|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 16:36:38 GMT
Post by copperflame on Feb 2, 2018 16:36:38 GMT
A number of players, myself included, would not cry foul if the Chosen offense was taken back just a hair. Downgrading the Chosen's resilience or mobility would severely cripple what the unit is supposed to do.
If you have any suggestions on how to solve the issue(s) that the Chosen were made to meet - please feel free to share.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Feb 2, 2018 16:40:00 GMT
A number of players, myself included, would not cry foul if the Chosen offense was taken back just a hair. Downgrading the Chosen's resilience or mobility would severely cripple what the unit is supposed to do. If you have any suggestions on how to solve the issue(s) that the Chosen were made to meet - please feel free to share. I have shared, and I don't want to touch their mobility or durability. Its the hitting power I have wanted toned down just a smidge. I have already said on this thread that making them either Pow 12 on the halberd and/or Pow 13 on the mount attack would be enough to keep me content.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 17:01:44 GMT
Post by krigsol on Feb 2, 2018 17:01:44 GMT
I already broke down the cav comparisons a few threads back. Lance rule alone puts the uhlans and Vengers on the back foot. Relentless charge is not as good as flat pathfinder and long riders are 1 pow less and overall less survivable to small arms fire and chip damage. Bane riders are probably the closest in power level overall, but even they lack the survive-ability and the nifty +2 pow on the mount attack (which is relevant) that chosen have native. I agree that lance rule should be improved. I don't think that the current status of it should be the baseline of what Chosen should be. Other than the issue with lance rule these units are all very very good. The Longriders only having -1 pow isn't really proving to me that the Chosen are as severely out of whack as you're saying. The Bane riders are less survivable individually, but faster with Vengeance, and more maneuverable with Ghostly. Ferox are also very good, very maneuverable, and when they have their dragoon around, they get to dodge. The fact is that these models all have a powerful niche that fits within their factions. Chosen do too with their current stats. I don't quite get the argument you're making here. That the Chosen should be as fragile as heavy warbeasts because they have pathfinder? Ferox have pathfinder and jump, Bane riders have ghostly, and Exemplar have battle-driven. And again, there's the long list of benefits they and other heavy cav have, just like Chosen. The big kit isn't exceptional for heavy cav, it's the standard.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 17:25:08 GMT
Post by macdaddy on Feb 2, 2018 17:25:08 GMT
I agree that lance rule should be improved. But I don't think that should be the baseline of what Chosen should be. Other than the issue with lance rule these units are all very very good. The Longriders only having -1 pow isn't really proving to me that the Chosen are as severely out of whack as you're saying. The Bane riders are less survivable individually, but faster with Vengeance, and more maneuverable with Ghostly. Ferox are also very good, very maneuverable, and when they have their dragoon around, they get to dodge. The fact is that these models all have a powerful niche that fits within their factions. Chosen do too with their current stats. Ok some things here: 1: Long riders also lack native pathfinder and are more susceptible to lower pow infantry (chip damage), making them slightly less survivable, hit less hard, and less maneuverable base. 2: Ghostly and vengeance is great, for sure they out threat by a few inches. I did say bane riders are very close in power level (arguably best in the game until chosen drop) The issue is even though they are faster, I don't think the maneuverability is enough to make up for how durable chosen are in comparison. Overall, I think ghostly is really good, but its not enough to make them better or on par with chosen's