|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 10, 2017 15:49:21 GMT
So, I've been thinking about immunities a lot lately. Frankly, as they are, they're stupid. Now, they work for certain factions such as Cygnar and Menoth, so I'm not saying they need to go away. However, here's the problem. Immunities dont just grant an armor boost. They give ACTUAL IMMUNITY. Absolutely no damage from the typed attack. There aren't any corresponding weaknesses, either. As such, theres absolutely no reason to bring a typed gun. Its punishing to do so. Its not like its a gamble where you hope you run into a model that has a weakness to your gun type. You're just hoping that your opponent wont have any immunities. I don't believe this makes for very balanced gameplay. So, heres what I think should happen (either/or).
1. Models with immunities should have weaknesses: For instance, if a model has immunity to fire, it should have a weakness to Ice, and vice versa. Models with corrosion immunity would have a weakness to electricity and vice versa (this actually makes sense. Metals are fairly resistant to corrosion, but conduct electricity...). Models with weaknesses would lose like 4 armor maybe?
2. Immunities should be changed to an armor buff as opposed to straight up negating damage: This is much less extreme than the above. There's still no real reason to bring a typed gun, however its at least not AS punishing as it is currently.
So, do you agree? If not, why do you believe its fine the way it is? As a slightly unrelated side note, should factions pick up more immunities all around?
|
|
Kavrae
Junior Strategist
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kavrae on Nov 10, 2017 16:04:36 GMT
While it is immensely frustrating to have a weapon type be completely blocked, it DOES have a benefit in that it doesn't harm your own troops. Three examples coming to mind are Cygnar (electro leaps), Menoth (fire sprays), and Cryx (corrosion AOEs and sprays). This allows you to throw around those abilities without accidentally nuking your own troops. Always useful if you're firing deviating AOEs into your jamming troops.
Part of me does want to go the pokemon route and grant weaknesses to SOME models for certain damage types. (key: some. Keep it rare) It would be thematic and allow for even more interactions or reasons to take certain troops. However... this is a gamble that I don't like. Whenever you pick a weapon type based on your own immunities, it's going to work every time and it's always useful. It gives options to the player with direct results that they can plan around. The only gamble is if the opponent is immune as well, which is actually quite rare. If weaknesses are equally rare, then it's less about picking the weapon type intentionally, and more about hoping it's useful once in a while. This is a choice that very rarely has results. If immunities become common, then we fall into the trap that you mentioned; don't take elemental weapons if you can help it.
Now here's where I would be ok with this; if you had models causing weaknesses to certain elements that their troops could utilize. For example: a Cryxian warcaster giving models a weakness to corrosion. Now, those weaknesses are something that you can plan for and build for. Come to think of it, don't fire trolls already do something similar with oil?
Another option if you wanted to make immunties more common would be to call it "resistance" then change it to an armor buff or, more likely, drop one dice (not applicable for corrosion of course). Now it's looking more like the pokemon type advantage system. You can plan out your weapon types based on the weaknesses and resistances of whatever you plan on facing next. I actually do not like this as much since it shifts listbuilding focus too much on diversifying weapon types instead of creating army synergy.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Nov 10, 2017 16:07:25 GMT
I like how immunities are handled in CoI, 1 less dice on damage roll.
|
|
Kavrae
Junior Strategist
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kavrae on Nov 10, 2017 16:14:19 GMT
I like how immunities are handled in CoI, 1 less dice on damage roll. I would not be surprised if that was their method of stealthily testing the change before trying it on Steamroller.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Nov 10, 2017 17:01:01 GMT
I don't like option 2, it once again looks at ARM as the all mighty defensive stat... ARM 11/12 troops just die to their own poison.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Nov 10, 2017 17:16:30 GMT
I think binary immunities are great when they are a cool ability available to a limited set of models. Makes for great tactical decisions on both sides. of the table
What is not great, is blanket immunities which make entire armies immune to certain damage type.
|
|
Haight
Junior Strategist
Posts: 396
|
Post by Haight on Nov 10, 2017 17:39:31 GMT
I agree with Jisidro.
