|
Post by macdaddy on Jan 12, 2018 13:05:00 GMT
The whining about hellmouths in CID is hilarious. Get over it people. If they were part of the CiD I would probably put them in yellow at least. Because they offer so much board control for thier cost. I feel the same way about Sentry Stones. They always do way more than 5 points of work every game. But they are not a part of the CiD and I doubt the devs will put them in. I think as a community the largest concern is Anamag right now.
|
|
|
Post by darkangeldentist on Jan 12, 2018 13:21:20 GMT
I no longer mind seeing a hellmouth across the table. It's grossly underpriced for what it can do and how difficult it can be to remove but it's static and makes perhaps the best "Prey" target one could hope for. Whilst difficult to kill there are plenty of ways to do so and I've had good luck achieving this on the table.
As for the CiD stuff, I'm unlikely to face any of it during the CiD process and don't play much at the moment so my bias and judgement are even more skewed than usual. I do not look forward to it though.
|
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
Post by bward on Jan 12, 2018 14:25:48 GMT
1: How could anybody complain after a game where doggo killed blightbringer?!? 2: What's your opinion on whether Haley3 is OP? 3: Why did the second long gunner CRA on turn 2 go into a random ogrun rather than finishing off the hellmouth? It seems like that left it alive for another turn as they should have been in range for a full doubletap after running t1? I'm looking forward to the developers' response to Shoe's post, that should be instructive Doggo is always value, brigadier-general doggo doesn't like your tone. The hellmouth was indefinitely stalling scenario, but on that side I wasn't actually scoring anything and neither was my opponent. I wanted to preserve the long gunners for as long as possible so I decided to kill the immediate threats that would remove my models rather than the longer term threat. I ran turn 1, but on turn 2 only 5 models were in aiming range of the hellmouth, so I did a Pow 21 cra into it and then the second shot would only be Pow 15, so I couldn't kill it with the second shot. Haley 3 is very strong, but has some harsh weaknesses. If anything makes her op its incorporeal, which is true of every model with incorporeal and is mostly a function of how extremely live SR2017 is. You couldn’t push the Haley3 scenario win button for the first time is how that entire report read. Good. You were going to right Red on Hellmouths no matter how that game turned out. Your 2pt dog was just as valuable controlling scenario that game as the Hellmouths were. “Hellmouths is very strong, but has harsh weaknesses. If anything makes it op its impervious flesh, which isn’t rue for every model with impervious flesh and is mostly a function of how extremely live SR2017 is”.
|
|
|
Post by macdaddy on Jan 12, 2018 14:32:37 GMT
I no longer mind seeing a hellmouth across the table. It's grossly underpriced for what it can do and how difficult it can be to remove but it's static and makes perhaps the best "Prey" target one could hope for. Whilst difficult to kill there are plenty of ways to do so and I've had good luck achieving this on the table. As for the CiD stuff, I'm unlikely to face any of it during the CiD process and don't play much at the moment so my bias and judgement are even more skewed than usual. I do not look forward to it though. yeah 6 points for arm 18, impervious flesh, 8 boxes is just stupidity. The Control the tentacles offer is just icing on that million layered cake.