well rounded toolkit in my personal opinion. Chosen may not out threaten most things, but they are tanky enough to be shoved into a spot and say "come at me bro" and survive what hits them (unless its a fully kitted out heavy jack/beast or high pow weapon-master infantry) Basically if you were to face off a double chosen brick into a double bane rider brick I think (outside of skarre 1 feat) chosen are at an advantage. Like I said, its a close comparison here but I think the tanky-ness of chosen wins out here. 3: Ferox are an example of cav that has way too much going on. High speed, no kncokdown, pathfinder, jump, good pow attacks, great accuracy, and in a faction that supports them better than arguably any other faction could support their own infantry. IMO and experience ferox are a problem and Its why I don't like bringing them into this argument. Theya re example of what we don't want out of a cav unit. I don't quite get the argument you're making here. That the Chosen should be as fragile as heavy warbeasts because they have pathfinder? Ferox have pathfinder and jump, Bane riders have ghostly, and Exemplar have battle-driven. And again, there's the long list of benefits they and other heavy cav have, just like Chosen. The big kit isn't exceptional for heavy cav, it's the standard. I'm not trying to say chosen should lose pathfinder or speed. My point was, everything in this game has pros' and cons. For Cryx heavies, they trade thier survive-ability for a rounded out toolkit. For most infantry, they choose between, hitting power, speed, and durability (normally pick 2) Chosen don't make those choices. They just get it all in one sexy package. I just feel that they don't need to do everthing as well as they do and should be a little less potent in some area (preferably hitting power) To compensate for their durability and maneuverability.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 18:10:58 GMT
Post by krigsol on Feb 2, 2018 18:10:58 GMT
Ok some things here: 1: Long riders also lack native pathfinder and are more susceptible to lower pow infantry (chip damage), making them slightly less survivable, hit less hard, and less maneuverable base. Long Riders are the odd-man out when it comes to not having pathfinder. This is a design decision for Trolls in general, though. I don't think they're ultimately less survivable. With the kreilstone, they're ARM 20, each. Trollbloods heavily rely on synergy though, and they've been left behind the curve on their damage output that usually makes up for the Trolls being slower. Again, this isn't a good baseline for what Chosen should be. The thing is that, from a design perspective, you cannot just 1:1 the abilities and stat lines of these models. Bane Riders aren't tanky, but they don't need to be with the amount of debuffs that Cryx has access to. Then Ferox are a valid example of what PP should be going for. They fit well with the faction's style, synergize well with other models, and are very powerful without being unstoppable. Nothing about what you said seems to be a "problem", objectively. It is not a problem, to me, that factions have a good model. Models should be good and useful, and if they cost 20 points of my list, should be one of its lynchpins. Virtually all infantry have some type of hitting power, speed, and durability. Like, I just made a list a few posts ago of the various ways that they almost all have that. They all have huge kits. Armor buffs, terrain mitigation, damage increases, these things are universal in PP's design of heavy cav. And that's besides the in-faction benefits they get. Additionally, they're actually one of the least maneuverable. They have pathfinder, but almost all heavy cav has some access to terrain mitigation. At SPD 7, they are slower than Storm Lances, Vengers, and Uhlans. With vengeance, Bane Riders are effectively faster than all of the above. Ferox are, of course, Ferox. I'm of course not saying they aren't in the upper tier of cavalry. Of course they are. They're supposed to be, and they will be. But they absolutely do not have the best of all worlds across the board like you're saying.
