|
Post by oncomingstorm on Jan 31, 2018 15:36:06 GMT
I think most of the models that were in CID were in a good place at the end of the cycle (still think Chosen are too strong, but that's beside the point). I highly doubt that they'll buff models that weren't in the CID at all, without any external testing. That's how you end up with Una2. Lol, whut? You don't get Una2 by droping cost of unused models or sensibly buffing them. PP does that from time to time, not everything goes through CiD. And lets be brutally honest - CiD is more useless more models and themes it involves. So yeah, say Soldier and Protector price will drop to 8 points. I guarantee it won't change anything meta-wise other than you'll see them on the table. Say - Legionaires will cost 13 points. Still not Una2... Or maybe our artillery (yes, we have one, no, I didn't see it outside my two unpacked blisters I bought in bargain bin) will get AoE 4". Maybe you'll see them in CotD list (or not)? No, insufficient playtesting is what gets you Una2.
|
|
|
Post by davycannonhound on Jan 31, 2018 15:39:28 GMT
Well for one Ogrun are a hella small portion of Legion. Had this been the Children of the Dragon CID, we would've see a crap ton of legacy models between the Nyss units along with the Nephilim (probably not Azreal but maybe Zuriel) and the Lessers. Probably not new releases, though. Had it been the Ravens CID it would have been Grotesques and Striders (possibly some new releases). Oracles would've been like Hex Hunters and... Vayls? Maybe a handful of heavies? I've said a bunch of times that CoTD was a bad theme to make one of our original 3. If they'd given us something more generic instead, and then released a CoTD CID with some new nyss units tailored for a 'nyss shard' list, it probably would have made an awesome and thematic army. Honestly, I just say make CoTD allow all lights (and change the bonus to be something for all lights and not just nephilim) and probably lose Azreal and Zuriel. And include lesser warbeasts in what can be taken for free.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jan 31, 2018 16:26:18 GMT
I've said a bunch of times that CoTD was a bad theme to make one of our original 3. If they'd given us something more generic instead, and then released a CoTD CID with some new nyss units tailored for a 'nyss shard' list, it probably would have made an awesome and thematic army. Honestly, I just say make CoTD allow all lights (and change the bonus to be something for all lights and not just nephilim) and probably lose Azreal and Zuriel. And include lesser warbeasts in what can be taken for free. Not to be mean (honestly). But that's just an entire rewrite. It's no longer Children of the dragon. It's "Everything not a heavy" of the Dragon.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Jan 31, 2018 16:28:40 GMT
Please don't start holding your breath waiting for the next CID to make all the changes you want, weekly threads on what you think is underpowered are not helpful. We should focus on making what we have work, and finding answers to our problems together as a community. Asking for changes/buffs constantly can be depressing to newer players, and do not help people play the faction. I think we should start writing more Tactica, they are great for stimulating discussion. I do totally agree, less wishlisting, more listbuilding! Even if bethayne is not the best we can put on the table, I'd love to read a thread about her that would provide some insight, help and advice on how to have fun. cause after all it's just a game ^^ I do want to write a Bethayne Tactica. I have some solid experience in a CotD list, but I need to branch out and get more games with different lists to have some better knowledge before I can claim to make a "knowledge base" for said caster. Second problem is finding games... *Heads back to the equine corpse, bloody mallet in hand
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jan 31, 2018 16:52:05 GMT
I don't know why they changed Bethaynes feat going into Mk3, they took something that was powerful, cool and unique to her in the faction, and replaced it with a generic boring damage buff, top job PP! #designspace
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Jan 31, 2018 17:17:30 GMT
I don't know why they changed Bethaynes feat going into Mk3, they took something that was powerful, cool and unique to her in the faction, and replaced it with a generic boring damage buff, top job PP! #designspace I mean, constant compaints about balance are why they do things like that. Raw numbers are easy to compare to a bell curve, sideways unique powerful things cause complaint. Now whether it was actually balanced or she got played is irrelevant, complaints about balance exist, and balance can be addressed by tweaking raw numbers, so the more raw number feats and spells and the less sideways powerful things the more they can tend to the upset people.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Jan 31, 2018 17:34:16 GMT
I don't know why they changed Bethaynes feat going into Mk3, they took something that was powerful, cool and unique to her in the faction, and replaced it with a generic boring damage buff, top job PP! #designspace I mean, constant compaints about balance are why they do things like that. Raw numbers are easy to compare to a bell curve, sideways unique powerful things cause complaint. Now whether it was actually balanced or she got played is irrelevant, complaints about balance exist, and balance can be addressed by tweaking raw numbers, so the more raw number feats and spells and the less sideways powerful things the more they can tend to the upset people. Was Bethayne really that much of a terror in MK2 ? No one I knew was complaining about her
|
|
twity
Junior Strategist
Posts: 179
|
Post by twity on Jan 31, 2018 17:38:01 GMT
If you do not like Bethayne, just don't play her or write about her. If you do like Bethayne give us all a well-formatted tactica that explains exactly why.