|
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
Post by bward on Jan 12, 2018 14:40:10 GMT
I no longer mind seeing a hellmouth across the table. It's grossly underpriced for what it can do and how difficult it can be to remove but it's static and makes perhaps the best "Prey" target one could hope for. Whilst difficult to kill there are plenty of ways to do so and I've had good luck achieving this on the table. As for the CiD stuff, I'm unlikely to face any of it during the CiD process and don't play much at the moment so my bias and judgement are even more skewed than usual. I do not look forward to it though. yeah 6 points for arm 18, impervious flesh, 8 boxes is just stupidity. The Control the tentacles offer is just icing on that million layered cake. If you go down the spectrum a bit, for 5 pts a Sentry stone is arm 18, stealthed, 8 boxes. It also creates a forest to hide your models behind, and the boosted sprays can wreck both infantry and ARM. If you go up the spectrum, at 10 Battle Bears are ARM 21, potentially stealthed, 8 boxes, project an 11” threat not restricted like Hellmouths are, and each Bear can do 22.5 damage to ARM 18. These high utility, high output, cost effective 3-4 man units exist everywhere. I understand Hellmouths are controversial because of the nature of their utility... but these things exist.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jan 12, 2018 14:44:14 GMT
yeah 6 points for arm 18, impervious flesh, 8 boxes is just stupidity. The Control the tentacles offer is just icing on that million layered cake. ...and each Bear can do 22.5 damage to ARM 28. Eh! I think that might be a typo
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 12, 2018 14:45:54 GMT
...and each Bear can do 22.5 damage to ARM 28. Eh! I think that might be a typo I don't know, those bears are pretty ridiculous
|
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
Post by bward on Jan 12, 2018 14:47:23 GMT
...and each Bear can do 22.5 damage to ARM 28. Eh! I think that might be a typo Thanks corrected to 18.. although it seems like they hit that hard sometimes
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jan 12, 2018 17:29:32 GMT
My impression of the CiD responses so far has been:
-Anamag too versatile -Anamag too much spell casting -Chosen too durable -Hellmouth OP -Blightbringer still not good enough -Warmongers still irrelevant
On both sides, does anyone have anything positive to say? Or is this another one of those cases of the vocal minority?
As for my own thoughts: -I thought people had already learned to counter hellmouths from the beginning of Mk3? They've also been available with our entire beast stable since Primal Terrors was released months ago. Why all the outrage now? -Chosen are fine, however if they're supposed to focused on being tanky, they could stand to to lose some POW/STR and just be a moving meat wall. -Warmongers are okay, Unyielding and No Quarter certainly help, but I still think they need just a little more umph, maybe a source of Reposition to re-engage to get Unyielding? -Golab feels great. Sure it can't single handedly destroy an opposing heavy, but with just the slightest assistance he can not only finish the job, but escape too.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Jan 12, 2018 17:34:48 GMT
OK, now that the CID has started, one of the things I'm curious about is this: How well would this theme play into a Heavy Metal or Jaws of the Wolf jack heavy theme army?
|
|
|
Post by chillychinaman on Jan 12, 2018 17:54:45 GMT
OK, now that the CID has started, one of the things I'm curious about is this: How well would this theme play into a Heavy Metal or Jaws of the Wolf jack heavy theme army? Not quite the same, but I recently played it into Amon Faithful Masses with 4x heavies. The Ogrun were able to chew through most of them in a turn with Anamag's help. I won't say it's strong, but Anamag certainly give them some play into the matchup.
|
|
draycos
Junior Strategist
Posts: 167
|
Post by draycos on Jan 12, 2018 18:05:43 GMT
My impression of the CiD responses so far has been: -Anamag too versatile -Anamag too much spell casting -Chosen too durable -Hellmouth OP -Blightbringer still not good enough -Warmongers still irrelevant On both sides, does anyone have anything positive to say? Or is this another one of those cases of the vocal minority? As for my own thoughts: -I thought people had already learned to counter hellmouths from the beginning of Mk3? They've also been available with our entire beast stable since Primal Terrors was released months ago. Why all the outrage now? -Chosen are fine, however if they're supposed to focused on being tanky, they could stand to to lose some POW/STR and just be a moving meat wall. -Warmongers are okay, Unyielding and No Quarter certainly help, but I still think they need just a little more umph, maybe a source of Reposition to re-engage to get Unyielding? -Golab feels great. Sure it can't single handedly destroy an opposing heavy, but with just the slightest assistance he can not only finish the job, but escape too. I said something positive... The Carni chassi got it's well needed point reduction!