|
|
newsun
Junior Strategist
Posts: 140
|
Post by newsun on Feb 2, 2018 18:41:08 GMT
The biggest flaw in this discussion is comparing all the cav units in isolation. Some units are going to be better than similar one in another faction, just look at all the weapon masters across factions, the CRA units, etc. Some are clearly better. What needs to be balanced is all the factions in composite. It might still be that chosen break the meta and if so, I'm sure pp will adjust.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Feb 2, 2018 18:58:49 GMT
krigsol 1:Long riders are very solid cav after CiD. If you think that they are not in a good place than once again, you and I have very different perspectives of what makes a unit good....Arm 20 is more susceptible to pow 13 and less than arm 19 with rapid healing. Its also less relevant when a heavy rolls low on long riders, compared to when they roll low on chosen. Rapid healing is super swingy in that respect. They came through CiD and received very minimal changes. Troll players are loving them now. You cannot just discredit long riders as a "bad baseline". I'm not even sure what the logic there is because after this past CiD trolls are in a pretty great place. They are also the closest unit in likeness to chosen, so comparisons are pretty obvious and they parallel fairly well. Chosen are better than long riders in damage, maneuverability, and slightly so in tankyness. Which means chosen outshine them. IMO that's not an issue with long riders... 2: that's a fair point, But I still think in a one to one comparison chosen come out on top. It would be something I think comes more apparent on the table top and theory-machine doesn't really capture well enough. 3: ...no ferox should not be the goal...if you think ferox are what all cav should aspire to me than you and I want totally different games. Have you ever played into makeda 2 cats list? Good luck if you don't bring grievous wounds. SPD 9 cats with parry, steady, tough, stay death, and pathfinder, oh and they can jump 5" after walking so threat 16" basically unhindered by...anything. Ferox are way to good at what they do. That's just makeda 2 by the way, xerxis 1 makes them bonkers as well. Now I see why we disagree so much, you and I are coming from completely different perspectives on what a balanced unit is. 4: Yes...they have some type of all 3, but they only excel in 1 or 2 of those categories. That was my point. Also, pelase keep in mind a lot of the terrain mitigation and speed increases etc, are accomplished by spending 10 or more points on support models. 5: no they are not. Speed 7, pathfinder on a table with 8 relevant pieces of terrain is better than SPD 8 without pathfinder. Only ferox and Bane riders are more maneuverable than that. If you have relevant terrain pathfinder will make more of a difference than the +1 speed. 6: This goes back to us having 2 very different perspectives on what is acceptable. I don't want more units like ferox, because they make the game un-interactive and boring. Bane riders under the right caster (skarre 1 and coven) are also really hard to play around. They threat bonkers far, hit bonkers hard, and under skarr1 are nigh untouchable for a turn. IMO those are not good for the game and people that want to aspire to that. Look at what 40K and age of sigmar are now? Its all about making 1 or 2 units the best and most amazing thing on the table. Most games are won at list selection....IMO long riders are where we want a cav unit to be. They sacrifice some hitting power and maneuverability for a situational slam mechanic and solid durability. Uhlans are also in a decent place, with more hitting power on the charge, and more speed (relentless charge better than no pathfinder at all) I feel like both those units are at the level of power we should want things to be. Look, I don;t think I can change your perspective on power level. Now that that's clear I think its even more obvious arguing about chosen is going to get us no where. If you want all cav to be like ferox be my guest. Just don't get salty when other factions get stuff that's at that power level.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 19:18:59 GMT
Post by krigsol on Feb 2, 2018 19:18:59 GMT
krigsol 1:Long riders are very solid cav after CiD. If you think that they are not in a good place than once again, you and I have very different perspectives of what makes a unit good....Arm 20 is more susceptible to pow 13 and less than arm 19 with rapid healing. Its also less relevant when a heavy rolls low on long riders, compared to when they roll low on chosen. Rapid healing is super swingy in that respect. They came through CiD and received very minimal changes. Troll players are loving them now. You cannot just discredit long riders as a "bad baseline". I'm not even sure what the logic there is because after this past CiD trolls are in a pretty great place. They are also the closest unit in likeness to chosen, so comparisons are pretty obvious and they parallel fairly well. Chosen are better than long riders in damage, maneuverability, and slightly so in tankyness. Which means chosen outshine them. IMO that's not an issue with long riders... I didn't say they were in a bad place. I think