Boomies, Nyss, DSM, or other Merc unit that shows up (or did) frequently. Even Minion non-character units never showed up frequently, they were always niche like Zaal Shamblers and Rasheth Gators.
|
|
|
Post by plungingforward on Nov 27, 2017 22:00:18 GMT
It is slightly goofy that it's easier for me to include a Farrow unit in my Legion beast list than it is to include many actual Legion units. This is the problem right here, and for me I mostly see it in my Skorne lists. As was mentioned above, Skorne as they are described in the lore use venators and beasts as support for melee troops, and ancestors as morale boosts and soul-gatherers. It's a professional, multi-role army that's really starting to figure out this whole "guns" thing, even if they don't exactly love it. It's fun to see an army of all guns, all melee troops, all beasts or all constructs, but the inability to play the faction according to its own battle doctrine as described by PP without being "out of theme" just seems totally off base. I get that some theme forces (trenchers, for example) may not have the full might of cygnar available all the time, so need some "bolstering" from mercs to fill specialist roles. That actually makes sense from a certain point of view - but the lack of an "army of the western reaches" theme has me scratching my head. That's part of why I'm stuck on DoA - I can accept the idea a hodgepodge slave army (perhaps raised in haste) much easier than whatever in-universe army "winds of death" is supposed to represent.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Nov 28, 2017 0:40:38 GMT
Can't see this happening, the aim of themes is to counter faction bloat and remove direct competition between similar models, e.g Dawnguard Sentinels and house guard halberdiers, this would run counter to the design goal
|
|
|
Post by drillbossd on Nov 28, 2017 0:42:31 GMT
I just want Hordes factions to each have a minion partisan option.
For example, I'd be interested to see Bloodrunners become Minions with Partisan [Skorne]. The option to toss a Master Tormentor or an AD PF unit into a Rasheth Warhost is sufficiently juicy and I don't think they'd break minions. Fluffwise, the secretive arm of the Paingivers ally with whoever they need to advance the Skorne agenda.
Pygmy Trolls and Striders could fit the same role in their respective factions. Not sure on the right one for Circle.
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Nov 28, 2017 2:19:17 GMT
Probably Druids since they are supposed to be the rank and file members as opposed to the Tharn and Wolfsworn.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 28, 2017 7:48:40 GMT
Can't see this happening, the aim of themes is to counter faction bloat and remove direct competition between similar models, e.g Dawnguard Sentinels and house guard halberdiers, this would run counter to the design goal It could happen once they realize that that design goal can be reached through less extreme means. I can only repeat: Infinity does it just fine.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Nov 28, 2017 8:40:08 GMT
Can't see this happening, the aim of themes is to counter faction bloat and remove direct competition between similar models, e.g Dawnguard Sentinels and house guard halberdiers, this would run counter to the design goal It could happen once they realize that that design goal can be reached through less extreme means. I can only repeat: Infinity does it just fine. I don't know how many models are in each Infinity Faction, but I would imagine it is less than War machine and Hordes factions. I would say extreme measures are needed to stop it collapsing under it's own weight
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 28, 2017 8:50:50 GMT
If you count different weapon options (because let's face it, Ironclads and Defenders are different weapon options) then it's a lot more. Otherwise it's somewhat comparable.
Extreme measures are not needed. If non-theme lists were as viable as theme lists that would (by definition) not invalidate themes or the models inside them. Not to sound too paranoid here, but I think the purpose of mandatory themes is to sell themes. Not to balance the game. Dynamic updates and CID have done a LOT to do that.
|
|