|
|
|
Post by trollsareblue on Jan 12, 2018 18:23:47 GMT
Dude, if those were "Lightning Tendrils" and available to Cygnar, you'd say they needed to be FA:3. You aren't fooling anyone. So, octaviusmaximus is biased towards Cygnar. In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and players whose faction is in CID are being unnecessarily defensive of their broken crap. Cut the ad hominems. The fact that Octavius isn't impartial (and for chrissake, I've butted heads with him enough over Cygnar) doesn't automatically mean Hellmouths are fine. Personally, I think there are (and that I and others have made) compelling arguments for their being out of line with their point cost in terms of durability, board impact, and ability to control the opponent's movement. Address those arguments, or stop engaging. An ad hominem would be, "Bob, you are stupid." Pointing out inherent bias is not an ad hominem. If Cygnar guy wants to keep making over-the-top complaints about anything that isn't Cygnar, I will continue to call him on it. Hellmouths are annoying in the same way any hard to remove piece is annoying. You don't have to look further than his battle report to see he could have easily taken one out, but chose not to do so, and still won quite handily. Hellmouths have a "gotcha" feel to them that many players don't like, but that wears off once you figure out how to go about dealing with them. They are a microcosm of WMH, tbh. You lose til you win. Incorporeal models are 1000x more annoying, and require a much more dedicated solution.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jan 12, 2018 19:28:27 GMT
Look at All dem double hellmouth lists tearing up the competitive tournament scene. Legion taking all the top spots. Really wish they didn't ruin the game for the likes of Cygnar, Cryx, and Khador... [/malicious sarcasm]
Hellmouths are dumb. For 6 points they compete in faction with, drum roll please, the Afflictor! So yeah, pretty much solid gold comparatively. Or Craelix, whom I would take over a hellmouth any day. Eitherway, its a generic power model like many of our solos (warlords, deathstalkers, craelix, anyssa). It's not tearing down the foundation of the game or the factions. It's also not that hard to deal with.
Hellmouths are hard to remove with GUNS. So of course the gun faction player is going to be mad. But there's more than one way to play this game. Shocker, I know. I've never had a Hellmouth survive any melee charge against it. And I don't just mean jacks/beasts. If you clear the tentacles first with you guns (which is very common), then charge the maw next turn with a clump of infantry. It cannot handle the # of models with the ONE respawned tentacle...and just dies horribly.
But that doesn't mean they are perfect. They need to drop 1-2pts of armor. Or go up 2 points in cost. They also need to definitively not be allowed as free models in theme. Yes, let them count towards free points. But 2 free hellmouths is just dumb.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 12, 2018 19:40:00 GMT
So, octaviusmaximus is biased towards Cygnar. In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and players whose faction is in CID are being unnecessarily defensive of their broken crap. Cut the ad hominems. The fact that Octavius isn't impartial (and for chrissake, I've butted heads with him enough over Cygnar) doesn't automatically mean Hellmouths are fine. Personally, I think there are (and that I and others have made) compelling arguments for their being out of line with their point cost in terms of durability, board impact, and ability to control the opponent's movement. Address those arguments, or stop engaging. An ad hominem would be, "Bob, you are stupid." Pointing out inherent bias is not an ad hominem. If Cygnar guy wants to keep making over-the-top complaints about anything that isn't Cygnar, I will continue to call him on it. Hellmouths are annoying in the same way any hard to remove piece is annoying. You don't have to look further than his battle report to see he could have easily taken one out, but chose not to do so, and still won quite handily. Hellmouths have a "gotcha" feel to them that many players don't like, but that wears off once you figure out how to go about dealing with them. They are a microcosm of WMH, tbh. You lose til you win. Incorporeal models are 1000x more annoying, and require a much more dedicated solution. Any time you dismiss an argument based on the personal characteristics of the person making it, it's an ad hominem. That includes personal bias. "You're stupid so your argument is invalid" is the most basic ad hominem, but it's not the only criterion. For the record, Haley3 is also on my short list of 'models/rules that should be changed for the health of the game. @forever_Blight - honestly, Hellmouths are way easier to take out with guns than with melee. For melee, you need to dedicate a heavy (infantry don't cut it, especially if they didn't charge) which is a fairly absurd points trade. Also, jamming the hellmouth literally doesn't work - it can respawn tentacles anywhere in control, then drag. While it might not get the bite, you can still get the threat extension. I agree with your suggestions, though. Make them go up points, not be allowed for free. Or reduce the CMD/Melee range. Or hell, make them only able to drag models with a base size equal to or less than the tentacle (and maybe add another rule allowing you to drag a large based model if 2/3 tentacles hit).
|
|