they're good. My point is that I don't think you can just compare them 1:1. As much as you may think they're the best comparison, that doesn't mean they should mirror each other, or be balanced against each other. They exist in their factions in completely different contexts. I have played against it and gotten totally wrecked by it. However I do not think that justifies nerfing it. I do not have a problem with other factions having good models, and models that are hard to play against. That's part of what makes it a game. There are counters to these models, even though they are powerful. Besides the Ferox and Banes, Uhlans have SPD 8 with pathfinder on charges. Vengers have SPD 8 and battle-driven. Storm Lances are the SPD 8 that don't have pathfinder. But they have an 8" gun with assault. That's 5 heavy units that have linear threat farther than the Chosen with SPD 7 + pathfinder. That's what I'm saying, though: I don't get salty about it.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 19:28:15 GMT
Post by socialirregular on Feb 2, 2018 19:28:15 GMT
The above conversation is making me wonder if 'power levels' in WMH are disparate enough as to cause a rift in what is expected/desired from a model? Is this something that CID has introduced? Where rules are so fluid as to the point it becomes damn difficult to know where the 'base line' is? Sorry to derail, just something that popped in my head reading through this.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 20:14:10 GMT
Post by macdaddy on Feb 2, 2018 20:14:10 GMT
krigsol1: dude...they do almost the exact same thing with the same desing intent. They are the closest comparison in game to Chosen. Literally here is what they have in common: 8 Boxes Tough SPD7 Brutal Charge Pow 14 Mount Def 12 Almost the same Arm Basically the same weapons (chosen are +1 pow on the halberd) Same design intent: Axe to face and durable. Repo 3" Differences: Rapid heal Pathfinder +1 Pow on Halberd crit knockdown on mount The bull rush order How can you not compare them? Legion also supports chosen similar to how Long riders are supported in trolls. Legion just focuses more on offenesive buffs where trolls is more defensive and skews def more than arm (ironically) 2: only 1 real counter, Grievous wounds, which is not available in spades and most models with it can either only tag 1 cat a turn or are out-threatened by them. Cats will alpha what they want, repo back pretty darn far and be hard to remove after the fact, they can also scalple models that threaten them. Also...dodge, tough and steady...You basically lose if you don't bring high accuracy, hard hitting attacks that also deny healing...that's not exactly super available tech. 3: Speed 8 with pathfinder charges doesn't get you through a forest. You need LoS to get the charge, and that can be denied by a smart player. Esepcially if you use SR2017 standards of terrain. I'm not saying relentless charge is bad, I'm just saying native pathfinder is more reliable. Vengers need to be damaged to gain pathfinder, typically a good opponent won't just give you battle driven without doing a respectable amount of damage. Good opponents play around battle driven. Storm lance guns are pow 12, and only range 8...And no pathfinder. Hide behind or inside some rough terrain and suddenly you out-threaten them. If the table has no terrain or walls then yes mathematically they threat farther, but if you are actually using terrain, chosen should have a better time of taking advantage of terrain and getting into solid places. Also...you can face tank most alpha strikes...You guys really don't appreciate native pathfinder do you?.... socialirregular They really are not, its only a few models that really stand out. Im not expecting to ever have a perfect balanced game. But I also don't think using models as blatantly over the curve as ferox as the standard is a good way to go about unit balance. 40K is a perfect example of what happens when you set the standard to maximum. The worst offenders out there now after cryx nerfs are IMO: Skarre1 (only the feat because +5 STR and ARM on bane riders, wraith engines, and stalkers is absurd...) The Skorne Battle engine (animatrax or something like that) Ferox, and Dreamer. Haley 3 used to be concerning but themes really reigned her shenanigans in. Her "ghost selfs" are still way too hard to remove though. Keep in mind with all this that I though wurmwood pre nerf was OP, and una2 pre nerf was also OP. (I still hate her current version) I also think scarsfells are ruining the design space of circle lights and casters... So at least I am consistent
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 20:36:34 GMT
Post by krigsol on Feb 2, 2018 20:36:34 GMT