What I am opposed too is disliking Bethayne, and then constantly reminding us that you dislike Bethayne. If we are approaching a CID then a short constructive post explaining what you would like to see changed is helpful. For the record I loved Mk.II Bethayne, though I do understand why she got changed (I also think it is difficult to balance around unique feats like she had).
I am not trying to single anyone out, I have caught myself complaining about Mk.III pVayl, and it just isn't helpful.
|
|
|
Post by albertairish on Jan 31, 2018 18:34:15 GMT
Keep in mind that we got no nerfs, and some very significant buffs. You can compare the number of models from our CID to the cryx one, but they did not see anything along the lines of our gargossal buff or our carni chassis discount and got hit with some extremely significant nerfs. A model count is a poor way of looking at the overall effect on the faction. Everything got better. Cryx didn't need buffs - Legion did (does). Trollbloods and Minions also needed buffs, and I would argue that the buffs that they did receive were much more significant faction-wide than the buffs that Legion received. I play Minions, Trollbloods and Legion, and have for years. I left the former two CIDs feeling very excited and energized about the changes to those factions. Huge quality of life changes in the form of the Krielstone, Runebearer, Champs, Kolgrima, Bears, Soul Slave, Bone Shrine, Posse, Maelok, Jaga-Jaga. I leave the Legion CID feeling that it gained one new viable list that really doesn't accomplish anything that Legion couldn't do before the CID. The other changes amount to maybe another solo in the beast lists.
|
|
eauc
Junior Strategist
Posts: 209
|
Post by eauc on Jan 31, 2018 18:47:00 GMT
I don't know why they changed Bethaynes feat going into Mk3, they took something that was powerful, cool and unique to her in the faction, and replaced it with a generic boring damage buff, top job PP! #designspace I'm not sure I understand. Her mk2 feat was a hit/damage buff on spells so essentially a very restricted sub-category of warriors and herself. Her mk3 feat is a hit/damage buff in melee for all warriors and herself. Basically the same, I dont find the new feat less "cool". In fact her old feat had absolutely no link with her fluff, she's not even an exceptional wizard. The only thing that makes her unique is that she can meld with her beast. Her new feat is much more cool and fluffy in this regard. Now she lacks: - a theme allowing her to play WM warriors and have free points for playing them and not beasts. - more beast points because honestly she's just one model with belphy most of the time, Belphy is not a free light beast added to the list. - a design direction, because all her spells and her feat, while uniques, do not point in the same direction, and are not versatile like the twins package for example. - I'd like to see her get back all her immunities because it's not broken, and it's cool and makes her really unique. - her feat could also give something to her beasts (or you choose if your beast get flank[warrior] or the opposite ?) and that would make her much more playable in our current themes. In fact she looks like a warlock like pAbsy looks like when it enters CID, before the last layer of polish to make the cool ideas and concept actually playable.
