|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 13, 2017 18:35:40 GMT
When sending out buffs (spells, animi, etc.) which is better? Take a model that is already decent at say damage output, then give it a damage buff and take it to the extreme, or give a model that may not have the best damage output and give it a buff to get it up to "acceptable levels".
Personal logic would dictate that a buff would be better spent on a model that NEEDS it as opposed to a model that just WANTS it. However I see people going for the extreme option as opposed to the "help" option (and I've done it as well).
Not sure I have an end goal with this thread, just wanted to start up an opinions/discussion thread. Anyways, let me know what y'all think!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Nov 13, 2017 18:57:33 GMT
Generally the reason people use up to 11 is because giving your opponent a thing they can't overcome at all, is generally better than just making something slightly better.
The maths are pretty simple for all of this. If a creatures Def is too high you can't touch it period, as opposed to just slowing it down a bit if your buffing average to above average.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588 
|
Post by spideredd on Nov 13, 2017 18:57:47 GMT
The real question, for those that buff to crazy-high levels is:
"Why make something mediocre good, when, for the same resources, you can make something good amazing?"
|
|
|
|
Post by killroundears on Nov 13, 2017 20:07:02 GMT
Yeah its just about overwhelming your opponents ability to answer your threat. Makeda2 cats is a prime example of this. Any army in warmachine can kill 13/17 five box models.
but when they're steady/tough, have dodge, and an allowance of 5-6 failed toughs per round AND they are already base line amazing unit that threats the known universe suddenly a lot of people can't overwhelm them anymore.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Nov 14, 2017 5:44:37 GMT
Defensive stat buffs are best put on models that already have good defensive stats. A DEF buff making my opponent go from 4s to hit to 6s to hit is simply less effective than making them go from 7s to 9s. Similarly, an ARM buff usually belongs on high ARM models because your opponent can probably just kill a low ARM model despite the buff, but will have trouble with a high ARM model and may be forced to either over-commit resources or simply give up trying to kill it.
Accuracy and damage buffs, however, I tend to put on models that need the help to get them to the point that they can actually kill their targets, rather than going for overkill.
|
|
zich
Junior Strategist
Posts: 690
|
Post by zich on Nov 14, 2017 8:31:28 GMT
Should you use your buffs and synergies to skew or to cover weaknesses? I don't think the answer is that simple. It relies a lot on what you want to achieve with your list.
Let's go with a counter-example to what was mentioned in this thread. One of our locals is doing a "play all the Legion casters at least once in a tournament"-challenge. And we were talking about his Bethayne list, which only had ranged beasts. His explanation for this was that if he would commit melee beasts then he wouldn't need his feat anymore. But if he instead goes for ranged beasts he can have them contribute before the feat turn and still get the necessary output out of them and the accompanying infantry in melee.
Or let's go with the Makeda Cats example. That list is somewhat going out of style and there is a reason for it. It relies on one trick that it does incredibly well. But when you face an opponent that brings counter-tech, you'll find yourself in a desparate situation very fast. As these opponents become more numerous, you'll have to reconsider the list. Are you going to move on to a different skew or diversify your existing list? I'm currently testing both approaches.
Sometimes adding versatility or shoring up a weakness are more valuable than skewing. Especially if you are looking at getting even games. I find that skewing only really makes sense when you are ahead of the meta anyways. Look at Cryx. They can afford to skew, because they'll get at worst even matchups anyway. They don't have to focus on covering their weaknesses. Look at the other end of the spectrum. Trolls can bring quite the effective brick. But if they skew for it they'll be twicefold screwed when they face someone who can answer it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Nov 14, 2017 16:53:45 GMT
Why polish copper when you can polish gold?
|
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Nov 14, 2017 16:55:06 GMT
Defensive stat buffs are best put on models that already have good defensive stats. A DEF buff making my opponent go from 4s to hit to 6s to hit is simply less effective than making them go from 7s to 9s. Similarly, an ARM buff usually belongs on high ARM models because your opponent can probably just kill a low ARM model despite the buff, but will have trouble with a high ARM model and may be forced to either over-commit resources or simply give up trying to kill it. Accuracy and damage buffs, however, I tend to put on models that need the help to get them to the point that they can actually kill their targets, rather than going for overkill. That actually makes the most sense. |
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Nov 14, 2017 21:57:48 GMT
That is true. You gain no further benefit if you "hit them more". And at a point, damage also becomes overkill, which is wasted effort. It's why talk of getting a Revelator up to P+S27 with Amon in Faithful Masses is silly. Once you get past p+s21 or so the extra damage doesn't matter all that much.
Armor however is the inverse. You need a certain amount of armor before you actually benefit from any buffs to it. +2 armor on Arm11-12 doesn't mean squat since most attacks are pow10-12 minimum, so going from needing 3s to kill to 5s isn't much gain. But on say arm16, +2 arm is a bigger deal since those same pow10-12 attacks go from needing 5s to needing 7s.
|
|
princeraven
Junior Strategist
Shredder spam is best spam
Posts: 256
|
Post by princeraven on Nov 15, 2017 2:08:58 GMT
There more variance in how you use buffs that give your model advantages rather than stat buffs. Occultation on a unit of Blighted Nyss Swordsmen is great because it turns a weakness into a strength. Meanwhile, a Throne of Everblight isn't particularly weak to guns but people still put Occultation on it to make it even more annoying to kill (plus Stealth on a battle engine is funny).
|
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Nov 15, 2017 3:48:18 GMT
In the similar option, something that wants buff is always better that something that needs buff to run. You can put the buffs on already capable stat and increase it further, and even if you need to put the buff to elsewhere you can still run them. However something that needs a buff to run means you have to put the buff on them, not the others at all, and the result is not so difficult with UNBUFFED something that only wants the buff. And because it needs for a buff, its effective FA is reduced to thr numbers of buffs you can spare. Then why you are bothered to use something that needs for a buff, unless you are planned to use them?
Many bad models in the game are actually playable, but they just have a better replacement that don't bothered to use more points for raw points, more buffs and even caster specific buffs while works as much as it or even better - or usually, many better replacements.
Indeed, there are some situations that using buffs for make up the weak spots, but usually that's because the recipient have many advantage to use. Such as Snipe or Fury on Trencher Infantry.
|
|