In an attempt to try to fix immunities and damage types (i.e. - immunities are zero sum, and damage types currently are minor net negatives) in MK2 i once suggested replacing the rules of immunities with the following.
Immunity [Type][N] - This model gains +N to DEF and ARM against attack and damage rolls of the specified Immunity Type.
Susceptibility [Type] [N] - This model suffers -N to DEF and ARM against attack and damage rolls of the specified Susceptibility Type.
With a developer note that N should never equal more than 3, and 3 should be relegated to characters or high specific thematic designs (say, a Fire Warbeast could have Immunity Fire 3). As a suggested possible Tweak, to keep Magic Damage's unique "net boon" intact with no further net boon, an internal design doc could state that There is no "Susceptibility [Magic]" allowed, as we want to retain Magic Type Damage's ability to harm incorporeals as its minor net boon.
At first glance the -1 die thing mentioned above seems nice, until you realize you end up with a relatively high number of states where damage is not possible. Take a POW 12 Fire Attack Type coming in at a target with ARM 18, Immunity Fire. THe -1 die method says that, sans a charge or a boost mechanism, this model cannot hurt this target. Using the Immunity method, the model gets a bonus (that does not favor one prime defensive stat over another, mind you), but in the same Scenario, you'd need an armor of 23/22/21 before the model was incapable of hurting the target.
Additionally : Right now damage types are a net minor negative with the exception of Magic Damage Type - i.e - there's no upside to typed damage other than Magic (hurting incorporeals). There is a minor net negative of running into an Immunity as it currently stands.
The suggested Susceptibility can, in some circumstances, give typed damage a minor net positive to typed damage other than Magic, and while the bonus is okay to very good depending on the Susceptibility level of the target, it again only comes up in the situation where its Type vs. Susceptibility. Somewhat rarely having a nice inborn buff i think is superior to having it nearly always be a minor net negative.
Finally, Susceptibilities and Immunities would provide a nice way to give a final balance tweak here or there for those models that are very close to balanced, but where additional or less stats would be overkill, and points increase would as well - adding an immunity / susceptibility would give such rare, though occuring, instances that final little extra "oomph" if required (with the frequency of the type playing a large role in that decision as well as general thematic fit and sense making).
Cons:
A touch more record keeping in terms of modifiers (though anyone that honestly levies this criticism I think is being a bit disingenuous as WM/H is already a record keeping intensive game).
It would add one more net mechanic into the game (Susceptibility, Immunity already exists), a game that already has a lot of mechanics and is attempting to keep mechanic bloat under control.
I dunno, i thought it was a nice scaling, granular, elegant way of achieving a few minor goals and fixing most of the problems with Immunities and Damage Types without making anything OP or defunct.
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Nov 10, 2017 17:51:12 GMT
I disagree that having a damage type doesn't have a weakness. You take a unit like Stormblades which do not have electroleap so therefore the guns don't seem to really provide any tangible benefit. Like, if they were just "analog guns" wouldn't they be better?
At first glance, yes. Setting aside any sort of point adjustment let's talk about in-faction synergies.
Rangers - Give +2 to all Ranged attack rolls Silverline Stormguard - Give +2 damage against specific models if the attacking model has Damage type electricity. Stormstrider - Provides +2 to hit if the attacking model has an electrical damage type Nemo3 - Gives an additional Damage die on feat if the attack is electrical Firefly - Gives +2 damage to electrical attacks to model's in its proximity
I'm sure I'm missing some. You'll notice that four out of five of those synergies benefits the electrical damage type. Likewise, Menoth and Khador have similar synergies (though the latter lacks nearly as many.) So while at first glance "analog guns" would be better, it gives the devs a chance to build internal synergies without making everything in the faction absurdly unbalanced.
I'd suggest that your option 1 is already in play. Khador has abilities that trigger on a hit, if you don't have immunity - cold you are stationary. This is, essentially, what you're suggesting. The attacked model has a weakness to cold, it is now stationary. Electroleap says "if you don't have an electrical immunity you are AUTOMATICALLY hit". Are abilities like Stationary and autohits not enough of a weakness? Would you like something else stacked upon that? Those are powerful abilities, they are literally abilities that win games.
