npe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 221
|
Post by npe on Apr 18, 2017 19:13:07 GMT
I feel they will do a good job of making banes extremely viable, while still making them optional to bring. I also want to hope they have something up their sleeve for Aggy1. I know she is a Battlebox warcaster, but id like to think they will introduce a subtle change to her to make her more iconic with her fellow Banes. I do kind of hope Agathia gets a little something in the CID as well. It's not that she needs a buff, I'd just like to see her change in a way that doesn't make her feel like Deneghra1 lite. Right now in my mind Shadowfall is the reason to play Agathia, any other reason you might have to play her Deneghra1 does better. I'm actually hoping she doesn't receive any direct changes, and that any changes she gets are in the form of bane support rules on other bane models. More things like Tartatus's curse or the Desecrator's accumulator that care about the fact she herself is a bane, but on pieces that actually synergize well with Agathia would do her wonders. Aggie's defining spell is Hellwrought and her most interesting theme (IMO) is Infernal Machines. If you really wanted to turn Aggie up to 11 you'd make Hellwrought control range rather than a single upkeep. If she turned all of her jacks into hyperagressive, arm 19 bane knights she'd be amazing (probably OP).
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Apr 19, 2017 10:44:10 GMT
I'd like Flank[Banes]. Just like Aurora with angels. It will make a great use of her 14-15'' threat range. Unfortunately if they gave out flank to banes, the warriors would have to lose weaponmaster and then they would only be viable under agathea.
|
|
|
Post by marty2017 on Apr 19, 2017 11:30:40 GMT
I'd like Flank[Banes]. Just like Aurora with angels. It will make a great use of her 14-15'' threat range. Unfortunately if they gave out flank to banes, the warriors would have to lose weaponmaster and then they would only be viable under agathea. I believe he meant that Agathia gain Flank[Banes] not a rule granting bane models Flank[Banes]
|
|
|
Post by wseraphim on Apr 19, 2017 11:35:31 GMT
I'd like Flank[Banes]. Just like Aurora with angels. It will make a great use of her 14-15'' threat range. Unfortunately if they gave out flank to banes, the warriors would have to lose weaponmaster and then they would only be viable under agathea. Not to banes but to agatia. we already have a caster to buff banes.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Apr 19, 2017 12:15:21 GMT
Ah, my mistake, yeah, that does seem better. That would certainly turn her into a major melee assassin.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Apr 19, 2017 16:30:22 GMT
Yeah, it would be interesting, like a mini-Butcher. Tailors her towards armies that hit hard.
|
|
|
Post by Azuresun on Apr 22, 2017 15:39:52 GMT
As a person who suffered GREATLY from Banespam in MKII, I have to say as follows: What made Banes Abnoxious in MKII was what I call "Self Sustained Perfect Units" You end up not having a reason to use any other unit because it already does everything in one Package. And Banes had accuracy, power, protection and threat extension. I think they should remain flawed in at least one aspect or something. At the moment they do remain the hardest hitting infantry in the game. There was nothing wrong with Banes in Mark2. What made them obnoxious was the fact they synergized perfectly with two of the most powerful casters in the game, Skarre1 & Asphyxious2. The Banes themselves were perfectly reasonable, but people's blind Cryx hatred prevented them from listening go any argument that didn't declare every aspect of Cryx OP. So we all imagined the running "More Banez" thing through all of Mk2? Stealth was what really pushed Bane Thralls over the top, and the one thing I wouldn't want to see again. Okay, so I can't send heavies against them because they hit like trucks, I can't send infantry against them because of recursion, I can't use most blasts effectively against them because of their armour. And I can't shoot them either?
|
|
|
Post by Morganstern on Apr 22, 2017 21:23:12 GMT
There was nothing wrong with Banes in Mark2. What made them obnoxious was the fact they synergized perfectly with two of the most powerful casters in the game, Skarre1 & Asphyxious2. The Banes themselves were perfectly reasonable, but people's blind Cryx hatred prevented them from listening go any argument that didn't declare every aspect of Cryx OP. So we all imagined the running "More Banez" thing through all of Mk2? Stealth was what really pushed Bane Thralls over the top, and the one thing I wouldn't want to see again. Okay, so I can't send heavies against them because they hit like trucks, I can't send infantry against them because of recursion, I can't use most blasts effectively against them because of their armour. And I can't shoot them either? Bane thalls were effectively shut down easily by high def infantry. As Deller has said Banes were over rated. They got this reputation as some sort of boogeyman unit and it was rubbish. There were many more powerful units in MK2 that were also more cost effective. People forget that a lot of powerful stuff in Cryx in MK2 required serious point investment and if one element was removed then the whole module would suffer.
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Apr 23, 2017 2:54:36 GMT
There was nothing wrong with Banes in Mark2. What made them obnoxious was the fact they synergized perfectly with two of the most powerful casters in the game, Skarre1 & Asphyxious2. The Banes themselves were perfectly reasonable, but people's blind Cryx hatred prevented them from listening go any argument that didn't declare every aspect of Cryx OP. So we all imagined the running "More Banez" thing through all of Mk2? Stealth was what really pushed Bane Thralls over the top, and the one thing I wouldn't want to see again. Okay, so I can't send heavies against them because they hit like trucks, I can't send infantry against them because of recursion, I can't use most blasts effectively against them because of their armour. And I can't shoot them either? If you're claiming multiple units of Bane Warriors was a common thing, yes you did imagine it. "Moar Banez" was always about Bane Knights, and never about Bane Thralls. The only casters who frequently considered multiple Thrall units were Terminus & Goreshade2. Bane Thralls were only really played with those two and Asphyxious2 since he didn't care if they were killed or not on the approach. Skarre1 30 Bane Thralls was never a thing. Skarre1 30 Bane Knights was, and the reason you played 30 was because if you played any less they'd all get shot off the table before you got there. 12/16 with no defensive tech is extremely easy to blow up.
|
|
|
Post by zorrobard47 on Apr 23, 2017 14:15:16 GMT
I'd really like to see Agathia get some form of threat extension or recursion for Banes (and no I am not a Cryx player).
|
|