Differences: Rapid heal Pathfinder +1 Pow on Halberd crit knockdown on mount The bull rush order How can you not compare them? Legion also supports chosen similar to how Long riders are supported in trolls. Legion just focuses more on offenesive buffs where trolls is more defensive and skews def more than arm (ironically) These are completely different. Bull Rush, the lack of pathfinder, the disparate buffs that they receive give them two entirely different contexts. But the biggest contextual difference is that one is in Trolls and the other is in Legion, giving them casters and support pieces that are not at all alike. So you cannot compare them 1:1 against each other. If they had no counters, Skorne would be topping all of the tournaments. But they're not. Accuracy and hard hitting attacks are something that every viable faction has access to. Yes, this is a variety of things with a variety of both upsides and downsides to having different stats. This is why I'm saying you can't just 1:1 compare all of these units by saying "but it doesn't have a, b, c". Because it does have x, y, and z that are powerful in different circumstances. You also can't assume the worst circumstances against your models and the best circumstances for the other player. "Good players" can theoretically play against anything, get around anything, and win every game, because it isn't a real person. It's a fictional best player in your head, who wins every game and never makes mistakes and has the best list. That's just not how games can be balanced when you have variable terrain, variable power levels of different units in different circumstances, etc. You can't just say that these are overpowered models because of what happens when they're put into the perfect situation that is also the worst situation for another model. Models having different strengths is an intentional part of this game. Disparate armies are part of wargaming. It's what separates it from just buying an all-inclusive box of game components.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 21:05:44 GMT
Post by macdaddy on Feb 2, 2018 21:05:44 GMT
krigsol1: Different factions yes, But similar support and application. You can compare the units there is nothing wrong about comparing units that are that similar on a 1 to 1 basis. If you cannot see how darn similar they are I don;t know what to say. Even factoring in faction support, Both factions in the themes support them defensively and offensively. With legion offering more offensive support and trolls having the krielstone as an arm buff. They are some of the most like units in the game. Bull rush is super situational and the lack of pathfinder is part of why the long riders seem inferior...Using your Logic we should never consider models outside of their own faction and preform all balance internally. External balance is a necessary and healthy thing for the game. 2: Skorne is not on top because: a: Cryx nerfs have not happened yet b: Grymkin are also super good into skorne and are prevalent in the meta. They are really powerful, arguably the best faction in hordes if you take dreamer away from grymkin. Give it a few more months, let some of the nerf dust settle and you'll see skorne win rates go up. Especially if cryx falls off the radar. 3: You are missing the point...A variety of things with up-sdies and downsides...explain to me chosen downsides. Honestly, tell me what their weaknesses are?
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 21:24:29 GMT
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 2, 2018 21:24:29 GMT
krigsol - if you cannot compare units across factions, most forms of beta-testing would be virtually worthless. Unit A in faction A outperforms similar unit B in faction B, unit C in faction C, etc...clearly that tells us nothing about the relative power level of unit A /sarcasm. As I have said many, many times, you DO have to account for relative availability of faction support when comparing units across factions. That does not mean that cross-faction comparisons are useless. Also, as with Lanz, you're arguing in subjectives and generalities rather than providing objective comparisons to back up your argument. macdaddy - arguing with these people seems to me to be about as productive as arguing with Cryx players about Satyxis. Less so, actually, because this isn't the CID forums, and the devs aren't reading these posts, and thus superior argumentation doesn't matter a flying Firetruck.
|
|
|
Cid
Feb 2, 2018 21:26:31 GMT
Post by copperflame on Feb 2, 2018 21:26:31 GMT
A number of players, myself included, would not cry foul if the Chosen offense was taken back just a hair. Downgrading the Chosen's resilience or mobility would severely cripple what the unit is supposed to do. If you have any suggestions on how to solve the issue(s) that the Chosen were made to meet - please feel free to share. I have shared, and I don't want to touch their mobility or durability. Its the hitting power I have wanted toned down just a smidge. I have already said on this thread that making them either Pow 12 on the halberd and/or Pow 13 on the mount attack would be enough to keep me content. Noted - I also stated this in the CID forums that this method of balance would be acceptable. I believe you made this suggestion there as well? I would have hoped that that offense capability would be donated to models that could use a boost. I doubt PP will do this since it was out of scope of the CID (kinda) but I would like to hear what your opinions (if any) on models are the biggest need of an honest boost (again, if any).
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Feb 2, 2018 21:30:51 GMT
How nice to see the baseless theorycrafting that the actual playtesting disagreed with is still going strong.
|
|