As Haight has said, giving an armor buff instead of a straight immunity just seems to be annoying record keeping. For instance, let's say you are playing the mirror match and dropping Stormlances into Stormblades. If the penalty is -1 damage die, the eleaps need 6's to kill a stormblade (or any single wound Stormknight). If the penalty is, say, +3 armor against electrical attacks, you'd need to roll a 9 on 2 dice to kill, making it extremely difficult.
So what I'd argue to the OP is twofold:
Option 1 already exists, just not as the OP imagines it might. Option 2 seems like a pointless waste of time and a needless rule that would barely affect any individual game in any meaningful way.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 10, 2017 18:00:36 GMT
While it is immensely frustrating to have a weapon type be completely blocked, it DOES have a benefit in that it doesn't harm your own troops. Three examples coming to mind are Cygnar (electro leaps), Menoth (fire sprays), and Cryx (corrosion AOEs and sprays). This allows you to throw around those abilities without accidentally nuking your own troops. Always useful if you're firing deviating AOEs into your jamming troops. Part of me does want to go the pokemon route and grant weaknesses to SOME models for certain damage types. (key: some. Keep it rare) It would be thematic and allow for even more interactions or reasons to take certain troops. However... this is a gamble that I don't like. Whenever you pick a weapon type based on your own immunities, it's going to work every time and it's always useful. It gives options to the player with direct results that they can plan around. The only gamble is if the opponent is immune as well, which is actually quite rare. If weaknesses are equally rare, then it's less about picking the weapon type intentionally, and more about hoping it's useful once in a while. This is a choice that very rarely has results. If immunities become common, then we fall into the trap that you mentioned; don't take elemental weapons if you can help it. Now here's where I would be ok with this; if you had models causing weaknesses to certain elements that their troops could utilize. For example: a Cryxian warcaster giving models a weakness to corrosion. Now, those weaknesses are something that you can plan for and build for. Come to think of it, don't fire trolls already do something similar with oil? Another option if you wanted to make immunties more common would be to call it "resistance" then change it to an armor buff or, more likely, drop one dice (not applicable for corrosion of course). Now it's looking more like the pokemon type advantage system. You can plan out your weapon types based on the weaknesses and resistances of whatever you plan on facing next. I actually do not like this as much since it shifts listbuilding focus too much on diversifying weapon types instead of creating army synergy. Exactly why I mentioned Menoth and Cygnar. Their immunities are essential for their game plans. Fair point, I see what you mean. Giving out a weakness is very interesting! I like the idea. And sorta, oil just gives extra dice but doesn't actually do anything against immunities. True, dice may be a better way to go about it over an armor buff.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 10, 2017 18:05:10 GMT
I'd suggest that your option 1 is already in play. Khador has abilities that trigger on a hit, if you don't have immunity - cold you are stationary. This is, essentially, what you're suggesting. The attacked model has a weakness to cold, it is now stationary. Electroleap says "if you don't have an electrical immunity you are AUTOMATICALLY hit". Are abilities like Stationary and autohits not enough of a weakness? Would you like something else stacked upon that? Those are powerful abilities, they are literally abilities that win games. 100% absolutely NOT what I'm suggesting. Besides, you never build a strategy around a crit, unless you can consistently pump out 4 dice without much effort.
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Nov 10, 2017 18:10:47 GMT
I'd suggest that your option 1 is already in play. Khador has abilities that trigger on a hit, if you don't have immunity - cold you are stationary. This is, essentially, what you're suggesting. The attacked model has a weakness to cold, it is now stationary. Electroleap says "if you don't have an electrical immunity you are AUTOMATICALLY hit". Are abilities like Stationary and autohits not enough of a weakness? Would you like something else stacked upon that? Those are powerful abilities, they are literally abilities that win games. 100% absolutely NOT what I'm suggesting. Besides, you never build a strategy around a crit, unless you can consistently pump out 4 dice without much effort. So you're saying if a model has immunity electricity it should have a weakness to water? And if it's hit by a water attack the damage done is like an extra die or +2 or something?