|
|
twity
Junior Strategist
Posts: 179
|
Post by twity on Jan 31, 2018 19:26:05 GMT
Keep in mind that we got no nerfs, and some very significant buffs. You can compare the number of models from our CID to the cryx one, but they did not see anything along the lines of our gargossal buff or our carni chassis discount and got hit with some extremely significant nerfs. A model count is a poor way of looking at the overall effect on the faction. Everything got better. Cryx didn't need buffs - Legion did (does). Trollbloods and Minions also needed buffs, and I would argue that the buffs that they did receive were much more significant faction-wide than the buffs that Legion received. I play Minions, Trollbloods and Legion, and have for years. I left the former two CIDs feeling very excited and energized about the changes to those factions. Huge quality of life changes in the form of the Krielstone, Runebearer, Champs, Kolgrima, Bears, Soul Slave, Bone Shrine, Posse, Maelok, Jaga-Jaga. I leave the Legion CID feeling that it gained one new viable list that really doesn't accomplish anything that Legion couldn't do before the CID. The other changes amount to maybe another solo in the beast lists. My point there was that if you are looking at a model count changed as a metric of the help Legion got in the CID you can't really compare it to the Cryx CID model count. They may have had more models changed, but one of those models was pDenny.
|
|
|
Post by copperflame on Jan 31, 2018 19:55:55 GMT
In the strict context of the CID [the models selected for the CID] - I think I'm happy with the results. Now, in the greater context of the faction, it is sad that some of the greater pain-points that Legion suffers was not addressed.
But I don't want to fall into self-loathing either. There are some tools and these changes will help. Would I like some of these pain-points to be boosted up instead of collecting dust on my shelf? Absolutely. Do I worry that I have to buy the new models to feel like I have a chance? Yea- yea I do.
I feel the CID on an island was good. I wish it could have covered more but I won't look a gifted horse in the mouth (why do I sound like my dad?).
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 31, 2018 20:23:29 GMT
Lol, whut? You don't get Una2 by droping cost of unused models or sensibly buffing them. PP does that from time to time, not everything goes through CiD. And lets be brutally honest - CiD is more useless more models and themes it involves. So yeah, say Soldier and Protector price will drop to 8 points. I guarantee it won't change anything meta-wise other than you'll see them on the table. Say - Legionaires will cost 13 points. Still not Una2... Or maybe our artillery (yes, we have one, no, I didn't see it outside my two unpacked blisters I bought in bargain bin) will get AoE 4". Maybe you'll see them in CotD list (or not)? No, insufficient playtesting is what gets you Una2. No, trying to sell otherwise mediocre models and MK2 design principles of providing skew as an answer to another skew brings Una2. Multiple models got changes without CiD, none is broken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 22:47:46 GMT
considering one of the models in the CID received no change, the warchief, you can effectively count him out.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 1, 2018 5:55:09 GMT
I mean, constant compaints about balance are why they do things like that. Raw numbers are easy to compare to a bell curve, sideways unique powerful things cause complaint. Now whether it was actually balanced or she got played is irrelevant, complaints about balance exist, and balance can be addressed by tweaking raw numbers, so the more raw number feats and spells and the less sideways powerful things the more they can tend to the upset people. Was Bethayne really that much of a terror in MK2 ? No one I knew was complaining about her Its not about complaints about any individual thing. Think of it as a design goal/principle thats formed from complaints about balance, either OP or UP. Numbers are easier to tweak and balance than weird sideways abilities. They can look at a bell curve and say "this puts this caster here" more or less. Not with 100% accuracy but its certainly easier than dealing with some of the off the wall feats and spells that have disappeared since. All someone has to say is "rebalance with this design philosophy" and you start seeing the weird gradually replaced with raw numbers. Edit: think of it like the change from 3.5 to 4th ed d+d.
|
|