khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 7, 2018 22:28:49 GMT
that inaccurate fix would actually hurt the redeemer IMO. I've been jack marshaling it: hurry turn 1, get to a position with a commanding field of fire, aim for +2/+2, battle for an extra 2 damage. you're sending POW 16, blast 10 down the field. yes, it's RAT 3, but it makes very short work of objectives and follows up reckoner shots nicely. it only hurts it if you jackmarshal it its a straight buff if you dont jackmarshal it besides the jackmarshal ability can always be changed the point is inaccurate is a stupid rule.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jan 8, 2018 6:31:33 GMT
That would just make the Dervish worse for no reason. And you'd still never see Purifiers. It would take the dervish from way too good for its points to slightly overcosted Dervishes are fine for their point cost, close to perfect I would say actually. They're made of tissue paper and don't have high enough defense to make that a non-issue. They'd need to be 6 points before you could say they're "Way too good for their points". Especially since they only become godly once you've buffed them out the wazoo, usually with Synergy under Amon. And really everything becomes amazing with +3/+3. 8 point dervishes would still be good as you say, but it would be an unnecessary change. Especially for a faction which is in the spot we are. You'd have to give a small buff to the Dervish to justify it being 8 points. As it is, the Dervish is perfect where it is. It's a cheap and effective melee beater, with the downside of being incredibly fragile. When needs to happen is the Purifier needs to have a niche created for it. The niche currently open is cheap buff bot with decent melee potential. Fuel for the Flames would be the perfect rule to give the Purifier to give it said niche, and the best part is it would need no point change. 8 is perfect for a melee jack with a ranged damage buff attached to it.
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 8, 2018 14:09:31 GMT
fuel for the flames isnt gonna happen on the purifier. should really just give up on that idea. theres a reason the only model that has it is FA:C and costs 18 points.
conceptually the purifier is meant to be an anti-infantry version of the dervish with aoe fire attacks. basically the light version of the castigator. I think giving it blazing wrath and maybe flameburst or a weaker version of combustion is about the best you can hope for. And knocking it down to 7 points so theres a reason to consider it over a dervish. because the purifier is much more specialized than the dervish, you shouldnt have to worry about people spamming it even if it costs 7 points.
And I still think the dervish needs to cost 8 to discourage spamming it as much. PP brought spamming on themselves by making everything FA:U. Ive always said that was a huge mistake.
I dunno if id say theyre made of tissue paper. theyre fairly tanky for their point cost. 13/16 with 26 boxes for 7 points is extremely decent compared to most of our multi-wound units or solos. In fact it has one of the best defense to point cost ratios in our army.
And at 7 points each, you can spam enough of them that chewing through all those hull boxes is difficult for a lot of armies.
Bastions are an example of models that are made of tissue paper... at 16 points for the full unit they should be far tankier than they are.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jan 8, 2018 15:03:17 GMT
Reconsider the faction though: 13/16 is paper for us. Dervishes can't afford to lose more than a single arm, but a single solid hit can EASILY remove a whole system.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 8, 2018 15:52:25 GMT
I could be convinced dervishes are fine as they are but if they are in the CID expect lots of people to be calling for a nerd. We should be prepared to argue against that.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Jan 8, 2018 16:33:51 GMT
I could be convinced dervishes are fine as they are but if they are in the CID expect lots of people to be calling for a nerd. We should be prepared to argue against that. I actually doubt they will be in CiD. I thought woldwyrds would be in the Bones CiD, and thank the creator they were not. I would expect Kreos' character jack, potentially the purifier, and hopefully the vanquisher, maybe even the Judi will be in there. But Don;t expect more than 1-3 Jacks in the CiD.
|
|
|
Post by bskhacker on Jan 8, 2018 18:28:12 GMT
fuel for the flames isnt gonna happen on the purifier. should really just give up on that idea. theres a reason the only model that has it is FA:C and costs 18 points. I know it's bad to compare cross factions, but I disagree with that statement on the grounds of the Firefly has the same buff but for electrical damage. Whether or not the purifier should get fule for the flames I do believe that it needs something because as of now I do not have any desire to put in any list.