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 10, 2017 18:26:57 GMT
100% absolutely NOT what I'm suggesting. Besides, you never build a strategy around a crit, unless you can consistently pump out 4 dice without much effort. So you're saying if a model has immunity electricity it should have a weakness to water? And if it's hit by a water attack the damage done is like an extra die or +2 or something? More or less. Though, I'm pretty sure there isn't a water damage type.
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Nov 10, 2017 18:43:08 GMT
So you're saying if a model has immunity electricity it should have a weakness to water? And if it's hit by a water attack the damage done is like an extra die or +2 or something? More or less. Though, I'm pretty sure there isn't a water damage type. There isn't. It was just an example. But I think that's just more record keeping and seems pointless. The point of immunities and damage types is to build internal synergies, not external weaknesses. I see what you're saying and how it could interact with the game state, I just think it's mostly pointless. Immunities are not very common as a whole, so building an army of, say, Cold Damage type to fight Fire Damage type would only be beneficial in very specific matchups against very specific builds. And what we see PP do is cost benefits higher than they are typically worth. You take Precursor Knights which only have benefits "Magical, Blessed Weapons." These are benefits with zero downside. And they are costed at 15 points making them some of the most expensive infantry in the game considering their low threat range. So let's say you give these benefits. Factions with many typed damages, like Cygnar and Menoth and Legion, will see the cost of their troops go up while not really providing any benefits except in very specific circumstances. Factions with fewer damage types, like Circle and Retribution, might see an increase in points cost while not being able to build armies around those benefits to exploit them. Quite simply, I've never looked at immunities as problematic in that they provide too few benefits. Immunities, especially when combined with damage types (EG - Stormblades), I've never seen them and thought "Geeze, these should do more damage against specific models." The electrical damage type is a benefit only when considering internal synergies, which you should be doing. The player can control that in their army builds. What you're suggesting is providing a benefit depending on what my opponent brings, which a player cannot control. It just seems largely pointless to me with a benefit that is not easily quantified.
|
|
Hashmal
Junior Strategist
Posts: 557
|
Post by Hashmal on Nov 10, 2017 18:45:13 GMT
I like how immunities are handled in CoI, 1 less dice on damage roll. This is exactly the change I would want to see.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 10, 2017 19:25:52 GMT
More or less. Though, I'm pretty sure there isn't a water damage type. There isn't. It was just an example. But I think that's just more record keeping and seems pointless. The point of immunities and damage types is to build internal synergies, not external weaknesses. I see what you're saying and how it could interact with the game state, I just think it's mostly pointless. Immunities are not very common as a whole, so building an army of, say, Cold Damage type to fight Fire Damage type would only be beneficial in very specific matchups against very specific builds. And what we see PP do is cost benefits higher than they are typically worth. You take Precursor Knights which only have benefits "Magical, Blessed Weapons." These are benefits with zero downside. And they are costed at 15 points making them some of the most expensive infantry in the game considering their low threat range. So let's say you give these benefits. Factions with many typed damages, like Cygnar and Menoth and Legion, will see the cost of their troops go up while not really providing any benefits except in very specific circumstances. Factions with fewer damage types, like Circle and Retribution, might see an increase in points cost while not being able to build armies around those benefits to exploit them. Quite simply, I've never looked at immunities as problematic in that they provide too few benefits. Immunities, especially when combined with damage types (EG - Stormblades), I've never seen them and thought "Geeze, these should do more damage against specific models." The electrical damage type is a benefit only when considering internal synergies, which you should be doing. The player can control that in their army builds. What you're suggesting is providing a benefit depending on what my opponent brings, which a player cannot control. It just seems largely pointless to me with a benefit that is not easily quantified. This may come down to the pov of a player based on their factions. Generally immunities are well balanced within a faction. However if you play a faction with lots of types and no immunities, its very punishing to simply bring your own pieces. While you're correct in that they don't bring many benefits, the benefits they do bring are game changing.
|
|