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 8, 2018 19:09:30 GMT
Reconsider the faction though: 13/16 is paper for us. Dervishes can't afford to lose more than a single arm, but a single solid hit can EASILY remove a whole system. Disagree. What 7 point model is harder to kill than Dervish? I didnt say it was the hardest model to kill in our faction. I just said its got one of the best defense to cost ratios of any model in our faction. The next warjack thats more survivable costs a full 2 points more and isnt nearly as efficient as the Dervish. If we just do a simple defense comparison using DEF+ARM+HP Dervish = 13+16+26 = 55 defense for 7 points (7.9 defense per point) Vigilant = 12+21+26 = 59 defense for 9 points (6.6 defense per point) Crusader = 10+19+32 = 61 defense for 10 points (6.1 defense per point) The Dervish certainly isnt made of "tissue paper" by any means. Its actually quite survivable for a 7 point model. Apples and oranges. the vast majority of electrical type damage is only POW10. fire damage is not only more common for us but its also much higher POW. fuel for the flames is significantly more powerful than ionization. And fuel for the flames on an inexpensive FA:U model is simply not going to happen. Im not saying we wont get fuel for the flames on another model at some point. It just wont be the purifier.
|
|
|
Post by streetpizza on Jan 8, 2018 19:58:34 GMT
Apples and oranges. the vast majority of electrical type damage is only POW10. fire damage is not only more common for us but its also much higher POW. fuel for the flames is significantly more powerful than ionization. And fuel for the flames on an inexpensive FA:U model is simply not going to happen. Im not saying we wont get fuel for the flames on another model at some point. It just wont be the purifier. Man you couldn't be more wrong about this. Cygnar has many MANY fantastic electrical guns from the firefly, to Dynamo, to Storm striders and the hurricane and more, as well as electrical damage feats and spells. Most of that electrical shooting is higher than pow 10. Just the e-leaps are. If you think pow 14 fire damage rolls on the next turn with possibility of them not even happening are going to make the world burn then I don't know what to tell you. The comparison between fuel for the flames in Protectorate and Ionization in Cygnar is very appropriate and fuel for the flames would still be less powerful since our guns aren't nearly as accurate. The rest of your post for how you think about defensive stat costing is just totally flawed so I'm not even going there.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Jan 8, 2018 20:15:56 GMT
your math has the same ring of people who, when presented with Harbinger's feat nerf, compared the area of the old version and the area of the new to get bigger numbers in a bid to get PP to revert it. The resulting number of missing square inches was massive, but ultimately meaningless, since what really matters is the radius of denial in about a 120 degree arc in the front (where about 95% of damage rolls involving that feat will occur).
Adding defense, armor, and boxes with no reference on how it all fits together gives a number that...well, I don't know what to make of it, seeing as your declaration that it's "survivable" matches exactly none of my experiences.
In your explanation it adds defense, armor, and boxes linearly, but defense is a simple hit/miss mark, armor is a hit with MoS(Margin of Success) effect tracked by a total, which is boxes(which themselves have slightly varying values based on system damage and its effects). Further, probability of those hits on a nonlinear 2d6 scale added to a base number means that shooting one number into the stratosphere is more effective than raising them evenly, though your calculation doesn't account for that either.
It also doesn't pass a gut check: no one would field 10 dervishes and expect it to outlive those same 70 points spent in crusaders.
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 8, 2018 23:04:57 GMT
your harbinger point doesnt make any sense. because mathematically it makes no difference whether you count her entire control area vs only the front 120 degree arc of her control area, the proportional reduction of the area of her feat is exactly the same either way.
360 degrees with 20" radius = 1257 square inches 360 degrees with 10" radius = 314 square inches 314/1257 = 25%
front 120 degrees with 20" radius = square inches front 120 degrees with 10" radius = square inches 105/419 = 25%
Its EXACTLY THE SAME proportionally no matter how you look at it. In both cases its a 75% reduction in area. And thats definitely a massive reduction and hardly meaningless. There is nothing wrong with those peoples' math.
There's also nothing wrong with using DEF+ARM+Health as a general estimation of a model's survivability. Its not 100% accurate, but its still accurate enough to get the point across.
The dervish has excellent survivability for 7 points. again... tell me what 7 point model has better survivability? What other 7 point model gives you comparable DEF+ARM and 26 boxes? There arnt any. saying the dervish is made of paper is just wrong.
Im not saying the dervish is the most survivable model in our army. Just that its defense stats are very efficient for its cost. Maybe youre misunderstanding my point.
But we have multi-wound models that are actually made of paper. Like Bastions. Bastions have absolutely terrible defense for their cost.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 8, 2018 23:37:29 GMT
your harbinger point doesnt make any sense. because mathematically it makes no difference whether you count her entire control area vs only the front 120 degree arc of her control area, the proportional reduction of the area of her feat is exactly the same either way. 360 degrees with 20" radius = 1257 square inches 360 degrees with 10" radius = 314 square inches 314/1257 = 25% front 120 degrees with 20" radius = square inches front 120 degrees with 10" radius = square inches 105/419 = 25% Its EXACTLY THE SAME proportionally no matter how you look at it. In both cases its a 75% reduction in area. And thats definitely a massive reduction and hardly meaningless. There is nothing wrong with those peoples' math. There's also nothing wrong with using DEF+ARM+Health as a general estimation of a model's survivability. Its not 100% accurate, but its still close enough for purposes of illustration. And the dervish has excellent survivability for 7 points. again... tell me what 7 point model has better survivability? What other 7 point model gives you comparable DEF+ARM and 26 boxes? There arnt any. Im not saying the dervish is the most survivable model in our army. Just that its defense stats are very efficient for its cost. Maybe youre misunderstanding my point. I would argue that the aspis is a contender capable of challenging the dervish in your made up rules. Same boxes. Same armor 1 less defense that it trades for 1 more SPD Heals d6 every maintenance phase. 1 point cheaper.
|
|
khobai
Junior Strategist
Posts: 108
|
Post by khobai on Jan 8, 2018 23:38:25 GMT
aspis is not a protectorate model though. you cant really substitute a dervish with an aspis.
in the protectorate lineup, the dervish is pretty much the toughest 7 point model we have.
its defensive stats are very good for its cost. so saying its made of paper is just inaccurate.
so yeah I meant within the context of our own faction...
But also cross faction comparisons NEVER go well for PoM anyway. We can pretty much always find another faction with a better unit/model/solo than we have. We rarely have the best in category for anything anymore. Its arguably why were one of the more balanced factions, but its also why were inferior to the factions that arnt balanced.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Jan 9, 2018 1:06:59 GMT
aspis is not a protectorate model though. you cant really substitute a dervish with an aspis. in the protectorate lineup, the dervish is pretty much the toughest 7 point model we have. its defensive stats are very good for its cost. so saying its made of paper is just inaccurate. so yeah I meant within the context of our own faction... But also cross faction comparisons NEVER go well for PoM anyway. We can pretty much always find another faction with a better unit/model/solo than we have. We rarely have the best in category for anything anymore. Its arguably why were one of the more balanced factions, but its also why were inferior to the factions that arnt balanced. It's the ONLY 7 point model you're literally comparing it to nothing Your statements are vacuous and unhelpful.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Jan 9, 2018 1:32:42 GMT
Your statements are vacuous and unhelpful. This thread will become vacuous and unhelpful if we continue the back on forth on whether a dervish should be nerfed. If you want 'resolution', go make a poll. If I could choose models that should enter the CiD, the dervish would not be one of them, and if PP is going to nerf it, they will stealth nerf it without our permission. I really hope they don't make a boring exemplar caster. Tristan 2 and Feora 3 show that they've been given us boring mix and matches. Maybe it could be a pseudo scrutator-exemplar hybrid, like a Rhoven unit. A priest in bastion armor, with his two bastion bodyguards. He gives bastions armor piercing and impervious flesh
|
|